Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Not Endorsed and Proud of It

Updated 11:16 a.m.
By Michael D. Shear and Juliet Eilperin
MIAMI -- The New York Times may have braced themselves for an angry response from Rudy Giuliani when they trashed him in their endorsement of rival Republican John McCain, calling the former New York mayor "a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man."

But they may not have anticipated that the first campaign to email news of the endorsement to national reporters Thursday night would be... the Giuiani campaign.

In an e-mail entitled "ICYMI: The Gray Lady Endorses John McCain," Giuliani spokeswoman Maria Comella provided reporters with the direct link to the New York Times website.

A few minutes later, during the MSNBC debate, Giuliani himself explained how he considers the Times endorsement a badge of honor, saying that "I probably never did anything the New York Times suggested I do in eight years as mayor of New York City. And if I did, I wouldn't be considered a conservative Republican."

McCain told reporters this morning that he appreciated the Times' endorsement, on the grounds that it means the paper's editorial board believes "I can serve best as president of the United States."

But he took pains to point out, "I appreciate anyone's endorsement. Because I receive their endorsement does not mean I necessarily share their views."

McCain noted that he also received the endorsement of Mitt Romney's hometown papers, The Boston Globe and The Boston Herald. "They know him best," he said.

When asked by The Trail whether it was fair to point out that by that reasoning, The New York Times knows Giuliani best, McCain simply replied, "I don't know."

Some of the other GOP candidates didn't come off well either.

Of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, the paper says: "It is impossible to figure out where he stands or where he would lead the country." It concludes that former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee's "insertion of religion into the race, herding Mr. Romney into a defense of his beliefs, disqualified him for the Oval Office."

Still, it boggles the mind that Giuliani's team was actually promoting the editorial, given the vitriol: "Mr. Giuliani's arrogance and bad judgment are breathtaking," the paper wrote. "The Rudolph Giuliani of 2008 first shamelessly turned the horror of 9/11 into a lucrative business, with a secret client list, then exploited his city's and the country's nightmare to promote his presidential campaign."

By Web Politics Editor  |  January 25, 2008; 11:16 AM ET
Categories:  Rudy Giuliani  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Republicans Debate
Next: Friend of Bill Goes Off on Bill

Comments

Folks SC is not the national skew 3 to 1 DEM party registers Black to White (that's just fact - not racial), Jesse Jackson won SC in 1984 by large margins and guess what former VP Walter Mondale was still the DEM nominee in 1984 by substantial Mini and Super Tuesday margins. I predict 2008 repeat and then a general election loss to the next President ... Senator John McCain!

Posted by: JohnOsborneNY | January 26, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Neither McCain nor Giuliani has any business running to be the republican nominee for President! Giuliani completely rejects virtually ALL the social positions of the party and McCain still supports AMNESTY for Illegals even after the American people expressed their complete OUTRAGE over it!!!No way McCain!!!!

Posted by: michaelLitz | January 26, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

As long as a President Romney would appoint one (or more) Supreme Court Justice to help Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia overturn Roe v. Wade, I could care less what his own "personal" beliefs are, were, or will be in the future ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 25, 2008 7:17 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,
Kerry was accused of flip-flopping because the nature of the Senate frequently leads to votes being casts for procedural reasons; every Senator does it at one time or another, he just did it on a high profile bill. Romney has no such procedural excuse; his public stance on abortion is so muddled as to be indecipherable. His own story of how he "converted" would be acceptable, if not for the fact that mere months after the event that supposedly changed him, he publicly restated his support for abortion rights. I don't think his viewpoint changed as often as people claim, but I think what he says is a product of political opportunism, not his own beliefs.

Posted by: paul | January 25, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

I'm registered Independent -- so, it's not "too bad" for me if the GOP ceases to exist, to be honest with you -- I'd much rather see a true, pro-life party emerge from this whole mess. It is not my belief that changing one's mind because the facts lead you in another direction is a BAD thing -- my point was that it seems the NY Times has changed her standard sometime between Kerry and Romney -- Obama, keep in mind, is the one claiming "consistency" against the war in Iraq ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 25, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

JakeD - "Flip-flopping" is soooo 4 years ago. It is time to get a new soundbyte for the play book. I'm still not sure how blind determination is a positive credential. Seriously, is it your belief that changing one's mind b/c the facts lead you another direction is a BAD thing? It sounds to me to be completely rational, as opposed to blindly supporting something you know is wrong. Oh, but I guess the admission of being so wrong for so long won't help the republicans at all...too bad for you!

Posted by: eb2002 | January 25, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

billmcg:

Romney's current STAND is pro-life -- that is neither "impossible to figure out" nor likely to change tomorrow -- it's not as if he was pro-life on Monday of this week, pro-choice on Tuesday, pro-life on Wednesday, and then pro-choice again yesterday. It will be interesting to see if the NY Times changes positions on Presidential candidate flip-floping (they were fine when DEMOCRAT Kerry did it ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 25, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Two months ago in Hyderabad, India Father Patric of Bolarum church asked if I mind hearing joke about Hillary Clinton. It was prior to Iowa Caucus. I said sure. It goes like this:
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Hillary went riding farm truck to a Corn Farm and was met by three COWS. Hillary declared I am running for President of the USA.
First Cow: Who are you?
Hillary: I am a woman of Experience.
Second Cow to Third Cow; What EXperience she is talking abouit?
Third Cow: She married Bill Clinton.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Well that is the experience advantage my dear Hillary Clinton has otherwise no one would have known her name today!!!

Posted by: kmishra | January 25, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Is the New York Times still a liberal paper? I thought they hired that loon neocon, Bill Kristol I think was his name. Maybe they just hired him as a strawman for readers to ridicule the viewpoints of, but I thought at the time they were changing the paper so neocons could read it without being so shocked and offended by opposing points of view.

Posted by: grimmix | January 25, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Where is the coverage of Ron Paul, whom out performs Rudy most every time so far. Plus, he (Paul) leads on both Google searches and web page hits compared to ***all*** candidates. See:

http://ronpaul.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=39

Posted by: davidmwe | January 25, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

What else would you expect from the Guiliani campaign? Or any other campaign, for that matter? A cardinal rule of bad news management is to get out in front of it. In this case, that means the faster you can yell "those grapes are sour" the better. It is routine for those receiving endorsements to boast of the fact, and the rest to minimize their importance. All perfectly normal.

Posted by: jhherring | January 25, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

JakeD:

The real question is: does "stands" mean something different to you??? You implicitly admit that where Romney stands today may not be where he stood yesterday -- so it is indeed impossible to know where he will stand tomorrow. The Times is right. A "stand" is not a convenient position of the moment, subject to change at any time.

Posted by: billmcg | January 25, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Dear Washington Post

I used to work for the NY Times and I would like to correct one mistake they made in the Editorial endorsing Senator Clinton's Campaign. Along with Senator Clinton, the NY Times also endorsed President's Bush plan to invade Iraq. I wrote many articles detailing the stockpiles of WMD Saddam Hussein kept. In the editorial they stated that the NY Times was against the war. That was a mistake. Perhaps a typo. Anyway, I am looking for employment, who do I send my resume to?
Sincerely, Judith Miller

Posted by: AB68 | January 25, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Bizarro World. I'm convinced there is a parallel universe and people like Guiliani and Bush live in it.

Posted by: SarahBB | January 25, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

When he was Mayor, Rudy Giuliani raged against the Brooklyn Museum when it displayed a depiction of the Madonna (not an icon with whom Rudy seems too familiar) that used elephant dung. Rudy claimed that the art insulted Roman Catholics, and warranted his suspending public funding of the Museum. This raises at least 2 questions:

Which insulted Roman Catholics more: that depiction or the way that he treated his wife, Donna?

Should he have suspended funding also for the police security for his mistress, Judy?

Posted by: VirGules | January 25, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

The Times was pretty vicious toward Giuliani and it probably helps Romney win in FL by pointing out McCain's global warming and past immigration positions.

The Romney campaign and conservative talk radio will attmept to use it against McCain in the last few days before the primay.

http://thepoliticalpost.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/92/

Posted by: thepoliticalpost | January 25, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

ICYMI = In Case You Missed It

As for Romney, it is not "impossible" to figure out where he stands -- at least not where he CURRENTLY stands -- maybe "impossible" means something else to the liberal press?

Posted by: JakeD | January 25, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company