Giuliani’s ads ‘don’t mention terrorism’?

One can learn all kinds of interesting things watching “Meet the Press.” For example, yesterday, Tom Brokaw claimed that Rudy Giuliani’s television ads airing in Florida “don’t mention terrorism.”

“You know what it reminds me of now, Tim, is that in rural America, they have these quarter-mile dirt tracks, and they have wreck-’em derbies. And they put all the cars on the track at the same time, and they run into each other until there’s just one car standing. I think we’ve got a wreck-’em derby going on in the Republican Party right now.

“I’ve just gotten back from Florida. Rudy Giuliani’s ads on the air don’t mention terrorism. He’s the man who reduced the corporate taxes in the city of New York, created new jobs, reduced crime, and also took a lot of people off the welfare rolls.

“So this election on the Republican side now is changing both in tone and in content.”

Listening to the context, Brokaw apparently didn’t do any real research at all. He traveled to Florida, watched a little television, saw some Giuliani advertising that didn’t reference terrorism, and felt he was then in a position to tell a national audience that “Giuliani’s ads on the air don’t mention terrorism.”

Except, that’s not even close to true. Indeed, just last week, Giuliani began airing ads in Florida that used footage and photographs of 9/11, and, in a truly nauseating display, told viewers, “[W]hen the world wavered, and history hesitated, [Giuliani] never did.”

And that ad, of course, comes just two weeks after Giuliani’s Tancredo-esque ad, which also ran in Florida, and which sought to exploit the Bhutto assassination in Pakistan. It featured a voice-over saying, “An enemy without borders. Hate without boundaries. A people perverted. A religion betrayed. A nuclear power in chaos. Madmen bent on creating it. Leaders assassinated. Democracy attacked. And Osama bin Laden still making threats. In a world where the next crisis is a moment away… America needs a leader who’s ready.”

Giuliani’s “ads on the air don’t mention terrorism”? Seriously?

On a related note, “Meet the Press’s” Tim Russert chatted with Chris Matthews about the GOP candidates’ bases of support.

MATTHEWS: Who is McCain’s base? I mean, if he does begin to look like the leader of this party, what’s his base?

RUSSERT: Veterans. Certainly he’s proving that in South Carolina throughout this campaign, in terms of getting them out. A hard line on foreign policy. His position in favor of the surge has won him support with that particular community. But you go to Florida in a four-way race, Chris, evangelicals go to Huckabee. Rudy, I guess, ex-New Yorkers and people who still have memories of September 11th.

I don’t want to sound picky, but doesn’t everyone have memories of September 11?

I understand the media’s pro-McCain sycophancy. I don’t like it, it’s unjustified, and it’s awful for the process, but I understand it.

Why media personalities continue to boost Giuliani, however, remains a bit of a mystery.

BREAKING: Giuliani doesn’t mention terrorism. Details at 9 and 11.

  • Brokaw is just another ’empty suit news reader with a pretty face’. Why imply any credibility to him?

    Tweety Matthews has had a lip lock on Guiliani for a long time. A better question is “Why does MSNBC continue to have Guiliani on during their election nights programs when he finishes a ‘strong’ 4th or 5th or 6th?” Each time it is Tweety providing the man love to Rudy the Loser..

    Another question is “Why does anyone consider Tweety to be anything other than another repugnican shill?” 1) Ran for political office as a repug… 2) Has a brother elected to office in Pa. as a repug… 3) Worked the office of a dumbocrat ages ago – so what – hasn’t anyone heard of infiltrating the enemy’s quarters?

    Other than Keith Olbermann, does MSNBC have anyone with a perspective other than rethugnican?

  • And Tom Brokaw understands rural America how? Not only did he not do his reseach in Florida, he apparently didn’t do a whole lot of research in that rural America he professes to understand.

    Since you didn’t do that research, Tom, let me tell you most rural types call those things demolition (or demo for short) derbies and they’re mostly held at county fairs. The quarter-mile dirt tracks mostly hold stock car races where contact, though intentional, is not meant to destroy the competitor. Kinda like what’s happening in the Democratic Party right now, ya know….

    Although I will agree with you about the Republican Party going-ons right now. It IS a demo derby but with one difference: None will be running at the end!

  • “Why media personalities continue to boost Giuliani, however, remains a bit of a mystery.”

    Giuliani is the candidate who would be the most tolerant and friendly to the Republican culture of corruption. He is the candidate who would be the large corporate interests’ buddy in the White House.

    Mystery solved.

  • Not to disagree with CB, but did anyone else notice Giuliani’s developing “tax cut” tourettes? The symptoms were glaring on Meet the Press.

  • McCain has been swiftboated by at least one group of veterans.

    Julie-Annie doesn’t have to mention “terrorism”, his face is a sculptor’s portrayal of it.

    Jim H (#4), I’m glad you posted that. I wondered whether those derbies were differently named elsewhere. We had “demolition derbies” in Paso Robles CA in the ’50s, and we have them here in the Pacific NW along with our tractor pulls. Maybe “demolition” is hard for Tom to say with his mouth full of fine brie or beluga caviar.

  • Would it really be so hard to find a talking head for television that has a clue? Brokaw sounds like a condescending elitist who is as out of touch with the election as he is with American culture. Russert and Matthews … they create their own reality and then try to tell us it’s ours as well.

    The whole cadre of TV talkers is looking like stodgy old fools who missed the boat when the internet took off and can only whine and bitch about the old days when you were somebody if you were on the boob tube. These guys are increasingly irrelevant and are only making themselves more so with every lousy job of reporting and analysis they do.

  • Ex-New Yorkers, by the way, is a not-so-PC way of saying Jews. Matthews sees the world in such nuanced tones.

  • Rudy is changing his message because No one cares about National Security anymore. Bush spent 8 years setting up our defense and did a good job, so the Demo’s pulled out there ‘Doom and Gloom’ card for the Economy and it’s working. Everyone is thinking that the end of the world is on the horizon.

    America is what you make it, work hard for her and she’ll work hard for you.

    Rudy is changing message to fit the buzzwords of the day, so is McCain. Romney has been on that message already, and has lead in a way that is beating everyone, he says you worried about the economy, ok, here’s how to fix it. Actual substance, not just ‘pick me, pick me’.

    Romney is a real leader, learn how to work hard and you will prosper.

    I have had enough of people wimping out and thinking America is doomed at the very hint of a problem, that is why the freakin terrorist attacked us, because we have gotten weak.

  • Since when can someone not run on sucesses on the past? He feels he had strong leadership during that time, and why can he not run on that? Because people died he can’t mention it? Give me a break!

  • Christopher…

    Remember that “They hate us for our freedoms…” Which is why the Bushites, with I am sure the full support of swine like you, have to take away our freedoms.

    If your idea of success in National Security is to cause the rest of the world to be afraid of our new policies of ‘disappearing people’, ‘torture’, and ‘preemptive war’, then we are secure.

    If your idea of success in National Security is to reduce the real causes of hatred of the U.S. and to reduce the numbers of persons committed to attacking us, then the policies of you Bush flunkies is an abject failure.

    I really hope that your guy Romney is the rethugnican candidate. It will allow me to test my theory for the state of Indiana. That theory is that ‘if Satan ran as the repug candidate & Jesus ran as the dumbocrat candidate – it would be a close race but Satan would win!’

    Even in this state that has only republicans and republocrats (no dumbocrats allowed), I still not 100% convinced that it will vote for a non-Christian like Romney.

  • Smiling Dixie.

    I am always amazed at how quickly Democrats or Liberals (whatever you call yourself) throw out labels and name calling, so quick to sterotype and condescend anyone who does not agree. Like anyone that disagrees with you is sub-human or not able to think for themselves.

    When you can learn to have a real conversation, I’ll be waiting, but I am not going to defend positions that I have never taken and will not put up with your name calling.

    And What Freedoms have you lost my dear? I would like to know.

    And You totally missed the whole point of my comment.

    I am fighting daily for your freedoms and encourage everyone to work hard and prosper. So label that un-American if you like, I know who I am, and am proud of myself.

  • Christopher,

    It is a FACT that the Bushite Admin has arrested & detained & interrogated persons, including U.S. citizens, and has done so while attempting to deny them access to the courts. Do you believe that no freedoms are lost until the Commissars come for you personnally?

    Read the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

    There are 2 definitions of ‘unlawful enemy combatant’. The 2nd definition allows the President (or delegated to the SecDef) to unilaterally declare anyone an ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ & nothing precludes that being applied to American citizens.

    Anyone declared an ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ can be detained without the rights of habeas corpus. In other words, you & I can be ‘disappeared & tortured’ and denied our freedom of access to the courts.

    Are you fighting for this freedom? If you are, here is the list of Senators up for election in 2008 who voted for it…

    Dumbs:
    Johnson (SD) Pryor (AR) Landrieu (LA) Lautenberg (NJ) Rockefeller (WV)

    Repugs:
    Alexander (TN) Allart (CO) Chambliss (GA) Cochran (MS) Coleman (MN) Collins (ME) Cornyn (TX) Craig (ID) Dole (NC) Domenici (NM) Enzi (WY) Graham (SC) Hagel (NE) Inhofe (OK) McConnell (KY) Roberts (KS) Sessions (AL) Smith (OR) Stevens (AK) Sununi (NH) Warner (VA)

    Personally, put me in the ‘None of the Above’ Party…

    Yes, I no more want Hillary Clinton to have these powers than I do Bush the Lite…

  • Smiling Dixie,
    once again you put forth an arguement yourself, when did I say anything about taking away freedoms and such,

    you got an agenda and you should contact your political congressman, senator or whoever about it, don’t try to win a one sided arguement with me. I’m not interested in convincing you that putting away Americans is a good idea, you seem to think every Republican does. I do not, I merely said that Bush has done a good job setting out defense, which is true, we have not been attacked.

    You seem to be very angry and should do something about it.

  • “that is why the freakin terrorist attacked us, because we have gotten weak.” — Christopher

    No, they attacked us because we act as if we own the world and think we can do whatever we want in theirs. (In case there was any doubt about that, or any misunderstanding of history, Bush/Cheney arrogantly and stupidly jumped right in to prove them right). Turn off Rush and Sean, and spend some time reading about the history of those lands. Then, come back and we can talk.

  • Comments are closed.