Hi. I love you.
Rudy Giuliani really made me think with his original ("first"and "novel") comments that he doesn't believe President Obama loves America. Having thought about it for a few hours I thought Giuliani was probably correct! Wrote that. Wrote (again) that I did not love America either! I wrote, taking Giuliani's use of the word "love" in context, it was clear to me that he meant a misty-eyed, croaking-voiced, getcha right here, sentimental, affair of the heart. I thought (and wrote) that Giuliani had clearly given some thought to this, had expressed and explained himself well and had raised a very interesting, troubling point!
In succeeding days however Giuliani attempted to clarify that which didn't need clarification and muddled his point. He said that he had not been questioning Obama's patriotism, which is defined as love of country, a direct contradiction of his remark the night before in other words, but again he went on to explain: He, Giuliani, didn't feel Obama's love, didn't see the eyes mist, the voice break, the throat croak, so I let it go.
Then, Obama was influenced growing up by "communism." Okay, Giuliani is clearly just a right wing nut that wasn't worth paying attention to. So I didn't.
Today, the nut cracked again. He wrote an article that appeared opposite the editorial page in the Wall Street Journal. You cannot read the entire god-blessed article unless you have a subscription, which I don't and never will, the Journal gives you a burlesque version, a first paragraph that gradually fades out so this is all there is:
Rudy Giuliani really made me think with his original ("first"and "novel") comments that he doesn't believe President Obama loves America. Having thought about it for a few hours I thought Giuliani was probably correct! Wrote that. Wrote (again) that I did not love America either! I wrote, taking Giuliani's use of the word "love" in context, it was clear to me that he meant a misty-eyed, croaking-voiced, getcha right here, sentimental, affair of the heart. I thought (and wrote) that Giuliani had clearly given some thought to this, had expressed and explained himself well and had raised a very interesting, troubling point!
In succeeding days however Giuliani attempted to clarify that which didn't need clarification and muddled his point. He said that he had not been questioning Obama's patriotism, which is defined as love of country, a direct contradiction of his remark the night before in other words, but again he went on to explain: He, Giuliani, didn't feel Obama's love, didn't see the eyes mist, the voice break, the throat croak, so I let it go.
Then, Obama was influenced growing up by "communism." Okay, Giuliani is clearly just a right wing nut that wasn't worth paying attention to. So I didn't.
Today, the nut cracked again. He wrote an article that appeared opposite the editorial page in the Wall Street Journal. You cannot read the entire god-blessed article unless you have a subscription, which I don't and never will, the Journal gives you a burlesque version, a first paragraph that gradually fades out so this is all there is:
There has been no shortage of news coverage—and criticism—regarding comments I made about President Obama at a political gathering last week in New York. My blunt language suggesting that the president doesn’t love America notwithstanding, I didn’t intend to question President Obama’s motives or the content of his heart. My intended focus really was the effect his words and his actions have on the morale of the country, and how that effect may damage his performance. Let me explain.
The role of an American president is...
Well, Rudolph the Red-Faced Mayor, I thought you were questioning the "content of his heart" which is what made your remarks so novel, so interesting, so perceptive. We seek the soul here and Giuliani's speech comments went pretty darn close to that.
*UPDATED, Feb. 24, 1:44 am: "Notwithstanding." LmaOFF? What do you mean notwithstanding?!, you doofus...Wait, I want to look up the dictionary definition of "notwithstanding," be right back...UPDATED, 1:54 am: Hi. I love you. Wouldn't you know it? There are three seperate usages of "notwithstanding," as preposition, adverb and conjunction. Based on the following example I think Giuliani uses it as a preposition:
There were purges and there were trials, but compared with the 1940's [Could we have a longer example?] these were mild indeed, Germany was finally reunited, and, appalling wars in the Balkans notwithstanding, Europe survived the end of the Cold War.--Nicholas Frazer, Harper's, May 2006.
Zzzzz, Zzzzz, Oh! Is that sentence over? If Giulani uses it as a preposition then it means "despite" which is how it reads, right? If you start the sentence with "despite" and just roll from there, omitting "notwithstanding" it reads the same to my ear. So: "Despite...president doesn't love...didn't...question...content of...heart." That is SOOOOO retarded!
"The role of an American president is...", that's what this has devolved to? Giuliani on the role of an American president? He's teaching a poli sci course now? Be gone. Anybody who wants to take Professor Giuliani's course sign up and pay at the Wall Street Journal.
*UPDATED, Feb. 24, 1:44 am: "Notwithstanding." LmaOFF? What do you mean notwithstanding?!, you doofus...Wait, I want to look up the dictionary definition of "notwithstanding," be right back...UPDATED, 1:54 am: Hi. I love you. Wouldn't you know it? There are three seperate usages of "notwithstanding," as preposition, adverb and conjunction. Based on the following example I think Giuliani uses it as a preposition:
There were purges and there were trials, but compared with the 1940's [Could we have a longer example?] these were mild indeed, Germany was finally reunited, and, appalling wars in the Balkans notwithstanding, Europe survived the end of the Cold War.--Nicholas Frazer, Harper's, May 2006.
Zzzzz, Zzzzz, Oh! Is that sentence over? If Giulani uses it as a preposition then it means "despite" which is how it reads, right? If you start the sentence with "despite" and just roll from there, omitting "notwithstanding" it reads the same to my ear. So: "Despite...president doesn't love...didn't...question...content of...heart." That is SOOOOO retarded!
"The role of an American president is...", that's what this has devolved to? Giuliani on the role of an American president? He's teaching a poli sci course now? Be gone. Anybody who wants to take Professor Giuliani's course sign up and pay at the Wall Street Journal.
