Posted on 03/01/2007 2:53:19 PM PST by Kevmo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVBtPIrEleM
Thanks to Nsmje
Please remove thread if this has already posted.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
Glad u have a sense of humor.
for all of you ... another Dem PR site that mourns how badly they are handling RG speech. admittedly it was a brillant succinct speech ... which u will hear over and over ... as that is where people (vast majority) are at
Washinton Monthly
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:
“If any Republican is elected president — and I think obviously I would be the best at this — we will remain on offense....I listen a little to the Democrats and if one of them gets elected, we are going on defense,” Giuliani continued. “We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense.”
He added: “The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us.”
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.
You can quote to me me from the DNC until your face turns blue. They are losers and so is Rooty. They are all weak, pathetic panderers.
We don’t need that, we need a real leader. The RATs and the Republicans only present us with weak sisters who haven’t the moral courage to stick up for anything. Both parties at this time are corrupt and inept. Not too inspiring. When election time rolls around they both can forget any help from me.
Shame on all of them!
Anyone with any intelligence here will not be voting for Rudolpho Giussolini. He is a liberal socialist gun-grabbing abortion-loving homosexual agenda-driven creep.
His spin is no more credible than the drive-by media's spin when they try to pass of a Democrat as being less liberal than he or she is.
Jim Robinson is a great American for standing on principle. Sean Hannity isn't. He is nothing but a sell-out and Republican party hack.
Hannity is a Catholic, isn’t he? He supports Rooty.
Oh, maybe he isn’t really a Catholic.
And, that is the dumbest thing you could possibly as it would guarantee a liberal in the White House for EIGHT years rather than merely for four years. Further, any liberal agenda Ghouliani would push through would go virtually unopposed by Republicans in Congress. Worse, the party in the White House generally loses seats in Congress and that would be even more the case with Ghouliani in the White House as conservatives in the South would return to voting for blue-dog/conservative Democrats.
We try but they are deterred from posting their propaganda nor do they care about Ghouliani's liberal record. Ghouliani supporters are either not conservatives or just plain dumb or deluded.
LOL! * SNORT *
I would definitely vote for Guiliani against Clinton in the general election.
Finally something that sounds logical in this presidential race..
If true the Rudybots must be going... DOH..
I'm still waiting for conservatives to confront Hannity on his own program for his support of Ghouliani. But, maybe, he instructs his call screeners not to let such calls through.
Reagan's 11th commandment applied to Republicans. Those of us criticizing Ghouliani are conservatives and RINO Rudy isn't one of us.
Principled conservatives have an obligation to oppose liberals in either party.
u r right. they should have left Gray Davis in Calif. we should also excommunicate Arnold, RG, Hannity, O’Reilly etc etc from the church.
what was that about the 13th Commandment?
sorry meant 11th commandment
sorry meant 11th commandment
What's the point of beating Hillary if conservatives have to elect a liberal to do it? Here's a clue -- conservatism is not advanced with the election of liberals to office.
And, you're lying about Limbaugh. He has consistently stated Ghouliani isn't a conservative and expressed reservations about his candidacy. Not once has he stated Ghouliani is the best candidate to beat Hillary because he isn't stupid.
Ghouliani is the least likely candidate to beat Hillary as he would alienate rather than unify the Republican base. Any significant conservative third-party candidate would take a 10-20% of the vote minimum.
Take a look at the current poll here and you'll see a good number of people will not vote for Ghouliani under any circumstances. So, if he somehow got the nomination, don't expect those of us that have stated that to change our minds.
But, Schwartzenkennedy is proof that electing RINOs to office and expecting anything good to happen for conservatives is a discredited and deluded notion.
And, the nation CAN and HAS elected conservative nominees for President -- at least far more conservative than Ghouliani -- in five of the past seven Presidential elections.
The idea a conservative can't be elected President is one of the most idiotic I have heard in a long time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.