Rudy Campaign Refusing To Clarify Remark Saying We "Should Not Allow" MoveOn-Type Speech
It looks like the Giuliani campaign isn't willing to explain what he meant when he told the NRA today that the MoveOn ad "passed a line that we should not allow American political organizations to pass."
Ryan Sager of The Sun, asking what on earth Rudy meant by the comment, has now received this response of sorts from the Rudy camp:
Giuliani spokeswoman Maria Comella responds: "The Mayor was referring to the fact that Democrats stood silent on an ad that crossed the line in disparaging an American hero."
Right, right, Democrats are bad. We know the Mayor thinks this. But what did the Mayor mean when he said we "should not allow" political organizations to do what MoveOn did? Does he support legal curbs on criticism of military figures or on such political speech in general? Or does he oppose any and all such restrictions?
That's the question. And it remains unanswered.
Comments (22)
JL wrote on September 21, 2007 6:06 PM:Can we send the former Mayor of NYC a copy of "The Lives of Others". I'm not sure that he understands our Constitution so maybe a copy of that would be appropriate also.
mikeel wrote on September 21, 2007 6:18 PM:nice Rudy ad pops up....
I think this is going to be an issue right through election day, and beyond....
Of all the Republican candidates, Giuliani has no concept of freedom and the Constitution.
Daniel wrote on September 21, 2007 6:35 PM:The Giuliani campaign is out of control, and spiraling downards. They are now staging phone calls from his wife during his speeches to portray him as a family man!!
Let's make sure that this cell phone story is spread and people see Giuliani for what he really is. For now, the media is portraying this as a loving moment (like in the NYT article) this HAS to change.www.campaigndiaries.com jooliani wrote on September 21, 2007 6:46 PM:
Right answer: "The Mayor was simply saying that Americans should strongly reject any attempt by a political organization to disparage our men and women in uniform. By staying silent as so many Democrats have, we only allow these disgraceful attacks to continue."
Wrong answer: What she said.
poetry wrote on September 21, 2007 7:10 PM:"Should not allow" means the same thing as "Should NOT PERMIT."
Or even, "Should PROHIBIT."
Rudy Giuliani goes berserk when anyone disagrees with him or challenges him.
Get under Giuliani's skin and stand back to watch the explosion.
If that guy ever gets anywhere NEAR the levers of presidential power, we are goners.
Did Giuliani condemn Ann Coulter when she said it would be great if terrorists set off a bomb in front of The New York Times?
No.
Did Rudy Giuliani denounce the SwiftBoaters when they put up an ad smearing a DECORATED Vietnam veteran, John Kerry?
No.
Did Rudy Giuliani denounce the ads that linked another Vietnam vet, Max Cleland, to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein?
No.
The political speech Rudy Giuliani would "NOT ALLOW" is any political speech with which he disagrees.
Do you see where Giuliani is going with this
Rudy Giuliani MUST be exposed for the fascist dictator wannabe he is.
Giuliani must be stopped.
js wrote on September 21, 2007 7:20 PM:Difference between Dems and Rethugs: they never apologize for anything but Dems always have to apologize even for small mistake.
Small price? what smale price ?
dcs wrote on September 21, 2007 7:21 PM:"Does he support legal curbs on criticism of military figures or on such political speech in general?"
Yes, both. Of course he does. He's a crypto-fascist, always has been.
Chaszz wrote on September 21, 2007 7:44 PM:If he becomes president, Guiliani will attempt to rehabilitate the tarnished reputation of President John Adams by exhuming and re-passing the Alien and Sedition Acts. Only this time around the extreme right-wing Supreme Court will approve. What Adams could not accomplish, Guiliani will. Goodbye, free speech. Finally, real security!... Now, maybe we can seriously contemplate rounding up those damn left-wingers and putting them in concentration camps. Maybe Adolph was wrong to look down on the Italians. Maybe Mussolini was just an inferior specimen, not a real man with cojones like Rudy!
mwhite wrote on September 21, 2007 8:59 PM:We cannot elect someone to the office of president who does not respect the rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution. We already did this once, let's learn our history lesson.
cuchulain wrote on September 21, 2007 9:17 PM:jooliani wrote on September 21, 2007 6:46 PM:
Right answer: "The Mayor was simply saying that Americans should strongly reject any attempt by a political organization to disparage our men and women in uniform. By staying silent as so many Democrats have, we only allow these disgraceful attacks to continue."
Wrong answer: What she said.
_____________
The article called into question the actions of one person. Just one. Not the entire military. One person. Someone who has a reputation for being a climber and highly political when it suits the moment. Someone who was called by his own boss, a little "chicken####, for sucking up too much.
America has turned a very very dangerous corner when someone in a uniform is deemed beyond scrutiny, questioning, or even second guessing. If this is not a military dictatorship, then no general is above such questioning or scrutiny.
Also, think about it. Think about the history of the military in all countries, throughout time. In what nation, in what era, have generals been known as truth tellers? How many front line soldiers think of their generals as beyond reproach, scrutiny, or questioning?
Generals lie. They always have. That's what they do. Questioning this particular general is actually the height of patriotism, given the fact that his distortions will get hundreds of Americans killed for a horrifically bad idea.
Any American who thinks it's wrong to question a general ought to go fund a country with a junta in charge. They'd be far more at home there.
RICHARD SHADE wrote on September 22, 2007 3:22 AM:RUDY JUST ANOTHER CFR MAN, IF YOU WANT OPEN BORDERS, AND THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION HE'S YOUR MAN, BUT YOU HAVE TO LEARN SPANISH.
TO LEARN MORE GOOGLE CFR WIKIPEDIA MEMBERS,ALSO TRILATERAL COMMISSION WIKIPEDA.
Umm.. lest we forget...Rudy epitomizes the ugly underbelly of self-serving, greedy, murderous GOP (well OK..Bush the lesser wins).
The thing I just can never understand is why no one in the media EVER does anything at all...ever...at all...about it!?!?
I haven't bought or subscribed to a single major media source in over seven years. All these idiots are scrambling to make a profit (except for Walmart Murdoch) and it's all because they sold out to the wrong side. Murdoch just doesn't care. He's so rich he can take a loss on 80% of his properties and still pretend he can have sex with his teenage wife...
philNYC wrote on September 22, 2007 4:42 AM:Yeah the Rudy-wife-call
Remember when Michal Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley had their big kiss? I believe it was about two months later they were divorced...
OMG!!! I just read up on Lisa Marie Presley for this post... If she didn't have a billion bucks she would beat any cousin-screwin' folk in the world! LOL
Guy B. Jones wrote on September 22, 2007 4:19 PM:Once could forgive George W. Bush back in 2000 when he said, famously, "there ought to be limits to freedom," in response to a satirical website mocking his candidacy. Just chalk it up to his general stupidity.
Giuliani, as a lawyer, should be a little more familiar with the federal constitution than the dunce-in-chief. Can't say I'm surprised, though. Giuliani wants to be president, badly. At this point, he'll do and say whatever he thinks it takes.
31tudor wrote on September 22, 2007 5:51 PM:The dumbass Rep/Cons know if they say ANYTHING about moveon.org either negative OR positive they lose! It's like a free recruiting and fundraising ad for MoveOn.org. LMAO.
richstacy wrote on September 22, 2007 7:02 PM:What a bunch of liberal idiots. What Rudy meant was that ads like moveon's ad lower the level of political discourse to the gutter and beyond. The ad has done tremendous harm to the Democrats by exposing them as a party of hatred and no ideas beyond "get Bush." Kudos to Joe Biden and a few others for having the cajones to denounce the ad, even though the entire Democratic party is beholden to moveon and its radical foreign funded leftist tripe.
for those who say Rudy doesn't know the constitution, I say Rudy was fighting for the U.S. Constitution and against the Mafia before most of you were born.
Please go pat yourselves on the back. but if you want to lose the election, keep up the move on crap, the American middle, the ones who actually elect presidents aren't buying it.
Vincent wrote on September 22, 2007 8:14 PM:Richstacy -- the ad hasn't done any damage to the Democratic Party or to any Democratic candidate. Its only the Bush dead-enders (about 29% now) who are looking for any excuse to attack the Democratic Party. If Bush and Rudy want to keep Petreaus free of political attacks, Bush should not have chosen to order a General to become a political salesman. Petreaus is Bush's mouthpiece because no one trusts Bush. Give Iraq 6 more months, and no one will trust Petreaus anymore, either. And since you are so manly and patriotic, pick up a gun and go to Iraq you hypocritical coward.
Robert Benjamin wrote on September 22, 2007 8:56 PM:Did I get this right? Rudolph Giuliani hinted broadly to the NRA that he would support gutting our First Amendment rights to free speech and a free press?
No? Then let him say so. Otherwise, this should be one of the Democrats' key campaign themes.
fuzz wrote on September 22, 2007 9:49 PM:"What Rudy meant was that ads like moveon's ad lower the level of political discourse to the gutter and beyond."
Oh! Like Fox News does 24/7. Now I get it.
segmentis wrote on September 23, 2007 4:32 PM:Richstacy, could you at least knock off the hypocrisy? Or are you really so dense that you can't see the laughable irony in criticism by anyone on the right that asserts the Democratic Party is the "party of hate"? As for the empty argument that liberals just "hate Bush", two words--Bill Clinton, who, as you'd argue about Bush, should at least have been given the respect due his office and his role as Commander-in-Chief--and I scoff at you for your shallow inability to see that any emotion toward Bush is a reaction to the horrible, horrible things he's done. We list them frequently. Pay attention for a change.
And now, because you evidently missed it, this, from poetry, with my additions in brackets:
Did Giuliani condemn Ann Coulter when she said it would be great if terrorists set off a bomb in front of The New York Times?
No.
Did Rudy Giuliani denounce the SwiftBoaters when they put up an ad smearing a DECORATED Vietnam veteran, John Kerry?
No.
Did Rudy Giuliani denounce the ads that linked another Vietnam vet, Max Cleland, [a triple amputee, whereas Petraeus has only had a voluntary, partisan lobotomy], to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein?
No.
The political speech Rudy Giuliani would "NOT ALLOW" is any political speech with which he disagrees.
mrgavel wrote on September 24, 2007 3:58 PM:I wonder if anyone has asked Guiliani if he has ever condemned an ad that attacked the patriotism of Americans such as John Kerry or Max Cleland? Or does the Political Transvestite just think that Democrats should condemn ads?
