Giuliani’s anti-Hillary, pro-Petraeus ad
posted at 7:45 pm on September 13, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Awful. When he said “we” want the same ad rate as MoveOn, I foolishly assumed he meant (a) the pro-Petraeus ad he had in mind would actually be about Petraeus and (b) “we” would include someone other than him. As it turns out, this isn’t a pro-Petraeus ad at all; it’s a campaign ad for Rudy, replete with logo, to prove what a swell troop-supportin’ guy he is and, more importantly, what a swell troop-supportin’ gal his likely opponent in the general election isn’t. At the very least he should have invited the rest of the GOP field to put their names on it too to show that he wasn’t motivated by electoral advantage. This looks like what it is — Rudy trying to exploit the admiration and gratitude (most) Americans feel for Petraeus for his own political benefit.
And if that’s not bad enough, check this out. He Silky-fied it.
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
Comment pages:
I think Rosie must of taken over his campaign on 9/11
William Amos on September 13, 2007 at 7:47 PM
Sad.
One more reason I won’t vote for Rudy in the primary.
jdawg on September 13, 2007 at 7:54 PM
Whoa, a politician making a self serving advertisement?!
Well knock me over with a feather
e-pirate on September 13, 2007 at 7:55 PM
From the lead-in I thought that was going to be much worse then it was. The silky-fication is pretty atrocious but outside of that, you have the bottom line as the purchaser and a quote from him, together taking up 20% of the page, at the bottom. Could be a lot worse.
Spirit of 1776 on September 13, 2007 at 7:55 PM
Why do politicians act like politicians so much?
Jay on September 13, 2007 at 7:56 PM
How could it be more transparently exploitative of Petraeus, though? If they eliminated the small bit of biographical detail entirely, I guess that’d be worse. But the ad really has nothing to do with Petraeus. It’s a shot at Hillary from a rival candidate and the general is just the boxing glove he’s using to land it. It’s contemptible.
Allahpundit on September 13, 2007 at 7:58 PM
I assumed he was talking about campaign adds for all Republicans.
I can’t tell from the Web page, but is he saying that if the NYT gives him a cut rate on this one add, that will make everything even?
(BTW, Giuliani running this targeted a primary campaign add in the NYT, even at a cut rate, would be a poor use of marketing funds.)
logis on September 13, 2007 at 8:00 PM
Call me in the tank for Rudy, but I don’t think that ad is anywhere near as awful as you’re making it, AP.
It’s self-serving, sure, but better a self-serving defense of Petraeus than no defense of Petraeus (at least in that media channel). And I don’t exactly hear any other GOP candidates banging the drum for some kind of show of joint support for Petraeus — not that anything of the sort would be possible, let alone likely.
It’s Rudy playing hardball politics. Well in bounds, IMO.
Purple Fury on September 13, 2007 at 8:03 PM
Yes, what he said.
omnipotent on September 13, 2007 at 8:04 PM
I don’t argue with any of those points. It’s is completely exploitive. Personally, I think it would be 10x better at least without the Rudy quote, but I have no problem with the ‘join’ & ‘paid for by’.
Petraeus doesn’t need Rudy’s support at any rate, so any statement about Petraeus by Rudy is essentially for Rudy’s benefit. Which is why Fred and all others will do or say something.
You are correct about Hillary, but the question is – does that statement not deserve public scrutiny? And if Rudy didn’t do it, who would? Not the NYT that’s for sure.
Spirit of 1776 on September 13, 2007 at 8:05 PM
Totally in bounds. He defended Petraeus personally, and addressed the politics of the whole situation. Way to go.
JiangxiDad on September 13, 2007 at 8:12 PM
Tacky.
Quickly put together by ‘whatzhizname’ in the back room. Rubber stamped by a campaign aide.
Rushed over to the Grey Lady with a check.
I don’t suspect Rudy had much imput into it, but he is the driver so he has to take the heat.
Limerick on September 13, 2007 at 8:12 PM
Without Patraeus’ approval, this is inappropriate. (And I don’t think that an active duty general could endorse a political candidate.)
As for attacking Hillary, that’s fine by me. I don’t think this particular add is all that clever, but I’m all for Republican candidates demonstrating their willingness and ability to attack Hillary Clinton. I think that’s important information to have.
logis on September 13, 2007 at 8:13 PM
I talked to my brother-in-law today about the election and he told me he was tired of Rudy bringing up 911. I agree.
Rudy did a wonderful job after 911. He was a calm leader in a time of termoil.
It will be a part of his legacy no doubt.
However, that was (can you believe it) SIX years ago this month…..
Time for a new message Rudy….
Nelsa on September 13, 2007 at 8:14 PM
The Silky-fication and the ginormous quote at the bottom were a dumb choice, but I’m glad to see the Republicans finally associating Democrats with their wacko base.
Slublog on September 13, 2007 at 8:15 PM
AP, legitimate points all…
But aren’t you really just obliquely flirting with KP with this post? (You magnificent bastard.)
Enrique on September 13, 2007 at 8:21 PM
If I were a republican strategist in ‘08, I’d run the most shrill anti-american quotes by democrats then, put “vote democrat” at the end during the whole cycle.
Maybe even make a fake 501 organization to make it all legal. If you did it well enough, you’d probably get donations from like minded liberals who agreed with the “frankness” of the message you are putting out.
Pure gold.
lorien1973 on September 13, 2007 at 8:22 PM
Ha. Nah, she doesn’t read the site.
Allahpundit on September 13, 2007 at 8:24 PM
That may be what she says, but come on…she’s just being coy.
Slublog on September 13, 2007 at 8:28 PM
The ad is a great shot at the likely candidate of the enemies of America.
The alternative to Rudy is Hillary. Rudy is the only GOP candidate that she cannot beat. Period.
JayHaw Phrenzie on September 13, 2007 at 8:30 PM
That sucks. Rudy was on a roll too.
SoulGlo on September 13, 2007 at 8:33 PM
I don’t necessarily equate self-serving with contemptible. Contemptible is what some of the Dems said before he even testified.
He is running for president, after all. How inclusive do you want him to be?
SouthernDem on September 13, 2007 at 8:33 PM
Other than Fred!
Nelsa on September 13, 2007 at 8:41 PM
Allah,
You’re really reaching now to blast Rudy now that Fred is officially in the game.
Noone else ponied up the pennies to run a full page ad defending our General. So what, he put his name on the bottom of the ad.
It isn’t awful. It’s time someone stood up to Moveon.org, and did it with their campaign cash.
Good job, Rudy.
Allah, I expect more from you than blasting this. You know you sway opinion, and you could have at least left it up to the readership to form their own.
Vincenzo on September 13, 2007 at 8:48 PM
That’s what the pundit part means.
SouthernDem on September 13, 2007 at 8:52 PM
As most of you know I’m opposed to Rudy becoming the nominee, but I don’t completely agree with AP on this.
The ad could be better- a lot better- than simply including a Petraeus bio and a few quotes, but I didn’t see the injection of Rudy and his campaign info to be that intrusive- 80% of the ad didn’t reference Rudy at all.
Still, I’d have like to see a stronger condemnation, an appeal to supporting the troops- something more than a sentiment of “moveon.org placed this ad and Hillary seems to agree with it” with a few quotes.
Was Rudy motivated mostly by his campaign in potentially (he’s said he wants the same rate, but it’s not clear he’ll actually place it) placing the ad? Sure, but that’s what candidates do.
Hollowpoint on September 13, 2007 at 8:54 PM
How often to liberals go out of their way in having their viewpoint challenged?
Hollowpoint on September 13, 2007 at 8:55 PM
Sorry, but I don’t agree with you. The ad is all about Petraeus, and calls out Hillary for the leftist, pandering hack she is. The Rudy logo is probably required by law as his campaign is paying for it. I like ya, but you’re wrong on this one. It’s a damn good ad.
Yay Rudy!
Rational Thought on September 13, 2007 at 8:55 PM
No I’m not. I defended Rudy’s numbers in the battleground states yesterday. What are you talking about?
Allahpundit on September 13, 2007 at 8:56 PM
Heh. But this isn’t politics.
This is love.
Slublog on September 13, 2007 at 8:57 PM
OK, fair enough. ;)
Vincenzo on September 13, 2007 at 8:59 PM
Contemptible?
Really?
He’s speaking up and putting his money where his mouth is. Shows leadership if ya ask me.
EduardoOTI on September 13, 2007 at 9:28 PM
Personally, I think you’re way off on this post, oh great Allah..
I thought the ad was very tasteful and defended the General nicely. Are we looking at the same ad?
Of course he put his logo on it. So what?
Mojoski on September 13, 2007 at 9:38 PM
Oh, good God, Allah. I thought you were going to say he wanted the same price for a campaign ad. 3/4 of the ad is devoted to supporting Petraeus, the other 1/4 to who sponsored it. He ponied up the money from his campaign coffers, why can’t he put his name on it?
Has Fred taken out an ad in the paper? Romney?
amerpundit on September 13, 2007 at 9:44 PM
As for blasting Hillary, I’d point out that she’s A) the front runner, B) scandalized with the Hsu thing. Of course he’s going to go after her.
amerpundit on September 13, 2007 at 9:46 PM
I don’t think that ad is what you are portraying it at all. It certainly got in some really good shots at Moveon.org, the Dems and Hillary. And I sure don’t equate this with what Edwards did. Personally, I am glad he did this and it made a good point on several levels.
I am not a Rudy supporter due to his views on illegal immigration/sanctuary cities, abortion, gay marriage and gun control. However, I do respect him and this ad didn’t change that.
katieanne on September 13, 2007 at 9:46 PM
I was expecting something awful and didn’t find it either. Not perfect, but not nearly as bad as promised. Didn’t Silky use his wife’s cancer to get donations? There is no comparison.
Why? He’s getting a huge amount of publicity that reaches everyone.
Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 10:02 PM
So, he defends the general, slaps hilldawg, and you’re upset that he put his name on it with a quote?
I don’t get it. He was supposed to sign it “love america?”
sunny on September 13, 2007 at 10:02 PM
This forum can’t see straight…great ad. I hope it helps get him OR ANOTHER REPUBLICAN ELECTED…my god…wake up people.
tomas on September 13, 2007 at 10:04 PM
Rudy’s doing a good job on Hannity as we speak.
JiangxiDad on September 13, 2007 at 10:06 PM
His ad has been placed. Rudy “hopes” Slimes will run it tomorrow.
JiangxiDad on September 13, 2007 at 10:08 PM
Allahpundit, check this out.
Illegal Contribution from NYT to MoveOn?
Christoph on September 13, 2007 at 10:08 PM
I would think that if he’s using campaign money for this, he has to, you know, campaign with it. I don’t know what the laws are, but the people who donated the money wanted it used to promote Rudy in the election. Most of the ad is about Petraeus, which makes it a legitimate response to the MoveOn ad. I think since Rudy’s payin’ for it, Rudy gets to put his name on it.
Plus, haven’t we all been griping and worrying about nobody on our side seeming to be prepared to take on the slick and vicious Clinton machine? It seems Rudy’s ready to throw down the gauntlet, New York style.
aero on September 13, 2007 at 10:15 PM
Hmmmm, guess it’s time to replenish the Rudy bank account. *Sigh……:)*
RushBaby on September 13, 2007 at 10:16 PM
You have NO idea how many democrat New Yorkers want Giuliani in the general election so they can vote for him. You see, there are more conservative Democrats in NYC than liberal Democrats. You just can’t call yourself Republican in NYC and be cool at the same time.
Vincenzo on September 13, 2007 at 10:17 PM
That’s what I thought until recently too. But lately, and I don’t really know why, I’ve been thinking Fred could give her a run for her money. We’re probobly toast either way.
BadgerHawk on September 13, 2007 at 10:21 PM
From your mouth to God’s ears. But didn’t AP just post Rasmussen poll results showing Hillary beating Giuliani in NY?
JiangxiDad on September 13, 2007 at 10:24 PM
Sure, why do you think he’s blasting Clinton so much right now? He doesn’t want her in the race. He wants to run against Obama.
That will seal the deal for him.
Mark my words, the last thing Giuliani wants in the general election is Clinton. The biggest thing he wants in the primaries is for Republicans to think Clinton will get the nomination. See, in the primaries, Republicans want giuliani to face off against clinton. In the general, Giuliani wants Obama.
You heard it here first. Tell me I’m wrong!
Vincenzo on September 13, 2007 at 10:26 PM
On second thought, Allah… would you delete the post just above this. I really shouldn’t be spilling the beans on this one.
Vincenzo on September 13, 2007 at 10:27 PM
I saw the ad and I thought it was fine. Nice big bold type on General Petraeus awards and commendations. Simple points. Clear and simple in it’s exposing Hillary for the ass-clownette she is. I think it’s perfect for the medium. I mean this ad was made for the readership of the Times for crying out loud. Those people have to be educated in baby steps, man. Baby steps.
Guardian on September 13, 2007 at 10:27 PM
Am assuming here that Hillary is the nominee.
JiangxiDad on September 13, 2007 at 10:28 PM
I’m not saying anything else. loose lips sink ships.
Vincenzo on September 13, 2007 at 10:31 PM
I don’t see it as all that awful an ad. Rudy defended General P in terms that even the “rats” could understand- and their intellectual depth is equivilent to the paper coloring placemats one finds at Macaronni Grill!
The really sad part is that none of this matters. The hate-the-military such as Hillary and Obama really thinks anybody who serves the nation in uniform is a cold-blooded terrorist killer of innocents who joined because they couldn’t get a real job, is lead by liar generals, and should be kept on a tight leash with no more of a mission than backing up UN peacekeeping missions.
If any Clinton/Obama supporter would care to defend their traitor of choice, I’m more than ready to make my case that the above statements are being gentle on those who truly are the “domestic enemy” the military swears to defend the Constitution against.
highhopes on September 13, 2007 at 10:33 PM
Ok. I’ll buy your argument for the moment. Hils out. But Bloomberg can still derail this for Rudy, or whomever the Reps. choose. How does that figure into your calculation?
JiangxiDad on September 13, 2007 at 10:37 PM
I can see AP’s perspective. I can also see the perspective of those who support the ad. My thought is that at least someone on the right is finally taking on the left head on instead of p***y-footing around. I only wish it were a republican who stepped forward to fight instead of a RINO.
deepdiver on September 13, 2007 at 10:37 PM
If it’s not, then it will be either Obama or Edwards. Of those two, frankly, I think Edwards would have a better chance of winning.
Obama is a straight-up liberal. The Democrats act like they don’t remember the 80’s, but I do. Landslide victories for the Republicans, in no small part because they ran against straight-up liberals in ‘84 and ‘88.
I don’t see Edwards as a straight-up liberal. I don’t know much about his politics at all, frankly. I see him more as a panderer, which in and of itself won’t turn people off to the same degree, since they expect politicians to pander.
So, yeah, if I were Rudy, or any of the other Republicans running for President, you betcha I’d want to run against Obama.
I don’t see that happening though. Hillary is going to get the nomination. The Clinton machine has been hard at work for a long time on this campaign.
stivv on September 13, 2007 at 10:42 PM
Congrats AP. You’re getting criticisms that usually are only reserved for Rush.
- The Cat
MirCat on September 13, 2007 at 10:44 PM
I have no idea how anyone outside of New York City will take a 5′ 2″ billionaire mayor from New York City with a liberal agenda who ran as a Republican after he was a lifelong Democrat, and then switched to an independent, will take ANY votes away from ANY Republican candidate. I’m not sure if the man has ever even been south of the Mason Dixon line.
Vincenzo on September 13, 2007 at 10:53 PM
Those criticisms don’t come from conservatives.
JiangxiDad on September 13, 2007 at 10:54 PM
That’s EXACTLY what I thought. But I saw this poll yesterday or day before (can’t find it now) showing a potential Bloomberg candidacy pulling disproportionately from Republicans. I don’t know what deadlines he faces though.
I can’t explain why Rep’s would vote for Bloomberg. I’m not a fan of his. But I keep this in the back of my mind all the time. His ego is HUGE. I believe he would pay to influence this election, maybe in return for a position. He wouldn’t be in it to win. Perot got Clinton elected.
JiangxiDad on September 13, 2007 at 11:01 PM
I’m not a big Rudy fan, but I don’t have a problem with it.
Nice Deb on September 13, 2007 at 11:14 PM
Full disclosure I’m leaning heavily towards Rudy at the moment.
I didnt have a problem with it. A quote by him and a JoinRudy2008 at the bottom. Meh.
Dash on September 13, 2007 at 11:22 PM
I’m on the Rudy train. Don’t see a problem with it. Didn’t assume he meant anything other than “we” (the Giuliani campaign).
I’m hoping most fervently (longshot) that Hillary stumbles and Obama gets the nod. I’ve heard that a lot of monied Clinton supporters will back Rudy if Hillary doesn’t make it.
MikeZero on September 13, 2007 at 11:27 PM
He is smart enough to attack the dem cong front runner. Most of us seem to spend our time bashing the various Republican candidates because none of them are Ronald Reagan. Better to beat the tax and surrender democrats over the headthan each other.Besides, Rudy is calling attention to the special treatment MoveOn.org received. Something the media would have avoiding covering.
The Opinionator on September 13, 2007 at 11:30 PM
I’m Fred first still, right now, but I don’t see anything wrong with this. He stepped up and should be able to claim it.
tickleddragon on September 13, 2007 at 11:46 PM
I’ll be voting for Rudy.
forest on September 14, 2007 at 12:04 AM
I’ll be voting for Mitt. 6-times. I’m Canadian. But I figure your voting system can’t be that secure across all states.
And I really want to p—- doriangrey off.
Christoph on September 14, 2007 at 12:08 AM
It’s a brilliant ad! They have all condemned it, but Rudy put his money where his mouth is. Veterans for Freedom or another group could have bought their own ad, but they just want us to make phone calls and sign a petition. Big whup!
Plus he’s getting MAJOR exposure out of it, while all the Dems candidates are dancing around answering to it, and it seems to be keeping the Dem poop-slinging machine suppressed in the MSM. He was featured on Drudge much of the day with his finger in Hillary’s face, and he STILL has 2 text links up there. So as to this only being seen by moon-bat NYT readers, he’s gotten WAY more mileage on it then that.
As for putting his name on it, hell, he paid for it…he HAS to. If it was on tv, on which it might end up, he’d also have to say “I’m Rudy, and I approved this ad.”
Another thing I want to see more on, is the legality of it all. From Best of the Web Today by James Taranto:
Kudos to Rudy for driving this point home and forcing the despicable MSM to cover it!
Im_no_dhimmi on September 14, 2007 at 12:16 AM
Grow up Allah.
Hilts on September 14, 2007 at 12:18 AM
Well put. That’s why I’ll be voting for Rudy.
forest on September 14, 2007 at 12:28 AM
It links the Democrats’ strongest candidate with the most repugnant part of her base, it gives a readable summary of why we should trust Petraeus, and gets it done while the Moveon.org ad is still newsworthy. What’s the problem?
Also, doesn’t Giuliani have to put his name on the ad, per campaign finance laws?
RightOFLeft on September 14, 2007 at 12:33 AM
Looks like a consensus. Allah you are wrong. Rudy is a candidate. He’s paying for it. He has the right to take credit for it. The ad is typical Rudy get used to it. He is not afraid to question the sanity of those who disagree with him. Liberals beware.
tommylotto on September 14, 2007 at 12:48 AM
I disagree. People say well oh 9/11 was six years ago. The chronology isn’t the point. The point is that Rudy displayed his character, courage and ability to lead on that day. He helped inspire Bush to lead at Ground Zero (read David Frum’s The Right Man) and risked his personal survival to evacuate his fellow citizens.
I’ve no problem if people opose him for ideological reasons, he’s to left of me of that I’m certain. But he isn’t “exploiting” 9/11 or coasting on it, he showed that he is a true leader and America could do a lot worse.
aengus on September 14, 2007 at 1:18 AM
I can see the reason some here would “blow the whistle,” so to speak, on Juliani after he added his name, etc., to the bottom of the page. Nevertheless, the jist of the ad really does defend General Petraeus, holds a spot light up to the trash talking Democrats, MoveOn.org, etc., and really does a good job at smakkin’ ‘em down.
At this time I do not expect to support or vote for Juliani, but it is nice to see an add supporting Petraeus.
William
William2006 on September 14, 2007 at 1:26 AM
Sadly, the primaries are more about finding a follower.
Big S on September 14, 2007 at 1:28 AM
That’s what I worry about the most.
Vincenzo on September 14, 2007 at 1:33 AM
I have to agree with some of the others. This doesn’t look near as bad as AP thinks it is to me.
NeoConNews on September 14, 2007 at 1:34 AM
Time for a new message Rudy….
What new message? The 9/11 stuff about Rudy is the least interesting.
It’s the first 6.5 years I dig about him. That’s where the rubber hits the road. Wake up and read a little.
AP, you’re whining about Rudy’s ad is pure BS.
MoveOn has set the ground rulesp; all’s fair in politcs.
Grow up.
mylegsareswollen on September 14, 2007 at 2:11 AM
Since he’s the only one to have the gonads to put both money and words out there making clear what his position is without the usual twisting and turning, I don’t understand your problem with this ad.
Don’t start in with Rudy like the left has done with Bush – do you really want to go down the Rudy-Derangement-Syndrome road?
Mommynator on September 14, 2007 at 9:34 AM
The part you pictured wasn’t about Petraeus, but the actual ad was. He included information about the man and denounced those that smeared him.
Surely Rudy can’t presume to speak for some other “we”. Hopefully he and the other candidates will all get a fair ad rate, to use as they each see fit (and honorable).
MayBee on September 14, 2007 at 10:29 AM
Another Giuliani hit piece from Allah?
I am shockedBodhi on September 14, 2007 at 10:51 AM
Of course it’s about Rudy. He spent his own campaign money on the ad! Do you think his campaign would pull in authorizations to spent Rudy2008 funds from the other candidates? Would that that be legal?
If the RNC ran the ad, it’d look different. How come they didn’t?
desertdweller on September 14, 2007 at 11:24 AM
Well he placed it. This reporter notes that the date of Hillarys’ quote 9/11 was larger than the other type.
tommylotto on September 14, 2007 at 11:25 AM
Rudy is sinking. The other day he said that being in the country illegally isn’t a crime, (just like the 9/11 high-jackers), and when he’s president he will make sure it isn’t. I guess he was talking to the illegal alien lobby.
Thanks to the media no one knows about the real conservative, Duncan Hunter; he’d help us get our country back.
Christine on September 14, 2007 at 12:05 PM
How could it be more transparently exploitative of Petraeus, though
Huh?
I’m for Rudy, and confirmation bias set in long ago, but still… wtf? He’s defending Petraeus. He’s not supposed to seek political advantage while doing the right thing? Come on now.
If you guys want to nominate a namby-pamby Republican candidate who rarely fights back while Dems claim he’s destroying the planet, ruining the economy, and betraying the country, then get ready for 8 years of Hillary.
TallDave on September 17, 2007 at 12:07 PM
I mean really, we just had a week of Biden and Obama and Edwards and Clinton all saying patently ridiculous things about Iraq that they know aren’t true (like that we can withdraw without a huge bloodbath, that there’s “no strategy”, “no progress,” or that we can transition to “training”), impugning Petraeus’ integrity, and generally putting a crap-on-America circus act for their base.
It’s about goddamn time someone did an ad like this.
TallDave on September 17, 2007 at 12:13 PM
Comment pages: