Witless. That’s got to be the explanation.
Positioning himself as the one Republican able to thwart another Clinton presidency, Giuliani lambasted Clinton’s recent comments about giving a $5,000 savings bond to every U.S.-born baby.
“It’s interesting that Hillary is taking something from the George McGovern playbook,” Giuliani said in Manchester, N.H., likening her idea to the former South Dakota senator’s proposal to send $1,000 to every U.S. resident.
In the 1972 election, Giuliani liked McGovern and his ideas enough to vote for him for president. The liberal lawmaker lost in a landslide to President Nixon.
Giuliani so wants to ingratiate himself to the hard right of the GOP base, he simply tries to disappear away his past. Maybe 9/11 made him do it, that seems to be the cause behind everything else.
UPDATE: The funny thing is, if you want to see which of the two has a more conservative history of who they supported in presidential elections, Sen. Clinton would probably win – considering that she was famously a “Goldwater Girl”.
So he voted for McGovern? So what?
It’s like saying your boss shouldn’t criticize the conservative press considering he used to write for it.
McGovern, man. Thank god that guy never became President. Who’d he lose to who was so superior? I forget.
So what? It (along with his newly displayed resistance to immigration) basically indicates that Giuliani is willing to morph politically just to please people into voting for him. What he actually believes is a mystery.
So he voted for McGovern? So what?
I agree. And it wouldn’t have come up as any sort of issue if Rudy hadn’t brought up McGovern first.
After all the nonsense about John Kerry’s flip-flopping, we’ve been treated to Republican candidates on parade to show off their own weather-vane opinions…be it McCain’s turnaround on evangelicals, Rudy’s 180’s on socially liberal causes, or Mitt on…well, almost everything.
So is it suddenly okay again for people to change their minds over time?
And it wouldn’t have come up as any sort of issue if Rudy hadn’t brought up McGovern first.
Yes, but that election was THIRTY FIVE YEARS AGO.
If McGovern ran in 2004, I could see making an issue out of it. However, taking into account the vote was almost a generation ago, this is much ado about nothing.
Apparently at some point he thought McGovern was good enough to vote for president. That he uses that same guy to flail at a rival is relevant.
Jay: If McGovern ran in 2004, I could see making an issue out of it. However, taking into account the vote was almost a generation ago, this is much ado about nothing.
Are you really this clueless?
At best, this is simple hypocrisy.
On the other hand, it could be seen as part of a pattern of Giuliani attacking what you believed in in order to get election. Nothing the man say can be taken at face value.
I’m not even sure what the point of Guiliani’s comment is. She’s like McGovern and McGovern lost? So by inference she is going to lose as well? I mean, it’s logically tenuous at BEST. He’s better off sticking with what he knows, invoking 9-11 every other word.
After all the nonsense about John Kerry’s flip-flopping, we’ve been treated to Republican candidates on parade to show off their own weather-vane opinions
Doesn’t matter, republicans can flip flop like a beached flounder and they’ll still be Gutsy and Decisive. Dem’s can be as steadfast and consistent as Mt. Rushmore and they’ll still be Weak and Vacillating. The Narrative is everything. Until the dems start realizing that and start taking on The Narrative head-on the reps will clean their collective clock.
Are you really this clueless?
Are really this big an asshole in person?
At best, this is simple hypocrisy.
Oh yes. How can we forget?? It’s THE HYPOCRISY!
Just so everybody understands:
Rudy Guiliani voted for George McGovern in 1972. Therefore, any criticism of George McGovern in 2007 is HYPOCRITICAL! It does not matter if 35 years have passed.
Somebody call Jim Webb’s office and let him know.
Yes, but that election was THIRTY FIVE YEARS AGO.
Weird. It’s like some kind of genetic feature or something- they can just shut off parts of their brains whenever they need to not look like pathetic hypocrites when attacking liberals. Personally, if I could pick a super-power I’d go with flight or something like that, but selective temporary memory loss- I guess that’s good too.
I actually agree with Jay. This is no big deal. All it shows is that Rudy has gotten stupider and more psychotic over the past 35 years, not that he’s a hypocrite. I mean, Rudy was probably against torture and failed, pointless wars back in 1972, too.
I agree, it’s not hypocrisy. It is, however, stupid om a number of levels to have brought up McGovern as a negative in the first place since he had no problem with McGovern the last time McGovern was relevant.
Me: Are you really this clueless?
Jay: Are really this big an asshole in person?
Yes.
I’m more open about it over the internet because the threat of immediate physical reprisal isn’t there, but I’m a really big asshole all of the time.
At least I’m consistent.
By the way, you ignored half of my post. This might have been a non-story except it’s part of a pattern. One gay Republican voting against gay rights and using homophobia as a political tool is not a story. A pattern of gay Republicans voting against gay rights…
Do you understand?
As you remember, Jay and other conservatives were totally against using John Kerry’s testimony before Congress in 1971 against him politically, simply because it was so long ago.
Oh wait, I don’t remember it that way at all.
Good point, Enlightened Liberal. And when the GOP claimed Kerry tricked the Navy into giving him his Purple Hearts, those injuries were from, when, 1968?
I’ll never understand why the typical pattern is for people to become more conservative as they age. For me, the increasing knowledge and perspective gained through experience leads to a realization of the utter untenability and ridiculousness of the status quo, and thus a steady leftward drift.