home

The Phone Call

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 10:18:28 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The big story for Rudy Giuliani today is "The Phone Call"

This site has been very clear where it stands on Rudy Giuliani. But this phone call story demonstrates every thing that is wrong with the Media. Who cares about the stupid phone call?

Rudy's speech itself to the NRA made no sense at all. It is not just that it was a flip flop on the issues, it simply made no sense. But the only political story to come out of that speech is "The Phone Call." The Media is broken and it seems it can not be fixed.

< Why Does The Party Of Dobson (The GOP) Hate America? | Newsweek: Mukasey Favors Enhanced Interrogation Techniques >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Phone Call | 33 comments (33 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    The real money quote (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Ben Masel on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 10:27:22 AM EST
    Giuliani: "the right to bear arms is just as important a right in that Constitution as the right of free speech and the other rights."
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070921/pl_nm/usa_politics_guns_dc_1

    Considering Rudy's record as Mayor on freedom of speech....

    I wish people, not you, (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 10:57:24 AM EST
    would read the TEXT of the Amendments.

    The right ot bear arms is to allow for a "well regulated militia," it is not an individual right.

    Let's look at the text:

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    The States have the right to form militias and arm them. That is what has been understood as Justice Story's commentaries make clear.

    The First Amendment's language, by contrast, is absolute:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    No conditions, no limitations to the need for a Free State, no militias, no qualifications or descriptions whatsoever.

    Parent

    You mean its not the right to arm bears? (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 11:26:22 AM EST


    Parent
    I disagree (none / 0) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 12:55:35 PM EST
    and believe the text of the Amendment guarantees a personal right to bear arms.  

    The Circuit Courts of Appeal take differing views of the matter which is why the Supreme Court may at some point decide.


    Parent

    OT, but, Jeralyn, I (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 01:53:29 PM EST
    anticipated you would somehow manage to live blog all 5 of HIllary Clinton's TV appearances this morning.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 02:52:57 PM EST
    The current Supreme Court jurisprudence seems very clear frankly. States can restrict gun ownership.

    If the Second Amendment said what the NRA says it says, there would be no need for the NRA.

    Parent

    The language is clear (none / 0) (#25)
    by Dadler on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 03:44:36 PM EST
    "A well regulated militia."  There is NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, about guns in America today that can be marginally considered regulated.

    You make no sense to me on this issue.  The courts are wrong, just like they've been time and time again on many issues.  Taken on its own merit, judged in its own context, the 2nd amendment has never been honestly dealt with.  By your logic, J, you cannot argue that howitzers should be illegal on someone's front lawn.

    It's either a well regulated militia or it isn't.  And since it is most definitely not, the second amendment isn't even what we're talking about.  What we're talking about is an imaginary standard that everyone just kind of shrugs and accepts.

    Parent

    Um the courts have it right (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 04:27:55 PM EST
    J isw following one court, the the Texas 4th circuit which is WAY out of the mainstream on this and even their view is pretty much dicta, there are no gun control laws in Texas.

    Parent
    "No gun control laws in Texas"? (none / 0) (#28)
    by roy on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 09:54:43 PM EST
    Is that meant to be taken at face value?  I don't see a way to read it that isn't wildly false.  IANAL, but I read up on Texas's laws when I moved there, to avoid breaking them.  Highlights include:

    § 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS.  (a) A person commits
    an offense if he intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on
    or about his person a handgun, illegal knife, or club.
        (b)  Except as provided by Subsection (c), an offense under
    this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
        (c)  An offense under this section is a felony of the third
    degree if the offense is committed on any premises licensed or
    issued a permit by this state for the sale of alcoholic beverages.

    § 46.04. UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF FIREARM.  (a) A person
    who has been convicted of a felony commits an offense if he
    possesses a firearm

    § 46.05. PROHIBITED WEAPONS.  (a) A person commits an
    offense if he intentionally or knowingly possesses, manufactures,
    transports, repairs, or sells:
    (1)  an explosive weapon;                                                    
    (2)  a machine gun;                                                          
    (3)  a short-barrel firearm;                                                  
    (4)  a firearm silencer;                                                      
    ...       
    (7)  armor-piercing ammunition;                                              
    ...       
    (9)  a zip gun.

    That's with three minutes effort.

    Parent

    not literal (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 11:52:51 PM EST
    Obviously.

    Did you think I meant there were no gun laws at all?

    Obviously every jurisdiction has some laws on guns.

    Some are meant to restrict ownership.

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#29)
    by Dadler on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 10:15:53 PM EST
    One court says this, another says that, and ultimately it ends up in the big court which, as we all know, is stacked.  

    I'm merely pointing out the nonsensical invocation of an amendment that has been ignored.  A well regulated militia, as you said, it what it's about.  The definition of such is only in question when a GENUINELY well regulated militia, the real thing, is considered just too nutty and un-American to consider.

    We're well past absurd on this issue and into the Orwellian.  

    Parent

    Some NRA spokesperson claimed that (none / 0) (#21)
    by JSN on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 02:37:55 PM EST
    individuals had the right to bear militia arms. The Air National Guard flies fighter-bombers so I guess that would mean an individual has the right to own and arm a fighter-bomber.

    So far the courts have not agreed with that interpretation (thank goodness).

    Parent

    Odd you're such a textualist here (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ben Masel on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 02:45:08 PM EST
    yet take such an expansive view of the Commerce clause.

    Parent
    Giuliani on the 1st Amendment (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by robrecht on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 11:13:29 AM EST
    He seems more than willing to impose restrictions on the rigth to free (or discounted) speech of MoveOn.org:

    "Giuliani said that MoveOn.org's ad criticizing Gen. Petreaus was out of bounds and hinted that the group should face some sort of sanction.

    "They passed a line that we should not allow an American political organization to pass," he said. "We are at war right now, whether some people want to recognize it or not." " Link

    PS: This is not an endorsement of MoveOn's ad.

    Parent

    Giuliani has no time for free speech (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by scribe on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 11:48:32 AM EST
    and none for the First Amendment,either.

    His entire career as Mayor was one long war against anything even remotely resembling free speech.  He routinely violated the First Amendment and didn't care.

    He is a dictator in waiting.  Understand that.

    Parent

    Actually, the funniest commentary I saw on him (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by scribe on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 10:35:03 AM EST
    speaking to the NRA was a cartoon in a tabloid (which doesn't put its cartoons on the web, sadly).

    It showed Rudy Cue Ball standing by a podium which said "NRA" across the front, dressed a la Dan'l Boone in buckskins and coonskin cap, holding a flintlock above his head (horizontally, in the manner of a revolutionary holding up an AK, BTW).
    And one guy in the audience said to the other: "Cross-dressing again...."

    If it was staged, (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 10:35:13 AM EST
    it's appropriate to talk about it.  Maureen Dowd today:
     
    First The Times's Marc Santora noted that it wasn't the first time Rudy had interrupted an appearance to take a call from his Princess Bride, as Vanity Fair dubbed her. He did the same thing in June in Hialeah, Fla., with more mushy talk during a rally.

    This suggests either that Friday's call was staged to humanize the dictatorial former mayor, or that Rudy is afraid of Judi's digital wrath, or that the candidate is still struggling with how to integrate his third wife into his campaign, after her puppy-killing, husband-hiding, cabinet-sitting rough start.
    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 10:41:34 AM EST
    it was staged. There's no 'if' about it. Who takes a phone call in the middle of a speech?

    Parent
    Boundaries (none / 0) (#14)
    by dutchfox on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 12:54:48 PM EST
    His dear third wife should know better; so should Rudy. Narcissitic egomaniacs don't respect boundaries. It was staged to look cute, but it sure as hell wasn't.

    Parent
    According to George Will (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by Maggie Mae on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 11:50:54 AM EST
    it's actually the third time Rudy has done this.  I believe Will said, on This Week, that Rudy did this in Oklahoma, walked of the stage to take the call and never came back.  

    Yes, I think the bigger issue is Rudy's lack of understanding of the Constitution.  I also think that the media attention of this 'cutsey' moment with Rudy should be examined.  

    This man is, supposedly, a serious candidate to be President.  What does this little moment in time show about him?  I'm sure he wants it to show he loves his wife and he's a connected family man, but I see someone who is too afraid to turn off his phone and let his wife go to voice mail.  I wonder, if he'll interrupt a meeting with the Joint Chiefs, or intense negotiations with world leaders, or even a high level press conference, just to appease his wife.  Where exactly are his priorities?  

    I'm sure the members of the NRA that Rudy was pandering to, by showing up at this event, have no qualms about his interpretation of the Constitution, but I find it amazing they don't see through the gimmick and, if they don't, aren't still unnerved by his lack of concentration and wonder what is more important to him, discussing serious problems or taking that phone call from his wife.

    I'm just hoping, now that it's finally been shown on all the news outlets, that he'll never use this gimmick again.  No, wait, I hope he continues to use it, at every event, to illustrate how unimaginative he truly is.

     

    Parent

    don't other people (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Jen M on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 12:09:23 PM EST
    hold the darn cell phones when a candidate is doing whatever appearance?

    Parent
    Talk about it (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 10:47:01 AM EST
    Of course. To the exclusion of discussing what Rudy said in his speech?

    Parent
    Does he leave his cellphone on (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Ben Masel on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 10:51:39 AM EST
    when he's deerhunting?

    Does he leave it on (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 10:59:50 AM EST
    when he's with another woman?

    Parent
    In Court (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by eric on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 01:02:40 PM EST
    Next time I am in court, I am going to take a call in the middle of my argument.  That will surely win me some favor from the judge.

    I tried a case against (literally) an L.A. (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 01:43:58 PM EST
    lawyer who the jury decided reminded them of Columbo.  A big act.  One day his cell phone rang during trial.  He apologized profusely to the judge and jury while he searched plaintiffs' table and his two large briefcases.  Then he reached in his pocket and retrieved the cell phone.  The court clerk pointed out the ringing started while he was at the podium.    

    Parent
    Judy, Judy, Judy (none / 0) (#16)
    by Madeleine on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 12:59:51 PM EST
    I see it as Rudy has to take the phone calls from Judy or all hell would break loose. I would also assume Judy is in control.  Not a man that the NRA really caters to.

    If I were the NRA I would feel a little discounted that a speaker takes a phone call in the middle of a presentation.

    Oh hell!  What sane person actually does something like this?  

    ...gauche...both of them.

    I can't imagine (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 01:28:37 PM EST
    Bush letting a phone call from his wife interrupt a speech to the NRA. After all, he didn't let a major terrorist attack interrupt his reading of "My Pet Goat".

    Bush has set the bar far too high for the likes of Rudy G.

    Parent

    When I read that Rudy (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 01:37:39 PM EST
    answered his cell phone when his wife called, I immediately thought of John Edwards speech at the Harkins steak fry.  He was the only candidate I heard who set up a crowd ovation for his wife, who I realize is one of his strongest campaign assets.  

    He's such a (none / 0) (#19)
    by garyb50 on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 01:44:28 PM EST
    phoney.

    Phoney? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edger on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 10:58:53 PM EST
    Naww... Rudy's the real thing. Just like Bush.

    What you see is what you get.

    In both cases it has no connection to what they say.

    Parent

    What a lame cheesy gimmick (none / 0) (#24)
    by bx58 on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 03:37:39 PM EST
    Kerry with his dead ducks in Ohio or Dukakis playing tank commander seem inspired by comparison.

    Anyone know why Hillary and Rudy share the same donor list of well heeled Manhattanites? These folks can't be that conflicted.

    What Judy said.... (none / 0) (#26)
    by lilybart on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 03:55:34 PM EST
    there is a post at Huffpo looking for entries, Here is the winner so far....

    When Rudy asks his wife if she wishes to say anything to the NRA..."leave the guns, take the cannoli."

    And..."Can I wear the pink teddy tonight?"

    The Phone Call | 33 comments (33 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment