Skip to comments.Guiliani Fires Back at Dean's Criticism of Family Life
Posted on 04/28/2007 1:39:09 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
NEW YORK, New York (1010 WINS) -- Rudy Giuliani ripped into the head of the Democratic Party yesterday for getting personal by suggesting Giuliani's family life poses a "serious problem."
The shot earlier this week by Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean marks the first time Dems have openly targeted Giuliani's messy past.
During a CNN interview, Dean said the GOP presidential front-runner "has a lot of character issues that he has to answer for."
"We've begun to reach out to evangelical Christians, and that's a real problem for him," Dean told CNN. "His personal life is a serious problem for him."
Dean refused to say what he was referring to, although the former mayor's marriage to his third wife, Judith Nathan, in 2003 followed a bitter, public breakup with wife No. 2, Donna Hanover.
Giuliani's team fired back hard yesterday in a Daily News article, calling Dean's verbal grenade a desperate ploy to divert attention away from the Democrats' wavering on Iraq, a theme Giuliani has clearly decided is working for him.
"Last night, the Democratic candidates for President once again made clear they just don't understand the terrorists' war on us," Giuliani communication chief Katie Levinson said, referring to the Democrats' Thursday night debate. "So sadly, it yet again comes as no surprise that the political leader of the Democratic Party - in a desperate effort to once again change the subject - resorted to a personal political attack."
The back-and-forth seemed to underscore growing concern among Democrats about Giuliani, who is the only Republican who beats all top Democrats in key battleground states, a poll showed this week.
***... "This is not America's war to win or lose," said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
"This is not a football game; this is not win or lose," moaned Sen. Joe Biden.
"There's no military solution for this," added Sen. Barack Obama - who nonetheless said he wanted to be sure that the troops had all the night-vision goggles and Humvees they need.
Of course, none of the Democrats suggested a realistic alternative to their preferred course of action: ordering a timetable for bugging out.
It took far-left Rep. Dennis Kucinich to point out the glaring problem in their position: "It's inconsistent to tell the American people that you oppose the war, and yet you continue to fund the war."
Well, yes. If the Democrats truly believe - as New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said - that "this war is a disaster" and "we must end this war," then they should be pushing hard for an immediate withdrawal and an end to all funding.
But they won't - because they know that, whatever their misgivings over the current situation, the American people would handily reject an immediate cut-and-run from Iraq.
And that's pretty much how it went, all night long.
Asked how they would change the U.S. military stance overseas if America were attacked once again by terrorists, the candidates all but proved the point Rudy Giuliani made earlier in the week: that, under a Democratic president, "we would go on defense" in the War on Terror.
"The first thing I would do is be certain I knew who was responsible," said John Edwards.
"I believe we should quickly respond," replied Clinton.
Obama, in a bizarre response, invoked Hurricane Katrina to declare, "The first thing we'd have to do is make sure that we've got an effective emergency response," and warned that "we can't . . . alienate the world community."
Not one even hinted at what Giuliani himself said - that before any such attack occurs, a president should go on the offensive and destroy the terrorists so that they don't even have a chance to strike. ...***
Gary Hart: An Open Letter to Mayor Giuliani
Dear Mayor Giuliani:
Since you have based your presidential campaign almost exclusively on your reaction to terrorist attacks on New York City, and since you have recently accused Democrats of being on the defense against terrorism and therefore guilty of inviting more casualties, I have one question for you: Where were you on terrorism between January 31, 2001, and September 11th?
The first date was when the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century issued its final report warning, as did its previous reports, of the danger of terrorist attacks on America. The George W. Bush administration did nothing about these warnings and we lost 3,000 American lives. What did you do during those critical eight months? Where were you? Were you on the defensive, or were you even paying attention?
Before you qualify to criticize Democrats, Mr. Giuliani, you must account for your preparation of your city for these clearly predicted attacks. Tell us, please, what steps you took to make your city safer.
Until you do, then I strongly suggest you should keep your mouth shut about Democrats and terrorism.
You have not qualified to criticize others, let alone be president of the United States.
(co-chair, U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century)
P.S. You might ask these same questions of George W. Bush while you are trying to find a better reason to run for president.
The second thing would be to file a class action suit.
This piece of excrement amazes me.
His wife is terminal and yet he continues to put his own ambitions above his family.
That's probably pretty close to the truth.
Yeah. How about that?
Why doesn't this guy either stick to NYC politics or join the democratic party? What a phony baloney he is.
Character matters! Giuliani’s headed for a great fall! Question is, will he bow out soon enough to avoid totally destroying the remaining credibility of the GOP?
Giuliani is a joke!
Mr. Giuliani, you must account for your preparation of your city for these clearly predicted attacks.
He became Mayor 10 months after the first time the ragheads went for the WTC.
He made no preparations......he just grabbed the microphone after it happened.
Rudy is just getting started at ripping new ones.
It will be glorious.
The dims will be gnashing their panties (made out of white flags in China)
It is unless someone is using his name and position.
One thing about the Rats, they know how to play politics.
It looks like the Democrat candidates can’t speak, so they rely on others to fight Rudy.
Today, April 28, 2007, I predict that there is a danger of terrorist attacks on America.
This means that if there is ever again another terrorist attack on America, I will have the right to second-guess every politician for the next 25 years. After all, I made a bold prediction and, assuming a future attack, the politicians didn't do enough to prevent the attack. So that means it's the politicians' fault.
Not to worry, John. No real Christian would ever be caught dead voting for the Demonic Democrat party. Look at the Dem lineup. All Satan's finest.
Funny how Rudy made this critique of character about the WOT.
Rudy is a one trick pony. The WOT. Only Rudy can stop it! L0L
I saw this coming a mile away, CW.
If Rudy's nominated, the Dems are going to grab the values mantle - call them hypocrites or phonies all you want - but like I said, Dems are masters at fighting dirty.
Rudy already has no support among conservatives other than the beltway/establishment types. He'll lose more so-called independent and moderate voters when the Dims and MSM really unleash them.
Hillary will be portrayed as June Cleaver while Rudy will be the immoral, corrupt one, and he'll lose.
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.