Why would Giuliani be any better than Bush?

[Darth Rotor]

Depends on whether he runs on the classic right-wing "family values" shtick.

How comfortable he is with hypocrisy is relevant to his suitability for presidency.

I see. Last I read, about a half of American marriages ended in divorce or similar sundering, but according to you, Rudy must to be taken to task for not being able to navigate through that shoal water in life on the basis of some ephemeral "hypocrisy."

FFS, here's a hint: raise the bar, and take a look at what is substantive about his attitudes and policy, not about his trouble (along with millions of others) of making a marriage work.

I don't doubt that he wished his marriages hadn't broken up, or gone on the rocks, but his ambition to succeed in politics may have had a place in that. He, like many others, doubtless thinks that a stable marriage and a stable family life is a good thing. He failed to achieve that balance.

He won't be the first, nor will he be the last. For my money, how he handled his second divorce/break up was classless, and public, and a mark against him, not that his marriage failed.

It is getting rather tiresome to see the loose use of "hypocrite" used when one is looking for an excuse to disagree with someone else, or someone's position.

Do you want another neoconservative front man as president? That is who and what Rudy is. His marriage troubles hardly matter. His ability, or inability, to sell his soap to the hard right wing of evangelical strain is his problem to solve. He either succeeds, or he fails.

Do you vote for him? Yes or no?

Why?

If your reason for "no" is "he's a hypocrite," then you seem doomed to stay home on election day, as politicians tend to traffic in that substance.

DR

 

[Oliver]

Why on God's green Earth is he leading the mainstream polls?
For what reason would ANYBODY be in favor of him?
What did I miss here?

These are serious questions ... there's no logic at all for being
in favor of Giuliani...

ETA: ...unless... YOU`RE GAY!!1!!

 

[Upchurch]

Why would Giuliani be any better than Bush?

Which Giuliani? Pre-9/11 Giuliani or Presidential Candidate Giuliani?

 

[Beerina]

Could it be possible for the Republicans to be any more out of step with America? When the entire Washington establishment is polling as low as it is, and with Bush's job approval rating being as low as Nixon's when he resigned, why would anyone campaign on the promise of doing more of what America has very clearly rejected?

They have rejected the poor performance much more than the high level plan. But hope springs eternal, and a change of guys might be seen as bringing new insight. It may be a more palatable alternative, to the voting masses, than the cut-and-run of the other candidates.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Why on God's green Earth is he leading the mainstream polls?

The numbers added up, and he had the most.

For what reason would ANYBODY be in favor of him? What did I miss here?

The alternatives didn't look good enough to enough people.

These are serious questions ... there's no logic at all for being in favor of Giuliani...

Sure there is. If you are from New York, and conservative, and you liked his act as mayor of New York, and you like his ideas on how America ought to look in a few years, he may be your boy.

If you are from Germany, maybe not.

I am from Texas, and Rudy ain't my boy. But there is a rationale to be for him, whether or not you, or I, disagree with the choice.

DR

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

I see. Last I read, about a half of American marriages ended in divorce or similar sundering, but according to you, Rudy must to be taken to task for not being able to navigate through that shoal water in life on the basis of some ephemeral "hypocrisy."

FFS, here's a hint: raise the bar, and take a look at what is substantive about his attitudes and policy, not about his trouble (along with millions of others) of making a marriage work.

I don't doubt that he wished his marriages hadn't broken up, or gone on the rocks, but his ambition to succeed in politics may have had a place in that. He, like many others, doubtless thinks that a stable marriage and a stable family life is a good thing. He failed to achieve that balance.

He won't be the first, nor will he be the last. For my money, how he handled his second divorce/break up was classless, and public, and a mark against him, not that his marriage failed.

It is getting rather tiresome to see the loose use of "hypocrite" used when one is looking for an excuse to disagree with someone else, or someone's position.

Do you want another neoconservative front man as president? That is who and what Rudy is. His marriage troubles hardly matter. His ability, or inability, to sell his soap to the hard right wing of evangelical strain is his problem to solve. He either succeeds, or he fails.

Do you vote for him? Yes or no?

Why?

If your reason for "no" is "he's a hypocrite," then you seem doomed to stay home on election day, as politicians tend to traffic in that substance.

DR

First of all, the fact that he has failed marriages is not something that would personally sway my vote, or affect how good a president I’d think he’d be. I disagree with his politics, but that’s neither here nor there.

Let’s try an analogy. A candidate claims they stand for science. Then you learn they use homeopathy, consult their personal Tarot reader, and believe in intelligent design. Would you respect their claims of “standing for science”? Wouldn’t you call them a hypocrite? Would you want such a hypocrite in a position of political power?

 

[Oliver]

The numbers added up, and he had the most.

The alternatives didn't look good enough to enough people.

Sure there is. If you are from New York, and conservative, and you liked his act as mayor of New York, and you like his ideas on how America ought to look in a few years, he may be your boy.

If you are from Germany, maybe not.

I am from Texas, and Rudy ain't my boy. But there is a rationale to be for him, whether or not you, or I, disagree with the choice.

DR

And what did he achieve as Mayor?

That the City didn't burn down?
That Aliens didn't invade?
That Terrorists didn't attack?
That taxes vanished from the face of the planet?
That morality spread all over the city?
That Earth didn't crack in two pieces?
That crime doesn't exist anymore?

Sorry, but I learned nothing about him that would convince me
to the slightest degree. And the same is true concerning his
answers in the presidential debates...

 

[Darth Rotor]

First of all, the fact that he has failed marriages is not something that would personally sway my vote, or affect how good a president I’d think he’d be. I disagree with his politics, but that’s neither here nor there.

Let’s try an analogy. A candidate claims they stand for science. Then you learn they use homeopathy, consult their personal Tarot reader, and believe in intelligent design. Would you respect their claims of “standing for science”? Wouldn’t you call them a hypocrite? Would you want such a hypocrite in a position of political power?

You might want to try another reading of my post. The message may have been blurry, given the flavoring of sarcasm, so to restate the point: at the political level, finding one who isn't a hypocrite by your criterion is a near impossiblity.

"Claims to stand for science."

Is Science now a political party? Is it possible that No True Scientist would do other than sneer publicly at homeopathy? Is your set up absurd enough to make me sad? Yes. I infer from your set up that you'd condemn someone over that issue. Are you another of those useless one issue voters? (I sincerely hope not, and given your postings to date, doubt it. The set up was I think for illustrative purposes.)

Ryan, who are you going to vote for? Nobody? In politics, finding someone "pure" is unlikely.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

And what did he achieve as Major?
Sorry, but I learned nothing about him that would convince me
to the slightest degree.

Why don't you ask a Giuliani fan to enumerate Rudy's wonders and glories as mayor? Since I won't vote for him, you are asking the wrong person to stand up for him. That doesn't mean a fan of his is not using logic.

Hey, Oliver, the word is Mayor. Learn to use it properly.

DR

 

[Oliver]

Why don't you ask a Giuliani fan to enumerate Rudy's wonders and glories as mayor? Since I won't vote for him, you are asking the wrong person to stand up for him. That doesn't mean a fan of his is not using logic.

Hey, Oliver, the word is Mayor. Learn to use it properly.

DR

Well - I asked the Bullyani supporters in here. I have no Idea
why you felt like being asked ... And thanks for the tip.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

You might want to try another reading of my post. The message may have been blurry, given the flavoring of sarcasm, so to restate the point: at the political level, finding one who isn't a hypocrite by your criterion is a near impossiblity.

"Claims to stand for science."

Is Science now a political party? Is it possible that No True Scientist would do other than sneer publicly at homeopathy? Is your set up absurd enough to make me sad? Yes. I infer from your set up that you'd condemn someone over that issue. Are you another of those useless one issue voters? (I sincerely hope not, and given your postings to date, doubt it. The set up was I think for illustrative purposes.)

Ryan, who are you going to vote for? Nobody? In politics, finding someone "pure" is unlikely.

DR

I admit I’m struggling to understand your position (for which I accept full blame). For instance, I don’t see what my personal politics has to do with the matters at hand -- namely, whether Guiliani is hypocritical if he runs on “family values,” and whether that should make a difference to voters.

I fully agree that all politicians exhibit hypocrisy. All humans do. Perhaps I get more upset with “family values” hypocrites than other kinds; if that’s the problem, we can focus on that.

Let's say for starters that I'm pretty suspicious of anyone running on family values, exactly for the reasons you state -- no one can claim to fully live by them, and they’re irrelevant to being a president. So why do people run on them? All my speculation on this comes up ugly. Which is why I’m dubious of all such candidates where ever they are on the spectrum.


Now, if I may, a question for you. Would no amount of hypocrisy turn you off a candidate, regardless of what they were hypocritical about? Isn't one's degree of hypocrisy roughly proportional to one's degree of honesty?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Let's say for starters that I'm pretty suspicious of anyone running on family values, exactly for the reasons you state -- no one can claim to fully live by them, and they’re irrelevant to being a president. So why do people run on them?

They think it sells.

Now, if I may, a question for you. Would no amount of hypocrisy turn you off a candidate, regardless of what they were hypocritical about? Isn't one's degree of hypocrisy roughly proportional to one's degree of honesty?

I don't make hypocrisy my core criterion. The relative level of a candidate's BS is a part of the overall package. The problem arises, as usual, that any given choice on the day is a 60/40 or 70/30 alignment with my stand, or a 50/50. The problem in 2004 was that I didn't feel I had a third choice between Kerry and Bush, and Kerry was no leader. If you look at MA politics, the leader from that state is Kennedy, and he wasn't running (for the obvious reasons) and that shadow cast on Kerry was enough to tip the scales for me.

It was a near run thing.

DR

 

[Upchurch]

In politics, finding someone "pure" is unlikely.

Unless you are okay with crazy, then Paul or Kucinich might fit the bill, depending on your particular leanings.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Wouldn't a demoncrat annoy the fundies even more?

A Democrat would indeed annoy the fundies even more, not to mention running the country better, but the question was, why would Giuliani be better than Bush.

 

[Oliver]

A Democrat would indeed annoy the fundies even more, not to mention running the country better, but the question was, why would Giuliani be better than Bush.

Because we know that he's the dictator-type-of guy already?

 

[Cello Man]

His 9/11 experience 9/11 fighting 9/11 terrorism 9/11 is 9/11 just 9/11 what 9/11 we 9/11 need 9/11 to 9/11 keep 9/11 this 9/11 country 9/11 safe.

At least, that's what I got out of listening to one of his speeches.





9/11.

 

[Darth Rotor]

A Democrat would indeed annoy the fundies even more, not to mention running the country better, but the question was, why would Giuliani be better than Bush.

Care to explain Jimmy Carter? (Yes, I know this derails a bit.)

Your assumption has some holes in it, unless your meaning was "run the country better than Bush" in which case you might have some grounds to support that statement.

Not everyone thinks GOP or Dems ought to run the country, many of us wish they'd serve it. It's that fine distinction in meaning, and intent, that so irritates many Americans about their politicians of any stripe.

DR

 

[Oliver]

His 9/11 experience 9/11 fighting 9/11 terrorism 9/11 is 9/11 just 9/11 what 9/11 we 9/11 need 9/11 to 9/11 keep 9/11 this 9/11 country 9/11 safe.

At least, that's what I got out of listening to one of his speeches.

9/11.

What did he do to reduce the amount of victims - or on 9/11?

... Exactly! :

 

[Darth Rotor]

What did he do to reduce the amount of victims - or on 9/11?

... Exactly! : [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/11107451e7a769e289.gif[/qimg]

Where did Rudy claim to reduce the amount of victims on 9-11? Again, if you are going to take issue with him, you ought to do so on his position, not yours-invented-for-him.

DR

 

[Oliver]

Where did Rudy claim to reduce the amount of victims on 9-11? Again, if you are going to take issue with him, you ought to do so on his position, not yours-invented-for-him.

DR

Huh? He is talking about "Terror, 9/11, Jihad, Threats, War" all the
time. Fact is that he was the 9/11 loser. Only the Mainstream media
and it's obeying Lemmings still buy this crap.

It would be a wise step for him to never even mention 9/11 again...