It’s nice to see Rudy Giuliani standing firm on his remarks about Barack Obama. Mr. Giuliani has obviously reached the point where he is answerable to nobody: he is independently wealthy, and has no voters to appease. The Cathedral’s levers therefore having (for now at least) no point of purchase on him, he is free to speak the truth, and cannot be made to grovel or recant. This has the effect, to paraphrase an occasional commenter here, of making “left-wing heads explode”.
The late British reactionary Jonathan Bowden (PBUH) said this:
No people can survive if it incorporates as a mental substructure an anti-heroic myth about itself.
Rudy Giuliani understands this. And he sees, as anyone not blinded by ideological partisanship or crippled by C.I.V. ought to be able to do at this point, that this ‘anti-heroic myth’ is the chief feature of the modern American Left, and of the man who leads it.
31 Comments
I’m glad Rudy spoke up. It’s about time. His comments have struck a widely held nerve. It was also fun to watch the “unbiased” media take to their fainting couches because of it.
Giuliani’s remarks questioning President Obama’s patriotism were despicable.
Your suggestion that his disgusting remarks were an act of courage, or that his wealth enabled him to avoid unspecified punishment from “the Cathedral,” is preposterous. There is a heated competition on the right to see who can say the most outrageous things about Obama. This is not an act of speaking truth to power. It is an act to burnish his credentials among the credulous and excitable right wing base, who will believe anything they hear about Obama as long as he is characterized as being evil and malign.
Why not compare the Obama administration to Nazi Germany and Obamacare to slavery? The loathsome Ben Carson already did that. How about calling him a foreigner? Donald Trump has that franchise. Describing Obama as something besides a “true American”? Sarah Palin struck pay dirt there. Fearful of being left behind, Giuliani says that Obama doesn’t love his country. I guess that keeps him relevant in the Foxiverse and gets his name in the papers.
Were Palin, Bachmann, Carson, Trump, Cheney, and the other passengers on the clown car “made to grovel or recant” after making scurrilous and incendiary falsehoods? Of course not. They got lots of free publicity as they built up their cred with the Obama haters, not to mention generous air time on Fox News to spread their venom further.
The fact that his calumny has no basis in fact is almost secondary. If you want to oppose Obama on policy grounds, then go for it. Making ad hominem attacks on Obama’s love of country is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
Personally, I don’t think that the son of a mob enforcer and convicted felon, who cheated on his second wife with his third wife, surprised the second wife by announcing his intention to divorce in a press conference, is estranged from his son, ruined many lives as a publicity-seeking prosecutor, and whose mayoralty was noted for its bellicosity and belligerence, has the right to criticize anyone, let alone someone who has spent his life in public service, is a role model as father and husband, and who has been completely incorruptible.
I am ashamed that I voted for Giuliani when I lived in New York. What a hateful and angry man, who has no shame in scurrilous attacks on a man who has done far, far more to benefit his country than Rudy Giuliani could ever dream of doing.
Whether George Bush will go down in history as America’s worst President, or whether James Buchanan will retain that dubious honor, remains to be seen. Even so, I don’t recall a single prominent Democratic politician questioning his love of country. I don’t recall Laura Bush being subject to constant mockery and insult. The Obama haters shame themselves, and our country, with this incessant stream of red in the face, barking dog mad vitriol aimed at a sitting President who was elected and re-elected by a majority of voters.
Here’s a crazy theory: maybe the reason nobody questioned George Bush’s love of country (except, um, you-know-who) was because George Bush actually loved his country.
Yeah, well, Pete, I guess we see these things rather differently. But we knew that. Sorry to make your head explode.
I don’t recall saying that what Rudy was doing was an act of courage (indeed, I explained that his position had made it possible for him to say what he did without meaningful risk) — and of course his character is irrelevant here. I praised him only for speaking the truth, and standing firm.
Yeah, why not?
Here Peter, something closer to home you can whine about.
So close, you can drive over and hold up a sign. Maybe meet Rev’m Al, get his autograph.
Who knows, maybe even get your picture took and posted to the NYT?
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-oscars-protest-canceled-2015022-story.html
I basically agree with Giuliani, and I basically agree with the brave kid who spoke in support of him, but this article by Giuliani strikes me as a disappointing hedge. I’m all for the bluntness.
From Thomas Lifson’s piece in The American Thinker today regarding Rudy’s comments-
“Democrats are free to impugn their opponents’ decency and patriotism while Republicans never are allowed to do so. . . . The reason why the taboo against criticizing the love of country applies only to Democrats is because the question cuts too close to home for them, and they control the media enforcers of the taboo.”
Democrats use “civility” as a shield because they know that conservatives care about civility, while Democrats don’t. Thus, reproached for incivility, Republicans will retreat, while Dems will say “screw you, I’m stickin’ it to the man.”
Yes, Kevin, ‘disappointing hedge’ seems about right.
That said, the piece does make one thing clear, and it is effectively what Jonathan Bowden said in the passage I quoted above: that a leader’s patriotism must be obvious and explicit, and that what matters most of all is pride in, and affection for, a nation’s history, people, and traditions. But however much the modern Left may profess to love America’s potential for whatever they imagine greatness to be, they make clear again and again their anitpathy to the traditional American nation: its guns, its racism, its inequalities, its British and European heritage, its religiosity, its patriarchalism, its militarism, its virility, its capitalism, its ‘heteronormativity’, and above all, its whiteness. If they love America at all, it is as a set of political abstracta that offer them the freedom to “fundamentally transform” a deeply flawed nation into something they can, “for the first time in their lives”, be proud of.
President Obama exemplifies this forward-only view of America — as a tainted, sinful nation, whose only, “audacious” hope is the possibility of redemption through wisely guided atonement — in everything he says or does. To a great many Americans, this is painfully, offensively obvious, and we’ve had more than enough of it.
Malcolm:
1) Fair enough. When Rush or Sean or Michele or Donald call Obama “anti-American” (in Palin’s term), I can laugh it off as buffoonery. When Cheney or Giuliani or Gingrich say essentially the same thing — and they all have — it makes my blood boil. These are men who have had positions of great power, and making incendiary and outrageous ad hominem attacks is loathsome. They should know better.
2) Your assertion that Obama thinks of America as “a tainted, sinful nation” – let alone the suggestion that he does so “in everything he says or does” – is, of course, complete and utter nonsense. You would know that if you ever read or saw one of his inauguration speeches, UN speeches, speeches overseas, and campaign speeches here at home. He regularly and emphatically declares his love and admiration for the country as the greatest nation on Earth. (Hint: these references are rarely, if ever, reported in the right wing media, while any critical remarks are repeated ad nauseum.)
However he does not subscribe to the Giuliani equation of patriotism with mindless cheerleading. There are many sins in America’s past, and there are many things we could do better today. Insisting that any discussion of America start and end with the proposition that we are an awesomely awesome nation which has always treated its citizens, as well as citizens of the world, fairly and justly is ludicrous. The notion that we have always acted in the belief that all men are created equal — which was not the case when those words were written, and is not the case now — is absurd. If you want to address and solve the copious problems we face, you do so starting with a reality-based approach, and not hopelessly rose colored glasses. I love my daughter dearly, but I would not hesitate to call her out if she did something wrong. Fortunately, given the superior parenting which she has had, she never does.
Loki: calling a policy unpatriotic is far different than calling someone anti-American. As one example, George Bush shamed the nation by flouting international law and our national character by torturing (innocent as well as guilty) detainees. Shaming the nation with war criminality is deeply unpatriotic. However I would never call Bush anti-American. I am sure he loves the country deeply, and his authorization to torture was a panicked response to a terrorist attack.
JK: I live about 400 miles from LA and don’t go there unless I have to. However I will take your suggestion under advisement.
Whitewall: complete nonsense. You are hard pressed to find examples — if any exist at all — of prominent Democratic leaders questioning the “decency and patriotism” of a Republican leaders. The only example I can think of is Harry Reid calling Bush a “loser” — which he quickly apologized for.
Your statement that “conservatives care about civility” is also nonsense. Is that why Obama is repeatedly called a thug, a dictator, and a King? Is that why he was the first President to be heckled during a SOTU speech? Is that why a few days ago Scott Walker said he “didn’t know” if Obama was a Christian, despite Obama’s frequent invocations of his Christian faith? (I don’t know if Walker sodomized his son this morning before heading to work. Maybe he did. We haven’t discussed it.) The fact is that no President in our lifetimes has been treated as incivilly as Obama. Not even close.
When Bush was President, we repeatedly heard how any criticism of the Iraqi invasion was unpatriotic (Cheney: “”While young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats’ manic obsession to bring down our commander-in-chief.”) and any questioning of Bush’s anti-terror policy puts one “on the side of terrorists” (John Ashcroft) because, you know, terrorists “are going to throw everything they can between now and the election to try and elect Kerry” (Orren Hatch).
Now that Obama is in office, Republicans quickly forgot everything they said about demeaning the President, and started a race to the bottom to see who could be the most outrageous and inflammatory. Unlike Democrats’ legitimate objections to a war and anti-terror policy — both of which led to disastrous results — the Republican attacks on Obama are ad hominem, personal, and entirely untrue. Want to challenge Obama on policy grounds? Bring it on. Question his patriotism or his motives? You just lost all credibility to be taken seriously.
To all: in order to avoid monopolizing these threads as the skunk at the garden party, I’ll continue my recent habit of limiting my responses to one. As my fourth grade teacher would say: discuss amongst yourselves. However I will leave you with an amusing take-down by Jonathan Chait of the chief economist of the Heritage Society. It’s not often that you will see a think tank guy so obviously incapable of thinking.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/02/obamacare-hater-cant-find-single-true-fact.html
Horseshit.
JFK for instance was treated “incivilly in our lifetime” don’t you think?
And I guess one might include
Squeaky v. Ford
Hinckley v. Reagan
Maybe not as President
Germany et al v. Eisenhower
The Imperial Japanese Navy v. GHW Bush
It is not a matter of anyone’s credibility here or anywhere else. Debate policy with Obama? Can’t. As he stated “he won”. “Win some elections” is not a means to debate. He will settle for dictating through executive orders and presidential findings.
Questioning the patriotism etc of liberals is decades old. Soft on Communism soft on defense should be easy to remember. The charge was easy because post JFK it became true.
The only credibility that matters now is America’s with Obama in office. And he still has 22 months left.
Now fast forward to the war against the enemy that shall not be named. Recent history will repeat.
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani said that President Obama “doesn’t love America”.
In response, the OEM exploded (e.g., ‘it makes my blood boil’), “What a hateful and angry man, who has no shame in scurrilous attacks on a man who has done far, far more to benefit his country than Rudy Giuliani could ever dream of doing.”
Which of these remarks is an understated euphemism, and which is a vitriolic ad hominem attack? If that question is too difficult, try this one: Is the OEM off his meds?
I have nothing further to say about Rudy Giuliani. I stopped by simply to announce that we now know that the reason why Jeb Bush has only one wedding photo has much to do with his inventive mother.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-02-23/thanks-to-frank-zappa-jeb-bush-has-just-one-wedding-photo
Or for another treat: St. Francis and the whipping post.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TItmXT8DkM
Frank Zappa…he is now somewhere “raisin’ up a crop of dental floss”.
Sorry, Pete, not buying it.
For starters, even Occam’s Razor should tell you that this man does not love the traditional American nation. Why would he? All of his life, since his birth to a radical African anti-colonialist father and a Communist-leaning mother, he’s been pickled in the sour, anti-American brine, and the deep-red Zinn-fandel, of the far Left. Look at the company he has kept — from Frank Marshall Davis, to the ‘Marxist professors’ he himself says he gravitated to in college, to the Democratic Socialists of America, to Chicago’s socialist New Party, to his endorsements by the Communist Party USA, to Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, to ACORN, to Michael Pfleger and Jeremiah Wright, to Van Jones, Anita Dunn, Al Sharpton, Rashid Khalidi, and on and on and on. This is a man who described the one time in his life that he ever held an actual job at a productive commercial enterprise as being “behind enemy lines”. With a background like that, how could anyone not reasonably assume that he sees this nation in the way I described?
If that weren’t enough, there is the fact that he simply cannot bring himself to praise America without adding gratuitous criticism. Yes, he thinks America’s exceptional, just as the Greeks think Greece is exceptional. Yes, ISIS is bad, but then we had slavery and Jim Crow, you know. (If you think America can’t even look down on ISIS — ISIS! — without prefatory moral equivocation, then you very obviously don’t think much of America.) He can’t even address the United Nations — that den of thieves and scoundrels — without bringing up American racism. As the world recoils in horror from the savagery of Islamic violence, he sends out the DHS director to complain in public about ‘the plight of American Muslims’ — as if Muslims have it better anywhere in the world than they do in the United States.
Yes, he remembers from time to time to add some pro-forma Presidential boilerplate about American decency — but it’s the constant aspersions, the slurs and insults, that reveal the truth. If a man reminds you often enough of what a cheap, skanky whore his wife used to be before she was lucky enough to marry him, no amount of saying she’s turning out better lately is going to make you believe he really loves her. Because if he did, he wouldn’t feel the need to say those things about her, again and again and again.
Finally, if Obama loves the traditional American nation so much, why is he doing everything in his power to displace and dispossess its founding population? Why would he celebrate the disintegration and decomposition of the American demography into a ‘hodgepodge’?
I could go on at enormous length; I am barely getting warmed up here. But why bother? Nothing I could say would have the slightest effect upon your serene, canine devotion to this awful man, this narcissistic sociopath, this wily saboteur of a once-great nation. If you really can’t see, with your own one eye, these obvious truths, then I imagine further discussion will be fruitless.
Rudy was right, with bells on. If anything, he grossly understated the case.
The OEM, he of the 212°F blood, is the gift that keeps on spewing. If he has nothing pertinent to say, he simply slings a non-sequitur or two …
Well then, the reason that intelligent people don’t idolize the current sitting President is that they appropriately picture him as an empty chair.
Inf@#kingdeed.
http://www.huduser.org/portal/affht_pt.html
____________
But. Of course all us FOXfiends would be saying this stuff.
So. Who might be available nonpartisanly to maybe help out here?
http://20committee.com/2015/02/07/obamas-faith/
Dr. V’s take.
JK,
I am not a so-called “FOXfiend”. Nor do I allow any other 3-lettered-acronym media outlet to filter information for me. I do the best I can by seeking reportage that comprises mostly direct quotes and first hand descriptions of actions. Opinions (including my own) need to be considered with the proverbial grain of salt.
Nevertheless, not being an investigative reporter myself, sometimes (perhaps most times) opinions are all that are available. The only thing to do then is to be very selective, and cautious in forming conclusions. There are some people in this mostly rotten and self-serving world whose opinions I trust more than the opinions of others. Among those whose opinions I wouldn’t touch with a ten-foot pole (while wearing haz-mat coveralls and a protective helmet) are the empty-chair president and that swell
public servantpubic savant, Nancy Pelosi.Of course Henry. S’why I italicized the term, intending to keep it separate, and thereby us from the goofy assertion made at February 22, 2015 at 10:59 pm.
Final sentence of paragraph three.
Sorry, JaKe. I missed the italics.
We’re cool.
h
One-eye: You’re splitting hairs. Calling a sitting president’s policy unpatriotic is just a politician’s way of getting people like you to agree to plausible deniability while making it clear to all your fans that you think the man is unpatriotic. You don’t use that word unless you want it to stick to the guy you’re talking about.
I’ll say it again. The reason nobody said Bush didn’t love this country is because he does love this country, and everybody knows it. And the most likely reason that so many people think Obama doesn’t love this country is that he doesn’t.
People aren’t all that stupid, especially when it comes to something like this.
Oh, by the way, Pete, speaking of Jonathan Chait, I meant to link to this in my earlier comment.
What can I say? H8ters gonna h8.
Oh my.
(I wish Malcolm … well sort of … you hadn’t added that link.)
Peter? (Anybody?) What to make of .. from paragraph four?
And this from paragraph nine?
That’s as far as I could go.
Malcolm,
The Leftist response will go something like this:
‘Doesn’t love’ is more hateful than ‘hate’. And ‘Nobody cares what Jonathan Chait said’, least of all the OEM.