Rudy Giuliani on B.O. letting BP handle the oil spill relief effort:
The reality is the Administration has made every mistake it could possibly make right down to the criminal investigation of BP… And, if they’re being criminally investigated then why are we allowing them to do it? If we got a bunch of criminals doing it then why are we allowing them to do it?
In my state, you are only allowed to vote in party primaries if you are a registered voter of that party. I used to be registered as an independent and then a Libertarian, until the election of 1996. I wanted to vote for Steve Forbes in the primary, but Bob Dole was selected. It was at that time I registered as a Republican, just so I could vote in primaries.
Yesterday, Juan McAmnesty won in FL’s primary, which is supposed to be a closed primary. I have to wonder just how “closed” it really is, after seeing this…
In northern Coral Springs, near the Sawgrass Expressway and Coral Ridge Drive, David Nirenberg arrived to vote as an independent. Nevertheless, he said poll workers insisted he choose a party ballot.
“He said to me, ‘Are you Democrat or Republican?’ I said, ‘Neither, I am independent.’ He said, ‘Well, you have to pick one,”’ Nirenberg said.
In Florida, only those who declare a party are allowed to cast a vote in that party’s presidential primary.
Nirenberg said he tried to explain to the poll worker that he should not vote on a party ballot because of his “no party affiliation” status.
Nirenberg said a second poll worker was called over who agreed that independents should not use party ballots, but said they had received instructions to the contrary.
“He said, ‘Ya know, that is kind of funny, but it was what we were told.’ … I was shocked when they told me that.” Nirenberg said he went ahead and voted for John McCain.
One breakout that puzzles me though is the vote share by party identification. Romney and McCain were tied among Republicans at 33-33, while McCain won independents 44-23. (See page 4 of the exit poll.)
If I’m reading the poll correctly, it suggests 17% of Republican primary voters identified themselves as having no major party affiliation, while 3% identified themselves as registered Democrats.
I’m not much on conspiracy theories, so I won’t dwell on this. I do wonder, though, that if all the polls that show how the base is p#ssed at McLame are true, how did he win in a “closed” primary? I mean, NH and SC are both open primaries, meaning that “indepedents” can vote in them (and indies love themselves some Johnny Mac). But FL? I’m still trying to figure that one out.
Anywho, pardon my pessimism, but I think Juan’s got the nomination wrapped up. Schmuckabee’s done, but he probably won’t throw in the towel like Rudy did this morning. Rudy seems to be backing McAmnesty. Super Tuesday will feature a lot of Southern states, and the South by and large doesn’t seem too keen on Romney (from MA). Delegate-heavy California also votes next Tuesday, and Juan’s doing quite well out there, too. Ugh…I need a drink.
Florida has its primary today. Recent polls show a Romney surge, but by and large, most show he and McLame within the margin of error of each other, with a fair number of people undecided. If Rudy doesn’t win FL (and if polls are any indicator, I don’t think he will), he’ll likely drop out, since he put all his eggs in this basket.
As for McAmnesty, fellow open borders Senate colleagues Lindsey Grahamnesty and Senor Mel Martinez have endorsed him. If that’s not reason enough to vote against the guy, I don’t know what is.
The Hildebeast came in third, behind Obama and the Silky Pony. Anytime a Clinton loses, especially a Marxist b#tch like Shrillary, that’s a good thing. But she’s like Freddy Kreuger…she never dies, so don’t go to sleep.
Schmuckabee won, Romney came in second, Thompson came in third, and McCain came in fourth. Will the MSM now get off of McCain’s “surging momentum” jock?
Rudy was a blip on the radar screen, and looks to be that way in New Hampshire. He’s going for broke in SC and FL. I’ve only been following politics for about 15 years now, but can anyone tell me who has flamed in both IA and NH and lived to win the nomination? Bush got killed in NH by Johnny Mac in 2000, but he had won IA before that and then SC right afterwards.
Doctor Kook Magnet (aka Ron Paul) came in fifth. That’s what $20 million in a quarter buys you? Master fundraiser Howard Dean raised crazy bucks in late ’03 for his ill-fated 2004 campaign, and he similarly flamed out. Something about crazy people, money, and Iowa that just don’t mix.
“How NOT to endear the base to your candidacy”, by the Huckster. Were he writing such an article, he could start right here:
What’s the Huckabee universe’s take on why Rush Limbaugh does not like the man from Arkansas? I asked a prominent DC-based Huckabee ally:
“Honestly, because Rush doesn’t think for himself. That’s not necessarily a slap because he’s not paid to be a thinker—he’s an entertainer. I can’t remember the last time that he has veered from the talking points from the DC/Manhattan chattering class. If they were praising Huckabee, he would be too.”
“Also, I have to think that he’s dying to have Hillary in the White House. Bill Clinton made Rush a megastar. Having another Clinton back in power would make him the Leading Voice of the Opposition once again.”
Nice job, “ally”! Insult the man held in high esteem by the vast and overwhelming majority of the GOP base! What’s next, theorizing that tax hikes are just the cure for the mortgage lending crisis? Not doing your man any favors, are you? By the way, does anyone know what in the blue hell this boob is talking about by his “DC/Manhattan chattering class” remark?
I don’t know how many of you guys will agree with me or not, but I’m not on Rudy’s side here. I think it’s pretty shameful. From CBS News:
Was it routine expenses, or is an apparent skeleton in Rudy Giuliani’s closet really coming out to haunt him? CBS News anchor Katie Couric sat down with the national frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination Thursday.
A report posted on Politico.com Wednesday said that at the time when Giuliani was beginning an extramarital relationship with Judith Nathan, who eventually became his third wife, he billed obscure city agencies thousands of dollars for his police security detail covering trips to visit Nathan.
But Giuliani insists that everything was done in the open, “honestly, honorably, above board.”
With all due respect, Mayor Giuliani, there is nothing “honest” or “honorable” about anything you did here: the fooling around OR the misuse of taxpayer funds.
Is this story a media “hit job”? Possibly, if not probably. However, the story is still most certainly newsworthy, and I really think Giuliani ought to be ashamed of himself. But judging by the comments above, he’s not repentant in the slightest bit.
Despite being a Shrillary supporter, former mayor Ed Koch echoes my sentiments:
“I found it strange that his lady friend was given protection,” said the long-time New York politico. “That was bizarre. She’s not the city’s responsibility. Rudy is the city’s responsibility. Your wife and his children get protection, and that’s understood. But certainly not your lady friend.”
I don’t want to hear libs complain about Rudy’s philandering, since they had no problems when Bubba was doing it (and commiting perjury over it). However, the complaint about Rudy using taxpayer-subsidized police protection or taxiing of his mistress is, in my view, a legit complaint. I am disappointed by his cavalier attitude about it.
Rudy Giuliani defended Barack Obama’s decision to publicly discuss his past drug abuse problems. From Carl Cameron’s FNC blog:
Rudy Giuliani declared that Americans should not expect a “pretense of perfection” from candidates running for office and says he respects Barack Obama’s “honesty” for discussing his previous drug use with a group of high schoolers today.
The Illinois Senator is receiving criticism from Mitt Romney, among others, for opening up and discussing past mistakes during a town hall at a Manchester, NH High School Tuesday.
“I made some bad decisions that I’ve written about, there were times when I got into drinking and experimented with drugs.. there was a whole stretch of time when i didn’t really apply myself a lot,” Obama told the group.
Giuliani said he believes Obama’s topic of conversation was completely appropriate.
“I respect his honesty in doing that. I think that one of the things we need from our people who are running for office is not this pretense of perfection,” Giuliani said. “The reality is all of us that run for public office, whether its governor, legislator, mayor, president–we are all human beings. If we haven’t made mistakes don’t vote for us cause we got some big ones that are gonna happen in the future and we wont know how to handle them.”
The former NYC mayor has been forthright about admitting his own mistakes during the campaign–most recently dogged by his connection to indicted former NYC Police Commissioner Bernie Kerik–even noting in two recent television ads that he is not perfect.
Mitt Romney, however, apparently thinks Barry O should be disqualified from consideration of the electorate based on this incident alone:
But fellow Republican contender Mitt Romney feels differently, saying Obama committed a “huge error.”
“It’s just not a good idea for people running for presoident of the United States who potentially could be the role model for a lot of people to talk about their personal failings while they were kids because it opens the doorway to other kids thinking, ‘well I can do that too,’” Romney told an Iowa audience today.
My take? Obama is hugely unqualified to be president of the United States for a plethora of reasons, none of which are related to his past drug use. If the man has been clean for this many years, that’s fine with me. Obama’s left-wing quasi-Marxist ideology, his pitiful record in public office, and his “let’s go bomb Pakistan” foreign policy gaffes are more than enough reasons to not vote for that empty suit.
The “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” network thinks that Rudy is “scary”. Their proof? A bunch of liberals have said so (which, for me, is good enough reason to vote for the guy). From the New Editor:
Ellen Wulfhorst pens this latest “news” piece from Reuters:
Republican Rudy Giuliani vows to be tough on terror, chooses advisers who want to bomb Iran and doesn’t think pretending to drown prisoners is torture.
Add to those views a reputation for being combative, and Giuliani often evokes the word “scary” from opponents who find the tough-guy image that served him so well after the September 11 attacks now a cause for concern as he seeks the U.S. presidency.
Type the word “scary” and names of Republican candidates for president into a leading database of articles. The name of the former New York mayor will get the most hits.
“He is a scary guy,” said Jerome Hauer, who ran the city’s Office of Emergency Management for Giuliani. “He was probably one of the more divisive mayors the city has ever seen.
“People in this country should be very frightened of Rudy because he is not going to bring the country together,” Hauer added. “Who knows who he’d pick wars with?”
In addition to not identifying which “leading database of articles” she conducted her search in, Reuter’s Ms. Wolfhurst must have forgotten to let her readers know that Jerome Hauer has contributed over $9,000 to Democratic candidates since 2000.
See a record of Hauer’s political contributions here and here.
But why get into the details when it might spoil a good story?
Reporter Wolfhurst also quotes Michael Tomasky, the editor of the Guardian Online, and a ‘progressive’ blogger whom she uses as an example of the view of Giuliani from the “online community,” as illustrations of people who find Giuliani ‘scary.’
No political motivation in this story here … move along, nothing to see — except for the ‘scary’ guy.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
I’ll go ahead and get the obligatory “Nope…no liberal media bias!” out of the way, but I reserve the right to use it again in this post, if warranted. From the Spectator:
An AP story on Monday quoted Rudy Giuliani as saying:
“This is the world we live in. It’s not this happy, romantic-like world where we’ll negotiate with this one, or we’ll negotiate with that one and there will be no preconditions, and we’ll invite (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad to the White House, we’ll invite Osama (bin Laden) to the White House,” Giuliani said.
“Hillary and Obama are kind of debating whether to invite them to the inauguration or the inaugural ball,” he added.
The quote caused a stir among anti-Rudy bloggers, with TPM running with it and Andrew Sullivan writing, “This is literally insane. If he is starting with this kind of unhinged claim, where will he end up?” Keith Olbermann fumed, “A year before the election and Rudy Giuliani is already publicly contending the Democrats are willing to invite Osama bin Laden to the White House to negotiate. Sure they are, buster.”
The only problem is, the quote wasn’t accurate.
While watching this video of the Olbermann segment portraying Giuliani as “Bush on steroids,” I noticed that Giuliani (around the 1 minute mark) did not say Osama, but Assad. As in, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, one of the many leaders of hostile regimes that leading Democrats have said they would negotiate with without preconditions. This is consistent with a point Giuliani made at the Republican Jewish Coalition earlier this month:
This is the great fallacy in this now very strong Democratic desire to negotiate, negotiate, negotiate and negotiate. You’ve got to know with whom to negotiate and with whom you should not negotiate. When Barack Obama, a couple of months ago, said that he would invite Ahmadinejad, Assad, Castro and Chavez — did I miss somebody — to Washington in the first year that he’s in office to meet with them, without preconditions, when he was condemned by Hillary Clinton, who now has joined his position…
Now, it’s perfectly accurate for Giuliani to hit Obama for wanting to invite Ahmadinejad and Assad to Washington, as Obama said he was willing to do here. Clinton later joined him, at least on Iran, here. If you want to argue that Giuliani went overboard by joking that the Democrats “are kind of debating whether to invite them to the inauguration or the inaugural ball,” that’s one thing. But clearly what sensationalized this entire story is the idea that Giuliani was saying that Democrats want to invite Osama bin Laden to the White House. That’s a claim that Giuliani clearly did not make, and the AP, as well as bloggers who picked up the story, and Olbermann, should correct the error.
UPDATE: Sullivan and the AP have issued corrections.
Yes, they did issue a correction…two days later. Sure, the video was available instantly, but does that mean the MSM should have issued a correction instantly? Well, uh…yeah, it does mean that. So, pardon the redundancy here, but “Nope…no liberal media bias!”
By the way, to further illustrate the sheer lunacy of the left, the Huffpos and both of Olbermann’s viewers were treated to the video clip…and still went on pretending that Rudy had actually said “Osama”, lying eyes and ears be damned. If you ever had any doubts as to just how meaningless such things like facts can be to the left, those doubts should be erased by now.
I don’t think anyone will be confusing Barrack Hussein with the Great Communicator anytime soon. That’s the understatement of the decade, Rudy. From Breitbart/AP:
Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani on Tuesday ridiculed Democratic rival Barack Obama for saying he would meet, without precondition, with leaders of renegade nations.
The Obama campaign answered back, arguing that Giuliani may not want to engage in diplomacy with outlaw leaders but he’s been willing to take their money.
Addressing the Republican Jewish Coalition, Giuliani described Obama’s offer, during a presidential debate in July, to meet as president with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.
“Then he went on to explain that Ronald Reagan negotiated with the communists (Reagan talked to Obama? – Ed.) ,” Giuliani said, pausing and sighing. “I say this most respectfully: You’re not Ronald Reagan, you know?”
The audience in a downtown Washington hotel laughed and clapped.
“Here’s what Ronald Reagan did before he negotiated with communists,” the former New York mayor continued. “First he called them the evil empire. Then he took missiles, intermediate-range missiles … and he put them in European cities, and he pointed the missiles at Russian cities with names on them.
“Then he said, in a very nice way, ‘Let’s negotiate.'”
Get some aloe for that freshly spanked tush, Barry O!
From Rudy Guiliani during the debates last night:
If we implement HillaryCare, Canadians will have no place to come for their health care.
An ad criticizing the top U.S. general in Iraq raised charges on Thursday that The New York Times slashed its advertising rates for political reasons — an accusation denied by the paper.
The ad by liberal anti-war group moveon.org ran on Monday, the day of Gen. David Petraeus’s testimony to Congress about the war and how long U.S. forces will stay in Iraq.
Moveon.org confirmed it paid $65,000 for the full page ad headlined “General Petraeus or General Betray Us.”
The New York Post ran a story on Thursday asking why the basic rate of $181,692 for such an ad was discounted.
“Times Gives Lefties a Hefty Discount for ‘Betray Us’ Ad,” was the headline in the Post, owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp..
Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis denied the rate charged indicated a political bias and said it was the paper’s policy not to disclose the rate paid by any advertiser.
Jeff Jarvis, a journalism professor who blogs on media at buzzmachine.com, said the key question for the Times was could any other political or advocacy group get the same rate under the same circumstances.
“The quandary the Times gets stuck in is they don’t want to admit you can buy an ad for that rate, no matter who you are,” Jarvis said, noting that with print advertising revenues in decline newspapers generally did offer big discounts.
Excellent question, Prof. Jarvis. Rudy is, in fact, going to see if he can get an answer to that question for us:
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) said Thursday that he is asking The New York Times for the “same heavily discounted rate they gave MoveOn.org” for his campaign to run an ad in Friday’s paper.
Giuliani, calling MoveOn.org’s controversial “General Betray Us” ad “abominable,” said his campaign is asking the paper for a comparable rate for an ad to run following President Bush’s speech on Iraq. …
Big discounts for an anti-war moonbat group’s ad? Nope…no liberal media bias! We’ll see if Rudy shames the Old Gray Hag into giving him the same plum rate they gave to the ‘bats.
From Hot Air:
I don’t get it. Don’t they know she’s a “hawk”?
Naturally this will be spun as evidence of the military being uncomfortable with a woman as CINC, not as a reflection of their feelings about Hillary personally. That’s okay. The left has already begun inching away from the “chickenhawk” implication that soldiers know best when it comes to all things war. Their skepticism about the Glacier will help fuel that Strange New Respect for civilian opinion. As for the GOP, I don’t know who comes off better: Rudy, who has the distinction of being the only candidate from either party with a lower disapproval rating among vets than among the general public, or Fred, who gets the biggest bump in approval rating among vets vis-a-vis civilians.
Considering that her and her hubby spent eight years in the Oral…er, Oval…office with a well-known reputation for disdain for the military, and considering their disdain was shared by their partner-in-crime Al Gore as he sent ambulance chasers to FL in 2000 to disqualify military votes from overseas, this should come as a surprise to no one.
Louisiana Sen. David Vitter, whose telephone number was disclosed by the so-called “D.C. Madam” accused of running a prostitution ring, says he is sorry for a “serious sin” and that he has already made peace with his wife.
“This was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible,” Vitter said Monday in a printed statement. “Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling. Out of respect for my family, I will keep my discussion of the matter there—with God and them. But I certainly offer my deep and sincere apologies to all I have disappointed and let down in any way.”
The Republican senator’s spokesman, Joel Digrado, confirmed the statement Monday evening in an e-mail to The Associated Press.
It said his telephone number was on old phone records of Pamela Martin and Associates before he ran for the Senate.
Deborah Jeane Palfrey is accused by federal prosecutors of racketeering by running a prostitution ring that netted more than $2 million over 13 years, beginning in 1993. She contends that her escort service, Pamela Martin and Associates, was a legitimate business.
Vitter’s infidelity coincides with the 3,425th troop death in Iraq.
OK, I threw in that last sentence, only because I knew the MSM would try to find a way to tie this story, as every story, with Iraq. It’s a joke, people…lighten up!
Forgiveness is called for here, to be sure. But let’s call this thing the way it really is: If you’re going to run a campaign and a term on “family values”, it’s safe to say that hooking up with a prostitute kinda sorta runs against that whole “family values” thingy, right?
Anywho, get a load of this from that bumbling idiot of a governor in Vitter’s home state:
Louisiana’s Democratic governor, Kathleen Blanco, issued a statement saying she was “disappointed” over the revelation and hoped it wouldn’t hurt the state’s efforts to secure federal funding for rebuilding homes damaged by hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
“I will travel to Washington in the coming weeks to continue my conversations with congressional leaders, and I hope this scandal will not lessen their critical support of our recovery,” Blanco said.
“I’m sorry, Governor Blanco, but the money we were going to send your way to assist with hurricane-related rebuilding is on hold because your Senator couldn’t keep his willy away from hookers. Sorry ’bout that!” Dumb#ss.
Naturally, the MSM loves this, not only because of the hypocrisy and because he’s a Republican. No, they love it even more because the current GOP presidential frontrunner, Rudy Giuliani, uses Vitter as his campaign chair for the South, and the MSM is hoping that this could harm Giuliani. Maybe it will, maybe it won’t, but the MSM will do their level best to try.
Anywho, back to Vitter. I have to wonder: since the House seat Vitter held was the same House seat held by Newt Gingrich’s successor Bob Livingston, and since Livingston was also a “family values” Republican who strayed from the marital plantation, is there something in that district’s water system that attacks the portion of the brain responsible for sex drive in GOP politicians that makes these dudes unable to control themselves? Or is it that they’re just hypocrites?
Oh, well, Vitter should look on the bright side: at least he doesn’t live in Iran.
This alone could cost him my vote. From My Way News:
Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani ran into a buzz saw of opposition Saturday when he explained his opposition to a flat federal income tax.
Giuliani addressed a group of about 500 people in a standing-room only crowd at a town hall meeting at the University of North Florida, answering questions for about 30 minutes on a variety of topics from Iraq and Iran to Social Security and his plan for tax cuts.
Several dozen people jeered when Giuliani, in response to a question, said he would not be in favor of a flat tax.
“I have to study it some more,” the former New York City mayor said. “I don’t think a flat tax is realistic change for America. Our economy is dependent upon the way our tax system operates.”
Giuliani emphasized he supported a simplified tax system and cuts in federal taxes, including elimination of the so-called death tax, but his response to the flat tax question brought some cat calls and jeers. “I have a real question whether it would be the right transition for our economy,” he said.
Actually, Rudy, anything that does away with that leviathan of a tax code we have right now would be fantastic. Anywho, in a little display of irony:
… Businessman Steve Forbes, who unsuccessfully sought the Republican presidential nomination twice, based his campaign on a flat tax. Forbes has endorsed Giuliani.
“I’m endorsing the guy who thinks my idea sucks!” Whatever, Steve.
I wonder if anyone has even bothered to ask Rudy about the Fair Tax?
- "hate crimes"
- 9/11 Commission
- affirmative action
- Air America
- al franken
- Al Sharpton
- ambulance chasers
- Andrew Sullivan
- animal rights wackos
- Ann Coulter
- Anthony Weiner
- Arizona shooting
- Arlen Specter
- Barney Frank
- big government
- Bill Clinton
- Bill Richardson
- Blog Talk Radio
- Bobby Jindal
- capital punishment
- Caroline Kennedy
- Charlie Crist
- Chris Christie
- Chuck Schumer
- Dan Rather
- Debbie Wasserman Schultz
- Duke lacrosse
- economic ignorance
- eminent domain
- Eric Cantor
- Fair Tax
- Fairness Doctrine
- Fort Dix Six
- Fox News
- freaky deaky
- Fred Thompson
- Ft. Hood
- global warming
- Godwin's Law
- gun rights
- health care
- Herman Cain
- Howard Dean
- Hugo Chavez
- illegal immigration
- Janet Napolitano
- Jesse Jackson
- John Boehner
- John Edwards
- Jose Padilla
- Larry Craig
- Lindsey Graham
- Marco Rubio
- Mark Sanford
- media bias
- Mel Martinez
- Michael Moore
- Michael Steele
- Michelle Bachmann
- minimum wage
- New Jersey
- New York
- news bytes
- Newt Gingrich
- Night and Day
- Ninth Circus Court
- North Korea
- Occupy Wall Street
- Operation Fast and Furious
- Osama bin Laden
- Paul Ryan
- political correctness
- property rights
- public education
- public service announcement
- quote of the day
- religion of peace
- Rick Perry
- Rick Santorum
- Rick Scott
- Robert Byrd
- Roman Polanski
- Ron Paul
- San Francisco
- separated at birth
- Social Security
- Supreme Court
- swine flu
- Tea Party
- The Memphis Posse
- Tim Geithner
- Tim Pawlenty
- United Nations
- vote fraud
- Wall Street
- Ward Churchill
- Warren Buffett