Monday, February 23, 2015 ... Deutsch/Español/Related posts from blogosphere

Giuliani vs Obama 2015

Almost eight years ago, it looked like Rudy Giuliani and Barack Obama could have been going to compete for the White House.

Let's go, Obama girls.

Finally, America's mayor didn't make it through the primaries. You know, your humble correspondent probably isn't the most canonical guy who would have picked Giuliani but I would find him highly natural in the office, anyway. He's still a symbol of the mainstream America's leader who has everything that seemed necessary in those old years when I couldn't think about a single major complaint against America – these days, I have way too many.

Yes, I also think that Giuliani was the #1 person who showed his qualities as a leader after 9/11. As a leader, history turned him into a hero. He may have lost the primaries because of his highly imperfect image as a family man (be sure that the Czech voters have much more tolerance in all these matters!) or due to something else, who knows. John McCain was a lousy candidate and he is still a lousy politician but he was what the GOP finally offered.

A few days ago, during a private dinner, Giuliani said that Obama's speeches do not display the same kind of love for America that the Americans had known from the previous presidents – both Republican and Democratic ones.

During that speech and in numerous later interviews (and a yesterday's op-ed in WSJ), he clarified that Obama spends much more time by criticizing what he perceives as flaws of America than by praising its virtues. Previous presidents were different.

Also, Giualiani has pointed out, these things may be understood if you think about Obama's childhood. Barack Obama Sr came from a Muslim environment in Kenya. But the most influential mentor during Obama's childhood was Frank Marshall Davis, a top pundit in the Communist Party of the USA. As Giuliani correctly said elsewhere, these communist influences on Barack Obama were stronger than the traditional influences from the black community.

I know that these comments sound like conspiracy theories and most people who say similar things are simply nuts. But I can't help myself: Yes, I do think that the appearance and their way of thinking makes it very likely that Frank Marshall Davis was the actual biological father of Barack Obama. I can't give you any proof that would be better than what you may find elsewhere. But Davis and Obama's mother did meet in the communist movement, could have done certain things 9 months before Obama's birth, and the similarity between Obama and Davis simply looks much more obvious than the similarity between Obama and Obama Sr.

But this is not meant to be a blog post focusing on speculations. It's possible that these speculations are wrong and even if they are right, they don't really change much about the picture. Even if the basic biography is what we are told, it is very clear that Barack Obama grew up in an environment with lots of extreme left-wing activism and lots of Islam, too, and this almost certainly has implications for his thinking about the current America, too.

His close links to Islam – even if Obama isn't a full-fledged member of the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Qaeda's parent organization, and he may be, he has still filled the U.S. government offices with tons of members of the Muslim Organization – prevent him from clearly stating that it's the radical Islam that is significantly threatening America (and others) these days. He emits lots of fog about the identity of folks like the members of ISIS.

Even though Giuliani has just said something that – I believe – about 1/3 or 1/2 of Americans find obvious, he was immediately attacked and bombarded as a heretic. Left-wing activists (including those pretending to be conservatives) have written lots of texts intended to be character assassinations. MSNBC aired more than 10 minutes of tirades making it sound like if a critical observation about Giuliani, and not one about Obama, is at the root of this story.

Happily, at least C.J. Pearson – the 12-year-old boy from the video above (which has 300,000+ views after 2 days) – has endorsed Rudy Giuliani. Pearson could very well be ready to replace Barack Obama tomorrow. The White House has a different idea about the political qualities of the future U.S. presidents, however. So Obama chose a different black kid as the "kid president", a sycophantic boy who is proud of being able to sit in a chair.

I also agree with Giuliani that Obama is helping to establish the culture in which one cannot criticize Islam, not even for its features that are self-evidently wrong, and that's a very harmful influence of the president on the life and security of the U.S.

Giuliani has balls so he refused to apologize and instead, offered lots of additional ideas and observations to support his view, and that's exactly what he should have done (and what many others have failed to do). Nevertheless, it's sad to see that people who say similar things – that pretty much every sensible person must see as self-evident – are exposed to the harassment that Giuliani experienced in recent days (which also included lots of death threats, of course).

In this not quite friendly interview with Giuliani, Fox News' Megyn Kelly joined the Obama personality cult. Thankfully, Giuliani didn't behave like Matt Taylor after the feminists criticized his shirt.

Also, I can't get rid of the feeling that Giuliani was badly treated because of some reasons that his critics do not fully disclose. For example, a year ago, Giuliani said that Putin, unlike Obama, is what you call a leader. This is another kind of an obvious observation that has become non-PC in contemporary America.

At any rate, Rudy Giuliani is a hero again.

By the way, I was shocked to see a new complex system of web pages at BarackObama.COM, Obama's personal website. It includes the full (black) list of "deniers" in the U.S. Congress. Each of them – try e.g. this page on Jim Inhofe – starts by a few preposterous proclamations such as "asthma in Oklahoma is caused by carbon dioxide" and continues with lots of buttons by which the visitors may flood the lawmaker's inbox and Twitter account with tons of hostile, obnoxious spam.

If you register as a warrior against the "deniers", and I did, you will be getting lots of e-mail asking you for money. We often mention the Nigerian scams as an example of scams associated with Africa but I am afraid that Obama's Kenyan scams are already harming the credibility of the U.S. more than the Nigerian scams. I am pretty sure that BarackObama.COM must violate many anti-spam laws and if the law were properly and neutrally enforced, Barack Obama would have to be taken down.

Add to Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (19) :

reader R T Deco said...

Kelly was just playing the foil, and by doing so gave Guiliani a platform to explain his position and his statements. I thought that it was rather well done.

reader Luboš Motl said...

Maybe, but I view this as a conspiracy theory. Do you think she doesn't believe what she expressed? And if she doesn't, who wrote these words for her and why?

reader Werdna said...

Kelly's a tough interviewer. She doesn't let anyone get off easy.

I do believe, however, that Giuliani is being targeted for destruction for saying something that's frankly obvious. I think his real error is supposing that Obama is so very different from every prior President. To be a Progressive is to love what you want America to be, not what it is-indeed, mostly to hate what it is.

It's especially obvious with Obama because he is especially Progressive and less inclined to act like he's not, than say, Bill Clinton.

But the first US President to publicly express contempt for the US Constitution was Woodrow Wilson. So Presidents of the US that don't love the idea America has represented, are not completely new.

reader Luboš Motl said...

A good perspective, Werdna, but isn't it fair to say that Obama is the first progressive president in this sense of the word?

reader Werdna said...

I do think Obama isn't exactly the same sort of Progressive that Wilson or FDR or LBJ were. In some sense, all these men had some sense of Nationalism and love of Country, not as such, but as it could be, and to some extent, as it had been. Although the things Wilson liked about America as it had been weren't necessarily good things!

Is Obama really radically different? Hard to say, mostly because I think he's been less successful than all previous major Progressive Presidents. During the World Wars, Wilson and FDR intervened heavily in the economy. FDR and LBJ created massive welfare programs still with us today. What did Obama accomplish for a Progressive agenda? Well, Obamacare. The Dodd-Frank financial regulations. That's mostly it. Conservatives have mostly held the line. So superficially it looks like Obama is less Progressive and transformative than these other Progressive Presidents. But I think Obama's ideas may still be more radical: that, if he could, he'd go even farther than they did, to remake America very much contrary to the ideas it historically represented.

I will say, the influences Communists had on Obama when he was younger (he admits in his biographical books, to seeking out Marxist professors, so there's really no denying this) do suggest he may be, ideologically, the most radical President we've had. But even if Obama is in favor of, for example, collectivizing agriculture, he hasn't publicly pushed for it.

Where Obama really seems unique is in sympathizing, or seeming to, with foreign enemies of the American idea.

FDR fought Fascism, though he was in many ways a Fascist himself. Wilson wanted to spread democracy throughout the world, and he certainly didn't sympathize with the Central Powers to the extent of wanting them to beat the Allies. LBJ was a welfare state Progressive but he waged war on Communism in Vietnam. Obama wouldn't have done any of those things, I think. Obama really seems to want to see America laid low by it's enemies on the world stage.

In that sense, yes, I think he is the first President like that.

reader R T Deco said...

Well, did Giuliani come off looking worse or better after the interview? Of course, it depends on your point of view, but I'd say better. Don't you agree?

I don't think that anything was planned ahead of time, so I'm not putting forward any conspiracies. However, I think that Kelly went into this to give Guiliani a tough interview (it's her job, after all) expecting that Rudy would be able to hold his own, and sure enough he did.

Kelly is not stupid. If she had thought that Guiliani was in a bad position or not up to snuff, she could have given him a softball interview (which would put her in the same category as people who like to swim with fruit loops). This interview was far more effective. It has us talking about it, doesn't it?

reader Gene Day said...

Giuliani won’t get the nomination, Lubos. He is politically vulnerable and the Republicans, including me, don’t want him on the ticket.
Aside from the well-known personal matters he has never given William Bratton proper credit for the dramatic drop in the crime rate in New York City during the 1990s. Bratton, as police chief, instituted his zero tolerance policy in 1990 but Giuliani didn’t become mayor until 1993. Certainly, Giuliani supported the zero-tolerance policy but most of the credit for the crime rate improvement belongs to Bratton.
Nonetheless, during the early campaign for the 2008 Presidential election, Giuliani made a very big deal out of reducing crime while he was mayor. All he needed to have done in order to earn my respect was to share credit. Unfortunately, he is more of a grand-stander than a team player.

reader papertiger0 said...

That link is exactly what I was looking for. I hadn't even started the search. There you go again saving me the time and trouble of wading through the swamp.
Thanks Boss.

reader Gordon said...

Of course she doesn't believe what she expressed...American TV commentators (particularly blonde women ones) are all cleverly made up robots produced by Japanese AI researchers...

reader Peter F. said...

Obama is or clearly appeared to be an atheist. However, he has no less clearly prostituted himself for reasons of expedient (even though quite possibly nicely intended) political tactics.

Since democracy is in decay or has stagnate in a stinking state everywhere, I propose that the following slogan is put on placards:
Lubos for Leader! :-}

reader cynholt said...

I think it’s far more simple and crass than that, Werdna. Obama has been funded by the wealthy – especially the finance industry – as a candidate, is serving the wealthy – especially the finance industry – while president, and will be handsomely rewarded by the wealthy – especially the finance industry – after his presidency. He is following the trail blazed by Hundred-Million-Bill Clinton, who showed that presidents can use revolving doors, too.

reader papertiger0 said...

Two things.

1. Guiliani isn't running for office. You said "won't be nominated" like he had intentions or his hat was in the ring.
As long as you can read minds, tell us where Obama hides his secret prayer rug when the press is looking?

2. Earn your respect? Sure why not humble himself to get that one squishy nominal republican in California's vote. Any other hoops you want jumped thru?
How about to keep the communist/muslim apologist out of the Oval office?
How about the good of the country?

reader NikFromNYC said...

A good CEO fosters good talent which is understood already as being the source of their successful outcomes. Guiliani also oversaw first the destruction of the fish market mob but then also the effective computerized focus of police on high crime areas. Who cares the name of the police commissioner?! The mayor gets proper credit for supporting him just like DiBlasio is suffering a backlash for not doing so. Guiliani held weekly cable televised public meetings open to questions and complaints. He sneared at a guy for complaining about pet ferret restrictions, calling him a freak, then promised an old lady to prod the parks department to clear the local sidewalk of shrubs. I see nothing like that with DiBlasio.

reader Shannon said...

I like and trust Giuliani because he was raised as a Roman-Catholic. See what I mean ? ;-)

reader Gordon said...

Peter, the USA is about the only country in the world (aside from bat-shit crazy Islamic states) which cares if someone is an atheist or not. Not only cares, but it is mandatory to use the word, God, and your belief in, in any speech---Elmer Gantry would be proud.
It shows the intellectual level to which the US has sunk. If you are an atheist in the US, and a politician (an oxymoron) if you actually tell the truth about it, you rank somewhere with the pedos in your election chances (hmm, sometimes Catholics get elected..)
I have come to the conclusion that the intelligent or even just the rational with a work ethic, are an endangered species in the US. The best thing that could be done is to start a SumOfUs petition to get them listed on the endangered species list.
As for nearly everyone else, "Your bus is
leaving, morons..." (Bill Murray, Groundhog Day)

reader Gordon said...

Gene, Giuliani is an assh*le. I am neither a Republican, a Democrat, or a US American, but my Elmer Gantry detector works.

reader Luboš Motl said...

Dear Gene, apologies but I am confident you are overgeneralizing your personal opinion.

He was 4th or so in some states in the 2008 primaries - there's no reason he couldn't be 1st.

William Bratton may be impressive but the "zero tolerance" policy borders with police state (no surprise it reduces the crime rate but it also has far-reaching negative consequences you seem to overlook) and he believes in the broken window theory which is deeply flawed because it fails to acknowledge that in some neighborhoods, broken windows are mundane events and therefore cannot be used as a sign of serious crime.

I am confident he is a better politician than Obama - and even Obama could get the nomination, and even your vote. So your bold statement that Giuliani "couldn't" get the nomination is just a tendentious speculation bordering with an ad hominem attack.

reader Gordon said...

Hmm, speaking of conspiracy theories, I think that Obama has to be a Manchurian Candidate---maybe coming off as muddled and indecisive is part of the strategy...then people don't notice that as a charismatic candidate initially--hip, internet savvy--with an agenda to make government "more transparent", to protect whistle-blowers, to close Guantanamo, to have a less robust foreign policy* etc, he has managed to terrorize any whistle blowers with rabidly out of control proscecutions (see Aaron Swartz for one tragic example) pursue vigorously destabilizing foreign adventurism to the advantage of Halliburton and KBR,
make huge profits for the private jail system by incarcerating more blacks and minorities than Kim Jung Il can dream of, and basically re-boot the Cold War by promoting a CIA enabled coup in Kiev, and shaming Russia. The most charitable interpretation in the way US is treating Russia is that it grossly misunderstands it, but I am not feeling charitable. Now there is propaganda that Russia is going to intervene in the Baltic States--this is nonsense. Please note, I do not think that Putin is blameless in the present mess, but he didn't start it. The West MSM is willfully ignoring that the Kiev govt was a democratic government overthrown in a *coup* consisting of a ragtag group of thugs, fascists, some good people etc with the strings being pulled by Victoria Nuland:

Nuland, btw, also represents the Brookings Institute---whose motto is to support "Wealth, Power, and Global Warfare".
I get the impression that Cheney is still the eminence grise pulling Obama's puppet strings, lining up Halliburton along with various mercenaries to keep the Wealth, Power, and Global Warfare

(Hmmm, I seem to be having a Cynthia moment :)---will read some math to let the neurotransmitters stabilize...)

reader Ann said...

Sadly I think the world is more dangerous and unsettled because of Obama's policies and postures. The latest 10-year deal with Iran? Who believes any modern government takes seriously promises and conditions 10 years down the road. They pay lip service to such things, but only ever care about the next election cycle. The depth of how terrible a president he has turned out to be still surprises me. We need a huge sea change in this country towards true pluralism and away from totalitarian PC-ism, which is what we have now. It's beyond ridiculous that Barry was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize years ago. Giuliani deserves it more than he, and I'm not saying Giuliani should receive it, only that his actions after 9/11 were at least some kind of noteworthy accomplishment.

(function(i,s,o,g,r,a,m){i['GoogleAnalyticsObject']=r;i[r]=i[r]||function(){ (i[r].q=i[r].q||[]).push(arguments)},i[r].l=1*new Date();a=s.createElement(o), m=s.getElementsByTagName(o)[0];a.async=1;a.src=g;m.parentNode.insertBefore(a,m) })(window,document,'script','//','ga'); ga('create', 'UA-1828728-1', 'auto'); ga('send', 'pageview');