More reason to like Edwards...and Ben and Jerry's.
The Nation
ENDORSING EDWARDS AS "FIGHTER PROGRESSIVES ARE YEARNING FOR"...
Endorsements matter, and John Edwards is starting to pile up some impressive ones. The California State Council of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is on board. So's the North Carolina Association of Educators (NCAE). And national Friends of the Earth Action league.
But Edwards has to get through the January 3 Iowa caucuses to capitalize on growing national support of his bid for the Democratic presidential nod.
That's why the endorsement he will accept today from Caucus4Priorities group is so vitally important to the former North Carolina senator's campaign.
An Iowa-led group with backing from Ben Cohen, the co-founder of Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream Company, Caucus4Priorities has been at the forefront of the often-neglected push to reduce wasteful Pentagon spending and invest the savings in vital domestic priorities.
Caucus4Priorities has over the past ten months aggressively challenged candidates to address concerns about wasteful military spending and the underfunding of domestic priorities. All of the Democratic candidates responded to questionnaires submitted by Caucus4Priorities, which asked about their willingness to cut government waste in the Pentagon included spending on nuclear weapons, missile defense, offensive space weapons and Cold War weapons designed to thwart the defunct Soviet Union which have no utility in making Americans safe in today's threat environment.
This was no exercise in getting candidates "on the record."
At the same time that Caucus4Prioities was questioning the contenders, the initiative was organizing Iowans to pledge "to caucus only for the presidential candidate who best champions sensible budget priorities."
So far, ten thousand Iowans have made the pledges
And they will now be encouraged to caucus for Edwards.
"We have lots of friends in this race but only one champion," says Cohen. "Without question John Edwards is the most committed and best prepared to bring about the kind of real change Washington desperately needs. John Edwards is uniquely qualified to take on Washington lobbyists and defense contractors, and break the stranglehold they have on the nation's pocketbook and reins of power. Edwards is the fighter in the race and that's what progressives are yearning for."
Cohen and his Iowa allies say they will now pour resources and energy into making sure that Edwards -- who he describes as "the Sensible Priorities candidate" -- will "come out of Iowa with the victory that will propel him to the nomination."
Posted by John Nichols
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=250243
President Giuliani 2008? Wake me when it's over! - why do you guys think?
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
Here's yet another reason we don't want Giuliani near the white house.
Pat Robertson backs Giuliani's bid By LIBBY QUAID, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 1 minute ago
WASHINGTON - Pat Robertson, a prominent Christian leader and social conservative, endorsed Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani on Wednesday.
ADVERTISEMENT
"It is my pleasure to announce my support for America's Mayor, Rudy Giuliani, a proven leader who is not afraid of what lies ahead and who will cast a hopeful vision for all Americans," Robertson said in a statement issued by the Giuliani campaign.
The former New York mayor backs abortion rights and gay rights, positions that put him in conflict with GOP orthodoxy, and has been trying to persuade cultural conservatives to overlook their differences with him on those issues.
Giuliani is best known to voters for leading New York in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Shortly after 9/11, Robertson released a statement in which he said the attacks occurred because Americans had insulted God and lost the protection of heaven by allowing abortion and "rampant Internet pornography."
Robertson made no mention of his differences with Giuliani on social issues in Wednesday's statement.
"Rudy Giuliani took a city that was in decline and considered ungovernable and reduced its violent crime, revitalized its core, dramatically lowered its taxes, cut through a welter of bureaucratic regulations, and did so in the spirit of bipartisanship which is so urgently needed in Washington today," Robertson said.
Conservatives have split in their support for the leading Republican candidates. Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback planned to endorse John McCain on Wednesday. Mitt Romney recently announced that Paul Weyrich and Bob Jones III were on board with his candidacy.
Robertson, who unsuccessfully ran for president in 1988, founded the Christian Broadcasting Network, the Christian Coalition and Regent University in Virginia Beach.
Pat Robertson backs Giuliani's bid By LIBBY QUAID, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 1 minute ago
WASHINGTON - Pat Robertson, a prominent Christian leader and social conservative, endorsed Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani on Wednesday.
ADVERTISEMENT
"It is my pleasure to announce my support for America's Mayor, Rudy Giuliani, a proven leader who is not afraid of what lies ahead and who will cast a hopeful vision for all Americans," Robertson said in a statement issued by the Giuliani campaign.
The former New York mayor backs abortion rights and gay rights, positions that put him in conflict with GOP orthodoxy, and has been trying to persuade cultural conservatives to overlook their differences with him on those issues.
Giuliani is best known to voters for leading New York in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Shortly after 9/11, Robertson released a statement in which he said the attacks occurred because Americans had insulted God and lost the protection of heaven by allowing abortion and "rampant Internet pornography."
Robertson made no mention of his differences with Giuliani on social issues in Wednesday's statement.
"Rudy Giuliani took a city that was in decline and considered ungovernable and reduced its violent crime, revitalized its core, dramatically lowered its taxes, cut through a welter of bureaucratic regulations, and did so in the spirit of bipartisanship which is so urgently needed in Washington today," Robertson said.
Conservatives have split in their support for the leading Republican candidates. Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback planned to endorse John McCain on Wednesday. Mitt Romney recently announced that Paul Weyrich and Bob Jones III were on board with his candidacy.
Robertson, who unsuccessfully ran for president in 1988, founded the Christian Broadcasting Network, the Christian Coalition and Regent University in Virginia Beach.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Oh and speaking of masculine bullying, Bob Herbert nails it in his NY Times column today. Women are ready to vote this year and the candidates haven't progressed beyond issues of masculinity to appeal to these voters.
NY Times
Op-Ed Columnist
Hillary’s Tough Sell
by BOB HERBERT
Published: November 6, 2007
The U.S. is in the midst of the most important presidential election campaign since World War II, and if there has ever been a time when women voters had the opportunity to decisively affect the nation’s future, it’s now.
Hillary Clinton’s historic candidacy has heightened the interest of women voters who would no doubt have been paying close attention to this election in any event because of its classic lineup of issues, including the war in Iraq, a highly uncertain economy and the makeover of the Supreme Court, with its implications for abortion, civil liberties and so on.
A national poll conducted for the Lifetime television network showed that nearly 40 percent of women feel that voting in the 2008 election will be more important than in previous years. And an overwhelming majority of women who are registered to vote say they plan to go to the polls.
But most of those voters are not yet committed to a particular candidate.
That means there’s a treasure trove of potential votes out there among women. But except for the recent flap over the treatment of Senator Clinton in last week’s debate, the campaigns are nearly all being waged as if the only votes that really matter are those of dimwitted guys fascinated by big guns and insecure in their masculinity.
Six years after Sept. 11 and nearly five years into the absurd war in Iraq, the election talk is still mostly mindless macho chatter about who’s toughest; who would be best at shoving Iran around; who would be most extreme in dealing with terror.
Incredibly, torture is still on the table.
Most of the candidates would rather be locked in a cell and forced to listen to endless loops of Rush Limbaugh monologues than spend quality time on issues like pay equity or child care or anything else that might be of particular interest to women.
The Lifetime poll was part of the cable network’s nonpartisan “Every Woman Counts” campaign, which is designed to encourage women to vote and speak out on important issues. The poll and an extensive series of interviews (unrelated to the poll) indicate that among women, Senator Clinton has an advantage but has not yet closed the deal.
Cautious to a fault (like most Democrats), she has not generated the kind of excitement among women that one might have expected from the first woman with a serious shot at winning the White House.
Among women who have already made up their minds, more than half — 56 percent — favor Mrs. Clinton. But, according to the poll, only 22 percent have made up their minds.
When you talk to women about how they feel about Mrs. Clinton, you find that their reactions are staggeringly complex. Some are obviously crazy about her. Some seem to like her and loathe her at the same time, and for reasons they have trouble articulating.
Many want to see a woman elected president, but would rather have someone other than Mrs. Clinton as the standard-bearer. And a substantial number will bring up, without prompting, Bill Clinton’s misadventures with other women.
If there is one word to describe the feeling of many women about Senator Clinton it might be: ambivalence.
A woman from Coral Gables, Fla., said: “I resent the fact that so many believe that Hillary speaks for all women. She does not. I admire her and I think she is well-qualified, but she lacks heart.”
It may be that George W. Bush and the Republicans are so unpopular now that Senator Clinton or just about any Democrat will be able to waltz into the White House. But that’s a dangerous belief for any Democrat to have a year in advance of the election.
If Senator Clinton is unable to generate tremendous enthusiasm among women voters she is unlikely to win. She needs a big turnout among Democrats in general and women in particular to overcome the built-in opposition to her candidacy on the right and among men and women who won’t vote for a woman under any circumstances.
Thirty-nine percent of the women who responded to the Lifetime poll said that they would not vote for Senator Clinton, and another 7 percent said that they would not vote for any woman under any circumstance.
The flaw in the Clinton campaign so far has been the absence of real leadership — the failure of the candidate to galvanize supporters with a vision so compelling as to be almost irresistible.
“She’s wishy-washy,” said one woman.
The problem for the terminally timid Democrats is that this is not just a flaw in the Clinton campaign, but a potentially devastating flaw in the entire Democratic presidential field.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007....=slogin
NY Times
Op-Ed Columnist
Hillary’s Tough Sell
by BOB HERBERT
Published: November 6, 2007
The U.S. is in the midst of the most important presidential election campaign since World War II, and if there has ever been a time when women voters had the opportunity to decisively affect the nation’s future, it’s now.
Hillary Clinton’s historic candidacy has heightened the interest of women voters who would no doubt have been paying close attention to this election in any event because of its classic lineup of issues, including the war in Iraq, a highly uncertain economy and the makeover of the Supreme Court, with its implications for abortion, civil liberties and so on.
A national poll conducted for the Lifetime television network showed that nearly 40 percent of women feel that voting in the 2008 election will be more important than in previous years. And an overwhelming majority of women who are registered to vote say they plan to go to the polls.
But most of those voters are not yet committed to a particular candidate.
That means there’s a treasure trove of potential votes out there among women. But except for the recent flap over the treatment of Senator Clinton in last week’s debate, the campaigns are nearly all being waged as if the only votes that really matter are those of dimwitted guys fascinated by big guns and insecure in their masculinity.
Six years after Sept. 11 and nearly five years into the absurd war in Iraq, the election talk is still mostly mindless macho chatter about who’s toughest; who would be best at shoving Iran around; who would be most extreme in dealing with terror.
Incredibly, torture is still on the table.
Most of the candidates would rather be locked in a cell and forced to listen to endless loops of Rush Limbaugh monologues than spend quality time on issues like pay equity or child care or anything else that might be of particular interest to women.
The Lifetime poll was part of the cable network’s nonpartisan “Every Woman Counts” campaign, which is designed to encourage women to vote and speak out on important issues. The poll and an extensive series of interviews (unrelated to the poll) indicate that among women, Senator Clinton has an advantage but has not yet closed the deal.
Cautious to a fault (like most Democrats), she has not generated the kind of excitement among women that one might have expected from the first woman with a serious shot at winning the White House.
Among women who have already made up their minds, more than half — 56 percent — favor Mrs. Clinton. But, according to the poll, only 22 percent have made up their minds.
When you talk to women about how they feel about Mrs. Clinton, you find that their reactions are staggeringly complex. Some are obviously crazy about her. Some seem to like her and loathe her at the same time, and for reasons they have trouble articulating.
Many want to see a woman elected president, but would rather have someone other than Mrs. Clinton as the standard-bearer. And a substantial number will bring up, without prompting, Bill Clinton’s misadventures with other women.
If there is one word to describe the feeling of many women about Senator Clinton it might be: ambivalence.
A woman from Coral Gables, Fla., said: “I resent the fact that so many believe that Hillary speaks for all women. She does not. I admire her and I think she is well-qualified, but she lacks heart.”
It may be that George W. Bush and the Republicans are so unpopular now that Senator Clinton or just about any Democrat will be able to waltz into the White House. But that’s a dangerous belief for any Democrat to have a year in advance of the election.
If Senator Clinton is unable to generate tremendous enthusiasm among women voters she is unlikely to win. She needs a big turnout among Democrats in general and women in particular to overcome the built-in opposition to her candidacy on the right and among men and women who won’t vote for a woman under any circumstances.
Thirty-nine percent of the women who responded to the Lifetime poll said that they would not vote for Senator Clinton, and another 7 percent said that they would not vote for any woman under any circumstance.
The flaw in the Clinton campaign so far has been the absence of real leadership — the failure of the candidate to galvanize supporters with a vision so compelling as to be almost irresistible.
“She’s wishy-washy,” said one woman.
The problem for the terminally timid Democrats is that this is not just a flaw in the Clinton campaign, but a potentially devastating flaw in the entire Democratic presidential field.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007....=slogin
Sabin wrote:...what about Biden? Couldn't a Biden/Edwards ticket whither a Guiliani/Thompson-or-something ticket? I think it could actually. Biden seems like the only candidate who has the strength to look Guiliani in the eyes and say LOOK: YOU WANNA FUCKING TAKE A STEP OUTSIDE?
I agree he seems to be the only one with balls when it comes to Giuliani but you're confusing masculine bullying with candidate likability. He's not popular, he's made slightly racist comments and he's made stupid snap judgments in the past like when he publicly said General Patraeus was honorable and would tell the truth BEFORE EVEN HEARING HIS TESTIMONY. It would be easy for a Republican candidate to undermine Biden.
Also, let's not forget that he's probably only taking on Giuliani for the same reason that Edwards was the only one to throw tough questions at Hillary during an earlier debate: both men have nothing to lose at this point. They're not mavericks (Edwards was just as lame as Clinton and Obama were when he ran with Kerry in 2004). No, this newfound toughness and honesty emerges because they are trailing behind in the Election of Identity Politics, where for the first time straight white men are placing dead last, so they might as well make their bold moves now.
Hillary might be able to pull it off, but I still say the one to beat would be anyone running alongside Gore (even if I don't like him very much)
Edited By Akash on 1194300569
A thought...
Guiliani is positioned so strongly to be the Republican candidate. He's a pitbull during debates, he's a character assassin, and he's been running on hate and faulty prostate for a decade...
Is there a Democratic candidate that can stand up to him during the debates? Who can look presidential standing before his glare? Not Obama, who can't seem to get a definitive statement out these days. Not Hilary, who looked like she was about to be gang-raped. Not Edwards, who's proving himself to be a fantastic presence but still too aw-shucksy, and perhaps the de facto Golden Boy only in the wake of The ClintObama Bust of '07.
...what about Biden? Couldn't a Biden/Edwards ticket whither a Guiliani/Thompson-or-something ticket? I think it could actually. Biden seems like the only candidate who has the strength to look Guiliani in the eyes and say LOOK: YOU WANNA FUCKING TAKE A STEP OUTSIDE?
Guiliani is positioned so strongly to be the Republican candidate. He's a pitbull during debates, he's a character assassin, and he's been running on hate and faulty prostate for a decade...
Is there a Democratic candidate that can stand up to him during the debates? Who can look presidential standing before his glare? Not Obama, who can't seem to get a definitive statement out these days. Not Hilary, who looked like she was about to be gang-raped. Not Edwards, who's proving himself to be a fantastic presence but still too aw-shucksy, and perhaps the de facto Golden Boy only in the wake of The ClintObama Bust of '07.
...what about Biden? Couldn't a Biden/Edwards ticket whither a Guiliani/Thompson-or-something ticket? I think it could actually. Biden seems like the only candidate who has the strength to look Guiliani in the eyes and say LOOK: YOU WANNA FUCKING TAKE A STEP OUTSIDE?
"How's the despair?"
Here's an interseting Paul Krugman article. Rudy just made a TV ad where he mentions his prostate cancer and says that in America, the survival rate for prostate cancer is 82%; but, in England with "socialized medicine" it is only 44%. Actually, the survival rate in Britiain is 74.4%.
By rights, then, Mr. Giuliani’s false claims about prostate cancer — which he has, by the way, continued to repeat, along with some fresh false claims about breast cancer — should be a major political scandal. As far as I can tell, however, they aren’t being treated that way.
To be fair, there has been some news coverage of the prostate affair. But it’s only a tiny fraction of the coverage received by Hillary’s laugh and John Edwards’s haircut.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007....=slogin
By rights, then, Mr. Giuliani’s false claims about prostate cancer — which he has, by the way, continued to repeat, along with some fresh false claims about breast cancer — should be a major political scandal. As far as I can tell, however, they aren’t being treated that way.
To be fair, there has been some news coverage of the prostate affair. But it’s only a tiny fraction of the coverage received by Hillary’s laugh and John Edwards’s haircut.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007....=slogin
Some letters to the New York Daily News regarding Giuliani's rooting for the Red Sox:
JUDAS GIULIANI
Manhattan: So Rudy Giuliani is rooting for the Red Sox. Many people - including a contingent of the firefighters he lionized in 2001 - have charged that Giuliani stands for nothing but his own interests and needs. This latest flip-flop supports that proposition.
Pierce Brennan
Staten Island: Every Yankee fan I know is rooting for the Colorado Rockies to bury the Red Sox. They are the enemy, period. Rudy must turn in his Yankees cap immediately. What a disgrace!
Benjamin Rosario Jr.
Bronx: Like a true politician, Rudy Giuliani will say anything to get elected.
Abe White
JUDAS GIULIANI
Manhattan: So Rudy Giuliani is rooting for the Red Sox. Many people - including a contingent of the firefighters he lionized in 2001 - have charged that Giuliani stands for nothing but his own interests and needs. This latest flip-flop supports that proposition.
Pierce Brennan
Staten Island: Every Yankee fan I know is rooting for the Colorado Rockies to bury the Red Sox. They are the enemy, period. Rudy must turn in his Yankees cap immediately. What a disgrace!
Benjamin Rosario Jr.
Bronx: Like a true politician, Rudy Giuliani will say anything to get elected.
Abe White
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
And of course criddic you sidestep the main issue (yet again) which is that Giuliani completely altered his original position on gun control and no one is calling him a "flip flopper" for it. Nor does it seem as if his beliefs have altered with time, but rather that he's just pandering to gun-toting constituency since he's only hiding behind the second amendment.
And I'm not chuckling at the image of blind people carrying guns at all my friend. Not chuckling at all...
And I'm not chuckling at the image of blind people carrying guns at all my friend. Not chuckling at all...
-
99-1100896887
-
Johnny Guitar
- Assistant
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2003 5:14 pm
- Location: Chicago
I did say that I do not participate in the world of sports in any consequential way. I don't have a team that I root for, though I suppose it would be one of the local teams if I did. I don't play them, though I half-heartedly tried when I was a kid. And I wasn't always terrible at it when I did. Just had no interest. Maybe being hearing impaired made me feel self-conscious, as it does when I go swimming (i have to take them out, or they'd get ruined.) In any case, I don't subscribe to the notion that rooting for a team should lose you votes. From my perspective, Rudy was looking at the situation strategically. If his team had made it into the series, this would not have been an issue.Damien wrote:criddic3 wrote:About Rudy, I just don't see the big deal here. His favorite team is not in the series, so he roots for a team that is close to his home state and also close to another state that he needs to win the Republican nomination.
Not just "a team" but the Boston Red Sox for crying out loud.
God, criddic, your understanding of fandom is as off-kilter as your comprehension of economics, American foreign policy (i.e. imperialism), the Constitution, civil liberties, racism, torture, etc., etc.
-AkashAnd now apparently Giuliani thinks BLIND PEOPLE should be allowed to carry guns.
Have we lost all reason in this country?
I actually agree that this was a silly thing for Giuliani to say, but I see what he means by it. If you are going to advocate for the second admendment, than technically it should apply to everyone. It just sounds silly when you say it a certain way, and saying "blind people should be able to have guns" people only chuckle at the image.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
Absolutely correct Sonic. If there was one thing I could endorse about Giuliani prior to his Presidential bid, it was his position on gun control. Now he's proven to be as capricious a sell out as all the others.
Here's an article from the NY Times a couple months back showing exactly how drastically Giuliani has altered his position. If you go to the actual article, there are video links for many of these.
New York Times
September 21, 2007
Rudolph W. Giuliani on Gun Control
A look at some of Rudolph W. Giuliani's statements on gun control between 1993 and 2007:
Dec. 12, 1993
"(Handgun licensing) is not going to stop crime, and there's no question that a lot more has to be done about it than gun control and gun licensing. What it will do is reduce some of the damage. In the 1950s in New York, 19 percent of the homicides were by firearm. That's now up to 75 percent, and the most-often-used weapon now for homicide in New York -- and this is true of other American cities -- is the 9-millimeter weapon. So there's no question that we have to get much better control over the number of handguns, the automatic weapons." -- "Face the Nation"
May 31, 1995
"I agree that there should be stronger penalties for people who have guns. I agree that its the personal users to gun that is the source of the real problem. But the gun is also the source of a very big problem. And the NRA's, in essence, defense of assault weapons and their unwillingness to deal with some of the realities here that we face in cities is a terrible, terrible mistake." "The NRA, for some reason, I think goes way overboard. Almost what the extremists on the other side do. The extremists of the left and the extremists of the right have essentially the same tactic." -- "The Charlie Rose Show"
March 2, 1997
"We need a federal law that bans all assault weapons, and if in fact you do need a handgun you should be subjected to at least the same restrictions -- and really stronger ones -- that exist for driving an automobile. The United States Congress needs to pass uniform licensing for everyone carrying a gun. Congress must do more to prevent a tragedy like the one that happened at the Empire State Building from ever happening again." -- WINS Address
Feb. 6, 2000
"I believe that we should treat the possession of a handgun the way we treat driving an automobile, and therefore, a person who wants to possess a handgun should pass a written test, should be able to pass a physical test in the actual use of the gun and should have to demonstrate good moral character and a reason to have the gun."
"Essentially there should be a uniform law passed by Congress that says that every state has to administer that the way we say that we're not going to let you drive an automobile if you're too young, we're not going to let you drive an automobile if you have a bad record, and every state has a slightly different variation of that, but every state has a uniform law that guarantees our safety. I think the two things are good analogies, and I've been arguing for that since at least 1980." -- "Meet the Press"
June 20, 2000
"On June 20th, I was pleased to announce that the City of New York filed a lawsuit against two dozen major gun manufacturers and distributors. This is an industry which profits from the suffering of innocent people. The lawsuit is intended to end the free pass that the gun industry has enjoyed for a very long time, which has resulted in too many avoidable deaths." -- Mayor's Weekly Column
Feb. 14, 2007
"I also understand the second amendment. I understand the right to bear arms. I think that a lot of these things have to be resolved on a state by state basis. And I used say often when I was the mayor, it's one thing for New York, it's something different for Texas." -- "Larry King Live"
April 27, 2007
"My position is that whatever my personal view is the Constitution of the United States decides this. The Constitution of the United States says that you have a personal right to carry arms, to have arms, and that personal right is as strong as the right of free speech." -- Address to Civitas Institute, Raleigh, N.C.
May 13, 2007
"The Second Amendment to the Constitution is about as clear as it can be. It gives people the individual right to bear arms. I agree with that. I think that is a correct interpretation. That means that any restrictions have to be reasonable. And those restrictions largely have to do with criminal background, background of mental illness, and they should basically be done on a state level. And that's the guidelines that I would use in dealing with it as president." -- "Fox News Sunday"
Sept. 21, 2007
"There have been subsequent intervening events -- Sept. 11 -- which casts somewhat of a different light on the Second Amendment and Second Amendment rights. It doesn't change the fundamental rights, but maybe it highlights the necessity for them more."
-- Address to the National Rifle Association Convention
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/us/politics/21rudy-graphic.html
Here's an article from the NY Times a couple months back showing exactly how drastically Giuliani has altered his position. If you go to the actual article, there are video links for many of these.
New York Times
September 21, 2007
Rudolph W. Giuliani on Gun Control
A look at some of Rudolph W. Giuliani's statements on gun control between 1993 and 2007:
Dec. 12, 1993
"(Handgun licensing) is not going to stop crime, and there's no question that a lot more has to be done about it than gun control and gun licensing. What it will do is reduce some of the damage. In the 1950s in New York, 19 percent of the homicides were by firearm. That's now up to 75 percent, and the most-often-used weapon now for homicide in New York -- and this is true of other American cities -- is the 9-millimeter weapon. So there's no question that we have to get much better control over the number of handguns, the automatic weapons." -- "Face the Nation"
May 31, 1995
"I agree that there should be stronger penalties for people who have guns. I agree that its the personal users to gun that is the source of the real problem. But the gun is also the source of a very big problem. And the NRA's, in essence, defense of assault weapons and their unwillingness to deal with some of the realities here that we face in cities is a terrible, terrible mistake." "The NRA, for some reason, I think goes way overboard. Almost what the extremists on the other side do. The extremists of the left and the extremists of the right have essentially the same tactic." -- "The Charlie Rose Show"
March 2, 1997
"We need a federal law that bans all assault weapons, and if in fact you do need a handgun you should be subjected to at least the same restrictions -- and really stronger ones -- that exist for driving an automobile. The United States Congress needs to pass uniform licensing for everyone carrying a gun. Congress must do more to prevent a tragedy like the one that happened at the Empire State Building from ever happening again." -- WINS Address
Feb. 6, 2000
"I believe that we should treat the possession of a handgun the way we treat driving an automobile, and therefore, a person who wants to possess a handgun should pass a written test, should be able to pass a physical test in the actual use of the gun and should have to demonstrate good moral character and a reason to have the gun."
"Essentially there should be a uniform law passed by Congress that says that every state has to administer that the way we say that we're not going to let you drive an automobile if you're too young, we're not going to let you drive an automobile if you have a bad record, and every state has a slightly different variation of that, but every state has a uniform law that guarantees our safety. I think the two things are good analogies, and I've been arguing for that since at least 1980." -- "Meet the Press"
June 20, 2000
"On June 20th, I was pleased to announce that the City of New York filed a lawsuit against two dozen major gun manufacturers and distributors. This is an industry which profits from the suffering of innocent people. The lawsuit is intended to end the free pass that the gun industry has enjoyed for a very long time, which has resulted in too many avoidable deaths." -- Mayor's Weekly Column
Feb. 14, 2007
"I also understand the second amendment. I understand the right to bear arms. I think that a lot of these things have to be resolved on a state by state basis. And I used say often when I was the mayor, it's one thing for New York, it's something different for Texas." -- "Larry King Live"
April 27, 2007
"My position is that whatever my personal view is the Constitution of the United States decides this. The Constitution of the United States says that you have a personal right to carry arms, to have arms, and that personal right is as strong as the right of free speech." -- Address to Civitas Institute, Raleigh, N.C.
May 13, 2007
"The Second Amendment to the Constitution is about as clear as it can be. It gives people the individual right to bear arms. I agree with that. I think that is a correct interpretation. That means that any restrictions have to be reasonable. And those restrictions largely have to do with criminal background, background of mental illness, and they should basically be done on a state level. And that's the guidelines that I would use in dealing with it as president." -- "Fox News Sunday"
Sept. 21, 2007
"There have been subsequent intervening events -- Sept. 11 -- which casts somewhat of a different light on the Second Amendment and Second Amendment rights. It doesn't change the fundamental rights, but maybe it highlights the necessity for them more."
-- Address to the National Rifle Association Convention
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/us/politics/21rudy-graphic.html
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8008
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Putting aside the blind issue, the fact is Giuliani used to be an anti-gun mayor, and very much so. Like pretty much all NYC mayors. And now he wants far fewer gun ownership restrictions than was his position previoiusly.
But he's not Kerry, so he's not a dishonest flip-flopping hypocrite. He's modified his position, that's all!
But he's not Kerry, so he's not a dishonest flip-flopping hypocrite. He's modified his position, that's all!
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
Not just "a team" but the Boston Red Sox for crying out loud.criddic3 wrote:About Rudy, I just don't see the big deal here. His favorite team is not in the series, so he roots for a team that is close to his home state and also close to another state that he needs to win the Republican nomination.
God, criddic, your understanding of fandom is as off-kilter as your comprehension of economics, American foreign policy (i.e. imperialism), the Constitution, civil liberties, racism, torture, etc., etc.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell