The New York Times has published a story scolding Rudy Guiliani for arranging only friendly campaign stops, pointedly carping how he is "Seeing Only Softballs".
Stepping to the Plate, Giuliani Is Seeing Only Softballs
SPARTANBURG, S.C., Feb. 21 -- In a swing through South Carolina this week, Rudolph W. Giuliani chose to campaign at a fire house, which is a little like Derek Jeter meeting with Yankees fans -- a most unlikely forum for hostility, or even much skepticism.
It is curious to me why anyone would expect a candidate to open themselves up to any venues that would present "hostility" this many months away from the elections?
Why, exactly, would any candidate plan to give the MSM footage of the candidate getting peppered and attacked this far out from the elections?
Instead of the sometimes barbed give-and-take endured by the other candidates, Mr. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, fielded a few questions from the firefighters and police officers who gathered to hear him...
In a day when it is all the rage to say that the campaigns are starting too early, the NYT seems to be saying the opposite if they would expect Rudy to open himself to debate styled campaign stops 11 months before the first primary and 20 months before the election itself.
Further, not all the "other candidates" have really put themselves in the sort of situations that the NYT seems to value this far out. In fact, none of them have really stepped too far from their comfort zones as of yet except by accident. In the case of Romney, who has gotten hit with his flip flopping on abortion and the Mormon question, or Clinton, who has had her anti-war detractors assault her, for instance, neither found the situation welcomed OR planned.
Mr. Giuliani recently spoke to state Republican conventions in New Hampshire and California, but he did not take questions, so there was little opportunity to address his views on social issues that set him apart from many in his party.
Rest assured, New York Times, there is PLENTY of time to see the candidates in debates to see how they handle an unorchestrated situation. And if Rudy's campaign never gets around to such a situation it will surely adversely affect his chances.
Lastly, the biggest question this New York Times piece brings up is this: How many times has the NYT bemoaned the dozens and dozens of interviews, staged appearances, and canned "happenings" staged by one Hillary Clinton? How many articles has the NYT written complaining about the softballs lobbed at Hillary Clinton by the MSM whether it be TV, radio or print?
Bet the NYT hasn't written too many of those!
(With the recent spate of fake internet postings written by those who are hiding their relationships with candidates lately, here I want to say that I am not at this time supporting Rudy nor am I part of any campaign efforts on his part. In fact, I am not personally under the employ of any campaign nor endorsing any candidate.)


















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Mayor RINO better not end u
February 23, 2007 - 11:33 ET by dabalMayor RINO better not end up trying to take my guns away.
How are NY's crime rates since you took their guns away, Mayor Disarmament?Rudy announced on King's Dem. headquarters
February 23, 2007 - 11:37 ET by Gary HallRudy announced onLarry King's Democrat headquarters. King started it off with, "but there were mistakes."
And then it ended on a "hardball" issue:
Seriously, it was not a bad interview - for Larry King - of a Republican, but it's still easy to see the difference compared to when he interviews (oh, sorry - chats with) a Democrat.
I wanted to note this, because my local newspaper, the Obama Times (thanks, Dave) er, ah the LA Times - just could not find it in it's busy Obama promotion season, to print even a few words that Rudy announced that he was definately running for President of the United States - fortunately, the polls noticed all by themselves.
I was listening to Sean Hanni
February 23, 2007 - 11:57 ET by BruzillaI was listening to Sean Hannity's interview of Rudi and I was just getting more and more frustrated with every worthless question Hannity asked, and with every meaningless, evasive, equivocating answer Rudi provided. Hannity would ask him about guns, and how Republicans are worried about his views on gun control, and Rudi just rambled on about how he inherited NYC's gun laws, but he thought they were the right thing for the city... how laws that a city with a lot of people might need wouldn't work out in the country... and how he supports the second ammendment. When I hear a politician giving answers like that, I'm hearing a guy say "if the Congress passes a law that bans guns in cities with over "X" number of people, I'm going to sign it because it makes sense."
And when Rudi said this stuff, Hannity just lets it slide. Could you imagine if Hillary answered his question that way? He would have said "excuse me, but that's not what I asked you, so I'll ask you again..." I was expecting Hannity to ask Rudi point-blank "will you commit, right here and right now, that you will veto any gun control legislation that crosses your desk? Yes or No?" Instead we get blah, blah, blah that Hannity would never accept from a Democrat.
Another question I would have liked Hannity to ask is "Mayor, you've said that NYC's gun control laws were good for the city because they, in your opinion, helped to lower crime. Couldn't you also have greatly lowered crime by lowering the standards, or removing altogether, the peoples' fourth ammendment protections and allowed more evidence in trials? How about taking away fifth ammendment protections and forcing criminals to incriminate themselves? How about cramping down on speech that incites violence? I mean, why do you hold some Constitutional freedoms and ammendments sacrosanct, but you feel free to trample on the second ammendment freedoms at will?
So true. This is the number
February 23, 2007 - 22:12 ET by Conservative VoiceSo true. This is the number one reason why I am very concerned about Rudi. I know there are a number of people all bent out of shape about elected officials position on abortion...to me abortion is an important issue, but is not a deciding factor for me, as it isn't against the constitution (other than how it was made "legal"). The 2nd Amendment is a Bill of Right; We don't need government taking our guns, if anything they need to require people to own guns!
The MSM, like the NYT, must
February 23, 2007 - 12:44 ET by Chris NormanThe MSM, like the NYT, must have R&D departments working 24/7 devising new ridiculous angles in which to criticize Republican candidates. What in the hell is Giuliani supposed to do, campaign at a MoveOn.org meeting? What's really galling is that any Dem candidate can go into any MSM interview and expect mostly soft-ball questions. And the Times criticizes Giuliani...
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
If I were Rudi I would be goi
February 23, 2007 - 13:50 ET by BruzillaIf I were Rudi I would be going to MoveOn.Org meetings. They are more upset with Clinton than most Republicans, plus my views on most of the key issues (guns, abortion, Gays, etc.) are the same as theirs. What would I have to lose?
What would I have to lose? Yo
February 23, 2007 - 14:35 ET by midnight cowboyWhat would I have to lose? Your hometown when it becomes radioactive.
Bruz
I agree with you 100% on the social issues. I own guns, donate to pro-life charities, strong believer in the sacrament of marriage. The overriding issue is the safety of our family and country by eliminating our enemies. There is no way any dem will do that. Guiliani has serious flaws but he'll use his "big guns" on America's enemies.
Giuliani campaigned in one of
February 23, 2007 - 15:23 ET by Chris NormanGiuliani campaigned in one of the most conservative areas in the country, where the audience would be expected to be somewhat hostile towards his liberal social views. So, he can't be legitimately criticized for playing it safe. As for MoveOn.org being a friendly audience for him, I think you are exaggerating there, somewhat. However, I just used them as an off-the-shelf example.
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
I laughed when you said "can'
February 23, 2007 - 21:54 ET by Warner Todd HustonI laughed when you said "can't be legitimately criticized for playing it safe", as if the NYTimes could do anything "legitimate" in the first place!!
Rudi
February 25, 2007 - 02:16 ET by JudithI have great problems with his pro-choice stance, total agreement with his gun stance, respect for his non-waffling on deciding actions to take, distaste for his gay position BUT he can count on my vote for three reasons: most importantly, he will protect this country and take no crap from those that don't or won't, he is a Republican on most issues, and last but not least, HE IS A WINNER AND WE NEED A WINNER. Life is a compromise and to get from A to B, sometimes you have to visit C first. Go Rudi!