The Jerusalem Post sent me this electronic solicitation from Rudy Giuliani courting the pro-Israel vote. I suppose you could see it as a "Rudy — Good for the Jews" type of message, but there are a lot of goyim among the electorate equally interested in such a stance (me, for one):
As a longtime friend and staunch supporter of Israel during my entire public life, I want to share with you my deep concern for the Jewish state and ask for your support as I campaign to become the next President of the United States.
We are at a crucial moment in history. We are once again at a point where the free world’s resolve in fighting evil is being tested.
In the 1990’s, we had the blinders on with regard to Islamic terrorism. Coddling terrorists — even applauding for winning the Nobel Peace prize as was done with Yasser Arafat — is a policy we cannot return to.
Yet, these blinders are still worn by some people who wish to lead our country.
I don’t know whether Rudy is the right candidate when it comes to this issue or not, but in the interests of
employing as many ethnic stereotypes as possible, I’ll tell you this: I was at the Stage Deli on 7th Avenue Saturday, and he has his own sandwich. That’s something, right?
Related Posts
Well, Rudy’s sandwich looks kosher, and rather yummy.
Playing the stereotype game is fun, but what do you make of Pistol-toting Jews patrolling their neighborhood? More to the point, what might they think of Rudy’s Second-Amendment stance?
Their complaint that there’s no police presence, or at least not when the bad guys are active, would seem to make them Rudy fans because of his record against crime in New York.
I would have thought Rudy’s sandwich would have been equal parts ham, baloney, and hot dog.
Look at me, I’m Rudy G.
I was the Mayor of NYC!
My lucky number isn’t 7,
I owe it all to 9/11!
John McCain’s an old fuddy-duddy,
And Bernie Kerik is my best buddy!
I have no fear of Senator Fred,
With a wife that young, he’ll soon be dead!
Mormon Mitt’s been married once,
Three times for me – don’t tell the nuns!
Vote for me, I’ll clean up the mess,
And at State Dinners, I’ll wear a dress!
Today during a riff about the illegal alien bill Rush Limbaugh referred to our senior senator as “Lindsey Grahamnesty.”
While this hasn’t anything to do with Rudy, I thought it worth a mention because it is at once so devastating and so funny. As big as Grahamnesty’s ego must be, I can imagine him sitting in his office fuming about this moniker, and wondering why we “little people” don’t recognize his tremendous intellect and simply acknowledge that he’s right about the illegals.
He’s such a pompous ass, and I sincerely hope Rushs’ piercing satire riles him up…Grahamnesty is most fun when his supercilious little voice begins to crack…like it did when he was screaming on the senate floor this week about the death of his bill. Ed
I’ve searched around and have not noticed Rudy really pandering to Jewish interests, but I’m probably wrong because politicians by nature pander.
I have noticed inconsistencies in what other candidates have been saying about Israel, and the one who stands out is John Edwards. On or about 1/23/2007 he said this to an audience in Israel:
Here’s another source documenting this rather uncompromising viewpoint.
But, less than two weeks later, he seemed more compromising:
I guess in his case it’s not who you are, but what the composition of your audience is.
Mike, I think you’re correct on this point, but I think the point is sharper than you’ve made it: I think the point is that Edwards will say absolutely anything in order to favorably impress whatever audience he happens to be standing in front of at the moment, and that he then depends upon a sycophantic press to conveniently forget what he’s said and not hold him to account for it. Seems to me that nearly all liberal democrat candidates get this favorable treatment from the press, while any conservative candidate can expect a hostile press to build a condo in his butt with no permit, over any untoward word. But let’s face it, Edwards quite frankly needs all the frickin help he can get, press or otherwise. If you could unzip the back of this guys’ head I am convinced some form of slithering reptilian alien would climb out. Just as North Carolinians were disappointed in this slimeball as their senator, we’ll rue the day we elect him for anything higher than national lottery coordinator. Ed
Ed – I don’t disagree one bit. Even Democrats seem to be catching on.
Back to Rudy, I think the guy really cemented his relationship with not only the Jewish community, but with right-thinkin’ folks of all religious persuasions when, in October 2001, Rudy told Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz Alsaud to take his $10 million and shove it sideways up his oil rig, as it were:
The guy seems adept at buying loyalty, but it didn’t work with Rudy.
(Hat tip to Charles.)
Rushs’ piercing satire
Hahahahaha!
“Sycophantic press?” With regard to Edwards? I thought I was the big fat jerk who was so mean to Edwards.
I get so confused.
And just to be perfectly clear — Rudy can court the pro-Israeli vote, or the Jewish vote, or whatever, as hard as he can. That’s fine by me. That’s a vote I tend to agree with. It’s the anti-terrorist vote. It’s a vote for THE hard-pressed democracy in the Mideast. It’s hard to imagine a nation whose fate would be more important to the United States. One can debate the various approaches that are best for Israel, from Oslo to the hard line, but once you figure out the best course for Israel, that’s the course I’m for.
I like Rudy. I liked him as mayor. I liked him as tough prosecutor before that. Sure, there’s his philandering, and his position on abortion that’s hardly consistent with his being a Catholic. But I’m not throwing stones.
I like Biden. I like Richardson. I would like Obama if not for his position on the war, which is tough to ignore since he makes such a big deal of it. I might like Fred Thompson if I felt like I knew more about him. (And you know what’s weird about that? I’ve probably been hearing about Fred longer than y’all have — I worked in this business in Tennessee from 1974 to 1985, and I remember when his client who made him famous, Marie Ragghianti, was considered a relatively minor character in the whole Ray Blanton mess — but I still can’t tell you much about who he is, beyond his impressive persona.)
But right now, for me personally — not the editorial board, for which I am not speaking now — it’s hard to stack any of them up against McCain.
If McCain doesn’t make it for whatever reason, for me personally, it will be a matter of choosing which of the other people I like is best.
I missed this: Yesterday Rudy unveiled his “Twelve Commitments” to the American people, “a bold vision aimed at moving America forward through change and reform, overcoming new challenges and increasing accountability in Washington.” Here they are:
Such a succinct statement will be a big help in letting voters and contributors decide.
Except for number 1, which makes absolutely no sense, who would oppose any of these things? Take number 3. Every candidate who has ever run for president want to eliminate wasteful spending. And number 5. What political candidate is opposed to making Washington accountable? And number 10. What politician would propose making America’s cities less prepared for terrorist attacks and natural disasters? Rudy could have saved some ink by simply saying: “I’m going to improve the welfare of all Americans”. As they say, the devil is in the details.
Once again, the tragic cognitive disconnect that this country must find some way to overcome:
No. 1 makes all the sense in the world. It’s sort of a bumper-sticker version of what I’ve been saying for the past six years, but if you’re going to force it into a bumper-sticker, I suppose it works.
That bud would say it “makes absolutely no sense” — rather than “I disagree” or “I would put it another way” — illustrates the depth of our problem. I say that not to criticize bud, but to describe the challenge facing us. If a significant number of Americans have trouble connecting with the concepts to which Rudy refers, and we’re unable to overcome that, this country is doomed. Not just because of Iraq, but because we don’t understand the fundamental things that are necessary to know in the long run.
Let’s go through #1 one step at a time. It can have a multitude of meanings and interpretations. I could actually adopt this same exact pledge even though I’m adamently opposed to the Iraq war:
“I will keep America ….”
Rudy is implying here that as the president he will bring American resources into play to address the remainder of the sentence. Of course he can only do what congress and the courts allow him to do. So a pledge of this type assumes a level of power that a president is not given to him by the constitution. Does this mean Rudy is willing to go beyond those powers granted to him in the Constitution? I doubt that’s what he means but that IS what this says.
“… on offense …” This can mean almost anything. Is he suggesting we will pursue aggressive practices to use military force in foreign nations? Offense is certainly a more combative term that defense, which would imply a more restrictive approach (using intelligence and diplomacy) for protecting the American people. If so, does this mean we will invade additional countries?
” … in the Terrorists’ ….” Who are these Terrorists? Al-Qaeda? Hammas? Sunni insurgents? Shiite insurgents? Lone killers such as the Virgina Tech assassin? This is just not clear to me.
“… War on Us.” This is the one that bothers me the most. What war is he talking about? Is there some official declaration of war by some credible nation state? There are certainly people that want to do us harm but that doesn’t make this a war. That just makes this a significant police action.
Bottom line. This could mean many different things. Therefore it makes no sense as worded.
Brad –
You are right about bud being a symptom. But in his case it’s not that he has “trouble connecting with the concepts to which Rudy refers,” he refuses to. By all means necessary. Just look at his response your comment. I’m not sure if he’s a deconstructionist, a Wonderlandian of the Humpty-Dumpty strain, or just a troll wannabe.
But he won’t even respond to my request: Give us a rough timetable and the measures you’d put in place to withdraw our forces while ensuring the safety of the Iraqi people. He asserts that his position can be readily discerned by reading the vast body of comments he’s generated on this site. I started reading them, but got only more confused and an aching head.
I think I’ll regard his comments as your blog’s Tourette syndrome, ignore them, and enjoy the rest.
>> Give us a rough timetable and the
>> measures you’d put in place to withdraw
>> our forces while ensuring the safety of
>> the Iraqi people
Is that our mission? to ensure the safety of the Iraqi people? I thought it was to get rid of Saddam and the weapons of mass destruction? then it was to establish a pseudo-democracy between all the variuous sects, right? then it was to stop the influx of Al Queda into Iraq in response to our presence there, right? So now it’s
ensuring the safety of the Iraqis? The only objective we have accomplished so far was getting Saddam (still looking for that elusive Bin Laden though)… other than that, Mission Unaccomplished.
It’s about oil, Mike. Plain and simple. You think George Bush goes to bed at night worrying about the safety of the Iraqi people? If he does, then he should be impeached.
The true meaning of Rudy’s 12 commitments: You know what I REALLY mean.”
1. I will keep America on offense in the Terrorists’ War on Us.
“I will disregard the views of a majority of Americans and continue to put American soldiers in harms way in Iraq’s civil war, thus creating an environment to foster even more terrorist recruting and Anti-American sentiment.”
2. I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders, and identify every non-citizen in our nation.
“I’ll end illegal immigration by opening our borders to anyone with $5000 who wants to work for below minimum wage. I’ll create a national id card but not prosecute all of the companies who hire people who do not have them. Muchas gracias!”
3. I will restore fiscal discipline and cut wasteful Washington spending.
“I have no control over the Federal budget whatsoever but this always sounds good. Wait til you get a load of a New Yorker’s view of taxes”
4. I will cut taxes and reform the tax code.
“I don’t have the power to do this but it sounds good. And by “reform”, I mean “give tax breaks to the people who donate to my campaign”. A flat tax or a fair tax would be too easy.
5. I will impose accountability on Washington.
“I’ll get my man Bernie Kerik and a few of my ex-wives working on that right away”
6. I will lead America towards energy independence.
“I mean for everyone else, not me. I still get Air Force One and a dozen Yukons filled with Secret Service agents.”
7. I will give Americans more control over, and access to, healthcare with affordable and portable free-market solutions.
“… not as good an insurance plan as I will have or the member of Congress, but you will get access to free toothbrushes and aspirin.”
8. I will increase adoptions, decrease abortions, and protect the quality of life for our children.
“
9. I will reform the legal system and appoint strict constructionist judges.
“I know 95% of you don’t have a clue what constructionist means, but trust me, the electric chair will have a long line”
10. I will ensure that every community in America is prepared for terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
“I know putting NYC’s anti terrorist offices in the WTC was a mistake, but I learned from my mistakes. ”
11. I will provide access to a quality education to every child in America by giving real school choice to parents.
“I don’t have any control over this either, but it sounds good. Guess this means I won’t be getting Brad Warthen’s vote”.
12. I will expand America’s involvement in the global economy and strengthen our reputation around the world.
“Wait til you see the new McDonalds in Baghdad! And my ex-wife will be performing The Vagina Monologues at the Tehran Opera House.”
The sad thing is that the majority of the American public actually reads this boilerplate crap and thinks it has some meaning. George Bush couldn’t get anything done on Social Security at the height of his popularity… and can’t get anything done on immigration at the depths. Congress runs the show and they’ve gerrymandered the system to ensure re-election.
You slay me, Mike. You don’t even want the U.S. government to attempt to ensure minimally adequate health care for Americans, yet you demand that we come up with ways to ensure the safety of Iraqis.
Of course nothing we can do can “ensure” their safety. They’re not safe now! They’re getting slaughtered by the day, they’re fleeing, and we won’t let them come here! They won’t be safe when we leave! And you know whose fault that is? Yours, and everyone who thought invading Iraq was such a peachy idea.
Doug –
You are correct, I did request the following of bud:
I did so because over here bud wrote of one of my comments:
I don’t think he does, but offered him the chance to support his statement. So far he has not.
I do think that Bush and others do worry about ensuring the safety of the Iraqis. Was it not Colin Powell who said “You break it, you fix it” regarding the invasion of Iraq?
As for your point that it’s all about oil, I disagree. Take a look at
my comments and links to Bush’s rationale for the war.
As for healthcare, I do want all folks to have great healthcare. I just think that it’s discourteous if not downright dangerous for me to demand all the healthcare that kc, Doug, and others here can afford. I have issues — bad habits — the care / cure of will really cut into your salaries and savings. Please, please don’t give me the opportunity to impoverish you.
bud’s timetable for withdrawal: As soon as the aircraft are at the Baghdad airport we’ll have the soldiers race to get the best seat. How’s that for a timetable.
Mike this bit of taunting over the details of a timetable show just how shallow the pro-war folks are on this issue. The Baker/Hamilton report had a timetable. That would serve as good starting point. We could probably ensure the safety of our troops and do this faster though.
As for the security of the Iraqi people. Please. That really shows how deluded the pro-war folks are on this issue. Do you really think they’re safe now???? They’re getting killed in droves. I contend that things will begin to settle down once we leave.