PDA

View Full Version : Rudy Self-Destructs on Meet The Press


jAZ
12-10-2007, 10:29 AM
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/dec/10/rudy_self_destructs_on_russert

Video in next post..

Rudy Self-Destructs on Russert
By M.J. Rosenberg | bio
I have been watching Meet The Press since, I don't know, Estes Kefauver days and, I'm sad to say, Rudy Giuliani provided the worst performance I've ever seen by a major Presidential candidate.

Okay, I am not sad to say. I am delighted. I believe that, although I have my clear preference, none of the major candidates from either party would be a disastrous President except for Giuliani. Yes, some would be awful. Any of the Republicans would extend our long national nightmare.

But, in my opinion, Rudy is in a whole other category. Surrounded by crazy people like Podhoretz and Pipes, a Giuliani Presidency would guarantee one, two, three many Iraqs and jeopardize this country's survival.

So I was delighted to see his halting, nervous, scared, inarticulate performance on MTP yesterday.

And he had every reason to be scared.

Russert prosecuted the famed prosecutor, enumerating one Giuliani scandal after another. All Rudy could do was giggle. He reminded me of that ancient clip in which Bobby Kennedy grilled some miscreant at a Senate hearing and the bad guy laughed at every question. Bobby finally said: "Are you going to tell us anything or just giggle? I thought only little girls giggled?." Sexist, yes (it was 1959).

But it destroyed the giggly witness.

That was Rudy yesterday. All giggles and deer-in-the-headlights terror.

And with good reason. There are no good (or any) answers to the questions Russert posed about "Driving Miss Judy," Giuliani and Associates' client list, Bernard Kerik, etc etc.

And Russert didn't even ask about the priest-rapist on Rudy's staff.

Great television. Bye bye, Rudy.

jAZ
12-10-2007, 10:31 AM
Part 1:
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kw0jR459pZI&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kw0jR459pZI&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Part 2:
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QUXj5KU1BmE&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QUXj5KU1BmE&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Part 3:
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vE9uKnIwGr0&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vE9uKnIwGr0&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Part 4:
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4felDYBk9KY&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4felDYBk9KY&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Part 5:
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ksSEU5AcIaQ&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ksSEU5AcIaQ&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Cochise
12-10-2007, 10:33 AM
But, in my opinion, Rudy is in a whole other category. Surrounded by crazy people like Podhoretz and Pipes, a Giuliani Presidency would guarantee one, two, three many Iraqs and jeopardize this country's survival.

:spock: x 9999999999

KCJohnny
12-10-2007, 10:36 AM
Wishful thinking, Jaz.

recxjake
12-10-2007, 10:46 AM
ROFL

dirk digler
12-10-2007, 10:50 AM
I watched half of the interview yesterday and I thought he came across ok.

They only bad part IMO was the fact that his mistress had security before anyone knew they were together. He tried to spin it and say that wasn't true but I don't buy it.

Oh course recxjake contributes nothing once again.

SNR
12-10-2007, 10:56 AM
How in the world can we possibly afford to keep taxes low and go to war with Iran? It's completely irrational.

patteeu
12-10-2007, 11:03 AM
How in the world can we possibly afford to keep taxes low and go to war with Iran? It's completely irrational.

Rudy wouldn't have to go to war with Iran if they were as afraid of what he'd do as you seem to be.

HolmeZz
12-10-2007, 11:07 AM
How in the world can we possibly afford to keep taxes low and go to war with Iran? It's completely irrational.

Don't bring reason into this now.

Cochise
12-10-2007, 11:09 AM
How in the world can we possibly afford to keep taxes low and go to war with Iran? It's completely irrational.

I agree, we'll need to start slashing the 50% of the federal budget that is entitlement programs if something like that becomes necessary.

jAZ
12-10-2007, 11:16 AM
I agree, we'll need to start slashing the 50% of the federal budget that is entitlement programs if something like that becomes necessary.
Which 50%?

Sincere question.

recxjake
12-10-2007, 11:17 AM
Rudy answered the hard questions... he did a good job. Rudy isn't perfect, he has never tried to say he was. But Rudy gets results.

If you want a candidate that will keep taxes low, cut spending, reform health with free market principles, end illegal immigration, stay on the offensive against terrorists then Rudy is your guy.

If you want to go back on defense against terrorists, Ron Paul and the Democrats are you candidate.

If you want higher taxes, bigger goverment, govt mandated health care, vote Democrat.

patteeu
12-10-2007, 11:18 AM
Which 50%?

Sincere question.

I agree, we'll need to start slashing the 50% of the federal budget that is entitlement programs if something like that becomes necessary.

jAZ
12-10-2007, 11:22 AM
.
Thanks, I read that wrong...

... but my quest for specificity remains.

What exactly makes up that 50%. Ie, what constitutes entitlement exactly?

Adept Havelock
12-10-2007, 11:26 AM
I agree, we'll need to start slashing the 50% of the federal budget that is entitlement programs if something like that becomes necessary.

Good notion, and at the same time we should take a page from WW2.

As this is also a "war for our national existence", or so I'm told my some, I think we should adopt the WW2 national tax rate of 100% on all income over $25,000/year, (with that 25k adjusted to the equivalent in 2007-2008 dollars of course). :p

Cochise
12-10-2007, 11:28 AM
Thanks, I read that wrong...

... but my quest for specificity remains.

What exactly makes up that 50%. Ie, what constitutes entitlement exactly?

Let's just cut to the chase, I want to make old people eat dog food and shut off their heat and take away their prescription drugs and pour arsenic in the water and blah blah blah.

Cochise
12-10-2007, 11:28 AM
As this is also a "war for our national existence", or so I'm told my some,

Who?

jAZ
12-10-2007, 11:30 AM
Let's just cut to the chase, I want to make old people eat dog food and shut off their heat and take away their prescription drugs and pour arsenic in the water and blah blah blah.
Why do you need to do that?

I'm trying to ask sincerely. What are you planning to cut. And by "cut" I assume you don't mean eliminate, but rather reduce. True?

Pitt Gorilla
12-10-2007, 11:32 AM
I don't think he did that badly, given the questions that were posed. His answers weren't always the best, but he did ok.

BucEyedPea
12-10-2007, 11:55 AM
I gotta agree Rudy is another category entirely due to Podhoretz and Pipes as his fp advisors. If you think Bush/Cheney (AEI) are bad....this crew is worse. Dangerous imo. Sorry rex, but as mayor I won't take away some credit from Rudey but as a man who can put his finger on the war button...Rudy & Co. MUST NOT be president!

go bowe
12-10-2007, 11:55 AM
I watched half of the interview yesterday and I thought he came across ok.

They only bad part IMO was the fact that his mistress had security before anyone knew they were together. He tried to spin it and say that wasn't true but I don't buy it.

Oh course recxjake contributes nothing once again.contributes?

what? is there some kind of minimum contribution required?

as for myself, i rarely have anything to contribute but that doesn't stop me from posting all the dipshittery that i can think of...

penchief
12-10-2007, 05:06 PM
Rudy answered the hard questions... he did a good job. Rudy isn't perfect, he has never tried to say he was. But Rudy gets results.

If you want a candidate that will keep taxes low, cut spending, reform health with free market principles, end illegal immigration, stay on the offensive against terrorists then Rudy is your guy.

If you want to go back on defense against terrorists, Ron Paul and the Democrats are you candidate.

If you want higher taxes, bigger goverment, govt mandated health care, vote Democrat.

Rudy didn't get asked the hard questions. That was a softball session compared to most interviews that Russert does. The thing that pissed me off was that Russert didn't do any follow up questions. He had so much to work with in the poor answers that Rudy gave that he could have easily pressed Rudy and made him look foolish but didn't. He simply let him gloss over the answers.

There is a possibility that some of the things he said could be used against him later but Russert was clearly being easy on him.

Hydrae
12-10-2007, 05:28 PM
contributes?

what? is there some kind of minimum contribution required?

as for myself, i rarely have anything to contribute but that doesn't stop me from posting all the dipshittery that i can think of...


And that is what we love about you! :)

mlyonsd
12-10-2007, 05:47 PM
Rudy didn't get asked the hard questions. That was a softball session compared to most interviews that Russert does. The thing that pissed me off was that Russert didn't do any follow up questions. He had so much to work with in the poor answers that Rudy gave that he could have easily pressed Rudy and made him look foolish but didn't. He simply let him gloss over the answers.

There is a possibility that some of the things he said could be used against him later but Russert was clearly being easy on him.

I only saw the last half but what I did witness was a witch hunt. Instead of asking Rudy any questions about where he'd take the country all I saw was questions about his past, which, maybe Rudy was hoping for because he explained his positions well IMO.

The part I saw made me think Russert might be hoping for a speaking part at the DNC national convention.

Adept Havelock
12-10-2007, 06:12 PM
I only saw the last half but what I did witness was a witch hunt. Instead of asking Rudy any questions about where he'd take the country all I saw was questions about his past, which, maybe Rudy was hoping for because he explained his positions well IMO.

The part I saw made me think Russert might be hoping for a speaking part at the DNC national convention.

Witch hunt? Past behavior is usually a pretty decent predictor of future behavior. :shrug:

Rudy was sleazy and thuggish as a Mayor IMO, why wouldn't he be the same as President?

SNR
12-10-2007, 06:21 PM
Let's just cut to the chase, I want to make old people eat dog food and shut off their heat and take away their prescription drugs and pour arsenic in the water and blah blah blah.Good idea. I nominate Skip to be first on the list.

jAZ
12-10-2007, 06:46 PM
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/12/pundits_lavish.php

Pundits Lavish Tons Of Attention On Rudy's "Cackle"
December 10, 2007 -- 6:04 PM EST // //

Okay, admittedly, that hasn't happened yet. But surely it will, right?

After all, every pundit in town surely watched Rudy Giuliani's interview yesterday on Meet the Press. If you saw it, you couldn't help but notice that Rudy giggled...and giggled...and giggled some more. In case you missed it, TPM video editor Ben Craw has compiled a nifty highlight reel of Rudy's nonstop giddiness:


<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/35s17704Qsw&rel=1&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/35s17704Qsw&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>


Those of you with long memories will recall that a couple months ago D.C. reporters, commentators, pundits and talk-show hosts went absolutely bonkers for days and days over Hillary's far-less-surprising "cackle" in interviews, relentlessly lampooning her allegedly phony outbursts of hilarity. In case you've forgotten just how extensive the coverage of the cackle was, here's a handy reminder.


At any rate, brace yourself for wall-to-wall pundit dissection of Rudy's laugh...


...it's coming any second now, I tell you...


...any second now...

Pitt Gorilla
12-10-2007, 07:31 PM
I only saw the last half but what I did witness was a witch hunt. Instead of asking Rudy any questions about where he'd take the country all I saw was questions about his past, which, maybe Rudy was hoping for because he explained his positions well IMO.

The part I saw made me think Russert might be hoping for a speaking part at the DNC national convention.I thought Russert was asking the questions that people wanted answered. That's what journalists should do, IMO.

Cochise
12-10-2007, 07:58 PM
Why do you need to do that?

I'm trying to ask sincerely. What are you planning to cut. And by "cut" I assume you don't mean eliminate, but rather reduce. True?

Well, for one thing the biggest government waste product that there is, medicare. You wouldn't even have to eliminate it if you could just audit everything and cut out all the waste, you'd save tens of billions every year.

For one thing, they are charged so much more than what private entities are for the same thing, 4 or 5 times what you or I would. I would bet that almost all the time it's double or more the price that is billed to a conventional insurance company. The whole retarded system lets the drug companies even define what the prices are for medication.

I also read once that Medicare spends something like $10 billion every year just on overpayment. Money just thrown away for no reason other than incompetence. And we want to expand this to cover everyone everywhere. We'll end up wasting more than we spend on the whole program today.

But you can't touch medicare, you can't do anything to it other than dump more money into it because Joe Dem will run out there and say you're trying to turn off grandma's heat and make her collect cans for drug money.

The whole thing reeks of all the hallmarks of government in anything they do: antiquated processes, waste, incompetence, poor quality. This is why the government should only be doing things that only it can do.

I don't even know what medicare costs us per year, but I bet we could give everyone in the country below a certain income level a huge tax credit, several thousand dollars, if we got rid of it. We could junk the whole thing and just give people the money to go find their own coverage and come out far ahead.

wazu
12-10-2007, 09:23 PM
I've watched as much as I can stand, but I don't think Rudy comes off any worse than usual.