Replies

If we DON’T take down this tootyfruityrudy candidacy, the republican party will fall into obscurity the same way the Whig party did, and for very similar reasons.

Total hyperbole. Rudy would be fine as President, and at least he speaks the king’s English well. Your doomsday scenario is not warranted and based on no fact. Rudy did a great job in NY in cleaning up crime, taking care of day to day business of running a city, lowered taxes, and of course displayed great leadership during 9/11. If he did no more than that kind of work as Prez he would be doing quite well. Rudy said he would do no harm to the conservative point of view. Now, any of the candidates can be lying to us and any or most of them will probably lurch to the center when running in the general, but that we have no control over, just as what happened with Bush. Bush is next to a RINO now. It’s a crap shoot. But Rudy will not ruin the Presidency any more than any of the candidates might. Look what we’ve got now. Just about anything will be an improvement.

The primary issue against Giuliani is abortion. But the fact is that the only difference between Bush and Giuliani on abortion is that Bush says he would like to get rid of it, and Giuliani says otherwise. Neither one of them has done squat on the subject except talk, and as president, neither could do any more or less.

The anti-abortion people have utterly failed in their job of convincing enough of the general population to oppose abortion. Without that, then the status quo will remain.

Voting for pro-life Bush was a worthless gesture regarding abortion. Giuliani says he wants strict-constructionist judges, and there are plenty of other reasons besides abortion to want that. So I take him at his word.

This whole bruhaha litmus test about abortion is much to do about nothing. The pro-life people have to do their job first, and then both parties will beat a path to an anti-abortion amendment, or whatever it takes to get rid of it. Until then, they should quit waisting their time and money on partisan politics and spend their time convincing the populace to oppose abortion. Until they succeed in that, they're merely getting in the way of other worthwhile conservative issues.

doomsday scenario is not warranted and based on no fact. Rudy did a great job in NY in cleaning up crime, taking care of day to day business of running a city, lowered taxes, and of course displayed great leadership during 9/11.

On Giuliani and taxes:

---"Over the objections of a furious Mayor Giuliani and city legislators from both parties, the New York state legislature has abolished the New York City commuter tax. The action, done to apparently affect a local legislative race in suburban Rockland County, could cost New York City $360 million. NPR's Margot Adler reports."--- NPR Report

---"Let's face it: Rudy Giuliani argued for the reinstatement of the tax,..."--- NY Sun report [Giuliani] says ruling out a tax increase is "political pandering." Newsday, August 31, 1989

"when I ran for Mayor both times, I was asked very, very often to do the following: Pledge that you will never raise taxes. I refused to do that. Pledge that you will lower taxes. I refused to do that." -- Rudy Giuliani, New York Times, October 25, 1994

Mr. Giuliani criticized Mr. Pataki’s proposal to cut taxes as “a shell game” that would hurt everyone in the state… -- New York Times, October 30, 1994

On 9/11 leadership

After the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 when Giuliani became mayor, he was criticized for not fully implementing a single recommendation made by the fire department official who identified crucial emergency response failures. [South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 10/1/06

GIULIANI FAILED TO PREPARE NEW YORK AFTER 1993 WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACK * Giuliani Decided to Put Emergency Command Center in Vulnerable World Trade Center. Giuliani, who became mayor after the 1993 World Trade Center attacks, according to Wayne Barrett and Dan Collins’ “Grand Illusion: The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani and 9/11,” made “the infamous decision to place the city’s emergency command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center because he didn’t want to schlep to a more secure, better-protected Brooklyn location from City Hall. When the planes hit the trade center, OEM’s bunker-in-the- clouds was rendered useless, and Giuliani was forced to embark on his dusty journey through lower Manhattan, scattering the city’s command structure.” [South Florida Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale), 10/1/06]

* Giuliani Failed to Put In A Clear Chain of Command for Emergency Workers. “Giuliani and his top aides did not put in place a clear chain of command for police officers and firefighters.” [Washington Post, 8/17/06]

On Giuliani and Running The City(Sanctuary city, Government Spending):

Immigration politics have similarly harmed New York. Former mayor Rudolph Giuliani sued all the way up to the Supreme Court to defend the city’s sanctuary policy against a 1996 federal law decreeing that cities could not prohibit their employees from cooperating with the INS. Oh yeah? said Giuliani; just watch me. The INS, he claimed, with what turned out to be grotesque irony, only aims to “terrorize people.” Though he lost in court, he remained defiant to the end. On September 5, 2001, his handpicked charter-revision committee ruled that New York could still require that its employees keep immigration information confidential to preserve trust between immigrants and government. Six days later, several visa-overstayers participated in the most devastating attack on the city and the country in history.

Mr. Giuliani said the surplus from the current fiscal year, which ends on June 30, is projected to be $856 million, a record amount caused largely by higher-than-expected tax revenues from robust profits on Wall Street. He said for the first time that he wanted to use $99 million of that money to help the city adapt to the new strict Federal welfare rules by paying for child care, job training and other programs. Source: New York Times, Clifford Levy, 5/9/97

iuliani allowed spending to increase significantly faster than inflation during four of his last five years in office - and another big increase was in store for fiscal 2002 before the World Trade Center attack forced the city into an austerity mode. Source: FISCALWATCH MEMO July 20, 2004

According to New York's Independent Budget Office, total budgeted expenditures grew from $31.8 billion in 1995 (Rudy's first budget year) to $44.6 billion in 2003, an increase of 40.3%. By comparison, the inflation rate from January 1995 to January 2003 was 20.89% according to this inflation rate calculator. Thus, New York City's spending under Rudy grew at a rate twice that of inflation.

Perhaps the biggest difference is on fiscal issues. Giuliani, who lost interest in curtailing the growth of city government in his latter years, left behind a fiscal catastrophe—a $6.4 billion deficit proportionately bigger than the hole that caused the 1975 fiscal shortfall. --- Jacob Weisberg, Slate magazine 2/21/07

Total hyperbole. Rudy would be fine as President, and at least he speaks the king’s English well.
***We really are on different planes of existence. Rudy is against the very principles of the republican platform. Principles. The King’s English is important to you? Talk about hyperbole. You’re talking about “the King’s English” while we socons are talking about 40M dead babies. I can only imagine the Whig party was talking about proper hat sizes at the time the Republican contingent was talking about extending the right to liberty to human beings. HYPERBOLE? NO. And that’s ~400k dead versus 100X more dead. Hyperbole? You’re so full of baloney we can’t tell what the original ingredients were.

The King’s English
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_King’s_English
The King’s English is a book on English usage and grammar. It was written by the Fowler brothers, Henry Watson Fowler and Francis George Fowler, and published in 1906, and thus pre-dates by 20 years Modern English Usage, which was written by Henry alone after Francis’s death in 1918.

The King’s English is less like a dictionary than Modern English Usage; it consists of longer articles on more general topics such as vocabulary, syntax and punctuation, and draws heavily on examples from many sources throughout. Because it has never been updated since the third edition in 1930, it is rather dated, and some of the Fowlers’ views are idiosyncratic; however, it still remains useful and has remained in print since its first publication.

The book deals exclusively with British English usage. Readers should be aware that its attitude to “Americanisms” reflects the age in which it was written.