[NeedKarma]

There is no doubt he is Bush x 10 and recent ratings suggest that ain't what they want.

[ETWolverine]

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.

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.

Elliot

[NeedKarma]

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?

[Choux]

Tex, I never tire of telling the truth.

[ETWolverine]

You think my response is heavy handed? I wasn't aware how sensitive you were. I'll take it down a notch, sorry.

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.

How about this scenario, what if the question was asked on paper? Would he have answered?

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.

Is OK for a politician to call a group of people morons and idiots for asking a question?

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.

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

[excon]

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

[NeedKarma]

It may be the Rudy with all the ex-wives and the daughter who endorses Obama.

[ETWolverine]

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

[Dark_crow]

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? Kinda 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…

[NeedKarma]

Read my signature…

Pretty much applies to all the regular poster on the politics board wouldn't you agree?

[NeedKarma]

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? Kinda like what you are accusing Rudy of having done to Hanley.

Hi Elliot,

Below are quotes from you in this thread:

So Giuliani was right to call Hanley and his sycophants exactly what they are... a bunch of morons.

Maybe he just didn't want to waste his time trying to answer morons who really had no interest in his answers.

Why would it be a bad thing to call someone what they are? What's wrong with honesty?

Now if you're going to talk the talk you should walk the walk.

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?

[ETWolverine]

Pretty much applies to all the regular poster on the politics board wouldn't you agree?

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.

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

[NeedKarma]

Read his signature again and marry it to this:

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.

You're pretty much set in your ways I'd say.

[ETWolverine]

Hi Elliot,

Below are quotes from you in this thread:


Now if you're going to talk the talk you should walk the walk.

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.

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?

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.

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

[ETWolverine]

Read his signature again and marry it to this:

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 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.

You're pretty much set in your ways I'd say.

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.

So yes, I can quite easily wed my prior statements to this one in a consistent manner.

Elliot

[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.

Rudy Giuliani's daughter is supporting Barack Obama. - By Lucy Morrow Caldwell - Slate Magazine

"Rudy Giuliani's daughter is supporting Barack Obama."

[ETWolverine]

Rudy Giuliani's daughter is supporting Barack Obama. - By Lucy Morrow Caldwell - Slate Magazine

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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

[NeedKarma]

God I love to watch you spin. You entertain me. :)

[ETWolverine]

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

[RubyPitbull]

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.