Glad u have a sense of humor.
for all of you ... another Dem PR site that mourns how badly they are handling RG speech. admittedly it was a brillant succinct speech ... which u will hear over and over ... as that is where people (vast majority) are at
Washinton Monthly
April 25, 2007
LETTING RUDY WIN....Yesterday Rudy Giuliani said the country would be safer if it elects a Republican in 2008 — especially if that Republican is him:
“If any Republican is elected president — and I think obviously I would be the best at this — we will remain on offense....I listen a little to the Democrats and if one of them gets elected, we are going on defense,” Giuliani continued. “We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense.”
He added: “The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us.”
My reaction: Yawn. Of course Rudy thinks the country would be safer with a Republican in charge. Presumably he also thinks the economy will do better, crime will come down, and everyone will have whiter teeth. If he didn’t, he wouldn’t be a Republican.
So I was curious: how would the Dem candidates respond? With the usual whining? Or with something smart? Greg Sargent has today’s responses from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton over at his site and the verdict is in: more whining. Obama: “Rudy Giuliani today has taken the politics of fear to a new low blah blah blah.” Clinton: “One of the great tragedies of this Administration is that the President failed to keep this country unified after 9/11 yada yada yada.”
Unbelievable. Neither one of them took the chance to do what Rudy did: explain in a few short sentences why the country would be safer with a Democrat in the Oval Office. Is it really that hard? Giuliani’s position is clear: more war, more domestic surveillance, more torture, and fewer civil liberties. And while it’s true that the liberal position on making America secure is a little more complicated than the schoolyard version of foreign affairs beloved of Bush-era Republicans, it’s not that complicated. So instead of complaining about how mean Giuliani is, why can’t Obama and Clinton just tell us what they’d do?
Whining just reinforces the message that Democrats are wimps. The real way to be “hard hitting” is to explain why Giuliani is wrong and what Democrats would do instead — and why the average Joe and Jane would be safer and better off without guys like Giuliani bumbling recklessly around the globe leaving a stronger al-Qaeda and a weaker America in their wake. Until they do, Rudy and the Republicans are going to win every round of this fight.
UPDATE: This response from the DNC isn’t what I was after, but at least it’s a decent attack on Giuliani. That’s a start, I guess.
You can quote to me me from the DNC until your face turns blue. They are losers and so is Rooty. They are all weak, pathetic panderers.
We don’t need that, we need a real leader. The RATs and the Republicans only present us with weak sisters who haven’t the moral courage to stick up for anything. Both parties at this time are corrupt and inept. Not too inspiring. When election time rolls around they both can forget any help from me.
Shame on all of them!