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

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
If you won't agree to that, could you at least admit that I have a point that the Union leaders do not necessarily represent the feelings and/or views of those they represent?

Even in so-called "democracies" where the leaders got elected with 99.998% those didn't necessessarily feelings and/or views of those they represented but they spoke nevertheless officially for them.
Which here again is Foxy's original point... which was; the fire fighters union's position may or may not have reflected the views of the fireman. Some were no doubt ready for closure (while I personally doubt many were, any more than the family's of the 2,000 or so MIA/POW's in SE Asia were ready to declare their loved ones lost forever.)

How long is long enough to spend sifting through wreckage to find bits and pieces of decomposing human tissue that may or may not be identifiable? Is this really a major consideration in assessing Giuliani's credentials? Or is it a predictable way for the left to counter the "Giuliani was a hero on 9-11" mantra? Does anyone think if Giuliani were running as a Democrat (which really isn't that far fetched), the left and right wouldn't switch sides and argue the exact same points? From where I'm sitting; this is as predictable as it is mundane... and the piling on Foxy for slightly inconsistent tangential points that have no bearing on the issue at hand is silly... but predictable as well.

In doing a prelimary search earlier today, I couldn't find much to suggest the firemen were upset that the search for identifiable remains was being closed down at the time it happened. The recovery of identifiable body parts, etc. went on through November---I'm thinking even 100 days after 9/11, and probably continued in "Fresh Kills" after that where the debris was being taken for further sifting and searching. There simply had to be a time called when it was no longer reasonable to continue. I have no opinion at all whether that time was called too soon or too late. But I am going to guess that those involved in the search and identification process might even have been relieved after so long. It's kind of like the combined grief and release one feels when somebody who is dying finally does.

I did find the following links which provide a reminder of what the rescue workers were doing and going through:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,10987,1000879,00.html

http://mrbellersneighborhood.com/story.php?storyid=177

http://www.wtclivinghistory.org/groundzerocorrection3.htm

You would think you would find more references to criticism of Giuliani if they were seriously upset when the operation was finally closed down, however.
_________________
--Foxfyre

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I?-
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I didn't know she had that many personalities and usernames.

Anyway, thanks for adding the exclamation to my point, Cyclops. As if infidelity belongs to a party. Hypocrisy runith over. As if the Left's favorite poster boy didn't publicly humiliate his wife over and over. Me; I'm more concerned about Foreign and Domestic Policy.

Me too. I don't give a damn about the private lives of my elected representatives. But, I'm not a member of a party which has dedicated itself to being the 'moral' party. That's the hypocrisy.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I didn't know she had that many personalities and usernames.

Anyway, thanks for adding the exclamation to my point, Cyclops. As if infidelity belongs to a party. Hypocrisy runith over. As if the Left's favorite poster boy didn't publicly humiliate his wife over and over. Me; I'm more concerned about Foreign and Domestic Policy.

Me too. I don't give a damn about the private lives of my elected representatives. But, I'm not a member of a party which has dedicated itself to being the 'moral' party. That's the hypocrisy.

Cycloptichorn

Take a closer look at the collective politics of the pilers on (including your own). You appear to be mischaracterizing them. :wink:

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I didn't know she had that many personalities and usernames.

Anyway, thanks for adding the exclamation to my point, Cyclops. As if infidelity belongs to a party. Hypocrisy runith over. As if the Left's favorite poster boy didn't publicly humiliate his wife over and over. Me; I'm more concerned about Foreign and Domestic Policy.

Me too. I don't give a damn about the private lives of my elected representatives. But, I'm not a member of a party which has dedicated itself to being the 'moral' party. That's the hypocrisy.

Cycloptichorn
Take a closer look at the collective politics of the pilers on (including your own). You appear to be mischaracterizing them. :wink:

I understand that there have been quite a few libs pointing out Guiliani's problems, but that's more of an 'oppo research' type deal than it is an actual personal problem with the behavior itself.

For example, Guiliani's personal life doesn't sink him with me (he is my number 3, after all) but it sure should with the large body of Republican voters who have stated, clearly, that they believe a person's personal life is reflective of how they will govern/whether or not we can trust them to govern. I was just in this very conversation with Mysteryman the other day.

Seems that the more centrist wing of the Republican party - people such as yourself who vote Republican but don't claim to be one per se - want Guiliani bad, but are whistling past the graveyard when it comes to his personal problems. Without the churches to elevate the vote counts for the Republican side, they will have an amazingly difficult time winning against an energized Dem base who can finally see a country without a Republican president.

But hey - suit yourself. I think Guiliani v. Obama is a clear win for Obama. McCain v. Obama, less so.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Interesting; I would have thought Giuliani vs Obama would be more competitive.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Interesting; I would have thought Giuliani vs Obama would be more competitive.

Don't let all the hype fool you from this far out; McCain is still the #1 guy for the Republicans. Guiliani is a ticking time bomb.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Thus far; the polls could hardly agree with you less.

0 Replies

Meanwhile, back more closely to the topic: Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Neb) postponed a decision on whether to get into the race. Mr Hagel is, I believe, an early and ongoing opponent to our involvement in Iraq.
He says that he wants to focus on that issue for awhile and not get distracted by running for President.
Clearly (at least in my mind), Mr Hagel has made a strategic decision to keep his powder dry for a few months.
And there is this: Ron Paul, a nine-term (ie 18 yr) congressman from Texas announced his candidacy as a Republican. He describes himself as a lifelong libertarian.
Sorry for interrupting yall's mind numbing discussion.

0 Replies

Watch the progress yourself, at the link below.
http://pollingreport.com/2008.htm

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Interesting; I would have thought Giuliani vs Obama would be more competitive.

At this juncture, you'd be thinking correctly... in virtually every poll.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Thus far; the polls could hardly agree with you less.

I know. I think this mostly has to do with the fact that the vast body of Republicans being polled either aren't aware of what a scuzzbag he is in his personal life, or think he's the 'best of bad options.' Neither one is a winning choice.

I will be more than happy to be wrong on this issue, believe me. I'd rather deal with a squishy center supporting the Republicans than the Evangelicals; one will split votes either way, the other, 90% Republican.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Still too close to call. Wink

0 Replies

realjohnboy wrote:

Meanwhile, back more closely to the topic: Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Neb) postponed a decision on whether to get into the race. Mr Hagel is, I believe, an early and ongoing opponent to our involvement in Iraq.
He says that he wants to focus on that issue for awhile and not get distracted by running for President.
Clearly (at least in my mind), Mr Hagel has made a strategic decision to keep his powder dry for a few months.
And there is this: Ron Paul, a nine-term (ie 18 yr) congressman from Texas announced his candidacy as a Republican. He describes himself as a lifelong libertarian.
Sorry for interrupting yall's mind numbing discussion.

Well I for one appreciate the interruption Johnboy.

Nobody is talking much about Newt, but there are some interesting things happening in the polls there. A good many of the party faithful know his reputation for being a go to guy to get things done.

I have seen two interviews with Fred Thompson this past week in which it was alluded that he should throw his hat into the ring. He has a voice to die for, great delivery, and impressive stage presence. His entry into the race could fall flat or it could make things more interesting.

We're not seeing much about Duncan Hunter yet but he is no way eliminated.

And somewhere deep down, I'm not 100% convinced that Condi Rice couldn't be drafted if she was seen as the best hope to run against a popular Democrat woman and/or a popular Democrat black man. Double threat, divide and conquer, and all that.....plus she's got an impressive background and she's very smart and articulate. And she's never cheated on a spouse. Smile

Hagel I don't think has a prayer because I don't think he can garner the support of the GOP machine, much less a good chunk of the GOP base.
_________________
--Foxfyre

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I?-
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

0 Replies

Quote:

And somewhere deep down, I'm not 100% convinced that Condi Rice couldn't be drafted if she was seen as the best hope to run against a popular Democrat woman and/or a popular Democrat black man. Double threat, divide and conquer, and all that.....plus she's got an impressive background and she's very smart and articulate. Smile

Also, the fact that she is an incarnation of the Devil doesn't hurt.

http://www.foxnews.com/images/120580/2_2_032604_rice_condoleeza.jpg

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Here's a March 2007 msnbc poll:

..........................Very Positive.............Very Negative
McCain......................12...........................9
Giuliani......................21...........................6

For republicans and those planning to vote republican in the primary.
Giuliani.....................38
McCain.....................24

Source: HERE.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

In doing a prelimary search earlier today, I couldn't find much to suggest the firemen were upset that the search for identifiable remains was being closed down at the time it happened.

<snip>

You would think you would find more references to criticism of Giuliani if they were seriously upset when the operation was finally closed down, however.

I can't even begin to imagine what key words you used.

In any case ...

http://server.firehouse.com/terrorist/images/1102_APcopsff2.jpg

http://server.firehouse.com/terrorist/images/2_APcopsff.jpg

firehouse.com

Kerik and Von Essen. Familiar names to anyone whose followed Mr. Giuliani over the years.

0 Replies

Good one, EhBeth!

Razz

Seriously, does anyone except the normally sensible O'Bill actually think Foxfyre was going to tell us about any anger on the part of the rank and file firefighters over Giuliani's actions? After she spent all this time trying to tell us that union leaders speake ONLY for themselves, even when they are demanding respect for their union members who died in the line of duty?

Puh-leeze.

0 Replies

I didn't say they weren't angry at the time of the protests. I'm quite aware of the protests at the time they occurred and, according to most sources, these involved a few hundred people, probably mostly firemen. There are 12,000 firemen on the New York City Fire Department so we're talking probably less than 3% of the total Fire Dept.

I also was not referring to the reduction in rescue workers which prompted that protest. I was referring to ending the rescue operation which I believe is what the suit in question is about. The protest occurred many weeks before the search and rescue was stopped entirely.

The reductions that did prompt the protest occurred because the Mayor was advised the site had become too dangerous to have large numbers there, not because he didn't want to assign the firemen there. I'm not positive, but I believe the top Union Boss agreed with the Mayor on that and the anger was directed more at the Union boss than at the Mayor at the time. I think the Mayor at some point never reduced the workers to 25 but allowed 50?

I do not believe there was any protest of any kind at the time the rescue operations stopped.

I could be wrong. But that's my best recollection.

So none of this in any way changes my negative opinion about the Union bringing public criticism now more than five years later. But of course you guys are convinced that it is purely out of altruistic motives and there is no political motive to knock down a guy who just happens to be the Republican front runner right now.
_________________
--Foxfyre

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I?-
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I didn't say they weren't angry at the time of the protests. I'm quite aware of the protests at the time they occurred

Could have fooled us. You didn't mention the protests. Imagine all those posts where you are trying to tell us that the union leadership does not speak for the union members-and you never mention the protests against Giuliani.

Foxfyre wrote:

...and, according to most sources, these involved a few hundred people, probably mostly firemen.

Which is a few hundred MORE NYC firefighters than ever showed up to support Giuliani on this issue.

Foxfyre wrote:

I also was not referring to the reduction in rescue workers which prompted that protest. I was referring to ending the rescue operation...

Why is it necessary to have protests by the firefighters at the time of closing? The extensive protests by the firefighters at the time of the scale-back of personnel sent the same message.

How many protests do you actually require before you grudgingly admit the firefighters don't like the way Giuliani handled the rescue operation?

Foxfyre wrote:

which I believe is what the suit in question is about.

What suit?

Foxfyre wrote:

The protest occurred many weeks before the search and rescue was stopped entirely.

So presumably it doesn't count. Foxfyre has very stringent requirements for union members to convince her that they actually mean it. Demonstrating and getting arrested ONCE simply doesn't make it. You have to demonstrate and get arrested again, and again, and again before Foxfyre might entertain the union members don't like Giuliani's handling of the rescue operation.

Foxfyre wrote:

I'm not positive, but I believe the top Union Boss agreed with the Mayor on that and the anger was directed more at the Union boss than at the Mayor at the time. I think the Mayor at some point never reduced the workers to 25 but allowed 50?

Boy, have you got that one garbled. Here is what happened:

Quote:

Hundreds of firefighters broke down barricades around the site, known as "Ground Zero" since the devastating terror attack of September 11, and five police officers were injured in the scuffles.

Those arrested included a retired fire captain, a fire marshal and three union leaders, and they face charges of assault, resisting arrest and disorderly conduct.

And no, no union leaders gave the okay for the plan at all. That is still more garbling on your part.

Foxfyre wrote:

I do not believe there was any protest of any kind at the time the rescue operations stopped.

So what? There were protests before. And apparently a hell of a lot of hard feelings still.

Foxfyre wrote:

So none of this in any way changes my negative opinion about the Union bringing public criticism now more than five years later.

They were against what happened all along. They were the people who lost their compatriots in their mission to rescue the innocent-not you. But arrogantly, that matters to you not at all.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Are you saying that when the President speaks, he is speaking your opinions, feelings, social, and/or political views? Unless you will answer that question, I will not respond to you further on this.

I want an answer to this question. It can be answered with a yes, no, or sometimes but not always. I do not want the answer to a different question.

This question should not be asked by anyone who graduated third grade, but here it is.

Let me give an example to illustrate the principle.

Suppose Bush gives a state dinner to welcome the President of Brazil, Luiz da Silva. Silva comes into the room.

Quote:

Bush: President Silva, the people of the United States of America welcome you to the White House.

da Silva: Don't give me that crap.

Bush: What are you talking about?

da Silva: Who the hell are YOU to extend me welcome on behalf of the people of this country? I don't see any demonstrations outside welcoming me here. I don't see any polls showing that Americans care if i am here or not!

Bush: But Silva, as President I have the right to speak for the people of this country in welcoming you.

da Silva: But I have no idea at all that you know the people on this "welcome" issue at all. What evidence do you have that they welcome me?

Bush: They elected me to speak for them.

da Silva: They elected you to be president. There is no evidence that they elected you to welcome anyone to the country. What a lying pig you are, Bush. You have nothing to make me think that the American people actually know or care that I am here, but you claim to speak for them anyway!!!

Ridiculous? Of course. But no more ridiculous than Foxfyre's position this whole thread.

When people are elected to be head of organizations, especially unions, they are indeed elected to represent the members of that union and to speak for the members of that union. They are not just there to negotiate contracts. And they are especially expected to stick up for their members when they are attacked. Surely, making certain the bodies of members killed in the line of duty are respected is something a leader must do without question.

In these cases, it is not necessary to hold any demonstrations, take any polls, or provide any other evidence to the outside world that the leader speaks for his members. On issues like this, it is assumed. This is just the reason we have elections-to have people represent us, and speak for us when that is appropriate. Standing up for the rights of your fallen compatriots is certainly an appropriate time for the union leader to speak for the members.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know