Rudy Giuliani Quotes: Ten Zingers from Giuliani's RNC Speech

Rudy Giuliani's RNC Speech
Republican National Convention
St. Paul, MN - September 3, 2008

"Tough times require strong leadership, and this is no time for on-the-job training."





"And he will keep us on offense against terrorism at home and abroad. For four days in Denver and for the past 18 months, Democrats have been afraid to use the words "Islamic terrorism." During their convention, the Democrats rarely mentioned the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. They are in a state of denial about the threat that faces us now and in the future."

"...you have a resume from a gifted man with an Ivy League education. He worked as a community organizer and immersed himself in Chicago machine politics. Then he ran for the state Legislature — where nearly 130 times he was unable to make a decision yes or no. He simply voted "present."

As mayor of New York City, I never got a chance to vote "present." And you know, when you're president of the United States, you can't just vote "present." You must make decisions."

"Almost exactly one year ago during a Republican presidential debate in Durham, N.H., I said that if I weren't running for president myself, I'd be supporting John McCain. Well, I'm not, and I do."


"We the people" — the citizens of the United States — get to decide our next president, not the media, not Hollywood celebrities, not anyone else.

"...he ran for the U.S. Senate. He won and has spent most of his time as a "celebrity senator." No leadership or major legislation to speak of. His rise is remarkable in its own right — it's the kind of thing that could happen only in America. But he's never run a city, never run a state, never run a business.

He's never had to lead people in crisis. This is not a personal attack ... it's a statement of fact — Barack Obama has never led anything.

Nothing. Nada."

"So, our opponents want to reframe the debate. They would have you believe that this election is about "change versus more of the same." But that's really a false choice. Because "change" is not a destination, just as "hope" is not a strategy."

"In the single biggest policy decision of this election, John McCain got it right and Barack Obama got it wrong. If Barack Obama had been president, there would have been no troop surge and our troops would have been withdrawn in defeat.

Sen. McCain was the candidate most associated with the surge. And it was unpopular.

What do you think most other candidates would have done in that situation? They would have acted in their own self-interest by changing their position. How many times have we seen Barack Obama do that?

Obama was going to take public financing for his campaign, until he didn't. Obama was against wiretapping before he voted for it. When speaking to a pro-Israel group, Obama favored an undivided Jerusalem, until the very next day when he changed his mind.

I hope for his sake, Joe Biden got that VP thing in writing."

"And as a former U.S. attorney, I am impressed by her success in combating corruption — when she found unethical and illegal behavior among the power brokers of her own party, she did not hesitate — she acted courageously and independently. That's the kind of reformer we need — she shook up Alaska. She'll shake up Washington."

When Russia rolled over Georgia, John McCain knew exactly how to respond.

Having been to that part of the world many times and having developed a clear worldview over many years, John knew where he stood. Within hours, he established a very strong, informed position that let the world know exactly how he'll respond as president. At exactly the right time, John McCain said, "We're all Georgians."

Obama's first instinct was to create a moral equivalency — that "both sides" should "show restraint." The same moral equivalency that he has displayed in discussing the Palestinian Authority and the State of Israel.

Later, after discussing it with his 300 foreign policy advisers, he changed his position and suggested that the "the U.N. Security Council" could find a solution. Apparently, none of his 300 advisers told him that Russia has a veto on any U.N. action. Finally Obama put out a statement that looked ... well, it looked a lot like John McCain's.

Here's some free advice: Sen. Obama, next time just call John McCain.

compiled by Mondoreb
image: donkeydish
Source: Giuliani speaks at Republican National Convention

American Flags in DNC Trash, Sarah Palin and Culture

Culture Watch
Nancy Morgan
Right Bias.com
September 1, 2008

---

For anyone not sure of the difference between liberals and conservatives, last week provided a priceless example. On the eve of Obama's coronation acceptance speech, the McCain camp released a lovely commercial of congratulations and considerately kept their much awaited VP choice under wraps so Obama could have his moment. Well done, McCain.

Last week, as usual, was filled with news of the Messiah. The Dems held their convention and anointed Obama their pick for president. The convention was long on visuals and short on details. Hillary pretended to be gracious, Obama pretended to be humble, and the media pretended to believe them. A good time was had by all.

After 18 long, predictable months of political maneuvering, hot air and empty rhetoric, the eternal presidential race finally got real. Her name is Sarah Palin. The difference between Sarah and Hillary is profound. (See: Hillary Vs Sarah) The left and the media are already accusing her of faking her last pregnancy. Lovely.

Regarding pregnancies, Gov. Palin and her husband just released a written statement stating that her 17 year-old daughter is pregnant.

American flags end up in the trash after Dem convention

The Dem's 'greenest convention in history' finally wrapped up. Idling SUVs and Lear jets have departed but the trash remains. Dems showed they are unaware of the proper etiquette for disposing of flags as all US flags ended up in the trashbin. For more of the same, just elect Obama.

Meanwhile, Democrats are crying crocodile tears as Hurricane Gustav forces the GOP to postpone their convention.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED:

What happens if we win a war and nobody reports it? That's the question as our media continue to ignore the historic accomplishments our fighting men in Iraq. Gen. Petraeus has submitted his initial recommendation on when to withdraw troops and at what pace, and just today, the US military handed over Anbar Province to Iraqi control. Remember Anbar? The [formerly] most violent arena of the war.

Meanwhile, Iraq's tourism board is looking for investors to develop a romantic island in the heart of Baghdad as Baghdad's 'Honeymoon Isle' and the city of Najaf is experiencing a boom in land prices and new businesses. The new airport hasn't hurt.

MORE GOOD NEWS:

Right in the middle of the Democrat convention came the news that US GDP grew by 3.3% in the second quarter, far surpassing the initial estimate of 1.9% released last week. Translation: We're no where near a recession.

Hundreds of applicants lined up to take 'those jobs Americans won't do' after ICE raided a plant in Jones County and succeeded in creating a few job openings.

The Bible will be required to be taught in Texas schools under a new law that has been clarified by the state attorney general to mean exactly what it says. Israel is getting ready to make the Dead Sea Scrolls available on the internet.

CULTURE:

The Mexican Supreme Court has upheld legal abortion. In the UK, crisis pregnancy centers, as well as doctors and midwives may be subject to prosecution and a two year jail sentence if they convince a woman to forego an abortion. Also in the UK: 'environmental volunteers' will be encouraged to spy on their neighbors and families. Amazing what one can get away with under the slogan of protecting Mother Earth.

Deaths are expected to outnumber births in the EU as soon as 2015, when migration will be the only source of population growth. This is called a self-inflicted demographic disaster.

A Pakistan Senator defended the recent incident of burying alive three teenage girls and two women in his province, saying it was part of “our tribal custom.” Still think all cultures are equal?

Right here in the USA, a Connecticut baseball team with a phenomenal 9-year-old pitcher has been disqualified because its team is too good.

Speaking of a race to the bottom, 'Cold Cash Jefferson,' the indicted legislator caught with $90K in his freezer, has decided to run for a 10th term. The John Edwards scandal hasn't affected the Breck Girl's speaking fee. In fact, he's raised his fee on next month's 'Two Americas' speech to $65,000.


From the files of higher education, Iowa Community College President Robert Paxton was paid $400,000 for his resignation when this photo surfaced of him embracing his inner self on the Fourth of July. According to newly released results, it appears SAT scores have remained at the lowest level in nearly a decade.

WEIRD NEWS:

Actor David Duchovny has voluntarily entered a rehabilitation facility for sex addiction. Guess he got caught. Here's hoping his recovery isn't too hard.

Lawyers for disgraced real-estate star, Adam Hochfelder argued that the coke addict and alcoholic must remain free on bail because he's in dire need of nasal surgery. "He's completely blown out his nose," lawyers argued. A judge slapped $1M bail on him anyway.


A British soldier's family is mourning the loss of their pet dog after a dangerous spider bit it to death. Apparently the giant arachnid was unwittingly transported back from Afghanistan in paratrooper Rodney's luggage.

A Nigerian religious leader with 86 wives has accepted an Islamic decree ordering him to divorce all but four of them. Sorry, honey.

IDIOT OF THE WEEK:

Former president Jimmy Carter wins hands down. During his speech at the Dem convention, Carter referred to Obama as "this black boy." You probably heard it here first.

Too delicious to leave out, from the just desserts file: It turns out a portable toilet wasn't the best place to hide when a thief was caught breaking into someone's car. Sometimes life is fair.



Till next Monday, keep smiling,



by Nancy Morgan
RightBias.com

John Edwards Scandal: Wealthy Democratic Fundraiser is Edwards Money Man

Mystery Man Resides in Dallas, TX



The National Enquirer released more than just the photos of John Edwards holding Frances Quinn Hunter yesterday [: it also revealed more clues to the identity of the man who, the Enquirer claims, funneled the hush money to Rielle Hunter and Andrew Young.

But, the Enquirer released the details in their print edition only, which hit parts of the country yesterday. One area of the country which doesn't have the new Enquirer yet is our own. But through the efforts of one reader--who wishes remain anonymous and who purchased a copy of the newest Enquirer for us!--that went beyond and above the call of duty, we did obtain some details about the Edwards "hush money man".

We won't spill all the Enquirer's beans here; after all, David Perel, the Enquirer's Editor-in-Chief, has to recoup the investment of a year's worth of reporting on the story.

It ain't cheap chasing around people who don't want to be found.

However, we will report a few of the Enquirer's findings about a man, about whom an earlier Enquirer story would only refer to as, "a wealthy colleague who was closely tied to the Edwards’ campaign. This same man is also shoveling cash to Edwards’ pal and former aide Andrew Young – who tried to take the heat off the ex-Senator by claiming he is the father of Rielle’s baby."



The Enquirer also wrote last week on its website [EDWARDS' HU$H MONEY TO MISTRESS]: “A super-rich pal – who was closely involved with the campaign finances – is helping John. It’s likely this man doesn’t know all the dirty details of John’s extramarital affair, but is acting out of loyalty and is not asking a lot of questions – only writing the checks,” revealed a source very close to the situation."

The newest Enquirer reveals more clues to the man's identity--to entice MSM reporters who have thus far proved resistant to investigating and reporting on the story, perhaps?

A "wealthy Democratic fundraiser" from "Dallas, TX" is part of what the Enquirer reveals.

The story also states that besides the $15,000/month payments to Rielle Hunter and daughter, F.Q. Hunter, that $20,000 is being given to former Edwards' operative, Andrew Young and his family.

The details of the Enquirer's attempt to question the man, when and how much money the wealthy Edwards' backer raised?

Go buy your own copy of the Enquirer.

Any MSM reporter with an Enquirer and an Internet connection ought to be able to run down the identity of the man in a heartbeat.

Doug Ross?

by Mondoreb
image: National Enquirer

John Edwards Affair: Media Myth of Edwards December Denials

Peter replied, "Man, I don't know what you're talking about!"
--Famous denial, Luke 22:60

Media Circulates False Story that Edwards Denied Affair in December



National Enquirer's December Allegations NEVER Denied

The Media's "Don't Ask Edwards, He Won't Tell" Policy

Edwards' Denials After November 29: A MSM Urban Legend

Perhaps history's three most famous denials were issued by the apostle Peter on the night that Jesus was arrested. Thus, Peter issued three more denials in one night than John Edwards has made after November 29, 2007; i.e., none.

One recurring theme turning up for Mainstream Media apologists in the last several days goes something on the order of, "Edwards denied this story in December". Variations range from yesterday's Raleigh Telegram's insistent "Edwards continuously denied the accusations," [Enquirer Publishes Blurry 'Photo' Of John Edwards] to Deceiver's July 28 "The John Edwards Non-Scandal Keeps Getting Not-Weirder":

Then, last December, Edwards denied having an affair and an illegitimate child with Hunter after the National Enquirer spotted her, visibly pregnant, living in North Carolina.

One British newspaper repeated the "Edwards' December Denial" recently. Yesterday, at NRO, Byron York cited--inadvertently, no doubt--the EDD meme. From "John Edwards: The Picture of a Scandal" (emphasis added):

Last December, when the Enquirer first named Hunter, Edwards did deny it. A couple of months earlier, when the Enquirer published a thinly-sourced story claiming that Edwards was "caught in a shocking mistress scandal that could wreck his campaign," Edwards quite emphatically denied it. "The story is false," he said then. "It's completely untrue, ridiculous. Anyone who knows me knows that I have been in love with the same woman for 30-plus years."

As our own LBG put it, in "John Edwards Scandal: Where in the World is John Edwards?":

The MSM turned a blind eye to the alleged Edwards' affair so it was a surprise when the story resurfaced in November in the Daily News. On November 29, the Daily News' Rush and Molloy published "Tabloid's affair rumor dispelled, says John Edwards". The article wrote that "John Edwards believes he's stared down the National Enquirer".

The article mentioned the Enquirer's promise to follow-up the initial Edwards affair story on October 10. The Daily News cited an Enquirer insider who admitted "there's a lot of smoke, but no smoking gun". The Daily News also quoted Edwards who claimed the story "disappeared because it's made up".

In December, a two-line item was tagged onto the end of one report that "an unnamed reporter in South Carolina" asked Edwards about it and he responded with the deflection, "Tabloid gossip" and "trashy lies". DBKP believes this occurred during Edwards' Christmas campaigning break, when he was back in North Carolina

Is this hair-splitting? Maybe, but that incident was no denial.

This point is important: it allows the those in the major media to excuse what was their complete failure to fulfill their adversarial duties for nearly eight months. Once the Enquirer allegations went from the general (October Enquirer story) to the specific (December), the press didn't ask, Edwards didn't tell--at least until July 23.

The Democrats could have save a pound of August headaches with just an ounce of December MSM investigative legwork.

As we stated earlier today in "John Edwards Scandal: Dems Worry, Call on Edwards To Come Forward":

It may be noted that Democrats could have avoided all of this–if just one major news organization would have investigated the easily-checked facts of the National Enquirer’s December edition of the scandal. [Curious Circumstances Excite No Curiosity in the Mainstream Media and The Edwards Scandal, The Press, The Enquirer and the Blogosphere]

Back in December, in the above stories DBKP wondered why not one reporter had asked Edwards, “Do you deny you’ve been in telephone contact with Rielle Hunter since she found out she was pregnant?” Hunter, at that time, was living within five miles of the Edwards campaign HQ in Chapel Hill, NC, in the house of an Edwards’ backer, driving a BMW registered to former Edwards Director of Finance, Andrew Young–all checkable facts.

But not one reporter thought it curious enough to investigate then.

In doing the research for this article, we found several "December denials" sprinkled throughout the sparse MSM coverage of the last few days. We can find no such proof that Edwards was even asked about the Rielle Hunter affair in December.

We waited, in vain in December for that one brave MSM reporter to ask Edwards about the National Enquirer's allegations. Astonished that none did not, we wrote about it in December several times.

The waiting continued, though Edwards was in the news as a possible VP pick or cabinet selection.

Our waiting was over July 23, when Edwards gave his now-infamous video "non-denial".
[Edwards Love Child: Worst Denial Video Ever]

Edwards denials came in October, with the last one on November 29, when he felt he had covered his tracks and that the Enquirer was bluffing about the affair.

The "continuous denials" and "December denials" that are being bandied about in the press as reasons they didn't investigate Edwards eight month ago?

They have all the making of a Mainstream Media urban legend: they sound good, but they simply aren't true.

It's a matter of record--for any reporter wanting to investigate.


THE BUZZ

Speaking of denial...

A few days ago, Mickey Kaus, Slate, wrote a handy "Why write about the Edwards scandal?

Here's a short clip-'n'-save response to those (including many friends) who argue the Edwards scandal shouldn't be pursued--or at least pursued too vigorously-- even if it is true:**

In the ** footnote to the above, Kaus outlines what might be the "Six Stages of MSM/Dem/Edwards' Supporter Denial".

**--For purposes of this item, I'm assuming we're reaching the next-to-final stage of the natural progression in cases like this: 1) Too horrible and shocking; it can't possibly be true; 2) It's not true; 3) You can't prove it's true; 4) Why are you trying to prove it's true? 5) It's disgusting that you've proved it's true; 6) What's the big deal anyway? ...

A check of the comments section, on any Internet locale that has written about the Edwards scandal since December, will quickly confirm Kaus' six stages. In fact, you can tell when pro-Edwards readers learned about the story by which stage of denial they were in when they penned their outraged comments.

Don Surber, in "Dems do what MSM won’t", wonders--most reasonably, we think:

When Edwards is not in Denver later this month, I wonder how ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, NBC, and PBS will explain his absence.

Oh yeah: John Who?

by Mondoreb
images: National Enquirer

John Edwards Scandal: Dems Want Denials from Edwards

"If there is not an explanation that’s satisfactory, acceptable and meets high moral standards, the answer is 'no,' he would not be a prime candidate to make a major address to the convention."
--Don Fowler, a former Democratic National Committee chair, as reported in Tabloid's claims threaten Edwards' role at party's convention

Distress Could Have Been Avoided if Press Had Done Their Job

The meter is running for John Edwards to answer the National Enquirer's allegations that he fathered an illegitimate daughter, lied about it and orchestrated an "elaborate coverup".

And, with the Democrat National Convention less than three weeks away, it was prominent Democrats who started that meter running yesterday.

According to the Raleigh News & Observer, Gary Pearce, the strategist who ran Edwards' 1998 Senate race, was blunt:

“He absolutely does have to [resolve it]. If it’s not true, he has to issue a stronger denial,” said Gary Pearce, the Democratic strategist who ran Edwards’ 1998 Senate race. “It’s a very damaging thing. ... The big media has tried to be responsible and handle this with kid gloves, but it’s clearly getting ready to bust out. If it’s not true, he’s got to stand up and say, ‘This is not true. That is not my child and I’m going to take legal action against the people who are spreading these lies.’ It’s not enough to say, ‘That’s tabloid trash.’ ”

Former DNC Chair, Don Fowler was succinct on whether Edwards would be accorded a prime speaker's spot at the convention--which according to reports he was promised when he endorsed Barack Obama.

"If there is not an explanation that’s satisfactory, acceptable and meets high moral standards, the answer is 'no,' he would not be a prime candidate to make a major address to the convention."

What's changed the media picture in the last several days? Why is the Mainstream Media suddenly interested in reporting on the scandal now, just a few weeks away from the Democrat National Convention, when they wouldn't touch it for seven months ago?

Ryan Tate, at Gawker, sizes up the changed media scenery as though he were using X-Ray Specs [Exploding The Edwards Mistress Scandal]:

See, previously the Edwards scandal was just an irrelevant trifle about how the maybe next U.S. attorney general or even vice president had a baby with another woman while his wife died of cancer and possibly paid the mistress hush money and lied to everyone about it. But now it's about how a speaker at a meaningless convention might distract the media from covering the media event in the way media handlers prefer. In other words, a REAL story.

What's up for grabs now is a prime prime-time speaking spot and, as Tate explained, a distraction-less Denver convention. But where is Edwards?

LBG points out that Edwards has disappeared from public view since July 30. [John Edwards Scandal: Where in the World is John Edwards?]:

Despite the fact that Edwards was in the midst of promoting his Half in Ten national poverty tour, the July 30th appearance at the AARP symposium in Washington, D.C. was Edwards’ last known public appearance.

As she points out, Edwards' Washington sighting was only his third appearance since the morning of July 22, when he was cornered by the Enquirer's reporters at the Beverly Hilton.

A story on the McClatchy Newspapers wire listed several details sure to unsettle Democrats planning for Denver, "Tabloid's claims threaten Edwards' role at party's convention":

* Edwards evaded (The McClatchy story calls it "brushing off") reporters after a July 30 speech in Washington, D.C.--including at least two from McClatchy papers in North Carolina--by exiting through a side entrance normally reserved for kitchen help. [John Edwards Scandal: Edwards Bolts from Reporters Once Again]. Edwards reportedly answered journalists' questions at the time with "Sorry," and "I don't have time for that now."

* A reporter at the Edwards estate in North Carolina got no response Wednesday when he rang the buzzer.

* McClatchy reports Edwards' designated staffer for the press has yet to respond to email requests for an interview.

* The story also reports that "Friends and former staffers refuse to comment now, though they helped Edwards last fall by dismissing an October story in the Enquirer of a sexual relationship between Edwards and a campaign videographer when it initially broke."

* The Raleigh News & Observer reported that: "Sorry cannot help you on this one," wrote Jennifer Palmieri, a former top Edwards aide, in an e-mail Wednesday."

On July 26, The Politico reported [Everybody wants a piece of Obama] that "Edwards told others he was promised a prime time speaking slot when he endorsed Sen. Barack Obama". Traditionally, also-rans in the primaries are offered opportunities to speak to the convention.

It may be noted that Democrats could have avoided all of this--if just one major news organization would have investigated the easily-checked facts of the National Enquirer's December edition of the scandal. [Curious Circumstances Excite No Curiosity in the Mainstream Media and The Edwards Scandal, The Press, The Enquirer and the Blogosphere]

Back in December, in the above stories DBKP wondered why not one reporter had asked Edwards, "Do you deny you've been in telephone contact with Rielle Hunter since she found out she was pregnant?" Hunter, at that time, was living within five miles of the Edwards campaign HQ in Chapel Hill, NC, in the house of an Edwards' backer, driving a BMW registered to former Edwards Director of Finance, Andrew Young--all checkable facts.

But not one reporter thought it curious enough to investigate then.

In May, we revisited the Edwards story [John Edwards: Looking for Rielle Hunter’s Baby News, VP Love, After Obama Endorsement] and asked a few questions:

Mark, a commenter at New York Nerd, sounded absolutely like a fortune teller when, back on January 6 2008, he predicted that the MSM, which imposed a blackout on any news concerning the Hunter-Edwards affair, would only become interested in the affair IF Edwards won the Democrat nomination.
...
Might that not still hold true, if Edwards is the VP candidate again?

We’ll see.

The Mainstream Media has proved unusually resistant to any and all curiosity where the curiously “coincidental” happenings of the Rielle Hunter-John Edwards story is concerned. Maybe the “Two Americas” Edwards referred to meant the ordinary curiosity that most folks exhibit upon reading about the circumstances surrounding Rielle Hunter and John Edwards–and the Mainstream Media brand of decidedly selective curiosity about all things involving the Democrat Party.

Democrats will be right to wonder what might have been, if the press had fulfilled their adversarial duties back in December, when the Enquirer's Edwards allegations went from the general, featuring unnamed sources, to the specific, with dates, names and locations?

If only.

NOTES

* Byron York, NRO, talked to David Perel, Editor-in-Chief of the National Enquirer [John Edwards: Picture of a Scandal]. One topic was the Denver convention.

But is there anything else? Maybe the Democratic National Convention, coming up a little more than two weeks? “Obviously, the convention has not been our driving force behind the story,” Perel says. “The reporting takes however long it takes. It took seven months to go from the December story to the [Beverly Hilton] meeting….But if it happens to be a happy coincidence — if the story just happens to be breaking around that time, in terms of maximum exposure — “ Perel pauses. If the convention wasn’t part of the timetable before, it is now. The Edwards pictures might make a nice splash with the Democratic delegates gathered in Denver.

* A comment from Ping2007 on the News & Observer website to the story cited above:
"Diaper Change We Can Believe In"!


* Ann Coulter's response to the Washington Post reporter, who defended the total blackout on the National Enquirer's John Edwards' love child story, telling the Times of London: "Edwards is no longer an elected official and he is not running for office now. Don't expect wall-to-wall coverage." [Only His Hair Dresser Knows for Sure]

"Isn't there some level of coverage between "wall-to-wall" and "double-secret probation, delta-force level total news blackout" when it comes to a sex scandal involving a current Democratic vice presidential and Cabinet prospect?"

More Coulter licks against the MSM; among which was this gem:

But with a Democrat sex scandal, the L.A. Times is in a nail-biting competition with The Washington Post, The New York Times, ABC, NBC and CBS for the Pulitzer for "Best Suppressed Story."

At this point, it's a dead heat.


by Mondoreb
images: dncc; thumbs; National Enquirer; Technology360