A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

You never cease to amaze me in what you read into what I post. You almost always get it wrong. But you do amaze me.

Foxfyre wrote:

You never cease to amaze me in what you read into what I post. You almost always get it wrong. But you do amaze me.

Oh, really? And considering the thread in question had been concerned for several pages with Giuliani's treatment of his wife, how else could your reference to "smearing" Republican candidates be interpreted.

As soon as Giuliani's bizarre and vicious treatment of Mrs Giuliani was brought up by myself, you have been doing nothing but dodging and weaving, Foxfyre.

First, you wanted to know why it wasn't reported in the NY Times since EVERYONE KNOWS the press is biased and looking to take down Republicans. Then when Soz pointed out that it was indeed reported in the New York Times, (albeit so much more entertainingly in the News), you said you have learned to discount press reports of this sort of thing since they were so unfair to Newt Gingrich when he divorced his first wife while she lay on her deathbed dying of cancer.

After that, your posts are all about how the Republicans have no intention of letting the Democrats "smear" any of their candidates, how Republicans are willing to flexible on certain issues, etc etc.

Fact is, for eight years we have been hearing nothing from the Republicans about how shocked and dismayed they are by Bill Clinton's actions with Monica. You have been walking around with your nose stuck up in the air about how your party is the one defending morality, etc.

Now along comes a candidate you think you can ride into the White House, only in the fidelity and morals department he is ten times worse than Clinton ever was, and we don't hear a peep from you about his actual actions. No discussion of what Giuliani actually did. Nothing but diversion, diversion and more diversion.

Eight years of having to listen to the GOP Guardians Of Morality bashing Clinton for his affairs on the side. Now you have a guy who purposely appears with his mistress as a couple in front of the cameras in order to humiliate his wife weekly. Who tries to get his wife to move out of the Mayor's mansion so his girlfriend can move in-and to take the kids with her. Who sends his real wife and kids upstairs while he and his mistress hold public dinners for dignitaries downstairs in the dining room, greeting ambassadors and such as a couple hosting the party. And that is supposed to be all right. In fact, anyone who brings all this up is "smearing" poor Rudy.

The disconnect between what you Republicans have been harping on for the past eight years and the behavior of your latest darling could not get larger, Foxfyre. But apparently you are convinced that if you just divert, divert and divert, you can actually put this over.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Republican.

Yes, I intend to stand by this post and it is not wrong.

I know what you said. I have been reading this thread. As soon as Rudy's behavior toward his wife emerged in this thread, you have tried gambit after gambit to shift attention away from it.

First you wanted to know why the New York Times didn't report it, since after all they would surely report anything that can take down a Republican, biased as they are.

Then when Soz pointed out the Times did indeed cover it, you said you don't really pay attention to press coverage of these things since they treated poor Newt so badly when he divorced his dying wife to marry another, (whom he has lately divorced also).

After that, it's been nothing but posts about "smearing" candidates and how people who think the religious right aren't willing to be "flexible" have got a big surprise coming.

Eight years of nonstop Republican whining and hollering about Bill and Monica. Eight years of GOP pretending to be the party of morality, Clinton being Exhibit Number One. Eight years of "thoughtful analysis" about how Clinton simply cannot be considered an effective leader, considering the character flaws exposed by the Monica affair. Eight years of nonstop Republican goody-goodyism.

Now you have a guy who, in regards to his wife, acted like a rock star looking for a change of pace. It's not a case of letting a man have his personal life, it's a case of Rudy insisting his personal life will NOT be private. That he went out of his way to shove it in the face of his constituents and those who lived nearby. And just LOVED himself for doing it.

Now the Republicans who spent all this time banging on Clinton think that by merely changing the subject from Rudy's behavior to whether Rudy is being "smeared" they can slide by on this. Well, guess what. You can't. Not after the hole you and your party dug for itself with Clinton, you can't.

It is absolutely incredible that you ever thought you could. You must have no respect either for the memory or the intelligence of the American electorate.

Group limits Mormon participation in National Day of Prayer
Associated Press/May 4, 2004
By Travis Reed
Salt Lake City -- For the past three years, Chaplain Linda P. Walton has helped organize services for the National Day of Prayer. But this year, Walton and other religious leaders in Utah are opting out of the Thursday commemoration.

The problem, she says, is that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not allowed to conduct the services at an event put together by the National Day of Prayer Task Force - a nonprofit group which organizes events across the country.

"That sort of exclusion is the thing I hate the very worst," Walton said. "Bigotry. That's what I call it." ...

The National Day of Prayer Task Force is the largest grass roots organization organizing the events, and commands volunteers in all 50 states. It's headed by Shirley Dobson, wife of James Dobson, who founded the Christian group Focus on the Family.

Well, these are just a few examples of how different Mormonism is from Christianity. And that's why no Christian body, even those liberal ones, accepts Mormon baptism as valid. It's not a Christian baptism because Mormonism is not Christian. And we must be ready to lovingly point out these differences when opportunities arise....
[Just as the picture was either an old woman or a young one, Mormonism either affirms historic Christianity, or it doesn't. Since it doesn't, it can't call itself Christianity -- a fact that all the good will and public relations in Utah can't change./QUOTE] http://www.beliefnet.com/story/101/story_10106_2.html

Foxfyre wrote:

On another site I play around in some, this was posted from the Trinity United Church of Christ website. This is the church Barack Obama has attended for the last 20 years and presumably is a member.

I liked the way TNR's blog acerbically commented when this particular (non-)angle came up:

Quote:

NOTHING ON OBAMA:

The right must have absolutely no good opposition research on Barack Obama. Here was Sean Hannity last night, really scraping the bottom of the barrel:

You know, according to The Chicago Tribune, I'm trying to do a lot of research on this today. I haven't gotten a 100 percent definitive answer. But they report he's been an active member of Chicago's Trinity Unity Church of Christ for the last 20 years. And I went and I saw a web site, and if it's the same Trinity United, they have a list of their views on there which says, you know, commitment to God, commitment to the black community, commitment to the black family, adherence to the black work ethic. You know, it seems to be, you know, about--it seems divisive.

Pathetic. I've heard his middle name is "Hussein". Maybe they could try using that.

Also alwaus funny how, when a talking point comes up on the Fox talk shows, Townhall or the conservative blogs, you can be sure to see Foxfyre come up with it here a day or some later..

Dominion of Canada: Marty Peretz Sells Last New Republic Share
It feels like a burden has been lifted from me," Martin Peretz said on Feb. 27.
By Michael Calderone


It feels like a burden has been lifted from me," Martin Peretz said on Feb. 27.

For the first time in three decades, Mr. Peretz, 68, no longer owns a stake in The New Republic. He was on the phone from Cambridge, Mass., some two hours after the Canadian media conglomerate CanWest Global Communications announced that it was purchasing Mr. Peretz's 25 percent share and taking full ownership of the 93-year-old political and cultural magazine.

CanWest founder Izzy Asper was known as a strong supporter of both Canada's Liberal Party and Israel's right-wing Likud party,

If you will go back and reread, you will see how much you have misquoted and mischaracterized me.....

You have any support for your opinion on that KW? I have a really tough time to think that the NYT and other northeastern liberal publications wouldn't have headlined a scandal of that proportion. Seems to have been pretty low key, however.

I just remember how much the media or more precisely those commenting on media reports distorted the circumstances of Bob Dole's divorce from his first wife and how very few told it as it actually was. Ditto with Newt Gingrich's divorce from his first wife.

And most of us do have access to and read the NYT and however irresponsible and unprofessional it may be......

As an aside, all of what kelticwizard says is familiar to me from following it in the NYT.)

I am skeptical of most subjective things reported by the NYT however.

Foxfyre, nimh pointed you right to the evidence on the NYT site. A whole lot of it is as far from subjective as you can get (like TV cameras trained on Donna Hanover as she learned about divorce papers).

...looked at Nimh's sources and did not disagree that he provided them. I also gave my impressions of media coverage on this stuff.....

But can't you just see the leftwing group rubbing their hands with glee and salivating at the prospect of Guiliani being smeared? It's a rotten world we seem to have created for ourselves.

Foxfyre and others of her ilk are not going to deal with what Rudy did in public to his wife because it is plain indefensible. So they put a full court press on to try to make the media the issue, not Rudy.

See what happened here? Confronted with the fact of Rudy's yearlong public rampage against his wife, mistress always at his side, Foxfyre writes post after post after post criticizing THE MEDIA who covered it.

kelticwizard wrote:

See what happened here? Confronted with the fact of Rudy's yearlong public rampage against his wife, mistress always at his side, Foxfyre writes post after post after post criticizing THE MEDIA who covered it.

As well she should. Reality has a well-known liberal bias these days, so it was very partisan of the New York Times to report it.

Thomas:



Cyclo:

I agree. But listening to Republicans go on and on for eight years about Clinton-as if Monica was the first presidential mistress-and then see them turn around and try to treat Rudy's yearlong sexcapade and public abandonment of his wife and children as a media problem, is just too much to take.

Apparently the Republicans think that if they just complain about the media enough, they can get away with anything.

Thomas wrote:

kelticwizard wrote:

See what happened here? Confronted with the fact of Rudy's yearlong public rampage against his wife, mistress always at his side, Foxfyre writes post after post after post criticizing THE MEDIA who covered it.

As well she should. Reality has a well-known liberal bias these days, so it was very partisan of the New York Times to report it.

As KW is pretty consistent in being unreasonable in these kinds of discussions, and Cyclop easily slips into his little dog barking piling on motif so long as he has other dogs to protect him, I direct my post to you.

Could you point me to the post where I criticized the NYT for reporting it? There probably was more coverage than what I saw and I acknowledged that, but I think there was less making pointed accusations and criticisms at Guiliani than what KW is asserting or I think I would have noticed that. I don't recall it being a huge issue here on A2K but I could have just missed those threads. Do you find any post where I suggested Guiliani didn't do it? I do recall a post or two in which I suggested there are usually two sides to a story. Is that an unreasonable observation?

Would it possibly be possible that the NYT who seems to be pretty careful not to praise Republicans would not be adverse to taking excessive shots at one given an opportunity and might not give equal coverage to both sides of an issue? And is it possible for the Republican/Conservative base to be less moved by even valid criticisms given all the unrelenting bashing they have taken over the last six years?

And is it possible that KW hasn't answered my question as to whether he wants Guiliani to be embarassed and humiliated over his marital issues? (I don't think he has answered that yet.)

And is there any possibility that I have been misquoted, misrepresented, and mischaracterized here on this issue?

But okay, I accept that I hold a point of view that isn't the politically correct one here and that makes me the designated a-hole. And I suppose a member or two will continue to take shots at me over it despite the fact that the discussion has moved on to other things. I'd still rather be me than them.

And is there any possibility that I have been misquoted, misrepresented, and mischaracterized here on this issue?

Rudy Tuesday
It's a long way from 9/11/01 to 11/04/08. New Yorkers may be surprised by how far Rudy Giuliani has come already. But that's only because we know him.

It may sound preposterous to a Rudy-savvy New Yorker. But in this ballroom full of lock-jawed Wasps, it sounds like presidential salvation.

These guys don't like Arabs even more than Peretz.