Audio: Rudy to MoveOn — I’m your worst nightmare
posted at 12:29 pm on September 18, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
“Why is MoveOn attacking Rudy Giuliani?” the narrator intones. Er, isn’t it because Rudy attacked MoveOn? Twice?
No matter. Savor the paradox of Giuliani: a politician savvy enough to enlist controversies like this to his own end, quick-witted enough to seize fleeting opportunities at the debate for major point-scoring, yet somehow tone-deaf enough to break up with his wife at a press conference. It’s idiot-savant-like.
Geraghty notes an NPR interview suggesting MoveOn’s plan to use “betrayal” as a running theme throughout the campaign. That’s remarkably stupid, if true. The knock on Republicans right now has to do with competence, not loyalty; with Pelosi jetting off to do photo ops with Assad and Kerry ripping Bush at Davos while seated next to Khatami, a war over who’s more loyal to America will be much easier for the GOP to fight than a war over who can make the trains run on time.
But back to Rudy. His real achievement here has been dragging Hillary into the center of the “Betray Us” fiasco. Here’s the latest Clinton supporter to knock MoveOn for the ad, something the Glacier herself has conspicuously refused to do. It hasn’t gone unnoticed, even on the left.
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
And Liberal keep repeating these points as if people don’t know.
Quick note: Where’s the part about Wesley Clark. I’m apparently too stupid to find it. I’ve had a tough day already.
amerpundit on September 18, 2007 at 12:38 PM
This is vintage Rudy. He infuriates Liberals and really knows how to pick his fights.
You guys all complain that he is too liberal, but you should speak to some liberals in NYC…they HATED him! Unlike BDS, where libs and the press are were all mad at a president who is either unwilling or unable to defend himself, they fear Giuliani because he would kick their asses in press conferences.
He would have all the NYC press up in arms because he always knew more about the issues affecting the city.
kcluva on September 18, 2007 at 12:38 PM
Can Hillary afford to condem Moveon.org?
bnelson44 on September 18, 2007 at 12:39 PM
He married his second cousin????????
bloggless on September 18, 2007 at 12:40 PM
It’s good for Rudy to go after Moveon.org. I don’t think these things will do much to change overall opinion of the election right now because most people are not paying attention to the race.
By the time most people begin to pay attention, this may be forgotten in the universe that is the presidential election. There will probably be something else to take its place by then.
Weebork on September 18, 2007 at 12:41 PM
By having to ask the question, you have your answer.
BacaDog on September 18, 2007 at 12:41 PM
Rudy, like him or hate him, is the only republican actually engaging the democrats. The other guys (mitt etal) are smackin each other around like the three stooges.
lorien1973 on September 18, 2007 at 12:45 PM
He’s smart to go after MoveOn, but he and the other candidates(and whoever the nom is) need to be careful and keep from going overboard.
MoveOn and Nutroot types can be used to bleed the Dem candidates, but if they become too much of a liability, they’ll get amputated, which is a crapshoot. The Nutroots types just as easily could go on a self-righteous rampage, spill their nuttiness into the public and turn everyone off, or realize they need to keep their traps shut and pretend they aren’t a bunch of nutbars for a few months if they want to get the candidate they want.
Bad Candy on September 18, 2007 at 12:46 PM
I gotta admit it. I am ecstatic to see a Republican presidential candidate finally taking on MoveOn. Enough’s enough with these liars and hate mongerers.
We don’t have to sink to their level of hate and bigotry to fight them. But fight them we must. We have to expose them for the Soros funded fraud they are.
Hawkins1701 on September 18, 2007 at 12:49 PM
Rudy all the way in 2008 !!
awake on September 18, 2007 at 1:00 PM
oh cuz the biggest asshole/petty thug/mean son of a gun to ever hold public office has the “character” to be president
ernesto on September 18, 2007 at 1:04 PM
He married his second cousin????????
bloggless on September 18, 2007 at 12:40 PM
I think it was just a ploy to endear himself to the south of the Mason-Dixon red state voters.
swami on September 18, 2007 at 1:20 PM
After watching George Bush choose to be a punching bag for the Democrats since 2001, I want a candidate who’ll take the fight to the enemy (foreign and domestic) and not just lay there and take it. Letting liberal lies and propaganda go unchallenged at home while trying to fight a war abroad has been an unmitigated disaster. I have less in common with Rudy ideologically, but I can’t deny that he’s reacted quickly and gone after the Democrats the hardest over smearing GEN Petraeus. That doesn’t make me a Rudy guy yet, but it has impressed me. Hopefully it’ll spark some fire in the rest of the field, and we’ll all be better off.
ReubenJCogburn on September 18, 2007 at 1:24 PM
You are absolutely spot on! Unlike Bush who feels that it is un Christian to fight back against his political foes (unless they are Republicans complaining about Harriet Miers, Dubai Ports, and Shamnesty), Rudy (a real man) is not afraid to defend himself and go over to the counter-offensive.
Hilts on September 18, 2007 at 1:34 PM
I jumped behind Rudy after Fred hired that sandal-licking Dhimmi.
Loundry on September 18, 2007 at 1:34 PM
I thought it was a bad ad. All it said was that Move On is scared of Rudy and Rudy is not scared of them. So what? Sounds like 2 teenagers.
nottakingsides on September 18, 2007 at 1:34 PM
If the Republicans can make the “D=Defeat” meme stick, they’ll win.
Iblis on September 18, 2007 at 1:59 PM
Loundry on September 18, 2007 at 1:34 PM
That, and his nuanced views on terrorism.
Big S on September 18, 2007 at 2:09 PM
To me, a nuanced view on terrorism is “I will mostly destroy Iran” whereas a non-nuanced view on terrorism is “I will completely destroy Iran”.
The worst thing about Bush 43? He didn’t destroy Iran.
The worst thing about Clinton? He didn’t destroy Iran.
Bush 41? He didn’t destroy Iran.
Reagan? He didn’t destroy Iran.
Carter? He chose those gob-smackingly tacky window treatments for the oval office.
Humor of course. But I’m serious about destroying Iran.
Loundry on September 18, 2007 at 2:15 PM
Wesley Clark pining for VP under the Glacier?
Entelechy on September 18, 2007 at 2:26 PM
I live in NYC. Staten Island to be exact. The forgotten child of NYC. While Manhattan and other boroughs were getting goodies from the feds, staten and city, SI was constantly shafted. We actually got as far as voting for secession (stopped by that Schumer-goon-twin, Sheldon Silver).
Giuliani promised to change things and he did. He kept every last single promise he made to Staten Island. He closed down the dump. He repaired things. He made our public transport better (it still stinks, but it stinks less than it did). He took us seriously.
About how many politicians can you say that he kept his promises?
And in spite of his personal flaws, he knows what’s right and how to go about achieving it in the civil universe.
And he’s not afraid to take on the big, bad buys be it the Mafia or al-Qaeda.
And he’s not afraid to call a spade a spade or ignore special interests.
I’ve been for him from the beginning. I have yet to find anyone who will stand up for all of us against foes foreign and domestic, who will tell us what is and not what he fantasizes, and who will try his damndest to keep any promises he makes.
Liberals and whackos have great reason to fear him.
Mommynator on September 18, 2007 at 2:26 PM
I would never vote for Rudy…he takes money for speeches. Anyway that’s what Moveover.org uses as one of their themes. How pathetic for them, and fortunate for Rudy.
They will get Rudy elected, after all they “own the Democrats”.
right2bright on September 18, 2007 at 2:31 PM
Of all the things you could have criticized Rudy for, the breaking point for you was the fact that he dares to charge money for his services?
Loundry on September 18, 2007 at 2:45 PM
Loundry on September 18, 2007 at 2:15 PM
I’m not so hot on destroying Iran, although I am in favor of confronting them. I’m more concerned with Thompson’s having consulted the Libyan terrorists’ counsel on what he now dismisses as “jurisdictional issues.” Yes, it was only a few hour billed, but if he thinks he can get around answering for it by brushing it off as “jurisdictional issues,” I’d note that such issues are very relevant to the current war on terror, and have been relatively controversial in the past few years.
Big S on September 18, 2007 at 2:47 PM
That’s pretty much what knocked me off the Fred wagon too.
BadgerHawk on September 18, 2007 at 2:48 PM
Have you finished destroying Iraq yet?
Given, campaigning on an invasion and occupation of Iran wouldn’t get the Republicans to 270. It might leave them with double digit electorals.
Keeping world pressure on Iran and allowing its fanatical leaders to further isolate themselves by pushing for nukes is probably the best way to effect regime change there. We should make sure we get everything we can out of the “threat” of force.
dedalus on September 18, 2007 at 2:48 PM
I think you missed his point.
BadgerHawk on September 18, 2007 at 2:49 PM
Wes Clark lost any credibility with me on Iraq after his dishonest, Soros-funded ad called Because of Iraq.
CP on September 18, 2007 at 2:51 PM
In the Rudy vs. Hillary fight, do you think he’ll be able to use this quote?
Christoph on September 18, 2007 at 2:52 PM
Christoph,
Thanks for the quote. It demonstrates how the Dems can see American business as merely an extension of their big gov domination.
dedalus on September 18, 2007 at 2:59 PM
I wish. Unfortunately, we keep building the uncivilized, violent, superstitious ingrates hospitals and schools. $880 Billion, last I heard. What a complete waste. The “war” in Iraq is retarded. We should have said, “You lose a city per day until you abandon jihad.”
Yes, it’s all about politics. Nothing to do with exporting death and destruction and jihad and all that. The Republicans are the REAL enemy! “Progressive” = willful stupidity.
Yeah, I can tell they’ve been really bothered by our one-two punch of “strong words” followed up by “isolation”.
Japan? We nuked them. Twice. Occupied their country and wrote their new constitution for them. Result? One of our strongest allies and presently makes all sorts of cool technological stuff that we eat up. Presently kicking the tail of our goonion-run automobile industry.
Iran? Undefeated by the USA. Result? They export death and destruction by means of financing Hezbollah and Hamas, kill Americans, give strength and encouragement to anti-American forces across the globe. How much more “isloated” can they get before they abandon jihad?
And you think that “isolation” works? Only if the Democrats’ winning is what you’re gunning for.
Why did you put threat in scare quotes?
Loundry on September 18, 2007 at 3:10 PM
Christoph on September 18, 2007 at 2:52 PM
So if I understand what she’s saying, Americans will have to buy their own health insurance from (heavily regulated) companies, but will not be able to work for a living until they show proof that they are insured? Sounds like a great way to make sure that nobody can afford private insurance and have to go on her government plans. Genius!
Big S on September 18, 2007 at 3:21 PM
“Hey, Mo! Trow me de tools!”
Miss_Anthrope on September 18, 2007 at 3:27 PM
Hi Loundry,
I’d agree that we committed the hundreds of billions to Iraq without using much of it to hold Maliki’s government accountable. Also, I can see the case for either #1.) Killing Saddam and getting out or #2.) Staying with a large footprint and remaking the country with a MacArthur-style interim government. We seem to be in middle where we have committed our troops and budget, but told the Iraqis to figure out the oil sharing plan whenever it is convenient for them.
Don’t get the “willfully stupid” point. I haven’t met him.
Is it all about politics? No. But you can’t be indifferent to Realpolitik. I’m reading a lot of posts today about voting Rudy just because he can beat Hillary. A lot of those arguments are Realpolitik, and I respect them, whether or not I agree.
The Japanese make some nice cars, though I find they lack the joy that the Germans and Italians seem to design into their cars. Should we have nuked them? That’s another thread—very short answer is yes. I’m not in favor of nuking Iran nor do I believe that they will ever build a car I want to drive.
Did we nuke the Soviet Union? Did we invade and occupy them? Were we wimps during the Cuban missile crisis? We won the cold war but there is every chance that a few random events going another way and the Soviets and we would have annihilated many cities with far more megatonage than Hiroshima or Nagasaki saw. Fortunately, I was trained to hide in safety under my school desk.
Good catch on the “threat” quotes. They weren’t scare quotes rather I was intending use the word in a more specific way. It should have come out with a copy edit. Is there an “unsubmit” button?
dedalus on September 18, 2007 at 3:54 PM
That’s not true- Thompson had his response to the moveon.org ad up on his website almost right away, and has gone after the Dems (including Hillary) pretty hard while largely turning down the opportunity to go after the other Republican candidates in all but the most veiled way.
I don’t know what Romney or McCain have done, but they’re quickly becoming such a non-factor that it doesn’t much matter anymore.
Hollowpoint on September 18, 2007 at 3:55 PM
Man, I can’t believe how much the Big A is hating on Rudy.
He divorced his wife. In a public way. I get it. So what? Who wants a pussy for president, anyways?
Now go make your moveon donation, so you caqn stop Rudy from getting the nomination.
If he gets the nomination, he will be the president. If he doesn’t, then Hillary wins. It’s that simple.
A vote for Mitt or Fred in the primary is a vote for Hillary.
JayHaw Phrenzie on September 18, 2007 at 4:18 PM
That’s just idiotic. There’s no reason to believe that Fred couldn’t win against Hillary with her unlikeability. There is good reason to believe that Rudy wouldn’t inspire a large turnout from social cons and illegal immigration opponents, however.
A vote for Rudy is a vote for the death of the Republican party, and the conservative movement, in addition to being a vote for Hillary.
See? I can use moronic hyperbole too.
Hollowpoint on September 18, 2007 at 5:30 PM
Even though Kilmeade is probably my favorite (non female) FNC personality, you should have clipped the O’Reilly segment instead of Fox & Friends. He had Clark on last night and made him look rather foolish.
RightWinged on September 18, 2007 at 5:44 PM
Clark had credibility?! When did that happen?
But seriously, I hated that ad too. But I knew he was a piece of crap when Tommy Franks said that he had to relieve Clark of command due to “character and integrity issues”.
ReubenJCogburn on September 18, 2007 at 6:16 PM
I have always felt that Hillary is not that tough to beat,,, or any of these Dems for that matter. There has not been a real challenger to the Dems for years. They have had it easy. They have had a lot handed to them,, and I am convinced that just about any Republican that comes out with a bold conservative message will throw them into a turmoil! Republicans have been bending over trying not to offend and get along for years. Watching and listening to Rudy attack Hillary in these adds is so encouraging,, it really makes the old hear sing!!,, and I don’t even want to vote for Rudy unless I have to! It is so refreshing to watch some courage on the Republican side.
JellyToast on September 18, 2007 at 6:58 PM
Yeah but if the Dems amputate the Nutroots they will be the same as anyone who has lost a limb, diminished.
aengus on September 18, 2007 at 9:07 PM
I bet all the candidates are considering ex-military types for their VPs, since not a single one of the frontrunners has even a moment of military experience themselves.
aero on September 18, 2007 at 11:46 PM
Aero,
I agree with you on that. Clark endorsed Hillary yesterday. He gives her a military presence but also would point to Arkansas as a state they intend on taking.
dedalus on September 19, 2007 at 12:28 AM