Reply
Thu 15 Nov, 2007 08:56 am
More Giuliani history that supports claims that Rudy has a long history of corruption beyond his connection with Bernard Kerik.---BBB
Rudy Giuliani's ties to Fox News
By Alex Koppelman, staff writer for Salon
and Erin Renzas, editorial intern at Salon.
Salon - 11/15/07
Of all the allegations contained in former ReganBooks Publisher Judith Regan's lawsuit against her one-time employers at Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., the most explosive is the first. Regan charges that News Corp. executives wanted to destroy her reputation because she knew too much about her ex-boyfriend, former New York City Police Commissioner Bernie Kerik, and that what she knew could be harmful to the presidential hopes of Rudy Giuliani -- whom she depicts as the preferred candidate of News Corp. and its subsidiary, Fox News. According to Regan's suit, "This smear campaign was necessary to advance News Corp.'s political agenda, which has long centered on protecting Rudy Giuliani's presidential ambitions."
Regan and the married Kerik had a well-publicized yearlong affair. Their assignations often took place in a lower Manhattan apartment that had been specifically reserved for the use of workers in the aftermath of 9/11. After Giuliani left the mayor's office on January 1, 2002, Kerik went to work for him as a consultant at Giuliani Partners. Kerik and Regan broke up later in 2002. In December 2004, according to Regan's complaint, when President Bush tapped Kerik, at Giuliani's recommendation, to head the federal Department of Homeland Security, Regan was pressured to keep quiet, and asked to lie on Kerik's behalf. "[A] senior executive in the News Corp. organization told Regan that he believed she had information about Kerik that, if disclosed, would harm Giuliani's presidential campaign. This executive advised Regan to lie to, and to withhold information from, investigators concerning Kerik. ... [D]efendants knew they would be protecting Giuliani if they could preemptively discredit her."
This is not the first time that News Corp. has been accused of having a political agenda. Fox News is often accused of favoring Republicans. In the current presidential election cycle, however, there have also been repeated suggestions, from critics on both the right and the left, that the network prefers Giuliani over the other GOP contenders.
As it happens, Giuliani and News Corp. do have a history. Giuliani has several personal and financial connections to News Corp. and Fox News -- beginning with Fox's top executive -- and those connections seem to have proven mutually beneficial:
Roger Ailes: The head of Fox News, Ailes was a veteran Republican operative long before he was a news executive, having worked as a media consultant in the presidential campaigns of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and the first President Bush. In 1989, he worked as a media consultant on the unsuccessful first mayoral campaign of a former federal prosecutor named Rudy Giuliani, with whom he had bonded at dinner parties over their shared admiration for Ronald Reagan. Since then, Giuliani and Ailes have remained good friends. Giuliani officiated at Ailes' wedding and brought presents to Ailes' room when Ailes was hospitalized in 1998. The New York Times has reported that aides to the two men say they don't see each other often, but they did sit together at the White House Correspondents' Dinner in April 2007 -- which Giuliani attended as a guest of News Corp. (Ailes has also socialized with Bernie Kerik.)
The Time Warner lawsuit: In 1994, according to the New York Times, Giuliani prepared a speech for a reception honoring Ailes in which he wrote, "Roger has played an important role in my own career." In 1996, Giuliani had an opportunity to repay the favor. Fox News was launching, with Ailes at the helm, and Time Warner, which provided cable service to 12 million homes nationwide, had decided it would not carry Fox News. Time Warner was the dominant cable operator in New York City, meaning that not only would 1.1 million city homes not get Fox, but the fledgling network would go unseen by media powerbrokers in the nation's media capital.
Three days after Murdoch learned of Time Warner's decision, a call from Ailes to Giuliani set in motion a series of unprecedented moves in favor of a cable network by the Giuliani administration. As calls and meetings continued between Fox and city officials, including Giuliani, the Giuliani administration reportedly threatened Time Warner executives with the loss of their cable franchise if the cable provider didn't accept a deal in which the city would give up one of its own government channels so Fox News could take the slot. (Some 30 other cable networks had tried and failed to win channel space on Time Warner.) When Time Warner refused to take the deal, the city announced that it would go ahead with the plan anyway and force the cable provider to carry Fox News. A legal battle ensued.
Ultimately, the two warring parties made peace and Fox won carriage, but not before a judge and an appeals panel both ruled against the city's plan. In granting Time Warner a temporary injunction, a federal district court judge issued a harsh rebuke to the Giuliani administration, saying the city had repeatedly shifted the legal justifications for its stand, indicating that "the City does not believe its own positions." The judge further wrote, "The City's purpose in acting to compel Time Warner to give Fox one of its commercial channels was to reward a friend... The very fact that the City chose Fox News out of all other news programs -- not to mention the significant number of other programs which have been denied space on Time Warner's commercial network -- is by itself substantial evidence that the City chose Fox News based on its content."
Lobbying: Giuliani's connections to News Corp. extend to his law and lobbying firm, Bracewell & Giuliani. Giuliani announced his partnership in the firm previously known as Bracewell & Patterson in March 2005. Beginning the next month, according to congressional lobbying disclosure records, the firm billed News Corp. and DirecTV, which was then a subsidiary of News Corp., for $120,000 in federal lobbying during 2005. The firm represented News Corp. on issues including regulations on violent and indecent programming and the potential re-write of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. In the years prior to Giuliani joining the firm, congressional records do not show any lobbying work performed for News Corp.
Airtime: Earlier this year, a study by the political journal Hotline found that Giuliani had been interviewed on Fox News during the first 196 days of 2007 for a total of 115 minutes, more than any other presidential contender, and 14 minutes more than the runner-up, the then-undeclared Fred Thompson.
Sean Hannity: In Fox's defense, the bulk of the time Giuliani was on the network he was talking to Sean Hannity, the Long Island-bred cohost of "Hannity & Colmes." And no wonder -- though Hannity claims not to be supporting a candidate (a denial he was forced to make when Ariz. Sen. John McCain accused him on-air, albeit obliquely, of supporting Giuliani), he flew to Ohio to introduce the former mayor at a campaign fundraiser in August. When a New York Times reporter asked a Fox spokeswoman about the Hotline figures, she responded that Hannity makes his own booking decisions. Hannity has also handled post-debate anchor duties for all three Fox GOP debates held to date.
Cease-and-desist: In October, Fox lawyers sent a cease and desist letter to John McCain's campaign after he included footage from Fox's October 21 Orlando debate in a TV commercial. The ad featured a McCain quip aimed at Senator Clinton's push for a so-called "Woodstock museum." The letter demanded McCain pull the ad and remove footage of the debate from his Web site, according to Talking Points Memo.
However, similar letters were not sent to two other GOP presidential hopefuls who were also using footage from the Fox debate -- Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. After initial reports showed that only McCain had been sent such an order, a Fox spokesperson told the New York Times, "Our legal team has been alerted and there will be cease and desist orders." Letters were sent to both the Romney and Giuliani campaigns, but they are apparently not being heeded. Giuliani's Web site still makes liberal use of Fox footage, including one clip added at least a week after the date of the cease and desist letter. Romney's site also continues to feature material from the debate.
Steve Forbes: Himself a former Republican presidential candidate, the magazine magnate is now a national co-chair and senior policy advisor with the Giuliani campaign. He's also, in the words of a Giuliani campaign press release, "a frequent business commentator for Fox News Channel's 'Forbes on Fox.'" Though that show is actually hosted by a Fox News employee, David Asman, its guests come from the editorial staff of Forbes Magazine. Steve Forbes is both the editor-in-chief of Forbes Magazine and the president and CEO of its publisher, Forbes, Inc.
Makes no never mind. If Giuliani gets nominated, my vote is with him!
Foofie wrote:Makes no never mind. If Giuliani gets nominated, my vote is with him!
And if Hillary is your next C in C, could you please tell us how you, as a loyal american citizen, will support her in this time of war and dreadful peril?
blatham wrote:Foofie wrote:Makes no never mind. If Giuliani gets nominated, my vote is with him!
And if Hillary is your next C in C, could you please tell us how you, as a loyal american citizen, will support her in this time of war and dreadful peril?
If her own husband wasnt loyal to her, and since he knows her better then anyone, then why should anyone else support her?
What does he know that he isnt telling anyone?
msteryman wrote:What does he know that he isnt telling anyone?
He knows that, just like himself, she's a closet republican.
blatham wrote:Foofie wrote:Makes no never mind. If Giuliani gets nominated, my vote is with him!
And if Hillary is your next C in C, could you please tell us how you, as a loyal american citizen, will support her in this time of war and dreadful peril?
Simple. If she doesn't do a sterling job in some effort, I won't comment negatively on her abilities. Like all Presidents, she should be allowed to do the job without backseat drivers.
And, based on who the Republicans nominate, I might vote for Hillary. She would make a fine President in my opinion; I'd just prefer Giuliani.
I think she'd make a fine president too, but from where you get the notion that she or any other president ought not to be criticized when they screw up significantly, I do not know. Where do you get this idea from?
For example, in the present case with Bush in office or the future case with Hillary in office, would it be wrong/traitorous/counter-productive to, say, quote this passage from Lincoln, "national honor, the security of the future, the prevention of foreign interference can not justify the fever-dream of war."
Quote:And if Hillary is your next C in C, could you please tell us how you, as a loyal american citizen, will support her in this time of war and dreadful peril?
well that's the thing, isn't it? these hypocrites go on and on about gratitude and patriotism, and how they trust the people in authority to make decisions, as long as someone from their party is in. watch how patriotic they are when a liberal is in office. but i thought you were used to conservatives lying through their teeth- or would you call switching from "patriotism" and "supporting the president in a time of need" to "criticizing that stupid witch" um... "waffling?" no, conservatives never do that. stay the course!
tinygiraffe wrote:Quote:And if Hillary is your next C in C, could you please tell us how you, as a loyal american citizen, will support her in this time of war and dreadful peril?
well that's the thing, isn't it? these hypocrites go on and on about gratitude and patriotism, and how they trust the people in authority to make decisions, as long as someone from their party is in. watch how patriotic they are when a liberal is in office. but i thought you were used to conservatives lying through their teeth- or would you call switching from "patriotism" and "supporting the president in a time of need" to "criticizing that stupid witch" um... "waffling?" no, conservatives never do that. stay the course!
To be fair, though, foofie somewhat uniquely claims he will honor/respect/ be obeisant to the office regardless of whether it is held by party A or party B.
I have as much, if not even more, of a problem with this notion as with unwavering party allegiance. As if democracy is forwarded by citizens feeling they have the duty to be absolutely quiet, other than meekly dropping a bit of paper in a ballot box. As if the principle and value of "free speech" has any meaning at all where one can never criticize a leader. It is the portrait of authoritarianism. Thus, one suspects, his wish for a Giuliani presidency.
Frank Rich has a lovely column on the Kerik/Giuliani/two Judies potential in the NYT today.
What "That Regan Woman" Knows ... click .. link
Quote:New Yorkers who remember Rudy Giuliani as the bullying New York mayor, not as the terminally cheerful "America's Mayor" cooing to babies in New Hampshire, have always banked on one certainty: his presidential candidacy was so preposterous it would implode before he got anywhere near the White House.
Surely, we reassured ourselves, the all-powerful Republican values enforcers were so highly principled that they would excommunicate him because of his liberal social views, three wives and estranged children. Or a firewall would be erected by the firefighters who are enraged by his self-aggrandizing rewrite of 9/11 history. Or Judith Giuliani, with her long-hidden first marriage and Louis Vuitton 'tude, would send red-state voters screaming into the night.
Wrong, wrong and wrong. But how quickly and stupidly we forgot about the other Judith in the Rudy orbit. That would be Judith Regan, who disappeared last December after she was unceremoniously fired from Rupert Murdoch's publishing house, HarperCollins. Last week Ms. Regan came roaring back into the fray, a silver bullet aimed squarely at the heart of the Giuliani campaign.
<snip>
thanks bethie...quicker than I. Again.
I just hope that the American media has the courage to follow the story.
Their right-of-centre focus makes them a bit too worried about their cup, not their balls.
bernmeister: have you been down to the library to pick up any of the Giuliani biographies? some juicy reading in the few that are out there - in comparison to Ms. Clinton's background as a Young Republican and blah blah blah (she's a bit of a drab hen in comparison in comparison to Mr. Giuliani's battling cockatoo).
Have not. I know there is a lot of information out there, so much that organizing it into a compelling and simple narrative revealing how ugly this fellow is might be a real problem. But a lot of good folks are onto this and Hillary's camp should have a particularly good handle on it given the earlier contest that failed to materialize.
ehBeth wrote:I just hope that the American media has the courage to follow the story.
Their right-of-centre focus makes them a bit too worried about their cup, not their balls.
bernmeister: have you been down to the library to pick up any of the Giuliani biographies? some juicy reading in the few that are out there - in comparison to Ms. Clinton's background as a Young Republican and blah blah blah (she's a bit of a drab hen in comparison in comparison to Mr. Giuliani's battling cockatoo).
It doesn't matter that they follow it now. All the crap on Giuliani will come out before the general election if he gets the nominee and nearly guarantee the election of the Democratic nominee.
Roxxxanne wrote:It doesn't matter that they follow it now.
I think it does matter. The American media is traditionally right-wing and unlikely to poke at anything 'on' a Republican candidate unless there is no possible way to avoid it.
If there's a way to guilt the American media into reporting on any of the failings of Republican candidates, I hope someone does it.
~~~
What do I see in/on American news? what's wrong with Obama - what's wrong with Edwards - what's wrong with Clinton ... not much coverage on what's wrong with any Republican candidate. It's apparently not the American way. Very odd to watch from north of the border, where looking at all candidates' positions and political backgrounds is a given.
blatham wrote:I think she'd make a fine president too, but from where you get the notion that she or any other president ought not to be criticized when they screw up significantly, I do not know. Where do you get this idea from?
For example, in the present case with Bush in office or the future case with Hillary in office, would it be wrong/traitorous/counter-productive to, say, quote this passage from Lincoln, "national honor, the security of the future, the prevention of foreign interference can not justify the fever-dream of war."
I get the belief that I should not criticize the President, regardless of his/her policies, or political party, because, I believe in Americanism as the driving force in the country's history.
It was a unique history, in a land/culture/politics that was very different than Europe. With the competition of two European powers (Spain and France) for land. A less than sterling history with Native Americans. Diverse peoples from around the world (admittedly, mostly Europe). Diverse religions. And, we know there was a civil war fought because of slavery.
So, in a not too friendly world, like any family that survives as a cohesive family, I believe the country should show the world a united country. Not splintered.
I suspect my view is held by more people who value American history. That might also increase with one's age.
And, I needn't tell you how many people have their own personal agenda, whether it is immigrant rights, gay rights, Middle East concerns, government spending concerns, government social program concerns, abortion/right to life concerns, etc., etc. So, when people say this or that, I tend to ignore much of what I hear, since I always wonder if there if an ulterior agenda to what is being said.
i don't understand how democracy is supposed to work if we can't find out anything about the candidates because everyone is keeping quiet.
i assume that foofie believes he supports our system of voting, but then maybe anything goes. if his cherished american leaders decided that it was jews, not muslims, that needed to be sorted into/out of gitmo, it's interesting to think that he would just sit there and occasionally tell people not to be critical. at least, i may have asked, but i don't remember him saying anything to the contrary.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace