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.
Thanks
Whoop tee doo. We all have already figured out over the years that the VP has no power at all, unless the POTUS gives him that power.
A conservative is aware of that, a RINO is not.
Thanks for providing a "gag me moment". The RINOs always say they wouldn't choose Rooty first. Hehehe. Well, here you are!
Seems like the term "realist" is the new Rooty Rooter term .
What a freakin' joke.
Get real, RINO. You are talking to conservatives on this forum. Take you lib politics to the DUmmies.
ROFL!
Listen pal. My vote to a 3rd party or independent conservative candidate if Fruity is nominated does NOT mean I support Hillary. I don't care what you guys say.
> Are you stating someone espousing Reaganism can’t be elected?
I wish he could: the Reagan years saw America at her very, very best. But alas! America today is all about style over substance, and HillBilly has Fred trumped in the style department.
Yes it is ugly and unfair, but that is the way of it.
No, I would not like to see Giuliani in the White House instead of Fred, but I’d sooner see him in there than Hillary.
The Conservative vote needs to very quickly pick a leader and back that person HARD. And that person needs to be ELECTABLE. Otherwise, eight years of Hillary awaits...
Gagging can sometimes be a natural reflex.
> Since when?
He did OK in New York City, so he has been elected before by a very tough audience.
> Backing Rudy for president is a sure fire way to get Hillary elected.
I think you give Hillary far too much credit. She is all style and no substance, living in the shadow of her philandering husband. If she ever had one good original idea, it would die of loneliness.
New term folks” Rooty rootin’ realist RINO “
Lets get real! You have to admit, they will try anything.
Unreally! realists!
snicker.
So did Rudy.
You really are a DU plant, aren't you?
For pointing out a fact? Technically, it's true. The Clintons haven't divorced, have they? Rudy Fruity's been divorced 2 times.
You're right. It just means you see Hillary as the same as Rudy. If you can't see a difference between the two, then you simply are not paying attention.
If it boiled down between the two and there were no alternatives, then yes, I would rather see Hillary win and get this show on the road once and for all.
No, for willingly playing along with the Clintons’ fake marriage.
Or do you honestly believe it’s anything other than a political marriage of convenience between a lesbian and a playboy?
Bill Clinton has always acted like a single man, and Hillary has always let him.
And yet you disingenuously give credence to their “marriage” here.
Different terms, SOS.
Moderate
Moderate Conservative
Realist
Pragmatist
Not-a-purist
All excuses from people who embrace more of the old Democratic platform than that of the Republican Party.
Sorry, unless divorce papers were signed, then technically they were still husband and wife. Regardless of the bimbos, sexual assaults, and stained blue dresses. Just pointing out a fact & that shouldn’t be construed that I believed the two of them were in love.
That’s it! Great graphic!
When it comes to Rudy, the reaction more closely resembles vomit. ;-)
You are right EEE, the Clintons can easily point out what a mockery Rooty is. So the Clintoons aren’t close? They will make sure that great hay is made out of that when the time is right. At least ole Bill didn’t dump Hildabeest for another wh**e like Rooty. Rooty’s mistake is that he keeps making the same mistake. Now what does that tell us?
I think these Rooty rooters are in la la land. The mockery is being made out of RINO republicans over and over again. Shame they aren’t smart enough to grasp that fact.
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.