Richard Land to critics on voting for a pro-choice candidate: “Could you vote for a Klansman?”
posted at 4:06 pm on October 23, 2007 by Allahpundit
The nuclear option is on the table, my friends.
NEWSWEEK: So we wanted to ask you, first of all, about the third party idea and whether it’s serious. A number of people are suggesting it is just a threat.
Land: My intuition [is that] this is not a bluff. If Giuliani is the nominee, there will be a third party. There are things that Giuliani could do to help mitigate the damage. But I have been in too many discussions over the last 15 years where evangelical leaders have said, “The one thing we will never allow to happen is for the Republican Party to take us for granted the way the Democrat Party too often takes the African-American community for granted.”
This is not a bluff…When Rudy says “I will appoint strict constructionist judges,” you are not hearing that?
I hear it. I hear it.Well, you don’t hear Hillary saying that.
[Land turns to question a Newsweek reporter] Could you vote for a Klansman?[Reporter responds] No.
You’ve answered my question. I cannot vote for someone who believes that it’s all right to stop a beating heart.
He predicts 25-30% of evangelicals will walk away if Rudy’s the nominee, and that’s assuming Rudy does his level best at “mitigation,” i.e. promising to veto any attempt to expand abortion rights and to sign any attempt to restrict abortion rights. If he doesn’t, then his social liberalism plus the “abominable” circumstances of his second divorce, in Land’s words, will drive away even more. The good news? Any other nominee will obviate the need for a third party, including Mitt — but in his case perhaps only if he delivers a speech promising that he won’t have a lot of Mormons in his administration. “That is a concern that has been expressed to me by my constituents,” says Land. Seriously.
Exit question: Is it time for the big A and the other three other Republican atheists in America to walk? You’ll miss us when we’re gone. Well, no, probably not.
Update: Isn’t this whole debate getting us sidetracked from the real issue?
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: « Previous 1 2
Not really. I just marvel at how sneeringly nasty you manage to get during these debates.
You make social conservatism so attractive.
Slublog on October 23, 2007 at 6:14 PM
First off, I don’t “claim” to be pro-life. I am pro-life. You can take me at my word on this one.
Second, I believe he’s made a deal with those on his judicial committee, and those are going to be his court nominees. I may not entirely trust Giuliani, but I trust Ted Olson and the others on his side.
And finally, I consider the war the pre-eminent issue of this next election. Given how supremely un-serious the Democrats have been regarding the threat of Islamic fundamentalism, I have a very hard time with the idea of them being in power right now.
Slublog on October 23, 2007 at 6:19 PM
You make social conservatism so attractive.
That’s sarcasm. Literalists may have missed that.
Just trying to help.
BTW, Rudy isn’t my #1 choice (clearly Ron Paul is the only hope we have!!1!1!), but I could live with it. Hell, if McCain wins, I’ll vot efor him. I’d vote for nearly anyone to keep
StalinHillary out of office.And now I’m not being fair to Stalin. I’m just a mean person.
Hmm. I didn’t misspell enough things to be a Paulbot.
TABoLK on October 23, 2007 at 6:20 PM
test
Renae on October 23, 2007 at 6:25 PM
At least George W. Bush had to pretend to be a conservative in order to get elected. Fooled me, and a lot of other people. But now it seems that you don’t even need to go through the motions of faux conservatism anymore. You just have to talk about terrorists and “caliphates” and Iran. With the exception of Ron Paul, what do the Republican candidates have in common? Not abortion. Not gun rights. Not lower taxes. Not smaller government. Not non-amnesty immigration reform. Not homosexual civil union opposition. What is the one unifying stand? War in the Middle East. War unites them. It’s rather a shame, because if the people who claim to be conservatives could look past their desire for an aggressive interventionist foreign policy, they’d find that there is a Reagan-approved conservative in the race.
Mark Jaquith on October 23, 2007 at 6:25 PM
Yes, I’ve realized that I’ve become more angry each day. You’re absolutely right. It’s difficult to watch as otherwise intelligent conservatives continually make the same exact mistakes every election, and then whine about it for the next eight years.
You’ll all vote for Giuliani and then for the next eight years we’ll hear about how horrible abortion is, how absurd the illegal immigration situation is, how corrupt the Parties are, how our gun rights are vanishing, how our Party has lost it’s morals, and on and on …
It just never stops, and it’s sickening. Vote for the person who represents your values and then you have the right to blame everyone else. Otherwise … SHUT UP ALREADY because it’s your d@mn fault!
I admit that I’ve become extremely nasty in these debates.
My country is at stake. I see it headed toward socialism and third world status. Yes … I’m a bit pissed off.
Gregor on October 23, 2007 at 6:26 PM
I completely disagree.
Slublog on October 23, 2007 at 6:31 PM
I have no idea, but “Dick Land” sounds like a gay amusement park.
ReubenJCogburn on October 23, 2007 at 6:37 PM
Those holding the opinion that a fetus is life and should never be killed polls at about 20% of the population. That’s small. I’m sure its higher in the Republican party, but it certainly is not a position that warrants king maker status.
tommylotto on October 23, 2007 at 6:41 PM
Small? Democrats pander to only 13% of the black vote, and they’re not dumb enough to throw that away. Without those 20% of the pro-lifers, the Republicans won’t crack 35% of the vote.
Sydney Carton on October 23, 2007 at 6:43 PM
abortion is just one issue tommy. Rudy will turn off a lot of R voters for a variety of reasons. Abortion is just the easiest one to pick on.
I don’t believe Rudy can win. I think he’ll lose half the southern states in the general including NC which has voted R for 32 years. Our primary is so late that nobody cares about us ever anyway and our vote doesn’t really count. But NC is trending D fast.
ThackerAgency on October 23, 2007 at 6:47 PM
Like I said, a guy can dream!
CurtZHP on October 23, 2007 at 6:56 PM
I have to agree that taking a group for granted is a risk you take and really can’t complain when it backfires on you.
csdeven on October 23, 2007 at 7:00 PM
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again as a So Con Christian….you can be sure come election day, though we Christians are less then impressed by some of the liberal positions Rudy takes, that THEY will do the right thing and be pragmatic….When they see the opposition is Hillary, we will take the lesser of 2 evils and that is Rudy or John or Fred or whomever…
I only wish I had U.S. citizenship so I could vote next year…
I really beleive this is much ado about nothing….
Albertanator on October 23, 2007 at 7:02 PM
Did you even read the page you linked to???
Perhaps you missed the part where a minority were in favor of abortion being legal in all cases? The page you linked to doesn’t make the point you think it makes.
Hollowpoint on October 23, 2007 at 7:08 PM
I think the debate really boils down to this…
Do you believe the MSM and their slant that this country is tending Liberal?
Or, do you talk to people around you?
The Republican membership numbers are not declining because they are loosing people to the middle… but because they are loosing CONSERVATIVES (as they lost me election before last… didn’t fix a dam thing…).
For the first time, fully 1/3 of the electorate has registered unaffiliated. Now, there are a LOT of Conservative Southern Dems… and a LOT of registered Republicans (Soc Cons, 2nd amendment folk, strong border folk) who WILL NOT for for Rudi.
Add in the fact that Rudi will HAVE to run a VERY negative campaign to beat Hillary? And do you thin he will be able to get anything done with a Dem controlled Congress???
If Rudi is nominated from the Reps… there will be a VERY large pool of voters who are not willing to vote for either Hillary (high negs) or Rudi…
Can’t we have ONE Conservative in the race?
Romeo13 on October 23, 2007 at 7:21 PM
The cite I gave had alot of different polling data and the one poll you cited was one of the worst phrased questions in that there were only two possible positions, pro-life or pro-choice. Whereas most people favor some restrictions, only a small radical minority take the evangelical position that its murder in all circumstances. Also, that same poll you cited shows that a strong majority of voters are pro-choice AND ARE TRENDING MORE PRO-CHOICE.
In any event, the point I was making was that the Republican Party will ultimately be a looser on this issue, because most voters disagree with this plank. So, to make this looser of a plank a litmus test for candidates is just stupid.
tommylotto on October 23, 2007 at 7:22 PM
For the GOP losing a vote to the middle costs twice as much as losing one to the right, assuming the one in the middle goes to Hillary and the one to the right stays home or votes 3rd party.
dedalus on October 23, 2007 at 7:24 PM
The only one I can think of who meets that criteria is Clarence Thomas, and he already has a job for life.
dedalus on October 23, 2007 at 7:32 PM
And only a small radical minority take the position that it should be legal in all circumstances.
And looking at the numbers, there’s no evidence to suggest anything but small changes in the numbers over recent years.
Point is, Republicans- you know, the ones that are the subject of this thread- are overwhelmingly pro-life, and the vast majority are in favor of restrictions.
Hollowpoint on October 23, 2007 at 7:34 PM
Wassup with Rudi instead of Rudy?
You know his name is Rudy, but you insist on misspelling it. Is this some insidious plot to subliminally remind the bigoted folks on this board that Rudy comes from immigrant stock and has a funny name that ends in a vowel
tommylotto on October 23, 2007 at 7:35 PM
Any argument that goes: “Republicans have to nominate Giuliani, otherwise Clinton will become President” does not resonate with a large segment of conservatives.
Liberals bask in fear like an old dog lays in the sun. Conservatives vote for the best conservative candidate.
jaime on October 23, 2007 at 7:42 PM
Maybe it’s a reminder that he wears a dress. :)
jaime on October 23, 2007 at 7:46 PM
So, does Rudy, he favors restrictions too. So, why are we letting the fanatical fringe of the party veto a perfectly acceptable candidate to the majority of Republicans. And before you poo-poo that statement, remember Rudy has a higher favorability rating than of any of the other major Republican candidates.
tommylotto on October 23, 2007 at 7:47 PM
Oh, he’ll be able to get stuff done alright. Just don’t expect it to be anything conservative. He’ll proceed with the same liberal agenda he’s always had and use the Democratic controlled Congress as an excuse. In fact, he’ll actually twist it around and attempt to make it seem like a positive thing that he’s able to “work with both sides.”
Gregor on October 23, 2007 at 7:48 PM
Hill & Bill are salivating over what they can do with a Dem congress. It makes sense not to vote for Rudy if those are your principles, but undoubtedly Hillary would be worse than Rudy on taxes, judges, health care, immigration, affirmative action, Iraq, the environment and crime.
dedalus on October 23, 2007 at 8:02 PM
Hillary has a higher favorability rating than Rudy. Now think about why that is, and if you’ve not hurt yourself too badly you’ll come up with an answer completely unrelated to abortion.
Hollowpoint on October 23, 2007 at 8:08 PM
I agree with you on every point (except maybe immigration), but I absolutely refuse to allow the current GOP to continue to move the Party further to the left. If they’re EVER to get my vote again … it’s going to have to be for a true conservative.
The bottom line is … if they continue to screw us, then they’re going to vanish from the political landscape. My belief is that once we make that statement; they’ll get a clue. Unfortunately, too many voters continue to reward them out of some sort of false hope that things will reverse next time around.
Gregor on October 23, 2007 at 8:12 PM
Heh. There’s not much difference between “Her Thighness” and Giulianni, is there?
Why’d he go on Alex Jones’ show if he’s trying to gain mass appeal? I mean, it’s not the thing to do if you’re trying to avoid guilt by association.
PRCalDude on October 23, 2007 at 8:13 PM
That’s how gun owners convinced the GOP to stick up for them: they didn’t show up a few times.
PRCalDude on October 23, 2007 at 8:14 PM
Sorry to go completely off topic here, but how’s your friend in Iraq, PRCalDude?
And I hope you’re not in the fire line.
Slublog on October 23, 2007 at 8:14 PM
I took my troubles down to Rudy Rue
You know that RINO with the law-in-order shtick
He’s got a pad down on Thirty-Fourth and Vine
Sellin’ little bottles of RINO Potion Number Nine
I told him that I was afraid of the Hillda Beast
It’s gotten even worse in these last few weeks
He looked at my palm and he made a magic sign
He said “What you need is RINO Potion Number Nine”
He bent down and turned around and gave me a wink
He said “I’m gonna make it up right here in the sink”
It smelled like turpentine, it looked like Mexican ink
I held my nose, I closed my eyes, I took a drink
I didn’t know if it was day or night
I started grabbin’ every gun in sight
But when I grabbed a cops gun down on Thirty-Fourth and Vine
He broke my little bottle of RINO Potion Number Nine
—— guitar solo ——
I held my nose, I closed my eyes, I took a drink
I didn’t know if it was day or night
I started kissin’ every illegal alien in sight
But when I kissed an illegal alien down on Thirty-Fourth and Vine
He broke my little bottle of RINO Potion Number Nine
RINO Potion Number Nine
RINO Potion Number Nine
RINO Potion Number Nine
MB4 on October 23, 2007 at 8:22 PM
My brother-in-law, a Democrat, told me in 2000 that he was going to vote for GW because Gore would take his guns.
I think illegal immigration is just such an issue. If the Republicans play it correctly it will be a winner for them. And not just in the Presidential selection. It could also prevent Democrat gains in congress. I think at least some of the Democrats know this. Look at McCaskill in MO.
jaime on October 23, 2007 at 8:26 PM
LOL.
jaime on October 23, 2007 at 8:30 PM
I’m beginning to think you’re Paul Shanklin. I like Rudy, but that’s funny stuff.
Slublog on October 23, 2007 at 8:38 PM
Not true.
He ran as a Spanish-speaking pro-Latin American President and made no promises to seal off the border (I think, if I’m wrong provide a link). As regards fiscal conservatism he said “When a child is hurting government must move.”
He ran as a social conservative and in that respect the base got what they wanted.
He scoffed at Clinton-Gore “nation-building” but 9/11 was sufficient justification to alter his thinking on that issue.
aengus on October 23, 2007 at 8:48 PM
Hahaha!
aengus on October 23, 2007 at 8:52 PM
Allah, you know I love you. You know I love everyone here. But seriously…. voting for a pro-choicer IS like voting for a Klansman for some of us. That’s just the way we roll.
Which is what I have been trying and trying to tell you.
Rightwingsparkle on October 23, 2007 at 9:04 PM
Not sure what you are looking at, but the Fred-loving Rasmussen has Hillary with a lower favorability rating than Rudy and with an unfavorability rating of greater than 51%. So not really understanding your point.
But I would point out that Hillary does have an 8 point higher favorability rating than Fred and beats in him the general by 15 points — the only match-up that gives Hillary an actual plurality of those polled at 52% — even Tancredo and that nut Paul do better than Fred head to head with the Hildabeast.
tommylotto on October 23, 2007 at 9:20 PM
He’s ok. He’s not even out of action. The IED blew up slightly to the side of his humvee (he was in the lead vehicle) and flipped it over, knocking them all out. When they came to, the started shooting at the Iraqis that had attacked their convoy. The Iraqis ran off and no one in the convoy got shot. My friend only has a bump on his head and a laceration on his nose. He sounded happy when he talked to my other friend on the phone. God be praised.
PRCalDude on October 23, 2007 at 9:43 PM
As a gay atheist Republican, I swear if the Religious right pulls this third party garbage in 2008, I will vote Democrat in 2012 out of spite.
They aren’t the only one who can play this game.
thuja on October 23, 2007 at 10:17 PM
What will that accomplish, exactly? Your beef is with the religious right, not the Repubelickans.
PRCalDude on October 23, 2007 at 10:24 PM
For those who asked …
(see http://www.richardlandlive.com/bio.asp)
Uh, I’ll certainly vote my principles, especially during the primaries. I don’t take Rudy as the default (R) nominee any more than I think the Hildabeast will win the general. The Dem primary, yes ’cause the Dems have no one really close, but with negatives > 50%, I think most any R against her stand a very good chance of winning unless there’s a major vote split on the R side. And I think Rudy is the only R candidate who might make that happen, so that is a major reason to NOT want him to get the primary nod. And I think the Klansman analogy is apt. So, if he does become the R nominee, I would expect a major defection from the Repubs and a possible D win. Horrors.
I’d vote for almost any R over Rudy, especially when you hear what the NYFD folks have to say about his “tough leadership”.
IrishEyes on October 23, 2007 at 10:38 PM
Seems to me a definition of RINO would be one who claims to be Republican but disavows virtually all of the party positions, not the opposite.
IrishEyes on October 23, 2007 at 10:40 PM
Last I looked the numbers were much different- must’ve changed recently. Some of them aren’t recent.
Hollowpoint on October 23, 2007 at 10:44 PM
Fantastic. We’d be much better off without the gay atheists, especially those currently sitting in Congress making decisions that effect our children. Imagine no Mark Foley. Beautiful.
Can we get that in writing? Does your blog comment count as a binding legal contract?
Gregor on October 23, 2007 at 10:46 PM
What I will accomplish is helping to disabuse them of the idea that only Republican candidates with their seal of approval are entitled to the presidency.
As a Republican, I’m a member of a coalition with the religious right. This means I must compromise, but they have to compromise also or I’m not putting up with the deal. The Democrats at least offer me a decent deal as a gay man. Unfortunately, I don’t agree with the Democrats in the least with them about economic policy or foreign policy.
thuja on October 23, 2007 at 10:48 PM
Rudiani says he is a liberal and not really a republican. Why would you expect conservative Christians to vote for him? There will be a weak third party this election and a new conservative base party for 2012. Kiss the GOP goodbye.
Hill in drag is better than Rudi in drag. So, let us vote for the non-drag candidate.
saved on October 23, 2007 at 10:50 PM
Do you want the Republican Party to win another election?
Or do you consider being a jerk to your allies until the muslims kill us all a good option?
thuja on October 23, 2007 at 10:54 PM
Which Republican Party? If you’re referring to the current GOP leadership …
No. Never.
I vote conservative. Not Republican.
Gregor on October 23, 2007 at 10:59 PM
Is there a poll out there telling us how many will vote for the 3rd party canidate if Rudy gets the nomination? Could ya’ll put one up? That would be fun to see…
m1a1usmc on October 23, 2007 at 11:09 PM
It seens that evangelical christians are more worried about
pro-choice republicans than they are about jihad. I don’t undertsnad this at all. We are embroiled in a global struggle for the very survival of our species, and all we can do is whine about abortion? When Hilary get elected dont forget to thank a christian evagelical.
paulsur on October 23, 2007 at 11:13 PM
That’s not true at all. Your comment would assume that all other conservative candidates would be weak on terrorism, which is absurd. Tancredo, Hunter, and Mike Huckabee would all be just as tough as Giuliani.
Gregor on October 23, 2007 at 11:26 PM
The SBC does not always follow where the leadership leads. That’s why there are lots of independent Baptist churches.
David Block on October 23, 2007 at 11:41 PM
What makes you think that? In times of crisis you should look for proven leadership qualities tempered by adversity. Rudy passed his audition with the world watching live on TV. How about those other guys? We know they talk tough. We know Rudy is tough. There is a difference.
tommylotto on October 23, 2007 at 11:41 PM
First off The Party is not here to serve them or any of you, we are all here to serve The Party. Love it or leave it, but don’t think you can rape and pillage it for your own special interest group.
So tell me, what have these Evangelicals done for the GOP, really what have they contributed to this Party to make it grow? Nothing, they have only wanted to take, take, take and hold everyone hostage in the process. They are very
and that mindset does not serve the complete tent or add to the tent.
AprilOrit on October 24, 2007 at 12:16 AM
Really? Give me an example of something Rudy did that shows he’s tough on terror. You know? Something other than “talk.”
Gregor on October 24, 2007 at 12:27 AM
Huh?
Wow!
That’s about all I can muster on that one. Amazing.
Gregor on October 24, 2007 at 12:28 AM
This quote ring a bell?
Gregor on October 24, 2007 at 12:31 AM
What do you need as a gay man that you don’t already have? If it’s some sort of the same benefit that married couples have, maybe you should move to a state where civil unions are allowed, like California. How much better does it need to get for gay people? Perhaps you should become familiar with Bruce Bawer’s writings.
Far be it for me to point out this naked emperor, but what is so tough about him?
PRCalDude on October 24, 2007 at 12:32 AM
Doesn’t Bush have a bunch of Islamists over for Eid dinner every year? Both parties are sleeping with the devil there.
PRCalDude on October 24, 2007 at 12:34 AM
You guys are like Democrats changing your opinion on Saddam because it meets your political objectives. Go Watch the HBO Special In Memoriam. Maybe that will refresh your memory. Then we’ll talk.
tommylotto on October 24, 2007 at 1:01 AM
One thing I will give the Democrats credit for, they serve their Party, or they seem to.
AprilOrit on October 24, 2007 at 1:04 AM
Hey April! I hear Chavez is looking for you, lol. He wants some tips on how to convince the people to serve him, rather than him having to serve the people.
Gregor on October 24, 2007 at 1:07 AM
Compare how Rudy dealt with 9/11 verses the way “Homey the Clown from Chocolate Town” handled Katrina.
THAT is how Rudy could have reacted. He did not. He lead his city and arguable was an example to this country how to buck up and put a shoulder to the wheel and recover from the worst terrorist attack in this country’s history.
And that is just for starters.
csdeven on October 24, 2007 at 1:30 AM
Support is support. Why do other Republicans hang out with bigots like Falwell? As Dr. Paul said, if politicians only appears on shows that 100% espoused their views, they’d get no airtime!
Mark Jaquith on October 24, 2007 at 1:50 AM
Okay, let’s do that.
And while we’re at it …
what does Giuliani waltzing around ground zero talking tough have to do with fighting terror? I ask again …
what has he actually DONE to fight terror? He’s done absolutely ZERO!
Gregor on October 24, 2007 at 1:51 AM
LOL. Good. I hadn’t heard that one before. That sharp CSDeven wit.
jaime on October 24, 2007 at 2:12 AM
Everyone has seen the IAFF’s video criticizing Rudy. They have always been partisan, and without the context of Rudy’s side of the story, it can’t really stand on it’s own.
Rudy did not cave to PCness, he didn’t lock up and panic, etc. Showing the country how to deal with such a horrific event IS fighting terrorism. It was a resolve not to allow them to cower us. Rudy did all that a mayor could do. He couldn’t pick up a gun because he had a responsibility to his city. He fulfilled that responsibility. You can attempt to minimize it all you want, but there really wasn’t much more one man could do. We all know how Nagin dealt with it. He blamed everyone else and did nothing to prepare his people nor did he follow the plan that was decided upon in just such an emergency. Nagin TOTALLY failed and Rudy could have done so also. He did not. I know you can’t stand it and perhaps you should rethink your politics. Hoping that Rudy would have failed in a misguided attempt to make your candidate look better isn’t credible in the least. If you want credibility you MUST give credit where credit is due.
csdeven on October 24, 2007 at 2:17 AM
LOL! You’re not grasping it. He “walked around and talked tough.” THAT’S IT! That’s the extent of his actions!
HE DID NOTHING!
There’s no credit to give. There’s nothing to credit.
Zero. Nada. Zilch.
He went from block to block, stood in front of a camera, and TALKED! No government actions. No government crackdowns. No major arrests. And no attacks thwarted.
You’re making him to be the God of fighting terror because he gave a few rah-rah speeches. He’s a fraud.
Gregor on October 24, 2007 at 2:33 AM
You refuse to give the guy credit for his extraordinary accomplishments. You think that because you can sit there behind your computer playing Monday morning quarterback that what Rudy did was nothing? You obviously have no clue the awesome responsibility resting on his shoulders during that time in history. Rudy was up to the challenge. The challenge of not acting like Nagin. Did Nagin hurt or help the issue of city preparedness? (As an example of what NOT to do, he has helped) But he would have been credit for being a great leader in the face of a terrible event had he saved the people of his city and led them to recovery.
You apparently think that unless you are killing a terrorist that you are not part of the process of fighting terrorism. Tell that to the people who grew victory gardens and bought war bonds etc during WWII.
There are many ways to fight the war against islamo-fascism and Rudy did everything that could be expected from ANYONE in his position. And for you to refuse to acknowledge that because of partisan politics is exactly what is wrong with political discourse in this country and you can’t build any credibility when you engage in such.
csdeven on October 24, 2007 at 3:09 AM
Another thought before I hit the hay and forget to mention it tomorrow. Rudy was in charge of NYC. He put the people in place to effect the recovery. Had Rudy failed in that charge, who would have stepped up to fulfill that role? The chaos that would have ensued while trying to get things done with a totally ineffective mayor would have exacerbated the already horrific conditions AND the people would have had their faith in their local government to lead them in this time of national emergency. Someone else would have had to step up. The governor? The president? Yeah, try adding the responsibility of a huge city like NYC on top of their already substantially increased responsibilities that this attack had caused.
Rudy was the right man, in the right place, at the right time and we, and especially the people of NYC are blessed to have had in charge on that day.
csdeven on October 24, 2007 at 3:18 AM
I agree, which is one of the big reasons I won’t vote for Rudy.
Gianni on October 24, 2007 at 6:17 AM
WOW! I can’t believe someone actually said that. I knew the Republican party was headed left, but I didn’t realize they had already become Socialists. WOW!
Might it be because they are Socialists?
Gianni on October 24, 2007 at 6:57 AM
I lived in NYC through the Rudy years and am not sold on him. He’s a really sharp guy, with no national experience, and significant personality flaws. I’m also turned off at the way he’s co-opted 9/11 as part of the “Rudy” brand.
That said, you underestimate what talking can achieve. Having your country attacked is one thing. Having your city attacked and your friends killed or missing throws your everyday existence and faith in the future into turmoil. Rudy did more than talk, he found the right words and he was able to bravely convey his pain and serve as a focal point for a city of people who didn’t know if life in Manhattan would ever be the same.
He’s a liberal guy who’s views are out of line with social conservatives. If you don’t like him, don’t vote for him. We were fed up with him on 9/10/2001. But for a few days after an unimaginable attack the guy provided leadership to millions of people who were devastated. I don’t know if I want him as president, but I’m really glad he was our mayor on 9/11.
dedalus on October 24, 2007 at 9:37 AM
That sounds like the fairest assessment I read.
csdeven on October 24, 2007 at 9:42 AM
Join or Die. I didn’t say it first, but it’s still true.
doufree on October 24, 2007 at 10:58 AM
Um … I keep asking you to point out WHAT HE DID and you can’t do it. All you keep repeating is that he “held the city together.”
HE DID NOTHING but GIVE SPEECHES! That’s it!
If that qualifies him for U.S. President, than 2/3rds of the population is qualified for the Presidency.
Did he? Is that why there’s still a giant hole in the ground at ground zero and why NY City voted overwhelmingly for John Kerry AFTER being the target for the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history?
Fine job he did of that.
You’re going to elect a liberal to be President based on nothing more than motivating speeches.
Gregor on October 24, 2007 at 11:42 AM
So, let’s elect a man who will do a really crappy job as President, won’t protect us, will fight for liberal causes, drive us crazy, and then AFTER we get attacked again and the world is falling apart, we can all feel comfortable knowing that our President has the ability to make us FEEL good with real fine speeches.
Wonderful.
Gregor on October 24, 2007 at 11:46 AM
Gregor, I’d stay away from the whole “what did he do” argument. Rudy’s list of life accomplishments is far more impressive than any of the other candidates. Fred is a joke. He’s an old man and has not accomplished anything but CFR, voting for Clinton on impeachment, letting Clinton off on campaign finance crimes, lining his pocket lobbying for dictators, abortion groups and terrorists, and bad acting. Fred has accomplished nothing. Rudy defeated the mafia, saved the city from crime, run away spending, high taxes, a welfare crisis, and a liberal run socialist state generally. Then after 9/11 he attended the multiple funerals every day for close friends who lost their lives. He kept his head when all of those around him could not. He made the decisions to start the clean-up to move on to heal. Go buy that HBO 9/11 documentary — you clearly need your memory refreshed. Are you a truther???
tommylotto on October 24, 2007 at 12:15 PM
That’s not what history says, unless you’re listening to Rudy’s version of it. As dedalus admitted above …
New Yorkers were sick of him and didn’t seem to see all those successes that you claim.
No. Are you gay?
Gregor on October 24, 2007 at 12:33 PM
Hold a city together that is larger than many small countries is doing something in anyones book who has a desire to be intellectually honest. You are not interested in intellectual honesty.
I bet that if Rudy stood up and gave a speech in favor of terrorists, you scream to the heavens that he “did something”, when all he really did was give a motivational speech.
csdeven on October 24, 2007 at 1:59 PM
I didn’t make a case for Rudy’s successes as mayor, though one could. On 9/10 most New Yorkers saw him as a successful mayor but complicated man and had mostly grown tired of his confrontational manner and nasty divorce.
My point isn’t that you should vote for Rudy–decide that on the issues. Being mayor of NYC on 9/11 doesn’t immediately qualify you for the White House.
However, you underestimate the importance of inspiration to leadership. As much as anything Churchill’s words got Londoners through the bombings and even 60+ years later still resonate. Rhetorically Churchill was among the best who ever lived to lead. I wouldn’t put Rudy on that level but on 9/11 he did find a way to eloquently balance pain, loss, compassion and strength.
dedalus on October 24, 2007 at 2:16 PM
Nice…
Truthers tend to question Rudy’s role on 9/11, as you did. That was why I asked — it was related to the substance of your comments. Was there something in my comments that makes you think I’m gay, if so what? Or are you just being a jerk.
tommylotto on October 24, 2007 at 3:48 PM
Nope. Figured since you were going to ask me a totally absurd and unrelated question intended to associate me with a negative sterotype … I might as well return the favor.
So is this how it’s done? Ridicule all those against Rudy by labeling them “Truthers?” Where have we seen this method before?
Gregor on October 24, 2007 at 5:01 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2