Inquiring Minds Want to Know
Can anyone tell me any way in which the positions of Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani are different on any important issue?
If I still had the comic books I had 50 years ago, I would be a semi-rich man now. I would be even happier if I still had the copy of Jack Kemp's campaign biography from his first presidential campaign that I tossed out. I wonder if there are any copies anywhere? It included not one, but two pictures of Kemp with his "good friend and team-mate" O.J. Simpson.
As I recall Kemp never got out of the teens in any Republican primary, but being from New York this naturally made him a vice-presidential candidate for the Republicans, didn't it?
When Obama becomes President, will I be invited to the White House for the annual Kenyan-American Heritage Festival?
It seems that democracy and free speech will require the government to do something about talk radio. We cannot allow people to go around contradicting our leaders, can we?
Why did nobody comment on my brilliant "persistent pervasive perversion of political perception" in a previous column?
During the 2004 presidential primary campaign, the Democratic contenders revoked the Longstreet Theater on the University of South Carolina campus as a debate site when they discovered that the building was named for a slave-owner and secessionist. (Read all about it under the title "The Reverend Mr. Longstreet and the Nine Dwarfs" in my book Defending Dixie.) Today I learn that the Democratic wannabes are having their debate in Charleston at The Citadel (Military College of South Carolina). It is hard to think of a location more steeped in Southern history. What accounts for this remarkable change? Have the politicians been enlightened and changed their opinions? Have they discovered a new historical interpretation? It could not be just a tactical matter, could it?
Entries(RSS)
>>Can anyone tell me any way in which the positions of Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani are different on any important issue?
"Can anyone tell me any way in which the positions of Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani are different on any important issue?"
Only on which one of them should be commander in chief of the boodle and bombings.
Clinton v. Guiliani? Only disagreement is on which one of them should be commander in chief of the boodle and bombings.
Rudy's a little more liberal on permitting (the procedure its opponents call) partia-birth abortion.
Can I ever leave a comment without a typo? I guess not!
"Can anyone tell me any way in which the positions of Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani are different on any important issue? "
1) No, I think they both have experimented with all the different positions and don't prefer one over any other so long as everybody is included.
2) These are not considered important issues but both want to put bombs on Iran's tables, both want to make government more friendly to the people, both want to tackle immigration once and for all, both want to expand democracy to the world and both want the global village to become more tolerant by eleminating all references to Guns and God by substituting Gittmo in the public square. Gittmo as in "git up and git mo from your gov'ment and expect mo from your public officials " Other than that, I think they are pretty close on all the important issues.
'Why did nobody comment on my brilliant “persistent pervasive perversion of political perception” in a previous column?'
That colorful description of our "American mob of pseudo-intellectuals" reminded me of one such fellow in particular, that pompous, pusillanimous, priggish pundit, George Will. I wish he would just go back to writing books on baseball that nobody reads.
To directly answer the question, I have not yet heard that Giuliani wants to declare the practice of medicine in the United States to be public property, in the manner of declaring certain private real estate federal wetlands. But of course, the campaign is young.
The fundamental thing is that "issues" for both candidates are mere fodder. Both are crassly opportunistic cults of personality/fantasy fulfillment objects, dueling to be ultimately crowned by a "mandate" as declared by national media, whatever the final tallies, whatever the so-called "issues." In the present degraded dialogue, nasty words and deeds in defense of the integrity of one's very own cult of personality are deemed reassuring signs of a candidate's "toughness" -- an aura that both Guiliani and H. Clinton have been widely accorded. It is all likely as real as Batman and Robin in C.W.'s old comics.
So what is the difference between the media's projection of these candidates versus what one finds in The Weekly World News? The editor of that marvelous journal answered the question himself a few years back in Columbia Journalism Review: "When ordinary media get a story about a talking toaster, they report it as humorous human interest. When I receive such a lead, I get the toaster on the telephone."
In defense of Jack Kemp, O.J. Simpson was indeed once a fine football player, and undeniably a team-mate of the congressman. Doubtless too long in the toaster was not ultimately very good for Mr. O.J. Simpson. At least give him credit for the decency of not having run for public office so far. Yet in the new springtime of liberty heralded by figures such as Guiliani and H. Clinton, is it too much to hope that one day he might challenge Arnold "Terminator" for governor of California?
Good Lord deliver us. Clyde is a tough taskmaster; I miss one essay in five years and now I find I MUST go back and read it.
Hillary Clinton is more likely to get removed from office by a coup d'état, and that alone makes her the more palatable candidate.
Most questions of any seriousness are now decided by judges rather than by elected representatives or executive officers, so in a sense it hardly matters who is elected. Any effort to address such matters by "democratic" means is bound to be defeated by the combined efforts of legislature and executive to punt issues with which they do not want to contend to the judiciary. They'll say what they think pleases their constituencies but never, never act on what they say. It is much simpler to let someone who seldom or never has to run for re-election decide any controversy that is bound to leave a large number of people unhappy with the decision.
Michael's very salient point piques an interesting question: two hundred years from today, as historians look back upon the final days of our nation's existence, how will they classify our political system at this time?
(I am of course making the rather gross assumption that the western traditions of history and storytelling will continue that far into the future.)
Michael said: "Most questions of any seriousness are now decided by judges rather than by elected representatives or executive officers, so in a sense it hardly matters who is elected. Any effort to address such matters by “democratic” means is bound to be defeated by the combined efforts of legislature and executive to punt issues with which they do not want to contend to the judiciary. They’ll say what they think pleases their constituencies but never, never act on what they say. It is much simpler to let someone who seldom or never has to run for re-election decide any controversy that is bound to leave a large number of people unhappy with the decision. "
So true. How foolish these "loyal, Republican conservatives" are who think their faith in George W. Bush will be vindicated when his new Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade. And how betrayed they'll feel when Chief Justice Roberts (who has closet liberal written all over him) casts the deciding vote in upholding the right to abortion on demand.
The judiciary truly are our unelected ruling elite. And not just the Federal courts, either. Witness the incredible sovereignty-overriding power of transnational judges like those of the World Trade Organization, which our own elected leaders created.
Jack Kemp is actually from Los Angeles. At least give him credit for sticking around Buffalo after his retirement. How many other Angelenos would have?
On the other hand, he once called football "capitalist" and soccer "socialist" on the House floor. Anyone who's read up on stadium financing will recognize that that statement is the opposite of the truth.
Giuliani seems more ideologically bound to open borders than does Hilary. I'm opposed to abortion, but I don't think about it until the immigration requirement is filled, and I realise some find this abhorrent.
Hopefully Al Gore will run... If Tancredo, Hunter, or Paul can't win, Gore might well be the best possible candidate though I think he'll need to enter the primary soon if he's to have a chance. (I doubt he'll enter.)
Oh well it doesn't how we vote, but maybe those of us here can fight the identity, culture, and religion wars. "The people" can fight the globalist elite as the recent rejection of amnesty proves.
Obama would be far more likely to be removed via a coup d'etat, though I think such a thing is like playing Russian roulette. And presently all the chambers but one have bullets, so if possible fighting demographics and the culture war is perhaps the best strategy.
Also, the minuscule counterrevolutionary right seems only bound by what it opposes. How many incompatible ideologies/groups do we have in this writeback alone? I suppose what really matters is the American people, but I don't think they are much less divided. Perhaps as diversity increases a Western core, or some alliance of odd groups, will arise in reaction that most of us here would view as an improvement though not ideal.
"Also, the minuscule counterrevolutionary right seems only bound by what it opposes. How many incompatible ideologies/groups do we have in this writeback alone? I suppose what really matters is the American people, but I don’t think they are much less divided. Perhaps as diversity increases a Western core, or some alliance of odd groups, will arise in reaction that most of us here would view as an improvement though not ideal. "
I agree with Frank is that the right is too much percieved as a bunch of cranky fogeys. We define ourselves by what we oppose.
This election cycle instead of voting for the lesser of two evils, I will vote for a Good. The only way we will get anywhere is by having a positive message about where we want to go.
This year I am supporting Ron Paul. It is the first political campaign that has really inspired me. Lighting just one candle....
Well said Clyde, and I recall that famous quote of George Wallace regarding the difference between the parties.
Also, you are right about Jack Kemp being chummy with former Buffalo Bill and murderer Simpson, no doubt he saw some votes to be pandered for in the black community. It would have been more appropriate for Kemp to pose with his contemporaries like fullback Cookie Gilchrist and wide receiver Elbert "Golden Wheels" Dubenion from the 1960's glory days of the Bills---but then, Jack was serious about trolling for votes.
It is worth mentioning while on the subject of old football players, that John Unitas, Alan "the Horse" Ameche, Charlie Connerly, Sammy Baugh, Sonny Jurgenson, Y.A. Tittle, Sam Huff, Mike Ditka, et al, seemed to avoid criminal charges of hiring assassins to kill a pregnant girlfriend or sponsor dog fights and such. Neither did Huff and Ditka dance like inebriated turkeys over the player tackled (usually roughly), they acted like honorable sportsmen and knew that tackling is what they were paid to do.
Things have changed.
What is weirdest is that supposedly the war in Iraq is the biggest issue today .... yet the last presidential election consisted of the candidate who started the war vs. the candidate who argued that the war should be waged differently, with more multinational support.
And even as all the chatter centers on debate about the war, & all the good little leftists are squawking about "Bush Lied - Thousands Died", etc.... it looks like the next election will consist of one pro-war candidate vs. another pro-war candidate.
If Benito Giuliani were nominated, of course, what we would have is not only one pro-war candidate vs. another, but also one pro-choice candidate vs. another....
I'm not sure if Giuliani getting nominated might not be a good thing -- to expose the fallacy of the System.
A few people might actually wake up and "get it", though I fear many more would *still* continue to keep rationalizing themselves into the safe state of bovine docility.
'Why did nobody comment on my brilliant “persistent pervasive perversion of political perception” in a previous column?'
I didn't comment on it because, despite it's almost tongue twisting character, it seemed to be one of those phrases so to the point and so obviously true (and succinct) that it needed no comment.
Perhaps they're meeting at the Citadel because, after resisting pressure to do so, the Citadel finally caved in and began accepting female cadets several years ago. Therefore the Citadel is now politically correct (to an extent) in the left wing imagination, and is to them a symbol of 'social progress', and another site of an important leftist victory over tradition, much like Central High School in Little Rock is now a monument to leftist propaganda, almost a civil rights potemkin school.
Yes. Hillary believes it is good politics (being close to power and all that) to stick with a philandering husband. Rudy believes it is good politics to have multiple marriages/adulteries. That ain't much but it's the best I can do.