Video: Rudy unloads on Hillary
posted at 10:17 pm on October 16, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Hannity bringing the tough questions on tonight’s H&C. The barbs here are ostensibly aimed at Hillary but the unseen target is Fred, whose managerial experience is even less than the Glacier’s. We begin with an awkward revisiting of l’affaire cell phone, segue into an equally awkward preview of Rudy’s stint at the Value Voters Summit this weekend, and then it’s smooth sailing into a series of knocks on Hillary for her lack of qualifications, her cartoonishly socialist baby bonds plan, and of course her equivocating on Iran. Rudy can’t match up with the social cons in the Republican field so he’s very shrewdly staked himself out as the Hillary dragonslayer. A strong showing on Saturday in front of Dobson could be a turning point.
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: 1 2 Next »
heh. I said in the other thread that this was Hannity’s version of the KO/Clinton lovefest.
BadgerHawk on October 16, 2007 at 10:19 PM
Every time I hear him, I become more convinced he IS, head and shoulders above the others, the Hillary Dragon slayer.
petefrt on October 16, 2007 at 10:24 PM
I wish they had talked about immigration.
conservnut on October 16, 2007 at 10:30 PM
He really is a knight.
tommylotto on October 16, 2007 at 10:35 PM
The problem with that is that most swing voters do not see Hillary as a dragon and most “social cons” are not dumb enough to fall for that diversionary jive for the next 12 and a half months.
MB4 on October 16, 2007 at 10:35 PM
Every time I hear him, I am further convinced he is the ONLY candidate in the entire field that actually isn’t afraid to answer any question, and offer REAL opinions, not just cookie cutter part-approved sound bytes.
Once in awhile someone comes along that can make a real difference for the country. There was FDR and JFK for the Dems, we had Linocln and Ronald Reagan. I am hoping and thinking that Giuliani may be the next great one, if he gets the chance to be.
Vincenzo on October 16, 2007 at 10:35 PM
I’ll agree with you. But Duncan Hunter is the same way. I wish there were more attention given to his candidacy.
Weight of Glory on October 16, 2007 at 10:38 PM
MB4 on October 16, 2007 at 10:43 PM
Weight of Glory, Duncan Hunter is a nice person and has great ideas but no chance whatsover – thus, why are we even considering him or anyone, on both sides, who just fill the stage. Yes, they add an idea here and there, but that’s it.
I liked Rudy tonight, and even better it was the first time I hear his wife speak. She came across very together, and not arrogant or controlling. I could easily live with, even love a Giuliani presidency. He’s very genuine and a quick thinker on his feet.
Entelechy on October 16, 2007 at 10:44 PM
Duncan Hunter does, however, need to be considered for a cabinet position.
amerpundit on October 16, 2007 at 10:46 PM
Like specifics on how to run a sanctuary city, how to sue legal gun manufactuers, and how to donate money to Planned Parenthood?
jaime on October 16, 2007 at 10:51 PM
Man even when I don’t agree with him, I do enjoy hearing him speak, especially compared to some of the other candidates.
Spirit of 1776 on October 16, 2007 at 10:53 PM
About one month (if even that) after he announced, statements like that were already being made as fact. I think that many people counted some of the candidates out prematurely, in favor of the Rudy/Mitt/McCain narrative. Then McCain stumbled over the fence and we replaced him with Fred! w/o looking back on that stage to see if there were another one that would fit the bill. Noooo. All of a sudden Fred had the same clout as Rudy and Mitt. I pull my head out of stories while researching who to support in the primary only to find that the search had already been narrowed down for me to Rudy/Mitt+1. This has been a very frustrating Summer, and the Fall ain’t lookin’ much better!
Weight of Glory on October 16, 2007 at 10:56 PM
But Entelechy, Duncan Hunter and Rudy Giuliania are almost polar opposites. Almost 3200 mils out.
MB4 on October 16, 2007 at 10:56 PM
Is Rudy my choice? Nope. Does he meet the most important test?…….in spades. If Rudy gets ‘the button’ I could sleep OK. Not well….but OK is fine by me.
Limerick on October 16, 2007 at 10:57 PM
Or, IMO, specifics on how to actually go after Hillary. And while Rudy gave some to Planned Parenthood, let us not forget Fred lobbied for a pro-choice group in Washington.
amerpundit on October 16, 2007 at 10:58 PM
Never be seduced by a smooth talker, even one with nice legs!
MB4 on October 16, 2007 at 10:59 PM
Did ya’ll miss the post where Hillary said she would attack Iran and they must not have a nuclear weapon? Did ya’ll miss the VOTE that Hillary declared the Iranian military a ‘terrorist organization’?
He questions her experience? As though she was invisible for the 8 years she lived at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave?
Sure it’s easy to say her socialist programs are bad policy. . . but that’s her pandering to the left of the left. That’s her bread and butter. That’s her Robin Hood stance that allows her to be conservative on other issues. She’s buying votes with that one.
I just don’t see what you people see in terms of being able to win a debate. I see Hillary destroying him on every point he brought up in this softball interview.
ThackerAgency on October 16, 2007 at 11:12 PM
I never rule out someone positive traits just because I see their negatives. Life is too short to see people that way.
Spirit of 1776 on October 16, 2007 at 11:14 PM
Um, nice legs aren’t a negative tho’ Just to be clear!:D
Spirit of 1776 on October 16, 2007 at 11:15 PM
I guess if I had the option to (A) Give money to Planed Parenthood, or (B) Take money from Planned Parenthood, I’d take (B).
jaime on October 16, 2007 at 11:21 PM
First, Entelechy, how is “whatsoever” spelled? This is for you Lim :)
Weight of Glory, I understand what you’re telling us but I met Duncan Hunter in person recently and he’s like a good recipe of mashed potatoes (not made with water and powder potatoes, but with milk, butter, real taters, and a little sourcream). Again, no chance whatsoever, no matter how frustrating.
MB4, I never compared the two, knowing that only one has a chance to make it through the nomination process. But I always like your comments, even if I occasionally disagree. Cheers and keep on sharing those good quotes too.
Actually, a very serious concern I have is to have the Glacier be in charge of that football. That has been worrying me a lot lately. And to have her be the CiC. I could sleep very well with a Giuliani presidency (almost goofed and said “with Rudy”, but I cought myself in time :)
Entelechy on October 16, 2007 at 11:23 PM
Everything you say is true. But I’m looking for a conservative for President. Giuliani’s not conservative. Like he says, he’s not even a real Republican.
jaime on October 16, 2007 at 11:24 PM
Entelechy on October 16, 2007 at 11:26 PM
ThackerAgency, where you the one who said that Hillary would run to the right, at least on certain issues, of Rudy?
It might be of interest to some that I have it on good authority that Hillary is actually liked, or at least relatively speaking so, by many at the Pentagon. Given past reports as to how the Clinton’s treated the military stationed at the White House I would be very skeptical myself to put it mildly, but as I said, I have it on good authority.
MB4 on October 16, 2007 at 11:28 PM
Hillary, to the dismay of the base lefties of today, will run to the right of all the conservatives of today, in the general. Then, once in office, you haven’t seen socialism yet. This couple has no scruples. Power is all that matters.
Entelechy on October 16, 2007 at 11:31 PM
It’s pretty amazing how much slack Fred gets for his mistakes, isn’t it? Mouth the right platitudes and all is forgiven.
Slublog on October 16, 2007 at 11:31 PM
mmmmmmmmmmm…I’m sorry what were you saying…I blacked out upon reading ‘real taters’.
Weight of Glory on October 16, 2007 at 11:32 PM
Come on now, you are among friends, you can say it, I can take it!
MB4 on October 16, 2007 at 11:33 PM
It would be different if he weren’t the last one in. Being the last one it he gets the ‘I was drafted to run’ card – which entitles him to special privileges – namely the ‘uh, there is nobody else…so I guess we’ll stick with him’ pass.
Spirit of 1776 on October 16, 2007 at 11:38 PM
Rudy is really growing on me. He seems to have his stuff together, he always performs well in the debates. And I still think he has the best chance of beating Hillary. Romney would be my choice but I think that flip flopper thing will doom him in the general. Hopefully Rudy can convince the social cons that he would at least listen to their positions and apply them while Hillary would not even listen.
Complete7 on October 16, 2007 at 11:39 PM
jaime on October 16, 2007 at 11:43 PM
How about countering my words with words of your own instead of changing what I said to agree with your viewpoint?
This “fixed it for you” trend in debate is cheap nonsense.
Slublog on October 16, 2007 at 11:47 PM
Rudy may have done things in the past that don’t fit the national Republican mold, but he’s always admitted to anythign he did, and either took credit or admitted mistakes.
He’s never ducked the big issues.
Vincenzo on October 16, 2007 at 11:47 PM
Rudy is not going in, his support with republicans is what it is at 29 to 33%. The rest are at 67% divided up between 4 candidates – like in Louisiana open primaries – the leader usually loses if they are under 40%. Rudi’s not even close to that threshhold and remember these 12pt and 9pt polls are not even republican primary voter polls – they are registered voters who LEAN Republican. Rass still has the race within the margin of error among likely primary voters
Thats a big difference
Fred will slowly build momentum as the other big three drop out of the race over the next 5 months – its a long long way to go folks.
EricPWJohnson on October 17, 2007 at 12:02 AM
This is assinine. We aren’t voting based on Rudy or a MEGATRON of four candidates.
Vincenzo on October 17, 2007 at 12:07 AM
Rudy articulately dissects Hillary’s pandering, flip-flopping and general B.S. in excruciating (for her) detail. If he does get the nomination, this could be fun to watch. One minute she’s a hawk, the next minute she’s negotiating. Of course she’s confused — the distractions of her “Peter Paul” mess and the “Hsu” problem are enough to make her forget where she is, much less what her policies are.
ThinkerAgency… she lived at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave for 8 years and that counts for experience in your world? Good God! You cannot be serious in suggesting that counts as real experience. Experience in what? Hiding documents from a special prosecutor? Or how about her keen ability to observe what’s really going on in her world… like her husband doing the intern in the West Wing right under her nose. She’s a joke. LOL!!!
D2Boston on October 17, 2007 at 12:09 AM
If it were true, I’d say so. As I remember we disagree on the Iraq war and perhaps on your ‘opposition’ to Rudy. We agree on islamofascism, philosophy, by all accounts on politics in general, capitalism, reading, references, computers (programmer in another life), wit, humor, strange humor, parodies, more humor, did I say humor? List the disagreements I’m missing, friend.
Entelechy on October 17, 2007 at 12:19 AM
Sure. Many, for whatever reason, are willing to overlook all of Giuliani’s shortcomings, and then point to others and accuse them of doing the exact same thing you’re doing. Talk about cheap nonsense.
Your comment – It’s pretty amazing how much slack (XXX) gets for his mistakes, isn’t it? Mouth the right platitudes and all is forgiven. – applies equally to you as it does to me.
If you’re interested, go back to some of the Thompson threads and see if I defended Thompson. Here’s a good example of a Thompson thread: I made 4 comments, and none of them defended Thompson, or supported him. You made no comments.
Here’s a good example of the most current Giuliani thread in the blog: You made eight comments, and none of them defended Giuliani, or supported him. I made no comments.
Lets take the instant case that you want to debate. You think it’s better to give money to Planned Parenthood than to get money from them. Why not just say that.
Unless you have some obscure point you’re trying to make. If so, why not just say what it is. You talk about debating style, but if your point is that:
(A) I’ll defend Thompson because he mouths platitudes, you’re incorrect, as I’ve demonstrated above, and you can check for yourself by going back through other Thompson threads as well, or;
(B) you think it’s better to give money to Planned Parenthood than take money from them, for which you give no reason, or;
(C) you have some obscure point that’s hidden from common meaning:
then I’m not sure what debating style you prefer to use.
jaime on October 17, 2007 at 12:52 AM
Non sequitur. I never accused you of defending Thompson, I simply disagreed with your use of the “fixed it for you” style of debate. If you want to disagree with me, fine. Disagree.
But don’t change my comments.
Slublog on October 17, 2007 at 1:01 AM
If this isn’t an accusation of an irrational defense of Thompson, what is it?
jaime on October 17, 2007 at 1:11 AM
Now that you mention it I can’t think of any. We are copasetic on Samnesty? check? no check? Animal lovers? check? Religion? check?
MB4 on October 17, 2007 at 1:14 AM
Missed this little gem.
No, I don’t think that at all, as I’m avidly pro-life.
So you weren’t defending Thompson, then? If I’m mistaken, then you have my apologies.
Slublog on October 17, 2007 at 1:17 AM
Amerpundit was excusing Giuliani’s gifts to Planned Parenthood by saying Thompson lobbied for them. I was just making the point that, given the choice, I’d rather get money from them than give it to them. Not sure if you consider this defending Thompson or not.
Anyway, sorry for the misunderstanding.
jaime on October 17, 2007 at 1:26 AM
Now that you mention it I can’t think of any. We are copasetic on Samnesty? check? no check? Animal lovers? check? Religion? check?MB4 on October 17, 2007 at 1:14 AM
Check on all three.
Entelechy on October 17, 2007 at 1:29 AM
And that was supposed to be a quote, not a strike. Gute Nacht.
Entelechy on October 17, 2007 at 1:29 AM
Schlafen Sie gut.
MB4 on October 17, 2007 at 1:50 AM
New York city pre-Giuliani
New York city post-Giuliani
’nuff said
The can-do guy is who we need leading the free world against the jihad
Halley on October 17, 2007 at 2:10 AM
Sir Rudy strikes again. I hope I don’t have to vote for him.
Free Constitution on October 17, 2007 at 2:24 AM
And amazing how many flipflops Mitt and Rudy are forgiven.
Texas Nick 77 on October 17, 2007 at 6:28 AM
My thoughts exactly. But, if he gets the nod by the majority at the convention, do as I will… bring a clothespin to the voting booth. The alternative is WAY too frightening.
Texas Nick 77 on October 17, 2007 at 6:37 AM
Thanks Hannity for the Miss America-style questioning.
RINOs are determine to shove Ms. Frick’s Mr. Frack as the nominee. That interview was difficult to stomach. PUKE!
GOP: give us a conservative or we get Hillary.
saved on October 17, 2007 at 6:42 AM
Rudy and Mitt are honest about their previous positions and have left everything out in the open and addressed it with straight talk.
Fraud! Thompson can’t tell you about his last three occupations without trying to obfuscate into a Southern folksism.
Mitt and Rudy have integrity, Fraud! Thompson does not.
BKennedy on October 17, 2007 at 7:34 AM
I’m so happy I watched this clip to see what Judith had to say…
At least we got them both to admit what a G-D stupid idea taking a phone call in front of a crowd you’re speaking to was.
Captain Scarlet on October 17, 2007 at 8:08 AM
Could Sean Hannity be any more smitten…haha. I liked the interview. It was MUCH better than the Thompson’s interview. Sorry, but Rudy is dah man! WOOT!
SouthernGent on October 17, 2007 at 8:13 AM
Wouldn’t we all just want three debates with Rudy and Hillary? I have a feeling if Rudy wins the nom., Hillary runs for cover, debates only in a very closed and controlled arena.
Rudy would fillet Hillary, and she knows it.
right2bright on October 17, 2007 at 8:28 AM
So you think if you live with a car mechanic, you become a car mechanic? Every women living in the White House is now capable of running the country?
What experience does she have? That was the challenge, not what has she experienced. See the difference?
Has she been in the position where “the buck stops here”? Has she been in a decision making position where you make hundreds of decisions a day, managing thousands of people? She has been an attorney, wife of a president, and a senator. If you think running a senate staff of 16 qualifies you for the President, being a wife of a president and being a lawyer all qualifies you for leading the most powerful nation on earth, you have very low standards. And a very naive view of what the President does.
right2bright on October 17, 2007 at 8:37 AM
Laura Bush knows more about what it is like to be POTUS right now than Rudy Guiliani. Does the MAYOR actually get a government provided house? Or does he just get an office?
ThackerAgency on October 17, 2007 at 8:45 AM
It’s not what I think, it’s what voters think. If I was ever first lady (obviously impossible as a male) I assure you that I would argue that the experience gave me the understanding and the contacts necessary to do the job. It is closer to the president than the Vice President, and the VP is generally considered to be a pretty good presidential candidate after the President ends his terms (Bush Sr, Gore. . . )
What experience does a VP have of being POTUS? Why does being second in line give him a ‘leg up’?
Again, if Rudy brings up the ‘inexperience’ factor, Rudy loses. Not necessarily because it is true.
ThackerAgency on October 17, 2007 at 8:51 AM
Weird comment: “Does the MAYOR actually get a government provided house? Or does he just get an office?” Yes, most all in NYC know he gets Gracie Mansion to live in. Of course, he moved out when divorcing his wife.
Hillary came across as sympathetic when Bill was messing up Monica’s dress, and we all believed her when she said she didn’t know what was going on in the Oval Office. I still do. The problem is Hillary is now asking us to believe she did know all about what was going on (presumably except for Lewinsky).
G. Charles on October 17, 2007 at 9:07 AM
I have no problems with the statement that you made in the first sentence. By association, Hillary also knows more about what it’s like; after all, she was in the White House for eight freaking years.
Here’s my problem. There’s a large disconnect between knowing what something is like and knowing how to do it.
For example… I know what it’s like to build a really large dam. It takes a lot of heavy machinery, a good deal of blood, sweat, tears, and time, and a lot of really heavy materials like dirt, steel, and concrete, and, if it’s going to generate electricity or require ship passage, boy, that complicates matters. I’ve even seen stuff of this size get built, and I’ve got dam builders in my family.
So, that’s my dam experience. With what I’ve cited above, would you trust me to build a 100 foot high dam across a valley above your city? Please say no. I know just enough about civil engineering to say confidently that I don’t know the first dam thing about it. I’m a musician.
I submit to you that it’s the same way with Hillary and being the spouse of a POTUS. As she’s an attorney, I might trust HIllary to write my will, but that’s about it. Rudy is right on cue on his attack.
flutejpl on October 17, 2007 at 9:42 AM
Again, how is her experience different from that of a VP? VP doesn’t get elected and doesn’t make any decisions. VP doesn’t even live in the White House.
I think I’m going to support Hillary now. She’ll win every debate if these are the ‘good’ arguments that the Republican front runner comes up with. And I actually like her for president more than Rudy (mainly because of the experience factor). Though I like neither very much.
I’m also sure that having a husband as a former President might have some effect on whether or not she will be ‘experienced enough’. Who can Rudy count on for advice?
Maybe I’ll get in good with KP.
ThackerAgency on October 17, 2007 at 9:51 AM
Hillary, compared to Rudy or Mitt, is critically vulnerable on the experience issue. She has zero executive experience, private or public.
To paraphrase, If it weren’t for nepotism, she’d be running for president of the Vassar alumnae association.
petefrt on October 17, 2007 at 9:55 AM
No. How to justify given legal advice to terrorists, CFR, and lobbying for scumbags.
csdeven on October 17, 2007 at 10:01 AM
Rudy is a very capable leader and is probably the best to put against Hillary. I do like Fred for his commonsense no nonsense approach, but Rudy is looking very strong.
BTW, I’m interested to see how Hillary will respond to his “no experience” comments.
AlexB on October 17, 2007 at 10:02 AM
Ditto. And I think most Americans, Reps, Dems, and Indy’s see him the same way. And they’ll see Hillary as shill.
It’s pretty clear why Rudy is the perceived dragon slayer.
csdeven on October 17, 2007 at 10:04 AM
Name-calling does nothing to help your point.
Sorry, but this ol’ Texan will vote (at least in the primary) for a conservative. I just hope a majority of us have a memory longer than six years.
Texas Nick 77 on October 17, 2007 at 10:17 AM
That’s a great point. Hillary can’t claim she was oblivious to Bill’s cheating and then claim she was in touch with the pulse of the white house.
And if she claimed the opposite…..that she did know and chose to ignore it, takes away the “cheated on wife/victim” absolute moral authority card.
HA!
csdeven on October 17, 2007 at 10:18 AM
LMAO. Very good post.
Texas Nick 77 on October 17, 2007 at 10:20 AM
Sigh… because that was his JOB? Cause you know… he was a practicing Lawyer and Lobbyist?
I don’t pick and choose clients when I go in to fix IT systems… and yes, some of them Internet Hosts have questionable content… as long as it aint illegal, its not my place to turn them down…
Kinda like a lawyer in that… clients want advice on legal matters… or groups who want advice on how to lobby for somthing… like public funding for birth control or somthing…
Interesting how the Fred! Rudi debates come down to Personal attacks on Fred… but with Rudi its about how his Policy actions don’t match his suddenly Conservative Rhetoric.
Romeo13 on October 17, 2007 at 10:24 AM
Considering Hillary does not attend any venue where she is open to unscripted questioning, how will she survive a debate with Rudy? The woman is a liar and Rudy is honest. Hillary sells a facade and Rudy sells substance. I don’t see her wanting to expose herself to that kind of withering debate. Can she survive if she refuses to debate Rudy? Has ANY candidate EVER refused to debate in the general?
csdeven on October 17, 2007 at 10:24 AM
This video clip made me feel a bit better if Rudy gets the nomination… Maybe I’m a sucker, but I believe what he says about strict constructionists (re: appointing a SCOTUS justice).
I do think Rudy is probably the only candidate who might ( and I stress might be able to siphon some democrats and/or independents to vote Republican in the general election.
Nineball on October 17, 2007 at 10:26 AM
Your entire comment is dead on. Hillary has no experience and THAT is why she sells Bill as part of the package.
Every rep candidate has to have that little ditty in the arsenal, just waiting to shove it down her throat. And this isn’t like attacking some spouse. SHE interjected him as part of her campaign and therefore is fair game. And that includes his entire presidency.
csdeven on October 17, 2007 at 10:27 AM
Your anti-Rudy mindset is blocking off the reasoning capabilities of your brain. EXECUTIVE experience is where the experience is at. Rudy made decisions when peoples lives hung in the balance. Hillary (or Laura Bush for that matter) NEVER had to make those decisions. Hillary got to sit in the back ground and agree with or reject all policy within the bubble of no responsibility for those decisions.
Rudy didn’t make decisions in a theoretical vacuum. He made them in the real world and THAT gives him the credibility to be president. NO first lady ever had that. Not even Eleanore. (Who Hillary tries to equate herself to. She will continue that vein, but a smart Rep will point out that Eleanore was a staunch, pro-American supporter of the war)
csdeven on October 17, 2007 at 10:41 AM
Yes, Fred was no nonsense when he lobbied for scum bags, pushed through CFR, and gave legal advice to terrorists.
csdeven on October 17, 2007 at 10:45 AM
The name calling is a jab at the mindless groupies. Even though you do support Fred, you are by far not a groupie.
csdeven on October 17, 2007 at 10:46 AM
The attacks on Fred are on his character. A person of character would forgo money in order to make sure terrorists are brought to justice. Fred did what he could, not to help them get a proper defense, but rather to AVOID JUSTICE. A person of character would reject lobbying for someone who put burning tires around the necks of people who differed from his opinion. A person of character would admit that they are a pro-choice federalist instead of lying to a pro-life group by saying he has always been with them. (And then having the arrogance to say THEY have always been with him)
csdeven on October 17, 2007 at 10:52 AM
So, explain how lobbying for abortion groups and giving legal advice to terrorists is consistent with Fred (what you see is what you get)’s sudden Conservative Rhetoric.
Oh, by the way, Fred is the only Republican candidate with less experience that Hillary.
Final oh by the way, there are 8 million people in NYC. That is more than all but the largest of states and 2.2 million more people than in the entire state of Tennessee. NYC is also the financial capital of the world, has two baseball teams and two football teams (two more than LA).
tommylotto on October 17, 2007 at 11:04 AM
I tell you what, if as part of your job you work on the computers of some porn seller, you can still get my vote for President, but if I catch you fixing the computers of some pedophile or worse yet some cyber jihadist distributing snuff films of US soldiers, you would be an SOB and should not be allowed to be President. See the difference.
Fred was not forced to give advice to terrorist. He has free will. He could have said no. In fact, Ted Kennedy’s wife showed the strength of character that Fred lacked when she resigned from a firm rather than be associated with a firm doing work for the Lybian terrorists — even though she was never asked to do work on the case. Not only did Fred remain a member of the firm raking in over $800,000 of terrorist money, Fred actually worked on the case. Great, let’s elect that SOB f’in POTUS!!!! You Fred heads make me sick.
tommylotto on October 17, 2007 at 11:18 AM
The answer is yes, the Mayor of NY lives in Gracie Mansion. Your point is????
Hillary does have one thing on Rudy:
She knows where the Map Room is located and he doesn’t.
Buy Danish on October 17, 2007 at 11:21 AM
Fred should explain why he continues to employ a jihadist ad his campaign director and why he lied about it. At this point, I can only conclude that Fred is either soft or accommodating on the issue of jihad.
Does any Fred-head here have a better explanation?
Loundry on October 17, 2007 at 11:26 AM
Hmmm… avoiding Justice… kinda like Rudi and his sanctuary city?
Romeo13 on October 17, 2007 at 11:26 AM
I love the people who love Duncan Hunter but won’t vote for him because he has no chance to win.
They said the same thing about Truman.
Nethicus on October 17, 2007 at 11:29 AM
And that would be different from the VP role how?
He didn’t live there when he was having marital problems. That might be another point for Hillary to bring up in regard to integrity. Hillary understood what marriage meant and stuck it out. Rudy cut and ran. I’d love it if a Rudy presidency involved him leaving the White House for a younger woman and leaving his 3rd wife there. That’d look real good for America.
ThackerAgency on October 17, 2007 at 11:30 AM
First off… not a Fred head… I haven’t decided who I’m supporting…
Secondly… save your moral indignation… You do know that in our system of “Justice” that everyone is entitled to legal representation? No matter how much of a scum bag? That it is a Lawyers JOB to give legal advice?
If every lawyer in America did what you espouse, every case would be thrown out of court due to a LACK of equal representation.
As to Ted Kennedys wife… when you are rich, you have much more ability to stand on your moral high ground and not take a job, than if you are not.
Romeo13 on October 17, 2007 at 11:33 AM
Shamnesty is to John McCain as Spencer Abraham is to Fred Thompson.
Or, at least, it should be.
Fred
Loundry on October 17, 2007 at 11:33 AM
Hillary knew what marriage is about and stuck it out???
ARE YOU NUTS!!!!
She said Bill didn’t do anything, multiple times. If they were not married she probably would have been nailed for Obstruction of JUSTICE! She either lied to the American people to defend her “husband”, or is an idiot who didn’t know…
Take yer pick… either way its not someone I want as President.
Romeo13 on October 17, 2007 at 11:36 AM
Hmmm… actualy… an interesting question…
Does anyone know if the Husband / Wife exemtion from testifying survives divorce? For things which happened during the Marriage?
Romeo13 on October 17, 2007 at 12:01 PM
Sanctuary for illegals verses helping terrorist avoid justice.
Which is the lesser of two evils? Especially when running against Hillary. She can’t say much about illegals, but she will surely skewer ANYONE who helped terrorists.
csdeven on October 17, 2007 at 12:06 PM
That is as close to a stupid question as I have ever read. And I don’t believe in stupid questions.
The VP has the constitutional responsibility to be the president if needed. If the need ever arose, who would be in the white house? The first lady or the former VP?
csdeven on October 17, 2007 at 12:09 PM
Once again, your only arguement is the lesser of two evils…
If that the only argument the repubs can put forth… they will loose this election.
Romeo13 on October 17, 2007 at 12:11 PM
That is disingenuous spin and does not apply in this case. Fred was not defending the terrorists in our justice system — or in any legitimate justice system for that matter. Fred and his firm were fighting extradition from a terrorist state to any legitimate system of justice. He was fighting to keep justice from applying to terrorists.
If he was arguing why the forensic evidence is inconclusive and how there is no direct evidence linking his scumbag Lybian terrorist client to the planting of the bomb on the jet killing 270 innocent people — I would say okay, not the client I would choose, but Freddie is playing an important part of the justice system. But he was not trying to defend the murderous SOBs, he was trying to make sure that the SOBs were never tried at all outside of a mock trial inside of the terrorist state that was a co-conspirator in the 270 murders.
Yuck, I feel dirty every time I have to explain how awful Fred is for having done what he did. Hey great, let’s elect him f’in POTUS.
tommylotto on October 17, 2007 at 12:18 PM
It is surreal to read you saying this….
And then 3 minutes later saying this…..
Your latter comment makes sense. Nothing at all in the former.
Tommy is an attorney and is quite away of the oath. Your mistake is that those terrorists were not in our system. We WANTED them in our system so we could execute them through due process in American courts and Fred helped them avoid that justice for 11 years. Lord knows how many new terrorists learned at their knees in those eleven years.
csdeven on October 17, 2007 at 12:19 PM
No one is ignorant of that fact and we are consciously making that choice. Your reasoning will lead to the same result you claim, but you will be totally surprised at the consequences.
We pragmatic conservatives realize we are not going to get Hunter the nomination. And now matter how liberal Rudy is, he is way to the right of any Dem and he has the best chance of taking the moderate vote away from Hillary and therefore saving our country from her Marxist ways.
csdeven on October 17, 2007 at 12:24 PM
The sanctuary city meme is yet another myth. NYC was not a sanctuary city. NYC under Rudy reported many more illegal aliens to the feds each year than the feds were willing to deport. Rudy would report thousands of illegals involved in criminal conduct, and the feds would deport a few hundred if Rudy was lucky. Rudy begged the feds to send the criminals back, but the feds did little or nothing. Rudy fought the feds on immigration because he knew the feds had no intention of deporting illegals but wantted NYC to go through the useless procedure of reporting all undocumented aliens seeking city services — a bureaucratic nightmare for a city with 400,000 illegals, that were not going to get deported even if reported and who would merely be forced into the shadows, increasing crime and the spread of communicable diseases.
It is easy to feed red meat platitudes in a pod cast. It is much more difficult when you have to actually make decisions and run a city of 8 million souls, 400,000 of which were undocumented.
tommylotto on October 17, 2007 at 12:32 PM
Sigh, he instructed his police, by policy to NOT inform the Feds. I blame the Feds as well, but Rudi did not even try to get them deported… an in fact, welcomed them to his city in numerous speeches. So how, if he put the policy in place, can you say he did not run a sanctuary city?
SPIN.. spin… spin… dam gettin dizzy…
Its like your “view” that he was not to blame for appointing liberal judes at an 8:1 rate… you say he was only given that choice by an independent board… what you fail to mention is that HE PICKED THE F”N BOARD!!!
spin… spin… spin…
Romeo13 on October 17, 2007 at 12:54 PM
Exit question:
If Rudy is as great as tommyBoy and csd say he is, why can’t he get over 33% in any poll?
omnipotent on October 17, 2007 at 1:09 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »