Gunboards Forums banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,560 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I have a better title, but, if I used it, it would be deleated, and I might be banned .......:D

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/09/giuliani_answers_cell_phone_du.html

Giuliani answers cell phone during NRA speech

So Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani was in the middle of an important speech to an audience that was a little skeptical to say the least, the National Rifle Association, many of whose members have some problems with the former New York City mayor's past support for gun control.

He had reached the part where he was talking about the importance of the Second Amendment right to bear arms, the part of his speech this particular crowd really wanted to hear him speak about. Then his cell phone rang.

"Let's see now. This is my wife calling, I think," says Giuliani reaching for the phone in his pocket. He then goes on to do something unheard of for a candidate to do while giving an important speech. He answers the phone.

"Hello dear... I'm talking to the members of the NRA right now. Would you like to say hello? (He laughs, apparently at something she says.) I love you and I'll give you a call as soon as I'm finished, OK? (She says something.) OK, have a safe trip, bye-bye. Talk to you later dear, I love you."

After concluding the call, he says to the audience: "It's a lot better that way."

Then he adds: "Well this is one of the great blessings of the modern age, being always available. Or maybe it isn't, I'm not sure."

Giuliani never fails to surprise, that's for sure. His dressing in drag comes to mind.

But if you're a presidential candidate trying to impress NRA members that you take their issues seriously, maybe you don't want to surprise the audience by taking a phone call right in the middle of your speech. It might help the audience take the speech more seriously.

At an event where previous speakers, like Sen. John McCain, were interrupted by protesters, it's odd that Giuliani would interrupt himself.

And it's even odder that he would reinforce the image many Americans still have of New Yorkers as often rude jerks, the kind who talk to loudly into their cell phones, irritating those around them. Maybe he's called Rudy for a reason.

It's such an amazing moment that at first it appeared to be some kind of pre-arranged stunt. And maybe it was. But what would the purpose be? Was the goal to make him appear like a doting husband in an attempt to soften his image with women?

If that were the case, then his comment after the phone call about it being "a lot better" for him to answer his phone ruined it because it made him seem less the attentive spouse than the husband trying to avoid a scene with his wife.

And what political wife wouldn't understand her presidential candidate husband not taking a phone call because he was in the middle of an important speech? If we accept what Giuliani said at face value, his wife Judith doesn't come off too well, does she? Then again, she didn't fare too well in this recent Vanity Fair piece either.

All in all, a very weird moment in modern American politics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
212 Posts
Sounds like a mistake to me.
Not to mention rude.
And unprofessional.

Just as well,I wasn't going to vote for him anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,811 Posts
No mistake, one thing know about Rudy...

...he's human like the rest of us. A little levity doesn't hurt either! His history of gun control still makes me very nervous... and you still don't get a concrete answer from him. Thompson said it best! BTW this LA Times article never mentions the call... and can't seem to skewer Rudy with their anti-gun agenda either:

Giuliani seeks to bury the hatchet with gun group

He tells an NRA conference he no longer agrees with the lawsuit he filed as mayor of N.Y.

By Michael Finnegan, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
1:00 PM PDT, September 21, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Republican presidential candidate Rudolph W. Giuliani called on the National Rifle Assn. to support him today after he renounced the lawsuit he filed against gun makers when he was mayor of New York.

Speaking to several hundred NRA members at the group's "Celebration of American Values" conference here, Giuliani defended his initial filing of the suit and other anti-gun steps he took as mayor.

"Some people call it excessive," Giuliani said. "I thought it was intense. But the reality is I was trying to achieve a result, which is to reduce crime in New York. That is not necessarily what is needed now. It certainly isn't the interpretation that I think is the correct interpretation of the 2nd Amendment."

New York's lawsuit is one of dozens that state and local governments have filed seeking millions in damages from gun manufacturers for what they alleged was reckless marketing.

"I think that lawsuit has gone in a direction that I probably don't agree with at this point," Giuliani said.

His support of gun control as mayor poses a potentially major obstacle for Giuliani in states where that position is unpopular among Republican primary voters. During the 1990s, he supported a ban on assault weapons and called for a federal law to require all states to license gun owners.

"The NRA, for some reason, I think, goes way overboard," he told television interviewer Charlie Rose in 1995. "It's almost -- it's what the extremists on the other side do. I think the extremists of the left and the extremists of the right have essentially the same tactic, the slippery-slope theory. If you give one point, then your entire argument is going to fall apart, and we kind of get destroyed by that."

But on Friday, Giuliani told the NRA conference: "I would love to have your support in the future. Mostly I'd like us to respect each other, because I think we have very, very legitimate and similar views, even though there may be some differences here and there."

Giuliani was interrupted by frequent applause as he told the crowd of his staunch support for the right to bear arms and his dedication to strict enforcement of gun laws already on the books.

"We need to have zero tolerance for crime committed with a gun," he said. "After all, it's people that commit crimes. Not guns."

Most of the audience gave Giuliani a standing ovation after the speech.

"I like what he said," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA.

The conference attracted most of the major GOP rivals, who came seeking votes and support.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a longtime opponent of gun control, did not mention Giuliani by name but took several jabs at him.

"Some even call you extremists," McCain said. "My friends, gun owners are not extremists. You're the core of modern America."

McCain went on to chastise legal efforts by mayors who have filed lawsuits that attempt to "cripple our firearms manufacturers by making them liable for the acts of violent criminals."

"This was a particularly devious effort to use lawsuits to bankrupt our great gun manufacturers," McCain said. "A number of big-city mayors decided it was more important to blame the manufacturers of a legal product than it was to control crime in their own cities."

Another Republican White House contender, former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee, told the group that he had recently visited a gun store in New Hampshire and a gun show in Florida.

"My philosophy does not depend on my geography," Thompson said.

He recalled the A ratings he won as a senator from the NRA in the 1990s.

"It's not just a matter of promises made, as far as I'm concerned," he said. "It's a matter of commitments that have been kept."

Giuliani is not the only Republican presidential hopeful to face grief for backing gun control measures earlier in his career. Mitt Romney, who had a mixed record on guns as governor of Massachusetts, told the NRA conference in a videotaped message that he had "worked closely with the NRA and the Gun Owners' Action League to advance legislation that expanded the rights of gun owners in my state."

"And my door was always open to you, and that will continue to be the case if I'm elected president," he said.

Earlier this year, Romney told a New Hampshire crowd that he had hunted "pretty much all my life," but he became the butt of late-night talk show jokes after backtracking the next day.

"I've always been, if you will, a rodent and rabbit hunter -- all right, small, small varmints, if you will," Romney said. "And I began when I was, oh, 15 or so, and have hunted those kinds of small varmints since then -- more than two times."

Another Republican candidate, former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, told the NRA conference that he had long hunted duck, turkey and deer. He also said he was on a three-man team that once won an antelope-hunting contest.

Needling Romney, who recently became an NRA member, Huckabee said: "I didn't just join last year. I've been part of the organization for a while."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
212 Posts
I see your point,Connie.

However,I still think it reenforces some of my negative views about Rudy's commitment and professionalisim.
His brand of New Yawk Double Speak doesn't help.

The only way I'd consider voting for Giuliani is if Thompson doesn't get the nod.
Fred's looking like the best candidate so far,in what is easily the most mediocre field of politicians in a very long time.
 

·
Diamond Bullet Member/Moderator
Joined
·
7,979 Posts
"His support of gun control as mayor poses a potentially major obstacle for Giuliani in states where that position is unpopular among Republican primary voters. "

Typical LA times. You'd think Republican primary voters were the only group to feel this way.

On Thompson, Dobson dissed him yesterday - http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=200613

The MSM is taking him apart, yesterday painting him as totally out of touch when he was asked about drilling for oil in the Everglades. Of course that just means they're scared of him, but I'm starting to have a few doubts myself. His vote for McCain/Feingold was always a problem for me. I didn't know until recently that he had been put in charge of the committee investigating Clinton's campaign contributions from the Chinese. Apparently, the whole thing was dropped when he basically let Democrats on the committee walk all over him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,161 Posts
Said it before, I'll say it again.

When it comes down to Election Day, I will if necessary crawl on hands and knees over 200 yards of broken glass to vote for whoever the Republican primary voters have determined to be our candidate against Hillary or Obama or Edwards.

If that happens to be Rudy, then it will be Rudy. I will NOT sit out an election and I will NOT useless vote 3rd party. If the best I can do is vote for the least disgusting of the two candidates which will be the President, then that is exactly what I will do.

I would hope the rest of you feel as strongly about your country to do the same.

For what it is worth, I heard this exchange Rudy had on the Radio. It was funny. Even the NRA crowd laughed at it. Just reading about it doesn't do it justice.

As far as guns, at a minimum I have to at least feel that the Republican we chose will not make things worse than they are. I am pretty happy with the status quo as far as gun rights go. Could be a little better, could be a lot worse.

This is one of the reason I'm not shackled to a nutcase like Paul. Thompson, Romney, even Rudy...as long as they can convince me they won't make things worse, I'll be fine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,560 Posts
Discussion Starter #7

·
Diamond with Oak Clusters Bullet Member
Joined
·
58,812 Posts
If your wife calls, and you do not answer, you can be in big do-do.

But then if your wife controls you like this now, think what she could do if she was the wife of the president.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,811 Posts
Said it before, I'll say it again.

When it comes down to Election Day, I will if necessary crawl on hands and knees over 200 yards of broken glass to vote for whoever the Republican primary voters have determined to be our candidate against Hillary or Obama or Edwards.

If that happens to be Rudy, then it will be Rudy. I will NOT sit out an election and I will NOT useless vote 3rd party. If the best I can do is vote for the least disgusting of the two candidates which will be the President, then that is exactly what I will do.

I would hope the rest of you feel as strongly about your country to do the same.

For what it is worth, I heard this exchange Rudy had on the Radio. It was funny. Even the NRA crowd laughed at it. Just reading about it doesn't do it justice.

As far as guns, at a minimum I have to at least feel that the Republican we chose will not make things worse than they are. I am pretty happy with the status quo as far as gun rights go. Could be a little better, could be a lot worse.

This is one of the reason I'm not shackled to a nutcase like Paul. Thompson, Romney, even Rudy...as long as they can convince me they won't make things worse, I'll be fine.
I never thought you would entertain such low expectations... "feelings" really don't enter into the candidate equation for me. I want to know their platform and I'm not willing to accept wishy washy platitudes in lieu of a well defined platform; which I might add, Rudy doesn't have. I mean what the hell is: "even though THERE MAY BE SOME differences here and there." AND "I think that lawsuit has gone in a direction that I PROBABLY don't agree with at this point," ..... I don't think anyone here would sit out an election though a few would uselessly vote a Third Party Conspiracy Candidate.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,346 Posts
I never thought you would entertain such low expectations... "feelings" really don't enter into the candidate equation for me. I want to know their platform and I'm not willing to accept wishy washy platitudes in lieu of a well defined platform; which I might add, Rudy doesn't have.
How can any expectations be too low when dealing with politicans? If we had high expectations based on reliable information, we wouldn't make them run for President every 4 years.

And I have little expectation that those platforms carefully crafted by their campaign staff to offend nobody and make every special interest group smile will ever come to fruition. They are designed to win votes, not reflect the candidates real beliefs and plans, beyond the extent needed to avoid the accusation of flip-flopping or being wishy-washy or having no core ideals.

I tend to look at what they've done, not what they promise, unless they've really nailed themselves to the cross for something specific, where they can be accused, fairly, of lying if they dont produce. Under that criteria Rudy is just a couple of steps above the economic and international disaster that would be a Ron paul presidency. Giuliani would be somewhat more acceptable if he was forced to nail down specific pro-gun initiatives that he promised to support, like a national right to carry law, but so far I've seen nothing along that line. So far is just BS on crime fighting:

"Rudy Giuliani is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. He understands that every law-abiding American has an individual right to keep and bear arms that is guaranteed by the Constitution. To deal with a city where crime was out of control, Mayor Giuliani worked to get guns out of the hands of criminals — resulting in a 66% drop in the murder rate and 72% reduction in criminal related shootings. The best way to deal with gun crime is to prosecute the criminals and enforce the laws already on the books. Rudy Giuliani will make sure that if someone commits a crime with a gun, they will go to prison for the mandatory sentence."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,908 Posts
...I saw Rudy's phone answering stunt on the news this morning and , it seems, Ol' Rudy is addicted to lame and silly acting out like the crossdressing act he pulled, and others. When the chips are down, he's up. When it comes to being steady and reliable and predictable, he has has his ups and downs. I don't like his clowning around, but you get the whole hog and can't just carve off the bacon. If he's nominated, I'll hold my nose and vote. Not for the Hillarcow, or Osama, or the Libertarian joke. I think Connie's right about that.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
34,398 Posts
Quote from CC: If the best I can do is vote for the least disgusting of the two candidates which will be the President, then that is exactly what I will do.

That's what I did in 2004. I was never enamored with W, but he was the less noxious of the two candidates. He at least has left gun owners alone, which is something Clinton certainly did not do, and which Kerry would not do.

I think that Fred is the only potential candidate which would do the same. Rudy, McCain, et al have all shown at one time or another that they will go against gun owners. Yep, Fred did vote for McCain-Feingold, but on balance he, IMHO, would be the least likely to buy into anti-gun legislation.

That having been said, like ole Davey, if it came to Rudy vs Hillary or Yo Mama Obama, I'd pull the R lever. If you got a sh*t hand, you gotta play it the best you can.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,908 Posts
....W's two Supreme Court justices are probably going to be the best thing he's done. The gift that keeps on giving. The Parker case may, just may, be the biggest bulwark against guncontrol we ever will get. Or it may be a bust, God help us.

....Gunny's like us are a small part of the electorate. We got lucky with W, but we can only lose by getting in a snit, taking our ball ( the vote ) and going home to piss and moan alone. Folks who believe strongly about things, as we do about guns, always have a hard time accepting failure or half a loaf. The real danger is that we will get discouraged and quit. That's what the lefties, the Libertarian looney's and the anti-gunners have as their goal, to break our faith and fidelity in our cause....freedom.


.....SCREW THE BASTARDS. I will NEVER quit fighting them until my last breath. And I'll leave a little bit for my brothers to keep kicking them when I'm gone. When they finally cross that river to sit underneath the big tree, I'll kick 'em out into the hot sunlight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,161 Posts
I never thought you would entertain such low expectations... "feelings" really don't enter into the candidate equation for me. I want to know their platform and I'm not willing to accept wishy washy platitudes in lieu of a well defined platform; which I might add, Rudy doesn't have. I mean what the hell is: "even though THERE MAY BE SOME differences here and there." AND "I think that lawsuit has gone in a direction that I PROBABLY don't agree with at this point," ..... I don't think anyone here would sit out an election though a few would uselessly vote a Third Party Conspiracy Candidate.
I wasn't expressing "feelings" about any candidate. I was expressing emotions that I possess for this country. If you are not animated by similar emotions about America, what does animate you?

My post merely stated my position in the worst case scenario, that being Rudy is the guy GOP primary voters decide to send up against Hillary. I'm not going to vote for Rudy in the primary, but I'm just one vote and I can be overriden by a majority if they decide on Rudy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,705 Posts
I wasn't expressing "feelings" about any candidate. I was expressing emotions that I possess for this country. If you are not animated by similar emotions about America, what does animate you?

My post merely stated my position in the worst case scenario, that being Rudy is the guy GOP primary voters decide to send up against Hillary. I'm not going to vote for Rudy in the primary, but I'm just one vote and I can be overriden by a majority if they decide on Rudy.
There comes a time when it's more important to send the party of your choice a message than to win the presidency for a term. If we ignore Guiliani's platform entirely and elect him just because of the "R" after his name we're telling the GOP it's OK to put up just about anybody.

If it were just one plank in his platform I would go ahead and vote for him, but it's just about all of them...
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,346 Posts
And if the other party's platform, and their record, is worse than Rudy's?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,705 Posts
Every election is a balancing act between attracting the core conservatives/liberals to the polls and getting the 10% independants in the middle to vote for your side. If the core conservatives hold their nose and vote for a liberal candidate the entire country slides to the left. If the core doesn't support the liberal candidate, the Senators ensure the country doesn't slide for four years (spurred by the shock of the lost election), the party that lost re-evaluates and the next election presents a candidate that is more acceptable to the base.

In other words, we lose more by accepting a leftist Republican than by losing the election.

Again, in this case it isn't just one or two things, it's most of them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,161 Posts
Sorry, but I am simply not interested in witnessing what damage a President Clinton and both houses of Congress can do to this country, my rights, and the economy in the four years it takes America to figure out that it didn't mean to go that far Left.

It only takes one bill to kiss your semi-automatic rifles goodbye. It only takes one bill to socialize our nation's healthcare into mediocrity.

Lyndon Johnson only had one term and the leftovers of Kennedy's term. With that and control of both Houses he was able to foist upon us "The Great Society". The single biggest lurch towards socialism since The New Deal.

Once that sort of hideous spending gets it's foot in the door, it becomes damn near impossible to reverse the trend. Indeed, that many Americans consider themselves entitleld to the fruits of other people's labor through government redistribution is largely the result of being "taught" to think that way by "The Great Society".

And you think the best strategy would be to lose an election to a woman who wants to nationalize 7% of our nation's economy in the hopes that we might decide to return to our more conservative roots four years later?

What if that isn't what happens? The stakes are WAY too high for this sort of theoretical gaming of the system. Your worst case scenario involves losing in the hopes that things will get better later. My worst case scenario involves voting for the one of the two candidates I can chose from who agrees with me more than the other.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,908 Posts
In other words, we lose more by accepting a leftist Republican than by losing the election.

Again, in this case it isn't just one or two things, it's most of them.

....We win by losing and lose by winning. Mr. Orwell called that doublespeak for a reason David. You've perfectly captured the Looney Libertarian credo, that they actually win when they get the otherside elected, because in some faroff eventuallity shrouded by the mists of future time, the electorate will come to their senses and finally vote them into power.
...Gunrights may mean much to you and I, but to the vast majority of folks they don't mean squat. And most folks really believe that there is a place where the Goobermint has stored up their Social Security payments against the day they retire. They believe Medicare is free. They gladly vote bond issues when their State budgets are in cronic deficit.

....They think it doesn't matter to them personally. They believe they can get someone else to pay for it..." The Government ". Not them.

...Bill Clinton truly was a moderate Dimocrat. Hillary isn't, she's a hard Lefty. You think the Senate will save you ? Balderdash !
 

·
Silver Bullet Member an all around excellent guy
Joined
·
47,705 Posts
If your wife calls, and you do not answer, you can be in big do-do.
My wife is mature enough to understand that if I don't answer the phone its because I can't and she's just going to have to wait.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top