About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Monday, August 30, 2004 - 9:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Linz, I think you're right, that Guiliani did just win the election for Bush. His speech was magnificent -- I wanted to stand up and cheer. In fact, I did stand up and cheer.

And he certainly won my vote in 2008.

Barbara

Post 1

Monday, August 30, 2004 - 8:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I also saw the speech and must agree that Bush's chance for victory has greatly improved.  And barring any unforseen developments, Rudy 2008 seems to be no brainer.
(Edited by Pete on 8/30, 9:54pm)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Monday, August 30, 2004 - 11:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Some years ago, David Kelley got my cheers when he pointed out that Michael Milken had done more to improve the lot of the world's poor than Mother Theresa. Today, Rudolph Giuliani, the living embodiment of the corrupt populism of envy, the goon who put Michael Milken in prison, is being lionized in an "objectivist" forum, and nominated as a future (2008?) American president.

Please, somebody pinch me, hard. I want to wake up.
(Edited by Adam Reed on 8/31, 4:44pm)


Post 3

Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 12:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam, I understand your feelings. I despised Giuliani because of Milken. However, I lived in New York for a number of years and I go back there frequently. I don't know how anyone could deny that he was a great mayor, probably, the greatest in recent memory. He turned NYC around. I see two facts:
1) His ambition drove him to unjustly entrap Michael Milken to make a name for himself
2) He was a great mayor, who took a city in its death throes and resurrected it, almost singlehandedly.

That said, I believe that George W. Bush doesn't present that kind of dilemma. I have thought that when the American people concentrated, that he would win rather handily. I think that is happening.

Post 4

Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 8:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Aren't we all missing the most important question of all, to wit: which candidate is pro-Kant, i.e., pro-reason, pro-enlightenment, pro-man. Tee hee.
Fred

Post 5

Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 9:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Linz,

How about posting a transcript from the speech or the best excerpts from memory if you can for those of us that did not hear the speech?

The only piece of the speech the British media seem to rave on about today is how Rudolph Giuliani compared Bush to Winston Churchill.

Here are some snippets of his speech from the times....

August 31, 2004

 

Republican Convention

 

Churchill evoked in homage to President

From Roland Watson in New York

 

PRESIDENT BUSH was fêted with comparisons to Winston Churchill last night as Republicans kicked off their convention by paying homage to his steadfast wartime leadership.

 


Rudolph Giuliani, the former Mayor of New York, led the plaudits as the Bush campaign placed the President’s response to the September 11 attacks at the heart of his re-election drive.

 

 “Winston Churchill saw the dangers of Hitler when his opponents and much of the press characterised him as a warmongering gadfly,” said Mr Giuliani, whose own leadership in the immediate aftermath of September 11 earned him cult status.

 

 “George W. Bush sees world terrorism for the evil that it is, and he will remain consistent to the purpose of defeating it while working to make us ever safer at home.”

 

Even before the convention got under way yesterday the choreography of the Bush campaign made clear what they wanted the week to be about.

 

Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, gave an arrival speech on Ellis Island in New York harbour with the city’s skyline, minus the once familiar twin towers of the World Trade Centre, as a backdrop.

 

John McCain, the independent-minded Arizona senator whose relationship with Mr Bush has been frequently strained during the past four years and who was courted by John Kerry as a potential running-mate, said of Mr Bush: “He has has been tested and has risen to the most important challenge of our time.”

 

Republican chiefs chose New York as their convention venue, the first time they have ever held their quadrennial gathering in the city, because of the symbolism the city would provide so close to the third anniversary of 9/11.

 

The decision has irked some New Yorkers, many of who have left town for the week, accusing the Republicans of using New York’s tragedy for political gain.

 

But Mr Giuliani, whose confident leadership after 9/11 won him cross-party respect, said the use of the Twin Towers as a reference point for Mr Bush’s presidency was inevitable.

 

“It is impossible to conduct this presidential election without talking about September 11,” he said. “It would be like conducting the re-election of Abraham Lincoln and not talking about the Civil War. We’re going to deal with it in a very tasteful way, but, you know, excuse us if we believe that our President has done a very good job.”

 

Mr Bush, who will deliver his speech accepting the party’s presidential nomination on Thursday, presented himself as “a man with a plan” yesterday as he began to address his second-term agenda.

 

The campaign in recent months has been so dominated by Iraq and the war on terrorism, and more recently by Mr Kerry’s combat record in Vietnam, that there has been very little focus on what Mr Bush would do with another four years in the White House.

 

Republican strategists have promised to flesh out his agenda during the course of the week. Mr Bush is expected to use his acceptance speech to appeal to the middle ground with a series of initiatives based on an “ownership society”.

 

But even without the details, Mr Bush sought to persuade voters that he was a man who knew where he was going.

 

“What the people want to know is, have you got a plan?” he said in an interview on NBC’s This Morning, before asserting that he had new ideas on how to meet America’s energy needs, reform its healthcare system and curbing junk law suits while keeping taxes low and cutting America’s $450 billion (£250 billion) deficit by half in four years.

 

Mr Giuliani and Mr McCain are part of a socially-liberal line-up of prime-time speakers who are significantly out of step with the conservative delegates they are addressing. Convention planners are determined that the party should present a moderate face to the millions of voters watching televised proceedings.

 

Arnold Schwarzenegger, the California Governor and the most popular star of the Republican Party by far, will deliver the biggest speech of the night tonight. However, Bush campaign aides have had to ensure that the former bodybuilder and Hollywood action man does not eclipse the President.

 

During three days in New York Mr Schwarzenegger will make only two public appearances while avoiding late-night TV shows and turning down interview requests from the main networks and cable stations.

 

The speakers who do have prime-time slots displayed a subtle manoeuvering, as many are anxious to keep open their options of running for the presidency in 2008.

 

Mr Giuliani, Mr McCain and George Pataki, the Governor of New York, all of whom have significant disagreements with the Republican base on issues such as gay marriage, abortion and stem cell research, nonetheless appeared to be auditioning for the party’s possible support in four years.

 

The quickest way to the hearts of Republicans this year is with unstinting praise for Mr Bush.

 

Mr Giuliani said: “There are many qualities that make a great leader, but having strong beliefs, being able to stick with them through popular and unpopular times, is the most important characteristic of a great leader.”

<SCRIPT type=text/javascript>NI_MPU('middle');
     



Post 6

Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 10:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The full text is at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/30/politics/campaign/TEXT-GIULIANI.html. If you are not already registered, registration is free and worth the while - NYT is America's "newspaper of record," with full text of everything, including the entire Republican Platform (BLECHH!)

Post 7

Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 11:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks Adam.

I've got it now.


Post 8

Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 12:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
While you are at it, Marcus, take a look at John McCain's speech. I thought it was excellent. I am at a loss to explain how people can see no difference between the Republicans and Democrats, particularly on the subject of freedom. And, no. It isn't just rhetoric. It is a profoundly different understanding and approach to the subject.

Post 9

Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 1:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bush inherited the best economy in the history of the United States. By spending like a drunken sailor and cutting taxes like a mindless ideologue, he wantonly, mercilessly, single-handedly GUTTED the entire economy. 
 
And money is the sinews of any war.
 
Bush is a socialist, fascist, reactionary, right-wing nut-job, religious fanatic, and smarmy, smug, unctuous, pathetic moron.
 
John Kerry is intelligent, thoughtful, well-balanced, fundamentally moderate, and generally wise. He more truly believes in America and freedom -- and is the more libertarian candidate.


Sanction: 1, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 3:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I have recently submitted a short article concerning Objectivism's relationship to the political Right-wing, though I've yet to learn whether it is to be published here. For now, suffice to say I do believe that, from an Objectivist standpoint, the Right is generally preferable to the Left; and despite my strong differences with Bush's handling of certain matters, I'm inclined to think that holds true in this coming election. 

That said, I must say I'm inclined to agree with Adam's comments about Giuliani.

MH

Edit to correct typo bought to my attention by Chris Sciabarra ;-)

(Edited by Matthew Humphreys on 9/01, 1:21am)


Post 11

Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 3:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Bullshit, Andre,

 

Kerry is a symbol of everything that is wrong with the world today. Not because he is particularly liberal or socialistic, but because he says nothing and stands for nothing; he’s a soulless product, designed for “electability.” They say a camel is a horse designed by a committee. Kerry is a candidate designed by a committee. A President Kerry would not be a nightmare for America, but it would blight them with the most pointless, ineffectual head of state since Jimmy Carter.

 

Libertarians should note that Bush’s saber-ratting on social issues is just that; saber-rattling. Abortion and same-sex marriage bans have been GOP platforms since Reagan, but have never made it anywhere near legislation. Why? Because they would be so unpalatable to the majority of Americans. Why do they remain GOP platforms? In order to firm up the Christian right voting bloc.


Post 12

Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 4:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bush is clearly a 'lesser of two evils' choice; if there wasn't a Libertarian candidate, I'd vote for him because his opponent (Kerry) is worse than he is. The Bush administration has:

  • wrongly detained suspects in Guantanamo Bay:
    Camp X-Ray was today condemned as "legally objectionable" by the Court of Appeal.

    Judges said Briton Feroz Abbasi was being held at the US camp in Cuba without trial in "what appears to be a clear breach of a fundamental human right".1

  • restricted the travel of innocents on the basis of their race:
    [The U.S. Government has] denied a close & dear friend of mine his border re-entrancy visa, because he was born in Iran. Net result is a total bollocks-up of his his ability to visit his friends & family outside the U.S.A. without being stuck outside the U.S.A. His options are to wait (at least) 18 months for his green card, or to leave, and spend at least six months trying to get back in, during which time he'd lose his job in the U.S.A. and almost certainly be denied anyway.2

  • continued fighting the 'War on Drugs', contributing towards the agonising deaths of Americans by denying them medical use of banned drugs. He even lied about his intentions to prohibit such medical use prior to an election:
    In the 2000 campaign for president, George W. Bush said that the federal government should not interfere with the medical marijuana policies of the several states. Like so many other promises, he went back on his word and has closed down medical marijuana facilities permitted by state governments.3

  • awarded public money and Government-enforced monopolies to companies operating in Iraq through secret, classified, contracts:
    Given all the taxpayer money involved, you might think the process for awarding those contracts would be open and competitive.

    But, as 60 Minutes reported last spring, the earliest contracts were given to a few favored companies. And some of the biggest winners in the sweepstakes to rebuild Iraq have one thing in common: lots of very close friends in very high places.

    ...

    But he can't say how small a fraction or exactly what the contract covers because the mission and the contract are considered classified information.4

  • only stopped funding the Taleban after the events of 9/11:
    [in May 2001] U.S. officials announced that Washington was giving $43 million to the Taliban for its role in reducing the cultivation of opium poppies, despite the Taliban's heinous human rights record and its sheltering of Islamic terrorists of many nationalities.5

Bush is an evil man, and his administration has harmed America. The only reason to vote for him is that his main opponent, Kerry, would harm America even more through his pacifist socialist agenda. This doesn't mean Objectivists or Libertarians should be championing Bush the way so many seem to.

(Edited by Duncan Bayne on 8/31, 4:51pm)


Post 13

Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 4:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Duncan, I second those sentiments!

Post 14

Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 4:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Libertarians should note that Bush’s saber-ratting on social issues is just that; saber-rattling. ... Why do they remain GOP platforms? In order to firm up the Christian right voting bloc.
So he's a deceitful populist, like so many other politicians. Once again, he's proved to be someone for whom to vote only in the absence of decent alternatives like Texas constitutional scholar Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian Party candidate.

Post 15

Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 7:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Kerry is a candidate designed by a committee. A President Kerry would not be a nightmare for America, but it would blight them with the most pointless, ineffectual head of state since Jimmy Carter."

and that's precisely what i'm hoping for. ineffectual heads of state don't restrict liberties-- no one follows them enough to let them. they don't attack the wrong country when starting a war (why are we in iraq instead of iran or saudi arabia? )-- as they are wholly incapable of getting a war started. they don't "rattle the sabre" with threats to force us all to conform to their dogmas, whether right or left-- they are too weak to be taken credibly as crusaders for any collectivist crusade, leftist or rightist, and generally know it. and they don't give looted tax money to nepotistically picked organizations. as a general principle, weak and ineffectual heads of state are a good thing. especially in our own age, where the presidency has been inflated to a role of power far beyond either what is reasonable or constitutionally intended.

Sanction: 1, No Sanction: 0
Post 16

Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 7:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
as a general principle, weak and ineffectual heads of state are a good thing. especially in our own age, where the presidency has been inflated to a role of power far beyond either what is reasonable or constitutionally intended.

Not when there is a candidate who seeks to return the presidency (and Federal Government in general) to it's originally intended limited powers. You seem to be forgetting or ignoring the fact that there is a Libertarian candidate.

Furthermore, the United States of America is under attack from hostile forces - both external (Al Qa'ida and militant Islam in general) and internal (socialists, fascists, environmentalists and sundry malcontents). A weak President is not what you need right now. You need a strong President whose policies are based on rational principles, not polls and focus groups, nor religious revelations.

Post 17

Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 8:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Duncan, if there’s anything for certain in the 2004 election, it’s that Badnarik will not win. Nor will he place. Nor will he register. Nor will he have any effect that will make either party sit up and say, “Whoa! Maybe these libertarians are on to something.” Badnarik is such a no-name, that even libertarians divide between Bush and Kerry. Badnarik will not do a Nader. And even Nader, arguably the most influential third-party candidate in history, has failed to have any real policy influence on either of the major parties. It’s naïve in the extreme to believe that a vote for Badnarik will have any influence in the US political process. It’s a cute statement and all, but that’s all it is.

 

Nor is the choice a cynical one for a “placeholder” president. Don’t get me wrong. When I say Kerry would be a do-nothing president, I mean that he would “do nothing” to prevent the assault on individual liberties, stem the spiraling tax take or prevent the nepotism you speak of. It wouldn’t stop under Kerry.

 

I agree that America, and the world, needs a strong president. They’ve got one. Four more years.


Post 18

Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 8:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Duncan, if there’s anything for certain in the 2004 election, it’s that Badnarik will not win. Nor will he place. Nor will he register. Nor will he have any effect that will make either party sit up and say, “Whoa! Maybe these libertarians are on to something.” Badnarik is such a no-name, that even libertarians divide between Bush and Kerry.
And right there, you've described the chicken & egg problem that is destroying support for Libertarian parties in most Western countries, including here in New Zealand. People see a candidate they support, running on a platform they support, but see a lack of popular support for that candidate and platform, and so vote for someone else.

If the principled, right choice of candidate looks unlikely to place, voting for his competitor isn't a moral act - it's sanctioning and perpetuating the continued dominance of the status quo.
Nor is the choice a cynical one for a “placeholder” president. Don’t get me wrong. When I say Kerry would be a do-nothing president, I mean that he would “do nothing” to prevent the assault on individual liberties, stem the spiraling tax take or prevent the nepotism you speak of. It wouldn’t stop under Kerry.
Agreed. In fact, it would probably get worse - hence why Bush is a better choice than Kerry, but not the best choice.
I agree that America, and the world, needs a strong president. They’ve got one. Four more years.
Yes, Bush is a strong President, and was a better choice than Gore at the last election. But he's not the only candidate who would be a strong President if elected.


Post 19

Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 1:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ordinarily, I would take issue with Glenn & say one should vote for whomever actually advocates policies you agree with, regardless of their current popularity. In fact, Glenn & I - or more particularly Glenn & Mr Cresswell - have argued about this (to put it mildly :-)) in the past. But Badnarik is a Saddamite. That immediately removes him from contention, in my view, to be filed under 'M' for "Maggot." It means there is *no* candidate whom a conscientious libertarian can wholeheartedly endorse, so the usual argument one has with Glenn doesn't arise. At the same time, the perilous imperatives of the moment demand that all liberty-loving people get in behind the War on Terror. That means voting for Bush, even if some measure of nose-holding is required. I'm glad to hear that Tracinski, at least, among the ARI, is voting Bush, notwithstanding the barking-mad Peikoff's utterly contemptible decision to vote for Kerry. I expect, had there been an election when Churchill took over the leadership of the Conservative Party from that vile sliver of sewage, Chamberlain, Peikoff would have voted Labour on account of Churchill's not being an Objectivist. Sheesh!!

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.