Posted on 04/12/2007 9:41:13 AM PDT by areafiftyone
The New York Times blasted presidential hopeful Rudolph Giuliani on Thursday for telling Alabama reporters that it should be up to the state to decide whether to fly the Confederate flag over its Capitol.
And a political pundit in turn blasted the Times for its "silly” anti-Giuliani piece.
Discussing the flag issue, Giuliani told the reporters: "We have different sensitivities and at different times we’re going to come to different decisions, and I think that is best left to the states.”
The Times went on the attack in an editorial: "Mr. Giuliani cannot truly believe the issues surrounding the Confederate flag are just a matter of local taste. The Civil War, the civil rights movement and the Supreme Court answered that question.”
The editorial went on to castigate Giuliani for "pandering” on abortion and gun control, concluding:
"Mr. Giuliani ought to stop waving in the wind, because that would be the right thing to do. It is also not working. Southern political strategists said he’s too moderate on abortion and pronounced him dead in their states. In Alabama, the local press mocked him for failing to recognize an actual Confederate flag. Americans know a pander when they see one.”
Writing on Time Inc.’s blog Real Clear Politics, Blake Dvorak observed: "In other words, the Times wants Giuliani to stop being a politician campaigning for the presidency. Give up now, Mr. Mayor, says the Times, because conservative America will never vote for you. Is this not odd? How to explain it, momentarily leaving aside the Times’ visceral dislike of anyone to its right?”
Dvorak cites a remark from Roger Simon, chief political columnist at Politico.com: "Rudy has been very clear in front of conservative audiences that his social views are more liberal than theirs. He has not lied about that, as far as I can tell, for a second. And he’s still well ahead. What could those ‘conservatives’ be thinking?”
Dvorak concludes: "As Simon points out, Giuliani’s position in the polls scares the Times, because if he can get through the primaries, he’s got major cross-over appeal in the general election that a down-the-line conservative wouldn’t have. Hence, this silly attack.”
And that was the whole point of the secessions and subsequent war.
You better not take my word for it!!
“;^)
Head to head with Hillary, Rudy takes N.J., Pa. and Conn.
I just wanted to note to all that the italics in the referenced post were NOT uttered by me, even though it is supposedly in response to my post. I don’t know whose words they are, but they were not mine.
I believe that a strong conservative who is articulate will have excellent cross-over appeal to people who could care less about party ideology, but want government that works and otherwises leaves them alone.
The reason this is an important Rudy story is because the NYT would not waste time on a Republican candidate who they do not consider to be a real threat to a Hillary or Obama or Edwards candidacy.
Baloney! Guiliani is the ONLY candidate who can beat Hillary and Millions of Americans know it. That’s why he’s leading in the polls in spite of the line that Conservatives won’t vote for him. Conservatives are coming out in droves to hear him speak. These are not one Issue voters. These are people who see that Guiliani will be tough on terror and will stomp the Democrats in Congress every time they try to pull the crap they’re right now pulling on Bush (Gonzales and the Attorney flap). He will tell them to go to hell and be on his way. THATS why everyone wants Guiliani! He can beat Hillary and Democrats know it!
I agree totally. Beside Fred Thompson as a possibility, who else fills the criteria you mention?
BTW, the excerpt in italics was from the posted article.
ROTFLMAO.....this is a joke, right?
"....Yippee!!! I had not heard that but am delighted!.."
Me too! WTG, Rudy!
The New York Times would never pass up a chance to say something negative about Rudy, even if he was running for dog catcher.
I know conservatives like to joke about all the media being focused on trying to influence elections for some perceived candidate, but I hope that in reality we all understand that media bias, while real, is much more ephemeral and unfocused than that.
Rudy stands for things the people at the New York Times think are wrong, and that makes him a target. Clinton stands for things they think are right, so they treat her as if she is right. It isn’t that they want her to win an election, it’s that they perceive her and other democrats as being correct on the issues, and thus provide positive press for her beliefs.
The New York Times correctly perceives Rudy as the front-runner in the GOP race, and will focus their attention on him for that reason, and because they don’t like him.
Hmm.
Rudy says he thinks abortion is a Constitutional right, and should be funded by taxpayers.
He has no problem infringing on people’s 2nd Amendment rights and calling for national gun control that affects ALL states.
And he had no problem initiating a lawsuit against gun manufacturers in other states as Mayor of NYC.
What does this add up to?
A poor understanding of the Constitution.
This is not enough - not by a long shot - to make up for his words and deeds.
So...
We’re “miserable” because we’re supporting conservatives and trying to tear down liberals...and you’re “happy” supporting a liberal.
Hmm.
I am hopeful that Mitt Romney can be that person. A lot of conservatives are wary of him, and I don’t blame them, but I’ve decided I believe what he is saying today, until he proves otherwise.
And he’s shown that he has the ability to get democrats to vote for him, or else he wouldn’t have won in Massachussets. He’s not polling well but the polls show he isn’t really well-known either, so that means there is a potential for an upside with him that doesn’t exist for Rudy or McCain (both of whom have nearly universal name recognition).
Romney is well-spoken, and frankly many of the things that critics have called “gaffes” on his part were not gaffes at all, just things his opponents wanted to try to spin against him.
When I listen to Romney speak, I hear an articulate and smart man who can communicate the conservative principles to the masses.
On the other hand, he does come across as a politician, and I’d love to have someone a little less “politician-like”. But nobody’s perfect. From what I know now, I could strongly support and work for a Romney campaign in the general election, and of the “announced” candidates he’s my first choice.
Duncan Hunter has also surprised me with one or two of his speeches, although he clearly is not the orator that Romney is. But it bothers me that, with all the effort he has expended, he is still an asterik in most polls, even at a state level in conservative states where I’d think anybody with his credentials could get 5% without batting an eyelash.
It makes me wonder if he is simply too “unappealing” to have any chance. I haven’t written him off, but he wasn’t my first choice anyway.
If I had to choose simply on my gut, I probably would be supporting Jim Gilmore. I know him, he’s a good man, he did a fine job in Virginia as governor, but he’s not the perfect candidate and I don’t expect he could get any traction on the national stage.
Of the people in the world I wish I could vote for and get elected President, I think the top of my list would be Rick Santorum. But obviously he’s not a real pick.
I’m not one who has committed to sitting out the general election if Rudy is the republican candidate. The more I learn about him from Rudy supporters, the less I like him, but I would rather take the chance at this point with Rudy than lose to a democrat.
Of course, if I had to choose between Rudy and John McCain, I would choose John McCain. He’s more conservative on just about everything than Rudy, and while he’s not the tax-cutter Rudy claims to be, it’s because John is more of a deficit hawk than Rudy will ever be, and if I had to choose between balanced budgets and another tax cut, I’d probably flip a coin.
And I say that even though I do think John is nuts. But not as nuts as Ross Perot was, and maybe not as nuts as Alan Keyes. I just said that because I’m a glutton for punishment, I like Alan but would never support him for public office.
Indeed.
Rudy cut taxes and reduced spending (at least, he did at first). He brought down crime. He supports the war on terror. He’s a Republican.
No matter how ideologically similar he is to a liberal, he will be hated by the MSM simply because of the above.
By the fact that Rudy talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk? That ain't spin, that's what passes for common sense in outside of Rudy's cult of personality.
He sees Roe as a constitutional right, and Roe is one of the worst anti-states rights SCOTUS decisions ever.
Plus, he had no problem calling for federal laws to trump state gun laws.
Y'all seem to think that Rudy, by mouthing a few words, can make all his past actions go away.
At the cost of getting someone like Giuliani in the White House?
I don't know about you, but it gives me joy to expose and reject a liberal.
I am far from being miserable, I am pumped.
Soon it will be "Lights out at The Hotel Rudy".
Here are some interesting FACTS for the “we need to elect our own liberal or we wind up with Hillary” crowd:
1. Since the start of the Twentieth Century, ONLY TWO non-incumbent Democrats who were the “clear frontrunners” over a year out from the nomination have actually been nominated. Adlai Stevenson (1952, 1956) and Algore (2000) — both of whom lost.
2. The last non-incumbent Democrat who was the “clear frontrunner” a year out from the nomination to actually get nominated and win the presidency was Grover Cleveland in 1892. However, Grover Cleveland falls into an odd categore, he had already served a term as president (he won the 1884 election and lost in 1888) and the significance of that is below.
3. The last non-incumbent Democrat who was the “clear frontrunner” a year out from the nomination and had never been president before to actually get nominated and win the presidency (and this is the category that Hillary is in) was Andrew Jackson in 1828. (And it should be noted that Andrew Jackson defeated a Whig not a Republican.)
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.