Video: Rudy Giuliani on ABC This Week

posted at 1:34 pm on January 20, 2008 by Bryan

What a difference a year makes. A year ago Rudy Giuliani gave one of the most electrifying speeches at CPAC and seemed to be the prohibitive favorite for the GOP nomination. Now, if you listen very closely, you can almost detect a pulse in the Rudy campaign. At this point in the race he’s quite a bit like an NFL team that everyone expected to dominate its division but late in the season, it needs some breaks and losses by other overperforming teams to get back into contention. And as Stephanopolous mentions, he keeps losing to candidates that he should smoke. So he’s up against the wall needing a win in Florida, where he finds himself in a four-way do-or-die and carrying no buzz or momentum at all from any early contests, and dealing with his own numbers tanking while McCain’s are rising. Not good. But also, not dead. Yet.

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

Video is down.

fourstringfuror on January 20, 2008 at 1:41 PM

Florida will dis-prove that.

TheSitRep on January 20, 2008 at 1:44 PM

and seemed to be the prohibitive favorite for the GOP nomination.

Only because of name recognition. I had no idea who most of the other candidates were until the heavy campaigning started.

Darth Executor on January 20, 2008 at 1:48 PM

I can’t see it yet either. Says stream not found

Spirit of 1776 on January 20, 2008 at 1:49 PM

I think it’s fair to say that Red Lasso is an utter failure.

Nessuno on January 20, 2008 at 1:49 PM

It’s amazing the relentless attacks Giuliani takes from the main stream media.

Endless attacks on his record. Endless attacks on his achievements. And every article written about him always, ALWAYS, has a negative tone.

The democrats must be afraid. Very afraid.

Vincenzo on January 20, 2008 at 1:52 PM

Please, Mr. Mayor, PLEASE PLEEEEEZE

Lose that damn George Will quote Now and keep it buried FOREVER.

It has gotten you exactly NOWHERE up to now and if you keep repeating it you will just sound like a broken record whose main claim to conservative governance is a one line quote from a columnist.

You can do better than that.

Always Right on January 20, 2008 at 1:57 PM

Gomer Huck…..

http://www.flickr.com/photos/21615320@N06/2203519293/

The MSM loves his “beatable in the general election” folksy baptist-ness……..

(I’m a baptist, so not hatin’ on the baptist’s)

awesum on January 20, 2008 at 2:01 PM

Take the resumes of Romney, McCain, and Giuliani, put them side by side and you see Giuliani’s is far thicker then the rest.

Not a perfect candidate, but far more accomplished, tenacious, and steady then McQueeg and the Plastic Prince.

mikkins on January 20, 2008 at 2:02 PM

@ mikkins on January 20, 2008 at 2:02 PM

Take the resumes of Romney, McCain, and Giuliani, put them side by side and you see Giuliani’s is far thicker then the rest none of them are conservative.

muyoso on January 20, 2008 at 2:08 PM

No one is “dead”. Political pundits need to quit with this mantra. “Momentum”, “electability”, “popularity”. What is this, American Idol?

Rudy is the same politician and leader that he was last year when he was the favorite. So, unless people have gotten brainwashed by all the idiots who keep shouting “ELECTABILITY!”, “MOMENTUM!”, the same people who supported Rudy last year will be voting for him on Super Tuesday, as he expects.

My candidate is Fred Thompson, but the only people who keep saying Fred and Rudy are “dead” are those who are either tabloid political pundits trying to get attention or are political activists who are trying to influence people into voting for their candidate of choice.

Absolutely nothing has been decided yet. There is no clear favorite, so there is no reason for anyone to be considered “dead”.

Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 2:09 PM

the media and Left also spent most of the year smearing Rudy….then you have the idiots on the Paleo-Right that routienly compare Rudy to a Nazi, while comparing Islamo-Nazi’s to fascist is a no-no to them.

the Left fear Rudy on national stage. the Paleo-Right are just as dispicable if not more so.

jp on January 20, 2008 at 2:10 PM

Giuliani: Elect a TRUE conservative

Anti Abortion
Pro Affirmative Action
Pro Gay Marraige
Anti Gun Rights
Pro Illegal Aliens
Pro sanctuary cities

This election season, elect with your heart, elect the TRUE conservative, elect Giuliani.

muyoso on January 20, 2008 at 2:13 PM

looks like Rudy has been in South Florida and got some sun, while wearing sunglasses.

jp on January 20, 2008 at 2:13 PM

Giuliani: Elect a TRUE conservative

AntiPro Abortion
Pro Affirmative Action
Pro Gay Marraige
Anti Gun Rights
Pro Illegal Aliens
Pro sanctuary cities

This election season, elect with your heart, elect the TRUE conservative, elect Giuliani.

fixed it

muyoso on January 20, 2008 at 2:14 PM

fixed it

muyoso on January 20, 2008 at 2:14 PM

Beat me to it :)

You still supporting Ron Paul?

bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 2:15 PM

@ bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 2:15 PM

I support both Ron Paul and Fred!. Neither is doing too well, although Paul did come in second in Nevada, it was a distant second.

muyoso on January 20, 2008 at 2:17 PM

When the morons in south Florida start voting, you better pray that it’s not on a butterfly ballot.

TexasJew on January 20, 2008 at 2:17 PM

RUDY GIULIANI

Keys: The Sixth Borough voters. Turning out the New Yorkers in Southeast Florida is a must. This doesn’t just include Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach, but the West Palm Beach media market through Martin County. Also, Giuliani is banking on police and some firefighters.

MIKE HUCKABEE

Keys: Born-again Republicans. Expect Huckabee to pour out the ”Jesus Juice” (his own phrase) in Orlando, the de-facto corporate headquarters of the evangelical vote, as well as in rural counties like Putnam and heart-of-the-Panhandle stretches between the St. John’sand Escambia rivers.

JOHN McCAIN

Keys: The Stars and Stripes vote. He needs a big win among active and retired military voters from military-base areas in Tampa Bay, Jacksonville and around Pensacola. He also needs to make inroads in Miami-Dade with the aid of its Cuban-American U.S. representatives, who will campaign with him Monday. The Hanoi Hilton/Iraq surge story.

MITT ROMNEY

Keys: Stock-broker Republicans. He needs to win their financial centers from Miami to Tampa to Orlando as well as the well-heeled Fort Myers/Naples retirement areas. A hidden base: the 126,000 fellow Mormons in Florida, many of whom are Republicans.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking_dade/story/386908.html

bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 2:18 PM

I support both Ron Paul and Fred!. Neither is doing too well, although Paul did come in second in Nevada, it was a distant second.

muyoso on January 20, 2008 at 2:17 PM

NV was a pretty uncontested state, if you look at how much everyone but Mitt spent on the state.

bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 2:19 PM

I think the key to FL will be the Latino vote.

bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 2:20 PM

@ bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 2:19 PM

Believe me, I wish I could support one of the other candidates, but they all have so many gigantic flaws, that I cannot overlook. The second amendment to me is like abortion is to an evangelical, and somehow, the republican nominees FAIL! on that issue as a whole.

muyoso on January 20, 2008 at 2:21 PM

bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 2:18 PM

I can sum that up in two words: identity politics.

This is the state of politics and the state of our nation. Instead of talking to all of America about an ideology, about a vision for America, about a set of principles that apply to everyone, we have focus group identity politics and just trying to woo enough groups of people to win an election.

Sad.

Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 2:21 PM

Anti Gun Rights

Constitutionally, the 2nd Amendment does not apply to States and Local govts. unless those govts. put that in their constitutions.

the bill of rights applies to States through Due Process clause of the 14 amendment. SCOTUS has never ruled that the “Right to bear arms” is applicable to the States through the 14th amendment. They’ve so far ruled everything except 2nd Amendment, 3rd amendment right to not have a Soldier quartered in a person’s home, the 5th Amendment right to grand jury in criminal cases, 7th Amendment right to jury trial in Jury cases and 8th Amendment right against Excessive fines.

so far, Constitutional law related, all the other portions of the bill of rights do apply to the states. Of course SCOTUS could get a case and rule any of the above exceptions now do apply to the States.

anyway, Rudy didn’t do a thing that was “unconstitutional” as Mayor of NYC. Now as POTUS if he did these things its another matter.

jp on January 20, 2008 at 2:23 PM

@ jp on January 20, 2008 at 2:23 PM

I dont care if it was unconstitutional or not, I dont like it.

muyoso on January 20, 2008 at 2:24 PM

NV was a pretty uncontested state, if you look at how much everyone but Mitt spent on the state.

bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 2:19 PM

Mitt and Paul are only ones to try there, for whatever reason. I’d like to know, with all that money, how much(or little) Paul has spent. that is something to keep an eye on, what ultimately happens to that money his cult followers gave him. He had a big scandal in 1988, one of his people ended up in Jail for 6 months and had to pay fines for embezzlement.

jp on January 20, 2008 at 2:27 PM

I can sum that up in two words: identity politics.

This is the state of politics and the state of our nation. Instead of talking to all of America about an ideology, about a vision for America, about a set of principles that apply to everyone, we have focus group identity politics and just trying to woo enough groups of people to win an election.

Sad.

Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 2:21 PM

That’s not that unusual in a primary. Lincoln was the “rail splitter.” William Henry Harrison was elected by being the “the log cabin and hard cider candidate.”

bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 2:27 PM

I’d love to heaer the bulk of new reporting on what the candidates stand for, not what their current polling and trend is.

i can read RCP for that. tell me how each guy stacks up against what the people want.

Vincenzo on January 20, 2008 at 2:27 PM

@ jp on January 20, 2008 at 2:27 PM

You and your endless conspiracy theories. Remember, there are 40+ more states to have primaries left, dont worry about the money.

muyoso on January 20, 2008 at 2:28 PM

Mitt and Paul are only ones to try there, for whatever reason.

jp on January 20, 2008 at 2:27 PM

I think the reason was money. Right now, no one has money but Romney and Paul and maybe Rudy (but he was playing the wait and see game).

bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 2:29 PM

There’s another factor: the “old-fart factor”.

McCain may get votes from south Florida because it will be the last time that many of those retirees will be able to vote for someone OLDER than they are!

I always suspected that that was why my dad enjoyed voting for Reagan so much!

TexasJew on January 20, 2008 at 2:30 PM

You and your endless conspiracy theories. Remember, there are 40+ more states to have primaries left, dont worry about the money.

muyoso on January 20, 2008 at 2:28 PM

Money will come as candidates win states. I am sure McCain will get an influx of money now. If he wins FL, as I think he just might do, he will have lots of money.

bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 2:30 PM

There’s another factor: the “old-fart factor”.

TexasJew on January 20, 2008 at 2:30 PM

LOL! Maybe there is a campaign slogan in there someplace?

bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 2:31 PM

I can sum that up in two words: identity politics.

This is the state of politics and the state of our nation. Instead of talking to all of America about an ideology, about a vision for America, about a set of principles that apply to everyone, we have focus group identity politics and just trying to woo enough groups of people to win an election.

Sad.

Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 2:21 PM

Riddle me this. Each locale elects a representative to represent their interests. Not the state next to them, but their interests. When a candidate for a national office goes into these locals, he expresses how his platform will affect the people locally and nationally. How is that a bad thing again? The beauty of a republic is that unlike a democracy it protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority. That would never occur without addressing the variety of concerns of a variety of voters. America is not monolithic.

Spirit of 1776 on January 20, 2008 at 2:31 PM

muyoso,

I wonder how well Paul will do with his “money bomb” tomorrow?

bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 2:32 PM

Yes, Rudy’s chances rely on Florida. Duh. Bryan, did you miss that strategy when he announced it months ago? His campaign basically starts in Florida and will either fail or continue. But the idea that he’s in big trouble because he has no “momentum” is ridiculous. How long did it take McCain to go from nowhere to first? How long did it take Fred to go from nowhere to first back to nowhere again? This race is sooooo flulid and the last few polls had Rudy with 2 points of McCain. Like I said yesterday,Rudy will hit McCain hard in the next debate.

froghat on January 20, 2008 at 2:35 PM

Why Does The Main Stream Media Hate Rudy?

They know that he’s the ONLY one that can WIN!

GO RUDY!

Chakra Hammer on January 20, 2008 at 2:35 PM

@ bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 2:32 PM

Didnt even know there was one. What is this one representing, the death of MLK?

muyoso on January 20, 2008 at 2:37 PM

There’s another factor: the “old-fart factor”.

or the “bob dole factor”

except McCain should be more electable, although vs. a charismatic Obama???

Bob Novak said last night Obama was unbeatable in general, I find that hard to beleive unless its all about charisma and ‘likeability’

jp on January 20, 2008 at 2:37 PM

Didnt even know there was one. What is this one representing, the death of MLK?

muyoso on January 20, 2008 at 2:37 PM

Your asking me to explain why MLK day? Hehe, beats me.

bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 2:39 PM

froghat on January 20, 2008 at 2:35 PM

I agree. Rudy can take the momentum from McCain by a substantial win in FL.

bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 2:40 PM

@ bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 2:39 PM

This one wont be big really. If I haven’t heard about it, most haven’t heard about it. If it hits Digg tonight, maybe it will get a couple million, but i doubt it. Digg is one of the main drivers behind Ron Paul’s money bombs.

muyoso on January 20, 2008 at 2:42 PM

except McCain should be more electable, although vs. a charismatic Obama???

Bob Novak said last night Obama was unbeatable in general, I find that hard to beleive unless its all about charisma and ‘likeability’

jp on January 20, 2008 at 2:37 PM

The general is much about charisma and ‘likeability’ and against Obama, McCain will look very old.

bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 2:42 PM

jp on January 20, 2008 at 2:37 PM

By the way, against Obama, Fred would look very old as well, especially with all the throat clearing.

bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 2:43 PM

They have been voting in FL for some time by the way. They may be voting for Giuliani, McCain only came into the front recently.

bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 2:44 PM

McCain: The Non-Vehicular HYBRID

Pick him as the Nominee……….and it’s Bob Dole ALL OVER AGAIN….

http://www.flickr.com/photos/21615320@N06/2207225406/

awesum on January 20, 2008 at 2:44 PM

bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 2:43 PM

Also, with his folksy manner of speaking.

terryannonline on January 20, 2008 at 2:45 PM

awesum on January 20, 2008 at 2:44 PM

Romney won’t be much different.

bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 2:45 PM

Obama vs any front running republican would be a massacre. The media isnt going to digg into policies, they are going to play sound bytes, and that is where a majority of Americans will get to know the candidates. At the debates, Obama will outspeak the republican candidate easily, while framing it in his “hope” message for America, which will play with a lot of people.

muyoso on January 20, 2008 at 2:46 PM

muyoso on January 20, 2008 at 2:46 PM

So we need to root for Hillary.

bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 2:47 PM

@ bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 2:47 PM

I will never root for Hillary, but I will root against her less than I root against Obama.

muyoso on January 20, 2008 at 2:47 PM

By the way, against Obama, Fred would look very old as well, especially with all the throat clearing.

bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 2:43 PM

well, the Huckster is the most charismatic we have right now…..dare I say, “second look at huckabee”

conventional wisdom is that McCain/Rudy would win. I guess the question is would they hold on to all the states that Bush won, if not where do they lose? Ohio?

Obama has no experience, his muslim past, supporting “Live birth abortion” and everything else. It would be sad if he gets elected. I suspect there will be alot more of the “Obama is like Reagan” crap to come.

jp on January 20, 2008 at 2:50 PM

That’s not that unusual in a primary. Lincoln was the “rail splitter.” William Henry Harrison was elected by being the “the log cabin and hard cider candidate.”

bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 2:27 PM

Yeah, I have come to learn through discussions of this Primary season that this is actually not that unusual. However, my thinking is that if we accept the status quo in our campaigns, we will get the status quo in government.

The only way to get things to change (UGH I have come to ‘hate’ that word now) is to not accept the status quo and to hold our elected officials to a higher standard.

Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 2:51 PM

Yeah, I have come to learn through discussions of this Primary season that this is actually not that unusual. However, my thinking is that if we accept the status quo in our campaigns, we will get the status quo in government.

The only way to get things to change (UGH I have come to ‘hate’ that word now) is to not accept the status quo and to hold our elected officials to a higher standard.

Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 2:51 PM

That is up to the candidate we get in. Lincoln was anythng but status quo.

bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 2:54 PM

I really hope Rudy wins Florida. Not just because he’s my guy, but also to see the media look like idiots again. lol

froghat on January 20, 2008 at 2:54 PM

@ jp on January 20, 2008 at 2:50 PM

I would say he is more experienced than the guy he is replacing, and he certainly SOUNDS more experienced than him. I highly doubt his record becomes an issue in the campaign, I mean, take a look at the republicans and their records. No one seems to care about those.

muyoso on January 20, 2008 at 2:56 PM

I really hope Rudy wins Florida. Not just because he’s my guy, but also to see the media look like idiots again. lol

froghat on January 20, 2008 at 2:54 PM

i’m rooting for the same thing.

Rudy is excellent on 2 of the 3 main areas where he’d govern.

Foreign Policy and Fiscal matters.

the other is he’s not a Social Con, so the question is would he really appoint Scalia/Roberts type judges or liberal judges?

jp on January 20, 2008 at 2:56 PM

froghat on January 20, 2008 at 2:54 PM

I’m all for anything that makes the mainstream media seem like idiots. They can’t tell us who to vote for.

terryannonline on January 20, 2008 at 2:56 PM

muyoso on January 20, 2008 at 2:56 PM

Obama is not more experienced that W, now or in 2000. this is taking BDS to an extreme.

jp on January 20, 2008 at 2:58 PM

Riddle me this. Each locale elects a representative to represent their interests. Not the state next to them, but their interests. When a candidate for a national office goes into these locals, he expresses how his platform will affect the people locally and nationally. How is that a bad thing again? The beauty of a republic is that unlike a democracy it protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority. That would never occur without addressing the variety of concerns of a variety of voters. America is not monolithic.

Spirit of 1776 on January 20, 2008 at 2:31 PM

My vision (whether naive or ignorant or impractical, I don’t know…) is to talk about an ideology (ie conservatism) and explain to each locale and group how it helps them.

What we have now is pandering.

There is a difference, in my opinion, of talking to a group of people about their specific issues and explaining how the candidate’s ideology and vision for government will help them…

…and going to a group and specifically addressing an issue and saying how if they elect you, you will fix their problem(s).

The latter is identity politics, the former is treating the people as adults who deserve to be talked up to, not talked down to.

For example, the Democrats go to Black groups and try to express how they understand all their problems and if they vote for the Democrat, they will fix their problems. A true leader would go to the Black groups and talk in terms of an ideology, a vision for them to succeed and talk about how he/she believes that by taking on this ideology, that will help them succeed. He won’t promise to fix their problems, he won’t pretend he understands their struggle and he won’t race bait. He will talk with them as adults, as equals and explain how his vision and his ideology is helpful to them in succeeding.

The same thing can be done with the younger generation. Instead of talking down to their ignorance and taking political advantage of that, talk to them as adults, explain how their passion is inspiring and how they need to have a thirst for learning and getting informed and staying engaged in the political process. Encourage them to learn about history, to learn about this great country, to learn about ideology and individualism and just everything about this country that makes it great.

This is why I enjoy listening to Rush Limbaugh so much, because he treats his listeners as adults and challenges them to think. Challenges them to improve themselves and to learn and to get informed and to get engaged in politics. We need leaders like that in government as well.

But we will not get that if people just accept the status quo and say “eh, all politicians suck, we just need to keep electing the lesser of two evils…” Politicians know that that is the attitude of most voters and they take full advantage of that. It needs to stop. But the only way it will stop is if We, the People, make it happen.

Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 3:01 PM

By the way, FL is a winner take all state.

bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 3:01 PM

@ jp on January 20, 2008 at 2:58 PM

First of all, its not BDS to say Bush is an embarrassment and is a terrible president. It is quite near the truth. Second, Bush was a governer for 5 years, Obama was in the state legislature for 8 years, and in the senate for 4.

muyoso on January 20, 2008 at 3:02 PM

First of all, its not BDS to say Bush is an embarrassment and is a terrible president. It is quite near the truth. Second, Bush was a governer for 5 years, Obama was in the state legislature for 8 years, and in the senate for 4.

muyoso on January 20, 2008 at 3:02 PM

You are equating time in a State legislature to time as Governor? Being a State legislator is not the same as holding the top executive position in a State. Much, much more responsibility.

Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 3:07 PM

Rudy is my guy but I’m not very optimistic on his chances.

Dash on January 20, 2008 at 3:07 PM

First of all, its not BDS to say Bush is an embarrassment and is a terrible president. It is quite near the truth.

sure, if you ignore HIstory, facts and favor emotion, misinformation and outright lies/distortions.

but other than that sure, “quite near the truth”, just like past war time presidents, Truman who had low public opinion at the time. Or George Washington who they tried to FIRE

jp on January 20, 2008 at 3:07 PM

Rudy is my guy but I’m not very optimistic on his chances.

Dash on January 20, 2008 at 3:07 PM

FL is a Winner-Take-All (by district and statewide) state. That means Rudy gets all the deligates in the state if he can win the most districts. Since the people of FL have been voting absentee for awhile now, starting when he was high in the polls, he could very well get the state. We really won’t know until the 29th.

bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 3:13 PM

@ jp on January 20, 2008 at 3:07 PM

I dont care about public opinion. I care about a president who basically lies to the people who elected him. Where is the border fence? Where is the enforcement of immigration laws? Why does the president take off half of the year while we are at war? Why does the president not address the American people anymore? He has resided over the decline of the US dollar, the purchasing of nearly every major financial institution by foreign countries, and has pumped hundreds of billions into a war, whose justifications turned out to be non existent and was therefore changed after the fact. Those could be a few starting reasons why I dont like him, there are TONS more.

muyoso on January 20, 2008 at 3:14 PM

The current delegate count

bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 3:15 PM

Looks to me like Rudy’s being spending a few days in the tanning bed recently while in Florida…

MrSteve on January 20, 2008 at 3:17 PM

and has pumped hundreds of billions into a war, whose justifications turned out to be non existent and was therefore changed after the fact.

this is one example I’ll pick out here, they debated on 23 different reasons for War with Saddam. the media focused on the WMD part, which is a whole different discussion. there were 22 others that no one wants to go back and look at, not least of which is Saddams support, financing and operations with Terorrist groups, including al-qaeda. Its even in the War Resolution. They were listed as a State Sponsor of terror throughout the 90′s for the reason.

to try and claim the whole basis for Iraq was WMD, is a distortion and a lie. something the Dems and their buddies on the Paleo-Right routinely engage in. Apparently, they would look at a Despot committing multiple Acts of War against the US, and would rather we just grab our ankles instead.

jp on January 20, 2008 at 3:33 PM

Experience may not matter

bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 3:36 PM

State of the UNION January 29 2002

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. (Applause.) And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation’s security.

We’ll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons. (Applause.)

Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun. This campaign may not be finished on our watch– yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch.

STATE OF THE UNION January 28th 2003 :

Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror, and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation.

This threat is new; America’s duty is familiar. Throughout the 20th century, small groups of men seized control of great nations, built armies and arsenals, and set out to dominate the weak and intimidate the world. In each case, their ambitions of cruelty and murder had no limit. In each case, the ambitions of Hitlerism, militarism, and communism were defeated by the will of free peoples, by the strength of our alliances, and by the might of the United States of America. (Applause.)

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct — were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq’s regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax — enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn’t accounted for that material. He’s given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin — enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn’t accounted for that material. He’s given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He’s not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them — despite Iraq’s recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He’s given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He’s given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans — this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

Those are HIS words. HIS speeches to the American people. Stop your lying. You LOVE defending RINO’s and the like, just stop. He based the ENTIRE war on WMD’s. Everything was about WMD’s.

muyoso on January 20, 2008 at 3:41 PM

Stephanopolous, Matthews, Couric, Russert; are all these shows run by former DNC operatives who are now impartial.

“The most successful government turn around in 30 or 40 years”. Spin that George S. you shill.

RobCon on January 20, 2008 at 3:46 PM

He based the ENTIRE war on WMD’s. Everything was about WMD’s.

muyoso on January 20, 2008 at 3:41 PM

this is an historically ignorant LIE.

try reading the Iraq War Resolution for starters.

jp on January 20, 2008 at 3:48 PM

http://husseinandterror.com

jp on January 20, 2008 at 3:50 PM

The is a certain “sick humor?” in Bush’s (and McCain’s if he is elected) policies on Iraq and America.

Iraq is officially one country, but is defacto becoming more and more like three countries: Shiiteistan, Sunniistan and Kurdistan.

The United States and Mexico are officially two countries, but defacto are becoming more and more like just one country.

Something is rotten in Denmark Washington.

MB4 on January 20, 2008 at 3:52 PM

Why does the president not address the American people anymore?

Every Saturday, Pres Bush gives a radio address, which is followed by the dems response.

Bush is still out there, but media is ignoring him to promote the Obama/Hillary hysteria. Good economic news, positive information on Iraq, etc are not being covered. This is an election year and the media is foaming at the bit to get their guys in office.

The “average Joe” doen’t have time to find alternative news sources or research candidates. The Huckaberry surge is a good example of how media can temporarily influence voting.
Did the media reporting exit polls influence voting? When news was that the candidate of their choice was failing, did that effect those voting later in day?

I plan to go to my caucus super Tuesday armed with facts,candidates records, and try to make a difference. If that fails, I will be looking for a new party. Winning isn’t everyhing. Sometimes you have to stand for your values.

conservativegrandma on January 20, 2008 at 3:56 PM

Winning isn’t everyhing.

conservativegrandma on January 20, 2008 at 3:56 PM

Especially if what you win, if you win, is a booby prize.

MB4 on January 20, 2008 at 4:00 PM

The current delegate count

bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 3:15 PM

Amazing. Simply amazing. John McCain has 1.72% of the delegates and some people are saying he is “inevitable” and all others must just drop out and give up.

Brilliant.

Thanks for that link (and the many others you have posted today).

Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 4:04 PM

Especially if what you win, if you win, is a booby prize.

MB4 on January 20, 2008 at 4:00 PM

Hmm, that seems to mean that we are choosing between tits and (jack)asses. I thought politics was getting ‘tabloidized’, but apparently it is getting ‘pronified’.

The pronification of American politics. Exactly what the mass media and our elected officials want. Less serious discussion of ideas and ideology and facts and more tabloidization and pronification. Brilliant.

By the way, I agree with this. Winning is not everything if it means we have a GOP which is simply Democrat-lite.

Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 4:08 PM

Winning isn’t everyhing.

conservativegrandma on January 20, 2008 at 3:56 PM

Hillary Clinton

bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 4:09 PM

John McCain has 1.72% of the delegates and some people are saying he is “inevitable” and all others must just drop out and give up.

I don’t think people are saying he’s inevitable. They might just be responding to all the attacks towards him.

terryannonline on January 20, 2008 at 4:12 PM

Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 3:01 PM

I guarantee you that Rush does not define “Identity politics” the way you do.

Reaching out to different constituencies on the issues is not the same thing as running on skin color, gender, sexual preferences, or religious affiliation.

Buy Danish on January 20, 2008 at 4:15 PM

Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 4:04 PM

Primaries are about delgates and momentum. FL is winner take all, they have 57 delegates.

bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 4:20 PM

I guarantee you that Rush does not define “Identity politics” the way you do.

Buy Danish on January 20, 2008 at 4:15 PM

LOL! Rush is all about identity politics. He lectures all day about what he thinks is “conservatism” and who fits into that mold and who doesn’t.

bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 4:21 PM

Interesting Meet the Press today:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22756244#22756244

bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 4:22 PM

I would like to know where El Presidente in Waiting Juan Plantation McVano is getting his bribes campaign contributions from these days.

Some Keating 5 connections no doubt, but where else?

As the Serf legalization act Z-Visa candidate he is probably raking it in from the Plantation Slavers Enterprising Businessmen who don’t want to be prosecuted or pay any of the social costs of their illegal hiring hiring had working folks to do the jobs that lazy Americans won’t do for serf wages a fair wage.

MB4 on January 20, 2008 at 4:24 PM

Mccain claiming credit for the surge is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard…When is Bush going to come out and put McLiar in check?

Bush deserves 100% of the credit for the surge.

If Mccain would never have been born(if only we were so lucky) Bush would have still done the surge…frankly he didn’t have any other options.

HaraldHardrada on January 20, 2008 at 4:27 PM

Rudolph’s record is catching up to him as it is for the others.

The only question is how long will it be until Dim’s expose all of them or will they wait until only one remains for the full effect?

Find out now, not when they do;

The following list of links provide a nightmare of RINO’s records and past actions.

Obviously, none of the early states voters have a clue and believe what they’re being told by them because they haven’t done their homework…it’s a pathetic demonstration of shirking responsibility, really.

The DIM’s will not be so kind as the MSM has allowed their records to stagnate in waiting the the right time when the election is then the attention and it is too late to return to a conservative the rightly fear.

Don’t let them be the ones to inform you of the RINO’s;

Candidate Research – Know Who You’re Voting For ( The Easy Way ) http://tinyurl.com/2sowta

Winghunter on January 20, 2008 at 4:29 PM

the other is he’s not a Social Con, so the question is would he really appoint Scalia/Roberts type judges or liberal judges?

jp on January 20, 2008 at 2:56 PM

He can’t come out ant tell us who he would nominate for big time judicial positions, but he can create a “judicial advisory committee” *wink wink nudge nudge*. I expect some Cheneyesque advice from them, if you know what I mean.

Big S on January 20, 2008 at 4:30 PM

McCain Agonistes – Victor Davis Hanson, National Review Online

bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 4:33 PM

I don’t think people are saying he’s inevitable. They might just be responding to all the attacks towards him.

terryannonline on January 20, 2008 at 4:12 PM

Anyone who attacks my hombre Juan will be sent to a reeducation detention camp once He becomes your Grande Presidente Juan the First of America del Norte and I become the power behind el trono.

VinyFoxy on January 20, 2008 at 4:34 PM

Blumberg willing to spend a BILLION dollars if he gets into the race. What would prompt him into the race? A Clinton/Rudy or Clinton/Huck race. Or so they say on MTP (around 45 min in)

bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 4:37 PM

Reaching out to different constituencies on the issues is not the same thing as running on skin color, gender, sexual preferences, or religious affiliation.

Buy Danish on January 20, 2008 at 4:15 PM

Exactly. Didn’t I say that in my comment(s) above? If not, that is what I meant. I meant that identity politics is reaching out to constituencies based on skin color, gender, sexual preferences, religion, etc, whereas leaders should be reaching out to constituencies based on a message of core principles that affect everyone, including these constituencies.

Indentity politics is setting up a policy in reaction to a specific group. The opposite, which I support, is going to a group with one’s ideology and principles and explaining to that group how that ideology and those principles work to affect that group’s problems in a positive manner.

Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 4:44 PM

OL! Rush is all about identity politics. He lectures all day about what he thinks is “conservatism” and who fits into that mold and who doesn’t.

bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 4:21 PM

How is that “identity politics”? There are conservative principles. There are people who do not adhere to those conservative principles. That is not “identity politics”, that is more like ‘ideology politics’.

Rush simply explains conservatism and which candidates’ policies are not conservative. He focuses on ideology, not identity (race, religion, looks, sex, etc).

Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 4:47 PM

IMHO Rudy(with all his faults like marching with the man boy love association in the gay pride parade and dressing like a woman) would make a far superior president than Juan McLiar.

Rudy is far more conservative than McShame on national defense and Fiscal issues and probably on social issues as far as nominating conservative judges.

Why does anyone think Mccain is strong on the war on terror??

* He praises BJ Clinton and Jimmy Carter on their “foreign policy acheivements” such as attempting to force israel to give up their land and create a paleastinian muslim nazi terrorist state in the middle of israel with jerusalem as it’s capitol…which would leave israel with indefensible 6 mile wide borders!!

*He was the biggest proponent of the serbian war which was a war against a Christian country that was defending themselves against an islamic invasion..the side that Mccain and Clinton backed was the kosovo liberation army(KLA) which bubba considered “freedom fighters”…

The KLA was founded partly by Usama Bin Laden and Bin Laden himnself financed the entire war with his heroin money and supplied thousands of al qaeda troops to kosovo.

*McLiar is opposed to torturing terrorists with methods that we use on our own troops in training.

*McShame wants to close Gitmo qand bring muslim nazi terrorists into the US to be tried as Americans in our liberal “justice” system.

* McShame will never make us energy independent. He was the one republican vote that prevented us from drilling ANWAR and is opposed to offshore drilling and is opposed to bio fuel subsidies.

*Mcamnesty is the author of the Mccain/kennedy amnesty bill and wants to give amnesty to all 38 million illegal aliens and under family reunification will allow them to bring in family members which will amount to approx. 150-200 million third world citizens, unable to speak english, flooding into the USA. Leaving the US with majority third world population and a permanent democrat majority and a north american union sure to follow.

HaraldHardrada on January 20, 2008 at 4:54 PM

Rudy on This Week –

Rudy showed why he will be formidable in Florida. If the subject is economics he’s got an issue he can use to his advantage. This exchange from This Week shows him both on defense successfully batting away Romney allegations and on offense making the case for his superior fiscal record:
http://www.amspec.org/blogger_comments.asp?BlogID=10861

bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 4:59 PM

Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 4:44 PM

Perhaps I confused you by choosing the wrong comment to respond to.

bnelson44 provided a summary from the Miami Herald of what core constituencies the candidates were courting and you responded here by saying that that was “identity politics”.

With the exception of Hucakbee, that list had little or nothing to with identity politics. Huck is playing that game by going after his evangelical base, but Mitt is not going around courting Mormons. If they vote for him it will be because they share his broader values, and agree with his agenda, and his ability to articulate that agenda.

bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 4:21 PM

You don’t understand what “identity politics” is. Think liberal democrats trying to get women or blacks to vote for them just because the candidate is a woman or black.

Buy Danish on January 20, 2008 at 5:01 PM

Comment pages: 1 2