Video: Rudy’s new 9/11 ad
posted at 11:07 am on December 27, 2007 by Allahpundit
The POW imagery in McCain’s ads of late seems to be working for him so here’s Rudy following suit, eschewing policy and going straight for the gut. Byron York and Patrick Ruffini are wondering whether Bhutto’s assassination will affect the primary by reorienting voters towards foreign policy to the advantage of McCain and Giuliani. My guess: not really, unless there are sudden dramatic violent aftershocks to this. My hunch is that to the extent Americans are paying attention to Pakistan at all (beyond the Democrats’ talking point that that’s where the “real” terrorists are), they’ve already written it off as a problem that’ll need managing for years to come. If, occasionally, a party leader is bumped off, well, that’s just Islamic politics for you. If civil war breaks out, though, and those nukes are suddenly in play, then of course all bets are off.
Ad-related footnote for the Fredheads: It appears your guy is a little short this month. If you want him to get that ad we linked yesterday on the air, you’ve got another 31 hours to kick in.
Update: Geraghty and Jonathan Martin also think the Bhutto effect should be negligible. Note Geraghty’s point especially about the candidates’ various Pakistan policies. The left can whine all it wants about Bush — with good reason in one respect — but there really isn’t much the U.S. can do except have a crack contingency plan to secure those nukes if and when the time comes.
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
Well he’s right. Unless George Bush is President or any other Republican. Sure, everyone will make nice-nice for a few days but then all bets are off.
Sorry. I’m feeling a bit pessimistic today.
Pulchritudinous Patriot on December 27, 2007 at 11:13 AM
I don’t think the rude one has a chance. but we will see.
TheSitRep on December 27, 2007 at 11:14 AM
It all depends how the candidates react. In isolation, it’s likely to have a small effect. If somebody says something stupid about it, the effect could be huge. The advantage Rudy and McCain have is that they’re less likely to say something dumb about terrorism than the other candidates are.
Big S on December 27, 2007 at 11:15 AM
The effects in american politics will be dictated by the events in Pakistan. If Pakistan great destablizes then that is a direct threat to the US
Keep in mind obama himself said we should go into Pakistan if Osama is there. And many on the left have asked why we didnt go into pakistan instead of Iraq. Will they still make that same argument now ?
William Amos on December 27, 2007 at 11:18 AM
Richardson’s statement will be the norm in the coming days. Even though Bush did have a hand in Bhutto’s return and opportunity to change PAKs democracy he gets the blame for not engaging moderates and supporting Mushy.
Limerick on December 27, 2007 at 11:19 AM
I watched a couple of the candidates responses this morning. Mitt was surprisingly weak. McCain was strong and Hillary was measured, but also presidential.
I was surprised at how Mitt tripped around on this one…. Not a good sign.
Dr. Gecko on December 27, 2007 at 11:22 AM
He’s right on this, but am still not votin’ for him.
inviolet on December 27, 2007 at 11:22 AM
Rudy’s ad is weak. Has Rudy done anything to stop terrorism other than clean up after them? I don’t see how glorifying first responders or telling the jihadis off will do anything to even slow them down.
AZCON on December 27, 2007 at 11:24 AM
Never say “my goodness” in a politcal ad if you mean “my God“.
Never say “…we’re gonna prevail.“. Say “We will prevail!”
A little tentative there, Rudy.
Tentative against guys who slice you head off is pale pastels when we need bold colors.
profitsbeard on December 27, 2007 at 11:29 AM
That’s just the way Rudy talks. Of all of the candidates, he’s probably the least tentative on this issue. Take a look at his record of going after organized crime, as Associate Attorney General, as well as Mayor of NYC, if you’re unsure.
Big S on December 27, 2007 at 11:33 AM
Yes, he’s done a lot. In fact, he stopped an attack in the planning stages on the Holland Tunnel. Not the one from last year, but before 2001. They caught the guys videotaping the tunnel. I need to find an article to cite on it.
Vincenzo on December 27, 2007 at 11:36 AM
Wait…does Rudy have something to do with 9/11?
MadisonConservative on December 27, 2007 at 11:36 AM
Big S-
then, won’t play well in a national campaign.
profitsbeard on December 27, 2007 at 11:36 AM
So instead we should elect a member of the terrorists’ defense team?
tommylotto on December 27, 2007 at 11:39 AM
I was surprised at how Mitt tripped around on this one…. Not a good sign.
Dr. Gecko on December 27, 2007 at 11:22 AM
Ha what? What video did you watch? Mitt’s impromptu response demonstrated great leadership ability and that he is completely up to speed on the suject. He offered much insight and was ahead of the curve.
sonnyspats1 on December 27, 2007 at 11:41 AM
Edited for clarity.
MadisonConservative on December 27, 2007 at 11:41 AM
Rudy’s on Fox now
tommylotto on December 27, 2007 at 11:42 AM
Rudy on Fox…
Stabilize Pak ASAP, worry about Democracy long term
tommylotto on December 27, 2007 at 11:47 AM
That’s consistent with the philosophy he outlined in his Foreign Affairs article.
Big S on December 27, 2007 at 11:49 AM
Well at least it isnt hillary all we hear from her is a noun and a verb and universal health care
William Amos on December 27, 2007 at 11:57 AM
Rudy’s ad doesnt “exploit” 9-11; it links that terrible day to the heroism of a previous generation.
Works for me.
Always Right on December 27, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Always Right on December 27, 2007 at 11:59 AM
It’s basically his version of McCain’s “never surrender” ad. That’s the main thrust of it.
Big S on December 27, 2007 at 12:01 PM
Negligible in Iowa and NH were there are no real targets for al-Qaeda. But most of the other states, even states in the South West have prime al-Qaeda targets.
bnelson44 on December 27, 2007 at 12:02 PM
Not bad … sounds like the last part of it was written by VDH.
thirteen28 on December 27, 2007 at 12:03 PM
I thought the “terrorists are attacking our freedom” lie had been finally laid to rest. Ghouliani is trying to bring it back from the dead.
Mark Jaquith on December 27, 2007 at 12:26 PM
BTW Rasmussen has new numbers up. Mitt has falled to Fred Thompson level of support. Its
Huck 20%, Guiliani 18%, McCain 15%, Mitt 13% and Fred 11% with Ron Paul at 5%
William Amos on December 27, 2007 at 12:32 PM
If I have to choose between Guilliani or McCain, I’ll go with McCain. The real problem I have with McCain is his stand on illegal immigration and I don’t see Rudy as being any better. McCain understands the WOT. I just keep hoping that Fred still has a chance.
Rose on December 27, 2007 at 12:55 PM
This ad is what I like about Rudy. I also think he will nominate Roberts type justices. I don’t know how hard he will push for them to be confirmed.
Fred is blathering on Fox right now. Well, true to form, he is being vague and obfuscatory. She asked him how to walk the line with Pakistan. His response? “Just walk it”. Oh REALLY Fred? We all know we have to walk that fine line, the reporters question was HOW DO WE WALK IT!! What do we do? Fred don’t know what to do. He’s too scared to make a commitment to a course of action. Typical Fred.
csdeven on December 27, 2007 at 12:58 PM
He’s tried to give conservatives a ‘heads up’ on judicial appointments with his “justice advisory committe”. He can’t come out and tell people who he would nominate, since that wold risk destroying their careers via mudslinging during a year long election fight, were he to get the nomination. He’s done the next best thing and appointed them to his “advisory committee”. You can count on some “Cheneyesque” advice in choosing judicial nominees from this bunch. It’s surprising how few conservatives trust him on it, and are willing to give others, like Romney, a pass.
Big S on December 27, 2007 at 1:10 PM
I’m in that group. I give Mitt a pass on it and I can’t point to a specific comment from him that addresses it. I think it’s an absence of any behavior that would suggest that he wants liberal activist justices nominated.
csdeven on December 27, 2007 at 1:17 PM
As I understand it, both Romney and Rudy were relatively non-ideological in their previous records of appointing judges, due to both practical aspects of the selection process, as well as their own priorities in governance. Rudy had always indicated that he was in favor of judges who were tough on criminals, while Romney has had a record of seeking a greater amount of “diversity” on the bench. Neither candidate can point to a rock-solid record of appointing good constitutionally-oriented judges, so we have to go on what they’re promising. I can’t see how Rudy is less believable than Mitt.
Big S on December 27, 2007 at 1:24 PM
Neither were responsible for appointing judges with US Constitutional interpretation authority. Mitt as a governor more so than Rudy. Mitt’s judges would be responsible for interpreting Mass’ constitution, Rudy’s judges traffic citations…
tommylotto on December 27, 2007 at 1:30 PM
I’m beginning to smell a McCain and Giuliani ticket? Anyone else see that stew abrewin’?
Vincenzo on December 27, 2007 at 2:04 PM
The two men are too old and too prideful to take V.P. There would be nothing in it for whoever it was. A younger man would see it as a path to president, but not an older man.
Rose on December 27, 2007 at 2:09 PM
The rounded-corner boxes around the images in the background can CLEARLY be seen to form crosses, such as at :41 into the ad.
This is blatant subliminal manipulation
/paranoid leftie
The Monster on December 27, 2007 at 4:06 PM