Rudy says Dems don't get the threat; Dems lash back
Jim Addison
Rudy Giuliani said the nation will be safer under a Republican President because Democrats don't understand the threat, and that we would be at greater risk for another major attack. Predictably, the leading Democratic candidates disagree, as Nedra Pickler of the Associated Press reports:
Democratic presidential candidates on Wednesday rebuked Republican rival Rudy Giuliani for suggesting that the United States could face another major terrorist attack if a Democrat is elected in 2008. The former New York mayor did not back down.
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama said Giuliani, who was in office on Sept. 11, 2001, should not be making the terrorist threat into "the punchline of another political attack."
"Rudy Giuliani today has taken the politics of fear to a new low and I believe Americans are ready to reject those kind of politics," Obama said in a statement.
Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards said Giuliani knows better than to suggest there is a "superior Republican way to fight terrorism." Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said protecting the country from terrorism "shouldn't be a political football."
"It should be a solemn responsibility that all of us pledge to fulfill regardless of what party we're in," she said when asked about her fellow New Yorker's comment at a Capitol Hill news conference.
Giuliani stood by his comments Wednesday, saying Democrats don't understand the threat posed by terrorists. ...
Rudy is catching major flak in the media and from Democrats on this issue, which indicates he has hit a nerve. He joins John McCain in making sure the Democrats take responsibility for their policy of retreat and defeat, and the Democrats just don't like that.
The bottom line is the difference in approach between the parties. The Democrats tend to view terrorism as a law enforcement issue - the same policy, by the way, which led us to 9/11. Republicans see it as a war because they believe the repeated statements of the terrorists who see it the same way. There can be no reconciliation between these two outlooks, and this will therefore be at the forefront of the 2008 campaign. ...
Newer items are added at the top. Please treat this post as a blog within a blog, come back often, and scroll down till you see something that was here on your last visit.
Justices Raise Doubts on Campaign Finance
By Linda Greenhouse
WASHINGTON, April 25 — The Supreme Court put defenders of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law on the defensive on Wednesday in a spirited argument that suggested the court could soon open a significant loophole in the measure.
At issue is a major provision of the five-year-old law that bars corporations and labor unions from paying for advertisements that mention the name of a candidate for federal office and that are broadcast 60 days before an election or 30 days before a primary. By a 5-to-4 vote in December 2003, the court held that the provision, on its face, passed First Amendment muster.
But a new majority may view more expansively the Constitution’s protection of political messages as free speech, and invite a flood of advertising paid for by corporations and unions as the 2008 elections move into high gear.
