Rudy to sick 9/11 workers: I was at Ground Zero as much as you were; Update: Rudy “clarifies”
posted at 1:43 pm on August 10, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The third “oof” this week from a prominent Republican, the first being Mitt’s “they also serve who work for my campaign” defense of his sons and the second Bush’s loathsome description of the 9/11 hijackers as “19 kids.” The latter two will shake off their blunders but conditions at Ground Zero are a major line of attack on Rudy and Michael Moore’s already baptized the workers with official left-wing Absolute Moral Authority by tying them into the pitch for socialized medicine in “Sicko.” He’s going to have to “clarify” this before very long:
“This is not a mayor or a governor or a President who’s sitting in an ivory tower,” Giuliani said. “I was at Ground Zero as often, if not more, than most of the workers. I was there working with them. I was exposed to exactly the same things they were exposed to. So in that sense, I’m one of them.”
His statement rang false to Queens paramedic Marvin Bethea, who said he suffered a stroke, posttraumatic stress disorder and breathing problems after responding to the attacks.
“I personally find that very, very insulting,” he said.
“Standing there doing a photo-op and telling the men, ‘You’re doing a good job,’ I don’t consider that to be working,” said Bethea, 47.
Ironworker Jonathan Sferazo, 52, who said he spent a month at the site and is now disabled, runs a worker advocacy group with Bethea and called Giuliani’s comments “severely” out of line.
“He’s not one of us. He never has been and he never will be. He never served in a capacity where he was a responder,” Sferazo said.
It’s not a disastrous response — he was down there a lot, of which it can’t hurt to remind people — but I suspect it won’t be hard for the Times or whoever to go through his old schedules and compare the time he spent there to people who were on the pile for 12 hours at a time. You can almost see the news graphic bar chart: “Among the Ruins: How Rudy Stacks Up.” No doubt the Clinton campaign is working on it as we speak.
Meanwhile, though, he’s still bulletproof. Only seven points ahead of Fred in CNN’s poll, but look at Gallup’s new party favorable ratings for the GOP field: Fred at +35, McCain at +17, Mitt at +16, Rudy at +64, almost as much as the other three combined. The only candidate on either side who beats that is Hillary among Democrats with +71, but that’s cancelled out by a -71 from Republicans. Rudy’s rating among Democrats? -7.
Finally, I can’t resist:
Rudy Giuliani evokes his Catholic upbringing as he campaigns for president, yet he refuses to say whether he is a practicing Catholic…
“I believe in God,” Giuliani said. “I pray and ask him for help. I pray like a lawyer. I try to make a deal — get me out of this jam, and I’ll start going back to church.”
Exit question: First atheist president? He may just get me back into the voting booth after all.
Update: That didn’t take long.
“(W)hat I was trying to say yesterday is that I empathize with them because I feel like I have that same risk. And the way I said it, I probably could have said it better, but what I was trying to say was I was there quite a bit, there are people that were there more than me, people that were [there] less than me. There were people there less than me, people on my staff, who already have had serious health consequences and they weren’t there as often as I was.”…
“We should give them everything,” he said. “I mean they are heroes in my estimation. And what I was trying to say was even those that were there less than me and the reality is that we’re all in this together and I’m there with them and I feel that I have the same concerns that they have.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
No, just a lazy Catholic, not that he’s alone on that count …*cough*
Bad Candy on August 10, 2007 at 1:47 PM
Dude, he’s a Catholic like me. Remember that post from a while back that showed just how devout Catholics were?
Of course. It’s the same media attack machine going after Jeri, Mitt, and everyone else.
amerpundit on August 10, 2007 at 1:49 PM
I was rasied Catholic too, and frankly there’s very little practical difference between lapsed Catholics and full blown atheists. The only real difference is that we don’t even go to church on Christmas.
Enrique on August 10, 2007 at 1:56 PM
Yeah, that’s my impression too. My dad is that way.
Allahpundit on August 10, 2007 at 1:57 PM
Rudy was and is a politician, not a first responder. He played his role and he played it well. The workers at Ground Zero are unsung heroes who deserve full credit, and as far as I’m concerned, the best health care there is.
I wish Rudy would start persuading Americans why freedom, liberty, and self-reliance is good for America… and let his legend speak for itself.
And as for the people that the NY Daily News chose to quote, they are not exactly doing good PR for the group they purport to speak for.
RushBaby on August 10, 2007 at 1:58 PM
I’m about that way…and I swore I wouldn’t get that way, either.
Bad Candy on August 10, 2007 at 2:00 PM
Looks like Rasmussen finally fixed his formula.
Big S on August 10, 2007 at 2:02 PM
I will stay home before voting for Rudy, I would prefer to fight shillary for 4 years than to have been fooled by this lying, cheating, pompous, 9/11 baiting fool.
God help us, how far must we fall before we can rise again.
Dersu on August 10, 2007 at 2:03 PM
I believe if you are an athiest you should not be President of this nation. If you do not believe in a creator, how can you govern a nation based upon freedoms granted by that creator?
Zelsdorf Ragshaft on August 10, 2007 at 2:06 PM
The authors of our constitution disagree with you.
Slublog on August 10, 2007 at 2:09 PM
Sorry, I’m not. You shouldn’t use religion as a litmus. Doesn’t mean you can’t, but you shouldn’t.
Bad Candy on August 10, 2007 at 2:10 PM
I suspect most people on the right would agree with you. One of the reasons I probably won’t vote.
Allahpundit on August 10, 2007 at 2:11 PM
Um, the way I read it, Rudy flatly stated he believes in God. This is not the statement of an atheist.
As to pray-like-a-lawyer, it came across as a lawyer joke to me.
It was funny.
RushBaby on August 10, 2007 at 2:11 PM
Heh…too funny, Slublog.
Bad Candy on August 10, 2007 at 2:12 PM
You base your behavior on of what others might think?
Spirit of 1776 on August 10, 2007 at 2:13 PM
He should have said he was down there more then any other politician. That sounds better and makes people think about why Hillary, being in NY and all, was unwilling to visit as frequently.
Zetterson on August 10, 2007 at 2:13 PM
You might be doing it with a US city or two uninhabitable for a millennium or more…
I guess that ridiculous poll you posted that showed like 30% of atheists believe in God was right. Who knew?
TheBigOldDog on August 10, 2007 at 2:13 PM
Wow, dude. Tell us how you really feel!
nailinmyeye on August 10, 2007 at 2:14 PM
It’s not a “might.” Dig it. Note how it breaks out among liberals, moderates, and conservatives.
Allahpundit on August 10, 2007 at 2:16 PM
Beat me to it Sublog. I was just about to link the same point.
Zetterson on August 10, 2007 at 2:17 PM
Oh, c’mon dude, you can’t be like that. You’re doing the same thing they are or you think they are(I dunno). Whatever, maybe they are. I just want a reduction in spending/taxes and smacking around the nanny state, and I haven’t exactly gotten my way, you don’t just bail, you keep grinding away.
Bad Candy on August 10, 2007 at 2:17 PM
Then you’ll have no right to complain. How can you run a political blog without complaining?
TheBigOldDog on August 10, 2007 at 2:18 PM
Does no one understand the difference between atheists and agnostics? I see lapsed Catholics as agnostics with ingrained respect for tradition — being as that describes me.
tommylotto on August 10, 2007 at 2:18 PM
I don’t agree with Zelsdorf Ragshaft. As Slublog pointed out, the creators of our Constitution specifically made sure religion wouldn’t be a litmus test for holding public office. And it shouldn’t be a litmus test.
amerpundit on August 10, 2007 at 2:19 PM
Ok, you said “suspect”, I merely translated that as might. (thanks for the link)
Question remains though, you are willing to base your behavior on what others think? Why not just follow the dictates or your own conscience or are you implying your own conscience doesn’t allow you to vote when other people who you may disagree with might vote for the same person?
Spirit of 1776 on August 10, 2007 at 2:20 PM
I refer you to George Carlin’s old bit about that. If you vote for a guy and he screws up, you have no right to complain. You put him in power!
Allahpundit on August 10, 2007 at 2:21 PM
Maybe one-trick-pony RINO Rudy should just fall back on 9/11 for all questions:
Q: What’s your stance on abortion?
Rudy: Just as I chose to be at ground zero after 9/11, women should be able to choose whether to have an abortion.
Q: What’s your response on gun control?
Rudy: I feel we should ban “assault rifles” so that terrorists don’t use them to pull another 9/11.
Q: What is your position on medicare reform?
Rudy: I support small government, but we must address the health issues of our citizens- especially those suffering the results of 9/11.
Q: How do you feel about tax reform?
Rudy: We need to revise and simplify the tax code in a way that still allows government enough funds to help protect us against another 9/11.
Q: How do you feel about gay marriage?
Rudy: You know, gays were among the victims of 9/11, and deserve the same rights and respect as any other citizen.
Q: Boxers or briefs?
Rudy: Boxers- they allowed me more freedom of movement when I climbed through the rubble of 9/11.
Hollowpoint on August 10, 2007 at 2:21 PM
It’s just a simple question of making common cause with people who regard you with some amount of distrust or contempt. But like I say, if Rudy’s the nominee I may have to rethink.
Allahpundit on August 10, 2007 at 2:22 PM
Please correct me if I’m wrong. Its my impression that atheists are more venomously anti-religion in the sense that that have an outward dislike of anything religious, whereas, agnostics are not anti-religion nor are they pro-religion either. An agnostic will say something like, “I cannot prove their is a God, nor can I prove their is not a God.” Correct?
Zetterson on August 10, 2007 at 2:23 PM
Like Saudi Arabia for instance. I guess sometimes you just need to pick between the better of two evils.
Zetterson on August 10, 2007 at 2:25 PM
Joke all you want, but Rudy was on the firing line while all the other politicians were in bomb proof bunkers or circling the Nebraska sky in Air Force one. If he sees all issues through the a 9/11 prism … GOOD!
tommylotto on August 10, 2007 at 2:27 PM
Fair enough, thanks for the answer. I take it then that you agree in principle with single issue voters who abstain from voting because of, say, abortion or gun-control issues because they don’t wish to make common cause with other people in the ‘big tent’ who have contempt for them?
Spirit of 1776 on August 10, 2007 at 2:27 PM
To struggle with the scriptural admonition,”Be perfect, even as thy Father in heaven is perfect.”; it would be easier to be an athiest or agnostic.
captivated_dem on August 10, 2007 at 2:27 PM
That’s nonsense. That’s like saying I can’t criticize and hold accountable somebody I hire to do a job when he’s screwing up because I hired him. Wrong. I only lose that right when I let somebody else hire him for me because I am too lazy or apathetic to participate in the process. In that case I have abdicated my responsibility as a decision maker and deserve what I get.
TheBigOldDog on August 10, 2007 at 2:29 PM
It’s a judgment call. I can understand someone who’s pro-life finding it morally unconscionable to vote for a candidate who’s pro-choice. A dispute over gun control is harder to understand but I guess we all have our sore spots.
I don’t want to make more of this than it is but if you’re allied with people only 29% of which would trust people with your beliefs to be president than they obviously don’t think much of you. It does weigh on me from time to time.
Allahpundit on August 10, 2007 at 2:32 PM
So you’re implying that because most Conservatives wouldn’t vote for an athiest you’re so disgusted with them that you’ll not vote? Or are you just disappointed that you personally wouldn’t get elected president because you’re an athiest? I didn’t think you had such asperations.
You vote for a candidate, not the people who vote for a candidate. If you can find one you’re willing to vote for, fine. However not voting because many or even most other people take religious vies into account in choosing a candidate is petty.
Hollowpoint on August 10, 2007 at 2:32 PM
If this is such a defining issue for you, why don’t you become a Blue Dog? Honesty. I am not being sarcastic. I’m curious. Wouldn’t you do more good and have a better shot at influencing them than the Right?
TheBigOldDog on August 10, 2007 at 2:35 PM
I follow; thanks for the honesty.
Spirit of 1776 on August 10, 2007 at 2:35 PM
An agnostic is a skeptic that understands that issues concerning the metaphysical are unknowable. An agnostic can still conceivably be a member of an organized religion, but its kinda dicey. Religion usually requires “faith” in the unknowable, which usually means denying its unknowable and asserting the unknowable as if it were fact. The agnostic usually has trouble with the blind leap of faith and recognizes the unknowable as such.
tommylotto on August 10, 2007 at 2:35 PM
Because I’m not a Democrat? Is the only difference you perceive between the Blue Dogs and the GOP the fact that one is pro-atheist and the other isn’t?
Allahpundit on August 10, 2007 at 2:36 PM
People predictably get pissy when atheists denounce them as dumb primitives who believe in a fairy tale, and it doesn’t help matters when atheists are overwhelmingly belligerent leftists. Not to mention beyond that, “the dumb primitives” outnumber the “enlightened” atheists by a huge margin.
Honestly, you know who people think of when they think of atheists? That smarmy, self righteous prick Michael Newdow. You remember Newdow, right? The guy who wanted to have the words “Under God” stricken from the pledge, and currency?
Look, I know all Atheists aren’t smarmy leftist pricks like Newdow(a lot are though), but most people only get access to atheists through TV (usually because someone is being a turd in a punchbowl and wants to have a religious display removed) or the internet(I don’t even need to explain why that causes bad PR)…you can see why atheists have an unsavory reputation in the minds of most people. Limited exposure, and what little it is, its usually the worst atheists have to offer, and the rest get lumped in.
Bad Candy on August 10, 2007 at 2:37 PM
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!
the Founders made it perfectly clear countless times were they viewed our Rights came from, our Creator. Just read William Blackstone sometime and his “Commentaries on English Common Law”, he was just the most influential legal philosopher on the founders and all lawyers starting a Decade before the Declaration was wrote by Jefferson. It uses much of the same language including the source of our Rights coming from our Creator.
The atheist, final reality of nothing more than pure chance/randomness with everything only consisting of material or energy, could never, ever, ever come the conclusion of our rights and Liberties that the founders beleived in. If Man(see humanism) is the source and must start within as the base, then Man/Govt. grants rights and just as easily can take them away.(see Soviet Union).
Atheism in America especially, pressuposes Theism.
there was actually a great Documentary that ran on PBS in JUNE, although censored and blocked by some stations by the libs, called “Wall of Separation”…the actual actions and intents of the founders compared to what many think after decades of propaganda is amazing.
Wall of Separation
that said, I have no problem with voting for Rudy if it comes to it. I’d much prefer a Republican apostate as President over a Democrat apostate
jp on August 10, 2007 at 2:41 PM
An agnostic imo:
I don’t believe in heaven, but I pray there ain’t no hell.
Was that in a song, an oldie?
Dersu on August 10, 2007 at 2:44 PM
Really? So I guess that whole “no religious test” thing was just a big goof on their part?
I’m not interested in what they may have written apart from the Constitution – it’s interesting, but it’s not the law of this country.
Slublog on August 10, 2007 at 2:44 PM
Sir William Blackstone, published in 1765-1769: “Commentaries on the Laws of England ”
couple of excerpts:
jp on August 10, 2007 at 2:47 PM
What Jefferson wrote in 1781 is irrelevant to Article 6 of the Constitution. If individuals don’t feel as though they can vote for the non-religious, that’s a matter of personal conscience.
However, trying to pretend that atheists are objectively less qualified to be president than the religious is a bit silly.
Slublog on August 10, 2007 at 2:49 PM
There is no religious litmus test, there can’t be. You have the choice to vote against someone for their religious beliefs(dumb move, but you have the right), but the government does not have the power to reject a person voted into office because of their religion.
Bad Candy on August 10, 2007 at 2:50 PM
How do you explain Jefferson editing the Bible to get rid of all of the miracles and silly divinity stuff?
tommylotto on August 10, 2007 at 2:51 PM
Yeah dude, let’s just ignore every other aspect of a candidate and their positions and just vote based on how they reacted to the aftermath of 9/11.
Bush did pretty well after 9/11- should we have all caved when it came to amnesty or Harriet Meirs because he did such a bang up job?
Jeez, listening to Rudy and some of his supporters you’d think he wrestled on of the jets out of the sky with his bare hands and brought performed a miracle to bring the victims back to life. Yes, he handled himself well and deserves credit for that, but that simply doesn’t make one the best choice for Republican nominee.
Rudy’s an illegal alien protecting, gun grabbing, socially liberal, authoritarian RINO and doesn’t warrant support of conervatives.
Hollowpoint on August 10, 2007 at 2:51 PM
Nor should the government have that power.
Bad Candy on August 10, 2007 at 2:51 PM
That’s how my aunts are.
They say that the great thing about being Catholic is that you can pick and choose what you believe in (which I don’t think is actually how it’s supposed to be, but whatever).
Now, they’re big into yoga and meditation.
Of course, they’re still Catholic, but I’ve never heard them gush about prayer they way they go on and on about meditation.
JadeNYU on August 10, 2007 at 2:51 PM
Well spoken. This is the huge flaw shared by all identity groups of militant leftism that can be exploited and exposed by us.
RushBaby on August 10, 2007 at 2:51 PM
Come on guys- lets not derail this thread any further with a pointless, unwinnable debate on religion… again. I’ve still got some Rudy-bashing left in me.
Hollowpoint on August 10, 2007 at 2:52 PM
the religious test has nothing to do with the issue of were Rights come from, the founders just didn’t want a Church of England here(neither do Christians today for that matter), theocracy is a separate issue from where our rights upon which laws come from.
the Founders hired a Chaplan in the first congress and opened with prayer, they still do today and recently Harry Reid took it from free exercise into State promoation when he brought in a Hindu(which there are no hindu’s in congress) to give a prayer. then some supposed christians made fools of themselves and got arrested.
jp on August 10, 2007 at 2:53 PM
he wasn’t Trinitarian, wasn’t a Deist either…kinda interesting and I highly recommend that Documentary on the subject.
Deist and those that reject miracles are odd to me, if you beleive there had to be a Creator(something Mathematics and Science proves), Einstein is a good example of this thought process, but if you beleive that it doesn’t make logical sense. There is no greater Miracle than the Creation of the Universe and everything in it, how you can beleive in that and reject miracles in God’s word is beyond me.
jp on August 10, 2007 at 2:56 PM
What binds you to the Right? Seriously. Again I am not being sarcastic.
If you made a list of the issues that are important to you and lined them up with the various political groups, which one fits you best?
It seems acceptance of atheism is very important to you and the Blue Dogs are very sympathetic to atheists, socially liberal, strong on defense and for reasonable fiscal responsibility, hence the question. I wasn’t trying to insult you by challenge your credentials. I am just curious.
One other quick point. I think you misunderstand the source of much of the mistrust of atheists. I think a fair amount of it comes from the legal activism of atheists which many view as an attempt to destroy Christianity in the country.
TheBigOldDog on August 10, 2007 at 2:57 PM
I’m Christian, but I don’t think you have to be Christian or even religious to be a good conservative.
Christians who try to shut non-Christians out of the conservative movement are not doing the country or the religion or the party any good. I would much rather have someone who thinks politically like Allahpundit in office than a person who goes to church every Sunday and translates his or her Christian beliefs into political socialism (you know, love your neighbors by taking money from your other neighbors so the first neighbors don’t have to go without cable TV?), or who is in fact a complete and total hypocrite and does exactly the opposite of what the church teaches but uses his or her apparent churchiness as a cover for bad behavior (you know, he could never commit adultery–he goes to church every single Sunday!).
Conservative ideas are right, and they work for society. Most Christians are conservative, but conservatism is not limited to Christians.
aero on August 10, 2007 at 2:59 PM
Exactly, but by your logic you are letting one issue keep you from voting. I don’t get it dude???
conservnut on August 10, 2007 at 3:00 PM
Exactly. I was typing while you posted. I think you nailed the source of much of the mistrust.
TheBigOldDog on August 10, 2007 at 3:00 PM
Strawman — not what I said.
We talkin’ Bush or Rudy, or are you trying to conflate the two?
It does demonstrate that he is an effective leader in a time of crisis. That is certainly an importat trait in a leader in a time of war. The only other guy that we know who can handle himself under pressure is McCain. All the others may fold like a house of cards, we just don’t know about them.
What do you expect. He had to run that madhouse NYC. Joking aside. He has committed to stopping illegal immigration and identifying all the illegals within our boarders. He believes in the right to bear arms, but limited by reasonable gun control restrictions based on the needs of varying localities. Bans necessary in the pressure cooker of NYC are not necessary in Utah. Is he socially liberal, or are you socially backwards? RINO is name calling. There is no doubt that he is fiscally conservative and judging by the polls, he warrants more support than any of the other candidates.
tommylotto on August 10, 2007 at 3:04 PM
aero, right on the money. I agree 100% and I’ll add that if Allah was President he would be Mt Rushmorian in my opinion. His face would be invisible but he’d be there.
Zetterson on August 10, 2007 at 3:04 PM
How do you feel about this?
Know who said that and when? Try the Father of the Nation: George Washington’s Farewell Address 1796
TheBigOldDog on August 10, 2007 at 3:06 PM
It would be alot of fun if HotAir did a video blog on this PBS documentary actually, given alot of threads this site has had before, you can watch an excerpt of it here:
http://godawa.com/
click on “Wall of separation” on left.
There is also an Oath clause right before the “religious test” clause, which was meant at the time and is still tradition to swear an Oath(and their intent which is documented was to God), the Creator and giver of rights. there’s no point in taking an Oath otherwise.
jp on August 10, 2007 at 3:09 PM
.
Yeah, given the pro-illegal statements he’s made he wants to identify all the illegals… so he can give them amnesty.
And the “reasonable gun control restrictions” in NYC? Complete ban on handguns. Well, for us law-abiding types anyways. Just the criminals get guns in NYC.
Hollowpoint on August 10, 2007 at 3:16 PM
Washington also owned slaves. That’s supported by religion, correct? The Constitution, written by our Founding Fathers, says religion isn’t a litmus test. That’s the supreme law of our land.
amerpundit on August 10, 2007 at 3:17 PM
You from New York? I lived there for 30 years of my life, before Rudy. I couldn’t leave my house. Criminals could purchase handguns on the streets – in the open. Gun violence was huge.
His policies on restrictions worked. They reduced crime, and cleaned up the city.
amerpundit on August 10, 2007 at 3:20 PM
Yeah right, half of the budget would be going to building humping robots…not that that’s any less productive than the government is anyway.
Bad Candy on August 10, 2007 at 3:21 PM
That’d be an improvement from what we have now.
amerpundit on August 10, 2007 at 3:23 PM
I’m not answering for AP, just making some of my own observations about why an atheist might stay with the political right, even if he feels unwelcome at times.
I don’t see most of the tenets of conservatism as being bound in any way to Christianity in particular or even religiosity in general. For example, is an emphasis on individual responsibility a Christian idea, or just a generally good idea that conservatives tend to agree with? What about less government? Lower taxes? Minimizing oppression in the world? Having a strong military and using it effectively? Reducing entitlements? Letting the free market work? Fighting those who wish to kill innocents and end our way of life? Defending the Constitution? Controlling immigration and the borders? Being opposed to terminating unborn human lives? Supporting the historically and statistically successful two-parent family model? We Christians don’t own any of those things. We support these ideas, and they are generally in synch with our beliefs. But being conservative is not synonymous with being Christian. Conservative-thinking atheists are on the same side politically, and they should not be shut out or urged to become Blue Dogs because they don’t believe in God. Believing in God is not a prerequisite to becoming president, and it should not be a prerequisite to being a conservative and/or a Republican.
aero on August 10, 2007 at 3:27 PM
I’d be pretty excited about the iPhones-for-everyone entitlement program myself. ;-)
aero on August 10, 2007 at 3:28 PM
Nope, never lived there… but I do know that the restrictions were in place long before Rudy was mayor; however he supported them.
Just how could there have been gun crimes if there was a handgun ban? Does not compute…. unless you’re suggesting that the gun ban didn’t work. What does work- and what Rudy did demonstrate to some extent- is that good old fashion law enforcement is what’s necessary to reduce violent crime, not the disarming of law abiding citizens.
Perhaps someone from DC can fill us in on how well their long-standing handgun ban has all but eliminated gun crimes.
Hollowpoint on August 10, 2007 at 3:33 PM
Ooh, that could be cool.
amerpundit on August 10, 2007 at 3:34 PM
Sorry Allah, but I have to disagree with you on this one. Voting is one of the fundamental rights we have in this country. To not exercise that right in my opinion is a mistake. I’m not a Rudy fan. My main disagreements with him are abortion and the 2nd amendment. However, if he is the Republican candidate, he’ll still be a better choice than any of the dimwitcrats, so he’ll get my vote. If enough people take your attitude and stay at home, we’ll end up with the fecally decorated end of the stick.
I respect your views, and will always defend your right to them. This is just one of those times when we don’t see eye to eye. I’ve read your responses to others and understand your opinion. I know your decision isn’t final, and I hope you change your mind.
Kowboy on August 10, 2007 at 3:38 PM
People can have whatever litmus test they so choose. What this shows is the founding fathers were not all in agreement regarding religion and its role. The Religion haters seems to think Jefferson, not the first president, not the second, but third, is the only founding father with an opinion on this subject. Now, you go ahead and and disparage Washington all you like but if it wasn’t for that man there wouldn’t be a United States as we know it.
TheBigOldDog on August 10, 2007 at 3:40 PM
Look, conservatism is not a doctrine reserved by only the religious right. However, for the most part the two need and rely on each other. Most Christians identify with the right because of the commonality of their beliefs about society and government.
Republicans need the religious right to get elected, it’s not because they hate atheists, but lets face it, most atheists are not like AP, they are lefties. So you won’t see the Republicans catering to atheists any time soon. If that is what you want you might as well go over to the dark side and join Hillary. But if you believe in your ideals as a conservative you will vote and it will be for the guys you believe represent those ideals the best.
There are a whole lot of things about Bush that I absolutely hate. And have since his first election. But I still went out and voted…for him…..twice. I might have felt like I needed a bath afterwards but I did it just the same.
Because it is our duty!
conservnut on August 10, 2007 at 3:48 PM
aero, this is a good read in relation to your last post:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGYxNDFiMzdiZjZjMDExZjYxYmUxODExMzBkYmUyYmQ=
Zetterson on August 10, 2007 at 3:49 PM
Jeri! hasn’t made any gaffs.
- The Cat
P.S. Umm Fred, I mean Fred.
MirCat on August 10, 2007 at 3:49 PM
those are Christian ideas actually, and it makes sense for some atheist to agree with them, because Christianity is the source of all Truth capital “T”.
Francis Schaeffer said:
if atheist are generally interested in Christianity they should read the intellectual side of it, to many stereotype and generalize based off perceptions gathered from pop culture.
jp on August 10, 2007 at 3:50 PM
You can’t live like that. You’re always going to be involved with things, where there are others who hold you in disdain. Everything from music and movies to politics. One shared vote doesn’t make them the company you keep.
Now, if the candidate him/herself indicated that same disdain, I’d say, absolutely stay home. I would.
Tanya on August 10, 2007 at 3:53 PM
Jefferson? Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. He criticized parts of the Constitution and pushed for the Bill of Rights. However, the Constitution was constructed by the Constitutional Convention, and then ratified by the states.
Jefferson wasn’t present at the creation of the Constitution. He was serving in France as the US’ envoy to that nation.
The page Slublog linked to was Article VI of the United States Constitution. It’s not an amendment – it’s part of the Constitution constructed by delegates from the states, and ratified by all of the states.
amerpundit on August 10, 2007 at 3:55 PM
Hollowpoint on August 10, 2007 at 3:33 PM
I’m not sure anyone who’s not from NYC can understand how dense the population is, and what kind of effects it has on society. It’s impossible to get away from people, even for a few minutes (even in your own home, you’re likely less than 20 feet from a bunch of strangers at any given time.)I understand how other places might want to have less restrictions on guns, but sitting here in my apartment, I share 8″ thick walls or floors/ceilings with four other families, not to mention the street-level windows that literally thousands of people walk past each day. Stray bullets have a much greater chance of hitting bystanders here than anywhere else in the country, and social tensions are high just from the fact that there’s so many people, not to mention the criminal elements. If I were anywhere else, I’d probably own one, but I’m glad that there are relatively strong restrictions on guns here.
Big S on August 10, 2007 at 3:55 PM
Dude. You need to pick up a book on ancient Roman and Greek political thought and philosophy, pre-Constantine. You will find that many of the truths you claim flowed from Christianity were discovered centuries before by some pagan.
tommylotto on August 10, 2007 at 4:01 PM
Did anyone else find Rudy’s “clarification” about as clear as mud?
RushBaby on August 10, 2007 at 4:03 PM
there were 55 founders who wrote the Constitution, and yes Jefferson was in France although an influence of course.
of the 55, 51 were Christians, mostly Calvinist Christians(Reformed)..
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5243#fn1
and at the end of Franklin’s life he rejected deism and went back to Christianity.
jp on August 10, 2007 at 4:06 PM
Oops, meant to link this one. They are both good reads though:
http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_08_28/article14.html
Zetterson on August 10, 2007 at 4:09 PM
I’m glad you went on to clarify that. lol
Kowboy on August 10, 2007 at 4:09 PM
the Greeks never had any concept of the Freedoms we have today, all you have to do is read Plato’s Republic to see that.
That said, what I meant by real Truth doesn’t mean it started after Jesus came to earth. Trinitarian Christianity is about the Triune God being the source of all Truth. This goes back to day 1 of creation, whether it was the Big Bang theory(which proves a creator, mathematically) or other theories. Bryan’s article about space/time and it matching up perfectly with Genesis works well here.
jp on August 10, 2007 at 4:10 PM
I hope you’ve boned up on your begging skills, because that’s all you’ll be armed with if confronted with a violent criminal.
I live in Minneapolis; certainly not as dense as NYC but with crime problems of our own. In 2003 we passed a “shall issue” law allowing people (me included) to get carry permits. Despite the caterwauling of people like you that this would result in mass shootings, bullets flying everywhere and the streets running red with blood… it didn’t happen.
Criminals who go spraying bullets at innocent bystanders don’t obey gun laws. You gotta lock ‘em up… before they bust down the door of some poor unarmed subject like yourself. Me? I’ll let my .45 do the talking instead of begging for my life.
Hollowpoint on August 10, 2007 at 4:17 PM
The concepts may derive much from Christianity, but these ideas can be found in other religions as well. Many Eastern religions/philosophies have similar teachings, as do several pre-Christian Greek philosophers.
I just consider the Truth to be the Truth…I don’t look at it through any other prism. That’s just my personal choice, and I wonder at why others have tried to push me to be other than me. (not you, jp!)
I haven’t really experienced personal attacks or derision here, but I just need to vent something I’ve held in for 20 years:
I thank my Judeo-Christian ancestry for providing me my values, but I still remain a nonreligious Conservative. But I have to admit it gets hard to find a port in the political storm when I hear that my personal religious beliefs can keep me from contributing…it does make me weary.
I’m despised by the Right for not being religious, but despised by the Left for being Conservative…where am I supposed to find a political party when so many make personal, deeply personal beliefs like this an issue???
I am a Conservative, but I am not religious…how is that so hard for so many to get when there are religious off-the-deep end Liberals??? HUH???
Miss_Anthrope on August 10, 2007 at 4:22 PM
Oh, BTW…I’ve voted Republican for the same 20 years…never wavered!!!
Miss_Anthrope on August 10, 2007 at 4:23 PM
These Republicans need to THINK before they speak.
SoulGlo on August 10, 2007 at 4:23 PM
I do have to confess that it’s rather refreshing to hear honesty like that from a prominant politician, rather than lying about their Faith and practices (a-la Kerry).
crazy_legs on August 10, 2007 at 4:25 PM
Do you not understand the points I made? Really?
TheBigOldDog on August 10, 2007 at 4:29 PM
From breitbart.com
“He is such a liar, because the only time he was down there was for photo ops with celebrities, with politicians, with diplomats,” said deputy fire chief Jimmy Riches, who spent months digging for his firefighter son.
“On 9/11 all he did was run. He got that soot on him, and I don’t think he’s taken a shower since
Rudy did not spend near the time as some first responders, some hereos spent the rest of their lives there.
Dersu on August 10, 2007 at 4:36 PM
I, like AllahPundit, am an atheist and I think that I probably adhere to Catholic teachings better than Giuliani does.
Probably not even a close call at all.
MB4 on August 10, 2007 at 5:10 PM
I understand that people have their own litmus tests. All I’m saying is that obviously most of the Founding Fathers didn’t think having a religion was necessary to run this country.
I just don’t understand why you brought Jefferson in.
amerpundit on August 10, 2007 at 5:12 PM
Fixed that for you.
So very true about the current state of the Republican party at this juncture. While this was referring to those who could handle an atheist president I think it is a little representative of how one-issue some are in the party. Abortion might be my single issue and guns might be the next guys. In the meantime no candidate is being viewed as acceptable.
see everyone in 2016 ;)
Bradky on August 10, 2007 at 5:57 PM
I don’t believe that. True there are issues that are very important to some- including religion- but I think the current kerfuffle has to do with the candidates we currently have.
I don’t think it’s too terribly much to ask that the Republican party nominate someone who reliably maintains a small government, anti-abortion, anti-gun control, anti-illegal immigration platform. In other words, a Republican with Republican views. Unfortunately, most of the frontrunners don’t fit the bill.
Until an athiest decides to run and is shunned not for his views or record but for his religion, this entire sub-topic is a bit irrelevant.
Republicans are vulnerable, but just as in the past four presidential elections the Democrats appear to be following their usual modus operandi of nominating a loser. Clinton is very beatable.
Hollowpoint on August 10, 2007 at 6:35 PM
Judging from your criteria Thomas Jefferson was the first athiest president.
I suspect most people on the right would agree with you. One of the reasons I probably won’t vote.
aengus on August 10, 2007 at 6:41 PM
Guess we have to agree to disagree. Look at what a scarlet letter claiming that one is moderate gets a Republican supporter. While the core positions may be the draw there are differences in how those should be accomplished. Abortion needs to go back to the states for resolution — if an amendment banning it emerges, the process has worked. If like pre-Roe you have a variety of laws from state to state the voters have had more chance to participate in the discussion. Ditto gun control – in my opinion there is nothing wrong with registration and background checks, to some that is anathema.
Hillary is very much beatable but if the Repubs are fractured over singular issues, refuse to vote because a specific person didn’t gain the nomination, and generally refuse to be a team player… well she could very well win.
Bradky on August 10, 2007 at 6:46 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »