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 didn't read his comment, but I have a problem with anybody who brings "hunting", "gun collecting", "self-defense" (against criminal attackers) or "target shooting" into any Second Amendment debate, since there is absolutely no connection.
"...and has opposed anti-illegal immigrant legislation,..." I was not aware of this. When did he "oppose" it? What did he say? Can you give me some quotes? I would like them in context please. Thanks.
Exactly.
That and he is pro gun control. The trifecta of he isn't getting my vote ever.
We know......
Heck! The media doesn't even understand why they are becoming irrelavent.
It might have been smarter of you to point out that it was Ronald Reagan's job too. Comparing Giulanni's integrity with one of the Clintons would be bad but comparing it to both sort of disqualifies you.
Do you think Rudy is opposed to Fourth of July fireworks?
ML/NJ
See the link above to the youtube clip. There's another clip from a speech he gave in 2000 where he said he wanted the U.S. to be even more open to immigrants. Obviously, these were pre-9/11 quotes, but I haven't read or heard anything to indicate he's modified his stance on immigration. If he has, I welcome correction on the point. I still don't think it will make a difference in terms of his beating a Dem in the election, but I want to be accurate.
The Constitution doesn't give a damn WHERE in the United States one lives; it applies EQUALLY everywhere.
THAT is a conservative position that Rudy doesn't seem to understand.
It's really sad but only one man in recent history not a moderate or liberal Republican but his own man has been able to get past the Media's Choice they try to cram down our throats and actually get elected. Of course the great communicator always took his issues & programs to the people and counted on them to back him up even against the liberal media and it worked most of the time. That of course was Reagan.
Who's kidding who? If the media today stopped it's almost non stop Rudy this Rudy that. If he wasn't their Belle of the Ball for the GOP they sure wouldn't be inviting him to the dance. Either way liberal media wins unless people wise up.
No he didn't
The WTC bombing was on Feb 26, 1993. Rudy was in office from January 1, 1994 to December 31, 2001.
Why, were you not aware of it? Thankfully, Reagan did work to keep our nation secure, by ratcheting up defense spending. He could certainly have done more in terms of the border, but this was well before the recent exponential increase in Islamic terror, which Clinton helped usher in by actively downgrading our military and intelligence capabilities.
But perhaps that point is too complex for you to process.
Comparing Giulanni's integrity with one of the Clintons would be bad but comparing it to both sort of disqualifies you.
You know, it helps to read all the words. That way you don't rebut arguments that weren't made.
Do you think Rudy is opposed to Fourth of July fireworks?
Nice job of staying on-topic.
"I think that the negative image of the President comes from actual surveys among Republican voters. Many Republicans are buying into the Media propaganda that President Bush is not well liked for a wide variety of reasons."
WRONG! . . . President Bush is actually WELL-LIKED by 93% of Republicans and 56% of Independents -- the rest is pure MSM propaganda! . . . Please read the following:
MSM polls are designed to produce results supportive of the leftist/Democrat political agenda . . . For RELIABLE polling data, refer to the most respected INDEPENDENT pollster in the business today: Ed Goeas and The Battleground Poll
THE BATTLEGROUND POLL 2007:
PRESIDENT BUSH
42% JA rating//45% Favorability rating (JA and Favorability ratings are now synonymous!)
61% LIKABILITY RATING
[FYI: The Battleground Poll remains the only poll that consistently tracks a president's 'likability rating'. Before Clinton, all MSM pollsters produced likability ratings; however, when it became obvious that Clinton's 'LR' rating would never rise above 40%, the MSM pollsters stopped taking the measure!]
"CONTINUING A TREND SEEN THROUGHOUT HIS PRESIDENCY, THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL APPROVAL RATING REMAINS HIGH at sixty-one (61%) of likely voters approving of him personally, a sign that the President has an opening to at some point move his image and JA rating net positive. On this measure 93% OF REPUBLICANS and 56% OF INDEPENDENTS APPROVE OF HIM. The President continues to have a considerable amount of personal good will not only with his base Republican voters, but also with those key Independent voters."
You will find more polling statistics and analysis at
http://www.tarrance.com/Republican-Analysis.pdf
PERSPECTIVE:
President Reagan experienced sub-par job approval ratings for much of his presidency (Gallup).
In fact, by 1987, 60% of Republicans/conservatives indicated that they DEFINITELY wanted a new direction and, even if it were possible, would NOT vote for President Reagan again!
And by 1993, 61% of Americans considered Reagan's economic policies a FAILURE (Gallup)!
Yet at his funeral, President Reagan was lauded by Republicans and Democrats alike . . . He is now considered one of the best presidents of all time! . . . I predict the same result for President George W Bush!
For more insight (and a major REALITY CHECK), please read the following editorial from COMMENTARY magazine:
IS CONSERVATISM FINISHED?
By Wilfred M. McClay
. . . We also forget that the Reagan administration itself, far from being happily unified, was driven by internal battles between “pragmatists” and “ideologues,” conflicts that prefigured many of the policy battles of the present. And we forget that, outside the administration, REAGAN GOT PLENTY OF GRIEF FROM HIS OWN RIGHT AS WELL.
You can read all about this 'grief' at
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.aip?id=10812&page=all
And even when his term was up what happened? He wanted to extend his term despite the fact the people had elected a new mayor and by law his time was legally up.
You'd think a guy who tries to dazzle others with his brilliance would understand.
ML/NJ
I don't think the country is split 50/50 liberal/conservative. There are far more conservatives than liberals. The question comes down to all those in the middle and which way they lean. You might be able to get 50 percent to vote Democratic, but that includes Democratics who are not particularly liberal and also includes Democrats who pawn themselves off as conservative lite (when they're not). I don't think the country would even split 50/50 Repub/Dem in elections if it weren't from the media. I think it would be more like 60/40 if the media were a fair and objective arbiter. That's what a nearly uniform liberal bias in the press buys for the Dems, a chance to govern.
WE citizens can NEVER give a pass to an individual running for high office when it comes to our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS (not to mention, a pass on such an individual's support for the MURDER of the unborn).
His UN-American, Police-State position on firearms and our 2nd Amendment rights (among other issues vitally important to real conservatives) IS a DEAL BREAKER.
If you were a true conservative, a gun owner, and a true supporter of the Constitution (not just the parts you like or agree with), then you'd know that.
Just say NO to gun-grabbing dems and RINOs.
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.