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

nimh wrote:

In the category "interesting factlets", did anyone know that:

In 1992, Mitt Romney voted for Paul Tsongas in the Democratic primary;

In 1994, Giuliani publicly endorsed Mario Cuomo?

(Finding it impossible to walk past the glaring opening to tease here..)

According to the criterium Lash used re Obama/Daley, this means that Giuliani had a "cosy relationsip" with Cuomo.

0 Replies

Is there something wrong with Cuomo? Is Cuomo a mafioso like Daley?

I knew about the cross-party support. It's something I admire about Rudy.

He's not strung out on "party loyalty" if he thinks someone else is better.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

nimh wrote:
blatham wrote:
In a very real way, it doesn't much matter what McCain was up to earlier such that "extremes of pandering" now have to be engaged. What matters more is that he must abide by a certain set of litmus criteria insisted by the RR of ALL candidates.

If you did indeed see Giuliani, for example, declare Tom Coburn the man he relies on, that argument would certainly have made sense.

As it is, I havent even heard Giuliani say abortion is immoral, let alone choosing the man who said that those who carry out abortions should be subject to the death penalty as the man he relies on in such matters.

If you hear Giuliani also pointedly refuse to answer whether condoms "probably do help stop" the spread of HIV, you can return to this argument perhaps.

Understood. But Rudy isn't there yet and if he doesn't get there (very real possibility, of course) it will be because of we know what.

But there's another side to this too. We have to make some reasonable accounting of why the RR, in surprising percentages so far at least, respond positively to a Rudy candidacy. I would argue that they do so because there are other aspects in a candidate that they desire or think appropriate outside of those specific gay/abortion items. Authoritarianism is clearly one and father-figure/hero is clearly another (they are related). An ability to win and keep them in relative power is another. They are torn on this guy. But if he does get the primary and does well in the election, it will be because the RR supports him in significant numbers. If they mass against him, he's done for.

That "RR" sure is a bunch of stupid and evil bastards!

If they can't support a candidate because he doesn't share their homophobic hatred of gays or doesn't want to oppress women's wombs, there's always a good chance they will support him because he is a tyrant in the making or a ridiculous mythic archetype.

Your tunnel vision is astounding.

Is your take on the "RR" at all akin to a belief that all blacks are shiftless, all jews are greedy, all irish are drunkards and all gays are pedophiles?

No, of course not.

0 Replies

Clearly you don't understand. Stereotypes are not really stereotypes when they are used by oh-so-thoughtful and self-righteous liberals focusing their intellectiual powers on an analysis of the likely behavior of the unter mensch.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Is there something wrong with Cuomo? Is Cuomo a mafioso like Daley?

No, nothing wrong with Cuomo that I know of. Just teasing you about your earlier definition of "cosy relationship" - do you really think Giuliani had a "cosy relationship" with Cuomo? Because thats all there ever was in the other case too - Obama endorsed Daly for the elections, fin.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Clearly you don't understand. Stereotypes are not really stereotypes when they are used by oh-so-thoughtful and self-righteous liberals focusing their intellectiual powers on an analysis of the likely behavior of the unter mensch.

Another sweeping generalisation... since when exactly has the A2K right come to decide that Blatham = liberals?

0 Replies

It happened Friday. Notification arrived in the mail. I confess it surprised me a bit too as I'd thought I had always been quite forthright about my philosophical membership, Humanist Mennonite Who Likes Women Way More Than Anything.

0 Replies

OK, george and finn... let's see either of you make some reasonable accounting for the considerable support from the RR for a Rudy candidacy. You can use whatever term you wish to encapsulate or refer to that rough set of folks who attend church regularly, are mainly protestant and evangelical, who send their dollars in to Pat Roberts and other such 'leaders', who vote Republican (particularly in the last two or three decades), who preponderantly believe that homosexuality is either sinful or immoral, and who believe that "liberalism" is risen from the scabrous scrotum of Beezlebub.

Oh, and please, if you fall to the use of "heroic", describe what that word means and how it might apply to Rudy.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
Clearly you don't understand. Stereotypes are not really stereotypes when they are used by oh-so-thoughtful and self-righteous liberals focusing their intellectiual powers on an analysis of the likely behavior of the unter mensch.

Another sweeping generalisation... since when exactly has the A2K right come to decide that Blatham = liberals?

I don't speak for "the A2K right". My own opinion is that the term fairly accurately describes Bernie's political outlook.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

OK, george and finn... let's see either of you make some reasonable accounting for the considerable support from the RR for a Rudy candidacy. You can use whatever term you wish to encapsulate or refer to that rough set of folks who attend church regularly, are mainly protestant and evangelical, who send their dollars in to Pat Roberts and other such 'leaders', who vote Republican (particularly in the last two or three decades), who preponderantly believe that homosexuality is either sinful or immoral, and who believe that "liberalism" is risen from the scabrous scrotum of Beezlebub.

Oh, and please, if you fall to the use of "heroic", describe what that word means and how it might apply to Rudy.

I believe that in a statistical sense - as long as you are referring only to potentially detectable central tendencies among loosely defined groups, your analysis was OK. One could also analyze the likely behavior of New Yorker reading Manhattanites in this way.

My objection was to the too facile (in my view) use of stereotypes as though they represent the whole reality of what, in fact is a far more diverse collection of human beings. I have the strong impression that, implicit in your views, is the assumption that "they" can be more accurately described by the labels which you apply to them than could you by any that one of them might apply in response to you.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Lash wrote:
Is there something wrong with Cuomo? Is Cuomo a mafioso like Daley?

No, nothing wrong with Cuomo that I know of. Just teasing you about your earlier definition of "cosy relationship" - do you really think Giuliani had a "cosy relationship" with Cuomo? Because thats all there ever was in the other case too - Obama endorsed Daly for the elections, fin.

When a guy endorses the leader of a crime syndicate, I call it cozy. Either you endorse from conviction--or cash/favors. The cash endorsement = cozy to me.

How do YOU characterize it?

0 Replies

I had still wanted to add as well, before I got stuck without internet connection, that:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Is your take on the "RR" at all akin to a belief that all blacks are shiftless, all jews are greedy, all irish are drunkards and all gays are pedophiles?

georgeob1 wrote:

Clearly you don't understand. Stereotypes are not really stereotypes when they are used by oh-so-thoughtful and self-righteous liberals focusing their intellectiual powers on an analysis of the likely behavior of the unter mensch.

Also, of course, Finn's comparison here is void. Black you are not by choice. Being cast as inferior for what you were born as has a specific connotation (implied by George's word choice with "untermensch"). A religious fundamentalist on the other hand, one is by choice.

There'd be a kind of equivalent if one were adressing a poster putting down all Christians (or Muslims, say) - your religion as such is somewhere between choice and what you were born as. But when the religious right (or, say, Muslim fundamentalists) are specified, the comparison is null. Ridiculing or belittling people for their political choice may be in bad taste, but it is not comparable to casting people's race or ethnicity as inferior.

The appropriate equivalent here, of course, would rather be between describing the religious right as ignorant, backward, intolerant and hateful, and describing the anti-war left as ignorant, stupid and hateful. Come to think of it, that makes Finn's indignation somewhat ironic..

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

nimh wrote:
No, nothing wrong with Cuomo that I know of. Just teasing you about your earlier definition of "cosy relationship" - do you really think Giuliani had a "cosy relationship" with Cuomo? Because thats all there ever was in the other case too - Obama endorsed Daly for the elections, fin.

When a guy endorses the leader of a crime syndicate, I call it cozy. Either you endorse from conviction--or cash/favors. The cash endorsement = cozy to me.

Uhmm, are you now implying that Obama endorsed Daley because of "cash"? (What about he endorsed him because he shared his political views? Or because they belong to the same party?)

I just dont get why when Obama endorses Daley, that means he is in "a cosy relationship" with him, but when Giuliani endorsed Cuomo, he was - in no particular relationship. Doesnt compute, to me.

Also, do you really believe Giuliani endorsed Cuomo out of conviction? Rather than, say, with an eye on pursuing politics in a city that is three-quarter Democrat? Do you really think he would still endorse a Democrat in some mayor's election race now, if he'd agree with the guy more than with the Republican?

Lash wrote:

How do YOU characterize it?

Loyalty to one's party candidates.. standard issue, for better or worse. No personal relationship, cosy or otherwise, implied.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

nimh wrote:
Another sweeping generalisation... since when exactly has the A2K right come to decide that Blatham = liberals?

I don't speak for "the A2K right".

OK, you got me there. Even as I was chiding you for talking like [Blatham = liberals], I talked like [Georgeob + (whoever else it was on this thread the other day) = the A2K right]. Embarassing, that...

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Also, of course, Finn's comparison here is void. Black you are not by choice. Being cast as inferior for what you were born as has a specific connotation (implied by George's word choice with "untermensch"). A religious fundamentalist on the other hand, one is by choice.

There'd be a kind of equivalent if one were adressing a poster putting down all Christians (or Muslims, say) - your religion as such is somewhere between choice and what you were born as. But when the religious right (or, say, Muslim fundamentalists) are specified, the comparison is null. Ridiculing or belittling people for their political choice may be in bad taste, but it is not comparable to casting people's race or ethnicity as inferior.

The appropriate equivalent here, of course, would rather be between describing the religious right as ignorant, backward, intolerant and hateful, and describing the anti-war left as ignorant, stupid and hateful. Come to think of it, that makes Finn's indignation somewhat ironic..

You are playing with words Nimh. One can use and apply labels for people - describine either immutable physical features or behaviors that may be a matter of choice -- and use them equally well in either case as though they were definative and not subject to variation. That was what Blatham was doing in his piece, and I think you recognize that fact. He has repeatedly made it clear that he believes there is a well-organized, monolitiic body of Christian fundamentalists or evangelicals who conspire in ways (hateful to him) to impose their values on the rest of the country or perhaps the world. He also imagines that there is no possibility that members of this geoup could rightly look on their political opponents in the same way. The truth - on both sides - is more complex than that.

0 Replies

Nimh--

How much do you know about the Daley's?

I can't believe you're trying to address the endorsement as anywhere within the realm of normal.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

The truth - on both sides - is more complex than that.

Sure the truth is more complex than that - Blatham knows what I think about that, been through the issue on Lolas religious right thread.

But no, it is certainly no mere "playing with words" to point out the canard in Finns comparison. Attributing a set of negative characteristics to a group of people who have actively chosen a certain ideology is nothing like attributing a set of negative characteristics to people because they are black or Irish or Jewish.

One can opine, for example, that "fascists share a slavish urge to submit uncritically to authority", or some such strong statement, and it may be arguable, or one may contest words, but it is a perfectly legitimate opinion to express. Same if one were to opine that "Muslim fundamentalists have a bigoted, backward world view". Or, "the anti-war left chooses to remain stubbornly ignorant and downright dishonest about the threats of our time".

Or - what was that awful, awful thing Blatham actually said about the religious right just now, that both of you judged so unpalatable? "Authoritarianism is clearly one [aspect why the Religious Right so far responds positively to Giuliani,] and father-figure/hero is clearly another."

Judgements about groups of people based on their political decisions and sympathies.

Compare those judgements, as Finn would have us do, with "a belief that all blacks are shiftless, all jews are greedy, all irish are drunkards and all gays are pedophiles", and the difference between the two is really just "playing with words"?

I dont think so...

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

How much do you know about the Daley's?

I can't believe you're trying to address the endorsement as anywhere within the realm of normal.

I do believe it is normal practice, for better or worse. One can deplore the practice to always endorse your party's local candidate, but if its normal practice, it hardly means that someone has entered into "a cosy relationship" with a candidate by doing so. Eg: how many Democratic Senators/House Reps for the area have ever not endorsed Daley? And yeah, do you really believe that Giuliani would now still endorse any Democrat in any race, anywhere, no matter what crook is running for the Reps?

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

blatham wrote:
OK, george and finn... let's see either of you make some reasonable accounting for the considerable support from the RR for a Rudy candidacy. You can use whatever term you wish to encapsulate or refer to that rough set of folks who attend church regularly, are mainly protestant and evangelical, who send their dollars in to Pat Roberts and other such 'leaders', who vote Republican (particularly in the last two or three decades), who preponderantly believe that homosexuality is either sinful or immoral, and who believe that "liberalism" is risen from the scabrous scrotum of Beezlebub.

Oh, and please, if you fall to the use of "heroic", describe what that word means and how it might apply to Rudy.

I believe that in a statistical sense - as long as you are referring only to potentially detectable central tendencies among loosely defined groups, your analysis was OK. One could also analyze the likely behavior of New Yorker reading Manhattanites in this way.

My objection was to the too facile (in my view) use of stereotypes as though they represent the whole reality of what, in fact is a far more diverse collection of human beings. I have the strong impression that, implicit in your views, is the assumption that "they" can be more accurately described by the labels which you apply to them than could you by any that one of them might apply in response to you.

That's a fair complaint, george. But the problem sits with any similar sociological claim where the population sector viewed is not identifiable by some simple or single characteristic, eg American citizens, military personnel, Rotarian members, etc. Unfortunately, we often need to deal with groupings with much fuzzier edges. Of course, you and finn utilize such terms/categories regularly too, using "liberals" or "leftists" or "humanists" or "pot-smoking daughter rapists who hate god" or some such.

One just has to maintain some distance from the terms and keep in mind the general (therefore of variable accuracy or applicability) nature of them, and try to specify as much as is possible. Religious right isn't a terribly bad example as it does narrow down the categorization to some significant elements. And as you know, many people who I would place in that category are themselves quite content to think of themselves as within that category...they themselves finding it clear enough in its delineation or differentiation from other sectors of the community.

and ps... what accounting do/can you make of such significant support for Rudy when support of anyone else who holds Rudy's views on abortion and gays particularly has been absent or rare at best...who else? So why does this community sector drop its normal litmus demand here? Or are you saying with "your analysis is ok" that I'm somewhere close to a good description?

0 Replies

Just read all the nimh/george stuff. Europeans! Sheesh, what can one say that hasn't been said before? No wonder Americans are sooo jealous of the rest of us in the world. But aside from all that...

Some of you, if not most of you, seem to have trouble distinguishing between my ideas on the RR subject and those of Lola. She's not presently reading this thread so I can slip in the secret that we have disagreements.

As to george and his use of "monolithic", I'm unbothered by the criticism for two reasons: 1) it's not my view at all and 2) george is a weiner who has studied the matter perhaps at some ratio like 1:50 in comparison to myself.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know