Audio brawl: Laura Ingraham vs Rudy Giuliani
posted at 5:57 pm on May 8, 2007 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
America’s mayor and GOP presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani appeared on the Laura Ingraham Show earlier today. Laura and Rudy got into a good old-fashioned throw down. It might not help the Guiliani campaign, but it made for great radio. Click to play.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Rudy is right on with abortion. Yes, you can oppose it BUT for the time being, respect that people have the right to have one.
Ian on May 8, 2007 at 6:04 PM
They aren’t going to leave him alone until he stops trying to ride the fence on this issue.
csdeven on May 8, 2007 at 6:08 PM
Planned Parenthood is “consistent with my position” on this issue… hmm. That line might not go over so well with the Republican base.
Zetterson on May 8, 2007 at 6:08 PM
Uhhhh, all you fred? groupies…..THIS is the type of interview fred? IS NOT doing. Like Rudy or no, he’s got the balls to be interviewed without a safety net.
And before you start whining that fred? can’t declare yet, he does not have to declare in order to do this type of interview. But he doesn’t. Hmmmmmmm.
csdeven on May 8, 2007 at 6:12 PM
For better or for worse Rudy came over very well.
duff65 on May 8, 2007 at 6:16 PM
Love Rudy or not you gotta admit he is sharp. The ‘A’ argument is bogging him down though…I wonder why? Sure he wants to talk WOT but it is goning to be a while before he gets to. Abortion and guns are the kink in the armor and that is where everyone is going to poke at him.
csdeven………nevermind.
Limerick on May 8, 2007 at 6:22 PM
Laura’s been pretty frisky lately. Walked off Hannity’s show a week or two ago, skirmish with Bartlett the other day, and now this.
I like it.
IrishEi on May 8, 2007 at 6:25 PM
There is reality. And then there’s the overturn Rowe vs. Wade this afternoon crowd. They are the symbolic plague on the Republican Party. Selfish to say the least. Be real. Wake up. This is America. Until you can fix the problem of unwanted pregnancies [millions] then you can’t make abortions illegal. Period. Talk about your ignorant holyer-than-thou bitch… Laura Ingraham. And I’m a Fred guy.
Griz on May 8, 2007 at 6:30 PM
Ah so I personally abhor murder but since some people in America might favor it, I should leave the choice whether or not to murder up to them?
I’m pretty sure that’s what he’s saying.
Benaiah on May 8, 2007 at 6:32 PM
Good point. The pro-murder group like to talk about it in abstracts. The pro-lifers want to remind them that it is an actual human they are murdering.
csdeven on May 8, 2007 at 6:39 PM
I don’t think he’s riding the fence at all. It just seems to blow everyone’s mind that he’s Pro-Choice in the Republican party and he’s one of the leaders.
Memo to Laura (whom I respect), and others of her ilk: The guy ISN’T Newt Gingrich, OK? If you want to vote for Tancredo or Brownback because they best reflect your positions, then go do so. The fact of the matter is that you’re in a significant minority compared to most of the country, and those guys would get HAMMERED in the General Election.
asc85 on May 8, 2007 at 6:39 PM
Audio Brawl?
What is Bryan talking about?
I was expecting another O’Reilly versus Rivera smackdown, and it wasn’t like that at all.
But thanks for posting the clip.
asc85 on May 8, 2007 at 6:40 PM
You can’t have it both ways on this issue. By aligning himself with Planned Patenthood Rudy has painted himself into a corner.
balderdash on May 8, 2007 at 6:45 PM
After listening to this, it’s clearer than ever to me the man is a Conservative Democrat. It’s too bad he didn’t run as one. Then maybe he could have made a real difference.
TheBigOldDog on May 8, 2007 at 6:46 PM
She walked off Hannity? I missed that, any links?
The way you fix “unwanted pregancies” is to emphasize the importance of personal responsibilty. You don’t want a bun in the oven, keep your legs closed, pants up, wick dry, condoms packed, and common sense turned on.
Iblis on May 8, 2007 at 6:47 PM
Replace the word “abortion” with the word “slavery” and explain to me why we couldn’t take this attitude with slavery?
Do I have a right to keep slaves? Do I have a right to kill inconvenient people?
Either you believe an unborn child is a human being, or you believe it’s not a human being. If it is a human, killing it is murder, and therefore abortion must be stopped.
A woman has a choice, made at the same time a man makes the choice; to crawl between the sheets or not. Once that choice is made, a grownup lives with the consequences.
Respect a woman’s conscience? If a woman has a conscience, she won’t even consider abortion.
Hiraghm on May 8, 2007 at 7:03 PM
Jefferson Davis is right on with Slavery. Yes you can oppose it BUT for the time being, respect that people have the right to own them.
Until you can fix the cotton problem you can’t make slavery illegal.
If you believe abortion is murder, then the law is an abomination and concerned citizens have a moral obligation to fight against it, just as they once fought against another legal moral abomination, slavery.
TheBigOldDog on May 8, 2007 at 7:03 PM
Rudy gets the 2nd Amendment wrong again.
Abortion is not nearly as big an issue for me as his duplicity on the 2nd.
And, he’s wrong on illegal aliens, too.
focus on illegals who break the law… being illegal is breaking the law!
Stupid liberal in Republican clothing…
Hiraghm on May 8, 2007 at 7:08 PM
Yes. It tries to educate people not to be at the point, where they’re getting an abortion. Its goal is prevent it, before it gets there.
You need to do more than just criminalize abortion. If a girl gets to that point, something went wrong. You need to educate her, not to get to that point, not criminalize it once she gets there.
amerpundit on May 8, 2007 at 7:28 PM
Whatever party wins the White House, Rudy should be head of Homeland Security.
He can take his pro-abortion zeal out on the radical Islamists.
Valiant on May 8, 2007 at 7:33 PM
Actually, the South believed it was necessary for their economy, and not having slavery would put them at a disadvantage against their Northern counterparts.
An overwhelming majority of the country was against slavery, including many in the South. Slavery wasn’t a controversial issue to most people, just to the people who, without the slaves, would’ve had to actually work.
The abortion issue is controversial, and there isn’t an overwhelming majority in the country, on how to solve it. Then there are the people like Andrea Marcotte (I think), who are not only ok with it, but totally for it.
No, you don’t have the right to kill innocent people, or keep slaves. However, until a significant majority of the country agrees, I’m afraid abortion will be here. I’m against it, but it’s here.
amerpundit on May 8, 2007 at 7:35 PM
Now, I’m confused. You say he can’t be 100% Conservative, because he’s pro-choice, right? Now, Peggy Goldwater (Barry Goldwater, aka Mr. Conservative’s wife) started a Planned Parenthood chapter in Arizona. Goldwater’s daughter got an abortion, with Barry’s consent and blessing.
Was Mr. Conservative, not Conservative?
amerpundit on May 8, 2007 at 7:41 PM
Let’s see if Ian’s statement above is logical: Yes, you can oppose the Holocaust, BUT for the time being, respect that nations have the right to exterminate citizens. Pol Pot would like that logic.
Yes, you can oppose the right to own slaves, BUT for the time being, respect that Americans have the right to have them.
No, Laura Ingraham makes a lot more sense than Ian on this issue.
januarius on May 8, 2007 at 7:42 PM
I thought that I was comfortable with Rudi saying that he would nominate strict constructionist judges. But saying that your views are consistent with Planned Parenthood? No, no, no, no. And how could Rudi’s views be consistent with Planned Parenthood if you believe, as Rudi says he does, that the U.S. Supreme Court was right in upholding the federal ban against partial birth abortion?
By thway, Laura Ingraham is good. Maybe Fox News should give her the weekday 8:00-9:00 PM slot.
Phil Byler on May 8, 2007 at 7:43 PM
The thing he seems to hate most about abortion is explaining his poorly thought out position on it.
Still, I think he got Laura good at the end. How can you not ask a presidential candidate about terrorism?
frankj on May 8, 2007 at 7:45 PM
i guess laura get’s to decide what a conservative is.
jummy on May 8, 2007 at 7:52 PM
Kinda like I have to respect the right of politicians to lie to me?
No. Sorry Ian. It is not required that I respect something just because it is legal.
Same with free speach. While I respect the law, I don’t have to respect nor do I have to listen to every nut-ball thing that anyone says.
Lawrence on May 8, 2007 at 7:52 PM
Because, Planned Parenthood’s goal is to educate young women, so they’re not in the position, where they’re getting an abortion. As I stated above, criminalizing the end result of something, isn’t going to work. It’s too late at that point. You need to teach people how not to get to that point, in the first place.
amerpundit on May 8, 2007 at 7:58 PM
Oh, and he’s right. How can you not ask a Presidential candidate about terrorism? Matthews asked almost nothing about it, during the debate.
amerpundit on May 8, 2007 at 8:00 PM
He agrees with the information they distribute (how not to get to the point of an abortion), not the practice. He’s also pointing out that in this country, an equal amount of people have a different opinion.
Me too.
amerpundit on May 8, 2007 at 8:04 PM
Giuliani is going to to go to that well once too often.
Laura and the entire country think good thoughts about Rudy re 9/11 - actually too much so.
He is not nearly untouchable on terrorism.
I have great respect for his fortitude and intrepidity after the fact but I’m no fan of mythology.
Stephen M on May 8, 2007 at 8:08 PM
I listened to Laura’s interview of Rudi again. I think that the bottom line problem with Rudi’s position on abortion is that it does not work. He is trying to stand both for what is his philosophical pro-choice position, including acceptance of abortion as a constitutional right, and for strict and original construction of the U.S. Constitution, which does not allow for reading the right to an abortion into the text of the Due Process Clauses that prohibit the taking of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Rudi has a lot of pluses, particularly with respect to the war with the jihad radical Islamists, but you have to hold against Rudi his position on abortion.
Phil Byler on May 8, 2007 at 8:10 PM
He’s talking about how he would fight the war on terror, not what he did on 9/11.
amerpundit on May 8, 2007 at 8:14 PM
What I mean is that Rudy should just say he is pro-choice and stop trying to appeal to the right with this “I personally abhor it” line. IF he would do that, he could run on his strenghts.
csdeven on May 8, 2007 at 8:18 PM
Dangit..stole my line. That first post just grated on my nerves; respect the right…uh, no. I can respect someone I disagree with if they have a persuasive argument that I just can’t agree with but I can understand their reasoning. I don’t respect 5 lawyers in black dresses making up a right by judicial fiat. It’s law because we’re liberals and we say it is. I will abide by the law because I strive to be a good citizen, but the Warren Court does not deserve the word ‘respect’ for that decision.
No, Fred doesn’t have to do this type of interview, because unlike the current crop of GOP (screw the conservative base) turd sandwich candidates, Fred actually seems to hold some conservative positions outside of an election cycle. I guess I understand your hostility. GWB was a diet coke republican, and Romney seems like a diet coke of GWB; it’s like there’s nothing there. McCain is the Macbeth candidate. His candidacy is tainted with the blood of the conservative base that’s he’s spent the last 8 years stabbing in the back. No amount of pandering will get him elected. His only crossover appeal was due to the fact that he hated conservatives almost as much as the liberals did. Rudy looks like he’s going to do to us on the Supreme Court what George Bush did to us on immigration. Vote me in office, and then bend over conservatives. So, you turd sandwich groupies are desperate to drum up support for those that had the ‘b*lls’ to declare. Yes, I’m so proud that bunch of people that don’t actually agree me on more than 1 issue each want to be my candidate. That means so much. I’m such a loser for wanting to support Fred Thompson. I should just get behind the turd sandwich that will eventually lose to Hillary. Oh, you don’t actually think one of these guys is going to win, do you? Rudy was my only hope until I heard Thompson might declare. Rudy is rapidly turning into Waffles 2008, so Thompson is my last hope. Go ahead, cs, and heap scorn on Thompson. If he doesn’t run, well, I guess you can blame those of us that would have voted for him when (insert turd sandwich candidate name here) loses to Clinton. Fred may not win, if he does run, but I think he has a better chance than the posers that you’re lickspittling for.
I think both parties are doing the country a disservice with their candidates. None of them are memorable, or particularly likeable. We used to strive to elect a leader; everything is so poll driven now, we’re just electing some moron that believes in nothing that can read the top ten list of talking points off a teleprompter.
austinnelly on May 8, 2007 at 8:32 PM
Actually no. I get to decide what conservative is.
After much deliberation, I’ve come to the conclusion that he is no conservative. Now, is he a whackjob liberal like you? Well, no, he’s not that either. So what is he? Hmm. I think his politics are strangely similar to our last two presidents. “Politics” I would define as centrist, wishy washy, mamby pamby appeaser type on most positions. I’d say this is as a good reason as any not to support him so I’m not.
Now, assuming history repeats itself, a bunch of spineless primary voters who happen to call themselves Republicans will insist on a candidate they are convinced is “electable” and as a result, he will be the Republican candidate. And, just like past elections, we will have to vote for him as the lesser of two evils.
If I’m lyin’, I’m cryin’ and look.. no tears.
RobertCSampson on May 8, 2007 at 8:34 PM
At least starting around the last decade. Just don’t ask him about 1994.
amerpundit on May 8, 2007 at 8:36 PM
When and IF fred? decides to actually grow a pair and put himself out there to be challenged, then he can be taken as a serious candidtae for president. Right now all he does is flap his lips. You talk about lousey candidates? freddie boy isn’t even a candidate so anyone who has announced is that much better than him right from the start. #ell Paul is more viable than fred? is.
Teleprompter? Those candidates who had the stones to debate had no teleprompter. fred? has done nothing except read from prepared speeches or go on friendly shows that his mother wrote the questions for.
csdeven on May 8, 2007 at 8:39 PM
I posted his position in ‘94 earlier, but here some are again:
amerpundit on May 8, 2007 at 8:39 PM
why do you hate federalism? and why, hating federalism as you and the other people who demand a policy which would dictate from washington that abortion be either legal or illegal do, are you any better or worse than now and naral?
jummy on May 8, 2007 at 8:49 PM
RobertCSampsonVladmirILenin, you are correct. barring the freak occurance that you end up as the gop nominee, you will vote for the “lesser of to evils”. and you’ll like it.jummy on May 8, 2007 at 8:54 PM
Whoa, I didn’t see anyone say that hate federalism. Us conservatives love federalism.
That was a pretty blatant strawman argument there Jummy.
Hell, we had a presidential candidate that carried around the 10th ammendment in his pocket because it was his favorite.
All cs appears to be asking for is Rudy’s position on an issue. Shocking, yes. We, conservatives like to know what are candidates stand for not to overthrow the government and impose his abortion stance on everyone.
RobertCSampson on May 8, 2007 at 8:55 PM
Jummy, by saying that I decide who is conservative and who is not, I was making it clear that as a conservative voter, it is indeed I who decide.
Also, following up your earlier weak strawman with the flagrant Godwin’s law violation disqualifies you from arguing with me. You, my friend, are clearly not in the same league.
RobertCSampson on May 8, 2007 at 8:59 PM
Nicely put.
amerpundit on May 8, 2007 at 9:00 PM
absolutely. it’s clear to everyone that you’re a winner.
jummy on May 8, 2007 at 9:13 PM
you oppose rudy’s stance because his stance is that the states should decide independently whether abortion should be legal or not. in contradistinction to that position, you seek a federal ban on abortion and will tollerate nothing less than a commitment to that end from a prospective candidate.
you, quite simply, are not a conservative.
jummy on May 8, 2007 at 9:18 PM
Hating federalism has nothing to do with the realities of the conservative movement. If you want federalism, vote for Paul. Rudy just needs to say he is pro-choice and leave it at that. Then we can move on and deal with his strengths. After he is elected, he can push the federalism all he wants.
csdeven on May 8, 2007 at 9:19 PM
Rudy was doing okay until his PERSONAL donations to PP were revealed. That contradicts everything he has been saying. I really don’t give a rats a$$. I just want him to be honest because it gives him credibility.
Actually, Rudy is getting very close to being accused of that.
csdeven on May 8, 2007 at 9:25 PM
cs, i just don’t see how noting that’s it’s properly a states rights matter, committing to appoint federal judges which would interpret it that way, and noting his personal preference which is and should be apart from the process so understood in keeping with the separation of powers clause is “wishy washy” in any way. it seems rather specific and concrete to me.
jummy on May 8, 2007 at 9:25 PM
i’ll give you that. that does raise eyebrows.
to that i can only note what someone else noted above about goldwater. is goldwater not a conservative? or rather, does robb get to declare goldwater “unconservative” from his cardboard politburo?
jummy on May 8, 2007 at 9:29 PM
That’s your definition of a throw-down?
Jim-Rose on May 8, 2007 at 9:44 PM
amerpundit on May 8, 2007 at 7:28 PM
Trying to claim Planned Parenthood is some honest broker is laughable. Planned Parenthood is the country’s leading abortion rights groups and its top provider of abortions.
TheBigOldDog on May 8, 2007 at 9:54 PM
Because a slave doesn’t exist inside the body of his master.
Here’s a really radical position, which gets me flamed by both sides on the abortion debate:
1. People own their bodies. A pregnant woman who wants to evict an embryo/fetus has the absolute right to do so….
2. If that fetus has reached the point where it has a measurable chance to survive ex utero, the process of removing it from the woman’s body must be non-destructive. (Sucking its brain out so that it can more easily egress is not allowed.) As soon as it is removed, reasonable efforts must be made to give it that chance.
A law very much like this was passed a few years back in Misery, including the requirement of a separate doctor to attend to the fetus as soon as it’s separated, but the courts held it unconstitutional. Pity.
The Monster on May 8, 2007 at 10:10 PM
I dont care if he fits “conservative” or not, but he’s right in tune with me for whatever that’s worth.
Dash on May 8, 2007 at 10:24 PM
Do I have a right to keep slaves? Do I have a right to kill inconvenient people?
Hiraghm on May 8, 2007 at 7:03 PM
I just love this analogy. Slavery. Boy, we really handled that well huh? Let’s use that as ‘the perfect example’ of how to handle abortion!!!
After 140 years, 80% of those seeking abortions are the ‘victims’ of slavery. 80% divorce rate amongst ‘the victims of slavery.’ 40% detention rate in our prisons for those ‘victims of slavery.’ 140 years later. Great idea. Let’s handle this whole abortion issue just like we did slavery. Great idea man. It’ll be tough, but if we make abortion illegal and then send all those babies to live on the other side of the tracks. Shit all over them for decades. Then a few good ones will crawl out of hell and make something of their lives. And maybe, just maybe… they’ll bring that chance to their people. And maybe… just maybe… the world will get another Oprah. You’re killing me dude.
It very hard to know I live in a society killing babies. But then, there are a lot of hard issues these days. And not a one of them can we fix by electing some fool willing to tell you what you want to hear to ease your conscience. Seriously. If you’re so concerned for those babies do a second job as a counselor. Most those girls hate theirselves for years.
Griz on May 8, 2007 at 10:26 PM
Rudy’s stance on abortion, at least in this radio segment, is completely sound. everyone needs to get off his back on this issue.
move on. If you base your decision on the abortion issue alone (which is irresponsible) then so be it… Don’t vote for him.
Opinionnation on May 8, 2007 at 10:34 PM
Thank you for conceding tastefully.
RobertCSampson on May 8, 2007 at 11:40 PM
Once again the Fetus wing of the party goes ape.
George Soros is laughing his ass off.
mylegsareswollen on May 9, 2007 at 9:50 AM
Property is property …
The abortion debate should be within the context of whether or not the fetus is included when we say silly things like, “all men are created equal…”. Some 90% of all women’s choice began before their pregnancy.
eforhan on May 9, 2007 at 10:00 AM
The whole program was about abortion. Laura Ingraham should be ashamed of herself. She is doing the work of the Democrats.
Hilts on May 9, 2007 at 10:34 AM
If Rudy is a liberal democrat in centrist republican sheeps clothing then Laura is providing conservatives a valuable service.
There is no question that Rudy will be tough on muslim extremism so pandering to his strong points is silly in primary season. I still have more respect for him (and all the declared candidates)than fred? because fred? spends his time blabbing prepared talking points and avoiding venues where he would have to answer for his record.
csdeven on May 9, 2007 at 11:40 AM
http://www.lifenews.com/nat3104.html
TheBigOldDog on May 9, 2007 at 1:35 PM
* I should have said, “some HA stories”.
Ah, darn… I fail at the internet.
Counter-sue me?
eforhan on May 9, 2007 at 2:53 PM
Grr… wrong topic. Sorry.
eforhan on May 9, 2007 at 2:54 PM
Ignore all the strawmen. Keep it simple. If someone believes that abortion = murder, then how can they in good conscience do otherwise than try to get it stopped TODAY? Especially given the fact that the supposed “right” to an abortion is crafted out of whole cloth by judicial fiat rather than legislation.
I’ll accept a state’s rights solution. I won’t accept Rudy’s position.
Rudy: “Now what has the court done with that?”
Laura: “Make a lot of mistakes.”
POW
Freelancer on May 9, 2007 at 4:20 PM