Donald Trump Loses In Pennsylvania. Again.

 From the AP:

A federal judge issued a scathing order Saturday dismissing the Trump campaign’s futile effort to block the certification of votes in Pennsylvania, shooting down claims of widespread irregularities with mail-in ballots.

You can read the opinion here (and I suggest you do). 

Back to the AP:

U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Brann wrote in his order that Trump had asked the court to disenfranchise almost 7 million voters.

“One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption,” Brann wrote, so much that the court would have no option but to stop the certification even though it would impact so many people. “That has not happened.”

Let's take a deeper look at that section of the opinion - it's the opening of the Introduction:

In this action, the Trump Campaign and the Individual Plaintiffs (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) seek to discard millions of votes legally cast by Pennsylvanians from all corners – from Greene County to Pike County, and everywhere in between. In other words, Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters. This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated. One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.

That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more. At bottom, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, I grant Defendants’ motions and dismiss Plaintiffs’ action with prejudice.

For those who are curious as to what it means to dismiss a case "with prejudice," it means: 

When a lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice, the court is saying that it has made a final determination on the merits of the case, and that the plaintiff is therefore forbidden from filing another lawsuit based on the same grounds.

And in case my non-attorney research is wrong, here it is from ABC News:

The judge, a Barack Obama appointee, dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning the Trump campaign cannot resubmit the case. The defeat levels a blow to the most high-profile case brought by the president in his multi-state effort to challenge the results of the Nov. 3 election.

Let's not be so quick to dismiss him as an "Obama appointee" however. Take a look:

Brann, who is active in Republican politics in Pennsylvania, faced the most challenging questioning of the hourlong hearing at which five candidates for federal judgeships and a spot on the U.S. Sentencing Commission were considered. 

Citing Brann's involvement with the state Republican Party, the National Rifle Association and the conservative legal organization the Federalist Society, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., called him "probably the most Republican judicial nominee from the Obama White House."

There's more (I'm adding this just in case your MAGA uncle starts ranting about the Demonrat judge in Pennsylvania who's keeping Trump from fulfilling God's purpose of at least two terms:

Yep. Judge Brann is a Republican. He was nominated by Obama as part of a bipartisan agreement between PA's Senators (Casey & Toomey) in which they each got a pick, and both were unanimously confirmed via a voice vote. Brann was Toomey's pick: https://t.co/WXgUlvVZFC https://t.co/KM9yQA9Etc

— Max Kennerly (@MaxKennerly) November 22, 2020

And now, look at what's happenned. Senator Pat Toomey finally pulls the trigger: 

With today’s decision by Judge Matthew Brann, a longtime conservative Republican whom I know to be a fair and unbiased jurist, to dismiss the Trump campaign’s lawsuit, President Trump has exhausted all plausible legal options to challenge the result of the presidential race in Pennsylvania.

This ruling follows a series of procedural losses for President Trump’s campaign. On Friday, the state of Georgia certified the victory of Joe Biden after a hand recount of paper ballots confirmed the conclusion of the initial electronic count. Michigan lawmakers rejected the apparent attempt by President Trump to thwart the will of Michigan voters and select an illegitimate slate of electoral college electors. These developments, together with the outcomes in the rest of the nation, confirm that Joe Biden won the 2020 election and will become the 46th President of the United States.

I congratulate President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris on their victory. They are both dedicated public servants and I will be praying for them and for our country. Unsurprisingly, I have significant policy disagreements with the President-elect. However, as I have done throughout my career, I will seek to work across the aisle with him and his administration, especially on those areas where we may agree, such as continuing our efforts to combat COVID-19, breaking down barriers to expanding trade, supporting the men and women of our armed forces, and keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals and the dangerously mentally ill.

Of course Toomey is not running for reelection in 2022 so he's got little to lose politically.

Which is good news, I suppose, because:

Thanks Mark. It’s all a continuation of the never ending Witch Hunt. Judge Brann, who would not even allow us to present our case or evidence, is a product of Senator Pat “No Tariffs” Toomey of Pennsylvania, no friend of mine, & Obama - No wonder. 900,000 Fraudulent Votes! https://t.co/17rk2KsUPs

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 22, 2020

Again, no evidence of 900,000 fraudulent votes in PA. If there was evidence of such fraud it would have been presented in court.

And it wasn't.

 

There are easier ways to dump Melania, Donald

While Trump's first budget decimates spending for health, education, the environment, science, the arts, and anything that aids the poor, the elderly, and children, it lavishes money on the military and security. But, not so fast there, New York City. According to the NYPD, Trump's budget would actually gut New York’s counterterrorism efforts, making the city less safe.

Very curious, especially given that that's where his current wife and son, Barron, reside.

Also, particularly nasty that he's cutting security funds for the city seeing as how it's needing to spend $127,000 to $145,000 per day for police protection for his wife and child and an average of $308,000 on those days when Trump is there as well.

Maybe he just wants to follow his buddy Rudy Giuliani's example of making the city as vulnerable as possible during attacks for whatever perverse reason. (It was Giuliani who overrode all objections and put the emergency command center in the World Trade Center.)

Rudy "A Noun, A Verb, And 9/11" Giuliani forgets 9/11 happened

Rudy "A Noun, A Verb, And 9/11" Giuliani made the claim today on Good Morning America that “We had no domestic attacks under Bush.”


A spokesperson for Giuliani later claimed that Giuliani was “clearly talking post-9/11 with regards to Islamic terrorist attacks on our soil.”

Uh huh.

Of course now you're probably thinking to yourself that Rudy has also "forgotten" the Shoe Bomber. But, you'd be wrong. According to Rudy, the Shoe Bomber's attempted attack happened before 9/11:


He also claims in the above video that President Obama waited ten days to comment on the Crotch Bomber when it was 72 hours. Further point of fact -- aside from 9/11 and the Shoe Bomber happening on Bush's watch -- there were multiple anthrax attacks and the attack against an El Al ticket counter at LAX.

But back to Saint Rudy. "America's Mayor" severely fucked up when it came to New York City's security. He was the fucking idiot who insisted that the Command Center be placed at the World Trade Center even after it was attacked in 1993 and who also failed to "find a replacement for the radios that malfunctioned in 1993 left them unable to talk to each other, even about getting out of a tower on the verge of collapse." Moreover, '[a] Times editorial concluded in May that the Giuliani administration "failed in its duty to protect the workers at Ground Zero."' [ibid]

The country needs to go back to how it viewed Rudy right before 9/11: a national joke.

This, after all, was the guy who informed his then wife that he was divorcing her via a press conference and actually moved his goomah in with his wife and kids at Gracie Mansion. He's also the same guy who while running for mayor against the incumbent David Dinkins participated in a police riot where Dinkins (an African American) was hung in effigy and an African American City Councilwoman was roughed up on the steps of City Hall.

Rudy, you needed to turn in your NYC card a long time ago.


.

Like A Prayer (unanswered)

Despite the prayers and Angelina Jolie's daddy saying that Giuliani was an angel sent by God, apparently Jesus Doesn't Want Rudy for a Sunbeam.

LOLRUDY

From the Miami Herald:

Rudy Giuliani has hit the skids in a Florida freefall that could shatter his presidential campaign and leave a two-man Republican contest in the state between John McCain and Mitt Romney, a Miami Herald poll shows.

Despite hovering over Florida voters for weeks, Giuliani is tied for third place with the scarcely visible Mike Huckabee in a statewide poll of 800 likely voters.

[snip]

"Giuliani for all intents and purposes has virtually no chance to win in Florida," [pollster Rob Schroth] said.

Couldn't happen to a bigger prick nicer guy! (I say this as a former New Yorker.)

(h/t to Shakesville)

Betting on Iowa

Anyone out there want to hazard a guess as to who will win in Iowa tonight? If you believe you're a real political maven, you can actually bet some cold, hard cash on the answer at http://www.intrade.com/ . So who do the markets predict will win in Iowa? Here's the line on that:

DEM.IOWA.OBAMA
Barack Obama to Win
BID: 60.0 ASK: 64.9 LAST: 64.9 VOLUME: 3185 CHANGE: +8.9

REP.IOWA.HUCKABEE
Mike Huckabee to Win
BID: 54.5 ASK: 59.5 LAST: 53.2 VOL: 2246 CHANGE: -5.8

However, they're still betting that Hillary Clinton will take the nomination for the presidency on the Democratic side:

2008DEM.NOM.CLINTON
Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic Presidential Nominee in 2008
BID: 61.1 ASK: 64.5 LAST: 61.1 VOL.: 362815 CHANGE: -3.8

And for the Republican nomination?

It's a bit of dead heat between McCain and Giuliani:

2008.GOP.NOM.MCCAIN
John McCain to be the Republican Presidential Nominee in 2008
BID: 26.5 ASK: 27.5 LAST: 27.4 VOL.: 174149 CHANGE: +3.4

2008.GOP.NOM.GIULIANI
Rudy Giuliani to be the Republican Presidential Nominee in 2008
BID: 24.5 ASK: 25.0 LAST: 25.9 VOL.: 143834 CHANGE: -1.9
.

My kind of Rudy ad!

"Rudy Giuliani had New York pay for his mistress to be driven around town -- but is that a BAD thing?"



(h/t tp TPM)
.

Rudy and Judy

This hit the fan yesterday.

As New York mayor, Rudy Giuliani billed obscure city agencies for tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses amassed during the time when he was beginning an extramarital relationship with future wife Judith Nathan in the Hamptons, according to previously undisclosed government records.

More details:

The practice of transferring the travel expenses of Giuliani's security detail to the accounts of obscure mayoral offices has never been brought to light, despite behind-the-scenes criticism from the city comptroller weeks after Giuliani left office.

The expenses first surfaced as Giuliani's two terms as mayor of New York drew to a close in 2001, when a city auditor stumbled across something unusual: $34,000 worth of travel expenses buried in the accounts of the New York City Loft Board.

There were also expenses buried in the accounts of offices assigned to helping the disabled and for providing legal assistance to indigent defendants. Another interesting bit:

Nathan would go on to become Giuliani’s third wife, but his second marriage was officially intact until the spring of 2000, and City Hall officials at the time responded to questions about his absences by saying he was spending time with his son and playing golf.

So the Giuliani administration hid the expenses so that no one would know about the extramarital affair the then-Mayor of New York was having then they used his son as a cover story to further lie about the affair itself.

Never fear, Rudy's responded:

First of all, it's not true. I had 24-hour security for the eight years that I was mayor. They followed me everyplace I went. It was because there were, you know, threats, threats that I don't generally talk about. Some have become public recently; most of them haven't.

And they took care of me, and they put in their records, and they handled them in the way they handled them," Giuliani said. "I had nothing to do with the handling of their records, and they were handled, as far as I know, perfectly appropriately.

Which leads Josh Marshall to write:

So he sort of denies it. But he actually just said he left it to the police and he figures they did it right. "They handled them in the way they handled them" -- what you might call Rudy's trademark aggressive truism.

Read closely, Rudy isn't denying anything. He's just saying he's not responsible.

He says the security detail went with me everywhere, i.e., they had to come when I went to visit Judy too. And I can't be responsible for where they billed the expense to. So Rudy's argument is that in the city he runs, actually in the office of the mayor, someone else was hiding these charges to shield the affair. But not him and he didn't know about it.

But the AP article notes that it was the tab was ultimately picked up elsewhere:

Later, an aide said that for accounting purposes, the expenses appear to have been temporarily allocated to city offices and paid for out of the mayor's budget but that the police department ultimately picked up the tab and reimbursed the mayor's office at the end of each year.

I wonder how the media, obsessed as it was for a while about John Edwards' haircuts or Hillary Clinton's cleavage will deal with Rudy Giuliani's taxpayer funded infidelities.

And since he's a Republican, when can we expect to hear an outcry from God's Own Party about how a frontrunner for that party's nomination as President of the United States was routinely breaking (by my count) three of the Ten Commandments while the taxpayers were paying for the security for his infidelities?

Jack Kelly Sunday

In this week's column, Jack Kelly, the former "National Security" Correspondent for the P-G, ventures out into national politics. We all know Jack's political leanings (somewhat right of center, to say the least) and so it's not surprising that he's using this week's column to undermine Senator Hilary Clinton's presidential campaign.

The first sentence:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton apparently has hit a speed bump on the way to her coronation.

And it goes on from there. He starts with a number of appraisals of her performance at a recent debate (I didn't see the debate, but I guess she didn't do too well) and then goes into over drive with some Rassmussen poll numbers.

But it could spell big trouble in the general election. Pollster Scott Rasmussen reported a shocking result from a recent poll. In a head-to-head matchup with Libertarian fruitcake Ron Paul, Hillary drew just 48 percent of the vote.

This was not because Rep. Paul, who is polling in the low single digits among GOP voters, has had a sudden burst in popularity.

"When we polled among people who knew who Ron Paul is, she got 48 percent of the vote," Mr. Rasmussen said. "When we polled among people who didn't know who Ron Paul is, she got 48 percent of the vote."

Fruitcake? Did J-Kel just call Ron Paul a fruitcake? I trust that that smear won't go unanswered by the Friends of Ron Paul who occasionally surf through this blog (coughMark Rauterkuscough).

Looks like Commando Kelly got his research from this page at Rasmussen Reports. He's really working towards setting up a Clinton-Giuliani matchup. He has this to say about it.

In head-to-head matchups against more likely Republican nominees, Mrs. Clinton trails former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani slightly...

And a little later

The polls make it clear Rudy Giuliani is the Republican most likely to beat Mrs. Clinton.

And finally

A Paul candidacy excepted, the arithmetic of the 2008 election is clear. In a two-candidate race, the Republican wins, especially if the Republican is named Rudy Giuliani. In a multiple candidate race, Hillary Clinton wins.

But let's take a look at what Rasmussen actually says. This page has the info. Looks like our pal Jack didn't look deep enough at the data. The first paragraph, indeed, begins with:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows former Mayor Rudy Giuliani leading Senator Clinton 46% to 44% in an early look at a general election match-up.

But what's the margin of error? How does it match any trend in the poll data or is it a new trend? Jack doesn't bother with any of that, no sir. He's got his talking point that Clinton trails Giuliani slightly and runs with it all the way past November, 2008. Rasmussen, though, has slightly more to say on the subject:

Clinton and Giuliani have been in a very competitive match-up for most of the year, but Clinton had gained ground in three bi-weekly consecutive polls. By October 9, the Democratic frontrunner was leading the former mayor by seven percentage points. But, the current results suggest a return to the longer trend-line established for this race.

Individual polls can sometimes overstate volatility in a race, especially when the results carry a four percentage point margin of sampling error. One way of addressing this is to look at a rolling-average of three consecutive polls. Using this approach, Clinton and Giuliani have both been within two points of the 45% mark for eleven consecutive polls dating back to May 1, 2007. The candidates have been within two points of each other on seven of those eleven surveys. [emphasis added]

Ok, so it's a two point lead within a four percentage point margin of sampling error. Any wonder why Jack Kelly didn't mention that? Then there's this next paragraph from Rasmussen:

Still, while the candidates have hovered consistently around that 45% level of support, a modest trend in Clinton’s favor can easily be detected. During the first eight sets of three-poll averages, Giuliani was “ahead” in seven and tied with Clinton in the eighth. Clinton has held the advantage in the last three updates of the three poll rolling average. She currently leads 47% to 44%. [emphasis added]

So by averaging three consecutive polls together, not only is there a trend (albeit a "modest" one) in Clinton's favor, but she's actually leading by a slightly larger margin than in the individual poll Kelly is touting as support. Any wonder why Jack Kelly didn't bother to mention any of this?

Jack Kelly does, however, write the arithmetic is "clear" that Giuliani beats Clinton in 2008.

But this is but one poll. What do the other polls have to say? From the PollingReport.com we can read that the poll numbers are far from what Jack Kelly said.

Newsweek from 10/31-11/0107, to the question: Suppose you had to choose between [Senator Clinton], the Democrat, and [Mayor Giuliani], the Republican. Who would you be more likely to vote for?" If other/unsure: "As of today do you lean more toward [Senator Clinton], the Democrat, or [Mayor Giuliani], the Republican? (MoE 4%)

45% said Giuliani, 49% said Clinton

Quinnipiac from 10/23-29/07 to the question: If the 2008 election for president were being held today, and the candidates were [Senator Clinton] the Democrat and [Mayor Giuliani] the Republican, for whom would you vote? (MoE 2.4%)

45% said Giuliani, 43% said Clinton

Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg from 10/19-22/07 to the question: If the November 2008 general election for president were being held today and the choices were [Senator Clinton], the Democrat, and [Mayor Giuliani], the Republican, for whom would you vote: [Senator Clinton] or [Mayor Giuliani], or would you vote for a candidate from some other party? (MoE 4%)

41% said Giuliani, 47% said Clinton

Do I need to continue? Ok one more, this one from Fox.

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics from 10/9-10/07 to the question: Thinking ahead to the next presidential election, if the 2008 general election were held today for whom would you vote if the candidates were [names rotated]? (MoE 4%)

43 % said Giuliani, 47% said Clinton

The point here is not further any supposed "coronation" of Senator Clinton, but to point out, yet again, how our friend at the P-G, Jack Kelly, misstates manipulates and distorts in order to further his own political agenda.

Yet again.

Giuliani: "It depends on who does it."

Republican presidential candidate and 9/11 opportunist Rudy Giuliani said of the torture technique known as water-boarding:

Mr. Giuliani responded: “Okay. First of all, I don’t believe the attorney general designate in any way was unclear on torture. I think Democrats said that; I don’t think he was.”

Ms. Gustitus said: “He said he didn’t know if waterboarding is torture.”

Mr. Giuliani said: “Well, I’m not sure it is either. I’m not sure it is either. It depends on how it’s done. It depends on the circumstances. It depends on who does it.

Video at Crooks and Liars.


Republican candidate Benito Giulianibrushing up on his goose-step.

Can you say "Hypocrites"

Mr. Law & Order, Republican Presidential candidate Fred Thompson

NOW:
"I am very happy for Scooter Libby. I know that this is a great relief to him, his wife and children. While for a long time I have urged a pardon for Scooter, I respect the President's decision. This will allow a good American, who has done a lot for his country, to resume his life."

THEN:
In 1999 when Thonpson was a Senator, he voted "guilty" on article 2, the obstruction of justice article during the Clinton impeachment.

Mr. Tough On Crime, Republican Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani

NOW:
"After evaluating the facts, the president came to a reasonable decision and I believe the decision was correct."

THEN:
(Giuliani in 1987) The United States Attorney in Manhattan, Rudolph W. Giuliani, declared yesterday that the one-year prison sentence that a Queens judge received for perjury was ''somewhat shocking.''

''A sentence of one year seemed to me to be very lenient,'' Mr. Giuliani said, when asked to comment on the sentence imposed Wednesday on Justice Francis X. Smith, the former Queens administrative judge.

The Man Who Promised to Bring Back "Honor and Integrity" to the White House, Republican President George W. Bush

NOW:
"I respect the jury’s verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby’s sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison."

Bush will also not rule out a pardon down the road.

THEN:
"I don't believe my role is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own." [From Bush's autobiography, "A Charge To Keep," 11/99]

"I will swear to uphold the laws of the land. But I will also swear to uphold the honor and the integrity of the office to which I have been elected, so help me God," said then-Governor George Bush [CNN, “Inside Politics,” 8/11/00]

"Americans are tired of investigations and scandal, and the best way to get rid of them is to elect a new president who will bring a new administration, who will restore honor and dignity to the White House." [Then-Governor George Bush on CNN’s “Burden of Proof,” 9/15/00]

"Americans want to be assured that the next administration will bring honor and dignity to the White House." [Then-Governor George Bush on CNN’s “Capital Gang,” 8/13/00]

"A reformer with results. He will restore integrity and values to the White House." [2000 Bush Campaign Ad aired on CNN’s “Crossfire,” 2/17/00]

"Please thank the personnel of your departments and agencies for their commitment to maintain the highest standards of integrity in Government as we serve the American people." [Memo from President Bush to Executive Officials, 1/20/01

"The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration." [White House Briefing, 9/29/03]

"I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action." [Bush Remarks: Chicago, Illinois, 9/30/03]

When the White House was asked specifically whether Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams or Lewis Libby told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said: "Those individuals -- I talked -- I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. And that's where it stands." [White House Briefing, 10/10/03]

Asked in June 2004 if he'd stand by his pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked, Bush replied "yes." [Bush Press Conference: Savannah, GA, 6/10/04]

The Dark Lord, Republican Vice President Dick Cheney

Oh, hell, c'mon, who cares what he has to say about this! Scooter is perjuring and obstructing justice for Dick Cheney!

Hey, MSM, here's a question to ask Bush:

"Is it fair that Scooter Libby will serve less jail time than Paris Hilton?"

.

Newsmen with podcasts!

Today, Bob Mayo put up "a podcast of my Q&A with Mayor Ravenstahl on his decision not to rescind the controversial police promotions."

Jon Delano has many new links on his sidebar to video of many candidates in Pittsburgh; both local (DeSantis) and national (Giuliani, Obama and Romney).

More on Rudy's bad press

We posted on this a while ago.

This time the bad news is from Tim Russert on Meet the Press (via thinkprogress):

The developments came on a day when the campaign was responding to a report in Newsday that Mr. Giuliani quit the Iraq Study Group last year after failing to show up for a single meeting. The report said Mr. Giuliani missed the meetings to give paid speeches and his absence has prompted the panel’s Republican co-chairman, James Baker, to ask him to either start showing up or leave the group.” The Giuliani campaign said part of the equation is he was considering to run for president at that time and his presence on the group may pose a potential conflict. several commission members said to me that presidential politics never entered the discussion, it was all about Giuliani’s schedule and commitments versus showing up for the iraq study group.

We posted on the ISG and the alleged coke dealer. Is there any more bad news for "America's Mayor"?

Why, yes. Yes, there is.

Via Salon, we learned that Rudy's loyalty trumps, well, you'll see:

Giuliani employs his childhood friend Monsignor Alan Placa as a consultant at Giuliani Partners despite a 2003 Suffolk County, N.Y., grand jury report that accuses Placa of sexually abusing children, as well as helping cover up the sexual abuse of children by other priests. Placa, who was part of a three-person team that handled allegations of abuse by clergy for the Diocese of Rockville Centre, is referred to as Priest F in the grand jury report. The report summarizes the testimony of multiple alleged victims of Priest F, and then notes, "Ironically, Priest F would later become instrumental in the development of Diocesan policy in response to allegations of sexual abuse of children by priests."

Five years after he was suspended from his duties because of the abuse allegations, Placa is currently listed as "priest in residence" at St. Aloysius Church in Great Neck, N.Y., where close friend Brendan Riordan serves as pastor, and officially lives at the rectory there with Riordan. [emphasis added.]

So he was suspended because of the allegations?

How can Rudy Giuliani's candidacy survive this? Somehow I think that if there were a big "D" next to his name, we'd be hearing about it 24 hours a day 7 days a week via the Republican Noise Machine.

Rudy Giuliani's Bad Day

Former Mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani, had a real bad news day yesterday.

First, the news broke that "America's Mayor" had been booted off the Iraq Study Group (a perfect venue for someone needing some foreign policy experience, right?) because he never showed up for meetings and he was too busy making $$$ giving speeches.

Rudolph Giuliani's membership on an elite Iraq study panel came to an abrupt end last spring after he failed to show up for a single official meeting of the group, causing the panel's top Republican to give him a stark choice: either attend the meetings or quit, several sources said.

And:

He cited "previous time commitments" in a letter explaining his decision to quit, and a look at his schedule suggests why -- the sessions at times conflicted with Giuliani's lucrative speaking tour that garnered him $11.4 million in 14 months.

Here's Giuliani's response:

Once again, the paper wrote a story with little regard to the facts. The facts are these - as someone considered a potential presidential candidate, the Mayor didn’t want the group’s work to become a political football. That, coupled with time constraints, led to his decision.

But Greg Sargent over at TPMCafe's "Election Central" debunks that pretty handily:

Rudy's role with the ISG was announced in March of 2006. This was presumably done with Rudy's consent. That means that Rudy was willing to serve on the ISG in March of 2006, right? Right.

As it turns out, Rudy himself was openly telling reporters that he was a potential candidate for President many months earlier than this.

Sargent's conclusion:

Rudy himself was saying that he was a "potential Presidential candidate" five months before agreeing to join the ISG. He even openly stated that he'd be actively considering a run during the same year -- 2006 -- that the ISG would be doing its work. So why did Rudy join it in the first place?

His campaign is now saying that he backed out of his ISG commitment because the fact that he was seen as a potential candidate could politicize his work for the panel -- even though that didn't stop him from signing up in the first place.

Yea.

Then there's the (alleged - and indicted) coke dealer who'd been working for his campaign in South Carolina:

The South Carolina Law Enforcement Division has just announced that State Treasurer Thomas Ravenel has been indicted by federal jury on cocaine distribution charges.Ravenel, who was elected last fall, was named the Chairman of presidential candidate Rudy Giualiani’s (R-N.Y.) South Carolina campaign in April.

Here's the indictment. Here's the response from the Giuliani Camp:

Our campaign has no information about the accusations pending against Mr. Ravenel. Mr. Ravenel has stepped down from his volunteer responsibilities with the campaign.

Notice the campaign is very careful to insert the word "volunteer" into the second sentence. Saying, of course, that Ravenel was definitely not being paid by the Giuliani campaign. But shouldn't the campaign have tossed Ravenel's butt out the door before Ravenel "stepped down"? From the text it's implied that it was Ravenel's act to remove himself from the Giuliani campaign. Shouldn't it have been the other way around?

Still, not a good news cycle for Rudy Giuliani.

Notes on the Republican Presidential Debate

GROSSEST MOMENT:
When the statement was made that the US Constitution was "divinely inspired." Which of the 10 Republican candidates made that statement? None -- it was uttered by the debate's host Chris Matthews.

BIGGEST 'WHY AM I NOT SURPRISED' MOMENT:
Congressman/Doctor Ron "I'm a HUGE Libertarian" Paul affirms that he wants the Government out of EVERYTHING . . . except of course a woman's uterus.

Apparently Paul thinks it's just fine and dandy for the States to be as intrusive as they like when it comes to a women's uterus. Hell, come on down. Settle in for a spell. (I also understand that he's anti gay marriage and anti stem cell research.)

I've run into any number of freedom-lovin' Libertarian men who grow faint at the thought of any Government taking one thin dime of their cold hard cash for taxes but who simply don't give a shit if the Government tells a woman what she can or can't do with her own body.

I've already had a couple of Libertarian friends try to push Ron Paul on me. Now that I know where he stands on these issues: STOP. I will never support this guy no matter how anti Iraq War he is.

SECOND BIGGEST 'WHY AM I NOT SURPRISED' MOMENT:
Matthews reminds Sen. John McCain that he said he would like to have a Democrat in his Cabinet and asks him to name one -- other than Joe Lieberman. McCain says his top three choices are "Lieberman, Lieberman, Lieberman."

Since Lieberman lost the Democratic primary and had to run as an Independent, I'd like to remind both McCain and Matthews that Lieberman isn't even a DINO.

MOST CONFUSING MOMENTS:
Anytime Rudy Giuliani tried to explain his position on abortion -- i.e., Rudy trying to square his former pro choice stances with his current caving to the base.

CREEPIEST MOMENT:
John McCain saying that he'd follow Osama bin Laden to "the Gates of Hell" to capture him and then flashing a big cheesy grin. WTF?

SECOND CREEPIEST MOMENT:
Matthews asks how many of the candidates do not believe in evolution and three raise their hands. The men were shown in extreme profile so it was hard to tell who raised their hands, but according to this article, it was Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo.

Creepy!

************************************************************************************

The New York Times has a transcript of the debate here.

Olbermann's Special Comment - On Rudy Giuliani

Read it here.

Keith's basically excoriating "America's Mayor" Rudy Giuliani for claiming that a Republican president will keep us safer than a Democratic one. A highlight:

[O]n what imaginary track record does Mr. Giuliani base his boast?

Which party held the presidency on Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Giuliani?

Which party held the mayoralty of New York on that date, Mr. Giuliani?

Which party assured New Yorkers that the air was safe and the remains of the dead recovered and not being used to fill potholes, Mr. Giuliani?

Which party wanted what the terrorists wanted — the postponement of elections — and to whose personal advantage would that have redounded, Mr. Giuliani?

Which mayor of New York was elected eight months after the first attack on the

World Trade Center, yet did not emphasize counter-terror in the same city for the next eight years, Mr. Giuliani?

Which party had proposed to turn over the Department of Homeland Security to Bernard Kerik, Mr. Giuliani?

Who wanted to ignore and hide Kerik’s organized crime allegations, Mr. Giuliani?

Who personally argued to the White House that Kerik need not be vetted, Mr. Giuliani?

Which party rode roughshod over Americans’ rights while braying that it was actually protecting them, Mr. Giuliani?

Which party took this country into the most utterly backwards, utterly counterproductive, utterly ruinous war in our history, Mr. Giuliani?

Which party has been in office as more Americans were killed in the pointless fields of Iraq than were killed in the consuming nightmare of 9/11, Mr. Giuliani?

Go read it.

9/11 Remains Used to Fill Potholes

9/11 Remains Used to Fill Potholes.

Yeah, you heard that right.

Shakes has the full story here if you can stomach it.

Just a reminder that this happened under presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani's watch.

Sick.

Giuliani on Abortion - 1989

Text:

There must be public funding for abortion for poor women. We can not deny any woman the right to make her own decision about abortion because she lacks resources. I have also stated that I disagree with President Bush's veto last week of public funding for abortion.

Rudy Giuliani on 11/3/1989.