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
I'm sorry :-)
I have to automatically enter in paragraph breaks when I copy from Word (I just learned this today. LOL)
It is one of the better articles about Rudy, imo.
What's so interesting about that is that Newt Gingrich's Contract With America didn't include a single word about abortion, gun rights or gay marriage.
But now it's all the rage and all the serial spammers can talk about.
Thanks for the posting, great article on Rudy and where he stands on those issues.
Oh, yeah, the way to win is to put Alberto Gonzales on the Supreme Court???? Sounds like the author is one of those birdbrains who thought Harriet Miers was a great legal mind. It's instructive to see what sort of folks support Rudy . . . but I think those of us who follow FreeRepublic already knew.
The free speech clause in the First Amendment is also a fundenmental right, and yet the SCOTUS has ruled that the First Amendment is subject to local interpretation, at least when the issue is porn.
Well in that case he should be Secretary of Defense. (if were not disqualified for his disloyalty to the Constitution).
Maybe you don't understand the term "Commander in Chief".
The Secretary of Defense does not set our foreign policy. He only takes orders from the President.
I agree somewhat with what the author is trying to say in the article, but take issue with the above statement.
The country is split roughly fifty-fifty, liberals and conservatives, I think no one would dispute, yet 90% of broadcast media and an even higher percentage of print media go for the liberal half of its potential market, day in and day out. In my hometown, the people will reliably vote 65% Republican each and every election, yet the hometown newspaper berates conservative ideology, and openly shills for Democrat candidates. It's about the IDEOLOGY, apparently.
I believe that Rudy will win hearts and minds in the primary debates. What follows is a simulated debate Q&A:
Liberal NPR (I know, redundant) debate moderator: "Mr. Giuliani, how would your administration deal with abuses at Guantanamo Bay?"
Rudy: "I'd triple the size of the prison at Gitmo to accommodate more terrorists for detention and questioning. I would ensure that every legal means of interrogation is employed nonstop to extract the information that we and our allies need to save lives in the war on terror. Back to your question--can you cite a real example of abuse that didn't originate with a terrorist sympathizer? Can you identify a dead or maimed terrorist who suffered those injuries at Gitmo? Can you find terrorists who are better fed or cared for?"
Then why, pray tell, did he attempt to use the courts to impose NYC's gun laws on other States? Using liberal, activist judges to re-write laws and the Constitution? Tsk, tsk... That's not very conservative, now is it.
A very good point. I don't hear the "one-issue" (fag haters) Freepers trouncing Dick Cheney for his views which are EXACTLY the same as Rudy's.
I wonder why? I thought the old double standard was only a liberal ploy.
I'm a very strong Reagan Republican. He taught people to be individuals through rational thinking.
He also stressed using diplomacy amongst our enemies. It was his greatest and most effective tool that helped shape this World for two decades after he was first elected.
He wasn't perfect either. That was his favorite way of looking at himself and why he was so well liked, even by his enemies. He wasn't afraid to admit his weaknesses. And probably what made him so powerful overall.
In this old Meet the Press clip he's talking about other leaders, so it's not in the context of the current election. Nevertheless, he proudly speaks of having opposed even the meager immigration reforms that Clinton signed off on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrI7PTDfl4c
I think you've hit on the primary reason why Democrats want to get rid of the Electoral College. We must not let that happen or big cities will picking our presidents.
It seems to me that Pres. Bush is gifted in his ability to relate to people in a face to face or even face to audience situation. He is also smart in the knowledge way.
Unfortunately, this is countered by his seeming complete failure to understand that there are those who do not want him to succeed and will do just about anything to prevent it. He acts like sweet Charlie Brown while the DBM and Dems are Lucy pulling the football out. You would think that after 7 years of this he would learn.
Yup me too!
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.