Three Way News

Your Source. For everything. Really.


Current Poll

Best comic strip?

  • Bloom County
  • Boondocks
  • Calvin and Hobbes
  • Dilbert
  • Doonesbury
  • Far Side
  • Foxtrot
  • Get Fuzzy
  • Life in Hell
  • Peanuts
  • Pearls Before Swine
  • Pogo
  • Zippy the Pinhead
Free polls from

Recurring features

Hammer's Favorites

Jambo's Favories

Friday, April 27, 2007

Juxtaposition: Giuliani

Posted by: Hammer / 3:42 PM

The news today:

A State Department report on terrorism due out next week will show a more than 25 percent increase in terror attacks worldwide in 2006 to over 14,000 - almost all of it due to incidents in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. officials said Friday.

Based on data compiled by the U.S. intelligence community's National Counterterrorism Center, the reports says there were 14,338 terror attacks last year, up 29 percent from 11,111 attacks in 2005. Forty-five percent of the attacks took place in Iraq.

Five U.S. officials with knowledge of the report agreed to discuss it on the condition they not be identified.

Worldwide, about 5,800 people were killed in terrorist attacks, also up from 2005.

Rudy Giuliani 3 days ago (from Joe Conason):

"I listen a little to the Democrats and if one of them gets elected, we are going on defense," he told the rapt fat cats at the Lincoln Day dinner Tuesday in Rockingham, N.H. "We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation, and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense.

"If any Republican is elected president -- and I think obviously I would be the best at this -- we will remain on offense and will anticipate what [the terrorists] will do and try to stop them before they do it," he said.

...Giuliani's endorsement of the strategic disasters in Iraq and Guantánamo raises serious questions about his judgment. His broader assertions about the war on terrorism, such as the infallibility of his leadership and the overall supremacy of Republicans, simply won't withstand scrutiny. Having entwined himself so inextricably with Bush, he will have to answer for the president's failures as well as his own, both before and after 9/11 -- the tragedy that provides the only conceivable rationale for his candidacy.

Yup. That Republican strategy sure is working.

Update from Jambo.

Juxtaposition: Giuliani and Nosferatu: (Via the Rude Pundit)



Rudy is probably the best republican candidate, he's more moderate.

he wont get the nomination because he's not far right

By Blogger Vinneeee, at 11:22 AM  

You know, I like you guys. I read just about everything you write. I still think you're close minded about religion, but we've had that talk.

Now I'll also admit, you may not be interested in taking criticism from a stranger, but when I read this in the City Pages this week (under best right-wing blog):

Most political blogs have one common goal, and that's to beat the reader about the head and shoulders with the strident opinions of the author. Be it through truthiness or hyperbole, these sites deliver the red meat their followers demand, while excoriating the opposition for every infraction, real or implied.

I have to say, I thought about you. As far as I can tell, according to Three Way, if you have an -R next to your name on C-Span... You're an asshole. There is no gray area. There is no wiggle room. Republicans = assholes. Democrats = Saints.

Anyway, for what's it worth, I suggest a little nuance.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:25 PM  

I forgot:


By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:27 PM  

I will never deny that there are a few individuals in public life about whom we (and I think I can kind of speak for Hammer and LMB here) have pretty absolutist views and they are all Republicans. Bush is absolutely awful. I really do firmly believe he is not just someone with opposing political views, I think he is a bad person. Bad in a way, say, his father was not. Norm Coleman is another person for whom I have zero respect. He is the the stereotypical politician as used car salesman. And I know it is always hard to see your own bias but I truly think that in the last decade or so the Republican party has practiced a much more dishonest brand of politics than the Democrats.

That said, there are plenty of Republicans I think are decent sorts, even if they don't vote the way I would like. None of the major candidates in the race for the Rep. nomination are in the same league as W. I'm disappointed that John McCain is pandering to the far right but if he were elected I don't doubt that he would govern in a straightforward and honest manner. I'd disagree with him 8 out of 10 times, but I can't ever see myself hating him the way I do W. I think Guliani is a bit of a thug and far too much of an authoritarian for a free nation but I also think he is a relatively honest guy. Mitt Romney? I don't even know what we could talk about if stuck next to each other on a plane, but every single one of my objections to him are policy based rather than personal. And of course there are the few remaining moderate Rs like Ramstead, the senators from Maine, poor old Lincoln Chafee, and a handful of others. I'll even admit to a certain fondness for Pat Buchanan in his borderline crazy way. When I used to watch him on Crossfire I always thought that he should be kept as far away form government as possible but that he would make a pretty entertaining neighbor. W on the other hand would send his dog to shit in your yard. So would Norm, but he'd stop and apologize after you caught him. W wouldn't.

There are also a fair number of Democrats that are far below sainthood. (Tho as you have figured out I'm not much into saints.) Dennis Kucinich is an embarrassment. Joe Lieberman is certainly a bit in the doghouse but I'm not really as down on him as many in the blogosphere. William Jefferson, the guy with the cold cash, should have been sent packing long ago. Mike Hatch, I think I'm on record somewhere as saying, long before he even got the nomination last year, "who the hell likes this guy?" I want to like Keith Ellison but, man, I've yet to bring myself to do so. He still strikes me as a bit of a self aggrandizing poser. If I had a list in front of me I could likely add more.

And then there are the issues. I'm not going to get into them much but I don't think I'm always a party line guy. I'm much more of a free trader than many in my party (I know Hammer and I used to disagree on that one) and I think there is too much emphasis on identity politics. I'm a staunch environmentalist (that might be as close as I get to any sort of "fundamentalism") but I always want to see the science rather than jumping on every bandwagon that paints itself green. I kept a pretty open mind on global warming until about the mid 90s because I remember hearing about the coming ice age back in the 70s. Now the science is pretty overwhelming, btw. I'm a big supporter of unions, and the Mrs is a union member, but depending on the issue they are sometimes way off base in my book. I often resent the fact that as a liberal DFLer I'm always expected to cheer on the unions but they don't often seem to reciprocate for us environmentalists.

Now I think hyperbole is part of the game with most blogs and I think we'd be a bit dull without it. But as for truthiness, I don't doubt that I have made mistakes in my postings, but I'll go out on a limb and say that there is nothing I take greater pride in than being intellectually honest. If I make a point with an obvious counter argument I don't think I ever pretend that it is not there. If it is legitimate I try to address it at least in passing. To not do so is not just sloppy it leaves you open to looking like a fool in the comments. And for what it is worth I enjoy criticism, for strangers or other wise, so long as it is honest and rational which yours always has been. If you do nothing but preach to the choir how do you know if your arguments are sound? (I was quite proud that a local conservative blogger, sadly no longer blogging, labeled us as one of the few liberal blogs he tolerated. He and I traded a number of comments on our respective spaces and even tho we agreed on almost nothing I think we both got quite a bit out of it.) Nuance can indeed be in short supply in a blog. Any time you feel a specific post needs more of it let me know and I'll do my best to provide it.

Bottom line tho, W really IS an asshole. And Paul Wellstone is as close to a saint as politics has seen in my adult lifetime. And that's not only because of the letter after their names.

(MM, I'm trying to remember if you were the one who took us and our readers to task over "Peanuts" a few months back. I've had a post on that turning over in my head ever since and might actually get it out someday.)

By Blogger Jambo, at 11:47 PM  

I'm sorry, I just couldn't resist adding a little nuance without a trace of hyperbole. Even if I did have to steal the idea from a far more entertaining blog.

By Blogger Jambo, at 12:16 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home


Special Feeds

Fun with Google

Search Tools




Prior posts

  • U.S. Attorneys: Take a chance on thee
  • Counsel? We don't have to give you any stinkin' c...
  • Who's in charge of rhetoric in this party, anyway?...
  • Smilin' Norm: Filibuster -- secret prisons, outing...
  • Smilin' Norm: Filibuster
  • Smilin' Norm: Not Well Liked
  • Ho hum, another day in Bushworld
  • Good god what did our nation do to deserve this je...
  • Pins, angels, and Adam's bellybutton
  • Archives

    • Gone for now

    This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours? Site Meter Get Firefox!