July 18, 2007, - 11:51 am

Rudy Giuliani: The “Chuck & Larry” President? (Needs to Get Away From Fruity Image)

I’ve written that, so far, I think Rudy Giuliani will be the toughest President when it comes to Islamic terrorism. As I’ve written, his recent Michael Chertoff gives me pause. Still, I think Giuliani has shown in the past, and , that he has the cojones to do what’s needed.
But, like most conservatives, I have a lot of problems with Giuliani on other important issues. He has a bad track record on deporting illegal aliens and enforcing immigration laws. That’s an issue that is interwoven and inextricable from terrorism. And then there are his social issue positions. We know his views (from which he has not flip-flopped) on gay marriage, though while I oppose that, it’s not a deal-breaker for me in my vote for the White House.

Last night, I screened “I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry” (my complete review will be posted on Friday). Like many of my smart readers–notably Garbanzo Toons–, the new Adam Sandler film–while a movie about two straight firemen, er . . . “firefighters” who fake a gay domestic partnership for pension benefits–is, in the end, a whopping 2-hour campaign ad for legalized gay marriage. The movie–which I thought I’d like (and hated)–is disgusting (far exceeding the paltry PG-13 rating; so many in-your-face men’s naked butts, I thought I was in Elton John’s hot tub). As I , the funniest moments are in the trailer, and overall, like most Sandler movies, this one is NOT funny (and, again, it’s repulsively disgusting; simply gross).
Yesterday, it was announced that among celebrities, only Giuliani got any star-studded cash. He got some green from Frasier’s Kelsey Grammar, and more notable, . I also noted in “Chuck & Larry,” that the New York City fire captain who oversees Chuck & Larry’s firehouse (played by Dan Ackroyd) brags that he worked for “the Great Mayor Giuliani,” as he delivers a monologue in favor of gay marriage and gay rights.
It was a little too in-your-face for me and a little too Giuliani-gay-marriage-in-your-face for me. Watching the movie, which has a lot of cross-dressing scenes and themes, reminded me of . I’m not saying he’s gay. With three wives, he’s hetero-serial. Still, the whole embrace of the gay culture and the in-your-face tutus and butterfly costumes was a little much. The many parents who brought their kids to the screening were a little too New York Times Square for my taste, a little too much enunciation of the “dark side” of Giuliani.
Will Rudy get away from all that as a President? I think and hope so. But movies and themes like these don’t help his cause in the conservative camp.
And we need to see a lot more Rudy counter-terror tough speak and a whole lot less “Chuck & Larry” tributes. Whatever your views on gay marriage, some of Giuliani’s get-ups (Marilyn Monroe, etc.) are simply unPresidential.
Most Americans don’t want–or need–a “Chuck & Larry” Presidency. We want a man who is serious on serious issues that are life and death for all of us–regardless of sexual preference.

The “Chuck & Larry” Prez?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

21 Responses

It’s sad that Republicans think Guiliani would be the best person to lead the war on terror. This is a man who did nothing prior to 9-11 to prepare for terror, despite his city being the target of a terrorist attack back in ’93. This is a man who didn’t give his people on the front lines the equipment they needed to stay alive. This is a man who, despite all reason and logic, decided to put the emergency command center in the very place where the first terrorist attack took place. And if that wasn’t enough, he chose to take paid speaking engagements rather than be a part of the Iraq Study Group. Those are hardly the credentials of someone who is qualified to lead the war on terror.

D*Rek on July 18, 2007 at 12:30 pm

I don’t care about gay marriage and other extraneous issues. My concern about Giuilani is is his softness on illegal aliens. I will not vote for a candidate who will not secure our borders. If Hillary gets in, so be it. I will not vote for another RINO Bush type. That means no to Romney. I’m waiting to hear more from Thompson.

lexi on July 18, 2007 at 12:36 pm

Actually, Dreck, taking part in the Iraq Study Group travesty would disqualify a candidate for the presidency. That’s a good point in Rudy’s favor.

lexi on July 18, 2007 at 12:38 pm

I agree with you Debbie it’s not a deal breaker, but those pictures of Rudy in drag just bother me. But then again if Hillary can get away with passing as a woman(kidding sort of) I can live with Rudy’s attire. Also, does this mean that you believe that Giuliani can/will beat Hillary?

OneIrishJew on July 18, 2007 at 12:44 pm

Yes, why should we expect our leaders to study and understand the problems we face in Iraq? It’s so much easier to bury their heads in the sand and blindly order more troops into the middle of a civil war without a plan to win.
Bush has had 5 years to win in Iraq and he is no closer to succeeding than when this war started (actually, given the new NIE report that came out this week, it would seem as though we are actually further away than when we started).
In the debates, Rudy has really shown his ignorance on the subject of terrorism and it’s causes. He’s still in the camp that believe that they “attack us for our freedom”, despite the fact that our own government agencies have concluded that our actions in the region have played a major role in Al Queda’s attacks (and if you need more evidence, look at the NIE report that just came out that states that Al Queda in Iraq is not only a great recruiting tool for Al Queda Central, but is also capable of launching foreign attacks. And let’s remember that before Bush took us to war without a plan for victory, Al Queda in Iraq did not exist).
We need someone in the White House that can form a policy to fight the war, not just come up with bumper sticker slogans. And up to this point, that’s all Rudy has been able to do.

D*Rek on July 18, 2007 at 2:21 pm

Thanks for remembering and for the link. And thanks for letting me know that this movie is a waste of time before I actually wasted my time and money.
If it comes down to Rudy vs Hillary, the only way to go would be Rudy.

sonofsheldon on July 18, 2007 at 7:06 pm

I think Fred understands Islam better than Rudy does, and as a result, will make a better President when it comes to Jihad. Fred wrote a great piece on Ayaan Hirsi Ali a couple of months ago. I haven’ seen any other candidate for President mention any apostate, which seems to me to be a pretty good litmus test for Jihad awareness.
Rudy is pretty non-PC for a New Yorker, but NYC is still NYC. I would vote for Rudy against McCain, but I think Fred is the man!

JSobieski on July 18, 2007 at 8:44 pm

While I’m not a big fan of Dennis Miller, I heard him say that he likes Rudy for President “because he has his best killing years ahead of him.” This is crucial because Rudy seems willing to go after our Islamic enemies.
Securing the border is vital of course but I would still vote for Rudy or ANY Republican nominated. The key is to VOTE even though we have a lot of reasons to be dissapointed in our current leaders. If Hillary or B. Hussein O are elected our national nightmare and descent into socialism begins.

CarpeDiem on July 18, 2007 at 9:40 pm

D*Rek –
What’s with spewing all the Democratic talking points? Bla, Bla. So boring.
Don’t you think we are aware of these talking points? ad nauseum

CarpeDiem on July 18, 2007 at 9:48 pm

Thanks to J. Sobieski for mentioning this great Fred Thompson article. Very encouraging.

CarpeDiem on July 18, 2007 at 10:10 pm

I’m with you on Rudy and the ISG.
A group that relies “in part, on the “expert” testimony of Augustus Richard Norton – an anthropology professor” to solve the Iraq issue is a group with its head up its ass. This “expert” also advocated appeasing terrorists by including Hamas in the diplomatic process.
I also like this assessment of the ISG.
“Definitive proof that the cream of our establishment has exiled itself from planet earth and it has no apparent intention of coming home. If the ISG set out to secure a humiliating American defeat it couldn’t have come up with more destructive recommendations.”
It was definitely smart for Rudy to opt out of the ISG.

WillPower on July 18, 2007 at 10:12 pm

If you are aware of these points, then why on earth would you support Rudy? We’re currently in year number 7 of a President who has no clue whatsoever, and as a result we’ve been fighting in a Third World Country for 5 years and are no closer to victory than when we started. Why support a canidate that has no clue like Bush?
Is ther Republican party so pitiful that they don’t have a canidate that can lead a competent fight against Al Queda, and instead have to settle on someone who just talks tough?

D*Rek on July 19, 2007 at 8:42 am

What I’m saying is that your comments are obviously Democratic talking points. While YOU may think they are true and valid – I don’t! They are propaganda.
What is interesting though, is how vehement you sound against Rudy as a candidate – and this early in the election! This tells me that Kos Kids and other leftists (the Democratic party) ARE nervous about a Rudy candidacy.
I don’t see how you can believe that the Democrats are interested in “leading a competent fight against Al Qaeda”. They don’t believe this is a WAR. They think it is an issue of a few rogue “militants”.
Democrats aren’t interested in winning anything (except power for themselves) and are trying as hard as they can to get us to lose all fights against the MUSLIM TERRORISTS.

CarpeDiem on July 19, 2007 at 1:23 pm

Carpe Diem,
Yes, I am worried about a Rudy candidacy, mainly because I know there are a large number of ignorant people out there who thinks just because someone talks tough on the war that it means they know what to do about the war. My fear is that enough of those ignorant people will vote and we’ll have to go through another 4 years of what we are currently going though.
And it amazes me that you criticize Democrats when it is obvious that Bush has lead a completely ineffective war up to this point. He’s spent the last 6 years, half a trillion dollars, and countless lives and what has he gotten for it? If you read the latest NIE, we’ve gotten an Al Queda who is just as strong as they were before 9-11, we have very few allies around the world, our reputation around the globe is destroyed, and we’re stuck in the middle of a civil war.
And on your point that the Dems are trying to loose all fights to the terrorists, think about this. Bush has had 6 years to catch Bin Laden, the man behind the 9-11 attack. 6 Years. When we did have him cornered and had a good idea of where he was, what did Bush do? He pulled our resources to invade a country that had absolutely nothing to do with it. On top of that, we have yet to attack a country that one of the 9-11 attackers were from. That hardly sounds like a party that is capable of winning a war…

D*Rek on July 19, 2007 at 2:14 pm

Read this:
“The Dems want to have it both ways. They claim we’re not fighting al Qaeda. Then they insist we abandon Iraq to al Qaeda.
And, as a capper, no leading Democrat praised our military when it was revealed yesterday that we captured the senior Iraqi in al Qaeda, Khaled al-Mashhadani. Wouldn’t want any good news reaching the voters . . .
The intelligence report in question said, in essence, that, after the devastating blow we struck against al Qaeda in Afghanistan, the terrorists have regained some strength in their safe haven on Pakistan’s Northwest Frontier. It doesn’t say that al Qaeda is stronger than ever – although that’s what the Dems imply.”

WillPower on July 19, 2007 at 4:16 pm

For starters, that article made me laugh at the irony. I mean, all his points about how Obama would waste soldiers lives, how we would have to occupy a miserable place, etc could be made about the current conflict that Bush led us into in Iraq.
On the lack of praise for the military capture, this was, by my estimate, the 87th “Senior Al Queda” member that we’ve captured. Unless it’s one of the top people (like Bin Laden), it is utterly meaningless, as they will simply and easily be replaced like the 86 before him.
And if you read the report and not listen to the white house spin, it says that they are at a “pre 9-11 level”. Regardless of whether they are stronger or close to it the end result is still the same. Bush has screwed up the war on terror so badly that after 6+ years of fighting it, at best we have slightly hurt them.
Oh, and if paid attention to the Pentagon war games over the past couple of weeks you’d know that all of the senerios they have run through to determine what would happen when we leave Iraq that not one of them has Al Queada taking over. Furthermore, the Pentagon came to the conclusion that in all likely hood our withdrawl from Iraq would put Iran in a bind, as they would get drug into the Quagmire that we are currently in…

D*Rek on July 19, 2007 at 4:42 pm

Care to cite your source(s) for these claims? Or are they just fantasies of yours like the rest of your points?
I guess you prefer to play the sophist with word games, like all libs. Ralp Peters is hardly a White House spinner. He has been very critical of Bush on the Iraq war.
And you miss the main point – the Dems cannot fight the war on terror because they refuse to see the war. Bush’s fumbling is better than the Dems nothing.
You are an example of this mindset. You criticize, but offer no alternative. If you are as smart as you seem to think, give us some details of what your solution would be. Put your money where your mouth is!

WillPower on July 19, 2007 at 8:54 pm

Here’s a solution.
Pull the vast majority of our resources out of Iraq and put them on the Afghan/Pakistan boarder. Work with the Pakistan Military to take out the training camps and the central Al Qaeda Leadership in the frontier of Pakistan. Given the recent attacks within the Pakistan capital, getting their cooperation should be possible.
Leave some troops in Iraq to coordinate and work with the Sunni’s in Anbar province to eliminate the small Al Qaeda presence in Iraq (considering we are already arming them in their fight, this isn’t a far fetched idea). With the vast majority of our troops gone from Iraq combined with cutting the head off the central leadership, there’s a good chance that recruiting for Al Qaeda will dwindle.
As far as the secterian violence in Iraq, sadly we’re just going to have the let that play out. We do not have the resources nor the capability to stop this from happening. It is an Iraqi problem and they will have to sort it out. It would also be a good idea to have troops along the Iraqi boarder to keep Iran from launching a full scale assault in an effort to take over the country.
So what’s your plan?

D*Rek on July 19, 2007 at 9:50 pm

While I am interested in military history and affairs, I do not claim to be a military genius like you. My plan is to support General Petraeus who is an acknowledged expert in counter terrorism. I would give him the resources and the TIME to execute the plan he has developed.
As for your solution, I acknowledge that you at least have a plan – which is more than most Dem mouthpieces have bothered to set forth. However, I am curious how you would handle these details.
1. How would you manage the logistical details of supplying “the vast majority of our resources” on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border?
2. How would you handle Pakistani objections to large scale military incursions into their territory?
3. How would you prevent Al-Qaeda leaders and resources from relocating from Pakistan to Iraq while you move our troops? (I heard the Pentagon estimated it would take 20 months to withdraw from Iraq.)
4. Why would Al Qaeda recruitment dwindle when you have handed them their greatest recruiting tool by abandoning Iraq? Remember Bin Laden’s “weak horse” theory?
5. How many troops would you leave in Anbar? Won’t they be easy targets for terrorists and/or Shiite militias?
6. How many troops would be needed to prevent Iran from “launching a full scale assault”?
I find it inconsistent of you to bemoan the loss of “countless lives”, by which you must be including Iraqis, in a previous post, yet, now you seem indifferent to an even greater loss of lives in the chaos that would follow our withdrawal, not to mention the lives of the Pakistanis lost rooting out Al Qaeda in the Territories.
By the way, I notice you still have not cited any sources to support your earlier claims. How about a link to the NIE or a Pentagon site discussing the war games you mention?

WillPower on July 20, 2007 at 1:23 am

D*Rek said,
“And if you read the report and not listen to the white house spin, it says that they are at a “pre 9-11 level”.”
Well, I did read the report and did a search on the document for the phrase “pre 9-11 level”. This phrase does NOT appear in the NIE report. Perhaps, you are quoting the liars at the NY Times, not a good practice. So who is really listening to spin?
Following are the sentnces from the NIE containing “9/11” (9-11 is not used in the actual report):
“We assess that greatly increased worldwide counterterrorism efforts over the past five years
have constrained the ability of al-QaÔø?ida to attack the US Homeland again and have led
terrorist groups to perceive the Homeland as a harder target to strike than on 9/11. These
measures have helped disrupt known plots against the United States since 9/11.”
“We are concerned, however, that this level of international cooperation may wane as
9/11 becomes a more distant memory and perceptions of the threat diverge.”
“Although we have discovered only a handful of
individuals in the United States with ties to al-QaÔø?ida senior leadership since 9/11, we judge
that al-QaÔø?ida will intensify its efforts to put operatives here.”
Why should we accept your other claims which are unsupported?

WillPower on July 21, 2007 at 12:24 am

Here is a link to the NIE on C-Span. Read for yourself.

WillPower on July 21, 2007 at 12:44 am

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field