Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Will Rudy Talk About Iraq?

Listen to any stump speech by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and you're likely to hear talk of crime rates, education reform, tax cuts and Sept. 11, 2001. What you're not likely to hear is much at all about foreign policy.

Take a new web video posted on Giuliani's Web site Monday that seems aimed at defining Giuliani in advance of the first Republican presidential debate set for Thursday in California.

The video, which was produced by Jim Dyke and Laura Crawford for Giuliani, features snippets from a series of speeches by Giuliani. "This country needs a president that can exercise fiscal discipline and I think this country needs a president to keep us on offense on the war on terror," Giuliani says at the video's start. He then ticks off a series of accomplishments that include cutting taxes, halving the welfare rolls and reducing crime.

"I have a record of producing and getting results," Giuliani says at the ad's end.

We've noted the absence of foreign policy details in Giuliani's stump speech before. However, he does emphasize the fact that he is well-traveled, having visited more than 90 countries since leaving office in 2001. "Foreign policy has always been an area of great interest to me," Guiliani said in a speech in Washington, D.C. in late February. "I know the world."

It's interesting to contrast the heavy focus on domestic policy by Giuliani with that of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). McCain has fallen from frontrunner status for a number of reasons but the largest appears to be his inability/unwillingness to take the focus off of the Iraq.

On a daily basis McCain is dogged by questions about his position on Iraq and his support for the surge. He gave a major speech laying out his position before he ever formally entered the race. He's been booed for his stance on the Jon Stewart show and greeted by protesters in his home state during his presidential announcement tour.

Giuliani, too, has voiced support for the surge as has former Gov. Mitt Romney (Mass.) who comprise the top tier along with McCain. And yet, neither Giuliani nor Romney have faced anywhere near the level of scrutiny regarding Iraq (or their foreign policy vision more generally) that McCain has.

Why? It's difficult to say.

Perhaps McCain's history as a prisoner of war makes it an irresistible storyline for the media. Or maybe Giuliani's accomplishments in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks continue to insulate him from a detailed examination of his relative dearth of foreign policy pronouncements.

Regardless of the reason, Giuliani's ability to talk almost exclusively about domestic matters has served him well; it also hasn't hurt that the media has latched on to McCain and Iraq as the storyline driving the Republican primary to this point.

But, can Giuliani hold any reasonable expectation that he will make it through the entire primary process without having to prove his foreign policy bona fides or outlining a vision for America's place in the world? Probably not.

A look at public polling explains why.

When voters are asked to name the most important issue facing America, they choose Iraq by wide margins. Generally, while more than a third of those sampled name Iraq as the nation's most pressing problem, domestic issues like the economy, healthcare, immigration and even terrorism tend to garner low double digit or high single digit support.

Giuliani is smart to focus on his accomplishments in the domestic sphere as there is little to be gained politically for a Republican to talk publicly about his support for the Bush Administration's Iraq policy. And, to this point he has successfully used his stewardship of New York City following the attacks of Sept 11, 2001 as a stand-in for the relative lack of foreign policy experience he has had in public life.

But, at some point before next year's Iowa caucuses voters are likely to take a hard look at each of the candidates to see what the world would like like if each one was in the Oval Office. Giuliani is placing a big bet on his performance in the days and months following Sept. 11, 2001 is enough evidence for voters wondering if he is up to the challenge of leading on the world stage.

There's a major difference between being America's Mayor and America's President, however. No candidate can be elected president in this political environment -- where the war in Iraq dominates -- without explaining in detail not only how they would solve the problem of Iraq but also how they envision America's role in the world over the next decade.

When and how Giuliani decides to do that remains an open question.

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 1, 2007; 8:34 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Will Dems Get Another Shot at Arizona's 1st?
Next: Fix Picks: More on Gore

Comments

Guiliani is propably still "developing" a foreign policy show and tell. His team of so called experts are propably crafting out his position. He has no votes, never served in the military to my knowledge and has been in no position to direct anything like a war. Fighting crime in NYC is far different than leading a nation in war, or protecting the homeland from outside forces. As far as Romney goes, I'm certain his views are still "evolving". He's came out as the candidate that has views closer to my own...but I know his view's "evolve". I'm certain that if he won the Republican nomination, his views would evolve again between the primary and general election. Guiliani, by the way, now doesn't support gay unions as he always did in NYC.

McCain has a long voting record on foreign policy issues and has served as a Naval Officer himself for 20 years. He has expressed his views on the war on terror, Iraq and keeping America's military strong all together. To merely say McCain "supports the Bush strategy" is a little vague and very misleading. McCain recently suggested he'd close down Guantanamo Bay and move those prisioners to camps here in America. He also rejects the Bush, Cheney and Tenet philosophy that torture works for information. He says he doesn't buy that argument and believes the USA should torture no prisioners. He also said from the very beginning of the war in Iraq that he would have sent in many more troops to take cities as they arrived in them, patrol and protect the cities, find and destroy the weapons and would have enough troops there to help rebuild infrastructure. McCain also believes we need a bigger army and Marine Corps., which was one of the major disagreements he had with Rumsfeld. McCain also has talked, from the beginning of this war, about being honest with the American people about the statues of this war, why were there, the mistakes that have been made, the progress being made, how long it will take and what we hope for and expect to happen in the near future. He has been persistent and consistent in his foreign policy views and has not wavered, no matter what survey's say. This is what we need in a great leader. Someone who will lead on principle, not emotions or for political advantage.

Posted by: reason | May 2, 2007 12:20 PM | Report abuse

YEEEEAAHHHH. "Murdoch's News Corp. Bid for Dow Jones Rejected"

REJECTED

Posted by: rufu1133 | May 1, 2007 7:14 PM | Report abuse

I see that this koz person has absolutely no life, and is intent on keeping anyone from having a conversation, and on ruining this board.I've seen it happen before. I suggest we all get together and email CC and ask that he be blocked.

Posted by: Jane | May 1, 2007 5:32 PM | Report abuse

"more than likely they have a ax to grind against dems'

so we will overlook the corruption, that's how we Dems do it and why the list of corrupt Dems is soooooo looooong.

I don't confront facts, I can't win. I prefer to stick with name-calling and personal smears. that is our Liberal way.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Hizbullah won the Second Lebanon War by achieving a propaganda victory over Israel, a Harvard University study has concluded.

coming soon to a war near you.

Love,
Harry

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Drudge Report Could Be Worth $1 Billion In Buyout Given that the average price to earnings ratio in the newspaper industry is 23, a value on the internet driven revenue stream of Drudge can easily justify a near billion dollar value for the site

but I say it is going broke. and murdoch is finished, evan thogh he has money to buy more. I know math.

Posted by: dufas1133 | May 1, 2007 5:18 PM | Report abuse

more corrupt Dems-interesting article but the writer, writes for the american conservative union. more than likely they have a ax to grind against dems. but nice cut and paste tho, now can you string together a coherent thought anonzouk?

Posted by: anonymous | May 1, 2007 5:17 PM | Report abuse

ZOUK IS A FACSIST. THIS POST IS DONE TODAY. Sorry if I contributed or hurt anybody's feelings :(. You right-wings are funny to me. "You can't handle the truth."

You can't hide from the truth. You can't live in you caves forever. Read about plato's cave analogy. You are a slave and you don't even know your master. Sad Sad day

Posted by: RUFUS1133 | May 1, 2007 5:13 PM | Report abuse

In other words, it appears Sen. Feinstein was up to her ears in the same sort of shenanigans that landed California Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R) in the slammer. Indeed, it may be that the primary difference between the two is basically that Cunningham was a minor leaguer and a lot dumber than his state's senior senator.

Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington, or CREW, usually focuses on the ethical lapses of Republicans and conservatives, but even she is appalled at the way Sen. Feinstein has abused her position. Sloan told a California reporter earlier this month that while"there are a number of members of Congress with conflicts of interest ... because of the amount of money involved, Feinstein's conflict of interest is an order of magnitude greater than those conflicts."

http://thehill.com/david-keene/feinsteins-cardinal-shenanigans-2007-04-30.html

Posted by: more corrupt Dems | May 1, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Bush's comments and expected veto come exactly four years after his speech on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln decorated with a huge "Mission Accomplished" banner.
At the time, Bush's approval rating was 63 percent, with the public's disapproval at 34 percent.


I have no clue about facts. My name is Loudumb voter.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 5:05 PM | Report abuse

I take full responsibility for that. I am ignoRANT coward. I am famous now. I have run KOZ off and appointed myself head of imbecility. this is my greatest accomplishment. Remember my name.

Any of you who want a rational or civilized discussion, look elsewhere as long as I am here.

I am ignoRANT coward - hear me roar. I will continue to post witty one liners for your entertainment pleasure. It is really quite easy if you know how to cut and paste. watch.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 5:01 PM | Report abuse

anonymous coward: "He was so unpopular he won reelection - just like bush. that is how Dems do math."

Bush won reelection and is now the most unpopular president in history. his reelection did not take place on 9/10, einstein. by that point he was indeed very unpopular.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | May 1, 2007 4:59 PM | Report abuse

you guys certainly are adept at turning this blog into a useless site unworth visiting. Congratulations on lowering the discourse.

Posted by: bsimon | May 1, 2007 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Stop calling me zouk. I am ignorant coward and proud to be a Lib. zouk is my sworn enemy. He is my polar opposite. I don't need to make sense, plenty of others do that. I am a victim of NJ toxic waste. It seeped into the water and caused abberations. I am trying to make a living off the law suit. Until then I'll be here offering wisdom.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Why don't you see a shrink, zoukie? You seem to be coming unglued.

Posted by: Sam | May 1, 2007 4:44 PM | Report abuse

How mentally defective and simple I am

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 4:44 PM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON, DC (CNN) -- Dems ideas fail to fill in an entire bumper sticker. Searching for some more words. content unimportant now. Please help!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 4:43 PM | Report abuse

'you're either with us or against us'

'we'll stand down when they stand up'

'we fight 'them' over there so we don't have to fight 'them' here'

ad infinitum, ad nauseum

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 4:42 PM | Report abuse

How mentally defective and simple I am.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

republicans invented 'bumper sticker politics' --they're the ones that reduce every argument to a moronic sound bite...

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

There is nothing wrong. I am always like this.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

How is it that Fox "news" can run stories everyday for three months for Rosie O'Donnell, a retired actress, to get off the air. After all the damage this austrailian has done to this country. All the thousands of lives lost, they've contributed to. Have you heard of Bill O'Reilly's "Boycott Frace" campaign. I say let's all boycott Austrailia :)

Posted by: Rufus1133 | May 1, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

the queen of kook likes to make anon posts calling attention to how mentally defective he is, blarg, that's all.

as if we didn't already know that. he clearly has nothing else to do.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 4:38 PM | Report abuse

"my campaign is about integrity - returning integrity to the political process"

Yeah, like the integrity of paying someone to think up talking points for your conversation with a preacher.

bumper sticker politics

Obama :
Hope and Audacity , Integrity Optional

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 1, 2007 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Bad news. Rupert Murdock, the austrailian, is putting all that oil money to use. Not only did he put an offer out for wall street journal, but also the dow joes reporting mechinism. I guess he is tried to legitimize news corp, before they go under. He must be scared. I sincerly hope the DOW JONES doesn't go under corrput republican contol. Is this still America? What is happening to our country?

Posted by: RUFUS1133 | May 1, 2007 4:34 PM | Report abuse

I just don't know what's wrong with you people.

Posted by: Blarg | May 1, 2007 4:33 PM | Report abuse

How mentally defective and simple I am.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 4:31 PM | Report abuse

william, razor, kooks, proud why are you tormenting me? I am so used to getting away with saying idiotic things. Mostly I just get the raised eyebrows. no fair pointing out what a dimwit I am. It is a vast right wing conspiracy and I am the target.

Or maybe that was me pointing out what a dimwit I was. the confusion is starting again. I need to go find something to cut and paste. I'll be back.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Stop posting long stories. that is my gimick.

Question, CC -- why does no one in the press cover the fact that Laura Bush regularly pays $700 for a haircut -- every 3 weeks?


'Only because it would save time and make them more efficient, I think members of the Beltway press corps should consider starting up a new reporting pool, to duplicate the one currently in place for shadowing the president; the one that boasts a rotating cast of reporters who cover his every mundane move and then share the information. Except, instead of tailing the president at each public event, this new media pool would focus exclusively on the grooming habits of leading Democrats.

Call it the haircut beat.

Matt Drudge for years has done his best to stay on top of all the breaking haircut news, but with the 2008 campaign ramping up, no single person can be expected to monitor such an important press topic. News organizations would be wise to act now, rather than be caught flat-footed if and when news suddenly breaks that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) has changed barbers, or Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) has opted for a different hair tint. After all, both stories, while admittedly trivial, could serve as telling metaphors for a modern-day campaign.

It was only through hard work and focused determination that the Beltway press corps was able to stay on top of the recent John Edwards haircut blockbuster, after news broke that he had to reimburse his campaign for two pricey $400 haircuts. But how many times can reporters and pundits be expected to respond with such vigor? There needs to be some sort of collective newsroom mechanism in place so that no Democratic haircut lead goes unreported.

Creepy media undercurrent

Yes, I'm being facetious, but in the wake of the Edwards haircut saga, it's hard not to be contemptuous of the press. And I'm not just referring to its skewed pursuit of trivia. Fact: According to TVeyes.com, CNN aired more references to John Edwards' haircut than it did to Edwards' reaction to the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the ban on so-called partial birth abortions.

Addressing the pressing topic of Edwards' trim recently on National Public Radio, which returned to the issue again and again, Vanity Fair's Todd Purdum phoned in to announce the story served as a telling metaphor for the campaign.

I'll say. The only difference is Purdum thinks the story revealed a telling trait about the Edwards candidacy. I'm convinced the story exposed something far more informative about how the Beltway press operates.

For one, haircut stories reveal a very creepy media undercurrent as millionaire pundits use the mini-controversies to prove that they -- unlike spurious Democrats -- are still in touch with their working roots. Why journalists feel they need to manufacture blue-collar bona fides remains unclear. (What are they running for?) Yet they regularly press the point in the context of supposedly unmasking "phony" Democrats.

Teeing off on the breaking haircut news, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd recently ridiculed Edwards. Referring to him as the Breck Girl and the Material Boy, she claimed Edwards' lavish lifestyle meant he wasn't qualified to talk about working-class woes in America. "You can't sell earnestness while indulging in decadence," she lectured Edwards.

But to me, this was the most telling passage:

Speaking of roots, my dad, a police detective who was in charge of Senate security, got haircuts at the Senate barbershop for 50 cents. He cut my three brothers' hair and did the same for anyone else in the neighborhood who wanted a free clip job.

Belittling Edwards for being out of touch, Dowd felt the strange urge to prove she had a working-class bond, so she invoked her dad, the cop. Of course, it would have been more persuasive if Dowd had referenced something from her adult life, but since I'm guessing she pays more than $400 for her SoHo rinse and trims, dear old dad had to do.

Meanwhile, NBC anchor Brian Williams appeared as a guest on David Letterman's show last week where discussion soon turned to Edwards' haircut. Asked what was the most he'd ever paid for a trim, Williams responded, "probably $12."

Really? I have to pay $16, plus tip, for a trim at a little barbershop on Valley Avenue in the New Jersey 'burbs. But Williams, who lives in a restored farmhouse in Connecticut where he parks his 477-horsepower black Porsche GT2 (that is, when he's not decamping on the Upper East Side), gets his haircut for just $12. And remember, that's probably the most he's ever paid.

Williams enjoys a $10 million salary. He's a celebrity journalist and recent Men's Vogue cover boy, who, up until just a few years ago, was probably known as much for his perfectly coiffed locks as he was his reporting skills. Yet, eager to project himself as one of the guys, Williams insists his trims cost chump change.

And it wasn't haircut-related, but did you see NBC's Tim Russert being interviewed on Bill Moyers' recent documentary, Buying the War, which looked at the media's weak, lapdog performance during the run-up to the Iraq invasion? Pressed at one point about why he allowed himself and Meet the Press to be co-opted by the White House in 2002 and 2003, Russert responded, "I'm a blue-collar guy from Buffalo and I know who my sources are [and] I work 'em very hard" [emphasis added].

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 4:24 PM | Report abuse

JUST RELEASED: 36 pages of lists and background briefings for the 17 phone calls Obama's political staff wanted him to make last week.

"On the campaign trail, he is the picture of casual cool: the tie-less, open-necked embodiment of a new generation and style.

However, behind the scenes, he is as old school methodical as they come, with an operation that is not as experienced as Clinton's, but that has the focus and discipline to try to run with her. The results are serious, and thorough, though at times the scripted rigor borders on the comic.

The results are serious, and thorough,
though at times the scripted rigor borders on the comic.

Two of the calls are to black ministers - an important political constituency for any Democrat, especially for an African American whose ties to the community are, for some, an issue.

One of the ministers is Bishop Kenneth Ulmer, Pastor of the Faithful Central Bible Church in Inglewood, California.

This is relatively new territory to Obama, judging from the memo.

"Faith Central has more than 13,000 members and owns and meets at the Great Western Forum, the former home of the L.A. Lakers. He has a weekly broadcast on TBN that reaches millions of viewers.

"Bishop Ulmer is very interested in your candidacy," the talking points continue. "His primary concern is that your campaign is about more than politics, and that you will be interested in a relationship with him whether or not you win.

"YOU will be in Los Angeles this Sunday but will not worship with Bishop Ulmer. You'll be at first A.M.E. for a service commemorating the anniversary of the L.A. riots."

Then the staff gave Obama a suggested script for his conversation with Ulmer:

"Bishop, it's good to connect with you. I've been looking forward to speaking with you for a while. How's everything going at the church? I'm looking forward to worshipping with you all very soon. Have you been following the campaign? How do think we're doing so far?"

The suggested script continued, "Bishop, my campaign is about integrity - returning integrity to the political process, and treating people's needs with integrity. I understand that's the same approach you've taken in your ministry for a long time. I think we have a lot in common. Bishop, I'd be honored to have you on my team. I would like you advising me on the landscape in California and how to approach the religious community nationally."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18416248/

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 1, 2007 4:22 PM | Report abuse

the only thing spooky, queen of kooks, is how transparent and simple-minded and juvenile you are.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 4:22 PM | Report abuse

sometimes i post things that my other self doesn't know about. spooky huh?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Rufus - Your daily piece of the sky, falling on the Republican Party: "Documents, interviews reveal that Bush aides killed proposal to rein in student loan industry...as early as 2001". They're all crooks and they have turned the Republican Party into a criminal syndicate.

Posted by: MikeB | May 1, 2007 4:20 PM | Report abuse

'How mentally defective and simple I am.'

we all know that, queen of kooks.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 4:20 PM | Report abuse

yes you are, queen. good of you to admit it.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 4:19 PM | Report abuse

(BRAWWWWK!)

Posted by: Polly | May 1, 2007 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Question, CC -- why does no one in the press cover the fact that Laura Bush regularly pays $700 for a haircut -- every 3 weeks?


'Only because it would save time and make them more efficient, I think members of the Beltway press corps should consider starting up a new reporting pool, to duplicate the one currently in place for shadowing the president; the one that boasts a rotating cast of reporters who cover his every mundane move and then share the information. Except, instead of tailing the president at each public event, this new media pool would focus exclusively on the grooming habits of leading Democrats.

Call it the haircut beat.

Matt Drudge for years has done his best to stay on top of all the breaking haircut news, but with the 2008 campaign ramping up, no single person can be expected to monitor such an important press topic. News organizations would be wise to act now, rather than be caught flat-footed if and when news suddenly breaks that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) has changed barbers, or Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) has opted for a different hair tint. After all, both stories, while admittedly trivial, could serve as telling metaphors for a modern-day campaign.

It was only through hard work and focused determination that the Beltway press corps was able to stay on top of the recent John Edwards haircut blockbuster, after news broke that he had to reimburse his campaign for two pricey $400 haircuts. But how many times can reporters and pundits be expected to respond with such vigor? There needs to be some sort of collective newsroom mechanism in place so that no Democratic haircut lead goes unreported.

Creepy media undercurrent

Yes, I'm being facetious, but in the wake of the Edwards haircut saga, it's hard not to be contemptuous of the press. And I'm not just referring to its skewed pursuit of trivia. Fact: According to TVeyes.com, CNN aired more references to John Edwards' haircut than it did to Edwards' reaction to the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the ban on so-called partial birth abortions.

Addressing the pressing topic of Edwards' trim recently on National Public Radio, which returned to the issue again and again, Vanity Fair's Todd Purdum phoned in to announce the story served as a telling metaphor for the campaign.

I'll say. The only difference is Purdum thinks the story revealed a telling trait about the Edwards candidacy. I'm convinced the story exposed something far more informative about how the Beltway press operates.

For one, haircut stories reveal a very creepy media undercurrent as millionaire pundits use the mini-controversies to prove that they -- unlike spurious Democrats -- are still in touch with their working roots. Why journalists feel they need to manufacture blue-collar bona fides remains unclear. (What are they running for?) Yet they regularly press the point in the context of supposedly unmasking "phony" Democrats.

Teeing off on the breaking haircut news, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd recently ridiculed Edwards. Referring to him as the Breck Girl and the Material Boy, she claimed Edwards' lavish lifestyle meant he wasn't qualified to talk about working-class woes in America. "You can't sell earnestness while indulging in decadence," she lectured Edwards.

But to me, this was the most telling passage:

Speaking of roots, my dad, a police detective who was in charge of Senate security, got haircuts at the Senate barbershop for 50 cents. He cut my three brothers' hair and did the same for anyone else in the neighborhood who wanted a free clip job.

Belittling Edwards for being out of touch, Dowd felt the strange urge to prove she had a working-class bond, so she invoked her dad, the cop. Of course, it would have been more persuasive if Dowd had referenced something from her adult life, but since I'm guessing she pays more than $400 for her SoHo rinse and trims, dear old dad had to do.

Meanwhile, NBC anchor Brian Williams appeared as a guest on David Letterman's show last week where discussion soon turned to Edwards' haircut. Asked what was the most he'd ever paid for a trim, Williams responded, "probably $12."

Really? I have to pay $16, plus tip, for a trim at a little barbershop on Valley Avenue in the New Jersey 'burbs. But Williams, who lives in a restored farmhouse in Connecticut where he parks his 477-horsepower black Porsche GT2 (that is, when he's not decamping on the Upper East Side), gets his haircut for just $12. And remember, that's probably the most he's ever paid.

Williams enjoys a $10 million salary. He's a celebrity journalist and recent Men's Vogue cover boy, who, up until just a few years ago, was probably known as much for his perfectly coiffed locks as he was his reporting skills. Yet, eager to project himself as one of the guys, Williams insists his trims cost chump change.

And it wasn't haircut-related, but did you see NBC's Tim Russert being interviewed on Bill Moyers' recent documentary, Buying the War, which looked at the media's weak, lapdog performance during the run-up to the Iraq invasion? Pressed at one point about why he allowed himself and Meet the Press to be co-opted by the White House in 2002 and 2003, Russert responded, "I'm a blue-collar guy from Buffalo and I know who my sources are [and] I work 'em very hard" [emphasis added].

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 4:18 PM | Report abuse

How mentally defective and simple I am.


Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 4:17 PM | Report abuse

How mentally defective and simple I am.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Question, CC -- why does no one in the press cover the fact that Laura Bush regularly pays $700 for a haircut -- every 3 weeks?


'Only because it would save time and make them more efficient, I think members of the Beltway press corps should consider starting up a new reporting pool, to duplicate the one currently in place for shadowing the president; the one that boasts a rotating cast of reporters who cover his every mundane move and then share the information. Except, instead of tailing the president at each public event, this new media pool would focus exclusively on the grooming habits of leading Democrats.

Call it the haircut beat.

Matt Drudge for years has done his best to stay on top of all the breaking haircut news, but with the 2008 campaign ramping up, no single person can be expected to monitor such an important press topic. News organizations would be wise to act now, rather than be caught flat-footed if and when news suddenly breaks that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) has changed barbers, or Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) has opted for a different hair tint. After all, both stories, while admittedly trivial, could serve as telling metaphors for a modern-day campaign.

It was only through hard work and focused determination that the Beltway press corps was able to stay on top of the recent John Edwards haircut blockbuster, after news broke that he had to reimburse his campaign for two pricey $400 haircuts. But how many times can reporters and pundits be expected to respond with such vigor? There needs to be some sort of collective newsroom mechanism in place so that no Democratic haircut lead goes unreported.

Creepy media undercurrent

Yes, I'm being facetious, but in the wake of the Edwards haircut saga, it's hard not to be contemptuous of the press. And I'm not just referring to its skewed pursuit of trivia. Fact: According to TVeyes.com, CNN aired more references to John Edwards' haircut than it did to Edwards' reaction to the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the ban on so-called partial birth abortions.

Addressing the pressing topic of Edwards' trim recently on National Public Radio, which returned to the issue again and again, Vanity Fair's Todd Purdum phoned in to announce the story served as a telling metaphor for the campaign.

I'll say. The only difference is Purdum thinks the story revealed a telling trait about the Edwards candidacy. I'm convinced the story exposed something far more informative about how the Beltway press operates.

For one, haircut stories reveal a very creepy media undercurrent as millionaire pundits use the mini-controversies to prove that they -- unlike spurious Democrats -- are still in touch with their working roots. Why journalists feel they need to manufacture blue-collar bona fides remains unclear. (What are they running for?) Yet they regularly press the point in the context of supposedly unmasking "phony" Democrats.

Teeing off on the breaking haircut news, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd recently ridiculed Edwards. Referring to him as the Breck Girl and the Material Boy, she claimed Edwards' lavish lifestyle meant he wasn't qualified to talk about working-class woes in America. "You can't sell earnestness while indulging in decadence," she lectured Edwards.

But to me, this was the most telling passage:

Speaking of roots, my dad, a police detective who was in charge of Senate security, got haircuts at the Senate barbershop for 50 cents. He cut my three brothers' hair and did the same for anyone else in the neighborhood who wanted a free clip job.

Belittling Edwards for being out of touch, Dowd felt the strange urge to prove she had a working-class bond, so she invoked her dad, the cop. Of course, it would have been more persuasive if Dowd had referenced something from her adult life, but since I'm guessing she pays more than $400 for her SoHo rinse and trims, dear old dad had to do.

Meanwhile, NBC anchor Brian Williams appeared as a guest on David Letterman's show last week where discussion soon turned to Edwards' haircut. Asked what was the most he'd ever paid for a trim, Williams responded, "probably $12."

Really? I have to pay $16, plus tip, for a trim at a little barbershop on Valley Avenue in the New Jersey 'burbs. But Williams, who lives in a restored farmhouse in Connecticut where he parks his 477-horsepower black Porsche GT2 (that is, when he's not decamping on the Upper East Side), gets his haircut for just $12. And remember, that's probably the most he's ever paid.

Williams enjoys a $10 million salary. He's a celebrity journalist and recent Men's Vogue cover boy, who, up until just a few years ago, was probably known as much for his perfectly coiffed locks as he was his reporting skills. Yet, eager to project himself as one of the guys, Williams insists his trims cost chump change.

And it wasn't haircut-related, but did you see NBC's Tim Russert being interviewed on Bill Moyers' recent documentary, Buying the War, which looked at the media's weak, lapdog performance during the run-up to the Iraq invasion? Pressed at one point about why he allowed himself and Meet the Press to be co-opted by the White House in 2002 and 2003, Russert responded, "I'm a blue-collar guy from Buffalo and I know who my sources are [and] I work 'em very hard" [emphasis added].

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 4:12 PM | Report abuse

I have no opinions or thoughts of my own but I know how to cut and paste. My mom is proud. Occasionally, I go to my other homes - Kos, nation, huff and get some new ideas, well new to me. then i come here and declare my originality. because I am a Lib no one bothers to check or ask if there is any basis to my claims. See how easy it is to seem smart. I have been doing it all my life.

I know this is not a news gathering site, but I just do whatever I feel like. that is the advantage of being a dEmoncrap.

i am ignoRANT coward.
but you can call me |

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Question, CC -- why does no one in the press cover the fact that Laura Bush regularly pays $700 for a haircut -- every 3 weeks?


'Only because it would save time and make them more efficient, I think members of the Beltway press corps should consider starting up a new reporting pool, to duplicate the one currently in place for shadowing the president; the one that boasts a rotating cast of reporters who cover his every mundane move and then share the information. Except, instead of tailing the president at each public event, this new media pool would focus exclusively on the grooming habits of leading Democrats.

Call it the haircut beat.

Matt Drudge for years has done his best to stay on top of all the breaking haircut news, but with the 2008 campaign ramping up, no single person can be expected to monitor such an important press topic. News organizations would be wise to act now, rather than be caught flat-footed if and when news suddenly breaks that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) has changed barbers, or Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) has opted for a different hair tint. After all, both stories, while admittedly trivial, could serve as telling metaphors for a modern-day campaign.

It was only through hard work and focused determination that the Beltway press corps was able to stay on top of the recent John Edwards haircut blockbuster, after news broke that he had to reimburse his campaign for two pricey $400 haircuts. But how many times can reporters and pundits be expected to respond with such vigor? There needs to be some sort of collective newsroom mechanism in place so that no Democratic haircut lead goes unreported.

Creepy media undercurrent

Yes, I'm being facetious, but in the wake of the Edwards haircut saga, it's hard not to be contemptuous of the press. And I'm not just referring to its skewed pursuit of trivia. Fact: According to TVeyes.com, CNN aired more references to John Edwards' haircut than it did to Edwards' reaction to the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the ban on so-called partial birth abortions.

Addressing the pressing topic of Edwards' trim recently on National Public Radio, which returned to the issue again and again, Vanity Fair's Todd Purdum phoned in to announce the story served as a telling metaphor for the campaign.

I'll say. The only difference is Purdum thinks the story revealed a telling trait about the Edwards candidacy. I'm convinced the story exposed something far more informative about how the Beltway press operates.

For one, haircut stories reveal a very creepy media undercurrent as millionaire pundits use the mini-controversies to prove that they -- unlike spurious Democrats -- are still in touch with their working roots. Why journalists feel they need to manufacture blue-collar bona fides remains unclear. (What are they running for?) Yet they regularly press the point in the context of supposedly unmasking "phony" Democrats.

Teeing off on the breaking haircut news, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd recently ridiculed Edwards. Referring to him as the Breck Girl and the Material Boy, she claimed Edwards' lavish lifestyle meant he wasn't qualified to talk about working-class woes in America. "You can't sell earnestness while indulging in decadence," she lectured Edwards.

But to me, this was the most telling passage:

Speaking of roots, my dad, a police detective who was in charge of Senate security, got haircuts at the Senate barbershop for 50 cents. He cut my three brothers' hair and did the same for anyone else in the neighborhood who wanted a free clip job.

Belittling Edwards for being out of touch, Dowd felt the strange urge to prove she had a working-class bond, so she invoked her dad, the cop. Of course, it would have been more persuasive if Dowd had referenced something from her adult life, but since I'm guessing she pays more than $400 for her SoHo rinse and trims, dear old dad had to do.

Meanwhile, NBC anchor Brian Williams appeared as a guest on David Letterman's show last week where discussion soon turned to Edwards' haircut. Asked what was the most he'd ever paid for a trim, Williams responded, "probably $12."

Really? I have to pay $16, plus tip, for a trim at a little barbershop on Valley Avenue in the New Jersey 'burbs. But Williams, who lives in a restored farmhouse in Connecticut where he parks his 477-horsepower black Porsche GT2 (that is, when he's not decamping on the Upper East Side), gets his haircut for just $12. And remember, that's probably the most he's ever paid.

Williams enjoys a $10 million salary. He's a celebrity journalist and recent Men's Vogue cover boy, who, up until just a few years ago, was probably known as much for his perfectly coiffed locks as he was his reporting skills. Yet, eager to project himself as one of the guys, Williams insists his trims cost chump change.

And it wasn't haircut-related, but did you see NBC's Tim Russert being interviewed on Bill Moyers' recent documentary, Buying the War, which looked at the media's weak, lapdog performance during the run-up to the Iraq invasion? Pressed at one point about why he allowed himself and Meet the Press to be co-opted by the White House in 2002 and 2003, Russert responded, "I'm a blue-collar guy from Buffalo and I know who my sources are [and] I work 'em very hard" [emphasis added].

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Limbaugh this hour: 'Just get comfortable, folks and listen. Let yourself be mindnumb robot sponges while I fill you in. Never listen to the driveby media.'

How mentally defective and simple his listeners are, to allow themselves willigly to be insulted like that. You wingers are all truly pathetic.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Dave!: While typing and posting, I find you have left out my favorite, Countdown with Keith Olbermann. This is by far, IMHO, the best of these type shows. The combination of wit and humer with factual reporting is something I reccomend highly for everyone that has an interest in politics.

Posted by: lylepink | May 1, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

the queen of kooks and regurgitators lectures about 'oriiginal thought' --LOL --you don't even know what it means, ignorant coward.

'According to ABC News, reports that al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Ayyub al-Masri has been killed are "unconfirmed and part of a misinformation campaign." ABC has not posted its full story yet, and details are unclear, but it's worth reviewing the last time the media reported major news about al-Masri.

On February 15, CNN reported al-Masri had been injured in a clash with Iraqi forces:

The leader of al Qaeda in Iraq has been wounded and his top aide killed in a clash with police, an Iraqi Interior Ministry spokesman told CNN Thursday.

Brig. Gen. Abdul Karim Khalaf said Iraqi police got into a firefight with insurgents on the road between Falluja, west of Baghdad, and Samarra, north of Baghdad, and wounded Abu Ayyub al-Masri.

Every major media outlet picked up on the news. The next day, however, the U.S. military announced that the report was false. No such event occurred.

Nevertheless, the false report came at an opportune time for the President Bush and his congressional allies.

- February 15 was the day before the House of Representatives voted on its resolution opposing Bush's Iraq escalation strategy, marking the first time in four years that Congress voted decisively against Bush's Iraq policy.

- Also that week, the Bush administration was aggressively attempting to contain the fall-out from its botched intelligence briefing in Baghdad, which attempted to link the deadly explosives in Iraq to senior Iranian officials. After repeatedly defending the accuracy of the intelligence, the Bush administration chose February 15 to quietly acknowledge that their intelligence was wrong.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 4:02 PM | Report abuse

'I hate to break this to you, but CNN IS a legitimate news outlet as well as source of opinions.'

Umm, sorry, no...

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 3:58 PM | Report abuse

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraq's prime minister has created an entity within his government that U.S. and Iraqi military officials say is being used as a smokescreen to hide an extreme Shiite agenda that is worsening the country's sectarian divide.

The Office of the Commander in Chief has the power to overrule other government ministries, according to U.S. military and intelligence sources.

Those sources say the 24-member office is abusing its power, increasingly overriding decisions made by the Iraqi Ministries of Defense and Interior and potentially undermining the entire U.S. effort in Iraq.

Posted by: more progress!! | May 1, 2007 3:56 PM | Report abuse

'I hate to break this to you, but Fox IS a legitimate news outlet as well as source of opinions.'

Umm, sorry, no... not unless you count Pravda as a legitimiate news outlet and press releases from karl rove as news...

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 3:54 PM | Report abuse

I see that ignorant coward has returned. too bad. Expect to see the tone degenerate into Dem/Lib insult throwing. no facts, no arguments, no sense.

I feel sorry for the rest of you Libs who have valid points to make and genuine opinions to offer. you are saddled with this clown who regurgitates everything he can cut and paste from other uber-lefty blogs. you liberals who have aged beyond adolescence should call for this to stop. It is making you ALL look bad.

that is all they have, get used to it.

ttfn

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 1, 2007 3:52 PM | Report abuse

On 9/11, Bernie Kerik who was then police commissioner, flopped miserably and undoubtedly cost many lives, because Rudy wanted him as a bodyguard:

'Kerik was actually a prime example of this managerial dysfunction all morning. For the 102 minutes when the city most needed a police commissioner orchestrating an overall response with an embattled fire department, Kerik became Giuliani's body guard, just as he had been in the 1993 mayoral campaign. His own account of what he did that morning contained no indication that he was actually managing the police response to this emergency.

The command center at 1 Police Plaza wasn't opened until 9:45, an hour after the attack, a decision that led the independent consultants commissioned by the Bloomberg administration, McKinsey & Company, to raise questions about why it was "underused."

If you want to know what really happened on 9/11, written by someone who was at the scene:

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0635,barrett,74322,6.html


Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Dave!: I just happen to agree with you. Suprise Suprise!!. Some may consider me a phyko, nut job. wacko, or other words I don't care to mention. The folks here can find anything in a speech, letter, or whatever, and literally tear it apart by using as little as one word or sentence out of the whole thing. This happens on a daily basis and what really gets to me is the referring to the source to supplement their arguement. When I see these, I am on "AUTO PILOT" to disregard them. At least try and think for yourself, no matter how your opinion may differ from others, is really what I am trying to get across.

Posted by: lylepink | May 1, 2007 3:43 PM | Report abuse

rufus1133,
I hate to break this to you, but Fox IS a legitimate news outlet as well as source of opinions. Just like NBC. Just like CBS. Just like ABC, CNN, etc. They all have NEWS in the traditional sense. They all have shows that deal with various opinions. For heavens sake have you heard of Crossfire? The Mclaughlin Group? Meet the Press? 20/20? Primetime? 60 minutes? Hardball? A huge chunk of young people get their news from COMEDY CENTRAL'S Jon Stewart. But that does not concern you. Just Fox.

I'm glad that you can decide for all of us what is and is not propaganda. That makes me sleep better at night.

Posted by: Dave! | May 1, 2007 3:40 PM | Report abuse

"They TRICK the elderly into believing propoganda is "truth"

dufus1133 -just wondering, how do you define "elderly"? Anyone older than you who actually pays taxes and has voted for more than one president in their lifetime?

Your condescending attitude toward mature adults is truly revolting; just how do you figure that older Americans, some of whom lived through WWII and the Great Depression, cannot ascertain the difference between the liberal prattling of, say, Dan Rather or Katie Couric, and actual facts?

I'd call you young and foolish, but that would be an insult to fools.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 1, 2007 3:38 PM | Report abuse

JD, why won't Razorback answer me? Is he mad at me?

Please advise.

|

Posted by: | | May 1, 2007 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Razorback... come back to bed, you big hog. I'm feeling a little |||||y, and I think it's time for us to ||||| again. I just love it when you |||| |||||| my |||||.

Kiss kiss,

|

Posted by: | | May 1, 2007 3:36 PM | Report abuse

There is nothing more pathetic than the insistence of someone who is less than mentally gifted that he/she be taken seriously as an intellectual.

Zouk, for instance.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Dave!. Propoganda is not news. Lies are not news. Tabloid opinions are not news. My problem is a high number of the elderly watch fox "news", not saying they are all elderly. The elderly are living in a changing world, this scares them. Fox Poses as a legitimate news outlet. They TRICK the elderly into believing propoganda is "truth". that is not free speech.

If I stood on a box and told everyone that green is now purple. Eventually people owuld call me a liar and tell me to get off my box, right? That's all I'm saying about fox.

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 1, 2007 3:25 PM | Report abuse

| said "LOL give me a break. Rudy encouraged cops to set fire to cars. Rudy covered for the cops when they molested a man with a broken bottle and a baseball bat"

Yeah, that's what he did. There's a memo that says, go set fires to cars.

How's the weather on Mars?

Posted by: JD | May 1, 2007 3:23 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk has been smoking the wildflowers again:

"Let's see you compose a perfect, logical, defensible statement if you can. no one is off topic but you... you are a dope."

Anyone who has been following this discussion even for a few days can appreciate the irony here.

Posted by: grammar | May 1, 2007 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Dave! - Unlike rightwing "true believers", we honestly want to understand where you people are coming from. Now, I think NeConservativism is a sort a NeoMarxist movement and would expect that even lunatics like Limbaugh would recognize that Bush and his fellow NeoCons are toxic to conservatives and would dump him like a turd from a tall horse. But, I still listen. Sometimes, very very rarely, but sometimes, I learn something new. One thing I've learned is all of those "catchy" insults tossed off by the really looney righties are parrots of Limbaugh's remarks.

Posted by: MikeB | May 1, 2007 3:19 PM | Report abuse

'Rudy brought law and order to intractable chaos.' LOL give me a break. Rudy encouraged cops to set fire to cars. Rudy covered for the cops when they molested a man with a broken bottle and a baseball bat. You know nothing.

Rudy called his own wife a wh*re on TV--one of the reasons his kids don't speak to him. What kind of a president do you think he's make if his own children can't stand him? He's that despicable.

But maybe you like the idea of his friend Bernie Kerik bringing the mafia in to run Homeland Security. Better get your protection money ready.

'or of being a flip-flopper; claims which the dems -perched like a vulture- always have at the ready.'

LOL again at the projectioin and lack of self-awareness of the smear party... who invented the term 'flip-flopper', vulture?

I see the queen of kooks is on full-time today--must have gotten his unemployment check.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 3:17 PM | Report abuse

bark, bark, hooooowwwwllll

Posted by: dufas1133 | May 1, 2007 3:16 PM | Report abuse

It's ok. I understand. It's much easier to attack me, for spelling or whatever. To attack Rosie/Baldwin/Anna Nicole/judges/lawyers/the democrats/the french/tim russert/George tenet, is much easier than actually dealing with the issues/facts. You conservatives are scared. You are fascists'. You are tresonous sell-outs. You are scared of what is. All you can do is attack. You ideas are garbage. You rmovement is over. Say what you want. The issue isn't rufus. It's not rosie. You people are shaking in your boots. A scared animal is the most dangerous. Don't destroy the country any more than you anready have, WHEN YOU ARE DEFEATED YET AGAIN

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 1, 2007 3:13 PM | Report abuse

rufus1133,
You seem to know a lot about and spend a lot of time watching or reading oreilly/hannity/rush/FOX/etc. Are you sure you are not a FOX plant trying to get people to watch? If it actually is your goal in life to eliminate FOX, how do you rationalize that with the freedom of speech and expression that Americans and America are known for? If you are so immature that you can not debate the ideas but instead feel the need to eliminate the source, that seems to suggest that you have authoritarian tendencies - wanting to control the media and its message to the masses. I probably think the same way about Air America as you do Fox. But i don't begrudge them the ability to broadcast their message, as idiotic and dangerous (IMO) as it is. You continually rant about all FOX viewers/neocons/etc all thinking the same way. Well, if you got your wish, wouldn't everybody be thinking the same way (only the way you think is correct)?

Posted by: Dave! | May 1, 2007 3:12 PM | Report abuse

No candidate can be elected president in this political environment -- where the war in Iraq dominates -- without explaining in detail not only how they would solve the problem of Iraq but also how they envision America's role in the world over the next decade.


Except for Dems of course

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 3:05 PM | Report abuse

CC asks why: Giuliani hasn't had to face anywhere near the level of scrutiny regarding Iraq (or their foreign policy vision more generally) that McCain has.

Simple, Rudy's not a Senator. He hasn't had to answer for all those years of votes, unlike his opponents. He hasn't had to fight off the claims of being too loyal to GWB or of being a flip-flopper; claims which the dems -perched like a vulture- always have at the ready.

Funny thing is, all the viable dem candidates are Senators too. What have any of them done to make America better?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 1, 2007 3:04 PM | Report abuse

I's a goood speler. I can atack you fife ways to sunda.

Sorry did I spell anything wrong? oops. I'll try and perfect before sending out statments. I realize this site is not rush.com or drudgereport.com. I know you are skepitical of anything not from those sites queen. Anything else, in the world is bais. Fox " news" isn't lying to you though, right? Everything else but them are lying all day every day. I forgot. Only rush/hannity/fox speak the truth. Sorry queen I forgot about that. Sorry for the interferance. I know you have to filter all thoughts and ideas though rush's brain. Sorry about that

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 1, 2007 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Rufas - I hope you don't own any handguns.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Not sure what your implying about me lylepink. Yes I watch fox, because I hate them. I'll admit that. How else can you communicate with Fox watchers? They are not living in reality. Fox "News" presents noting but right wing opinion as fact. They love to tell you what liberals think. How can you communicate with a martian? Learn martian :)

Posted by: RUFUS1133 | May 1, 2007 2:59 PM | Report abuse

dufas - you do it because you have a screw loose. To claim that you purposefully misspell to fool your nefarious opponents is further evidence of your battiness. no one is buying it. Let's see you compose a perfect, logical, defensible statement if you can. no one is off topic but you. no one is talking about baldwin but you. you are a dope.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 1, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse

rufus: When you start yelling at the screen while watching Fox tells me a little more about you than I think you realize. Your thoughts about getting them off the air is, well...try looking up the meaning of "Unlearned/Unlettered, which in many ways describes me. Only takes a sec.

Posted by: lylepink | May 1, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

JD - right on!

and don't forget he did it in the Liberal homeland against the grain. Maybe he can slap some sense into Pelosi and Reid if they are still around.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 1, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Sorry for the spelling errors. I like to do that to throw you conservatives off topic. It gives you something else to discuss other than the topic. I know you love to divide and conquer. How's anna nicole? Any news? Alec baldwin news anyone? :)

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 1, 2007 2:51 PM | Report abuse

"The populence is gaining in intellegence." sic

It would seem not all of them.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 2:49 PM | Report abuse

LOL Loudoun and Jane. Yes I do, since I lived outside NYC during Rudy's time, I remember it well...and I even more remember how awful it was under Dinkens (crime) and Koch (financially). And almost every NYer outside of the uber-lib upper West side would agree.

Rudy brought law and order to intractable chaos. If you dont think that people believe he could do the same for the country, you're either ignorant or in self-denial. He beat down the ridiculous unions and made tough choices.

I hope he gets a chance to do those things in Washington.

Posted by: JD | May 1, 2007 2:39 PM | Report abuse

That we also agree on.

Posted by: Danw | May 1, 2007 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Cool. Peace to you DanW. :). It's time for a change. American politics can only play these middle school games for so long. The populence is gaining in intellegence. They now see what is. The internet age changes everything. A one party system is slavery. Good louck to you

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 1, 2007 2:36 PM | Report abuse

You still have to convince a lot of people that the products are being poisoned, at the same time the companies come out with a media blitz assuring the world their product is safe (but the competitors product is poisoned). Your poison message is completely lost in the media circus of everyone claiming everyone else is poisoned. Especially since the big wigs will also say your product is poisoned as well.

Posted by: Dan W | May 1, 2007 2:36 PM | Report abuse

JD: Do you really think anyone west of the Hudson gives a crap that "Rudy cleaned up New York"? Most people still think NYC is a cesspool anyway

If that's your best case for Rudy he is toast.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | May 1, 2007 2:35 PM | Report abuse

"Rudy will address the iraq war questions on thrusday. I think the iraq war answers are going to sound like carbon copies from all the rep candidates", On that we agree.

Posted by: Dan W | May 1, 2007 2:30 PM | Report abuse

That's an excellant point dan thanks. I like that analogy. In my prespective it changes though. What if coke and or pepsi were putting poison in their drinks. Would you drink something else? Whoudl you stick with Coke becasue it was alvailable everywhere?

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 1, 2007 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Rufus: The problem is we never actually get to what the candidates views are. How many candidates actually express their personal opinions rather than what the poll study tells tell what we want to hear.

Posted by: Dan W | May 1, 2007 2:29 PM | Report abuse

back on point. Rudy will address the iraq war questions on thrusday. I think the iraq war answers are going to sound like carbon copies from all the rep candidates. Dittoheads

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 1, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Rufus: A third party would be too severely handicapped. It would need to spend millions just to convince people they aren't throwing away their vote.

Different business models/operating models only help established entities. In your dumping example, the other choice is already available.

Try this analogy instead: Assume you drink softdrinks (coke/pepsi). Well along comes a new soft drink company and tries to get into the market. Now this cola tastes as good as either of the other two and costs less. But people still don't buy it because they are unwilling to try an unproven product. Catch 22.

Posted by: Dan W | May 1, 2007 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Also, I'm not saying those issues aren't real issues. I'm saying everyone votes on a candidate based on their personal issues/goals. For someone to come in and say "these are the issues, judge the candidates on these issues", defeats the purpose of elections. We are free to each rate a candidate based on preferance. The right seems to be one brian these days. They love to tell us "what is". This is a fascist argument. It's like Bill O coming on and telling everyone what the liberals are really thinking. what a crock. It's called propoganda, or was 50 years ago

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 1, 2007 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin - Our approach is incorrect. We need to punish the employers. Make it draconian, a $10,000 a day fine per illegal employee, and remove the subcontractor dodge used by constuction companies to get around this. Too, we need to agressively go after illegals, round them up and deport them. Also, we need to challenge the twisting of the 14th Amendment, used to grant citizenship to the children of illegals. The 14th Amendment was passed after the Civil War so as to grant citizenship to the children of former slaves. It contains a provision that no one committing an illegal act can claim such automatic citizenship for their children. Now, being in the country illegally is illegal and that is grounds to deny automatic citizenship to those children. Deport them along with their parents. We do not owe them schools, social services, medical care, or anything else. Those things do DO OWE our own citizens and there simply isn't enough mooney to support millions of illegals AND our own citizens.

Dan W - I am not a libertarian. I am, in fact, a liberal. I am simply pro-worker and pro-labor. You cannot be pro-labor and support government and corporate policies that use illegal and other immigrants as a pawn to decrease wages and benefits. ANd that is exactly what the whole immigration debate boils down to. Either you are pro-labor and pro-Amercian or you are some sort of "internationalist" - a NeoCon or a NeoMarxist - same thing as far as I am concerned.

Posted by: MikeB | May 1, 2007 2:19 PM | Report abuse

KOZ: That is probably why Rudy does so well in the polls: he seems to be the candidate who most reflects the views of the liberterians.

Posted by: Dan W | May 1, 2007 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Danw. I don't get it. I don;t get how the current parties WOULD HAVE TO BE removed. I don't get that point. They would be able to compeate with a real part, I agree with that. But why? Is it a third parties problem if they are for the people with the current parties merly pose to be? That's like saying, "YOu dump nucular waste in the ocean (business), I'm not going to do that and more people will want to do business with me as a result." Should a legit party fear a fake party? I think so, and for legitimate reasons

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 1, 2007 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Rufus: Why do you think Kings 3 sample issues aren't issues you should care about? He didn't say it was an exhaustive list, but they are valid issues. I for one have a very strong opinion on those three issues. As well as taxation and Illegal immigration. If these aren't issues for you, what ARE your issues (don't care about where you stand) but what do you think the candidates should be addressing?

Posted by: Dan W | May 1, 2007 2:17 PM | Report abuse

"I watch them all the time, yelling at the screen " I just need those people off the air. They are destroying the media"

I don't believe you are capable of rational discussion so I will let you go the way of your fellow moonbats.

Isn't Rudy a representation of Libertarianism? why won't you vote for him. ( and I am not talking to drindl trying to elicit another screed.)

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 1, 2007 2:11 PM | Report abuse

JD: Hillary being married to the Dems rock star has me a little confused. Obama has been referred to as "A Rock Star". Where did you find something this outrageous?

Posted by: lylepink | May 1, 2007 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Rufus: Yep, but the only way to get that is to abolish the political parties. Wonder what the House and Senate would look like if we didn't allow them to accept contributions from any groups and limited them to donations ONLY from individuals living in the constituent communities, with each individual capped at some modest amount.
OK, I will also allow for a group to be created that will be able to make donations in the name of people who cannot afford to donate up to the cap.

Posted by: Dan W | May 1, 2007 2:11 PM | Report abuse

AussieView, that ad from '93 made my lunch hour.

Mike B and TruthHunter, I think that illegal aliens are a real wild card in this campaign because everybody but Richardson, McCain, and Tancredo seem to think it is the proverbial elephant in the room and they will not talk about it. It is the sum of at least four different problems and cannot be debated in sound bites.

I will throw out some meat on one of the sub-problems:

Southwestern border cities are overwhelmed. Urban fences in SD and EP work, but if you know the border you will understand that stringing a fence in open space is meaningless. To make the hi-tech gear effective may take five times as many agents, and a budget that returns 1000 people a day to their homelands. Border communities would think that was well worth the price.


I do, but I live in Texas.

Do you think it is worth the price?

Posted by: Mark in Austin | May 1, 2007 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Ok. So those are the topics I should care about? Thank you queen. That's for letting me know what is really important in my life. Should I care about Rosie? How about Baldwin and anna nicole? What else is important to me? Tell me? Those are topics your people tell you are the topics at hand. The topics are whatever the american people decide they are, per individual. Dittoheads are slaves

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 1, 2007 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Sorry lylepink. I wasn't trying to say you don't know about the media. I was merely saying watch fox and see how dispicable it is. I'm not saying you don't watch them. I know most independant thinkers/democrats/liberals can't watch it. I watch them all the time, yelling at the screen :). No disrepesct. I just need those people off the air. They are destroying the media. They are propogandists. They are destroying families and creating sociopaths. My goal in life is to get them off the air for good, and I'm not scared to admit it.

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 1, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Rufas - the choices are quite distinct and relevant:
do you want universal health care paid for by the rich?
do you want to cut and run in Iraq?
do you want to fix social security?
etc.
these are important choices and issues and the answers offered are not the same.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 1, 2007 1:58 PM | Report abuse

I hear you Danw. I just want reprsentation. That's all. I don't want a violent overthrow like O'Reilly/Rush/Hannity would have you believe. I just want a chance. A candidate that repesents the working man. What used to be called the middle class, when there was one. I want a representative government again, like we used to have. A one branch govt is opposite to what this country was supposed to be, and was founded as. I think we currently have a ONE BRANCH government. The democrats and republicans are differant sides to the same coin. I just want more choices. Anywhere else in life, the more choices the better. Why do we have only two viable candidates? Half the time we don't even have one but are FORCED TO CHOOSE. That is not america. It's not quite fascism, but it's pretty close. It's tricking the american people into thinking they have a choice, when really they don't.

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 1, 2007 1:54 PM | Report abuse

MikeB, Bsimon: Instead of forming a tird party, we need to get all the Liberterians and like-mindeds to register as repubs and get a liberterian to (after registering rep) run in the rep primary.
With the Liberterian-reps grabbing some crossover form moderate repubs, we win the primary, force change the platform and win the general.

Posted by: Dan W | May 1, 2007 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Judy: You could change the quote around a little by saying "In that way you...", instead of "so you ...". Same difference. RUFUS..rufus.., whatever, I do watch these folk as well as most others to get as much info as I can and then I can choose who to believe/disbelieve. The main thing about Fox, IMO, is "Listen for what they don't say.". BTW, R.M. of NewsCorp has reportedly offered 5 Bil for The WSJ., sketchy as of now, thought all you folks might want to know.

Posted by: lylepink | May 1, 2007 1:52 PM | Report abuse

rufas - because this is what characterizes a candidate. the talk shows and late night comics get hold of this and they are branded into a one word icon. bill clinton is the intern president with cigars. al gore invented the internet. Kerry voted for it before he voted against it. bob dole is the meanest man in congress. G bush (41) doesn't know the price of eggs. It is these bumper sticker notions that the uncommitted voters latch onto.

the fact that edwards spent 400 bucks on a haircut, OUT OF DONATIONS, clearly shows he is a fake and is not interested in poor people in and end but as a means to further his own agenda. Paying the money back means nothing, that was too late.

Obama will eventually either gain some gravitas or he will become known as the cardboard candidate. Attempts are being made to find a theme for Rudy, McCain and romney but mean describes most NYers in the nations' mind. Mormon sounds bigotted and Old doesn't work. We need a maccacca moment. One by one the uninitiated will fall into this difficulty. hillary may avoid it because she is so controlled and scripted, but THAT may be her icon - the marionette.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 1, 2007 1:46 PM | Report abuse

rufus1133: How could your populist party represent the people? Granted it would be better than what we have now, but your idea of an ideal candidate to represent you is very different than the ideal candidate to represent me. However, I don't think the top 3 dems do a very good job of reflecting the views you represent on these boards and its for damn sure the 3 top Rs don't represent my views.

Posted by: Dan W | May 1, 2007 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Then we no longer live in america bsimon. I don't know what it is now. You say a thrid party is impossible. That is a monopoly. That is slavery, no?

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 1, 2007 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Truth Hunter - Neither of the parties is in line with what the voters want and understand. Both parties answer to their corporate donors and will liekly grant some sort of amnesty to the 20 million or so illegal here. The problem is, this is happening right as we are sliding into a recession. Illegals already take millions of jobs from American workers and drive down wages and benefits for millions more. Their children attend public schools, they use emergency rooms for primary medical care, and on and on. Illegals costs us around 1.5 trillion dollars a year and function pretty much as slaves becasue they are illegal. Making them legal is only going to make them indentured servants and make the millions of American's for whom the compete for jobs indentured servants. Inevitably, the whole illegal immigrant question, even the use of the 14th Amendment to provide automatic citizenship to their children (it was passes during Reconstrcution specifically to grant citizenship to the children of former slaves and contains a provision that would deny citizenship to children born of illegal aliens), will become the Democrats Iraq if they are stupid enough to grant any sort of guest worker status to them. This actually may be a good thing. I assume that Bush is going to destroy the Republican Party and, if I don't miss my quess, the uberleft-PETA-Naderite-Latino-CorporateMoney conglomerate of the Democratic Party is going to run it off the immigration cliff and loose the trust of most of the Middle class and all working people. All of this may just result in a rich environment that will make the current third party movement viable.

Posted by: MikeB | May 1, 2007 1:41 PM | Report abuse

rufus1133 writes
"A real party would change the landscape of american politics for the better."

Sure it would, if it could happen, which it can't.

I'm holding out for the slightly-less-unlikely scenario that, following the GOP implosion, the libertarians take over that party & pitch the religious nuts overboard. Sure, its a longshot, but a guy can dream...

Posted by: bsimon | May 1, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

I can remember a Democrat, at his inauguration as President, say of our enemies: "We dare not tempt them with weakness."

no Dems like that left

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Liberals hold us individually responsible for nothing but collectively responsible for everything."

Posted by: Trotsky | May 1, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

I heard you zouk, until you brought up the haircut. You almost had it. You almost had a valid point. I was reading your post hoping you could do it. How does a haricut effect you? I think it's funny. How did haircuts become part of the discussion? To your point. I think MOST americans don't vote because they don't have candidates that represtent THEM. We need a populist party that repesents the people, what a novil approach. With a real party for the people in the race they would be unbeatable. This would force either or both parties hand. They would risk losing all the influence of the last 150 years. But remember, both parties did this to themselves. Petty infighting over haircuts or lewinsky. What about the american people? We lose when the parties play these games. I think america is sick of middle school games. A real party would change the landscape of american politics for the better.

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 1, 2007 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of rudy's ads, anyone seen this one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0xKoSN6BR8
Hilarious stuff eh? Has there ever been a more cheesy (not to mention dishonest) ad ever made?

Posted by: Aussie view | May 1, 2007 1:25 PM | Report abuse

I suppose it is possible that a third party candidate would take votes from the GOP, that is, after all, the only way the first clinton won.

But that misees an important point. voters do make either/or decisions. they pick the least of two evils, based on thier issues. Al gore and john Kerry might have been satisfactory presidents, but the world at the time made them both the lesser of the choices. It was not that bush was the be all and end all candidate. It was that he was simply better than the others on issues that count.

We shall see which issues count in 2008. It is possible that the business cycle or the reaction to the Dem congress will instill a recession by then, focusing the voters on the Democrats proclivity to rasie taxes and strangle economies with regulation. The war at that time is unpredictable but betting on americans willingness to surrender and go home doesn't sound promising. there is a rather loud vocal minority now, but they don't have the votes to override a veto, they won't pull the plug and defund, so they look confused and open to bribery - which they are.

The answers in the debate were quite telling. Edwards has no morality, wants to be considered a poor kid and has no sense of humor about his hair. he should, it will be his downfall. He is toast. Obama doesn't have a clue about anything real - just a stuffed shirt. his answer to being attacked sounded so Dukakis.

I only hope the R congress can gets its stance back and publish its policies. This will be winner since the Dems have none. don't fall for the personalities battle. the Dems are experienced at trashing people and live for that. It is because that is all they know. Point this out and don't let up on the shortcomings. It is long past time the GOPs fought back.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 1, 2007 1:25 PM | Report abuse

"IdeasPrimary.com... Will Get Some Ideas, Eventually

Tomorrow the Chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, former Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. hosts the first "Ideas Primary" event in Chicago."

Is that the same Harold Ford Jr. That cashs pay checks from fox "news" now?

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 1, 2007 1:21 PM | Report abuse

"After Seeing How You Helped Ned Lamont, Please Don't Help Me. McCain 2008."


"No Orange Hats. No Angry Screams. Not the Kind of Campaign You Dweebs Would Be Into. McCain 2008."


Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 1:11 PM | Report abuse

He was so unpopular he won reelection - just like bush. that is how Dems do math.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 1:10 PM | Report abuse

IdeasPrimary.com... Will Get Some Ideas, Eventually

Tomorrow the Chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, former Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. hosts the first "Ideas Primary" event in Chicago.

If you go to IdeasPrimary.com, you read:

To advance this cause, the DLC is launching IdeasPrimary.com, which will serve as a clearinghouse for new policy proposals. We'll keep track of ideas the candidates put forward, offer some of our own, and invite elected officials from around the country to weigh in on what works.

Right now, the only link on the page... leads to a Harold Ford speech.

Apparently the clearinghouse has been cleared. Or they're still waiting for the candidates to put out some new ideas.

New ideas from Dems. don't hold your breath unless you like that shade of blue.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 1:06 PM | Report abuse

"Zouk" is a four-letter word.

Posted by: grammar | May 1, 2007 1:03 PM | Report abuse

"this is so predicatable as to be money in the bank.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 1, 2007 12:06 PM"

"Headline prediction for Nov 8:
Dems gain 11 seats, Repubs hold house
Liberal lawyers heading to courthouses, leftists bloggers revealed for poltroons, inaccurate predictions questioned - media bias? Pelosi to be demoted, exit polls cite lack of focus or ideas from Dems, Republican turnout surprisingly strong.
Posted by: kingofzouk | October 11, 2006 03:20 PM"

Posted by: 'Predicate' This | May 1, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Ever lived in NYC, JD, or know anyone who did? Rudy was extremely unpopular.

And by the way, when Hillary ran against Guiliani for senator, she trounced him in the polls. He gets so ugly in a debate it just makes you sick.

Women especially couldn't stand him -- but then they could probably sympathize with his wife, whom he publicly humiliated every single day.

I think most women have trouble with a man who asks his wife and children to move out of their home and onto the street so his girlfriend can live wiht him.

Posted by: Jane | May 1, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

I say start a new party. A populist party of and by the people, not corporations. A thrid party would keep both current parties honest, best case. Worst case it would eliminate one of the two current patries. If the democrats become irrelevant because they have no backbone they would be gone. If the right continues this insane facsist government circa 1984, they will be gone. I hope both parties come back and do what's right for THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. I don't think that's going to happen. To bad. ALL POWER BACK TO THE PEOPLE>

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 1, 2007 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Rudy is disqualified both by his lack of experience and his unwillingness to acknowledge authority which is not his and ideas which do not originate beneath his comb-over.

McCain is eminently qualified through his experience, and as a former service member, is acutely aware / respectful of the chain of command. Sadly, he is disqualified for this very reason - his willingness to sign up for Bush's policies, even those he has disagreed with in the past, raises questions about his judgment, as does his pandering to social conservatives.

If McCain had been elected in 2000, the constituency he would have had to answer to would have been broad-based and bipartisan. It seems that he would rather serve a partisan base, even at the price of his credibility.

Romney is disqualified by his pandering, his willingness to take credit for the success of others, and his deliberate misrepresentation / fudging of his record. He is unable to present any justification for his nomination other than having run the Salt Lake Olympics eight years ago, having "balanced" the MA budget through the raising of fees (note: not "taxes"), and having presided over the universal health legislation passed by the Democratic state legislature (over his veto, but whatever). Oh, and his hair. He's a phony.

Posted by: Graphic Garage | May 1, 2007 12:59 PM | Report abuse

'funny' how hatred and violence has grown since this administraton took over:

'The roiling American border debate over immigration has revived one of the ugliest chapters in American history and become a vital recruiting tool for hate groups, experts say.

The number of hate groups -- from the Ku Klux Klan to neo-Nazis and skinhead groups -- has risen by 40 percent since 2000, from 602 to 844, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks such groups.

And they've turned their jaundiced eye toward Latin Americans, particularly Mexicans, in an alarming number of apparent hate crimes.

Take David Ritcheson, 16, a Mexican-American football star born in Houston, Texas. He was beaten nearly to death by two skinheads at a teen party. They poured bleach on him and beat him mercilessly. Ritcheson was in a coma for days, and suffered massive internal injuries, internal bleeding and a shattered cheekbone. He is now deaf in one ear.

"I just didn't expect my race to become a situation," Ritcheson told ABC News senior Law & Justice correspondent Jim Avila.

"I don't think there's any question at all that hate crimes against Hispanics and anyone really perceived to be an immigrant are very much on the rise," said Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The fear is real -- an undercover video taken by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and obtained exclusively by the ABC News, shows a klansman building a pipe bomb.

"All you've got to do is put the insides in and the powder,'' klansman Daniel Schertz can be heard telling an undercover agent. Schertz was later arrested for selling five pipe bombs that agents watched him make. He told an agent that he said he hoped the bombs would be used to blow up a bus full of Latinos. He was sentenced to 14 years in prison.'

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

JimD, what you say is largely why I made my 180--the evangelicals are a powerful force. Thanks for putting that so clearly.

Posted by: dc voter | May 1, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

I suggest that if you don't want to waste your time, as soon as you encounter the lack of a name in a post, that you stop reading, as whatever follows will be worthless drivel.

I have all sorts of ideas but none of them make sense so I'll just throw them all up here.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 12:51 PM | Report abuse

i used to agree with you zouk, on that point only i must add, but i have to say i have made a 180 the more i read and the more i talk to people, liberal and conservative alike. rudy is more polarizing in that sense than hillary. i think at this point she would trounce him. she can only go up, and he can only go down. besides, loudoun voter is right, and the points that drindl brings up will only turn off even more voters. i used to be somewhat impressed with him, as i lived in new york during his time, but then i worked for him and saw his personality/family issues/etc in action and found so much about the man just revolting. i suspect that many others will do the same, regardless of political affiliation, as more comes out. he can hide quite a bit right now, but not for long.

Posted by: dc voter | May 1, 2007 12:51 PM | Report abuse

AndyR asked to name one thing Rudy has done.

He cleaned up NYC, in many ways.

Now you name one thing HRC has done (other than being married to the Dem's rock star)

Posted by: JD | May 1, 2007 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Zouk,

I agree that Giuliani would probably defeat Clinton in a head to head match. I have serious doubts about her electability. However, I do not believe conservative evangelicals will swallow a pro-abortion, pro-gay rights candidate. I do believe that there would be a third party candidate from the religious right. Even with the right's favorite bugaboo as the Democratic candidate, the third party challenge will drain enough votes from Giuliani to tip the election to Clinton.

A significant number of evangelical voters are not motivated by any kind of "lesser of two evils" political calculations. Many of these folks formerly did not vote at all. They started to participate politically because of their fervor on the abortion issue and, more recently, gay marriage. These people simply will not vote for Giuliani regardless of the identity of the Democratic nominee. Absent a third party challenger, they would stay home. The question is how many other Republicans disgusted with recent events will vote for the "pure" conservative candidate.

Of course, a left wing minor party challenge is also possible if Clinton is the nominee. I find it amusing that she is regarded by most people in the country as a flaming liberal but the real flaming liberals mostly despise her.

Posted by: JimD in FL | May 1, 2007 12:46 PM | Report abuse

With the effect it has had on McCain's campaign it is hard to see why any other GOP candidates might want to touch the "surge".

Rob
http://bluesunbelt.com

Posted by: Rob | May 1, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

rIGHT right, lylepink. To that point watch O'Reilly or hannity one day. Watch their accusations. O'Reilly/hannity had rosie on everyday saying she should be fired. Once Imus got fired what happened? OOOOHHHH. "We can't fire people we don't agree agree with, but rosie must get off the air." Then you got O'Reilly, everyday judge and jury. We don't need courts we have o'reilly. Then when soemone applies the same standard to fox or rush, they are the villian. WATCH WHAT THEY DO, NOT WHAT THEY SAY. What what the right does, not who thye attack. How does anna nicole affect you? Rosie, badwin? One the side though they are commiting REAL crimes. One after another. Misdirection. Down with fox news

Posted by: RUFUS1133 | May 1, 2007 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Wow, Lylepink. Here I thought you were only a passionate fan of Hillary, while all along you have been our philosophical guide.

"Accuse your opponent of doing what you are doing so that you will know what you are doing."

I'm not quite sure what it means, but it certainly sounds circular enough to qualify you as an intellectual.

I'm still not voting for Hillary.

Posted by: Judy | May 1, 2007 12:32 PM | Report abuse

"do any of you seriously think that given the choice between Rudy and hillary, the general population will elect Ms. Clinton?"

Flip a coin. Hillary or Hillary in Rino's clothing - What's the difference? Send in Unity 08...

Posted by: bsimon | May 1, 2007 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Judy: "Accuse your opponent of doing what you are doing so that you will know what you are doing.". Now you can realize/understand better, how the game is played, by remembering my quote.

Posted by: lylepink | May 1, 2007 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Four years ago today:

'The president declared an end to major combat operations, White House, Pentagon and State Department officials said, for three crucial reasons: to signify the shift of American soldiers from the role of conquerors to police, to open the way for aid from countries that refused to help militarily and -- above all -- to signal to voters that Mr. Bush is shifting his focus from Baghdad to concerns at home....

''This is the formalization that tells everybody we're not engaged in combat anymore, we're preparing for getting out,'' a senior administration official said....

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 12:20 PM | Report abuse

I suggest that if you don't want to waste your time, as soon as you encounter the term 'moonbat' in a post, that you stop reading, as whatever follows will be worthless drivel.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 12:14 PM | Report abuse

One issue none of the front runners are addressing is the issue of illegal immigration. As the candidates find out when traveling around Iowa, it is a BIG issue here.

CNN taped a popular talk radio show this weekend covering this issue.... and Iowans weren't bashful about letting it be known they are mad about the lack of border security and illegal immigration.

Sooner or later a front-running candidate will have to tackle this issue from the perspective of what the voter wants, not from the demands of corporations, churches and illegal aliens.... and that candidate will have a big advantage in Iowa.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | May 1, 2007 12:13 PM | Report abuse


Flashback to 1999, when George W. Bush was governor of Texas. Then, Bush criticized President Clinton for not setting a timetable for exiting Kosovo.

George W. Bush, 4/9/99:

Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.

And on the specific need for a timetable:

George W. Bush, 6/5/99, Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.

Despite his past statements, Bush now refuses to apply the same standard to his war and smears those who want a similar timetable for Iraq.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Rudy is a creation of The MEDIA. Same goes for Obama. Think for a sec, we have "Americas Mayor" and "A Rock Star". This is where the media get two stories for the price of one, in that they will enjoy fooling some folks in tearing down what they have built/created. The way they will do this is where the entertaining aspect will come into play.

Posted by: lylepink | May 1, 2007 12:10 PM | Report abuse

One question, CC -- why don't you ASK Rudy about Iraq? If there were any REAL reporters left, someone would ask:

'You say on your web site that 'Building an accountable Iraq will assist in reducing the threat of terrorism.' How do you propose to go about that?'

Very fair and simple question, CC. Just try it.

Posted by: drindl | May 1, 2007 12:08 PM | Report abuse

do any of you seriously think that given the choice between Rudy and hillary, the general population will elect Ms. Clinton? I don't mean the moonbats on this site, I mean the overall american voters. rudy had great effect on NYC economy, crime, budget, education, welfare, etc. this is all well-documented. This was contrary to an entrenched Dem majority. He will steal centrist votes and when the other choice is Hillary, the right will come out in droves. this is so predicatable as to be money in the bank.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 1, 2007 12:06 PM | Report abuse

' While many New Yorkers accused Giuliani of racism during his terms, Former Mayor Ed Koch defended him, stating "Blacks and Hispanics ... would say to me, 'He's a racist!' I said, 'Absolutely not, he's nasty to everybody'

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Loudoun -- you should have heard some of the things Rudy said about black people while he was mayor. Ugly. Also, I wonder if it will become widely known that when David Dinkins was elected over him, Rudy went down to Police plaza and incited white cops to set cars on fire.

Or that in 1999, Giuliani suggested a "reciprocal relationship" where other states such as Virginia should accept New York City's garbage. Then Governor of Virginia, Jim Gilmore III, wrote in response, "I am offended by your suggestion that New York's substantial cultural achievements, such as they are, obligate Virginia and other states to accept your garbage".[

Or that Giuliani often expressed frustration with the New York City Board of Education. He was on record as saying in April 1999 that he would like to "blow up" the [then] Board of Education. This statement was made two days after the Columbine massacre.

Not ready for prme time.

Posted by: drindl | May 1, 2007 11:59 AM | Report abuse

CC
Hmmm. When i watch the news it seems to me that very very little is devoted to Iraq. More so recently since the war funding bill, but really, little about it. Maybe there are other issues important to Americans.

Should he put something in his stump speech? Probably at least a little. However, it seems to me that all candidates do some Q and A while campaigning and that, to find out his position, all one would need to do is simply ask him. Or one could look on his web site and read the following:

"Like all Americans, Rudy Giuliani prays for the success of our troops in Iraq and their safe return home. But he believes setting an artificial timetable for withdrawal from Iraq now would be a terrible mistake, because it would only embolden our enemies. Iraq is only one front in the larger war on terror, and failure there would lead to a broader and bloodier regional conflict in the near future. Building an accountable Iraq will assist in reducing the threat of terrorism."

But doing either of those would not allow you to say he is dodging the issue.

Posted by: Dave! | May 1, 2007 11:52 AM | Report abuse

JD, explain to me what Rudy has done?
Nothing. He was a Mayor.
How does that qualify him as anything but a Joke. And don't give me that NYC is bigger than some countries, because so is every other city in the US, but you don't see their mayors running for president do you.

And as I pointed out Obama isn't in the same group as Rudy. Senator Obama is on the Foreign Relations Committee in the UNITED STATES Senate.

Republicans harped and harped about Clinton's lack of Foreign policy experience non-stop in 1992. And he was a three time governor. Now though when Foreign Policy is even MORE important, it doesn't matter anymore.

The fact is the best candidates the GOP has are Hagel (who won't win cause the Neo-cons hate him) and the Gubernator. Minus that they are void of any talent 'ready' for the national presidential stage.

Posted by: Andy R | May 1, 2007 11:51 AM | Report abuse

wORD IS BRON PACMAN. tHAT'S WHY fOX 'nEWS' EXISTS. It's not about what they do report, it's about what Fox doesn't report. It's tabloid journalism they run. Anna nicole for months, rosie, alec baldwin. Anything to take your mind off the real news. It's sad. It's willful ignorance. Rupert murdoch, the austrialian, also owned/owns star magazine. Now you know why fox reports stalk people in parking lots like the paparazzi. We need to start by getting tabloids posing as news off the air. Without the conservative brian( rush/hannity/o'reilly/coulter/savage/drudge), there is no conservative movement. That's why these peoples ratings are so high. They try and justify the unjustifiable. The conservative movement exists in their heads. Dittoshead follow the leader. What happed to free thinking. We need to get them off the air then we can re-build for the future. Fox contributes to creating sociopaths daily. They play judge jury and executioner.

Posted by: RUFUS1133 | May 1, 2007 11:50 AM | Report abuse

this is all pretty moot anyway. One of Rudy's primary opponents will needle him during a debate, he'll blow his stack in front of the whole country, and that will be the end of his campaign.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | May 1, 2007 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Judy, no I don't accuse liberals of treason, et al, unless they actually commit it I guess. Please don't confuse me with those haters.

When AndyR and camguy talk about Rudy being a joke, with no ability to handle foreign policy should he become president, that's what I mean about the haters.

And of course, Obama is in the same camp, but I don't ridicule him for it. The fact is, successful presidents don't necessarily have to have 12 yrs of 'foreign policy' experience - they have to have a philosophy that makes sense for America, and the convictions to see it implemented. This is what made Clinton (NAFTA) and Reagan (winning the cold war) great on foreign affairs, and what brought down Carter (Iran).

Posted by: JD | May 1, 2007 11:39 AM | Report abuse

I have been under the impression that public safety, sanitation, and "livability" in New York City improved during Giuliani's mayorship. I have been under the impression that he is personally "difficult". As an Austinite, I share the prejudice that New York City is nearly ungovernable and that any Mayor who performed creditably could become a serious national candidate.

Thus, I am open to Giuliani, although less so this week than last. Suggesting that America is "safer" if one's own party is elected has not generally struck me as honorable campaigning.

While I remain open to several candidates, if the election were next week a Biden-Richardson ticket against a McCain-F. Thompson ticket would suit me the best - I think it would give us the cleanest and most civic minded campaign followed by an Administration not plagued by ineptness, cronyism, secrecy, lip service to a strong military, and a fear based approach to limiting civil liberties.

I reserve the right to change my mind as I follow this extraordinary long campaign.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | May 1, 2007 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Guiliani's "free pass" on foreign policy so far is just another symptom of the toothlessness of the media, as was so well demonstrated on Bill Moyer's PBS show about the run-up to Iraq.

It's also due to the fact that the candidates "control" their appearances so well, hand-picking so many of the audiences who will be responsive for their limited comments. All the top GOP candidates are taking a page from the Bush/Rove game plan from 2000 and 2004. And the media lets them get away with it.

Too many reporters are so afraid of losing access to candidates and elected officials that they don't ask the tough questions. I think we've gone from the press representing the people to now where the press have become more the representatives of candidates and public officials. There are some exceptions--like Bob Woodward--but they are precious few these days.

Posted by: pacman | May 1, 2007 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Parcells definatly couldn't have done any WORSE. I don't get it. From what I've heard Rudy was an after thought in new york before 9/11. Then he became "America's mayor". What did he do right? He failed, to me. I don't see how he is some great leader. I know he got crime down in NY. Other than that, what has this guy done right?

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 1, 2007 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Lord Kinnock, who gave Mr Blair his first frontbench job as a shadow junior Treasury spokesman in 1984, said: "It's a tragedy that in the short term at least all of those advances, some of them genuinely worthy of the name historic, will be clouded even possibly obscured by the association with Bush.
"It'll be an awful injustice if that lasts into the medium term because what I say about my friend is get out the weighing scales, put it into the balance and the association with Bush is a massive weight. But I think it's offset in terms of Tony Blair's record by the accumulated weight of other major accomplishments."

Lord Kinnock said: "My view was that it was essential for Blair to engage in order to influence. That was his instinct as well and it was the right thing to do because God knows what the Americans were capable of in the wake of 9/11, or at least what the Bush administration was capable of."

Posted by: our 'strongest ally' | May 1, 2007 11:32 AM | Report abuse

There's an old folk song, "Where Have All The Flowers Gone", and the refrain in it "When wil they ever learn" sums up nicely the conumdrum of the Republican Party and candidates running across the board as Republican's. Now, most Republican's aren't stupid. They know Iraq is lost, or rather that it has been broken beyond repair, and they know that we know it. They know that Bush and Cheney are virtually the entire Bush Administration are corrupt beyond imagination and utterly worthless. Nixon at least could point to China. What on earth is Bush going to point to? Iraq? Flooding the labor market with "guest workers"? An economy so obviously disconnected with Wall Street that people ceased to care, economic data manipulated to reflect Bush-NeoCon pipe dreams, a national debt so crushing that it may well lead to the collapse of our country and will lead at the very least into a recession just about the time Bush impliments his mad scheme to grant legal status to 20 million illegal workers (Here, though, he gets to take the silly Democrats down with him, too.). No, George Bush is now the ultimate nightmare for Rudy and John and every other Presidential contender. Appear in the same room with Bush or Cheney, even so much as have a kind word for one of them, and you WILL BE painted as a Bush insider, a whack job, a crook, an at-the-same-time ruthless and incompetent fanatic. Now, John (McCain) already dated this "pooch" and the puppies delivered as a result have sunk his Presidential campaign. Rudy had some common sense for a while there, but Bush needed one too many "photo ops" and, as Bushies control the Republican Party apparatus and evidently run it as a criminal enterprise, Rudy got some Bush on himself and that has led to some serious problems with his aspirations. The third party movement is gaining ground and the support of genuine Reagan Republican's simply because Bush and company are not just a disaster, being connected with them is going to be political suicide for years to come. The oher genuine conservatives are taking a quiet and careful look at Thompson, keeping it pretty low profile least some Bushies clophopper muddies up the carpet at the recedption. Right now, up on capital Hill, it's looking like the Iraq spending Bill with the pull out dates, is being seriously looked at by Bush as the best deal he's going to get. It's so close to the upcoming election cycle that any Republican hanging around to support this clodhopper is going to have "Bushie" hung aound his neck like a gasoline filled tire. Oh, he may veto it yet, but Bush is asking for a "compromise" (hint: don't compromise or you run the risk of being seen as useful fools for Bush....In fact, if Bush proposes *anything*, you can be certain it will cost you dearly in public opinion....and votes). The Republican's are trying to find the fine balance between abandoning Bush for self preservation and sticking with him to keep the votes of the loonier Fox news nutjobs (you know, the ones that post such profound comments as: "Anti-American lefties", "communists", "Bush haters", etc. - perhaps we could come up with an abbreviation sheet for them to save time and space?). Apparently, he has been told that his time is up, he doesn't have until this Fall, and Republican's are going to desert him.

This, Chris, is what has Rudy acting like a cat not yet used to a new neighborhood populated by big, vicious, too well fed dogs. Now, the cat likely knows it's a lot smarter than the dogs, but it is just a cat and cannot seriously hurt them in a fight. So, it needs to figure out a way to get rid of them..... John McCain? Republican candidates, conservatives in general? They are the maggot eaten bits of fur in the tall grass, dead cats that were supid enough to either fight the dogs or run with them.

Posted by: MikeB | May 1, 2007 11:32 AM | Report abuse

G Peterson: So what? I'm sure Bill Parcells would have done just as good a job as Rudy. Should we elect him president?

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | May 1, 2007 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Chris answers his own question with
"Giuliani is smart to focus on his accomplishments in the domestic sphere as there is little to be gained politically for a Republican to talk publicly about his support for the Bush Administration's Iraq policy."

Exactly. There is little to be gained for republicans to talk about Bush's Iraq policy. If that party doesn't want to lose even more seats - and the Presidency - in 2006, they need to run, not walk, from the Bush legacy. The adults - and these would presumably be the people running for the 2008 Pres nomination - need to step in and salvage something out of the Bush presidency. If President Bush won't work with you behind closed doors, start calling him to the carpet in public.

Rudy doesn't have the chutzpah to pull this kind of move off. Neither does Romney. McCain might have, at one point, but seems to have learned the wrong lessons in 2000 and is now tying himself to the Bush legacy when he should be distancing himself.

Posted by: bsimon | May 1, 2007 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Does rudy even have a chance to make it through the republican primary? I don't think he can. Republicans out there?

I think he has to leave iraq out of his talking points. If your a salesman you don't talk about what is bad or wrong with the product. He's biding his time on that subject, he's gonna have to address it. Again, I don't think he has a chance in the middle of the country at all with republicans. I think he's to one dimensional. War on terror war on terror. I think the war are terror is an internal war against america. In that sense rudy scares me a little.

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 1, 2007 11:16 AM | Report abuse

"Does anyone remember how the Mayor of New Orleans reacted before, during, and after Katrina?"

Katrina was a much BIGGER (hundreds of square miles) problem than the WTC. I admire Guiliani's actions but am sure that he would have been completely ineffective if his police and fire units had not been available to him on 9/11.

"He was decidedly ineffective and turned his frustration to the White House."

Which RICHLY deserved the criticism.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | May 1, 2007 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Rudy is a philandering abusive bully whose own children DO NOT SUPPORT HIS CANDIDACY. That's all you need to know. The people who know him the best don't trust him.

Posted by: DCAustinite | May 1, 2007 10:48 AM | Report abuse

JD, the reason we are in the situation we are in right now is because our current President has no grasp of foreign policy, or domestic policy but I digress.

In this day and age good Foreign Relations is one of the most important attributes a President most possess. It is why I think Bill Richardson (and Biden as well) are the most qualified to be president right now. On the GOP side the only candidate with a whiff of Foreign policy experience is McCain.

Posted by: Andy R | May 1, 2007 10:40 AM | Report abuse

At Camp Besmaya, Iraq's Ghiran-Majeed admits some of his soldiers don't even get paid.

The Iraqi army's administration has not kept up with its recruitment. Some units don't want to be deployed away from their home districts. On any day, one-quarter of the force is on vacation; soldiers get one week off in every four.

Also compared with a contracted, professional army, Iraqi soldiers are hired as if it's for any job, and they are free to leave whenever they wish. Many do, officials say.

In combat, without American forces present, the Iraqi soldiers have no medical evacuation capacity and no air support. They rely on the U.S.-led coalition for equipment, training and supplies.

Posted by: where's the progress? | May 1, 2007 10:38 AM | Report abuse

To suggest that Giuliani was "simply doing his job" is right. Does anyone remember how the Mayor of New Orleans reacted before, during, and after Katrina? He was decidedly ineffective and turned his frustration to the White House. Giuliani may have simply been doing his job, but he was doing it the best of his ability and better than almost anyone.

Posted by: G. Peterson | May 1, 2007 10:37 AM | Report abuse

'Or maybe Giuliani's accomplishments in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks'

Guiliani was simply doing his job. Nothing more, nothing less. As a New Yorker it was what we expected of him or any other person on that day. The way that the rest of the nation has created a hero out of him disgusts me. What about what he didn't do as Mayor? Like the fact that after the Twin Towers were bombed in 1993, the only thing that got improved under his watch was better emergency lighting in the stairwells. Then we have to mention his multi-million dollar Emergency Operations Center that he placed in WTC 7. What was he thinking? Why place your Emergency Operations Center in a complex that had already been bombed once, and in a building that stores thousands of gallons of diesel fuel? Needless to say Guiliani's placement of the Emergency Operations Center at the WTC was one of his biggest blunders. On 9/11 the City was without it Emergency Operations Center because of him.

Posted by: KenM | May 1, 2007 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Iraq war costs -- pushing $500 billion. remember when they fired the treasury sec for saying it would cost at least $200 billion?

http://costofwar.com/index.html

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 10:27 AM | Report abuse

Haterade? Seems like republicans have gotten rather sensitive lately, doesn't it? The party that accuses 'liberals' of 9/11, terrorism, treason, abuse of children, and every other ill of the world, gets touchy at the very mildest criticism? What has anyone said here that was hateful?

All they have done is point out, quite rightly, Rudy's dodging of Iraq and his utter lack of foreign policy credentials. Aren't you one of the folks who criticized Obama for the same thing?

Posted by: Judy | May 1, 2007 10:25 AM | Report abuse

he Bush administration killed a proposal to clamp down on the student loan industry six years ago following allegations that companies sought to shower universities with financial favors to help generate business, according to documents and interviews with government officials.

The proposed policy, which Education Department officials drafted near the end of the Clinton presidency and circulated at the start of the Bush administration, represented an early, significant but ultimately abortive government response to a problem that this year has grown into a major controversy.

Looking for the university, scholarship or graduate program that's best for you? Browse by location, major, name and
Now, as the $85 billion-a-year student loan industry faces an array of investigations into questionable business practices that some officials believe could have been curtailed by the 2001 proposal.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Web Firm Finds Clinton Site Falters During Debate

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign website was the only one of the candidates' sites to register a marked decrease in performance during the recent Democratic candidates' debate at South Carolina State University, according to the latest campaign home page performance benchmark by Gomez, Inc., a web experience management company.

http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/web-firm-finds-clinton-site-falters.html

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 10:18 AM | Report abuse

From Rasmussen Reports http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Republican%20Primary/2008GOPPresidentialPrimary.htm :

"Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani remains on top in the race for the GOP nomination and now enjoys support from 30% of Likely Voters. That's more than twice the total of any other candidate. Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson and Arizona Senator John McCain are tied for second at 14%."

Wow. McCain is tied with someone who hasn't even declared. Impressive.

On the D side http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Democratic%20Primaries/DemocraticPresidentialPrimary.htm :

"For the first time in the Election 2008 season, somebody other than New York Senator Hillary Clinton is on top in the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows Illinois Senator Barack Obama with a statistically insignificant two point advantage over the former First Lady. It's Obama 32% Clinton 30%. Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards remains in third with support holding steady at 17%. No other candidate tops 3%. The survey was conducted April 23-26, 2007 meaning that the overwhelming majority of the interviews were completed before last Thursday's debate in South Carolina. The impact of the debate will be measured in polling conducted this week."

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | May 1, 2007 10:16 AM | Report abuse

Wow, lots of people drinking the Haterade this morning.

I love it when people talk about a lack of foreign policy experience before someone is eligable to be president. Most recent presidents had minimal official foreign policy experience before being elected (Bush 43, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, and JFK come to mind). I think this is because it's mostly governors and other executive (like Eisenhower, a general, not legislative) types that get elected.

I think prior experience can be helpful, but certainly isn't a prerequisite for success.

Posted by: JD | May 1, 2007 10:10 AM | Report abuse

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US House
Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

Posted by: anonymous | May 1, 2007 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Does no one find it funny that Guiliani can get away with saying 'Foreign policy has always been an area of great interest to me' - surely that's the sort of thing people put in job applications when they know that its important to reference a particular issue, but don't actually have anything specific to say or want to fill up space...

And isn't the reason that McCain gets a lot of focus on his foreign policy proposals, simply the fact that he talks about foreign policy a lot? Andy R is right that the media has given Guiliani an easy ride on foreign policy - but I guess its early days.

Posted by: camguy | May 1, 2007 10:00 AM | Report abuse

I, too, am unclear about what it was that Guiliani did on 9/11 that was so great. He stood at a podium and didn't break down. So what? Isn't that what you'd hope pretty much anyone in his position would do.

I'd be really interested in hearing from someone close to the situation--or, really, anyone--what he did that was especially noteworthy. Or perhaps someone who wasn't there but found his performance impressive or inspirational could explain why.

Posted by: THS | May 1, 2007 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Rudy's once robust lead over McCain has evaporated, McCain has opened up a 9-point lead in South Carolina and some egghead researchers say Rudy is too "negative" to get elected : http://www.solidpolitics.com

Posted by: William | May 1, 2007 9:51 AM | Report abuse

At some point this is going to become an issue of political courage. McCain's people should, at least by implications, start contrasting his willingness to risk his career with Romney and Giuliani's cravenness.

If Giuliani really thinks this war is worth fighting, and he's the man to lead it. He should say so, directly, forthrightly, and without waiting to be asked.

Posted by: AJ | May 1, 2007 9:45 AM | Report abuse

"And yet, neither Giuliani nor Romney have faced anywhere near the level of scrutiny regarding Iraq (or their foreign policy vision more generally) that McCain has.

Why? It's difficult to say."

No its not. It is because the media isn't doing its job. Whenever Obama opens his mouth to a reporter it is about his percieved lack of Foreign policy, although Obama is a US Senator, and is on the Foreign Relations committee.

the reason that Rudy never talks about Foreign relations is because he doesn't know anything about it. His line of I "visited more than 90 countries since leaving office in 2001" means squat. So have all the people on The Greatest Race. This guy is a joke.

Posted by: Andy R | May 1, 2007 9:35 AM | Report abuse

"When voters are asked to name the most important issue facing America, they choose Iraq by wide margins. Generally, while more than a third of those sampled name Iraq as the nation's most pressing problem, domestic issues like the economy, healthcare, immigration and even terrorism tend to garner low double digit or high single digit support."

Geez, I hate to quote myself but it seems wildly relevant:

"Iraq is a lose-lose proposition for the R's. McCain is already obviously tanking because of his strong support for the war. It would be better to show some courage, bite the bullet now and get us out so that the political canvas can be clean enough to allow the '08 campaign to NOT be about Iraq. As 2006 showed, the recalcitrant 30% aren't going to win any elections for the R's. The fact that the D's can go into '08 and say "well, if you had a Democratic Senator the boys would be home by now" is an undeniably powerful tool for sending R congressmen packing AND going up ticket to seat a D in the WH."

When will the R's "get it?" They need to lift their noses out of the Fox News trough and take a big whiff of reality.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | May 1, 2007 9:34 AM | Report abuse

On May 1, 2003, President Bush landed on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln aboard an S-3B Viking jet, emerged from the aircraft in full flight gear, and proceeded to "press[] flesh," as The Washington Post put it, as he shook hands and hugged crew members in front of the cameras. Later that day, Bush delivered a nationally televised speech from the deck of the Abraham Lincoln in which he declared that "[m]ajor combat operations in Iraq have ended," all the while standing under a banner reading: "Mission Accomplished." Despite lingering questions over the continued violence in Iraq, the failure to locate weapons of mass destruction, and the whereabouts of Saddam Hussein, as well as evidence that Bush may have shirked his responsibilities in the Texas Air National Guard (TANG) during the Vietnam War, the print and televised media fawned over Bush's "grand entrance" and the image of Bush as the "jet pilot" and the "Fighter Dog."

Posted by: happy 'mission accomplished' day, everyone1 | May 1, 2007 9:23 AM | Report abuse

'Or maybe Giuliani's accomplishments in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks'

Oh please, is this the most over-rated man in the country or what... he did his job one day, that is all. Anybody who was elected to that position could have done it. He just looked good because everyone else in a position of authority, like bush and cheney, was peeing their pants and shaking under the bed in the bunker.

He was a mediocre mayor with an arrogant and authoritarian manner, best known for censorship, racism, high-handedness, ill temper and publicly abusing his wife and children.

And since then he has been known for being one of the most successful war profiteers this bloody and useless conflict has produced. He has not a single quality which would qualify him to be president.

It's possible he might even be worse than bush, if you can imagine the disaster that would be. His answer to everything is to send in the SWAT teams.

Posted by: drindl | May 1, 2007 9:18 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company