Without mentioning he worked for Giuliani, WSJ quoted Luntz saying, "[N]o one's going to make fun of [Giuliani's lisp] after 9-11"
A November 3 Wall Street Journal article by June Kronholz on the impact of presidential candidates' voices -- which included the reported assessment by "leading voice experts" that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) "can sound shrill" and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) "can lack forcefulness" -- reported that "[v]oice coaches generally won't say whether they are helping a specific candidate, although none of those commenting in this article are involved in campaigns." The article went on to quote Republican pollster Frank Luntz, who discussed Republican presidential candidate and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani's lisp, saying, "It should have hurt him and it doesn't, and no one's going to make fun of him for it after 9/11." But the article made no mention of the fact that, while Luntz is not "involved" in Giuliani's current presidential campaign, he has previously worked for Giuliani, and he has repeatedly heaped praise on Giuliani this year.
As Media Matters for America noted, Luntz worked for Giuliani's three most recent political campaigns: his campaign for New York City mayor in 1993, re-election bid in 1997, and aborted campaign for U.S. Senate in 2000. On the second page of the introduction to his book, Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear (Hyperion, January 2007), Luntz describes himself as "[t]he man who worked for Rudy Giuliani, two-time Republican mayor of a city where Democratic voters outnumbered Republicans 5-to-1 (xii)."
From the November 3 Wall Street Journal article:
Keen to preserve the appearance of authenticity, the presidential campaigns said they aren't using voice coaches. (Sen. Clinton's campaign alone didn't return emails seeking comment). Voice coaches generally won't say whether they are helping a specific candidate, although none of those commenting in this article are involved in campaigns.
[...]
Speech slows with age and loses clarity, which some voice professionals say could be a problem for 71-year-old Arizona Sen. John McCain. Mark McKinnon, a McCain campaign adviser, calls the senator's voice "gritty." But Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster who has written about how words influence public debate, says he hears age in Mr. McCain's voice.
Of course, none of this may matter if voters have other reasons to like or dislike a candidate. That certainly happened with Mr. Giuliani's lisp. "It should have hurt him and it doesn't, and no one's going to make fun of him for it after 9/11," says Mr. Luntz.
Voters also are quick to change their minds as momentum builds behind a candidate. George H. W. Bush's high-pitched voice aggravated the "wimp factor" in his 1988 presidential campaign but wasn't an issue after he was elected, says Ms. Jamieson.
So what would a Clinton-Giuliani match-up sound like, if opinion polls are correct when they predict the two will lead their parties' tickets?
Mr. Giuliani gets points for lower pitch and its implication of authority. Mrs. Clinton wins on inflection, with its suggestion of deep concern. And on speed, both give new definition to a New York minute.
You know... if you can say "nine-eleven" at least nine times in an eleven minute speech, it can really improve pronunciation. It's very theraputic.
FIRST!
Everyone watch Penn & Teller DESTROY Frank Luntz! This video is great. Sick of getting buried here.
[link to www.youtube.com]
HaHA. F U Frank! Good stuff.
So considering Chris Matthews worked for several Democrats in the past, is that supposed to be mentioned every time he is referenced for any comment he makes? Ridiculous. Luntz isn't currently working for Giuliani and the article clearly idenitifies him as a Republican pollster.
Heaven help us, NO!
If [Chris] did that, it might make what he was saying sound remotly objective. (And tha would be incredibly deceptive on his part!)
You have a point, look at all the stories by George Stephanapolous, yet he never says he used to work for Bill Clintons and worked in the 92 Clinton Campaign. Seems like a double standard being set against Luntz because MMFA does not like Luntz.
http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/people/georgestephanopoulos
Good point Sue, Stephanopolous is another good example. If he says something even vaguely complimentary towards some Democrat, would MMFA bellyache if his Clinton association wasn't automatically disclosed? Doubt it.
I doubt it as well, because it would be outside of MMFA's stated scope.
Even then. Tommy is changing the argument. Luntz didn't work for just any Republican. He worked specifically for Giuliani - whom the article was discussing. It is obviously germaine as it would be if Stephanopolous was interviewing Bill Clinton - whom he worked for (or if Chris Matthew had a seance with Daniel Patrick Moynihan).
I changed nothing, try and keep up with the broader point being made, if you're able. Otherwise, best to not post.
It should be pretty obvious that when it comes to asking someone for their opinion on a subject, party affiliation is not nearly as germaine as if you were actually on someone's payroll - yet you are equating the two situations.
Giuliani's lisp is an opinion worth going back that far even though Luntz' party affiliation is clearly presented in this article?
Ok.
It may be enough for you. That doesn't make it sound journalism. If you are asking the opinion from anyone about their former employer or client, you should disclose that they worked for them. The reader should at least have the information to decide for themselves about it. Just basic journalistic ethics.
Not really if you are watching Tweety or Stephanopolous you are watching them on THEIR show. It can be assumed you know something about them. I am also pretty sure they have both mentioned those past associations on THEIR show. If on the other hand a media outlet CITES an expert they SHOULD let you know if that expert has any reason to be seen as speaking with a bias. THAT is how it is supposed to be done.
So one should "assume" on Stephanapolous and Matthews, fine by you......but even though Luntz is clearly identified as a Republican pollster, that is not fine by you?
Ooooooookkkkkkkkkk.......
Being a republican pollster might show a bias toward Republicans but not a specific candidate working for the VERY MAN he is commenting on specifically is a whole other thing. And yes it would be ridiculous to expect ON THEIR SHOW that Tweety and Steph every 20 minutes mention their past affiliations. IT is THEIR show if they DID mention it every 20 minutes or every show it would be annoying. The WSJ when citing someone talking about a specific candidate OUGHT to say if he has worked for that candidate its ethics 101 it is NOT the same thing as Tweety and Steph. Now if Steph interviews either Clinton he should mention it again. If Tweety interviews Tip O'neill or Jimmy Carter he ought to mention it again. Those direct connections should ALWAYS be divulged.
Tip ONeill is dead so it will be impossible for Matthews to interview him. How convenient.
Gee thanks Sue, what a font of information you are. That was kind of the point.
Yeah but Luntz needs to always mention he worked for Rudy so that is exactly the point Solon.
Luntz wasnt saying anything. If the WSJ wants to cite Luntz about Guiliani it is relevant that he worked for him YES.
"Being a Republican pollster MIGHT show a bias........"
Ya right Solon, might? Are you serious?
You put the wrong word in bold. It should read being a republican pollster might show bias BUT NOT THE SPECIFIC CANDIDATE. Weak even for YOU tommy
It was the right word. For you to intimate that being a Republican pollster might show bias is absurd. It absolutely shows bias, there is no "might" about it.
You misunderstood. Yes it shows bias. I used the word might in the sense that it might show THAT bias but it doesnt show the specific toward Guiliani which is the point. I didnt use the word might to mean it was questionable. I didnt say it to mean it MIGHT show bias which is what you did. Rather that while it might show BIAS it doesnt show the specific bias. This isnt that complicated. Have you never used the word might in that sense?
So, a Republican pollster MIGHT not be biased towards the leading Republican contender for president? And you expect to sell that gem anywhere? Good luck.
Are you kidding me? Are you really this stupid? Yes it would indicate a bias. Nothing I posted would say anything else. Did you think you had some gotcha moment because of the juvenile way YOU read the emphasis on what I wrote? You know what the point was. A direct connection of the Luntz Guiliani kind is SUPPOSED to be divulged if they are cited as a news source period.
When you resort to your infamous namecalling, it means two things.......you're losing an argument so you cling to insults, and #2, I don't waste my time on you. Find someone else.
Congratu;ations to you Tommy.
You took SOLON 7 posts into a debate before he used "stupid". That's got to be a record.
Stupid must be his favorite word.
Only when debating stupid people, or those who use objectively stupid arguments to support themselves. Oh, I forgot - we are talking a right wing opponent, so maybe that is a record after all . . .
It only took one post for tommy to change the basic argument from disclosure about working for a single client to disclosure of one's party affiliation. I am actually amazed at solon's restraint.
: )
What? Your post makes no sense, perhaps you should practice a little restraint before opining.
:)
It made perfect sense.
Case closed.
Making personal attacks? For shame.
I am not losing any argument because we stopped having one. It was rude and uncalled for and I appologize unreservedly. You didnt deserve that. I was frustrated. You HAVE to know what I meant and used a ploy to avoid the point. That is no excuse I am sorry.
Apology accepted, it's all cool. We just disagree on this topic. Sometimes translations get mixed up a bit here, if I misinterpreted what you meant then I offer my apology.
Tommy,
What I believe is that the dem supporters you mentioned - Fox makes darn sure it is well known who they support ad nauseum. There isn't a fox program I can watch that doesn't make sure to point out who the Dem supporters are. It's only right and fair to either stop doing it altogether or to make darn sure republican supporters are pointed out ad nauseum as well.
I get it , when a major network has Stephanopolous on we are all supposed to know about him, but when FOX and CNN have Oreilly, Hannity and Beck , we have to hear what horrible biased things they said becuase the public knows nothing about them. Got it thanks!!
Is that what I said? IF a major network HAS HIM ON to talk about Clinton they should say that he worked for them ON HIS SHOW he shouldnt be required to bring it up every single show it would be annoying it can be assumed if you are watching HIS SHOW that is the show he is regular on that you know. He should have said he worked for the Clintons when he first began the program. If it were NEVER divulged you would have a point.
Your partisanship is blinding you. Think for yourself, not everything you hear and read is true. Think for yourself!!!!
Your projection is what is showing I am not partisan I am not even a DEMOCRAT. I do more independent thinking in a day than you will in a good YEAR.
Sure you do , and George Bush is a great leader. Got it!!
And you are a complete moron. Got it
Solon, that is really uncalled for. You lose so much credibility when you call people names like that.
Problem is, perhaps those are not persons with whom one would wisely choose to seek credibility?
Conley, AMEN!
I guess that will be MY decision. When she starts telling me to think for myself that is an insult and she deserves no better. It just isnt up to YOU how I post.
Solon, I would just call for some civil tone. I agree you do speak and think for yourself and generally I enjoy reading your positions as they are very well thought out and intelligent, Sueeld however is not a moron or stupid and is a person and should be respected no matter how we all disagree.
No she is not a moron. That is part of the point. I am always going for a point. It is a generic insult meant to be a throwaway. Not meant to be personal and tailored to hurt anyones feelings by being specific to them. I use it at this site more than others I visit BECAUSE most people here are pretty bright. IF someone is going ad hominem on me I just say they are a moron.
I get it , when a major network has Stephanopolous on we are all supposed to know about him, but when FOX and CNN have Oreilly, Hannity and Beck , we have to hear what horrible biased things they said becuase the public knows nothing about them. Got it thanks!!
- SueEld / Monday November 5, 2007 01:35:07 PM EST
- Reply to this comment / Flag this comment
Is that what I said? IF a major network HAS HIM ON to talk about Clinton they should say that he worked for them ON HIS SHOW he shouldnt be required to bring it up every single show it would be annoying it can be assumed if you are watching HIS SHOW that is the show he is regular on that you know. He should have said he worked for the Clintons when he first began the program. If it were NEVER divulged you would have a point.
- solon / Monday November 5, 2007 01:47:09 PM EST
- Reply to this comment / Flag this comment
Your partisanship is blinding you. Think for yourself, not everything you hear and read is true. Think for yourself!!!!
Sure you do , and George Bush is a great leader. Got it!!
- SueEld / Monday November 5, 2007 02:10:52 PM EST
Doris, sorry but Solon was right!. Both you and Tommy defend which is your right but in THIS case SHE was WRONG! Sueeld can be an smarta**when she's chooses and she should not be defended when she is. (I didn't call her a moron but thought about it).
Solon explained to her why he didn't think that George Stephanopoulos had to say on each and every show that he worked for the Clinton's. Instead of Sue trying to have a honest debate if she she disagreed she mouths off with a smart a** comment about partisanship and goes on to tell him to “think for himself”. If I were Solon I’d tell Sueeld to bite my happy butt cause I can think for myself. When she makes smart a** comments she deserves what she gets and you don’t need to defend her. SHE should apologize, not Solon!
Bill Clinton isn't running for President.
And Luntz doesn't work for anyone that is.
Good point Tommy. Why do they just not say "we hate Luntz". Then we get the point of why this is here, otherwise be fair and demand the same for Matthews and Stephanapolous.
Giving them the same treatment would forward the conservative agenda, which would be at odds with MMFA's mission statement.
You need to send your tip to Newsbusters.
Why Newsbusters? This is MMFA not newsbusters.
You're expecting MMFA to be fair? This is a progressive agenda-driven site. They do not mince words in their mission statement. They make no claims of fairness or balance.
I never expect MMFA to be fair, afterall this is not fair and balanced news like FOX.
Sue - you would be correct if you mentioned that MMFA and FNC are both equally 'fair' - which is to say, they're not.
The difference is, one of the two listed above CLAIMS to be fair, while the other clearly states in its mission that it is not.
One is lying, one is not. If you prefer the one that's lying to you, it says a lot about your political affiliation.
If you have read my posts you know I am no fan of FOX news or Republicans. Again on this site you are labeled because instead of being part of the crowd, I think for myself and have an independent opinion. I See things without the partisan glasses, most here attack me for that because I dare to question things.
So do you play 'fair police' over at FNC as well, or just here?
If they had a board I would, but I do not watch FOX, i find it too partisan and hateful.
I think I gave up on FOX the night they signed on with Hannity.
I think as soon as Murdoch announced he was creating FOX news I gave up on it. I knew it was garbage just like the NY Post.
Come on JLyons, let's be fair. Garbage is WAY more useful than the NY Post. I can think of several ways to use garbage, heck, homeless people could even live off of it!
The NY Post doesn't have much practical use, except maybe to start a fire, or to wipe yourself.
You dont HAVE independent thought out opinions you do juvenile I am so independent posturing. You are all over the place on principles just to show us all how even handed you are. This is a perfect example. You didnt say both sides ought to stop negative campaigning you said both sides are equally to blame even though the GOP does dishonest smear campaings that are unconcionable so bad that when Lee Atwater was on his deathbed he appologized for what he had been doing and you have Obama calling Hillary disengenuous. That is like saying both kids are equally to blame in a fight where one of them called the other a name and the other kid beat him with a baseball bat. Its dumb. You dont really care about the facts of the issue you just want to posture about how FAIR you are.
So MMFA is unfair? Wow, I didn't know that. Not balanced maybe, but unfair?
Ok.
Apparently it is unfair, and many of our fellow posters have no issues with it. But hey as long as we hate Luntz, OReilly, Hannity and Beck we can be as unfair as we want.
And just what kind of fairness are we talking about? The fairness that has yours and Sue's undies in a twist. You're expecting fairness in the form of forwarding the conservative agenda while simultaneously forwarding the progressive.
No, fairness in that if someones behavior is done by someone on the left, than just do not report it ie Stephanapolous who worked for the Clintons.
Fairness can also be maintained even without balance. Calling out this article because it didn't divulge Luntz' earlier connection with Rudy when his Republican partisanship is so reported, is just silly.
And then when questioned on whether the same standard should be held for some in the media formerly employed by Democrats - that is out of bounds simply because it's not covered here? Weak.
Calling out this article because it didn't divulge Luntz' earlier connection with Rudy when his Republican partisanship is so reported, is just silly.
Tommy, I think the difference is that this is a pollster and in the past has been used as an "independent mind" by the msm, yet he is far from that. MMFA is just giving another example of this.
How is this article using him as an "independent mind"? He is clearly identified, there is nothing independent about his resume'.
Tommy, not necessarily this article but it has happened in the past.
SAVE US FROM THE MOONBATS, VOTE REPUBLICAN!
Happy thoughts,
Jeter 2
Hat tip to Dan Grady ;-)
What Luntz, who is id'd as a Republican pollster had to say about Rudy was so benign it didn't require saying he once worked for Rudy. This is just petty carping by MMFA, & others here.
J, New rule.
If any pundit or anyone in the free world says anything remotely even kind of nice, or even winks at a Republican today, then it is fair to go back to their toddler days to document any connection, including if they both liked the same flavored soda pop.
Tommy, I can't keep up with all the "rules" here to begin with...& of course they tend to shift or change when it suits the Liberal posters arguments ;-)
But I'll add this new one to the loooong list!
SAVE US FROM THE MOONBATS, VOTE REPUBLICAN! Happy thoughts, Jeter 2
NOT IN THIS LIFETIME! :-)
JETER:
Can you tell us WHY voting for a Repubican would make this a better nation?
The GOP had TWELVE YEARS of majority rule, the last seven of which featured a GOP President as well. In that seven years of near absolute power, we must believe that all policies in all areas of our lives were molded to the GOP's liking.
So, the record of their performance is really fresh in our minds, and of course we see them being more obstructionist than any Congress in history, filibustering to prevent the Democrats from getting anything done.
So, WHY would we want MORE of the GOP? What have they done to deserve to hold public office? Or, put another way, what would be DIFFERENT from what we've seen them do for the past decade?
It's not out of bounds to say that it happens on the other side of the political spectrum, knock yourselves out.
It's just plain stupid to expect* MMFA to report it, given their stated mission.
*"Seems like a double standard"
*"Would MMFA bellyache if his Clinton association wasn't automatically disclosed?"
No it is NOT silly it is journalistic ethics 101. When there is a direct connection that is likely to color ones opinion. THAT is supposed to be divulged when that opinion is cited.
Lol. Calling something "silly" and "weak" isn't presenting a real argument, tommy.
Sue,
Are you really this dense? When "conservative misinformation" comes out of the mouths of Stephanopolous or Matthews you will see it on MMFA. And from Luntz. The big difference is Frank Luntz constantly has it spewing out of his mouth. Go comfort Brent Bozzell the 48th somewhere else.
Another personal attack because you are too weak too debate. Nice.
The debate you are drumming up is. "why doesn't MMFA have liberal bias highlighted on their website"? The answer is simple; this website highlights conservative misinformation. If someone can't comprehend the format of this website, they need to go somewhere else. Feel free to troll but at least be intellectually honest. The personal attack was a logical question based on your comments under this topic.
Now I am a troll? Nice
Sueeld, I see you are causing trouble again?
Anyway I will give you the advice I give others, when people start calling you names ignore than and move on. It means they can no longer debate seriously and they resort to name calling.
Please read the premise of her argument and tell me again who can't debate seriously.
Well in having conversation with Sueeld for awhile now I would say Sueeld. I know she rubs people the wrong way for her views, but she has always had an open mind with me and been respectful despite our disagreements on many issues.
Trolling the board, not a troll. I just think you are not being honest in this debate. You can question the motives of MMFA highlighting this Luntz comment but the argument can't be "why no liberal misinformation". See what I mean. Luntz is a dork who will work, like Fox News, to appear as objective as a Rudy groupie can be.
Excuse me seeryer but what "Conservative MIS-information" is on display here???
Jeter,
It appears to be the omission of Luntz' previous work for Mr. Giuliani in the article.
Open_Mind,
I just don't think that was a huge deal. What Luntz said wasn't that important, it was about a lisp. The fact that he is a Republican was included. To expect that anything that benign he utters about Rudy has to be followed by he once worked for Rudy is IMO a petty complaint.
"The fact that he is a Republican was included."--Jeter2
That argument really isn't germaine. It is more important that he actually worked for the guy. This is primary season. Each Republican has their own opinion as to who would be the best candidate. Just mentioning that Luntz is a Republican gives the appearance of an independent Republican opinion and not one that may have a vested and or biased interest.
I have seen on Hannity and Colmes where a Democrat (that has previously endorsed Hillary) comes on and bashes another Democratic candidate. Unless you knew the Democrat was really a Hillary supporter, you might suppose that information was independent Democratic opinion -which it obviously wasn't.
You are also changing the argument when you mention that saying he was Republican was enough. MMFA is complaining about the previous work for Giuliani and not Luntz' affiliation.
What if they asked a Romney campaign worker (that is only identified as a Republican in the article) what he thought of Giuliani without disclosing that support for Romney? If he trashed Giuliani (which would seem likely), it may appear more authentic and independent than if the campaign work was disclosed.
The reader should be aware of any and all associations beyond mere party affiliation - (especially in primary season). Any real journalist knows this. It is called transparency and it is a pretty big deal.
You keep talking about changing the argument, which is ridiculous, who is doing that? The point is his party affiliation is clearly identified so any positive statement he says about any Republican should be viewed in that context. This isn't hard. How much harder would it hit home if his previous connection to Giuliani were reported here? The answer is so miniscule and negligible that it is nearly irrelevant. And that is the point.
"The point is his party affiliation is clearly identified so any positive statement he says about any Republican should be viewed in that context."--tommy
It still needs to be qualified. I would rather them mention that Luntz worked for Giuliani than just mention his party affiliation.
Do you think positive statements should be treated differently than negative ones? What about statements that are a little of both? If Luntz had taken the time to attack Romney in the article, without disclosing his previous work for Giuliani, would it be less or more germaine than in this article or should the author simply note it and let the reader decide for him/herself?
This is a pretty solid journalistic principle that shouldn't be so difficult to understand.
Your scenario of Luntz attacking Romney is totally different - of course his historical relationship with Giuliani would be relevant in that case, as that goes directly to his credibility in attacking Romney....but there is no credibility issue here since his partisanship towards Republicans is clearly evident by his identification as a pollster, for the exact party that the person he is complimenting is a member of. Nothing hidden here.
The reader should be provided that information to decide for themselves.
Rudy and 9/11 in the same sentence is conservative misinformation in my opinion because the real story is not so pretty for Rudy. What did Rudy learn from WTC 1 and what lessons did he implement among his first responders? How expensive and effective was the Emergeny Command Center Rudy had built in WTC 7?
Sue, Are you really this dense?
Seeryer, yes she is.
Neither does Stephanopolous.
Neither does Matthews.
His wife is and she is running on her record as a contributor to the success of the Clinton years.
Exactly Sueeld, she is running on her record and his.
HELLO...........CAN YOU SAY SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON.
She has her own record as a United States Senator on New York!
Fair point Sueeld.
Fresh Air from WHYY, January 9, 2007 · Republican pollster Frank Luntz advises politicians on the language they should use to win elections and promote their policies. Although he works on one side of the aisle, he says that what he does is essentially nonpartisan, seeking clarity and simplicity in language. His critics disagree, and have accused him of using language that misrepresents policies to "sell" them to the public. Frank Luntz is the author of Words That Work.
<!-- end main center column / start bottom --><!-- end story body/child story div -->"George H. W. Bush's high-pitched voice aggravated the "wimp factor" in his 1988 presidential campaign but wasn't an issue after he was elected, says Ms. Jamieson."
Well, it may or may not have been a "factor", but I distinctly remember that one prominent political cartoonist always depicted him carrying a purse.
Maybe Rudy can hire the same voice coach they used for President Numbnuts...
Is this pre-emptive un-criticism? This goes to show you how much I (and probably most people) care about this sort of inane minutiae... This is a calling card of the right-leaning punditry. What about what's coming out of their mouths instead of how it sounds? Novel concept.
Republicans went after Kerry's supposed greatest asset, the fact he was a military guy and Bush and Cheney were chicken hawks. Before it was over, the average person though George Bush was John McCain and John Kerry was Jane Fonda. Point being, the Democrats and anyone who supports them must go after Rudy and 9/11 constantly. This guy did nothing except say "head North" on 9/11. The guy did nothing on 9/11, NOTHING. He just happened to be the Mayor on that particular day. The fact that he learned zero from WTC1 and how it affected the response on 9/11 is the real story. Not quoting some person at a Rudy rally say "He was so great on 9/11". Nothing was great on 9/11, NOTHING. And his poor leadership while in office led to the confusion the rescuers had that day. From not having a functioning emergency response center to having inadequate radios. It not only must come out, it must be driven in over and over and over.
I do not support Rudy, but wouldn't you rather hear what the Democrats are for and what their vision is for the country and their leadership on vital issues - than slamming Rudy, if he is the nominee, for his performance on 9/11?
But Tommy, that is the problem to day with both parties, they tell us nothing, they are both partisan hacks. They are destroying our democracy. They share equal blame.
No they DONT share equal blame. Show me when Dems have done something like the Swiftboat Liars for Rent or even what Bush did to McCain. When you show me that we can talk about equal blame. As of now the GOP has no shame.
This is the reason we need a 3rd party when we have Democrats calling each other disingenious. If you want to be blind and play the partisan game so be it. Ross Perot was right in 92 he said Gridlock was destroying America, it sure has and has gotten worse.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/67934
Swiftboating of Kerry or the incredibly dishonest smear of McCain and you want to call ME disengenuous? Both parties are NOT equally to blame because both parties are NOT equally bad. That isnt partisan its a plain FACT. If YOU want to be blind be my guest. I am all for more positive campaigning but if you are really going to claim Dems are as bad as the GOP because one Dem calls another disengenuous when the GOP is the party of the Swiftboat campaing and the McCain smears you just arent facing reality
I did not call you disengenuous, Barak Obama called Hillary disengenuous. Do you not read? Why so partisan , are you unable to think for yourself ?
Why are you such a moron are you unable to think at ALL? I told you before I am not a Democrat I am IN a third party. Just because YOU are stupid and stubborn doesnt make me blinded by partisanship. It is just STUPID to pretend that both parties are equally bad when the GOP does things like the horrific smears they did to McCain or the Swiftboat smear and what the Dems are doing. STUPID. Did you believe it meant you were doing any thinking at ALL by bending over backwards to show how non partisan you are when your attempt at a point is LUDICROUS?
When you call people names like "stupid" you are not taken seriously. Thanks for the kind words solon, Is it time to go back to class now?
You can't have it both ways Sue, so don't even try pretending like your taking the high road after you just called him partisan and unable to think for himself.
Mmmmmm...
I don't think calling Solon "partisan" is quite the same as Solon calling SueEld "stupid".
Just my opinion.
She said he couldn't think for himself.
Brab, how many times has that been written here by the Left about the Right? Or the other way around [to be fair]
Suggesting someone is partisan & not thinking for themselves is fairly common around here.
I still think calling someone stupid tops it. It's a personal attack concerning their intelligence.
And saying someone can't think for themselves doesn't concern intelligence?
Your assertion that something is commonplace around here doesn't change whether it's a personal attack or not.
And saying someone can't think for themselves doesn't concern intelligence?
No it doesn't, if the reason they aren't "thinking for themselves" is because they are partisan.
So making a personal comment about someone's nature, dismissing an argument based on someone's character instead of addressing the argument itself...that's not a personal attack?
Be honest, Jeter. Do you really think Sue's comment was fair? Have you really never seen Solon admit when an opposing argument is fair? Does he really seem like someone who doesn't think for himself?
It is a rude disengenuous attack. Just because I am very liberal and have those principles doesnt mean I didnt come by them with independent thought. I didnt deserve that. Also I STILL think I made a valid argument. Not a knee jerk argument without merit. I am STILL the only one that made that argument have you every even SEEN it anywhere else? So how exactly can someone seriously posit that though I am making an ORIGINAL argument no one else is making that somehow that means I am not thinking for myself? It was not only an ad hominem attack it was one that in context doesnt even make sense.
And saying someone can't think for themselves doesn't concern intelligence?
No it doesn't, if the reason they aren't "thinking for themselves" is because they are partisan.
Sorry you're wrong Jeter
You're right Jeter, they are not even in the same ballpark. Calling someone partisan is a political term with a narrow and specific meaning. It may not be a gushy compliment...but calling someone a stupid moron is far more personal and encompasses a much broader insulting meaning.
Look at how you just skipped right over the learn how to think for youself part like it's such a nice thing to say.
Jeter already addressed that point, which is the partisan part. You just missed it.
No it just doesnt make sense. As I said. Have you ever even HEARD the argument I made before? Was it or was it not an original argument? One I obviously came up with by THINKING FOR MYSELF. Just because I am very liberal doesnt mean I didnt get that way THINKING FOR MYSELF. So it was an ad hominem attack without the slightest validity. Therefore she has no reason to expect anything different. Had this been the first time I might have passed on it but this is the lady who called us terrorist sympathizers because she disagreed with our take on whether Padilla deserved a speedy trial.
Jeter I think the bottom line is since I am not a "Stepford Wife" it is ok to call me "Stupid" and a "moron" but I am not allowed to call someone "Partisan". I get it .
Sure Sue that exactly what I said. Speaking of being disingenuous......
While I agree that telling someone that they're unable to think for themselves or blinded by partisanship isn't as blunt as say "stupid", it's not complementary or the type of language your going to use with someone if your expecting civil response.
Why in world would you try to chastise Solon for calling you stupid, when you're just as guilty if not more so for turning the conversation sour?
It's nice to to know that in the future anyone on this site is free to use these terms to describe Tommy, Jeter2, Doris and SueEld and we will not hear a single complaint or snide remark back in kind because this is clearly been sanctioned as polite and proper discourse.
Too late...
Anything nasty that could be written, has already been said about us.
And I have said most of them. Look I am no angel but I didnt start this. I have been here a long time and I dont think my track record can possibly support someone telling me I dont think for myself. How many times have you seen me make arguments that OBVIOUSLY were my own and you had not heard anywhere before?
I have been here a long time and I dont think my track record can possibly support someone telling me I dont think for myself.
Yes you do. But that wasn't what I was talking about, my point was that calling someone "stupid" was a tad more personal [attack-wise] than throwing out the old: partisan can't think for themselves charge, which is written here by at least some poster or another almost daily.
I respect your opinions Solon, because you do think for yourself.
Not really sure what I have to do with the argument MHK.
Doris you agreed with me--that's a No No I guess & now puts you in the group with us evil folks.
Don't worry, we have your back :-)
Oh ok, thanks Jeter.
Its been awhile since someone attacked me for that I remember that happened a few months ago too. Why do you guys get me in trouble for agreeing with you ? ;-)
Sue was rude to Solon and got a reponse in kind.
Doris you have no problem jumping on the pile to lecture to Solon, but you didn't say a word about Sue. I'm wondering why that is?
MHK
YOU ARE STUPID IS THE SAME as YOU AREN'T THINKING FOR YOURSELF!.
Why is one polite and one rude?
Why do you think I called Sue out on trying to take the high road with Solon?
I think the bottom line is if you are going to tell me I am not thinking for myself with NO VALID REASON, that civility is out the window and you snivelling that I am treating YOU the way you treat me is pathetic. Either stay away from ad hominem attacks or they will come back to you. Its all the same to me.
Barb, it's not the first time she's said that to Solon.
For all who feel the need to defend Sueeld each time she act like a smarta**, enough!. She can dish out sh*t, she should be able to take it and you guys don't need to defend her. She starts it and then moans about 'hateful speech and name-calling". Get a set of balls or stop name calling yourself, Sueeld.
Jeter, I agree with you. When you call people stupid you lose.
Well I DO think what she said was the same and that is why I reacted as I did. How often have WE argued Jeter? Can you remember me treating YOU this way? Because I cant, then again I dont remember you ever attacking ME with ad hominems.
Solon,
You & I have been debating/arguing/discussing with each other here for nearly 3 years, & I can't recall either of us resorting to name-calling. We've had a great relationship, & I hope that continues :-)
Here's my honest opinion:
If someone wrote: jeter you're being too partisan here & it's clouding your judgment or you're not thinking straight, I could accept that. I might not agree, but I wouldn't get bent out of shape about it. Hey we all are partisan about certain issues.
BUT if someone wrote: jeter you're stupid or ignorant or something along those lines I'd see red! That to me says jeter you're a dumbass. And questions my intelligence.
It just feels more like a personal attack.
BTW, I wasn't trying to pile on ya about this. As you probably know I have *preached* here before about how I wish we could try to keep the personal attacks down to a minimum.
Hey I've let loose a few times here myself. Sometimes it's called for.
You changed what was said not thinking straight is one thing not thinking for MYSELF is quite another. If you think I am wrong, make the point. I dont see it as piling on. I am greatful for several posters who came to my defense, I have no problem others take me to task.
Sorry Solon, I meant to write not thinking for yourself, not thinking straight, so it doesn't change my opinion.
When folks here accuse those on the Right for repeating GOP talking points it amounts to the same thing: You aren't thinking for yourself.
I'd still be less insulted to read that than someone calling me "stupid"
If you feel they are equal, then I guess it's just one more thing we don't agree about, but can respect each others opinion :-)
"You aren't thinking for yourself."--jeter
Maybe I am confused, but I thought conservatives took it as a compliment that they all think alike. Rush Limbaugh's viewers self-describe themselves as "dittoeheads" for goodness sake. A compliment to them is "megadittoes". I'm not making this up!
Perhaps liberals are simply more prone to take exception to charges of group-think than conservatives are.
Liberals aren't prone to Group-think? Are you kidding?........yeah, there is certainly none of that going on around here with liberals.
Can't believe you made that claim on this website, where nothing is further from the truth.
HaHa..
That wasn't what I said. But thanks again for the strawman argument. Do you ever run out of those?
We usually do that after long strings of repitition of the same talking points OFTEN with the same phrasing. That is telling someone they arent thinking for themselves WITH CAUSE. Sue cannot possibly make the argument that I am not thinking for myself for disagreeing with her while making a completely original argument. ONE is pointing out behavior the other is flat out ad hominem attack without even the hint of validity
We usually do that after long strings of repitition of the same talking points OFTEN with the same phrasing.
Yeah, sometimes. But I've also seen it done as the first reply to the first Conservative post. Again it's annoying, but better than being called "stupid" IMO.
Solon, having read the exchange between you & SueEld, I'm inclined to think she threw out the partisan can't think for yourself charge because she felt you refusing to see her point & she got frustrated. Of course I can't speak for her, but that was my impression.
Any one that's hung around this forum long enough knows you're a Liberal, BUT they also know you don't repeat talking points & that you do think for yourself.
I'd like to figure I do the same. But others here have thrown that partisan can't think for yourself charge my way too.
I don't like it, cause I know it's not true...but I'll still take it any day over being called "stupid"
Just my opinion :-)
Solon, having read the exchange between you & SueEld, I'm inclined to think she threw out the partisan can't think for yourself charge because she felt you refusing to see her point & she got frustrated. Of course I can't speak for her, but that was my impression. Jeter
When Solon was frustrated with Tommy and called him a moron he apologized and all was fine. If Sue was frustrated she could have acted like an adult and apologized for starting this crap but she of course did not.
When you accuse me of not thinking for myself. Something I dont think ANYONE who has been around as long as you can seriously believe. YOU are not being kind to ME and dont DESERVE any better treatment than you have gotten from me.
Solon,
I understand why you'd RATHER forget attempts at using false documents by certain people in the media to effect the outcome of the election.
Oh well.. lets move our attention to the current candidates. My guess right now for the nominees are: Clinton-Obama vs Romney-Hucklebee.
AA, I am one that believes Rudy is going to win the nomination. You can see how many in the left are going after him now , look at Keith Olby he spews attacks at him daily now. They are scared of him. 4 more years of gridlock and hate, just like America needs. Same thing would happen if Hillary wins, but the hate would be more intense toward her.
I don't think Rudy is gonna get it.
Here's my predictions...jot them down ;-)
Romney-Huckabee
Edwards-Obama
ps. Hahaha.. I meant to say Huckabee
I'm not sure that Rudi generates division and gridlock. My guess is the Democrats will be very upset if the lose, no matter the Republican.
Using unverified documents, the CONTENTS of which were verified. Which were sent to the White House which didnt utter a peep of a complaint is the same as telling the wholesale lies about McCain, that his daughter wasnt adopted but was his love child with a black prostitute, that he gave his wife a venerial disease that destroyed her uterus. That he had someone killed? Or the Swiftboat Liars for Rent smear? I know you WISH that what was said about Bush wasnt true but in fact it was. Good thing for you guys you managed to make it about the documents and not about what was VERIFIED IN THE DOCUMENTS.
Sure IF that is what I am hearing from both sides. If there is another Swiftboating episode the gloves ought to come off. And Dems should show they know how to play in a knifefight too.
Solon,
It is my opinion that the Dems started it way back in the Clarence Thomas Hearings... It is also my opinion that they have had the gloves off all during the Bush years with the "Bush lied" canard.
I know you feel different, so rather than replay the whole thing, my point is simply point out that the Dems have their own attack machine and its been running pedal to the metal for quite some time.
Both sides seem to believe that "all is fair in love and politics".
Our own David Brock led the way in smearing Anita Hill.
So the Dems started it? WHEN? Then the name Lee Atwater doesnt mean anything to you? The Canuck letter? Please, that is just daft. It probably started when Hammurabi ran against Zub Ab. So its useless to talk about starting it. If you wanted to do that going just back to Clarence Thomas is laughable. I am talking about who is much MUCH worse and that really isnt a subjective matter. The GOP is much more shameless recently that is a simple fact. The worst thing I had ever seen in politics until the Swiftboat liars was what happened to McCain.
That evil Atwater is responsible for the gridlock and hate. Wow that one man who died 15 years ago did so much destruction, America never recovered from him, wow amazing.
Now that you built that strawman are you going to set it on fire and roast marshmallows? Did I say or in any way imply that Lee Atwater STARTED anything? Why no I didnt in fact for anyone able to actually READ they would notice I not only mentioned the Canuck letter but also Hammurabi who predates Atwater by about 3500 years. So is it that you CANT read or were so desperate to say SOMETHING negative that you didnt bother to wonder IF IT MADE ANY SENSE?
Solon,
I don't know that you need to go back to Hammurabi. I should have been more specific and qualified it by saying "recent history".
Anyway, thanks for the discussion.
Recent history is just a continuation of ancient history.
History is not much more than a very long series of causes and effects.
I covered recent history by mentioning Atwater and the Canuck letter both of which predate Clarence Thomas. I think negative campaigns have a loooong history. I also think they go in and out of favor according to how effective they are with each changing electorate
fair enough.
' "Bush lied" canard'
I have nothing to add to that.
True. In the REALITY based universe its known as the Bush lied FACT. Which I must have demonstrated at least 20 times.
My point is if he is going to run on what he did on 9/11 I say we look at the decsions he made before then and what affect those decisions had on 9/11. Democrats are for rolling back tax cut on top 2%, saving Social Security instead of destroying it, keeping America safe without urinating on the rest of the world, regulated capitalism instead of crony capitalism. Sound environmental policies instead of industry backed environmental policies.
Indeed, Rudy's lisp is hardly noticeable when he says 9/11...over and over and over again.
But he does sound vaguely like Sylvester the Cat when he says Saddam Hussein.
**** you Frank!!! Luntz exposed:
[link to www.youtube.com]
F--- YOU, FRANK! ;>)
That was great. I agree - f-you Frank.
Are these the same people who criticized our beloved VP for using the same explicative?
;-)
AA -
Go f- yourself!Love,
Dick
Typical liberal humor.
SAVE US FROM THE MOONBATS, VOTE REPUBLICAN!
Happy Thoughts,
Jeter 2
;-)
Yes, liberal humor is so nasty.
It's not civilized, like the conservative humor of Coulter, Limbaugh, etc.
That is pretty funny, considering how many times AA has talked about how he likes both of them.
Touche'.
However to be accurate, I said I liked Coulter. I don't think I've ever expressed an opinion on Limbaugh, but maybe you are correct.
I don't have a problem with humor even if it is critical and derisive. If you guys think that repeated use of the explicative is funny, by all means, keep laughing.
I think it's safe to say you like Limbaugh, considering some of the ludicrous defenses you've made for him.
Yes, it's funny to say that the way to talk to a liberal is with a baseball bat, but don't curse. That's just in poor taste.
Brab,
I don't like Bill O, Savage, that blond guy in glass on Fox, (who's name escapes me,) and many others. However I do enjoy bringing up points in contrast to the vast majority here who regale the rest of us their typical liberal humor using him as fodder.
I'm just telling you to show you that your assumption is wrong. It must be my warped sense of humor.
ps. Yes, I appreciate humor much more when expletives are left out. I guess that is the difference between baseball bat and moonbat humor. :-)
Perhaps you should be more concerned with making valid arguments instead of contradictory ones. Are you telling me that you know people here are making legitimate criticism of Limbaugh, but you defend him just for the sake of being combative?
Good to know you condone eliminationist rhetoric, as long as it's clean and everything.
Incidentally, I was the one who flagged Coop in his latest incarnation when he flooded a thread with Limbaugh teen male prostitute jokes. But don't let that get in the way of your preconception of "typical" liberal humor or anything.
Brab,
It is only your opinion that my arguments lack any merit. I chalk that up to you being partisan. :-) I think your logic is suspect when you make statements like that.
It is because of the partisanship you expressed that I have developed the term "typical liberal". In this case rather than express your view regarding the explicative laced attempts at humor here, you ignore it and instead decided to attack me and my viewpoints.
Your post might mean more if you denounced your ideological buddies who seem to think using explicative is somehow funny. Until then, I put you in that "typical liberal" group.
My opinion is based on your embarrassing attempts to defend Rush, and so has absolutely no bearing on my reputation for being logical. What "partisanship" did I express, exactly? Be specific. Saying that you make weak arguments? Pointing out that you defend Rush and Coulter? That's not very compelling as an example of partisanship.
I don't use profanity here as a rule, except for maybe "BS". If you have a problem with someone doing it, that's your right to say so. They can justify it as they see fit, and it works that way on both sides. What I think is funny is that you don't see any problem with Coulter's lowering of the public discourse, but you tut-tut the use of asterisks on a message board. That is a highly warped sense of priorities, and it's an excellent example of partisanship.
P.S. you compared the use of profanity on a website to the Vice President using it on the Senate floor. That argument has no merit, because it's clearly a false equivalence. It's sort of hard for you to defend your debating abilities when you provide such an excellent example of your lack of logic on this very thread.
"Typical liberal humor."--AA
Yes. The liberal said it sarcastically. Cheney doesn't joke around like that it is apparently how he communicates in general. I'll take the liberal humor any day over conservative seriousness.
Open,
Quite a feat of logic in your post.
By all means, enjoy that type of humor. It simply proves my point. :-)
Ah no it doesnt. You must mean it reinforces your delusion.
Solon,
Open said, "...I'll take the liberal humor any day over conservative seriousness."
Which goes to my point of calling it "typical liberal humor".
I guess for you to say I am delusional, you are saying Open is not your typical liberal?
Anyway, it was a simple jibe and off topic. It's been fun seeing the comebacks.
Actually Open is NOT a typical liberal. Ask him. He is more of an independent left leaning libertarian. I am not a typical liberal if such an animal even exists. We are a varied lot with many differences. Your delusion was that you were making some kind of point about typical liberal humor. There wasnt one. The joke referenced was a take off on Darth Cheneys crude rebuff to a legitimate question about his cronyism with Halliburton. There was no point.
It is only because of your rabid partisanship that you defend that type of humor.
Typical.
that's "using the same explative on the floor of the U.S. Senate."
I would rather that C-Span not turn into a pay-per-view network.
Pete,
Was Cheney's remark caught on C-span?
When you say "on the floor" are you implying that Cheney was speaking to the Senate as a whole?
Perhaps you'd care to opine on Kerry's rather liberal use of the word in his Playboy interview?
Are you really going to keep implying that a magazine interview is the same as the halls of Congress?
Sort of an odd comparison, don't you think?
Brab,
Not that I condone it, but if you think that some, if not all, of the 100 or so people on the Senate floor don't at times use profanity in their private conversations there, then I've got a dam I'd like to sell you. ;-)
ps. Also a reply said in the heat of the moment (albeit in the Senate chamber,) in my mind is more excusable than using the f word repeatedly in a Playboy article in an obvious pandering to the readership.
You are free to disagree.
In their private conversations? What kind of context are you talking about here? If two Republicans are talking about something in private and say "that's bulls***", I don't care. If someone tells someone to F themselves, that's a completely different matter.
Did Cheney apologize? It doesn't really mean much whether he was heated or not if he didn't. And did he really have some justification for saying it in the first place?
Brab,
I'm surprised you are so ignorant of the incident.
A few days after accusing the Vice President of cronyism regarding Halliburton, Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy crossed the Senate floor to the Republican side to speak with Vice President Cheney during a Senate photo shoot. According to Cheney, Leahy was trying to "make small talk" and "act like everything's peaches and cream." Cheney ended the conversation by saying "go f*** yourself" to Leahy.
I don't believe Cheney every apologized.
I'm fully aware of the incident. Are you claiming that's justification? And if you really want to excuse it as "heat of the moment", wouldn't you expect an apology? Your explanation suggests that it's not typical of his character, so surely once he calmed down he would have no problem apologizing.
Do you see the problem with your defense here? I hope?
Also, regarding your Kerry/Playboy canard;
This was not the first foray into French by Cheney and his boss. During the 2000 campaign, Bush pointed out a New York Times reporter to Cheney and said, without knowing the microphone was picking it up, "major-league [expletive]." Cheney's response -- "Big Time" -- has become his official presidential nickname.
Then there was that famous Talk magazine interview of Bush by Tucker Carlson in 1999, in which the future president repeatedly used the F-word.
So Kerry was pandering to Playboy readers? Who was Bush pandering to when being interviewed for Talk magazine? Or is that just the language he likes to use? The "major-league" incident would suggest the latter. Maybe you should spend more time criticizing Bush and Cheney for their language, since they seem to have a much more difficult time controlling themselves.
AA: "but if you think that some, if not all, of the 100 or so people on the Senate floor don't at times use profanity in their private conversations there, then I've got a dam I'd like to sell you."
Are the Senators constantly telling each other to go F themselves?
Pete,
I don't know.
"Perhaps you'd care to opine on Kerry's rather liberal use of the word in his Playboy interview?"--AA
I never read it, so I don't know, but I guess that answers one question: Who reads the articles in Playboy? Just how did you (or other conservatives) find out about what Kerry said in Playboy? You know there are nekkid...(gulp!)women in that magazine don't you?
You perv.
; )
I only read the articles. ;-)
I salute your courage in coming out, Barn! ;0)
AA: "Perhaps you'd care to opine on Kerry's rather liberal use of the word in his Playboy interview?"
I did not see the interview so you'll have to help me out. Did Kerry use the interview as an opportunity to tell members of Congress to go F themselves??
our beloved VP
He may be your beloved AA, but what I wouldn't give to go quail hunting with him. ;-)
Thanks for the laugh1
JUSTICE AND TRUTH IN THE USA! - FACT CHECK-
In the article Luntz is, in fact, identified: "But Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster"
I'm afraid that Frank's having once worked for Rudy over 7 years ago is not relevant. So I have to call this one for the WSJ.
Ah, the slogan is back!
All hail JTUS!
Not to mention the reluctant "I have to call this one for (whoever has the same opinion I have)"
Justus is a rare wit indeed. How will we ever keep up with his assertions and declarations of victory? We are doomed!
; )
FACT CHECK:
"Frank's having once worked for Rudy over 7 years ago is not relevant."
Analysis:
This is an opinion, not a fact.
"...not relevant."
Thank you so much for resolving that...I'm so glad you have settled the matter for everyone that Frank Luntz's prior employment by Rudy Giuliani is irrelevant.
I am very familiar with the evil wordsmith, Luntz, since his days with Newt Gingrich and the demonization of the Democratic Party in 1994. But I didn't know that Luntz had worked for Giuliani. What are the odds that Luntz will not work for Giuliani again? But I guess all that's been declared irrelevant.
"I'm afraid that Frank's having once worked for Rudy over 7 years ago is not relevant."--JustUs
Typical fascist. Why don't you let the reader decide instead of deciding for them?
FRUITS,VEGETABLES AND USATODAY
___________________________
*********************
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REALITY CHECK !!!!!!
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
/////////////////////////////////////
I'm going to have to call this one for OpenMind.
What's the difference between 9-11 and a cow?
Guliani doesn't know how to milk a cow!
Just ask yourself whether Rudy Giuliani would be a viable candidate for President today were it not for 9/11. And what is it exactly that he did on 9/11 that was so extraordinary? All I know is that his command and control center was wiped out because he stupidly located it in the Twin Towers. I wonder if the city was subleasing the space from Bernie Kerik.
Irony,
You can ask that question of any of them? Would Hillary be viable if it not for her husband? And what about Obama's two years in the Senate make him viable? Or Edwards' short Senate career, or his hit and run lawyerly resume'?
You're ducking the question, Tommy. What did Giuliani do on 9/11 that was so extraordinary? Giuliani has chosen to run on 9/11...that wasn't foisted upon him.
IRONY 101
Tommy made a great point - so why are you ducking it? 9/11 was a big part of Rudy's background - besides being a great mayor for two terms.
And Hillary's only qualification is ...what? Screwing up health care reform?
Do Obama Hussein's 2 short years in the Senate amount to anything?
Tommy nailed you and now you're running away - how "ironic"
The only qualifications necessary are to be at least 35 and an American Citizen by birth.
As far as I can see all of the candidates are qualified.
Justice, apparently neither you nor Tommy can defend Giuliani so you change the subject to Hillary Clinton. So typical...
Now, tell me again...what exactly was it that Rudy Giuliani did on 9/11 that was so extraordinary?
Giuliani is nothing more than Bernie Kerik with a better education. Apparently you favor chief executives with a certain thuggish flavor?
Irony,
It is generally accepted that Giuliani cleaned up NYC. No small administrative feat in and of itself.
I do believe he was also was a pretty good prosecutor with success against the mob.
I think part of his appeal is that he is a pretty hard knuckled guy who can reform the bureaucracy and he is not reluctant, (like Bush,) to let people go who don't do the job.
The Dems want to try to portray Giuliani as a one note/date wonder. But, besides the positives he generates from his position as Mayor during the 9/11 attacks, he has a lot of other qualities.
I don't see him running on a platform of closing strip clubs in public squares.
Another outsider that can save us from divisive politics! That last one worked so well.
"...he has a lot of other qualities."
And I'm still waiting to see what qualities he has that would qualify him for the Presidency. What I am seeing is a typical opportunistic local politician who associates with thugs like Bernie Kerik and who will say anything to climb on the national stage.
I actually liked Giuliani as a mayor. I don't know whether he would be a good president. He has changed (or waffled/pandered away) many of the positions he once held that made him appealing to me.
Ath far ath I'm contherned, we will continue making fun of hith lithp ath long ath it pitheth off the Republicanths.
:-)
Hahaha... It would be fun to thee him debate Al Gore. :-)
WZ, LOL, that was funny. ;-)
Thankth.
:-)