Why would Giuliani be any better than Bush?

[Puppycow]

A lot more people seem to be at least considering voting for Giuliani than approve of Bush's job performance.

So a question for anyone who disapproves of president Bush's job performance but is considering voting for Giuliani:

Why would Giuliani be any better than Bush?

[JoeEllison]

Giuliani polls well for two reasons. Name recognition, and a compliant media willing to sell his nonsense for him.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

A lot more people seem to be at least considering voting for Giuliani than approve of Bush's job performance.

So a question for anyone who disapproves of president Bush's job performance but is considering voting for Giuliani:

Why would Giuliani be any better than Bush?

It would be almost impossible for him to be worse. So it is statistically likely that he would be better.

He is still on my list of people I would potentially vote for. Hasn't been disqualified. Yet.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

It would be almost impossible for him to be worse. So it is statistically likely that he would be better.

He is still on my list of people I would potentially vote for. Hasn't been disqualified. Yet.

Ah, the "he can't be any worse theory." But what if he starts a war with Iran? Or even just continues the current policy in Iraq? Maybe $100 oil will start to look like the good old days.

[davefoc]

Bush handed over the formation of policy in his administration to a military industrial complex aristocrat and a rabid partisan who sees the purpose of government as a means to gather more power for the group he represents. In addition to this strange delegation of power, Bush was inept, corrupt.and strangely insecure.

Giuliani is less corrupt, less inept and is very unlikely to delegate the power of the presidency in any way similar to the way Bush did.

So Giuliani would probably be better than Bush. As Scrut mentioned it's very unlikely he would be worse.

But on the major philosophical area of foreign policy I think Giuliani means to carry forward and expand on the Bushco tradition of bellicosity and hawkishness. (Think President Cheney) This sets well with the military industrial complex lobbyists, the fundy Christians, the Israeli hawks and the my-country-right-or-wrong crowd. My own opinion is that it is a disastrous direction for the US and the world. I would not vote for anybody that will continue the US down that path.

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Ah, the "he can't be any worse theory." But what if he starts a war with Iran? Or even just continues the current policy in Iraq? Maybe $100 oil will start to look like the good old days.

I didn't see your post before I made mine, but I had similar thoughts. Yes, less corrupt, less inept but maybe underneath it all boils the mind of just one more neocon nut job that out does the Bush administration when he drags the US and the world into disastrous conflicts as he tries to gain advantages for US corporations, a 21st century version of 19th century European colonialism.

He could make Bush look good before he's done.

[latent aaaack]

Good point. This poll found from the tag shows 12% choosing Giuliani: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=90075

From saying moveon.org should face "sanctions" for their speech, to claiming never to have ever heard anyone say foriegn policy is a partial contributor of terrorists' motivation in response to Ron Paul, to saying the US military should be greatly increased (which would mean a draft) Giuliani is an Incredible Hulk version of George W. Bush.

If you're familiar with his history and his reputation in his home city then you'll know he's also crazier and weirder than Bush.

Quote:

The former mayor's favorable rating in New York City was just 44 percent.
Fifty-two percent of city voters said they had an unfavorable opinion of Giuliani.

http://www.auburnpub.com/articles/20...te/state05.txt

[JoeEllison]

Could it be possible for the Republicans to be any more out of step with America? When the entire Washington establishment is polling as low as it is, and with Bush's job approval rating being as low as Nixon's when he resigned, why would anyone campaign on the promise of doing more of what America has very clearly rejected?

[timhau]

At least he's a heck of a lot more articulate.

[JoeEllison]

Originally Posted by timhau

At least he's a heck of a lot more articulate.

Really? An ability to better articulate basically insane policy is a significant improvement?

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by timhau

At least he's a heck of a lot more articulate.

Which would make him a more dangerous guy than Bush.
Is there anything positive about him I missed?

- He was incompetent to provide working radios for the NYFD, costing hundreds of lives on 9/11.
- He's in favor of security measures spying on innocent people.
- He's changing his wifes more often than some people their underwear.
- He's in favor of continue the war on terror and preemtive strikes.
- He's a lawyer

Oh, and there is much more:

• 1 Annulment of first marriage
• 2 Conduct as federal prosecutor
• 3 Promotion of figures
  • 3.1 Bernard Kerik
    • 3.1.1 Briefing of Giuliani
    • 3.1.2 Marc Mukasey and Giuliani campaign
• 4 Alleged free speech abridgments
• 5 Relationship with his second wife
• 6 Representation of City finances
• 7 Position as mayor toward illegal immigrants
• 8 Criticism surrounding the 9/11 attacks
  • 8.1 2001 Mayoral election controversy
  • 8.2 Lack of preparedness before the 9/11 attacks
  • 8.3 Handling of Ground Zero air quality issue
  • 8.4 Aftermath of Ground Zero recovery effort
  • 8.5 Claims as to time spent at the Ground Zero "pile" and to being "one of them"
• 9 Claims as to being an expert on Islamic terrorism
• 10 Allegations of not having read 9/11 Commission's Report
• 11 Membership in the Iraq Study Group
  • 11.1 Resignation
• 12 Giuliani Partners business deals
• 13 Bracewell & Giuliani
  • 13.1 Lobbying efforts
    • 13.1.1 On behalf of Venezuelan oil company Citgo
    • 13.1.2 On behalf of the makers of Oxycontin
• 14 New York Yankees gifts
• 15 Fox News conflict of interest
• 16 Radio Comments to Parkinson's disease patient
• 17 Relationship with alleged pedophile priest
• 18 Accusations of money laundering
• 19 See also
• 20 Notes
• 21 External links

[timhau]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

Really? An ability to better articulate basically insane policy is a significant improvement?

Well, it is an improvement. Not having an insane policy would be a significant improvement.

And FWIW, I fail to see how Giuliani's troubled marriages are relevant to his suitability for presidency.

[Loss Leader]

You could spill a vial of the Ebola virus all over the Oval Office and it would still make a better President than Bush.

[Dr Adequate]

Well ... it would drive the fundies up the wall.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Well ... it would drive the fundies up the wall.

Like Pat Robertson? Wouldn't a demoncrat annoy the fundies even more?

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Why would Giuliani be any better than Bush?

He's smarter. That's a mixed blessing, as that means he might do a better job of selling bad policy, since he's also a better speaker than W. (Heck, so is someone with a hairlip.)

No, Rudy doesn't get my vote. Do we want four or eight more years of neoconservative policy?

I think not.

DR

[Puppycow]

From Oliver's wikipedia link:

Quote:

Mayor Giuliani inherited a $2.3 billion deficit from his predecessor, David Dinkins. He left a $4.8 billion deficit for his successor, Michael Bloomberg. However, he has broadcast campaign advertisements in Iowa and other states, asserting that he “turned a $2.3 billion deficit into a multibillion dollar surplus.”

Quote:

He claimed on August 9, 2007 that "I was at Ground Zero as often, if not more, than most workers.... I was there working with them. I was exposed to exactly the same things they were exposed to. So in that sense, I'm one of them." This angered NY Fire and Police personnel 911 workers.[91][92][93] A New York Times study a week later found that --while his appointment logs were unavailable for the six days immediately following the attacks-- he spent a total of 29 hours over three months at the site. This contrasted with recovery workers at the site who spent this much time at the site in two to three days.[94]

He also recently made a false claim about prostate cancer survival rates in Britain, which he has not retracted.

At least with McCain you get someone who will tell the truth and has a real sense of honor. I think McCain would make a better general election candidate for the Republicans. Not that I would vote for him anyway, but I have more respect for him.

Giuliani gets a lot of credit that he really doesn't deserve for lower crime rates in NY. Crime fell nationwide in the 90s and NY was carried along in the tsunami. Even if Marion Barry had been mayor of NY during Giuliani's tenure, crime would have gone down.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

From Oliver's wikipedia link:
He also recently made a false claim about prostate cancer survival rates in Britain, which he has not retracted.

At least with McCain you get someone who will tell the truth and has a real sense of honor. I think McCain would make a better general election candidate for the Republicans. Not that I would vote for him anyway, but I have more respect for him.

Giuliani gets a lot of credit that he really doesn't deserve for lower crime rates in NY. Crime fell nationwide in the 90s and NY was carried along in the tsunami. Even if Marion Barry had been mayor of NY during Giuliani's tenure, crime would have gone down.

If McCain ran, I'd have to vote for him. (Tribal loyalty.)

I don't think he's the man, his window of opportunity opened and closed in 2000.



DR

[KingMerv00]

He's pro-choice right?

[Ryan O'Dine]

Originally Posted by timhau

And FWIW, I fail to see how Giuliani's troubled marriages are relevant to his suitability for presidency.

Depends on whether he runs on the classic right-wing "family values" shtick.

How comfortable he is with hypocrisy is relevant to his suitability for presidency.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Ryan O'Dine

Depends on whether he runs on the classic right-wing "family values" shtick.

How comfortable he is with hypocrisy is relevant to his suitability for presidency.

I see. Last I read, about a half of American marriages ended in divorce or similar sundering, but according to you, Rudy must to be taken to task for not being able to navigate through that shoal water in life on the basis of some ephemeral "hypocrisy."

FFS, here's a hint: raise the bar, and take a look at what is substantive about his attitudes and policy, not about his trouble (along with millions of others) of making a marriage work.

I don't doubt that he wished his marriages hadn't broken up, or gone on the rocks, but his ambition to succeed in politics may have had a place in that. He, like many others, doubtless thinks that a stable marriage and a stable family life is a good thing. He failed to achieve that balance.

He won't be the first, nor will he be the last. For my money, how he handled his second divorce/break up was classless, and public, and a mark against him, not that his marriage failed.

It is getting rather tiresome to see the loose use of "hypocrite" used when one is looking for an excuse to disagree with someone else, or someone's position.

Do you want another neoconservative front man as president? That is who and what Rudy is. His marriage troubles hardly matter. His ability, or inability, to sell his soap to the hard right wing of evangelical strain is his problem to solve. He either succeeds, or he fails.

Do you vote for him? Yes or no?

Why?

If your reason for "no" is "he's a hypocrite," then you seem doomed to stay home on election day, as politicians tend to traffic in that substance.

DR

[Oliver]

Why on God's green Earth is he leading the mainstream polls?
For what reason would ANYBODY be in favor of him?
What did I miss here?

These are serious questions ... there's no logic at all for being
in favor of Giuliani...

ETA: ...unless... YOU`RE GAY!!1!!

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Why would Giuliani be any better than Bush?

Which Giuliani? Pre-9/11 Giuliani or Presidential Candidate Giuliani?

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

Could it be possible for the Republicans to be any more out of step with America? When the entire Washington establishment is polling as low as it is, and with Bush's job approval rating being as low as Nixon's when he resigned, why would anyone campaign on the promise of doing more of what America has very clearly rejected?

They have rejected the poor performance much more than the high level plan. But hope springs eternal, and a change of guys might be seen as bringing new insight. It may be a more palatable alternative, to the voting masses, than the cut-and-run of the other candidates.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Oliver

Why on God's green Earth is he leading the mainstream polls?

The numbers added up, and he had the most.

Quote:

For what reason would ANYBODY be in favor of him? What did I miss here?

The alternatives didn't look good enough to enough people.

Quote:

These are serious questions ... there's no logic at all for being in favor of Giuliani...

Sure there is. If you are from New York, and conservative, and you liked his act as mayor of New York, and you like his ideas on how America ought to look in a few years, he may be your boy.

If you are from Germany, maybe not.

I am from Texas, and Rudy ain't my boy. But there is a rationale to be for him, whether or not you, or I, disagree with the choice.

DR

[Ryan O'Dine]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

I see. Last I read, about a half of American marriages ended in divorce or similar sundering, but according to you, Rudy must to be taken to task for not being able to navigate through that shoal water in life on the basis of some ephemeral "hypocrisy."

FFS, here's a hint: raise the bar, and take a look at what is substantive about his attitudes and policy, not about his trouble (along with millions of others) of making a marriage work.

I don't doubt that he wished his marriages hadn't broken up, or gone on the rocks, but his ambition to succeed in politics may have had a place in that. He, like many others, doubtless thinks that a stable marriage and a stable family life is a good thing. He failed to achieve that balance.

He won't be the first, nor will he be the last. For my money, how he handled his second divorce/break up was classless, and public, and a mark against him, not that his marriage failed.

It is getting rather tiresome to see the loose use of "hypocrite" used when one is looking for an excuse to disagree with someone else, or someone's position.

Do you want another neoconservative front man as president? That is who and what Rudy is. His marriage troubles hardly matter. His ability, or inability, to sell his soap to the hard right wing of evangelical strain is his problem to solve. He either succeeds, or he fails.

Do you vote for him? Yes or no?

Why?

If your reason for "no" is "he's a hypocrite," then you seem doomed to stay home on election day, as politicians tend to traffic in that substance.

DR

First of all, the fact that he has failed marriages is not something that would personally sway my vote, or affect how good a president I’d think he’d be. I disagree with his politics, but that’s neither here nor there.

Let’s try an analogy. A candidate claims they stand for science. Then you learn they use homeopathy, consult their personal Tarot reader, and believe in intelligent design. Would you respect their claims of “standing for science”? Wouldn’t you call them a hypocrite? Would you want such a hypocrite in a position of political power?

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

The numbers added up, and he had the most.

The alternatives didn't look good enough to enough people.

Sure there is. If you are from New York, and conservative, and you liked his act as mayor of New York, and you like his ideas on how America ought to look in a few years, he may be your boy.

If you are from Germany, maybe not.

I am from Texas, and Rudy ain't my boy. But there is a rationale to be for him, whether or not you, or I, disagree with the choice.

DR

And what did he achieve as Mayor?

That the City didn't burn down?
That Aliens didn't invade?
That Terrorists didn't attack?
That taxes vanished from the face of the planet?
That morality spread all over the city?
That Earth didn't crack in two pieces?
That crime doesn't exist anymore?

Sorry, but I learned nothing about him that would convince me
to the slightest degree. And the same is true concerning his
answers in the presidential debates...

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Ryan O'Dine

First of all, the fact that he has failed marriages is not something that would personally sway my vote, or affect how good a president I’d think he’d be. I disagree with his politics, but that’s neither here nor there.

Let’s try an analogy. A candidate claims they stand for science. Then you learn they use homeopathy, consult their personal Tarot reader, and believe in intelligent design. Would you respect their claims of “standing for science”? Wouldn’t you call them a hypocrite? Would you want such a hypocrite in a position of political power?

You might want to try another reading of my post. The message may have been blurry, given the flavoring of sarcasm, so to restate the point: at the political level, finding one who isn't a hypocrite by your criterion is a near impossiblity.

"Claims to stand for science."

Is Science now a political party? Is it possible that No True Scientist would do other than sneer publicly at homeopathy? Is your set up absurd enough to make me sad? Yes. I infer from your set up that you'd condemn someone over that issue. Are you another of those useless one issue voters? (I sincerely hope not, and given your postings to date, doubt it. The set up was I think for illustrative purposes.)

Ryan, who are you going to vote for? Nobody? In politics, finding someone "pure" is unlikely.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Oliver

And what did he achieve as Major?
Sorry, but I learned nothing about him that would convince me
to the slightest degree.

Why don't you ask a Giuliani fan to enumerate Rudy's wonders and glories as mayor? Since I won't vote for him, you are asking the wrong person to stand up for him. That doesn't mean a fan of his is not using logic.

Hey, Oliver, the word is Mayor. Learn to use it properly.

DR

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Why don't you ask a Giuliani fan to enumerate Rudy's wonders and glories as mayor? Since I won't vote for him, you are asking the wrong person to stand up for him. That doesn't mean a fan of his is not using logic.

Hey, Oliver, the word is Mayor. Learn to use it properly.

DR

Well - I asked the Bullyani supporters in here. I have no Idea
why you felt like being asked ... And thanks for the tip.

[Ryan O'Dine]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

You might want to try another reading of my post. The message may have been blurry, given the flavoring of sarcasm, so to restate the point: at the political level, finding one who isn't a hypocrite by your criterion is a near impossiblity.

"Claims to stand for science."

Is Science now a political party? Is it possible that No True Scientist would do other than sneer publicly at homeopathy? Is your set up absurd enough to make me sad? Yes. I infer from your set up that you'd condemn someone over that issue. Are you another of those useless one issue voters? (I sincerely hope not, and given your postings to date, doubt it. The set up was I think for illustrative purposes.)

Ryan, who are you going to vote for? Nobody? In politics, finding someone "pure" is unlikely.

DR

I admit I’m struggling to understand your position (for which I accept full blame). For instance, I don’t see what my personal politics has to do with the matters at hand -- namely, whether Guiliani is hypocritical if he runs on “family values,” and whether that should make a difference to voters.

I fully agree that all politicians exhibit hypocrisy. All humans do. Perhaps I get more upset with “family values” hypocrites than other kinds; if that’s the problem, we can focus on that.

Let's say for starters that I'm pretty suspicious of anyone running on family values, exactly for the reasons you state -- no one can claim to fully live by them, and they’re irrelevant to being a president. So why do people run on them? All my speculation on this comes up ugly. Which is why I’m dubious of all such candidates where ever they are on the spectrum.


Now, if I may, a question for you. Would no amount of hypocrisy turn you off a candidate, regardless of what they were hypocritical about? Isn't one's degree of hypocrisy roughly proportional to one's degree of honesty?

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Ryan O'Dine

Let's say for starters that I'm pretty suspicious of anyone running on family values, exactly for the reasons you state -- no one can claim to fully live by them, and they’re irrelevant to being a president. So why do people run on them?

They think it sells.

Quote:

Now, if I may, a question for you. Would no amount of hypocrisy turn you off a candidate, regardless of what they were hypocritical about? Isn't one's degree of hypocrisy roughly proportional to one's degree of honesty?

I don't make hypocrisy my core criterion. The relative level of a candidate's BS is a part of the overall package. The problem arises, as usual, that any given choice on the day is a 60/40 or 70/30 alignment with my stand, or a 50/50. The problem in 2004 was that I didn't feel I had a third choice between Kerry and Bush, and Kerry was no leader. If you look at MA politics, the leader from that state is Kennedy, and he wasn't running (for the obvious reasons) and that shadow cast on Kerry was enough to tip the scales for me.

It was a near run thing.

DR

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

In politics, finding someone "pure" is unlikely.

Unless you are okay with crazy, then Paul or Kucinich might fit the bill, depending on your particular leanings.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Wouldn't a demoncrat annoy the fundies even more?

A Democrat would indeed annoy the fundies even more, not to mention running the country better, but the question was, why would Giuliani be better than Bush.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

A Democrat would indeed annoy the fundies even more, not to mention running the country better, but the question was, why would Giuliani be better than Bush.

Because we know that he's the dictator-type-of guy already?

[Cello Man]

His 9/11 experience 9/11 fighting 9/11 terrorism 9/11 is 9/11 just 9/11 what 9/11 we 9/11 need 9/11 to 9/11 keep 9/11 this 9/11 country 9/11 safe.

At least, that's what I got out of listening to one of his speeches.





9/11.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

A Democrat would indeed annoy the fundies even more, not to mention running the country better, but the question was, why would Giuliani be better than Bush.

Care to explain Jimmy Carter? (Yes, I know this derails a bit.)

Your assumption has some holes in it, unless your meaning was "run the country better than Bush" in which case you might have some grounds to support that statement.

Not everyone thinks GOP or Dems ought to run the country, many of us wish they'd serve it. It's that fine distinction in meaning, and intent, that so irritates many Americans about their politicians of any stripe.

DR

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Cello Man

His 9/11 experience 9/11 fighting 9/11 terrorism 9/11 is 9/11 just 9/11 what 9/11 we 9/11 need 9/11 to 9/11 keep 9/11 this 9/11 country 9/11 safe.

At least, that's what I got out of listening to one of his speeches.

9/11.

What did he do to reduce the amount of victims - or on 9/11?

... Exactly! :

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Oliver

What did he do to reduce the amount of victims - or on 9/11?

... Exactly! : http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...e7a769e289.gif

Where did Rudy claim to reduce the amount of victims on 9-11? Again, if you are going to take issue with him, you ought to do so on his position, not yours-invented-for-him.

DR

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Where did Rudy claim to reduce the amount of victims on 9-11? Again, if you are going to take issue with him, you ought to do so on his position, not yours-invented-for-him.

DR

Huh? He is talking about "Terror, 9/11, Jihad, Threats, War" all the
time. Fact is that he was the 9/11 loser. Only the Mainstream media
and it's obeying Lemmings still buy this crap.

It would be a wise step for him to never even mention 9/11 again...