NY Times recycled gender "cliché" in puff piece on Giuliani, the "commanding daddy"
SUMMARY: In a profile of Rudy Giuliani, The New York Times called him "a commanding daddy of a candidate" and described him as "the father" when compared with other presidential candidates, bolstering the characterization of the Democratic and Republican parties as the "Mommy" and "Daddy" parties, respectively, when the paper itself has presented evidence to counter this view and has described it as a "cliché."
In a May 29 front-page profile of Republican presidential candidate and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani -- "To Temper Image, Giuliani Trades Growl for Smile" -- New York Times reporter Michael Powell wrote that Giuliani is a "commanding daddy of a candidate" and "is the father" when compared with other presidential candidates of both parties. Powell's article bolstered the characterization of the Democratic and Republican parties as the "Mommy" and "Daddy" parties, respectively, when the Times itself has presented evidence to counter this view and has described it as a "cliché." The article also reinforced Giuliani's image of heroism and leadership with respect to the September 11, 2001, attacks, even though the Times has reported Giuliani's failures and shortcomings on several terrorism-related fronts.
Powell suggested at the beginning of the profile that Giuliani's demeanor has become less "dyspeptic" on the presidential campaign trail, citing Giuliani's polite exchange with a "gray-haired woman" regarding terrorism that might, in the past, have resulted in "a rhetorical lunge for this woman's jugular." But, according to Powell, Giuliani is still "a commanding daddy of a candidate," who comes across as "the father, the talk-tough-on-terror, I'm-comfortable-wielding-authority guy" compared to other presidential candidates such as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), whom Powell labeled "the nurturer warrior."
But previous Times articles have disparaged these characterizations of the "Mommy" and "Daddy" parties. For example, on February 18, Times reporter Mark Leibovich called (subscription required) the characterization "that voters typically favor Democrats ('mommy party') on social issues and Republicans ('daddy party') on national security" a "cliché" and a "time-worn parental paradigm." A January 29 Times article went further, noting that polls no longer suggest that Republicans hold an advantage over Democrats on national security issues:
Democrats also seem less worried these days about the old charge of being the ''mommy party,'' dedicated to domestic concerns while the Republicans, ''the daddy party,'' are trusted with national security. Democratic women were often warned over the years that the stereotypes of party and sex reinforced each other.
National security remains a threshold issue for voters but is no longer such an automatic advantage for the Republicans because they have lost so much support on the war in Iraq, the polls suggest.
Indeed, blogger and media critic Greg Sargent recently made a similar point criticizing a Times article highlighting the mommy/daddy party narrative.
Additionally, Powell's Times profile reiterated the notion of Giuliani as "America's Mayor," adding, "At the root of his celebrity lies Mr. Giuliani's performance on Sept. 11, 2001." Powell continued: "But conversation usually circles back to that September day. When the towers fell, Mr. Giuliani was certain of what he saw. Defense is for the surrender crowd. He is about playing offense, and with a strong stomach: More electronic surveillance, more Patriot Act, more tough 'but legal' interrogation methods."
Yet, as Media Matters for America has noted, the Times itself has reported numerous flaws in the Giuliani administration's approach in the aftermath of the attack on the World Trade Center. The administration's handling of environmental concerns during the cleanup at Ground Zero has led to health problems for thousands of first responders, according to the Times, some of whom are suing the city for damages.
Powell further wrote that "Giuliani was a Kennedy Democrat" who "has also proclaimed himself a Reagan Republican." He added: "Ideological consistency is not Mr. Giuliani's groove; leadership and destiny are. So is self-assurance."
From Powell's May 29 New York Times profile of Giuliani:
Oh, baby, here it comes. The gray-haired woman raises her hand and compliments His Honor for his Sept. 11 bravery. Then she asks him:
Why does so much of the world hate us? Haven't we failed to understand Arab grievances? We misinterpret their word "jihad," which is not necessarily a hostile word.
Rudolph William Louis Giuliani III's eyes pop wide. His eyebrows rise. He is blinking rapidly. For veteran Rudy watchers, all signs point to a rhetorical lunge for this woman's jugular.
Except he pauses and looks down at his feet and looks up again and -- smiles.
"Ma'am, I really respectfully disagree," the former mayor tells her. "Maybe I'll answer your question with a question. Respectfully, again, I don't think you understand the nature of the threat."
Respectfully? Ma'am?
The dyspeptic, "not afraid to suggest his opponents have really deep-seated psychological problems" Republican mayor of fact and legend has taken a holiday. What's left on the presidential campaign trail is a commanding daddy of a candidate, a disciplined fellow who talks about terrorism and fiscal order and about terrorism some more.
[...]
He has not sanded down all his edges. At Oglethorpe University here, where he met with 200 voters, he does not hesitate to challenge that woman who asks about jihad. But he does so in a fashion that leaves her ambulatory.
"They hate you," he says of the Islamic terrorists, bringing his hands up to his chest. "They don't want you to be in this college, or you, or you -- --."
Mr. Giuliani wheels around and points toward another middle-aged woman in the front row, who looks momentarily startled. "And you can't wear that outfit because you're showing your arms."
"This is reality, ma'am," he continues, his voice streaked with just a touch of exasperation. "This isn't me making it up. I saw reality after 9/11. You've got to clear your head."
His answer meets with sustained applause.
If Hillary Rodham Clinton is the nurturer warrior and Barack Obama the college idealist and John McCain the tough but irreverent flyboy, then Mr. Giuliani is the father, the talk-tough-on-terror, I'm-comfortable-wielding-authority guy.
In dress, he plays to type. Other candidates go open-necked or pull flannel shirts out of the closet for New Hampshire.
Not the former mayor. He dresses in the one-size-too-large suits he has favored since his days as a federal prosecutor, with the top shirt button fastened and tie knotted tight. It is difficult to imagine anyone asking him a "really dopey" (two favorite Giuliani words now in abeyance) question about his favored style in underwear, as someone once did of Bill Clinton.
Mr. Giuliani has made upgrades. The comb-over, his decades-long insistence on combing his hair across a substantial expanse of cranium, is history. His remaining hair is slicked back and comes to rest in a tight nest of graying curls.
[...]
In Atlanta, Mr. Giuliani offers to take questions, and a stout blond woman in a red pantsuit shoots straight up, raising her hand and nearly shouting, "I think you are sooooo handsome."
(In 1994, a woman in Queens translated the same compliment into New Yorkese; she peered carefully at Mr. Giuliani and acknowledged, "You look a lot better in person.")
At the root of his celebrity lies Mr. Giuliani's performance on Sept. 11, 2001. The shadow of that day is inescapable; he is prayed for, applauded and asked to reminisce. And the refrain from those who listen to him is the same: When President Bush was flying to and fro, when Vice President Dick Cheney went to his bunker, Mr. Giuliani was the eloquent voice and face of America.
In Tuscaloosa, a county chairman spoke of his anxiety that day, and how listening to the mayor comforted him. In Atlanta, Debbie Lange said she was no rock-hard Republican. But her adult child lived in Washington. If she pulls the lever for Mr. Giuliani, hers would be a premonitory vote.
"We haven't seen the last of all the horrible things that could happen to us," she said, her voice becoming a whisper. "I want someone who could look the worst in the face when it happens."
Mr. Giuliani gets tagged as a late-middle-aged obsessive dining out on his grand moment. That seems overstated. He talks about competition in health care. ("The Democrats want socialized medicine." His lips play with a smirk, and he asks: "How many Americans do you know go to Europe for health care?") He holds forth on the need to cut taxes and to require foreign visitors to carry ID cards.
But conversation usually circles back to that September day. When the towers fell, Mr. Giuliani was certain of what he saw.
Defense is for the surrender crowd. He is about playing offense, and with a strong stomach: More electronic surveillance, more Patriot Act, more tough "but legal" interrogation methods. Mr. Giuliani peers at the smiling residents of Tuscaloosa.
"Right now, as we sit here enjoying breakfast, they are planning on coming here to kill us," he warns them. "I don't blame people for not getting it before 9/11. But I do blame people who don't get it now."
He circles his hands around his head, as though to bat away America's cobwebs.
"The Democrats want to take us back on defense," he says. "You can feel it; you can hear it."
The former mayor sat in a cavernous ballroom on May 21 and listened as New York Republicans showed him the big love. Happiness flowed so profusely an observer might forget that most in attendance wanted to flay Mr. Giuliani when he endorsed Mario M. Cuomo, a Democrat, for governor in 1994.
Guy Molinari, the diminutive and white-haired former Staten Island borough president, shot a sideways glance at Mr. Giuliani, who is in full grin. "I love this guy," Mr. Molinari said.
Only someone really rude would recall Mr. Molinari's take in 1994: "The only thing that makes sense is that he becomes a Democrat."
Mr. Giuliani was a Kennedy Democrat who has allied himself with Bill Clinton on issues like banning assault weapons but has also proclaimed himself a Reagan Republican. Ideological consistency is not Mr. Giuliani's groove; leadership and destiny are. So is self-assurance. Ask Mr. Giuliani how to impose fiscal discipline on Washington, and he notes: "I'm an expert at it." Mention New York and he says: "The turnaround was massive, palpable; nobody can really deny it." Quiz him about presidential qualifications, and he says that there is no way to prepare, but that "being mayor of New York" comes as close as it gets.
As for terror, "I understand terrorism in a way that is equal to or exceeds anyone else," Mr. Giuliani says.
Who our daddy ?
Is it just me who sees a resemblance?
[link to myweb.wvnet.edu]
Rudy can read?
Rudy was a top Prosecutor, but way to get to the point of the article.
Yeah, but can he read?
Paging through, looking for pictures. See the porn grin? Musta found something.
Heil Rudy!!! That was living in NYC in the 1990s . Gestapo tactics.
This fluff reporter is setting a narrative, this time applied to Giuliani, but utilizing all the EMOTIONAL rhetoric of the rightwing. The gender mommy/daddy thing, the tough guy thing, the wears suits thing, all to position Rudy as the ONLY candidate able to fill the nation's emotional need for a father-figure in the White House.
The only problem with employing all the threadbare Rightwing cliches to annoint Rudy as THE candidate for our times (of jihad and war), is that, ONE, the nation has turned against the idea of fighting in the midst of a civil war as a proxy for doing anything meaningful about terrorism, and TWO, Rudy is NOT a Republican whose resume endears him to the Republican party base. In fact, his policies on a variety of domestic issues are cause for Rightwingers to come unglued and turn viciously upon the holder of those ideas (on gays, guns, abortion, etc.)
So, this writer is following the tried and true formula for spelling out the inevitablility of a candidate's right to the throne, but the candidate is completely out of step with BOTH the American People AND his party's base. Hopelessly so, in both cases. Propping him up with pretty rhetoric about his "daddyness" is just pablum for the foolish, and this is for Rudy's THIRD liability: As far as practicing "family values", a worse craven example can hardly be imagined. The fundamentalists in the GOP base use those like Rudy as examples of EVIL, of a culture in fatal decline, of hedonism and lack of responsibility, of immorality and a total disregard for traditions (such as marriage and fidelity and being a good father, for examples). Rudy is thus dead from every standpoint imaginable. However, he has the distinction of currently being the least bad of a field of horrid candidates, NONE of whom can win in 2008.
Rudolph made the trains run on time. And relocated the homeless from Manhattan to the other 4 boroughs. And oversaw a police force that had trouble obeying the law. Remember the dude who was sodomized in a NYC precinct. Good one Rudy. You did a heckuva job.
and don't forget that pee smell he got rid of.
On another front, do we really need to hear republicans walk around saying "who's your daddy?" That statement either means they are flucking us, or they are committing adultry on a daily basis, or actually believe they are god's gift to women. 0 for 3 on the truth scale...
Is Giuliani the one who is responsible for ruining Times Square by turning it into a chain store and restaurant mecca for timid tourists seeking their own home towns in the middle of Manhattan ?
There's some thought accross the political spectrum of troubles ahead for the GOP. The imigration issue, voter registration tricks, Iraq of course, going down with Shrub, or having the correct timing for separation from same.
On the other hand there's an awfull lot of uncomitted conservative money and people. And our media friends ready to echo any talking point loudly and polyphonically. There's people, who today, on another thread said the Swift Boaters were right. A political idea dies when the last person to hold that idea dies.
So keep watching and you'll see that we're into greeting wifes and other strangers here at Duke of Madness Mufflers. Every day that remains from noon to noon.
The "Gray Lady" is now the "Guilie Daddy."
"York Times reporter Michael Powell wrote that Giuliani is a "commanding daddy of a candidate" and "is the father" when compared with other presidential candidates of both parties"
Did Media Matters intentionally overlook when the Times said Giuliani is "the father" compared with other presidential candidates of BOTH parties? The journalist in this case didn't state that the Republican Party is the "daddy" party and the Democratic Party is the "mommy" party. He simply said that Giuliani is "the father" compared to candidates of BOTH parties. Also, I think when the Times called Clinton "the nurturer warrior," that was simply because she is a woman, and women have always had the role of nurturing. It has nothing to do with what political party she is in.
Also, Giuliani is a very tough and authoritative figure. He doesn't take any crap from anybody, and he does indeed seem like some kind of an authoritative father figure. It doesn't have anything to do with Republican vs. Democrat. It's simply the fact that Giuliani comes across as being strong and very authoritative.
Yeah. And as factually challenged as this perception is, history has shown us that perceived tough guys pull in a solid 42% of the vote. Good luck with that.
I don't know about you, but I don't need no stinkin ' Daddy. These authoritarian types give me the creeps. Why do Republicans need all that authority reining down on them? They're like little babies who are overwhelmed with the concept of free will. Screw Guiliani and the horse he rode in on.
Hmmm. Let's see. Tough guy, listens to nobody, itching for WAR, ready to send the troops into the maw of death with no hope of a win, longing to wield unbridled power, certain of his own correctness ... sounds EXACTLY like BUSH.
So, Rudy is working for getting the "looks great with that codpiece in his borrowed uniform" vote ... that nails down 28% by the latest polls. And no more. In fact, the solid AGAINST that sort of "daddy" is well over 50%, meaning a new BUSH cannot possibly succeed at the polls.
Go for it, Rudy. Be a "Bush daddy" for those who wish for Bush's reign to continue. Dust bin of history time.
"These authoritarian types give me the creeps. "
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ditto, BTW have you read John Dean's book Conservatives Without Conscience"? He extensively analyzes authoritative personality types. John Dean a Conservative himself, he actually describes himself as an Independent Conservative says this personality type is prominent in the Republican Party. He says this personality type can be further divided into the authoratative leaders and authoritative followers and that some people fall into both categories, but he says that the authorotative follower seeks out authoratative figures. Apparently they need a "daddy" to tell them what to think and do and to protect them from the omnipresent enemy that's at every turn. Before I get chastised for broad brush painting let me say that Dean said that not all Conservatives fall into these categories, but that this personality type was more dominant on the political right than the political left. He noted that that the political left tends to be dominated by independent minded people who naturally question everything including authority. To use a real cliché he says trying to control the political left is indeed like trying to herd cats. He says this is most likely the cause of the appearance of disorganization on the left and that it makes it very difficult for thme to stay on message. Many in the base are more likely to tell their leaders to change the message than to follow it.
herding cats
One of my favorite expressions. Dean's descriptions are definitely interesting. It definitely makes me less concerned about Democrats controlling Congress and White House than Republicans having similar control. Of course, I still tend to prefer a divided government.
Hey Lynn, I did indeed read the book. John Dean did a great job and I also like him as a commentator. These authoritarian types are scary creatures and we've had enough of them to last several lifetimes. I'd rather have somebody who can follow the rule of law and the not shred the constitution. But I'm quirky that way.
"...he says that the authorotative follower seeks out authoratative figures. Apparently they need a "daddy" to tell them what to think and do and to protect them..."
Which kind of explains the success of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly, huh?
Yeah to YOU. To me Hillary comes across as strong and authoritative, doesnt make me like her or want to vote for her, but she reeks of authority.
I agree. She comes across that we to me too. She comes across as somebody he wants to run everybody's life. I was simply pointing out that the Times journalist called her a "nurturer" because that's the role that women normally play. I think that Hillary is definetely the exception to this rule. You say that you wouldn't want to vote for Hillary. Would you vote for her in a general election against a Republican candidate?
I would vote for her against any of THESE GOP pretenders. If you had a John Anderson in your party still we could talk
RINO HUNTER:
Isn't 'RINO' an acronym for "Republican In Name Only"? In other words, someone running on the GOP ticket who does not support the Republican Party Line of pro-gun, anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-immigration, pro-business, etc.? And if that's the case, wouldn't RUDY be the ABSOLUTE POSTER BOY for the dreaded RINOism your name identifies?
If you're a true RINO HUNTER, you've found your prey in Rudy, in spades. And yet ... here you are defending him. Is this a contradiction, or do you HUNT RINOs so you can SUPPORT them, because you, too, are disgusted with the GOP party line on issues?
Ya, that is what it stands for. And I do disagree with Giuliani on all of those issues that you mentioned. It surprises me that he's the current Republican front runner. He doesn't really impress me all that much. It's clear that he's a social liberal much like Hillary. I was simply making the point that he does come across as being very authoritative, whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. I believe that it was a fair piece by the Times journalist. As for Giuliani being a RINO, I would definetely say that he isn't a true conservative, but I think you can deviate on a few issues and still be a true Republican. I believe that the fundamental belief that you must have to be a true Republican is the belief in lower taxes and less government regulation. Rudy definetely believes in those two things. Someone like Lincoln Chafee was definetely a RINO because he supported higher taxes and a bigger government. I think that you can deviate on a few social issues and still be a true Republican, although I'll admit that I'd have trouble voting for someone who is pro choice.
However, I'd be willing to overlook Giuliani's views on social issues if he made it clear that he would nominate originalist justices to the Supreme Court like Scalia and Thomas. The Supreme Court is the main way that we can actually affect abortion laws in this country, and I'd me willing to vote for Rudy and overlook his stances on social issues if he makes it clear that he will nominate justices like Scalia and Thomas who want to let the people vote on the abortion issue.
Rino, I don't see how you could have any confidence whatsoever that Giuliani would further the republican/conservative agenda once he gets the power he wants. Rudy's objective is and forever will be to glorify Rudy--and if he can do it by making grand gestures to theh Left, you know he'll do it. He has no loyalty to anyone but himself.
I think a Goldwater republican would have a good chance of winning in 2008, but I don't see any.
I would say that Ron Paul is a Goldwater Republican, but he has absolutely no chance of winning the Republican nomination. I would vote for him over both Giuliani and McCain, but I just don't think he has any chance to win the nomination.
He can't win if you don't vote, just a needed mention on that.
I'll be ordering my Ron Paul bumper stickers this fall.
Good choice if you enjoy the current course of privatization for fundamental public trusts. Say yes to Ron Paul and say yes to economically tiered private schools, hello to a self-policed food industry and polluter industry. Basically say hello corporate domination. Say goodbye to unions, workers rights and consumer protections.
The guy is a hardcore conservative who just happens to know the truth about Iraq and our foreign policy. He's a bad, bad choice for neighborly progressives.
In other words you want to pack the court with rightwingers to be judicial activists and force YOUR conservative agenda down the throats of Americans who dont agree with you.
Wrong. I want to have originalists on the Supreme Court that will overturn decisions that were made by liberal judicial activists. The liberal justices are the ones who have forced their agenda on the rest of us, rather than letting us vote on controversial issues that the Constitution is silent on. You would rather have nine unelected judges force their pro abortion views on the rest of us rather than letting THE PEOPLE VOTE on the issue. I'm a big fan of democracy. I'm not sure why you're so scared of letting the people vote. That's what would happen if we had an originalist majority on the Supreme Court. The people would simply get to vote on controversial issues, rather than having a liberal agenda forced on them by a few activist liberal judges. The originalist justices wouldn't force any kind of agenda on the American people. They would simply let them VOTE!
RINO HUNTER:
You seem to forget that America fought a CIVIL WAR on just the topic of allowing "the states" to decide to have slavery and treat people unequally. States will "vote" in majority to discriminate against minority rights reliably, and it's up to the Supreme Court to keep them from trampling on individual's rights.
ORIGINAL INTENT, after all, recognized slavery, and demeaned slaves to 3/5 of a person for census purposes only. And women couldn't vote.
So, I'm confused. Is your wish for "original intent" the real ORIGINAL original intent? Or do you instead support the Constitution AS EVOLVED with such Amendments as the 14th, which grants equal protection under the law for ALL citizens?
That's the problem with you "original intent" guys ... you are either racist misogynistic troglodites, who REALLY wish for what you say ... the original writing of the Constitution ...
... OR,you are rank hypocrites because the "original intent" you favor isn't original at all ... it's evolved and modified. I don't really care which it is with you, it's an asinine argument no matter which way you call it.
And just for the record I'm supporting Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination as of right now. He his extremely articulate, a good debater, and I've been very impressed by him. I think that the more that people see of him the more they'll like him. If he can win in a solidly blue state like Massachussets he can surely win a general election in the United States. The guy's got a lot of charm and he reminds me of Ronald Reagan.
....you forgot he's also "King of The Flip Floppers". All of sudden he's anti-choice and gets off on shooting little critters in the woods. He will say anything and do anything to get what he wants and right now he wants to be president. I understand that he kissed much Liberal booty in MA and now he apparently is attempting to disassociate himself with anything MA. Why? Because the people he needs to win the Republican primaries hates MA. What integrity huh?. He’s a big phony.
The only issue that Romney has really changed is mind on is abortion. I'm willing to live with his explanation, because he did have a pro life record as governor of Massachusetts. He vetoed several anti-life bills. Ronald Reagan and the first George Bush also changed their minds on the issue of abortion. Many people end up changing their minds on that issue. I don't care what Romney's past positions were. I only care about what his positions are now.
No it's not only abortion, it's Gay marriage, it's gun control, you name it. Romney is being politically expedient to get the votes of all the RHINOS out there as he did to win state wide election in MA. Conservative Republicans cannot survive in the NE, that's a fact of political life. Romney either adjusted his positions to have a MA political life or he's adjusting his positions now. How do you know where he stands on anything?? Nevertheless, I understand what you say when you say it's where he stands now. I just honestly don't believe that you would be so forgiving of someone comparable to Romney on the left. You guys roasted Kerry for flip flopping and he can’t hold a candle to anything that Romney has done, hunting costume notwithstanding. I really think you would lodge the flip flopper label at them every chance you got. So all any Republican candidate need do is claim I hate Gay people, abortion, and Liberals and they’ve got a real good chance huh? Is it really that simple?
Ding! Romney talks out of both sides of his mouth and leaves me with the kind of slimy, dirty feeling that Kerry did in 2004 - here you have a well-off, polished man who is willing to say he's for anything that's politically expedient at the time. He comes across as elitist, self-serving, and untrustworthy.
LYNN:
That "smaller government" thingie that Republicans always claim to support ... do you suppose any rightwingers noticed that the size of the federal government MUSHROOMED under their icon Reagan, and again under Bush? Do Republicans just like the sound of the rhetoric of an issue, rather than what is delivered in reality?
This goes for balanced budgets, nation building, secure borders, open and accountable government, and true environmental stewardship. GOP CANDIDATES all tout these goals, but once in office and in power, the OPPOSITE takes place.
Although, to be fair, LOWER TAXES are usually granted in lion's share to America's wealthiest, while the shortfall trillions are heaped on the national debt. So, is that a "promise delivered", if it's put on the national credit card? Republican supporters seem to think so, because they keep believing their candidates as they keep touting the same old promised-and-abandoned principles and goals.
So ... GW Bush had a GOP majority Congress for SIX YEARS. Where WAS that balanced budget? School vouchers? "Loser Pays" tort reform? Campaign contribution reform? Term limits? Abortion outlawed? All those stated promises on "deeply held" beliefs and principles? Total power, ZERO delivery.
You guessed it: It's all pablum for the foolish, lies told to the "base" to get elected. Proven in the past, true today. Republican base members are the most gullible and scrod people around. No matter how many times their candidate "Lucy"s tee up the ball, they come a-running with that monster kick ... only to have the ball snatched away and once again landing on their asses. There are none so ignorant as those who just can't learn.
eloquently stated as usual Tex. I want to see how the R base is going to respond to another reality of Republicanism. Tax cuts don't float all boats only a few, but then their I go again engaging in class warfare because I believe in basic economic fairness.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jared-bernstein-and-lawrence-mishel/beware-of-economists-defe_b_49899.html>
RINO,
I think you're correct, Romney is not a RINO:
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/05/30/these-ads-kept-mitt-romne_n_49954.html>
Anti-life? You guys are getting comical trying to control the frame of the debate. What would an antilife bill be giving the NRA complete control of gun laws? Oh I know keeping our soldiers in Iraq.
Isn't Romney the guy who said he would just as soon double the size of Gitmo?
Rino,
I think Romney has not only flipped on abortion, but gay marriage (he once said he was more gay-friendly than Ted Kennedy), his military service (or lack thereof): http://www.eyeon08.com/2007/05/11/romney-panders-with-religion-and-military/ as well as immigration: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1821234.ece,
He also refused to sign an anti-tax pledge (see above link), people of faith (this one might be a stretch): http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/feb/28/romney_flip_flops_on_distinguishing_between_believers_and_non_believers
and on Bin Ladin : http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000605.htm
Campaign finance: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/25/AR2007052501971.html#
Even on his favorite book (stretch): http://www.eyeon08.com/2007/05/01/mitt-flop-on-favorite-book/
I know people are allowed to change their minds, but these seem to be 180 degree turns. Would such dramatic changes worry you as a conservative? I would think he (or any candidate who made such dramatic changes) might go back to their original positions. Any thoughts?
I'll concede that Romney has changed his mind on more than just the abortion issue. My previous statement wasn't accurate. Thanks for pointing that out. It does concern me that Romney has changed his mind on so many issues, but unfortunately that's the norm for most politicians. McCain and Giuliani have both changed their minds on several issues, and Edwards and Clinton have both changed their minds on the Iraq War, which will be the #1 issue in the 2008 election. I think that Romney had to move to the middle in order to get elected in a liberal state like Massachusetts. I care more about what his positions are now then what his positions were in the past. I think that he's actually been a conservative all along but had to move to the middle in order to get elected in a state like Massachusetts. That's just my opinion. I still think that he's the most articulate and charismatic Republican in the field. He's been very impressive in the debates so far. You can't deny that the man is smooth and has charm.
smooth and has charm., yeah just like a car salesman or those guys who sell financial services. They are all tan and grin baby, watch out for them too.
Yeah, he seems very likable. I just thought , you would enjoy those articles. What strikes me as hilarious in all this (not talking to you here) is that many who make fun of Edwards being handsome and "pretty" are the same people who like Romney, at least partially for the same reasons.
I would hope that the Republicans who were dismayed, discouraged and who hated Kerry for "flip-flopping" give Romney the same treatment. I give Edwards a little more credit than Romney (not only because I am biased_ because he has said he was "wrong" about those things. It would be refreshing for any of those guys who have "flipped" to just hear them say "I was wrong" or based on ___ new information, I have changed my mind.
Did you see his interview on 60 minutes? My dad, a Vietnam vet, laughed his head off when Romney said he regrets not being in Vietnam every day. What was stopping him from volunteering :)? (not a knock, just a funny thing for him to say).
Julie Annie has a history that could lead to the surmise that he is in fact your daddy, unless, as I am, you are older than he.
Giuliani, "the father"? The "commanding daddy"?
How ironic... Perhaps the writer should have first asked Giuliani's kids what kind of father he is.
Rudy: "Good night, mother of three."
Mrs. Rudy: "Good night, father of one."
I watched Hardball tonight and Matthews led off with negative assessment of the Clintons after giving negative highlights from both books. He switched gears to give favorable coverage to Guiliani and cuts guests off, if they even mention Guiliani's three marriages and any critical reviews of his years as New York City's mayor? You might expect such slanted coverage on Fox News, but MSNBC. There was another favorable comment on Fred Thompson's appeal to conservative voters, despite his divorce and remarriage to a much younger wife, who dresses like Brittany Spears.
Damned liberal media!
Got to love that Matthews.
Why is the media so obsessed with casting narratives? Seriously, they act like they're writing an essay on the characters of a movie.
RO:
It's the exact same thing, casting a movie or pimping a candidate. The narrative style, the "image" building is identical ... except in the political rightwing punditry, the "writing" has become a parody of itself, so wed to generic swooning and false labelling, it is laughable on its face.
One is left with the certainty, "They said EXACTLY the same about the LAST candidate, and EXACTLY the same criticisms of the LAST opponent. These praises and criticisms are ONE SIZE FITS ALL, and I've heard it all before."
X is commanding, truthful, and a daddy. Y is stiff and a flipflopper and lies. Ho, hum. Same song, next verse.
"I understand terrorism in a way that is equal to or exceeds anyone else," Mr. Giuliani says.
Patently false. When Giuliani can't even intelligently respond to his own party members on the topic of American Foreign Policy and its effects on the surge of American-centered terrorist acts, he cannot claim to understand terrorism at all. What Giuliani understands is the effect of terrorism on the local psyche, and on the lives and economy of a large city. He does not understand and shows no sign of wanting to understand what terrorism is and why it happens, and these are concepts our coming Presidents MUST have a grasp on.
..absolutely, none of the Republican presidential candidates seem to understand that, with the exception of Ron Paul. I've watched snippets of both of the GOP political debates. It's too difficult to sit through an entire debate. Everyone is just trying to out tough guy the other and they come off looking like complete idiots, complete violent idiots to be exact. Giuliani with his yeah that's right I condone torture (maybe that's why his police officers thought it was okay to sodomize some one in their custody) and Romney with is well I'll one you better - I want to double the size of Gitmo. They're both complete jokes albeit dangerous ones. But if either one does win I certainly hope they are really BSing to get the Neanderthal vote and they really won't double the size of Gitmo or adopt torture as official US policy like the freaking ancient Roman Empire.
His credentials on terrorism are exactly as good as his history as an actual father. No wonder his kids don't want to have anything to do with him.
Beginning with his insisting on putting the city emergency command center in the Trade Center itself despite the bombing of '93, his role in providing firefighters with a radio system that didn't work, to his pitting the NYPD against the NYFD as a way to break the firefighters, everything he touched was worse for his having touched it.
Read Webster Tarpley's book "9-11 Synthetic Terror" for a good history of Giuliani's role in trashing the NYFD and using that schism as a diversion from his extremely rapid scrubbing of the 9-11 crime scene. ( [link to www.plaguepuppy.net] )
And now he wants to do for (to) America what he did for his "family" (not the Mob, his other family) and for the city of New York. Another angry psycho daddy, just what the country needs...
Sorry that link didn't work, try this one:
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/P.pup/Tarpley-ch.6.pdfMayors have handlers who schedule all their appearances, and their "Day Planners" list the particulars of where, when, for how long, and for what purpose.
Seems to me Rudy should PUBLISH the few months following 9/11, to document all the "heroic" activities and actions he took to make him an expert at "fighting terrorism".
A day-by-day timeline of what Rudy actually DID following 9/11 would be a valuable tool for determining his credentials as "America's Mayor".
Personally, I believe his "good works" of visiting the site and comforting city citizens would prove to be far outweighed by other activities, including leisure and battling Fire Fighters, meeting to expedite cleanup including overlooking concerns about the clean-up crew's health, etc.
A TOTAL picture of what he actually DID would help to balance out the Media's narrative that he is a "hero" and a "terrorist fighter" of the highest order. In fact, he was just a mayor who is now attempting to cash in on a disaster, and who did nothing not expected of any mayor during a disaster ... and probably much LESS than might be expected. Let's see the actual PROOF, anybody?
"Puff!" "Daddy!" LOLs!!!