-
Never Having to Say You’re Sorry
November 5, 2012 | 38 comments
-
Rudy Returns
August 6, 2012 | 70 comments
-
The Politics of Tragedy
March 26, 2012 | 388 comments
-
Reflections on Amanda Knox
October 5, 2011 | 148 comments
-
Obama’s Alter Boy
September 28, 2011 | 24 comments
What's Still Great
I Want My Rudy Beads!
Bob Turner scored the best seal of approval in politics: a Rudy Giuliani endorsement. Who’s next?
In the sublime Paul Auster-scripted 1995 art film Blue in the Face, rock legend Lou Reed sighs, “I’ve been thinking about leaving New York for 35 years now. I’m almost ready.” Rudy Giuliani can sympathize. His two major escape attempts — an abortive Senate campaign against Hillary Clinton in 2000 and a Florida-centric presidential run in 2008 — only landed him right back at Noah’s Ark Deli (grumbling, no less, that he prefers Michael’s in Brookline, Mass). Such is the anhedonia of the lifelong New Yorker: sure it would be nice to finally get out of town, but who can imagine actually living anywhere else? (When gubernatorial candidate Ed Koch told Playboy in 1982 that he’d be bored if he had to move to Albany, voters simply spared him the trouble.) And why move when you’re already a local legend able to make or break candidates like Andrew Sullivan does bloggers?
On his last full day of campaigning Monday, now congressman-elect Bob Turner stood in front of the train station in Forest Hills and pledged, Pat Riley-style, “We are going to win.” The onetime television executive who oversaw production of The Jerry Springer Show had reason to be confident. On his right hand side he had the best seal of approval in New York City politics. He had earned his Rudy beads.
“This is a career Democratic party-line politician” Giuliani wailed of Turner’s opponent David Weprin. “This is another vote for Nancy Pelosi. This is another vote for Barack Obama probably 90 percent of the time.” Do you see what Rudy did there? He got the crowd riled up with rhetoric, then went unscripted and conversational. Probably 90 percent of the time. He sounded so reasonable and off-the-record there, like a guy genuinely trying to make a deal with the voters based on the best estimates he’s got.
It’s that kind of skill that makes the Giuliani Seal so important in New York. Whether stumping for candidates or, through his private consulting firm Giuliani Partners, protecting the endangered but fiscally miraculuous Indian Point nuclear plant from Andrew Cuomo’s blatant corruption, Giuliani has become the most powerful ex-politician in the Big Apple. When construction executive Richard Hanna ran for Congress from the 24th District against Democratic incumbent Mike Arcuri in 2008, he lost by four points. When he ran again in 2010, the tables had turned — he had his Rudy beads. When Giuliani took the podium at a Hanna event at the Hotel Utica to give his typically brilliant unscripted stump speech, the applause was deafening. It resounded all the way into November, with Hanna beating Arcuri by eight points.
The same year, Rudy provided the only major high-profile endorsement to rookie Nan Hayworth as she solidly bumped incumbent John Hall in the 19th. Then he worked his golden touch on retired New Yorkers, as well, endorsing Florida senate candidate Marco Rubio in an unscripted blogger conference call and stumping for him outside a factory (reminding us of his pro-business credentials and how smart his 2008 campaign tax plan, with its focus on reforming rates, seemed to industry). I imagine that in Rubio’s desk drawer in Washington, next to all of his Livestrong bracelets, he’s still got his set of Rudy beads. If Newt Gingrich played Dean to the class of ‘94, then Giuliani was the class of ‘10’s favorite uncle.
His potency has been proven. Now we’re just waiting for the big endorsement: for Rick Perry. Should Perry need a geographically balanced ticket, he should remember how well Giuliani polled in typically blue states back in 2008, and that as late as September 2007 a Quinnipiac poll foresaw Rudy stealing New Jersey from presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton — no easy feat.
Or maybe Rudy will just keep living the life of a onetime candidate. He seems to be enjoying it. He hosted AMC’s Mob Week marathon, told Jimmy Fallon about his undercover crack purchase as a U.S. attorney, and warned socially conservative Republicans to “stay out of people’s bedrooms.” During a September 6 appearance at the National Press Club, he all but ruled out a second presidential bid and moved closer to a Perry endorsement. “I would have a hard time getting nominated.… I’m a realist and I understand how the primary system works.” Even if he tries to bypass that system again by camping out in Florida, he’d meet a similar fate. Perry is already galvanizing the Florida GOP, with the Miami Herald reporting that so many state legislators showed up to a September 13 Perry fundraiser in Tampa that it was “almost a caucus meeting.”
Rudy’s low national viability as a candidate in his own right isn’t exactly surprising (especially if you listened to any salon gossip after that estranged Harvard daughter of his got arrested shoplifting cosmetics). But while it’s frustrating, on behalf of the red-blue melding cause, to see the media vindicated on his unelectability (you almost wish he’d just jump in as a cultural polarization thermometer), it’s exciting to watch him in his new role as Grand Don of the New York political scene.
Politicians come and go all the time in New York City. But very few guys ever get to actually pick and choose the winners. Maybe staying in New York isn’t so bad after all. As Lou Reed eventually shrugged in Blue in the Face, “At least you can walk around.”
Letter to the Editor View all comments (43) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Patrick Howley
More Articles From What's Still Great
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/09/15/disarming-rudy
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Self-Righteous Republic
- Her Unrequited Letter
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.15.11 @ 8:26AM
Patrick,
let's face it. Rudy did a hell of a fine job as Mayor prior to 9-11.
After 9-11 he earned the respect of every sane New Yorker.
To us Texans, a sweep of NY would be delightful.
Mike D.| 9.15.11 @ 8:41AM
If somebody can win that district, ANYTHING is possible ANYWHERE. The pattern of the 2008 election is still strong and growing. Believe it, that win was DEVASTATING to the leftists and statists. That was a smart bomb right into the wheelhouse of the Socialists and shows how far down the Communist has dragged their prospects.
They played every card they had, vote fraud, Union thugs, Clinton, and the kitchen sink to win that seat and they were jail-sexed.
RCV| 9.15.11 @ 2:44PM
Guiliani was the best Mayor in New York's modern history. And I'm a Democrat from New York. He transformed the city back into a safe, vibrant, magical place.
Occam's Tool| 9.15.11 @ 10:03PM
Yup, RCV, you are correct.
But Chicago still has the best hot dogs and pizza.
Besides, you will probably like Turner, as he is what many would call a bit of a RINO---has to be, in NYC. But he's strong on Israel and taxes/spending, and that's all I want, really.
RCV| 9.15.11 @ 10:44PM
Sorry, OT, but I'll take my Nathan's over Vienna and my thin crust over deep dish any day.
Jack in Wi.| 9.16.11 @ 1:17AM
Is Rudy getting his dresses out of the closet for another run for public office. I would advise against it. He doesn't travel well west of New york City.
mzk1| 9.15.11 @ 8:36AM
Ken, though, you should know that Rudy was pretty much washed up before 9/11, because of the scandal of his marital issues. (May well explain his daughter's problems.) He was rescued politically, by his action on 9/11.
Unfortunately, a side-effect of that was Mike Bloomberg.
WJ| 9.15.11 @ 8:43AM
Sometimes I wonder why I read this web site. One fake conservative endorses another fake conservative and it is lauded as being something of interest.
Alex| 9.15.11 @ 5:58PM
I was just thinking the same thing.
Louie723| 9.16.11 @ 12:07AM
Maybe you shouldn't read then. But no one has ever pretended that Rudy was very conservative. He does however get things done. Things that many conservatives can approve of.
Jack in Wi.| 9.16.11 @ 1:18AM
Hitler and Mussolini got things done as well. they won't get my vote and neither will Rudy.
Tired Taxpayer PRM| 9.15.11 @ 8:56AM
If he is so good, why is New York so BLUE?
PattyMor| 9.15.11 @ 9:33AM
Rudy would make a great President, if only he were more culturally conservative. Rudy cleaned up NYC, no small feat. And he took control during 9/11 and directed the recovery. And he told the Saudi Prince to keep his money. I have nothing but respect for the guy. He has a lot to offer.
But, the problems with our government are mostly morally induced. We have allowed our politicans to stray from the Consitution. Without this separation, you would not have welfare, corporate welfare, and most of the Departments in the government, nor a housing and banking crisis and 14 Trillion Dollars in debt (and climbing rapidly).
We have elected a den of theives and liars as our repesentatives.
Jack in Wi.| 9.16.11 @ 1:29AM
Rudy Guilanni was one of the all time greatest flops in the history of Presidential primary elections. 50 million for one delegate. Why is this old tired man still being pushed by delusional Neocons? Nobody wants this old warmonger and blowhard. His prime is so far past that he rotten.
W| 9.15.11 @ 10:02AM
Rudy was leading in the polls in 2008 but he did not do well in the debates. He wasn't his normal agressive, combative self in the debates, except against Ron Paul.
He would be a good VP fit for Perry. Perry does not need a conservative VP since he is conservative. Rudy would help with the independents and socially liberal. Perrry, if nominated, will not pick Bachman given her accusations in the debate. He will not pick Santorum because he does not add to the ticket, and whoever heard of a Rick and Rick ticket?
If Romney is the pick, then he needs a conservative like Bachman or Cain or Rubio.
JIM| 9.15.11 @ 2:11PM
Better yet, I would like to see the next republican president in 2012 offer Rudy the Attorney general job. with the task of cleaning out the dept. of all the left wing scumbags that Holder and O'bama have put there. and just as importantly up holding the laws of this country. ESPECIALLY VOTER FRAUD AND THE MONEY LAUNDERING OF THIS O'Bama crew.
W| 9.15.11 @ 3:45PM
JIM,
Andy McCarthy should be Attorney General. We have to use Rudy for VP or Ambassador to the UN.
Rudy had Yassir Arafat thrown out of a reception , I think at Carnegie Hall, in NYC. That is the type of diplomacy we need.
Jack in Wi.| 9.16.11 @ 1:24AM
Perry was a big Rudy supporter in 2008. They certainly belong together. They are big time liberals. 80% of the party is conservative and the elites want to stick us wth a pair of liberals. That is New York kind of thinking. No wonder they call the Republicans the stupid party. I don't think that ticket would get 30% of the vote. There would be a third party that would get more votes.
Jack in Wi.| 9.16.11 @ 1:33AM
Ron Paul mopped up the floor with him. It was a quick end to his whole campaign. This man has as much chance to be on the ticket as I do. I think I have more chance. Santoum never. Bachman maybe, but very doubtful.
Clint| 9.15.11 @ 10:25AM
" Michael Scheuer, who was the head analyst at the CIA’s bin Laden unit, Alec Station, and authored the books Through Our Enemies Eyes and Imperial Hubris, said “I thought Mr. Paul captured it the other night exactly correctly. This war is dangerous to America because it’s based, not on gender equality, as Mr. Giuliani suggested, or any other kind of freedom, but simply because of what we do in the Islamic World – because ‘we’re over there,’ basically, as Mr. Paul said in the debate.”
Scheuer also agreed with Dr. Paul’s statement in the debate that the war in Iraq was a diversion from capturing or killing Osama bin Laden and that bin Laden was “delighted” that the U.S. is occupying Iraq as it has become a training ground and recruiting tool for new jihadists joining the movement."
TrueBlue| 9.15.11 @ 11:22AM
If Mr. Sheuer knew how to do his job correctly we'd have found bin Laden years ago, I've been saying he was right where they found him for years and I don't even do intel analysis. His opinion means nothing. Just as Dr. Ron Paul, neither of them obviously has a clue how the Islamic world thinks. People in this country are lucky the muslims here are a lot more patient than the ones out in Europe or we'd have all the Shari'a killings, and the rapes and beatings of Christians and "improperly" dressed women that they have over there.
Clint| 9.15.11 @ 4:53PM
You're Full Of Crap Israel Firster Propaganda Buffoon.
" Michael Scheuer, the former chief of the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA's) Osama bin Laden unit, told the U.K. Daily Telegraph in a recent interview he was prevented from capturing or killing the terrorist by his superiors on at least 10 separate occasions.
The next year, bin Laden declared war on the American government. And in 1997, when bin Laden was again living in Afghanistan, Scheuer said his team groomed a band of Afghans to capture the suspected terror boss. There were at least two “clear opportunities” to bring down bin Laden by the middle of 1998, according to Scheuer. But in both cases, he said, CIA bosses refused to proceed."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.
Occam's Tool| 9.15.11 @ 10:04PM
Yup. he would say that, Clint. He MISSED!
Clint| 9.15.11 @ 11:40PM
Get Bent, Little Short Fat Aging Screwball Israel Firster Fanatic Tool Job.
Louie723| 9.16.11 @ 12:14AM
Yes, but the Tea Party is not the exclusive domain of libertarians. You should quit pretending that only you speak for the TP. And btw, YOU're full of crap too.
Alex| 9.15.11 @ 6:05PM
Why did I bookmark this site? If I wanted to hear rantings about the sand niggers I could visit my uncle in Arkansas.
chuck| 9.15.11 @ 9:12PM
Please excuse Clint, he's kind of like Ross Perot's crazy aunt in the attic. He pops in, with another cut and paste post about his messiah, DOCTOR Ron Paul, then disappears. I think he's an unemployed skin-head from Yahooville who was sexually abused as a child.
Clint| 9.15.11 @ 11:42PM
You're A Slandering Liar, Little Israel Firster Ricky Perry Algore Cheerleader Chuckie.
Margie| 9.15.11 @ 1:35PM
Michael Scheuer is a punk like you, Clint/Tim.
It's all America's fault! It's America's fault because we are allies with Israel! We need to understand the poor murderous terrorists!
http://www.colbertnation.com/t.....el-scheuer
Clint| 9.15.11 @ 4:56PM
Uh Oh !
American Spectator's Resident Apocalyptic Crank Lady Israel Firster Margie's In The Building.
" Michael Scheuer, who was the head analyst at the CIA’s bin Laden unit, Alec Station, and authored the books Through Our Enemies Eyes and Imperial Hubris, said “I thought Mr. Paul captured it the other night exactly correctly. This war is dangerous to America because it’s based, not on gender equality, as Mr. Giuliani suggested, or any other kind of freedom, but simply because of what we do in the Islamic World – because ‘we’re over there,’ basically, as Mr. Paul said in the debate.”
Scheuer also agreed with Dr. Paul’s statement in the debate that the war in Iraq was a diversion from capturing or killing Osama bin Laden and that bin Laden was “delighted” that the U.S. is occupying Iraq as it has become a training ground and recruiting tool for new jihadists joining the movement."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.
Drunken Sailor| 9.15.11 @ 2:13PM
I tried to tell you yesterday Clint.
"Read Clin't response to you Joseph and you will understand why people here do not like Clint. Well, that and is annoying habit of Cut/Paste the same points endlessly as well as using old polls to support his claims"
Yet you fail to learn.
Clint| 9.15.11 @ 5:01PM
You're A Serial Israel Firster Uninformed Dupe Buffoon,Drunk.
“One 50-cent round could have put us all out of our agony,” Scheuer explained. But that didn’t happen, as high-level authorities consistently ordered the CIA unit not to stop bin Laden.
In 1999, Scheuer told the paper that he sent an angry letter to higher-ups demanding to know why his men were risking their lives for somebody the U.S. government did not seem to want stopped. “I don’t know what you are doing when you talk to the President but he will not get a better opportunity than this,” Scheuer explained to his superiors.
Eventually, the bin Laden-unit chief, Scheuer, was dismissed from his position before being reinstated after the September 11 attacks. A few months after that, the U.S. government and its allies had bin Laden surrounded in the mountains of Tora Bora in Afghanistan. But yet again, high-level officials let him escape.
A Senate investigation from 2009 explained some of the details in its summary. With bin Laden trapped, “calls for reinforcements to launch an assault were rejected. Requests were also turned down for U.S. troops to block the mountain paths leading to sanctuary a few miles away in Pakistan,” the document states. “The vast array of American military power … was kept on the sidelines.”
The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On Drunk's Face.
Wipe Your Feet.
DG in GA| 9.15.11 @ 12:32PM
Despite his personal issues, people LIKE Rudy Giuliani and they believe him. The man does what he says he will...except for keeping his marriage vows. But frankly, since we have elected TWO coke-sniffing Dems, several wife-cheating Dems, and someone who may or may not even be a citizen of the United States (also a Dem) to be President, I don't understand why Rudy isn't more electable. Maybe he's just making a lot more money doing what he's doing and doesn't really want it. Why put yourself through all of that when you can be a wealthy king-maker?
Margie| 9.15.11 @ 1:26PM
Rudy! Rudy! Rudy!
Heh, too bad he didn't run TO WIN the last time he threw his hat into the ring for Prez.
I would have gladly voted for him. Imagine Rudy instead of the Obummer that we bow have.
A despicable destroyer of the American Way~ and still going strong.
VOTE REPUBLICAN, FOLKS OR ELSE WE WILL HAVE MORE OF THE SAME!!
Mike Hawk| 9.15.11 @ 7:27PM
Giuliani didn't run last time around. He kept saying he was but was never in a primary. He was never a factor.
Joe D.| 9.15.11 @ 1:55PM
Listen Mr. Rudy fan club, Rubio did not need Rudy and was well on his way to victory before him. So don't try to snow us conservatives with a Northeast RINO on social issues.
Margie| 9.15.11 @ 2:12PM
LOL.
I'm not in a fan club, I just happen to like the guy. And nobody said Rubio needed Rudy~ or if they did I didn't read it.
Better watch out, that snow job you're looking for may be self imposed.
Mike Hawk| 9.15.11 @ 7:31PM
Rudy hasn't run for anything since 1997 and won't be running for anything now. He's retired from politics.
Occam's Tool| 9.15.11 @ 10:06PM
I like Rudy. He would have been a helluva lot better than the Clownish one, and not an embarrassment like the Galveston Goombah, who is a scumbag and a hypocrite.
Aron | 9.15.11 @ 10:20PM
AUDIO: BBC Hardtalk: Interview with Rudy Giuliani
September 9, 2011
SACKUR: Obama, of course, is no Bush, and his strategy, I think it's fair to say, is somewhat different. You have written this in the last couple of days -- you have written:
"One of the lessons of 9/11 is that America requires a long-term presence in those parts of the world that continue to endanger us."
Does that mean you believe that talk of a drawdown in Afghanistan, for example; the pull-out of all combat forces from Iraq -- that these are fundamentally mistaken moves?
GIULIANI: Not if we're going to keep troops there. What I believe is --
SACKUR: The idea is, as you know, to get combat troops out of Iraq and get all combat troops out of Afghanistan by 2015.
GIULIANI: Well, it shouldn't be by 2015. Maybe we could do it in 2013 -- or 2016. This is totally unknown to a national security or war, to do these things on irresponsible political timetables. Here's the objective in Afghanistan -- The objective in Afghanistan is to make sure that Afghanistan is left in a situation where it isn't dangerous to us anymore. That is the reason we are in Afghanistan -- to protect the people of the United States primarily. If we are convinced that we have accomplished our goal in Afghanistan, then we should leave Afghanistan. If we're not, we should remain there. The point that I'm making is, we have to be ready to maintain a significant military presence in the Middle East -- just like we did in Germany; just like we're doing in South Korea. When, and if, people in that part of the world stop plotting to kill Americans, then we can leave.
SACKUR: But, Mr. Giuliani, when you ran for national office -- when you wanted to make a bid for the White House in '07, you found the American public wasn't responding to your message, which was primarily a national security message. I wonder why you think that was?
GIULIANI: The American public didn't get a chance to respond to my message. I was in a Republican primary. And somebody had a better national security message than I did, and beat me - John McCain. So, that's a totally wrong analysis of what happened. John McCain won that primary because he seemed to have the strongest and best ideas on national security. I was, at best, 2nd best, or 3rd best.
SACKUR: But, if we look at, for example, the Republicans today. They look at the challenge of Afghanistan, and a number of them running for the White House now - thinking of Jon Huntsman, thinking even of Mitt Romney on some of the things he has said -- are suggesting that, given the state of the U.S. economy, given the perilous nature of the public finances here, America has to make some important decisions, which will involve drawing down on some of its commitments overseas, and in, to use Obama's phrase, focusing on the nation-building here at home.
GIULIANI: Well, the reality is that you can never put a limit on how to defend yourself, and how to protect yourself. One of the reasons--
SACKUR: No matter what the cost?
GIULIANI: Well, unless it's irresponsible spending. Unless it's fraudulent spending, irresponsible spending, of which sometimes it happens in the area of national defense. But, we're not in the economic condition that we're in because of our defense spending -- not even close to that. Our defense spending is roughly the average percentage of our GDP that it's always been for the last 40 to 50 years. In fact, it’s a little less than it’s been at certain points. So, that’s a totally erroneous analysis of our economic situation – of our budget situation. We’re out of control because we can’t control the cost of health care. But, the reality is, we need to be present in the Middle East for a long period of time; and leadership requires explaining that to the American people, and developing the patience that we developed during the Cold War, when we kept our troops in Germany, and in South Korea. That will keep us safer.
SACKUR: If that’s what leadership requires, are you prepared to put your hat in the ring and tell the American public you want to be their leader in the White House?
GIULIANI: Well, I’m not sure that that would be the right answer. Or maybe somebody else would be better at--
SACKUR: But, you’re thinking about it?
GIULIANI: Sure I am, but--
SACKUR: Are you partly thinking about it because you worry that, even on the Republican side of the fence, people are not issuing this message that you are when it comes to the front-and-center importance of national security -- being there as long as it takes?
GIULIANI: There are some people that are running on the Republican side who understand that -- some who understand it better. My whole decision will be based on whether I think that one of those candidates can win and do the right job for the country. If I think that, I'll support them. If I don't, then I will probably make the decision to run.
SACKUR: And it may be -- you might quibble with this, but it may be that you will have to convince the Republican Party that you are as socially conservative as they would like their next--
GIULIANI: Well, that’s -- now you've sort of located the actual reason why I didn't win. The reason I didn't win is not – it had nothing to do with national security. As I said, John McCain had the same views on national security, and continues to do, as I do. The reason I didn't win is because I'm too – I’m considered too socially moderate for a party that is--
SACKUR: So, is Rudy Giuliani prepared to dance to the Republican Party's current tune?
GIULIANI: No, I'm too stubborn. I can't change.
SACKUR: Are you telling me that your thinking about running for the White House isn’t going to go anywhere, is it?
GIULIANI: Well, it might. What has to happen is that people have to decide that these other things are more important, which sometimes happens. But, I can’t – my views are my views on social issues, and I’m going to remain that way.
POST American| 9.16.11 @ 12:07AM
------Great Tavistock approved '90's Show'
DIS-traction OP!
NOW, for those interested in 2011
---one and all check out that OXP Radio
posting 'Kubrick Moon HOAX' --for a
breakdown on the FUKISHIMA world
media DEPOP cover up.
The interviewer is drippy, but documentary
film-make Jay Weidener is riveting on
BOTH Kubrick and trhe FUKISHIMA
fallout catastrophe ----across the northern
hemisphere.
Remember kiddies, if the 'Big Boys' haven't
let you in on their nifty, cutting edge
collation therapies -------not only are you
NOT an 'innie' ----but you may be HISTORY.
---------------------NOT JOKING
supra | 10.18.11 @ 1:52AM
You had some nice points here. I done a research on the topic and got most peoples will agree with you. Exciting reading, to be sure.
sami| 11.1.12 @ 4:30PM
Why not enjoy it? It is fun to have an opinion about everything and anything and have it recognized by the public. For instance he could comment on electrical relays in indianapolis in and be quoted in a magazine. Let's face it, that is half of the reason that people have facebook and join other groups. They want to mean something. What is the reason that you write?