Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

September 21, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

WIND-UP RUDY REVISITED....Speaking of Rudy the buffoon, America's Mayor addressed the NRA today and was asked if he still supports the lawsuit against gun manufacturers that he initiated in 2000. You'll be unsurprised to learn that now that he's running for president, the answer is no. Still, he had to provide some excuse for changing his mind, and aside from mumbling something about "several turns and several twists" that the lawsuit had taken, here's what he said:

I also think there have been subsequent intervening events, September 11th, which cast somewhat of a different light on the Second Amendment and Second Amendment rights. Doesn't change the fundamental rights, but maybe it highlights the necessity for them more.

Does this make even the slightest sense? In what possible way did 9/11 affect gun rights? Perhaps someone on his staff could explain?

Asked to explain Mr. Giuliani's remarks that his views on guns were shaped by Sept. 11, a campaign spokeswoman said, "he was making a point that personal rights such as the 2nd Amendment are even more critical in a post-September 11th world."

Crikey. How much more obvious can his campaign make it that he doesn't have the slightest idea what he's talking about and was just randomly inserting a 9/11 reference because he figured it sounded good?

This is, once again, Rudy the wind-up doll. He's got a small supply of stock phrases (9/11, lower taxes, crime fighter) and he just hauls out whichever one seems handiest for the moment. Actual knowledge of anything necessary to be president? None.

Kevin Drum 10:33 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (92)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

[Deleted/banned troll]

Posted by: Peter on September 21, 2007 at 10:38 PM | PERMALINK

kevin, i appreciate your optimism, but what was the front-pager of the nytimes today? "in 9/11 chaos, giuliani forged a lasting image."

as you noted just the other day, once a narrative is set, it's very hard to dislodge it, so exactly why is it that you think that the "media" are going to change their perspective on rudy? just because he's a frickin' idiot? no offense, but where's your evidence that that makes a difference?

Posted by: howard on September 21, 2007 at 10:39 PM | PERMALINK

Peter, you dipstick, someone already did that. Hence, you know, the second bit of quoted text?

Smarrter trolls, please.

Posted by: Calton Bolick on September 21, 2007 at 10:43 PM | PERMALINK

I don't see what all the fuss is about. GWB made mostly nonsensical remarks when he ran for president, and he worked out pretty well, didn't he?

Posted by: Jeff S. on September 21, 2007 at 10:43 PM | PERMALINK

Just for giggles, I'll pretend that what Rudy said wasn't a steaming pile of meaningless word salad. The only way that the Second Amendment would have helped on 9/11 was if the passengers on the United and American flights were packing handguns.

Is Rudy Giuliani proposing to let handguns on airlines?

Posted by: ericblair on September 21, 2007 at 10:47 PM | PERMALINK

"he was making a point that personal rights such as the 2nd Amendment are even more critical in a post-September 11th world."

One wonders what other personal rights are even more important in the post 9/11 world? Perhaps the right to privacy? The right to be free of incompetent dipshit chief executives?

Posted by: Jeff S. on September 21, 2007 at 10:48 PM | PERMALINK

How much more obvious can his campaign make it that he doesn't have the slightest idea what he's talking about and was just randomly inserting a 9/11 reference because he figured it sounded good?

Kevin, I think Rudy's point is very simple, and I'm surprised you didn't understand it. Guns allow ordinary people to defend themselves from violent attacks like acts of terrorism. For example, if guns had been available at Virginia Tech, dozens of students might still be alive who aren't any more. 9/11 just brings the point home more vividly because thousands, not dozens, died on 9/11. I think it's a pretty valid point which deserves at least a response from those who disagree.

Posted by: Al on September 21, 2007 at 10:48 PM | PERMALINK

The only way that the Second Amendment would have helped on 9/11 was if the passengers on the United and American flights were packing handguns.

Well, yeah, but in a post-9/11 world, having a handgun in the house could protect your family against a B&E by terrorists. Bet you never thought of that.

Posted by: shortstop on September 21, 2007 at 10:58 PM | PERMALINK

Who were you describing? Rudy learned well from the idiot pRez.

"He's got a small supply of stock phrases (9/11, lower taxes, crime fighter) and he just hauls out whichever one seems handiest for the moment."

Posted by: Jay in Oregon on September 21, 2007 at 11:07 PM | PERMALINK

AL: "For example, if guns had been available at Virginia Tech, dozens of students might still be alive who aren't any more."

WTF??? Is Al real? This RNC robot is perfect fit to replace Tony Snow.

Al... if you really exist... please remove that gun from the your top drawer and protect yourself in this 9/11 world by using it on... on... let me think about this...

Posted by: Jay in Oregon on September 21, 2007 at 11:13 PM | PERMALINK

There may be more method to his incoherence then you realize. As the comments from Al & shortstop amply demonstrate BRA-types immediately respond to any crime or terrorist attack with "if only I was there with my gun". So there was lots of noise to allow cockpit crews to carry guns etc.

So many things are seen so very differently in red-state America, than in Blue state American. Its like two different planets. To judge Republican candidates efforts to gain their base's approval, you gotta be able to put on a redhat, and think like one.

Posted by: bigTom on September 21, 2007 at 11:13 PM | PERMALINK

bigTom, keerist, I was being sarcastic!

But yeah, I'm quite sure those people who think the hordes of Christ-denying infidels who are planning to swarm our shores and emburqa (I just made that word up) our women and force us to submit to sharia are also planning to do so via personalized home invasions in Bumblefuck, Red State.

Posted by: shortstop on September 21, 2007 at 11:18 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, the only coherent explanation Rudy can give is that had some passengers carried guns, 9/11 wouldn't had happened. So the only coherent proposal he could make is to allow guns in airplanes. What a hollow-head this guy is...

But I actually thought the most interesting part of Rudy At The NRA was that he stopped his speech to take a call from his wife... can anyone believe that while giving one of the most important speeches of his campaign the guy would 1)not turn his cellphone off, and 2)if he indeed left it on, he would actually take an incoming call? Is that believable in any way?

Posted by: Palo on September 21, 2007 at 11:21 PM | PERMALINK

So, Al, if guns had been allowed on the flights that were hijacked on September 11th, 2001, there would have been no problem?

[It seems like you surely can't be suggesting such a thing...but if that's not what you mean, then what?]

Posted by: Brandon Claycomb on September 21, 2007 at 11:23 PM | PERMALINK

What Rudy is saying is that, if New Yorkers weren't such Democratic fags, they would all have been packing bazookas and Stinger missiles as they went to work on 9/11, and then they could have brought down the airliners before they damaged any valuable property or landmarks.

It's obvious, really.

Posted by: craigie on September 21, 2007 at 11:26 PM | PERMALINK

Palo: I think the staged "call from Judi" was Rudy's idea of a chuckle-inducing family moment. Unfortunately, he doesn't do that family stuff so well. But maybe with the next wife he'll be better.

Posted by: shortstop on September 21, 2007 at 11:28 PM | PERMALINK

and emburqa our women

That should so be a real word. In fact, in Red State America it would be, if they speaked good enough to come with a construction like that.

Posted by: craigie on September 21, 2007 at 11:28 PM | PERMALINK

personal rights such as the 2nd Amendment are even more critical in a post-September 11th world
The first and fourth amendments, not so much, apparently.

Posted by: sc on September 21, 2007 at 11:29 PM | PERMALINK

It's kind of like an embargo, only not.

Posted by: shortstop on September 21, 2007 at 11:30 PM | PERMALINK

Let's see. He doesn't have the slightest idea what he's talking about, randomly inserts references to stuff because he figures it sounds good, is a wind-up doll, has a small supply of stock phrases and he just hauls out whichever one seems handiest for the moment, and actual knowledge of anything necessary to be president: none.

Gee, who does this remind you of?

So, in this sadly benighted country, it's not all that farfetched that we could wake up next November to face this infinitely worse version of our present nightmare.

Posted by: R. Porrofatto on September 21, 2007 at 11:33 PM | PERMALINK

What's the 9/11 take on health care, I'd like to know. Or social security reform.

Let me guess:

"9/11 inspires us to keep private, HMO/insurance company-ridden health care, and to destroy public, socialist welfare handouts guaranteed by nothing but IOU pieces of paper, because foreigners hate our freedoms."

Posted by: Swan on September 21, 2007 at 11:34 PM | PERMALINK

wow, you libs always seem to think every Republican candidate is dumb. Giulini's knowledge of the issues would blow about any other candidate out of the water.

Posted by: Josh on September 21, 2007 at 11:35 PM | PERMALINK

What does 9/11 have to say about kids fucking around in school instead of studying and paying attention like they're supposed to?

Posted by: Swan on September 21, 2007 at 11:36 PM | PERMALINK

Josh: wow, you libs always seem to think every Republican candidate is dumb

That's not really a correct summation of our position. For example, based on this post alone, we now know for sure that you're way dumb, too.

Posted by: shortstop on September 21, 2007 at 11:38 PM | PERMALINK

I agree with Kevin that Rudy's answer makes little sense, but so what? It will work for him. That kind of dissembling is what politicians of both parties have to do. Those who do it skillfully get elected.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 21, 2007 at 11:38 PM | PERMALINK

9/11 did highlight the importance of gun rights. If the federal government had not prohibited airlines when it came to allowing them to have armed pilots or armed security on planes, those terrorists with box cutters would never had been successful in their hijacking, and 3,000 Americans would be alive today.

We don't need to invade Middle Eastern countries or take away the Fourth Amendment to be safe from terror. Instead, we should more fully restore the Second Amendment.

Posted by: both the democratic and republican parties suck on September 21, 2007 at 11:44 PM | PERMALINK

Here's the reason 9/11 affected US Const. Amend II: When George Bush and Dick Cheney find a way to say "fuck you constitution!" and stay in office past 2008, it'll be time for one of those revolutions against unjust government that Jefferson and Madison spoke of.

Posted by: MNPundit on September 21, 2007 at 11:54 PM | PERMALINK

Josh: "Giulini's knowledge of the issues would blow about any other candidate out of the water."

Well, let's just say that il Duce Americano's knowledge blows, and leave it at that ...

Now, I hear your daddy calling. Time for you to run along home.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on September 21, 2007 at 11:57 PM | PERMALINK

While speaking to the NRA, Rudy also said (speaking about MoveOn.org):

"So to attack the man's integrity, and honesty, and decency, is in my view indecent. It passed a line that we should not allow American political organizations to pass."
2nd Amendment, OK; 1st Amendment, not so much.

Posted by: Nemo on September 21, 2007 at 11:59 PM | PERMALINK

WTF...the republican base is insane, why do they give there support these guys. Democrat or Republican why would lend your support to someone who utterly unqualified for the office he's seeking.

Posted by: Incredulous on September 22, 2007 at 12:05 AM | PERMALINK

That kind of dissembling is what politicians of both parties have to do.

Right on cue, the "everybody does it" defense.

All you have to do is mention Clinton and you can pick up your check and call it a night.

Posted by: craigie on September 22, 2007 at 12:19 AM | PERMALINK

Palo: I think the staged "call from Judi" was Rudy's idea of a chuckle-inducing family moment.
Apparently, he's done the same stunt before.

Posted by: Nemo on September 22, 2007 at 12:42 AM | PERMALINK

One More Time:
Josh: "Giulini's knowledge of the issues would blow about any other candidate out of the water."

Riiiiiiigggggghhhhhhtttttt, Josh. You really told us, didn't you? Your brilliant refutation of Kevin's post, leads us to two burning questions:

1) Suppose you're right, and Rudy G. is jam-packed with wisdom on "the issues". SO WHEN IS RUDY LIKELY TO DISPLAY ANY OF THIS ENCYCLOPEDIC KNOWLEDGE ON THE PERPLEXING QUESTIONS OF OUR DAY?
[Has he simply been lulling his opponents into a false sense of security???]

2) Do you think Rudy G. has a better grasp than you (apparently an ardent fan of his) of how to spell his last name? [Try "Giuliani", not "Giulini"].

NOTE TO KEVIN: When are you gonna find us some smarter, better-informed trolls???

Posted by: shystr on September 22, 2007 at 12:54 AM | PERMALINK

Maybe the lessons from 9/11 are that George Bush should read his CIA PDB memos, and FBI agents shouldn't ignore female agents who tell them Arab guys are going to crash planes into buildings.

Posted by: Swan on September 22, 2007 at 1:18 AM | PERMALINK

"He's got a small supply of stock phrases (9/11, lower taxes, crime fighter)"

Kevin: you forgot "Islamic terrorism" the phrase Rudy has uttered so much lately that "9/11" is getting jealous (h/t Stephen Colbert).

I think Al was suggesting those who perished in the Twin Towers should have had handguns because that would have protected them from airplanes hitting the buildings, or something like that (it really is hard to follow right wing "logic").

Posted by: Jim in Chicago on September 22, 2007 at 1:35 AM | PERMALINK

Is Rudy Giuliani proposing to let handguns on airlines?

Damn straight the flight crews should be allowed to be trained and carry them.

Posted by: harry on September 22, 2007 at 1:54 AM | PERMALINK

Damn straight the flight crews should be allowed to be trained and carry them.

They should have the appropriate US Marshall, or whatever the appropriate cop is, armed and in plainclothes, and I don't thin almost anyone disagrees with that.

I don't think that's what Rudy's saying, and I don't think he really knows what he's saying. As far as allowing every stewardess to carry a gun-- give me a break.

http://swanpoliticsblog.blogspot.com

Posted by: Swan on September 22, 2007 at 2:02 AM | PERMALINK

So, how's Hillary doing on gun control issues? Oh, right. Not touching them with a ten-foot pole.

Posted by: harry on September 22, 2007 at 2:07 AM | PERMALINK

This "my wife is calling" shtick is amazing. In what world would that be funny?

Posted by: THS on September 22, 2007 at 3:03 AM | PERMALINK

For the record, my opinion of gun control did change as a direct consequence of 9/11. The reason for the second amendment is to provide a balance of power between the government (who control the militia) and the people being ruled. For most of my life I assumed the need for this kind of power balance was obsolete and supported strong gun control. But I must say I was always a little unsure my assumption was correct.

Then came 9/11. Then came Bush's response to 9/11. For quite a while I felt we were only one terrorist attack away from martial law, perhaps even the postponement of elections. Bush proved to me that my assumption was incorrect, we still need the kind of balance the found fathers put in.

Somehow, though, I don't think this is what Rudy had in mind.

Posted by: Mark on September 22, 2007 at 3:04 AM | PERMALINK

"he was making a point that personal rights such as the 2nd Amendment are even more critical in a post-September 11th world."

This is the same speech where he said Moveon should not have been allowed to run the ad.

Posted by: Boronx on September 22, 2007 at 3:13 AM | PERMALINK

Josh: "Giulini's knowledge of the issues would blow about any other candidate out of the water."

Yes, IF he knew anything. Who is this Giulini, anyway? (Guess you must be Joshing us.)

Posted by: Kenji on September 22, 2007 at 3:21 AM | PERMALINK

What does aircraft security being armed have to do with the second amendment? Does the FAA disallow armed officers or locked flight cabins? No? Does the lawsuit that the cities enjoined have anything to do with prohibiting armed security officers? No?

Sheesh.

Posted by: Crissa on September 22, 2007 at 5:12 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, come on, Kevin. If everyone in New York had been armed, they could have opened fire and shot down that second United jet before it hit Tower Two. The whole collapse of the Twin Towers could have been prevented! And Flight 93? If the passengers and crew had been heavily armed, the hijackers would have been Swiss cheese before the plane crashed into that field outside Shanksville!

I sometimes lay awake at night, dreaming of what a glorious, utopian society we would have if every Rush Limbaugh devotee was armed to the teeth. I think Rudolf the Combover shares my vision. Ah, Nirvana...

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on September 22, 2007 at 6:28 AM | PERMALINK

In what world would that be funny?

It even failed as Republican humor. That's just sad, man.

Posted by: shortstop on September 22, 2007 at 8:24 AM | PERMALINK

faux-liberal wrote: "That kind of dissembling is what politicians of both parties have to do."

Really? Then it should be trivially easy for you to find equally stupid examples from among the Democratic candidates, right? We'll be right here waiting.

Posted by: PaulB on September 22, 2007 at 8:55 AM | PERMALINK

As much as the idea of a society that is mature enough to move beyond the necessity of an armed populace brings tears to my eyes, I must remember that we do not live in a utopia. Nor does it look like we will be moving to one anytime soon.

The social conservatives view gun ownership through a personally emotional set of lenses. They use concepts such as crime control and home protection as the justification and framework for a campaign against the left, calling us out for 'undermining the Constitution'. Sorta taking the right side of the issue for all the wrong reasons. Sometimes I wonder why the Dems even got on the wrong side of that issue in the first place, and allowed republicans to bash us with an emotionally charged issue for the next 50 years. Kinda reminds me of abortion. Was all that really really worth it?

Anyway if you look back at the founding fathers intentions, the 2nd amend. was for the protection against tyranny (any form of a corrupted government that doesn't rule with the consent of the people). As a responsible father, I simply cannot endorse any radical measure, such as banning all guns from the populace. That would interfere with my (or my son's) ability to gather, and then drive to Washington D.C with a few thousand of their closest friends, and personally erase Dick and Bush from the face of the earth should they not step down after the next election.

Please note, there is nothing wrong with some good old fashioned safety legislation. Something along the lines of maybe making the age limit to buy: 21 and regulating that all guns in a house with children MUST be locked up at all times, could probably fit that under a child endangerment clause somewhere.

Concealed carry is a nightmare no matter how ya work it, but i guess that is where the debate is atm. Always seems like a nightmare to me that some yahoo would have the ability to instantly and lethally interject himself into any situation, no matter how delicate. America is filled to the brim with retards of all stripes. Having them permenantly armed is just plain scary. Sorry for the long comment by the way, please forgive me if I'm simply rehashing old views, or off the subject all together.

Posted by: Talphon on September 22, 2007 at 9:15 AM | PERMALINK

Kinda reminds me of abortion. Was all that really really worth it?

I am no subscriber to the inutterably foolish view that men have no business commenting on the topic of abortion. This is a legal, social and public policy issue, and every citizen's input is legitimate.

Having said that: When I read a clueless comment like the above, I know without having to look further that the poster is a man...and one who truly does not understand what staggering effects unplanned and unwanted pregnancies can have on the entire lives of many women, not to mention how central the concept of autonomy over one's own body is to any notion of real freedom.

For some reason, it is extremely hard for even some liberal men to get this. We talk a lot here about how liberals beat the pants off conservatives in the ability to empathize, to really put ourselves in the shoes of people who are significantly different from us. It always bemuses me that quite a few liberal men can't seem to cross this particular great divide.

Posted by: shortstop on September 22, 2007 at 9:39 AM | PERMALINK

Rudy's 3-note response query will keep him in the game for awhile. But I think his ride will end in fall '08, as GOP voters walk up to their voting booths.

He doesn't have a rich & famous Dad, he doesn't look or sound like either Lincoln or Reagan, and his playboy life is far too 'Clintonesque'. He also doesn't have that 'born winner' aura. He's going to have to sell himself over and over to every GOP special interest.

Keeping 2000 and 2004 in mind, both Rudy's lack of knowledge on almost every topic and his 9/11 play-back mode are really beside the point. He's not what they want.

Posted by: wishIwuz2 on September 22, 2007 at 10:06 AM | PERMALINK

And Flight 93? If the passengers and crew had been heavily armed, the hijackers would have been Swiss cheese before the plane crashed into that field outside Shanksville!

Ha! gun beats box cutter. Clearly the highjackers wouldn't have had firearms as enemy combatants don't have second ammendment rights. And planes can take a surprising number of hits from intermal gunfire without any real problems.

I saw a plane on 9/11 and could have shot it if I hadn't been on a college campust that doesn't allow firearms.

Posted by: Al's brother on September 22, 2007 at 10:09 AM | PERMALINK

Of course all of the conservatives here understand the "right to bear arms" has no meaning without reading the introductory clause to the 2nd Amendment, which reads, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to a free state...".

In other words, the National Guard (i.e the state militias) has a Constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. Private citizens do not. The Supreme Court decided that almost 70 years ago in U.S. v. Miller. So - GET OVER IT!!!

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on September 22, 2007 at 10:20 AM | PERMALINK


al: For example, if guns had been available at Virginia Tech, dozens of students might still be alive who aren't any more.


are you trying to say iran needs a nuclear weapon?

Posted by: mr. irony on September 22, 2007 at 10:41 AM | PERMALINK

Giuliani is neither a stupid nor lazy man. Anybody who is trying to appeal to wingnuts is going to sound stupid and ignorant, because wingnuts demands that. The facts, remember, have a liberal bias.

Giuliani, although neither stupid nor lazy, is completely unfit to be President. Although he can understand things well enough, he doesn't care about anything but projecting operatic fascist images of domination. As Mayor of NY, he spent about a year and a half dealing with the city's problems (about a C+ overall grade), and spent the next 6 1/2 years as a farcical cop-worshipper. You can add a fair dollop of cronyism to this, as well.

BTW, he does not believe in Republican economics at all. As mayor, he was by no means anti-union, unless the unions trenched on his desire for political monopoly. He had no objection to services (and the taxes to pay for them), although the only one he really cared about was police.

He's not a Republican; he's a fascist.

Posted by: Joe S. on September 22, 2007 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

So does that go for 4th amendment rights as well?

Posted by: tom on September 22, 2007 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINK

Great moments in NRA conventions.

Heston declaring, "They'll have to pry this rifle from my cold, dead hands"

Larry Craig, one of the NRA board members, declaring, "They'll have to pry this Charmin...

and of course, Rudy, "They'll have to pry 9/11...

Posted by: thethirdPaul on September 22, 2007 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINK

Giuliani ... He's not a Republican; he's a fascist.

Posted by: Joe S.

It's becoming harder and harder to tell the difference.

Posted by: Econobuzz on September 22, 2007 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

"Actual knowledge of anything necessary to be president? None."

Kevin, you do remember the 2000 campaign, correct?

The press will never "call him" on this. They love the class clown.

Posted by: scarshapedstar on September 22, 2007 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINK

I have a simple proposal.

Just as the protesters exercising their first amendment rights in political rallies are temporarily imprisoned in free speech zones, the gun owners should be allowed to live only in certain areas of towns where they are allowed to freely exercise their interpretation of their second amendment rights.

Posted by: gregor on September 22, 2007 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

gregor: I have a different proposal. How about we allow people at Presidential appearances to exercise their Second Amendment rights?

Posted by: brooksfoe on September 22, 2007 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

Until the 2nd amendment allows me to buy Apache helicopters, rocket launchers, tanks, machine guns, etc, then the idea that it is going to provide anything close to a "balance of power" between citizens and the government is idiotic.

Posted by: sc on September 22, 2007 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, don't be obtuse. The answer is obvious.

IF Rudy hadn't fallen prey to the lies of the New York Times-reading Liberal Elite who want to deprive God-fearing Americans of their right to keep and bear arms so that the black helicopters of the Trilateral Commission that are hidden inside the basement of the UN can attack Christian abortion protesters in Kansas, then surely one of the Proud American Workers who labored in the Twin Towers would have left home that fateful morning packing not only lunch and a laptop, but also an M2A1 40-millimeter twin anti-aircraft gun.

And when that Patriot saw the airliners being piloted by Islamo-fascists as they bore down on the WTC, he could have cleared his desk, put his conference call on hold, slammed a couple clips of armor-piercing ammo into them, fired up the radar guidance system, and taken 'em out.

Duh!

Posted by: Hemlock for Gadflies on September 22, 2007 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

Giuliani should discuss whether the right to self-defense extends to the right to deal with denials of medical insurance claims.

If not, why not?

Posted by: MacGuffy on September 22, 2007 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

He's got a small supply of stock phrases (9/11, lower taxes, crime fighter) and he just hauls out whichever one seems handiest for the moment

Lucky for him his audience is a media that worships horse-race coverage, has an attention span measured in fempto-Britneys, and considers 'message discipline' no matter how stupid the message the very quintessence of statesmanship.

$10 says he gets the nomination....

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on September 22, 2007 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

Really informative blog and comments too..As you can tell I like your blog and I feel we share sufficient common ground for a link to each others blogs to be mutually beneficial.If you agree to link then please contact me at 'An Unrepentant Communist'

http://unrepentantcommunist.blogspot.com/

on the commments page of the current post,and I will immediately link your blog to mine.Looking forward to hearing from you.
Gabriel in County Kerry Ireland

Posted by: gabriel on September 22, 2007 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK
Until the 2nd amendment allows me to buy Apache helicopters, rocket launchers, tanks, machine guns, etc, then the idea that it is going to provide anything close to a "balance of power" between citizens and the government is idiotic.


Absolutely not true.

In fact, a small band of about 200 Mexican guerrillas have effectively disrupted the Mexican economy by using cheap explosives to destroy Mexican pipelines.

Analogous disruption inside the United States, if there were popular support for the movement, would be feasible.

This is not a post 9/11 world, you see. It is a post Iraq world. And all these Apache helicopters, etc., are like so many tomahawks and cross bows.

Posted by: Alfred on September 22, 2007 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

Giuliani is neither a stupid nor lazy man. Anybody who is trying to appeal to wingnuts is going to sound stupid and ignorant, because wingnuts demands that. — joe s.

you're exactly right, at least in this case. problem is when you've taken sane positions in the past and now have to flip-flop to appeal to winguts you sound ultra stupid and ignorant. his positions on iraq and terrorism in general are stupid and ignorant. and i think if some asked him what he's having for dinner, he'd cite 9/11 in his answer (the world after 9/11 demands that i have the steak tartar).

Posted by: mudwall jackson on September 22, 2007 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

The only way that the Second Amendment would have helped on 9/11 was if the passengers on the United and American flights were packing handguns.

No, Rudy is talking about *post* 9/11.

What he is talking about is that we need to be armed in order to fight against the gvmt's illegal warrantless searches, shipping us off the gitmo, and just maybe to take out an insane POTUS.

Posted by: Disputo on September 22, 2007 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

I actually think that, in the primaries, I will switch over to the Republican and vote for Mitt Romney.

This is in no sense an endorsement of Romney but rather genuine fear of Guiliani, who is outright dangerous. Romney seems to be merely a jerk.

Given the Democrats' Moveon and FISA performance and the Hillary machine, further dealing with them would be pretty useless anyway.

Given the shaky status of the dollar and the federal government's need to borrow, whoever does or does not become president is going to become pretty academic in in the fairly near future anyway.

Posted by: Harrisojn on September 22, 2007 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

It took me a while to read this post. I was still a little choked up at Rudy's moment of authentic family values in action at the NRA speech. You know the one. Answering his cell phone.

Gosh. Rudy you are a god.

Boo hoo hoo.

OK just give me a moment to collect myself. It really touch my heartless, vicious, hate filled, atheist, liberal chest cavity to see a real man showing affection for his latest wife.

Boo hoo hoo.

Sorry. I'll go sit in the corner and get it together now.

Posted by: Cinderella Ferret on September 22, 2007 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, that "purely by chance" call to Rudy was precious.

Shame that Vitter didn't speak and take a return call from the DC Madam.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on September 22, 2007 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

This "my wife is calling" shtick is amazing. In what world would that be funny?

What would be funny is if someone in the answered shouted out, "Which wife?"

Posted by: Disputo on September 22, 2007 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

lol.

answered = audience

i need a drink

Posted by: Disputo on September 22, 2007 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

Doe anyone know of a shooting range that will let you use pics of GWB and Cheney as targets? Would that be covered by the 2nd amendment or the 1st?

Posted by: Disputo on September 22, 2007 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

Giuliani also took a cell phone call from his wife during his speech. Either it was unplanned, in which case he's an asshole, or it was planned, in which case he's a scheming asshole. I suspect it's the latter, because he did the same thing in June with a somewhat more enthusiastic reaction than the NRA gave him.

Posted by: theophylact on September 22, 2007 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

Given the shaky status of the dollar and the federal government's need to borrow, whoever does or does not become president is going to become pretty academic in in the fairly near future anyway.

Posted by: Harrisojn on September 22, 2007 at 1:20 PM

yeah, right. just like it was academic in 2000.|

Posted by: mudwall jackson on September 22, 2007 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

tend to think rudy is a lame scheming asshole. any normal person would either a) turn off his phone or b) leave it with an aide.

i mean come on, the wife is going to call and say "honey could you stop by the store and pick up a gallon of milk on your way home from the campaign trail?" moron

disputo: you made me laugh. and as a bonus, it would work for any of the major republicans!

Posted by: mudwall jackson on September 22, 2007 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

Harrisojn, I already thought of doing the same: re-registering as a republican so I can make sure I do whatever is in my power to ensure Rudy doesn't win the nomination. 'Cause I think he may win against Hillary.

regarding the Virginia Tech incident: if students had been allowed to carry guns think how much MORE bloodshed there might have been (and I'm not sure here, but does the right to bear arms mean supersede the right of institutions to have their own rules for members?). This was not a gun issue, but an issue of a nutjob who went undetected. We do not live in a perfect world. When will America realize that bad stuff happens sometimes that CAN'T that really isn't anybody's fault? Why must we always point a finger when something bad happens in this country? It was horrific, but I just don't see that you can blame this on guns, or lack of access to guns. The only finger we might be able to point is to ask why his mental problems were ignored when they were known?

Posted by: rebecca on September 22, 2007 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

"This is, once again, Rudy the wind-up doll. He's got a small supply of stock phrases (9/11, lower taxes, crime fighter) and he just hauls out whichever one seems handiest for the moment. "

Sounds like a shoe in for the Republican nomination, if not the general election.

Posted by: Rick Taylor on September 22, 2007 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

I think what the Big Rude was saying is that if passenger jets are outlawed, then only terrorists will have passenger jets.

And I can just imagine the Virginia Tech incident with most of the student body packing heat: Public Defender Packing Heat #1, seeing the crazed shooter taking aim, whips out his .38 and snaps off a couple shots, taking out Cho. Yay! But wait. Public Defender Packing Heat #2, seeing Cho get shot by PDPH #1, whips out _her_ .38 and blows away PDPH #1. Oops. Next, PDPH #3 starts opening fire in the general direction of PDPH #2 and Cho, killing and wounding several innocent bystanders. This causes PDPH #4 to open fire in PDPH #3's general direction, killing PDPH #3 and several others...

Posted by: josef on September 22, 2007 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK

Well of course they're connected. 9/11 changed everything. EVERYTHING.

Take "ambidextrous," for example. Perfectly ordinary word meaning equally adept with either hand, right? Does anybody here remember what it USED to mean?

Yeah, I didn't think so. 9/11.

Posted by: john on September 22, 2007 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

>>he was making a point that personal rights such as the 2nd Amendment are even more critical in a post-September 11th world.

Wait, I thought you have no personal rights if you are dead and that the constitution was not a suicide pact? Oh, that only applies to every personal right except gun ownership. I forgot.

Posted by: Orson on September 22, 2007 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

In what possible way did 9/11 affect gun rights?

Well, the first WTC attack obviously didn't change everything. I find it Orwellian that Rudy is some kind of hero, I didnt see hi running around with a gun.

Anyway, the NRA folks think that if everyone had guns, even the terrorists, then the planes would not have been hijacked. Kinda like the Virginia tech [Cho] logic of the gun-nuts, if the students would have had guns they could have stopped it.

Posted by: Ya Know... on September 22, 2007 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

Posted by: Al on September 21, 2007 at 10:48 PM

Good guys wear white hats and bad guys wear black ones, right Al?

Posted by: Ya Know... on September 22, 2007 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK

Another straightforward explanation of Rudy's point. 9/11 changed his views on gun control by making him nationally famous enough to get elected President, provided of course that he shift his views on gun control.

Posted by: brooksfoe on September 22, 2007 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

In Al's world, it is panties, not hats.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on September 22, 2007 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINK

I know that if I had a shoulder-fired rocket launcher on 9/11 I could have stopped those planes.

Rudy is right, if we all had more guns someone would have shot Atta that morning just for being muslim while flying.

Posted by: lilybart on September 22, 2007 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK


Right on Kevin, you know RUDY!!!! A real FAKE....i lived in NYC under his regime,,,,,

Posted by: ernie on September 22, 2007 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

Rudy probably figured out rapidly that the Republican base outside NYC is a collection of idiotic yahoos. All you have to do is recite from the Repubican catechism and project a certain authority when you do it; it does not have to make sense to these people.

Posted by: bob h on September 23, 2007 at 7:55 AM | PERMALINK

**

Posted by: mhr on September 23, 2007 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

Rudy must be referring to all the terroist attacks foiled by gun carrying US citizens. Hey, but this is Earth rather than Twin Earth so that explanation doesn't work.

Posted by: zed on September 23, 2007 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK

Giuliani knows as little about things as GW Bush or a slightly tipsy doormouse does. Definitely White House material.

Posted by: Dr WU-the last of the big time thinkers on September 23, 2007 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINK

Word Association poll. Rudy is considered to be the smarter, more compassionate and most honest candidate among the GOP field. What more can one say?

Posted by: Mike on September 23, 2007 at 10:49 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly