“Rudy Panic” strikes GOP, expense scandal panic strikes Rudy
posted at 5:24 pm on December 1, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
If you believe the WashTimes, “conservative leaders” decided en masse this week that a Giuliani nomination is just too darned likely and thus they must unite behind a single social-con candidate ASAP. The sources for this scoop: Pat Buchanan’s former campaign manager, an Iowa congressman who believes Rudy’s victory would be the end of conservatism, and the head of the American Conservative Union, which coincidentally just endorsed Mitt Romney. The idea is that Huck’s ascent in Iowa will kneecap Mitt, the only social con with the cash on hand to slay the RINO before he sneaks through the primaries.
The problem with that logic, as HA readers know (and as one political analyst interviewed by the WT acknowledges), is that Huck’s creeping up on Rudy, too, in Florida. In fact, Giuliani’s flagging a bit in several states. Any reason to think he might be in for more rough times? Well … yeah. Not only are he and his handlers already getting jumpy with the press, but the security expenses scandal is very gradually getting hotter, like the proverbial frog in the pan as the temperature ticks up by one-degree increments. The story started with Politico claiming that Rudy buried his security detail expenses in obscure agency budgets to hide the fact of his affair with Judi Nathan; in the past day there’s been news of still more strange expenses, then claims that city taxpayers ended up paying for Nathan’s security on long-distance trips even when she wasn’t with Rudy, and then an allegation that they might have paid for security for Nathan’s friends and family when she wasn’t with them. Rudy’s former deputy mayor initially claimed that mayors have been dumping expenses into various city agencies for years — then backed away from it after Koch’s and Dinkins’s people said au contraire. Rudy himself explained away the expenses by saying that allocating them to the NYPD’s budget, where they belonged, would have resulted in delay. When asked if that was true, the current NYPD commissioner politely disagreed.
The surprise ace in the hole here? Mayor Mike, whose own alleged antipathy to Rudy (and possible campaign ambitions) didn’t prevent his aides from supplying an excuse:
The office of current New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg issued a statement Thursday night stating, “during the Giuliani Administration, we believe that security expenses that were originally paid by the Mayor’s office were ultimately reimbursed by the Police Department.”…
Sources in Bloomberg’s office also tell Fox News that they take issue with Politico’s characterization of some of the offices that were billed by the NYPD as “obscure.” While current officials can’t explain why the NYPD would have initially billed offices like the City Loft Board and Office for People with Disabilities for police costs, they assert that the offices fall within the mayor’s budget and are not “disparate” or “obscure.” In sum, if a mayor was trying to cover up costs, he would not use those offices.
If the Politico angle starts to vanish, watch the goalposts start to move and the vagaries of Judi Nathan’s security become the focus.
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 »
Rudy is the only Republican that can beat Hillary. The GOP are fools if they think otherwise.
SoulGlo on December 1, 2007 at 5:26 PM
HUCKAMANIA, BABY!
Allahpundit on December 1, 2007 at 5:28 PM
The real challenge isnt who is best to beat Hillary. But to prevent the election from being stolen
Up on my blog can see a story where Chuckie Schumer is asking the INS to rehire retired workers to speed up foriegners entries into the US as citisens
William Amos on December 1, 2007 at 5:29 PM
I’m sure Kerik would be happy to share his cell with Rudy.
FloatingRock on December 1, 2007 at 5:38 PM
Why do some people keep repeating that?
BTW, It is becoming ever clearer that ethically, Rudolfo is “our” Bill Clinton and then some.
MB4 on December 1, 2007 at 5:39 PM
I’m not sure but I think it may have been a joke.
FloatingRock on December 1, 2007 at 5:40 PM
Question for the day: Will Rudy Capo still be able to run for President if he is in jail?
MB4 on December 1, 2007 at 5:41 PM
Someone should interview Norman Podhoretz about Rudy, and get this train back on track before it’s too late
Halley on December 1, 2007 at 5:41 PM
OK, that makes sense.
MB4 on December 1, 2007 at 5:42 PM
Kind of like Democrats on Iraq. The surge begins working, the goal posts move.
Politico acknowledges it’s not saying Rudy did anything illegal.
amerpundit on December 1, 2007 at 5:42 PM
I don’t understand comments like this. The woman has more than half the country refusing to vote for her. It’s actually so bad I hear many Democrats are worried about not only her losing but also her dragging down the House and Senate seats that are up for grabs.
bj1126 on December 1, 2007 at 5:43 PM
Did even Corrupto I ever go that far?
MB4 on December 1, 2007 at 5:46 PM
Minor quibble, AllahPundit. It’s “ascent“.
Michael in MI on December 1, 2007 at 5:46 PM
I can see the 1st part of the headline for this post, but as far as the scandal having a big effect on Rudy, I just don;t see it. Wanna know why? It’s not a story. Go to any MSM outlet, and you’ll have to look around to find any mention of it. Most of the campaign stories now have to do with Huck’s rise, and Fred’s somnambulance. It’s a “whose word do you trust?” story, and will go nowhere unless somebody produces some hard evidence of malfeasance.
Big S on December 1, 2007 at 5:47 PM
I recall similar talk right before the 2006 elections.
How did that work out?
MB4 on December 1, 2007 at 5:48 PM
Nomination of any Mitt McGulabee would be the end of conservatism. That is why Rush is nudging Fred along.
Valiant on December 1, 2007 at 5:48 PM
Also, in the end, Mitt’s a Mormon and the Preacher had his hands in the cookie jar too.
Big S on December 1, 2007 at 5:49 PM
I’ve always heard that there’s something inevitable about Giuliani. I wonder if this is it.
jaime on December 1, 2007 at 5:51 PM
Huh?
bj1126 on December 1, 2007 at 5:51 PM
All the happy talk in October 2006, on right of center blogs, about how the dims might get a few seat majority in the house and close the gap some in the Senate.
MB4 on December 1, 2007 at 5:55 PM
Well, if Rudy goes down the the Republicans are toast. He is the only candidate that can get enough Democrat and Independent and Republican votes to win. In a national poll among voters of all parties he is the only candidate that beat Hillary.
Sometimes I honestly believe that the secret mission of this site is to get Hillary Clinton elected. Pretend to be conservative to the extent of being a caricature of conservatism and push people so far right that they lose the mainstream and ensure that the Democrats get elected.
crosspatch on December 1, 2007 at 5:56 PM
Because it’s true.
And I’m not joking.
Rudy’s not the death of conservatism. He might just be the end to the stranglehold that social conservatives have on the GOP nomination, though.
I don’t see that as a negative whatsoever.
Vyce on December 1, 2007 at 5:58 PM
Why do some people keep saying that?
Repeat it often enough and it becomes true?
MB4 on December 1, 2007 at 6:00 PM
It’s false.
And I’m not joking.
MB4 on December 1, 2007 at 6:02 PM
Really? You mean someone who’s wildly popular with the American public, no matter how much his political opponents loathe him, and who repeatedly wins elections?
We could do a LOT worse than having Rudy as our “Bill Clinton”.
Vyce on December 1, 2007 at 6:02 PM
There have been many occasions when, as a conservative, I’ve felt like a fringe minority here at HA.
FloatingRock on December 1, 2007 at 6:02 PM
This is what I believe as well, Valiant.
If a liberal Republican is nominated by Republican-voters, then Republicans will no longer be able to claim any high ground on conservative issues. All the Left would have to do (and I would agree with them) is say that the Republican Party sold out on its principles in order to win an election. In my opinion, Republican-voters would then be no different than the left: they would put winning over principle.
Right now, I have to believe that the only reason the Left is not attacking Republicans on having Rudy as their front-runner, and accusing Republicans of hypocrisy, is because they want to run Hillary against Rudy, since there is so much there on which to attack him. Same thing with Mike Huckabee. They want his ascent to the nomination, because they will attack him on his high taxes, high spending, being pro-amnesty and being a Baptist preacher who wants to turn America into a theocracy (whether that’s true or not, that would be the attack talking point).
Fred Thompson, I believe, stands the best chance to defeat any Democrat, in addition to having the best positions on the policies. As of now, the only big attacks on him that I have seen are that he is lazy and his connection to Spencer Abraham. Other than that, he is solid. He also articulates his positions on his policies well and he explains federalism well. While he may disdain the campaigning process, he seems to understand the political process of this country pretty well, in the sense that he can explain policy, how it works and how it relates to the founders’ intent, etc.
But of course, that is pretty boring, since it is much easier to attract people with nice soundbites than with long explanations. Just look at how Apocalyptic Global Warming has taken off. All flash and pomp and circumstance and fancy movies and fancy charts and manipulating of data, etc. Compare that to the boring explanation of how climate actually works and that is how we are where we are with the country being taken in by this global warming nonsense.
I feel the same thing applies here. The fact is that not all issues can be summarized down to a 30 second soundbite or a nice one-line joke or a cute name-calling session (”Sanctuary Mansion”).
Fred Thompson, in my opinion, seems to be focusing on explaining policy. That’s boring. But it’s what our politicians should be doing. Explaining these things to the American people and giving us the respect and courtesy to assume we are bright enough to undertand them. Not talking down to us with one-liners and 30-second soundbite explanations of complicated issues.
Michael in MI on December 1, 2007 at 6:03 PM
Rubbish.
jaime on December 1, 2007 at 6:03 PM
Someone on this very blog, I can’t recall whom, said that Hillary would run to the right of Rudy Capo.
I think that on many issues she would.
MB4 on December 1, 2007 at 6:04 PM
Bumper sticker as designed for Rudy by Rudybots Graphics Ltd™,:
Vote for Rudy or Hillary the anti-Christ will get elected and kill you and all your children!
If that is not a good enough reason, then screw you!
Rudy’s election is in the
tankbag!MB4 on December 1, 2007 at 6:07 PM
crosspatch,
Just about everything you wrote is untrue.
Rudy’s not the death of conservatism. He might just be the end to the stranglehold that social conservatives have on the GOP nomination, though.
I don’t see that as a negative whatsoever.
No, it’s not a negative at all if you NEVER WANT TO WIN AGAIN.
Listen carefully. You libertarian types cannot win without us religious conservative types. Did you get that? You. Cannot. Win. And we cannot win without you. How many times does this need to be said?
We either start focusing on what brings us together and the candidate who can do that, or just forget the whole thing and enjoy 8 yrs of President Hillary.
Rightwingsparkle on December 1, 2007 at 6:07 PM
The recurring question remains, if Rudy could politically slay Hillary, why the hell didn’t he do it in the senatorial race already?
Rudy may have more gumption than Hillary as per not ruining the country with Marxism, but other Republicans, RINOS excluded, do as well.
Keep comparing.
As per Huckabee, he can sway a crowd talking while picking your pocket and taxing you out of house and home. One President from Hope is enough in one generation. Why swallow the same act again, just because the hair color is different? Promises, promises–forget it.
As per Romney’s bane, a vast array of documentary research material is available in the Library of Congress.
Why accept limitations imposed by others upon your mind?
maverick muse on December 1, 2007 at 6:07 PM
Were you commenting/reading this blog then? There wasn’t any happiness here.
You’re right “would run to the right” are the key words, for the general. But then we’d be screwed,
royally“regally”, as the media describe her, and as she likes herself to be. There is not alternate reality to this.Entelechy on December 1, 2007 at 6:11 PM
I know I have held that opinion and stated it many times in the past in conversation and discussion online, but you’re probably not thinking of me.
That said, I agree with you. And I believe that is why Democrats are not afraid of Rudy as the nominee in the least. They also know that “Anybody But Hillary!” is not as inspirational to those of us on the right as “Anybody But Bush!” was to those on the Left. No one can tell me that John Kerry inspired Democrat-voters in 2004. Most of his votes, I believe, came from the “Anybody But Bush!” mentality. I don’t believe that will work for Rudy, if he got the GOP nomination. I know it doesn’t work for me. Especially when I don’t feel a Hillary Clinton Administration will be the end of this country as some Republicans keep yelling at me.
The mass media and the Clinton machine would easily
Michael in MI on December 1, 2007 at 6:13 PM
MB4, my “humorless” friend, argue all you wish against Rudy, or anyone, but never for Hillary, der Frauenteufel in Hosen.
Entelechy on December 1, 2007 at 6:13 PM
Hmm, my post got cutoff. Here’s the rest…
*****
The mass media and the Clinton machine would easilydestroy Rudy in the eyes of the American public if he won the GOP nomination. Easily.
And those who believe they can just discard social conservative voters, go ahead and nominate Rudy and see how well that goes for ya.
That’s like those who believe this country is pro-choice, but are still against overturning Roe v Wade. They know darn well the country is not pro-choice.
Same thing applies here. Most of the Republican base is socially conservative. If Republicans think they can survive without them, go ahead and see what happens. That isn’t a threat. I just find it humorous that the more desperate some people get to wanting the Republican Party to win at all costs, the more the mask comes off and people’s disdain for social conservatives is exposed.
I guess that “big-tent” is gone, huh?
Michael in MI on December 1, 2007 at 6:15 PM
Problem with Huck is he wants to pay for the education of illegal aliens with my tax dollars. That is an election loser. Compared to the Clintons, any faux pas Rudi has committed is so insignificant as to cause Hillary to concentrate on it, forgetting her own sins. Besides, only Mitt has Presidential hair, smile and personality.
Zelsdorf Ragshaft on December 1, 2007 at 6:21 PM
Yes, dear Sir, it will be – the end of the way you/we know this country. “Socialism, we embrace the”. After 8-12 years we’ll never recognize it again. Bill C. was nothing compared to this snooty, ‘deserving’, imperious, and wronged misanthrope.
Entelechy on December 1, 2007 at 6:23 PM
My long claws are out for only Rudycapocorrupto and Hucksterocchio.
To all the other Republicans, I am as just a pussy cat.
MB4 on December 1, 2007 at 6:28 PM
Mrs. Clinton, Messrs Obama, Edwards (especially), Richardson and Biden (after all the effort to add feaux hairs, one by one, to his busy head) will be disapointed.
Entelechy on December 1, 2007 at 6:29 PM
Entelechy on December 1, 2007 at 6:23 PM
I don’t believe that. The only way it can happen is if we, the People, allow it to happen. Congress, led by President Bush, attempted to push Amnesty on this country. We, the People, woke up and told our government “OH HELL NO YOU DON’T!” The same thing applies with a Hillary Clinton Administration. She will not be able to push socialism on this country unless We, the People, allow it. And if that happens, then we deserve it.
This country is not in the hands of a few politicians. It is in OUR hands. We, the People. We are responsible for what happens in this country. If the people do not stand up and fight (or write, e-mail, phone call, stand in protest) for that in which they believe, then the people get what they deserve. Simple as that.
No one is going to tell me to sacrifice that in which I believe by the threat that once someone is President, our country is over. That just tells me that 300 million Americans are slaves to the whims of one President and his/her henchmen? You cannot possibly believe such a thing about America.
Michael in MI on December 1, 2007 at 6:30 PM
And remember what happened two years after Clinton I was elected.
That worked out pretty good.
“Contract with America” and huge gains for Republican conservatives in both houses.
MB4 on December 1, 2007 at 6:31 PM
MB4 on December 1, 2007 at 6:31 PM
Exactly.
Michael in MI on December 1, 2007 at 6:33 PM
And I agree with you Michael. Hearing the facts and actual positions seem to be boring to some people, while one-liners and jokes are interesting. I’ve seen the term “socially conservative” and “fiscally conservative” bounced around here and other “conservative” blogs, but few will say that Fred is actually both. He has a keen understanding of the constitution and states rights. Rudy is fiscally conservative, but socially liberal; Romney is the same; Huckabee is fiscally liberal and socially conservative, on and on. Why do true conservatives not just go with both? Why must we further erode the conservative movement by electing liberals, whether fiscally or social? BTW, I am a Duncan Hunter supporter, so don’t label me as a Fred!ster. I am just trying to point out the differences between the top tier.
Neocon Peg on December 1, 2007 at 6:41 PM
Then we’ve already lost! Thats darned near blue on blue anyway.
Buzzy on December 1, 2007 at 6:46 PM
I’m so upset that Allah has decided to use his platform here as staging grounds for STOP RUDY 2008.
Allah, you’re trying your best to bury Rudy. I know you hate the Yankees and all, but this is getting absurd. Give the guy a chance.
Vincenzo on December 1, 2007 at 6:46 PM
Indeed, we do. There are more Pauls than Peters. The Congress will be more leftie, as it looks today – why, I don’t know because the libs haven’t done a thing to lead, either. If the People would use their brains, they’d clean house/s on both sides.
The shamnesty failure worked only with the current numbers in the Congress/Senate. With a veto-strong increase, and the devil in a pantsuit, it will be over. Some of you feel free to dream of 1994. I prefer to prevent having to go there. It’s like passing on pork – we never get it back, never. Entitlements create political whores. She’ll make sure of that.
Indeed, indeed. How I wish you’d be right. Every populace deserves its leader.
No one, especially not I, ask you to do that. I hold out hope that the Americans, at least 2/3 of them are still fully sane and will send her packing in Nov. of 2008. But, alas, I might be delusional. It’s extremely painful to see this America, at such a crossroad, and with such challenges, being handled during this too-long election cycle, by the media, and us, as a Hollywood production game show. We’re simply not serious.
Entelechy on December 1, 2007 at 6:49 PM
I like Duncan Hunter as well. I wish he was getting a fair shake in the mass media and among some of his so-called supporters. I can’t tell you how many times I have seen people say “I support Duncan Hunter, but it doesn’t look like he has a chance to win, so I am putting my support behind (1st Tier candidate X, Y or Z, who is completely different from Duncan Hunter)”.
Duncan Hunter is my #2 right now behind Fred Thompson. I would be happy with him as a VP choice as well (preferably to Fred Thompson of course).
Michael in MI on December 1, 2007 at 6:50 PM
Michael, that is like putting yourself in front of a firing squad and hoping that the people will rise up and protect you from execution. On the immigration issue 80% of Americans are against it. That was simple. Socialism is done incrementally and most people aren’t even aware of what is happening. She is a danger, especially if she has a Democratic Senate and House, and if she appoints enough Supreme Court justices. Laws will be passed with fancy names so the sheeple won’t know what is happening. And with the left-wing media behind them, they could do irreparable harm.
Neocon Peg on December 1, 2007 at 6:52 PM
Vincenzo on December 1, 2007 at 6:46 PM
I take issue with AllahPundit’s negative and pessimistic commentary from time to time, but I don’t see how pointing out facts about the candidates is equivalent to “burying” them.
Michael in MI on December 1, 2007 at 6:52 PM
Michael in MI, I’ve met Fred twice, once by chance in an airport, when I walked up to him and introduced myself, and recently at a San Diego concert. He is an incredible man. I’ll vote for whomever will be picked to go against her.
Neocon Peg on December 1, 2007 at 6:52 PM
Dearest Neocon Peg, great minds… :) Exactly, and concurrently. With fondness and best regards,
Entelechy on December 1, 2007 at 6:55 PM
I’d like to see that too, however, whoever is the candidate, he will need to choose a VP from a state that is badly needed by the Republicans to win, such as Ohio, etc., IMHO.
Neocon Peg on December 1, 2007 at 6:55 PM
Realitive “happiness”.
But no, a similar, well fairly similar, right of center blog then.
Most conservative commenters, except for myself and one other, did not think that Republicans would lose that much in 2006. So most all were relatively “happy”.
Even the two “grumpies”, the other guy and me, did not think that it would be as bad as it was.
Did most folks here think that it would be as bad as it was?
MB4 on December 1, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Yep
Entelechy on December 1, 2007 at 7:01 PM
I still support Rudy. I know most outside on NY don’t know what a person he was as mayor, but it was admirable on so many levels.
We need a President who will not follow suit. Political correctness is destroying us at home and abroad.
I still remeber when he tore up the Saudi’s check and the other time he threw Arafat out of Radio City, even though Clinton invited him.
These occurences are certainly not standard political fare.
awake on December 1, 2007 at 7:06 PM
Thanks! That means so much, especially coming from you, who I greatly respect.
Neocon Peg on December 1, 2007 at 7:09 PM
why do I feel that after 8 years of Comrade Hillary as CIC, it wont end at 8 years? it will be more like president for life Comrade Hillary????
mrfixit on December 1, 2007 at 7:10 PM
So then make most people aware. As I said, this is OUR country, not the politicians. Yes, this is corny, but I am going to use a quote from a movie:
From the statement of people who say that we must stop a Hillary Administration by voting for whichever Republican is on the ticket, instead of not being afraid of a Hillary Administration and having the confidence that we will stop bad policy by contacting our Representatives to make our voices heard… that tells me that we are too lazy to be responsible for our own country and we simply want to sit back and allow our leaders to rule us. Having Hillary Clinton as President means that we will have to work hard to make sure she does not enact socialism on us. So be it. That is our responsibility as citizens to be active in our country. It is OUR country afterall, not theirs. Not the media’s. Not the George Soros’. OURS.
However, having Rudy Giuliani makes it a little easier on us to be lazy and sit back and allow Rudy to run things. Even though he is not much different than Hillary, and we would actually have to work just as hard, but people would probably not think that we would.
But the general feeling I get is that people don’t want to work for this country. Yes, a Hillary Clinton Presidency will have its major, major problems. I don’t disagree there. I don’t want Hillary as our President. Not in the least. But I do not fear her either.
The only reason to fear one’s government is if one believes their fellow countrymen are lazy and will not stop their government from enacting bad policies on us. If that is the case, then your beef is not with Hillary, but your fellow lazy, apathetic countrymen. And if you want that to change, you must work to engage them, teach them and encourage them to get involved. As Rush Limbaugh says time and time again, an informed public is the best thing for this nation (paraphrasing there). But, it is up to us to do the informing, since we know our public education system and mass media are failing at that.
Personal responsibility, people. We are the nation formed by a Revolution. We are the nation of the Boston Tea Party. We are the nation of our own Civil War, fought for states rights. We are the nation of the Civil Rights movement, the Women’s suffrage movement. We are a nation with a history of people who took it upon themselves to force their government to change.
Where has that attitude gone? Why are some people now not interested in personally getting involved to enact change in this country? Or getting involved to stop change from being enacted on us by our politicians?
This is our country. We don’t exist simply to vote people into power. Those people in power only exist in their positions to serve us and protect our freedoms. But they will not do that if we don’t hold them responsible for their duties.
Hillary has to answer to the people of this country just like anyone else. She cannot abuse any powers without our consent. The only reason to fear her Presidency is if you fear the people of this country don’t care enough of this country to fight for it. And if that is the case, then we have much bigger problems than Hillary Clinton.
Michael in MI on December 1, 2007 at 7:10 PM
Back then there was a web site where one could choose who they thought was the likely winner for each and every single up seat in both houses.
People registered as to which blog they got to that site from and total overall results were kept by the “referring” blog and grand total results were shown per each blog.
Did Hotair participate in that?
MB4 on December 1, 2007 at 7:10 PM
mrfixit on December 1, 2007 at 7:11 PM
drat….
YES
mrfixit on December 1, 2007 at 7:11 PM
Neocon Peg on December 1, 2007 at 7:09 PM
That’s it – I quit :) It’s mutual. Always read what you have to say, and enjoy. We must keep our steely nerves; or our nerves steely?
Entelechy on December 1, 2007 at 7:12 PM
i’ve said it before… i would not vote for Rudy.
his talk on how NY was not a sanctuary city but provided medical services and free education to them only solidifies my stance.
madmonkphotog on December 1, 2007 at 7:18 PM
A few days ago the Giuliani campaign offered to sell me a photo of Rudolph and Judith for as little as $25.00. For $2,500 I could have one autographed.
As much as I would just love to have a signed photo of a philanderer and his slut hanging in my parlor, I had to, reluctantly, decline.
To me, he is kind of like McCain and Lieberman; Half of what he does and says, I just have to stand up and cheer, and respect the guy. The other half, unfortunately completely negates everything admirable, leaving you with a mediocre political opportunist who will do at least as much harm as good if you let him have the power.
I won’t say that I will refuse to give him my vote if he gets the nomination…. But it will be one of the most difficult ‘hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils’ that I have ever done; and no way in hades will I help him get that nomination.
LegendHasIt on December 1, 2007 at 7:18 PM
It is asleep or out shopping.
A Carter presidency woke those on the right up.
A Clinton presidency woke those on the right up.
A Bush presidency woke those on the left up.
Maybe a Hillary presidency would wake those on the right up.
That seems to be the pattern of things anyway.
MB4 on December 1, 2007 at 7:18 PM
Michael in MI on December 1, 2007 at 7:10 PM
Just to clarify, I am not advocating revolution or civil war. I am advocating people getting actively involved with the political process and holding politicians accountable – through e-mail, writing letters, visiting their local headquarters and making your voice heard, calling their local and national offices to make your voice heard, writing the local papers to submit letters to the editor, etc.
And not just personally, but encouraging others to do it as well. Encouraging others to realize that this is our nation and the politicians answer to us, not the other way around. Inspiring people that they do make a difference. That standing in line 2 hours to cast their vote does make a difference and is worth it. That taking 30 minutes of their day to write a letter, write an e-mail, make a phone call, write a Letter to the Editor, make an office visit to their Rep… it all makes a difference.
This victim mentality that we are all donefor with a Hillary Presidency just sounds to me like how the Left talks about President Bush. And it’s ridiculous.
Hillary is not evil incarnate and is not going to personally destroy this country. Come on, that kind of talk sounds like what the Left has been saying about President Bush for the last 6 years.
This is OUR country. Let’s stop with the victimhood mentality and start inspiring each other to take some personal responsibility for our country. Let’s inspire our fellow countrymen to get involved and make a difference. Educate others. Inform others. Of the issues and where each candidate stands and encourage them to vote for the candidate which most closely aligns with their views. No, don’t yell at them to vote for your candidate if they don’t hold the same views as you do. That is not inspiring and that is not what freedom in this country is about. The goal is to have more informed citizens of this country involved in the political process. Our country can only benefit from that.
But our country does not benefit from fear-mongering. And that is just what the “Anybody but Hillary!” talk is about. And I am sorry, but I cannot subscribe to that philosophy.
Michael in MI on December 1, 2007 at 7:24 PM
You write so beautifully. It pains me to tell you that this is the state of our country today.
I fear her. And so should all who love to make their own choices, in all aspects of their lives.
I think you should run for office, I’m very serious about this.
Indeed, we have bigger problems than her. Sadly, that’s the state of our country, unless something drastic changes btw. now and Nov. ‘08. And much can change by then, from so many standpoints. Right now we’re fat, not-that-unhappy, or happy, and apathetic.
Michael in MI on December 1, 2007 at 7:10 PM
MiM, your comments are wonderful and your writing is impeccable.
I’d much rather we not have to test this and wake up to a nightmare, from which we’d never recover.
Entelechy on December 1, 2007 at 7:31 PM
10-4.
MB4 on December 1, 2007 at 7:34 PM
She won’t destroy it because “she’s not evil incarnate” – she’ll destroy it by being power-obsessed and ideologically socialist. By the time we wake up it will be too late.
10-4 or Roger each other all you wish. Best put all that energy into preventing her presidency; that’s all I’m trying to say.
Entelechy on December 1, 2007 at 7:38 PM
We have nothing to fear but fear itself.
- Franklin D. Roosevelt
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil for I am the meanest son-of-a-&itch in the valley.
- Conan the Barbarian
MB4 on December 1, 2007 at 7:39 PM
We have nothing to fear but Hillary herself.
- Someone or Another
Entelechy on December 1, 2007 at 7:43 PM
That is what we are trying to do, by
saving the cheerleaderstopping Rudycapocorrupto and Hucksterocchio.First things first.
MB4 on December 1, 2007 at 7:43 PM
Absolutely agree with that 100%. It’s an imperative. See it as the culmination of the ideological struggle of our time.
JiangxiDad on December 1, 2007 at 7:49 PM
Frank Luntz’s REAL republican voter group chose Fred the winner of the CNN/Ytube debate- BEFORE ANY PUNDITS got to’em.
He also mentioned that EVERY Rudy supporter changed their vote by the end og the debate. EVERY ONE, FOLKS.
No GOP voters left in that room supportin’ Rudy once they were forced to actually listen to his positions. And, by the way, Huck was WAY down at the bottom too.
THAT’S WHAT REAL FOLKS WITH NO AGENDA THOUGHT.
Ex-tex on December 1, 2007 at 7:55 PM
I do.
rockhauler on December 1, 2007 at 8:16 PM
Entelechy – What I am trying to say, in an unfortunately very verbose way, is that preventing a Hillary Clinton Presidency does not solve the problems of this country. And, in addition to that, if we focus on educating and informing the American public, we won’t have to worry about stopping future socialist candidates, because our citizens will never allow them to even be viable candidates. The reason we are even faced with a viable candidacy of Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama is because the citizens of this country are ignorant, apathetic and lazy. If a Republican wins the Presidency in 2009, thus keeping Hillary out, that will not change.
Unless, the focus is put on educating and informing the public instead of “Anybody but Hillary!” I guess I am more concerned with the long term status of this country than I am with the short-term. Focusing too much on short-term at the expense of long-term success is not going to do us much good.
The focus should be on the message. The message for most, I believe, is conservatism is the best political ideology for America. As Rush always says, Conservatism wins every time it is tried. (Or something like that). In other words, there is no need to change the message from Conservatism to “We Gotta Beat Hillary!” Conservatism stands on its own. It is more attractive than socialism so long as people understand it.
The message of “Hillary will destroy us!” is not a positive message that promotes conservatism and its values for this nation. And it does nothing to help people understand why conservatism works better than socialism. Instead of inciting hatred and fear of Hillary, how about we inpire excitement and faith in conservatism.
I subscribe to the view that people attack their opponents when their message cannot stand on its own. A strong message of conservative principles and values, explained in an articulate manner to the American people, will win. There is no need to instill fear in people.
Besides, what are you going to do if Hillary wins? Then all the people who you just told the country is going to end if she becomes President are now depressed and think the world has come to an end. How are those people then going to be inspired to fight for this country? They heard you tell them for the entire year leading up to the election that if she wins, it’s over. So they take that to its logical conclusion and say, well, it’s over, time to just give up and usher in socialism.
My way inspires people to believe in conservative principles and values. Those principles and values don’t go away with political losses. They didn’t go away with the 2006 Congressional losses. They won’t go away with a loss in 2008 either. It will just mean that we need to continue to get our message out to the American people. And since people are now rallied around Conservatism instead of “Beat Hillary in 2008!”, there is still something for which to fight.
“Beat your opponent!” is not a good ideology. Whether for politics or for life. The best statesmen ran/run on ideas, not on fear-mongering. The Left accuses the Right of fear-mongering about terrorism, especially during the 2004 election. Maybe some people believed that, but there was also a message about freedom, liberty, liberation and spreading democracy to the people of the Middle East. Now, whether people thought that was sincere or not, I dunno. But that was a positive message. It was not all just “Beat the Democrats, because they will destroy this country!”
Don’t misunderstand. I think it is good to point out the problems with our political opponents. But that cannot be the only message. I work for an American auto-maker. I can’t sell my product simply by saying ‘Toyota sucks’. Someone can just say, ‘okay, fine I’ll just go buy Nissan. Well they suck too! Fine I’ll just go buy Volkswagon’. No, I have to explain to them why my company’s car is best. Explain our focus on quality, our focus on fuel efficiency, our focus on safety, etc. That positive message sells people. And then when they see that what you sold them is actually what they got, they will want to continue coming back.
Same thing goes here. Sell conservatism to the American people. Show how it works. Show how it has worked throughout history. Point out the drawbacks of socialism. And then allow people to make their choices. But the key is to stay positive. A lot of people are turned off just by the negative message alone, even if the substance is good. People may agree with you that Hillary is bad, but what happens when they say, ‘fine I’ll vote for Obama’? Sure, you got them to not vote for Hillary, but we didn’t gain a long-term believer in conservatism.
The message of conservatism is a winner. There’s no need to fear.
Michael in MI on December 1, 2007 at 8:17 PM
If you think in terms of a year, plant a seed; if in terms of ten years, plant trees; if in terms of 100 years, teach the people.
- Confucius
MB4 on December 1, 2007 at 8:33 PM
When it is obvious that the goals cannot be reached, don’t adjust the goals, adjust the action steps.
- Confucius
MB4 on December 1, 2007 at 8:37 PM
Cool. Great to hear that.
CrimsonFisted on December 1, 2007 at 8:38 PM
…so its settled then – we’re voting for Ron Paul?
what?
amish on December 1, 2007 at 8:39 PM
It’s about time people started realizing that Giuliani isn’t a conservative.
Romney ‘08!
davenp35 on December 1, 2007 at 8:40 PM
I’ve never gotten the whole Ron Paul thing. I guess the “trilateral commission” conspiracy crowd was just a waitin’ to get back into politics. Maybe the Clinton Crime Family is pushing him so the Republicans can get “Perot-ed” again.
Mojave Mark on December 1, 2007 at 8:46 PM
Hmm, so you’re a global warmer – then you must be a true conservative : )
Rick on December 1, 2007 at 8:50 PM
MB4 on December 1, 2007 at 8:37 PM
Thanks, I like those.
I always liked that saying that’s something like “Tell someone how to do something,… Show someone how to Do something,… Allow someone to do something and they learn.” I can’t remember exactly how it goes, but it is something like that. I’ve always liked that though.
I also have this quote from General Patton up at my desk at work:
“Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.”
Michael in MI on December 1, 2007 at 9:06 PM
Heheh, exactly. :)
Unfortunately, our big boss man is a tree-hugger and the company is big on stressing “diversity”. Can’t tell you how annoying are the weekly company-wide e-mails stressing these things.
Michael in MI on December 1, 2007 at 9:08 PM
I’m not scared of Hillary! Rudy is my guy, but if he’s not nominated I’ll stand behind whomever is.
SouthernGent on December 1, 2007 at 9:21 PM
Give a person a fish and they will eat for a day. Teach them how to fish, and they will eat for a lifetime
- – Chinese Proverb
Give a person a fish and you feed them for a day; teach that person to use the Internet and they won’t bother you for weeks.
– Author Unknown
Entelechy on December 1, 2007 at 9:28 PM
I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand.
- Confucius
MB4 on December 1, 2007 at 9:32 PM
Michael make your point with fewer words please.
MB4 your bias is clear. Make your point with fewer posts please.
I am going to let you all in on a little secret. It’s already over. Rudy is the nominee. He will loose the early states (bid deal — the delegates are halfed), but unless Mitt sweeps them all, Rudy strolls to the nomination. Rudy is up by almost 17 points in Florida. All he needs to do is hold onto that states to go into Super Duper Ultra Mega Tuesday with the lead in delegates, where he is way up in all the huge delegate rich states.
Socons, wise up. Rudy is attempting to court you. He is kissing your arse. Now is the time to get committments from him. If you scorn him, he will still get elected without you. Then were will you be — outside the tent totally. He has already promised you judges, he has satisfied Pat Robertson. The train is leaving the station. All aboard!!!!
tommylotto on December 1, 2007 at 9:32 PM
MB4 on December 1, 2007 at 9:32 PM
Thank you. That’s the one.
Michael in MI on December 1, 2007 at 9:35 PM
Build a man a fire, he will be warm for a night, set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
- Sun Tzu’s Nephew
MB4 on December 1, 2007 at 9:36 PM
I’m getting REAL tired of hearing this. You are spouting pure BS to claim that only a liberal Republican can beat the candidate with more skeletons in their closet than ANYONE running for president. You’re putting way too much faith in the female vote. She will not get the south versus Huck or Fred. She will be battling for the heartland with Mitt, Huck, McCain, or Fred. The southwest will be largely up for grabs.
And we still haven’t seen all the surprises for both sides yet. DROP. THE. RHETORIC.
MadisonConservative on December 1, 2007 at 9:40 PM
tommylotto kiss Rudycapocorrupto’s butt with fewer words please.
tommylotto your bias is clear. Make your rudycapocorrupto butt kissing with fewer posts please.
MB4 on December 1, 2007 at 9:41 PM
So what is that? A threat? You’re saying if social conservatives don’t give their unconditional endorsement, he’ll get even MORE liberal once in office?
Wow…that’s a man I want to vote for. *gag*
MadisonConservative on December 1, 2007 at 9:43 PM
Wy do you keep spouting this crap?
Rudycapocorrupto may win the Rep nom, but he will not win the general.
If he by some chance he does, like if Hillary does something real stupid, Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater will both come back from the dead and strangle him.
MB4 on December 1, 2007 at 9:47 PM
Michael, your words are just fine. I wouldn’t shorten your post by a single one.
rockhauler on December 1, 2007 at 9:50 PM
Michael in MI, thanks for your posts in this thread. They provide a great outline for a PhD on “Conservatism beats Socialism”.
I also appreciate your positive outlook for the long run. In love and politics all being fair, I approve of more than an idealistic message to win. I worry more for the shorter term of selecting the best candidate, and then focus on winning ‘08, no matter who is on both tickets. If not, idealism will turn into much nihilism.
I heard/read all your (not you personally) arguments in the summer/fall of 2006. Beginning with election night, the same crowds began to lament the ‘leadership’ and state of our Congress. It hasn’t stopped, and what have we gained?
No need to attempt to enlighten or encourage me on conservatism. I am the epitome of anti-communism/socialism. My worries are with the American voters you so aptly describe. There is no time to educate so many in such a short time. I agree that whoever runs should apply all which you said. But after the primaries, we can’t sit at home in the name of idealism. Our idealism can hurt us as much as Hillary’s can hurt us, in different ways.
What will I do if she wins? One thing I will not do is move to Canada or Europe, that I assure you of. I will be right here assessing the ‘progress’, and watching those of you who won’t vote in ‘08, because your guy didn’t make it, spit bile. She can’t hurt me too much, for many reasons. I worry more for our country and the world, than I do about myself.
I could spend the evening in dialog with most of the lines you wrote, though it w/b futile because you’re already speaking to someone who’s on your side.
2008 is a pivotal election because the balance between capitalism and the forces pulling toward socialism is only hair-thin. Strangely, the richest of the lefties are doing the pulling, because it won’t affect them. The sheeple who will vote for them don’t know that they’re being fooled and exploited.
MiM, I work with hundreds of people, different people, every week. Many are mesmerized by my life story, including the professional one, admire my free spirit, some wish to emulate it, are inspired by what I’ve done and continue to do, I help them seek opportunities where they saw none, ever. Yet, many are blindly going to vote for Hillary because she’ll ‘give them freebies’. I’m not negative, just realistic enough to assess human nature.
I want to hope that the Americans will, when the knife is close to the bone, always do what’s right. I just don’t want us to try all the other options first, not in this time of the WoT, and being on the cusp toward socialism like never before.
Entelechy on December 1, 2007 at 10:09 PM
I sure hope Rudy isn’t giving us a million little fibs to cover a million little flubs because if he is, that’s the end of the program.
Raalf
Speakup on December 1, 2007 at 10:14 PM
Build a man a fire, he will be warm for a night, attend Mark Twain’s funeral, and have the certidude that he will be warm for the rest of his life.
- – Entelechy
I think I commented on this before – I watched a 2 hrs impersonation of Mark Twain a few years ago, on stage, which was hilarious. He was, supposedly always cold, and complained to the town’s minister that he was afraid that he’d be cold after his death; to which the minister said something like “where you’re going, I wouldn’t worry about it”.
Entelechy on December 1, 2007 at 10:15 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »