Why I'm voting for Rudy Giuliani.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

I've started to hear a few people around here talking about writing in either another Democrat, or going 3rd party, or not voting at all if some person, usually Hillary, gets the nomination. Let me make this as clear as I possibly can to those people: If you really want to see the day when the United States can elect a President with politics like Kucinich's, for instance, then four more years of Republican rule is the worst thing that could possibly happen to your agenda. Another four years of the Republicans using that bully pulpit of the Presidency to drive the country as far to the right as they possibly can is not going to help us. It's not going to help you. It's going to hurt the progressive cause, not to mention the shambles it will make of any kind of effort for change that originates in congress.

In 2000 I voted for Al Gore, even though at the time I didn't really like him. I did this over the strenuous objections of some of my friends who said that there was no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, and that I should vote for Nader because his policies most closely matched my own views. Those people were wrong. And I would like to think that the evidence of the last seven years would be enough to convince everyone of that, but maybe it's not.

I'm not going to vote for Rudy Giuliani. And I'm certainly not going to do effectively the same thing by going third party or writing in my favorite just because I don't like Hillary (or whoever) or their policies because, in the immortal words of Our Leader Who Done Tells It Like It Is, "Fool me once, shame on... shame on you. Fool me can't get fooled again."

[Liberal In Texas]

1. Agreed. Not voting for the dem nominee is effectively a vote for the gop.

We can't change a thing if we don't have that "bully pulpit".

[vi5]

2. Until recently I would agree with this...

But one would think that controlling the senate and controlling the house would be a bully pulpit to not only get things done but to get the word out and get some control of the country back.

We all know how well that's worked out, huh?

[NNN0LHI]

3. Until recently I would agree with this...

:rofl:

[CT_Progressive]

4. Controlling Congress without also controlling the WH = need veto-proof majority.

We don't have a veto-proof majority.

So, we need the WH.

[vi5]

17. So make him veto.....make the republicans fillibuster...

That's my point. It's one thing to not be able to pass the legislation with veto proof majorities and fillibuster proof majorities.

But making them do so is where the aforementioned bully pulpit comes in. Yeah, obviously I'd love for us to control both houses of congress and the white house. And I'm nowhere near someone who won't vote straight dem ticket down the line every single election.

But the notion that once we get the bully pulpit and once we get control that things are going to be awesome went out the window over the past year.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

20. No, it isn't going to be awesome.

It will suck. It will just suck a lot less than what we'll get if Giuliani or some other Republican creep is elected, because that's the alternative we have.

[vi5]

39. I don't disagree one single bit....

I want it more than anything else in the world for the dems to control all branches again. And I'll do everything in my power to do so. It's just getting harder and harder for me to actually believe that it's going to mark a drastic change given the dissapointments over the past year, compounded most recently by Pelosi criticizing Stark and Reid going against Dodd on Fisa.

[yardwork]

9. Thank you for your concern.

[renie408]

25. A ONE seat majority in the Senate is a long way from 'controlling' it. n/t

[vi5]

42. I don't dispute that.....

However that doesn't negate the fact that there's a lot of missed opportunity and that there's a lot of reason for dissapointment. The fact is one of the main things that an only 1 seat majority does give is the ability to control the discussion. To control the message. To control what gets voted on, not voted on, fillibustered, not fillibustered, etc. No, they can't stop Bush from vetoing something. But they can make him be on record as being against it (as with SCHIP). And they can't control whether or not the republicans fillibuster bills where they have the 51 votes. But they can make them go on record as tying up the business of the senate and making headlines that way to give voice to all this stuff and make the media cover it.

I mean can anyone honestly say that there are not just a ton of things to be dissapointed about that are still perfectly within democrats control even with a 1 seat majority?

[NNN0LHI]

5. Recommended n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. Disconnect between title and body of post?

"Why I'm voting for Rudy Giuliani"
"I'm not going to vote for Rudy Giuliani. And I'm certainly not going to do effectively the same thing by ..."

OK, I guess there's sarcasm in there somewhere. Or shamelessly using a misleading title to attract people to your post. Or something. But these days, unacknowledged sarcasm is more likely to be flamebait in GD than regarded as witty. Clarification of your stance would be appreciated.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

16. Clarification:

My contention is that writing in another Dem, going 3rd party, or not voting is tantamount to voting for Giuliani (or whoever the Republicans nominate) and it was a sarcastic take-off on all of the "I won't vote for X" threads I've seen as of late.

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. Thanks

Sorry I had to ask, but when we've seen non-sarcastic posts saying they'd rather vote for Ron Paul than Hillary, it gets almost impossible to know what to take seriously.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

29. No worries.

I don't envy the mods these days.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

28. Self-delete.

Replied in the wrong place.

[HamdenRice]

7. Has seven years of Bush moved the country to the right or the left?

The premise of your post seems flawed. If it were true, then the country would be to the right of where it was in January 2001. But on health care, war, international relations, trade, global warming and other issues, a real dose of conservativism in action has driven the country to the left.

Giuliani is, as Harpers magazine recently pointed out, worse than Bush. While I will vote for any Democrat except Hillary, I also don't believe that four years of Giuliani would drive the country to the right.

If we were to survive four years of Giuliani, people would probably be willing to vote in French socialists.

[sufrommich]

8. His premise is flawed??

What's you're argument? If Giuliani won the election that would prove to you that "the country" rejects right wing dogma?

"I also don't believe that four years of Giuliani would drive the country to the right."
Did you type that with a straight face?

[HamdenRice]

11. Is Giuliani to the right or the left of Bush?

Answer that question and you'll understand. As Paul Krugman has pointed out again and again in his columns, and in his recent book, and in dozens of interviews recently promoting the book, the experience of our country having to actually live under Bush and conservatism has created a new progressive movement and moved the country to the left. Where was the country in 2001 on health care -- and I don't mean the machinery of government, I mean the electorate? Where is it now? Where was the country on issues of war and peace in 2001? Where is it now? The importance of civil liberties? Global warming? Environment? Energ? Trade policy? Is there any issue on which the general public is polling to the right of where it was in 2001? No.

The fact that Giuliani (who is perceived as being more liberal on social issues than Bush) is the GOP front runner proves that even the GOP has moved to the left.

But Giuliani would govern as an arch conservative as he did in New York, and four more years of that would push the country further to the left in reaction.

So do you actually believe Bush pushed the country to the right? Of course not. On every issue, the country has moved to the left, and 4 more years of this catastrophe would continue that process.

[sufrommich]

14. So you're argument is that "the electorate"

has been driven to the left and will vote for Giuliani as proof of their leftward march.He will then govern as a right wing nut which will drive the electorate even further leftward? Even if that extremely shaky premise were correct,do you have any idea what 8 years of this shit would do to us,or is that irrelevant in your grand scheme?

[HamdenRice]

15. This is all strawman crap

If you want to address the question it is this: Is the OP's premise, that 4 more years of conservatism would move the country to the right, correct?

No, it isn't. It wasn't true under Bush and it wouldn't be true under Giuliani. Now if you want to make stuff up to argue against, go ahead.

[NNN0LHI]

10. Who cares whether the country has been moved left or right since Bush?

I haven't had a good nights sleep since the monkey took control of the Nuclear Football.

And Giuliani wants to continue the Crackhead In Chiefs policies. He has said so. I guess because they were so successful?

Four more years of Republicans in the White House and I suspect we will all either be dead or in prison camps. We won't need to worry about the next election.

Don

[sufrommich]

12. Apparently some would prefer for more of the same

right wing shit forever if it would mean keeping Clinton out of the White House. Jesus.

[HamdenRice]

13. Not prefer. I am disagreeing with an illogical premise

Obviously I would like to see any Democrat in office. But the idea that a Giuliani would move the country to the right is simply wrong.

Unless you have some polling data about what has happened over the last 7 years to the contrary?

[JackRiddler]

43. Clinton in the WH = Bush in 2012

If you haven't noticed the effective symbiosis after the first round of Bush to Clinton to Bush, you probably won't even after the Jan. 2013 inauguration of Jeb Bush (or equivalent) to succeed the "failed" HR Clinton presidency.

[Ian_rd]

18. Your argument has a tremendous flaw

I would agree that Bush's presidency has not moved this nation further to the right. The media does that. But what Bush's presidency HAS done is (inhale) - start a war with lies, bankrupted the nation for generations to come, crippled the working class with economic and trade policy, allowed industry to pollute, rob, and injure without oversight, crippled a CIA operation into tracking nuclear weapons, broken our active military, radicalized countless Muslims into joining terrorist organizations, killed, injured, and starved hundreds of thousands of civilians, destroyed our nations ability to respond to natural disasters (or for that matter, terrorist attacks), robbed taxpayers for billions and given it to unaccountable corporations, even those with authorization to kill at will, violated the law on countless occasions, including the Constitution, to serve its needs for control over the American people, Congress, and the courts, established the infrastructure for the business of stealing elections ... (inhale) ...

The political sentiment of the nation is the least of our problems. And as far as your "French socialist" analogy, we've gone from Al Gore to Hillary Clinton. Clinton is most definitely further to the right than Gore.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

19. And yet none of that was enough to elect John Kerry in 2004.

Even though a lot of it, especially his domestic "accomplishments" took place before that election. The fundamental political questions of the past few months seem to have been:

Should we or should we not unilaterally bomb Iran?

Should we or should we not be allowed to torture people the government doesn't like?

Should we or should we not renew the odious PATRIOT act?

The fact that we are even having these discussions, let alone the unpleasant outcome of each, is evidence in and of itself that the country has moved to the right.

The political sentiment of the nation is not the least of our problems, as the political sentiment of the nation will, in part, determine the next leder.

[Ian_rd]

30. I agree that the US is moving to the right, but my argument

was that sacrificing the election to another Republican for the reasons of political sentiment alone are insane when taking into consideration the material injury Republican rule has incurred upon this nation. You won't find me supporting Hillary Clinton until I have to. But there's no way I can in good conscience do anything that might assist the Republican Party on Election Day (3rd party, not show up) no matter who wins the Dem nomination. I've posted my share of stop-Hillary threads and comments, but in the end - and her campaign knows this as much as anyone - I will be voting for Democrat X come next November.

Edit: And then after (s)he is elected, I'll be right back to hitting them from the left in the tiny ways a middle class dude can.

[HamdenRice]

34. Not "enough to elect John Kerry in 2004"???

Once again, I think your factual premise is wrong.

As to your other points, you are again confusing what the public wants and what the bushistas and neocons are doing. The public is not clamoring to bomb Iran. In fact the public is less bellicose that it's been in years.

[HamdenRice]

31. I think you meant ...

"exhale"! (I mean the second one)

:rofl:

Yup it's a pretty horrible track record.

As for Clinton and Gore, for some reason a lot of people think Hillary is to the left of the party -- at least the types that don't read the fine print or visit places like DU.

Al Gore on the other hand has moved way to the left from where he was in 2001. In fact, I would posit him as pretty typical of what has happened to broad segments of the population. Exposure to the bushistas -- in his case up close and personal -- has had a radicalizing effect.

[JackRiddler]

44. Mixed up a bit, I think...

First of all, Gore 2000 was waaaaaay to the right of Gore 2007. He's interesting now precisely because he's the only one of the candidates or prospective candidates (a group that at this point only includes him) to evince an ability to grow and change. (Is he fooling me? Maybe!) He's the one who's shown life and actually responded to what the Bush regime has been doing, rather than having his head entirely in the sand about what's been going on a la Hillary & pretty much Obama, too.

Second, "we" haven't gone to Hillary Clinton. She's been crowned by the media machinery, yes, just as Bush was in 1999-2000, and that may suffice to get the itty-bitty group who are allowed to have any influence on the supposed democratic process (mostly machine Democrats in Iowa and NH) to choose her, yes.

If she loses, though, some will be sure to blame "the Left" for not supporting her - and also her for not being "centrist" enough. Seen that routine enough times.

[Ian_rd]

46. I agree with everything you said

But I think a reason that Gore might be more to the left than he was in 2007 is because he doesn't have political strategists advising him on what to say and what not to. As a private citizen, he's showing a tendency to speak his mind without having it filtered by politicos.

When I say "we" have gone to Hillary, my meaning is that it's what "we" have been presented as "our" candidate. By the media? Hell, yea by the media. You're damn right about that.

And if she is the candidate and loses, yea - we'll hear from the media about how values voters made the difference, or how Americans didn't trust a Democrat to defend the nation or other such b.s. But the MSM would never blame the left for not supporting her. It would most likely stick to the script provided to it by saying that Hillary lost because the ultra-fringe-far-left-extreme-liberals controlled her campaign and well, real America just doesn't trust her because of it.

[JackRiddler]

47. right, I was mixing it up...

Agreed, agreed. What I meant:

Not the media but commentators in the mode of the DLC (not directly the DLC since she's a member far as I know) would if she lost automatically blame her for being too far to the left (as they've done with everyone who lost since Mondale).

And many of the same commentators, including here on DU, would simultaneously blame the Left for not supporting her. In fact, that began months ago - it's frickin' 2007 and we're already having all these threads that already assume this and preemptively cry betrayal: "Left/Nader/Kucinich/Gore Supporters Are Electing Giuliani"

- oops, sort of like the OP. There you go.

[progressoid]

21. You say that 7 years of Bush has shifted our country to the left.

That may be true in emotional terms, but in policy and practice we have NOT moved to the left. Show me where in our government we have implemented any policies that are liberal in regards to "health care, war, international relations, trade, global warming and other issues".

Four more years of a person "worse than Bush" might make people wish they had a French govt, but by then the damage to our nation would be staggering.

Hillary isn't my first choice. But I certainly wouldn't give Rudy (or any other Repub) the chance to fuck our nation for another 4 years just to spite Hillary. She is not the candidate of progressives, but I'd hold my nose and put a check in the box next to her name to keep any Republican out of that office.

You said it yourself, "If we were to survive four years of Giuliani". You're willing to risk that?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

23. More to the point...

...show me where the implementation of conservative or Republican policies (outside of the conduct of the war) has engendered the sort of anger that should accompany a shift to the left. Americans are pissed off at Dubya because of the war. They're pissed at Congress becuase of their bullshit. But they aren't pissed off at conservatism as a concept. Just look at the complete lack of any serious anger over the bankrupcy bill and you'll see what I mean.

[HamdenRice]

32. "in emotional terms, but in policy and practice"

Not just emotional terms -- it is in terms of what polls show the public wants in terms of policy. As I mentioned up thread, I don't mean in terms of the machinery of government, which remains in the hands of the bushistas.

In other words, the gap, the disconnect, between where the public is, and what the government is doing is growing more vast. Just look at health care, where the public overwhelmingly wants single payer.

As for what I'm "willing to risk" I don't know why everyone seems to think my theoretical point about politics -- that Bush has moved the country's political preferences to the left and Giuliani would continue that -- has to do with what I want to happen. Obviously, I doubt that we could survive four more years. But if we did, the people who crawled out of the war torn rubble and financial collapse would never vote for a repug again -- sort of like what happened after the Great Depression. But that just confirms my overall point, which is Krugman's point: continued explosure to actual Republican governance has a radicalizing effect on the public.

[progressoid]

40. Umm...It's not just a theoretical point about politics.

You stated, "I will vote for any Democrat except Hillary". That's not a just a political point about politics.

So...

Are you willing to risk 4 years of Giulliani rather than vote for Hillary?
Are you willing to risk "war torn rubble and financial collapse" rather than vote for Hillary?
Are you willing to risk giving the machinery of government to a man "worse than Bush" rather than vote for Hillary?

Whether or not the populace is moving to the left or to the right is academic if the Presidency goes to the GOP. Even if the polls show the public wants a change in policy, that's not going to matter much if the machinery of government remains in the hands of a new bushista.

[HamdenRice]

41. I will not vote for Hillary but will for any other Democrat.

But my vote against Hillary won't matter in terms of getting a republican elected because I'm in New York where Hillary will cream any repug, including Giuliani, who is hated throughout New York with passion.

Here in New York, my vote would be better spent getting the Green Party permanently on the ballot (it's always really close for them) -- and it would allow me to avoid the nausea inducing act of pulling the lever for Hillary.

That doesn't mean I want a republican president. Just that under no circumstances will I vote for Hillary, nor support any other candidate who can't seem to come out and say the war is wrong. It has nothing to do with what I will "risk."

[progressoid]

22. Error: You've already recommended that thread.

Dang.

[Catchawave]

35. I do that all the time, I feel like a "freeper" :(

So many good threads, so little time to remember if I rec'd already.

Wonder if Skinner and gang could upgrade the rec button software to disappear "recommend" after we hit it?

[bpeale]

24. bully for you

my vote is mine & if hillary is the nominee i will write my candidates name on the ballot. i'm sick & tired of you, the DLC & everyone else trying to decide how i should spend my vote. i am tired of the DLC deciding who our candidate will be based on their agenda. this time its MY AGENDA that counts, not theirs.\

you can now return to your regularly scheduled flame war.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

26. Well, I'm not a part of the DLC.

And while they do have some power, I don't see the spooky hand of the DLC behind everything. Yes, it is your agenda that counts. Yours and everyone else's. I don't see how electing a Republican president serves that agenda, but you may do with your vote as you wish.

[Droopy]

33. You know, yibbehobba

Maybe I'm missing something, but I haven't heard much of the "Anybody But Hillary" stuff from Democrats beyond DU. I used to feel that way, too, being a Kucinich guy and all. But I've come to think that on social issues Hillary is much better than any Republican, even though I hate her war vote and I think she is tied too closely to corporate America. I won't like it, but I will vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

36. A lot of that stuff on here is just ultrapartisans trying to outdo each other

"I don't like Hillary"

"Oh yeah, well I won't vote for Hillary"

"Yeah? Not only will I not vote for Hillary, I'll... "

It's just message board bullshit. I don't even believe half of the people who say they won't vote for Hillary. I just worry what sort of effect those statements have on people, like me, who got tempted by Nader in 2000. I made the right call there. A lot of other people didn't. Enough to make the difference.

[Droopy]

38. I hear you

But I don't think it's going to be that close this time. I'm of the feeling that the Dems could run an old, yellow dog this time and win. What are the latest poll numbers on Hillary versus a GOP candidate?

[Ohio Joe]

37. Well said

K&R

[Tommy_Carcetti]

45. You should clarify your post title

When I first read it, I felt like puking.

But I do agree with your premise.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

48. It's past the edit deadline, unfortunately. n/t