The LIE Of Rudy Giuliani's Moderate Progressive Nature

Lies and damned lies.

The myth that Rudy Giuliani is not only the most progressive of the GOP wannabes running for his party's 2008 Republican presidential nomination but SOOOO moderate even Dems would vote for him is one big lie. Glenn Greenwald in his Salon blog tackles this and is brave enough to call a heinous lie just that. Here's a snip:

The most transparent and destructive fallacy being recited by our Beltway media class is that Rudy Giuliani is a moderate or centrist Republican. Examples of this fallacy are everywhere.

The Washington Post's Jonathan Weisman yesterday twice asserted during his "chat" that Giuliani was a moderate -- first rejecting the notion that the GOP is purging moderates by citing the fact that "the frontrunner in the presidential campaign is Rudy Giuliani, an abortion rights, gay rights, gun control advocate," and thereafter claiming that GOP political operatives want Giuliani as the nominee because "they think Giuliani will mobilize moderate Republicans and independents who lean Republican." Today, his Post colleague, "mainstream" enforcer Shailagh Murray, insisted that while Ron Paul is well outside the mainstream, Rudy Giuliani is squarely within it.

The very idea that Giuliani is a "moderate" or a "centrist" is completely absurd. Regarding the issues over which the next President will have the greatest influence -- foreign policy and presidential powers -- Giuliani is as far to what is now considered the "Right" as it gets. His views on foreign policy are far more radical and bellicose even than Dick Cheney's, and his view of presidential powers makes George Bush look like Thomas Jefferson.

This whole "moderate" myth is grounded exclusively in Giuliani's non-doctrinaire views of social issues. But that's pure fallacy. Political ideology doesn't function like mathematics, where two numbers situated on opposite extreme poles can be averaged together to produce a nice, comfortable number in the middle.

That isn't how political ideology works. A warmonger with authoritarian impulses and liberal positions on social issues isn't a "moderate" or a "centrist." He's just a warmonger with authoritarian impulses and liberal positions on social issues.

Even Giuliani's allegedly "liberal" positions on social issues are completely overblown. Outside of judicial appointments, Presidents actually have very little impact on issues such as gay rights, abortion and gun control. Other than judicial appointments, what impact has George Bush had on those areas? Virtually none.

Yet when it comes to the one instrument Presidents can actually use to shape social issues -- judicial appointments -- Giuliani's decisions will be anything but liberal. He has said repeatedly that he would "appoint judges like Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas" -- the most conservative justices on the Court. And his closest legal confidants are the by-product of relationships he formed at the Reagan DOJ -- people like Ted Olson and Michael Mukasey -- and his appointments are almost certainly going to comport loyally to Federalist Society dogma.

America's Own Hostages: Conditions At Guantanamo Bay Worsening

So says the BBC of Gitmo where Bush has kept hundreds of detainees, almost all Muslims, with only 10 people ever charged. The same detainees the Supreme Court played coward to this week knowing they could not legally protect the Bush Administration's inhumane treatment of these prisoners if they took the case for consideration.

And yet how the U.S. and Great Britain howled at the "terrible" treatment of the Brit sailor hostages Iran gave new clothes and gift bags to upon release yesterday. Yeah, we've got standing to talk about "inhumane treatment" all right.

Time Magazine: Bush "Clearly Unable to Lead"

The excellent Editor & Publisher is beating Time Magazine in reporting that Time's column by Joe Klein will hint very much at presidential impeachment and declare that George W. Bush is "clearly unable to lead."

Now this fact was obvious to over half the country in November 2000; thank the Supreme Court for forcing Bush down our throats in 2000 and rigged elections in 2004 for keeping Bushy there.

Nation's Highest Court Shows Themselves To Be Supreme Cowards

Where it comes to the Bush Administration's wholly illegal detainment of people who have never been charged with any crime whatsoever, the U.S. Supreme Court shows themselves to be cowards of epic proportions and unworthy of their jobs!

Supreme Court Rules Against Bush Spewings

From The New York Times:

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court found today that the Clean Air Act expressly authorizes the E.P.A. to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, contrary to the E.P.A.’s contention.

However, the Mediocres among the Supremes also voted against an appeal by Guantanamo detainees:

The Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday from Guantanamo detainees who want to challenge their five-year-long confinement in court, a victory for the Bush administration's legal strategy in its fight against terrorism.

The victory may be only temporary, however. The high court twice previously has extended legal protections to prisoners at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. These individuals were seized as potential terrorists following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and only 10 have been charged with a crime.

Despite the earlier rulings, none of the roughly 385 detainees has yet had a hearing in a civilian court challenging his detention because the administration has moved aggressively to limit the legal rights of prisoners it has labeled as enemy combatants.

A federal appeals court in Washington in February upheld a key provision of a law enacted last year that strips federal courts of their ability to hear such challenges.

At issue is whether prisoners held at Guantanamo have a right to habeas corpus review, a basic tenet of the Constitution that protects people from unlawful imprisonment.

The detainees' core argument is that no matter where they are held by American authorities, they are entitled to access to U.S. courts. They want the court to strike down the new law as unconstitutional.

Explain to me how these detainees can be faulted for WHERE they are held when it's the Bushies, rather than the detainees, who decide where they will be held. This is fucked up behond any possible sense.

Supreme Court Strips Al Gore of Oscar; Gives It To George W. Bush

Hey, anything can happen in Bush's Amerika. But this - this time, at least - is a Buzzflash parody (thank God).

How About An Al Gore-Barack Obama Ticket?

I dunno. To me, that sounds fairly appealing. It would give Obama a good shot at the presidency in four to eight years and, say what you want about Al (up for an Oscar tomorrow and a Nobel Prize in April, I believe), it sure looks like he won the 2000 presidential election, James Baker and the U.S. Supreme Court aside.

BTW, here's the link to DraftGore.

(Psssst: Can you tell Hillary Clinton makes me ill?)

Bad For Detainees, Bad for Democracy, Bad For America, Bad for the World

I have been meaning to write about Tuesday's really B-A-D federal appeals court decision FOR Bush's terror kangaroo court system and against detainees. While I am NOT a constitutional lawyer, I have been back and forth over it today and before and I do not see that its tenets are limited exclusively to American citizens. And that's not even arguing the never-never-land of limbo Bush has put many of these folks into at Gitmo and in secret prisons the world over!

For those who don't know about Tuesday's disastrous decision, here's CNN's piece and with it, their point summary:

• Judges OK anti-terrorism provision barring detainees from civilian courts
• Foreigners held in U.S. normally have right to contest their detention
• Justice Department: Constitution doesn't protect foreign enemy combatants
• Ruling is all but certain to be appealed to the Supreme Court