Posted on 12/09/2007 6:19:49 PM PST by Liz
WASHINGTON - Rudy Giuliani doggedly insisted Sunday that threats against then-girlfriend Judith Nathan prompted the NYPD to launch her taxpayer-funded chauffeur services. "These were all based upon threat assessments made by the New York City Police Department ... of what was necessary to protect her life, my life, other people's lives," Giuliani told NBC’s Tim Russert. "Every single thing done here was done based upon the assessment of someone else that this was necessary." His explanation of Nathan's car service doesn't square with Friday’s Daily News exclusive report, citing multiple witnesses and a law enforcement source, that she was being protected by city taxpayers months before the affair was revealed in May 2000. "The threats were after" their romance became known, Giuliani maintained yesterday.
The only guest on Russert's "Meet the Press," Giuliani endured the most exhaustive and at times withering examination of his personal character and business dealings of his campaign. To the glee of fellow Presidential contenders who've grudgingly marvelled at his political staying power, the Republican frontrunner spent nearly all of an hour playing defense, attempting to deflect a flurry of questions about his relationship with indicted pal Bernard Kerik and Kerik's mistress Judith Regan, controversial corporate clients and his own tangled personal life. "He's held up in the polls a lot longer than anyone thought," a neutral GOP consultant predicted, "but the baggage is finally starting to catch up with him."
Giuliani said again that he did a poor job of vetting Kerik but denied he allowed personal loyalty to trump his judgment. He said he knew Regan was Kerik's publisher but wasn’t aware of their Ground Zero love nest in a pad reserved for recovery workers. He defended the activities of his security and legal businesses as "ethical, lawful, decent work," but said he won’t release a list of his clients because he's promised many of them confidentiality.
In one seemingly contradictory answer, Giuliani said he’ll consider further disclosures at a later date: "I'm not going to do more than what is absolutely required, and we'll go further than that." Predictably, Democrats piled on. "Rudy Giuliani's refusal to be honest about his shady past is becoming a chronic habit," Democratic National Committee spokesman Dag Vega jabbed. As voters learn about his penchant for covering up scandals, they will continue to turn away from his candidacy."
The usually-combative candidate was uncharacteristically subdued throughout the grilling. Somberly dressed in a dark suit, white shirt and TK tie, Giuliani employed many of the timeworn techniques of damage control. He turned the tables on his inquisitor - "that's a stretch," he politely complained once - and borrowed from the Watergate scandal's signature "mistakes were made" rationale.Stealing a page from Hillary Clinton’s script, he wielded a tactical laugh now and then. He blamed the media for hyping the facts, and invoked the memory of a fellow ex-mayor to explain his poor judgment about Kerik. "As one of my predecessors, Fiorello LaGuardia, used to say, 'I don't make many mistakes, but when I make them, they're big ones.'"
That was a reference to LaGuardia's celebrated 1941 wisecrack: "When I make a mistake, it's a beaut." In a rare interlude from his self-defense chores, Giuliani took issue with ex-Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's 1992 remark that homosexuality is an "aberrant" lifestyle. "I don't believe it's sinful," he said. "It’s the various acts that people perform that are sinful, not the orientation that they have." The corps of sinners, he added, includes His Honor: "I've had my own sins that I’ve had to confess and had to deal with and try to overcome, and so I'm very, very empathetic with people, and that we're all imperfect human beings struggling to try to be better."
With David Saltonstall
And Hillary wins like her husband did thanks to Perot. Great! /sar
IF you and all the Rudy-lovers will just pledge to vote for the third party conservative and against both Hillary and Rudy!!
Pledge??
Of course in his lifetime there’ll be some decisions if he had to do over again Rudy would make a different choice I’m sure.
I remember when Ted Bundy said that, too.
At a minimum, Rudy is a thief. We can’t have a thief-president.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You can not expect a preacher to negoiate or catch a thief. WHY? Because they do not how to operate in that enviornment.
Give a master when dealing with the likes of democrats, Iran, UN, Russia, Hugo, and the rest of the dishonest world.
The other 13 canidates can not hold a candle to RUDY in backroom manuvering. WHY? he been there. All the rest havve to learn how while on thejob.
IF your argument is right (and I need to think more about that), wouldn't it be better to get a thief and a gangster who hasn't been exposed yet? Someone who is maybe a little smarter than Rudy?
I don’t want Rudy in. He’s not my choice. I am supporting Fred Thompson.
But I do have to ask. You say we cannot survive four years of Rudy. Do you think we can survive four years of Hillary Clinton? Barack Obama? John Edwards? What if Algore gets into the race?
I hope Fred can win the primaries. I’m hopeful about the South (Carolina and then the rest of Dixie) giving him the edge, but now Huckabee (spit) has overtaken all.
So the only choice I can see is between whomever wins the Republican primaries and then Clinton/Obama?Edwards/Gore(?). I don’t even want to make a guess about Congress, but it too needs to be WON back. And many more Republican seats are up than democrat in the Senate. 2008 is going to be one tough year for conservatives.
Guiliani and Huckabee would destroy the party, but the Dems will destroy the country. There is no way for conservatives to sit out or vote third party without giving the election to the democrats. Not one person here will dispute THAT. Can anyone give me a credible scenario where conservatives sit the election out but the dems still loose?
So I ask again, can this country, at this time, with the War on Islamifacism, Amnesty, Free Trade over Jobs, and Constitutional Judges in the SCOTUS—all up for grabs and unfinished, survive four years of a dem Congress and President?
Pat Buchanan was on Fox and Friends last week and addressed the viability of a Third Party winning this election. Basically, he said it would be impossible.
He mentioned the enormous amount of money that would be needed just to get the candidate’s name on the ballot in all states, as well as the party, and the fact that no viable candidate is running as a Third Party candidate (as he did) at this time. In other words, Pat says it is too late. Say what you will about Buchanan, but I think his word is gold on Third Parties running in national elections.
If a third party candidate is going to run, they better get going.
Who do you suggest?
I’m not a Rudy lover. There is no third party conservative, thus nothing to pledge. Even if, it would be Clinton, again, by splitting the republicans.
Of course in his lifetime there’ll be some decisions if he had to do over again Rudy would make a different choice I’m sure.
I remember when Ted Bundy said that, too.
At a minimum, Rudy is a thief. We can’t have a thief-president.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You can not expect a preacher to negoiate or catch a thief. WHY? Because they do not how to operate in that enviornment.
Just like non-sports guys don/t make good refs, WWHY? they do not know all the tricks.
Give a master when dealing with the likes of democrats, Iran, UN, Russia, Hugo, and the rest of the dishonest world.
The other 13 canidates can not hold a candle to RUDY in backroom manuvering. WHY? he been there. All the rest have to learn how while on the job.
Get over it seminar guys and gals.
IF your argument is right (and I need to think more about that), wouldn’t it be better to get a thief and a gangster who hasn’t been exposed yet? Someone who is maybe a little smarter than Rudy?
xxxxxx
They all been exposed. Some with very little business experience.
Give me experience.
Impossible? Isn't Pat's sister supporting Tancredo? Impossible?
I can support any of the GOP candidates except Rudy. If he gets the nomination, I will be forced to vote against him in November. I cannot in good conscience ask our troops to salute a man like Rudy. He's not fit to be Commander in Chief. We need someone who could gain the respect of our troops. Rudy cannot.
So, if Rudy is nominated, I'll vote against both him and Hillary. There will be another option. And, if some people try to sell their souls by voting for Rudy (as opposed to the third party alternative) and they thereby cause Hillary to be elected, then it will be on their consciences, not mine. If we stick together, we will beat both Rudy and Hillary.
“But I do have to ask. You say we cannot survive four years of Rudy. Do you think we can survive four years of Hillary Clinton? Barack Obama? John Edwards? What if Algore gets into the race?”
We will if we have to. It won’t be pleasant. We survived 8 years of Bill Clinton. But a GOP congressional opposition will keep it mostly in check.
Of course if the liberal Rudy is elected, GOP senators and congressmen will be fully expected to support the standardbearer of their party. No matter what hideous legislation he proposes. That would be alot worse.
Russert is a fool. No policy questions at all, it was just a gotcha game. Russert is a RAT and former Democrat staffer for several in Congress.
A-freaking-men to your #44
I am so sick of the Republican bashing around here. There isn’t 1/1000th of the Dem bashing as there is of the Republicans.
Nobody is good enough.
Why I don’t post mucy anymore.
much
YESSSSS, tim really “piled” on her with ONE insignificant question, about driving licenses to ILLEGAL ALIENS, from So America, the Orient and Europe. That was A REALLY DIFFICULT QUESTION, and she himmed and hawed and flim flamed an answer. She could have agreed to licences or not agreed to licences to Illegal Aliens. She couldn’t. That was the one and only “DIFFICULT” question asked by tim and she couldn’t give a staight answer. Can any so called journalist ask her a question about her “past deeds”, like swiping stuff from the Whitehouse, her filling records, her overseeing the removal of personnel from the travel office, the money from Hsu, the “cleaning up” after weekends of debauchery by her “governor-husband” in Arkansas, her hiring
by the Rose Law Firm, her hiring by the Univ of Arkansas, how were these hiring done and what kind of force slick played, how many times she actually “preformed before a judge” in court, how did Craig Livingston REALLY get hired, a bar bouncer, by someone “HIGH UP” in the family quarters of the whitehouse, not by the president, how was she able to hire an Arkansas State Highways patrolwoman, at taxpayers expense, to be a Nannie to Chelsa? These are questions the screaming media presstitutes are AFRAID to ask hillary. AND there are many more. Talk about baggage lugged around by Rudy, she has a semi-truck load. AND NO PRESSTITUTE IS BRAVE ENOUGH TO ASK HER,
YESSSSS, tim really “piled” on her with ONE insignificant question, about driving licenses to ILLEGAL ALIENS, from So America, the Orient and Europe. That was A REALLY DIFFICULT QUESTION, and she himmed and hawed and flim flamed an answer. She could have agreed to licences or not agreed to licences to Illegal Aliens. She couldn’t. That was the one and only “DIFFICULT” question asked by tim and she couldn’t give a staight answer. Can any so called journalist ask her a question about her “past deeds”, like swiping stuff from the Whitehouse, her filling records, her overseeing the removal of personnel from the travel office, the money from Hsu, the “cleaning up” after weekends of debauchery by her “governor-husband” in Arkansas, her hiring
by the Rose Law Firm, her hiring by the Univ of Arkansas, how were these hiring done and what kind of force slick played, how many times she actually “preformed before a judge” in court, how did Craig Livingston REALLY get hired, a bar bouncer, by someone “HIGH UP” in the family quarters of the whitehouse, not by the president, how was she able to hire an Arkansas State Highways patrolwoman, at taxpayers expense, to be a Nannie to Chelsa? These are questions the screaming media presstitutes are AFRAID to ask hillary. AND there are many more. Talk about baggage lugged around by Rudy, she has a semi-truck load. AND NO PRESSTITUTE IS BRAVE ENOUGH TO ASK HER,
The Sunday morning talk show freepers are all postimg for next Sunday’s awards. Same old, same old. Don’t rock the boat.
I watched the program and thought Rudy lacking in truth and substance. He was especially weak regarding Kerick. Roody claimed not to know his background when he nominiated him for homeland security. So far as I am concerned, Rooty was either incompetent or naive (stupid). He was pathetic on this issue.
Could not agree more—she’s got baggage.
But the point is the licensing illegals question did what no other question could have done——it destroyed her credibility, sank her poll numbers, destroyed her front-runner status, and demolished her “inevitability” factor.
Can’t ask for more than that.
Excellent points----I hoped Russert would remind Rooty that he gets paid big bucks as a “security expert.“ Vetting people is part of the security services Rooty sells.
Also, Russert should have mentioned Kerik was Rooty’s driver and bodyguard before Rooty promoted him.
Rooty knows plenty about Kerik----AND----Kerik knows where all Rooty’s bodies are buried.
That really is an assinine comment.
First, you’re stating that anyone posting on the thread, since Phsstpok and Rodguy911 give out awards, are only saying things the judges like to hear. I think that will be news to Phsstpok, a true Tennessean and Fred Thompson supporter, and Rodguy who is not for Guiliani (I don’t know who he’s supporting, but it’s not Rudy). So do not denegrate our integrity like that. That’s how democrats argue.
Second, we have very few Rudy supporters on the thread. But so what if there was? Last I heard, JimRob is not banning Rudy supporters. I don’t expect any FReeper supporter or detractor of a particular candidate to state falsehoods to make their point, do you? If they do, call them on it, but don’t put motives into play that aren’t there.
Third, we don’t like Tim Russert. He’s one of the most biased newsmen out there, and that’s saying a lot. So if we’ve mistated anything vis-a-vis Russert’s interview on Sunday, we’d come down hard on Russert everytime.
Fourth, no one is lockstep on any Sunday thread I’ve seen. Disagreeing happens as much as folks agreeing. The only difference is we try dang hard to be civil. We sometimes fail, myself included, but we try hard not to.
Finally, the next time Guiliani is on ANY Sunday show, please come to the thread and post your review. We’d love to hear it.
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.