Posted on 02/13/2007 10:41:04 AM PST by meg88
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
You managed to completely avoid answering any of the substance of my posts, kind of like RINO-rudy during his recent interview with Hannity.
If you are now ready to forego ad hominem attacks, I'll be happy to discuss the substance of your posts.
Your primary substantive point is that the threat of anti-gun laws is greater than I had stated: THE main function of anti-gun demonRAT-created groups like this are PRECISELY to fly under the radar and make it SEEM as if the threat of new gun control laws, as Wiener says, "has receded in urgency", and that "the danger at this time is minimal".
I would take issue with that. I believe the principle strategy of anti-gun groups has always been to convey a sense of the inevitability of gun control (and eventual gun abolition). They try to paint it as the conventional wisdom that guns are evil and dangerous, and that it's only a matter of time until Americans will mature to the point where the Second Amendment will be recognized as an archaic dead letter which is inapplicable to modern society. They want this viewpoint to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
During the 1980's and early 1990's, gun control had become one of the fundamental tenets of liberals and the Mainstream Media, to the point that it was a litmus test for every Democrat. The Brady Bill, banning "assault weapons", registering guns, etc. were proudly trumpeted by all the anti-gun organizations as evidence that the NRA was losing its grip on the general public.
The 1994 election had a shattering effect on the anti-gunners. Bill Clinton openly admitted that the Democratic Party's gun-control stance had cost them dozens of seats and control of Congress. CCW Shall-Carry laws modeled after Florida were spreading to other states, and with each new victory the alarmist predictions of the Brady bunch were further discredited. Gore's election loss in 2000 can be attributed to disaffected pro-gun Democrats as much as anything. By 2004 Kerry was pretending to be a hunter, and an increasing number of Democrats were getting high NRA ratings. The AWB expired in September, 2004, and the only consequence was that Republicans picked up seats in Congress.
Do you hear Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid or any other prominent Congressional leader promoting major gun control legislation now that they have control of Congress? Twenty years ago that would have been the number one (or close to it) issue on their agenda. Now it's near the bottom.
So yes, objectively speaking, the threat of new gun control laws has receded in urgency and the danger is currently minimal. Nor is this just some clever strategy on the part of gun-control groups to fly under the radar. Things really have swung around in our direction. It doesn't mean we've won a permanent victory; the pendulum could swing back in a few years. But even President Hillary will downplay the issue, even if Congress was willing to enact new laws, which it won't be. After all, she'll want to be re-elected in 2012.
So a Giuliani Presidency does not pose a big threat to our Second Amendment rights, especially if he appoints competent strict constructionist judges. That doesn't mean I support Giuliani (I don't, although I don't think he's as bad as several other candidates). Nor does it mean I approve of his past anti-gun positions. I consider his recent statements moderating his position to be based more on political expediency than anything else.
Still, I don't believe that the issue of gun-control will be a controlling factor among conservatives and Republican voters in determining whether Rudy gets the nomination. Those people (such as yourself) who are adamantly opposed to him would be opposed to him anyway based on other issues (such as abortion). The number of people who would support Rudy if ONLY he did not have an anti-gun history is, in my opinion, probably very small and not enough to effect the outcome.
Sound analysis.
I do believe that the dems ARE taking yet another anti-gun strategy by creating false "pro"-gun organizations in an effort to divide and conquer MY NRA, and other gun owners in the country. In other words, they want to separate those NRA members whose main concern is protecting and defending the 2nd Amendment, from those that are primarily concerned with hunting and sport shooting (sporting clays, skeet & trap, etc.). These groups, with names like Americans For Gun Safety (AGS) and the American Hunters and Shooters Association (ASHA), ARE FAUX pro-gun organizations, which APPEAR to unsuspecting gun owners, to be "reasonable" and "sensible" (words right out of the anti-gun whacko crowd's playbook, and words RINO-rudy has used as well). The NRA has reported on these organizations at length in their magazines, and have pointed out, that there are many devout anti-gun liberal democrats (some that even worked in the clinton admin) that are on the INSIDE, running these organizations from leadership positions.
This is yet another way for the gun-grabbers to try and chip away at our 2nd Amendment rights, since they know it can't be done in one fell swoop. Previous tactics (most of them ATTEMPTS that failed, thankfully) have been inexorably high taxes placed on ammunition, bans on classes of weapons and hi-cap magazines, licensing and registration schemes on guns and ammo, reclassifying formerly legal firearms as restricted weapons (done by clinton's secretary of the treasury), trying to create de facto gun registration through various means, and on, and on. These people will NEVER stop devising ways to strip us of our 2nd Amendment Rights. To think any different, or to trust these types, is dangerous and naive.
OF COURSE reid and pelosi, and other rabid anti-gun pukes are NOT mentioning gun control. That doesn't mean they are not trying to develop new methods to reach the gun-free (like mediocre britain perhaps?) America they envision. Just as our military has battle contingencies drawn up for many different potential scenarios around the world, so do the gun-grabbers have plans drawn up for the next Columbine, or other high profile massacre where some crazy, criminal, or terrorist inflicts mass casualties. We've seen it before, when an event like this happens, lo and behold, new anti-gun legislation pops out of thin air. Actually, the gun-grabbing bills are there, waiting to be used. And what president will sign these bills when they reach his/her desk? I would submit EITHER president hillary OR president rudy (perhaps rudy more so than the Ice Queen, since he has been much more vocal than she with his gun control positions).
So, I say, if we truly value our 2nd Amendment RIGHTS, those unalienable rights which are enumerated in the Bill of Rights, we MUST STOP an anti-gun RINO from becoming our sole, Republican candidate for President.
And, due to all I've mentioned above, I DO think that, even IF rudy's ONLY fault was that he did not understand or revere our 2nd Amendment RIGHT (which he obviously DOES NOT), I STILL think that is a FATAL flaw in and of itself, and MOST of the gun people I know or have ever known, would NOT support him or vote for him.
Of course, the reality is, that he has MANY fatal flaws where real conservatism is concerned, so I don't think he is going to get far in the process, hopefully. For the good of the party and the country (and of course, the unborn and the 2nd Amendment), I hope he falls on his sword early on, so we can get a true conservative in line for Republican president.
Actually, the BOR was never intended to be included in the Constitution in the first place.
Because the FedGov would never ever expand beyond its enumerated powers. Right?
The 14th Amendment extends the BOR to the States.
Have you ever heard of a concept call a VETO? Changes the entire dynamic for a bill to get passed - from a simple majority to a two-thirds supermajority. So it damn well does matter that we don't have a gun-grabber in the White House.
Unlike GW, I AM aware of the veto. I also am aware that Rudy isn't strongly pro-gun (like I wish he would be). He's no gun-grabber; he's a wishy washy "I want to be elected" republican. Hillary, on the other hand, IS a gun grabber. And in either case the bills come from the congress and the senate, so that's where we in the NRA must concentrate our efforts. For 2008, yes, but especially in 2010.
Not correct. He took guns away from long-term NYC permit holders who never had Dinkins or Koch try to take them away.
He has spoken strongly in favor of assault-weapons bans and stringent restrictions on handguns.
And he filed suit against gun manufacturers.
He's a gun-grabber by any reasonable definition of such.
I'm a true conservative ...As all of the above, and a Benefactor Life Member of the NRA (I've put LOTS of money where my mouth is), I will apply the SAME criteria you mention above for ALL candidates for higher office, NOT just, as you suggest, only members of the "house and senate". I'd rather have a man who is proud to mention that he is a supporter and defender of the 2nd, one that will gladly say that he owns firearms and hunts, say, someone like Vice President Cheney, than a deceitful, duplicitous little gun-grabbing inner-city maggot like RINO-rudy....
My friend, if you can get Mr. Cheney to run I will support him over Rudy in a heartbeat...no pun intended. It AIN'T HAPPENING though. So who do we have to choose from? Who will get the nomination? Odds are it is Rudy or McCain. Of those two, I like Rudy better. Yes, I apply the 2nd amendment test to ALL politicians, not JUST house & senate, but I'm not going to waste my vote on a "write-in".
Odds are much greater that polls this far out are pretty meaningless.
That's gratuitously unfair to our social conservative brothers and sisters.
Yes, a lot of them are being mean and pigheaded here about Rudy, that doesn't mean you should do the same.
ML/NJ
"Rudy would need two mountains of cash and a terrible opponent to pull off a win." He has no competition to win the nomination except McCain. So he has no competition.
He would make minchmeat out of Hillary in a debate and win every state but MAYBE NY, Mass, MI, Conn. And could win all of them.
People might take things you say seriously if you didn't make claims anyone can see through. It is a FACT that Guliani is the Front Runner now. Unfortunately for you there is also NOTHING you can do about it.
"Actually, the BOR was never intended to be included in the Constitution in the first place." Right but it became clear that political expediency required one. Madison and Hamilton knew it was unnecessary but had to be added in order to mollify the less fanatic anti-Federalists.
"Because the FedGov would never ever expand beyond its enumerated powers. Right" The problem is that some do not see that UNenumerated powers are attached to the enumerated ones. Hence, the power to create a corporation is not specifically enumerated but to conclude doing so is unconstitutional when it would assist in carrying out those specifically enumerated is illogical.
Yes violations of the rights of the Freedmen by the Southern states forced the fed government to amend the Constitution to make it clear that the BoR included Blacks.
"He is the 'front runner' because people know his name." Most people have the odd habit of only voting for those they have heard of. Rudy has been heard of because of his accomplishments.
"When people start to get interested in the race they'll start to see he is a lovable, walking freak show and he'll go the way of Howard Dean." Most politically-minded, savvy people go out of their way not to gratuitously insult their opponents since those opponents just might win. They do this so as to have SOME influence should that happen.
You Rudyphobes seem determined to burn each and every bridge then blow up the foundations so as to insure that you have NO influence whatsoever. The damage you could do your own cause is enormous and you are oblivious to it.
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.