“NeO” to Giuliani — United Against a Presidential Nightmare

64 Comments

1. 

   Amad

   November 11, 2007 at 4:36 PM

   Please do not use this space for comments related to “should we vote or not”… the other post on voting suffices for that discussion.

   Use this space to discuss the Giuliani threat and to sign up with the Anti-NeO team!

   Reply
2. 

   Siraaj Muhammad

   November 11, 2007 at 5:43 PM

   Salaam alaykum brothers,

   I agree with the goal of this post, but if I might just make one constructive critique, while it’s true that many politicians will try to minimize on points that are not advantageous to them getting into office, and many do jump this way and that on issues depending on the latest polling, your first point about Giuliani, I disagree with.

   The fact that Giuliani is neither close to being a true conservative or liberal does not mean he jumps from one issue to the next to suit his own political gain. On the contrary, Giuliani’s positions have remained quite consistent between where he was as a mayor and where he stands now as a presidential candidate.

   Example – his stance on abortion is pro-choice. He could have gone the Mitt Romney direction and changed position, but he didn’t, and this is perhaps the most important issue for social conservatives, and while he’s losing their vote, he remains resolute that it’s a state issue.

   Please don’t misunderstand and think I’m pro-Rudy, or that I think he’s a good person, or candidate – I agree with Joe Biden’s assessment of him from the last Democratic Presidential debate in Drexel. I simply care that if we criticize, we do so justly, insha’Allah, and I don’t think that this particular criticism should be held up against him, when there are so many more that can be held against him, which are more damaging.

   Or, at the very least, remove the last sentence in your summary of criticisms against him – he’s neither a true liberal or conservative. At best, he’ll appeal to the independent vote.

   Siraaj

   Reply
3. 

   iMuslim

   November 11, 2007 at 5:43 PM

   If he’s as described above… i’m definitely in!

   But what/who is the best alternative?

   Reply
4. 

   Siraaj Muhammad

   November 11, 2007 at 5:44 PM

   *should not be held against him (2nd paragraph, last sentence)

   Reply
5. 

   Abdulhasib

   November 11, 2007 at 6:16 PM

   hmmm it’s interesting to see this post right above the “Clarification about Taqleed” post.

   If you notice amongst the true scholars of this deen, they held the same principles whether they be in times of fitnah, decision making, hardship or ease.

   My point is: we shouldn’t expect the lay to read this and automatically jump on the bandwagon in some pact of unity..

   I’m sorry if this draws some parrallels of the Muslims calling to vote for Bush like blind bats.. except in this case it’s “let’s not make that mistake by aiming for the guy that looks, smells, and talks like him the most.”

   What looks like a call to ‘let’s be united to disagree on something’ should rather be a call toward ‘let’s unite to agree to make educated decisions.’

   May Allah help us to know the truth as truth when it is presented and allow us to follow it, and know the falsehood as falsehood and allow us to reject it.
   Ameen Ya Rub.

   WAllahu ‘Alam

   Reply
6. 

   Amad

   November 11, 2007 at 6:35 PM

   assalaamalaikum

   SubhanAllah, you know we Muslims love to criticize. We ignore 99% of the big picture and like to focus on small things. Its unfortunately sad… I mean we could have a bomb heading our way, and we’d be arguing about whether the bomb is really that bad, or should we go ask some scholars about this bomb! I am sorry for venting a bit, but sometimes it would be nice to just work towards a common goal and ignore any minor disagreements.

   Br. Siraj, Rudy jumped into the politically expedient issue of islamophobia… this wasn’t something he was before. While has hasn’t “officially” changed his pro-choice position, he has insisted that he will pick judges that are “constitutionalists”, in other words anti-abortion. Of course, as a Muslim, I am not pro-choice either, the point is his stance on issues (the few that he actually has besides 9/11) is not as ironclad as you make it seem.

   Br. AbdulHasib, I am not asking your or anyone else to “jump” into this for the sake of unity. Rather, I have laid out the whole case against Giuliani– did you even see Bush’s name in the 6 points? If you do not quite see the issue, then you haven’t taken the time to go through all what has been laid out, including the several articles linked. After going through the information, if you still believe that Giuliani is not the most dangerous presidential candidate, please let us know and lay out your evidences to support it.

   Finally, if anyone thought the “Islamofascist” week was bad, then under Giuliani every day will be Islamofascist day… since he takes every opportunity to spew this word and his hatred for “muslim fascists”.

   In any case, I don’t want this thread to become another nit-picking session. If only we can only focus on the big picture and recognize this guy and his team for what they are, I think the purpose of this post will be met.

   wallahualam

   Reply
7. 

   Amad

   November 11, 2007 at 6:37 PM

   iMuslim, “who’s the best alternative” will take another post and much more research. I can tell you that the best candidates (for America and for Muslims) have very little chance of winning. Unfortunately, sometimes we have settle for the least of the evils. My attempt here was to establish the upper envelope of that evil.

   Reply
8. 

   Saleem Siddiqui

   November 11, 2007 at 7:09 PM

   Hot Conflict Radio show discussing Islam media politcs and pop culture.

   I have done a few nights on the Rudy Giuliani Campaign and why the conservative right is voting against their main objectives for a candidate such as Giuliani

   Listen to the show weeknights.

   http://www.HotConflict.com

   Reply
9. 

   Abdulhasib

   November 11, 2007 at 7:24 PM

   -) akhi ‘Amad i didn’t address the factual integrity of your piece.

   “please let us know and lay out your evidences to support it.”.. is the very reason i commented. To have discourse and weigh the options before we move to judgement.

   Secondly to establish our principles and see what benefits the muslims at large in this country.

   Please forgive me if it came with other intentions than that.

   It seems at times we need to be reminded in my eyes that “al ‘ilm qablal qawli wal ‘amal”
   Knowledge preceeding statements and actions..

   WAllahu ‘Alam

   Reply

10. Pingback: No to Guilani, a Presidential Nightmare | Mujahideen Ryder's Blog

11. Pingback: Seriously Now, NO to Guiliani : my occupied territory

12. Pingback: Say NeO to Rudy Guiliani « SufiStication

13. 

    Rich Paul

    November 11, 2007 at 11:00 PM

    I’m with you on Guiliani. Unless Ron Paul manages to get the Republican nomination, I’ll be voting Libertarian again this year.

    It amazes me that people believe that this gang of crooks, liars, and morons can run their lives better than they can.

    If you want to have a look at the AntiGuiliani, have a look at: http://ronpaul2008.com/

    Reply
14. 

    Amad

    November 11, 2007 at 11:05 PM

    Ron Paul is as upright of a politician as there could be. His position on privacy rights and the rule of law, in America and abroad, puts him above almost all of the candidates. He would be my top choice among the Republicans, while Bill Richardson is the most appealing Democrat candidate. Unfortunately, as I mentioned, the best candidates have little chance of winning.

    Rich, if you with us on Giuliani, and would like to join this virtual effort, it would be great if you would add a little post on your blog highlighting this million-man drive and we’ll cross-link to it.

    thanks for stopping by.

    P.S.: RON vs RUDY:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD7dnFDdwu0

    Reply
15. 

    Siraaj Muhammad

    November 12, 2007 at 1:12 AM

    Salaam alaykum Amad,

    I think you’re looking at this from the wrong perspective. What I’m suggesting is that you’ve weakened your argument against him by making a false claim. We’re Muslims, and when we criticize, even our criticisms should be true. In point #1, your final sentence cannot be concluded from your previous sentences. I’m simply saying you ought to correct it to make for a stronger argument. By not doing so, you’ve left your position open to attack.

    One of the reasons many Muslims are contending and fighting with one another is because criticisms are taken personally. We’re human, and we make mistakes – I’m happy when someone points out a mistake, and I’m happy when someone listens when I explain why I think I didn’t make a mistake as well (if I believe so).

    To discuss your sidepoint further, Giuliani, like most politicians, is simply manipulating the language for wiggle room later on. Neo-cons outright say they want to appoint judges that are pro-life, not “constitutionalists”. All he’s simply saying is that he’ll nominate someone who will objectively look at the rule of law and decide – exactly how a judge should act anyway.

    But the example was not the main point – the main point was simply I saw what I perceived to be a mistake (and I’m open to being corrected on that), and I was hoping you’d make your point stronger by criticizing him with what is correct to criticize him with (or correcting my understanding).

    Finally, not taking a position on a matter and taking one afterwards doesn’t turn one into someone who takes politically expedient positions, nor does it prove it. Giuliani has demonstrated that he takes and holds to his positions quite strongly, from what I have seen.

    Siraaj

    Reply
16. 

    none

    November 12, 2007 at 3:20 AM

    Ron Paul has, by far, the most principled campaign out of the lot. I think his ideas on foreign policy outweigh even the Democrats’ views put together.

    Reply

17. Pingback: » Blogosfera musulmana americana se moviliza contra el candidato Giuliani deUgarte.com

18. 

    Amad

    November 12, 2007 at 9:01 AM

    Siraj, why don’t you come up with a better point and I’ll consider changing it… I stand by my contention that the claim is not false, but I am willing to replace it with a better argument.

    w/s

    Reply
19. 

    iMuslim

    November 12, 2007 at 12:30 PM

    I’ve heard about Ron Paul, but it’s quite terrible… the more i follow politics, the more cynical i become. He seems like a great candidate, but sometime i feel that the competitive nature of party politics means politicians end up saying what people want to hear, rather than what is best for them. And when politicians end up saying the same thing, chasing the “popular vote”, other politicians veer towards “niche” causes in order to get attention, and praise from more neglected segments of the voting public.

    That is such a cynical attitude to have, i know. What’s worse, i’m not sure i am alone in it.

    Sorry if i’m going off on a tangent!

    Reply
20. 

    none

    November 12, 2007 at 12:38 PM

    Thats very true iMuslim and most of the time, you’re right: candidates want to make themselves stand out. but if you’ve seen Paul’s voting record in Congress, you will be surprised b/c hes known as “Mr NO” and votes No for a lot of things. For example, he voted no to give Rosa Parks a medal of honor simply because he didnt want US citizens to be paying for it thru their tax dollars. He told the other Congressmen and women “Let’s all take out 100 dollars and pay for it ourselves” but no one agreed. Also, hes been against the Iraq war since day 1 and doesnt foster the blind following of pro-Israel like even Obama and Clinton do.

    of course, at the end of the day, only Allaah knows best who is the best.

    Reply
21. 

    Siraaj Muhammad

    November 12, 2007 at 1:48 PM

    Salaam alaykum Amad,

    Firstly, if I wanted to ensure that Giuliani didn’t get into office, it wouldn’t be either in this fashion, or with the arguments proposed. In the arena of political discourse, Muslim opinions are a political liability, whether we like it or not.

    I’d first form a coalition with likeminded conservatives (the most likely to vote for him), as well as anti-war independents and work both grass and netroots style as one voice among a diverse voice of many to help bring about his downfall in the primaries.

    Although many of you focus on his position on the “War on Terror”, which many conservatives currently support, regardless of whether it is neo-cons or traditional-cons, I’d focus back on his abortion position first, and what he did when he was mayor of New York. I’d also focus on the ambiguity of his statements about the type of judges he’ll be appointing to the supreme court if elected.

    Furthermore, I’d highlight his position on abortion with emotional images showing babies crying and being aborted, and then asking conservatives if this is the man they’d like to elect. And I’d try to make this as ubiquitous as possible (youtube, anyone?).

    The approach you’ve taken now has simply opened the door for neo-con spin machines to say, this is the guy to beat hilary, and he’s the only one out of all the neo-cons that scares the islamofascists (i.e. you) – after all, look at how much time and effort they devote to putting him down?

    In that way, his group will try to say the benefit of Giuliani on national security will outweigh the harm of his position on abortion, given that the alternative is Hilary or a Republican considered favorable to islamofascists.

    That’s my take.

    Siraaj

    Reply
22. 

    Siraaj Muhammad

    November 12, 2007 at 2:07 PM

    By the way, if I had to choose which candidate to attack, it would be Romney. Romney’s opinion of Muslims in America is outright nasty and in line with the likes of Ann Coulter, which is why you see a lot of religious right neo-cons in the media supporting him.

    Rudy, on the other hand, while he holds the positions he holds on the “War on Terror”, has quite firmly said he believes that the Qur’aan was re-interpreted by radicals for extreme ends and that Muslims by and large are peaceful people. Doesn’t mean I like the guy, but I’d rather knock the bigoted Mormon out of the gate first, and then gut Rudy in the general election – his personal life is so full of story, his antics so full of the absurd, it won’t stand up to the scrutiny of the general election process.

    Siraaj

    Reply
23. 

    Moiez

    November 12, 2007 at 2:19 PM

    Say No to Giuliani! And make Ron Paul one of the cool and popular kids!

    Reply

24. Pingback: Ranting on Ijtema « iMuslim

25. 

    iMuslim

    November 12, 2007 at 7:11 PM

    Siraaj M, although i can’t comment on the finer details of your proposal, i really appreciate your perspective… it’s good to compare ideas, and strategies, when we each have a common goal, alhamdulillah.

    Wrt Ron Paul… as i am not a US citizen, and so my knowledge of how things work for you guys is limited… how could the American Muslims, together with his other supporters, make him a stronger candidate? I mean, it’s not just enough to bring down the “bad guy” unless you place a “good guy” in his stead, insha’Allah.

    Reply
26. 

    Amad

    November 12, 2007 at 9:08 PM

    salam… Br. Siraj, I was hoping for comments on the first point, not a change in strategy :)

    I believe in what I am doing here… your advice certainly has merit. Alhamdulilah we have nothing to hide on MM… we have been at the forefront of refuting the “lunatics” and the terrorists who misuse Islam. I definitely recognize and have been stung before by out-of-context quotes and lines, but really that can happen at anytime by anyone. If we continue to worry about that, we’ll accomplish nothing. May Allah protect MM and all our brothers and sisters.

    I would urge you to consider starting your own campaign as well from your angle. The more ways we can get at this threat, the better. I know that Utah, majority Mormon state, is the firmest supporter of Bush. But I have not yet seen Romney get as “low” as Rudy against Muslims. He has also not surrounded himself with the neocon cult. I agree though that he is also not “safe” for Muslims… so really since Romney and Giuliani are the main Republican candidates, we are probably going to be stuck with Hillary as the lesser of the evils, but we’ll see…

    For now, if you come up with a better point#1, I am all ears (or eyes) :)

    Reply
27. 

    Musa Maguire

    November 12, 2007 at 9:47 PM

    Giuliani is like Bush with no pretense of religion. It’s the worst of the Republican party–all the greed, none of the values.

    Reply
28. 

    none

    November 12, 2007 at 11:58 PM

    John Edwards seems pretty good though, in terms of Democratic party. I favor him much more than Obama or Clinton.

    Reply
29. 

    Nasir

    November 13, 2007 at 12:04 AM

    How I wish I had never seen such a day,
    muslims debating which one they should support Abu Jahl or Utba bin Rabi’a.

    Reply
30. 

    ibnabeeomar

    November 13, 2007 at 12:20 AM

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-simon/rudy-defends-oxycontin-wo_b_72051.html

    Reply

31. Pingback: Ijtema » Remember 9/12: Unite against Giuliani!

32. 

    Siraaj Muhammad

    November 13, 2007 at 1:11 PM

    Amad,

    I’d offer a suggestion, but I’m not sure who your audience is for those remarks? Your latter points would appeal to Muslims only, your former appear to appeal to the American populace – my advice is simply to remove the last line.

    As I recall from the mid to late nineties, we hated the Clintons as well (sanctions on Iraq, 1.5 million dead, anyone?). Everyone is buying into the hype of a lot of these candidates, but the reality is that their position will not be dictated on principle – it will be dictated by the special interest dollars that put them in power because the profiteers from death and destruction cannot do so in a stable world.

    About the only hope everyone has right now is with a Ron Paul, and as much interest as he’s generated, he’s not going to win any primaries.

    If Muslims want to get politically involved, then they ought to focus on an aggressive Muslim rights message along the vein of Malcolm X – unapologetic, intelligent, and in-your-face fearless, so that no matter who comes into office, the rights of the Muslim are respected.

    More importantly, they need lawyers and lawmakers to help them challenge the status quo attitude towards Islam and Muslims.

    Siraaj

    Reply
33. 

    AnonyMouse

    November 13, 2007 at 2:34 PM

    Politics is depressing :(

    Although, your post reminded me that elections are going to be looming here in Canada also… have to get caught up on that… aahhhhh, too much to do!

    May Allah protect the Ummah from the enemies of Islam, wherever they may be and whatever tactics they may use against us, ameen!

    Reply
34. 

    Yusuf Smith

    November 13, 2007 at 3:19 PM

    As-Salaamu ‘alaikum,

    The link to “Why does Norman hate America?” leads to a different Scheuer article. The correct URL is:
    http://www.antiwar.com/scheuer/?articleid=11670

    Reply

35. Pingback: Indigo Jo Blogs

36. 

    Umm Layth

    November 13, 2007 at 8:59 PM

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=vaCYEEO-58I

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=bfXEqmCFeo8

    Reply
37. 

    Umm Layth

    November 13, 2007 at 9:09 PM

    We need to be more positive and spread the word about Ron Paul. Things may not seem to be going one way but Allah plans.

    Reply
38. 

    none

    November 14, 2007 at 1:48 AM

    whats more effective, a “Muslims for Ron Paul” group or “Muslims against Rudy” group?

    Reply

39. Pingback: “NeO” to Giuliani — United Against a Presidential Nightmare >> Muslim Matters « Politicomuzlim

40. 

    DrM

    November 14, 2007 at 7:23 AM

    Ron Paul seems interesting. I won’t vote for Ghooliani on account that he has a fetish for dressing in drag.

    Reply
41. 

    BostonMuslim

    November 14, 2007 at 11:17 AM

    I don’t understand how a liberitarian like Ron Paul can be interesting when our deen is also about helping poor people.

    Reply
42. 

    Musa Maguire

    November 14, 2007 at 1:47 PM

    I tend to agree re: Ron Paul. He seesm like a decent, sincere guy, but I think his libertarian politics are dangerous.

    Reply
43. 

    Umm Layth

    November 14, 2007 at 4:02 PM

    BostonMuslim, the man believes in healthcare. Listen for yourself.

    Reply
44. 

    Umm Layth

    November 14, 2007 at 4:12 PM

    What can be so dangerous about his politics? The man believes you must stick to the ways of the forefathers; the constitution. He is anti the wars that have been illegally begun and any irresponsible, stupid, wars.

    I think we have priorities to look at here. He is better than the majority of candidates, on both sides. There will never be a perfect candidate, but right now we need to think about the main issue that is going to be affecting so many people if an idiot president gets chosen – the issue of war! This man has the vote of the youth, people in the military, and so many more people. He is standing up against the majority, and he has been very consistent.

    Who else could be up there with Ron Paul? Hillary? The woman is a hoax.

    Please also remember that no matter who you vote for, even if they seem less ‘dangerous’ you really do not know who they are until they are put in office. It happened with Bush when the Muslims voted for him, didn’t it?

    Reply
45. 

    New Yorker

    November 14, 2007 at 6:15 PM

    Do you think we care what muslims think about anything?

    Reply
46. 

    amad

    November 14, 2007 at 7:18 PM

    “New Yorker”, if “we” dont care what Muslims think, perhaps “we” should consider otherwise. Perhaps, had we listened to Muslims, we wouldn’t be in the Iraqi quagmire. It is always healthy to listen to all sides and all opinions… it can’t hurt.

    In any case, sorry to burst your bubble, but none of the articles and supporting evidences I quoted was written by Muslims or from Muslim-controlled media. So, it is obvious that it’s far from just Muslims being concerned about America’s direction in the future and to protect it from more quagmires.

    Reply
47. 

    Siraaj Muhammad

    November 14, 2007 at 7:21 PM

    “Do you think we care what muslims think about anything?”

    If by “we” you mean those representing backwoods, inbred hicks who were spawned from the same litter the likes of Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Daniel Pipes, et al and those who appear to have fallen out of a Jeff Foxworthy special (“Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader” or “You Might Be a Redneck If…” are both noteworthy here), then no, we don’t think you possess the requisite intellectual bandwidth to initiate an intelligent thought and would not expect you to progress to higher levels of human emotion and awareness, such as wondering what other humans, Muslims notwithstanding, think about anything.

    Siraaj

    Reply
48. 

    Amad

    November 14, 2007 at 9:48 PM

    woah Siraaj, that was like a rocket of a comment!

    Reply
49. 

    inexplicabletimelessness

    November 15, 2007 at 1:39 AM

    As salaamu alaikum:

    ” but I think his libertarian politics are dangerous. ”

    In what sense? Limited government/states rights or too many liberties? I don’t quite follow..

    Reply

50. Pingback: The Fifth of November

51. 

    Amir

    November 15, 2007 at 8:39 AM

    What’s so dangerous about personal freedom and responsibility?

    Reply
52. 

    Musa Maguire

    November 15, 2007 at 11:47 PM

    First, states rights has always been a race issue, and if it wasn’t for feds coming down south to put jim bob in check, we may still be drinking out of separate water fountains. That doesn’t mean Ron Paul is a racist or anything, but he plays on a issue whose history is dubious, to say the least.

    I personally prefer a stronger federal government, and support its role in providing healthcare, education, helping out the less fortunate, and so on. The whole “responsibility” thing sounds nice, but it often translates into Calvinist selfishness and nothing more.

    From what I can tell, Ron Paul was a big supporter of Ronald Reagan and has never backed away from that. Reagan had some of the nastiest, interventionist foreign adventures (all in the name of freedom of course). Is that “humble foreign policy?”

    Reply
53. 

    inexplicabletimelessness

    November 16, 2007 at 12:16 AM

    As salaamu alaikum,

    Brother Musa, though I respect your opinion, I would have to disagree in the fact that I don’t believe states rights has always been a race issue. The idea of states’ rights can be seen in the Founders themselves and in the earliest political debate which took place during the conception of America: between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Federalists wanted to ratify the constitution how it already was in 1789 but Anti-Feds mistrusted authority after a long period of British hegemonic rule and oppression.

    They (including people such as Thomas Jefferson, Elbridge Gerry and George Mason) believed that adding a Bill of Rights would ensure individual rights for all. Furthermore, many of them such as Jefferson promoted states’ rights over national sovereignty because of the impact small, localized communities could have on bringing out peoples’ true voices.

    Although I don’t believe today America can live as a confederacy and live in small, agrarian communities like Jefferson believed because of globalization and national pressing issues, I do think states rights should be given more importance.

    Instead of, for example, giving the federal government control of healthcare which may lead to a “just-get-the-job-done” attitude rather than “let’s-provide-excellence” vision, if states were given this jurisdiction then quality care could be given to citizens based on their NEEDS. Sometimes the federal gov’t generalizes the needs of citizens in states because it simply doesn’t know. Look at the No Child Left Behind Act. Though it has promoted education to a certain extent, many (including a large proportion of teachers at my school) would argue that it’s virtually useless and meddles in local affairs, just for the sake of meddling.

    I think it boils down to what Muslims in America feel their current situation is. Do we care more about survival and securing ourselves in this nation right now, or do we hope to wander off in idealistic dreamland where we may promote good for all? The latter is my ultimate hope and dream, but honestly, without our own security and freedom to practice our religion and be given certain rights, I believe the latter will just be a play on words, and not substancial progress.

    Allah knows best. May He keep us on His Straight Path, ameen.

    Reply
54. 

    Siraaj Muhammad

    November 16, 2007 at 2:29 AM

    To be fair to Ron Paul, he has pointed out on numerous occasions that Reagan admitted being mistaken in intervening in Middle Eastern foreign affairs.

    I personally prefer the “take responsibility for your own life” approach. I don’t like my tax dollars shunted off to support initiatives (social, military, pork barrel, etc) I want nothing to do with. In fact, let me have my full salary, and I’ll have an easier time taking care of my family and will be sure to spend that money back into the free market.

    Siraaj

    Reply
55. 

    Musa Maguire

    November 16, 2007 at 11:09 AM

    What about Latin American foreign affairs? Death squads and the like?

    Reply

56. Pingback: Giuliani’s Marriage of Convenience « ASRAJ

57. 

    Siraaj Muhammad

    November 17, 2007 at 1:44 AM

    Salaam alaykum Musa,

    Do a search on youtube, Ron Paul and Morton Downey Jr as your keywords. Interesting debate with Curtis Sliwa’s daughter and others against Ron Paul as he is pro marijuana (he was running as the libertarian candidate for president at that time).

    In that discussion (if you can stomach watching all of it), he mentions and condemns the role the CIA played in enabling the drug business in the ghettos, as well as condemning the government’s support of such regimes.

    Now, it may not be a direct condemnation of Reagan, but in my view, it’s close enough.

    Assuming, however, that he didn’t condemn Reagan, that’s neither here nor there – his policy on foreign affairs is clear – stay out. Condemning Reagan to fellow Republicans is blasphemy, and no amount of rationalization will bring others back to the table to listen to him if he were to do that.

    Siraaj

    Reply
58. 

    ibnabeeomar

    November 21, 2007 at 12:53 PM

    NYC Deputy Fire Chief and head of 9/11 Firefighters and Families counters claims by Giuliani that he is Mr. 9/11

    http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/11/20/nyc-fire-chief-giuliani-not-a-hero-he-ran-that-day/

    Reply
59. 

    Amad

    November 21, 2007 at 1:45 PM

    And here http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/21/0243/0740

    Reply
60. 

    Musa Maguire

    November 21, 2007 at 10:45 PM

    I understand the states’ rights issue is deeper than race, but it has always been about race to some degree, and probably more so when invoked in recent history. It is often related to attacks on civil liberties which is something that is really necessary to enforce at a federal level, given that the electorate of many states may re-enact Jim Crow laws if given the opportunity.

    No Child Left Behind is a busted up law, but maybe not because it is federal…perhaps because it is heavily influenced by interest groups, or reflects an uncritical faith in testing, quantitative data, etc.

    By the way, Reagan was not just a disaster in terms of foreign policy. He also presided over the crackification of American cities, explosion of crime and other social ills, which was all very much related to his policies. I would prefer to have money spent ineffeciently on social programs rather than pushing people into hopelessness and desperation.

    What I really hope for is when conservative social values unite with progressive social policies. To me that is the true middle path in American politics, and one well suited to Muslims. In the meantime, I will pretty much vote Democrat, since I believe their commitment to social program is more genuine than the Republicans commitment to conservative values. The fact that they are even considering Giuliani illustrates this.

    Reply
61. 

    Umm Reem

    November 25, 2007 at 1:18 AM

    Olbermann: Rudy Giuliani Crossed the Line

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mEEjX6j_f4

    Reply
62. 

    Umm Layth

    December 16, 2007 at 9:31 PM

    http://www.ronpaul2008.com

    join the cause and donate

    Reply
63. 

    Amad

    December 24, 2007 at 7:50 PM

    Excellent article on how what Rudy perceived to be a leftist Professor turned out to be a tenured conservative!

    See who hackled him at the George H. Bush library:

    http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_01_14/cover.html

    Reply

64. Pingback: muslimmatters.org » The Blowback of Fear-Mongering and Islamophobia — Haunting GOP??