Posted on 09/19/2007 4:26:24 AM PDT by IrishMike
Early in my career as a political speechwriter, a young but wise campaign manager explained why candidates from the same party too often tear each other to pieces in the primaries. He told me that when all the candidates of your party are shooting at the probable opponent from the other party, your frontrunner is going to get shot in the back. I thought of that analogy the other day as I read about Rudy Giuliani’s potent political attacks on Hillary Clinton.
Clinton, the frontrunner for the Democrats’ presidential nomination, stuck George Soros’ giant left foot in her mouth attempting to do the bidding of MoveOn.org. For the entire world to see, Hillary decided that a Senate committee hearing would be a good place to call a decorated war hero, Gen. David Petraeus, commander of American forces in Iraq, a liar. Parroting the same extremist nonsense that is rapidly making the folks at MoveOn the leading leftist nutters of the blogosphere, Hillary’s comments landed with a clank in most parts of America, most notably at the Giuliani for President Campaign headquarters.
The previous week, the folks running the nation’s premiere agenda-driven newspaper, The New York Times, embarrassed themselves by substantially discounting the now-infamous, full-page, MoveOn ad calling Gen. Petraeus “Gen. Betray Us.” Apparently, The Times management doesn’t realize that George Soros can afford the full rate.
Adding to their heartburn was former New York City Mayor and Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, who demanded and got the same $65,000 rate for what normally would be $165,000 worth of ad space. (Can you imagine anyone ever again paying the full rate for a full-page ad after this fiasco?) Rudy used the opportunity to excoriate Hillary for her cowardly submission to the anti-war Left and asked America who they trusted more, the senator or the general.
Rather than firing back at his opponents, Rudy is focusing on his likely Democrat challenger. Instead of answering the attacks of Mitt Romney and others in his party who are running behind him in the polls, Giuliani is acting as if he is already the Republican nominee.
Let me say again that even though Giuliani is tough on crime and terrorism, I don’t like his domestic agenda at all. As a pro-life, pro-family, pro-traditional marriage, pro-Second Amendment Republican, I find him far too liberal on most social issues. As my son said to me recently, “Rudy Giuliani is a just Democrat who’s willing to blow stuff up.”
I also find Giuliani’s personal life to be downright offensive. In some ways, he makes Bill Clinton look stable. At least Clinton never had Monica Lewinsky move into the White House and openly live with him like then-Mayor Giuliani did when he had his girlfriend (now his wife) move into Gracie Mansion while he was still married to the mother of his children.
Having said all that, going after Hillary Clinton is a brilliant strategy. It makes Rudy look presidential. It makes his GOP opponents look small when they attack him. And it creates its own momentum. The more Giuliani acts like the heir apparent to the Republican nomination, the more voters will become comfortable with him.
Those of us who were looking to Fred Thompson as the fiscal and social conservative who could wrestle the GOP mantle away from hizzonor are becoming increasingly alarmed by the efficiency of the Giuliani campaign. As I wrote a few months ago, just as Democrats must find a way to turn red states blue, the converse is also true, and Rudy could change the color of the map radically. Consider the electoral vote-rich states that could fall into the GOP column with Giuliani as the nominee: California, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and, of course, New York. That’s a strong temptation to many Republicans who simply want to win.
Giuliani is leading in most polls largely due to his record as a tough mayor who cleaned up America’s biggest, dirtiest city and because of his leadership in the aftermath of 9/11. The war against Islamist fanaticism demands an alternative to Hillary Clinton. Rudy Giuliani firmly believes he is that alternative. An alarming number of Republicans seem to agree with him.
If Rooty Toot can beat Hitlery, then why did he refuse to run against her in 2000 and 2006? It's because he knew he would lose.
Why in the world would EITHER party ever nominate someone who couldn't win their home state? NOBODY HAS EVER WON A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION WITHOUT WINNING THEIR HOME STATE.
What election did he lose?
Read the speech, he is advocating kicking liberal out of the party.
No. Flat out no. Rudy is an abortionist liberal. He’s disqualified from any consideration whatsoever to run on a conservative ticket. As I’ve already told you, FR is a conservative site and we will not be wasting our time or resources on liberal abortionist pigs. If you wish to promote liberal abortionist pigs, please do it elsewhere. Hope I’m being crystal clear on this matter. Don’t want to be ambiguous.
B/S.
My mistake. I forgot about Rudy having to withdraw from the race prior to the election.
Rudy is right in taking on MOVEON. They are seem to be a dangerious group that needs to be called on their actions and money. I knew a long time ago that moveon was going to be a force to be reckon with.
I've figured out that a lot of people in the Northeast and certain other predominantly liberal areas think that anyone even slightly to the right of Marx is a conservative.
Standing on your principle NOW, TODAY in the face of what looms ahead should we fail to keep the WH is wrong headed if standing on principle will lose the election and possibly mean the end of it all for America. If there were no raghead savages looking to kill us all and we weren't at war in Iraq to keep them from our shores then the other conservative issues of abortion and such could be debated in their proper context.
Simply put I would rather have a Republican in the WH who was weak on the illegals and had a history of being pro abortion (although he has said he is PERSONALLY against it and would love to see RvW overturned)and was strong on national defense and wants to win the WOT then a liberal who will cut and run at the first opportunity and get us all killed.
Finally, I am for whomever can beat fatso, it’s as simple as that.
LMFAO!
All Rooty Toot did was start a domino effect where the New York Slimes was able to sell more full-page ads in their rag. And he managed to move the new Chinagate scandal right off the front page.
Rooty's stunt last week HELPED Hitlery.
Once again, Rush is right.
The 2006 returns scared the hell out of party officials and elected officials from Sentors down to the dog catchers. It scared them so bad they'll do anything they can to avoid another drubbing.
Well, announcing your divorce on live tv during your campaign doesn't exactly help your polling numbers.
Being a realsit is not being a RINO. You need a dose of reality and foresight my friend.
Where the hell have you been? He dropped out in 2000 because he had Cancer and it makes sense he didn’t run in 2006 because he was palnning to run in 2008 for the WH.
Sheesh. How about showing a little back bone? We have qualified conservative candidates. We don’t need no stinking liberal abortionist pig to defeat Hillary.
All the more reason to nominate a conservative. You Rooty Rooters seem to operate under the illusion that Rooty is the only guy who wants the terrorists to lose. Maybe you should do some research on the career of a guy named Husband E. Kimmel and then get back to us on why failure should be rewarded.
We are also under attack from within by a political Party that has decided their assumption of power is justified by any means imaginable up to and including surrendering to the afore mentioned fanatics.
Rooty Toot is the same way and far more dangerous, because if the GOP is destroyed there will be genuine peril.
although he has said he is PERSONALLY against it and would love to see RvW overturned
EVERY pro-abortion candidate has made some version of the "safe and legal and rare" statement; however, Rooty has NEVER said he wanted Roe v. Wade overturned.
I am going to have to investigate this premise. I can’t wrap my mind around this. Sounds something Alexander the VI could have conspired to do...but JPII would have to be complicit...no way.
And that's the God's honest truth. A-m-e-n.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.