home

Rudy Giuliani Knows All About Love

Rudy Giuliani spoke at a private fundraiser last night. He said President Obama does not love America or Americans.

“I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president loves America,” Giuliani said Wednesday during a private group dinner in Manhattan, Politico reports. “He doesn’t love you. And he doesn’t love me. He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up through love of this country.”

That Rudy Giuliani would even venture an opinion about love or how to raise a family is laughable. Ask his ex-wife and his children. More from the New York Times on that here. A blast from the past: This 2006 Salon article profiling Rudy as the authoritarian narcissist. [More....]

Rudy's remarks are typical Rudy. In 2012, he called Joe Biden "unbalanced".

"I don't think he's nuts. I'm just saying I wonder if he's got the kind of balance - probably what I should have said is the balance to be president of the United States," Giuliani said. "This guy is like one gaffe after another, and he's a joke on late-night television."

How does Rudy feel about Americans? Remember his remarks about Ferguson? In this TV appearance, talking about "black on black crime" he said:

“White police officers wouldn’t be there,” Giuliani said, “if you weren’t killing each other.”

Rudy loves one person. Himself.

< Libya's Mystery Beach and the 21st Victim | Indonesia Says Executions to Proceed Without Delay >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Apparently, according to Giuliani, (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 19, 2015 at 02:33:38 PM EST
    Obama doesn't love his country, but he is a patriot.  I wonder how that works?

    I have to say that having to see and hear Giuliani trying to be relevant is one of the worst parts of the run-up to official election season.  And speaking of narcissism and trying to be relevant, I'm sure Sarah Palin, fresh off her SNL red-carpet appearance (honestly, seeing her was like finding a hair in my food) will be showing up any day now, with word salad for all.  

    You betcha.

    Ugh.  

    I don't know how Rudy... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 19, 2015 at 02:41:52 PM EST
    was brought up, hence I don't know whether to feel sorry for him, or feel sorry for his mother.  But something went very very wrong, that much is clear, because a monster was created.

    Well, after all (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 19, 2015 at 03:04:44 PM EST
    Rudy was giving a speech at a Scott Walker fund-raiser attended by winger business executives and conservative media types.  And, it must be a challenge to come up with some new red meat for that crowd--community organizer, muslim, no birth certificate, afflicted Americans with health insurance protections, etc.,  are a little old hat even for them. Bankers and business types love the country above all and want to be loved by all so Rudy no doubt struck an innovative chord.

    Moreover, I see Rudy's dilemma in crafting a speech for this event. Easier for him to come up with a "no love" accusation for Obama that a "love" assertion for Walker.  Can't assert Walker loves education for himself or others, can't assert Walker wants universities to "search for the truth,"  can't assert that Walker sees Americans other than fodder for the state's work force, and can't assert that Walker is ready for prime time.  But, he could have noted that Walker can punt.

    The blowback on Walker from this (5.00 / 5) (#113)
    by Towanda on Sat Feb 21, 2015 at 02:59:13 PM EST
    is a joy.  He is being a "punter" (in all of the word's connotations) about Giuliani's comment, and Walker is catching lots of carp about that from media nationally and at home about his "cowardice," "spineless silence," etc.  

    Walker's local paper/mouthpiece, which usually loooooves him, even threw him a lifeline with an opportunity again -- and again, Walker punted on it, for all of his local fanboyz and fangurlz to see.  (Of course, he doesn't loooove them now and only looooves Iowans and New Hampshirites, as well as big money in NYC and DC, where he is now.  Yes, we have a "Where's Walker?" map.)

    The resulting social-media meltdown of his extremists, the Walker Wackos here, also is fun to watch.  Walker apparently has not sent them their daily talking points from NYC, DC, etc., so they do not know what to retype to rebut.

    And so, I actually am deeply appreciative of Giuliani for his crazee, and so should we all, if it spares this country that we love from Walker.  Giuliani was doing Walker no favors -- grabbing the headlines from him, too, for an event that was to be All About Walker -- and I gladly would give Giuliani a shovel to dig an even deeper hole for Walker.

    Parent

    Walker and Giuliani deserve each other, (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Anne on Sat Feb 21, 2015 at 03:14:42 PM EST
    and nothing pleases me more about this brouhaha than the fact that it's making them both look like the [fill in the pejorative of your choice - I can think of many, but they are not printable here] they are.

    Just what America needs: a Koch brothers minion determined to dumb down the educational system to his level, and a man with a pathologically distorted perception of his own importance.

    Yeesh.

    Parent

    The Koch fledgling (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by christinep on Sat Feb 21, 2015 at 03:54:53 PM EST
    I still remember your foreshadowing about this Koch puppet (and chuckle now about the Koch-impersonator whose call about policy was recorded) ... and, yet, the speed to the Repub pinnacle by this mean-spirited Scott Walker nebbish has baffled me.  Perhaps, the searing negative newspaper accounts <stemming from the Giuliani fiasco> will propel his equally fast descent.

     Funny thing, tho, that both Christie and Walker seem to have been pushed down hard in the past few weeks. They both are stumbling ... the other consequence is that Jeb Bush would appear to be the Repub who benefits most.  Just a weird thought on my part about what money-guys are playing what.  In any event, the media drubbing of Walker is an unexpected pre-primary gift :)

    Parent

    Walker and Giuliani (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 21, 2015 at 04:49:20 PM EST
    are partners in  demagoguery.  Not in Giuliani's defense, since there is none to make, but Rudy did preface his "other-based" love comment with..."this is a horrible thing to say, but.."   Scott Walker could not even agree with that much of Giuliani's despicable try for attention--he just punted, as he did in London last week when asked about evolution he said "I'll punt."  

    Parent
    Honestly, I don't get Scott Walker's appeal. (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Feb 21, 2015 at 05:07:10 PM EST
    He is the Joe Isuzu of GOP politics, except it's no joke.

    The look in Walker's eyes is that of a man who neither possesses a moral compass nor respects ethical proprieties, and who has no absolutely problem telling Republican-leaning voters whatever it is he thinks they want to hear, so long as it'll get him to wherever he wants or needs to be at a given moment.

    Those remarkably dubious personal qualities were the hallmarks of Richard Nixon -- and how'd that ultimately work out for everyone?

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Can someone explain (none / 0) (#114)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 21, 2015 at 03:01:44 PM EST
    how this Nixon wannabe won in Wisconsin?

    No charisma but very unflappable in lying with a straight face.

    Parent

    It's $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by Towanda on Sat Feb 21, 2015 at 07:16:31 PM EST
    from Koch Bros.

    Wisconsin was unprepared for that level of money.  Wisconsin media -- the major media conglomerate that leads the way is conservative, anyway -- were unprepared for ferreting it out and reporting on it.

    And Wisconsin Dems were especially unprepared for that level of money.  The state Dem party was and is a mess, because Jim Doyle, the previous governor and thus head of the party, is not the man that his father was, when he and his wife -- a legislator -- managed to effect a Milwaukee-Madison coalition.  Instead, the Dems are back to that age-old battle.

    And, of course, national Dems were not prepared to help fight off Walker, not only the first time but in the recall and since.  Obama never found his comfy shoes and came as promised.  Wasserman Schultz came asking for money for elsewhere but sent none.  They continue to believe myth ("but it's such a progressive state" -- the state that brought us Joe McCarthy, for cripes sake) rather than reality.  

    The Kochs saw the opportunity to start their war, and they found an opportunist in Walker.

    Parent

    Koch Paranoia (none / 0) (#145)
    by Slado on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 11:56:16 AM EST
    from unions and other outside democratic groups also pored into the recall, fight in the legislature and his reelection.

    So I think claiming only money was the reason he won is pretty week tea.   Democrats threw everything they had at him twice in the recall and reelection and came up short.   It's time to stop using the Koch Brothers as an excuse.  I love how democrats don't consider all the public union used to fund the fight against Walker as outside support when they are paying dues to fund democratic campaigns.  That money is just part of the natural process I suppose.  Never mind the support they got from other unions from outside the state.

    To answer Don's question more simply the tI right loves him for now because he beat back the democratic machine three times in four years.  

    Also like other Midwestern republican governors lately he runs the state like a business and does what he says he's going to do on the campaign trail once in office to balance the budget and change the status quo.   Democrats of course don't like it but it's what he said he was going to do and it got him elected.

    What he and others like him are exposing in my view is the difference in who and what people want on the state vs federal level.   Republicans now hold the majority of Governors and legislatures on the state level but will be hard pressed assuming Hillary runs to win the presidency.   The same message that appears to work and be wanted in a majority of state capitals doesn't translate on the national level, especially when you have s Romney or McCain delivering it.

    Parent

    Pro-Walker spending ... (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 12:11:43 PM EST
    ... was 2 1/2 times that of the anti-Walker groups ($48 million to $19 million), and 2/3 of it came from out-of-state.

    Parent
    Slado, you are so wrong (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Towanda on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 09:31:17 PM EST
    on so many things that you say about Walker that you are embarrassing yourself.  I don't have time to relive a lot of it for you tonight, as we fight steamrolling by state GOP legislators yet again -- cutting off the only hearing on right-to-work -- I would suggest that you reconsider your statement that Walker runs Wisconsin like a business, and your statement that he says on the campaign trail what he will do in office.

    Even national media have reported now how false are those statements.  Walker has bankrupted the state, as we head into a $2.2 billion deficit (for a state our size, that is horrendous) -- and Walker lies and lies and lies again.  Media have repeatedly reported -- with evidence on tape -- how Walker lied in 2010 before he dropped what even he called the "bomb" of Act 10.  And he lied about right-to-work in his most recent campaign, yet now he says that he will sign it.

    Those are only two of the many documented cases of Walker's lies. And he didn't tell us, either, about the secret router and more that has made him the only governor with a criminal defense fund, and with six of his aides and donors in prison and more to come.

    Seriously, you don't know what in h*ll you are talking about. And see the other reply re the amount of money that poured into Wisconsin to corrupt it.  You are not here.  You do not know.  You embarrass yourself by pretending to know.

    Parent

    As a Star Wars fan (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by vicndabx on Thu Feb 19, 2015 at 03:27:35 PM EST
    You do a great disservce to the brand with that picture. :-)

    My standard one (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 19, 2015 at 04:43:28 PM EST
    is this one, but he's not running for office so far.

    Parent
    Better photos, (none / 0) (#13)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 19, 2015 at 04:34:10 PM EST
    Rudy and the Donald.

    Parent
    The (none / 0) (#15)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 19, 2015 at 04:37:48 PM EST
    {GACK} (none / 0) (#24)
    by desertswine on Thu Feb 19, 2015 at 08:46:58 PM EST
    Let's not forget (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by FlJoe on Thu Feb 19, 2015 at 04:56:49 PM EST
    that at this point in the 2008 cycle he was the front runner for the nomination. Unfortunately for Rudy the more the Republicans saw the less they liked, even they have standards.

    Just another variation on the theme (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 12:05:50 PM EST
    According to a good portion of the GOP base, Obama is the 'other' 'he's not like you and me', or lest we forget, as Santorum put it..."He's bla..."

    My poor dogs are in pain from all the whistles.

    I used to think Guiliani (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Jack203 on Sat Feb 21, 2015 at 01:45:17 PM EST
    was some sort of "moderate Republican".

    boy was I wrong.

    The more I find out about him, the more I think he is just a terrible human being.  After considering his family life, career, and insane comments to the press, I think Salon may have been generous to only classify him as an authoritarian narcissist.  He's a couple notches worse than that.

    This may be the opening act (none / 0) (#128)
    by Politalkix on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 10:50:52 AM EST
    of a two year play. link

    Giuliani told the New York Times he thought it was "a joke" to say that his comments, including the statement that Obama "wasn't brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up, through love of this country", might be perceived as racist. "He was brought up by a white mother, a white grandfather, went to white schools, and most of this he learned from white people," Giuliani said. "This isn't racism. This is socialism or possibly anti-colonialism."

    I may be overly suspicious but I have a feeling that the President's white mother will soon get conflated with the image of the Democratic Party frontrunner in the minds of those for which this dog whistle was intended. Socialism, communism, anti-colonialism, Vietnam, Saul Alinsky, Jeremiah Wright (please see link for the connection), Frank Marshall Davis, Huma Abedin, Benghazi...) will all seem seamless when the 2016 election season gets rolling.


    Parent

    Opening act ? (none / 0) (#130)
    by FlJoe on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 11:22:58 AM EST
    This play started in 2008 when the first case of ODS (Obama derangement syndrome) was reported, Giuliani is just the latest virulent case. Of course CDS never went away and has actually mutated, gaining a sexist gene along the way. CDS will be the dominant strain in political hatred next year.

    Parent
    Why is anyone surprised? Rudy's (2.00 / 1) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 19, 2015 at 09:26:36 PM EST
    opinion is not unusual among Obama's critics and one politician claiming that another is unpatriotic,  evileeee, etc. is not unusual or unheard of.

    In fact, Obama called Bush unpatriotic. I don't remember anyone around here being upset about that or the many other slurs made on Bush or and , for that matter, Ted Cruz and other Repubs.

    It is politics, folks.

    In the meantime, answer me this. If someone told you that they wanted to fundamentally change you... would you think they approved of you??

    When did Obama ever call Bush unpatriotic? (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 04:52:39 AM EST
    As the prospective Democratic presidential nominee in July 2008, Barack Obama very strongly suggested that adding $4 trillion to the national debt was "irresponsible" and "unpatriotic":

    "The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion dollars for the first 42 presidents -- number 43 added $4 trillion dollars by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion dollars of debt that we are going to have to pay back -- $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic." (Emphasis is mine.)
    - Sen. Barack Obama, Fargo, ND (July 3, 2008)

    It should be noted that Obama quite specifically used the sentence "It's unpatriotic," and not "He's unpatriotic." (And please don't insist that it's somehow the same thing, when it's clearly not.)

    Obama has never once accused his predecessor of being unpatriotic personally, a charge which has been leveled at him repeatedly by the GOP right.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Thank you (none / 0) (#43)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 06:39:41 AM EST
    interesting choice of example (none / 0) (#52)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 09:09:00 AM EST
    If I said (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 09:39:18 AM EST
    "Donald's position on the Navy getting a new aircraft carrier is wrong. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic."

    I would be saying you are unpatriotic. And no amount of parsing can change it. You are what you do.

    BTW - Given that Bush added about $5 trillion and Obama has added around $12 trillion..... I can't undersrtand

    Parent

    Saying one's actions are unpatriotic (none / 0) (#56)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 09:44:47 AM EST
    because of running up the National Debt is much more defensible than your example. and it would still not make Donald unpatriotic, just misguided.

    You've been caught again trying to smear Obama, and again you don't have a case, just a false analogy that makes no sense.

    But thanks for trying to make it about Obama, who isn't the topic of this thread.  Better luck next time!

    Parent

    Rudy's backhanded way of wrapping himself (none / 0) (#57)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 09:48:03 AM EST
    in the flag is all I see.

    Rudy's six or seven draft deferments remind me of Dick Cheney's, what was that phrase he used to defend his deferments, "other priorities?"

    Parent

    don't go off topic Jim (none / 0) (#75)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 01:25:46 PM EST
    the topic is not his policies.

    Parent
    jim, it's "eeeevil" (none / 0) (#26)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 19, 2015 at 09:42:07 PM EST
    not "evileee."

    Parent
    Southern accent ;-) (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 19, 2015 at 09:53:51 PM EST
    Southern accent.... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by unitron on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 12:08:01 PM EST
    ...my southern region.

    Parent
    Thank Goodness for Rudy (1.67 / 3) (#7)
    by Jim in St Louis on Thu Feb 19, 2015 at 03:01:34 PM EST
    This is exactly the type of easy target that Talk Left commentors love.   I was worried with the last couple of ISIS and ACA posts-  Every leftist here has awoken to the fact that Obama is a bungling fool at the same time.  Like a stampede running for the exits.  

    So go for it!  Tear Rudy a new one!  Really sock it to him, and don't forget to lay into his family and his kids too.  Oh and feel free to drag in a Palin insult if you get bored.


    I think I've earned the right... (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 19, 2015 at 03:10:52 PM EST
    I had the cosmic misfortune of coming age while he was mayor, and the quasi-fascism than ensued.  Dark days whose shadows remain till this day.  For me, it's personal.

    I want no part of his warped version of America, and for once I'm in the majority in having that opinion.  Even the GOP base wants no part of this clown.  

    The people have spoken, Rudy's America has been discredited and repudiated.  Now why won't he just go off into the sunset and enjoy all the 9/11 blood money he's "earned".  Oh yeah, because he's a narcissistic fascist, that's why!


    Parent

    "America's Mayor" (none / 0) (#22)
    by nycstray on Thu Feb 19, 2015 at 05:48:24 PM EST
    {puke}

    Parent
    She does make eye contact and listen (none / 0) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 07:49:50 AM EST
    My husband met her in an Ireland airport both traveling to and from the Iraq War zone.  He asked her security if he could approach her first.  It was the first year, and she went.  He was meeting her for me because I admired her in a feminist respect, but he said she had very pointed questions about what was happening where he was.  They had a real conversation.  He came away genuinely liking her.

    Parent
    Soft Target Indeed... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 19, 2015 at 03:28:03 PM EST
    ...but it is hilarious to hear a republican calling a president a 'bungling fool', didn't know you guys even knew what that was.  Now if you would just stop voting for them...

    Parent
    I don't think Obama is (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 19, 2015 at 04:40:35 PM EST
    a fool or a bad president. In fact, I think he's a good president. And please don't presume to speak for any commenters here except yourself.

    Parent
    Many apologies (none / 0) (#33)
    by Jim in St Louis on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 04:36:58 AM EST
    Of course I would not presume to speak for others, but you have to admit that there is a certain tone that creeps in when one hears Leftists talking about Obama,  something similar to when an adult talks to a slow witted child: Yes, he is a good President, Yes he is! You are a good president! oh my, yes! What a good President! etc etc.

    Any word on that old rule that politicians' children are supposed to be off limits?  Not so much a "rule" as "guidelines" I presume?

    Parent

    No one's criticizing his children (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Yman on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 06:30:57 AM EST
    Even his adult children.  But if you think that was a rule or "guideline", you must have missed the Clinton terms.

    Parent
    Really? No one is taking a cheap shot? (2.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Jim in St Louis on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 06:48:31 AM EST
    What do you suppose was the purpose behind 50% of the links in the original post went to stories that were critical of Rudy's personal and family relationships?

     I read it as the author digging up dirty laundry to show that Rudy doesn't know anything about love- "just ask his ex wife and his children."   and I thought that crossed a line.  

    Its true that Chelsea took unfair hits growing up in the WH- that was wrong.  I'll call anyone who did it then a rude and inappropriate clod.

    Why does the rule not apply in this case?

    Parent

    Because the criticism was of... (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by Yman on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 07:35:16 AM EST
    ... Giuliani himself and the hypocrisy in him criticizing someone for not loving because they didn't grow up the way "we" did.  Personally, I think the analogy is flawed, but no one was attacking his children.

    Buy if you'd like to post links to some of your comments taking conservatives to task for attacking Chelsea Clinton herself at the time, that would lend some weight to your standard.  Or, more recently, the attacks on Obama's kids.  You were outraged and posted comments, right?

    Parent

    Like School in Summer time (2.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Jim in St Louis on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 09:44:40 AM EST
    So she did not attack his kids,  She just used his kids to attack him?

    And the first is wrong---but the second is OK.

    No class.


    Parent

    No logic (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Yman on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 10:30:16 AM EST
    She did neither.  She used his lack of parenting to point out that Guiliani should be one of the last people to talk about parenting/"how we grew up".  She never criticized his kids.

    And yes - that's okay.

    Parent

    The purpose was to expose Giuliani (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 07:51:52 AM EST
    for the hypocrite he is: how does someone who's had three wives, one of whom he moved into the mansion while he was still married to Wife No. 2, who more or less removed himself from his children's lives after he had them and their mother evicted from Gracie Mansion and married Wife No. 3, and whose father spent time in prison and was an enforcer for a loan shark, have any standing to be criticizing Obama's upbringing and family life, or questioning his love of country?

    Answer: he doesn't.  But it's red meat for the Republican base, for the birthers and the racists, and golly - look at that! - everyone's talking about Rudy!  

    And wasn't that really the point?  

    Parent

    No one's going after Rudy's kids; (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 06:55:54 AM EST
    what Jeralyn said was:

    That Rudy Giuliani would even venture an opinion about love or how to raise a family is laughable. Ask his ex-wife and his children.

    These are the children whose father publicly humiliated them and their mother by moving his mistress into Gracie Mansion while they were all still living there.  Or perhaps you've forgotten that little detail, eh?  No one went after the children, Jim - they went after the father who doesn't really have the credibility to be criticizing anyone about their family life.

    So, I have to ask: where is the substantive defense or counter to Jeralyn's - and others' - comments?  All I see is you lashing out with some pretty lame accusations.  This "tone" you're hearing in the comments of us Capital-L Leftists?  Sorry, sparky - not there.  I do have to ask, though, how hard was it for you not to type "good little Negro" in your imagined representation of what people here are "really" saying?  'Cause that's the "tone" I heard in your comment, Jim - and that's all about you, not the Capital-L Leftists who comment here.

    I'm trying - and failing - to figure out what it is you get out of participating on a blog with a decidedly leftward orientation.  So far, it seems you come to needle and stir up trouble, which around here, we consider to be the definition of "trolling."


    Parent

    What are you babbling about? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 05:14:14 AM EST
    It was a simple question (1.50 / 2) (#41)
    by Jim in St Louis on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 05:46:13 AM EST
    are the kids of politicians fair game in a political discussion or not?

    I would say 'not'.

    Let any public figure deal with their own big mouth gaffes on their own, but leave their kids/family/ex husband out of it.

    Parent

    What Anne said. (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 02:15:08 PM EST
    Nobody has been attacking Rudy Giuliani's children. In fact, it's long been noted to the media by his own son that the former mayor's kids have an estranged relationship with their father. How exactly is acknowledging their own admissions an attack on them?

    Again, it harkens back to Giuliani's credibility. When he attacks others over their perceived lack of "family values," he renders his own values in that regard fair game for others to scrutinize, as Jeralyn has done.

    People who live in glass houses, etc., etc.

    Parent

    Speaking for myself only, ... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 19, 2015 at 05:24:57 PM EST
    ... I think Joe Biden had Rudy Giuliani's number back in March 2008, when he cracked wise that the only three things Giuliani needs in a sentence are "a noun, verb and '9-11.'"

    Suffice to say that the right-wing crackpottery which you and Hisexonner are currently peddling had a "sell by" date which has long since expired.

    If you don't like that particular characterization, then I suggest that you look elsewhere to share your own fact-free misperceptions with those who might better appreciate such warped delusions.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Joe Biden (none / 0) (#47)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 07:18:58 AM EST
    Wants all the ladies'ladies' numbers too.

    Parent
    So what? (none / 0) (#80)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 02:25:27 PM EST
    The subject here is Rudy Giuliani's appalling statements, not Joe Biden.

    Parent
    Hey - you brought up Joe Biden (none / 0) (#83)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 02:42:42 PM EST
    And him "getting Rudy's number". So YOU interjected JB into this, in an attempt to be funny.

    Besides, according to MKS at least, this thread is about Hillary.

    Parent

    Why are you so eager to change the subject? (none / 0) (#102)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Feb 21, 2015 at 02:22:40 AM EST
    Do you have a crush on the guy? Your constant quest to provide a false equivalence whenever the subject of GOPers behaving badly arises has gotten rather threadbare and tedious. In fact, you've now done it twice in this thread alone.

    Parent
    I don't agree about Obama (none / 0) (#29)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 19, 2015 at 10:39:53 PM EST
    I think he is a good President....

    The war fever now present is like the run up to the Iraq War....Conservatives know how to whip up fear....

    Parent

    I believe (none / 0) (#1)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 19, 2015 at 02:29:28 PM EST
    That Barack Obama does not love me.  Of course, I also believe Rudy Guiliani does not love me either.  I believe that they are exactly the same in the fact that if I was standing in front of either of them, shaking their hand, each one would both be looking over my shoulder searching for somewhere richer to talk with.  Neither of them would give two rats' behinds about what I would say.

    Someone, not somewhere (none / 0) (#2)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 19, 2015 at 02:30:46 PM EST
    And Hillary too? (none / 0) (#28)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 19, 2015 at 10:38:25 PM EST
    I don't believe she loves me (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 07:11:56 AM EST
    But I do believe she would look me in the eye and talk to me without looking around me or through me - even if it's just an act.  (Oh wait, I don't think that - I KNOW that because I HAVE met her. At a fundraiser, where there were people with way more money than I'll ever have, and yet, she STILL managed to have a 5 minute conversation with me - gasp!- about me!)

    Parent
    And, BTW (none / 0) (#48)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 07:19:54 AM EST
    Nice straw man.

    CDS reigns supreme!

    Parent

    Awesome! (none / 0) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 10:00:03 AM EST
    Non-Sense... (none / 0) (#5)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 19, 2015 at 02:46:20 PM EST
    ...Giuliani hates himself more than the rest of us put together.  He wants the rest of the country to be as miserable as he is.

    Feh (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 19, 2015 at 02:55:29 PM EST
    this is just pandering to the lowest common denominator. How many Republicans have you heard say the same thing? Lots of them. It's just their usual fleecing of the rubes.

    A Republican senator on CNN (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 19, 2015 at 04:39:19 PM EST
    just trashed Rudy for the comment.

    Parent
    Didn't (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 19, 2015 at 03:57:19 PM EST
    Rudy call Vladimir Putin a "great leader".

    No (none / 0) (#14)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 19, 2015 at 04:37:36 PM EST
    Technically, he didn't say "great leader".  He said "leader".

    Parent
    Nevertheless (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 19, 2015 at 04:42:16 PM EST
    it was hysterical to hear them all praising him until he invaded the Ukraine.

    Parent
    ... means "Fearless Leader."

    Oh, wait, perhaps he meant this "Fearless Leader."

    Or maybe it was this one, or quite possibly this one.

    Or it could be that he actually meant this one.

    (Sigh!) So many Fearless Leaders, so little time.

    Parent

    What an ass (none / 0) (#30)
    by Slado on Thu Feb 19, 2015 at 10:55:48 PM EST
    He's either losing it in old age or old age is revealing character flaws.  Hard to know sometimes but in this case he's suffering  from Obama derangement syndrome.  

    Megan Kelly ripped him pretty good on Fox even playing his own words back at him to show what a hypocrite he is.

    But was he wrong? (none / 0) (#31)
    by McBain on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 01:10:34 AM EST
    I can't really tell how Obama feels about our country.  I seriously doubt Giuliani knows either.

    Parent
    What a coincidence! (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 05:04:00 AM EST
    We can say likewise about you.

    After all, what do any of us really know about your own love of our country, other than your personal assurances to that effect? Why should we just trust your word on it, given the fact-free innuendo that you're presently offering about our president?

    Don't even think of going any further in that direction, lest you wish the same to be said publicly of you.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    A fascinating new standard? (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by christinep on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 12:11:19 PM EST
    Now ... are we supposed to burrow inside an elected official's feelings to deduce how he/she "feels" about each of us?  Do we want to know whether he/she is or would be the proper suitor?  Do we use a crystal ball, tarot, or our own powers of ESP? How are degrees of political "love" measured, btw?  Will the politician marry us or live with us or only have an affair with us?

    The new Love Standard--the new Feelings--would have use move from our recent measurement determined by Who is the Better Beer Companion (remember the Bush & Gore dichotomy?)  Maybe Giuliani & those pushing the Love Standard are lonesome without a suitor in their own party; maybe no one has sent him or you a Valentine?

    KeysDan's comment elsewhere on this thread solves the puzzle about who-loves-us-&-how-we-can-tell:  This latest accusation about lack of love is fun entertainment for those seeking a diversion during the cold winter (with yummy political red meat in the mix.)

    Parent

    No mind-reading required... (none / 0) (#81)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 02:29:25 PM EST
    for recreational drug users...everybody hate me, unless you consider handcuffs to be friendship bracelets.  Colorado and Washington pols excluded.

    Parent
    This is one fine comment (none / 0) (#108)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 21, 2015 at 11:07:55 AM EST
    I, who rarely agree with you, wish I could give you a 10.

    A new love standard. What absolute and total BS. It seems that people will go to any far fetched, assine measure rather than stick to the issues. What policies did the politican advocate for by directly pushing them forward and backing them with votes.

    I could give a rat's ass how a politician feels about me. His or her rhetoric is only important if it is backed up with direct action and votes. Great speeches without great actions are just so much hot air. I'm never going to have a beer with a president but I will have to live with the decisions that they make, many of which are funneling money away from needed domestic program and into the pockets of the rich.

    Parent

    What we do know is that (2.00 / 1) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 10:19:36 AM EST
    Obama campaigned in 2008 on "Hope and Change." That clearly demonstrates that he was dissatisfied with the country. And he also used the phrase "fundamentally change."

    And to many people his relationships with Ayers and the Rev. Wright also called his feelings towards the country into question.

    You don't want to "fundamentally change" something you love.

    Obama doubled down when he removed the bust of Churchill from the White House and went on what millions saw as an "apology" tour to the Muslim world. The picture of him apparently bowing to a Muslim prince went viral on the Internet.

    I'm not a fan of Rudy. If he is a narcissist and a nasty person then so are, IMHO, most politicians. I think it is in their DNA. We tend to ignore it when we agree with their policies. I did think he was a better candidate for President than McCain because some of his positions were more liberal and I saw all the Democrats as weak on national defense. On defense time has proven me right.

    Of course the problem is the definition of "love." I think many partners have had it explained to them that they must "fundamentally change" because the other partner loves them and just wants to make them better.

    "No more nights out with your buddies, darling. You need to attend that bible class on Wednesday with me."

    Is that love or a desire to control??

    "We had to destroy the village to save it."

     

    Parent

    yes and we all know (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by FlJoe on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 10:32:27 AM EST
    That everything America was perfect in 2008. By your logic trying to change your children by giving them a quality education is not an act of love.

    Parent
    What we Really know (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 10:34:57 AM EST
    Is that you'll continue to bring up Obama and defend your ridiculous proposition that he is at heart an anti-American socialist who wants to take away everything near-and-dear to the American people, whether they know it or not.

    Now, stick to the topic, or I'll be forced to report any further Obama comments on this thread to Jeralyn for blog-clogging.

    Parent

    Ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Yman on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 11:36:50 AM EST
    Every candidate promises change and is therefore "dissatisfied" with things they want to change, even fundamental changes.  That does not mean they don't "love" the US.  Conservatives want to fundamentally change the tax code (slash taxes, flat taxes. etc.), the education system (vouchers, common core, etc.), and dismantle government agencies they don't like 9EPA, Dept. of Ed, etc.).  Your claims (and logic) are beyond silly.

    Obama doubled down when he removed the bust of Churchill from the White House and went on what millions saw as an "apology" tour to the Muslim world. The picture of him apparently bowing to a Muslim prince went viral on the Internet.

    "Millions" - heh.  Did you count them?  "Millions" think astrology is real.  "Millions" think the moon landing was faked or the government was behind 9-11.  "Millions" are delusional and shouldn't be catered-to because they choose to push silly fantasies that fit their pre-conceived notions.

    Parent

    So now millions are delusional?? (none / 0) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 09:25:15 PM EST
    Really?? Is that because they disagree with you or because you disagree with them?? Hint. It works both ways.

    And why do you repeat back what I said as if you had just thought of it. As I wrote:

    I'm not a fan of Rudy. If he is a narcissist and a nasty person then so are, IMHO, most politicians. I think it is in their DNA. We tend to ignore it when we agree with their policies.

    Your problem is that you demand absolute agreement. Most fanatics do.

    Parent

    I repeat it ... (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Yman on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 10:04:33 PM EST
    ... as an example of the thoughts of one of those delusional people.  The fact that you think millions of people share in your delusions of an imaginary "apology tour" is funny.  It's possible they do, but those would be the same people who believe in the other, tinfoil conspiracy theories.

    What matters isn't what you "believe".  What matters are facts and evidence.

    As usual, you have none.

    Parent

    Delusional (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Feb 21, 2015 at 06:45:53 AM EST
    would be the perfect description of someone who could be talking about themselves when describing fanatics who want  absolute agreement with their POV.


    Parent
    P.S. (none / 0) (#109)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 21, 2015 at 11:53:11 AM EST
    I think we've covered all the bases on this subject, and this will be my last. You all can have the last words.

    But before I go here's what I noted.

    Rudy's opinion regarding Obama's "love" or "patriotism" re the US is not surprising and is shared by millions. Politicians say all kinds of nasty things about each other and their supporters agree and support them. Or, launch counterattacks. (See this thread.)

    Obama used the phrase "fundamentally change."  That is different from wanting to simply change things and it speaks directly to his actions in regard to both domestic and foreign policies.

    On side issues spun off from that I maintain that people do things based on their past experiences. Therefore it is logical that Obama, as an ex-community organizer, would see various social changes as key to attacking ISIS and I radical islamists in general.  While I agree with the concept I think you first have to have peace. Some of you seem ashamed of his background and deny my point. Okay fine.

    It's been a fun thread to read and I thank Jeralyn for putting it up. Now I gotta go move some ice on the steps that the rain can't seem to melt. Have a nice day.


    Parent

    So silly (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Yman on Sat Feb 21, 2015 at 02:57:29 PM EST
    Obama used the phrase "fundamentally change."  That is different from wanting to simply change things and it speaks directly to his actions in regard to both domestic and foreign policies.

    You claimed more than that.  You claimed Obama doesn't love this country because - if you love something - you don't want to fundamentally change it.  You tea partiers want to make all kinds of fundamental changes to the country, so I guess using your logic, it means you don't love it.

    On side issues spun off from that I maintain that people do things based on their past experiences. Therefore it is logical that Obama, as an ex-community organizer, would see various social changes as key to attacking ISIS and I radical islamists in general

    Ridiculous logic.  Of course people make decisions based on their experiences.  They also make them based on logic, reasoning, emotion and a laundry list of other variables.  What you haven't shown is the slightest bit of evidence that Obama made this decision because he was a community organizer - because you have none.  He could have made it for the same reason GW Bush did - someone who was not a community organizer - or for other, entirely different reasons, your attempts at amateur psychoanalysis notwithstanding.

    BTW - No one is ashamed Obama was a community organizer.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, despite the wingers attempts to use it as a pejorative.  There's also no evidence that was why he pointed to poverty as a cause of terrorism.

    Parent

    Yeah Jim... (none / 0) (#63)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 10:43:59 AM EST
    Cough, cough, "Are You Better Off Than You Were Four Years Ago?" and my absolute favorite a "Kinder, Gentler Nation"  Pretty sure a necessity for a Presidential slogan is implying you will change things, who is gonna win saying "Things are great, but vote for me anyways." ?

    There is not a GD thing wrong with criticizing anything, including your leaders and the country's actions.  That is tenet numbero uno in a democracy.  

    Who made you hall monitor or criticism ?

    Parent

    Two at a time (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 11:03:39 AM EST
    FlJoe - As I said, it depends on your definition of love.

    Scott, I sometimes think you don't read before you comment.... And thanks for making my point. As I said.

    Rudy's opinion is not unusual among Obama's critics and one politician claiming that another is unpatriotic,  evileeee, etc. is not unusual or unheard of.

    It is politics, folks.

    So why the kerfunkle over what Rudy did??

    Parent

    yet (none / 0) (#65)
    by FlJoe on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 11:16:21 AM EST
    you and Rudy get to define Obamas actions and words as "not love". How would you describe Obamas "feelings" about America? Does he like her? Is he indifferent? Does he dislike her? Does he hate her? I am pretty sure I know what tune Rudy is playing on his whistle. How would you describe Obama's level of affection?

    Parent
    Speaking of Reading Posts... (none / 0) (#66)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 11:18:17 AM EST
    ...please point out where I have a 'kerfunkle' over it.  Its Rudy, that is like getting upset at an earthworm taking a dukee on your lawn, who cares what the worm does ?

    I am actually very surprised with the press this is receiving.  Yesterday I was think, really, that is worthy of a post.  Turns out out it was/is, but I still don't get it.  They are just feeding a desperate man the fuel that drives him.  I would imagine his speaking fees just quadrupled.

    Parent

    The kerfunkle (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 11:30:01 AM EST
    I referred to is all the press, internet, etc., not your comment.

    People on both sides like to point out and argue over really minute things. And yes, I consider what Rudy said minute. The Right will agree with him. The Left will attack him.

    Parent

    BTW, Jim, (none / 0) (#84)
    by Zorba on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 02:45:51 PM EST
    The word is "kerfuffle," not "kerfunkle."

    Link.


    Parent

    it's kerfluffleeee (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by jondee on Sat Feb 21, 2015 at 11:43:23 PM EST
    Ultimate conservatives (none / 0) (#92)
    by Politalkix on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 08:29:31 PM EST
    Jim, We don't want you to change and we love you. But I hope you will agree that you will never be able to beat these guys in a billion years...

    link

    These guys are the gold standard for your politics. They have not evolved even a whit in two billion years....And they live under slimy mudrocks in the ocean floor.

    Parent

    Thank you for adding such (none / 0) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 09:14:38 PM EST
    a deep and intelligent comment to the conversation. I would point out that my politics aren't what you want them to be.

    But hey! Why use facts when falsehoods are available?

    Parent

    Deep and intelligent (none / 0) (#104)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Feb 21, 2015 at 06:40:17 AM EST
    are two things you'll never be accused of here, Jim.  👽

    Parent
    If you can't tell (none / 0) (#38)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 05:06:15 AM EST
    then you are either not listening, not watching or not reading. It's fine if you don't like him or think he's doing a good job as President, or disagree with his policies, but to question whether he cares about the country is absurd.

    Parent
    I think it's a legitimate question (none / 0) (#68)
    by McBain on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 11:31:54 AM EST
    I'm not an Obama hater.  I voted for him once.  I just don't feel the love.

    Parent
    I think ya need to be a billionaire... (none / 0) (#73)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 12:50:35 PM EST
    to get any "love" from a politician.  Democrats, and especially Republicans.

    Like everything else, it's a quid pro quo thing.  Want love?  Cut the check.

    Parent

    Then that's your problem. (none / 0) (#82)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 02:33:35 PM EST
    Don't make it everyone else's, too. And you're wrong -- it's not a legitimate question, anymore than my raising public doubt regarding your own patriotic bona fides would be. Rather, it constitutes nothing more than a baseless personal attack.

    Parent
    I am curious (none / 0) (#89)
    by Politalkix on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 08:04:09 PM EST
    McBain, Why did you vote for BHO in 2008? I am genuinely curious. I do not personally know anyone who harbors your views but voted for the President in 2008 or 2012.

    Parent
    After 8 years of a republican president (none / 0) (#90)
    by McBain on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 08:27:39 PM EST
    who meant well but got us into a mess, I got duped into the hope and change thing.  I thought a black president would be a good role model for the black community.  I wasn't a big fan of McCain and I didn't think Sarah Palin was ready to be a heartbeat away from running our country.

    Now I'm curious, what views do I harbor?

    Parent

    I cannot (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by lentinel on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 10:24:21 AM EST
    possibly understand how you could possibly think that Bush and Cheney "meant well".

    No way.

    I just can't.

    After all we knew then, and know how...

    Parent

    BHO's signature campaign issue (none / 0) (#94)
    by Politalkix on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 08:38:29 PM EST
    was that he would never rush to war and would close out existing wars responsibly.

    You always seem to be in a rush to get to war.

    Parent

    I'm in a rush to get to war? (none / 0) (#95)
    by McBain on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 08:46:30 PM EST
    I don't remember saying anything like that?  When it comes to wars/interventions/conflicts, I believe you're dammed if you do, damned if you don't.  When we entered into the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, I had no problem with us going after Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden but I was very skeptical that we would do it correctly.  

    Parent
    Correctly? (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 08:52:33 PM EST
    There's a correct way of destroying governments and power structures and infrastructure and the intricate web of relationships through which any society, no matter how distasteful to you, functions?

    Parent
    I don't pretend to have all the answers (none / 0) (#97)
    by McBain on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 08:58:56 PM EST
    I was in favor of capturing or killing Bin Ladden and Saddam. I was not in favor of a big occupying ground troop mess. You?

    Parent
    It's good that you don't claim to ... (none / 0) (#119)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Feb 21, 2015 at 05:27:32 PM EST
    ... have all the answers, because the rest of your comment makes absolutely no sense at all.

    First off -- and apparently, somehow, we can never seem to say this enough to true wingbats -- Saddam Hussein's Iraq had absolutely nothing at all to do with Osama bin Laden and al Qa'eda. Nada. That is a verified fact which is not subject to interpretation or debate.

    Secondly, how do you envision that Americans would have captured Saddam and ousted his government, without also occupying his country militarily?

    Get real.

    Parent

    I'm real, I'm honest (2.00 / 1) (#144)
    by McBain on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 08:07:15 PM EST
    And my comment did make sense.  You chose to read it with your usual over the top bias.

    Where did I say Saddam/Iraq had anything to do with bin Ladden? I viewed both as bad guys and wanted them captured or killed.  What I found interesting about their demise was one was somewhat of a preemptive strike (Saddam) the other was, unfortunately,  after he got to us (bin Ladden).  Neither strategy worked well. And doing them both, more or less, at the same time made things even worse.

    "Secondly, how do you envision that Americans would have captured Saddam and ousted his government, without also occupying his country militarily?"

    Like I said, I don't have all the answers and not afraid to admit it.  This is why I haven't been overly critical of our military.  I was hopefull, but pessimistic, of somekind of get in/assassinate/get out strategy.  

    I'm sure you had everything figured out long before everyone else.  Bush's biggest mistake was not tapping into your infinite wisdom.

    Parent

    why use ad hominem? (none / 0) (#32)
    by thomas rogan on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 01:28:29 AM EST
    Is the counterattack to what Giuliani says so lame?  Why does his allegedly being an "authoritarian narcissist"  or a bad father have anything to do with the truth or falsehood of his claims about Obama.
    And many people on this blog have mocked Joe Biden for his multiple gaffes, mainly when the idea comes up about his running for president against Hillary.  Why does Rudy get attacked for saying the same?

    Because it's not a "gaffe" (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 04:57:30 AM EST
    It's intentional and he has now "double-downed",  going either further in an interview with the NY  Times.

    Giuliani criticized Obama's upbringing. Giuliani's father was a violent felon who did time in Sing Sing and was a local mob enforcer.

    Giuliani went so far as to rebuke the President for not being "brought up the way you were and the way I was brought up through love of this country," a bow no doubt to the parenting prowess of Harold Giuliani, who did time in Sing Sing for holding up a Harlem milkman and was the bat-wielding enforcer for the loan-sharking operation run out of a Brooklyn bar owned by Rudy's uncle.

    Giuliani's father's reported remarks on race are a disgrace (I won't print them, you can read them on page 7 of this article, which is an excerpt from the author's published biography on Giuliani.)  Also, Rudy, his father and his uncles sought draft deferments. Rudy got six of them.

    Rudy may have forgotten the half-dozen deferments he won ducking the Vietnam War, even getting the federal judge he was clerking for to write a letter creating a special exemption for him.

    Obama's grandfather and uncle both served. His grandfather helped liberate Buchenwald.

    Obama's grandfather and uncle served. His uncle helped liberate Buchenwald, which apparently affected him so deeply he stayed in the family attic for six months when he returned home.

    Rudy promoting his upbringing as more American and loving of America than Obama's shows he's either demented or in the twilight zone.

    Then, on Hannity, he once again cast himself as the hero of 9/11.

    "You know, President Obama didn't live through September 11, I did. President Obama didn't almost have a building fall on him, myself and my police commissioner and my fire commissioner did."

    His police commissioner who he nominated for Homeland Security Chief, who had to withdraw his nomination and then pleaded guilty and went to prison.

    See, Rudy's five biggest lies on 9/11.

    I've written dozens of posts about Rudy Giuliani. Type "Giuliani" in the search box. I'm not going to expend much more energy on him since he's not running for office. He's now just a delusional and bitter has-been.


    Parent

    Why, you ask? (none / 0) (#40)
    by lentinel on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 05:41:51 AM EST
    Why does his allegedly being an "authoritarian narcissist"  or a bad father have anything to do with the truth or falsehood of his claims about Obama.

    In my opinion, the answer to your question lies in the fact that what Giuliani uttered was not a direct criticism of one or more of Obama's policies.

    Saying that Obama doesn't love him is, in my opinion, both nutty and irrelevant.

    It is he, Giuliani, that opened to the door for a discussion about public figures and their capacity to express love.

    I can't imagine, personally, spending even a millisecond thinking about the navel-gazing proposition of whether Obama loves me. And were I to do so, I can't imagine for even a mini-millisecond, expressing my belief on that demented subject in a public forum.

    I will relate that as a New Yorker living all too near the disaster at the Trade Center, I personally witnessed Giuliani at work. That is to say, strutting around, pretending to lead, while actually doing nothing but using the disaster to promote himself and his gigantic ego. This was the way that Giuliani was expressing "love" to the citizens of New York City.
    Being one big bul-sh-tter. Using us for his own aggrandizement.  
    And then he capped it off by opposing a pay increase for the firefighters who were the ones actually dealing with the disaster.
    No one could have sunk lower than Giuliani.

    Biden, however, is another subject.
    I hope to God the Democrats do not wind up proposing him for yet another run for office - in any capacity.

    Parent

    Gotta admit, his snark about (none / 0) (#53)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 09:14:55 AM EST
    Rudi needing nothing more than a noun, a verb, and 9/11 - was funny.

    Parent
    I know (none / 0) (#88)
    by lentinel on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 05:15:18 PM EST
    what you mean...

    but to tell the truth, to me it wasn't funny.

    I don't like Rudy, and I don't like Biden.

    I would like them both to be relegated to the dustbin of history.

    Parent

    Who do you like and why? (none / 0) (#110)
    by nycstray on Sat Feb 21, 2015 at 01:22:39 PM EST
    I like (none / 0) (#124)
    by lentinel on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 07:10:33 AM EST
    Elizabeth Warren.

    So far, that is.

    Why? Because she appears to be a genuine populist. Unlike most of the politicians out there, she does not give off the aura that she identifies with the elite, or that she aspires to be among them.

    She radiates maturity and intelligence, combined with an innate sense of compassion.

    Parent

    and (none / 0) (#125)
    by FlJoe on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 08:24:35 AM EST
    the big money guys hate her. I would love to see her run but she could never raise enough money to compete. She knows it and will never run. There will not be a president that really scares off the money in the foreseeable future. I think the populist cause would be better served by stacking the senate with more of her ilk.

    Parent
    Saying things like... (none / 0) (#126)
    by lentinel on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 10:22:25 AM EST
    I would love to see her run but she could never raise enough money to compete.

    is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    It is amazing to me that she has garnered so much admiration and support from so many.

    Were she to declare a candidacy, it is impossible to calculate how much money she might raise - or how much alternative and free media - and cable shows - might engender support.

    I don't think that she hasn't declared her candidacy because "she knows she couldn't raise enough money to compete". I think, if she doesn't run, it is because she feels she can be more effective in implementing the kind of reforms she favors by staying in the Senate.

    She might also feel that she has an obligation to the people in Massachusetts who elected her to serve out a full term.

    If enough people are behind her, money will follow. I think that millions of small donations can counter huge ones from a small number of fat cats.

    In any case, I would like the discussion to be more of one in which open enthusiasm is expressed about what she is doing, without the predictable attempts to squash such a discussion by saying she won't run and she couldn't win.

    You'd think on a website dedicated to "leftist" thought, this would not be a very unusual request.


    Parent

    Sorry (none / 0) (#129)
    by FlJoe on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 11:08:02 AM EST
    I got to call them as I see them. Big money is the 800 pound gorilla in the political arena and presidential elections are the superbowl
    I would like the discussion to be more of one in which open enthusiasm is expressed about what she is doing
    I love what she is doing, I would call her the liberal lioness of the senate without hesitation. Why mess with a good thing, for the sake of a primary fight?    
    without the predictable attempts to squash such a discussion by saying she won't run and she couldn't win.
    How many times has she squashed it herself? Why do you criticize me for simply agreeing with her. She knows political reality, you see ponies.

    Parent
    I'm (none / 0) (#131)
    by lentinel on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 11:41:43 AM EST
    not saying that she should run.

    All I'm suggesting is that if she were to run, in my opinion there is no telling the amount of money she would be able to raise. Plus, there is the added factor that so many people "love what she is doing" - as you do.

    This, without any machine behind her.
    Just the power of her own words and actions.

    And then there is the phenomenon of the internet - and some enlightened people on cable - neither of which cost anything and are extremely powerful.

    Plus there is the factor of the 60% or so of people who have not bothered to vote because they have not been motivated to do so, but might be by a Warren candidacy.

    All I know is that for the moment at least she has said she will not run. She has not said, as you imply, that her reason for not doing so is her conception of "political reality"

    Personally, I think that a candidacy by someone with the integrity of an Elizabeth Warren could cause a well-needed seismic shift in the way that these primaries are conducted.

    In short, at the moment she is not running, but were she to do so, in no way would I discount the possibility of her success.

    One last thing: the way you present the 800 pound gorilla in the ring, Big Money, there is no way any candidate that isn't a tool of the 1% will ever be presented to us on a ballot - and our democracy will continue to be thwarted. Not a pleasant prospect.

    I hold out hope for reform - engendered by a candidate with a sense of reality, intelligence and compassion. These kinds of individuals have brought about great change against seemingly insurmountable odds.

    Parent

    I confess (none / 0) (#132)
    by FlJoe on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 12:03:48 PM EST
    to projecting my cynical political reasoning on her just as you project your political dreams on her.
    One last thing: the way you present the 800 pound gorilla in the ring, Big Money, there is no way any candidate that isn't a tool of the 1% will ever be presented to us on a ballot - and our democracy will continue to be thwarted. Not a pleasant prospect.
    Name the last president who wasn't ? Sorry, your dream does not trump our, all too real, nightmare.


    Parent
    Forget (none / 0) (#133)
    by lentinel on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 12:44:59 PM EST
    Presidents.

    Not one of them refused to play the game.
    Not one wasn't a captive of big monied interests.

    But then there were people like Martin Luther King. Talk about odds. And Ghandi. What were his chances of unseating the British Empire - or the defeat of the US in Vietnam by a bunch of rice-eaters - or the American Revolution itself.

    As long as we focus on the perceived odds, we get nowhere.

    When we go ahead based on feeling, determination, natural energy and sometimes just being fed-up with being repressed, we can move mountains.

    Incidentally, it is a bit of a leap to say that i am projecting my "dreams" onto Elizabeth Warren.

    I just was asked who I like and why, and her name came to mind.
    I do not dream or hope when it comes to the morass of American politics.

    Parent

    I should (none / 0) (#134)
    by lentinel on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 12:50:22 PM EST
    clarify that the characterization of the Vietnamese as "rice-eaters" was originally coined by Malcolm X. He was using the term to contrast people armed with primitive tools and a diet of rice were able to defeat the mighty French in Dien Bien Phu.


    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#135)
    by FlJoe on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 01:35:24 PM EST
    "forget presidents", our best bet this cycle is to accept Hillary (hold your nose if needed) and work on recapturing the Senate with more liberal voices to work with Warren.
    But then there were people like Martin Luther King. Talk about odds. And Ghandi. What were his chances of unseating the British Empire - or the defeat of the US in Vietnam by a bunch of rice-eaters - or the American Revolution itself.
    none of these have any relevance to modern American politics.
    As long as we focus on the perceived odds, we get nowhere.
    I would love to play poker with you.

    Parent
    Please also plan to help Feingold (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Towanda on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 03:04:50 PM EST
    get back to the Senate, as it looks like he is getting ready to run.

    Tell the DNC and Wasserman Schultz to not blow it again.  We will need the DNC, national Dems' help, to win against the huge money behind Senator "Sunspots" Johnson again.

    Imagine Warren with a Feingold in the Senate, too.  Against this GOP, the more smart "mavericks" to speak truth to power, to them, the better for us.

    Parent

    Feingold will be one of a select few (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 03:18:44 PM EST
    receiving money from me if he decides to run.

    Parent
    See... (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by lentinel on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 04:08:58 PM EST
    that is the agenda from folks who tell me that the person in whom I'm interested in cannot possibly win..

    They want me to support the least worst of the alternatives. The one that suits the remnants of the democratic party. The one that poses no threat to the corporate interests that continue to drain our personal resources and work to extinguish our liberties and our freedoms.

    That's what we can expect this time around as well.
    Get your pocket picked and your privacy invaded by the lesser evil.

    You have declared that the people I admire and their like are irrelevant to modern American politics.

    If true, in my opinion that would cancel any reason whatsoever to participate in this barren exercise.

    Parent

    Yes. The problem is (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by Zorba on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 05:54:24 PM EST
    that I keep hearing the same d@mned thing.
    "If you vote for X, you're just wasting your vote!"
    If everyone keeps believing this, then nothing will ever, ever change.
    We may as well give up.  I'm not ready to do this yet, and I refuse any longer to vote for the "least bad" alternative.
    One thing I have begun doing more in recent years is to work for local candidates that are at least mostly on the same page I am.  Calling, canvassing, volunteering, supporting them with money.
    I figure that, given my age, it may not make a difference in my lifetime, but it may for future generations, because at least some of these candidates, if successful, might work their way up to state and national politics.

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#139)
    by nycstray on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 04:35:32 PM EST
    why accept the least of the worst? Why not make the least of the worst (in your opinion) better by giving that person a better congress?

    Parent
    Of course. (none / 0) (#140)
    by lentinel on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 04:38:06 PM EST
    If there is someone that you believe in running for congress, support them.

    Parent
    We need lots of someones :/ (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by nycstray on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 05:22:35 PM EST
    Your heroes are my heroes (none / 0) (#142)
    by FlJoe on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 05:34:58 PM EST
    their ideas are timeless, however the battles they fought were far different then modern American politics where ideas come in third place behind money and media. Barren indeed, I think the oligarchy has all but won, but what you going to do?

    Parent
    Guliani is just looking for a reason to criticize (none / 0) (#74)
    by Slado on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 01:06:18 PM EST
    What I hate about his statement and statements made by some on the right is why would Obama ever run for president if he hated this country?

    What the right gets over sensitive about his Obama makes a statement sometimes that are very critical of the current state of affairs in this country without also stating that we do live in the best country in the world. The reason being that Obama sees his power or the power of government as a way to make the country better. He just often leaves the "make it better" part out and this is miss read as being unpatriotic.

    The most famous example being a actually made by Michelle about how she was finally proud to be an American.

    YouTube

    Of course the right at the time flipped out but do we really question that Michelle didn't love her country before she made that statement? Of course she did.  

    This whole issue boils down to the divide between the way each side sees the role of government. If you want less of it you tend to think the system is good as is and we can fix problems with less not more government . If you think problems are in desperate need of correction and only government can step in and fix it you point out the flaws and the fact that with more action we can make things better.

    Guliani has for me been removed from the viable talking heads category to say the least.

    Both sides love our country it's just we on the right like flag pins.

    Haven't you heard? (none / 0) (#79)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 02:24:20 PM EST
    He is the Manchurian Kenyan Candidate...he worked tirelessly all his life to one day become president and wipe America from the face of the earth!!!

    But since he's a lazy bumbling incompetent who would have had no chance were it not for  affirmative action, he grand evil scheme has not come to fruition.  It's up to Hillary to see it through. ;)

    Parent

    Timing is everything (none / 0) (#76)
    by vicndabx on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 01:47:05 PM EST
    Maybe I'm watching too much Ancient Aliens, but the timing of this is perfect - coming on the heels of the building negative criticism of Jeb's foreign policy speech and talk of "I'm my own man".

    The conspiracy theorist in me suspects this was a "look over there" moment starring hizzoner.  Bush II had to get tight w/our former mayor during 9/11, seems odd he'd support Scott Walker, unless, the GOP plan is for a Bush/Walker ticket.

    If the talking heads are still talking about Guiliani on Sunday.....food for thought.

    Interesting... (none / 0) (#78)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 02:18:08 PM EST
    but I think ol' Rudy's bloated ego would prevent him falling on his sword for anybody, even the Bush royal family.

    Unless of course they paid him or promised him a VP nom or something, he'd do just about anything for money or power;)

    Parent

    Speaking of ancient aliens, what is Rudy (none / 0) (#91)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 08:28:55 PM EST
    wearing in that photo above?  It looks like star trekish bulletproof turtleneck.  Is he shark jumping into designer paranoia wear?

    Parent
    photoshop (none / 0) (#106)
    by unitron on Sat Feb 21, 2015 at 10:11:02 AM EST
    His head on a Star Wars character.

    Parent
    Off Topic, But Really Funny (none / 0) (#85)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 03:25:58 PM EST
    Apparently Time Warner and Comcast have taken to name calling in regards to their customers.  

    C--t Martinez

    W----e Julia Swano

    Super B---h Bauer

    A-----e Brown

    I liked Time Warner and hated Comcast, but no one was ever rude to me or did anything beyond not helping me.  I think this is hilarious, I mean talk about a customer service problem.  And now they are teaming up...

    They aren't even creative, but still funny.

    I wonder what they call me? (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by McBain on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 08:33:45 PM EST
    Every few months I call them and threaten to quit so they'll lower my bill and give me free HBO or something. One of these days they're going to call my bluff like Blockbuster's version of Netflix did.  "Oh, you're not happy and want to quit?  Buh Bye".  

    Parent
    Strange times in Conservative Rubeland (none / 0) (#100)
    by Politalkix on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 09:27:16 PM EST
    link

    There's an element of Dinesh D'Souza's claim that anti-colonial thought explains Obama's worldview, but it's not clear what about anti-colonialism is so anti-American. The nation was born out of an independence movement against colonial rule; promulgated a doctrine opposing European colonialism in the Western Hemisphere; and spent the Cold War resisting Soviet attempts to build client states around the globe.

    It is also not clear to me why replacement of Churchill's bust with that of Abraham Lincoln can be a cause for criticism. link


    You forget the year 1898, when ... (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Feb 21, 2015 at 02:30:47 AM EST
    ... the U.S. became an imperial power itself by annexing Hawaii, and seizing the Philippines, Guam, Cuba, and Puerto Rico from Spain.

    Parent
    Well, let's not forget our first colony (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Towanda on Sat Feb 21, 2015 at 07:28:52 PM EST
    aka the eastern Midwest aka the North-West Territory, annexed by Virginia in the Revolutionary War, with the result that the original thirteen colonies started this country with . . . a colony.  
    And we treated it pretty d*mn poorly for a long time, too.  

    And, of course, in between that and your worthy mention of our appalling behavior a century later, we annexed a third of the country of Mexico -- for the purpose of creating more colonies to expand slavery.  And we only began to pay for that sin of stealing so much of that country, as Ulysses Grant said, because it destroyed the Missouri Compromise and brought on the Civil War.  And with every bit of crazee in Texas, Arizona, etc., we're still paying for it.

     

    Parent

    It's really simple... (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by unitron on Sat Feb 21, 2015 at 10:12:08 AM EST
    ...Obama did it, therefore it's wrong, and if you give us enough time we'll think up some rational for why.

    Parent