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
UHMMmm..if president Guiliani signs gun control bills, or stops pro gun initiatives, then he's freakin anti-gun...
How hard is it for these people to understand that?
If that is a list of states with the highest divorce RATES your quibble doesn't matter.
Great analysis, as usual, DrDeb. The polls we constantly hear about, showing Bush's numbers in the tank, are probably more the result of how the poll questions were worded. It's one reason I pay little attention to the MSM about anything.
Gee and to think ALL you have to do is come up with someone, anyone to beat Guiliani. The only alternative is McCain.
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.
That paragraph is an outright LIE!!
Julie-Annie is NOW, TODAY - calling for Federal Licensing of ALL gun owners and mandatory 'fitness testing' which said gun owner needs to pass to get said license and more "Federal Regulations". He NOW, TODAY, equates the Right stated in the Second Amendment to Keep and Bear Arms with that of driving a f**king car!!!
The fact is that Julie-Annie's gun control position is more radical than anything any Democrat running for POTUS has ever uttered. More extreme than Kerry, more extreme than GORE, more extreme than CLINTON!! The bottom line is that his view of guns is NOT that of being under local jurisdiction and control, it's FEDERAL CONTROL he wants. And 'control' like he had in NYC where he stripped law abiding citizens of their guns through more and more regulations (one FReeper in NYC lost all of his due to Rudy).
This gun grabbing mutt is a danger to the Republic and would sign every U.N. Gun gabbing treaty he could get his little perverted hands on.
(Sheesh, talk about "lazy reporting".)
The doctor called. The results from your Rorschach are in.
"It's difficult to believe someone who is in favor of allowing a woman to kill her unborn child, who has committed no crime, is actually serious about protecting individual rights." We can see how concerned you are about INDIVIDUAL rights as you would happily force pregnant women to give birth. The "individual" NOT here is more important than the individual who IS here for you.
If one state has fifty percent more marriages than another per capita and twenty-five percent more divorces, that is relevant to giving the statistics meaning.
I'm a true conservative who has served on active duty to protect and defend ALL of our Constitutional rights, including, and MOST especially, our 2nd Amendment rights.
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.
His previous and recent comments, and actions as the liberal RINO mayor of The Peoples Republic of NYC, reveal that, not only does he NOT understand the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment (NOT even CLOSE), but he doesn't CARE about one of our most fundamental rights which has been enumerated in our Bill of RIGHTS by FAR greater men than he will EVER be.
You are correct - that is truly a horrible lie. We now have seen federalism turned on its ear for Rudy - that it is "states rights" to ignore rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
That would only be valid if NYC seceded from the Union. Last I checked, it hadn't, so Rudy's (and this person's) logic is absurd.
Divorce RATES are calulated as per thousand marriages or per capita.
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.
Right!
He basically wanted himself crowned Dictator of NYC till the city got 'back on it's feet', or some crap like that.
Imagine this egomaniac mutt as POTUS with the power to declare Martial Law after some natural disaster. The streets would flow with rivers of blood as he'd go for everyone's guns first. Then again his first act as POTUS would be to try to 'regulate' guns out of the USA - just like he did in NYC.
Well, that just proves that neither the author nor Rudy really get it.
What makes you think so?
However, if more people get married, instead of just having kids out of wedlock, you will tend to get more divorces. Kinda like high-risk loans - more will default.
with ANY sense of what the 2nd Amendment is really all about.
However, if more people get married, instead of just having kids out of wedlock, you will tend to get more divorces. Kinda like high-risk loans - more will default.
The right of the PEOPLE is not the same as the rights of any individual person. Certain persons can be forbidden guns without it interfering with the right of the PEOPLE.
Hence, it is entirely constitutional to restrict gun ownership to the sane, non-criminals, those who can see etc.
I guess the individual that is the fetus doesn't have any rights, then.
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.