 |
 |
 April 25, 2007
LETTING RUDY WIN....Yesterday Rudy Giuliani said the country would be safer if it elects a Republican in 2008 — especially if that Republican is him:
My reaction: Yawn. Of course Rudy thinks the country would be safer with a Republican in charge. Presumably he also thinks the economy will do better, crime will come down, and everyone will have whiter teeth. If he didn't, he wouldn't be a Republican. So I was curious: how would the Dem candidates respond? With the usual whining? Or with something smart? Greg Sargent has today's responses from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton over at his site and the verdict is in: more whining. Obama: "Rudy Giuliani today has taken the politics of fear to a new low blah blah blah." Clinton: "One of the great tragedies of this Administration is that the President failed to keep this country unified after 9/11 yada yada yada." Unbelievable. Neither one of them took the chance to do what Rudy did: explain in a few short sentences why the country would be safer with a Democrat in the Oval Office. Is it really that hard? Giuliani's position is clear: more war, more domestic surveillance, more torture, and fewer civil liberties. And while it's true that the liberal position on making America secure is a little more complicated than the schoolyard version of foreign affairs beloved of Bush-era Republicans, it's not that complicated. So instead of complaining about how mean Giuliani is, why can't Obama and Clinton just tell us what they'd do? Whining just reinforces the message that Democrats are wimps. The real way to be "hard hitting" is to explain why Giuliani is wrong and what Democrats would do instead — and why the average Joe and Jane would be safer and better off without guys like Giuliani bumbling recklessly around the globe leaving a stronger al-Qaeda and a weaker America in their wake. Until they do, Rudy and the Republicans are going to win every round of this fight. UPDATE: This response from the DNC isn't what I was after, but at least it's a decent attack on Giuliani. That's a start, I guess. —Kevin Drum 11:51 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (164)Comments
Wouldn't it just be easier to paint Rudy as "Four More Years" of Bush policies? Rudy's own city's response was inadequate on 9/11 due to poor/no communication between police and firefighters. He can't handle one city's defense and response, and he thinks he can handle the whole country? LOL Posted by: haha on April 25, 2007 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINKSo if we don't elect Guiliani or a Republican, we're in danger of more attacks like the one that happened in NYC when Giuliani was mayor and a Republican was president? Makes sense to me! Posted by: gogiggs on April 25, 2007 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINKUm, Kevin, isn't it a little early for Democratic presidential candidates to take on GOP'ers? I mean, no one besides the inside-the-beltwayers really pay that much attention to the candidates at this point. And all these people are trying to get the primary voters, that is, the wired to somewhat-wired electorate, on their side. This is just red-meat to republican voters. Why should they expend energy, and more importantly, strategy and tactics, attacking the oppo who you don't even know yet. Posted by: mikey on April 25, 2007 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINKYou wonder which if any of the Democratic candidates will have the stones to point out that 9/11 happened under a Republican administration and Republican congress. For six years now, people have been loath to mention that. Somehow, if 9/11 had happened under a Gore administration, I don't think Giuliani or John McCain would be reluctant to make hay out of that, much less the Rush Limbaughs of the world. Posted by: Boots Day on April 25, 2007 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINKA few short sentences? Joke: We could have paid for Social Security indefinitely plus complete National Health Care for all US Citizens for over 40 years with the money already spent on the Iraq. Punchline: Would you feel safer knowing you have Social Security AND health insurance for the rest of your life? Posted by: ROTFLMLiberalAO on April 25, 2007 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK"This is just red-meat to republican voters. Why should THEY expend energy, and more importantly, strategy and tactics, attacking the oppo who you don't even know yet." THEY being the democrats...sorry for that. Posted by: mikey on April 25, 2007 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINKHow about this...."With a Democrat as president, we will.... 1)Redeploy troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, where Al-Qaeda is actually based. What most Americans don't realize is how little the Republicans have actually done to protect our infrastructure. You can't take a bottle of water on an airplane anymore, but it still isn't too difficult for a terrorist to blow up a bridge, attack a nuclear reactor or chemical plant, or smuggle a weapon in through our ports. Posted by: mfw13 on April 25, 2007 at 12:30 PM | PERMALINKGiuliani's position is clear: more war, more domestic surveillance, more torture, and fewer civil rights. The real way to be "hard hitting" is to explain why Giuliani is wrong and what Democrats would do instead Democrats haven't done this because they know Giuliani is right. Giuliani knows we can't be shortsighted on Iraq. We have to think about what would happen in the long term if we order our troops to cut and run. Harry Reid's defeatest statement that America has already lost hurts the morale of our troops. Leaving Iraq could trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East as Iran becomes emboldened in our withdrawal. By not fighting the terrorists on foreign soil, the terrorists will surely respond by following us home. Posted by: Al on April 25, 2007 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINKJon Stewart showed how to do it last night when facing John McCain. Just talk straight -- I donot think any of the current Democratic candidates has either the personal verbal skills or more importantly, the desire to aggressively take on the Republicans. They are whinny because they are uncertain of themselves and because they half believe the Republican point of view themselves. Posted by: Elie on April 25, 2007 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINKSo instead of complaining about how mean Giuliani is, why can't Obama and Clinton just tell us what they'd do? They can't tell us because they have no answers on national security. It's all very well to say you're against Gitmo and the war in Iraq, but what are you going to put in its place? Posted by: Al on April 25, 2007 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINKMrs. Clinton isn't well positioned to do this, given, fairly or not, that she will be linked to her husband's policies. When American embassies were attacked by Al Queda, Bill Clinton's response was to take what the Central Command CINC, Anthony Zinni (a severe critic of GWB, btw), who oversaw the operation, called a "one in a million shot", in the form of a cruise missile attack. Obviously, the Democrats likely will have plenty of room to make gains on the Republicans on national security issues in 2008, but Hillary Clinton is the wrong candidate to do it with. Posted by: Will Allen on April 25, 2007 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINKThese days the first appropriate response to most anything uttered by Republicans on Iraq and Terrorism is a David Letterman style spit-take. Posted by: bryrock on April 25, 2007 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINKNow you're sounding like Broder, Kevin; this is the 'everything is good for Republicans' meme that's speaking through you. If the Democrats answered substantively, you would just say they were being 'defensive' or 'reacting' or 'playing me-too politics'. Obama and HRC had a choice here in what is, really, a silly little soundbite flareup: attack the substance or attack the frame. They chose to attack the frame, and at the same time express contempt for Giuliani - and it is beneath contempt, what he's suggesting, right? What's wrong with their approach? Posted by: lampwick on April 25, 2007 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINKIt's all very well to say you're against Gitmo and the war in Iraq, but what are you going to put in its place? Nothing, because Gitmo and Iraq have both been criminal failures. Duh. Posted by: haha on April 25, 2007 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINKI agree with Kevin. A good response would have started with, "We're supposed to take national security advice from the idiot who kept the NYC emergency center in the WTC complex against all advice?" Democrats, sigh, They're getting a little better (Harry Reid's been pretty good lately) but they still have a long way to go... Posted by: Steve LaBonne on April 25, 2007 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINKWhat did Edwards say? Or has he been written off already? Posted by: Vincent on April 25, 2007 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINKUnbelievable. Neither one of them took the chance to do what Rudy did: explain in a few short sentences why the country would be safer with a Democrat in the Oval Office. Exactly, Kevin. The line of attack itself is not only perfectly legitmate for any candidate to make -- if any candidate cannot make it, he/she shouldn't be running. LBJ certainly made the case that that the country would be a lot less safe if it turned to Goldwater in 1964. Posted by: Jasper on April 25, 2007 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINKBetter yet, why not just point out that the Republicans have had six years to make us safer and what have they done? Everyone who speaks for the Democratic Party should be hammering Rudy and his ilk with questions like these:
Did making Iran stronger make us safer? Did wearing out our armed forces make us safer? Did getting us bogged down in a quagmire in the Middle East make us safer? Did squandering the worldwide goodwill bestowed on us after 9/11 make us safer? Did spending close to a trillion dollars (billions of it to enrich Dick Cheney's old company) make us safer? Did making airline passengers take off their shoes and throw out their coffee and sodas—while doing absolutely nothing to safeguard our ports, power plants, and chemical plants—make us safer? Did not finding out who sent anthrax through the mail make us safer?
Did failing to to make sure they had adequate communications equipment make New York firemen and policemen safer? Did exposing rescue workers to toxic substances on the WTC site make them safer?
I didn't think Obama's answer was whining. We know we can win this war based on shared purpose, not the same divisive politics that question your patriotism if you dare to question failed policies that have made us less secure. I think we should focus on strengthening our intelligence, working with local authorities and doing all the things we haven't yet done to keep Americans safe. I think Obama and the others have plenty of time to spell out a program and it's just way to early to get into it. Posted by: tomeck on April 25, 2007 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINKLook -- the Dems were in power, and 9/11 happened. The Dems were in power and a record surplus went to record deficit. Oh, wait. Is there really no Dem with half a brain?? Posted by: Gore/Edwards 08 on April 25, 2007 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINKWTF, Kevin!? How about, you know, reading what the Dems actually said? Barack Obama: “Rudy Giuliani today has taken the politics of fear to a new low and I believe Americans are ready to reject those kind of politics. America’s mayor should know that when it comes to 9/11 and fighting terrorists, America is united. We know we can win this war based on shared purpose, not the same divisive politics that question your patriotism if you dare to question failed policies that have made us less secure. I think we should focus on strengthening our intelligence, working with local authorities and doing all the things we haven't yet done to keep Americans safe. The threat we face is real, and deserves better than to be the punchline of another political attack.”
"One of the great tragedies of this Administration is that the President failed to keep this country unified after 9/11. We have to protect our country from terrorism – it shouldn't be a Democratic fight or a Republican fight. The plain truth is that this Administration has done too little to protect our ports, make our mass transit safer, and protect our cities. They have isolated us in the world and have let Al Qaeda regroup. The next President is going to be left with these problems and will have to do what it takes to make us safer and bring Democrats and Republicans together around this common mission of protecting our nation. That is exactly what has to be done and what I am ready to do." Posted by: cazart on April 25, 2007 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINKGotta agree with Kevin this one time. As Bartcop has been saying for about ten years, "How can the Democrats protect the American people when they can't even protect themselves?" Democrats seem to have trouble recognizing hostile communication interactions when the only good response is to come back twice as hard and smash the other guy in the mouth. I spent a lot of time going through the 9/11 report when it came out, and in that report Bush's weaknesses on counter-terrorism stand out like a sore thumb. Someone even made a special trip to visit him in Texas during his vacation, and Bush just made a smartass comment to the guy. (There's a lot more). Several of Bush's counterterrorism people quit and supported Kerry in 2004. Posted by: John Emerson on April 25, 2007 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINKYeah I'm with cazart. Actually, HRC made a stab at a more substantive answer, talking about lack of port security, etc. under Bush. But I agree that the Dems need to have a good strong postive narrative on this. Maybe Rudy has done them a favor by pushing them to get their act together on it. Posted by: Virginia Dutch on April 25, 2007 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINKKevin: "My reaction: Yawn." Really? Mine was "Fuck you." Anyone who supports this malevolent and corrupt one-trick pony is truly a fuckin' moron. Christ, it's not even 7:00 a.m. HST, and already the Republicans have me cursing them. Our country Hasn't suffered a bigger collective bunch of political fools since the secession-minded Dixiecrats led their states out of the Union and thus precipitated the Civil War. Oh, and excuse me -- but where did the Dixiecrats go in the 1960s and '70s, after the Democratic Party consciously embraced the Civil Rights movement? I rest my case. Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on April 25, 2007 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINKAmericans want to know how our candidates will make America safer. Rudy is right about one thing. We won't be safer on defense. The problem is by allowing Rudy to define the offense in terms of stupid foreign policy and diminished civil liberties, you have been put permanently on defense. The Democrats have voluntarily left the security field to Rudy. I guess he gets the security vote. Bad response Barak. Worse response Hillary. We can't stand four more years of this nonsense. Give me a Democratic andidate with both brains and courage (I was going to say balls, but I don't want anybody to think I believe a woman can't be president.) How about: We have some actual EVIDENCE of Rudy Guiliani's views on making this country safer: Appointing his crony Bernard Kerick to head the Department of Homeland Security. Posted by: Subliminability on April 25, 2007 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINKMcCain took a jab at Rudy today that's far better than anything in Obama's or HRC's responses: "When Americans confront a catastrophe, natural or man-made, they have a right to expect basic competence from their government. They won't accept that firemen and policemen are unable to communicate with each other in an emergency because they don't have the same radio frequency." If McCain knows how to do this, why don't our candidates? Posted by: Steve LaBonne on April 25, 2007 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINKAnd by the way- yes to those who said that another prime topic in a good response would have been Kerick. Posted by: Steve LaBonne on April 25, 2007 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINKThe Dems have spent the last six years attacking Bush and the Republicans. They're very good at these attacks. The attacks allowed the Dems to take over Congress. By attacking Guiliani, the Dems are playing to their strength, Meanwhile, the Dems avoiding taking a positive stand on what to do in Iraq (except for Murtha and the loony left, who just want to pull out.) Hillary and Obama can't say what they would do to fight the war on terror for two reasons: 1. They don't know what they would do. 2. Any sensible proposal including aggressive action would be anathema to the left-wing half of the Democratic Party. A natural proposal for Dems would be to put more US troops in Afghanistan, since things aren't going well there. Yet, Pelosi and Reid's Iraq withdrawal proposals do not address moving troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. Republicans will seek to frame the 2008 election as a battle between a party that's focused on attacking America's enemies (although they're not always good at it) versus a party that is focused on attacking the other party (which they're very good at.) Posted by: ex-liberal on April 25, 2007 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINKKevin, I think you fell for the "Dems whine more" meme - anyone who listens to right wing radio knows it is one long whine. Posted by: Robert on April 25, 2007 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINKThe reason, Steve..that McCain is being that specific is because he is appealing to the GOP base who will be voting for him or Guiliani. His primary base will response to that answer. Barack and Hilliary's answer worked for their base in the primary. The Dems that vote in the primary are focused on CHANGE. Hillary and Barack have plenty of time to pander to the general electorate, when and if one of them become the nominee. Posted by: elrapierwit on April 25, 2007 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINKAside from the fact that Obama and Clinton did say they would defend America, Kevin's criticism begs the question that Rudy's rhetoric is at all persuasive. A majority of Americans agree that we should withdraw from Iraq. Americans oppose government monitoring of phone calls and emails. It's hardly a given that a majority of Americans think think changes on these things is bad. Instead, I think Americans cock their heads at Rudy's comments, the kind of out-of-touch statement that sounds too much like a president who thinks Iraq is getting better and that Gonzales did well last week. Posted by: Tx Bubba on April 25, 2007 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINKKevin might consider giving Cazart guest-blogging duties as a gesture of humility. He can spend the day not doing his job. It's a win-win. Posted by: sniflheim on April 25, 2007 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINKI think that Obama and Clinton should have responded to Guiliani's scare tactics with, "So Rudy wants to make America safe by removing our freedoms with warrentless phone taps, military tribunals behind closed door, and an unchecked presidency. Tell me Rudy, why are you caving into the terrorists?" Posted by: Dr. Morpheus on April 25, 2007 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINKI agree with Rudy that the US will be safer with a GOP as Pres. When a Dem wins in 2008, the GOP brownshirts will deploy back to their militia cells and begin planning for the next series of wingnut terrorist attacks on US soil, likely to dwarf both OKC and 9/11, and with the DoJ and other Fed depts, sucked dry of competence by the GWB admin, unable to prevent it. I'm with cazart. In particular: Obama: I think we should focus on strengthening our intelligence, working with local authorities and doing all the things we haven't yet done to keep Americans safe. Clinton: this Administration has done too little to protect our ports, make our mass transit safer, and protect our cities. They have isolated us in the world... The response could have been stronger, of course; if I were a Dem candidate (especially one who hadn't yet spoken) I'd be cutting and pasting wildly from some of the comments above. But both Clinton and Obama listed some things that they would do. Posted by: Lucia on April 25, 2007 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK
How? By surrendering to our allies and referring back to the legacy of Bill Clinton? The only reason why we had to invade Iraq was because Clinton refused to properly disarm and contain Saddam Hussein. Had he not been asleep at the switch, the Iraq war need not have happened. And what will Hillary do when confronted with a problem? She'll run crying to Ambassador Bill, who will no doubt be running around, sans pants, trying to triangulate anything and everything. Vote for Rudy or be consumed by the dust and fire of a massive terror attack, people. Vote for Rudy or things will dissolve into screaming and gunfire. Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 25, 2007 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINKThis is just another reminder that Obama, for all his potential, is an unbelievable mediocre candidate. A man blessed with so much promise and charisma has not once ever said anything remotely interesting to me or taken a stance that I thought was risky. His modus operandi is to say the inspiring things that everyone "thinks" a politician should say; he simply says them more convincingly. Perhaps, however, this is the optimal election-winning strategy. Posted by: Tyro on April 25, 2007 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINKI gotta be with cazart too, Kevin. In general, I think you're right, but Obama in particular does go on to say exactly what needs to be said: the Republicans have NOT made us safer, and we need to fight this war smarter. I don't think those answers were nearly as bad as you said they were. Posted by: Peter A on April 25, 2007 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK"We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance,interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense." Great! When can we start?
How bout all those dead firemen who continued on up the towers even though the cops were shouting into their radios that they needed to get out - except the firemen radios were on another frequency, they didn't hear the warnings, and died as a result. Whoopsie. Point out that the incompatible systems came from a Guiliani cronie. Point out as well that he put the command center in the WTC - the most likely target of international terrorism. Whoopsie. Oops. Said that already. Anyone who takes this fucker serious on national security is in need of serious psychotropic meds. Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 25, 2007 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance,interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense. We will return America to something we recognize, you mean? Fabulous! Sign me up! Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 25, 2007 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINKMany of the good commenters here at Political Animal could come up with decent rebuttals to the abusive cop's bullshit, and describe how Democrats would do a much better job of national security than Republicans, but it is telling that the front runners for the Democratic nomination do not. What that means exactly I can only guess, but it definitely hurts the chances of a Democrat being elected president. Like Kerry, Clinton and Obama lack the will or language to communicate a strong national security strategy that fits their humanism and appeals to the national machismo character. Anti-war and anti-Bush activists should be worried. Posted by: Brojo on April 25, 2007 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK
Come now, you're being silly. Vote for Rudy or a terrorist will burn down the mall on the good side of town. Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 25, 2007 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINKThen do it right now Kevin. You do it. Glass houses and stuff. Posted by: MNPundit on April 25, 2007 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINKYou can prevent people from taking liquids onto planes. You can construct elaborate "no fly lists" containing everyone who wrote a letter to the editor in support of Democrats, and you can declare that torture is okay and that we should monitor everyone phone calls without a warrant because it's "necessary to keep us safe." The question in my mind is when we are going to decide that these are no longer necessary? Even on the most basic level, who on earth is going to stand up and declare that we should be allowed to bring full-sized tubes of toothpaste in our carryon luggage? Given that no one is going to do that, I have a hard time believing that anyone, particularly republicans, are going to move us back to sanity on the other issues. The Republicans are drunk on their newfound power, and like a drunk, they need to be cut off. Posted by: Tyro on April 25, 2007 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINKAMEN KEVIN. Will these candidates listen please?? Whining does not work! If they zing you, you zing back. America doesn't want a President who complains of 'unfair treatment' every time someone lands a moderately low blow. They want someone who can fight back, dirty if need be. Posted by: Shag on April 25, 2007 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK
Yes, and it would sound something like... ...ooo, Mr. Terrorist, I respect your feelings and I hope you'll realize that because America is guilty of war crimes and oppression against you that you'll hold off killing thousands of our people while we pay you reparations and promise to incarcerate all of the people who work hard and make money... Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 25, 2007 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINKDemocratic candidates could say that they will make America safer by "going on offense" against the real threats to American security:
However, with the exception of Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Democratic candidates are unlikely to raise these issues, because most of them are only slightly less beholden to the military-industrial complex and its half-trillion-dollar per year gluttony than the Republicans. Posted by: Never Happen on April 25, 2007 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINKKevin appears to be projecting his own faults onto Obama, presumably because Obama got the Iraq war right, and Kevin didn't. I think Mr. Drum is spot-on, and I'm a little dismayed to see how many people in this thread disagree with him, and how. Guiliani is a treasure trove of fuck-ups and slime -- any Dem who deigns to respond to his remarks, even if he's running for nothing higher than assistant alderman, ought to be able to take the specifics of Guiliani's record and construct a damning litany of how Republican scumbuggery turns out. Then you can bring up the laundry list of How We'll Do Better. Clinton and Obama would have been better off ignoring Guiliani's remarks altogether, if they couldn't offer anything better than pablum about how "America is united" and "America is ready for a change". Vacuous horseshit that fools nobody.
It's true--Kucinich really is the best you have. I hope he runs the country just like he ran Cleveland. Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah! Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 25, 2007 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINKKevin is very persuasive on the politics. But I think the problem is that the dems do not have a real strong argument on how they would make us safer. The notion of shifting our focus to Afghanistan, a talking point used by dems and even stated in this thread, is silly and I doubt that any of the dems honestly believe that is the answer - it is just a specious way to try not to look weak while advocating withdrawal from Iraq. The battle with Al Qaeda is in Iraq and there currently is little threat to us in Afghanistan. And of course, if the terrorists succeed in running us out of Iraq, it would provide a playbook for running us out of Afghanistan eventually and anywhere else. In 2004, the dems whined when Cheney suggested we would be safer with Bush. It is their instinct to say that argument is unfair or questions their patriotism; I think because they fear the debate. I agree with Kevin. Let's bring on the debate about which candidate for president will keep us safer. If the dems demonstrate they can keep us safer, fine with me. But the stuff they said yesterday is not at all persuasive. Posted by: brian on April 25, 2007 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINKNorman, I've always said that investment bankers are unintellectual and have no moral grounding. You are proof that wannabe investment bankers are even less intellectually capable and have even less moral capacity. And that's really something. Though it dovetails nicely with the Republican thing. Posted by: Tyro on April 25, 2007 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINKThe only reason why we had to invade Iraq was because Clinton refused to properly disarm and contain Saddam Hussein. BWAHAHAHA! Yeah, tell us how your merry band of chickenhawks have uncovered those WMD buried in the sand. Posted by: haha on April 25, 2007 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINKA vote for John McCain is a vote for a third term for George W. Bush. The folks who like Bush, will love McCain. Posted by: TruthTeller on April 25, 2007 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK
No, but a modest fortune and a talent for exploiting the weaknesses of others while skirting the law is a skill I happen to have. And could you cite where you've "always said that?" I think you're lying and I don't appreciate having you claim things that simply are not true, sir. I don't appreciate it and I won't countenance it.
There's nothing "wannabe" about me. Just because you put on a doily and your grandma's underpants because you "wannabe" like Madonna or Melissa Etheridge, don't come crying to those of us who can think for themselves. Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 25, 2007 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINKArguably the responses are not as ferocious as many would prefer. But to call the responses "whining" is ridiculous. Obama's response in particular was to incorporate his criticism of Guiliani into Obama's broader theme of "a new kind of politics." Kevin might not be moved by that theme, but that is what Obama is about. Obama's argument wasn't about policy so much as it was about candidacy: comparing the type of person he is to the type of person Rudy is. A double for Obama. A swing and a miss for Mister Drum. There's nothing "wannabe" about me.True- you're an actual troll, not a wannabe one. Though that may be a rather fine distinction. Posted by: Steve LaBonne on April 25, 2007 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK Norman, the other fun thing is that I know when I mock you, I'll get a reply. :) And yeah, "wannabe." Unless it turns out that everyone on the internet really is a self-made millionaire veteran of the special forces who dropped out of college because they realized they knew more than the professors. But as I said, yeah, the pathetic bleating and the deluded belief in the profundity of your immoral, invalid opinions does dovetail well with the Republican thing you so fanatically espouse. Posted by: Tyro on April 25, 2007 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK
An emoticon, sir? You must be related to this Bob fellow who used to soil himself around here. Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 25, 2007 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINKAh, yes, because emoticons are a rarely-used element on online writing taken up by some guy name Bob. You also have some odd scatalogical fixations. You should do something about that. Or pay someone to deal with it, so you stop taking up your anxieties here. Posted by: Tyro on April 25, 2007 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK
I'd vote for Rudy if I were you. Kevin, I think you are more or less right on this call. And Dems need to grasp that the nomination at this point is Rudy's to lose, and he will crush Hillary if she is the nominee. Rudy has the necessary nastiness that is so appealing to Republicans. I like Obama, but I know: An awful lot of white people, regardless of what they say to the pollsters, will go in the voting booth and vote for the white guy. (Just ask Tom Bradley or Carl McCall.) Posted by: MaxGowan on April 25, 2007 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINKyeah, vote for a Republicon who spends another eight years not getting bin Laden. LOL Posted by: haha on April 25, 2007 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINKMrs. Clinton isn't well positioned to do this…Will Allen at 12:32 PMSince the Clinton policies involved taking every precaution available and counter-attacking, that would be an excellent position to take. The Republican position, ignore warnings, divert resources for no valid reason, and undertake counterproductive actions should be a lesson to all. blah blah… ex-lax at 1:01 PMYour party excels at their smear&lie attacks on Democrats, but when it comes to attacking America's enemies, they prefer to let them go in order to use them for their political agendas. ….The only reason why we had to invade Iraq was because Clinton refused to properly disarm and contain Saddam Hussein……Norman Rogers at 1:16 PMIn case you haven't yet heard, Saddam was disarmed while Clinton was president. But of course, any reason to have a true transvestite in the White House would be a good thing to his fans. ….Bwah hah h… Norman Rogers at 1:32 PMEither someone fell off the wagon again, or the hoot of the loon is echoing Giuliani. Posted by: Mike on April 25, 2007 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK cazart is technically right, but Kevin's point is that the reponse should be short, succint and memorable. I don't have it quite figured it out yet, but two 10 word senetences that managed to bring in Rudy's three wives, his dysfunctional relationship with his adult son, his lack of preparation prior to 9/11, the firemen's grievances against him, and his grandstanding would have been enough to respond. Democratic leaders' problem is that they are too verbose, congenitally unable to go for the kill, and without humor. Posted by: gregor on April 25, 2007 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINKIf you were me you'd be far too intelligent for that. And even if someone really hadn't yet caught on to the Rethug proapganda scam that is the GWOT*, why on earth would they want an incompetent tinpot Mussolini like Rudy, with zero knowledge of national security and a "brilliant" command center in WTC / cops and firemen with different radios / Kerik track record, to wage it? *In actuality terrorism is a global LAW ENFORCEMENT problem requiring close COOPERATION with ALLIES. Not playing cowboys and indians with actual people's lives. Posted by: Steve LaBonne on April 25, 2007 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINKEvery once in awhile, Hillary Clinton simply runs off the track. For example, her recent awful attempt at dialect in quoting words from a religious song popular in Negro churches; and lately her clumsy attempt to link her campaign to that of Harriet Tubman. In both instances, she could have made her point with much more finesse. For example, "I would like to remind you of the words of a well-loved song that long has been an inspiration to me as well as to many others . . ." etc. (no dialect). And, "All of us in this campaign as well as all Americans should take courage and direction from the struggle of individuals such as Harriet Tubman, who . . ." Would something like that have been so hard? I really think that Mrs. Clinton is being let down by someone with authority in her campaign, someone who should know better but obviously does not and I hope that she and those closest to her take heed of the situation. This is not a personal matter with Mrs. Clinton, whose heart is in the right place; this is a campaign matter that can and should be corrected sooner rather than later. Mrs. Clinton is the best choice Democrats have for not only winning the White House in 2008 but for carrying the Congress as well. Let's hope that she manages to stay on track in the future. Posted by: billboard on April 25, 2007 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK Al: "By not fighting the terrorists on foreign soil, the terrorists will surely respond by following us home." They are not puppies, dimwit. They can "follow" us anytime they want, army or no army. Good thing we were in Iraq on 9/11, right? Meanwhile, have you signed up yet, you hypocritical sack of talking points? Posted by: Kenji on April 25, 2007 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINKMrs. Clinton is the best choice Democrats have for not only winning the White House in 2008 but for carrying the Congress as well.(Italics mine.) You misspelled "hands-down worst". Hope this helps. Posted by: Steve LaBonne on April 25, 2007 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK What did Edwards say? Or has he been written off already? He's been written off. I think it was something important...like his hair. Posted by: ckelly on April 25, 2007 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK
I get the giggles and fall down in a heap when I read things like that. The American people are not going to hand over the presidency to an inveterate nag, sir. Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 25, 2007 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINKSo far on this thread there has not been a single post by a Democrat suggesting something the country should do to remain on offense (using Rudy's metaphor). No ideas for more effective ways to attack insurgents in Iraq, better ways to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan, ways to prevent Iran and NK from developing nuclear arsenals, etc. There have been some clever suggestions about how to attack Rudy and other Republicans. Attacking the other party seems to be what you folks are good at and all that you're interested in. P.S. when the US eventually prevails in Iraq, I predict that those who now criticize Bush for getting into an unwinnable war will then criticize him for taking so long to win it. Posted by: ex-liberal on April 25, 2007 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINKMemo to "ex-liberal" and everyone's favorite (not) faux-moderate concern troll, brian: You dweebs who still support the manifestly incompetent Bush Administration have no credibility at all -- none -- to opine on your imagined Democratic security shortcomings. Posted by: Gregory on April 25, 2007 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK
All of this was captured in the film Escape From New York, which detailed how Manhattan was turned into a free-fire zone, rendered virtually unliveable, and was deliberately populated with tens of thousands of mentally ill and deranged criminals who were given a mere slap on the wrist from the liberal judges of the day. I lived in New York during the 1980s and I regularly shot my way out of restaurants and buildings and had to wear body armour and carry a first aid kit everywhere I went. Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 25, 2007 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINKMhr, Benito Giuliani is highly unpopular in NY these days, which shows what BS your republitroll thesis is. New Yorkers have seen with Bloomberg (one of the last surviving liberal Republicans, who no longer exist outside of NYC)that they can have administrative competence without the tinhorn dictatorship. I imagine Norman gets the giggles and falls down a lot. Even the best meds have side effects. Posted by: Steve LaBonne on April 25, 2007 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINKex, that's because "remaining on offense" is a childish sports-talk metaphor that merely betrays your feeble cognitive powers and disconnection from reality. Posted by: Steve LaBonne on April 25, 2007 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINKMike, when "counter-attacking" involves ordering a, in the words of Zinni, "one in a million shot", it isn't a counter-attack at all. Now, it may be unfair to stick Mrs. Clinton with the actions of Mr. Clinton, but Presidential Campaigns inevitably are unfair. The Democrats have room to attack Republicans on national security in '08, but revisiting one in a million missile attacks or Les Aspin-led military excusions in Somalia is not the way to do it. The Democrats would be wise to nominate someone else. Posted by: Will Allen on April 25, 2007 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINKFor example, her recent awful attempt at dialect in quoting words from a religious song popular in Negro churches; "Negro" churches? Fuck off, concern troll, and take your verbal tells with you. Posted by: Stefan on April 25, 2007 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINKThat great strategic genius situated his "central command post" on the 27th floor of WTC 7. Hello...... Posted by: downtown on April 25, 2007 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK
New Yorkers who care about their city know that Rudy killed off the bad guys, drove the riffraff out, and made the city liveable again. Mayor Bloomberg is merely coasting along on the glory that was Rudy Guiliani. Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 25, 2007 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINKPatrick Dorismond, Amadou Diallo, Abner Louima..... But don't you see, downtown- twisted lowlifes like Norman think torturing and murdering brown people is a GOOD thing. (And of course, being brown, they aren't "real" New Yorkers.) Posted by: Steve LaBonne on April 25, 2007 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINKmhr: When Giuliani was mayor of New York, crime did indeed come down and the economy did improve. Actually, during that same period conditions improved in cities with liberal mayors, too. Couldn't have had anything to do with increased federal funds for programs like community-based policing under the Clinton administration. But we won't talk about that, we need Rudy to keep us safe from terrorists armed with squeegees. Posted by: thersites on April 25, 2007 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINKThe Democratic response should be very simple, and something along these lines: the Republicans like to talk about how much they hate government. They hate government so much that they hire incompetents to run our country. So wen Americans actually need the government's help, they bumble and stumble. See, for example, the response to Katrina. Or Giuliani's best buddy Bernie Kerik. Point out what's wrong with Republican philosophy. Single out something most Americans are aware of (the Bush administration is stocked with incompetents), and then use a few concrete, well-known examples to show the consequences of Republican governance. Kevin, time for another update with Edwards' release: EDWARDS STATEMENT ON GIULIANI COMMENTS Chapel Hill, North Carolina - Senator John Edwards released the "Rudy Giuliani's suggestion that there is some superior 'Republican'
Of course they are. Someone has to wash the dishes and open the door for people like myself. They're not the bad people. The bad people are the ones who drive down to Virginia, buy a gunnysack full of handguns, and drive back to New York City and shoot up a bodega or run over a family of five by ghost riding down Park Avenue in a stolen Dinali. Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 25, 2007 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINKFearmongering just hasn't been in the Democratic Playbook, but they better add a chapter on it because it seems to work damn well. How about saying they have a Secret Plan to reinstate the Draft? Cuz otherwise where in the Hell are they going to get the troops they need to keep us in Iraq AND invade Iran? Posted by: Cal Gal on April 25, 2007 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINKOf course they are. Someone has to wash the dishes and open the door for people like myself. OK, Norman, I finally get it- you're a parodist and I fell for your schtick. Touche! Posted by: Steve LaBonne on April 25, 2007 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK
Liberals were FOR fearmongering long before they were AGAINST it. Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 25, 2007 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK"Giuliani believes in the civil rights of people who want to continue living." Unless they are immigrants shot 47 times by the police while reaching for their wallet to get out their identification. Giuliani and "civil rights" should not be mentioned in the same paragraph. Dems should suggest that perhaps Giuliani would make us safer by putting a big target on the Homeland Security Department, just like he did when he put NYC emergency response center into the once-already-bombed WTC. Or by putting a hack like Kerik in charge of our safety. Posted by: Cal Gal on April 25, 2007 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINKUnbelievable. Neither one of them took the chance to do what Rudy did: explain in a few short sentences why the country would be safer with a Democrat in the Oval Office. Is it really that hard? Democrats, right now, don't have to convince the American public that it would be better to have a Democrat in the White House: that's not the major challenge any Democratic candidate has to overcome. The major challenge any Democratic candidate has to overcome is the other Democratic candidates. Convincing the American people that another term of Republican leadership of the executive is even tolerable is a major political challenge Republicans have to overcome. You aren't politically clueless enough not to understand this, Kevin, so I have to presume that you are, again, just trying to shine up your Liebermanesque "reasonable moderate Democrat" credentials with gratuitous, disingenuous attacks on Democrats. And, on top of that, you are also clearly deliberatley distorting the responses to fit those attacks. While Obama didn't mention the superiority of "Democrats" as a class (because of the factors I discuss above) he, of course, responded with exactly the better approach to terrorism that he would take is, rebutting directly Giuliani's attack as it applies, at least, to Obama and laying out why he would be better as you claim that he did not: "I think we should focus on strengthening our intelligence, working with local authorities and doing all the things we haven't yet done to keep Americans safe." He does exactly what you praise Giuliani for doing, only makes it personal rather than about party. About what Obama believes needs to be done, rather than about what a generic Democrat would do. But all you hear is "blah blah blah". Hillary's response is less specific, but far from "yada yada yada". It hangs Rudy's implication—that the Democratic policies would be bad because they would change direction while his are good because they would keep the same direction as the status quo (he characterizes these respectively as "defense" and "attack", but makes the change/keep distinction quite prominent, too) around his neck by tieing the failures of the current administration that are sharp in people's minds to it. But you apparently don't hear that, only "yada yada yada". Maybe, next time you want to attack Democratic candidates for being worse than Republicans, you can actually address the actual content of their statements, rather than calling it "whining" (which it isn't) and replacing the text with gibberish, and omitting, especially, the bits where they do exactly what you are complaining that they don't. Question to John Edwards:
Wait--I thought I was Kevin Drum, stirring the pot! No, wait! I'm a liberal posting as a conservative! How about this--when you limosine liberals realize that there are people who are at the bottom of the ladder and people who are climbing the ladder and people who sit atop the ladder (as I do, luckily), then you'll realize the greatness and perfection that is America. We are all created equal, and today's dishwasher is a restaurant manager ten years from now and an owner of a chain of restaurants twenty years from now and a retired and seasoned investor thirty years from now, regardless of his skin colour. THAT is America. Conservatives celebrate and reward entrepreneurial talent and ability; liberals want to tax and spend their way to oblivion. The dishwasher of today is better off being a Republican than a lowly Democrat; all he will be rewarded with under a Democrat is with welfare, pity and higher taxes. Under a Republican, the sky is the limit with hard work and a little luck. Perhaps a loan, but let's not bicker about the lending practices of certain predatory lending institutions. Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 25, 2007 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINKNo, no, no, Norman. Your quip should have been that liberals were AGAINST fearmongering before they were FOR it. Sheesh. Get your rants right, at least. Posted by: Cal Gal on April 25, 2007 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK
Telling the truth is never a rant; it is an informed comment, sir. Ma'am. Whichever. Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 25, 2007 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINKEdwards kicked back: http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/apr/25/edwards_to_rudy_a_democratic_president_will_actually_keep_america_safer Posted by: anonymous on April 25, 2007 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINKEdwards response is the best so far. Don't count him out. It is entirely too early to count anybody out except maybe John McCain and Hillary Clinton. Posted by: Ron Byers on April 25, 2007 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINKMr. Rogers: Will Pres. Guiliani promise to stop dressing in drag? Is he capable of that? I have a sneaking suspicion that a male US president in a dress will not install fear in the hearts and minds of Al Queda, but good luck with your candidate... Posted by: Doubting Thomas on April 25, 2007 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINKNo, no, NO, Norman. It's WHATEVER. Double sheesh. (And, no, I would not characterize what you say as "the truth.") Posted by: Cal Gal on April 25, 2007 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK
Why? Because he looks better in a dress than Hillary does in one of her dowdy pantsuits? Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah! Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 25, 2007 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK
Properly, it is WHOMEVER. Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 25, 2007 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINKSo Kevin now that Edwards, Reid and Finney from the DNC have shown the way we can expect some hitting back at conservatives from you? Posted by: klyde on April 25, 2007 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINKA dress, Mr. Rogers... A DRESS! YOUR MAN WEARS A DRESS!!! Hilary wears pantsuits, big deal! Women of both parties go around wearing ugly pantsuits, (look at Laura Bush for Christ's sake) but REAL MEN DON'T WEAR DRESSES. And you really think this country or any other country is going to take him seriously? You really are a spoof, aren't you?
Now, see here. One man's ugly pantsuit is another man's wife caught wearing something practical. You don't have to turn a simple discussion into a hate crime, sir. When did liberals lose their sense of humour? Rudy in a dress--on Saturday Night Live? Counterculture humour show, SNL? And you're denigrating him for going into the Lion's Den of liberal comedy and besting everyone and getting laughs and being able to laugh at himself? Humility is something liberals know nothing about, I guess. And as for your assertion that "real men don't wear dresses," well, how sexist is that? How absurdly sexist is your decision to post that bit of nonsense? Boys wear pants, girls wear skirts, anyone who deviates from your rigid interpretation is not a "real man?" I would be willing to bet you that a fair number of cross-dressing liberals are rightly offended by your remarks, sir, and I support their right to wear whatever they want to wear as freely and as openly as they want to wear it. Your hate speech is unfortunate. But if I had a candidate who wore dowdy pantsuits and nagged me round the clock, I'd lose my g-d sense of humour and I'd start howling at everyone, all unhinged and bitter. Well, not me, personally, but you get the idea. Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 25, 2007 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINKWhen terrorists declared war on the USA in 1993 the Clintonista response was to conduct a homicide investigation against 2 individuals, as if this declaration of war was just another NYC crack killing, or a jealous wife poisoning her husband. When the USS Cole was attacked the Clinton administration did absolutely nothing, which is quite a mind blowing response to say the least. Posted by: Zipball on April 25, 2007 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINKEdwards response is the best so far. Agreed. I liked the jujitsu of accepting /arguendo/ that Guiliani offered leadership after 9/11, and then using it against him. I agree with Zipball. If Clinton had recognized that the OKC bombing was the wingnuts declaring war on the US, and, instead of treating it as a simple criminal matter, had dealt with them accordingly, we would have never gotten into the mess we are today. But, then again, with a can like that, Hillary's ONLY option is the dowdy pantsuit. Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 25, 2007 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINKYou know, there may be a good reason most of Democrats sound like wimps when answering Guiliani. They sound like wimps because they are wimps, Governor Richardson excepted. There is a lady's lunch dreamy etherial kumbaiya quality about many Democrats when they talk about war and peace. There is not an ally they will stand by nor an enemy they will not reward. They have made it plain that they will bear no burden in defense of much anything and they will send peace advocates to make nice nice to our enemies because they love everybody. They even turned nasty on Bill Clinton on the occassions when he got rough on our enemies. He could be very tough when necessary. It is amazing just how strong the copperhead tradition is in the Democratic Party. This does not reflect on thier patriotism, but it sure makes them look like wimps and amateurs on questions of war and peace. Posted by: John Kelly on April 25, 2007 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINKYou know, there may be a good reason most of Democrats sound like wimps when answering Guiliani. They sound like wimps because they are wimps, a few like Governor Richardson excepted. There is a dreamy lady's lunch etherial pastel kumbaiya quality about many Democrats when they talk about war and peace. There is not an ally they will stand by nor an enemy they will not reward. They have made it plain that they will bear no burden in defense of much anything and they will send peace advocates to make nice nice to our enemies because they love everybody. They even turned nasty on Bill Clinton on the occassions when he got rough on our enemies. He could be very tough when necessary. It is amazing just how strong the copperhead tradition is in the Democratic Party. This does not reflect on thier patriotism, but it sure makes them look like wimps and amateurs on questions of war and peace. Posted by: John Kelly on April 25, 2007 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK | |