Rudy demagogues the Democrats

posted at 7:04 pm on July 25, 2007 by Allahpundit

I hate having to defend them but I hate the fact that he traffics in nonsense like this more. He’s already got a rap, and not entirely undeserved, as a one-trick pony; he solidified that at the debate when the Bircheresque tool challenged him to know thine enemy and the best he could do by way of response was a pat if crowd-pleasing affectation of outrage. Now here he is with no fewer than three outright misstatements about the opposition in a single sitting and arguably a fourth depending upon your sense of the mainstream Democratic view on wealth. Rudy: if you can’t engage their actual positions, step away.

“They do not understand a capitalist economy. They think it’s bad. They think it’s bad to make money. They think it’s bad to be rich,” Giuliani said. “I’m a little kid that grew up in Brooklyn. I think it’s great to be rich.”…

“At no time during these debates have (Democrats) ever uttered the words, ‘Islamic terrorist,’ ” Giuliani said. But “if they do, I’ll take credit for it.”…

Specifically mentioning Clinton of New York, Edwards of North Carolina and Obama of Illinois, Giuliani charged that they “want to raise your taxes 20 to 30 percent, and it could be more” — a claim that is not supported by public campaign statements from any of the Democratic top candidates…

“The only thing they’re good about is reducing the military,” he said. “I don’t think that’s the right thing for our economy.”

The first one is at least debatable per some of their rhetoric (Silky’s in particular) but certainly not per their lifestyles. The second may be technically true but they’ve talked about Iran and Al Qaeda, if perhaps without using the actual words “Islamic terrorist”; you’ll find the two frontrunners responding to Kucinich’s plea to put Bin Laden on trial in the third clip here. The last two, as far as I know, are flat wrong. No one’s proposed a tax increase of that magnitude and Hillary and Obama, at least, support expanding the military. Either he honestly doesn’t know where they stand or knows full well and chose to distort their platforms deliberately to make himself look more right-wing by comparison, but someone who’s already suspected of being a lightweight shouldn’t be playing with straw men. As Waffles found out, “electability” can only take you so far. Make the case on the merits or let someone who can do it do it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

I wish I cared enough about Rudy to comment.

jaime on July 25, 2007 at 7:10 PM

I kinda get nervous these days when Rudy opens his mouth. I get more nervous when Fred doesn’t open his.

But nothing makes me more nervous than listening to the democratic contenders. I plead for the love of god, would either Fred or Rudy PLEASE get their farking act together and start pummeling democrats in a clear and factual manner?

Tman on July 25, 2007 at 7:10 PM

Allah… easy on the anti-Rudy vitriol…

You missed the point of Rudy’s remarks.

He made them in SAN FRANCISCO.

Think about it.

No fear. No pandering. Thats Rudy.

Always Right on July 25, 2007 at 7:10 PM

Rudy: if you can’t engage their actual positions, step away.

It seems to me you are trying to snag Rudy on technicalities of it the Dem canditates actually said those things. You are missing the point that those pretty much really are thier actual positions, even if they wouldn’t be caught dead saying them. Do you really doubt that?

Resolute on July 25, 2007 at 7:16 PM

Although I would agree I don’t quite see how you get political traction by attacking the views they havent yet said they have.

Resolute on July 25, 2007 at 7:17 PM

The tax thing is probably something along the lines of the capital gains tax rate increasing from 15% to 20%. That would be a 5% rise in the rate of taxation, but the percentage of increase would be 33%.

rw on July 25, 2007 at 7:23 PM

Rudy is putting on a show for conservatives. Nothing he says to San Franciscans means anything to them.

I think Rudy would be even worse than President Bush. It’s no secret he is for shamnesty, he is also pro-abortion, and for gun control. His record speaks for itself. I am afraid to imagine what kind of federal judges, and prosecutors he would appoint. What would be the point of winning the GWoT if we lose our freedom in the proccess? I doubt that any Republican president would be able to get support from future congress’ to win the GWoT anyway.

Sadly the entire field of Republican wannabes is very weak.

Rode Werk on July 25, 2007 at 7:26 PM

Great. The Jewish Grandmother of the Blogosphere is back. Since when do you take the Democrats at their word, AP? I don’t give a damn what the Democrats “public statements” are, they are constantly participating in class-warfare and want the U.S. Military to be meals-on-wheels rather than protecting American interests. Rudy has the balls to call them on it…but I guess we should return to the “kinder, gentler” days of George Bush 41, and get our asses whopped on in ’08. Yeah, great idea.

Don’t fear success.

Jim-Rose on July 25, 2007 at 7:27 PM

Demogogery what demogogery ?

In the poll, The Times and CBS News posed a standard question that asks respondents to think back to the initial invasion and then judge whether or not the United States military action in Iraq was the right thing to do. “Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the United States have stayed out?”

Forty-two percent of those polled said the United States did the right thing, and 54 percent said the United States should have stayed out of Iraq. The last time the question was asked, in May, 35 percent said taking military action against Iraq was the right thing and 61 percent said the United States should have stayed out.

Once in a while there is a poll finding that doesn’t make sense. Sometimes we’ll wait to publish the results until we do another poll and ask the question again. But it happens rarely with questions, like this one, that we have a lot of experience asking over a long period of time.

We dug through the numbers, looking for clues. We started to think we had inadvertently influenced the answers to the question about the war by placing it a few questions away from one about Mrs. Clinton not having repudiated her decision in 2002 to vote to authorize the war.

It was just a hunch. But it was all we had. Along with our colleagues at CBS News, we decided to poll again, to ask the war trend question without the possible influence of the question about Mrs. Clinton. It would cost money to go over the same ground again. And none of us wanted to give up a picture perfect summer weekend to do this, but we all knew we had to.

There was also a drop in the number of people who said the war is going badly. In the latest poll, 66 percent of Americans said things are going badly for the United States in its efforts to bring stability and order to Iraq. That is down from 76 percent who said the same thing in May.

While we didn’t understand a lot more about what was driving the change, we had confidence in the results and were able to report the findings in The Times.

One thing is for sure. We’ll be asking the question again.

William Amos on July 25, 2007 at 7:29 PM

“They do not understand a capitalist economy. They think it’s bad. They think it’s bad to make money. They think it’s bad to be rich,’’ Giuliani said. “I’m a little kid that grew up in Brooklyn. I think it’s great to be rich.’’…

They’re in favor of socialized medicine and are setting us up to be a welfare state.

“At no time during these debates have (Democrats) ever uttered the words, ‘Islamic terrorist,’ ‘’ Giuliani said. But “if they do, I’ll take credit for it.’’…

They haven’t.

Specifically mentioning Clinton of New York, Edwards of North Carolina and Obama of Illinois, Giuliani charged that they “want to raise your taxes 20 to 30 percent, and it could be more’’ — a claim that is not supported by public campaign statements from any of the Democratic top candidates…

They’re dandy about raising tax on cigars by 20,000%. And, Allah, how do you think they intend to pay for HillaryCare? Healthcare for illegals?

The second may be technically true but they’ve talked about Iran and Al Qaeda, if perhaps without using the actual words “Islamic terrorist”; you’ll find the two frontrunners responding to Kucinich’s plea to put Bin Laden on trial in the third clip here.

So, then he’s right that they haven’t said “Islamic terrorist”.

amerpundit on July 25, 2007 at 7:29 PM

As Kilgore Trout mentioned, Rudy could simply be putting a price tag on what some of the Dems have promised or proposed.

mikeyboss on July 25, 2007 at 7:30 PM

Jim-Rose on July 25, 2007 at 7:27 PM

Correct.

amerpundit on July 25, 2007 at 7:30 PM

AP, I am no Rudy fan but I think you need to cut him some slack. I think his quotes are more accurate than you credit him for. Just because the aforementioned leftists have or have not public stated their stances on these issues doesn’t mean that Rudy’s statements are in inaccurate. I believe all three Democrats have and will continue to use class warfare as a tactic. That is the heart of Rudy’s statement. Second, they didn’t use the word “Islamic” which is Rudy’s point as their own PC police in the netroots movement will not allow it. Last, regardless of their stated positions, I would bet that given the chance over time, all three would turn out to be tax happy and willing to gut the military budget.

RobertCSampson on July 25, 2007 at 7:31 PM

eww sorry for all the errors, I was typing at lightspeed..

RobertCSampson on July 25, 2007 at 7:32 PM

Substance…Repub leadership doesn’t get it still.

windbag on July 25, 2007 at 7:33 PM

Hillary? Wants to increase the military? Even if she said it, I don’t believe that for a second.

eclark1849 on July 25, 2007 at 7:33 PM

Rudy is 100% correct.

Bodhi on July 25, 2007 at 7:35 PM

And, Allah, how do you think they intend to pay for HillaryCare? Healthcare for illegals?

amerpundit on July 25, 2007 at 7:29 PM

No one’s proposed a tax increase of that magnitude

Your both right. No one has proposed a tax increase, but we all know how they intend to fund their socialist agendas.

Kowboy on July 25, 2007 at 7:36 PM

I’m not too fond of Rudy, but I am glad he’s speaking out against the Dems.

I wish these guys would hammer Hitlery on her dreams of a Marxist AmeriKa.

jdawg on July 25, 2007 at 7:41 PM

amerpundit on July 25, 2007 at 7:29 PM

Hitlery has already said she’s going to ~TAKE~ the oil companys’ profits – all of them – if they don’t do what she says…

A dictator in waiting?

The Republican candidates need to be hammering this stuff every day, all day long.

jdawg on July 25, 2007 at 7:43 PM

“Hitlery”

– beyond the pale

Christoph on July 25, 2007 at 7:54 PM

Hillary? Wants to increase the military? Even if she said it, I don’t believe that for a second.

eclark1849 on July 25, 2007 at 7:33 PM

No, Rudy said “reducing”.

amerpundit on July 25, 2007 at 7:56 PM

Christoph on July 25, 2007 at 7:54 PM

Yeah, she is.

jdawg on July 25, 2007 at 7:58 PM

I thought Rudy was spot on with these comments.

I’m not one of the original Hot Air blog “community” members, so I’m not up on Allahpundit’s bio.

I find his posts on Fred, Romney and now Rudy puzzling, to say the least, and more often than not, irritating.

I’d love to know more about AP and what makes him tick. Most of the time I agree with MM, but I find that I rarely agree with AP (at least as far as the primary race goes).

Buy Danish on July 25, 2007 at 8:11 PM

Specifically mentioning Clinton of New York, Edwards of North Carolina and Obama of Illinois, Giuliani charged that they “want to raise your taxes 20 to 30 percent, and it could be more’’ — a claim that is not supported by public campaign statements from any of the Democratic top candidates…

“The only thing they’re good about is reducing the military,’’ he said. “I don’t think that’s the right thing for our economy.’’

The first one here is technically true. In 1993, for individuals, the federal income tax was between 15% and 39.6%. In 2003, that dropped to rates between 10% AND 35%. This represents a drop in tax rate of 33% on the low end of the scale and about 12% at the high end. The major Democratic candidates have proposed “rolling back” the Bush tax cuts, and returning tax rates to 1990′s levels. These increases in rate are in the ballpark of Rudy’s numbers. He’s talking about the percent change in tax rate, not the overall rate, and you can’t say he’s wronr, although perhaps a bit misleading if you don’t know what you’re talking about.

The second one is another dig on the Democrats for wanting to go back to the [Bill] Clinton era. He jabbed at them for this on taxes, and here he’s mentioning the military cutbacks undertaken at that point, which were justified by the Dems at the time as allowing a “peace dividend.”

Allah, I understand that you’ve soured on Rudy, but selectively and creatively quoting him (secondhand, from the MSM), in order to say that he’s “wrong” is a bush league move. Maybe you should watch a few of his speeches where he makes these points in context.

Big S on July 25, 2007 at 8:12 PM

Not a Rudy supporter either but I’d like to see Hillary Obama Edwards etal respond to each and every point he made. Just how much are they going to raise taxes for the health care amnesty handouts? Exactly how does each of them feel about capitalism and how are they going to further it? How often will they kiss terrorists butts or will they actually defend America from this threat. We know where Rudy stands, how about them.

Guess the only point that irks me is military = economy. He’ll take a hit for that right in the Halliburton. Personally I prefer the military = national security myself.

Buzzy on July 25, 2007 at 8:18 PM

I’ve predicting Rudy vs Hillary for two years now.
Criticizing his political boilerplate is fair game, but he hits the notes.
He’s like Bush without the speech impediment. ;)
Randy

williars on July 25, 2007 at 8:18 PM

Another reason to like Rudy…..
Killgore Trout on July 25, 2007 at 7:33 PM

An excellent reason, if I say so myself.

Spirit of 1776 on July 25, 2007 at 8:22 PM

I’m not a Rudy supporter, but he’s not totally wrong on any one of those things:

- Dems certainly spout plenty of class warfare rhetoric, and have as long as I can remember. They may not practice what they preach regarding wealth, but we know what they preach and we know how they try to govern.

- Whether or not the 2nd one is “technically true” misses the larger point, which is that they are much weaker on national security issues than Republicans. And do you really think they are willing to face up to who the enemy really is in this war? If so, you’ve got more faith in them than I do – and more than they merit.

- I have little doubt that all of the major Democratic candidates want to raise taxes, the question is only how much. And it’s not a stretch to think they would raise them 20-30% if they thought they could get away with it – or to raise that much incrementally. I sure as hell haven’t heard any of them running on tax cuts or even keeping taxes at their current level.

- Are they not good at reducing the military? The last Democratic president that increased the military budget significantly was LBJ. And do you not remember Zell Miller’s recounting of John Kerry’s voting record on defense programs? I’m sure Kerry’s record was not all that unique among democrats – and given enough time in the senate, I don’t doubt that Hillary, Obama, or Silky would have a similar record.

There’s plenty of good stuff to go after Rudy on. This really wasn’t it.

thirteen28 on July 25, 2007 at 8:23 PM

I’d love to know more about AP and what makes him tick. Most of the time I agree with MM, but I find that I rarely agree with AP (at least as far as the primary race goes).

Buy Danish on July 25, 2007 at 8:11 PM

Check HA’s About (from home page)

Mcguyver on July 25, 2007 at 8:27 PM

Guess the only point that irks me is military = economy. He’ll take a hit for that right in the Halliburton. Personally I prefer the military = national security myself.

Buzzy on July 25, 2007 at 8:18 PM

Excatly. It’s just that Democrats have been going on about military spending being bad for the economy for as long as I can remembr. Every time they’ve had the chance to cut defense spending, they have, and they’ve been going on about the “wasting” of money in the war on terror that could be used for other purposes. It is they who have made the connection between the economy and defense in their campaigning, in order to bash the Iraq war. He’s calling them out on it.

Big S on July 25, 2007 at 8:30 PM

Far as I’m concerned, Rudy was spot on; I’m not a big fan of his, hope I don’t ‘have’ to vote for him for President… But I really have to respect him for having the courage to call a spade a digging implement. Especially in that place.

LegendHasIt on July 25, 2007 at 8:37 PM

AP, I am no Rudy fan but I think you need to cut him some slack. I think his quotes are more accurate than you credit him for.

Rudy is on an intellectual/emotional high from his success as major.

Rudy was a good major.

That’s all.

———————————————————-.

Fred Thompson has “overstayed” his pre-campaign “visa”.

———————————————————-.

John McCain’s campaign is dead.

———————————————————-.

Watch for Romney (and possible a second tier candidate to come from behind.

The questions posed to possible voters for the national polls are phrased different, than the poll in Iowa and New Hampshire. It is in fact an entirely different question.
Which explains Romney winning in those states (if the primaries were held today).

Clue: watch for fizzle in the former and momentum in the latter

Mcguyver on July 25, 2007 at 8:39 PM

The questions posed to possible voters for the national polls are phrased different, than the poll in Iowa and New Hampshire. It is in fact an entirely different question.
Which explains Romney winning in those states (if the primaries were held today).

Clue: watch for fizzle in the former and momentum in the latter

Mcguyver on July 25, 2007 at 8:39 PM

No, it is due the millions of his own money that he’s pumped into early campaigning (including millions in TV ads) in these states, running practically unopposed. Romney is a non-starter; he’d need momentum just to take a significant lead on McCain.

Hollowpoint on July 25, 2007 at 8:50 PM

I thought Rudy was spot on with these comments.

I’m not one of the original Hot Air blog “community” members, so I’m not up on Allahpundit’s bio.

I find his posts on Fred, Romney and now Rudy puzzling, to say the least, and more often than not, irritating.

Gasp someone on a blog has an ……. OPINION !?!?!?!

How dare they !

William Amos on July 25, 2007 at 8:58 PM

AP, he’s right. That’s not demagogery if he’s tellign it as it is.

The last two, as far as I know, are flat wrong. No one’s proposed a tax increase of that magnitude and Hillary and Obama, at least, support expanding the military.

WHat does taking all the oil profits away from the oil companies sound like? Who owns the oil companies – investors – millions of them, many of which who are counting on dividend payouts for their retirement incomes – not some “guy.” Take away in Hillaryspeak is TAX or CONFISCATE (two words which aren’t far apart). Hillary has also said plainly that people need to give the gov’t more money and that they are selfish if they don’t. That’s TAX. Hillary wants universal healthcare – TAX. Universal preschool – TAX. Mrs. Edwards wants tangerine prices to reflect a “carbon consumption footprint” – that’s a TAX.

As far as expanding the military – AP how old are you? Hillary is a supporter of the UNIVERSAL DRAFT. Males AND females ages 18-26 DRAFT for either military stream or “National Service” or “ANY OTHER” as determined by a DRAFT BOARD. “Any Other” covers an infinite number of government whims. Go read the Bill. It’s devastating. It’ll GUT the labor market.
That is what Hillary is talking about when she says she supports expanding the military. She supports the DRAFT. She wants the DRAFT to be as onerous as possible to strangle America’s will to fight. There are many statements from her regarding her intentions: “more people should share in the burden” … yada yada.
Giuliani was right on all counts.

naliaka on July 25, 2007 at 9:02 PM

Of course MANDATORY DRAFT will throw millions of men and women of prime labor market productivity into government-paid positions. Taking productive people OUT of private enterprise and into gov’t payroll. Need TAXES to pay for the expansion of the drafted military – with ALL the problems it brings in that a volunteer military avoids. PLUS the amorphous “National Service” and “Any Other” will create millions of slots to be funded all on gov’t payroll.
TAX – HUGE TAXES!
Hillary supports a disruptive and divisive DRAFT, not our highly professional and motivated volunteer military as it is today.

naliaka on July 25, 2007 at 9:09 PM

From Mayor to President.? Highly unlikly. I can’t believe the South will vote for a New Yorker.. After this shamnesty, and seeing how my new friends from the South helped ME defeat it..they deserve better than a New York Mayor.. If the Dims win in 08 thats it for the GOP. Talk radio, Blogs will all be pointless…Elections have been razor thin so the Dims add 20million to their rosters the 1st year and from there who knows how many after that.. Good bye GOP as a viable anything..Tancredo is the only candidate who has been on this immigration issue from the get go and the only one I feel who is sincere, and will get the job done 100% for sure.. And he is not getting the support he deserves. At this time in our history I’d rather have a guy in there with a crooked nose than a pretty face.

Legions on July 25, 2007 at 9:16 PM

VIA Little Green Footballs.

“CAIR Goes After Rudy Giuliani” for his use of the words “Islamic terrorism:”

lowandslow on July 25, 2007 at 9:18 PM

Yes, let’s be ultra-careful to never say anything that is not precisely 100% accurate about the Dems while they slander the military and invent impeachable offenses and offer hope to the terrorists that America is giving up using push polls and MSM lies.

Yeah, that’ll work. If you want to die holding a little “I cannot tell a fib” sign, go for it, but I’m voting for somebody who understands offense, and what the stakes are.

drunyan8315 on July 25, 2007 at 9:23 PM

Ok, so now we’re tearing into Rudy for accurately describing Democrats and their socialist anti-wealth policies? Good to see that we’re cannibalizing ourselves durring the primaries, can’t wait for the general elections. Is Hot Air going to hold anti-rudy rallies if he’s the nominee? Maybe impeach Rudy sit-ins if…god forbid…he wins the general election.

Believe me, if the Dems could raise your tax rate to 50%, they would. Rudy is 100% right.

Verbal Abuse on July 25, 2007 at 9:26 PM

Rudy is just saying what the Dems try to dance around, but really believe.

1) The Dems demonize the prosperous “who are not paying their fair share”, and who live in the better of the “two Americas”. The “rich” become the cheapest of class war bullseyes.

2) They do not dare use the word “Islam” except to pander for the Muslim vote. So Rudy’s critique of their language, in wartime, -of not recognizing the core ideology we confront and by not calling Imperialistic Islam by itsd true name- is telling, and worth noting, -and deserves mocking.

3) The “share the wealth” / “redistribute the goodies” is central to the crypto-socialistic philosophy of the Dem candidates, and raising taxes “on the rich” is their familiar modus operandi. So this charge sticks, as well.

4) Bill Clinton is their idol, and his treatment of the military will be their model. Charge four by Rudy has a Velco touch, too, not matter what mealy-mouthed b.s. (“we want a better military“) the Dems try to trot out during the campaign to reassure those, who see them as too weak, that they are “warriors”. (Spit-take optional.)

I prefer TANCREDO-HUNTER, but I’ll take Rudy over any Dem.

profitsbeard on July 25, 2007 at 9:27 PM

How do normal mens trousers cover up this guy’s balls?

I like him just for that. I want to see a President poke liberalism in the eye.

unamused on July 25, 2007 at 10:01 PM

I prefer TANCREDO-HUNTER, but I’ll take Rudy over any Dem.

profitsbeard on July 25, 2007 at 9:27 PM

Howzabout “TANCREDO-ARPAIAO ’08!!” ?????

hillbillyjim on July 25, 2007 at 10:03 PM

Romney is a non-starter; he’d need momentum just to take a significant lead on McCain.

Hollowpoint on July 25, 2007 at 8:50 PM

It’s a process of self-elimination at this point.

OH.. what.. or who did you mention? Mmm..c ca..Ca.ain….

Mcguyver on July 25, 2007 at 10:09 PM

(sp.)Sorry, TANC-ARPAIO ‘Oh eight!!!

hillbillyjim on July 25, 2007 at 10:10 PM

No, it is due the millions of his own well managed money that he’s pumped into early campaigning (including millions in TV ads) in these states, running practically unopposed.
Hollowpoint on July 25, 2007 at 8:50 PM

Own money, other people’s money or funny money, what the hell difference does that make!!

Running practically unopposed??

Were you watching a TV broadcast on a parallel universe?

Mcguyver on July 25, 2007 at 10:14 PM

Rudy was spot on; I’m not a big fan of his, hope I don’t ‘have’ to vote for him for President… But I really have to respect him for having the courage to call a spade a digging implement. Especially in that place.

LegendHasIt on July 25, 2007 at 8:37 PM

Good point!

Mcguyver on July 25, 2007 at 10:16 PM

I’m with most of the posters here, and cut Rudy slack. I was in NYC under his tenure and he did a good job. He doesn’t just talk the talk; he leads well, not just in crisis situations, and he is a good communicator–very open and accessible (he held a 15-20 minute press conference every day!).

That said, I’m also an AllahPundit fan and it irks me that one of the above posts could be read as a call for censorship. Argue with him, debate him, call him to defend his accusations, fine. But beware lest you find yourselves advocating for an echo-chamber. Any anti-liberal thinker is welcome in my book, and remember, a healthy variety of opinions is what makes us different from the left.

G. Charles on July 25, 2007 at 10:17 PM

I’m not one to defend Rudy, Allah, but I think you failed to deliver a bit here… I was anticipating, based on your lead in, a pile of flat out lies. As you note, the first is debatable, and I think the point he’s making is exactly on point about hating the rich and the capitalist economy. He may be just issuing a simple statement to illustrate the real and obvious point. (everyone knows you’ve got to talk in sound bytes)

The second may be technically true but they’ve talked about Iran and Al Qaeda, if perhaps without using the actual words “Islamic terrorist”;

But isn’t that exactly his point? They don’t like to say “Islamic terrorist”, and they deliberately stay away from using the words Muslim and Islam, because they are weak and don’t want to recognize the actual threat. It’s the same ol’ PC bullsh** we expect from the Dems, and I feel like Rudy is simply pointing that out here.

I’d be interested to hear him defend the 20 to 30 percent tax hike claim, but I suspect he wouldn’t be stupid enough to make a claim like that without expecting to be called on it and have an answer ready… He’s likely doing, what is always done, having an estimate of the cost of Democrats’ plans campaign promises, and then someone in his campaign has done the math to say “It will require X% increase in taxes to pay for all of it”. Even if the estimate is on the higher end, this is standard stuff.

I don’t know if that’s what Rudy’s answer on this would be if challenged, but I think it’s pretty likely.

Again, I’m no defender of Rudy’s, but I think you may have oversold this nugget.

RightWinged on July 25, 2007 at 10:23 PM

Rudy can lie about the dems all he wants. I want him to tell the truth about himself, which so far, unlike that lying fake fred?, he seems to be doing quite well at.

csdeven on July 25, 2007 at 10:57 PM

I for one am glad Rudy is willing to call out the dems. It is time someone put their words and actions to task. Wow Allah big scoop, you caught a politician stretching the truth to help themselves. That is a shocker. Just curious, if it is no Rudy, no Fred, where do we go? Just stand back and get run over by the Hillary08 train? I will not do it. I have been pro Rudy from the start, and will stand by him for one reason. He is right on the most important issue of our time. I think he is the only candidate that will confront radical islam. I admire his passion, and feel it is geniuine.

chief on July 25, 2007 at 11:07 PM

He is just calling out the Dems. Give him some slack. When it gets to debate time, I’m sure he will bring his A game.

Rudy was mayor of NYC with 8.8 million people, most of them liberals. That population is more than 42 of 50 states and 3 times the populaton of Arkansas. NYC is also home of the NYT the most hostile press in America. I think he can argue with liberals.

tommylotto on July 25, 2007 at 11:19 PM

Big S on July 25, 2007 at 8:12 PM

Good answer. No one else was mentioning that every single Democrat (I’m almost certain) is on record favoring the repeal of the Bush tax cuts, in addition to socializing health care even further.

That would be called a “tax increase”, AP.

But I don’t think Allah was playing this straight; I think it was a Rovian plot to get the notoriously anti-Rudy HotAir commenters on the right side of the football. I see how you are. “I’ll attack Rudy for telling the truth, and they won’t have any choice but to defend him tooth and nail.”

Have it your way: Rudy was right.

Jaibones on July 25, 2007 at 11:34 PM

Allah, I love you like a brother. Especially since we both lived in New York, we’re both conservatives, and I’m better at photoshop than you.

But I hate how you throw Rudy to the wolves.

Come on man. Come on.

Vincenzo on July 25, 2007 at 11:59 PM

“No man can lead a public career really worth leading, no man can act
with rugged independence in serious crises, nor strike at great abuses,
nor afford to make powerful and unscrupulous foes, if he is himself
vulnerable in his private character.”
Theodore Roosevelt

“Is America a weakling, to shrink from the work of the great world
powers? No! The young giant of the West stands on a continent and
clasps the crest of an ocean in either hand. Our nation, glorious in
youth and strength, looks into the future with eager eyes and rejoices
as a strong man to run a race.”
Theodore Roosevelt

Again I say, out of 300M people there has to be a TR ready to serve.

Speakup on July 26, 2007 at 12:07 AM

Rudy isn’t even my candidate. So it’s not my first inclination to stick up for him. But this is just throwback politics.
He’s believing his polls and hype, as the electable front-runner. So now he’s no longer in the primary but taking on the Dims.
Like others have said, I would think he’s got answers on the ready. But in that debate the other night, the word terror was never even mentioned according to Hannity. I couldn’t watch the whole thing, so I can’t vouch for that.
As far as preordained front runners and their electability, do I have to remind anyone that Bob Dole was the electable candidate that got us 4 more years of Clinton?

PowWow on July 26, 2007 at 12:30 AM

I deleted this part accidentally.
If he doesn’t have answers for this. I think he could be in trouble. May be an issue.

PowWow on July 26, 2007 at 12:32 AM

I don’t get this criticism at all, this is exactly the kind of politicking Repubs have to do. Have you seen what Dems are saying about Repubs?

Everything he said is arguably true, even the 20-30 percent figure (the article rather laughably cites Dems’ campaign promises as some kind of evidence — because politicians’ promises on taxes are so reliable).

TallDave on July 26, 2007 at 12:45 AM

“Although I would agree I don’t quite see how you get political traction by attacking the views they havent yet said they have.”

Did you guys miss the 2006 elections? All the Dems did was campaign against strawmen. The GOP is racist, the GOP hates poor people, the GOP is calling us unpatriotic, the GOP had no plan in Iraq, the GOP manipulated intelligence on WMD, the GOP tried to smear Joe Wilson (with the truth, but who cares, right?). I could go on.

TallDave on July 26, 2007 at 12:49 AM

As far as I’m concerned, everything Rudy said was correct. He’s got my vote. You nuckleheads bashing him aren’t helping keep Vladimir Clinton, Osamabama and Uncle Joe Edwards out of office. So, Knock it off.

The fate of the Country is at stake.

NeoConSnakePlissken on July 26, 2007 at 12:57 AM

Hey Csdeven; Have you called Duncan Hunter a liar yet?

(I’m just trying to keep score, and I’m reasonably sure you have called nearly everyone (other than your guy, Mr. Perfect; Romney) a liar so far, and I’d hate to have missed your analysis on Hunter’s veracity.)

LegendHasIt on July 26, 2007 at 1:00 AM

For instance: remember in November 2006, when the Dems were saying “If we won, of course we would NEVER compromise funding for the troops.” That lasted all of what, three months? Remember all their ethics promises that evaporated like morning dew?

TallDave on July 26, 2007 at 1:10 AM

…someone who’s already suspected of being a lightweight shouldn’t be playing with straw men.

Right back at ya.

Big S on July 26, 2007 at 1:16 AM

Allah for Hillary? Really? Interesting!

libertarianuberalles on July 26, 2007 at 3:25 AM

Well, we’ve seen how well “raising the tone”, and letting the left monopolize the narrative with their over-the-top rhetoric has worked out for President Bush.

Somebody’s gotta push back, and I’m glad to see Rudy come out swinging.

Why would Hillary! and the Messiah want to expand the military? So they can deploy it across the CONUS planting trees to fight global warming?

LagunaDave on July 26, 2007 at 6:08 AM

Just realized something…. Some of you guys have such an obnoxious manner of stating things on these GOP Presidential Candidate threads that you irritate me to the point that I lose my perspective and start imagining that ANY politician might not be skilled at obfuscation and have many episodes of prevarication.

Note to Self: Endeavor to retain perspective no matter how annoyed you become with other commentators ways of expressing their opinions; You can be pretty obnoxious at times too.

LegendHasIt on July 26, 2007 at 6:29 AM

(The above was in reference to my own earlier snark towards csdevin, if that isn’t obvious.)

LegendHasIt on July 26, 2007 at 6:35 AM

William Amos on July 25, 2007 at 8:58 PM

Yep, I have an opinion, and mine is that AP’s anti-anyone but Fred stance is irritating…and puzzling.

Luckily for AP he has Hollowpoint cheering him on.

/SARC.

Buy Danish on July 26, 2007 at 7:41 AM

Let Rudy go for the jugular. It’s long overdue.

I want a fighter in the White House, Allah, not a nuanced statistician.

Nichevo on July 26, 2007 at 7:41 AM

Take care! Take care! You are probably right in your assessment but we conservatives don’t want to paint our own side badly as the the left and the MSM has painted the war and allow them to use those tactics against us. “Damning with faint praise” is not the road to take in my opinion. We need to paint our side as always positive(whether we agree or not)and as frequently as we can. Perhaps we need to start “spinning” more than we are?? That seems to be the way the current game is played.

jeanie on July 26, 2007 at 9:08 AM

I sincerely hope I don’t have to vote for this man when it comes time. I will if necessary, but I not without an internal struggle. Not a fan.

Vaporman87 on July 26, 2007 at 9:14 AM

Another windfall profits tax is a tax on us all Hillary has been quite clear about her desire to commit such a crime.

Not sure why you have such a hard on about Rudy but this post is not up to your usual standards. You got it almost completely wrong.

PierreLegrand on July 26, 2007 at 9:17 AM

Let Rudy go for the jugular. It’s long overdue.

I want a fighter in the White House, Allah, not a nuanced statistician

Exactly! Enough of this foolish attempt to have bi partisanship. All that means is we give up our principals and they get all of their programs and laws. Enough.

PierreLegrand on July 26, 2007 at 9:18 AM

How dare Rudy tell half truths about those lying, cheating, corrupt Commies. I’m outraged! OUTRAGED!!

Zetterson on July 26, 2007 at 10:08 AM

Sorry AP, you are my favorite Eeyore on the Net, but you’re wrong on all of these and Rudy is right.

Dudley Smith on July 26, 2007 at 10:10 AM

Okay AP:

You’ve heard from the conservative masses; how about revisiting your (non-existent) point?

It is readily apparent that the vast majority here are ready for a conservative leader who will not play pussy foot with these bastards. W has bent over and taken it up the ass from the opposition so many times he’s starting to like it.
These leftists pricks have for years hidden their true and final agenda from emasculating the military to redistirbution of wealth to complete nanny state control of every aspect of American life. They need to be called on it, loudly and frequently.

I’m not a Rudy guy, but God bless him for taking of the gloves.

Alamo on July 26, 2007 at 10:46 AM

Remember the Alamo!

Miss_Anthrope on July 26, 2007 at 11:19 AM

If AP does not update this page to withdraw his slam of Rudy, I’m going to start believing that he is just trying to stir up the natives with knowingly outlandish claims.

tommylotto on July 26, 2007 at 12:33 PM

Rudy may not be everything you want but we need to look at who can draw the independants and actually get elected. He can beat Hillary. His baggage is no worse than hers , actually her husband lowered the bar so far that anyone should be able to qualify. Guilani has the moxie to take on the liberal lies- can’t imagine anyone not believing that the democrats plan to raise taxes- where have you been obviously not listening to the comments they have. The only way th pay for the big spending they plan to to raise taxes a lot! They will take their money off shore so they don’t have to pay. That’s what Soros and Kennedy have done.

nnaus on July 26, 2007 at 6:00 PM

Laura Ingraham, who is very savvy in these matters, and has a heck of a lot more intelligence than most(90%)..Says Rudy is weak on the immigration and border issue…and I agree with Laura, too weak on the most important issue of our time, doesn’t get my support or primary vote..

Legions on July 26, 2007 at 9:16 PM

Legions on July 26, 2007 at 9:16 PM

98%

Legions on July 27, 2007 at 6:37 AM