The Candidates
Former FBI Director Louis Freeh is set to endorse Rudy Giuliani at a press conference to be held later today:
Louis Freeh, Democrat Bill Clinton’s FBI director, is going over to the other side in a big way today - endorsing Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani, the Daily News has learned.
The high-profile endorsement is a boon to the former mayor, whose views on security and terrorism can only benefit from having an international lawman like Freeh in his corner, experts said.
“Any endorsement that lets Rudy talk about fighting crime and terrorism is good for him,” said GOP consultant Dan Schnur. “And if Giuliani and [Hillary] Clinton are the nominees, you can be sure that Louis Freeh ends up in the front row of every debate, just to try and knock her off her game.”
Freeh’s defection to Team Rudy is part of a gradual transformation by the former top G-man from one-time friend of the Clintons to outspoken critic, blaming the former President for raining scandal down upon the White House, and for being soft on terrorism in the years before 9/11.
“Until 9/11,” Freeh wrote in his 2005 book, “My FBI,” about America’s counterterrorism efforts, “we lacked the political leadership and more important the political will to do what had to be done.”
…it is Freeh’s get-tough approach to crime and terrorism - he has long advocated expanding U.S. intelligence gathering around the globe - that will likely take center stage at today’s planned endorsement.
It’s a message that certainly fits with Giuliani’s recent rhetoric on the presidential campaign trail, where he often argues that Democrats want to go back to playing “defense” on terrorism, while Republicans understand the importance of playing “offense.”
The official announcement will come at a press conference to be held in Times Square.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:27 am
This is a really great grab by Rudy, and plays perfectly to his perceived strengths. Kudos to the Giuliani campaign for this one.
May 31st, 2007 at 10:15 am
Yes, it is a significant endorement. It is now 1 for 1, Romney with this anti-terrorism guy (is his name Black?) and this Freeh for Rudy.
I have asked this in the previous posts but no one has told me. I know Rudy will be great in preventing another terror attack, with his tough stance, but the terrorists are very patient. They can wait until his term(s) is over. So, we will see 4 to 8 years of safety, but then what? The problem is with the ideology itself, the ideology of hatred and war to end all wars (coming of their imam), being around for over 50 years. This indoctrination is being taught everywhere nowsdays, meaning the trerrorists will see the growth on their side. What plans do Rudy has to combat this ideology?
I am not criterizing him. I tried to learn of it, and I could find null. This Freeh must have seen it.
May 31st, 2007 at 10:28 am
Pretty big drop off from Louis Freeh to Cofer Black though SGS.
May 31st, 2007 at 10:36 am
This shifts the attention around Rudy to terrorism and intelligence — most definitely a plus!
May 31st, 2007 at 10:37 am
Absolutely great way to win back the political center that abandoned the party in droves last year…
May 31st, 2007 at 11:27 am
Louis Freeh was a disaster as FBI director.
May 31st, 2007 at 11:41 am
SGS, if you don’t think Rudy permanently transforms political institutions, it reveals you have not opened a book on his leadership of NYC.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:54 pm
David B: haven’t you noticed yet that most of the commenters on this sight are pretty short-sighted when it comes to Rudy’s leadership and the job he did in NYC…except for a very few (Kavon for one, but not many others). I go further to say that they are so committed to their moral issus (abortion, gays, etc) that they would rather see Rudy lose than guanatee a republican win.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:57 pm
There you go again, KT…assuming that Rudy “guarantees” a GOP win despite being the most divisive candidate we’ve got.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Marksal, wasn’t that because of problems with his relationship with Pres. Clinton at the time? The point is, he redeemed himself after he was FBI director, by bringing to light the miserable failures of the Clintons, and now he is supporting Hillary’s opponent.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:58 pm
murphy Rudy IS the BEST candidate weve got - - not the most divisive. That honor goes to Hillary.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:00 pm
#8 MISSPELLING: SIGHT=SITE oops
May 31st, 2007 at 1:39 pm
murphy: Give us a break. Most divisive? I guess you haven’t bothered to check the fav/unfav ratings, or the head-to-head polling.
Rudy is what can END the red-blue, urban-rural, socially-based diviseness in this country and get back to talking about the 90% of what matters in the Presidency: defense and taxes/economics.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:47 pm
David B and KT,
I’m not talking about Rudy being the most divisive for the country as a whole (though some argument can be made for that based on his pre-9/11 reputation).
I’m talking about him being the most divisive candidatge in the GOP primary, the only major candidate who could seriously give a large minority of conservatives a reason to stay home or vote their conscience for a 3rd party.
And as much as it would please you guys to strip the religious right of any influence in politics, it would also strip the GOP of any chance it has in the general election.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:01 pm
murphy: Again, give us a break. If such a large faction of the GOP will not vote for Rudy, why does he lead the other GOP candidates in head-to-head polling with the Democrats?
Wouldn’t anti-Rudy elements in the GOP be more likely to punish him NOW when talking to pollsters, rather than in the ballot box during wartime?
NOTICE PEOPLE: I have asked this about FIVE times in the last month. Nobody EVER answers it. Quite telling.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:19 pm
murphy I know what you meant. But at some point you are going to have to give Rudy a break already and stop bashing him on this site, along with many others… ITS WHAT THE DEMS WANT BECAUSE THEY DONT WANT RUDY.!!!!
May 31st, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Re: #8 by KT
KT, count me among those who vote for issues rather than go for the man with an elephant on his lapel.
But isn’t it embarrassing to have to say that in reference your candidate?
May 31st, 2007 at 6:09 pm
David B (#15),
You’re hilarious. While it’s true that you’ve repeatedly asked why Rudy is winning polls, I’ve also given you answers on multiple occasions. You ask, but you never listen.
Read carefully. I do not believe the voters being polled right now have an accurate view of just how liberal some of Rudy’s positions are. In fact, polling backs this up. Furthermore, those same voters are quite unfamiliar with other candidates who are good on economics and GWOT and also pro-life.
Rudy is at his high-water mark in the polls. People already have generally positive feelings for him post-9/11. When active campaigning, smaller debates, more popularly viewed debates, and competing advertisements hit, those poll numbers will nose dive.
May 31st, 2007 at 6:14 pm
KT (#16),
Sorry. The purpose of a primary season is not to simply anoint KT’s favorite social liberal and let him sail through the race uncontested, on a song and a prayer that he’s the right guy.
As for telling me to stop bashing Rudy, that’s a tad hypocritical of you. I take issue with his politics and his record in office. You, on the other hand, regularly post unsubstantiated and factually challenged attacks on Romney of a personal nature.