November 4, 2007

"Oh gee, I can't figure out what I think. Don't pick on me by asking that question! That's a gotcha question!"

"I'm for it... I'm against it... I'm for it and against it. And I want to be your president."

Rudy spoofs Hillary.

ADDED: Here's the video, showing Rudy's spontaneity and humor.

54 comments:

SGT Ted said...

It is telling that the Clinton spin is that the problem is with the question an not her flopping around like a gaffed fish when challenged.

Eli Blake said...

Sounds like Rudy talking about gun control.

Bruce Hayden said...

This should be interesting. Rudy is hitting Hillary where it hurts. And doing it in a way that she will have a hard time hitting back with - humor. Yes, maybe her crying about the guys ganging up on her, or being mean to her, etc. may work with some women, Rudy's approach is going to work with probably as many men.

downtownlad said...

Hillary did not flip flop on the driver license question for undocumented workers. She just said it was a tricky issue, and that sometimes means there is not always a simple yes or no answer.

In this instance, she's right of course. Spitzer's program is a good one, but if you're too closed-minded to actually try and understand the benefits of why he's doing it, you might think otherwise.

Joan said...

I like the fact that I think he's capable of taking on Hillary. - Independent Voter from tiny rural town.

I've been hearing this a lot, particularly from Dick Morris and a few others; Giuliani can take on Hillary. More to the point, in an election, Giuliani would take on Hillary, whereas lots of people think that Romney would be too nice, and although other candidates might try to stand up to her and attack her weaknesses, she would still eat them all for breakfast.

I don't know about that, but I wish I had video of Rudy doing this bit. It must've been priceless.

John Stodder said...

Wow. The mood has sure turned ugly on Hillary in hurry.

The real indecision is on the part of Democratic voters. Either Hillary is the most electable or the least electable. You can make a case for either. I happen to believe both. Probably why I like her.

Remember, they used to say Kerry's flip flops weren't really a bad thing. See, Kerry's into "nuance," "shades of gray," unlike those fenderheaded conservatives hung up on archaic concepts like "right" and "wrong."

Hillary's evasions are even better, and she might as well come out and take credit for it: "By not taking a position on divisive issues, I'm sending a signal to all Americans that no matter what they believe, I'm on their side."

Ruth Anne Adams said...

Joan:
See for yourself.

From Inwood said...

Now this is funny &, since it is so dead on, it's scary:

Scrappleface

Hillary Mulls Supporting Illegal Alien Pilot License

Posted By Scott Ott On November 1, 2007 @ 5:24 am

Titusdj said...

I like Hilary and think she would be the republicans best hope to win the 2008 election.


50% of the country would not vote for her and she is a wobbler extronaire. She is a democrat Mitt Romney-maybe not that bad. What do people want to hear? That is what Hilary believes.

Also I believe the media wants a horse race and therefore they are going to be be going after her for awhile. She made a big mistake in the debates and deserves the scrutiny. Now let's move on.

Titusdj said...

Rudy is going to be losing a big chunk of the republican vote and for I think that is great. Hopefully the religious right will lose their place at that table and for that a Rudy presidency would be a grand thing.

Fen said...

The real indecision is on the part of Democratic voters. Either Hillary is the most electable or the least electable

Are you saying that, for Democrats, electability is of greater importance than policy positions? Power over principle?

Randal Rogers said...

Are you saying that, for Democrats, electability is of greater importance than policy positions? Power over principle?
Yes. (Or, if he's not, I am.)

Are you saying that, for Republicans, electability is of greater importance than policy positions? Power over principle?

Victor said...

Yea, my marriage is good too.

Hillary's opp research team looks good (I would guess they have a hand in the Thompson/adviser article).

Rudy better watch out - he's not going to have any idea what hit im.

Fen said...

if you're too closed-minded to actually try and understand the benefits of why he's doing it, you might think otherwise.

I'm just confused about the State/Fed legal issues. If you're a state employee working at DMV, do you have any responsibility to report illegal activity?

Or, suppose I start a business trafficing illegals over the border, and apply to appropriate authorities for a tax ID code? Can they be impeached/fired/removed from office for ignoring my violation of immigration law?

Not trying to be snarky, just curious. Bruce? Simon? Little legal help please?

Fen said...

Are you saying that, for Republicans, electability is of greater importance than policy positions? Power over principle?

No. In this very thread there is discussion of the religious right staying home on election day - principle over power.

Really lame attempt to play the tu quoque fallacy. Please grow up.

Fen said...

Gotcha Question: Mrs Clinton, if elected, what measures would you put in place to insure that women on the White House staff were not sexually harassed or assaulted by your husband?

Randal Rogers said...

Really lame attempt to play the tu quoque fallacy. Please grow up.

I'm over 50. It was a fair question.

Your answer wasn't much of an answer, though. You imply that significant minority opposition in the GOP to Giuliani demonstrates the GOP values principle before power yet ignore the equally strong likelihood that the significant minority of Democrats who aren't supporting Clinton demonstrates that Democratic voters feel the same way about their candidates. The only fallacial reasoning I can find here is yours.

Fen said...

equally strong likelihood that the significant minority

Any more qualifiers you want to butress that statement with? significant minority is one of my fav weasel words, thanks for giving it play.

I'm talking about the general election, you're talking about the primaries. The difference is that social conservatives will sit home rather than vote for Rudy, while the Dems who hated Hillary in the primaries will hold their nose and vote against the Republican.

Randal Rogers said...

Just because you believe something to be true does not make it true. Particularly when you have insufficient evidence to to back up your assertions.

Fen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joan said...

Thanks, Ruth Anne -- Rudy had exactly the tone and energy I imagined from reading the linked article. It was a great moment because it was an accurate criticism delivered in a decidedly not-mean way.

Fen said...

BTW, the method you chose to respond with makes my point re a lack of principles on the Left. Stodder implied that Dems care more about electability than principle. Instead of using Lieberman to counter the statement, you chose to define your standards by what you believe the other side does [LCD]

Its why I left the Democrat Party in the 80's. They drew equivalence between the Soviets and the US, excused Soviet Imperialism because they believed the US was equally imperialistic.

Just once, I'd like to hear a Democrat say "I don't care if the other party does x, our standards should be higher".

Why does the Left define itself by what it believes the other side does? Because it has no foundation of principles to guide it.


Particularly when you have insufficient evidence to to back up your assertions.

Exhibit A: Undermining the war effort to gain political traction.

Randal Rogers said...

BTW, the method you chose to respond with makes my point re a lack of principles on the Left. Stodder implied that Dems care more about electability than principle. Instead of using Lieberman to counter the statement, you chose to define your standards by what you believe the other side does [LCD]

Are you addressing me? You think I'm a Leftist? LOL! This will be news to my friends.

I repeat: Just because you believe something to be true does not make it true.

Revenant said...

People keep telling me that Hillary will beat Rudy. I just don't see it.

Randal Rogers said...

You are probably right, Revenant, but I'm not sure I want to put any money on either side of that bet.

do said...

Fen seems to have implied
"Dems for Hillary, power over principle".

It appears that the republican motto should be "abondon all princles ye who enter here". Republicans remind me of little children who like the big dog that goes woof woof woof while the kid's parents know full well that with the big woofing dog (Rudy) comes with oodles of dogshit.

Hey, what is it? Now that Fred Thompson has taken on the persona of Herman Munster sans bolts in the neck you now bow and scrap at the feet of New York's version of turd blossom?

Pogo said...

A man can't run his own house, and he wants us to believe he's solid enough for the presidency??

What an odd thing to say in 2007. Do men 'run the house' anymore in the US? I mean, really? Who runs Hillary's house? Bill? Her? And their personal (and personnel) problems, what does this say about her and her capacity for President?

I would suggest that alot of those seeking the Presidency have the sort of enormous egos that characterize CEOs, and marriage isn't one of their key strengths, but more often a consistent failing.

What does it say about their ability to lead a nation? Not much. But it is an excellent club to beat them on the head with.

Roost on the Moon said...

"Really lame attempt to play the tu quoque fallacy. Please grow up."

Not really. Electability often trumps policy positions for both parties. Pointing out that this is more true of Republicans right now than usual (a strong anti-gun, pro-choice, pro-globalization frontrunner) is just pointing out that political realities influence both parties, all parties. Issues of electabilty are just part of the game, not a moral failing of the party's constituents.

(That some far right people have said they might stay home doesn't change that. The left has those people too.)

"Please grow up." Pfff. Please learn what "fallacy" means.

Roger said...

Re HRC's "position" on licensing illegal aliens: I would not have all that much of a problem is (1) illegals complied with mandatory insurance requirements; and (2) drivers licenses are often accepted as positive identification; and (3) driver's licenses werent tied to the ability to vote (motor-voter legislation.) As long as licensing drivers leads to the ability of illegal aliens to vote, I will remain against it, irrespective of whatever "upsides" can be identified. Perhaps if the question were posed to HRC thus: "do you believe illegal aliens should have the right to vote" that would oviate the need for triangulation. I rather doubt it, however.

Roger said...

Oh--and I see I used the political incorrect "illegal aliens," versus "undocumented workers." Shame on me!

David said...

I'm sure that there are more amusing delusions than the idea that American political parties are about principles rather than jobs for the, um, boys, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

Beth said...

Rudy's making fun of flip-flops, of "I'm for it, I'm against it"? That's hilarious. He's for choice, but he's running against it--don't worry, he'll appoint the right judges! He loves gay people, but hey, we might need a constitutional amendment, if GOP voters think we do. And they do. So he thinks so, too.

Fen said...

"Please grow up." Pfff. Please learn what "fallacy" means.

His first impulse was to imply "Democrats do X, but I believe Republicans do X also, ergo Democrats are excused"... when instead he could have used Leiberman as a counter-point. Why do you think that was his first reflex?

Why does the Left define itself by what it believes the Right has done?

And please, either look up the tu quoque fallacy or demand a refund from your college.

Randy Rogers said...

His first impulse was to imply "Democrats do X, but I believe Republicans do X also, ergo Democrats are excused"... when instead he could have used Leiberman as a counter-point. Why do you think that was his first reflex?

Are you serious? Are you talking about me? Where do you come up with these ideas? I certainly had no such impulse or reflex. I can't imagine how you even think I did. I didn't use Lieberman as a counter-point but he wasn't relevant to the conversation.

By the way, please point to the coment where I said anyone was "excused."

It would help if you read what someone wrote and not what you choose to believe they might have been writing between the lines. You have yet to provide evidence to support your original contention, you have not one whit of evidence to support your second contention (that I am a leftist) and now you have embarked on yet another wild contention (that you can read my mind).

Roost on the Moon said...

Why do you think that was his first reflex?

Because playing politics and evaluating priorities is what political parties do, Fen.

Your whole crackpot notion that it indicates a moral failing on the part of everyone who disagrees with you is best exposed by illustrating that all politicians, including and especially the ones that you support, do it too. This response could be called a Tu Quoque, but it is clearly not fallacious.

If you think Joe Lieberman has never put a finger in the political wind, I've got some prime Iraqi farmland that may interest you.

Roost on the Moon said...

Why does the Left define itself by what it believes the Right has done?

Why do you believe such crackpot generalities? It reflects your need to view those you disagree with as not just wrong, but bad people. Morally flawed and cowardly. There are plenty of fine Americans on the political left, Fen. There are people who are better-informed and think more clearly than you. This is true of obversely true of me and the political right. It would be nice to hear you make an argument that doesn't rest on the assumption that all liberals are dupes or evil manipulators.

Darkbloom said...

Fen, you would have more standing to tell others to "please grow up" if you didn't employ the juvenile taunt of "the Democrat party."

Fen said...

If you think Joe Lieberman has never put a finger in the political wind, I've got some prime Iraqi farmland that may interest you.

You misunderstand. I was pointing to the Moonbat's decision to replace him, even though he was electable enough to hold a Dem seat in the Senate.

Fen, you would have more standing to tell others to "please grow up" if you didn't employ the juvenile taunt of "the Democrat party."

Huh? How is Democrat Party a "juvenile taunt"? Is it like "swiftboating", when using the Fraud's own words against him is somehow a slime?

JohnTaylor88 said...

Revenant,

I don't see Hillary beating Rudy, either. I imagine the now-depressed and now-stingy Republican base will rally around whoever is chosen as the nominee, and I think a smart Republican nominee this year would harness the support of his competitors. (I mean, really, why not offer Duncan Hunter Defense Secretary?) Meaning any of the top four (I'm including McCain here, though I don't think he'll win) will have a sudden influx of cash and boost in poll numbers due to Republican and independent support (remember, independents like Obama and Edwards, but dislike Hillary). Not to mention Hillary has a ceiling of 48%. If Giuliani mocks her policies and demeanor, given her lack of humor and grace, there isn't much she can do but look less appealing and intelligent in response. Look how he works the stage and moves around, thinking on his feet and timing the delivery of his jokes. Hillary can't do that. Her zingers are written beforehand and delivered ritualistically and cryptically. The last joke she made -- about "evil men" -- was interpreted in three different ways by various segments of her audience.

Roost on the Moon said...

I did misunderstand, I see what you meant now. But, do you think the decision was made to jettison Joe was made in full expectation of an independent Lieberman victory? I think it was a case of miscalculation, not absence of calculation. Politicians play politics. Parties run who they think will win. Both sides do it, and always have. It doesn't indicate any extraordinary lust for power. In a way, it's the whole point of democracy. It isn't always a virtue to ignore the will of the people.

Darkbloom said...

Huh? How is Democrat Party a "juvenile taunt"?

The name of the party is the Democratic Party. Over the last few years, some Republicans have chosen to call it the Democrat Party, in an attempt to minimize and belittle it. It's stupid and juvenile.

Joan said...

The wiki on the Democrat party epithet is interesting. The term has a long pedigree, much longer than I would have thought.

Luckyoldson said...

"I'll make sure the Firefighters have radios that work...no, wait...they won't have radios that work...we'll make sure our headquarters aren't in a danger zone...no, wait...we'll put it at gound zero...

...And I want to be your president."

Rudy

Luckyoldson said...

Fen said..."Why does the Left define itself by what it believes the other side does? Because it has no foundation of principles to guide it."

Where do you come up with this insanity? What can you possibly be basing such a statement on?

The :Left" has NO foundation...NO principles?

Fen, according to the latest voter registration numbers, as of May 2006, here's how voter registration shakes out:

There are an estimated 201.5 million U.S. citizens age 18 or over will be eligible to vote:

Registered Democrats / 72 million

Registered Republicans / 55 million

Registered Independents / 42 million

Right wing drivel...as unusual.

Revenant said...

He's for choice, but he's running against it--don't worry, he'll appoint the right judges!

Rudy's issues page lists only support for "reasonable" restrictions such as partial-birth abortion bans and parental notification. These are positions that are widely supported even by "pro-choice" people. He is running "against" abortion the same way that pro-choice Democrats do -- by saying he'll work to reduce abortions and encourage adoptions, but not endorsing an actual abortion ban. Nobody in America ever runs on a pro-abortion platform. There are two kinds of politicians: pro-lifers, and people who make loud noises about how much they hate abortion despite not wanting it to be illegal.

Sure, he has promised to appoint Scalia types to the Supreme Court. But only a die-hard NARAL type would equate that with "running against abortion". Scalia has no power to make abortion illegal.

He loves gay people, but hey, we might need a constitutional amendment, if GOP voters think we do. And they do. So he thinks so, too.

Do you have support for your claim that Giuliani said he'd favor a constitutional amendment if GOP voters wanted one?

The only public endorsement of support for an amendment that I've seen is from him is that he'd support amending the Constitution if more courts pulled a Massachusetts and started legislating from the bench again. He has opposed the gay marriage amendments that have been proposed to date.

His public position for the last 17 years has been that he favors giving gay couples the civil benefits of marriage while reserving the term "marriage" for the union of a man and a woman. It may very well be that he personally supports going all the way and calling gay civil unions "marriages", but if so I don't think he's ever endorsed that politically. He didn't during his 2000 Senate run, and I seriously doubt he did it as mayor during the 90s (since a large majority of both Democrats AND Republicans hated the idea of gay marriage back then). So I don't see where there's a "flip-flop" there.

Overall, I have to say your evidence for "flip-flopping" is extremely weak.

Roost on the Moon said...

Giuliani has flip-flopped on guns.

I generally dislike the term "flip-flop", because it gets thrown at anyone who changes their mind about anything after taking office. Being principled is good, but being closed-minded and stubborn in the face of convincing argument is not. That said, I think Giuliani made it abundantly clear over the years how he feels about the NRA and gun manufacturers. This is isn't a change of heart, it's transparent pandering for the nomination. Well, translucent maybe, since it seems to be working.

Giuliani now claims to be a "Strong Supporter of the 2nd Ammendment."

While suing gun manufacturers for selling too many guns, he called them an "industry that profits from the suffering of others".

During the Clinton administration, he had this to say:

'I applaud the President's proposals, and I will support them any way I can. I only hope that he is right, and that Congress is finally ready to recognize that the vast majority of Americans want more gun control. It makes sense. It is time. And we can no longer let special interests dominate this vitally important issue.'


More from way back then:
"Someone who now voted to roll back the assault-weapons ban would really be demonstrating that special-interest politics mean more to them than life-or-death issues."


The ban has since expired (2004) and now Giuliani sings a different tune:

In 2006, with an eye on the white house:"The assault-weapons ban is something I supported in the past... I don't think [the assault-weapons ban] is one of the most critical issues right now."

Giuliani on guns is the most clear-cut case of "flip-flopping" I've ever seen. People can change their minds. Maybe Romney really did have a change of heart on abortion. It happens, and it takes a brave politician to be so honest. But Giuliani has gone (as quietly as possible) from being the country's most vocal proponent of gun-control to being a "strong supporter of the 2nd ammendment".

Now that is a spineless flip-flop.

Revenant said...

Giuliani has flip-flopped on guns.

That's a good point; he has definitely done a 180 on that issue. Of course, I really *like* that he did a 180 on that issue, since I completely hated his gun-control stance -- but you're right that it clearly counts as a flip-flop.

Fen said...

The name of the party is the Democratic Party. Over the last few years, some Republicans have chosen to call it the Democrat Party, in an attempt to minimize and belittle it. It's stupid and juvenile.

I don't think its an attempt to belittle the Dem party, merely a drive to distinguish between Democrat and Democratic - two seperate [and often opposite] things these days.

So I'll stay with Democrat Party. If that gets your panties in a wad, too bad. Maybe you can get your PC Police to run me down.

Roost on the Moon said...

Rev- do you think it's a 180 or just an election-cycle loop?

My guess is the latter. I believe that he was sincere in his loathing of gun culture. That was his issue for years. I doubt his feelings have really changed. And as he indicated in the nineties, he believes that a large majority of the population wants and should have gun control.

I have a hard time imagining President Giuliani vetoing any federal gun control measures that a demoratic congress does push, and it isn't a stretch to imagine him pushing for such legislation himself. It would leave a legacy he'd be proud of...

Revenant said...

Rev- do you think it's a 180 or just an election-cycle loop?

He's not leaving himself any room to shift his position back again after the election. He'd get crucified in 2012.

I believe that he was sincere in his loathing of gun culture.

I'm skeptical. He spoke in defense of Bernard Goetz, after all, who is probably the most famous example of a New Yorker using a gun to defend himself.

Roost on the Moon said...

He's not leaving himself any room to shift his position back again after the election. He'd get crucified in 2012.

True, but you think he'd veto? If gun control is as popular as he says it is, he would be blowing a lot of political capital right out of the gate. He'd be contradicting 20 years of his own statements in order to defend an unpopular position. I don't think he'd veto.

Revenant said...

If gun control is as popular as he says it is

Said, not "says" -- and while it WAS enormously popular ten years ago when he made that speech, it isn't today. Between 9/11 and the drastic decline in gun violence since the 90s drug-war peak, public support for stricter anti-gun laws has fallen from nearly 70% to just over 50%. At the time when Giuliani was singing the praises of the assault weapons ban, for example, a majority of *Republicans* thought the law was a good idea!

Roost on the Moon said...

I'm not convinced gun control has substantially declined in popularity (20% seems like an implausibly large swing), but I'm no pollster; I really have no idea.

Still, if I were anti gun-control, I'd want some more concrete pledges from Giuliani. If they don't come now, they aren't coming at all, and so far all he has said is that he strongly supports 2nd ammendment rights, that the AWB isn't a priority, etc...

That is, he hasn't really backed himself into a corner. If moderates and republicans elect him, and then he passes popular gun control legislation, will the party commit hari-kari with a 2012 primary challenge from a candidate with a strong pro-gun backing?

I don't think so; they're being faced with that choice right now and choosing compromise. If you are worried about declining 2nd amendment rights, supporting Giuliani seems like a concession on that issue.