Skip to comments.In Matters Big and Small, Crossing Giuliani Had Price (Rudy Hits Low and Hard)
Posted on 01/22/2008 6:05:07 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o
click here to read article
so you find the screed proof of his being a conservative??? and there is plenty of time yet for screeds for the eventual republican nominee, don’t think they aren’t coming.
Not all charities are alike. I like to see gay activists taken down a few pegs. Not to mention groups after Federal Housing.
Never claimed that.
there is plenty of time yet for screeds
True, but I find it strange that the only ones that appear in the NYT now are targeted at Giuliani.
doesn’t strike me as strange, he is the hometown boy candidate etc. makes sense they would be more preoccupied with him than elsewwhere. i mean other than fox news, which is still trying desperately to breathe life back into those glowing embers of his candidacy.
I’ve never been in the wordwork (see my freeper home.) But it’s true that Rudy articles are surfacing — probably because the next primary is FL.
So basically, you don't believe in equal protection under the law. That's kinda one of the tenets of conservatism.
Yeah, however many papers would be shilling FOR the home town candidate.
NYT and other papers are fawning over McCain.
And Madame Hitlery, the other "hometown" girl? Where's the screeds against her?
Liberal elitists DON'T want Rudy. They don't mind McCain.
The Big Picture.
Fred was my first choice but the so called republicans won’t have anything to do with him. I don’t see much difference in what’s left. I think Rudy would be a real bastard and I’m about ready for someone like that. I’m really off of GW and don’t want another get-a-longer.
Republican elitist perverts (Log Cabin, Country Club for Growth, Wall Street Journal, Fox News) tried to cram Rudy down the throats of conservatives.
It didn't work.
Neither you nor I know the facts of the case. However, you are choosing to believe all that the NYT prints in this column.
I don't believe either the Times nor gay activists just because they're talking.
My feeling is that they're trying it with McCain and Romney as well.
However, my point still stands. The LIBERAL elitists hate Rudy. They don't mind either Romney or McCain.
I do believe you should have kept reading.... particularly my clarification to one other person who misread my statement and my meaning.
why would there be a screed against their own party hopeful? sorry, but i just don't find NYtimes invective against him sufficient to propel Rudy aheadall equally distasteful.
why would there be a screed against their own party hopeful? sorry, but i just don't find NYtimes invective against him sufficient to propel Rudy ahead. they are all equally distasteful.
don't know how that got screwed up on the prior post, but fixed it : )
I see that the New York Times interviewed everyone who claimed to have a nervous breakdown because of Giuliani. (Ever notice how leftists are so emotionally fragile?)
It’s nice how they then went and interviewed various officials in the Giuliani administration for their side of the story. Oh, wait, they didn’t do that.
But why are we worrying about Giuliani anyhow? I think he's toast. Unless his buddy Pat Robertson can pull him out of his slump!
Who cares what liberals think?
It is the elitist pukes in the Republican party that I listed who tried to impose Rudy on the party. Even this weekend I heard Steve Forbes touting his favorite pervert for president. These people need a good political beating and they're getting one right now.
I'm not sure what you're saying. Sufficient to propel him where?
Get the smelling salts, the mayor played hardball. Giuliani took over a city entrenched with democrat trash. Before Rudy, nobody rocked the boat and everybody got a piece of the pie. Dems were backslapping and yucking it up on the taxpayer’s dime while NYC went down the toilet.
Along came Rudy! He demanded loyalty or he’d do everything he could to make your life miserable or, better yet, get rid of you. Cross him, screw around or play cutesy and Rudy Giuliani would come after you with a ten ton hammer. The NYT collected quotes from disgruntled people who stood in the mayor’s way.
This is what Bush should have done with the Clintonistas. It’s what Rudy Giuliani will do if elected president. You want change? Just read this article and smile.
But instead the base leans towards McCain and Huck, oh well, we get what we ask for.
LOL. And isn't it funny how many FReepers here are believing the NYT?
oh,sorry, part of the botched posting. i said i do not find NYTimes invective against Rudy to be sufficient to propel him ahead of McCain and Huckabee on the desirability scale. they are all three equally distasteful. Rudy’s bargeload of personal baggage will sink him, Huck’s religiosity will sink him [the MSM will make him out to be Jimmy Swaggart were he the nominee], and McCain will have a meltdown if he is seriously challenged and lose his mind out in public somewhere. They cannot prevail in the general.
That warms the cockles of my heart too, Josef.
My main point is that the mother-ship of liberal news is fawning over McCain (and has been for some time) and railing against Rudy.
They want McCain and have wanted him all along. Regardless of whether Giuliani gets the Repub nod, they NTY does NOT want Rudy as nominee.
I understand you point here, and yet I do wonder whether Giuliani himself is on speaking terms with former officials of the Giuliani administration.
But I'm willing to be persuaded. Whom would you suggest?
Rudy has been proposing cutting the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% for some time.
McCain and Romney just recently started saying the same thing.
The NYT doesn't like such proposals. They know that Rudy is the one of the 3 who is much more likely to originate and execute such ideas. My suspicion is that this is why the NYT is after Rudy.
They probably don't want Charles Manson as nominee, either. That means nothing. Hardly anyone (except for degenerate poofs like Steve Forbes) wants Rudy as nominee. That's what the polls are telling you.
The Republicans who have tried to push Rudy on this party need to be viewed and treated as maggots. They wanted to turn this party into a cesspool. As far as I'm concerned, guys like Steve Forbes can burn in hell with Rudy.
and in the unlikely event Rudy becomes the nominee, he will have provided the NYTimes and the rest of the MSM with sufficient ammo to take him out. his appalling personal life and shady business dealings.
Oh, they have ammo vs. McCain and Romney too, never fear.
They just don't want to unload it this early. They want one of them to get the nomination first.
Giuliani they are not willing to allow to get that far. I believe they think him more dangerous.
it appears your positive feelings towards Giuliani want to give him the benefit of that doubt. i don’t share them. With fred now out, i will vote for Mitt as the least distasteful alternative in the VA primary on 2/13.
Actually, my comments here are based on observations of what the NYT has printed and is printing. Their motives may not be that hard to figure out. Being riddled with communist ideology, the paper hates fiscal conservatism with a passion.
I do have my reservations about Giuliani and always have had, but I tend to believe he's the most fiscally conservative of the 3. I believe the NYT tendency to soft-pedal McCain and Romney while blasting Rudy in this and many other columns support my belief.
One of the rules of good journalism is "if your mother says she loves, you, check it out." If the New York Times were a good newspaper, and some guy says "I had a nervous breakdown because of what Giuliani did to me" I would call the heads of the agency that made the decision against the guy. Why did they say they did it?
After printing both sides' explanations, the next step is to find any relevant facts that may influence the argument. Let's say person A says "I was fired because I stood up to the administration" and person B says "Not true. We had to let everyone go with less than two years of experience because of budget cuts." The reporter should then see if everyone with less than two years of experience really was fired. The resolution of that question will make one side's argument look better than the other side's, but that's not bias--only reporting the facts.
The next step would be to provide some context. One of the shoddiest articles I ever read was trying to make the case that nearby military testing in the town where I grew up was causing increased rates of cancer. The article claimed "this town had a higher rate of cancer than what would be expected." Any decent journalist would have asked a few experts and noted that the town in question was a farming community at high altitude, and thus had a high rate of skin cancer. They didn't consider the larger picture that cancer rates vary from place to place.
Anyway, the New York Times in this case neither provided the opposing arguments nor gave many supporting facts nor provided context. It's not the way a real newspaper would behave.
I dont want Rudy around next year to stick his knife in every conservative group that crosses him
Not sure who I’m backing, but isn’t this the same paper that told us that our soldiers are coming back from Iraq and turning into murderers?
I wish you had a great deal of influence over the news media in this country. You seem to have high standards of researching and presenting verifiable facts. It would be good for our intellects to be exposed to such muscular and principled journalism on a regular basis.
Yeah, it’s the crap NYT. So your scepticism is entirely appropriate. TIFWIW.