Yes, I too was disappointed that Bill Clinton lied about a blow job. But no one can say he spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars along the way to pay for his trysts, forcing the bill on agencies set up to help the disabled, and on the public defenders’ office.
What will it take to convince the American people that Rudy Giuliani is a criminal, a cronyist, a liar, a serial adulterer (which I can live with) and, all in all, the last thing we need after eight years of Bushism?
This should drive a stake right through his vampire heart. Just imagine if this kind of story came out about Hillary or Obama. Imagine. (And for any of you who cling to the myth of a “liberal media,” check out this lovely front-page story from yesterday’s WaPo. Read the comments, and read this. Yes, the “MSM” is just a conduit for liberal propaganda. Right.)
1
By Michael Turton
Nope. As long as you are not actually a Dem, you can do whatever you like on the taxpayer dollar, from funding trysts with your girlfriends, to blowing away hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
Michael
November 30, 2007 @ 11:05 pm | Comment
2
By Richardson
If you read further, you’ll find that those allegations – actually just speculation – and nothing has yet been proved. The comptroller said he couldn’t verify how the money was spent, and someone speculated what may have occurred. But there is no proof.
Guilty until proven innocent?
As for the liberal media, read this;
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=278808786575124
December 1, 2007 @ 12:20 am | Comment
3
By THM
I’ve never cared for Giuliani. He’s nothing more than an opportunist and I do care whether or not he’s a serial adulterer; not because of some religious doctrine, but because it speaks multitudes about his character. If he had no loyalties to his former wives, who’s to say he’d have the integrity to show loyalty to his country as President?
December 1, 2007 @ 1:00 am | Comment
4
By Richardson
“If he had no loyalties to his former wives, who’s to say he’d have the integrity to show loyalty to his country as President?”
Kennedy?
Clinton?
December 1, 2007 @ 1:44 am | Comment
5
By richard
Richardson, do you ahave ny idea of IBD’s track record? Your citing them is literally as nutty as citing Free Republic or Newsmax as actual news sources. Meanwhile, the evidence is all there, and Giuliani’s refusal to address it or answer questions is telling. The allegations of serial adultery and cronyism are a matter of record and cannot be disputed. Period.
Meanwhile, I’m delighted that no one on the right ever pounced on Bill Clinton for anything that was speculation. Like Whitewater. That was one huge rumor. Here there are facts and records, and until Giuliani sets the record straight this isn’t going away. I’m not declaring Giuliani guilty of this crime (yet), but I am declaring him unfit to command.
December 1, 2007 @ 9:57 am | Comment
6
By richard
Good points, Gordon.
December 1, 2007 @ 9:58 am | Comment
7
By nanheyangrouchuan
Obama recently had a private breakfast with Micheal Bloomberg (Obama-Bloomberg ’08) and has been officially endorsed by the standard bearer for all American women, Oprah Winfrey.
All of you Americans overseas should appreciate what Obama would mean in the eyes of the world and what he could do for the country (Kennedy sans gangster bootlegging background).
December 2, 2007 @ 7:54 am | Comment
8
By Richardson
First let’s note that you link to TPM while criticizing IBD as one-sided; that’s hypocritical.
Second, attacking the source rather than the information is completely ineffectual to your argument, it’s not an opinion piece – it’s citing stats from research; try to dispute the statistics presented. You know, the ones in report cited.
Third, I’m no supporter of Giuliani, but the accusations you originally made (and linked to in the body of the post) stressed misuse of public funds – which are, as I stated, nothing more that unsubstantiated accusations that you are apparently taking at fact value despite a lack of any evidence – rather than the moral issue.
In all cases it’s a logic thing. I suggest you read up on logical fallacies.
Oh, yeah – “Period.”
December 3, 2007 @ 9:11 pm | Comment
9
By richard
Richardson, TPM is a very objective site with an excellent track record of exposing corruption and delivering level-headed commentary. Go check it out. IBD and every loon who reads it is…well, looney. Period. Really – it scares me that you could take that shit seriously, and trust me, it will not look good for you to cite them. I will consider this a lapse of judgment or something. You’re welcome to comment here, but don’t you go citin’ Michelle or Rush or IBD as legitimate sources, you hear? Jeesh.
December 3, 2007 @ 9:35 pm | Comment
10
By Richardson
You still don’t get it; IDB was *not* the source of the information/data/conclusions – independent research organizations, including one tied to Harvard, were.
Attacking IDB for correctly reporting finding these well-known and respectable research organizations is a bit bizarre.
Here is the link to the acutal report by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard’s Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy (use TOC links on the right for more of the report);
http://journalism.org/node/8198
The stats used in the IDB article are in fact in this report, and the conclusion is the same; Democrats/liberals receive both more press (i.e., free advertising) as well as more positive press than Republicans/conservatives.
This was already obvious to anyone paying attention, but coming from a research center associated with Harvard should lend some credibility to those on the left.
December 4, 2007 @ 2:58 am | Comment
11
By richard
Gee, I just read the article and didn’t see anything there about biased reporting. Did you go to the WaPo article in the link I addressed? That is whacko rumor-mongering journalism. Your article, which I would have gone to at once if you hadn’t wrapped it in the slime of IBD, says the media is looking more at some candidates than others. Wow. I didn’t see a word about fomenting rumors or character assassination. Not a word. So apples and oranges it’s beyond ridiculous.
We can always find examples of a slanted article, poor reporting or downright bias. But the trend of the US media for many years has been to not question Bush and to report on Drudge rumors as if they were substantive. I don’t expect readers of IBD to comprehend this, but if you look over the drum-beating for the invasion of the war, led by the NYT and WaPo, and read the latest Howard Kurtz column sneering at liberal bloggers, you might get my drift, though I truly doubt it. Anyone who can read TPM and see it as an equivalent of IBD has his heard somewhere it doesn’t belong.
December 4, 2007 @ 8:48 am | Comment