I've said for a while now that fears that Giuliani can't sway the Republican base of conservative Christians is simply not true.
This article supports my view though it's not conclusive.
It's not skeletons you know, it's skeletons that are IN closets. And dressing up like a girl only matters if people have any reason to expect that you mean it. ;-)
The social liberalism matters. The 2nd Ammendment matters. But they aren't going to matter as much as people think they will.
I've heard liberal persons explain who OTHER people won't vote for... how do they know? I think it's their own prejudice speaking, either their prejudice ("a black person/woman/Jew can't get elected") or prejudice about other people's supposed prejudice. And people don't like it when those assumptions are made about them. In the last election Kerry and Edwards tried to play on what they *believed* would put off the Republican religious base... that Mary Cheney is a lesbian. That the reaction and anger was directed at Kerry and Edwards was predictable to anyone with a clue. It didn't even mean that people *approved* of Mary. It doesn't take approval or agreement with a lifestyle to recognize the dispicable *intent* of the Kerry/Edwards campaign.
And that's what's most likely to happen if a Democratic (or even Republicans in the primaries) try to sway the conservative religious base with Giuliani's behavior... it will be percieved as malicious gossip and a slur on the characters, not of Giuliani, but of the conservative religious base. And they will resent it.
And the liberal social policies? If he's not vowing to interfere in States issues, it's not going to matter any where near as much as some people think it will. He's not an evil person just because he holds contrary views.
(And the Democrat habit of having a "personal" view of abortion as wrong, like Ferraro and I think maybe Kerry did it too, good Catholics... and a separate actively pro-choice view for government.... bad idea folks. Really really bad. Just be for it or against it, people can respect that.)
This article supports my view though it's not conclusive.
It's not skeletons you know, it's skeletons that are IN closets. And dressing up like a girl only matters if people have any reason to expect that you mean it. ;-)
The social liberalism matters. The 2nd Ammendment matters. But they aren't going to matter as much as people think they will.
I've heard liberal persons explain who OTHER people won't vote for... how do they know? I think it's their own prejudice speaking, either their prejudice ("a black person/woman/Jew can't get elected") or prejudice about other people's supposed prejudice. And people don't like it when those assumptions are made about them. In the last election Kerry and Edwards tried to play on what they *believed* would put off the Republican religious base... that Mary Cheney is a lesbian. That the reaction and anger was directed at Kerry and Edwards was predictable to anyone with a clue. It didn't even mean that people *approved* of Mary. It doesn't take approval or agreement with a lifestyle to recognize the dispicable *intent* of the Kerry/Edwards campaign.
And that's what's most likely to happen if a Democratic (or even Republicans in the primaries) try to sway the conservative religious base with Giuliani's behavior... it will be percieved as malicious gossip and a slur on the characters, not of Giuliani, but of the conservative religious base. And they will resent it.
And the liberal social policies? If he's not vowing to interfere in States issues, it's not going to matter any where near as much as some people think it will. He's not an evil person just because he holds contrary views.
(And the Democrat habit of having a "personal" view of abortion as wrong, like Ferraro and I think maybe Kerry did it too, good Catholics... and a separate actively pro-choice view for government.... bad idea folks. Really really bad. Just be for it or against it, people can respect that.)
Comments
Much can be overlooked if the inherent leadership quality is there.
Reminds me of the ability to rule back in monarchy days. The bureacracy, the intrigue, the backstabbing, the external enemies out to get you as well as the internal enemies. Not much of that has changed. What has changed however is the fact that because the military is solidly behind the office of the President, nobody can do a coup de tat, so they have to operate within the system.
So in the end, it all depends upon who can operate the system better. Honest Bush or the craft, cunning, and dubiously trickery orientated Democrats. Washington knew what was going to happen to the nation when the President fights Congress, during war time. He did himself. He had to argue with the "politicians" over whether they should abandon Philadelphia or fight to the death for it. It was the capital back then.
Washington set up the powers of the executive, and Andrew Jackson solidified it (along with Lincoln), so that a President need not be dishonest or cunning or an expert in cloak and daggers. Our Presidents need not be as well practiced at intrigue as Saladin or a Byzantine Emperor to hold his office. The powers the previous Presidents set up and used, suspension of habeas corpus, freeing slaves to win the war, etc and etc, are all available to the current and next President in office.
The President need not use the same tricks as the Democrat propaganda apparatus, however, if he doesn't use the Constitutional power and leverage of veto, of executing plans before asking for permission, and so forth, then it doesn't matter what Washington and Lincoln did in the past to allow the President to lead the nation during war time and to victory. If the current President refuses to indulge in intrigue and cloak and daggers warcraft, then he has to use the powers of his office. And if he doesn't use the powers of his office to produce political and social leverage, bully pulpit and veto blackmails, then the President has to use subterfuge and intrigue.
A President that uses neither, will be a very limited domestic President. Bush had the weird circumstance of being a domestic President yet having a war dropped into his lap.
In the beginning, Bush was using the powers of his office, he circumvented Congress, there was no waiting involved for Afghanistan, no negotiation.
Bush pushed his limits, and expanded them, and then somehow something smothered him back or he allowed it to.
If Guiliani can convince people that his ability to lead will be better than Bush, then he should win. He after all, has a good track record in New York. And to some Southerners, being able to manage New York would be some god given miracle ; )
If FDR could be overlooked for his Japanese concentration camps and imprisonment without trial deal, because of his leadership and charisma, then you can pretty much guess what else can be overlooked in war times.
Your email must be buggy, Synova. Otherwise you would have gotten the emails from blogger about my previous comments down below.
Just as a mention of course, but the 2nd 5 book series from Fel, is getting even better. You know how in some concerns a series toppels off at a plateu of power where everything has been accomplished and the characters are so familiar it is almost boring and predictable? Well, it doesn't happen in this fantasy series. If you've watched Japanese anime like Dragon Ball Z, Naruto or Bleach, then you would know exactly what I'm talking about. Because in most cases, this is like reading about an anime character in a book except seeing it on screen. Very exciting.
One of the things about writing is that it sometimes gets hard to just enjoy something for what it is.
The first Final Fantasy movie sucked. (If there is another one I haven't seen it.)
What about Naruto, the latest tv series shown to young kids and teenagers in Japan?
Yes, they really didn't explain the DNA clone memory all that well. I can believe that memories can be implanted by a cloning process, but not just any normal cloning process. They could have easily provided additional explanation by saying the cloning process ran into some quirks and this set into effect a side effect, that side effect being racial memories. The visuals were stunning enough that you could have made me believe the technology was available, but they didn't use it to convince me. The usual science fiction goer knows about this stuff beyond the general movie goer or movie reader.
In some ways the Final Fantasy movies are exposes of technology and animation. When I mean anime, I mean animation based upon lone author manga writers. These single author mangas are chunk full of creativity, plot twists, and character developments. Series like DBZ, and such, are great. They have their annoyances, as steven den beste mentioned (too long fight scenes where nothing happens), but those are basically covered by the latest works of art in Japan.
A lot of the soul of animation derived from manga plotlines, stories, character designs, and character drawings are lacking in Final Fantasy movies. For some reason they are very sterile.
I have an agile mind, so I like to be surprised constantly if I'm going to be watching a movie. The Japanese have some devious authors that try to fool the reader or the watcher, me, into coming to the wrong conclusions. I like that kind of trickery.
The kids get annoyed when a publisher assumes they can't read Manga properly, back to front. :-)
I've put up a list of the Anime we've got in it's own post so we can move the discussion there, since it's not about Giuliani.