View Full Version : Will the media cover Rudy's Flip-Flops on conservative issues?
That's going to be a big part of his ability to win the nomination in 2008. So far, they have given him and Obama the Rock Star, "Jordan Rules" type coverage. The coverage has been so hands off that even observant supporters like patteeu to claim...
The reason that McCain and Hillary look like calculating double talkers and Giuliani doesn't is because he ISN'T doing the same thing they are. They are reversing themselves, as much as they try to pretend otherwise.
If the media doesn't cover this sort of thing, patteeu's framing of Rudy will become the defacto point of view (no matter how false it really is). That would certainly make it easier for Rudy to pull out the Republican nominiation.
This covers the flip-flop pretty well...
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/02/post_39.php
Rudy's views on what opponents call "Partial Birth Abortion." The other night Rudy appeared on Fox's Hannity and Colmes, giving his first key interview since the news broke that he was basically in the race.
Here's what Rudy said about the partial birth ban in the interview:
HANNITY: Partial birth?
GIULIANI: Partial birth abortion? I think that's going to be upheld. I think that ban's gonna be upheld. I think it should be. I think as long as there's a provision for the life of the mother then that's something that should be done.
HANNITY: There's a misconception that you support a partial birth abortion.
GIULIANI: Well, if it doesn't have provision for the mother then I wouldn't support the legislation. If it has provision for the life of the mother then I would support. And I do.
But here's what Rudy said about the issue on CNN on December 2, 1999, when he was preparing a Senate run against Hillary Clinton (via Nexis):
[GARY] TUCHMAN: Giuliani was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions, something Bush strongly supports.
GIULIANI: No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing.
Here's what Rudy said on CNN on February 6, 2000 (via Nexis):
BLITZER: If you were in the Senate and [President Clinton] vetoed, once again, the [ban on the] so-called partial-birth abortion procedure, you would vote against sustaining that against the -- in favor of the veto in other words, you would support the president on that.
GIULIANI: Yes. I said then that I support him, so I have no reason to change my mind about it.
BLITZER: All right. So the bottom line is that on a lot of these very sensitive issues whether on guns, abortion, patients' bill of rights, taxes, you are more in line with the president and by association, with Mrs. Clinton, than you are against them.
And here's what Rudy said on ABC News on February 6, 2000:
[GEORGE] WILL: Is your support of partial birth abortion firm?
Mayor GIULIANI: All of my positions are firm. I have strong viewpoints. I express them. And I--I do not think that it makes sense to be changing your position....
The version of the ban that Rudy opposed back then contained the provision for the life of the mother that Rudy is now saying is a prerequisite for his support of it. Maybe he's changed his mind. Either way, it'll be interesting to see if the media takes note of stuff like this.
Can there really be room in this Presidential race for not one, but two straight-talking Republicans?
Given that Rudy is pulling a John McCain on these issues... will the media expose him for it?
BIG_DADDY
03-01-2007, 03:50 PM
I wonder if your mother ever considered an abortion.
Here's another 180 by Rudy on the Hyde Amendment...
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/mar/01/rudy_flip_flops_on_public_funding_of_abortion
Rudy Flip-Flops On Public Funding Of Abortion
By Eric Kleefeld | bio
Here's another flip-flop on abortion from Rudy Giuliani, who's steadily moving to the right on the issue to appeal to the social conservatives who drive GOP primaries. This time Rudy's has shifted on the issue of public funding for abortion.
Check out what a top Rudy Giuliani adviser just said to the National Review about Rudy's stance on the issue:
On the issue of abortion, Simon focused on Giuliani’s recent comments on judges. When pressed — what is a pro-lifer like Simon doing flacking for an abortion-rights advocate? — and asked if he had any assurance that Giuliani wouldn’t support taxpayer-funded abortion as president, Simon told National Review Online, "I have an assurance that he is in favor of the Hyde amendment" (which forbids such taxpayer subsidies).
But here's how The New York Times described Rudy's position on the issue on June 18, 1993 (via Nexis):
Leaflets distributed by the Giuliani campaign at the morning program said that he opposes restrictions to Federal Medicaid financing for abortions and opposes the Hyde Amendment, which is intended to deny support for that financing.
We're seeking comment from Rudy's campaign on his reversal. Incidentally, Rudy has also flip-flopped on another key abortion question: Whether he backs late-term abortion. Now we have two flip-flops and counting.
BIG_DADDY
03-01-2007, 04:04 PM
I think we both can agree we don't want Rudy for president but that's about it.
How's the future Chiefs QB doing these days?
Baby Lee
03-01-2007, 04:11 PM
This'll probably be characterized as spin, as I'm a Guiliani supporter, but it's my honestly held opinion. It is also mine alone, I'm not gonna say a lot of people will or should agree.
There's a lot more leeway for 'flip-flopping' on the bleeding edges of the abortion issue than there is on the issue of funding a war. Many, many people are deeply conflicted on this issue at it's core. is it good, bad, necessary evil, unfortunate sequlae of a right to privacy? Should outlaw it or or just discourage it, or just hope the need for it withers away?
I waffle from outrage to resigned acceptance back to outrage ad infinitum as time goes by, and I don't think I'm alone.
Chief Henry
03-01-2007, 04:11 PM
I think we both can agree we don't want Rudy for president but that's about it.
How's the future Chiefs QB doing these days?
Do you think Scooter Libby will be found not guilty :p
BIG_DADDY
03-01-2007, 04:15 PM
Do you think Scooter Libby will be found not guilty :p
That's enough out of you Mr.
banyon
03-01-2007, 04:16 PM
On Hannity
HANNITY: Let me move on. And the issue of guns has come up a lot. When people talk about Mayor Giuliani, New York City had some of the toughest gun laws in the entire country. Do you support the right of people to carry handguns?
GIULIANI: I understand the Second Amendment. I support it. People have the right to bear arms. When I was mayor of New York, I took over at a very, very difficult time. We were averaging about 2,000 murders a year, 10,000...
HANNITY: You inherited those laws, the gun laws in New York?
GIULIANI: Yes, and I used them. I used them to help bring down homicide. We reduced homicide, I think, by 65-70 percent. And some of it was by taking guns out of the streets of New York City.
So if you're talking about a city like New York, a densely populated area like New York, I think it's appropriate. You might have different laws other places, and maybe a lot of this gets resolved based on different states, different communities making decisions. After all, we do have a federal system of government in which you have the ability to accomplish that.
HANNITY: So you would support the state's rights to choose on specific gun laws?
GIULIANI: Yes, I mean, a place like New York that is densely populated, or maybe a place that is experiencing a serious crime problem, like a few cities are now, kind of coming back, thank goodness not New York, but some other cities, maybe you have one solution there and in another place, more rural, more suburban, other issues, you have a different set of rules.
HANNITY: But generally speaking, do you think it's acceptable if citizens have the right to carry a handgun?
GIULIANI: It's not only -- I mean, it's part of the Constitution. People have the right to bear arms. Then the restrictions of it have to be reasonable and sensible. You can't just remove that right. You've got to regulate, consistent with the Second Amendment.
HANNITY: How do you feel about the Brady bill and assault ban?
GIULIANI: I was in favor of that as part of the crime bill. I was in favor of it because I thought that it was necessary both to get the crime bill passed and also necessary with the 2,000 murders or so that we were looking at, 1,800, 1,900, to 2,000 murders, that I could use that in a tactical way to reduce crime. And I did.
In 2000:
I do not think the government should cut off the right to bear arms. My position for many years has been that just as a motorist must have a license, a gun owner should be required to have one as well. Anyone wanting to own a gun should have to pass a written exam that shows that they know how to use a gun, that they’re intelligent enough and responsible enough to handle a gun. Should both handgun and rifle owners be licensed...we’re talking about all dangerous weapons.
Source: Boston Globe, p. A4 Mar 21, 2000
I think we both can agree we don't want Rudy for president but that's about it.
Actually, I think I'm more comfortable with Rudy than you and the religous right. I love the fact that the 4 front runners in this race are centrists. 2008 and beyond won't be perfect, but I'd take any of them over Bush.
How's the future Chiefs QB doing these days?
He's doing great! He was 5 weeks early and after 11 weeks, he's already caught up in weight to all of the full term babys that are 11 weeks old. Almost 13 pounds and 25 inches long.
BucEyedPea
03-01-2007, 04:22 PM
I see both you and he are carrot-tops!
Jaz must be an Irishman?
This'll probably be characterized as spin, as I'm a Guiliani supporter, but it's my honestly held opinion. It is also mine alone, I'm not gonna say a lot of people will or should agree.
There's a lot more leeway for 'flip-flopping' on the bleeding edges of the abortion issue than there is on the issue of funding a war. Many, many people are deeply conflicted on this issue at it's core. is it good, bad, necessary evil, unfortunate sequlae of a right to privacy? Should outlaw it or or just discourage it, or just hope the need for it withers away?
I waffle from outrage to resigned acceptance back to outrage ad infinitum as time goes by, and I don't think I'm alone.
I think your point has merit, but it doesn't apply to Rudy.
"I don't see my position on that changing."
"All of my positions are firm. I have strong viewpoints. I express them. And I--I do not think that it makes sense to be changing your position...."
He's been publicly adament about his positions being firm all along. At it's only now that he's courting voters who he needs to get a chance at getting elected... that he's abandoning his commitments of the past.
BIG_DADDY
03-01-2007, 04:27 PM
On Hannity
In 2000:
He went after gun manufacturers, it was a death wish.
I see both you and he are carrot-tops!
Jaz must be an Irishman?
We are both more bald than redheads at this point. I noticed his hair lightened and turned more redish. I have mostly Irish in me (Grandma Maloney).
BIG_DADDY
03-01-2007, 04:32 PM
Actually, I think I'm more comfortable with Rudy than you and the religous right. I love the fact that the 4 front runners in this race are centrists. 2008 and beyond won't be perfect, but I'd take any of them over Bush.
He's doing great! He was 5 weeks early and after 11 weeks, he's already caught up in weight to all of the full term babys that are 11 weeks old. Almost 13 pounds and 25 inches long.
I'm not a Bush backer and didn't vote for him. I am also far from the religious right. I thought you knew me better than that.
Moderates huh? Yea figures you would see the anti-gun, pro AA and increase taxes types as being moderate. That doesn't surprise me at all Mr. Middle of the Road. ROFL
Good to hear he's healthy, I'm looking forward to the same hopefully.
Also Gun Control, maybe...
I thought this was interesting... I haven't figured out yet what it was specfically in reference to at the time...
BLITZER: If you were in the Senate and [President Clinton] vetoed, once again, the so-called partial-birth abortion procedure, you would vote against sustaining that against the -- in favor of the veto in other words, you would support the president on that.
GIULIANI: Yes. I said then that I support him, so I have no reason to change my mind about it.
BLITZER: All right. [B]So the bottom line is that on a lot of these very sensitive issues whether on guns, abortion, patients' bill of rights, taxes, you are more in line with the president and by association, with Mrs. Clinton, than you are against them.
In what way was he in agreement with Bill Clinton on taxes? That's gotta be concerning to all those around here who claimed Clinton was a tax-and-spend liberal.
patteeu
03-01-2007, 05:15 PM
A flip flop, not on partial birth abortion, but on what he considers reasonable exceptions to the practice? Stop it, you're making me laugh. LMAO
The media will not only cover any flip flops of Rudy's, they will also work hard to blow them out of proportion just like jAZ does in this thread. Afterall, Giuliani is a Republican.
Every politician is going to have some evolving positions (call them flip flops if you want) if they have any length of time at all in the political spotlight. Even Obama has reversed himself and he's a nOOb on the national political scene. But the kinds of reversals that Obama and Giuliani are guilty of are nothing like the flip flops of Hillary and McCain.
A flip flop, not on partial birth abortion, but on what he considers reasonable exceptions to the practice? Stop it, you're making me laugh. LMAO.
What are you talking about?
He's gone for entirely opposed to the ban, to accepting the ban. The only part he's NOT flip-flopping on is the exemption to the ban.
Man... this is gonna be a rough year for ya patty...
Giuliani ...ISN'T ... reversing (himself)...
...the kinds of reversals that ... Giuliani (is) guilty of ...
ROFL
Baby Lee
03-01-2007, 05:47 PM
I think your point has merit, but it doesn't apply to Rudy.
Do you think that, if people are nearly as conflicted as I am, they will register any disconnect between his adamance and his naunce? Or will they, even subconsciously, assume he's just as conflicted as they are?
Taco John
03-01-2007, 06:00 PM
Do you think that, if people are nearly as conflicted as I am, they will register any disconnect between his adamance and his naunce? Or will they, even subconsciously, assume he's just as conflicted as they are?
Since when have Republicans given a damn about nuance? This is news to me.
Do you think that, if people are nearly as conflicted as I am, they will register any disconnect between his adamance and his naunce? Or will they, even subconsciously, assume he's just as conflicted as they are?
I think that you aren't reflective of those we are talking about here. Aside from the fact that he's been your guy along the way, Rudy's views and yours are sympatico. You aren't the guy he's trying to win over with his double-talk.
So I guess the point is, that your willingness to let it slide because you struggle with the issue, isn't reflective of the views of those hardliners who's he's trying to court. They seem to be pretty clearly of the "baby killer" variety.
Since when have Republicans given a damn about nuance? This is news to me.
It's going to be an amusing 2 years... that's all I can say without being overly obnoxious.
patteeu
03-01-2007, 06:12 PM
What are you talking about?
He's gone for entirely opposed to the ban, to accepting the ban. The only part he's NOT flip-flopping on is the exemption to the ban.
Yeah, I misread that. So Rudy's position on the most extreme of all abortions has changed. Again, we are kind of operating at the fringe here, it's just not quite as far on the fringe as I first believed, but it's still the fringe. None of this changes the fact that Rudy isn't afraid to say that he holds a position that is remains at odds with the voters he's courting. He mitigates these differences though by indicating that he's not going to be a pro-choice warrior. That's far more honest than someone who pretends to radically change their position (see Hillary's flip flop regarding Iraq and the case for going to war).
Baby Lee
03-01-2007, 06:12 PM
I think that you aren't reflective of those we are talking about here. Aside from the fact that he's been your guy along the way, Rudy's views and yours are sympatico. You aren't the guy he's trying to win over with his double-talk.
So I guess the point is, that your willingness to let it slide because you struggle with the issue, isn't reflective of the views of those hardliners who's he's trying to court. They seem to be pretty clearly of the "baby killer" variety.
Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush I weren't particularly hard-liners on abortion, and they're not vilified as baby killing sellouts. I think you are overestimating how much this issue is gonna drive the populace. They're gonna go for a guy who's staunch on defense/WoT, fiscally conservative, and isn't gonna return us to the days of tax-payer funding initiatives and Surgeon Generals telling our kids to masturbate. They have the Justices they want for a generation.
Baby Lee
03-01-2007, 06:14 PM
Since when have Republicans given a damn about nuance? This is news to me.
It was the Republicans saying 'Bush said Saddam Hussein flew a plane into WT1!!!111ONEONEONE!!
patteeu
03-01-2007, 06:16 PM
Man... this is gonna be a rough year for ya patty...
ROFL
The obvious difference is in the quality of the reversal. He's not reversing himself by saying that what he previously considered white is now black, he's saying that what he previously considered white is now off-white.
patteeu
03-01-2007, 06:21 PM
Since when have Republicans given a damn about nuance? This is news to me.
You mean nuance like:
Bush said he was told by British intelligence that Saddam sought yellowcake in Niger,
our CIA can't confirm that Saddam sought yellowcake in Niger,
therefore BUSH LIED!
Yeah, those Republicans are sure a bunch of unsophisticated dolts.
|Zach|
03-01-2007, 06:22 PM
The obvious difference is in the quality of the reversal. He's not reversing himself by saying that what he previously considered white is now black, he's saying that what he previously considered white is now off-white.
ROFL
patteeu
03-01-2007, 06:23 PM
I think that you aren't reflective of those we are talking about here. Aside from the fact that he's been your guy along the way, Rudy's views and yours are sympatico. You aren't the guy he's trying to win over with his double-talk.
So I guess the point is, that your willingness to let it slide because you struggle with the issue, isn't reflective of the views of those hardliners who's he's trying to court. They seem to be pretty clearly of the "baby killer" variety.
How do you explain Cochise's relative acceptance of Guiliani? Do you think he just hasn't learned enough about the man's godless beliefs and practices to reject him yet?
I know you really, really want to see a split in the Republican party, but I think that in the end you will be disappointed. There will be more social conservatives who reject Guiliani than who rejected Bush, but I don't think those numbers will be as large as you'd like to think and Giuliani has a good shot at more than making up for that via his appeal to other elements of the electorate (e.g. libertarians, social moderates, folks who value leadership ability highly given the state of our affairs, etc.).
The obvious difference is in the quality of the reversal. He's not reversing himself by saying that what he previously considered white is now black, he's saying that what he previously considered white is now off-white.
Again, you are mixing up the part his flipping and the part he's retaining.
He's retaining partial birth abortion in only one condition. All others would be banned. He's flipping on the greatest part, and only retaining a small foot where he used to be.
Using your analogy, he's reversing himself, as much as (his supporters) try to pretend otherwise.
Or your other analogy, he's going from white to dark brown. It might not be white to black, but it's almost all the way there.
patteeu
03-01-2007, 06:28 PM
ROFL
This must be one of those times that it would be more meaningful if you could deliver this message in person.
How do you explain Cochise's relative acceptance of Guiliani? Do you think he just hasn't learned enough about the man's godless beliefs and practices to reject him yet?
None of the regulars here are "morals" republicans. They are libertarian/fiscal republicans.
I don't think Cochise is an evangelical Christian voter.
Maybe I missed something massive.
patteeu
03-01-2007, 06:36 PM
Again, you are mixing up the part his flipping and the part he's retaining.
He's retaining partial birth abortion in only one condition. All others would be banned. He's flipping on the greatest part, and only retaining a small foot where he used to be.
Using your analogy, he's reversing himself, as much as (his supporters) try to pretend otherwise.
Or your other analogy, he's going from white to dark brown. It might not be white to black, but it's almost all the way there.
No, I'm not confused about it anymore. You are so focused on partial birth abortion that you aren't recognizing that the big picture issue is abortion, not partial birth abortion.
The change on partial birth abortion is a tiny reversal compared to the abortion issue overall. He isn't saying that he's become pro-life, he's just saying his view has shifted just a little bit away from the extreme pro-choice position. That's a white to off-white shift, not a white to black shift.
patteeu
03-01-2007, 06:39 PM
None of the regulars here are "morals" republicans. They are libertarian/fiscal republicans.
I don't think Cochise is an evangelical Christian voter.
Maybe I missed something massive.
Cochise isn't a robot for Jerry Falwell, but he's made no secret of the fact that he's a believer and that his religious views inform his politics to some degree. I guess it depends on your definition of evangelical Christian voter. I get the impression that you have something of a bogeyman understanding of evangelicals.
Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush I weren't particularly hard-liners on abortion, and they're not vilified as baby killing sellouts.
And the evangelical movement didn't have it's coming out party until 2000. It's going to be hard to un-ring the bell on this. The Republican party was surrendered to the Religous Right when Bush took office.
The moderate Republcians were cowtowed by the "this is working, shut so shut the eff up!" folks, that they accepted it. Right up until the GOPs power become so corrupting that it cost them the 2006 election. Now the party is putting forward moderate candidates.
It's going to be a showdown, IMO.
I'm rooting for you guys. I've been doing so for the last 6 years.
I think Brownback would cement a Dem victory. I think an Rudy/Obama race would be the best possible race for the future of the country.
I'm quite happy with the alternatives.
That said, watching the regulars here completely rewrite the grounds of acceptablity for governing is amazing. Rudy is the candidate du jour among Republicans around here, but he's mirroring the behavior of McCain and Kerry by taking nuanced positions on issues that provide political expediency.
He's being given a free pass in doing so because he's the best chance to retain power. And in the end, for many around here, it's all about that. I respect Big Daddy for holding true to his prinicples, even if I disagree.
Cochise isn't a robot for Jerry Falwell, but he's made no secret of the fact that he's a believer and that his religious views inform his politics to some degree. I guess it depends on your definition of evangelical Christian voter. I get the impression that you have something of a boogie man understanding of evangelicals.
I can rattle of the Christian posters on here and Cochise isn't one of them.
One of these posters is not like the other...
Believer,
MarcBulger,
stevieray,
KC Johnny,
Cochise
Cochise
03-01-2007, 07:01 PM
Cochise isn't a robot for Jerry Falwell, but he's made no secret of the fact that he's a believer and that his religious views inform his politics to some degree. I guess it depends on your definition of evangelical Christian voter. I get the impression that you have something of a boogie man understanding of evangelicals.
Correct.
To answer the question, I would definitely describe myself as evangelical. No, I don't let Pat Robertson tell me how to vote but contrary to what the media would have you believe, most evangelicals don't. Many if not most of them probably don't hear Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell speak a word in a year.
These people are propped up by the other side as leaders because they are kooks. Liberals don't want Christians to look like reasonable people. They want them to look like brain-dead drones to these wackos.
Anyways, I'm never 100% happy with a president. What I see in Giuliani is someone I could be 90% happy with, and someone who is/is going to make assurances not to do anything crazy on the other 10%.
That's why I like him. Aside from his stance on the 'problem' issues not really bothering me, I like him because he's got experience in executive positions in government. Being Mayor of NYC might be the closest thing we have in the US to being President. I'd certainly bet that the mayor of NYC is more qualified if he did a great job than someone who was the governor of Wyoming or sat around in the Senate for a couple of years.
I wasn't excited about Bush but I voted for him. Going out of office, I'm not excited about his performance. I give him a C.
I am excited about Giuliani and I think he has A potential.
Cochise
03-01-2007, 07:01 PM
I can rattle of the Christian posters on here and Cochise isn't one of them.
One of these posters is not like the other...
Believer,
MarcBulger,
stevieray,
KC Johnny,
Cochise
What makes you say that?
Sometimes I'm a little rough with my speech and I don't quote scripture or be obnoxiously loud about my beliefs but that does not mean I don't have any.
I grew up in Baptist denomination. The radio in my car is often tuned to Christian talk radio. I even took a class on audit at a local theological seminary last year, just for my own information. I probably have more books on my bookshelf related to religion and philosophy than anything else.
I think that stevieray is a fine poster. I appreciate the distinction being drawn between me and Believer, Bulger, Johnny though...
Donger
03-01-2007, 07:09 PM
I can rattle of the Christian posters on here and Cochise isn't one of them.
One of these posters is not like the other...
Believer,
MarcBulger,
stevieray,
KC Johnny,
Cochise
Wow. That's rather prickish, don't you think?
patteeu
03-01-2007, 07:11 PM
...
These people are propped up by the other side as leaders because they are kooks. Liberals don't want Christians to look like reasonable people. They want them to look like brain-dead drones to these wackos.
Anyways, I'm never 100% happy with a president. What I see in Giuliani is someone I could be 90% happy with, and someone who is/is going to make assurances not to do anything crazy on the other 10%.
...
Two very good points. :thumb:
stevieray
03-01-2007, 07:12 PM
I can rattle of the Christian posters on here and Cochise isn't one of them.
One of these posters is not like the other...
Believer,
MarcBulger,
stevieray,
KC Johnny,
Cochise
Your list is missing a few people....please try to refrain from thinking you have the lowdown on the level of faith of any poster...I would think it's personal and different for each individual and their corresponding faith.
stevieray
03-01-2007, 07:14 PM
What makes you say that?
Sometimes I'm a little rough with my speech and I don't quote scripture or be obnoxiously loud about my beliefs but that does not mean I don't have any.
I grew up in Baptist denomination. The radio in my car is often tuned to Christian talk radio. I even took a class on audit at a local theological seminary last year, just for my own information. I probably have more books on my bookshelf related to religion and philosophy than anything else.
I think that stevieray is a fine poster. I appreciate the distinction being drawn between me and Believer, Bulger, Johnny though...
thanks cochise...right back at you.
patteeu
03-01-2007, 07:15 PM
Your list is missing a few people....please try to refrain from thinking you have the lowdown on the level of faith of any poster...I would think it's personal and different fo each individual and their corresponding faith.
What's your opinion of Giuliani as a POTUS candidate, stevieray? Which candidates are you interested in at this point?
Cochise
03-01-2007, 07:19 PM
Wow. That's rather prickish, don't you think?
Implications that religious people are all mentally handicapped or willfully ignorant are constant in D.C., it's just part of clicking the link. I don't get offended anymore, I'm a minority coming into a klan meeting after all.
stevieray
03-01-2007, 07:21 PM
What's your opinion of Giuliani as a POTUS candidate, stevieray? Which candidates are you interested in at this point?
wow...don't know yet...I do know that I saw a strength in Rudy after the planes hit. He provided leadership that NY obviously needed...These are crucial times...I'm going to take the approach of one of our founding founders and listen to everyone first before deciding.
What makes you say that?
Sometimes I'm a little rough with my speech and I don't quote scripture or be obnoxiously loud about my beliefs but that does not mean I don't have any.
I grew up in Baptist denomination. The radio in my car is often tuned to Christian talk radio. I even took a class on audit at a local theological seminary last year, just for my own information. I probably have more books on my bookshelf related to religion and philosophy than anything else.
I think that stevieray is a fine poster. I appreciate the distinction being drawn between me and Believer, Bulger, Johnny though...
I don't doubt it, I'm just pointing out that there are certain DC regulars who take an evangelicial approach to their particpation in DC or their views in the discussions. I've never seen you as such. I was suprised to see patteeu reference you in making a point that seemed to be better made by referencing any of the 4 I mentioned.
There are a lot of Christians that post on the Planet (and in DC) that haven't had their identity become synonymous with being evangelically Christian. You (in my mind) are one of those posters it seems.
MarcBulger
03-01-2007, 07:22 PM
Sure they will cover his flip flops that way they don't have to cover Hillary's.
Your list is missing a few people....
My list is of those that have made their faith a prominant part of their posting. There are surely many, many, many others who haven't done so.
please try to refrain from thinking you have the lowdown on the level of faith of any poster...I would think it's personal and different for each individual and their corresponding faith.
No doubt. I don't assume to have the low-down on any poster. Just the "low-down" on the personas of various posters. Some posters have a persona of outspoken Christian, big-time beer drinkers, others are oddballs or comedians, or "can't we all just get alongs" or whatever.
I'm the Bush hater.
It's is what we project whether it's really our true nature or only one part of many aspects.
Just trying to be clear.
Wow. That's rather prickish, don't you think?
I certainly don't think so. They are all just posters who have as part of their persona their Christian identity. I never picked that up from Cochise.
Seems I missed something.
patteeu
03-01-2007, 07:28 PM
My list is of those that have made their faith a prominant part of their posting. There are surely many, many, many others who haven't done so.
No doubt. I don't assume to have the low-down on any poster. Just the "low-down" on the personas of various posters. Some posters have a persona of outspoken Christian, big-time beer drinkers, others are oddballs or comedians, or "can't we all just get alongs" or whatever.
I'm the Bush hater.
It's is what we project whether it's really our true nature or only one part of many aspects.
Just trying to be clear.
I bet you pegged me as a "can't we all just get along" guy.
stevieray
03-01-2007, 07:39 PM
My list is of those that have made their faith a prominant part of their posting.
Just trying to be clear.
my views might be based on my faith, but I don't feel it's that prominant in my posting, though i'm sure others might feel differently.
like elvis, it's usually someone else bringing it up.
thanks for clarifying..
Donger
03-01-2007, 07:41 PM
I certainly don't think so. They are all just posters who have as part of their persona their Christian identity. I never picked that up from Cochise.
Seems I missed something.
Yes, you did. You were wrong and presumptive.
Cochise
03-01-2007, 07:41 PM
Re: flip flop on PBA
If someone flip-flops on an issue and they change to your opinion, you aren't going to care. If you are against PBA and Giuliani decides that he is against it too, you're happy. He has seen the light, in your opinion.
Maybe he read something on the internet that says what the procedure entails and that changed his mind. Maybe he heard a particularly poignant story from a constituent that changed his mind. If you care about that issue, then you are just glad someone powerful changed their opinion to yours.
If I suddenly decided to be a liberal, jAZ wouldn't call me a flipflopper and deride me. He'd think I finally came to my senses.
If we are honest with ourselves, we can admit that we don't really know people in politics' motivations. Even if they tell us what they claim their motivations are, they could just be changing for political purposes.
Maybe Barack Obama feels deep in his heart that abortion is murder, but he is quiet about it because he's a democrat in other ways and wants to win the Presidency? How would I really know?
In my opinion, it's one thing to say "I've changed my mind on that issue." To say "I never said that" when you did say that, or to attempt to nuance an old position into a new one while dubiously claiming you've been consistent all along, those are not the same thing.
Saying "I've examined the issue and I feel differently about partial birth abortion now" can be a true and honest statement. It's not at all like "I was for it before I was against it." The former admits a mistake. The second attempts to shift blame to being deceived, or tries to have it both ways.
I can respect someone changing their mind. What I can't respect is "I know I said A, but what I really meant was B", when it's obvious to a reasonable person that they did not really mean B at the time.
banyon
03-02-2007, 10:34 AM
I really don't think anyone can meaningfully distinguish Conservatives pummeling John Kerry for being a "flip-flopper" while defending these changes in policy. It's not like these were things that Giuliani thought when he was a kid, or that he wrote a paper about these things in college that surfaced. These were (or should have been) carefully considered views on policy from a man who had been in public life for quite a while.
pikesome
03-02-2007, 10:59 AM
If someone flip-flops on an issue and they change to your opinion, you aren't going to care. If you are against PBA and Giuliani decides that he is against it too, you're happy. He has seen the light, in your opinion.
This might be one of the best points in the thread, someone agreeing with you changes your feelings about them. This goes for just about everything a politician does and how much slack we will cut him on various issues.
htismaqe
03-02-2007, 11:13 AM
Of course they won't.
He's part of the inner circle of politcos.
Destroying Rudy in the media might give an honest candidate a fighting chance, and we can't have that.
pikesome
03-02-2007, 11:17 AM
Of course they won't.
He's part of the inner circle of politcos.
Destroying Rudy in the media might give an honest candidate a fighting chance, and we can't have that.
No such thing. Just like the tooth fairy and perpetual motion.
BucEyedPea
03-02-2007, 11:19 AM
Of course they won't.
He's part of the inner circle of politcos.
Destroying Rudy in the media might give an honest candidate a fighting chance, and we can't have that.
Rep!
htismaqe
03-02-2007, 11:42 AM
No such thing. Just like the tooth fairy and perpetual motion.
There ARE honest candidates out there.
But they're not Democrats or Republicans, and are therefore forbidden to participate in our duopoly.
CRONUS
03-02-2007, 11:44 AM
Again, you are mixing up the part his flipping and the part he's retaining.
He's retaining partial birth abortion in only one condition. All others would be banned. He's flipping on the greatest part, and only retaining a small foot where he used to be.
Using your analogy, he's reversing himself, as much as (his supporters) try to pretend otherwise.
Or your other analogy, he's going from white to dark brown. It might not be white to black, but it's almost all the way there.
Providing clarification is not flip-flopping. I view what he is doing as refining the conditions under which he supports it, not reversing himself.
pikesome
03-02-2007, 11:48 AM
There ARE honest candidates out there.
But they're not Democrats or Republicans, and are therefore forbidden to participate in our duopoly.
NONE. The "honest ones" "stick to their principles" which means we get shitty leadership. It's one of the things I hate about our 2 party system, anyone who would probably be able to get a workable solution has already been co-oped and the ones left are radical nuts who's abilities to compromise have atrophied.
banyon
03-02-2007, 11:50 AM
Providing clarification is not flip-flopping. I view what he is doing as refining the conditions under which he supports it, not reversing himself.
?
You believe that someone can simultaneously hold these two views?
1. Partial Birth abortions should be provided.
2. Partial Birth abortions should not be provided, unless there is a risk to the life (and not health) of the mother.
Donger
03-02-2007, 12:15 PM
?
You believe that someone can simultaneously hold these two views?
1. Partial Birth abortions should be provided.
2. Partial Birth abortions should not be provided, unless there is a risk to the life (and not health) of the mother.
They aren't contradictory at all.
CRONUS
03-02-2007, 12:20 PM
?
You believe that someone can simultaneously hold these two views?
1. Partial Birth abortions should be provided.
2. Partial Birth abortions should not be provided, unless there is a risk to the life (and not health) of the mother.
Yes
htismaqe
03-02-2007, 12:30 PM
NONE. The "honest ones" "stick to their principles" which means we get shitty leadership. It's one of the things I hate about our 2 party system, anyone who would probably be able to get a workable solution has already been co-oped and the ones left are radical nuts who's abilities to compromise have atrophied.
The only reason we get shitty leadership when people "stick to their principles" is because there's no place in Washington DC for principles.
If you're not interested in being part of the ever-expanding federal bureacracy, you have no chance of ever effecting change.
BucEyedPea
03-02-2007, 12:41 PM
The only reason we get shitty leadership when people "stick to their principles" is because there's no place in Washington DC for principles.
If you're not interested in being part of the ever-expanding federal bureacracy, you have no chance of ever effecting change.
:thumb:
One of the most unethical and corrupt places in the country.
They aren't contradictory at all.
They are if the first is an unlimited and unqualified position, which history shows Rudy's to be.
He's flip-floping on all conditions but one.
BIG_DADDY
03-02-2007, 02:16 PM
There ARE honest candidates out there.
But they're not Democrats or Republicans, and are therefore forbidden to participate in our duopoly.
NICE!! :thumb:
Providing clarification is not flip-flopping. I view what he is doing as refining the conditions under which he supports it, not reversing himself.
He's opened himself up to charges of inconsistancy or dishonesty.
He's held an unqualified position on this issue for a decade now. Now that he's campaigning among a group of people that don't want a leader who holds an unqualified position on the subject, he's qualifying it. In doing so, he's going from entirely legal, to almost entirely illegal.
If you are going hold onto the theory that it's not a perfect reversal, that's fine. But it's a massive (if not complete) reversal.
And if you are going to hold onto the belief that he always believed what he's now "clarifying" to be his current view... then you are saying that he was dishonest by omission with his constituents in the past, by not being clear about his nearly polar views from his public rhetoric.
And if so, and he's dishonest enough to decieve the public in NY on the issue in 2000, then it calls into question whether he's being honest in his position today.
The most honest assessment of this situation is that Rudy is a politician trying to have it both ways. Once in 1999 for the purpose of getting elected to the Senate by courting the support of the of New York liberal voters needed to win... and now by courting the consevative voters needed to win the GOP primary.
For anyone to try to suggest that he's not at the very least trying to have it both ways is being even more dishonest than Rudy.
StcChief
03-02-2007, 02:24 PM
I would hope the Media would COVER any Candidate fairly...
but that is too much to ask :rolleyes:
patteeu
03-02-2007, 03:05 PM
He's opened himself up to charges of inconsistancy or dishonesty.
He's held an unqualified position on this issue for a decade now. Now that he's campaigning among a group of people that don't want a leader who holds an unqualified position on the subject, he's qualifying it. In doing so, he's going from entirely legal, to almost entirely illegal.
If you are going hold onto the theory that it's not a perfect reversal, that's fine. But it's a massive (if not complete) reversal.
And if you are going to hold onto the belief that he always believed what he's now "clarifying" to be his current view... then you are saying that he was dishonest by omission with his constituents in the past, by not being clear about his nearly polar views from his public rhetoric.
And if so, and he's dishonest enough to decieve the public in NY on the issue in 2000, then it calls into question whether he's being honest in his position today.
The most honest assessment of this situation is that Rudy is a politician trying to have it both ways. Once in 1999 for the purpose of getting elected to the Senate by courting the support of the of New York liberal voters needed to win... and now by courting the consevative voters needed to win the GOP primary.
For anyone to try to suggest that he's not at the very least trying to have it both ways is being even more dishonest than Rudy.
"massive" LMAO It's funny how desperate you are to paint this as a big flip flop, when all it really is is a relatively minor shift from one pro-choice position to a slightly less extreme pro-choice position.
"massive" LMAO It's funny how desperate you are to paint this as a big flip flop, when all it really is is a relatively minor shift from one pro-choice position to a slightly less extreme pro-choice position.
We aren't talking about the broad notion of "pro-choice". We are talking about the narrow issue of partial birth abortion.
On that issue, it's a massive (if not complete) reversal.
That you are so desperate to paint this in terms of the whole abortion debate, rather than the specific issue we are discussing simply so that you can reframe it as a minor shift, rather than a massive reversal... is funny.
Like I said before, the earthquake that's going to result from Chiefs Planet "conservative but not Republican" posters jumping off their ideological high horses in order to support one candidate who's nearly identical to the others... but has an R instead of a D...
... is going to be worth the price of admission over the next 2 years.
My commitment to this entire line of discussion is really just part of my continued willingness to point out the intellectual dishonesty that permeates this forum.
I am sufficiently satisified to have Rudy, McCain, Hillary or Obama as my President in 2008. I couldn't have asked for a greater vehicle to expose the power-and-party-over-belief-and-conviction that so many around here have proven.
While I can't agree with Big Daddy on a whole lot, he cannot be accused of being a hypocrite when it comes to electing a liberal like Rudy to the Presidency.
I would love to have had 6 years of Rudy in the Senate casting votes that piss off the Republican partisans around here. It would amuse me to no end to see Rudy's name along side Hagel, Snowe, McCain, and several others who have been branded as "RINO" at any given moment.
patteeu
03-02-2007, 04:39 PM
We aren't talking about the broad notion of "pro-choice". We are talking about the narrow issue of partial birth abortion.
On that issue, it's a massive (if not complete) reversal.
That you are so desperate to paint this in terms of the whole abortion debate, rather than the specific issue we are discussing simply so that you can reframe it as a minor shift, rather than a massive reversal... is funny.
I'll take this as an admission that you are intentionally trying to narrow the scope of this discussion in order to spin your way to a point. You did, afterall, quote me in your OP and I assure you that I wasn't talking about minor shifts like the one we are discussing when I was talking about the relative reversals of Giuliani compared to Hillary and McCain.
Like I said before, the earthquake that's going to result from Chiefs Planet "conservative but not Republican" posters jumping off their ideological high horses in order to support one candidate who's nearly identical to the others... but has an R instead of a D...
... is going to be worth the price of admission over the next 2 years.
My commitment to this entire line of discussion is really just part of my continued willingness to point out the intellectual dishonesty that permeates this forum.
I am sufficiently satisified to have Rudy, McCain, Hillary or Obama as my President in 2008. I couldn't have asked for a greater vehicle to expose the power-and-party-over-belief-and-conviction that so many around here have proven.
While I can't agree with Big Daddy on a whole lot, he cannot be accused of being a hypocrite when it comes to electing a liberal like Rudy to the Presidency.
I would love to have had 6 years of Rudy in the Senate casting votes that piss off the Republican partisans around here. It would amuse me to no end to see Rudy's name along side Hagel, Snowe, McCain, and several others who have been branded as "RINO" at any given moment.
It's not at all hypocritical for a pro-lifer to support a candidate who is pro-choice. It wouldn't even be hypocritical if the pro-choice candidate was a zealot, pro-choice extremist. People support candidates with whom they have disagreements, even on major issues, all of the time. That's not hypocrisy, it's pragmatism.
mlyonsd
03-02-2007, 07:38 PM
Funny the creator of the poll hasn't voted but is already pointing fingers.
stevieray
03-02-2007, 09:15 PM
Funny the creator of the poll hasn't voted but is already pointing fingers.
you're so dishonest...
CHIEF4EVER
03-02-2007, 09:27 PM
Your list is missing a few people....please try to refrain from thinking you have the lowdown on the level of faith of any poster...I would think it's personal and different for each individual and their corresponding faith.
Who would that be? :hmmm: :)
patteeu
03-02-2007, 10:12 PM
you're so dishonest...
Exactly! LMAO
It's not at all hypocritical for a pro-lifer to support a candidate who is pro-choice. It wouldn't even be hypocritical if the pro-choice candidate was a zealot, pro-choice extremist. People support candidates with whom they have disagreements, even on major issues, all of the time. That's not hypocrisy, it's pragmatism.
Rudy's list of liberal, Clinton-esque positions isn't limited to the single issue of abortion... it's the litany of issues that people will choose to abandon their supposed principles in order to pull the lever for Rudy.
The gap between Hillary and Rudy is marginal. But the anti-Hillary crowd is already lockstep behind Rudy because he's the "R" with the most charisma and therefore the best shot at holding that power.
That's never not funny as hell to watch.
Funny the creator of the poll hasn't voted but is already pointing fingers.
What does my opinion about what the media will do have to do with your statement here?
patteeu
03-02-2007, 10:38 PM
Rudy's list of liberal, Clinton-esque positions isn't limited to the single issue of abortion... it's the litany of issues that people will choose to abandon their supposed principles in order to pull the lever for Rudy.
The gap between Hillary and Rudy is marginal. But the anti-Hillary crowd is already lockstep behind Rudy because he's the "R" with the most charisma and therefore the best shot at holding that power.
That's never not funny as hell to watch.
Either I over-estimated your political acumen or you're trying to render the word "marginal" meaningless.
CRONUS
03-03-2007, 12:35 AM
"massive" LMAO It's funny how desperate you are to paint this as a big flip flop, when all it really is is a relatively minor shift from one pro-choice position to a slightly less extreme pro-choice position.
You and I agree completely on this one. This is why jAZ sometimes has trouble getting people to take him seriously.
CRONUS
03-03-2007, 12:37 AM
Rudy's list of liberal, Clinton-esque positions isn't limited to the single issue of abortion... it's the litany of issues that people will choose to abandon their supposed principles in order to pull the lever for Rudy.
The gap between Hillary and Rudy is marginal. But the anti-Hillary crowd is already lockstep behind Rudy because he's the "R" with the most charisma and therefore the best shot at holding that power.
That's never not funny as hell to watch.
What I find funny is you trying to rationalize why everyone hates Hillary. The Dems run a decent candidate and they have an excellent chance of A winning and B getting my vote.
What I find funny is you trying to rationalize why everyone hates Hillary. The Dems run a decent candidate and they have an excellent chance of A winning and B getting my vote.
I'm wasn't trying to rationalize anything about Hillary specifically, as much as point out the hypocricy of those (not you) on the right who look at Hillary, McCain and Rudy as radical liberal, a double talking RINO and the next great Republican President respectively.
It's hysterical to thnk that the differences between the three (and particuarly McCain and Rudy) are anything substantial. The difference between the policies of other recent GOP leaders like (set aside the corruption issue) Delay, GWB, Brownback, etc... and RudyG... is equal to or greater than the gap between Rudy G and McCain and Hillary.
Also, I understand, accept and agree with your point about a "decent candidate".
However, I do think it's accurate to say that the reason most people reject Hillary is similar to reason that that accept Rudy. It's not so much because of wide policy differences, but because doing so "feels right".
Hillary may be thoughtful and informed, but people feel she's shrill.
Rudy may be duplicitous and liberal, but people feel he's a leader.
...I wasn't talking about minor shifts like the one we are discussing when I was talking about the relative reversals of Giuliani compared to Hillary and McCain.
Somehow I seem to have lost a post of mine along the way.
The basic premise of the post was to ask you to explain exactly what you see as the "relative reversals" of Hillary and McCain as compared to Rudy? Specifically?
patteeu
03-03-2007, 09:17 AM
Somehow I seem to have lost a post of mine along the way.
The basic premise of the post was to ask you to explain exactly what you see as the "relative reversals" of Hillary and McCain as compared to Rudy? Specifically?
I'll give you one example from each.
Hillary initially justifies her vote to authorize military action in Iraq and defends the war there based on her personal investigation of the merits but now flips to say that she (a) never intended to authorize war and (b) was duped by the Bush administration's lies in the first place. Her comments from then and now are just as hard to reconcile as anything you've put forward in your case against Rudy except that instead of talking about a slight shift from one pro-choice position to another, we are talking about a complete reversal from pro-war to anti-war (although not so complete that she's calling for immediate withdrawal... yet).
My personal problem with McCain has more to do with his willingness to be a strident maverick on issues on which we disagree (strong arming big tobacco, detainee handling, campaign finance, tax cuts, Rumsfeld and Cheney, etc.), but he's guilty of plenty of flip flopping too. I think his description of Christian conservatives like Jerry Falwell as an "agents of intolerance" in 2000 followed by a courting of those same Christian conservatives in 2008 is a pretty significant flip flop of the kind that makes you wonder just what this guy wouldn't do to get elected. I do give him credit for sticking to his guns on Iraq in the face of potential political damage though.
I'll give you one example from each.
Hillary initially justifies her vote to authorize military action in Iraq and defends the war there based on her personal investigation of the merits but now flips to say that she (a) never intended to authorize war and (b) was duped by the Bush administration's lies in the first place. Her comments from then and now are just as hard to reconcile as anything you've put forward in your case against Rudy except that instead of talking about a slight shift from one pro-choice position to another, we are talking about a complete reversal from pro-war to anti-war (although not so complete that she's calling for immediate withdrawal... yet).
My personal problem with McCain has more to do with his willingness to be a strident maverick on issues on which we disagree (strong arming big tobacco, detainee handling, campaign finance, tax cuts, Rumsfeld and Cheney, etc.), but he's guilty of plenty of flip flopping too. I think his description of Christian conservatives like Jerry Falwell as an "agents of intolerance" in 2000 followed by a courting of those same Christian conservatives in 2008 is a pretty significant flip flop of the kind that makes you wonder just what this guy wouldn't do to get elected. I do give him credit for sticking to his guns on Iraq in the face of potential political damage though.
So as I thought... neither has actually reversed a specific policy position like Rudy has.
patteeu
03-03-2007, 11:19 AM
So as I thought... neither has actually reversed a specific policy position like Rudy has.
Yeah, whether or not to go to war in Iraq has nothing to do with a policy position. Whatever you say. :rolleyes:
If Rudy bothers you so much, I suggest that you vote for someone else. OTOH, if what you are trying to do is manufacture some stupid (and erroneous) concept of inconsistency in those who either support him or find him acceptable, I suggest you find something better to do with your life.
Yeah, whether or not to go to war in Iraq has nothing to do with a policy position. Whatever you say. :rolleyes:
If Rudy bothers you so much, I suggest that you vote for someone else. OTOH, if what you are trying to do is manufacture some stupid (and erroneous) concept of inconsistency in those who either support him or find him acceptable, I suggest you find something better to do with your life.
She's been adament to this point that her vote wasn't a mistake. She's taken the position that "knowing what we know now". That's entirely different than changing your position when the underlying factors informing your decision have NOT changed (as with Rudy).
You might not agree that "knowing what we know now we shouldn't have gone in", but you are surely capable of knowing that 1) the information about Iraq should inform the decision about Iraq... and 2) that the information we know now is different than what we knew then.
Rudy is changing his view and not based upon anything but getting elected. No scientific breakthroughs, no nothing but telling people what they want to hear.
patteeu
03-03-2007, 02:06 PM
She's been adament to this point that her vote wasn't a mistake. She's taken the position that "knowing what we know now". That's entirely different than changing your position when the underlying factors informing your decision have NOT changed (as with Rudy).
You might not agree that "knowing what we know now we shouldn't have gone in", but you are surely capable of knowing that 1) the information about Iraq should inform the decision about Iraq... and 2) that the information we know now is different than what we knew then.
Rudy is changing his view and not based upon anything but getting elected. No scientific breakthroughs, no nothing but telling people what they want to hear.
As you might guess, I disagree completely. I think you should vote for Hillary.
go bowe
03-03-2007, 03:17 PM
I wonder if your mother ever considered an abortion.it was illegal in those days...
mlyonsd
03-04-2007, 10:37 AM
What does my opinion about what the media will do have to do with your statement here?
Usually a public poll which poses a fair question is intended to give everyone a chance to see where everyone else stands on a particular issue and discuss it.
Instead you used a poll to frame a political debate and specifically call out another poster. The fact you didn't bother to vote proves it.
It's all good, just a waste of time for everyone to vote though.
Instead you used a poll to ...specifically call out another poster.
Can you quote where I did this? I have no idea what you are refering to, but I don't recall doing this, nor did I intend to do so. I think it's unfair to make such a claim without providing the specific quote you are describing.
As you might guess, I disagree completely. I think you should vote for Hillary.
Since you say "completely" and don't provide a narrowed quote, I'm going to assume that you disagree with everything in my post... specifically the following...
Is it correct to assume you don't agree that "the invormation about Iraq shoudl inform the decision about Iraq"? I find it hard to believe anyone would disagree with this.
Also, do you disagree that "the information we know now is different than what we knew then"?
I have a hard time believing that you don't agree with both of those statements. If you don't, please explain your thinking.
vBulletin® v3.7.0 Beta 5, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.