Rudy Attacks Hillary For -- Gasp! -- Wanting To "Go Back To The Nineties"
A great catch by Steve Benen. Check out Rudy's latest attack on Hillary, this one over her call for tax hikes on the rich:
In a potential preview of next fall's presidential contest, Mr. Giuliani, who is seen as the front-runner for the Republican nomination, directly attacked the leading Democratic candidate, Mrs. Clinton, over a speech she gave Tuesday in New Hampshire bemoaning the return of "robber barons" and promising to pursue "shared prosperity" by increasing taxes on Americans making more than $200,000 a year."This would be an astounding, staggering tax increase," Mr. Giuliani told reporters yesterday after a visit to a restaurant on the edge of California's Silicon Valley. "She wants to go back to the 1990s. … It would hurt our economy. It would hurt this area dramatically."
Back to the nineties? What a truly awful prospect.
As Benen notes, attacking someone for wanting to restore the peace and prosperity of that decade -- in Silicon Valley or anywhere else -- perhaps isn't the soundest political strategy.
After all, the President who presided over that era enjoys a favorability rating that is nearly twice that of the current White House occupant. Large majorities see that President's marriage to Hillary as an asset, to boot. Dems can only hope that Rudy keeps saying this.















It'll be interesting to see how many fatcats max out contributions to Guiliani in the wake of this statement.
June 1, 2007 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jon Stewart put it best about Giuliani, something along the lines that Giuliani says it would be a mistake to go back to the pre-9/11 mindset, because that's when Giuliani had no chance of becoming president.
June 1, 2007 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I look exactly like Rudy - Humiliation thy name is Richard.
How much does plastic surgery cost? Then again, I can be one of his Saddam-like doubles.
To all young folks - life does't get easier.
If he gets elected, I'm going to start drinking again. (on my way to Canada)
June 1, 2007 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
For those who weren't going to click on the link, it is worth noting that Benen links to the most eerie, prescient, nearly completely accurate parody piece ever written, which appeared in The Onion just prior to Bush being inaugurated: "Our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is over".
June 1, 2007 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks, J -- that is indeed one of the best pieces of parody ever produced...
June 1, 2007 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish the dems would wise up and quit targeting what most would still consider the middle-class, albeit UPPER middle-class. People making $200,000 a year don't consider themselves wealthy ... and they definitely don't qualify as "robber barons." It also alienates a fairly large segment of people who might otherwise vote for a Democrat.
The dems should be targeting those making more than $500,000 or $1 million a year.
June 1, 2007 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's weird, but this presidential campaign seems to be playing out a lot like the 2000 New York Senate campaign. Rudy was going to crush Hillary then, but started saying all kinds of stupid stuff, crashed in the polls, started getting cancer treatments or something, and, pretty much disappeared politically.
Until 9-11-01.
June 1, 2007 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
People who make $200,000 don't THINK they are wealthy, but they are. That puts them in the top 2.67% of gross incomes (by household, according to the US census), and that is wealthy by any measure. Part of the problem with Americans (to generalize grossly but accurately) is that they all think they are middle class when they aren't. The sort of everyday opulence that comes with a $200K salary has been normalized, and we have an upper-class that thinks of itself as regular folks.
I don't know if everyone making $200K per year is necessarily a robber-baron, but those people are not part of the Democrats core economic constituency. If you make $200K/year and want to maximize your economic well-being, vote GOP. Our appeals to the wealthy should be rooted in social progressivism and intelligent foreign policy..
June 1, 2007 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's also when his poll numbers were that the levels The Decider's are at today.
June 1, 2007 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You beat me to it. That's exactly what I thought about as I read Greg's post. And yes, EVERYONE who hasn't read it really should.
June 1, 2007 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree, jfaberuiuc. I think that's only the second most eerily prescient parody piece ever produced.
Number one is the Onion Point-Counterpoint from March 2003:
"Point: This War Will Destabilize The Entire Mideast Region And Set Off A Global Shockwave Of Anti-Americanism."
"Counterpoint: No It Won't."
June 1, 2007 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every time I re-read that Onion piece, it just amazes me.
June 1, 2007 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
And that was today's edition of "Rudy Guiliani is full of shit."
June 1, 2007 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
If she's taking us back to the nineties all I can say is "wait for me!!"
Imagine where the most important thing for years was one bad land deal and a blowjob was the worst thing a President could ever do. Ah, salad days.
June 1, 2007 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting that he's campaigning in California.
June 1, 2007 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
That Onion piece is scary.
Maybe the Dems should hire whoever wrote that to predict the most ridiculous outcome of the Republican primaries. They could then prepare for the insanity to come.
June 1, 2007 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, thanks for the benefit of the doubt.
Great thinking, dude. Way to win an election!
Look, I don't doubt that people with gross incomes above $200k are wealthy, but most in that bracket that I know of do that based on salaried incomes and are the senior people in regular jobs.
I also don't see a problem with raising taxes for that bracket (but maybe we could at least start with getting rid of the millionaire tax breaks first) but demonizing that group, calling them names and suggesting they vote GOP probably isn't a good way to go. There are many such people around here, and they're typically progressives and the drivers of fundraising and organizing for progressive causes.
June 1, 2007 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you guys really want to return to the era of Ace of Bass and the Spice Girls? That is exactly where Hillary Clinton will lead us.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
June 1, 2007 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Fred_Mac, except that many Americans think they are relatively better off compared to other Americans than they actually are. There was a poll during the last Presidential campaign in which something like 15% of Americans thought their families earned within the top 2% on which Kerry thought we should raise taxes. Given the margin of Kerry's loss, this may have been a key reason the Decider is still at the helm.
June 1, 2007 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
More than that those that do vote Democratic and are in that bracket may well accept that they whould pay their fair share for public services. I am no quite at that income level, but close and could live with a tax increase if it was going toward shared services like education or health care (excluding, of course, wars of aggression).
global citizen
June 1, 2007 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am a self-employed consultant, making nearly $200k/year and do NOT consider myself wealthy by any means. I am a single mom, and what I make is the ONLY source of income to our household.
By the time I pay my full 17% to FICA (social security, no employer to pay the other half) plus Federal and State tax, health insurance premiums ($420/mo. and no, these are not tax deductible) and fund my personal IRA (I am not deluded enough to think social security will support me in 20 years), attempt to fund my son's college 529, pay the mortgage on my modest two-bedroom home in a Philly suburb, plus pay after-school and summer childcare which allows me to work a full day, there really isn't much left over. Add to that gas, utilities, food, clothing, etc. and it explains why I drive a 2000 Ford and we vacation once a year to visit out-of-state family, or go tent-camping on weekends.
Perhaps $200k per year would be considered "wealthy" in some areas of the country, especially if your employer has an average benefits package (which, by the way, are entirely tax deductible for the employer) but I can assure you that anyone living in New York, D.C., most of California or many, many other areas of this country would NOT agree.
PEACE
June 1, 2007 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, what these people fail to realize is something that Kevin Drum ponders frequently. Namely, the economy does better under Democratic presidents. He doesn't have explantions, but it is pretty striking and debunks the myth that your economic well being is maximized by voting GOP. But hey, I know some who still think there were WMD in Iraq.
June 1, 2007 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
You say that like it's a bad thing. :-)
There was good music then too.
June 1, 2007 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary promises to use stem cell research to bring Cobain back, she's got my vote.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
June 1, 2007 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The tax situation in this country is broken and I think most reasonable people can agree on this. But in my mind the larger problem is how that tax money is spent.
The criminal waste that occurs every year in Washington should be the #1 thing on all Americans minds when they pull a handle in an election. Not abortion. Not guns. Not gays. Not even terrorists. Why in the hell do you worry what color your ship is painted and if there might be pirates out there somewhere when it's full of holes and sinking?
Iraq is an ongoing gangrenous wound on our nation not only in lives and international integrity but also financially. And it's not the only financial wound we suffer from. If we pulled the plug on the wasted funds in the Iraq fiasco, the seemingly endless Pork projects in Washington and the insulting subsidies handed out to big businesses we could begin to right the ship. Once we stopped all that economic bleeding we could then attack the tax code and structure it in a manner that offered (gasp... fairness!) to everyone and allow all access to the "American Dream".
I'm highly skeptical that Hillary intends to do any of those things, but I'm certain no Republican will. And Rudy is definitely in the Republican camp on this issue. When the hell will the "average Joe" in this country realize that when they see a economic hack on TV talking about how great our economy is (and pointing at Wall Street's recent surges as proof) that they are talking about that top 1-2% of Americans? Huzzah! The Dow closed at another record high! And that's helping the "average Joe" make ends meet exactly how? It's not. As a matter of fact I think that what it actually indicates is an increase in the gap between the haves and the have-nots. Sure, our nation's wealth and economy are complex and intertwined entities...but there are amazingly few strings tying the average WE to them then there are for the very few THEM.
June 1, 2007 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rudy only thinks he's in the race--that's why he thinks he's got the luxury of spouting off. Once the campaign season really gets rolling, Rudy's opponents will be working hard to remind people that "America's Mayor" has more than his share of negatives. No Republican candidate who supports gun control and abortion rights will ever be elected president. That's just a fact.
June 1, 2007 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
is it me or is rudy giulliani the biggest gasbag that isn't part of the bush junta? this mental midget apparently has never read a single book or scholarly article on u.s. foreign policy and gleefully delights in this amazing ignorance. he willingly uses his bully pulpit to attack anyone who attempts to inject ratioanle or big words into the conversation on foreign policy. who are these losers who actually pay money to sit an audience while rudy stands at a podium and speaks about leadership? it seems to me that his only qualification is that he ran around the rubble at ground zero while the great chicken hawk in chief hid for a day in his luxury plane. this would-be "decider" has no real experience with good leadership, as anyone who has lived in new york city is well aware. every time anybody has had the good sense to criticize rudy for the subpar leadership qualities he repeatedly demonstrated before and immediately after the attacks of 9/11, he simply parrots his response of "9/11" and these horse's asses applaud and drool.
June 1, 2007 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I get your point and don't want to offer a knee-jerk reaction... so I will point out idly that putting money in the commons is good for business... national healthcare would be a boon to small business... and so on.
The self-interest factor, if medium to long term, is still in the progressive camp. The greed vote? Yes, still GOP owned.
-pyrrho
June 1, 2007 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it's not just you--Rudy is a gasbag. He may be America's mayor, but while he was the mayor of New York City, New Yorkers pretty universally hated his guts. Now all of America will have the opportunity to see why.
June 1, 2007 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was a meeting of a focus group on CSPAN last night, and the Republicans were really spouting off about how immoral Clinton was and how that was their top priority. THEN, they turned right around and said they supported Rudy. What is wrong with people?
June 1, 2007 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Silicon Valley in the 90's was on top of the world, as I recall...
June 1, 2007 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, Silicon Valley was a real disaster in the nineties, LOL.
June 2, 2007 6:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
$200K puts someone in the top 3% of all American households.
That means that 97% of the country makes less than your household. Most of those people don't go on vacations at all, or have a college fund, or an IRA, or summer childcare, or afterschool, or a 2000-model car, or even a small house in a nice suburb.
I am sure you work hard to provide for your family; I am sure you feel the crunch of economic pressure like many people. Making a lot of money doesn't make you a bad person, either, but you are most certainly very, very wealthy.
I'm not sure why most people making a lot of money think they aren't wealthy (there's probably books written about that), or how to change it, but that doesn't make you or the very few people like you any less well off compared to the rest of the country.
The numbers are what they are.
June 2, 2007 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink