Wednesday, November 14, 2007

 

Gay-Baiting Giuliani

From James Taranto's Best of the Web




There's almost a year to go before the presidential election, and already the Angry Left is employing gutter tactics against the Republican front-runner. One ugly theme has emerged:

They make Giuliani sound like Boy George. In fact, as we've noted, he's more Monty Python, having donned a dress on a couple of occasions purely for comic effect.
It's especially sad to see Andrew Sullivan, who styles himself a champion of gay rights, resort to a rank appeal to homophobia in order to score cheap partisan points.

This is purely a WTF moment for me.......

A) Rudy has dressed in drag for comedic value on a couple of occasions.

B) I thought liberalism was supposed to be the bastion of tolerance, even if Rudy were a cross dressing homo.

Oh, and read the rest of it...Howard Dean's comments are freaking priceless.


Comments:
I see where Boy George was just arrested for illegally keeping another man captive or restrained.
 
Maybe he ( BG ) should run for Parliament so that Andrew Sullivan can aim his rhetortic at an actual homosexual crossdresser.....were it not for the fact that Sullivan is a champion of gay rights........err....yeah.


How goes it Tony ?
 
"already the Angry Left is employing gutter tactics against the Republican front-runner."

Since when did Andrew Sullivan become a member of the left? As I've stated before, you make too much use of labels Roger, and it just shows laziness in your arguments.

Likewise this labeling of Giuliani as a cross dresser is just lazy and sloppy. (Although I'm unclear how wearing women's clothes has anything to do with being gay or how labeling someone a cross dresser is "gaybaiting".) There are so many things to attack Rudy on that the fact that on several occassions he made a fool out of himself by putting on a woman's clothes and makeup,ranks pretty low on the list.

For example, lets start with the fact that the man he appointed police commissioner of New York, a man who he chose to be his business partner, and the man whom he advocated for a head of homeland security just was indicted in federal court on 16 counts and could face a maximum sentence of 142 years in prison and $4.7 million in fines. After 8 years of cronyism over competence do we really need more of the same.

Crossdressing? Small potatoes.
 
Sorry Roger, it sounded like you but I should have read more carefully.
 
Though destroying images of opponents is a key polical game strategy, it's best when the attack strikes some aspect of its target that shows an unfitness to lead. In this case, lead the nation.

As a New York City resident, I was not amused by Rudy in a wig and dress. Poking fun at oneself is a good thing for leaders to do. But I think he embarrassed himself.

However, hid appearance on TV in a dress does not impair his capacity for leadership. He led NY City from a condition of near lawlessness through a social and economic recovery. He can lead.

Hillary cannot lead. Worse, she has ZERO leadership experience. And based on her unwillingness to wear anything but pants-suits, I'm certain Rudy looks better in a dress than Hillary.

Rudy can lead, and he can wear women's clothes. He beats Hillary on both counts. She's trying to hide the fact that she cannot lead, and she is suffering from that female problem of having legs that should, by law, remain covered at all times. She's trying to hide her legs and her lack of leadership skill.

Why would anyone vote to elect a person who promises to demonstrate incompetence?
 
"He led NY City from a condition of near lawlessness through a social and economic recovery."

I lived in NYC long before Rudy became mayor and I am still here long after. The above statement is absurd.

PS: Is it possible for any Republican to defend attacks on another Republican without resorting to the "Well, Clinton's worse" defense.
 
Peter B,

why should Rudy or anyone else need to defend attacks regarding something as shallow and ludicrous as calling Rudy a cross dresser ?

It's plain stupid to begin with, and that's the point. Call him a cross dresser because they CAN'T say anything about his leadership capabilities, in comparison to the other candidates.

Lastly, a Clinton comparison IS relevant, because she IS a candidate for the office. Unlike how Hillary has been running against Bush, who is NOT a candidate for office.
 
no_slappz,

I thought of you yesterday and want to go off topic and ask that you explain something to me which I do not understand which you probably do given your knowledge of financial markets.

In recent days, every major bank has announced that writedowns related to securities which consist of subprime mortgages. I do not know the total amount of these writedowns but I suspect the number to be in the amount of at least 40 billion dollars.

I suspect that the amount of the subprime loans is considerably less. I am I wrong here? Also I suspect that the amount of non performing subprime loans is considerably less.

So what is the explanation?

Thanks.
 
"Call him a cross dresser because they CAN'T say anything about his leadership capabilities, in comparison to the other candidates".

Don't be rediculous. You find quotes by two or three people and then claim those quotes are typical of "the left" or of "them".

People have been saying things about Giuliani's leadership abilities on a daily basis. Infact, I said something about those abilities in bringing up the Kerik issue(a point you ignored).
Anytime you want to discuss Rudy's so called leadership abilities, I will be happy to do so.
 
Peter B,

sorry for being rEdiculous.....I'm not saying that Rudy's leaderhip capabilities can't be questioned....I am asking WHY even call him a cross dresser ?.....it's plain stupid, as well as being disingenuous, at the very least. And again, liberalism is supposed to be the most tolerent of ideals......whether you consider Sullivan to be a liberal or not....he is supposedly a champion for gay rights......so, really......what's the point of the writers in calling him such, other than the obvious effect of making themselves look like bufoons ?
 
Ok fine. Everyone stop calling Rudy a cross dresser and focus on stuff like why he hadn't improved the ineffective radios during his term that led to the deaths of so many cops and fireman on 9/11. Or why he made the incredibly stupid decision to locate command headquarters (and place large amounts of fuel there) at the WTC in the first place? Just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to issues of Rudy's leadership.
 
Peter B,

are those issues of leadership, or poor choices in technical aspects ? You make it seem like Rudy knew well in advance that 911 were going to occur, but did nothing in spite of it, regarding communication devices and fuel storage, as if the latter would have made one bit of difference anyway.

And do whatever you can to not blame the 19 hijackers on 911.....of course, the buildings coming down and the fireman and cops being killed are ALL Rudy's fault. NOT.

I'm not pro Rudy.....but I am certainly not going to let ridiculous drive by comments not go unnoticed, when something as important as a presidential election is at stake.....and the one thing that Rudy DOES have going for him is that he is not a Clinton.

So, care to comment on his leadership ON 911 and immediately afterward ?....of course, it's all opinion based.

I mean......did he wear a dress that week per chance ?
 
"are those issues of leadership, or poor choices in technical aspects ?"

What are you talking about? For years during Guiliani's mayoralty cops and fireman complained about the quality of their radios and their inability to communicate with each other. But Guiliani did nothing to resolve this problem because he said it would cost too much. Most experts believe that the faulty radios cost many cops and firemen their lives on 9/11. If thats not poor leadership, what is? Moreover, the decision to locate the Office of Emergency Management headquarters on the 23rd floor inside the 7 World Trade Center building in the face of overwelming opposition after the 93 attack, was not simply poor leadership, it was downright stupid, and, proved to be tragic.
In any event, how can someone be a good leader if they continue to make bad technical decisions?


"You make it seem like Rudy knew well in advance that 911 were going to occur, but did nothing in spite of it, regarding communication devices and fuel storage, as if the latter would have made one bit of difference anyway."

After the '93 attack, a good leader should have been prepared for annother attack at the same place. Guiliani wasn't. Your statement that his decisions regarding radios and the command location made no difference on 9/11, flies in the face of almost universal expert opinion on this issue, which I will take the time to document if you insist. These were dumb decisions, and they cost people their lives.

"And do whatever you can to not blame the 19 hijackers on 911.....of course, the buildings coming down and the fireman and cops being killed are ALL Rudy's fault. NOT."

Either you want to have an intelligent adult discussion or you don't. Obviously criticising Guiliani's leadership and arguing that it contributed to the damage on 9/11 is not condoning the attacks. Lets not be foolish.
 
Peter,

please do tell us, what Rudy could have done, that would have made a difference on 911 ?

Thanks in advance..

Quick question.....did Rudy hire John Oneill ?

I'm having an intelligent conversation Peter.....if you can unplug your ears and quit yelling "blah " you would hear me...I've already told you I'm no Rudy shill.....this thread isn't about his leadership skills or lack thereof....it's about how that indeed is what SHOULD be discussed, as opposed to cross dressing.

Maybe better radios would have made a difference to the fireman and cops that lost their lives on 911....But I'm saying that 911 would still have occurred, exactly the same way, with pretty much the exact same loss of life....we will never know of course, and the point is moot at this juncture.......we obviously disagree. Was there a better communication system being offered, that Rudy himself wouldn't approve the funds for such ?

Wonder why it was that Hillary got booed by the fireman and cops at the concert for New York, and NOT Rudy ?

Honest question.....have the communication systems for the cops and fireman in NYC been improved yet do you know ?

I'd like to know where they are on that.


Thanks
 
"Wonder why it was that Hillary got booed by the fireman and cops at the concert for New York, and NOT Rudy ?"

Talk about pulling something out of the air. It was a stacked deck. George Pitaki got a standing ovation. So did Bill Clinton. By the way when Rudy dropped out of the senatorial race, allegedly for health reasons, Clinton was ahead of him by 8-10 points in all of the polls. By the way, those firefighters that were cheering Rudy, are they the same fire fighters who are condemning his pre and post 9/11 leadership? see
"NY firefighters attack Giuliani"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6294198.stm

or see "Rudy gets earful.
Some FDNY survivors rally against him
Daily News 4/24/07

Are these the same firemen whose union endorsed Clinton in both of her senate campaigns,:
"praising the Senator’s leadership in the aftermath of the
September 11 attacks, her steadfast championing of threat-based homeland security funding,
and her attention to the health and safety of first responders. The announcement reflects
the strong depth and breadth of Senator Clinton’s support as she faces re-election in
November."

NYC FIREFIGHTER UNIONS ENDORSE
SENATOR CLINTON FOR RE-ELECTION
4/19/06


To more important issues:
First, 121 fireman died in the North Tower because their radios were not working properly and they did not hear the order to evacuate.
New York Times 5/24/04

Second, the 9/11 Commission noted in its report that lack of preparedness could have led to the deaths of many of the first responders at the scene of the attacks.
Report of the 9/11 Commission

Third, World Trade Center 7 would still be in use today had the Command post not been placed there.

Tons of fuel stored in the basement of 7 WTC leaked out after the attacks. The fuel had been placed there for one reason: to keep the EOC and the elevators powered in an emergency.

After the attacks on the Twin Towers, these fuel tanks broke open and caught fire. Within hours, the building collapsed.
New York Times 5/24/04

Fourth, its now clear that the much-criticized decision to locate the emergency command center at 7 World Trade Center instead of a site in Brooklyn, resulted the entire staff of the EOC, including Giuliani, being evacuated after the second plane struck the North Tower.

The then-director of the EOC noted that the city could not use this center "at the moment when it was needed most." It took three days to create a makeshift center on a pier on the Hudson River.

Guiliani has subsequently blamed his staff for the decision to create the command Center at the WTC. It has now been shown that he ignored the advice of his staff to locate the center in Brooklyn.
New York Times 5/22/07

Two major and disastrous decisions
which ended up costing good people their lives.





PS Thanks to the real leadership of present police commissioner Ray Kelly, the NYC police and fire departments now have a reliable communications system.
 
peter b, I wrote:

""He led NY City from a condition of near lawlessness through a social and economic recovery.""

You responded:

"I lived in NYC long before Rudy became mayor and I am still here long after. The above statement is absurd."

Would you identify this crime-free and well balanced section of the city where you spend your time? In what NY City neighborhood do you live?

I was born in Manhattan and have lived in Brooklyn for quite a while. Over the years I have met a number of the bad boys of this city. But there are seemingly fewer of them these days. I can trace the start of their decline to Rudy's election as mayor.

Perhaps you have forgotten that daytime robberies at gunpoint routinely occurred by Bryant Park before it was redeveloped and put into its current state.

As for Rudy and the Fire Department radios during 9/11, well, that's a little too much like arguing about the deck chairs on the Titanic.

If the planes had hit 15 minutes later, what would the death toll have been? Or 15 minutes earlier?

If anything, the 1993 WTC terrorist attack showed how well occupants of the WTC were capable of reacting. From the top of the Towers they descended by the internal fire stairways. Flawlessly. That affected thinking about responses to future attacks.

As a result of that attack, safety and security precautions were developed. The WTC went from an easy place to park and enter to one requiring extensive authorization. NO ONE foresaw an attack like the one that took down the Towers.

All islamic terrorist attacks up to that point had involved bombs and guns. One of the most devastating being the truck bomb that killed 241 Marines in their barracks in Beirut in October 1983. The 1993 WTC attack was similar. The embassy bombings in Africa later in the 1990s were similar. The attack on the USS Cole, again, similar.

Meanwhile, the idea of putting the mayor's emergency command bunker is Brooklyn is just silly. It is quite reasonable to predict that all bridge and tunnel crossings would be blocked by panicked crowds doing whatever possible to get out of town, including driving out of Manhattan on the inbound lanes of tunnels and bridges.

Obviously strategists will forever consider the possibility of attacks occurring on or in the river crossings.

Having an emergency bunker near City Hall made sense then and makes sense now.
 
peter b, you wrote/copied:

"Are these the same firemen whose union endorsed Clinton in both of her senate campaigns,:"

In both elections Clinton ran against unqualified candidates. A sad fact. Rick Lazio and John Spencer. Two unfortunate ding-dongs.

You copied:

""praising the Senator’s leadership in the aftermath of the
September 11 attacks, her steadfast championing of threat-based homeland security funding,
and her attention to the health and safety of first responders."

Was there anyone in NY OPPOSED to Homeland Security funding for the city? By mentioning this bit of silliness, you are suggesting that people here had to THINK about the merits or lack of merits behind the request for funds to safeguard New Yorkers. Please stop.

Then there is the issue of her support of fraud. It is more than obvious that no substantive links exist between personnel who labored at Ground Zero and the health problems they now claim resulted from that exposure.

Meanwhile, the city employees who were exposed to heath hazards were/are covered by their health plans. Is it a surprise that the Ground Zero workers demanding funds for medical problems happened to lack insurance coverage?

The Mount Sinai health study reached the conclusion that it was not possible to conclude that health issues arising after 9/11 among people who happened to have spent time at Ground Zero are suffering from that exposure.

But when billions of dollars are placed on the table, you can bet thousands of people will put their hands out for a share. There's no downside to lying about this issue.

You copied:

""The announcement reflects
the strong depth and breadth of Senator Clinton’s support as she faces re-election in
November.""

Repeat. Yea, rah, free money. Who says no to that?

You copied:

"NYC FIREFIGHTER UNIONS ENDORSE
SENATOR CLINTON FOR RE-ELECTION
4/19/06"

Some elections in NY pit an electable candidate against a clown. Hillary has benefited from this bizarre imbalance twice. She enjoyed the knowledge that she would run against either a loudmouthed drunk from Yonkers or a woman detested by her entire family. She got the drunk. Would the Fire Department endorse the drunk under any circumstances? No.

Meanwhile, Hillary has no experience with executive decision-making. She's paralyzed by the thought of exposing her true views on any topic. Her fear of committing to a position on driver's licences for illegal immigrants is revealing.

Would she have tossed Yassar Arafat from a gathering in NYC as Rudy did? No. But, she would kiss Arafat's wife on a stage. Why? Fear of shattering the decorum. Or, more likely, sympathy for palestinians and their desire to destroy Israel.
 
loop garoo kid,

I responded to your financial question on reality-based educators site.
 
no_slappz :

You characterized NYC as being in "a condition of near lawlessness" when Giuliani became mayor. I said such a characterization was absurd and you characterized my statement as a claim that I lived in a “crime fee” city. That’s no way to argue. While I'm sure your anecdotal "evidence" about the state of crime in New York before and after Giuliani is well meant, please forgive me if I prefer to rely on statistics: Crime stared to decline under commissioner Lee BRown and continued under Ray Kelly during the Dinkins administration. This downward trend was already well underway when Giuliani took over.
see Patrick A. Langan and Matthew R. Durose, Bureau of Justice Statistics, http://samoa.istat.it/Eventi/sicurezza/relazioni/Langan_rel.pdf "The Remarkable Drop in Crime in New York City", October 21, 2004. Retrieved December 5, 2006.

While I concede Giuliani hired a good man in Bratton, Guiliani showed his unhinged leadership by sacking Bratton after two years due to his ego conflict.

While you go on and on about whether or not one could have foreseen 9/11, you fail to offer any argument (or Facts) in opposition to my supported claim that the ineffective radios during his term led to the deaths of so many cops and fireman on 9/11.

"Meanwhile, the idea of putting the mayor's emergency command bunker is Brooklyn is just silly".

Sillier than putting it in the WTC?
In any event Mayor Bloomberg disagreed with you-- In December 2006, he opened the city's new command center in Brooklyn, a move supported by almost all New Yorkers.
http://www.nysun.com/article/44669/


Dunn submitted anecdotal evidence that fireman supported Giuliani over Clinton. I submitted documentary evidence to show that's not true. I only responded to that narrow issue and I stated no opinion as to the merits of the claims made by the firemen endorsing Clinton.

"In both elections Clinton ran against unqualified candidates."

So why then did Guiliani and other prominent republicans endorse and support such clearly unqualified people?


"It is more than obvious that no substantive links exist between personnel who labored at Ground Zero and the health problems they now claim resulted from that exposure."

That statement is not true.
see http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/06/23/2007-06-23_christie_blasts_rudy_on_wtc_air-1.html

“More than 2,000 New York City firefighters have been treated for serious respiratory problems. Seventy percent of nearly 10,000 recovery workers screened at Mount Sinai Medical Center have trouble breathing. City officials estimate that health care costs related to the air at ground zero have already run into the hundreds of millions of dollars, and no one knows whether other illnesses, like cancers, will emerge."
Times 5/14/07
"I can cite much more evidence if you wish).


"The Mount Sinai health study reached the conclusion that it was not possible to conclude that health issues arising after 9/11 among people who happened to have spent time at Ground Zero are suffering from that exposure."

In fact the study reached just the opposite conclusion-

"The largest health study yet of the thousands of workers who labored at ground zero shows that the impact of the rescue and recovery effort on their health has been more widespread and persistent than previously thought, and is likely to linger far into the future."
Times 9/6/06

Really, you may make some valid points, but if you're going to argue, please provide actual evidence to support your claims. And you really need to take the concept of veracity a little more seriously.
 
Peter B, the reaction to Clinton immediately following 911 by the cops and fireman at MSG, was not anecdotal. Regarding actual UNIONS, what is the tale of the tape as to candidates getting union endoresements as a whole....democrat, or republican ?
 
peter b, I'll give you a complete response soon. But till then, how about answering my question.

Where in NYC do you live?

I'll go first -- Brooklyn, in the southwest corner of Flatbush, which is a tiny neighborhood known as West Midwood.
 
I don't know what it has to do with the issues being discussed here, but Manhattan, upper west side.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?