 |
YouTube - Rudy Giuliani's Corruption Town hall Meeting
Larry Hanley, President of ATU Local 726 (a bus company), tries to ask then Mayor Rudy Giuliani about an inside deal to grant bus routes to connected private bus companies that contributed to his Rudy's campaigns. Then Rudy goes from there... Although this is from 2001, the matter is do you honestly want this guy to run the country?
Most union leaders are a bunch of morons. Most times they don't really represent the best interests of the rank and file.
Rudy is a New Yorker. Politics is a little different here. I think he would be a strong President.
Ah, so you attack the other person who had a legitimate grief. I see.
Shouldn't public officials be accountable to the public they serve?
If he calls people idiots now what can we expect diplomatically from him in foreign affairs?
New York of politics would be a hindrance actually.
What a coincidence - that's the public's view of President Bush. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
WE already know what we can expect from him diplomatically because as mayor of NY ;the city where the UN is located ,he had plenty of dealings with foreign relations . He was a tough advocate for his city and for the US... and yes he pulled no punches.Quote:
If he calls people idiots now what can we expect diplomatically from him in foreign affairs?
He refused a donation of $10 Million to NYC after 9-11 from an Arab sheik who had said that the attack was the fault of the U.S. He flatly rejected the prince's position, telling him publicly that to suggest there was a justification for an event such as 9/11, "only invites this happening in the future.He further told the prince outright that one of the reasons for the 9/11 attack was "because people were engaged in moral equivalency, not understanding the difference between liberal democracies like the US, like Israel, and terrorist states and those who condone terrorism."He in effect told the Prince he was part of the problem ;and he was right.
When Rudy Giuliani spotted Yasser Arafat and his entourage making their way to a private box at the Lincoln Center ,he immediately ordered the terrorist off the premises.This was right after Arafat received the Nobel Peace Prize for his charade at Oslo. Rudy understood the double speaking Arafat for what he was and was not willing to play that game. Rudy had removed Arafat and a few other thugs from the invitee list (it was to dedicate the 50th Anniversary of the UN)but Arafat had been defiant and showed up anyway.
The Clintonoids were furious . But Rudy reminded them that Arafat was a murderer. Rudy was the NY DA who investigated the murder of disabled Leon Klinghofferon who was tossed off the hijacked Achille Lauro cruise ship. Rudy's investigation had found Arafat complicit in the murder.
Contrast that to Hillary's encounter with the Arafats. She went to the West Bank when she was First Lady and sat in silence while Arafat's wife trashed Israel claiming they were causing cancer in the Palestinian territories. She kissed Suha Arafat on both cheeks after her diatribe. Bill Clinton realizing the mistake Hillary made spun it the next day saying that a poor translation had left her unaware of what Mrs. Arafat had really said .Unlike the Clintons Rudy hasn't drunk the Kool-Aid of "Palestinian victimization and despair"?
This is the type of integrity we need in our diplomatic relations. Our State Dept too often is apologizers to these animals. Instead of promoting US interests overseas they spend their time trying to justify the actions of other nations. That will change under Rudy.
I suggest you read Rudy's essay in 'Foreign Affairs' Magazine . Foreign Affairs - Toward a Realistic Peace - Rudolph W. Giuliani
I think you will find him pragmatic .Quote:
The time has come to refine the diplomats' mission down to their core purpose: presenting U.S. policy to the rest of the world. Reforming the State Department is a matter not of changing its organizational chart -- although simplification is needed -- but of changing the way we practice diplomacy and the way we measure results. Our ambassadors must clearly understand and clearly advocate for U.S. policies and be judged on the results. Too many people denounce our country or our policies simply because they are confident that they will not hear any serious refutation from our representatives.
Rudy's blunt style is like Ronald Reagan who dared call a nuclear super power an "Evil Empire" .Quote:
Idealism should define our ultimate goals; realism must help us recognize the road we must travel to achieve them. The world is a dangerous place. We cannot afford to indulge any illusions about the enemies we face. The Terrorists' War on Us was encouraged by unrealistic and inconsistent actions taken in response to terrorist attacks in the past. A realistic peace can only be achieved through strength.
Quote:
The 9/11 generation has learned from the history of the twentieth century that America must not turn a blind eye to gathering storms. We must base our trust on the actions, rather than the words, of others. And we must be on guard against overpromising and underdelivering. Above all, we have learned that evil must be confronted -- not appeased -- because only principled strength can lead to a realistic peace.
I think that type of honesty is refreshing . President Bush started that way but has been beaten down by the constant assault on him . Rudy will not be so easily cowed. He certainly has the UN pegged rightQuote:
Palestinian statehood will have to be earned through sustained good governance, a clear commitment to fighting terrorism, and a willingness to live in peace with Israel. America's commitment to Israel's security is a permanent feature of our foreign policy.
John Bolton for Secretary of State?? One can only dream .Quote:
Finally, we need to look realistically at America's relationship with the United Nations. The organization can be useful for some humanitarian and peacekeeping functions, but we should not expect much more of it. The UN has proved irrelevant to the resolution of almost every major dispute of the last 50 years. Worse, it has failed to combat terrorism and human rights abuses. It has not lived up to the great hopes that inspired its creation. Too often, it has been weak, indecisive, and outright corrupt. The UN's charter and the speeches of its members' leaders have meant little because its members' deeds have frequently fallen short. International law and institutions exist to serve peoples and nations, but many leaders act as if the reverse were true -- that is, as if institutions, not the ends to be achieved, were the important thing.
Despite the UN's flaws, however, the great objectives of humanity would become even more difficult to achieve without mechanisms for international discussion. History has shown that such institutions work best when the United States leads them. Yet we cannot take for granted that they will work forever and must be prepared to look to other tools.
You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig. He has a history of corruption.
WordPress
And here's a quote of his:I realize you are a warmonger and wish for such shows of strength, that's where we differ. As for foreigh policy, Israel security is Israel's problem not the U.S.Quote:
“Freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.”
Of course the quote is taken completely out of content .
Here is the rest of the speech as NY Slimes reports it .'Freedom Is About Authority': Excerpts From Giuliani Speech on Crime - New York Times
I see nothing in the quote ominous or threatening to individual liberty . He is just correctly pointing out that there are also inherent responsibilities of individuals that the government should not be responsible for. All this is really is an indictment of the nanny state and I agree with him.Quote:
We constantly present the false impression that government can solve problems that government in America was designed not to solve. Families are significantly less important in the development of children today than they were 30 or 40 years ago. Religion has less influence than it did 30 or 40 years ago. Communities don't mean what they meant 30 or 40 years ago.
As Americans, we're not sure we share values. We're sometimes even afraid to use the word values. We talk about teaching ethics in schools -- people say, "What ethics? Whose ethics? Maybe we can't." And they confuse that with teaching of religion. And we are afraid to reaffirm the basics upon which a lawful and a decent society are based. We're almost embarrassed by it.
We look upon authority too often and focus over and over again, for 30 or 40 or 50 years, as if there is something wrong with authority. We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do...
At the core the struggle is philosophical. There are many, many things that can be done in law enforcement to protect us better. There are many things that can done to create a government that is more responsive and more helpful. The fact is that we're fooling people if we suggest to them the solutions to these very, very deep-seated problems are going to be found in government.. .
The solutions are going to be found when we figure out as a society what our families are going to be like in the next century, and how maybe they are going to be different. They are going to have to be just as solid and just as strong in teaching every single youngster their responsibility for citizenship. We're going to find the answer when schools once again train citizens. Schools exist in America and have always existed to train responsible citizens of the United States of America.
If they don't do that, it's very hard to hold us together as a country, because it's shared values that hold us together. We're going to come through this when we realize that it's all about, ultimately, individual responsibility. That in fact the criminal act is about individual responsibility and the building of the respect for the law and ethics is also a matter of individual responsibility.
Here are other people's views on this, in order to offer the AMHD readers some variety and respite from the neo-conservative slant of this forum:
Digg - Giuliani: "You're all a bunch of morons." Wake up America!
I see nothing in the link that indicates any corruption .Quote:
You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig. He has a history of corruption.
WordPress
This is not really true . He ended his campaign because he was diagnosed with Prostate cancer.Quote:
It's a curious decision, given that Giuliani's last attempt to reach beyond New York City, his failed attempt to run for US Senate in 2006, fell apart before it began.
The link then goes on to indict Reed of fraud because of some kind of association with Jack Abramoff. So what ? How does that prove Rudy is corrupt ? All Rudy did was give a speech to the 'Christian Coalition ' . It doesn't support any claim at all to a link with Rudy and Abramoff. The link is useless.Quote:
We're getting a good peek at Giuliani's brand of national politics this week, with the announcement that Giuliani will soon travel down to Georgia to give a speech at a fundraiser for Ralph Reed's campaign.
There is no doubt that issues of Rudy's ethics will be raised in this campaign but it won't be for this speech. It will have to deal with his former police commissioner and partner in his law firm ,Bernard Kerik, who was recently charged with 16 counts of fraud, conspiracy, and lying on his federal disclosure forms . Some other officials in his administration have been investigated also . But that is not unusual in a large government that there are some bad apples. The best someone can do is perhaps question Rudy's judgement in has long time frendship of Kerik .
But to look at this is to not get a complete look at Kerik. He was very effective in his work for the mayor and in law enforcement . His work in the justice dept. took down sixty members of the Cali Cartel. As police commissioner he oversaw a force of 41,000 officers, and a civilian force of more than 14,500 and an annual budget of more than $3.2 billion. NYPD did a great job under Kerik during and after the 9-11 attacks .
But yet: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/09/us...174&ei=5087%0AQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Quote:
A grand jury on Thursday voted to charge Mr. Kerik, and he is expected to be arraigned on a sealed indictment at midday Friday in United States District Court in White Plains on corruption-related charges, according to people briefed on the case. So Mr. Giuliani said once again said that he had made “a mistake in not checking him out more carefully.”... “Rudy Giuliani’s tough-on-crime mantra is laughable given that he promoted Bernard Kerik throughout his career while knowing about his ethical problems,” Mr. Vega said in a statement. Mr. Giuliani, for his part, said that he expects voters to look at his whole record — not just one mistake. “I think that voters should look at it,” Mr. Giuliani said at the morning event in Dubuque, when asked about the case. “And what they should say is in that particular case I pointed out that I made a mistake; I made a mistake in not clearing him effectively enough. I take the responsibility for that.”
It wasn't meant to be either. In the same way that being a liberal is not a bad thing nor an insult.Quote:
tomder55 agrees: just for your reference. I am not offended by being called a neo-conservative. I do not in any way consider that characterization an insult.
Cheers!
Giuliani: "You're all a bunch of morons." Gee, what else should one think when people show up to a meeting with the mayor of NY in a duck costume?
First of all, ATU Local 726 is not a bus company, but rather a union.
Second, Hanley was asking Giuliani about privatization of busses in New York and trying to link it to campaign contributions. Hanley was a fool on this topic for several reasons:
1) Privatization is good because it promotes competition, lower transportation prices, higher efficiency and lower taxes.
2) Hanley was intimating that this was contrary to the best interests of New Yorkers, when in fact it was actually contrary to the interests of Larry Hanley and ATU Local 726.
3) Giuliani was in favor of privatization in most areas of business, regardless of any campaign contributions, because he is a financial, fiscal and economic conservative. Trying to link Giuliani's position to "bribery" by the bus companies is foolish.
So Giuliani was right to call Hanley and his sycophants exactly what they are... a bunch of morons.
Elliot
It was so easy for you to answer for him - why didn't he do the same? Are you smarter than Giuliani?
I'm not trying to answer for Rudy, but just to give you some perspective.
I grew up on Long Island 70's through 90's
I grew up among many Italian - Americans, I may be intentionally generalizing, but Rudy seems to be typical of the ones I knew.
Honest about his ideas and opinions. Blunt forthright, anti PC.
I find this absolutely refreshing compared to most people's fake diplomacy / politeness or what ever you call it.
I've been in a the south for over 10 years, but is "bless your heart...." really any different than "you're a moron?" :)
NK,
Maybe. Maybe he just didn't want to waste his time trying to answer morons who really had no interest in his answers.
But in any case I'm certainly smart enough to support him for President because he's a good candidate for the position.
Elliot
I disagree, I'm sure he and others were very interested in his answer, How far can he get if he keeps calling his voters 'morons'? Well you have have the media on your side the answer is "very far".Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
What voters? Do you really believe that ATU union leaders were potential voters for the most anti-union mayor New York City has ever seen? They weren't voters. They were hecklers, and Rudy called them like he saw them.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Now... if the question had come from a REAL potential voter, that would have been a different matter. And in that instance Rudy would likely have answered the question as I did. But Hanley doesn't fit the bill of "voter". He was there to pick a fight with Rudy, not to discuss the issue rationally, and he got what he wanted.
Elliot
Not sure why he would answer differently. If he had nothing to hide he would be the same person to both types of askers. I thought his blunt forthright lack of fake diplomacy was refreshing.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Karma,
Giuliani will be swift boated out of the race onto the dustbin of history. He has plenty of corruption in his past including his current list of "SECRET" clients served by his business!
He won't appeal to middle Americans at all when they get to know the real Rudy and his THREE WIVES, his lying about his activities on and about 911, and most of all AFTER THE BOMB EXPLODED IN THE BASEMENT OF THE TWIN TOWERS IN 1992 SET OFF BY MUSLIM TERRORISTS, **WHERE DID HE PUT THE EMERGENCY CENTER FOR POLICE AND FIRE?? IN THE TWIN TOWERS!!
Giuliani is barely a blip in the polls in the Iowa Caucus' and New Hampshire primary. He's got nothing. He wants to be the Mussolini of America. The fascist following the first fascist leader of America, George W. Bush. Americans will make sure he is the last.
There is no doubt he is Bush x 10 and recent ratings suggest that ain't what they want.
Because one is an honest questioner looking for an honest answer, and the other is a heckler looking for a fight. If it were you, YOUR response would be different as well. As it has been with me in the past who you disagree with often vs. say, chou, who you tend to agree with. You responses to me are much more heavy handed than your responses to Chou.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Elliot
You think my response is heavy handed? I wasn't aware how sensitive you were. I'll take it down a notch, sorry.
How about this scenario, what if the question was asked on paper? Would he have answered? Is OK for a politician to call a group of people morons and idiots for asking a question?
Tex, I never tire of telling the truth.
Not in this case, but in other conversations we have had, where you have been somewhat heavy handed with me. (Examples available on request.) Not that it bothers me. I was just using it as an example of how your reaction to two different people might be different based on whether you see them as friendly or antagonistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
I don't know. Depends who asked it and how it was asked. I would have responded, especially if it was an op/ed piece done in a newspaper. I would answer the questions--- politely if the question was done as an honest inquiry, and rather more bluntly if the question was designed as an attack piece.Quote:
How about this scenario, what if the question was asked on paper? Would he have answered?
I don't know... are they? Why would it be a bad thing to call someone what they are? What's wrong with honesty? And Hanley definitely fits the bill.Quote:
Is OK for a politician to call a group of people morons and idiots for asking a question?
And again, they weren't asking a question, they were attacking Rudy.
What were Rudy's choices?
1) Ignore the question. In that scenario, the screamers tend to get louder until they can't be ignored. Their words get used as political fodder, without the media that prints them bothering to do the research necessary to find out of the screamers are right or wrong.
2) Answer politely. This works fine in cases where reasoned response and clear information is what the questioner really wants. That was not the case with Hanley. He was looking for a "gotcha" moment. No possible well-reasoned answer would have satisfied him. Hanley would not have accepted any response from Rudy as valid. His mind was made up, and the purpose of the question was not informational, but rather to attack Rudy. (Or do you deny that this was the purpose of the question?)
3) Fight back against the verbal attack. This is the tack that Rudy took. It was, in my opinion, the only correct approach to take. Not only was it a reasonable response against an unwaranted attack against Rudy, it was a show of great strength by Rudy. He showed that he's a guy who's willing to defend himself against all comers... the same strength he showed on 911, the same strength he showed when he threw Arafat out on his a$$, and the same strength he showed when he told Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal where he could stick his $10 million check. This is the same strength he used to break the stranglehold that New York's unions had over New York's economy, the same strength he showed in cleaning up crime in New York, making it the safest big city in the USA, the same strength he used to fight the Mafia as a US Prosecutor. Not fighting back against Hanley would have been counter to that image of strength. It wouldn't have been Rudy.
Elliot
Hello:
Are we talking about Rudy Toody the Dress up Cutie who looks the other way when it comes to representing Islamofacist terrorists? Whose best friend just got indicted? That Rudy?
excon
It may be the Rudy with all the ex-wives and the daughter who endorses Obama.
NK and Excon,
Do you realize that in your last posts, instead of answering my points with reasoned responses, you both went to insulting Rudy? Kind of like what you are accusing Rudy of having done to Hanley.
Bit of the pot calling the kettle black going on here.
Elliot
Read my signature…Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Pretty much applies to all the regular poster on the politics board wouldn't you agree?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
Hi Elliot,Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Below are quotes from you in this thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Now if you're going to talk the talk you should walk the walk.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Please tell me how I insulted Rudy by mentoning his ex-wives or the fact that his own daughter doesn't support him? What's wrong with honesty? Why am I wasting my time with morons who have no interest in my answers?
That's where we differ, NK. I do provide facts and figures to explain how I come to some conclusion or other via logic and reason. Others here tend to throw out opinions as if they were facts, and give no logical reason for those opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
So no, DC's signature doesn't apply to all the regular posters on the politics board. Just to those who don't use reason.
Not included in his signature are DC himself, Tomder, SpeechlessTX, Babram, KINDJ, EXCON, Skell, ScottGem, and myself (with humility). There are others as well who are excellent at using facts, logic and reason to build a great argument for their opinions.
And there are those who DC's signature does apply to. Those shall remain nameless, but they know who they are. And more importantly, anyone reading their posts knows who they are.
Elliot
Read his signature again and marry it to this:
You're pretty much set in your ways I'd say.Quote:
Yes, this is a theme with me. And it will continue to be a theme with me for the foreseeable future. I see absolutely no morality and no standards of decency from the Democratic party. That's not to say that there aren't good, decent, moral individuals who are Democrats out there. But as a PARTY, they lack any sort of moral fiber and their political stances and the people and issues they support make that very clear.
I did. I called Hanley exactly as I see him. I have no problem with Rudy doing the same. YOU apparently do. I'd like to see you walk the walk... if attacking those who you disagree with politically is wrong for Rudy, then perhaps you should avoid doing it as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
You have no idea whether Rudy's daughter supports Obama. Or whether she supports anyone else. All you know is that there was an article six months ago that intimated that she liked Obama's looks and went to his website for his picture. Not that she supports Obama. Not that she agrees with Obama. Not that she's going to vote for Obama.Quote:
Please tell me how I insulted Rudy by mentoning his ex-wives or the fact that his own daughter doesn't support him? What's wrong with honesty? Why am I wasting my time with morons who have no interest in my answers?
Similarly, you have no idea what Rudy's relationship with his other children or with Donna Hanover is. You have no idea whether they will vote for him or not. Hanover in particular has chosen not to comment on Rudy. So any statements regarding them are pure speculation on your part. And any attempt to drag Rudy's family into the equation against him can and should be viewed as an attak against him. In Rudy's position, you would see it that way, wouldn't you. (Or do you just not care what perfect strangers say about your kids on a public forum, especially when it is intended to reflect badly on you?)
Therefore, your statement that Giuliani's daughter doesn't support him is based on your own inference and opinion, and using it in your post the way you did was an attack against Rudy's support. You did exactly what you accuse Rudy of doing... attacking someone you disagree with politically with a personal insult... in this case, one that involves his family (a state of affairs that you have absolutely no direct knowledge of).
From my point of view, if it's good enough for you to go into attack mode when you don't feel like answering reasonably, then it ought to be good enough for Giuliani. And if you don't like seeing Giuliani in attack mode, perhaps the best thing you can do is lead by example, and try to leave Rudy's family out of it. Either one is fine with me. But choose one standard and stick to it, both for yourself and others.
Elliot
I can provide facts to back up these opinions. I look at the pornographication of Hollywood and TV and other media which is supported as free expression by the Democratic Party, I look at the pro-choice stance of the Democratic Party, I look at the pro-sexual liberation of the Democratic Party, I look at the anti-religious expression stance of the Democratic Party, I look at the pro-criminal-rights stance of the Democratic Party, I look at the anti-national-defense, anti-border-control, anti-cop, pro-drugs, pro-governmental intervention, social-engineering stances of the Democratic Party, and I see a lack of morality. What other way is there to describe the Democrat party? Not every Democrat supports that agenda, which is why I don't say that every Democrat lacks morals. But the PARTY as a whole, for whom these are the main stances, lacks morals.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
No question. I'm also a descriminator... I descriminate between good and bad, right and wrong, moral and immoral, realistic and idealistic, etc. Yes, I'm set in my ways. But I'm also extremely consistent and can provide a logical basis for every political stance I take. And if I can't, I state openly that it is solely based on my opinion or my gut feeling, and not based on factual information.Quote:
You're pretty much set in your ways I'd say.
So yes, I can quite easily wed my prior statements to this one in a consistent manner.
Elliot
Rudy Giuliani's daughter is supporting Barack Obama. - By Lucy Morrow Caldwell - Slate MagazineQuote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
"Rudy Giuliani's daughter is supporting Barack Obama."
First, Slate "magazine" is a really blog, not a news organization. Second, they are a self-proclamed left-leaning organization. Third, I don't think you read the entire article.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
If she pulled her membership, then she's not much of a supporter of Obama, is she. If she really supported him, she wouldn't have pulled her membership.Quote:
On her profile, she designates her political views as "liberal" and—until this morning—proclaimed her membership in the Facebook group "Barack Obama (One Million Strong for Barack)." According to her profile, she withdrew from the Obama group at 6 a.m. Monday, after Slate sent her an inquiry about it.
Hmmm... could the fact that she listed support for Obama on her Facebook site also have been because she didn't want to be connected to her famous father? "Is that Rudy's daughter? Nah, can't be, she's supporting Obama."Quote:
In what may be an effort to avoid public connection to her famous father, the future Harvard freshman and recent graduate of Trinity School in Manhattan uses a slight variation of her name on the Facebook site.
That seems to be pretty shaky grounds on which to conclude that she supports Obama and not her father. A Facebook site that USED to claim that she was a member of an Obama message group but no longer is. An admission by the writer of the article that Giuliani's daughter might want to avoid the spotlight and would even use trickery on her Facebook page to do that (by using an alternate spelling of her name). And an admission that Giuliani's daughter hasn't commented on the issue one way or the other.Quote:
Caroline's Facebook profile does not reveal why she doesn't want her father to win the White House. She has not responded to e-mail questions from Slate.
Furthermore, the fact that she ever joined a message group called "One Million Strong For Obama" doesn't make her an Obama supporter. She could have been a lurker on the message board. She could have joined to see what Obama supporters are saying about her father. She could have joined in order to defend her father against any allegations made by them. She could have just been there to converse with friends about politics. It's a message board, much like this one, or a Yahoo club, and anyone can join for any reason, even if they don't support Obama. She never joined a political group that supports Obama. She didn't join the "Obama For President" campaign. She joined an internet message group. Belonging to a message board is NOT indicative of support for a candidate.
There is nothing here that indicates that Ms. Giuliani won't be voting for her father or that she actually supports any other candidate. The only thing we have is that she once belonged to a message board about Obama. We don't even know if she was active there, how long she was a member of the board, what here activity consisted of... nothing.
Elliot
God I love to watch you spin. You entertain me. :)
No spin. Just fact. Caroline Giuliani never joined the Obama campaign. She has made no comments regarding her support of any candidate. She once belonged to an Obama discussion board on Facebook but no longer does. Can you prove that she supports Obama? If not, then stating that she does can be construed as an attack against Rudy.
I want the facts. Just the facts.
Elliot
NK, just as an aside, unless you lived in NYC during Giuliani's Administration, it is hard for anyone to understand why his defenders are so intensely loyal. He actually was the most effective Mayor NYC had in many, many years. He was tough and he did a very admirable job of cleaning up so many problems. The Times Square area was a major disgrace. The transformation during his time as Mayor was nothing short of astounding. New York City is probably the best training ground you can find for the Office of the Presidency of the United States.
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. 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.
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. 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. 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.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:43 AM. |