Who should America listen to…

Rudy Giuliani probably deserves credit for his shameless cynicism. Most presidential hopefuls would probably have the sense to stay away from nonsense like this, but not the former NYC mayor.

Rudy Giuliani has responded to MoveOn’s ad against General Petraeus with a full-page New York Times ad of his own — using his own ad to not only attack MoveOn but also to blast Hillary Clinton for criticizing Petraeus’ analysis during this week’s committee hearings.

The ad promotes “the Petraeus record,” detailing the general’s medals and other awards. “Who should America listen to,” the ad asks, “A decorated soldier’s commitment to defending America, or Hillary Clinton’s commitment to defending MoveOn.org?”

You can take a closer look at the ad here, but there are a couple of things that jump out at me.

First, Giuliani incorporates MoveOn’s ad into his own, which, in effect means that the GOP presidential candidate is paying to feature the criticism of Petraeus twice. Second, connecting Hillary to MoveOn is kind of silly — not only did Clinton not endorse MoveOn’s ad, but MoveOn doesn’t even support Clinton’s Iraq policy.

And third, I was struck by Giuliani’s “substantive” argument (I use the word loosely). His ad asks, “Who should America listen to?” after noting that Gen. David Petraeus has won the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, the Defense Superior Service Medal, the Legion of Merit, and the Bronze Star. In other words, if you have earned military medals, you deserve respect and have worked hard to gain credibility.

I’m curious, though, why the right actually disagrees with Giuliani’s argument.

After all, John Kerry earned the Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts, and was smeared as a traitor by the right-wing attack machine. Chuck Hagel earned the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, the Purple Heart, and the Army Commendation Medal, but Freepers labeled him “General Betray Us.” Jack Murtha earned the Bronze Star with Valor device, two Purple Hearts, the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, and the Navy Distinguished Service Medal, but that hasn’t stopped conservatives from labeling him a terrorist sympathizer.

Giuliani wonders, “Who should America listen to?” Petraeus has earned some impressive medals, but if that were enough, shouldn’t America listen to Kerry, Hagel, and Murtha? And shouldn’t the right stop smearing them?

As for the Giuliani ad and the New York Times, the former mayor boasted on Fox News that he will receive the same “discounted” rate the paper gave MoveOn. The NYT did its best to put the nonsense to rest about the grand conspiracy cooked up by far-right paranoia.

Catherine J. Mathis, a spokeswoman for The New York Times Company, said the advertising department does not base its rates on political content. She also said the department does not disclose the rates it charges for individual advertisements. But she did say that “similar types of ads are priced in the same way.” She said the department charges advocacy groups $64,575 for full-page, black-and-white advertisements that run on a “standby” basis, meaning an advertiser can request a specific day and placement but is not guaranteed them. […]

Ms. Mathis said the content of an advertisement is not reviewed before a price is quoted.

As for advance word of when a standby ad is running, she said: “Someone might say, ‘I’d like the standby rate, I’d like it to run tomorrow,’ and we say, ‘We can’t guarantee that,’ but then if we find out it is running, we let them know. If we have room, we try to accommodate them.”

There is no conspiracy. The Times did not extend MoveOn a discount because they all hate America. The right has been wrong about this all week.

But that didn’t stop some unhinged activist from filing an FEC complaint against the NYT yesterday, alleging, well, something nefarious.

These folks really aren’t well.

Update: The Clinton campaign responds to Giuliani’s ad: “It’s hardly surprising that Mayor Giuliani is running the first negative ad of the 08 campaign given his inability to justify his unqualified support for President Bush’s failed Iraq strategy. Senator Clinton respects Gen Petraeus’ service to our country. She knows the best way to honor our soldiers is to end the war in Iraq and bring them home.”

Right Wing Rules:

1. Anything we do is a defense of truth, justice, and the American Way, and is therefore Good.

2. Anything the liberals do is an attack on truth, justice, and the American Way, and is therefore Evil.

You got a problem with that, you commie-loving terrorist-supporting sandal-wearing goddamn hippies????

  • Should America listen to a “man” who ordered a “scoop-and-dump” operation of the remains of 9/11 victims’ bodies?

    Was the Fresh Kills Landfill the appropriate place for the remains of 9/11 victims’ bodies, Rudolf?

  • Regarding RR Rule #3—at least I’m not a commie-loving, sandal-wearing, goddam hippie CROSSDRESSER!

    Take that, you perverse, Rudi-hugging neocon freaks! HA!!!

  • Who’s up for a full page ad using Mr. CB’s arguments about the treatment of Democratic vets? But please don’t mention Rude-ee’s name.

    As far as the FEC complaint, I think that it’s a good idea, and many of us shoud do the same, but naming Fox “news” as the offending entity.

  • I refuce to support listeneing to anything Rudi says or does so I will withold comment on the ad. However, we should add one more Heroic Democrat who was smeared by the GOP. Max Cleland earned a silver star, a bronze star in VIetnam. While Cheney was enjoying deferment afer deferment and W was playing part time Top Gun in the Texas Air Guard Max Cleland was having both legs and one arm amputated.

    The GOP knows no shame and spews only hateful rhetoric when it comes to the military. The only thing sadder than their treatment of herioc American Vetrans is the willingness to repeatedly use these heros as political bludgeons come election season.

  • Wow. Wingnuts really are desperate for a scandal to get all frothed up over, aren’t they? Without outrage, real or manufactured to screech about, they have nothing.

    The pride these people take in their insanity is as troubling as it is amusing

  • Who should America listen to? Good question. Americans should listen to as many voices and opinions and experts as possible, and stop closing their eyes and putting their fingers in their ears out of fear they will hear something that may not have been what they wanted to hear, but which turns out to make sense.

    Maybe this is just more evidence to support the notion that liberals are more open to contrary information, and conservatives more dogmatic. But time and time again, we have seen Bush and the rest of these conservatives not only reject information and assessments that are contrary to what they want to hear, but we have seen them systematically comb through and cherry-pick only the pieces that supported their pre-determined views, and marginalize and move aside both civilian and military commanders until he finds the ones who will back him up.

    This is not listening – it’s making sure you hear only what you want to hear. I don’t think that has served the people or the country particularly well, and we need someone who is not afraid of “the other side” to be in charge of this mess.

  • Notice that, for all the flap over this ad, no one seems to be able to dispute the copy, just the headline. So, the outrage is really about name calling. True to form, the bullies can dish it out but they cry like babies when the tables are turned.

    Who or whom should we listen to is irrelevant. MoveOn itsn’t saying anything new. All it did was collect in one place ideas that originated elsewhere.

  • BuzzMon has a pretty good suggestion. I’m willing to pony up some money in order to point out the Republican hypocrisy. Or would it be better to contact our ‘reasonable’ representatives and insist they bring up the topic? Maybe someone needs to offer a ‘non-binding’ resolution agreeing with Rudy’s premise regarding Petraeus’ medals, and then condemn all the Republicans who have smeared Kerry, Murtha, Hagel, and all other veterans serving in congress.

  • The reason Giuliani is attacking Clinton in this ad is because he figures he’ll be up against her in the general election if he makes it that far. It has nothing to do with her (lack of) connection with moveon.org, it has everything to do with mudslinging at the most important target.

  • This has nothing to do with medals and honors, it has to do with what is being said. If you got Fallon in front of a committee, and he contradicted much of what Petraeus had said, what would be their argument? Fallon’s no slouch in the medals and honors and distinguished service category, so that part of it is just bogus.

    And they know it.

    Jesus – they might as well just ask Larry Craig to decide who’s got the biggest “package.” Would that make Hillary an automatic loser…maybe not. 😉

  • I won’t “listen to” either of them if, by that phrase, Giuliani implies “obey unquestioningly”. Hillary’s views are the product of costly professional triangulating and could easily be tweaked should circumstances warrant. Betrayus’ pathetic combination dog-and-pony show and snake-oil spiel offered no more than any other TeeVee ad attempting to foist off a lousy product on a presumably gullible public. Unlike the other TeeVee announcers, Betrayus has four stars and a bunch of medals, but the GOP made sure we got the message in 2004: those are routinely given to toadies and lickspittles; the erstwhile awe is gone.

  • Giuliani – he declared the Williamsburg Bridge renovation complete in early 2001. They’re still working on it. It’s all about the sound bite. Pompous little poppinjay.

  • So Rudy took out a full-page ad to say we should believe “”an ass-kissing little chickenshit,” as Petraeus has been called by his superior officer, over a highly popular elected figure? Hmmmm.

  • The reason Giuliani is attacking Clinton in this ad is because he figures he’ll be up against her in the general election if he makes it that far

    That’s not correct. The reason Giuliani is attacking Clinton is because the only thing he’s really running on is a Bash Liberals platform and Hillary is perceived to be the Chief Liberal by much of the Republican Base. He doesn’t care if he’d face her in the general election. This is his feeble attempt at getting the nomination because there is absolutely no other reason a wingnut would vote for him.

    I wrote more about this here:
    Assassin for Thee; Not for Me

  • Gosh, Ed Stephan – You’re obviously a thoughtful guy and insightful poster, but your irrational anti-Hillary blinders which forces you to throw in a dig at her at every opportunity, is getting predictable to the point of being tiresome.

    For example – last night Edwards made a good move in buying ad time to respond to Bush’s speech immediately and this shows good leadership and initiative on the issue.

    Well, Hillary said almost the same things in a letter a couple days earlier. If she would have had the great idea to do the TV ad repsponiding to Bush before Edwards did, all the Hillogynists would be saying “another typical example of Clinton’s calculating political opportunism.”

  • Soory ’bout the fractured syntax and misspellings in my last post. If it gets much worse I could probably post a bit in Freeperville before I got booted 😉

    Preview is our friend.

  • colonpowwow, Let’s agree to disagree, but first answer one question for me since you are so knowledgeable on Hillary. Why did Hillary choose to become a senator from New York instead of Arkansas? Could it be because she planned all along to run for president and besides Walmart, there are no corporations in Arkansas to contribute to her cause, whereas New York is overflowing in corporate contributors? Really, I would like an answer to that that doesn’t come in 3 parts spread over 9 months like her health care plan.

  • If Giuliani’s got $65K to spare for taking out an ad in NYT… An ad to which nobody will pay much atention (a week too late and no punch to it)… I have absolutely no objection. In fact… Is there any way we could stir him up again and siphon off some more cash?

  • The correct question is not , “Who should America listen to?” but rather …When will America”s leaders start listening to America? How much clearer must we make it before ego maniacs like Guiliani quit ignoring us and telling us they know what’s best for us.? Guliani’s response to moveon.org’s ad says a lot about how easily he would be to manipulate. What a trivial mind set to put so much time and energy into dealing the side show instead of the real show. Rudy really has nothing to say, no ideas of how to deal with serious issues and thinks if he can get enough face time and attention then people would come to understand what a great hero and statesman he really is. You can’t laugh because you see he is so self absorbed that he really believes this fantasy image of himself. Like I said…an ego maniac. Can’t stand up to scrutiny and has no depth. Rudy’s a joke as a candidate, but not one you laugh at. Just one you feel insulted by.

  • tko

    Sorry for the late answers but I was not on the board.

    Hillary ran for Senator from New York for obvious reasons. She and her husband (who has his office in Harlem) live in New York.

    Next – The sad fact is that corporations have an inordinate influence on elections here. They gravitate to the frontrunners, the more it looks like they could win, the more support – money – they give. For all the sniping from the also-rans about it, any one of them would love to be ahead by 20 points and having the corporate donations roll in. There are campaign and corruption laws that are aimed at punishing a senator who gets personal favors in return for writing sweetheart legislation (see Ted Stevens).

    Let’s elect whoever of these fine, smart, bona fide progressive Democrats wins the nomination and then we’d have an opportunity to give another go to meaningful campaign reform laws. I’m sure Russ Feingold has a bill on the ready.

  • JKap said:
    Hey colonpowwow, how do you like Hillary’s votes on the “Patriot” Act?

    I don’t. I guess I should vote for Ralph Nader if Hillary wins the nomination.

  • Re: colonpowwow @ #25

    Sounds like a reasonable response to me, even better than voting for Joe Lieberman for Vice President.

  • Comments are closed.