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

[Caipirabob]

I only vote conservative, period. No conservative candidate in 2008? Won't be because I didn't try...

But as of yet, I don't believe Guiliani is conservative. I won't be supporting him in the primaries.

[Beckwith]

One thing I don't see in these Rudy threads is an answer to the question, "How many Independents and dhimmicrats would Rudy bring to the Republican Party?""

I'd say more than for any other candidate.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

After the Bork fiasco Bush I was looking for a nominee with little paper trail. He thought he was getting a conservative justice but Souter essentially misrepresented himself to Bush I, who was duped. It's not that Bush I intended to appoint a liberal. I don't think Rudy is likely to fall into the same trap.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

I understand fighting to nominate your preferred candidate. But once the people have spoken and if Rudy is the candidate why would you sit at home if the result could be Pres. Hillary? Wouldn't you rather have someone pledged to appoint conservative justices, a law and order guy who would be strong on national security?

[ZULU]

He's the one candidate they can't demonize and marginalize to their leftist core supporters.

Its really incredible this character is considered a viable candidate by ANYONE who is a Republican.

The label may say "Republican" but this guy is as far to the left on most issues as any left-wing Democrat.

[IOWAfan]

I had this same run-in with some diehard people when I was Governor, and who thought, because I had compromised on something and settled for less than I'd asked for, they would have jumped off the cliff holding the flag. Well, you do that, and you're never around to get anything more. If this is pragmatic, then I'm pragmatic.

My belief is that in this democratic process, which entails compromise, you seek what you think should be done. And if you can only get half of it, three-quarters of it, whatever, and politically it is impossible to get beyond that, I don't think it makes any sense to dig in your heels and say then, ``I won't play.'' No, you take what you can get and tuck it away in your mind that you'll wait and come back another time and try to get the next bite.

And that hadn't been my interpretation of ``pragmatic.'' I know what the goal is. And suppose even at the very end you've only gotten 70 or 75 percent of the goal. Well, that's a lot better than being back where you started.

---Ronald Reagan 1984

[governsleastgovernsbest]

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

With respect, that is not so at all. A principled pro-choice, pro-Constitution position would be to acknowledge that there is no right to abortion in the Constitution, and thus that the issue is within the jurisdiction of the various states, as it was for almost 200 years before Roe. That is exactly the position of some pro-choice constitutional scholars such as Alan Dershowitz.

[gpapa]

You are right on your answer to my statement. I mistyped it, it should have said "Is it consistent...."

Does the mention of life and persons in the V and XIV amendments, recalling the mention of life and men (in a human sense) in the Preamble suggest the possibility that abortion could be considered illegal in all of the states? I read a few constitutional lawyers arguing this and similar arguments, like this one citing Lincoln's decision in the Dred Scott case: http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=438
I do not have an opinion on it, just curious what you think of it. FYI I am not a lawyer.

[GingisK]

Why?

I will NEVER AGAIN vote for the lesser of two evils. The GOP can find a suitable candidate, or this Nation can go to hell. Then we'd be put into a position of doing the right thing. Americans seem to behave better in bad times.

[Delphinium]

Looks like Crissy will have a hard time deciding between his first love Hilary and Rudy.

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

You sound like a person that sees black and white in everyone. Can you tell me you prefer to see any of the RATs win over someone like Rudy?

[Mia T]

bump

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

The issues MOST needed in a President are those related to National Defense and the economy. The states should decide issues like abortion or gay rights.

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

I am from Georgia and a Goldwater/Reagan conservative. I have been following Rudy for some time and don't agree with all his views, but the ones that relate to Presidential leadership, he would be an excellent president. He believes in the law and as a libertarian, I don't care about his position on gay rights. He is not trying to take away my gun and would enforce our laws on illegals.
He stood up for the right thing in not recognizing Arafat. He cut taxes, put away mobsters, and did wonders for NYC. We need his leadership.

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

Everyone has their own threshold of political participation. I hate to see people run from the process.

[ZULU]

If you are a libertarian, you are backing the wrong horse.

Rudy has a history of acting like a fascist in New York.

For instance, Rudy opposed changing the laws in New York City which would have allowed people to keep ferrets as pets. He claimed, INCORRECTLY, they were "wild animals". When challenged, he pulled a tantrum. I bring this up not as a subject of pet rights, but as an example of how this man acts when confronted with facts that are contrary to his pre-conceived notions.

Yes, he cleaned out the porno shops and squidgees boys in Manhattan. But so could ANY tough enforcement mayor.
What he ALSo did, was pander to the big restaurants in New York City by restricting the number of hot dog, knish, and other street food vendors. If you have ever worked in New York, as I did, you would KNOW the cost of eating there is outrageous. But Rudy was more interested in pleasing his corporate contributors than caring about a small businessman or the general public.

As for not taking your guns away - perhaps you should read about Rudy's position on firearms - check my tagline - I follow this stuff. Rudy has been a long term supporter of NATIONAL GUN REGISTRATION, a QUALIFYING TEST on the NATIONAL LEVEL to own a firearm. While Mayor of New York, he participated in a class action suit aimed at LEGITIMATE GUN MANUFACTURERS. Make no noes about it - Rudy DOESN'T think you have a right to own a gun under the Second Amendment.

Perhaps as a libertarian gay rights and abortion aren't big issues with you. But if you are interested in border security and the war on terror, AGAIN, you should reconsider your support of this man. While mayor of New York, he REFUSED to even enforce BILL CLINTON's watered down illegal alien law. He directed New York City authorities NOT to cooperate with INS in reporting illegals.

He ALSO supported "hate crimes" legislation - bills which it make a more serious offense to commit a crime against certain "protected classes" than against ordinary citizens.

Running a city well is one thing - and there were MANY libertarians who felt Rudy had gone overboard with his police state tactics - and running a country is another. And Rudy has NO experience on the Federal level regarding foreign policy issues.

NONE of this is fabrication on my part - check out these issues and his past in a search engine or on this forum.

I'd ALSO like to know Rudy's position on things like legalization of drugs, the death penalty and affirmative action.

I'm stating to put you down or disparage your views. I;m sure you are quite sincere in your support for this man and honestly feel he's the best man for the job.

But if you ARE a libertarian and ARE concerned about national security, I beg you to re-examine his position on these issues - and judge Rudy NOT on what he is SAYING now, but on what he DID in the past. Talk is cheap.

[Kevmo]

Their choices will be between Rudy who promises to appoint conservative judges versus Hillary who promises to appoint liberal judges. Not a hard choice.
***The choice today is between someone who has socon values and someone who doesn't. Both were within 1% of each other in the Spartanburg straw poll yesterday, and both lost to McCain, as hard as that is to believe. If your candidate is so goldarned more electable than ours, why is it he had 2 paid staff in Spartanburg and Duncan had none? Duncan Hunter with 2 paid staff would have completely wiped the floor with Rudy.

[Kevmo]

Hypothetical to answer your hypothetical. Both sides losing to Hillary.

The solib republican splits the base. The MSM turns on him the moment he is nominated. Hillary wins. Republican party is split.

The socon republican wins the nomination, loses to hildebeast in a tough fight. Republicans are united against the hillary presidency.

Which candidate is best for the republican party?

[Kevmo]

Hillary won't need to demonize him. She'll just run to the right of him, using his own words against him.

Like what's in this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVBtPIrEleM

[Tall_Texan]

If it's Rudy vs Hillary/Obama, I will hold my nose and vote for Rudy.

If it's Romney vs Hillary/Obama, I will hold my nose and vote for Romney.

If it's McCain vs Hillary/Obama, I will hold my nose as I'm leaving the country.