(Page 2 of 3)
The possibility of a Giuliani presidency had the Atlantic’s Matthew Yglesias struggling for words: “One thing I’m wrestling with is finding a way to convey how terrified I am of the prospect of a Rudy Giuliani presidency in terms of its impact on our foreign policy.”p>But Yglesias noted Talking Point Memo ‘s Marshall comes close to best explaining why Giuliani is worse than Mitt Romney. “I know I’ve said before that Romney’s profound and almost incalculable phoniness is a terrifying prospect to behold in a possible president. But the danger of phoniness, aesthetic or otherwise, cannot hold a candle to the br> truly catastrophic foreign policy Giuliani would likely pursue if he got anywhere near the Oval Office,” Marshall wrote. /p>
The Giuliani hate fest has also infiltrated the airwaves, where Keith Olbermann has made bashing Rudy a daily feature on his show. On Monday, an Olbermann segment entitled, “Rudy Giuliani — The next Dick Cheney?” was about Giuliani’s penchant for “secrecy” and “proclivity for executive power…”
This was followed up on Tuesday with a segment that began with a graphic featuring Giuliani, Bush in the background, and the words “Bush on Steroids” — a reference to John Edwards’s comment that Giuliani shares Bush’s love of “crony capitalism.”
The segment revealed, just as with Bush, the media has no problem broadcasting factual errors when targeting Giuliani. Olbermann misquoted Giuliani as saying that Democrats wanted to invite Osama bin Laden to the White House. In actuality, Giuliani didn’t say Osama, he said Assad, as in Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, one of the leaders whom Barack Obama did in fact say he would be willing to meet with in Washington with no preconditions within the first year of his administration. Making the incident even more absurd, Olbermann ran the video clip of Giuliani’s remarks on his show, and it was clear that Giuliani said Assad. How clear? The transcript appearing on the official MSNBC website for Olbermann’s show had Giuliani saying Assad in the video clip.
Nevertheless, Olbermann asked his guest Arianna Huffington to comment on whether the former mayor was being hyperbolic or lying.
“Well, he’s lying and also every day he reveals more and more of himself,” Huffington said. “And you can see that he really has the soul of a thug and the disposition of a tyrant.”
Huffington repeated the false Giuliani-Osama quote, and later in the interview, she added: “He’s kind of channeling Rush Limbaugh. He’s making the lunatic fringe mainstream.”
And Olbermann wondered, “Has it reached a level yet where we should be considering examining whether or not this is compulsive lying that there is something endemic to [Giuliani]? Or this specific purpose driven lies?”
One might ask the same about Olbermann. Even though the AP issued a correction to its story that misquoted Giuliani following a report on AmSpecBlog, as of this writing, Olbermann has not corrected his erroneous segment. His spokeswoman did not return three calls or an email sent from TAS asking whether the news channel planned to correct the error, and if not, to explain its corrections policy.p>The irony, of course, is that the more vocal, vicious, and unfounded liberal attacks on Giuliani become, the easier it is for him to make his case to conservative primary voters that they agree on a lot more than they
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
H/T to National Review Online