Yet More Republican `I'm not gay` Hijinks

[StrykerFSU]

Bill Clinton might have got a bj in the White House but he did not kick his wife out and move Lewinski in.

Has the Mayor committed perjury or obstructed justice to hide his infidelity? Not that it is relevant.

As the son of divorced parents, I don't think that it is acceptable for others to judge what happens during trying times such as those. Admittedly, I am in the minority when it comes to that opinion.

[KnoxVegas]

I would accept that argument, had Guiliani been living in a residence that he was paying for himself, rather than one funded by tax payers.

For the record: Bloomberg lives in his own personal residence.

[CATLAX MAN]

But Bill never made public speeches like the GOP hypocites on the House Judiciary Committee did during the Impeachment hearings, condemning the immorality of Clinton's actions while carrying on their own adulterous hidden lives.

Just to play devil's advocate here, Bill did not make any public speeches, but didn't he testify under oath that "he did not have sex" with that woman....... depending on what the definition of "is" is? Seems to me that perjury is a bigger offense than hypocrisy..........not that there's anything wrong with that.

[OAKS]

Seems to me that perjury is a bigger offense than hypocrisy

It really depends. I think hypocrisy is a much bigger offense in this example, as his hypocrisy applies to years of voting for and against laws, whereas what exactly did perjury in the Clinton case affect? I think it was wrong, yes, but in my opinion it matters much less in the long run.

[CATLAX MAN]

The problem is that perjury is a crime. Hyprocisy is not.

[peterwho]

The problem is that perjury is a crime. Hyprocisy is not.

I seem to recall a HUGE outcry recently over a case involving perjury.

I believe that this was an important issue with some segment of the population in that case.

Wouldn't it be hypocratic to beat the drum there and not here?

[KnoxVegas]

I am not saying that perjury is not serious. What I am saying is that Republicans and Democrats alike pick and choose what issues they are willing to tolerate in order to meet their agendas.

All I am saying is that Giuliani has just a shady a past with the ladies that President Clinton has. But it looks like Republicans are willing to look the other way on that where they were not able to on Clinton.

Clinton is seen as a Washington Insider where former lobbyist and senator Fred Thompson is not by the Republicans. Democrats are part of the Hollywood elite but Ronald Reagan (former president of the Screen Actors Guild), Sonny Bono and Fred Thompson are all view in one way or another with esteem in the Republican party.

I think that Sen Biden had the line of the debate on Tuesday:

"And the irony is, Rudy Giuliani, probably the most underqualified man since George Bush to seek the presidency, is here talking about any of the people here. Rudy Giuliani... I mean, think about it! Rudy Giuliani. There's only three things he mentions in a sentence -- a noun, a verb, and 9/11.There's nothing else! There's nothing else! And I mean this sincerely. He's genuinely not qualified to be president."

Now that the President is acting like a little kid in recent speeches claiming that Congress is wasting his time with oversight and frivolous bills is interesting since the rubber stamp Congress he had the first six years of his administration gave him everything. Also, the fear speak is reentering the speeches where by if Congress does not send him the right bills, then the terrorist will kill us. Also, if Congress does not stop wasting the people's time with the approval vote for the AG nominee, the terrorists will win.

Ask yourself, are you better of today than you were seven years ago?

[StrykerFSU]

As pointed out by Dennis Miller, when the Democrats start using the national tragedy of 9/11 as a punchline you know they have lost touch. Was he all out of Holocaust jokes?

[KnoxVegas]

What happened to the flag and anti-gay marriage amendments to the Constitution that the Republicans promised? I guess that those are no longer in the top three threats to the American people.

As for 9/11 as a punchline, if Giuliani and the rest of the fearmongers did not use it so much (after promising not to politize that day and the events that took place on and after) then maybe there would not be anything to mock and Biden was not mocking the people who died on that day, only one of the stooges that chooses to bring us all back to that horrible day SEVEN YEARS AGO every time they give a speech or talk to the cameras.

Time was in this country we looked to the future and hop and for seven years, we have been reminded of the past and the dread. We are a great country and can do great things, if only our leadership would lead us instead of making us fear all the day time. This administration is not about hope and the future; it is about fear and depression, no-bid contracts, prolonged wars and scuttling every bit of diplomacy that took place on behalf of this country in the 50 years prior to them coming to power.

Again, I ask you: Are you better off today than you were seven years ago?

How is your supply of duct tape coming along?

[peterwho]

Ask yourself, are you better of today than you were seven years ago?

Good question. My answer is "no".

Ironically, you made fun of the President pointing out part of the answer:

...Congress is wasting time with oversight and frivolous bills...

That's the problem. No one in office, today, seems to be willing to DO anything to solve the problems facing the country. Our govenment hasn't accomplished anything since the last election. We got what we voted for - we elected a Congress that ran on a platform to oppose the President.

We have to look at the next election and ask ourselves, "What will these people DO once they take office?" Otherwise, we'll have the same answer to KnoxVegas' question in another 4 years.

[Rob Graff]

But Cliff - need everything be viewed through a prism of fear of terrorism? When I hear Rudy talk, all I hear is " Be afraid If I'm not elected - because the terrorists will come back". And that's not enough for me. And, I think, many others. When Rudy speaks, I don't hear about the mortgage crisis. I don't hear about the declining dollar. I don't hear about Health Care. I don't hear about the polarization of economic classes. I don't hear about the safety of goods we import. I don't hear about Russia's growing aggressive tendancies (internally and externally). I don't hear about how we are going to manage our relationship with China. I don't hear about ANYTHING but terrorism/security issues (except of course when Rudy is attempting to distinguish remarks he'd previoulsy made on the record about abortion). And while in classical theory, the primary goal of the nation state is to protect its citizens, I don't think that in today's modern world that "protection" of citizens can be limited in defintion to JUST protection against terrorists.

We (purportedly) live in a free society. And by definition, free societies are fraught with risk and danger. We either accept that because we live in a free society we face an increased risk to our person - - even if we support our law enforcement with the proper amount of funds and powers (within the ambit of the Constitution - no "likely probably cause" standard thank you very much) or we decide that we will live in an totalitarian state. There is little "middle ground" for me in this debate.

The safest societies in terms of every day crime statistics are totalitarian based - why? - Because totalitarian governements cannot tolerrate a rival such as organized crime or an organized political rival can become. Thus individual privacy is stripped away in order to preclude a threat to the state. The by-product is a drastic reduction in crime.

The beauty - again, to me - of our democracy is that by allowing people to disagree, AND VOICE THOSE DISAGREEMENTS, we never force a different point of view to become radicalized in order for their message to be heard. This lessens the risk of whole groups of people feeling forced to turn to widespread violence in order to be heard. But one of the requirements necessary to allow people to hold and voice disagreements is the necessary elimination of intrusive government "watching your every move" laws and agencies. And thus, open societies are by definition less "safe" - we don't allow "watchers" to "watch everyone" for incidents of "bad think".

But Rudy's not the only one that does what Rudy does - See Donald Rumsfeld's "snowflake" memos on "Ratcheting up" people's fear.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/31/AR2007103103095.html?hpid=topnews[/i]

[peterwho]

fearmongers

For me: fearmonger = politician

That is their most potent weapon. It knows no party affiliation.

"If you elect my opponent, your Social Security will be..."

"If you elect my opponent, you'll have to chose between food and your prescriptions."

"If you elect my opponent, you'll have to chose between lower property taxes and police protection."

It is time to hold our elected officials accountable for their actions or lack thereof.

[StrykerFSU]

Rob, you bring up some excellent points and as we near the respective primaries I believe that more aspects of Mayor Giuliani's program will receive attention. Of course let's be honest, how many people vote across party lines these days? No matter what he says, are you going to be punching his chad? (rhetorically)

I personally like Rudy because, in my opinion, he showed outstanding leadership at a time of national crisis, arguably more than our President. I saw how he cleaned up NYC, both financially and in terms of general livability. I'll stop there because you certainly don't win converts via message boards and I'm no activist.

I did think it was interesting that Joe Biden took time out of a Democratic Party debate to attack a Republican candidate. Of course, they all take shots at Bush but I don't understand what political gain they hope to get from attacking Republicans. They aren't even running against Rudy yet! Because Biden is not a viable candidate, did he pull the short straw and get selected to take pot shots against someone not even there to defend himself?

As for terms like fear monger and cracks about duct tape etc., I don't have much use for them. I believe that Rudy brings up that day because 9/11 was the defining moment for a generation and his most shining moment as a leader, not as a tool to instill fear in the electorate. Further, I don't necessarily agree with the manner with which the President has prosecuted the fight against terrorism but that does not mean that a threat does not exist. I know that it is politically advantageous to down play any terrorist threat or attack because to do so is to down play not only the President but also any potential Republican candidate as Republicans are viewed as stronger in national security matters than Democrats. Interestingly, Hillary is easily the most hawkish of the Democrats' candidates and she is the clear cut front runner.

We all have the issues that are important to us and only the truly lucky can find a candidate with whom they agree on everything. The rest of us have to find the best of whomever is out there.

[KnoxVegas]

Ironically, you made fun of the President pointing out part of the answer:

...Congress is wasting time with oversight and frivolous bills...

I don't find this ironic, since he was left unchecked for so long. There is $9 Billion missing in Iraq. $9 Billion and the best answer that was given from the administration was that if you wanted first-world accounting, they needed the infrastructure to do that. Huh?

That's the problem. No one in office, today, seems to be willing to DO anything to solve the problems facing the country. Our govenment hasn't accomplished anything since the last election. We got what we voted for - we elected a Congress that ran on a platform to oppose the President.

We have to look at the next election and ask ourselves, "What will these people DO once they take office?"

I agree with this. I have been around politics all my life. I was out of the country back in 2000 but watched the news reports and saw who Bush was surrounding himself with and just kept saying to myself "Am I possibly the only one that sees that he is surrounding himself with the same guys we voted out with his father eight years ago?' I guess I was.

I would expect the office of President to lead, not bicker. Neither Bush nor Congress looks good for is doing nothing. The people seem to have lost confidence in both and where then are we for the future? Start thinking people for yourselves. Get involved and make a change. Look what apathy can lead to.

As for my fearmongers comment, the more I watch V for Vendetta the more I am reminded of what our near future could be like.

[Dan Wishengrad]

I did think it was interesting that Joe Biden took time out of a Democratic Party debate to attack a Republican candidate. Of course, they all take shots at Bush but I don't understand what political gain they hope to get from attacking Republicans. They aren't even running against Rudy yet! Because Biden is not a viable candidate, did he pull the short straw and get selected to take pot shots against someone not even there to defend himself?

ROFL (Rolling on the floor laughing)

Cliff, have you watched any of the Republican debates? All they do is argue amongst themselves who will be better than Hillary. Over and over and over and over. Yes, Biden brought up Rudy at the Dems debate (and he gave us a memorable line by doing it.

So, if we're keeping score that's one mention in a Democratic debate about one of the Republican candidates and 5,983,004 mentions of a Democratic candidate during the Republican debates. Unless I missed it, Sen. Clinton is not present to defend herself while ALL the GOPers take pot shots at her.