November 11th, 2007
12:15 PM ET
15 years ago

Giuilani knocks Clinton for waffling

Rudy Giuliani campaigns in Colorado on Saturday.

(CNN) - Leading Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani criticized Hillary Clinton Saturday in Colorado for being indecisive on illegal immigration and Iraq.

“It is the whole shifting positions of Hillary Clinton, which I think has now caught up to her. Hillary Clinton has been doing this for a long time. The driver’s license answer merely displayed what has been going on with Hillary Clinton throughout this entire campaign. She cannot take a position and stick with it,” said Giuliani at a campaign stop in Loveland, Colorado.

“And if you want to go back, you can track six different positions on Iraq and that is a very serious matter,” added Giuliani.

Giuliani was interrupted by 9/11 conspiracy theorists who accused Giuliani of having prior knowledge of the attack on the World Trade Center. As one protester was escorted from the Loveland Coffee Company by police, others continued chanting and carrying signs reading, “911 was an inside job.”

Giuliani dismissed the protesters as being small in number. “After being mayor for eight years, I would consider this kind of a minor four or five person protest. It doesn’t compare to anything I have faced in the past,” said Giuliani.

Click here to see CNN's new political portal:

- CNN Political Desk Editor Marissa Muller

Filed under: Race to '08 • Rudy Giuliani
soundoff (142 Responses)
  1. Blue TX Patriot, Dallas, TX

    John in College Station, hey man, check out Ron Paul....he's a Texas congressman, and he's actually independent, but running on the republican ticket. For one, he's a true, native born Texan, unlike Bush, who's a yankee pretending to be a Texan.

    Ron Paul is making a lot of sense right now. I'm usually Democrat. I voted for Bill Clinton back in the day, and he was the best. However, there is NO WAY I would EVER vote for Hillary. I don't trust her judgement, and she voted to put us into Iraq.

    We need to start giving the alternative candidates more attention.

    November 11, 2007 03:12 pm at 3:12 pm |
  2. vote for hillary online

    Hillary supporters: please don’t get discouraged. PLEASE. She is getting attacked from all sides because people deep down know she is our only hope for America and they’re trying to ruin it for everybody. Hillary is the ONLY candidate with these 4 attributes: honor, patriotism, loyalty, and kindness. I got $35 in the bank that says no other candidate has those attributes.

    November 11, 2007 04:56 pm at 4:56 pm |
  3. Wynter, Loudon, NH

    Here we go again. Another Republican that thinks they can hide their own record by whining about someone elses. And he claims to be the person to take on Clinton. Puh-lease!

    This is the same candidate that whined about Clinton attacking Bush and the other Republicans before the primary was decided. Maybe he should take his own advise and stick with talking about Romney and McCain before testing his lukewarm record against the Democrats.

    Giuliani needs to address his own waffling problems along with Romney. It's going to be a "None of the Above" ticket this year for the Republicans unless they find someone better in their ranks.

    Telling it like I see it,

    November 11, 2007 06:26 pm at 6:26 pm |
  4. Chris, Pensacola FL

    I totally just want to smack you hard. Step away from the darkness.

    November 11, 2007 06:40 pm at 6:40 pm |
  5. never will vote for hillary

    To : vote for hillary online

    "I got $35 in the bank that says no other candidate has those attributes."

    After Hillary gets elected you won't even have that $35 cuz she is gonna take and take and take AND TAKE from the private sector to build up a gov't massive entitlements programs.

    You also forgot her attributes of dishonesty, disingeniousness, pandering and her power-hungry ruthlessness, along with the rest of the lying Clintonistas.

    November 11, 2007 07:47 pm at 7:47 pm |
  6. b


    This is from a guy who married his first cousin, right?!?!?!

    November 11, 2007 08:31 pm at 8:31 pm |
  7. Michael Minorgan Montreal Quebec Canada

    I wouldn't trust this guy as far as i can throw him. His complete lack of judgement regarding the backing of Kerik's appointment to lead Homeland Security speaks volumes...Oh I made a mistake!!! doesn't fly. George W has made lots of mistakes and look where we are thanks! Lets stop talking war and let's, as the Beatles so wisely said, "Give Peace A Chance"

    November 11, 2007 08:40 pm at 8:40 pm |
  8. Kyu Reisch, Radcliff, Kentucky

    Jiuliani is below The Clinton's level, he is in deep trouble, he is not electable anyway.

    November 11, 2007 08:52 pm at 8:52 pm |
  9. Bea, Hoboken, NJ


    This is from a guy who married his first cousin, right?!?!?!

    Posted By b : November 11, 2007 8:31 pm

    Actually second cousin, but who's counting?

    As for those who like Rudy, please take him and make him mayor or governor of your town or state. Some of us already lived through his tyranny and don't wish to suffer through another reign of his one more time!!!

    November 11, 2007 09:18 pm at 9:18 pm |
  10. Jay, Washington, DC

    Sorry for the delay. I responded last night, but apparently the blog gods required sacrifice, so I slayed a goat. May this please them.

    Indeed your intellect is dizzying. Unfortunately, you are so hyped up to get your point across that your reading skills have deteriorated a bit. Oh well, just like our President, don't let the facts stop you when you're on a roll.

    First, you start out of the box with: "You cannot argue that many peoples morals and ethics were built upon their religious teachings. That in itself will effect their politics." On this you are absolutely correct, but I do not concede because, if you will read what I said, I didn't argue that. Just for fun, let me quote myself [I'm such an egoist]: "You are partially right about the county being founded on Christian values but ONLY IF you say Judeo-Christian values and ONLY IF you note that this is so because the Founders were products of European cultures so founded." The key point, which you ignored, was the next sentence: "You are wrong to assume that such values were intentionally incorporated by the Founders into bedrock of this Republic."

    OK, small oversight. Next you state: "Back when this country was being formed, someone defined as without religion, would be considered very religious today." You then go on with several factoids showing our founders as doing something religious.
    Well, ipso facto (I went to Catholic college as well–I loved Summa Theologica, did you?), I'm sunk. so, because some practices in a way less fervent than ours, I cannot debate whether the RELIGIOUS (not spiritual) ties of the Founders were not strong. Of course all of them had religious involvement to some extent, but where were they at the finish line. Franklin's oft-humorous letters to the many preachers trying to save his soul in old age are good reading. Adams was Unitarian (he would not be part of Christian Nation nowadays) and we know Jefferson was pilloried in Northern churches as an atheist for his Deist beliefs. Did he study the Bible, almost assuredly. Whether you look at it as religious scripture, a book of human wisdom, or a book of human/cultural history, it would be something a learned man like Jefferson would read. OK. Your point was.?

    We somehow come to the same square when you say: "That major should play a MAJOR role in an individuals life, but not society as a whole." That is the point that I was making.

    Yet, you really shoot yourself with the next statement: "You say these people were "lite" in their formal TRAINING." [capitalization mine] You then go on a roll to support this with a myriad of factoids. Problem was, JB, I didn't say that. I hate to derail such a well-oiled train, but here's what I said [roll the tape]:
    "You are completely wrong in terms of the views of the Founders. With FEW exceptions, most were very light in terms of formal RELIGION." Also, I did not use the modern spelling of "light." Believe me, there's a difference between formal religious training, and formal religion, yet both can be true. For example, I was raised in the Catholic Church and recieved formal training in it; I no longer practice. I received formal religious training, but am light on formal religion. This wouldn't be such a difficult point had you quoted me correctly.

    As to your conclusion that: "I think you need to go back to school. Who's the revisionist now?" I will go back for religious history, if you'll take a basic reading course.

    We do agree that religion should NOT play a direct role in politics, that the founding fathers thought the same, and that their religious training (as well as the religious beliefs of their times) AFFECTED the way they established this country.

    As for "progressives" and religion, I think the point has been overplayed by Republicans in order to mobilize the religious right. You are right that I am a "progressive" (I like that term). Like MOST progressives, we are not atheists our devil-worshippers. I believe fervently in God and almost became a priest. Many of my progressive friends are active church member [not just Adams' Unitarian Church either, though it is close to my current belief]. We just fear a Cromwellianism that naturally occurs when Church and State mix. This is especially dangerous with the mix of fundamentalist views and State as it pertains to challenges to science that will affect our ability/willingness to take on global warming.

    As to your statement: "Their [sic] are many Christians in Massachusetts and you can't get much Bluer than Massachusetts." I know. I am originally from the Bay State–Go Sox, Go Pats, Go Celts, Go BC, even Go Bruins! We are not that different JB.

    When I infer things to the "Christian Nation" phrase, it is not because I live in New England where religion is "one's own business," it is from living down here where that phrase often accompanies articles that bemoan the existence of non-Christians–when what they mean is Christians like them–which, when push came to shove, would not include RCs, Mormons, Lutherans, etc.

    As for your final quote by Sam Adams-thanks. Gotta love good radicals and great beer.

    November 12, 2007 09:27 am at 9:27 am |
  11. Jay, Washington, DC


    In case, they don't print my response a second time:

    I have tried twice to respond, but the gods of the blog required me to kill a goat in sacrifice and I just didn't have the heart. Sorry. there is a response, but they have chosen you the winner.

    November 12, 2007 09:30 am at 9:30 am |
  12. Emery, Toronto, Canada

    "Leading Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani...." Tell me this no longer true. He's a serial adulterer, a liar and possibly much worse. Bernard Kerik?

    November 12, 2007 10:15 am at 10:15 am |
  13. Val Davydov, Agawam, MA

    "Romney went too far the wrong way and Rudy's beating him."

    Posted By Ed,Ellenville,New York

    Ed, have you been living under the rock lately? Romney is leading in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. With Rudy's campaign being wounded by his protégé Kerik, voters are paying more and more attention to Romney's campaing, that would ultimately make him a Republican nominee for the White House. Once there, Gov. Romney's name will be nationally recognized and he will be home free since no Democtractic canditate will be able to stop him from winning general election.

    November 12, 2007 12:16 pm at 12:16 pm |
  14. Ed,Ellenville,New York

    Val,the republicans are now only 25% of the electorate and with Mitt running as a "thumper" he's excluding most americans. If he ran as the former governor of Mass. he'd have a chance. It would only serve our nation for him to dump the theocratic plank. Right now he thinks they're an asset when they're not. That's why his advisors are right to tell him to keep quiet about his religion. He has no chance with ties to the subversives. I'd like to see them form a third party and just go away. I'm looking at national polls that put him as a loser. I think that your opinion is based on his prior standing,something he left behind for money from the thumpers. If he rights his course and returns to a socially liberal agenda,he could possibly be a contender.

    November 12, 2007 01:55 pm at 1:55 pm |
  15. Val Davydov, Agawam, MA

    Ed, we both have very different views in general – you are a liberal atheist and I am concervative christian, nevertheless, I respect your opinion. I think however you are expessing your wishful thinking. Let's just say we'd have to wait and see... and we'll talk then.

    November 12, 2007 02:52 pm at 2:52 pm |
  16. Bob, San Francisco, CA

    JB and Jay have set a new standard of Ticker debating! I enjoyed reading articulated arguments from both and only a small dose of insult. Good job!

    November 12, 2007 03:09 pm at 3:09 pm |
  17. Jay, Washington, DC

    Thanks for your comments. Hope JB comes back in on this again. He does make good points, though I cannot help a little good natured poking. I swear, deep inside, we probably agree on more things than we differ.

    November 12, 2007 04:30 pm at 4:30 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6