Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Giuliani Continues to Slam Democrats

Giuliani is certainly on message. No matter the question, he is using it to attack Democrats.

The latest example was when Giuliani fielded a question about the need for more money to fund infrastructure problems in the country like those that may have led to the the bridge collapse in Minnesota.

"There is a liberal Democratic assumption that if you raise taxes, you raise more money," said Giuliani. He went on to note that he lowered taxes as mayor of New York City and actually collected more money.

Giuliani's strident criticism of Democrats on security and taxes are aimed at showing Republican primary voters that he is plenty conservative to represent them in the general election.

So far in the debate, Giuliani hasn't been called out for his more liberal social views except for a brief moment in the start of the debate. That's good news for the former mayor.

Is anyone else surprised that 60 minutes into the debate both John Edwards and Barack Obama have been mentioned by the Republican candidates but Hillary Clinton hasn't?

-- Chris Cillizza

By Eric Pianin  |  August 5, 2007; 11:31 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Frontrunners Edge Away from Bush
Next: Cheney Critics

Comments

Gonna have dissent from the "conventional wisdom" here. Riddle me this: If candidates attack their strongest opponents, then why did the front runners stay out of each other's hair? My view: they don't attack Clinton because they don't want her to rip their heads off. Anyone who thinks Clinton is NOT the greatest threat is either silly or working for her.

Posted by: NH | August 6, 2007 12:06 PM | Report abuse

It's hard to take Rudy "Empty Suit" Guiliani very seriously when he hasn't proposed a single serious policy position. I'm constantly amazed when the MSM infers that Obama needs to fill in more details about what he wants to do when Guiliani has given us nothing more than vacuous, empty platitudes.

Obama is a walking Encyclopedia Britannica of detailed policy statements compared to Guiliani. Can we get a little honesty from the MSM on this?

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | August 6, 2007 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Alexis: You have it backwards. Hillary is the one the repubs don't want to run against, and are trying to prop up Obama in their effort to beat Hillary in the primary/caucaus so they will not have her to face in the General.

Posted by: lylepink | August 6, 2007 3:57 AM | Report abuse

roo: I just noticed your comment, and will try and explain my thinking. From the very beginning, I have been alone most of the time in my support for Hillary. The repubs will tell you they want Hillary to run against, and just the opposite is true. Their tactics will seem to change when in fact they do not about their FEAR of Hillary. For a time they let Hillary slide while the media was creating the "Rock Star" image of Obama, and by doing so the media was doing their work for them. Now recent national polling have Hillary with a lead of around 20 points over Obama, and by being critical of him, they want the public to think he is more of a threat to them, when in fact he is not. The important thing to look for, imo, in the next few weeks will be polling in Iowa and Illinois, and the latest I've seen from Iowa has Obama with a 1 [one] point lead, with Hillary and Edwards tied. How the media plays them will tell if they are going to continue their coverage in much the same manner or not.

Posted by: lylepink | August 6, 2007 3:46 AM | Report abuse

They're attacking Obama and Edwards because they want to weaken their position so that neither of them win the Democratic primary. As Jimmy Jack said above, every candidate has an incentive to attack whoever they perceive to be their strongest opponent --strongest in the sense of having the highest probability of winning in the general election. So, the Republicans perceive Edwards and Obama as a much bigger threat in the general election than Hillary. That is perfectly consistent with thinking that Hillary is the strongest candidate in the Democratic primary, by the way.

Posted by: Alexis | August 6, 2007 2:03 AM | Report abuse

Giuliani is attacking Edwards and Obama because they know that they don't have much more to say about Clinton. She is already a lying power-hungry socialist neo-con/socialist devil to them so its just easier to go after the supporting candidates who havent yet been damaged by the Repub. smear machine.

Posted by: Cord | August 6, 2007 1:17 AM | Report abuse

The comments here really should be espoused at the laugh factory. I'm sure that they would offer a return engagement. The repugs attack Edwards and Obama because they know that these two are the stronger candidates, check the match-ups. I've noticed around the blogosphere of late that the new talking point, as if it was released directly from the office of Rove , is that Edwards was somehow villified against Cheney in thier debate. I hate to do it to all the Kool-Aid drinkers but check this out:

CBS Poll,
Edwards 41%
Cheney 29%
Tie 29%
MOE 7%
ONLINE POLLS
CBS: 76% Edwards, 21% Cheney
MSNBC: 70% Edwards, 30% Cheney
WSJ: 95% Edwards, 4% Cheney
LA Times: 97% Edwards, 2% Cheney
FOX News: 57% Edwards, 41% Cheney
CNN: 77% Edwards, 18% Cheney
Philly.com: Edwards 99%, Cheney 1%
Orlando Sentinel: Edwards 80.3%, Cheney 19.4%
Akron Beacon-Journal: Edwards 98%, Cheney 2%

CBS did what they call a flash poll of undecided voters and it suggests that the undecided voters thought that John Edwards won the debate. So that's that.

Posted by: LaEscapee | August 6, 2007 12:45 AM | Report abuse

GFNC
Edwards irrelevant? you are not paying attention apparently or else you harbor a personal grudge against Edwards. As the frontrunner Guiliani has the insider intel. He knows what most political insiders already know.Edwards is the GOP's biggest threat, just wait, the polls are not telling the true story,and the political operatives know it, hence the hit jobs. Why? like you say, would they do it, when Edwards is soooo irrelevant? Edwards is a threat and will soon be growing stronger, take it to the bank!

Posted by: Asher | August 5, 2007 6:01 PM | Report abuse

jay and pamela are either insane or are lying about what they think

they don't sound insane

so they're probably lying

if the candidates don't negatively mention clinton it's because they want her for their opponent in the general, duh.

Posted by: xbak | August 5, 2007 5:15 PM | Report abuse

I'm not usre why Giuliani would even mention Edwards. Edwards is proving to be increasingly irrelevant nation wide, just like he is in North Carolina. The less his name is mentioned the sooner he goes away, dropping from what is now the second tier, to the Kucinich tier!

Posted by: GFNC | August 5, 2007 5:08 PM | Report abuse

lylepink--You are contradicting your own logic there. Why would they be attacking the weakest candidate? Your theory was that they were specifically trying to prop Obama up so he can be their opponent in the general. It makes no sense that they would be simultaneously attacking him.

Not saying for certain one way or another but you need to consolidate these two axioms of yours.

Posted by: roo | August 5, 2007 4:06 PM | Report abuse

No one really takes Giuliani serious anymore:he links everything to 9/11, and lies or embellishes his records in NY. He will be easy pickings in the general. Edwards is too weak because he never fights back when attacked- debate with Cheney says it all. The jury is still out on Obama, at least he is not afraid to mix it up when attacked.

Posted by: olu | August 5, 2007 3:32 PM | Report abuse

jay & Pamela: That is what I have been saying all along, and am glad to see a little support. IMO, Hillary is the strongest dem. The repubs want to run against the weakest dem in the General, and how anyone cannot understand this is beyond me. You may want to check my comments on the Kos highs and lows.

Posted by: lylepink | August 5, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Conventional wisdom in politics says you attack the people you DON'T want to face, bringing them down and giving lesser opponents a chance. But Jay suggests that the Republicans are attacking Obama and Edwards because they WANT to run against them?

They're not attacking Hillary because they relish the opportunity to run against someone who brings what they perceive as baggage and potential distraction (Bill, Monica, health care) into the race. They want to run against those things to distract the country from all that the GOP has messed up during the Cheney Administration.

They fear Obama most of all because his campaign represents change at a time when most people are desperate for something completely new and different.

Posted by: Jimmy Jack | August 5, 2007 12:57 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Jay completely. In spite of them sying they yearn to run against Hillary they really don't. Obama, especially since he has shown just how green he really is,especially when it come to foreign affairs, has made himself a perfect target. I don't ever remember a foreign government getting involved in a primary because of irresponsible words of a candidate before. Obama doesn't appreciate just how dangerous and fragile these times are.
Suceeding in foreign affairs after the Bush years will be like crossing a mine field. Obama has already blown up more body parts than we need to think about. You simply don't tell an ally (even an iffy one) with nuclear power that if they don't get Bin Laden, we will come in an get him. OMG, I couldn't believe that. That told the Repugs that he was their best target.
Their second best is Edwards who proved last go round that he's better at going after fellow Dems than he is at going after Repugs. I will never forget his breathtakingly inept performance in the debate with Cheny. Was there a Dem not humilated that nite?

Posted by: Pamela | August 5, 2007 12:04 PM | Report abuse

hmm i WONDER why thy havne mentioned Clinton....DUH, because shes the frontrunner adn they DONT wanna run against her. they mention the two more liberal oppnents because they want the dem based to get riled up and choose them and tehn it can be a cake walk around general time, but if Hillary is the candidate, its a different and more bleak sotry

Posted by: jay | August 5, 2007 11:48 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company