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
Republican primary voters should rally around the GOP field's most accomplished supply-sider, the all-but-announced Rudolph W. Giuliani. Having sliced taxes and slashed Gotham's government, New York's former mayor is the leading fiscal conservative among 2008's GOP presidential contenders.
Before Giuliani's January 1, 1994 inauguration, New York's economy was on a stretcher. Amid soaring unemployment, 235 jobs vanished daily. Financier Felix Rohatyn complained: "Virtually all human activities are taxed to the hilt." Punitive taxes helped fuel a $2.3 billion deficit.
Mayor-elect Giuliani sounded Reaganesque when he announced he would "reduce the size and cost of city government" to balance the budget. In his first State of the City address, he said: "We're going to cut taxes to attract jobs so our people can work."
Rudy spent 8 years keeping those promises.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1782806/posts
Because that will be his job, that's why.
ML/NJ
But the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not the urgent issue it was a few years ago, when gun control was on the march both federally and among the states. These days Democrats are terrified of the issue, since it has cost them too many elections.
The Assault Weapon Ban expired, and the world hasn't come to an end. Shall-Carry CCW laws have spread to most of the states, and blood isn't running in the intersections of our streets. Castle laws are on the move around the country, reinforcing the philosophical support among Americans for the right of self-defense.
So the chances of new gun-control laws being enacted in the next few years, even under a Democratic Congress and Presidency, are low. A Giuliani Presidency is fairly irrelevant to gun rights, even if he wasn't already trimming his position to be more gun-friendly.
The upshot is that this is an issue that most conservatives and 2nd Amendment supporters can afford to give Giuliani a pass on. It's a bit of a negative for Giuliani, but only a bit, and certainly not a deal-breaker. If Giuliani keeps his promise to appoint judges in the mold of Roberts and Alioto, who'll pay attention to what the Constitution actually says, that will be sufficient.
I'm a member of the NRA. I'm conservative. I also realize that the president doesn't write legislation. Vote in conservative members of the house and senate to protect our 2nd amendment rights. Don't use that as criterea for POTUS.
I like Rudy for the same reason others do: He's sound on terrorism and taxes. He is undeniably a strong, genuine leader.
What are the top issues that are actually important on a national level? Terrorism, taxes and strong leadership.
I think Rudy's the most electable candidate out there, thanks to his leadership qualities. He has credible experience in turning around a bad situation in New York, which is probably the most difficult city in the world to try and run. And he has the charm and dynamism needed to crush Hillary or Obama.
So why should we focus on issues like abortion that have no national relevance? And, for that matter, are any of the major candidates significantly better on these issues than he is?
It's easy to oppose a candidate; who do you support, and do you think your candidate has a serious chance of winning in 2008?
D
((((PING))))
In a very interesting City Journal article, Steven Malanga argues that "Yes, Rudy Guiliani Is a Conservative/And an electable one at that."
Malanga makes a strong case for Rudy as a Reagan-style conservative. After recounting Giuliani's record as mayor of New York City, in which, as Malanga establishes firmly, Rudy supported free markets and individual responsibility, as exemplified vividly in his tax cuts , welfare reform success, "zero tolerance" crimefighting, and firm rejection of racial politics.
As Malanga notes, Giuliani did this in what was one of the most leftist cities in the US.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1774783/posts
Thanks for your realistic perspective. It seems almost out of place for some reason.
Amen.
We can debate all the social issues until we are blue in the face but the overiding issue of the day is the WOT. We must understand this in order to make a sound decision on whom we elect to be our next president. We just must! There are no other issues more important than this. IMO.
Setting the record straight.
Ultra social conservative Pat Robertson thinks Rudy would make a good president.
Asked if Giuliani would be an acceptable 2008 presidential candidate to Christian conservatives, Pat Robertson told ABC's "This Week:" "He did a super job running the city of New York and I think he'd make a good president."
I understand your point, but the Media is merely revealing who among the Republican candidates, is dominating the publics preferred choice for who is the most competitive candidate.
So far, Rudy is the most capable candidate of taking on the Democrats, regardless of all the single issue negativity.
a) It was Bill Clinton's job, too.
b) It would be Hillary's job, as well.
So that argument isn't even paper-thick; and
c) Then he would be acting counter to his prior rhetoric and actions regarding immigration
Hey Peach, great information... I did manage to read through it and then I saw the link!
Sam Brownback would support Rudy as presidential nominee, but thinks that he (Brownback) will enter race.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1752817/posts
Rudy defended Sen. George Allen against racism charges.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1709893/posts
Rudy stumped for Rep. Santorum and a host of other Republicans. It was too long a list to post.
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/19/115741.shtml?s=ic
Well-said. Whatever happened to the infectous optimism of Reagan among conservatives? Some still have it (we see it here, for the most part), but some would rather suck on lemons and complain.
Except for the NY Post and NY Sun, the MSM in NYC despised Rudy when he was mayor. How dare he cut the welfare rolls, arrest turnstile jumpers, and drive the street ho's to New Jersey. And he had some nerve when he refused to allow Arafat a seat a NYC function for the 50th anniversary of the UN.
Yes it's all about pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-gun to some...even if they have to exaggerate his words and positions to maintain that determination to hate him. They really do think Hillary would be just fine it seems, and God help us all if more than a small minority of Republicans feel that way.
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.