Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Giuliani's Virtuoso Performance

Ever since former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani announced he was running for president, questions have lingered about his ability to withstand an extended look at his public and private life.

In an appearance yesterday on "Meet the Press," Giuliani went a long way toward answering those questions with a virtuoso performance against -- to our mind -- the toughest questioner in the business: Tim Russert.

Giuliani was on for the entire hour -- you can watch the proceedings here -- and for most of the time faced a barrage of tough questions from Russert.

Here's a quick summary of the toughest of those questions and Giuliani's responses:

* Iraq Study Group: This question began the barrage. After a detailed look at Giuliani's decision to step aside from the group, Russert asked: "Why would you quit a panel" assessing the Iraq war "in order to make money from speeches?" WOW. Giuliani was clearly ready for it, however, arguing that the main reason he stepped aside was because he was considering a run for president and was worried about politicizing the findings -- a concern he shared with James Baker, a co-chair of the group. "The reality is, it was a mistake for me to be on the panel," Giuliani said. "I was a possible and more than possible presidential candidate."

* Questionable Business Deals?: As only Russert (and his crack research staff) can do, the MTP host rattled off a series of potentially problematic business entanglements for Giuliani -- including seeming ties to Qatar and Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. This is VERY dicey territory for Giuliani but he managed to navigate it relatively well. Giuliani defended his work in Qatar -- "the reality is that Qatar is an ally of the United States," he said -- and laughed off (literally) the allegations of his ties to Chavez. Russert pushed Giuliani to release his full client list, which he repeatedly refused to do. "Just about every single client of Giuliani Partners, which is my security company, has been discussed, has been examined, certainly every significant one," Giuliani said. "Law firm clients, the ones that I have been involved with, I think have been discussed."

* Bernard Kerik: Of all the potential problems for Giuliani, Kerik -- his former police commissioner and personal friend -- is the most dangerous. Since Giuliani has put his judgment and leadership in New York City at the center of his campaign, the Kerik episode has the ability to undermine the basic premise of the campaign. Knowing this, Giuliani went to a tried and true political tactic when questioned by Russert about Kerik: throw yourself on the mercy of voters. "The reality is I made a mistake," he said. "I made a mistake in not vetting him carefully enough. And it's my responsibility; I should have." Giuliani went on to note that, by and large, his appointments have been huge successes; "I think my judgment on appointments turn out to almost always be very good, with unfortunately, some mistake that I've made." Giuliani's mea culpa complicated Russert's line of questioning. The host pushed but Giuliani kept falling back on the fact that, yes, it had been a mistake for him to advocate for Kerik's promotion, but that a broad review of his judgment yielded largely positive results.

*Judith Nathan: The last hurdle for Giuliani was also the most personal -- questions about the security costs incurred by protecting his then girlfriend. Giuliani, smartly, cast the security for himself and Nathan as a necessary evil that neither of them enjoyed. "It's not something I asked for, it's not something you particularly want, it's not something she would want," he said. "This comes about because of threats, and people threaten to kill you, threaten to harm you." Giuliani stuck to that line despite tough follow ups from Russert. He also emphasized that the decision was made entirely independent of him and that he and Nathan received no different treatment than anyone else.

Was Giuliani's performance perfect? No. He stammered several times as he tried to regain the rhetorical high ground from Russert, and his refusal to release his client list for Giuliani Partners could come back to bite him. He also committed a weird unforced error when, at the end of what otherwise had been a very solid answer on Kerik, he decided to throw in this Fiorello LaGuardia quote: "I don't make many mistakes but when I make them, they're big ones." Yeesh.

Still, given the HUGE spotlight on Giuliani -- created in part by his long-delayed one-on-one with Russert -- his campaign had to be happy with his performance. Not only did Giuliani have an effective rejoineder for every one of Russert's questions but, more importantly, his temperament was spot on. Giuliani came into this race with a reputation for pugnacity; stories of his angry responses to reporter questions are legion in New York. But, yesterday Giuliani was a model of reasonableness. He rarely appeared ruffled by Russert's questions and never let any annoyance or anger seep into his answers.

With just over three weeks left before the Iowa caucuses, Giuliani showed his doubters that he is more than ready to hit the major league fastball. It was a very good day for his campaign and one that should generate some positive buzz for him among the chattering class heading into the most important stretch of his political career.

By Chris Cillizza  |  December 10, 2007; 12:35 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: FixCam Week in Preview: It All Comes Down to This
Next: Louisiana's 4th District: Open Opportunity?

Comments

Rudy on the defense for 45 minutes.

Yes Russert is the best - he had Rudy cackling and on his heels for the entire interview. I kind of like Rudy, but this was an exception to the rule that there is no such thing as bad publicity.

His rational that Kerik approved the security right after talking about Kerik being a mistake is an obvious flaw in logic.

Mitt is probably the anti Huck Republican now - Rudy is going to be dogged with mistress issues.

Posted by: weinbob | December 11, 2007 5:54 PM | Report abuse

I am still absolutely baffled that RG is the GOP leader.

I don't agree with his positions, but I understand why Huckabee would appeal to the right.

Why -- and I'm not looking for sarcasm or wit, honestly -- why is RG attractive to the republicans?

Other than draping himself in 9/11, what has he done, or said, that would make people think he could be President?

Posted by: AdrickHenry | December 11, 2007 4:17 PM | Report abuse

I only hope that any Democratic Candidate can use Rudy's performance on meet the press in an ad. His giggling in response to serious questions is typical Guiliani and is a great way to not answer a question- but it makes him look a little rediculous.

All you need to do is ask the questions and then show Rudy laughing- and why did Russert mention but refrain from showing Rudy in drag? Why mention it if you don't put up the picture.

A 527 group won't be as nice. I can just see the ad in the south- Two pictures of Rudy in drag - one on either side of a same sex couple kissing. With the caption- What else does Rudy have in his closet?

Rudy won't be laughing at this then. Because he now has abandoned the pro-gay positions he once held to pander to the right wing no gay group will bother to defend him.

Posted by: peterdc | December 11, 2007 3:13 PM | Report abuse

You are clearly insane (or on Guiliani's payroll).

Posted by: sheidt99 | December 11, 2007 2:29 PM | Report abuse

interesting to feed CC's post, because I live abroad and the internet is slow here, so i just read the transcript of the show, and on paper, it looks like Giuliani got absolutely reamed.. it's a good reminder of how important expressions and appearance and comportment can be on the overall impression of an event.

Posted by: moneeshka | December 11, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

i had a very different reaction to the interview. not sure how that appearance was beneficial to Rudy in any way. he looked awful. just awful.

Posted by: snicholson | December 11, 2007 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

Did you lose a lot of blood recently?

It seems you received a transfusion of Broder and Cohen blood.

Posted by: Marine_Vet | December 11, 2007 10:06 AM | Report abuse

CC:"the toughest questioner in the business: Tim Russert"

Cheney aide Cathie Martin on options for VP response in Plame scandal:
1 Go on MTP, Pros: Control message.

Chris is a hack, but what else is new?

Posted by: zukermand | December 11, 2007 8:01 AM | Report abuse

Apparently Mr. Cillizza wants Sean Hannity's job.

Posted by: piniella | December 11, 2007 2:53 AM | Report abuse

Mancrush is right.
To this viewer (me) Giuliani's performance on Russert was a failure in two fundamental ways.

1. He didn't answer any of the questions, and instead bobbed and weaved with laughing evasions throughout the whole mess.
2. More importantly (which you'd think Cillizza would have picked up on since he seems to find political superficialities and appearances more important than actual facts and/or policies), Giuliani LOOKED like a man who was bobbing and weaving and being evasive.

Planet Beltway sure is a strange place.

Posted by: alibidrain | December 11, 2007 12:33 AM | Report abuse

Evidently Russert's Nantucket neighbors have decided that Rudy's damaged goods. (Has Matthews turned on him too?) And Huckabee gives them the creeps; so now they're trying to crown Mitt Romney.

By the way Cillizza, who are you anyway? Seriously, where is the punditocracy's minor league system today?
 

Posted by: s.hollis | December 10, 2007 11:14 PM | Report abuse

At first I thought Chris' use of the term Virtuoso was a goof and that he really saw and heard what I saw and heard - a pitiful performance by a disingenous dog that left me sputtering in disbelief. And what's the deal with his eyes going buggy? He's so much like Bush it's uncanny. And as unfair as this might seem, that lisp of his denies him any shred of credibility.

Posted by: paula1810 | December 10, 2007 11:10 PM | Report abuse

My husband missed it; I told him Russert pummeled Guiliani. I find it hard to see how or why you think Rudy did well. Perhaps because you're not a woman, the security-for-the-mistress question went over your head. With all due respect, I thought the entire interview was devastating to Rudy.

Posted by: claire2 | December 10, 2007 10:27 PM | Report abuse

Russert has the reputation of being a tough interviewer - he does ask tough questions - but he doesn't follow up. Why was Nathan given "protection" even before her status as mistress became known? It's true that everybody makes mistakes - the trick is how long it takes to correct them - Rudy never corrected his mistake about Kerik - it was corrected for him at long last. The question to have asked was not why the Kerik mistake was made, but why was it never corrected? If the Iraq Study group represented a conflict of interest for his Presidential run, how could business with Qatar, Venezuela, and Halibuton NOT be a conflict? Are you kidding me? A good high school student would have asked THAT. Always remember and never forget that "Meet the Press" is the venue of choice for the White House - there's a reason for that. It makes you look tough without taking any risk - like being in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam war.

Posted by: richard_davis | December 10, 2007 9:57 PM | Report abuse

Most people do not have a hard on for Rudy and will be appalled at his giggling responses to serious accusations of incompetence and fraud.

Rudy Giuliani provided the worst performance I've ever seen by a major Presidential candidate.

Tim didn't even get around to the priest-rapist, Monsignor Alan Placa, Rudy has defended and kept on his staff. Or the lies every time Rudy uses numbers and statistics from his time as mayor or Rudy's terrible campaign ads.

Rudy, we hardly knew you. Chris will have to get a new pin-up.

Posted by: gary_ | December 10, 2007 9:41 PM | Report abuse

What the Rudy interview revealed is that rudy is not going to reveal anything..More doublespeak than Al Capone at a tax audit. If Rudy thinks that the public does not deserve straight answers to OBVIOUS questions about his personal conduct , his business conduct or his beliefs then he is missing the point about what is making the American public so upset about the secretive mannerisms of the current administration..We don't need another Cheney clone in the White House. We want clean and open government working for us. and that sleeazy answer about the NYPD supposedly making a decision to protect the mistress??? How many other mistresses in New York did the NYPD also protect? PaaLEEEZE Rudy how dumb do you think the public is?? If rudy wants to be president, it is mandatory that he release his personal finance records. If he chooses not to release these records, then it is time to abandon his run for the White House. And definately stop all fundraising.

Posted by: rslip | December 10, 2007 9:19 PM | Report abuse

What alternate-universe version of Meet the Press was Chris Cillizza watching?

An hour of Gudy laughing, jiving, and avoiding concrete answers to pertinent questions could hardly be considered a "virtuoso performance."

Does the WaPost pay Cillizza for this stuff, or do they run it just because it's free?

Posted by: RockOne | December 10, 2007 7:48 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

Your commentary is often trenchant, but if you think that Rudy put forth a virtuoso performance on MTP, when it's obvious to any reasonable person that it was a train wreck, you really need to do some serious re-evaluation of your analytic abilities.

Posted by: newjersey_lawyer | December 10, 2007 7:47 PM | Report abuse

"I literally think Cilizza's got a thing for Rudy. Seriously, I think he's in love.

Posted by: swallen1 | December 10, 2007 06:35 PM
"

"mancrush"

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 10, 2007 6:58 PM | Report abuse

"With 11 months to go before election but the Democratic nomination in the immediate balance, the politico-media elite are asking, Has Hillary blown it? Bloomberg's veteran reporter Al Hunt sat in on a focus-group discussion among Philadelphia Democrats the other day, and found real concerns about Senator Clinton's suddenly chaotic campaign: After falling behind in the Iowa polls, Senator Clinton, who earlier condemned attacks by other Democrats, turned negative on Obama. Fair enough. Except her attacks were neither focused nor effective ...

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 10, 2007 05:55 PM


That would really mess up your small world of clinton hating wouldn;t it. The last year would have all been for not. BAshing clinton and she's not even the nominee. What does that say about you and where you are? Someone once said here, that anyone bashing bush yet supporting clinton is a hypocrite. I agree with this.

But what will the zouk's/rushs of the world do without clinton? To me she's not worth it. She is a republcain, now. Based on the turn the dem's have taken. She votes as a republican. She is on the same side of most issues, other than iraq (and then I'm not so sure).

Fear teh yale plan. Make no mistake, zouk, if she is not the nominee you look like a fool. Howling at the moon. :). Attacking someone that is not even the nominee for years. HE HEHE.

you know I'll be mocking you. That is the differance. The right wants to silence the left. i jsut want to point you people out for what you are. MArginalize you. Getting the fascist propogandaists off the air, then comes in time. But the fascists would silence or kill those they disagree. That is why they are fascists. Right zouk?


r

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 10, 2007 6:52 PM | Report abuse

I really disagree that Rudy turned in a "virtuoso performance." He succeeded in that he didn't break down and admit that his career is rife with shady dealings or that his foreign policy team is a bunch of bloodthirsty kooks. But he did melt down a little bit during the Giuliani Partners segment, unless the giggling suggests to you he really thinks the charges are ridiculous.

Plus, to the extent what Russert brought up was all true, and I think it was, it was a gruesome exposition of Rudy's flaws.

He needs to hope more people read this account than saw the show.

Posted by: lowellfield | December 10, 2007 6:36 PM | Report abuse

I literally think Cilizza's got a thing for Rudy. Seriously, I think he's in love.

Posted by: swallen1 | December 10, 2007 6:35 PM | Report abuse

babbler: Can you at least leaven your endless Clinton screeds with something positive about something, anything? You're a miserable wretch.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 10, 2007 6:34 PM | Report abuse

More thinly veiled racism from the desparate Clinton folk - this over on the NYT "The Caucus" - "...Oprah is hurting the chances of getting Hillary nominated by throwing so much support to Barrack. She is turning this into a race thing...". Over on the Huckabee forum, they are still beating their "he'll make creationism required in school" and "he'll outlaw all abortions" drums. Guliani or Huckabee will tear Clinton apart in a general election.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 10, 2007 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Geesh. Mr. 9/11 giggled his way through many of the tougher questions, and really didn't answer some of them.

That was the last major interview of his campaign. Stick a fork in this turkey...

Posted by: universe44 | December 10, 2007 6:31 PM | Report abuse

It's interesting, The Fix must have been watching something different than the rest of us, who thought that Giuliani came off as an unhinged whacko.

See here: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/060715.php

It's an interesting compilation of "Giggliani's" MTP interview yesterday.

Posted by: AjaxtheGreater | December 10, 2007 6:31 PM | Report abuse

"CC - I am trying to warn you what will happen to your blog if these loons keep coming here and monopolizing all the space, with no ability to do anything but insult."

Now you know why zouk is a fascist, and the right. Free speech? only if it is the way they like it. Otherwise they sabotage. Fascism. Authortarians. "If you don;t do something I will", they say. And try and play the "patriot" card.

The zouks of the world are the minority. They are bullies. if you stand up to them, they are funny little weaklings. Liek a snake, they fear us liberals much more than we fear them. Why? Freedom. Individuality. The right knows not these things. they can only do as their told. So when someone does what the GOP clones say you do not do, like question leadership demand accountability or vote your conscience, they freak out. "Why can he do this and not me". Always thinking about themselves. They are incapable of seeing the world through others eyes. Black and white, they say.

We see you zouk. Your not scary. your a joke. your party is crumbling. The sad thing is soemone like you who cannot see it, and only has excuses. if clinton is not the nominee, zouk and his propogandist buddies will be devistated. What is their defense. how can they elect their candidate without ripping someone else to shreds? They can't. This is why the gop fears Obama so much. All they can do is question his alligence and his religon. call him a terrorist. It will backfire SAd day in america.

But all americans are not as scared as zouk. All americans are not dittoheads. The dittohead fascist strong arm tactics only work with dittoheads, or people that fear dittoheads. He's funny to me. I 2 year old child rolling around on the floor. Helpless. What will he do without his avatar masters. What will people like zouk and rush do when fox and them all are off the air? think on this.


Who divides us, really. The left is trying to get truth out their dispite gop attempts and clouding teh argument with lies and spin. But who divides americans? Al Gore? No, not to me. Olberman? No, reports what others refuse to out of fear of being black-balled. So who on the left divides us? No one. The left are currently freedom fights.

No. the right divides us. Rush divides us. O'reilly, hannity, coulter, malkin, savage. The right divides us, for personal profit. Soon they will divide us no more. They should be labeled as the traitors they are. What will their followers then do?

Pray for that day. In the meanwhile fight them, verbally. do not stoop to the gop level. Follow Jesus. Follow Gandi. Follow Jkrish.

point out the fascists who would marginalize us for personal or party gain, over country. They are traitorsa. But make no mistake. It is the right that are responsibile. To win the fight the rules must run both ways. Until fox is off the air we cannot reconsolidate. If you people are unwilling to do that, we are stuck.

Pick a side. George bush/Rush/O'reilly/fox/lieberman/malkin


or


The rest of the world.

There are only two chioces. There is not standing by. Think germany 30's. Are you fighting the fascists, or enabling them. Only two choices. Choose wisely. Our childrens future depends on your choices people.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 10, 2007 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

Love "The Fix"and your appearances on "Countdown". However, I am completely astonished that you thought this was a "virtuoso" performance. I thought Rudy simply revealed himself to be a combination of the worst traits of Clinton and Bush.

Despite my moniker, I am a NYC taxpayer. We all knew that Giuliani had his previous paramour's "needs" covered because she was his employee. In terms of Ms. Nathan, his approach was like Bush's, i.e., "You know what I want, just make it happen."

Rudy was not "a model of reasonableness" yesterday. He was dissembling and his laughter was like the "heh hehs" that Bush utters when. It was a tactic to help cover his inherent pugnaciousness. Yes, maybe it was reasonable....but only when compared to the testy, almost lunatic answers Giuliani can have when he's not on guard.

Am most disappointed you fell for his act Chris.

Posted by: smalltowngirl | December 10, 2007 6:18 PM | Report abuse

dufas - so irrelevant we have stopped every wacky liberal agenda except the paltry min wage? reflects more on the basic weakness of the Dem congress I think. but hey - they passed the DoD budget, just none others. and they did vote over 40 times to lose the war. just never passed, that's all. But to a Lib, that is a good job. and it plainly shows the irrelevance of the Rs - to a Lib that is.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 10, 2007 6:17 PM | Report abuse

tdisante - That's the whole point! Cilliza is a pretty good observer. I think I am too. What we saw was a ***Virtuoso Performance***. It was good enough to fool a lot of voters and it will be good enough to fool a lot more come general election time. Long time Guliani observers have seen a mean streak, a vindictiveness, that has been completely supressed during this campaign. Guliani comes across as relaxed and "nice" and just plain likeable. Clinton, instead of getting better, looks even more brittle, meaner, *hungry* for the presidency, someone who will do anything, say anything, and wreck the whole party if she is denied "her turn" at the prize. Independents see that, even Democratic partisans see that, and it is frightening them...and the country. Whatever chance CLinton had is rapidly slipping away and the negative "independent" (?) campaigns by her supporters aren't just harming her, it is harming the whole Democratic effort. Now, Mr. Obama, at least according to polls, has/had(?) a pretty decent chance of being the first African Amercian President, by the character assassinations, the whispering campaigns of being a Muslim, the underhanded racist attacks, are harming him and angering his supporters to the extent that they will turn on Democrats across the board. They already did this to Edwards, to Kerry an Biden, and everyone else who opposes them. Bill had a certain charm that enabled him to act like horribly be forgiven. Hillary has none of that charm and all of the bad behavior, all of that baggage from the Clinton years, and the demeanor of the most uptight Sunday School teacher imaginable.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 10, 2007 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Hey Chris, is this the interview you're talking about?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/060715.php

And are you on Wapo's payroll or Giuliani's?

Oh yeah, I forgot - they're owned by the same parent company.

Posted by: akmakm | December 10, 2007 6:14 PM | Report abuse

hey bubba - how about you explain how you "tried but failed" to kill terrorists? how you left the economy in a shambles. how Bush had to clean up your mess of the economy, your thin shell of a military, your weak on defense attitude, your coddling of smelly camel herders, your one-year war in bosnia, your nuked up N Korea, weapon seeking Iraq, nuke building Iran, bio developing Libya. I am so relieved we were so "loved" in the world back then. that the republican congress balanced the budget over your vetos, that the internet/cell phone boom made you look sharp.

Can we now elect your wife and get back to weakness, fecklessness and liberal agendas? things have been going so well, we need a clinton to come along and mess everything up again.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 10, 2007 6:13 PM | Report abuse

zouk is a clown fascist. Keep posting zouk. you might convince yourself your party is not dust. think on it. If you weren't here, who would post and propogate from a fascist repubclain perspective?

Without the three clwons zouk mark and proud, there would be no republcain vioces here. so please keep coming. there are so few left. Let us enter the mind of a lunatic zouk. it is the only way to understand what in the world is going on in republcain heads.

Keep coming here. If not you then who. Your party is done. Dinosuars. Enjoy your irrelevance.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 10, 2007 6:11 PM | Report abuse

A virtuoso performance? Absolutely. If there were an Oscar for Best Giggling, Rudi would have won it hands down. And Chris Cillizza would definitely get a nomination for Most Fawning Column by a Clueless Journalistic Sycophant.

Although admittedly, the competition would be tough.

Posted by: PeterPrinciple | December 10, 2007 6:05 PM | Report abuse

RG was giggling like a little girl on mood-stabilizers. The idea that this makes him tough & competent enough to be President is beyond stupid. It was all a ploy to dismiss Russert's (not silly) questions as silly and to deflect his horrible pattern of greed, misfeasance and narcissism. It's too bad Cilliza was convinced; sounds like he has pretty low standards of gravitas.

Posted by: tdisante | December 10, 2007 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Ahhhh..the smell of desperation! Oprabama has them scrambling to get out in front, but every time Bill opens his mouth it's just one more reminder of why they cannot be trusted to move the country forward.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | December 10, 2007 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Former President Clinton, seeking to clarify a recent assertion that he was against the Iraq war "from the beginning," said Monday he's maintained all along that United Nations weapons inspectors should have been given more time to complete their work in Iraq prior to the United States-led 2003 invasion. Had the inspectors been given that time, Mr. Clinton told Early Show co-anchor Harry Smith Monday, "There would have been no war."

check back next week, for further "refinements" or as they are more properly called - clintonisms

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 10, 2007 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Ouch - from the NYTiomes no less:

With 11 months to go before election but the Democratic nomination in the immediate balance, the politico-media elite are asking, Has Hillary blown it? Bloomberg's veteran reporter Al Hunt sat in on a focus-group discussion among Philadelphia Democrats the other day, and found real concerns about Senator Clinton's suddenly chaotic campaign: After falling behind in the Iowa polls, Senator Clinton, who earlier condemned attacks by other Democrats, turned negative on Obama. Fair enough. Except her attacks were neither focused nor effective ...

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 10, 2007 5:55 PM | Report abuse

"The genuine issues for liberals are jobs and the economy, universal health care, consideration for working men and women, corporate responsibility, and an allowing individuals to live their lives pretty much unfettered from government and corporate interference otherwise. All of this, of course, has been left behind by the nuts as they shill for their candidates and tear everyone who doesn't think in lock step with them behind. They sound just like the Fundimentalists and the Talban and every other mob in recent memory becasue they are no different."

Wells aid 27. I'm not sure who you are calling fundementalists, liberals or teh r's. I feel you everywhere else on that post though. To beat the fascists we cannot become them. Liek to defeat the terrroists we can't become them.

You must understand. To many "liberals" The war on terror is a war on america. If that is true, who is waging the war and who is it being waged on? Think on that buddy.

If the gop is waging a war on it's own countrymen (like the war on drugs) and using fear tactics and terrorim agaisn their own people, are they not the enemy? Are they then not the terrorists we are supposed to hate and fear? If they are who is going to stop them? The republcains? No, we already established that with their years of refusing to hold their own to account. So the democrats. But the de's are splintered, 27. Will difi, rockafeller, kerry and leiberman hold the gop to account? Moderates? So who does it fall to? if this is a (verbal) war who is doing the fighting? Think on these things. But to blame everything on liberals is the same as fox. You must look at the why's.

We can elect a moderate. We can elect clinton and fight these same battles perpetually. Or we can make a decision as a nation. If the nation willingly chooses fascism with everything on the table, that is the nations choice. I , and many liberals will flee the fascist nation and they deserve whatever befalls them. But make no mistake. Choosing a moderate like clinton or her husband is the same as re-electing bush.

I want the country to make a choice. That is why both sodes are driving wedges. We got a year of this left. BEtter than 4. BEtter than ten. Be pateint. Help us. You must choose. Bush said it not me, "you are with us or agaisnt us". He couldn;t have been more right. That us is fascism. CHOOSE.

Well said though. But the right are the fundementalists. They are the ones who silence the left, others are trying to recipracate. The right in this country share goals with SA and Iran. Religous fundementalism. thsi is not the left. Freedom and justice are the left. Maybe I misread.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 10, 2007 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Clinton Says Hillary Was Always the One
Please, Bubba, we're begging you. Stop now. We've read the books, we know the story. Give it a rest

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 10, 2007 5:52 PM | Report abuse

lol zouk, you'll never ignore me, you pathetic sack of slime. today, in fact, you insulted me even before i posted.

so who are you kidding, cretin? better luck next time, SFB.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 10, 2007 5:52 PM | Report abuse

He's what in the bad old days would be called a "house liberal."


Posted by: LoudounVoter | December 10, 2007 05:29 PM

so you are now clearly a racist with your thinkly veiled references. I always hold back on these types of judgments but this time, the evidence is in. I would expect no more from you. racism and ignorance go hand in hand.

I herby pledge to entirely ignore you from now on and spare the blog your diatribes. I suggest the rest of you do the same. confrontation has not been effective. you are now enjoined to the rufas category on this blog. annoying and wasteful. but laughable in their ignorance.

Wanted - new stooge to replace unfunny and moronic ex-stooge Larry (aka Loud and dumb). as you all know from the tin foil hat types - blogging is a high paid full time job.

simple simon - here's your opening - interested???

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 10, 2007 5:41 PM | Report abuse

virtuoso? Giuliani stunk on ice.


stick to ranking congressional elections.

Posted by: mtera001 | December 10, 2007 5:38 PM | Report abuse

oh vaunted head jackel - help me vanquish the infidels. I am as spinless as harry reid without you. if not - I'm telling.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 10, 2007 5:32 PM | Report abuse

wreck any chance of a genuine Democratic candidate winning.

Posted by: LoudounVoter | December 10, 2007 05:22 PM

I think hillary can handle that on her own.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 10, 2007 5:30 PM | Report abuse

claudia: as I've been saying all day, there's more of babbling brooks sucking up to a rightwingnut. He's what in the bad old days would be called a "house liberal."

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 10, 2007 5:29 PM | Report abuse

drindl, you spend all day telling everyone to ignore me and simultaneoulsy quoting me. you have an extreme case of cognitive dissonance. what is your fascination with me. Remember when you posed as ignorant coward and announced to the whole blog everytime I showed up. I think we all got a big kick out of your reptilian reactions.

MikeB - they are all yours. enjoy! I think it is mostly their anguish at their ineffective approach which builds on itself. The nuts have not fallen far from the clinton tree. they never got over Gore losing and Kerry made it worse. I would be overjoyed to confront any candidate but clinton, just for the fair shot at debating the issues and NOT wallowing in the clinton mud for the next x months or years.

steel wheel - don't worry about me. I don't cry to mommy.
I am more than happy to engage in a reasonable debate. but that effort would be greatly facilitated if the loons would migrate back to the Kos hate site where they belong.

the fix didn't used to be like this except for drindl. now she has a pack of jackels singing back up.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 10, 2007 5:28 PM | Report abuse

claudialong - Compared to Loudounvoter and bsimon, KOZ is the voice of reason and kindness. The current round of attacks came about when I posted that the Clinton folk have been engaged in some troubling campaign tactics - calling Barak Obama a secret Mulim, an Islamic agent, and some none too thinly veiled racist remarks against he and Oprah. I went to far as to post a few of those remarks and to direct people to where more can be found. Instead of looking at the evidence and contemplating where rationality and liberal ideals have run off the track, I got name calling and hysterics and worse. THAT to me is very sad and very troubling.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 10, 2007 5:25 PM | Report abuse

based on babbling brooks's pandering to the blog's republicans and his constant attacks on everyone else, he is the sort of hysterical nut that will wreck any chance of a genuine Democratic candidate winning.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 10, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

once again, babbling brooks, please produce a single post in which i said anything bad about obama. come on, surely you can do it. if not, kindly remove my name from your idiotic posts.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 10, 2007 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Okay, I suppose I'm too late to the party ... the party being slapping around Cilizza for his deviation from, you know, sanity.

The only virtuoso performance Rudy Giuliani ever gave was overlooking Ground Zero ... or so I've heard. (Ask Sally - she'll know.)

As for Tim Russert being the toughest questioner around, if by "tough" you mean "pandering to Republicans because they make it possible for self-parodies like him to have a job in so-called journalism," then I'd agree with you.

If that's not what you meant, then you're just beyond help, Chris.

Posted by: Sinfonian | December 10, 2007 5:20 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk - I tend to agree, but she/she and bsimon are the sort of hysterical nuts that will wreck any chance of a genuine Democratic candidates winning. Now, Obama isn't my first choice, but he does appear to be a decent man, and I don't appreciate being placed in the position of having to defend him from these constant attacks by the really paranoid far right and the Clinton lunatics...which, of late, appear to be the same.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 10, 2007 5:18 PM | Report abuse

'f you look closely you will not find a single thing of merit or substance beyond insults in any of his posts. He/she/it is the Ace of numb-nuts. I dispute that the blogger is of age to vote. It is either gross immaturity of anger issues. but you are fighting with a stooge. what do you expect to gain.'

this is very good advice on why you should ignore zouk.

Posted by: drindl | December 10, 2007 5:17 PM | Report abuse

steelwheel: read a few weeks of "babbling" brooks's posts and then let me know what you think.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 10, 2007 5:14 PM | Report abuse

LoudounVoter, good grief! You are just as bad as kingofzouk! I'm beginning to think I'm being too harsh on kingofzouk when I ask for reasonableness.

Posted by: SteelWheel1 | December 10, 2007 5:12 PM | Report abuse

MikeB - do you really want to get into an eye-gouging and head slapping fight with Larry the stooge? (aka Loud and dumb)

He has always done this and is an expert at inanity.

If you look closely you will not find a single thing of merit or substance beyond insults in any of his posts. He/she/it is the Ace of numb-nuts. I dispute that the blogger is of age to vote. It is either gross immaturity of anger issues. but you are fighting with a stooge. what do you expect to gain. At least go after Moe. When she is not busy spending quality time with her family.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 10, 2007 5:04 PM | Report abuse

"LoudounVoter - Every time *anyone* posts anything critical of either Clinton you fly off the handle with name calling, insults, character assassination, and worse. I pretty much figure you're a Clinton partisan and I pretty mcuh think **EVERYONE** else here came to that conclusion a long time ago."

oh please, you doddering old fool, the only one who incessantly says i'm a clinton supporter is you. you're a sick creep. i'd be honored to vote for obama against any of these GOP turds. Now kindly get lost.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 10, 2007 4:59 PM | Report abuse

bsimon: that's the impression i get. he thinks i'm part of the clinton campaign even though I have never said a single thing in favor of clinton or against obama. it looks like he has applied the same "logic" to you now.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 10, 2007 4:56 PM | Report abuse

LoudounVoter - Every time *anyone* posts anything critical of either Clinton you fly off the handle with name calling, insults, character assassination, and worse. I pretty much figure you're a Clinton partisan and I pretty mcuh think **EVERYONE** else here came to that conclusion a long time ago.

As for claudia. Don't go trying to rope er into your self destructive campaigning. claudia, whatever she thinks of me, doesn't run around engaging in the sort of personal attacc you do and I have always thought she was a reasonable and genuine liberal - a "feminist" who isn't a radical, just a woman who genuinely cares about women as a part of humanity, and that as a part of the whole host of liberal philosophy.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 10, 2007 4:56 PM | Report abuse

"i didn't know you were part of the clinton campaign? did you know that i was part of the clinton campaign?"

Is that what he's saying? I'm having trouble making sense of many of the comments lately.

Posted by: bsimon | December 10, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

MikeBrooks writes
"People like ... bsimon apparently reserve their most vicious attacks for nominally Democratic voters who they see slipping away."

you are a laugh. I hope that wasn't too vicious. Suffice it to say you don't know what you're talking about. That might be more vicious, but it is factually true as well.

Posted by: bsimon | December 10, 2007 4:53 PM | Report abuse

there are nations out there who wants to destroy America.

Posted by: SteelWheel1 | December 10, 2007 04:41 PM

there are idiotic bloggers in here trying to do this also. Ever read the garbage that the stooges post?

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 10, 2007 4:48 PM | Report abuse

hey bsimon, i didn't know you were part of the clinton campaign? did you know that i was part of the clinton campaign?

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 10, 2007 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Posts and comments of this sort from the Clinton campaign are becoming common as that campaign becomes more desparate. People like Loudoun and bsimon apparently reserve their most vicious attacks for nominally Democratic voters who they see slipping away. This entire campaign has turned into a mud slinging contest between the most fanatical single issue "leftists" and liberals and moderates. It's enough to turn your stomach. Has ethics and good sense and civility and patriotism gone by the board because this is an election year? I don't think so.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 10, 2007 4:45 PM | Report abuse

CC - I am trying to warn you what will happen to your blog if these loons keep coming here and monopolizing all the space, with no ability to do anything but insult.

this entire thread has been ruined by the moonbats trying to create a sludge of filth aimed at rudy. whenever they are challenged, they spiral down to the nadir of slime.

It is always the same three - drindl gets started early in the morning, then Loud and dumb checks in after lunch, followed by the evening shift of rufas. Lately we have a new wannabee - simple simon.

I will attempt to drive them away with reason and debate, but eventually, your entire audience will simply wither away - just like MSNBC, NBC, Air America, CNN, NYTImes and all the other liberal mouthpieces who can't maintain an audience.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 10, 2007 4:43 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk, this blogg is about Rudy G's performance on "Meet The Press" not about you or Global Warming.

I've been reading your responses to other people posts for sometime now and I have no idea what your aim is. Now you already have posted several times in this blogg and not one of them has anything to do with the subject of discussion.

What exactly is your aim when you start ranting and calling people names? Even if you are right, which you rarely are, who would want to agree with you?

I can respect a person who is a devout republican or democrat who zealously defends his party's principles. That's a good thing! But you don't have to destroy people in the process because at the end of the day win or lose we are all AMERICANS and we have got to stick together because there are nations out there who wants to destroy America.

Posted by: SteelWheel1 | December 10, 2007 4:41 PM | Report abuse

i'm starting to get convinced that zouk and brooks are the same miserable, pathetic wretch. would that surprise anyone?

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 10, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

A few of the headlines from the numbskulls of the Clinton campaign:
"Hillary Clinton's campaign on Sunday requested the resignation of a second Iowa volunteer coordinator who forwarded a hoax e-mail saying Barack Obama is a Muslim possibly intent on destroying the United States."
There are literally thousands of reports of this sort of garbage. I have received TWO emails myself from the Oregon campaign.
In another post on a WaPost forum, we have this, another veiled attempt to tie Obama to Islam:
I would like to know Obamas' middle name and why it is never used?
Posted By Jack D. Schutt, St. Louis, Missouri : December 9, 2007 8:33 am
P.S. - It's "Hussein".
Another, on the NYT that was quickly deleted....
"I always thought you were above racism. Your true color has come out now. The only reason you came out for Obama is his color not what he stands for. ... So what if Bill gets to be close to the white house again. We had no wars a balanced budget and a surplus of national funds when he lift office. Most people done better the eight years he was in office then any other president for a long time."
Posted By jlb hallsville tx. : December 9, 2007 10:08 am

A few posts I copied from a CNN forum, The Ticker, "Oprah vs. Chelsea":
Oprah is opening her big mouth for Obama ONLY BECAUSE OF HIS COLOR OF SKIN. She has made this into racial issue by coming in the picture.
Posted By jack, ny, ny : December 9, 2007 9:10 am

my friends will vote for Obama because he is black. I have many frinds who will vote for him simply because he is black, not because they agree with him.
This needs to be reported on the media because it's "REAL". It's ONLY because he is Black. period.
Posted By RAUCHELLE STONE, THE WOODLANDS, TEXAS : December 9, 2007 8:19 am

Oprah, what do you know about Barak? What do you know about politics? Your job has connection with the political campaign. Go back to your place in the little box. Barak has no experience. Andrew Young said that barack is still young. Barak, you are just a kid in the senate. Do not try to shopw nationally that you can do something. You can do nothing. It is going to be a drama in all three frontline states and just a waste of money. Save it for the poor people in Africa. We just celebrated international Aids day. Do something good....
Posted By Helen, NY : December 9, 2007 8:37 am

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 10, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

"you think the Dems want to run against Rudy G even more than the sanctimonious, rapist-loving Huckabee or the shifty, slimy, sleazy Willard "Mittens" Romney?"


the political acumen and analysis of the loony left - the clinton appeasers.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 10, 2007 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Loudouden: You hurt your side more than help it. Civil discourse is important when you are engaging in ideas and philosphy. To insult your own side when they are not as vicious as you like is amazing.

Posted by: vbhoomes | December 10, 2007 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Nobody is going to listen to someone else's point of view if they are being insulted.

Posted by: vbhoomes | December 10, 2007 04:17 PM

Not a problem. drindl and loud and dumb are simply non-thinking pass-throughs for the daily spate of liberal mud and garbage that gets posted non-critically to the internet. you will notice over time that neither offer any actual solutions or really anything positive in the least. they support no-one and are an equal opportunity sniper, with preferred targets being thinking bloggers and Republicans, of course.

do not look for anything prescriptive from them. they have no ability to analyze or cogitate.


and rufas is simply nuts.

accept it grasshopper. you know that statistically speaking half the population has below average abilities. We all know which half that is, don't we? the ones that need the nanny state to protect them. the ones that are going to tell on you if you offend them. the ones where the men act like women and the women look like men. you know the Libs.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 10, 2007 4:32 PM | Report abuse

steelwheel: you think the Dems want to run against Rudy G even more than the sanctimonious, rapist-loving Huckabee or the shifty, slimy, sleazy Willard "Mittens" Romney?

tough call! The GOPers might be sorry they are giving McCain short shrift.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 10, 2007 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Brooks writes
"Loudmpouth, bsimon and the rest of the nutcases have been reduced to name calling and personal attacks as they see their grand "stategy" for election victory reduced to rubble..."

vbhoomes writes
"brooks is my kind of liberal, spouts his beliefs in a respectful manner without a lot of personal insults."


You guys are funny.

Posted by: bsimon | December 10, 2007 4:29 PM | Report abuse

curly: as bad as moe is, larry is far worse.

Nyook, nyook!

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 10, 2007 4:23 PM | Report abuse

So let me get this straight - when a sitting Dem president is plausibly accused of rape and inappropriate advances and touching and misuse of power,by multiple sources, it is not big deal and only sex.

when it happens in a war zone, is all the way around the world, is claimed by a single person - it is somehow a reflection on the sitting Republican president.

you moonbats have gone completely loony tunes. Mike b is right about you. I don't agree much with his positions but he has described your personalities to a T. you are going to send your Dem party down the drain again........and again as long as you follow the clinton playbook.

why don't you check into Mike Bs kindergarten writings with your clinton gestapo? Maybe you could waterboard his teacher and then send the info to CC and silence him. One less person to point out your facsist tendencies.

your complete and utter disdain for free speech and reasonable discusssion is really on display now. what a bunch of sore losers - still.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 10, 2007 4:21 PM | Report abuse

CC, you are way off base on your assessment of Rudy's performance. Rudy came across at best as an obfuscater and at worse a lying slimy snake. Tim Russert, as usual, asked good, tough and relevant questions but did a poor job of controlling the interview.

During the entire course of the interview I couldn't help thinking that the Democrats must want this guy to win the Republican nomination because there will be an explosion of criminal and political malfeasances revealed that will easily tank not only Rudy but the entire Republican Party. After all, the people are really fed up with the party of "PERSONAL VALUES".

Posted by: SteelWheel1 | December 10, 2007 4:20 PM | Report abuse

sure vbhoomes, calling people racist is so very respectful. you like him because he's a suck-up. that's the kind of liberal that also goes by the name "loser."

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 10, 2007 4:19 PM | Report abuse

brooks is my kind of liberal, spouts his beliefs in a respectful manner without a lot of personal insults. Nobody is going to listen to someone else's point of view if they are being insulted.

Posted by: vbhoomes | December 10, 2007 4:17 PM | Report abuse

claudia: as bad as zouk is, brooks is far worse. that's two to ignore, but if he keeps accusing people of being racist, you won't have to worry about him because he won't be here anymore.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 10, 2007 4:13 PM | Report abuse

alternatively, babbling brooks, i challenge you to find one post in which i have said anything bad about obama. anything at all. surely you can find that, can't you? i'll be waiting, cretin.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 10, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

lol brooks you miserable sack of garbage. you call people racists and then you talk about name-calling. what a pathetic little nobody you are.

and again, please point us to one post in which i have "shilled" for clinton or any other candidate? can you do that, you cretin?

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 10, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

the Dem manta - please follow closely:

"We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless. - but very costly. "

ineffective and pointless. - but very costly.


ineffective and pointless. - but very costly.

Please continue believing.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 10, 2007 4:06 PM | Report abuse

claudia: you gotta love the GOP mindset: any extra help given to a discrete group of people that was held back for 300 years is "racist."

it's so easy -- and cheap! -- for these clowns to just say "ok, there you go. we won't hold you back any more. no more shackles. but now you're on your own."

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 10, 2007 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant.
New Peer-Reviewed Study Finds 'Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence'

An inconvenient new peer-reviewed study published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology.

Climate warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence:
Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that observed patterns of temperature changes ('fingerprints') over the last thirty years are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability. Therefore, climate change is 'unstoppable' and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.

These results are in conflict with the conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also with some recent research publications based on essentially the same data. However, they are supported by the results of the US-sponsored Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).

The report is published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651]. The authors are Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia).

The fundamental question is whether the observed warming is natural or anthropogenic (human-caused). Lead author David Douglass said: "The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming."

http://canadafreepress.com/printpage.php

hurry up al. spend the money and get the trophy behind glass. the facts are catching up with you.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 10, 2007 4:05 PM | Report abuse

JD - I'm not a hardcore Democrat, I'm a hardcore liberal; but I am first and foremost a patriot. Loudmpouth, bsimon and the rest of the nutcases have been reduced to name calling and personal attacks as they see their grand "stategy" for election victory reduced to rubble. I have been watching the Clinton folk calling Obama and his supporters gnuinely offense racist terms, calling anyone who disagrees with their narrow bankrupt view of voters and this country traitors "to the cause". The mindless assaults and daily barrage of insults is wearing a bit thin and is doing far more harm than good. The genuine issues for liberals are jobs and the economy, universal health care, consideration for working men and women, corporate responsibility, and an allowing individuals to live their lives pretty much unfettered from government and corporate interference otherwise. All of this, of course, has been left behind by the nuts as they shill for their candidates and tear everyone who doesn't think in lock step with them behind. They sound just like the Fundimentalists and the Talban and every other mob in recent memory becasue they are no different. I apologize for them. They embarrass me. They aren't liberals, just spectators at some sporting event that occurs every couple of years, a lot of them drunk on emotion, shouting and cheering on their side side, no matter the fouls, poor sportsmanship, or underhanded means by which their hollow "victory" may be won. They are, collectively, idiots and the garbage heap of humanity. Pity them.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 10, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Loudon is right, bsimon. It's better to ignor zouk. I really can't imagine how bleak and pathetic it would be to come everyday to a place where everyone thinks you're a moron. Maybe it reminds him of high school or something. Maybe he's masochistic.

Posted by: drindl | December 10, 2007 4:03 PM | Report abuse

'Brooks, as for many Clintonians being racists; keep in mind that at the end of the day, much of the Democratic party platform is racist. '

Nothing I can do but laugh out loud at the naievete, blindness of that. Omigod. This from the KKK Party. Oh please,

Here's for all you lovers of privatization and amok war profiteers:

A little problem we have n Iraq--which is now being run, apparently by Blackwater, is that they seem to be worse than you could possibly imagine -- and remember, your taxpayer dollars are paying their salaries;

'A Houston, Texas woman says she was gang-raped by Halliburton/KBR coworkers in Baghdad, and the company and the U.S. government are covering up the incident.

Jamie Leigh Jones, now 22, says that after she was raped by multiple men at a KBR camp in the Green Zone, the company put her under guard in a shipping container with a bed and warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she'd be out of a job.

"Don't plan on working back in Iraq. There won't be a position here, and there won't be a position in Houston," Jones says she was told.

In a lawsuit filed in federal court against Halliburton and its then-subsidiary KBR, Jones says she was held in the shipping container for at least 24 hours without food or water by KBR, which posted armed security guards outside her door, who would not let her leave.

Finally, Jones says, she convinced a sympathetic guard to loan her a cell phone so she could call her father in Texas.

"I said, 'Dad, I've been raped. I don't know what to do. I'm in this container, and I'm not able to leave,'" she said. Her father called their congressman, Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas.

"We contacted the State Department first," Poe told ABCNews.com, "and told them of the urgency of rescuing an American citizen" -- from her American employer.'

Just read the whole thing, it will make you sick.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3977702&page=1

Posted by: drindl | December 10, 2007 4:01 PM | Report abuse

"simple simon - are you...."

I'll have to defer to the advice of Mr Twain on this one.

http://www.quotiki.com/quote.aspx?id=9661

Posted by: bsimon | December 10, 2007 3:58 PM | Report abuse

zouk, are you a paid poster for Daily Kos? You're the only person on here who mentions that site.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 10, 2007 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Rudy did okay but at the end of the day, I doubt if it did him much good. Frankly America is not impressed with any of the Politicians coming out of NY. The last one that had the respect of the entire country was Patrick Moniyhan. May God grant his soul peace.

Posted by: vbhoomes | December 10, 2007 3:52 PM | Report abuse

JD: typical rightwingnut that he is, refuses to acknowledge any of the history that preceded the enactment of "the distro of govie benefits based on the color of one's skin."

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 10, 2007 3:52 PM | Report abuse

I am confident you four stooges will much better accept with your lot in life if you ignore any reality-based discussion altogether.

why attempt to participate in anything that is so clearly over your head? you will feel much better over at the Daily Kos hate site with your fellow nin-com-poops.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 10, 2007 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Nice balanced review of the show, Chris.

Brooks, as for many Clintonians being racists; keep in mind that at the end of the day, much of the Democratic party platform is racist. Now, I know you're probably a hardcore Democrat, and I'm may would deny it, but anyone who is a fan of affirmative action, education quotas, etc, is stating for the record that they favor the distro of govie benefits based on the color of one's skin.

If that's not racist, I don't know what is.

Posted by: JD | December 10, 2007 3:48 PM | Report abuse

"any more posts like that and i'll make sure you're never seen on here again. No more of that, ace."

Are you shaking in your boots from Ace- the numb-nuts poster. he is going to tell mommy on you.

You moonbats have gone beyond hilarious to disturbingly banal.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 10, 2007 3:48 PM | Report abuse

bsimon: tis better to ignore the local feebs like zouk, brooks, and vbhoomes. look what happens when you acknowledge one of them.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 10, 2007 3:45 PM | Report abuse

It must suck to have such a miserable life that you have to bait people who can't stand you on an anonymous message board.

Posted by: LoudounVoter | December 10, 2007 03:26 PM

LOL Ace. you need to get a life numb-nuts.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 10, 2007 3:44 PM | Report abuse

ps: brooks, it's pathetic enough that you have continued to insist for dozens of posts that i'm a clinton supporter without any evidence of that, but to lump me with some racists really makes you look like a piece of garbage.

any more posts like that and i'll make sure you're never seen on here again. No more of that, ace.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 10, 2007 3:44 PM | Report abuse

lol look at the pathetic, senile "babbling" Brooks sucking up to rudy g and his coterie of GOP droolers.

and of course poor brooks is still just another loser who wants someone to pay attention to him. That must be why he keeps calling me a clinton supporter, without any evidence of course.

Brooks, like zouk, you need to get a life. maybe you two can attend a star trek convention together.

by all means keep up this line of posting, brooks. you're a regular laff riot.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 10, 2007 3:41 PM | Report abuse

It must suck to have such a miserable life that you have to bait people who can't stand you on an anonymous message board.

Posted by: LoudounVoter | December 10, 2007 03:26 PM

Can't think of a better testimonial.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 10, 2007 3:40 PM | Report abuse

simple simon - are you vying for the position of fourth stooge?
I knew you were of below average perception, but I would never have put you in the drindl/rufas/loud and dumb range. Is stupidity and ignorance now something to be admired, similar to a Liberal victim of ?

I just keep missing the fashion excursions. I never hated America which is now so popular in your ranks. I never wanted to lose a war or allow the economy to tank so I could gloat over an election. I never wished for dead bodies or attacks. I am just so old fashioned.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 10, 2007 3:39 PM | Report abuse

"That's really an insult to Shemp. This poster is not even the equivalent of Curly Joe."

Perhaps. But such responses seem to be more effective at discouraging the subject in question than engaging & attempting logical discussion.

Posted by: bsimon | December 10, 2007 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Once you get past the rants of the rabid name calling nut cases from the Clinton crowd, Guliani really did himself a lot of good. I don't trust trust him, still, but that's because I've read an awful lot about him. In the interview, however, he came across as warm and friendly and engaged, extremely intelligent, and "presidential". The ordinary voter and even a lot of people who think they knew Rudy, will think very kindly upon the idea of a Guliani presidency. The more rabid partisan lunatics here are going to have to do a lot better than call Guliani names to beat him. It really was a grand performance.

And, note to Loud Mouth and the other nutjobs here. I was off surfing comments over the weekend on the Obama-Oprah rally. A number of Clinton posters (I assume they were genuine - especially those on CNN's site...please go read a few) were outright racist. Now, I know the average Clinton nut and average Clinton apologist is a mindless clodhopper, but posts about blacks sticking together and Oprah and Obama being a "pair of Hollywood tolken blacks who have turned against those who gave them every advantage" is the sort of nonsense that is going to come back and haunt you again and again. I know, radical feminists only care about abortion and making money and the gay rights crowd only cares about finding a cure for AIDS and social approval for their "ifestyle", but please at least try and pretend you care about this country.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 10, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

"Chris, Your 'Giuliani's Virtuoso Performance' article, will surely earn you an appearance on Hardball. Matthews will salivate with you on the toughness of Rudy and the weakness of Hillary"

At least CC shows his face and where his loyalties lie daily. This is the WApo, what do you expect? At least they show themselves, no one can ask for more than that. If people are to stupid to realize they are being lead to destruction, not much you can do other than point out the liar. But then you are the problem. A rock and a hard place. i guess americans are going to have to starrt thinking for themselves. Not allowing Rush,Hannity O'reilly CC or anyone think for them.

If The right-wing liars and propogandists are labeled for what they are, I have no problem with them being on the air. But when they try andlabel themselves as "news" or "fair and balanced" or "patriots", then I have a problem. If they want to be lying propogandist slaves for profit, this is america that's their choice. As long as they are marginalized and labeled for what they are.

I'm pretty satisfied at what has happened tot he media since the sweep of 06. Starting to finally get balance. now we just need to push those liars off the cliff. Finish them off. What will the elderly do without those thinking for them and lying to herd them? I can't wait for that day. America re-unites once we finally get Fox rush hannity o'reilly malkin coulter savage off the air. Who on the left divides us for personal profit and fun? No one. the left has people risking it all to bring real news. What does the right risk? Again, what do the right wing and their lying pundits risk in any or the battles the last 8 years?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 10, 2007 3:31 PM | Report abuse

It must suck to have such a miserable life that you have to bait people who can't stand you on an anonymous message board.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 10, 2007 3:26 PM | Report abuse

"

Shemp serves dessert:
"Larry, Curly and Moe - all present now."


Mmmm... Can't get enough!"

bsimon: That's really an insult to Shemp. This poster is not even the equivalent of Curly Joe.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 10, 2007 3:25 PM | Report abuse

"I understand the point -- making light of a controversial subject is supposed to downplay its significance -- but here's a question for those who saw the interview: is it me, or was this genuinely creepy?"

Reminded me of the Munsters, just scarier. Remember that show?

If so many lives were not hanging in the balanced I would have laughed my as* off. This guy is the gop frontrunner, sayign these things. I'm not laughing. We should all fear for our children.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 10, 2007 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Chris, Your 'Giuliani's Virtuoso Performance' article, will surely earn you an appearance on Hardball. Matthews will salivate with you on the toughness of Rudy and the weakness of Hillary.

Posted by: pedjr336 | December 10, 2007 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Larry, Curly and Moe - all present now.

what with your multiple personalities, zouk, you are effectively all 3. I see you still can't stop thinking about me--too bad for you. get some help.

Posted by: drindl | December 10, 2007 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Guiliani's "Virtuoso Performance"? Seriously?

God Chris, you are such a tool.

Posted by: smh3477 | December 10, 2007 3:15 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if Giuliani's laugh-filled appearance on Meet the Press this morning might spark some media interest, as did Hillaty's. I'm sure someone will have a video up fairly soon, but here's a transcript:

RUSSERT: Why would you do business with someone who helped Khalid Sheikh Muhammad?

GIULIANI: (Laughter) [...]

RUSSERT: People are calling into question your judgment, they also cite that your law firm did work for Hugo Chavez, the head of Venezuela.

GIULIANI: (Laughter)

RUSSERT: They've now quit that, but they did represent Citgo, which is run by Hugo Chavez.

GIULIANI: (Struggling to speak through enthusiastic laughter) Tim, that's a stretch.

RUSSERT: It's not. One more and then I'm going to give you a chance on this. One more, a Las Vegas developer that you worked with who had a close relationship with a Hong Kong billionaire who was close with Kim Jung Il.

GIULIANI: (Laughter)

RUSSERT: These are all accusations being made, in a very serious way, about your business. In order to deal with all of this, why not say to the American people, "These are all my clients, this is who I work for, so you can know who I've been involved with and who might be trying to influence me if I ever became president."


Giuliani seemed to find all of this hilarious, laughing and clapping as if Russert were Jerry Seinfeld.

I understand the point -- making light of a controversial subject is supposed to downplay its significance -- but here's a question for those who saw the interview: is it me, or was this genuinely creepy?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

Posted by: pedjr336 | December 10, 2007 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Cowards that fear always strike out at that which they are scared of. Easier than understanding themselves. Right zouk?

It a funny thing though. you fear for a reason. What is behind that fear? You should fear the left zouk. We are about to render your party irrelevant for thirty years. But don't blame us. It's about acountability. No one held the d's accountable for all those years. they took advantage. Then the r's swept. Your fascist reign of terror just lasted short than theirs. But don't blame liberals or the left. Blame the right and your incompetant foot tapping hypocrite leaders.

your party is done. As soon as you start realizing the truth the better news and the real world with fit together. Staying in fantasyland, zouk, accomplishes nothing. Other than feeling warm and safe. That is a feeling. You cannot mold reality based on your feelings and fears. That is called a crazy person. Just becausae there is millions of you dittoheads does not make you any less crazy. Just because their are other lunatics that fear chagne out their, doesn't mean people do not, realize you cowards for what you are.

your party is done. Sabotaging us now will only get you jail time. Please do. The old political rules no longer exists. Real non-combatant americans are getting killed now. Play time is over. You fascists need to acknowledge this

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 10, 2007 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Russert did as little as possible to actually show Rudy in a bad light. This happens every time a Repub is on the show. This brought back memories of the Senator Elizabeth Dole interview some time back when she made an absolute fool out of herself despite Russert trying to bail her out. This "Alleged" CIA torture tape being destroyed is the big story that most of the media are not paying much attention to what it is all about.

Posted by: lylepink | December 10, 2007 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Shemp serves dessert:
"Larry, Curly and Moe - all present now."


Mmmm... Can't get enough!

Posted by: bsimon | December 10, 2007 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Mr Z- The irony was delicious. Thank you for serving.

Regarding your nat'l review cut 'n paste job; it appears you've not read the WSJ today, which has some front page news comparing the 'mortgage crisis' to the Savings & Loan meltdown in the 80s:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119724657737318810.html?mod=hps_us_whats_news

"U.S. Mortgage Crisis Rivals S&L Meltdown

Toll of Economic Shocks May Linger for Years; A Global Credit Crunch"

Posted by: bsimon | December 10, 2007 3:03 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe that's what Cillizza came away from yesterday's performance with. I mean, did we watch the same program?! It was a bloodbath, in my eyes. At several points during the interview, I had to avert my eyes from the screen, b/c I was so embarassed for Rudy... and I don't even like the guy!

Posted by: lgraham1 | December 10, 2007 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Larry, Curly and Moe - all present now.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 10, 2007 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Looks like we have one poster who won't object to the Democrats tying Rudy G to Bush, if Rudy G gets the nomination, since this posters seems to think the past seven years have been really great.

I'm sure the DNC will be happy to oblige.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 10, 2007 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Zouk is gone. We lost him everyone. good luck with that zouk. See how far that gets ya.

you people stopped the chant when stocks were plumeting. Saudi saved Citi and now your gloating? BEcause you good freinds in the middle east bought more of our country. Gloat if you want. see how far it gets ya. your party is done.

To fix a problem you must first realize you have a problem, zouk. Acknowledge your party is done for thrity years, start from there. Then build. You'll get out of that cave eventually buddy. Start diggin

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 10, 2007 2:59 PM | Report abuse

"A spokesperson for the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security told ABCNews.com he could not comment on the matter.

Over two years later, the Justice Department has brought no criminal charges in the matter. In fact, ABC News could not confirm any federal agency was investigating the case.

Legal experts say Jones' alleged assailants will likely never face a judge and jury, due to an enormous loophole that has effectively left contractors in Iraq beyond the reach of United States law.

"It's very troubling," said Dean John Hutson of the Franklin Pierce Law Center. "The way the law presently stands, I would say that they don't have, at least in the criminal system, the opportunity for justice."

"

Law and order party? Who is? The r's? the d's? There is no law and order party. Their is no law, for these people. Two americans. The law and the lawless. The patriots and the traitors. The rich and the poor. The people making money off defrauding the country and stealing our tax dollars, and those that are bound to law and reality.

LA-La land is not all it's cracked up to be, not what the republcains make it out to be. A land of no accountability may be fun at first. But just at first. The laws exist FOR freedom, not to hamper it. "Your freedom to swing you fist ends at my nose", they say.

The democrats build the suplus. The republicans hand the wealth out to their freinds. Is that america, or do the fascists have the populance tricked that "this is the way the world works?"

Only if we let them. The only power the fascist republicans have is the power you and I give them. Take their power from them. Don;t feel guilty. They used their time and power wisely. Where else do you get a promotion the worse you do. Throw the bums out. Throw the obstructionist gop out. Throw the moderate sell-out democrats that enable them out. The future is beautiful, without those destroying our country to line their pocket. our representatives represent us. Time to make the american politicains realize this.

And you can't hodl the republcains to account by re-electing them. Accountability. Who want's it? When have we had accountability? The r's want accountbility for everyone but them. they are incapable of holding their own to account, even on a local or individual scale.

I'm for a third party. A real opposition party. When play time ends neither party would have a chance.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 10, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Bad news for Libs - good news for americans

Following last week's solid jobs report, the New York Times got back to its Bush-bashing recession mantra with the front-page headline: "Slowing Growth and Jobs Seen as Ominous Sign for the Economy."

This chant has been going on for quite some time. Doom and gloom from the economic pessimists has been political sport for seven years, even though the Bush boom just celebrated its sixth anniversary. The current expansion is now in its 74th month -- 17 months longer than the average 57-month business cycle since World War II.

Jobs are an "ominous sign for the economy"? The latest jobs report says America is still working, with 94,000 new corporate payrolls in November and a rolling average of 103,000 job increases for the past three months. Along with a 4.7 percent unemployment rate, there is no evidence of a recessionary collapse in jobs. Even the household job count, which picks up small businesses, surged 696,000 in November, with a 303,000 average gain over the past three months.

Jobs are paying more, too. Worker wages are rising 3.8 percent over the past year, a full percentage point ahead of inflation. In fact, growth in total compensation for the entire workforce is rising at a 3.3 percent pace after inflation. University of Michigan Professor Mark Perry, writing in his Carpe Diem blog, says this is the best performance in seven years.

But wait, there's more. U.S. productivity surged 6.3 percent in the third quarter, its best pace in four years. A big rise in output per person is good for profits, growth, and low inflation. Business inflation has come down from 3.5 percent a year ago to 1.5 percent today. U.S. household net worth just scored a new record high of $58.6 trillion, with financial asset gains outpacing the drop in real estate values.

According to Prof. Perry, household wealth has increased 43 percent in just the past five years, despite $100 oil, $3 gas, and the sub-prime infection. The stock market, which is probably the best leading indicator of the future economy, appears just as resilient. Despite these same challenges, it is overcoming a brief correction and looks set to rise by roughly 10 percent this year.

Yes, economic growth may indeed pause to roughly 2 percent in the next couple of quarters, the result of two years of overly tight money from the Federal Reserve and the ensuing upturn in sub-prime defaults and foreclosures. You can call it Goldilocks 2.0. But you can't call it a recession.

Even the housing market has its share of positive developments. Mortgage refinancings are up nearly 70 percent as mortgage rates on fifteen- and thirty-year loans are down nearly 100 basis points. Such events may help cushion the plunge in home sales and will eventually stabilize prices.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTZjMDc4N2E3YmUyZTdlNTJiZDA5YWQ1NDc0MDc4Y2M=

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 10, 2007 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Chris, you are way off! Rudy came off as obnoxious...laughing at serious questions about serious allegations. He got away with lying about his mistress. I look forward to defeating him.

Posted by: russellin2000 | December 10, 2007 2:49 PM | Report abuse

You want something to rally against zouk. Here you go. Defend your republican buddies on this one. I'm sure you have a rationale.

"Victim: Gang-Rape Cover-Up by U.S., Halliburton/KBR
KBR Told Victim She Could Lose Her Job If She Sought Help After Being Raped, She Says"

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=3977702&page=2

At least she lived. How many other soldiers are not making it back, because they are not republcain clones? how many of our brothers and sisters are getting pat tillman'ed over there?

I heard of another women who worked in the financial department out in Iraq. Saw something she shouldn't. Ended up dead in the green zone. When are the pro-tropps people going to start realizing that war is not roses and poppies. War is hell. The fewer amount of americans that must live in hell, the better.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 10, 2007 2:46 PM | Report abuse

"I see the moonbats have scared of all your bloggers again Chris"

Republcains are embarresed by their leaders. Can you blame them? Jsut because they are scared to combat truths with lies doesn't mean it's my fault, or anyone elses. Lack of personal accountability. Lack of personal individuality. that is why your party is done, zouk. But blame lie and point the finger at everyone. It's much easier to do that than look in the mirror and evaluate yourself and yoru fascist ideals.

The lack of gop parrots is evident. That is why the same three of you come here daily. To make it look like your fascist idealogy is the "majority". HA HA HA.

your party is done. Enjoy your irrelevance.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 10, 2007 2:43 PM | Report abuse

mmoran1 writes
"Perhaps we should also begin referring to Rudy as her "gentleman caller"?"

LOL!

Gentleman Caller Giuliani, you ducked the question about alleged ties to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez with a Hillary-like cackle; could you further describe what relationship, if any, you or any of your business interests have, or had, with Chavez or his government?

Posted by: bsimon | December 10, 2007 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Great television. Bye bye, Rudy.'

:)

ANother one bites the dust. Can never be enough republcains dropping fast enough. I want more, MORE I SAY. :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 10, 2007 2:37 PM | Report abuse

I see the moonbats have scared of all your bloggers again Chris.

with drindl and rufas present, we only need one more stooge for a complete set.

Loud and dumb - where are you?

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 10, 2007 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Was I the only one that noticed that when ever Giuliani made up an answer to escape the questioning of his judgement (ie. pointing out his criminal behavior) he used the statement:

"The reality is"

He must of said that 10 times.

The reality is Mayor, you are done.

Posted by: ajtdonahue | December 10, 2007 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Why have we all agreed to refer to Giuliani's mistress as his girlfriend. Was the man not married at the time?
Perhaps we should also begin referring to Rudy as her "gentleman caller"?

Posted by: mmoran1 | December 10, 2007 2:18 PM | Report abuse

'
GOP Candidates Temper Anti-Immigrant Talk for Univison Debate'

heh heh.

A fromer neocon [M.J. rosenberg's] take:

'Russert prosecuted the famed prosecutor, enumerating one Giuliani scandal after another. All Rudy could do was giggle. He reminded me of that ancient clip in which Bobby Kennedy grilled some miscreant at a Senate hearing and the bad guy laughed at every question. Bobby finally said: "Are you going to tell us anything or just giggle? I thought only little girls giggled?." Sexist, yes (it was 1959).

But it destroyed the giggly witness.

That was Rudy yesterday. All giggles and deer-in-the-headlights terror.

And with good reason. There are no good (or any) answers to the questions Russert posed about "Driving Miss Judy," Giuliani and Associates' client list, Bernard Kerik, etc etc.

And Russert didn't even ask about the priest-rapist on Rudy's staff. Or the coke dealer.

Great television. Bye bye, Rudy.'

Posted by: drindl | December 10, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

"Rudy Giuliani will probably regret going on Meet The Press yesterday. Tim Russert asks Rudy if he still agrees with the statements made by his unhinged, campaign foreign policy adviser, Norman Podhoretz, who thinks the latest NIE report on Iran was a hit job on President Bush, and recently wrote that he "hopes and prays" that President Bush bombs Iran soon -- and that Rudy agrees with him completely.

Giuliani tries and succeeds in completely scrubbing Podhoretz from the conversation, (without actually answering the question, of course) saying that while he believes the military option must be left on the table, he thinks invading Iran should only be done as a last resort. This shows a big disconnect in the Giuliani campaign, but when it comes right down to it, does anybody believe him? "

http://www.crooksandliars.com/

r

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 10, 2007 2:11 PM | Report abuse

"Are you trying to stop a religou theocracy like your buddies in iran?"

Start, that is

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 10, 2007 2:08 PM | Report abuse

The more these republican top-tiers are questioned... the more you get to feel they are a bunch of crooks fighting on a deal...
thanks Ron Paul for providing the exception to this rule... otherwise I would start doubting my own parents!!

Posted by: rar76 | December 10, 2007 2:08 PM | Report abuse

'The reason it's done is because somebody threatens to do harm, '

mark, there was no threat, according to the NYC police. Judi had a detail because Rudy asked for it, is what they say.

'They both noted that with Iran's lack of capacity for nuclear weapons it really hurts both Clinton and Giuliani since they were seen as being tough on terror. Brooks went as far to add that with the reduced level of violence in Iraq a candidate's foreign policy background was not as critical to the voting public.'

And i have to say I think our pundits are, how can I say it--ridiculous. Brooks particularly is an idiot. The level of violence in Iraq will be reduced, only to the extent that we keep the same, or higher level of troops, which our military leaders TELL US WE CAN'T DO. This is so delusional as to make one dizzy.

And so Iran is not so dangerous as was pretended, what about PAKISTAN, for chrissakes -- where bin Ladin and al queda are biding their time to get the loosely guarded nukes scattered thorough that country, so open that some Saudi princes [someof whom undoubtedly support bin Ladin] were given a tour of.

The US's ability to detect and deter actual threats seems to have vanished...

Posted by: drindl | December 10, 2007 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Really, virtuoso performance? Sounded like a lot of glib lies and half-truths that could only come from years of practice. And what about that laugh and the wide eyes and the charming lisp that apparently all add up to one hunky tough guy. Man crush material, indeed.

Posted by: rdklingus | December 10, 2007 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Is it because republcains hate this countries freedom? Are you trying to stop a religou theocracy like your buddies in iran? Are you using prozies, like iran to fight yoruown country? Holding the country hostage with fear of terrorism? Doesn;t that make the gop terrorists?

Again, why is the tough on terrorist gop, not tough on rudy and his terror ties. Bush with his oil saudi ties, and bin laden. Cheaney and his corporate ties? If you are the law and order party, protect us from terrorist party, how do you ration this. Explain your double think.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 10, 2007 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Chris,
I need to be honest, I generally agree with you and think you're one or the best analysts/reporters/prognosticators in the business, but I couldn't have had a more different opinion than you of RWG's performance. I thought he seemed odd at the beginning, when he seemed way to anxious to have Russert show the Florida poll results, I think he constant bugeye look throughout was also very disconcerting.

And while I don't think there was anything devastating in his answers, I think his answers on Qatar and Kerik in particular seemed incredibly evasive and as if he was hiding something.

Having lived in NYC during his time as Mayor, I've seen the good and the bad of Rudy, and I though yesterday was one of his worst performances so far, maybe since the first Republican debate.

Posted by: nyc5151 | December 10, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

What's up mark. Since your here, What is your take on the rudy terror ties? I have been saying the gop is in with the terrorist for years now. The gop's lack of pressuring rudy on this show their face, I believe. What is your take?

What used to be the law and order party, lost all law and order. Now the terrorist party has terror links, like bush cheaney. What is your take, and why is your party not as hateful towards the terrorist that attack the u.s. (qatur, bin laden, bin laden family ), as those that attack iraq, isreal, or another foreign country?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 10, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Shields and Brooks both made interesting points on their exchange during the Newshour on PBS. They both noted that with Iran's lack of capacity for nuclear weapons it really hurts both Clinton and Giuliani since they were seen as being tough on terror. Brooks went as far to add that with the reduced level of violence in Iraq a candidate's foreign policy background was not as critical to the voting public. Hence, why both Huckabee and Obama were seeing significant movement in their directions for the R and D, respectively.

Posted by: sltiowa | December 10, 2007 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Let me add to my 1:26P thoughts that RG's security clients would be an issue for me if I were still considering him, which I have not been doing since I saw Podhoretz on Lehrer.

In 1996 I voted for Perot because BC had Chinese money and BD had Saudi money and
while I am not as convinced of HRC's Asian conspiracy as our Mike Brooks is, her speeches to Indian businessmen make my spine shiver.

I could easily vote "none of the above" if all the candidates have foreign business and political ties. I have always cut Canada some slack, of course...

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 10, 2007 1:36 PM | Report abuse

RG was quick to respond and scored style points. But as I wrote on another thread, we
as prospective voters may legitimately want
to know all about the security clients, at least. If we want to know forcefully enough,
it may force RG to "blind trust" his interests early, or otherwise drop out of the race.
This, because he decently cannot reveal what he knows about them, not and remain a security consultant with clients. His foreign security clients may be enough for many persons to downgrade his prospects as a candidate, although I would not guess that.

And there was this:

MR. RUSSERT: Using that reasoning, would it be appropriate for a president to provide Secret Service protection for his mistress?

MR. GIULIANI: It would not be appropriate to, to do it for that reason, Tim, and that isn't, that, that isn't the right way to--you know, that isn't the right way to, to analyze it or to say this. The reason it's done is because somebody threatens to do harm, and the people who assess it come to the conclusion that it is necessary to do this.
-------------------------
A correct answer, but as drindl wrote earlier, a query that most candidates would have dodged, because of the implication that the interviewee could contemplate a Prez with a mistress. That will probably only play as a negative with the social cons, but most of them are R voters, right?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 10, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Really judge, the way DC pundits swoon like little girls over any R candidates who swaggers and talks big tough talk--it's nauseating.

Another little problem we have n Iraq--which is now being run, apparently by Blackwater, is that they seem to be worse than you could possibly imagine -- and remember, your taxpayer dollars are paying their salaries;

'A Houston, Texas woman says she was gang-raped by Halliburton/KBR coworkers in Baghdad, and the company and the U.S. government are covering up the incident.

Jamie Leigh Jones, now 22, says that after she was raped by multiple men at a KBR camp in the Green Zone, the company put her under guard in a shipping container with a bed and warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she'd be out of a job.

"Don't plan on working back in Iraq. There won't be a position here, and there won't be a position in Houston," Jones says she was told.

In a lawsuit filed in federal court against Halliburton and its then-subsidiary KBR, Jones says she was held in the shipping container for at least 24 hours without food or water by KBR, which posted armed security guards outside her door, who would not let her leave.

Finally, Jones says, she convinced a sympathetic guard to loan her a cell phone so she could call her father in Texas.

"I said, 'Dad, I've been raped. I don't know what to do. I'm in this container, and I'm not able to leave,'" she said. Her father called their congressman, Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas.

"We contacted the State Department first," Poe told ABCNews.com, "and told them of the urgency of rescuing an American citizen" -- from her American employer.'

Just read the whole thing, it will make you sick.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3977702&page=1

Posted by: drindl | December 10, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse

"Drindl: you're reading my mind, as usual. The word 'mancrush' did spring to mind after reading that header."

"He just looks presidencial."

"He smells presidential".

"He smells like a man".

He he he. Frickin republcains these days :)

Right on drindl. who falls for this other than foot tappers (new noun, used to describe hypocrite republcains)?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 10, 2007 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Drindl: you're reading my mind, as usual. The word 'mancrush' did spring to mind after reading that header.

Posted by: judgeccrater | December 10, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry Chris, but you really missed the call on this one. Giuliani was terrifying on Meet the Press--he scared the bejesus out of this viewer!

Yeah, he danced around all the smelly deals, but he still had to spend all that time defending a bunch of things that voters are not ever going to like hearing about. Its hard to see how this gets behind him, and it will more likely get deeper.

Much, much more importantly he revealed how incoherent and dangerous his ideas are around Iraq and the middle east. Central to his argument is that we will have to stay in Iraq until that "country" has a unified political structure that will SUPPORT US in the middle east! Never going to happen. Which means Giuilani plans to stay permanently in Iraq.

Add to that his even less rational positions regarding Iran, and you get what I saw: the person Americans want to elect President, if Americans are ready for WW3.

Posted by: elanmel | December 10, 2007 1:14 PM | Report abuse

"Giuliani's Virtuoso Performance"

Now why didn't we see "Huckabee's Virtuoso Performance" after the Youtube debate? Based on the movement in the National polling numbers (which RG's little information session will NOT generate) it certainly was.

Posted by: judgeccrater | December 10, 2007 1:13 PM | Report abuse

What a shallow, typical beltway bubble analysis. CC aparently, like most of the pundocrats in DD, has a mancrush on Rudolph-- like I said, he's the Testerone Terror candidate. He dodged important questions, which Russert didn'b other to follow up, like abut Qatar. Like a lot of our so-called allies, they do indeed provide aid and comfort and shelter for al-queda. And there's no question that Chavez is a client of Rudy's.

Rudy dodged, waffled, fudged, blew off, and then defended his right to have a misstress while President of the USA. A real piece of work.

and Russert 'tough' -- LOL. obnoxious maybe...

Posted by: drindl | December 10, 2007 1:10 PM | Report abuse

One "good" performance on Meet the Press does not make a GOP nominee.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl | December 10, 2007 1:09 PM | Report abuse

I thought Guliani failed to answer some important questions, and so did Russert. When asked for a critique of Guliani's performance, he specifically alluded to the candidate's reluctance to release the names on his client list. It was a slick performance, and leaves a lot of important questions glazed over.

Posted by: Elinor.Miller | December 10, 2007 1:07 PM | Report abuse

"I guess compared to every other MSM "reporter", Russert is tough. However, if Russert were really tough Rudy would have lost 10 points shortly after the interview."

Great point. I see politicans getting more and more vague as the reporters are turning more and mor einto lackies. Rather than digging and finding out what candidates don't want them to know, they take the lazy route. They get spoon fead their "news".

The media was the fourth branch of government. They sold their influence for profit and ease of dilevery. The american people are teh ones who take the heat for parrot's, like cc's, lack of digging and courage.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 10, 2007 1:06 PM | Report abuse

You really thought he did well? Tim Russert got him on the Judith Nathan, he made him say a president would have to give security to his mistress. He seemed really out of his league I thought. Even the first question about primary results, all he could do was bring up Florida, is that his strategy to win in Florida?

ON Berny he never explained it away, Russert got him when he asked why he recommended him to Bush, and he couldn't answer.

He never once made a case for him self, played defense the entire way. I thought it was one of the worst appearances this season.

Guliani had the same canned defenses and Russert was ready and had follow ups on ever one that he couldn't answer.

Posted by: julian9682 | December 10, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

I guess compared to every other MSM "reporter", Russert is tough. However, if Russert were really tough Rudy would have lost 10 points shortly after the interview.

Russert could have pointed out that Rudy's claim that he'd "stop IllegalImmigration" is a lie: at the most he could greatly reduce it. And, he could have asked him about the hugely negative side-effects of the amnesty he supports, such as to give the MexicanGovernment even more political power inside the U.S. (which they'd then use to press for more "reform").

He could have pointed out that Rudy's "ForeignersOnly" ID card would eventually become a NationalID. Either that, or it would be ineffective. And, even a current Rudy advisor spoke out against NationalIDs back in 1986:

http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/007130.html

And, he could have discussed another business link Rudy has, clarifying a related "misunderstanding":

http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/007011.html

So, in MSM terms, Russert is tough. In the prosecutorial terms that Rudy understands, he's a kitty cat.

Posted by: LonewackoDotCom | December 10, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

This still doesn't explain how or why anyone will care about Giuliani if he doesn't finish better than 3rd in Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, or South Carolina. There are 17 days between Jan 19th and February 5th. How much talk during that half-month will be about Rudy, and how much will be about the candidates who will have been finishing above him?

Posted by: novamatt | December 10, 2007 12:57 PM | Report abuse

"Giuliani ... laughed off (literally) the allegations of his ties to Chavez."

hE ALSO LAUGHED OFF THE fOX ALLEGATIONS. For some people in this country, the answers don't amtter. They are looking for a brand, like ceral. The words don't matter. The issues don't matter. only getting their way matters. Like elementary school children.

But we'll see how far it gets him. I think all these allegations the last month are very serious. The right may or may not demand answers, espically in regards to his terrorism ties. I'm sick of trying to understand the physco cult. Who knows what they are going to do next.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 10, 2007 12:54 PM | Report abuse

I thought Rudy was only mildly effective, and certainly didn't get as high marks with me as he apparently did with The Fix. Rudy's constant push for Russert to show how he was polling in Florida just highlighted to me how he's going to get creamed in Iowa (5%? Not a lot of Yankee fans in the heartland).

"Would it be appropriate for a president to provide Secret Service protection for his mistress?" Priceless question, but Rudy didn't seem to get how the mere fact that the question was being raised made him apprear at once both outrageous and diminished. If he goes national, if he gets his party's nomination, Southern voters will stay home in droves if Dems play this issue correctly.

I expect no bump, no rise in the polls, nothing from Rudy's performance on MtP to change anyone's mind in Iowa, NH or SC. The best he can hope for is to be Mitt's or Huck's Sec of State.

Posted by: thingsthatshine | December 10, 2007 12:51 PM | Report abuse

"Giuliani ... laughed off (literally) the allegations of his ties to Chavez."

HRC used to laugh off tough questions, but stopped the practice once people realized she used the tactic to ignore the question. Did Giuliani ever answer the question, or just laugh and move on to something else?

Posted by: bsimon | December 10, 2007 12:42 PM | Report abuse

As long as the truth is out there, I'm fine with the right's propoganda. It's what they were doing from 01- 06, I have a problem with. Blacking out real news adn covering anna nicole, lohan and garbage stories. I know the gop likes to hide from truth. As long as it's out there for all to see. I'm good. People can make their decisions based on what's important to them. When the news is blacked out, or flat out lies like Fox, then the voting populance can't make their decisions based on facts.

So as long as he's asked the questions, I'm cool. He can answer anyway he wants. Voters will decide if he is being truthful or not. But what the right did the last 7 years, is why the left's movement is so strong now. Zero accountability, point the finger, lie spin and discredit. That time is over for the right. it comes back on them, finally. Only had to wait a few decades :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 10, 2007 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Of course I think cc's description is a tad off the radar. Tim Russert? But that's another ball of wax.

Rudy gave answers to questions. That will be enough for some. Some what the truth. Some care about REAL answers. The time of giving any answer, attacking the question, or being louder and angrier, are over. Any answer will not do. I thought rudy's defense of his past, mostly his terrorism ties, were a joke, personally.

He has zero chance, as does mitt. Huckabee is looking more and more serious as the weeks peal away

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 10, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company