Video: Rudy combats graffiti artists

posted at 7:00 pm on February 6, 2007 by Ian

This clip is from Saturday Night Live, when then-Mayor Giuliani guest-hosted the show in 1997.

Update (AP): Social cons agree — he’s the best Democrat in the field!

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Without question, he’s the most conservative pro-choice, anti-gun candidate.

Freelancer on February 6, 2007 at 7:09 PM

What a surprise. Tony Perkins and Terry Jeffreys, two of the most politically tone deaf people around, don’t like Guliani. Sorry, but i just can’t take anything they say seriously. Especially Jeffrey’s, who sounds like he has’nt gone through puberty yet.

Scot on February 6, 2007 at 7:19 PM

Update (AP): Social cons agree — he’s the best Democrat in the field!

Big tent.

I’m trying my hand at Allahpundit’s signature short summaries.

Kralizec on February 6, 2007 at 7:20 PM

He’s sort of growing on me… Although I don’t agree with his stance on partial birth abortion and don’t follow the logic of having extremely tough gun laws in big cities just because they’re big cities…

I do agree with his tough talk on the war and his domestic partnership thing. He sounded tougher than I thought he was on illegal immigration on H&C last night, but still didn’t mention workplace verification and/or employer punishment for knowingly hiring illegals. He threw us cons a bone with the English requirement, but didn’t say he’d make English the official language of the US which is a no-brainer.

He’s not AS bad as I thought but I still think he’d pull a Swarzenegger if elected pres. VP would be ok I guess.

But then there’s SAVAGE

NTWR on February 6, 2007 at 7:30 PM

Who is this Rex? What does he eat? Is he electable?

SailorDave on February 6, 2007 at 7:36 PM

Without question, he’s the most conservative pro-choice, anti-gun candidate.

Freelancer on February 6, 2007 at 7:09 PM

You forgot amnesty granting and gay marriage supporting.

But it won’t keep the RNC from cheerleading him all the way.

quax1 on February 6, 2007 at 7:40 PM

quax1 on February 6, 2007 at 7:40 PM

Wrong. He supports unions, not marriage? And please don’t respond with the “slippery slope” “argument.”

Ian on February 6, 2007 at 7:41 PM

I support civil unions too! And not just with 2 people. Why not a civil union between two people who love each other, and a house which they both love? Who says civil unions have to be between ‘animate objects’? That’s not in the definition!

(That is not the slippery slope argument, it’s the ‘hey that house is hot!’ argument.)

Kevin M on February 6, 2007 at 7:51 PM

The abortion issue is going to be hard enough for him with the right….but the 2nd amendment stuff is not going well here in TX. I know we all be dumba**** down thisaway but that one issue is not going down well here.

Limerick on February 6, 2007 at 7:56 PM

The homosexual lobby has worn this conservative down. Civil unions are acceptable to me now mostly just because “I don’t wanna hear it” anymore.

NTWR on February 6, 2007 at 7:59 PM

Kevin, I hate my house. I’m going to stop making my mortgage payments and call the foreclosure an annulment for credit report purposes.

SailorDave on February 6, 2007 at 8:00 PM

Kevin M on February 6, 2007 at 7:51 PM

Last time I checked, a horse can’t sign a marital agreement.

Ian on February 6, 2007 at 8:05 PM

Ian, women couldn’t vote in the late 1800′s. I imagine the thought that they would someday have that right seemed as inconceivable then as gay marriage seems now.

SailorDave on February 6, 2007 at 8:10 PM

Ian, women couldn’t vote in the late 1800’s. I imagine the thought that they would someday have that right seemed as inconceivable then as gay marriage seems now.

SailorDave on February 6, 2007 at 8:10 PM

aren’t you comparing apples to oranges? There was nothing immoral about womens suffrage. Allowing women to vote doesn’t go against nature.

Guardian on February 6, 2007 at 8:43 PM

Ian, women couldn’t vote in the late 1800’s. I imagine the thought that they would someday have that right seemed as inconceivable then as gay marriage seems now.

Of course, marriage isn’t a constitutional right.

On its face, gay marriage doesn’t seem that harmful, but I do have worries about the secondary effects of redefining marriage and I worry about the law of unintended consequences.

Polygamists can’t get married today. Thirty years ago it would have seemed inconceivable for gays to get married. Today we are seriously debating it. Maybe it will be the polygamists’ turn tomorrow. Polygamists actually have a better constitutional claim than do gays when it comes to marriage: religious freedom.

One of the best arguments for retaining the traditional definition of marriage is simply tradition itself. Western tradition regarding the family has carried us far. Predicting all the consequences of redefining marriage is difficult. If we are willing to dump tradition this time and alter our definition of marriage, declaring our previous conception of marriage “arbitrary,” then we won’t have that tradition to fall back on next time some pressure group wants to change the definition.

Marriage isn’t merely an arbitrary contract between two (or more) people as social libertarians like to envision it. Marriage serves as the foundation for families. Not all marriages result in children, but ideally all families should begin with marriage. I can’t say what the right answer on the issue is but, unlike most libertarians, I would advise careful consideration and caution before proceeding. Undermine marriage now and you may regret the consequences for families later.

tommy1 on February 6, 2007 at 8:59 PM

Guardian, I’m not making a moral statement one way or the other. I’m making a historical/logical point regarding the notion of slippery slopes.

The reason a slippery slope argument is raised in any sort of debate on social norms is because there is such a vast array of historical references to support the argument.

Those that tend to dismiss the argument out of hand are those who choose to ignore countless centuries of social and political evolution.

In a word, world history is nothing but a huge slippery slope. Conservatives are merely throwing some sand to slow an out-of-control slide.

SailorDave on February 6, 2007 at 9:00 PM

The slippery slope is a silly argument. Why don’t people who are opposed to gay civil unions come out and just say they are opposed to it because they are against it morally, etc. Not because of the slippery slope.

I’m against gay marriage because it’s defined as between a man and a woman. I don’t see an issue with a civil union, though.

Ian on February 6, 2007 at 9:08 PM

Last time I checked, a horse can’t sign a marital agreement.

Don’t know much ’bout horseflesh, do ya boy?

…OK, I’ve said too much….

HerrMorgenholz on February 6, 2007 at 9:16 PM

Ian, perhaps they don’t say they oppose gay civil unions because they don’t oppose gay civil unions. I am not against freedom. But I am a bit concerned when those who push this notion start co-opting ideologies and terms from a point-of-view they otherwise find abhorrent, i.e. the Judeo-Christian ideal of monogamous marriage.

Look, the Canadian Football League and the NFL can get along while playing on different fields. Why do the social progressives need to play on our field?

SailorDave on February 6, 2007 at 9:18 PM

A New York City conservative isn’t the same as a Southern conservative, but I’d vote for him over McCain and ANY official democrat out there.

SouthernGent on February 6, 2007 at 9:30 PM

Again, he will do what is politically expedient for him, as do many other politicians.

He is filler, not a main contender.

Emmett J. on February 6, 2007 at 9:49 PM

tommy1 on February 6, 2007 at 9:17 PM

That was an interesting (and amusing) article you linked to.

thedecider on February 6, 2007 at 9:55 PM

Why don’t people who are opposed to gay civil unions come out and just say they are opposed to it because they are against it morally, etc.

That is implied by the slippery slope argument. The idea is:

“Allowing men to marry men is immoral. If we can’t say that it is immoral, then we really can’t say that the marriage between a man and two women is immoral. If the sex of the individuals involved is not important, then why is the number?”

The slope just got slipperier.

Kevin M on February 6, 2007 at 10:02 PM

Okay, seriously folks, how about the government out of the marriage racket all together? Last time I checked, it is primarily a religious ceremony and the big issue a lot of the homosexual lobby seems to have with marriage has to do with the tax benefits and other governmental incentives. I will freely give up said incentives if it returns marriage to whence it came: God. If you don’t believe it came from any particular god, fine, go have a “commitment ceremony” or anything else you like; it’s no skin off my nose. If it weren’t tied to money, this whole thing would be such a non-issue that even the concept of “gay marriage” would be impossible. By all means, “render unto Caesar what is Ceasar’s,” but leave God’s stuff alone!

Militant Bibliophile on February 6, 2007 at 10:26 PM

It seems slippery slope arguments have to be judged on their individual merits. Some are persuasive; others are not. Trying to disallow or deprecate slippery slope arguments, as a class, seems to be the thin edge of the wedge. If we give those up altogether, soon someone will be telling us that if one mentions Hitler in an argument, one loses the argument immediately. And someone else, on the other hand, will want to rule out advocacy of anything that Hitler would have advocated. Don’t even get me started on the prohibition of hate speech; I hate speech codes. We should defend the validity of slippery slope arguments, as a class, firmly; if you let someone shame you into avoiding slippery slope arguments altogether, you’re on an awfully slippery slope.

Kralizec on February 6, 2007 at 10:34 PM

Guardian,

aren’t you comparing apples to oranges? There was nothing immoral about womens suffrage. Allowing women to vote doesn’t go against nature.

I seem to recall reading about bigoted objections masquerading as moral dilemmas. At the time there was plenty considered immoral about women having equal standing as men in the political arena.

Allowing gays to marry doesn’t go against nature, either. Marriage, as we know it, is a human construct.

I wasn’t too keen on how we legalized gay marriage in Canada, but the country is still intact. I think the USA will survive if Adam and Steve can get married. Ideally, the state wouldn’t be able to dictate what consenting adults do.

Krydor on February 6, 2007 at 11:12 PM

Krydor, but if we let gheys marry, will we be able to leave our houses?

Ian on February 7, 2007 at 1:19 AM

Wrong. He supports unions, not marriage? And please don’t respond with the “slippery slope” “argument.”

Ian on February 6, 2007 at 7:41 PM

Big,fat,hairy difference Ian. I bet you think the second amendment is about duck hunting,too.

You should know better.

quax1 on February 7, 2007 at 3:45 AM

ARGH.

Every friggin’ topic posted gets reduced to friggin’ gay friggin’ rights friggin’ friggin.

Reaps on February 7, 2007 at 7:01 AM

I’m against gay marriage because it’s defined as between a man and a woman. I don’t see an issue with a civil union, though.

Ian on February 6, 2007 at 9:08 PM

But when it comes down to it, what is the difference between the two?

Personally, I think we should just have an all or nothing. If we’re going to change marriage (or if you prefer, call them unions), then let’s just change it all.

Let’s just turn marriage into a legal contract like all other legal contracts. Allow partnerships that are composed of as many people, regardless of their relationship, as is desired, so long as each individual is clear in understanding the contract.

Animals? People leave millions of dollars to their pets in wills, and there’s currently a documentary out about a man who died through horse sex. If the current level of acceptance of homosexuality has taught us anything, it’s that sexual practices that were once tabboo can become common place without marriage certificates.

And I’m not trying to compare homosexuality to bestiality. I’m just saying that marriage hasn’t seem to have made an impact on relationships in society. It’s seemed to have worked the other way around. And these days many people have opted out of the whole marriage thing altogether and simple live together.

Is this really something worth fighting over?

Really, all or nothing… if you’re going to fight for marriage, then why stop at homosexuality anyway? Why not actually fight for marriage as it is and seek to improve it, seek to lower divorce rates and adultry?

Why is marriage only a thing worth saving when someone else wants in? Why wasn’t it worth saving before?

Esthier on February 7, 2007 at 9:12 AM

aren’t you comparing apples to oranges? There was nothing immoral about womens suffrage. Allowing women to vote doesn’t go against nature.

Guardian on February 6, 2007 at 8:43 PM

At the time that was exactly the argument–going against nature–that was made.

honora on February 7, 2007 at 9:49 AM

Gingrich/Guiliani ’08

Second choice Romney/Guiliani ’08

Mojave Mark on February 7, 2007 at 9:51 AM

Gets my vote. It’s not as if the conservative panderers to the Christian base have actually accomplished anything on their behalf.

Drum on February 7, 2007 at 10:29 AM

He gets my vote. He may not be strong on some issues, but he’s still the best we got, unless someone wants to dig Reagan up.

BTW, didn’t Mr. Conservative (Barry Golwater)’s daughter have an abortion?

amerpundit on February 7, 2007 at 10:54 AM

Regarding women’s suffrage, yes, at the time it was considered unacceptable and just plain wrong, for women to vote. That was considered “man stuff”.

amerpundit on February 7, 2007 at 10:56 AM

I can see it now. A bunch of people will support a Conservative, because of a few issues, perhaps because he is anti-abortion, and the Conservative won’t have enough votes to win, perhaps because he is anti-abortion. What are we left with?

President Hillary Clinton, or President Barack Obama. Which do you prefer?

All I know is I’m not voting for Romney, and Newt has shown little interest in running at all. Brownback couldn’t get enough votes, by any means.

amerpundit on February 7, 2007 at 11:01 AM

The homosexual lobby has worn this conservative down. Civil unions are acceptable to me now mostly just because “I don’t wanna hear it” anymore.

NTWR

nope it was because the position against it is indefensible.

jummy on February 7, 2007 at 1:36 PM

hey, i know how to satisfy the snake-handler-cons — TED HAGGARD FOR PRES! he can make sure all the babies get born and everyone says their prayers, and all that other stuff, well, if you’re a good citizen, you’re “in” but not “of” it anyway.

jummy on February 7, 2007 at 1:39 PM

The homosexual lobby has worn this conservative down. Civil unions are acceptable to me now mostly just because “I don’t wanna hear it” anymore.

NTWR

nope it was because the position against it is indefensible.

jummy on February 7, 2007 at 1:36 PM

Yep, you’re right..it IS indefensible to appreciate and want to defend the American culture and traditions that have been around 200+ years.

Wakey wakey, hands off snakey jummy!

NTWR on February 7, 2007 at 4:11 PM

Can we put that under the names of the Democrats on Fox News?

Tim Burton on February 7, 2007 at 5:09 PM

Solution: every time you hear “gay marriage” think “civil unions.” It’s a simple search-and-replace macro that has people all hung up.

Mark Jaquith on February 7, 2007 at 6:12 PM