Twice divorced, pro-choice, pro-gun control, and pro-gay rights…Does this sound like a successful Republican running for office? Former mayor of New York Rudolph Giuliani has a history of being all three. Yet he’s the frontrunner in a Republican primary campaign that has started little more than two years into President Bush’s second term.
“[Giuliani] produced the eight most consecutive years of successful conservative governance in the 20th century in America,” said conservative columnist George Will as he introduced “America’s mayor” to the Conservative Political Action Conference in March. Ravenous applause accompanied Will’s assertion that under Giuliani, New York's welfare rolls dropped by 600,000.
But other parts of Giuliani’s past may be catching up to him. His conservative opponent in the 1993 New York mayoral race, George Marlin, called him a “lifelong liberal” in The Politico. He notes that Giuliani ran for mayor as a “liberal Republican” and criticized 1994 gubernatorial candidate George Pataki for wanting to enact an "irresponsible" 25 percent state income tax cut.
The difference between conservative camps on Giuliani appears minimal in national opinion polls among Republican voters, with Giuliani leading by at least 10 percent among all the candidates. But with a mixed record on conservative the issues, why is he so far ahead? Does he stand a chance to win the nomination?
“My guess about Giuliani is that most people don't have a clear sense of what he stands for ... just that he's one of the "heroes" of 9/11,” John Sharpless, a UW-Madison historian and former congressional candidate, said in an email.
Giuliani has a lot of “vague positives” without much substance, Sharpless said. Voters think that he is a “nice guy.”
A Newsweek poll puts Giuliani with a 25 percent lead in a one-on-one match up with rival Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, and a 50 percent lead over former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney. Other statistics back up Sharpless’s assertion that many Republican voters have false perceptions on where Giuliani stands.
The same poll, conducted at the end of February, notes that 85 percent didn’t know that Giuliani has opposed an amendment banning gay marriage. Of 1,202 Republican voters, 62 percent didn’t know that he is pro-choice and 81 percent didn’t know that has favored gun control laws.
Giuliani has had success in lowering crime and creating better economic environment in New York, which slightly contributes to his image as an effective leader, said Charles Franklin, a UW-Madison political scientist and statistician.
The New York Times reported that the number of murders dropped from 1,946 in 1993 to 714 in 2001, a 63 percent drop during Giuliani’s two terms. Giuliani also cut taxes by $2.5 billion and turned a $2.3 billion budget deficit into a budget surplus.
But Franklin said that most voters do not consider this.
“It’s hard to underestimate the lack of knowledge that people have about politicians.” he said. “What do ordinary citizens in Kansas know about crime in New York?”
Franklin agrees with Sharpless that Giuliani’s largest advantage is his image as a “Churchillian figure” post Sept. 11. A well-known personality goes a long way, and this is even more important given the lack of a “strong conservative” candidates.
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, consistently vote conservative, Franklin said. But they are seen as far too divisive, while Romney is seen as too liberal.
“Conservative talk radio consistently vilifies two politicians: Hillary Clinton and John McCain,” Franklin said. “McCain continues to nosedive.”
Evangelical churches and pro-life groups have cast McCain into flames because of the McCain-Feingold campaign reform act, Franklin said, with more limits on electioneering. Other thorns in conservative sides are McCain’s opposition to the use of torture and his compromise with Senate Democrats over the ability to filibuster judicial nominees.
While the leading contenders are still in Giuliani’s shadow, Franklin sees former senator Fred Thompson as a less controversial, but consistently conservative candidate coming up the ranks. Thompson garnered 17 percent to McCain’s 22 percent and Giuliani’s 33 percent in a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll held last month.
“Thompson hasn’t even started running yet and he’s showing potential in the polls, Franklin said, noting that he would likely take conservative votes from McCain.
Giuliani, meanwhile, has changed his rhetoric to be more with conservative Republicans on some issues. He blasted New Hampshire’s new civil union law for “going to far,” as it “states same sex civil unions are the equivalent of marriage and recognizes same sex unions from outside states.”
On gun control, his campaign Web site says “Rudy understands that what works in New York doesn’t necessarily work in Mississippi or Montana.” Under Mayor Giuliani, New York became the first city in New York State to file a lawsuit against the gun industry.
As American voters learn more about Giuliani’s positions, the conservative credentials of challengers may be his downfall. But up until now, few people seem to be noticing as he leads the pack. Those who do notice, have to consider how much value they attribute to “liberal stances” on abortion rights, gay rights, and gun control.
“The question is, do you need someone who is 100 percent on these issues, or someone who reaches a threshold?” asked Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, in Newsweek. “[Giuliani] wouldn’t be polling so well if he wasn’t coming close to a certain threshold.”
Monday, April 30, 2007
Monday, April 23, 2007
Iraq and the control freak
Interesting news from New York Times. As U.S. and Iraqi forces were putting a dividing wall between Shiites and Sunnis in Baghdad's Adhamiya neighborhood, members of both factions came to the streets to protest. Over one thousand according to the article.
Some Sunnis came to praise Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, a Shiite, in unified opposition to the wall. The action is pretty amazing, given that the Sunnis generally consider al-Maliki an oppressor of their group.
The whole idea that a wall will keep the peace between different groups is flawed. If we are fighting for a unified Iraq, is this not anathema to that cause? If the only thing keeping the peace is a wall, sectioning off areas in the city, then that would be the ultimate failure for democracy.
President Bush says that the U.S. must stay until the job is done, but the effectiveness of that is based on a lot of assumptions: the Iraqis want us there, and that our presence is doing some sort of good.
U.S. war planners invaded, took control of Iraq, and leaned heavily on the government to form a particular type. As basic needs weren't met (water, electricity) and the economy hit the fan, the Iraqi's likely thought it better to radicalize than try to work with the Americans. Is this a surprise?
From day one, the Iraqis have felt the humiliation of being occupied. We are no longer a neutral player in this. Sunni's see the U.S. as favoring Shiites, and they engage in "sectarian struggle" along with the "radical" Sadrists who oppose the occupation.
The U.S. might have been able to do a great deal of "good," but failed leadership from the highest levels has insisted that it knows what is right by dispersing various seasoned Iraqi political figures at the fall of Saddam's statue. The neoliberal economics shocked the Iraqi system; not enough infrastructure (schools, water utility) was available for the function of any political-economic system.
That a perpetual U.S. presence there is positive is single-minded. If we set a timetable, Bush says we'd "embolden our enemies." Does staying there and throwing salt in the country's wounds help?
Some would say I don't support the troops. Why? Because I don't think they should be cannon fodder for a war that I don't believe in?
Troops who have served in Iraq come back sincere that they were trying to do the best they could to help Iraqis work towards a better life. But the best efforts of many good men and women does not ensure "victory" when the realities on the ground were exacerbated by failed leadership in the first place.
Some Sunnis came to praise Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, a Shiite, in unified opposition to the wall. The action is pretty amazing, given that the Sunnis generally consider al-Maliki an oppressor of their group.
The whole idea that a wall will keep the peace between different groups is flawed. If we are fighting for a unified Iraq, is this not anathema to that cause? If the only thing keeping the peace is a wall, sectioning off areas in the city, then that would be the ultimate failure for democracy.
President Bush says that the U.S. must stay until the job is done, but the effectiveness of that is based on a lot of assumptions: the Iraqis want us there, and that our presence is doing some sort of good.
U.S. war planners invaded, took control of Iraq, and leaned heavily on the government to form a particular type. As basic needs weren't met (water, electricity) and the economy hit the fan, the Iraqi's likely thought it better to radicalize than try to work with the Americans. Is this a surprise?
From day one, the Iraqis have felt the humiliation of being occupied. We are no longer a neutral player in this. Sunni's see the U.S. as favoring Shiites, and they engage in "sectarian struggle" along with the "radical" Sadrists who oppose the occupation.
The U.S. might have been able to do a great deal of "good," but failed leadership from the highest levels has insisted that it knows what is right by dispersing various seasoned Iraqi political figures at the fall of Saddam's statue. The neoliberal economics shocked the Iraqi system; not enough infrastructure (schools, water utility) was available for the function of any political-economic system.
That a perpetual U.S. presence there is positive is single-minded. If we set a timetable, Bush says we'd "embolden our enemies." Does staying there and throwing salt in the country's wounds help?
Some would say I don't support the troops. Why? Because I don't think they should be cannon fodder for a war that I don't believe in?
Troops who have served in Iraq come back sincere that they were trying to do the best they could to help Iraqis work towards a better life. But the best efforts of many good men and women does not ensure "victory" when the realities on the ground were exacerbated by failed leadership in the first place.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Jack Bauer goes to Iraq
Iraq is going swimmingly. The New York Times reports that Iraqi forces, ostensibly trained by the U.S., are using torture to get answers out of suspected insurgents.
The U.S. captain, who was stationed where three detainees were beaten, said information led them houses that might be used by Al Qaeda cells and they (shock) got a confession out of him that he had planted roadside bombs that killed 4 U.S. soldiers.
U.S. leaders condemned the torture, though examples at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo may have set a precedent.
The tortures happened in the "thrasher" compound, located in part of Baghdad that still has sewage in the streets and a lack of electricity and clean water.
The surge policy was pitched as a way to provide security, but what use is security if you have to deficate in the street?
I've interviewed several veterans who've talked about making the necessary infrastructure. With the earnestness with which they desired to help the Iraqis, I have immense respect. But they built schools and bridges, and utilities only to have their work destroyed by bombs.
The Pentagon and Bush Administration wonder boys are putting in too little to late to create the security to maintain the efforts of our troops.
Generals in the winter of 2003 told the President, or his advisers, that the plan for the Iraq War was shortchanging the troops.
I was against the war from the start, but if we were going to do it, we should have listened then.
Give the troops enough support while Iraqis and U.S. Americans still thought there was a chance of winning the peace.
Now, Iraq is becoming a lost cause. And the "democracy" we were trying to instill was broken by an arrogant bunch of Neo-Cons. Neo-cons who have set a precedent for the Iraqi soldiers who torture.
Our "leaders" are showing that they are more like who they fear by each passing day.
The U.S. captain, who was stationed where three detainees were beaten, said information led them houses that might be used by Al Qaeda cells and they (shock) got a confession out of him that he had planted roadside bombs that killed 4 U.S. soldiers.
U.S. leaders condemned the torture, though examples at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo may have set a precedent.
The tortures happened in the "thrasher" compound, located in part of Baghdad that still has sewage in the streets and a lack of electricity and clean water.
The surge policy was pitched as a way to provide security, but what use is security if you have to deficate in the street?
I've interviewed several veterans who've talked about making the necessary infrastructure. With the earnestness with which they desired to help the Iraqis, I have immense respect. But they built schools and bridges, and utilities only to have their work destroyed by bombs.
The Pentagon and Bush Administration wonder boys are putting in too little to late to create the security to maintain the efforts of our troops.
Generals in the winter of 2003 told the President, or his advisers, that the plan for the Iraq War was shortchanging the troops.
I was against the war from the start, but if we were going to do it, we should have listened then.
Give the troops enough support while Iraqis and U.S. Americans still thought there was a chance of winning the peace.
Now, Iraq is becoming a lost cause. And the "democracy" we were trying to instill was broken by an arrogant bunch of Neo-Cons. Neo-cons who have set a precedent for the Iraqi soldiers who torture.
Our "leaders" are showing that they are more like who they fear by each passing day.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Another shooting?
Another day, another shooting. Looking at the BBC News I expect to see something other than more shots in the U.S.
At the Johnson space center, a gun takes his own life and one of his hostages. A white male in his 50s, who may have been an Employee there. A SWAT team and the police could not stop it.
It's time to reconsider our gun policy here, and reexamine the way we look at violence.
An argument by James Hillman in the book, A Terrible Love of War, posits that America is far removed from much strife in the world. Most of us in the U.S. only see war on television, which gives a distorted image through frames of Christianity, American exceptionalism/patriotism, and the cruel world beyond our borders.
Killings/Shootings/Bombings seen on television make the citizen numb to violence. IF you can't feel it, you can't identify with it. Propoganda is easily spread to link nationalism to militarism.
Hillman's observations certainly have errors. I'd like to think that U.S. citizens are not as impressionable as he observes, not simply clinging to unreality of war through a nationalist lens that makes violence benign.
But the devil lies in the details.
For me, an additional factor is the way U.S. Americans are alienated/isolated from within. The states that usually show more support for the war have a predominantly rural character. Individuals may not be coming in contact with other cultures, timely news, international perspective as often.
This may lead to an atmosphere where war images in the media are more influential, in a bad way. That's not to say that urban atmospheres are the most cosmopolitan sheerly by means of having a dense population. New York and Los Angeles are not the pinnacle of civilization.
But the most important thing is to break down barriers between people through dialogue. Groups who are separated tend to caricature each other, ranging from stupid/evil/apathetic to friendly, smart, exciting.
Seung-Hui Cho was isolated, he saw the rest of the world as decadent and trivial. Can we create a conversation with such isolated individuals before someone gets shot?
At the Johnson space center, a gun takes his own life and one of his hostages. A white male in his 50s, who may have been an Employee there. A SWAT team and the police could not stop it.
It's time to reconsider our gun policy here, and reexamine the way we look at violence.
An argument by James Hillman in the book, A Terrible Love of War, posits that America is far removed from much strife in the world. Most of us in the U.S. only see war on television, which gives a distorted image through frames of Christianity, American exceptionalism/patriotism, and the cruel world beyond our borders.
Killings/Shootings/Bombings seen on television make the citizen numb to violence. IF you can't feel it, you can't identify with it. Propoganda is easily spread to link nationalism to militarism.
Hillman's observations certainly have errors. I'd like to think that U.S. citizens are not as impressionable as he observes, not simply clinging to unreality of war through a nationalist lens that makes violence benign.
But the devil lies in the details.
For me, an additional factor is the way U.S. Americans are alienated/isolated from within. The states that usually show more support for the war have a predominantly rural character. Individuals may not be coming in contact with other cultures, timely news, international perspective as often.
This may lead to an atmosphere where war images in the media are more influential, in a bad way. That's not to say that urban atmospheres are the most cosmopolitan sheerly by means of having a dense population. New York and Los Angeles are not the pinnacle of civilization.
But the most important thing is to break down barriers between people through dialogue. Groups who are separated tend to caricature each other, ranging from stupid/evil/apathetic to friendly, smart, exciting.
Seung-Hui Cho was isolated, he saw the rest of the world as decadent and trivial. Can we create a conversation with such isolated individuals before someone gets shot?
Germans don't always love David Hasselhoff
...a blast from the past. Remember when SNL was funny?
I did do a German version of this for class, with a hedgehog instead of a monkey. Got an A, despite the projectile vomit.
I did do a German version of this for class, with a hedgehog instead of a monkey. Got an A, despite the projectile vomit.
Bombs are fun!
McCain does his best to rile up some hatred! Hey, let's sing along.
Not only do we have a faith-based policy, but we have a racist-based policy!
What about Iran's progressive dissents who are fighting to change Iran's policy? President Ahmadinejad isn't exactly popular given his provocation of the West. If the problem, as hicks say, is Islam, what about the Christian population in Iran?
McCain is telling people to "lighten up." Wow...
Also,
More outrageous behavior from liberals as well. Aric Bawdwin (Alec Baldwin) bitching out his daughter and calling her a pig.
I love American politics. Any stupid degenerate can play along!
Not only do we have a faith-based policy, but we have a racist-based policy!
What about Iran's progressive dissents who are fighting to change Iran's policy? President Ahmadinejad isn't exactly popular given his provocation of the West. If the problem, as hicks say, is Islam, what about the Christian population in Iran?
McCain is telling people to "lighten up." Wow...
Also,
More outrageous behavior from liberals as well. Aric Bawdwin (Alec Baldwin) bitching out his daughter and calling her a pig.
I love American politics. Any stupid degenerate can play along!
Buying beer, handguns
Green Bay Internet gun dealer, Eric Thompson, sold a Wahlter .22 hand gun to someone in Virginia. That someone turned out to be, Cho Seung-Hui, who went on to murder 32 people at Virginia Tech.
Thompson said in State Journal that he felt terrible about the shooting, but followed all necessary paperwork. He advocates hunting, and says that guns should be out of the hands of "madmen" through laws on the books.
Thompson even linked his website to a memorial fund for the Virginia Tech victims.
There's something wrong here. Why are weapons being sold to anonymous buyers?
Face-to-face transactions allow an additional screening capacity, do they not. Hell, a 12-year-old can buy liquor on the Internet.
Thompson said in State Journal that he felt terrible about the shooting, but followed all necessary paperwork. He advocates hunting, and says that guns should be out of the hands of "madmen" through laws on the books.
Thompson even linked his website to a memorial fund for the Virginia Tech victims.
There's something wrong here. Why are weapons being sold to anonymous buyers?
Face-to-face transactions allow an additional screening capacity, do they not. Hell, a 12-year-old can buy liquor on the Internet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
