Some in MSM Cling to Hope GOP Won't Support Rudy

NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein

[governsleastgovernsbest]

I seem to be detecting a trend. There's a current in the MSM that fears a Rudy Giuliani candidacy, perhaps sensing he might be best positioned to defeat the Dem candidate. They console themselves by clinging to the belief that the GOP won't nominate Rudy, or at least won't avidly support him if he is the candidate, given his liberal positions on some issues.

This evening's Hardball offered a perfect example of the phenomenon in the person of Craig Crawford. Time and again, the MSNBC analyst returned to the theme:

View video here.

• "Getting onto the social conservative stuff: abortion, gay rights, etc., [Rudy at CPAC] did make the case that I'm 80% with you, better than most marriages, a pretty good line, but at the end of the day, they're important issues to these people, and I just really wonder, the more they learn about him, and just how liberal he really is on those issues, I think it's going to matter to them."
• "Maybe I've just covered these social conservatives and these Republican races for too long to believe they're suddenly going to forget about that stuff, no matter how much they like Giuliani otherwise."
• "I think if Giuliani wins this nomination, and he well could, social conservative voters are not going to play in the general election, and that's going to help Democrats."
• "I really do believe a lot of these [socially conservative] voters and a lot of these groups are losing interest in politics."
• "I don't think they've heard all the details of his personal life, and the judges [the liberal ones in NYC Rudy appointed] we're talking about."

Jim Vandehei, ex of WaPo, now with Politico.com, was dubious of Crawford's notion: "I think that the conventional wisdom must be wrong, this idea that once conservatives get to know Giuliani's record. I mean, how can they not know his record? Everybody's talking about it."

Chris Matthews, flatly rejecting Crawford's theory, adopted a real-politik analysis:

• "Are [abortion, gay rights] relevant issues?"
• "Hasn't [Rudy] kow-towed a bit by saying I'll pick strict-constructionist judges?"
• "You really think they're going to put Huckabee up there against Hillary Clinton or Obama and risk getting beat?"
• "I couldn't disagree with you [Crawford] more. When [conservatives] get a look at the Democratic nominee, they're going to vote like they've never voted in their lives."
• "American voters don't vote 'for,' they vote 'against.' And when they see Hillary or Obama coming, a lot of these Republicans are going to say, 'God, that Rudy is pretty cool, I like him."
• "Sometimes I wish I was in the gambling business. I could stop talking to guys like you [Craig] and put some money on the table, and I'd get rich. Wait a year from now."

Be that as it may, whether the MSM is finding reasons to hope Republicans won't nominate Rudy, or betting they will, it does seem clear that the liberal media view him as the most formidable candidate.

Contact Mark at mark@gunhill.net

[youngjim]

don't know where they got that impression. I live in NY and know the MSM is no friend of Giuliani, nor he of them . . . I think a more logical explanation is that they are now fearful Hillary may actually have an opponent who can beat her.

Hmm, I'm still confused as these same bright, polite, intelligent FReepers have told me that Hillary is not even going to win her party's nomination and that even if she does win Hillary and Rudy are merely "peas in a pod."

Since judging by your screenname, you are indeed from New York, perhaps you could help me to understand.

Just as long as you're not a gun-grabbing, gay-loving, abortionist-in-training, traitorous liberal.

[EQAndyBuzz]

"If the Republican party nominates a pro abortion guy, I will drift away."

Hypothetical. Tomorrow 25 states have Pro-life measures on tha ballot. You get to choose one.

Pro-abortion and Rudy. Pro-life and Hillary.

This is probably going to be your choice in 08. Then again, you can sit home and get pro-abortion and Hillary.

[youngjim]

Rudy - better for the country than Hillery - but he is a death knell for the Republican party.

Lucky for you melodramas always have a happy ending.

[Prost1]

The American Politics of David Rockefeller and the Tri-Lateral Commission, the Council of Foreign Relations and the Bildeberger group.

With Rudy, we are getting what they want.

[pissant]

Guess what. There is a huge swath that will not. MSM hope or not.

[pissant]

What difference does it make. Putting up a liberal for President is shameful and will be the death of the GOP as a conservative party.

[pissant]

Screw Savage. I can't stand him. But that does not mean I wiill support a liberal for president.

[ZULU]

????????

Don't understand.

[pissant]

Useful idiots? If you see anything other than a flaming social liberal and a gun grabbing ass when you look at Rudy, then who is the idiot?

[youngjim]

It's not the MSM that the Giuliani people need to worry about, it's the conservative wing of the GOP. They don't want him either.

You seem to be a bright, polite, intelligent FReeper. Weren't you here last night telling us that BKO would be 'turning in her grave' if she saw that her husband Ted Olsen was backing Rudy? And then didn't I read today that you called Ted Olsen a "backstabber" for endorsing Rudy?

Which candidate should conservatives who hate gun-grabbing, gay-loving, abortionist-in-training, traitorous liberals back? Or is anyone endorsable for conservatives who hate, etc.?

[ZULU]

"I think you're wrong about his social-issues stances anyway. He was the mayor of New York."

Giuliani's MANY positions while mayor of New York demonstrated that his views were predominantly Democratic.

Sure, he cleaned up the city. But one would hardly expect less from a former effective Attorney General who was elected mayor. Being mayor in no way qualifies one for a position involving domestic and foreign policy decisions.

"Foe one, he knows he'd never get reelected if he dicked around with the core issues. "

Look at Bush. He has turned out quite the way conservatives feared he would when he ran the first time. Giuliani can SAY anything he wants right now - he's under the gun as he wishes to be President. Once in there, he will revert to his native instincts. DEEDS speak louder than words to me and DUncan Hunter has time and time again DEMONSTRATED the sincerity of his conservative values. He has done this NOT by instituing a frivolous lawsuit against legitimate gunmakers, dressing up in drag and carrying on in an outrageous fashion with Donald Trump before the camera, tenaciously holding to idiotic ideas which are totally incorrect - like ferrets are "wild animals", not by by marching in "gay pride parades", NOT by campaigning cross country with Bill Clinton or supporting Democrats against Republican candidates, NOT by refusing to enforce the nation's immigration laws, NOT by marrying THREE women, NOT by supporting late term abortions, BUT by introducing legislation which CLEARLY signifies his position on major social issues.

"He's on the record saying he would appoint originalists."

Given this man's political philosophies and past record, how can I possibly take him seriously on this subject?

"There's also the obvious point, that 9/11 changed a lot of how he tackles issues."

????? Giuliani was ALWAYS a pugnacious character - NOTHING has changed in him that I can see. Even now, when he talks about social issues sensitives to conservatives, he equivocates.

"Rudy is no monumental danger. "

I respectfully disagree. He is more serious a danger than Hillery. Hillery can always be defeated by a person of honesty and character and intelligence who espouses those views Bush CLAIMED he supported twice and won victories through. A man like Giuliani thwarts the right of the public to a philosophical alternative to the Democratic left.

"I'm as right as they come, and I think when it comes down to brass tacks, he's the right person to make the hard
decisions."

Then I think you should reassess your evaluation of this man. His experience is little better than Obama's when it comes to national policy.

"McCain gets off on being the MSM's favorite republican, and he's their favorite because he takes potshots at the GOP all the time. "

No argument there. McCain and Romney are the modern Rockefeller Republicans who form an unholy trio with Mr. Giuliani. Their common goal is to reform the Republican Party to the left of center on domestic and foreign policy.

"I don't think it's a compromise to support Rudy. "

Again, I respectfully disagree. I cannot in good conscience support a man with his philosophical track record.


"The important thing is to re-take the congress. " The Republicans HAD control of Congress - thanks to Newt Gingrich and his contract with America. They LOST it because the current incumbent failed to adhere to the core principles he espoused when he ran for office.


"I think it's going to come down to Hillary and Rudy"

Again, I respectfully disagree. As time proceeds and more is known both about the alternatives to Mr. Giuliani - who has been hyped by the leftwing media as much as McCain, and Mr.Giuliani's political views and personal life, the less viable the man will become as a candidate to the conservative Republican base. In all likelihood, Hillery will be the Democrat Candidate - she would literally kill anyone who crosses her.

"At this point in time, it's important to have an indesputable leader...who can win."

Why is it that conservative Republicans - who are RIGHT on social issues - are so willing to compromise their values in order to achieve a victory - and very often needlessly?

"None of the GOP candidates have name recognition except for Rudy and McCain. "

Don't forget Romney - and at this point, don;t forget WHO has given them that name recognition. But ath will change as the campaign proceeds.

Obama will either be Hillery's second fiddle as Vice President or meet his end from Arkancide. He doesn't really know who he's crossing. The Clintons DO kill people.

[ZULU]

"You could well be right. However, Harry Truman was apparently a closet racist who liberally used the 'N' word. However, he signed the order to desegregate the armed forces regardless of his personal beliefs."

That's interesting. Wilson was also a closet racist. Do I see a trend here?

The reason Truman did what he did was for politics or because he had a genuine chnage of heart. I don't know the answer. But I'm not willing to throw my vote away on a promise instead of judging by performance.

[ZULU]

People who don't.

[youngjim]

Useful idiots? If you see anything other than a flaming social liberal and a gun grabbing ass when you look at Rudy, then who is the idiot?

I dunno. Seems to me that if Rudy were a flaming social liberal and a gun grabbing ass, the MSM would be talking him up.

I may be an idiot, but I'm not going to be very useful to the conservatives who hate, etc.

[festus]

You, me and so many of the base that he'd never win the general, which is also why he'll never win the primary.

Once the campaigning gets underway these facts will be Rudi's undoing.

[tkathy]

The dims are a lot more fearful of Rudy than any othere candidate. Rudy is the one candidate that they could not successfully demonize and marginalize to their moderates.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Come on he is no more "hack" than most. He is a decent man and fights for the proper things. I don't believe he is a treat to Rudy but don't dislike the guy.

[gpapa]

They said the same thing about Bush I and we got Souter. There is no guarantee that Rudy would appoint originalists to SCOTUS.

[gpapa]

It is inconsistent to favor legal abortions while believing that the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee it as a right.

[Giant Conservative]

Death is the enemy of life, whether you say so or not.

On the same note, Giuliani is the enemy of all that has ever been worth carrying forward about the Republican party. He is a social liberal and a guaranteed general election loser.