Saturday, February 24, 2007
How Come Rudy Is Restricting Access?
Josh Marshall points out that a new Quinnipiac poll gives Rudy Giuliani a 22 point lead in the GOP primary. Rudy gets 40% support, McCain 18%, Gingrich 10% and Romney at 7%.
Rudy's support is rising in nearly every recent poll while McCain's support is slowly but surely tanking. Giuliani hasn't actually announced for president yet, but given the popularity of support he's garnering, you'd think he'd leap into the race with both feet.
But he's not. Not only hasn't Giluliani "officially" announced he's running for president, he also is restricting his access along the campaign trail and only taking softball questions from dye-in-the-wool supporters:
So here's a question: so far, Rudy's been given a free pass. No one has asked him about his messy personal life - the three ex-wives, the marriage to his cousin (which he had to get a special papal dispensation for) or the phony annulment he got for that marriage (shock of shocks - he found out he was married to his second cousin!), the infidelities (I can think of at least three - he was cheating on his first wife with his soon-to-be second wife Donna Hanover; he was cheating on his second wife with his communications director, Christine Lategano; and he was cheating on his second wife with his soon-to-be third wife, Judi Nathan), the court order he got so he could bring his mistress home to Gracie Mansion while his second wife and kids were up the hall, his living with two gay men after his second wife Donna threw him out of the house for schtupping another woman while Donna and the kids were home (that ought to go over well with evangelicals!)
What happens when somebody asks him about this sleazy behavior?
If the marriage, the infidelities, and all the rest of the sleaze are approachable topics for the Clinton campaign (and apparently they are - the Geffen mess this week was basically all about Bill's alleged philandering), they ought to be approachable topics for the Giuliani campaign as well.
So how will Giuliani handle those questions?
In addition, how will Rudy handle the ethics questions he's going to get over Bernie Kerik? How will he handle the ethics questions over his post-9/11 business (basically using the memory of 9/11 to enrich himself)? How will Rudy handle the questions about his plan to place the New York City Emergency Crisis Center in WTC 7 in 1999, six years after the Trade Center had been attacked by terrorists?
The fact that Rudy's restricting access along the campaign trail and not taking unscripted questions from non-supporters suggests he doesn't want to answer these questions at all. Ordinarily I'd say that a presidential candidate would never get away with restricting access to himself and not answering pertinent questions about his past record as mayor of New York, his ethical behavior in business, the criminal behavior of his business ethics, and the messy details about his marriages and his infidelities.
But St. Rudy ("America's Mayor") might just get away with running from all the tough questions as a presidential candidate. The irony is, Rudy could win the GOP nomination and Hillary could win the Democratic nomination and we could have a race where Bill's past, present and future infidelities, indiscretions and business ethics will be Topic A on the campaign trail while St. Rudy gets a pass from the fawning, slobbering press corps.
I hope that doesn't happen. I am sure that McCain, Romney et al. will try to nail him on some of these questions as soon as he announces. Later on, I'm sure Dems will bring up all the ethics and sexual questions as well. Let's hope the Chris Matthews of the press corps will take their mouths off Rudy's cock long enough to ask the same questions about St. Rudy they're asking about the Clintons.
Rudy's support is rising in nearly every recent poll while McCain's support is slowly but surely tanking. Giuliani hasn't actually announced for president yet, but given the popularity of support he's garnering, you'd think he'd leap into the race with both feet.
But he's not. Not only hasn't Giluliani "officially" announced he's running for president, he also is restricting his access along the campaign trail and only taking softball questions from dye-in-the-wool supporters:
SPARTANBURG, S.C., Feb. 21 — In a swing through South Carolina this week, Rudolph W. Giuliani chose to campaign at a fire house, which is a little like Derek Jeter meeting with Yankees fans — a most unlikely forum for hostility, or even much skepticism.
Instead of the sometimes barbed give-and-take endured by the other candidates, Mr. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, fielded a few questions from the firefighters and police officers who gathered to hear him here. The questions, which began with comments like, “Being in your presence here is just unbelievable,” stuck almost entirely to issues on which Mr. Giuliani is most comfortable, like airport security and border control.
More than the other major presidential candidates, Mr. Giuliani has limited himself to events with narrowly defined, friendly audiences, avoiding the kind of uncomfortable interrogations his rivals have occasionally faced. Aside from a couple of brief swings through diners, including one yesterday in Delray Beach, Fla., he has done little of the politicking that exposes candidates to random sets of people — at shopping malls or train stations — who might be of any political stripe, and can raise any issue.
Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton, John McCain and Barack Obama and others have held forums in Iowa and New Hampshire that were open to anyone and were widely advertised in advance — Mr. McCain did three on Saturday alone. People who were clearly skeptical pressed the candidates — Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain on their Iraq war positions, and Mr. Obama on his relative inexperience.
Mr. Giuliani has had no such events so far. He has yet to be questioned by voters about his support for abortion rights, same-sex civil unions and gun control, or about his marital history.
So here's a question: so far, Rudy's been given a free pass. No one has asked him about his messy personal life - the three ex-wives, the marriage to his cousin (which he had to get a special papal dispensation for) or the phony annulment he got for that marriage (shock of shocks - he found out he was married to his second cousin!), the infidelities (I can think of at least three - he was cheating on his first wife with his soon-to-be second wife Donna Hanover; he was cheating on his second wife with his communications director, Christine Lategano; and he was cheating on his second wife with his soon-to-be third wife, Judi Nathan), the court order he got so he could bring his mistress home to Gracie Mansion while his second wife and kids were up the hall, his living with two gay men after his second wife Donna threw him out of the house for schtupping another woman while Donna and the kids were home (that ought to go over well with evangelicals!)
What happens when somebody asks him about this sleazy behavior?
If the marriage, the infidelities, and all the rest of the sleaze are approachable topics for the Clinton campaign (and apparently they are - the Geffen mess this week was basically all about Bill's alleged philandering), they ought to be approachable topics for the Giuliani campaign as well.
So how will Giuliani handle those questions?
In addition, how will Rudy handle the ethics questions he's going to get over Bernie Kerik? How will he handle the ethics questions over his post-9/11 business (basically using the memory of 9/11 to enrich himself)? How will Rudy handle the questions about his plan to place the New York City Emergency Crisis Center in WTC 7 in 1999, six years after the Trade Center had been attacked by terrorists?
The fact that Rudy's restricting access along the campaign trail and not taking unscripted questions from non-supporters suggests he doesn't want to answer these questions at all. Ordinarily I'd say that a presidential candidate would never get away with restricting access to himself and not answering pertinent questions about his past record as mayor of New York, his ethical behavior in business, the criminal behavior of his business ethics, and the messy details about his marriages and his infidelities.
But St. Rudy ("America's Mayor") might just get away with running from all the tough questions as a presidential candidate. The irony is, Rudy could win the GOP nomination and Hillary could win the Democratic nomination and we could have a race where Bill's past, present and future infidelities, indiscretions and business ethics will be Topic A on the campaign trail while St. Rudy gets a pass from the fawning, slobbering press corps.
I hope that doesn't happen. I am sure that McCain, Romney et al. will try to nail him on some of these questions as soon as he announces. Later on, I'm sure Dems will bring up all the ethics and sexual questions as well. Let's hope the Chris Matthews of the press corps will take their mouths off Rudy's cock long enough to ask the same questions about St. Rudy they're asking about the Clintons.
Comments:
<< Home
reality, you wrote:
"Giuliani hasn't actually announced for president yet, but given the popularity of support he's garnering, you'd think he'd leap into the race with both feet."
Why? The election is almost two years away. Candidates will suffer from over-exposure long before the end of what will become a tedious and endless run for office. Rudy would gain nothing by getting in early.
Another point. You wrote:
"...questions from die-in-the-wool supporters"
The expression is DYED-in-the-wool. I can imagine the image you conjure over your "die-in-the-wool" phrase, but it's wrong.
Is it news to you that candidates or potential candidates present themselves as often as possible to friendly audiences?
Hillary is appearing at one of those warm and fuzzy gatherings today at the 92nd St Y.
In fact, I'm going to be there. Not as a supporter, but as someone who unexpectedly received a free ticket. My sister found herself with an extra ticket. However, she doesn't want me to ask any of those tough questions if there is a Q&A session.
But if I could lob in a question, I'd ask Hillary when she had her last abortion, and as a follow-up, would she name the father of the child.
You wrote:
"Mr. Giuliani has had no such events so far. He has yet to be questioned by voters about his support for abortion rights, same-sex civil unions and gun control, or about his marital history."
He sounds like the candidate Democrats would love to elect. And if he happens to run against Obama, not only will Republicans vote for him, Democrats will too, and Obama will lose like it's 1984.
You asked:
"So here's a question: so far, Rudy's been given a free pass. No one has asked him about his messy personal life What happens when somebody asks him about this sleazy behavior?"
Here's your answer. Not many people care.
Rudy's history has been chronicled and rehashed in three mayoral elections as well as dissected during his years in office. He can't and hasn't hidden anything, unlike John Kerry, who has never released his Navy discharge documents, which purportedly show he received a dishonorable discharge, a result of his anti-war activities in the early 1970s.
For the dirt-seekers, there's little here because everything about Rudy is already in the public domain. Admittedly, he's got baggage, but his past were impossible to overcome, we'd see it in the polls.
Meanwhile, elections always come down to the "other guy."
Would voters pick Hillary over Rudy? Obama over Rudy? I think voters would pick Rudy in either of those races. But I also think voters would elect McCain if he ran against either of those two.
Meanwhile, Democrats are sowing the seeds of their own defeat in 2008 by pushing legislation to start a pull-out from Iraq in 120 days. Without a war to campaign against, Dems have little to sustain the party till election day. No war, no win for Dems in '08.
You ranted:
"...while St. Rudy gets a pass from the fawning, slobbering press corps."
What press corps on what planet? Rudy was hammered by the NY Daily News and the NY Times more often than not over his years as mayor. He also received mixed responses as a federal prosecutor. Since leaving lots of criticism has emerged. He has enjoyed pretty steady support from the NY Post.
You pondered:
"In addition, how will Rudy handle the ethics questions he's going to get over Bernie Kerik?"
Kerik's record up to the time he was appointed police commissioner spoke for itself. He was fully qualified for the job, unlike, say, Jim McGreevey's boyfriend, who was appointed to his top-level position in New Jersey with virtually no qualifications.
You wondered:
How will he handle the ethics questions over his post-9/11 business (basically using the memory of 9/11 to enrich himself)?"
This is a non-issue. Bill Clinton has reportedly earned $40 million from speaking engagements since he left office. He too trades on his past. But if you think exploiting the past is bad for candidates, how will Hillary explain her relationship to Bill's windfall? For that matter, what about her own book contract?
The answer: Neither will face any questions about how they earned a lot of money LEGALLY.
You asked:
"How will Rudy handle the questions about his plan to place the New York City Emergency Crisis Center in WTC 7 in 1999, six years after the Trade Center had been attacked by terrorists?"
First, this won't come up. Second, if it does, it's bad for Dems. Why? Because Rudy's team probably consulted with the federal government (the Clinton Administration) on this topic, and were probably told the location was sound. There were federal offices in the WTC as well. Thus, any questions on this topic reflect poorly on Bill and Dems. Try again.
You wrote:
"Let's hope the Chris Matthews of the press corps will take their mouths off Rudy's cock long enough to ask..."
So you think Chris Matthews and other un-named reporters are closet gays and Rudy swings both ways?
More importantly, your manner of expression is unbecoming of a teacher.
"Giuliani hasn't actually announced for president yet, but given the popularity of support he's garnering, you'd think he'd leap into the race with both feet."
Why? The election is almost two years away. Candidates will suffer from over-exposure long before the end of what will become a tedious and endless run for office. Rudy would gain nothing by getting in early.
Another point. You wrote:
"...questions from die-in-the-wool supporters"
The expression is DYED-in-the-wool. I can imagine the image you conjure over your "die-in-the-wool" phrase, but it's wrong.
Is it news to you that candidates or potential candidates present themselves as often as possible to friendly audiences?
Hillary is appearing at one of those warm and fuzzy gatherings today at the 92nd St Y.
In fact, I'm going to be there. Not as a supporter, but as someone who unexpectedly received a free ticket. My sister found herself with an extra ticket. However, she doesn't want me to ask any of those tough questions if there is a Q&A session.
But if I could lob in a question, I'd ask Hillary when she had her last abortion, and as a follow-up, would she name the father of the child.
You wrote:
"Mr. Giuliani has had no such events so far. He has yet to be questioned by voters about his support for abortion rights, same-sex civil unions and gun control, or about his marital history."
He sounds like the candidate Democrats would love to elect. And if he happens to run against Obama, not only will Republicans vote for him, Democrats will too, and Obama will lose like it's 1984.
You asked:
"So here's a question: so far, Rudy's been given a free pass. No one has asked him about his messy personal life What happens when somebody asks him about this sleazy behavior?"
Here's your answer. Not many people care.
Rudy's history has been chronicled and rehashed in three mayoral elections as well as dissected during his years in office. He can't and hasn't hidden anything, unlike John Kerry, who has never released his Navy discharge documents, which purportedly show he received a dishonorable discharge, a result of his anti-war activities in the early 1970s.
For the dirt-seekers, there's little here because everything about Rudy is already in the public domain. Admittedly, he's got baggage, but his past were impossible to overcome, we'd see it in the polls.
Meanwhile, elections always come down to the "other guy."
Would voters pick Hillary over Rudy? Obama over Rudy? I think voters would pick Rudy in either of those races. But I also think voters would elect McCain if he ran against either of those two.
Meanwhile, Democrats are sowing the seeds of their own defeat in 2008 by pushing legislation to start a pull-out from Iraq in 120 days. Without a war to campaign against, Dems have little to sustain the party till election day. No war, no win for Dems in '08.
You ranted:
"...while St. Rudy gets a pass from the fawning, slobbering press corps."
What press corps on what planet? Rudy was hammered by the NY Daily News and the NY Times more often than not over his years as mayor. He also received mixed responses as a federal prosecutor. Since leaving lots of criticism has emerged. He has enjoyed pretty steady support from the NY Post.
You pondered:
"In addition, how will Rudy handle the ethics questions he's going to get over Bernie Kerik?"
Kerik's record up to the time he was appointed police commissioner spoke for itself. He was fully qualified for the job, unlike, say, Jim McGreevey's boyfriend, who was appointed to his top-level position in New Jersey with virtually no qualifications.
You wondered:
How will he handle the ethics questions over his post-9/11 business (basically using the memory of 9/11 to enrich himself)?"
This is a non-issue. Bill Clinton has reportedly earned $40 million from speaking engagements since he left office. He too trades on his past. But if you think exploiting the past is bad for candidates, how will Hillary explain her relationship to Bill's windfall? For that matter, what about her own book contract?
The answer: Neither will face any questions about how they earned a lot of money LEGALLY.
You asked:
"How will Rudy handle the questions about his plan to place the New York City Emergency Crisis Center in WTC 7 in 1999, six years after the Trade Center had been attacked by terrorists?"
First, this won't come up. Second, if it does, it's bad for Dems. Why? Because Rudy's team probably consulted with the federal government (the Clinton Administration) on this topic, and were probably told the location was sound. There were federal offices in the WTC as well. Thus, any questions on this topic reflect poorly on Bill and Dems. Try again.
You wrote:
"Let's hope the Chris Matthews of the press corps will take their mouths off Rudy's cock long enough to ask..."
So you think Chris Matthews and other un-named reporters are closet gays and Rudy swings both ways?
More importantly, your manner of expression is unbecoming of a teacher.
Oops, I made a mistake and wrote "die-in-the wool" instead of dye-in- the-wool." Thanks for pointing it out.
reality, you wrote:
"Oops, I made a mistake and wrote "die-in-the wool" instead of dye-in- the-wool.""
Try again. It's "DYED-in-the-wool."
Do you understand the meaning of the phrase? It's looking as though you don't.
"Oops, I made a mistake and wrote "die-in-the wool" instead of dye-in- the-wool.""
Try again. It's "DYED-in-the-wool."
Do you understand the meaning of the phrase? It's looking as though you don't.
It's looking as though you don't.
Actually it looks as though you don't. (sorry reality!!!) If you are going to correct a mistake, don't then make a mistake yourself. But then, mistakes are what you are good at.
Actually it looks as though you don't. (sorry reality!!!) If you are going to correct a mistake, don't then make a mistake yourself. But then, mistakes are what you are good at.
I was once interested in the arguments that no_slappz presented, until he demonstrated that he didn't understand the words 'regime', 'state' and 'literal'. Now, no_slappz brings to mind a monkey who, even after the organ has broken and the crowds have walked away, continues to dance to the same tune. However, without the organ, the monkey provokes only sympathy, not engagement.
If you listen very carefully, you can hear the sound of no_slappz' knuckles as he drags himself to the keyboard.
If you listen very carefully, you can hear the sound of no_slappz' knuckles as he drags himself to the keyboard.
korova, you wrote:
"I was once interested in the arguments that no_slappz presented, until he demonstrated that he didn't understand the words 'regime', 'state' and 'literal'."
If you're not interested, why bother to comment? I think I know.
You added:
"Now, no_slappz brings to mind a monkey who, even after the organ has broken and the crowds have walked away..."
Are you suggesting "crowds" previously read your comments or my comments at this site or your site? Don't get any big ideas about the magnitude of your readership. As far as I can tell, the group tops out at about three.
Based on the near absence of responses to your postings on your own site, it's clear you and your blog are invisible and anonymous, even in the blogosphere. In other words, advertisers aren't dying to pay you for space on your site.
Your inability to ripple the waters has affected you. It looks like you're so desperate for traffic and controversy that you've copied my comments onto your site.
It worked. You got more responses to my comments than you got from any of your own.
"I was once interested in the arguments that no_slappz presented, until he demonstrated that he didn't understand the words 'regime', 'state' and 'literal'."
If you're not interested, why bother to comment? I think I know.
You added:
"Now, no_slappz brings to mind a monkey who, even after the organ has broken and the crowds have walked away..."
Are you suggesting "crowds" previously read your comments or my comments at this site or your site? Don't get any big ideas about the magnitude of your readership. As far as I can tell, the group tops out at about three.
Based on the near absence of responses to your postings on your own site, it's clear you and your blog are invisible and anonymous, even in the blogosphere. In other words, advertisers aren't dying to pay you for space on your site.
Your inability to ripple the waters has affected you. It looks like you're so desperate for traffic and controversy that you've copied my comments onto your site.
It worked. You got more responses to my comments than you got from any of your own.
Clearly you are right no_slappz. With my very nearly 100 links from 24 blogs, clearly no-one reads my site at all. Oh to have the following that you have, namely:
1.
As I said, monkey, organ grinder, no audience=desperate loser who doesn't even grasp the most basic concepts. And who can't resist but take the bait.
1.
As I said, monkey, organ grinder, no audience=desperate loser who doesn't even grasp the most basic concepts. And who can't resist but take the bait.
korova, you wrote:
"Clearly you are right no_slappz. With my very nearly 100 links from 24 blogs, clearly no-one reads my site at all."
Meanwhile, I wrote:
"Based on the near absence of responses to your postings on your own site, it's clear you and your blog are invisible and anonymous..."
I wrote about the absence of RESPONSES on your site.
But you, not wanting to acknowledge that fact, attempted to change the subject by claiming that people READ your posts.
I happen to have a financial blog on which a large number of comments are posted daily.
You have a political blog that is widely ignored, even though you think people read it because they've linked to it, like they've linked to many others.
The popularity of a site is best measured by the number of posts it attracts. Almost all of your posts receive ZERO comments from your hordes of deeply moved readers. Meanwhile, you are the most frequent responder to your own posts.
Anytime you need more readers feel free to copy my posts and display them on your site.
"Clearly you are right no_slappz. With my very nearly 100 links from 24 blogs, clearly no-one reads my site at all."
Meanwhile, I wrote:
"Based on the near absence of responses to your postings on your own site, it's clear you and your blog are invisible and anonymous..."
I wrote about the absence of RESPONSES on your site.
But you, not wanting to acknowledge that fact, attempted to change the subject by claiming that people READ your posts.
I happen to have a financial blog on which a large number of comments are posted daily.
You have a political blog that is widely ignored, even though you think people read it because they've linked to it, like they've linked to many others.
The popularity of a site is best measured by the number of posts it attracts. Almost all of your posts receive ZERO comments from your hordes of deeply moved readers. Meanwhile, you are the most frequent responder to your own posts.
Anytime you need more readers feel free to copy my posts and display them on your site.
Anytime you need more readers feel free to copy my posts and display them on your site.
I thought you were talking about 'RESPONSES', now you are talking about readers. Do you even now what you are writing. It would appear not. Still, I love the fact that it is so easy to wind you up. You righties are so uptight it's untrue.
I thought you were talking about 'RESPONSES', now you are talking about readers. Do you even now what you are writing. It would appear not. Still, I love the fact that it is so easy to wind you up. You righties are so uptight it's untrue.
korova, I wrote:
"Anytime you need more readers feel free to copy my posts and display them on your site."
You responded:
"I thought you were talking about 'RESPONSES', now you are talking about readers."
Yes, I suppose I should have written:
"Anytime you need more readers who RESPOND to items on your blog feel free to copy my posts and display them on your site."
I see that almost all of your comments have drawn ZERO responses. The exception, of course, arises when you pull attention your way with my comments. Pretty funny, don't you think?
"Anytime you need more readers feel free to copy my posts and display them on your site."
You responded:
"I thought you were talking about 'RESPONSES', now you are talking about readers."
Yes, I suppose I should have written:
"Anytime you need more readers who RESPOND to items on your blog feel free to copy my posts and display them on your site."
I see that almost all of your comments have drawn ZERO responses. The exception, of course, arises when you pull attention your way with my comments. Pretty funny, don't you think?
The exception, of course, arises when you pull attention your way with my comments.
Actually, the post you refer to only received 7% of the total comments received in February. And the post I wrote only received 3% of the visitors I received in the whole month. So not really big news. Still, I guess that won't stop you bashing your bishop.
Actually, the post you refer to only received 7% of the total comments received in February. And the post I wrote only received 3% of the visitors I received in the whole month. So not really big news. Still, I guess that won't stop you bashing your bishop.
korova, you wrote:
"Actually, the post you refer to only received 7% of the total comments received in February."
Yeah. Sure. But if you remove the comments you wrote in response to comments posted by your three readers, your minimal popularity disappears.
Post a Comment
"Actually, the post you refer to only received 7% of the total comments received in February."
Yeah. Sure. But if you remove the comments you wrote in response to comments posted by your three readers, your minimal popularity disappears.
<< Home
