Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

In Florida, Giuliani Hits Romney in New Ad

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has been left out of the campaign for much of the last few weeks, but a new ad his campaign is running in Florida seems certain to put him back in the mix.

Here's the ad:

It's a series of quotes by fiscal conservatives praising Giuliani's record as a tax cutter -- the most important of which comes from Mitt Romney, one of Hizzoner's rivals for the Republican nomination.

"Mayor Giuliani has a great record of cutting taxes," reads the Romney quote -- the final quote to flash on the screen in the 30-second spot.

Giuliani's decision to take a shot at Romney -- albeit a subtle one -- shows his campaign's understanding that winning in Florida is a do-or-die proposition for his campaign. Up until now he has avoided attacking any of his opponents on television, choosing instead to focus on his own record as mayor of New York City.

Both Romney and Giuliani have presented themselves as ardent fiscal conservatives; for Giuliani to win in Florida (and beyond) he must convince voters that he, and not Romney, is the best choice for voters for whom tax cuts and conservative economic policies are top priorities.

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 17, 2008; 11:58 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The National Polls Don't Matter, Right?
Next: Eight Years Later, S.C. Playing Field Favors McCain

Comments

Rudy911zzzzrudy911zzzzzzzzzzrudy911zzzzzRudy911zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzrudy911zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzRudy911zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz If anyone votes for him we should consider dementia treatment. Rudyzzzzzzzzzzrudy911zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Rudy 911 bbest thing to happen for insomniacs since Nytol...ZZZZZZZZZZ What is really crazy is the talking Heads on Fox Booze still present him as a viable candidate. I'd vote for Simon Bar Sinister before I'd vote for this creepy guy. Rslip in Western Pa

Posted by: rslip | January 17, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

Abortion, Gay Rights & Marriage, Flag Burning, Prayer in Schools...let's get serious here for a moment. These are issues the Republicans never want settled. The Supreme Court is 5-4 conservation right now. They could end abortions tomorrow at 10 am if they wanted. They have cases before them to do just that. The vote would be 5-4 to overturn Roe v. Wade. But these issues bring out a lot of voters and raise a ton of money. They say the only reason R v. W couldn't be overturned was Sandra Day O'Conner...well she is long gone and R v. W is still the law of the land. The reason Bush had no interest in capturing Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora was he wanted the boogeyman to escape so he could use him as campaign fodder in a later election. The Republicans stand a good chance of getting beaten big time in November, and suddenly bin Laden is now important to Bush. The controversary surrounding the 2nd Amendment will not be settled by the Supreme Court either. They will issue a ruling that is so narrow as to only apply to Washington, D.C. 2nd amendment issues are big vote getters and money raisers too. You have to ask yourself why, with the current makeup of the Supreme Court, the Republicans are talking about what should be done, instead of getting it done. It's hard for people to admit that people are sheep and can be lead in any direction at any given time. It hurts to know you are so gullible as to buy any package presented to you.

Posted by: drivensnow2525 | January 17, 2008 9:55 PM | Report abuse

I don't see how Giuliani's quote of Romney is a dig on Romney. It was merely a quote... so what! It didn't undercut Romney or personally attack him. It sounds like nothing more than a presentation of what Romney said, nothing more or nothing less.

Posted by: rdew | January 17, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse

I have not had the chance to read Freakanomics yet but I hope to this year. Correlation and cause and effect are two different things and I am looking forward to reading it to understand how they come to the conclusions they do. Looking at what Bratton and Safir did, they also seemed to add officers and change the way policing was done. Kelly was commish for a little over a year (10/92 - 1/94). Crime seemed to peak in 1990. From 90 to 93 there was a slight downward trend but rates were consistent with rates from the 80's. From 94 through 2001, the decreases were dramatic. This coincided with substantially more cops and the introduction of Compstat. If Guiliani and his commishes continued things that worked from the Dinkins administration, they should get credit. If they introduced new things that worked, they should get credit. The fact of the matter is that crime levels in NYC plummetted during the Guiliani years. Couple that with the fact that his mantra was to clean up NYC and he gets credit for it in my book (not complete credit but most of it).

The reason I did not mention Kerik was because I did not think he was pertinent to the arguement I was making. He served as commish for 16 months at the end of 8 years of Rudy meaning that most of the things that the Guiliani adminstration did or didn't do to turn around the city had already happened. And for the final 4 months everything was focused on 911.

"Or are you just another right wing, protect the unborn, screw them afterwards, GOP loser?" Yes, yes, no, no.

Posted by: dave | January 17, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

esmerelda: Zouk obviously doesn't care what Freakonomics says. He's here to do one thing -- bash "Libs" -- because he can't say anything about his favored candidate, Rudy "Florida Firewall" Giuliani.

Posted by: Spectator2 | January 17, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

for heavens sake's, people, read what bsimon says. bsimon is simply repeating the freakonomics theory, which is fairly popular these days as a THEORY. not an answer. bsimon is not saying that "abortions are good because it (sic) preemptively eliminates all those poor little criminal bast*rds." in fact, that is not what freakonomics says either. way to sensationalize and go dramatic, while blaming the Libs for it. so transparent, you zouk you.

Posted by: esmerelda123 | January 17, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

so let me get this straight - abortions are good because it preemptively eliminates all those poor little criminal bast*rds?

you Libs have sunk to a new low. It is astounding what passes for Lib common sense these days.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 17, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

bsimon: I think the data on abortions is suspect because the more affluent have ways that are not usually counted/provided in the data available.

Posted by: lylepink | January 17, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

"take the post fix"

FYI- I have found that on my wife's computer at home (a mac) sometimes after posting the page does not automatically refresh & show the post. You might try forcing a page refresh (F5 key) to see if it took before reposting.

Posted by: bsimon | January 17, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

jillcohen writes
"do you have facts to back up the statement that young and poor women are most likely to have abortions?"

My post is based on my recollection of what the authors of Freakonomics claim in their book. They do have a website, which may or may not have the data you seek.

Posted by: bsimon | January 17, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

dave: I think most folks describe "Activist Judges" as those they disagree with. Roy Moore would be a prime example, as would the Supreme Courts Alito [spelling], Thomas and Roberts. Hope this helps.

Posted by: lylepink | January 17, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

bsimon...do you have facts to back up the statement that young and poor women are most likely to have abortions?

Posted by: jillcohen | January 17, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

"No wonder the gop wants abortion legal."

ILLEGAL, THAT IS

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 17, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

"The authors of Freakonomics argue that the nationwide drop in the crime rate in the 90s is largely the result of Roe v Wade. They claim the data supports this theory, based on who is largely responsible for crime (poor youth & young adults), and who is most likely to have abortions (young poor women). "

WOW. i NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT ABORTION FROM THAT ANGLE. Thanks simon. good point. Those little demons running around are the next generation of dittoheads. No wonder the gop wants abortion legal.

I always looked at it, thinking in the gop's mind, that they wanted more people to fight their wars. alos rent goes up, wages down and social services flooded. so I have an issue with the illegal situation.

But in the term simon laid out. poor folks and all. Having a child when they can't afford one. Puts them in the same boat as an illegal. Regarding public schools, doctors, housing, jobs and social programs.

thanks for broadening my horizen simon. I knew this site was not a waste of time :)

r

u

f

u

s


take the post fix :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 17, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

"The authors of Freakonomics argue that the nationwide drop in the crime rate in the 90s is largely the result of Roe v Wade. They claim the data supports this theory, based on who is largely responsible for crime (poor youth & young adults), and who is most likely to have abortions (young poor women). "

WOW. i NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT ABORTION FROM THAT ANGLE. Thanks simon. good point. Those little demons running around are the next generation of dittoheads. No wonder the gop wants abortion legal.

I always looked at it, thinking in the gop's mind, that they wanted more people to fight their wars. alos rent goes up, wages down and social services flooded. so I have an issue with the illegal situation.

But in the term simon laid out. poor folks and all. Having a child when they can't afford one. Puts them in the same boat as an illegal. Regarding public schools, doctors, housing, jobs and social programs.

thanks for broadening my horizen simon. I knew this site was now a waste of time :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 17, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Thanks bsimon, you are well informed as usual. I vote for the lesser of evils, guys like Fiengold don't stand a chance.

I'm just tired of Mayor 9/11 taking credit for anything that goes on, except all the wrong, including his horrible treatment to Donna Hanover, who I thought was charming when I met her. Her one fault was her pick in the father of her children.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | January 17, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

pbnyc59 asks
"And what the hell do abortions have to do with any of this?"

The authors of Freakonomics argue that the nationwide drop in the crime rate in the 90s is largely the result of Roe v Wade. They claim the data supports this theory, based on who is largely responsible for crime (poor youth & young adults), and who is most likely to have abortions (young poor women). Where Dave gets the argument wrong is in the NYC data. While the authors do argue that part of the drop in the NYC crime rate is the result of legalized abortion (which happened in NY state prior to Roe), they also attribute a significant percentage to change in numbers of police officers & the style of policing. Both of those changes are attributed to Dinkens & Kelly. Freakonomics reports that the NYC crime rate did start dropping during the Dinkins administration, but late in has last term & before the results were published. Because of the delay in reporting such numbers & in public reaction to such changes, Giuliani gets credited for a drop in the crime rate that began before he took office. That is not to claim that he had no impact on the crime rate, but that he deserves neither full nor zero credit.

Posted by: bsimon | January 17, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Would it have changed as such with Dinkins and Kelly? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps it was simply a reflection of the increase in abortions (as people have tried to argue to discount the improvements).-Dave

Not maybe, maybe not. It did start to change with them. They started the ball rolling. I did not mention the others because I wanted to point out the changes started before Mayor 9/11.

By the way, no comments on comments on Kerik. I wonder why.

And what the hell do abortions have to do with any of this? Or are you just another right wing, protect the unborn, screw them afterwards, GOP loser?

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | January 17, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

The current understand of its meaning with whom? The term 'activist judge' has become meaningless except to refer to one whose decisions you personally disagree with.

If you are using it to refer to a judge who overturns settled law and ignores precedents, then rightwing judges do this far more often than left leaning, so you have completely inverted the meaning, in your usual orwellian way.

Posted by: drindl | January 17, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

The Supreme Court is why I vote Democratic. Nominating justices is the real work of a President and Bush has FU'd the court. Only the election of a Democratic President will amend his failures.

Posted by: jillcohen | January 17, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

"Actually, I meant what I said. If you and claudialong want to try to redefine what is meant by an "activist" judge, go ahead but I'll continue to use it with the current understanding of its meaning."

You forgot to add, at the end, "among Republicans, when we mean liberal but are too cowardly to say so.

Posted by: Spectator2 | January 17, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

That is not it's meaning dave. In gop land it is. In smurfville. What about in the real world. Your judges are out to change past rulings. they also could be considered activists.

Lose the newspeak. Let's talk about what is and reality here. "liberal" judges are not activists. All judges should be liberals thinking about it sanely. It's not about some authoritairan forcing his will on someone. It's about the law. A judge judging law should look at all angles, "liberally". Not make decisions before ever hearing a case or ever setting foot on the bench. Would you agree with that? If so internalize. Maybe you will stop supporting the dark side? If you realize why you do support them. :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 17, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Looks like we've run out of anything substantive to talk about on either side of the aisle. We need more results of primaries and caucuses to figure out anything more. Even the polls fail to clarify anything.

Gimme, gimme, gimme! Feb 5th can't get here soon enough.

Posted by: optimyst | January 17, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

in The judge arguement, the gop shows it's face.

Somebody tell me the result of Roe Vs Wade. Who won that ruling? Sao who is the "activist" judge going against past rullings?

In terms of marraige for gays. Does anyone here truely believe this is because they want to "preserve the saintity of life "(got the gop propoganda down :)). Like here at home? Like overseas? Yeah, they love life alright.

No that issue has nothing to do with marraige there's or mine and yours. It goes back to the only thing the gop and republcains care about. Money? The beneifiets that married couples get. Tax breaks and such. that is what this is all about. Like with everything else. It comes down to little pieces of paper with old dead guys on it. the gop cares about othing else. But what is that really? Does it burn? Strange ideal to live your life by. What if my goal in life was to aquire moths, rather than money? would I be a pyhsco then? Why are people that live and only care about money, then not the "crazies".

How do you hurt people that care about nothing but money? Hit them where it hurts(them). In the pocketbook.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 17, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

JKrishnamurti,
Actually, I meant what I said. If you and claudialong want to try to redefine what is meant by an "activist" judge, go ahead but I'll continue to use it with the current understanding of its meaning.

Posted by: dave | January 17, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

"Picking judges is where the concern lies but he is a law and order guy that has said he would pick judges that are not activist.

Posted by: dave | January 17, 2008 01:08 PM

"

what you mean to say is, he will select Republcain activist judges.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 17, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

pbnyc59,
I get it. You're not a Guiliani fan. In two visits before and after I could tell the city had changed dramatically. Would it have changed as such with Dinkins and Kelly? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps it was simply a reflection of the increase in abortions (as people have tried to argue to discount the improvements). But between Kelly and Keric, there was Bratton and Safir, as I'm sure you know but interestingly omitted. This is, apparently, what Bratton and Safir did which looks to me like they didn't just live off of the Dinkins/Kelly legacy:

In 1994, William Bratton was appointed the 38th Commissioner of the New York City Police Department by Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani. He had success in this position, and introduced the CompStat system of tracking crimes, which proved successful in reducing crime in New York City and is still used to this day. A new tax surcharge enabled the training and deployment of around 5,000 new better-educated police officers, police decision-making was devolved to precinct level, and a backlog of 50,000 unserved warrants was cleared. The CompStat real-time police intelligence computer system was effectively introduced and integrated into police working. Police numbers were further boosted in 1995 when New York's housing and transit police were merged into the New York Police Department.

Safir, in his four years as Police Commissioner, achieved a 38% reduction in major crime and reduced homicides by 44%, bringing the total number of murders in New York to 667, the lowest level in three decades.

To obtain these results, Commissioner Safir implemented a comprehensive Fugitive Strategy and established thirty-nine major anti-drug initiatives throughout the city including the Northern Manhattan Initiative. He created model blocks in each borough to prevent eradicated drug dealing from returning and he introduced closed circuit television to ensure the safety of housing development residents, park visitors and subway riders.

Concerned for officer and public safety, he expanded firearms training and introduced Firearms Training Simulators. Under his leadership, firearms discharge incidents decreased from 344 in 1995 to 155 in 1999.

He has also been the country's leading voice in calling for the expansion of DNA use in policing. He developed and implemented Operation Condor, a creative use of personnel resources, that continues to be a centerpiece of current NYPD crime reduction strategy.

Posted by: dave | January 17, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, I share your respect for Feingold - probably the closest we have to a latter day Moynihan.
By that I mean he is a liberal who generally takes each issue separately, and on its own merits, and does not react with a predictable knee jerk to the left. He did vote on the SJC to report out impeachment, as I recall - although he personally favored censure.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 17, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

... Home for the Mayor being a 5 million-buck house in the Hamptons.

Thanks for the primer, Judge. I had almost forgotten Robots in Disguise -- they are dastardly.

There's a shelf of them in my daughter's room, patiently biding their time...

Posted by: drindl | January 17, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Almost forgot to add, I agree Chris is hot, gay or straight he should keep the beard.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | January 17, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

'I have never lived in NY but I have visited the city pre and post Guiliani. The difference between the two visits was mindboggling and I give that credit to him.'
Posted by: dave | January 17, 2008 01:08 PM

Wow, in two visits you could tell that having Mayor 9/11 in charge was what did it. Try again sir. Having lived all my 48 years in NYC, the past 26 in Manhattan, I can tell you that the change came with the hiring of Ray Kelly to run the NYPD.

That is when crimes dropped, an easy thing to check if you like. Kelly was hired by Mayor Dinkins, then fired by Rudy after he was given all the press, something that Mayor 9/11 does not like. Who did Rudy hire?

Kerek, his former body guard/driver who was an ex narc, whose prostitute mother was killed by her pimp. Not that it's reason for him not getting the job. His being a high school drop out, who got his GED after getting out of the army and not having a college education, which you need to be promoted to Captian in the NYPD is.

Kerek is also the one who Rudy recommended to Bush to run Homeland Security, after being warned by the FBI that he was under investigation for ties to orginazed crime figures, several of who he tried to help out after having his Bronx co=op apartment renovated. Charges that he now is facing in court.Rudy told the White House that they need not vet Kerik.

I wonder how long until the other GOP canidates or 527's start running ads with this info and we see Mayor 9/11 run home with his tail between his legs.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | January 17, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

"It's Not Just About Immunity
by Senator Russ Feingold"


Feingold for Attorney General!

Posted by: bsimon | January 17, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

anon99,
I think the immigration issue is different in that it's (relatively) new [in the realm of public discourse, not in how long its been happening] and not "settled" like the others. In McCain, that along with his stance on aggressive interrogations / torture (whatever you want to call it) loses him some credibility with the war on terror/national security plank - which is huge for conservatives. The president will probably be able to frame the immigration debate. That said, since it is likely that the makeup of congress will be more liberal next year, we are going to get a bad immigration bill or no immigration bill no matter who is president - the votes are not there for what most conservatives want in an immigration bill at this time.

Posted by: dave | January 17, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

My Lord Vader, Rudolph Vader!

As of now, you are running on HOPE, lord Rudolph Vader, not wonky sweet nothings from the Dark Force compadres of yours!

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/compadre

Posted by: rfpiktor | January 17, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

"Oh no, here come the black helicopters!"

Drindl: In keeping with our Transformers theme I believe the black helicopters must actually be multiple Decepticons that go by the name "Blackout."

Posted by: judgeccrater | January 17, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Because the issues that reside in the legislative branch are :
taxes
war
health care
immigration

the courts will handle
marriage
abortion

voters know this although pundits and journos don't.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 17, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Dave, it probably goes without saying that only Ron Paul can stop Megatron.

Posted by: novamatt | January 17, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Dave,

I kind of agree with you. But what I don't get is that the same logic ought to apply to McCain and his stand on immigration. But it doesn't. There are lots of base conservatives who HATE McCain because of immigration even though they love his positions on almost everything else.

But you'd think they'd be worrying about electability. If Clinton or Obama is president, the immigration plan that eventually get passed is going to be worse that the Republican base's worst nightmare.

That was the original attraction of Giuliani -- that he could beat the Democrats. The base would swallow almost anything to avoid Hillary Clinton. It just seems weird to me that Republicans would back a pro-abortion candidate -- the third rail of Republican politics for 35 years but reject one that they had a relatively minor disagreement with on immigration.

Posted by: anon99 | January 17, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

I would love to see Bloomberg run against Rudy.

Posted by: Spectator2 | January 17, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

My name is Alfredo from Texas. I am new to this site but I am a huge politico. I saw Chris on T.V. and I hope this isn't offensive but I would love to know his sexual preference. He is so hot! HE needs to run for office!

Posted by: gomezblingbling | January 17, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Oh, right, the Bilderbergers-- what about the Illuminati? and the Anti-Christ.. and the New World Order? Oh no, here come the black helicopters!

;A modest proposal, then: Let's invent a new term right here, today, for judges or judicial nominees on the right, who claim to be merely "interpreting" the Constitution, even when they are refusing to impose settled law; law they deem unsettled because it was invented by "liberal activist judges." And while I am open to better suggestions, here's a tentative offering: "Re-activist judges."

Re-activist judges are the ones trying to roll back time to the 19th century. Re-activists are the judges who have reactivated federalism by rediscovering the "dignity" of states. Re-activists view Lawrence v. Texas -- last year's gay sodomy case -- as having all the jurisprudential force of a Post-it note. When the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an Alabama ban on the sale of sex toys last month, it did so by sidestepping the logic animating Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion in Lawrence. Ignoring Kennedy's lofty promises of sexual privacy -- his assurance that "there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter" -- the 11th Circuit framed the case as a dust-up over the constitutional right to a vibrator.

Re-activists such as Priscilla Owen, President Bush's nominee to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, rewrite the Texas parental notification statute in abortion cases, to make it vastly harder for young women to bypass parental consent. Re-activists such as another Bush nominee, Janice Rogers Brown, have called the Supreme Court's shift toward defending New Deal legislation in 1937 the start of "the triumph of our socialist revolution."

Re-activist judges have adopted the view that their personal religious convictions somehow obviate the constitutional divide between church and state. Bush's recess appointment to the 11th Circuit, Bill Pryor, expended energy as attorney general of Alabama to support Judge Roy Moore in his quest to chisel the Ten Commandments directly into the wall between church and state. Pryor is entitled to be offended by case law barring government from establishing sectarian religion. But what re-activist judges may not do is use their government office to chip away at that doctrine.

Re-activist judges are able to present themselves as "strict constructionists" or "originalists" by arguing, as does Justice Clarence Thomas, that any case decided wrongly (i.e., not in accordance with the framers of the Constitution) should simply be erased, as though erasure is somehow a passive act. And while there is an urgent normative debate underlying this issue -- over whether the Constitution should evolve or stay static -- no one ought to be allowed to claim that the act of clubbing a live Constitution to death isn't activism.'

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/186690_lithwick18.html

Posted by: drindl | January 17, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

My name is Alfredo from Texas. I am new to this site but I am a huge politico. I saw Chris on T.V. and I hope this isn't offensive but I would love to know his sexual preference. He is so hot! HE needs to run for office!

Posted by: gomezblingbling | January 17, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

I am new to this site but I am a huge politico. I saw Chris on T.V. and I hope this isn't offensive but I would love to know his sexual preference. He is so hot! HE needs to run for office!

Posted by: gomezblingbling | January 17, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

novamatt,
Hey, those Decepticons are really, really sneaky....

Posted by: dave | January 17, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

I am new to this site but I am a huge politico. I saw Chris on T.V. and I hope this isn't offensive but I would love to know his sexual preference. He is so hot! HE needs to run for office!

Posted by: gomezblingbling | January 17, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

This campaign has been so freakish that I would not be surprised to see both Ron Paul and Mike Bloomberg mount third-party campaigns, with each getting millions of votes (but no EC votes).

Posted by: Spectator2 | January 17, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

There is, as someone recently pointed out, a big overlap between Ron Paul supporters and Coast-to-Coast/Art Bell fans.

Posted by: anon99 | January 17, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

anon99,
I would consider myself a base conservative and I have not decided who I will be voting for yet. I could see my self voting for Giuliani because his post-911 experience demonstrated (IMO) some very good leadership skills. I have never lived in NY but I have visited the city pre and post Guiliani. The difference between the two visits was mindboggling and I give that credit to him. People ask me about his pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-gay rights stances and to that I say the country is is going to guide where we go on gun control, abortion and gay rights. Giuliani or any president is not going to ban guns and they are going to have to be magical to get severe gun control laws passed. Same with gay rights. The abortion issue is being decided with technology (morning after pill) and through the courts. From a conservative viewpoint, what is the worst he could do - federally fund abortions? Social conservatives would not have a champion of their causes in the WH but it's hard to see them losing too much ground. Picking judges is where the concern lies but he is a law and order guy that has said he would pick judges that are not activist.

Posted by: dave | January 17, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

"If results of the last FOUR caucuses and primaries are anything to go by, Ron Paul"...

...has exactly ZERO delegates, and is therefore LOSING as predicted.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | January 17, 2008 12:38 PM

I was hanging out a couple of days ago on a Ron Paul forum, and they've concluded that

*There's massive voter fraud going on (and their one piece of evidence is a town clerk who missed 31 Paul votes and then later corrected her mistake)

*The media, in cahoots with the Bilderbergers, the Freemasons, and the Decepticons, have conspired to keep Ron Paul out of a debate or two and don't talk about him more than any other candidate polling in the single digits

*Also, most importantly: stupid voters, stupid democracy. The world would be a much better place if we voted on everything through interweb straw polls.

Posted by: novamatt | January 17, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

I have no doubt that all the GOP candidates will try to cut taxes. I have faith that only one of them will try to cut spending, too.

Posted by: edwardlahoa | January 17, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Florida won't be decided by tax-cutting; it'll be decided if social conservatives line up behind one candidate (i.e. if Huckabee forces Thompson out in South Carolina) or if the GOP continues to have too many candidates that fail to unify any significant coalition behind them.
Guiliani's message of "Fear terrorists and vote for me" has largely lost its urgency and combined with his disappearing act, means he is now irrelevant to the news cycle.

Posted by: ctown_woody | January 17, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

"It doesn't try to point out anything about Romney's record, past, etc."

This caused me to snicker because the Romney campaign regularly characterizes any reference to Romney's record as an attack.

One of the most hilarious things this political season is watching Romney get in high moral dudgeon when someone brings up some position he had 18 months ago. Heck, he gets in high moral dudgeon when people bring up things he'd said three days before. Remember the "I watched my father march with MLK" thing? The press conference where he icily explains that it depends on what the meaning of the word "saw" is was a classic -- Romney as a Republican Bill Clinton.

Posted by: anon99 | January 17, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Rather than talking about rudy, or mike gravel, or something that is of zero importance. Why not discuss what is happening in the coutnry and what to do about it?

"It's Not Just About Immunity
by Senator Russ Feingold
Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:00:21 AM PST
When the Senate reconvenes next week, legislation to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) will be among the first issues we address. I am as determined as ever to use all procedural tools at my disposal, including a filibuster, to try to stop the FISA legislation if it doesn't protect the privacy of law abiding Americans or if it includes immunity for telecom companies. I am also deeply grateful for the energy this community has put behind stopping this assault on the rights and liberties of Americans - it gave a huge boost to our successful effort in December to stop a bad FISA bill being rammed through the Senate. But while we had some temporary success last month, we face an uphill battle to fix the bill, particularly since the Democratic leadership still seems intent on bringing the flawed Intelligence Committee bill to the floor, rather than the better version approved by the Judiciary Committee.

Senator Russ Feingold's diary :: ::
Much of the debate so far has focused on the issue of granting retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that allegedly participated in the president's illegal warrantless wiretapping program. But as this legislation moves forward, a critical part of our battle is going to be making people understand how dangerous and flawed the proposed FISA legislation is, even beyond the issue of immunity.

Don't get me wrong - the inclusion of any amnesty provision for telecom companies is a deal breaker for me. Senator Dodd and I will offer an amendment to strike retroactive immunity from the Intelligence Committee bill likely to be taken up by the Senate. Granting this kind of amnesty is totally unjustified since these companies already receive immunity if they follow the law. And it's not as if these companies don't have lawyers to tell them what's legal and what's not - especially when these laws have been on the books for 30 years. It is particularly outrageous that companies think they deserve immunity for allegedly participating in an illegal program when we found out last week from the DOJ Inspector General that telecom carriers are perfectly willing to shut off wiretaps - including a foreign intelligence wiretap - when the FBI doesn't make its payments on time.

But immunity is only one of the very serious problems with the Intelligence Committee FISA bill. We all agree that when foreign terrorists are communicating with each other overseas, the U.S. government shouldn't need a warrant to listen in. But both the so-called Protect America Act (PAA) - the law we passed last year - and the Intelligence Committee bill go far beyond addressing that issue. They grant unprecedented powers to the executive branch to engage in widespread surveillance involving Americans, with virtually no judicial involvement. There is a better alternative in the Senate, and that is the Judiciary Committee bill. It is vastly preferable not only because it does not contain immunity, but also because it provides for meaningful, independent judicial oversight of the new wiretapping authorities, and more protections for the communications of Americans that get swept up in these broad new surveillance powers. Here are some of the serious problems with the Intelligence Committee bill:

• The PAA and the Intelligence Committee bill allow the government to acquire communications between foreigners and Americans inside the United States, without a court order and regardless of whether anyone involved in the communication is under any suspicion of wrongdoing. There is no requirement that the foreign targets of this surveillance be terrorists, spies or other types of criminals. The only requirements are that the foreigners are outside the country, and that the purpose is to obtain foreign intelligence information, a term that has an extremely broad definition. No court reviews these targets individually; only the executive branch decides who fits these criteria. The result is that many law-abiding Americans in the U.S. who communicate with completely innocent people overseas will be swept up in this new form of surveillance, with virtually no judicial involvement. Even the Administration's illegal warrantless wiretapping program, as described when it was publicly confirmed in 2005, at least focused on particular suspected terrorists. Not even the Judiciary bill adequately addresses this very serious problem.

• The role of the FISA court is also at issue. The Intelligence Committee bill doesn't give adequate authority to the FISA court to do what it is supposed to do - operate as an independent check on the executive branch. The bill passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee does give the court authority to assess the government's compliance with its wiretapping procedures, to place limits on the use of information that was acquired through unlawful procedures, and to enforce its own orders - all of which are critical checks and balances.

• The Judiciary Committee bill also does a much better job than the Intelligence Committee bill or the Protect America Act of protecting Americans from widespread warrantless wiretapping. It ensures that if the government is wiretapping a foreigner overseas in order to collect the communications of the American with whom that foreign target is communicating - what is called reverse targeting - it has to get a court order on that American. The Judiciary bill also prohibits bulk collection - that is, the sweeping up of all communications between the United States and overseas, which is something the Director of National Intelligence has admitted is legal under the Protect America Act.

So we have a lot of work to do on the Senate floor to fix the Intelligence Committee bill, not only by stripping the immunity provision, but also by adding back the protections from the Judiciary Committee bill and by addressing the broader problem of adequately protecting Americans' privacy rights. Rather than acquiesce to another Bush administration power grab, the Senate should stand up for the rights of Americans and fix the bill.

It won't be easy. Already we're seeing grossly misleading rhetoric, if not outright falsehoods, coming from the White House in another attempt to intimidate Congress into quickly passing bad legislation - the same old Administration play from the same old Administration playbook. We must not be intimidated by this fear-mongering. I will continue to do all I can to urge my colleagues to stand up to this administration and fix FISA so we can go after suspected terrorists without robbing law-abiding Americans of their rights.
"

r

u

f

u


s

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 17, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

I've never really understand the basis for Giuliani's campaign. First, he sounds like he's running for Director of Homeland Security, not president. His experience in NY after 9/11, while giving him great insight into disaster relief, hardly qualify him for being commander in chief.

Second, his only real attraction to Republicans is his electability. But McCain has proven that he can pull independents and even Democrats. If Romney gets knocked out of the race, none of those voters are going to Giulini. If base conservatives are in a snit about McCain's position on immigration, I doubt they're going to buy into pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-gay rights Giuliani.

Posted by: anon99 | January 17, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

"If results of the last FOUR caucuses and primaries are anything to go by, Ron Paul"...

...has exactly ZERO delegates, and is therefore LOSING as predicted.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | January 17, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

proud: a lot of it is guys like CC needing stuff to write about every day regarding a year-long campaign. Some of these Fix and Trail posts are utterly devoid of substance if you read them closely enough.

Posted by: Spectator2 | January 17, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse


'I think everyone on this blog could have told Guiliani that skipping the early states was a serious mistake'

But he didn't skip NH. He spent more there than anyone but Mittens. But the more he spent, the lower his numbers dropped. Once you get to know him, his grating and obnoxious manner are a real turn off. He's like all the worst things about NYC--and I lived there for 10 years, so I can tell you it has some serious downside.

Posted by: drindl | January 17, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Rudy is done.

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it, did it happen?

Who gives a sh*t

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 17, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

spec, I agree the bar he set is high, but it's getting so darn repetitive hearing all the candidates and their consultants asked over and over "Is _____ do-or-die for your candidacy?"

Giuliani currently leads in Florida, with 57 delegates; quite a treasure trove. He also leads in the Feb. 5 primaries in New York (101 delegates), New Jersey (52 delegates), Connecticut (30 delegates) and Delaware (18 delegates), all of which are winner-take-all.

Look, I'm a McCain supporter, but in such a fluid race, one's got to concede that improbable stragtegies and outcomes may occur for quite some time.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | January 17, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: sjxylib | January 17, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

I realize that the media likes a bit of animosity between candidates they cover...but can someone explain how this is an "attack" ad?

It doesn't try to point out anything about Romney's record, past, etc. It doesn't try to claim that, if elected, Romney's policies would hurt children and senior citizens.

I'd love to see elections get to the point where this is an "attack". But if this is an attack -- there's an all out war coming.

As long as the quote is accurate, it's not an attack.

Posted by: gmtiffany | January 17, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

I think everyone on this blog could have told Guiliani that skipping the early states was a serious mistake. But its not like anyone ever asks for our opinions :-)

Posted by: AndyR3 | January 17, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

can you believe how low the RG campaign has sunk so quickly, big mistake ignoring early states, nobody mentions him now...

http://p2plendingwithprosper.blogspot.com/

Posted by: idfbts | January 17, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Giuliani Who? Was is in top 3 in Iowa ? Wyoming? New Hampshire? Michigan? If results of the last FOUR caucuses and primaries are anything to go by, Ron Paul will beat him soundly.
ineerja.blogspot.com

Posted by: mom_in_metro | January 17, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

proud: but in this particular case, Giuliani has taken the unusual step of ignoring several primaries and has publicly made it clear that he is making a stand in Florida. Anything short of a win crushes him.

He has set the bar extremely high for himself in Fla.

Posted by: Spectator2 | January 17, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

'Mayor Giuliani has a great record of cutting taxes," reads the Romney quote -- the final quote to flash on the screen in the 30-second spot.'

ouch, mitt. that hurts. of course rudy is lying about his record, but no one bothers to fact check anymore, so this should hurt mitt.

polls show mccain ahead in florida though. wonder if rudy will go after him next?

Posted by: drindl | January 17, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Giuliani's still running?

Posted by: novamatt | January 17, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

I see the Fix has fallen into the oft repeated "do-or-die" trap, parroting the favorite mantra of all pundits and correspondents of late. The problem is, it's not true! There is no must-win-or-else scenario, rather there are plenty of scenarios where a strong showing can lead to accrual of delegates over time and a longer than usual nomination process for the Rs.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | January 17, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company