Ask Me Help Desk - Giuliani: "You're all a bunch of morons."

Quote:

Originally Posted by RubyPitbull

That being said, most people outside of New York don't like him. I am a former New Yorker who was around during Giuliani's mayoral stint and I am now living in New Hampshire. He doesn't come across well to my friends and neighbors here specifically for the reasons pointed out throughout this thread. He is blunt, loud, speaks funny, his personal history (divorces, affair,. ) all don't sit well with people here. I have found through my travels around this country, that they are a very good representation of mainstream America.

I'd be interested in finding out how Rudy is doing in Ohio. The demographics of Ohio, in terms of racial and ethnic makeup, religious observance, income distribution, emplyment type, and age disparity are almost exactly the same as for the USA as a whole. Ohio is a very good bellwether for the political feelings of the country as a whole.

Quote:

This is a difficult campaign at the moment. The numbers seem to change daily. One of the number of things that will continue to hurt him is Bernie. Yes, as police commissioner Bernie did an admirable job. But, that is about it. There is much more negative than positive about the guy. He is just too crooked for mainstream America. Unless Rudy can convince the voters he has completely broken off his ties with Bernie, people will be fearful that he will give that man a position of power if he is voted in as President. Even if he did break off his ties, the damage may be irreversible. Not sure.

I agree with this assessment.

Quote:

ET, I can't remember where I read it and saw it on news reports and I don't have anything at the moment to link here, but I do remember his children with Donna Hanover stating that they do not speak with him.

This is true and there are a number of sources for it, including the Slate article mentioned by NK. Other sources include the NY Times, here.

Quote:

They spoke out shortly after he announced his candidacy for President. You know darn well since you live in New York, how much Hanover despises him. He handled his affair and divorce badly and she is a very bitter woman. She was extremely vocal about it at the time it occurred. I very much doubt her wounds are completely healed.

All true. But none of that is proof that she wouldn't thow the switch for him during the election. Ditto for his kids.

I'm not saying that they support Rudy. They pretty much don't. But there is no proof that they are supporting any other candidate either.

Quote:

The best he can hope for is that she continues to keep her mouth shut, but I don't need to be in the voting booth with her to know that she will not be voting for him.

That's a matter of opinion. She may hate his personal guts but still vote for him. There's a psychological factor in play as well... people like to vote for the guy they know personally, even if they don't like him, than the guy they don't know. Donna Hannover might feel that way. Or she might not. She might vote against him. The kids might go either way also.

But my point is that there is no evidence for a claim that Caroline Giuliani supports Obama. And therefore any statement to that effect is speculative, and in the case of NK's post here, it was in the context of an attack against Rudy... the very thing that he accused Ruy of doing to Hanley.

I have no problem with NK making such a statement by NK. But to do so while at the same time accusing the target of your statement of doing the same thing is a bit hypocritical. That is what I was trying to point out. That is the entire point I am making here.

All the rest of this stuff about whether Rudy's family really supports him or not is irrelevant to the point that you shouldn't attack somebody who you are hoilding accountable for doing exactly the same thing, except as an attempt to deflect the mirror that I am holding up to NK's face. When I held up that same mirror to Excon's face, he accepted it and moved on. NK is too busy trying to disagree to understand the point I am making.

Elliot

I gotcha. I saw that. And yes, there is nothing to the claim of his daughter acknowledging support of another candidate. I remember the entire mess when it first hit the airwaves.

I don't know if you have intimate knowledge of women who are publicly scorned, but I have intimate knowledge of many women privately scorned by husband's who threw them aside. It isn't a pretty sight to behold. The hatred they hold for their ex's runs so deep that they would do everything they can to make the guy's life miserable. The affair was so highly publicized and she was absolutely livid. He is very lucky she is keeping quiet for the time being. The fact that they don't speak and his children don't speak to him, speaks volumes to me. Yes, it is a matter of opinion but I truly do not believe Hanover would ever vote for him simply for the fact that she would not want to see Judith as first lady. We women can be very vindictive. But, as you state, who knows? None of us have a right to state that we know how any of them are going to vote or who they are supporting if we don't have any first hand accounts of it.

Ohio, even though it appears Giuliani is the front runner, it is just way too soon to tell. It is changing so much here and in Iowa on a daily basis that I believe we are way too early to get anything even halfway solid out of Ohio. This is actually turning out to be one of the most exciting races for both parties in years. Right now Giuliani appears to be the front runner in Iowa but Huckabee is suddenly gaining ground in the past few days.

I can't wait for all the gloves to really come off and see how much muck can be raked out into the open on each one of them. Yeah, not nice. But, it is fun to watch and listen to.

I agree, Ruby, that Hannover probably feels exactly the way you describe. (Yes, I do know scorned women, and more than a few scorned men as well.) But "probably" isn't the same thing as evidence.

I also agree that it is too early to tell how things will turn out. But Ohio tends to be a good bellwether, and as the country shifts, so will Ohio. If Rudy is out font in Ohio right now, it is because he is out in front in the entire country right now. That may change, but that is how it is for now.

BTW, where did you get presidential poll numbers for Ohio? I've been searching but couldn't find anything reliable. I'd love a new source for information.

Thanks.

Elliot

This was one of them (keep in mind I was talking about Republican frontrunners because that is what I thought you were interested in): Clinton, Giuliani ahead in Ohio, but they face major hurdles, survey shows

I am having some trouble finding the other. When I dig it up, I will post the link.

Here is the other one:
Ohio (OH) Poll * November 14, 2007 * Giuliani Catches Clinton In Oh - Quinnipiac University

It appears the Dayton one is relying on the Quinnipiac poll study.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

What a coincidence - that's the public's view of President Bush. :D

Thank you for the Hezbollah view:D

Thanks for the sources, Ruby.

You are welcome ET. Have you heard the latest news? Obama & Huckabee are now leading the polls in Iowa.

Ruby,

Yes I heard. That's why I don't put all that much faith in the Iowa caucuses. If anyone really thinks that Huckabee has a chance of beaing Rudy, McCane, Thompson and Romney in a Republican primary, they're nuts.

I don't think Iowa is representative of what really is going on around the country. People look at Iowa because it's FIRST, not because it is an accurate indicator of the political standings of the candidates. I think the Ohio is a much better indicator. That's the state to watch, IMO.

Elliot

I agree with your assessment Elliot. I just thought it was interesting and wasn't sure if you had heard. I am sure you agree that both Iowa and New Hampshire aren't good indicators of who will come out on top. But, they are first and it is always fun to see what is going on early in this process. As I said on an earlier post, this is turning out to be one of the most exciting races for both parties in years! I feel as if I am watching a long drama unfold with all these interesting twists and turns. On Friday we were under assault with the news coverage over that hostage situation at Clinton's HQ in Rochester, NH. I am grateful for satellite television so I can turn the channel to watch the world news. Years ago I would have been a captive audience with my local stations. You are probably too young to remember all that. ;)

I think the primaries will be decided pretty much on Feb .5 or shortly after . At least 20 states will hold primaries and the national appeal of the candidates will be established . I think Iowa is more important to the Dems. In that it can derail candidacies like it did to Howard Dean as it did in 2004 . For the Republicans it is more important to a Huckabee type candidate then to a Rudy type candidate . The one I am interested in that race is Thompson who has said he would be disappointed if he did not finish at least 3rd. There .

Quote:

Originally Posted by RubyPitbull

I agree with your assessment Elliot. I just thought it was interesting and wasn't sure if you had heard. I am sure you agree that both Iowa and New Hampshire aren't good indicators of who will come out on top. But, they are first and it is always fun to see what is going on early in this process. As I said on an earlier post, this is turning out to be one of the most exciting races for both parties in years! I feel as if I am watching a long drama unfold with all these interesting twists and turns. On Friday we were under assault with the news coverage over that hostage situation at Clinton's HQ in Rochester, NH. I am grateful for satellite television so I can turn the channel to watch the world news. Years ago I would have been a captive audience with my local stations. You are probably too young to remember all that. ;)

Ruby, I don't know about Elliot but I'm only 47 and distinctly recall those years of captivity to local stations. Now I have a hundred plus channels and nothing to watch - I think 29 are shopping networks :D

It has been an interesting political season though, Hillary has apparently now "exposed Barack Obama's diabolical plan to become President" from the time he was in kindergarten. LOL.

Speech, that link is too funny! Ahhh, the absurdity of it all. Like I said, I enjoy all this crazy stuff. I love it when they take off the gloves and go at each other with such insane fervor. It will only get better as we proceed and get even closer to election time.

Hey S, wha? You don't get BBC World News or any other news channels? You don't get TLC, The History & Discovery channels, or CRTV? If nothing else, you can still watch reruns of Dark Angel with (every man's fantasy) Jessica Alba on the Scifi channel.:D

Quote:

Originally Posted by RubyPitbull

Hey S, wha? You don't get BBC World News or any other news channels? You don't get TLC, The History & Discovery channels, or CRTV? If nothing else, you can still watch reruns of Dark Angel with (every man's fantasy) Jessica Alba on the Scifi channel.:D

Oh yeah, you know how I am - it just seems like 29 shopping channels. :D

As for Rudy G, he's not on my short list. Besides all the recent media reports, on some issues he comes off to me as weird as Ron Paul.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Now I have a hundred plus channels and nothing to watch - I think 29 are shopping networks :D

All those channels yet only one network had the rights to carry our Cowboys game on Thursday. Coincidently the NFL owned network. I'm with Jerry Jones on this one and I hope he continues to raise the issue. Although I have the NFL network, at the very least the game should been available on ESPN and actually should had been on prime time ABC, their affiliate.

Bobby

Quote:

Originally Posted by BABRAM

All those channels yet only one network had the rights to carry our Cowboys game on Thursday. Coincidently the NFL owned network. I'm with Jerry Jones on this one and I hope he continues to raise the issue. Although I have the NFL network, at the very least the game should been available on ESPN and actually should had been on prime time ABC, their affiliate.

I'm not sure what you mean there Bobby, Jerry is the point man for pressuring the cable companies into adding the NFL Network. No way would they have broadcast it on another network after that push. Personally, I really don't like the way this is headed even though I have the NFL Network. I didn't like the fact that MNF went off over the air broadcasts to ESPN. But I do like the fact the Cowboys are 11-1 :)

The problem he was addressing was not NFL network in and of itself. See most all cable providers nationwide include ESPN, but not the NFL network without additional purchase. Many TVs, even from just a few years back, are equipped to only received 99 channels are less, without the box. I agree with Jerry in that having access should had been more readily available. Your MNF point is well taken. It reminds me of the great boxing matches in the seventies that were available for public consumption before pay-per-view. I'm very pleased with the 11 and 1 start and hope we continue the momentum through the playoffs.

Bobby

Ruby and DC,

Not only do I remember what it was like before cable, I experience it now. I have cable only as an antenna to get basic network stuff (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, and PBS, along with some other very local channels for my township and my county). I don't have any cable channels except CNN and 3 shopping networks and 3 Spanish Language channels that I don't understand. So I'm living in the reality that you are speaking of as historical.

My wife and I made the decision to not have any cable TV in the house because we don't want to rot our kids brains, and because from a budgetary point of view, it was an unncessary expense. I read a lot more than I did back in the days when I had premium cable, and I choose which programs I do watch more carefully than when I had 100+ channels and nothing to watch. I have a few guilty pleasures that I like to watch like the new Bionic Woman series, Heroes (when my schedule allows it... Monday is my late night) and mixed martial arts fights on what used to be the UPN channel hereabouts.

But the result is that I live in a cable-free environment, and I haven't suffered any permanent damage. I consider myself fairly well informed about worldly matters. I'm a movie lover, and I haven't really missed anything worthwhile in that area by not having cable... I either rent or buy what I want to see. (I rarely go to the theaters these days either, the cost is too high... $12 per ticket plus babysitting costs?! I'd rather pay $5 for a bootlegged version of the film I can see over and over again, even if it's a bit grainy. Not that I would do such an illegal thing, of course... ) My monthly costs are lower, I have more free time, and I don't have to worry about my kids getting into the "bad" channels on cable. All in all, it works for me.

Elliot

Excon,

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Don't do the crime if you aren't willing to do the time. I'm willing to take chances with bootlegged videos, and will take the consequences of my actions if I ever get caught. Hypothetically, of course, as I would never do anything illegal.

But those consequences are not ones that I am willing to face with regard to drugs. Neither are you, which is why you b!tch and moan about mandatory sentencing. But you want to enjoy the marajuana anyway. Sorry, but you don't get one without the other. If you take the actions, be prepared to face the consequences of those actions. If you don't want to face those consequences, then don't do the crime. But don't blame the government when you do the crime, get caught, and have to pay the piper. You know the risks and if you take them anyway, you have nobody to blame but yourself. The government didn't screw you in such a hypothetical situation. You screwed yourself and you have nobody to blame but you. THAT'S where I disagree with you... over who is to blame and willingness to face the music.

Elliot

Hello again, El:

You keep talking about ME, as though I'm not willing to face the consequences of MY behavior. I'll have you know, I'm a law abiding dude. My tags are up to date, I have insurance and I pay my bills.

In fact, I won't buy a bootleg. It's stealing pure and simple.

Plus, I don't know if you need to be reminded, but I live in Washington State, and I have a prescription for medical marijuana. It's a get out of jail free card.

So, I smoke to my hearts content, WITHOUT risk. My concern, however, is for those amongst us who are prescriptionally challenged.

excon

Fine, excon. Change the words "you" to "they" and "them", and the point is still the same.

Elliot