Now let us look at the situation from Rudy’s perspective. You know and love a man for 39 years.

You might want to pick your words just a little more carefully, considering Rudy’s cross-dressing and the accusations against Placa.

Something to get you started.

The former president of the New York City Housing Development Corporation, Russell A. Harding, was charged in an indictment unsealed yesterday with using hundreds of thousands of dollars of the agency’s money for vacation travel, gifts and parties for friends and for other personal expenses.

The indictment, filed in Federal District Court in Manhattan, also charges that Mr. Harding directed others to shred documents and erase computer files to cover up his activities. His expense records had been requested by a reporter for The Village Voice. The indictment also charges that Mr. Harding possessed child pornography received over the Internet.

Mr. Harding, the son of Raymond B. Harding, the longtime leader of the Liberal Party and a close ally of Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, was a college dropout with no housing experience when Mr. Giuliani appointed him to run the housing corporation in 1998.

MB4,

Here ya go. Enjoy the walk down memory lane, featuring this comment from Bryan who nailed you after you had been bwak bwak bwaking about Rush all day long.

MB4 on September 30, 2007 at 5:05 PM

You can knock off the chickenhawk nonsense right now.

Bryan on September 30, 2007 at 6:51 PM

Please don’t come back and tell us that you never actually used the term “chickenhawk”.

Buy Danish on October 4, 2007 at 7:18 PM

Oh, I get it. I’m not allowed to demonstrate that you are (excuse my language here) full of crap. I refute your absurd “arguments”, which are more often than not drawn from untrustworthy left wing sources, but according to MB4’s rules that is “stalking”.

I have shown time and again how you have used “chicken hawk” ARGUMENTS but you cry foul because you never actually use the word “chicken hawk”.

Freaking pathetic.

More unadulterated BS, MB4. I have refuted your posts in great detail, time and time again. (You have done nothing of the kind and no matter how much time you spend wishing and hoping, it does not make it so.) As an illustration last week you (There you go again, yet again, demonstrating your obsession with me, remembering, in some corrupted way anyhow, what I said way back last week. Do you have “pictures” of me on your wall?) posted something about Rudy being a tyrant who wants to run a Totalitarian State and then you turned around and denied that that’s what the writer meant to say in the link you posted.(You just illustrate my point yet again by making things up. I did not even use the word “t#r#n#” nor the term “T#t#l#t#r#a# S#a#e”. Why don’t you just let folks read (or not read – their choice) my comments and not make your needy personal revisions to and interpretations of them?)

Buy Danish on November 15, 2007 at 6:52 AM

This is getting beyond ridiculous. Seriously, if you had this extreme stalking obsession with someone out in The World, she, or he, would probably have reported you to the police some time ago and you would be under full observation by now.

Did the entire world see Kerry’s heroics in Vietnam, live on TV with their own eyes?

tommylotto on November 15, 2007 at 9:44 AM

Depends on the definition of “see” and the definition of “heroics”. Yet another similarity.

IAFF Endorsed Clinton-Gore In 1992 And 1996. (IAFF, “America’s Fire Fighters Endorse Clinton-Gore,” Press Release, 8/7/92; IAFF, “Fire Fighters Endorse Clinton-Gore,” Press Release, 8/23/96)

Schaitberger Has Given Only To Democrats, Including Barbara Boxer (D-CA) And John Kerry (D-MA). (The Center For Responsive Politics Website, http://www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 7/10/07)

IAFF Endorsed Gore In 2000. (IAFF, “Fire Fighters Endorse Gore For President,” Press Release, 1/21/99)

In 2004, “IAFF Was The First Labor Union To Endorse Democrat John Kerry’s Race For The President, And Its President Was At Kerry’s Side Through Much Of The Campaign.”

Will the Firefighters be to Giuliani what the Swiftboat Vets were to Kerry?

MB4 on November 15, 2007 at 2:43 AM

Did the entire world see Kerry’s heroics in Vietnam, live on TV with their own eyes?

What you can not refute you call “smears” or “lies” or pretend that I said something other than what I said. Can’t you do any better than that? I guess not. Can’t you even try? I guess not to that too as you would be doing that by now if you could.
MB4 on November 14, 2007 at 10:24 PM

More unadulterated BS, MB4. I have refuted your posts in great detail, time and time again. As an illustration, last week you posted something about Rudy being a tyrant who wants to run a Totalitarian State and then you turned around and denied that that’s what the writer meant to say in the link you posted.

If we point out that your source is Chairman Mao’s best student you respond that you like to hear all sides of the issue. That is slippery, dishonest behavior.

As for my being “obsessed” with you, I am intent on pointing out falsehoods and distortions, but you seem to think that you should be able to carry on without anyone interrupting your propaganda campaigns.

This is a public blog, and if you don’t want people to parse your comments and sources, then maybe you should try someplace where everyone agrees and no one has the brains to read between the lines and separate opinions from facts, like,say, at DU.

When evaluating a candidate for the presidency, it’s wise to look at more than just the candidate himself or herself. For instance, a Hillary presidency would probably elevate people like Sandy “Docs in socks” Berger, Bill Richardson and others to positions of power.

Or worst of all Richard Holbrooke, to whom President Izetbegovic admitted on his deathbed that he had played him for a sucker and gotten the Clinton White House to bomb the Serbs. Moreso than even Berger this fool of a man should be forced to wear a dunce’s cap and laughed out of public life. Clinton’s staff should be so thoroughly discredited by now that there be no possbility of their re-entry into the White House but we live in a mostly insane world.

tommylotto on November 14, 2007 at 10:17 PM

We are dealing with hypothetical questions, so anything can happen. But certainly, with the problems the church is going through, the accusation is damning enough to be problematic.

You’re missing my point.

amerpundit on November 14, 2007 at 10:38 PM

I think I likely get your point. You have a tunnel vision/binary view of the world and have a sort list of sources that you do not shut your eyes to.
So sad.

Please don’t feed the trolls, Amerpundit. They just get noisier.

Splashman on November 14, 2007 at 10:46 PM

Totally vacuous response.

amerpundit on November 14, 2007 at 10:38 PM

That is some stretch to compare Kaplan with Beauchamp. What part of what Kaplan says do you disagree with? Much of what he says is analysis. How does your counter analysis go?

Will the Firefighters be to Giuliani what the Swiftboat Vets were to Kerry?

Please don’t feed the trolls, Amerpundit. They just get noisier.

Splashman on November 14, 2007 at 10:46 PM

True. Then I’ll consider this thread closed (for me).

MB4 on November 14, 2007 at 6:30 PM

You’re missing my point. I can’t take what he says as fact, because he makes crap up to fit his agenda. (See Iraq Comment). That’s like deciding not to support your candidate because you read an article about him by Scott Beauchamp.

I frankly could not care less if he attacks me personally, but I find it highly objectionable when he smears candidates in the manner he does, and when he does it I feel obligated to call him on it (just as Ameripundit did earlier).

The alternative is to let him repeat the lie a thousand times so that it becomes the truth, but considering the stakes in this election, I am loath to let him get away with that.

There are people who read these blogs but never comment, and I’d hate for them to think that Rudy has dastardly plans to run a Totalitarian state, or other nonsense along those lines that he has peddled. Postings like that might receive more credence than they deserve because they appeared on a “conservative” blog.

Buy Danish on November 14, 2007 at 8:30 PM

I only respond to you, I do not seek you out, and usually only proportionately at most. What you can not refute you call “smears” or “lies” or pretend that I said something other than what I said. Can’t you do any better than that? I guess not. Can’t you even try? I guess not to that too as you would be doing that by now if you could.
BTW, Your obsession wit me is worsening. Are you taking your meds?

It’s a huge gamble because if the guy is proven to be involved in any way, he will take Rudy down with him.

csdeven on November 14, 2007 at 9:39 PM

What “proof” could there possibly be after 37 years? There will not be a blue dress, absent a confession it will always remain, he said, he said.

Three guesses who it was. coughMB4cough. Good guess! So we’re all just trying to suppress the truth! Only he has been blessed with the truth. Who knew?

Definitely the sickly-sweet odor of troll. Ignore him, and he’ll post less. (fingers crossed)

Splashman on November 14, 2007 at 7:28 PM

You appear to have caught Buy Danish’s extreme obsession with me. Have you two been “dating”?

As you said, and as I learned sometime back, it’s pointless to respond to him. How about not, everyone?

Splashman on November 14, 2007 at 7:08 PM

As of right now, I would be satisfied if just Buy Danish and you did not respond to me. Then I would have more time to do more research on Rudolfo and Huckabee.

JiangxiDad on November 14, 2007 at 7:00 PM

BTW, don’t try to pigeonhole or type cast or psychoanalyze me. It can’t be done.

An essential tool to evaluate the merits is the source.(It is only an essential tool if you want to short cut everything else and stay in binary thinking mode. By your logic if Bush said 2 plus 2 = 25 and Hillary said 2 plus 2 = 4, you would decide that 2 plus 2 = 25.)

You don’t intend to vote for whomever the Rep. candidate is (How did you arrive at that conclusion, another short cut? See what I mean about short cuts. It is like when you “assume”, it makes an “a$$” out of “u” and “me”.), but you don’t seem to be an advocate for anyone in particular. In spite of everything you’ve said and written, who you are and what you believe in, and who you want to win the Presidency, is still a mystery to me. I think your “quiz” before suggested you are most in-tune with Duncan Hunter– then support him. (Who I am for is still in flux. If he were running I would be for Sessions, but he is not. If Tommy Franks were running I would be for him, but he is not. I would be for Tancredo if he had an appreciable chance, but he does not. I would probably be for Hunter if he had an appreciable chance, but he does not. So, right now I am between Fred and Mitt, leaning to Mitt right now.) Or are you just an equal-opportunity destroyer? (Now you are overrating me.) I could just as easily imagine you doing this on various other sites all over the political spectrum.(I don’t have THAT much spare time. 95+% of my comments are here. Lucky here!!! I think I’ve been taking your comments too seriously. (Doesn’t sound like you have been taking them seriously in the least. Why imply that you did?)

JiangxiDad on November 14, 2007 at 7:00 PM