Why the Media Doesn't Understand Rudy's Popularity

I don't often like to write articles that attack the media. I understand that the bottom line is ratings and I'm comfortable with that. I understand that certain stations have biases and I have no problem with that either. However, for some reason in almost every form of media, Rudy Giuliani is misunderstood.

The common quote from anyone is the media is that he is pro choice, anti gun, pro gay and has been divorced twice, so how the hell is he leading the Republican field? Well, there are two reasons.

The simple reason which I don't want to spend too much time on is name recognition. This early in the race before any ads or debates happen, people say they will vote for the person they know. For the Democrats it is Hillary and for the Republicans it is McCain and Giuliani. The media forgets that most Americans don't know who Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, and Mitt Romney are. Even people that follow politics might not know who the hell Tom Vilsack is. So why would they support someone they don't know?

Back in 2003, a man named Howard Dean barely registered in the polls and Joe Lieberman was the frontrunner! So one reason why Rudy is leading is because he is America's mayor. We all know him from the Yankee games too. Plus, heyyyyyyyyy he's Italian, (In my family that is important).

Now for the complex reason why Rudy is leading, Republicans are not all that socially conservative.

The media is baffled that Republicans aren't upset that he got divorced twice. Look at this top ten list:

1. Nevada 2. Oklahoma 3. Arizona 4. Arkansas 5. Wyoming 6. Idaho 7. Tennessee 8. Florida 9. Alabama 10. Washington

What is this a list of? It is a list of the top ten states with the highest divorce rates in 2002. The first nine all voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004. So yes, while Republicans love heterosexual marriage, they understand that Rudy isn't exactly out of the mainstream for getting a divorce.

Another media mistake is to say he is anti-gun. This is lazy reporting. Basically, Rudy looks at gun control the way Howard Dean did as governor of Vermont. Dr. Dean had an A rating from the NRA as governor, so when the left got mad at him, he argued that Vermont didn't need gun control. Rudy's argument is that local municipalities should decide gun laws and you need more gun control in New York City than in Kansas! It is a conservative position to give power to local governments and out of the hands of the federal government which is what Giuliani is arguing for.

Another media mistake is to say Giuliani is pro gay. He's not pro or anti gay. He believes in some gay rights but not the right to get married. Most social conservatives believe this as well. Rudy's position is in line with Dick Cheney and do you hear social conservatives calling Cheney too liberal? Do you hear anyone calling Dick Cheney too liberal? To my knowledge, which is dubious at best, it was liberals that made a big deal over his gay daughter and his support for civil unions.

On the issue of abortion Giuliani is pro choice. So will this kill him? Not really. Giuliani is personally opposed to abortion but thinks that in certain cases that you shouldn't put a woman in jail for having an abortion. This is a mainstream position. Most Republicans are personally anti-abortion, but if their wife is raped or their twelve year old daughter gets pregnant, the position bends.

Back in college, I hung out with the strongly conservative kids during politics classes, only because it was more fun to argue with liberals. Anyway, we had a discussion on what Bush should do to fill the court seat and we were given three mock candidates. We decided to pick the moderately conservative Latino judge. Why? We wanted to win. We wanted our party to show minorities that we were friendly. Our professor then revealed to us that this mock candidate paid for his daughter's abortion, so maybe it would make sense to choose the staunch conservative judge. Nope, we wanted to win. Maybe Republicans and social conservatives do not want to see Hillary in the White House and know that Rudy is the only one that can bring victory.

The media is also failing to report how anti-tax/small-government Republican voters (not politicians) really are. For instance, our town supervisor would not spend 650 dollars to put Christmas lights on Main Street! That supervisor did not want to waste taxpayer money. (Plus, you would think a Republican would want to spend taxpayer money on celebrating Jesus). This is John McCain's largest liability. John McCain voted against Bush tax cuts twice and against the stupid estate tax. As mayor of NYC, Rudy cut taxes. If there is one issue that unites Republicans is that they hate paying taxes. Even liberal Republicans remain with the Party for this very reason.

The Christian Coalition, the super social conservative group is also very anti-tax. Extending the Bush tax cuts in 2010 is on their priority list of legislative agenda according to their website. How cutting taxes has to do with Jesus is beyond me but again, Republicans HATE taxes.

The failure of George Bush is also leading to Rudy's popularity. Republicans are kind of embarrassed right now. They realize that they don't have the brightest guy in the world right now in office. Republicans also realize that Rudy fixed a broken city and could fix George Bush's broken country.

Rudy is also being an individual without attacking social conservatives. Instead of calling Pat Roberson an agent of intolerance like McCain did, Rudy ignores him and says he likes John Roberts which is all they want to hear anyway as the Christian Coalition's priority is to have as many conservative judges as possible.

The media doesn't get it probably because they don't really talk to average Republican voters or aren't ones themselves. The media covers Pat Robertson more than they cover the average Joe Republican. Besides taxes, there is another thing that unties Republicans even more than social issues, it is a strong leader. The reason why Rudy is winning is that he is anti-tax, a strong leader, pro reducing the scope of the federal government and yes, because he is known by almost everyone

Rudy's argument is that local municipalities should ~~decide gun laws...~~

IOW, his argument is that municipalities should ignore the US Constitution.

I like RG's ideas on fiscal policy, but I think nominating him is dangerous. He will not fare well in the south (because of the aforementioned gun thing, not his divorces). The pro choice thing won't fly well in the south or the midwest or, for that matter, many rural locations in the north either.

Do not be deceived into thinking that his position of 'cities should make gun laws but the federal government should not' will get him pro gun rights voters, especially in the south. My state is populated by a large number of card carrying yellow dog democrats. In the early 90s, the Brady Bill was being considered in congress. My state's first district democrat representative tried to win reelection in 94 by saying that he didn't vote for the ban, which he didn't during the open floor vote. However, he did vote to bring it out of committee and it came out of committee by one vote: his. He thought he could tout his vote against the bill on the open floor and get 1st district voters, who are pro gun rights, to vote for him.

That plan didn't work. People were keenly aware of his duplicity, and in 1994 a district full of yellow dog democrats voted in the first republican to represent them in the US House since the Civil War. Do not think for a second that this position of 'gun laws are OK for cities to make, but I won't do it as your president' will fly. It won't, and people will not be fooled.

On the issue of abortion Giuliani is pro choice. So will this kill him? Not really. Giuliani is personally opposed to abortion but thinks that in certain cases that you shouldn't put a woman in jail for having an abortion.

Generally, around here, when someone, in reference to a serious issue of morality and infringement of rights (the unborn child's, in this case), says "I'm personally against this but I have no intention of doing anything about it when in office," it comes off as dishonest, insincere, and underhanded. We begin to wonder if the man has any real principles or if he is just saying what somebody wants to here to get votes.

I'm not implying RG doesn't have principles; I honestly believe he does. I'm just pointing out how all this is going to be perceived.

I think RG is a good guy, and a good leader; but he's not electable. The liberal media knows this, which is why he is continually named as the GOP front runner, based on information and polls that probably didn't have a lot to do with scientific data gathering.

An excellent article about Rudy’s fiscal and law and order conservatism:
To those of us who observed Giuliani from the beginning, it was astonishing how fully he followed through on his conservative principles once elected, no matter how much he upset elite opinion, no matter how often radical advocates took to the streets in protest, no matter how many veiled (and not so veiled) threats that incendiary figures like Al Sharpton made against him, and no matter how often the New York Times fulminated against his policies. In particular, offended by the notion that people should be treated differently and demand privileges based on the color of their skin, Giuliani was fearless in confronting racial extortionists like Sharpton. Early in his tenure, he startled the city when he refused to meet with Sharpton and other black activists after a confrontation between police and black Muslims at a Harlem mosque. And though activists claimed that Giuliani inflamed racial tensions with such actions, there were no incidents during his tenure comparable with the disgraceful Crown Heights riot under Dinkins, in which the police let blacks terrorize Orthodox Jews for several days in a Brooklyn neighborhood.
Giuliani decided to launch a welfare revolution, moving recipients from the dole to a job. Mindful that for years the city’s welfare bureaucracy had focused on signing up new recipients (Lindsay’s welfare chief had been nicknamed “Come And Get It” Ginsberg), the Giuliani administration first set out to recertify everyone in the city’s own home-relief program to eliminate fraud. In less than a year, the rolls of the program (for able-bodied adults not eligible for federal welfare programs) declined by 20 percent, as the city discovered tens of thousands of recipients who were actually employed, living outside the city, or providing false Social Security numbers.
Giuliani then instituted a work requirement for the remaining home-relief recipients, mostly men, obliging them to earn their checks by cleaning city parks and streets or doing clerical work in municipal offices for 20 hours a week. Welfare advocates vigorously objected, and one advocate pronounced the workfare program “slavery.” The New York Times editorialized that most people on home relief were incapable of work.
As a consequence of his rejection of the time-honored New York liberal belief in congenital black victimhood, Giuliani set out to change the city’s conversation about race. He objected to affirmative action, ending Gotham’s set-aside program for minority contractors, and he rejected the idea of lowering standards for minorities. Accordingly, he ended open enrollment at the City University of New York, a 1970s policy aimed at increasing the minority population at the nation’s third-largest public college system but one that also led to a steep decline in standards and in graduation rates.
Giuliani’s first budget, submitted just weeks after he took office, stunned the city’s political establishment by its fiscal conservatism. To demonstrate his disdain for the reigning orthodoxy, when the New York Times editorial board urged him to solve the budget crisis with tax and fee increases that a Dinkins-era special commission had recommended, Giuliani unceremoniously dumped a copy of the commission’s report into the garbage and derided it as “old thinking.” It was a pointed declaration that a very different set of ideas would guide his administration.
After years of tax hikes under Dinkins, Giuliani proposed making up the city’s still-huge budget deficit entirely through spending cuts and savings. Even more audaciously, he proposed a modest tax cut to signal the business community that New York was open for business, promising more tax cuts later. “I felt it was really important the first year I was mayor to cut a tax,” Giuliani later explained. “Nobody ever cut a tax before in New York City, and that was one of the reasons I wanted to set a new precedent.”
To balance the city’s budget early in his tenure, when tax revenues stagnated amid a struggling economy, the mayor played hardball, winning concessions from city workers that other mayors had failed to get. The city’s police unions had used their power in Albany to resist efforts by ex-mayors Koch and Dinkins to merge the city’s housing police and transit police into the NYPD. Giuliani strong-armed Albany leaders into agreeing to the merger, saving the city hundreds of millions in administrative costs and making the department a better crime-fighting unit, by threatening to fire every housing and transit officer and rehire each as a city cop if legislative leaders did not go along. Similarly, though the city’s garbagemen, many of whom worked only half days because their department was so overstaffed, had rebuffed the Dinkins administration’s push for productivity savings, Giuliani won $300 million in savings from them by threatening to contract out trash collection to private companies. Ultimately, with such deals, Giuliani reduced city-funded spending by 1.6 percent his first year in office, the largest overall reduction in city spending since the Depression.
Although Giuliani was no tax or economic expert when he took office, he became a tax-cut true believer when he saw how the city’s economy and targeted industries perked up at his first reductions. One of his initial budgetary moves was to cut the city’s hotel tax, which during the Dinkins administration had been the highest of any major world city. When tourism rebounded, Giuliani pointed out that the city was collecting more in taxes from a lower rate. “No one ever considered tax reductions a reasonable option,” Giuliani explained. But, he added in a speech at the Ronald Reagan Library, “targeted tax reductions spur growth. That’s why we have made obtaining targeted tax reductions a priority of every budget.” In his eight years in office, Giuliani reduced or eliminated 23 taxes, including the sales tax on some clothing purchases, the tax on commercial rents everywhere outside of Manhattan’s major business districts, and various taxes on small businesses and self-employed New Yorkers.
The national, and even world, press marveled at the spectacular success of Giuliani’s policies. The combination of a safer city and a better budget environment ignited an economic boom unlike any other on record. Construction permits increased by more than 50 percent, to 70,000 a year under Giuliani, compared with just 46,000 in Dinkins’s last year. Meanwhile, as crime plunged, New Yorkers took to the newly safe streets to go out at night to shows and restaurants, and the number of tourists soared from 24 million in the early 1990s to 38 million in 2000, the year before the 9/11 attacks. Under Giuliani, the city gained some 430,000 new jobs to reach its all-time employment peak of 3.72 million jobs in 2000, while the unemployment rate plummeted from 10.3 to 5.1 percent. Personal income earned by New Yorkers, meanwhile, soared by $100 million, or 50 percent, while the percentage of their income that they paid in taxes declined from 8.8 to 7.3 percent. During Giuliani’s second term, for virtually the only time since World War II, the city’s economy consistently grew faster than the nation’s.
Today, Americans see Giuliani as presidential material because of his leadership in the wake of the terrorist attacks, but to those of us who watched him first manage America’s biggest city when it was crime-ridden, financially shaky, and plagued by doubts about its future as employers and educated and prosperous residents fled in droves, Giuliani’s leadership on 9/11 came as no surprise. What Americans saw after the attacks is a combination of attributes that Giuliani governed with all along: the tough-mindedness that had gotten him through earlier civic crises, a no-nonsense and efficient management style, and a clarity and directness of speech that made plain what he thought needed to be done and how he would do it.
Like great wartime leaders, Giuliani displayed unflinching courage on 9/11. A minute after the first plane struck, he rushed downtown, arriving at the World Trade Center just after the second plane hit the South Tower, when it became obvious to everyone that New York was under attack. Fearing that more strikes were on the way—and without access to City Hall, the police department, or the city’s command center because of damage from the attacks—Giuliani hurried to reestablish city government, narrowly escaping death himself as the towers came down next to a temporary command post he had set up in lower Manhattan. “There is no playbook for a mayor on how to organize city government when you are standing on a street covered by dust from the city’s worst calamity,” one of his deputy mayors, Anthony Coles, later observed.
Giuliani understood that he needed not only to keep city government operating but to inspire and console as well. Within a few hours, he had reestablished New York’s government in temporary headquarters, where he led the first post-9/11 meeting with his commissioners and with a host of other New York elected officials on hand to observe, prompting even one of his harshest critics, liberal Manhattan congressman Jerrold Nadler, to marvel at the “efficiency of the meeting.” Within hours, the city launched a massive search and recovery operation. Some half a dozen times that day Giuliani went on TV, reassuring the city and then the nation with his calm, frank demeanor and his plainspoken talk. As the nation struggled to understand what had happened and President Bush made his way back to Washington, Giuliani emerged as the one public official in America who seemed to be in command on 9/11. He became, as Newsweek later called him, “our Winston Churchill.”
In the weeks following the attacks, Giuliani became both the cheerleader of New York’s efforts to pick itself up and the voice of moral outrage about the attacks. Giuliani exhorted private institutions within the city—the stock exchanges, the Broadway theaters—to resume operations and urged the rest of America and the world to come visit the city. Not waiting for federal aid, the city rapidly began a cleanup of the World Trade Center site, which proceeded ahead of schedule, and of the devastated neighborhood around the site, which reopened block by block in the weeks after the attacks. Meanwhile, the mayor led visiting heads of state on tours of the devastation, because, he said, “You can’t come here and be neutral.” He addressed the United Nations on the new war against terrorism, warning the delegates: “You’re either with civilization or with terrorists.” When a Saudi prince donated millions to relief efforts but later suggested that United States policy in the Middle East may have been partially responsible for the attacks, Giuliani returned the money, observing that there was “no moral equivalent” for the unprecedented terrorist attack. He attended dozens of funerals of emergency workers killed in the towers’ collapse, leading the city not just in remembrance but in catharsis.
As “America’s mayor,” a sobriquet he earned after 9/11, Giuliani has a unique profile as a presidential candidate. To engineer the city’s turnaround, he had to take on a government whose budget and workforce were larger than all but five or six states. (Indeed, his budget his first year as mayor was about ten times the size of the one that Bill Clinton managed in his last year as governor of Arkansas.) For more than a decade, the city has been among the biggest U.S. tourist destinations, and tens of millions of Americans have seen firsthand the dramatic changes he wrought in Gotham.
Moreover, as an expert on policing and America’s key leader on 9/11, Giuliani is an authority on today’s crucial foreign policy issue, the war on terror. In fact, as a federal prosecutor in New York, he investigated and prosecuted major terrorist cases. As mayor, he took the high moral ground in the terrorism debate in 1995, when he had an uninvited Yasser Arafat expelled from city-sponsored celebrations during the United Nations’ 50th anniversary because, in Giuliani’s eyes, Arafat was a terrorist, not a world leader. “When we’re having a party and a celebration, I would rather not have someone who has been implicated in the murders of Americans there, if I have the discretion not to have him there,” Giuliani said at the time.
These are impressive conservative credentials. And if social and religious conservatives fret about Giuliani’s more liberal social views, nevertheless, in the general election such views might make this experience-tested conservative even more electable.
Research for this article was supported by the Brunie Fund for New York Journalism.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26604

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.