I seem to be detecting a trend. There's a current in the MSM that fears Rudy Giuliani, perhaps sensing he might be best positioned to defeat the Dem candidate. Such folks 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."
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."
Contact Mark at mark@gunhill.net
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I saw most of this delicious
March 2, 2007 - 21:19 ET by bigtimerI saw most of this delicious babble....it is just perplexing them, how can this be...we have done our best every single day in between the Nicole saga and other news to hammer in the heads of people do not vote for Giuliani, you cannot be a conservative and possibly vote for him, this is impossible...it just can't be he is polling so high...blah blah blah...
...but it is fun to watch them get themselves tied in knots.
Wait until Fred Thompson announces(if he does, Fox's Carl Cameron says he is thinking strongly about throwing his hat in the ring)...talk about the media going ga-ga....too much fun all the way around.
As a conservative, I understa
March 2, 2007 - 21:36 ET by GregEAs a conservative, I understand that national security is the top responsibility of my government. And, in this current war and worldly situation, our dealings with them are of an importance the likes of which we've not seen and that we are dealing with as a fairly new phenomenon. (our recognizing its threat and actual dealing with it in an offensive manner is newer than it's actual existence).
Having said that, I think Rudy would stand firm in that realm. But I am not sure about Rudy as an overall conservative. Maybe I just need to do more research, but aside from security, I think that a Guliani nomination (or McCain, and not sure about Romney but I believe so as well) will denote a party, that is supposed to be conservative, continuing to inch toward the center, which is a move to the left. (To get to center, from right, one must move left). I think that's wrong for America, and goes against our very foundation. Regardless of how much liberals whine about conservatives, if they would step back and look closely, liberalism is and has been slowly chipping away at conservativism for decades. Probably just not fast enough for our fast-food mindset in this country.
Liberalism is not terrorism by any stretch of the imagination, but to make an analogy I will compare......
......Terrorists only have to be correct once in order to carry out a large attack, whereas America has to be right 100% of the time in order to not allow that attack.
.......In the case of liberals and their programs and creation of dependency on government, liberals only have to get a government-dependency program passed once (how many government depency programs ever end?), where conservatives must stop that advance toward that dependency program 100% of the time.
I've heard it said, and in my opinion it rings true - it's very easy to be a liberal, but it takes much thought to be conservative.
The chipping away at conservatism is happening, and if most liberals realized it they'd pipe down on occasion, but I think the reasons liberals whine is because 1) it's not fast enough, and 2) they're too ignorant to realize that it's actually happening in many areas right in front of their noses. And unfortunately so for our great country.
I fear that the 2008 election will be the "anti" candidate election, instead of voting FOR a candidate because of their ideas. (But then again, much of that has taken place for many years, in my opinion)
Not voting for Rudy
March 3, 2007 - 01:55 ET by JudithI am a dyed in the wool Conservative and I am going to work for Rudy. Any conservative who has to have a candidate that is in total agreemnt with his ideology is never going to have anyone to vote for. Folks, he right on with what counts in the long run. If there is no freedom, you won't have to worry about gay marriage or abortion. I am totally against abortion with a few exceptions and do not condone gay marriage. Maybe like Romney Rudy will modify/change his outlook. I want a winner. We need a winner--the alternative is Obama Osama or Shrillery.
I never have been a big fan o
March 2, 2007 - 21:40 ET by mostlymoderateI never have been a big fan of Giuliani; however, the more I see the MSM trying to discredit him, the more I might like him :-) P.S. Whatever happened to the "news" just reporting "the news". Who gives a damn what Mathew's thinks??
No kiddding, its like the MSM
March 2, 2007 - 22:30 ET by AtheistRepublicanNo kiddding, its like the MSM wants to be 100% sure I vote Giuliani, every time they attack him I like him even more. I don't agree with Rudy everywhere but he has my vote.
"Mathews is paid to ask tough
March 3, 2007 - 00:16 ET by Nortonalec"Mathews is paid to ask tough questions"...??? To who? The only people that Chris asks "tough questions" are libs that already agree with him.
B.T.W What's up with the graphic on the bottom of the screen-
THE HARDBALLERS
Nortonalec
Loosen up the bandana and get
March 3, 2007 - 02:40 ET by NeoConfirmedLoosen up the bandana and get the blood circulating to the old noggin' would you?
Did you actually post that Mathews asks tough questions?
Since his guests are overwhelmingly liberal, the only tough questions he asks are rhetorical.
BTW, wasn't he the guy who asked Hillary's husband what that finger shaking was all about?
Do you guys think that maybe,
March 3, 2007 - 12:58 ET by MikeBDo you guys think that maybe, just maybe, the LibMedia is applying a bit of reverse psychology here? I think they know good and well that the right distrusts the media and considers the media to be consistent liars (they are). But, look at the goal of the left (including the media): a marxist/socialist United States. The Democrat party's contenders for president are all marxist/socialists. So, to achieve their goal, they will tend to bad mouth the most socialist of the Republicans so that the conservatives will say to themselves what has been said in the various posts on this thread: the media hates him, so I will vote for him.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
MikeB,You may be right, but I
March 3, 2007 - 13:16 ET by bigtimerMikeB,
You may be right, but I don't think they are smart enough for that kind of psychology...I think they are really worried about Guiliani, I think they are really surprised, I also think we have a very long way to go.
I heard last night Fred Thompson from Tennessee may be jumping in....
They have gone after Mitt Romney too, religion and all...it gets old from the left, but we have a lot of time...actually too much IMO.
They're back
March 2, 2007 - 21:47 ET by acumenLet the mediacratic games begin. First comes the fear, next comes the smear.
Conservative or not, Rudy is by far better than any candidate the mediacratic party has to offer.
See, as a moderate I totally
March 2, 2007 - 21:54 ET by mostlymoderateSee, as a moderate I totally agree. Hillary Clinton is nothing more than a "career" politician living off the coat-tail of her husband. Then there is Obama that just "pops-up" out of nowhere with a stupid name and no track-record of anything.
Well, they'd damn well bett
March 2, 2007 - 21:57 ET by motherbeltWell, they'd damn well better support him if he is the candidate, or it will be President Clinton again! This is the Republicans' problem; they break into factions; one group stays home rather than support one candidate or the other. If the evangelicals or social conservatives desert Rudy, do they think they will have someone better in Hillary???
The Democrats win elections by sticking together. No matter how much they fight like dogs in the primaries, once the candidate is chosen they revert to the pack, hold their noses if necessary, and pull the "D" lever. Republicans had better learn to do the same. No candidate is perfect, but anyone the Republicans come up with is better than Hillary.
you said it, motherbell
March 3, 2007 - 01:58 ET by tumbler_2007Absolutely.
Giuliani gets out ALL the Republican vote-- on account of ONE thing.
Hillary Clinton. No matter how far off the beam as a conservative Rudy might seem, if he's opposed by Hillary, all bets are off. Rudy can send her back to Little Rock. No question we'll bite the bullet and elect him.
reply to Motherbelt
March 3, 2007 - 01:59 ET by JudithYou have said it better than I could; "lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way"
The media (MSM) is in a fix
March 2, 2007 - 22:23 ET by Gary HallThe media (MSM) is in a fix, for the moment. While they are currently in step with the Democrat candidates (they can love HRC, Obama, Edwards, Gore, doesn't much matter); in the moment, they love Obama, but will maintain law and order amongst the troops (press) to push support in the primary race for what they see as the best candidate to compete against the R's - be it HRC or Obama, or whoever. Once that is decided, any dirt (on a Democrat) they have pulled out in shaping the Democratic primary will be put to bed for the big race.
On the Republican side, they are simply gasping for air in the moment. Today, it's clear that Rudy is the one to beat. Therefore, they do not want Rudy to win the Republican(ic) nomination. But how do they shape that battle in the moment? They need a viable second candidate. I believe that they sense that McCain already is in trouble - but he's still the only other viable candidate (per the polls). Today, the media is mostly ignoring, but generally writing one story after another defining the Republicans as candidates that the voters should not like, but in the longer term they have to find a way to temporarily softly support (lay-off for a while) someone other than Rudy. If and when, a McCain, or preferably a Gingrich or a Romney makes a move, the MSM will go guns blazing attacking Rudy to prevent him from winning the Republican nod. The media prefers a Republican which they already know how to attack.
In the moment - Rudy, in my view, is the only candidate (McCain is second) that can win in the general election come fall of 2008.
I have always beleived that a
March 2, 2007 - 22:35 ET by Clear thinkerI have always beleived that a good offense starts with a good defense. If Rudy is going to be a serious contender, I would have his handlers release anything they can come up with that the media might consider a negative. Swatting down any crap the media can use later would leave them without any ammo to use when it counts.
Just my 2 cents.
BTW... A few weeks ago I made a comment that Rudy had better start attracting some money to his campaign or he would be done. Either somebody took my advice or the money people were just waiting for the right moment. It seems that Rudy has attracted the right people since my comments.
If I have to I will vote for Rudy, but would hope for aticket with Tancredo on it. WE NEED SOMEONE TO TAKE THE ILLEGALS SITUATION SERIOUSLY.
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
tancredo a non-starter
March 3, 2007 - 02:11 ET by tumbler_2007He's a good conservative in the McClintock mold. They never arrive. Sooner or later, CT, you'll realize the nation isn't on your passionate kick against gardeners and busboys. They may be illegal and obnoxious because of your quirks. But not the threat you imagine to our well-being. I'm not defending them, just explaining the facts.
A Tancredo wouldn't beat Hillary or Obamma. He'd just get creamed. Do you want to see Hill stting in the oval office? That's what Tom will deliver for you fanatics.
So why all the fear of his
March 3, 2007 - 02:41 ET by sarcasmoSo why all the fear of his (and certain other candidates'......) ideas in the "debate"??? If you're so sure he's going to lose if people hear these awful ideas, why not just let him/them lose! Must the contest be narrowed to Rudy vs McCain (and I sincerely believe this is what big media badly-wants!) so early??
JMR
The trend I detect is the m
March 3, 2007 - 02:31 ET by sarcasmoThe trend I detect is the media pushing Rudy and McCain to the exclusion of all other Republican candidates, and the reason I suspect is fear of certain ideas and a strong desire to subtly influence the direction of Republican politics to the left politically -- especially on spending. Nothing's changed whatsoever since I last-posted, IOW...
JMR
Sarc,None of this will matter
March 3, 2007 - 02:45 ET by NeoConfirmedSarc,
None of this will matter. By the end of the month, Newt will announce he's in. After the debate with Cuomo, National Review says it's only a matter of time.
Well, I hope he does, but N
March 3, 2007 - 02:53 ET by sarcasmoWell, I hope he does, but Newt has some baggage I'd exploit if I were advising the Democrats...Basically, Newt's your party's Hillary IMO. Partisans either love to love her/him or equally-love to hate, and that kind of motivation can be either great or dangerous when trying to harness it. And I think the news media definitely, provably-want none of certain ideas to matter as soon as possible in the upcoming "debate," which is why I'm annoying 'em here by saying explicitly what they're trying to do secretly. :)
JMR
Yes he has baggage. Well disp
March 3, 2007 - 03:01 ET by NeoConfirmedYes he has baggage. Well displayed baggage courtesy of Mr. Hillary Clinton. I really am not concerned with that. He is the only candidate on my side (I had forgotten that you classify yourself as somewhere between Repub and Dem) that has the skills of articulaton that cannot be matched. Being a Libertarian, I'd think that he'd be right up your alley in terms of limited government involvement.
Rhetorically? Yes. Vote-wis
March 3, 2007 - 03:19 ET by sarcasmoRhetorically? Yes. Vote-wise? Still way too big-government for me, in various ways. That's why I also want Dr. Paul's ideas in the debate rather than blindly-accepting an early media/poll designated "winner." And Newt's sexual baggage, at least, is likely to be supremely-fun for Ms. Clinton's partisans every time your side makes the mistake of bringing up Slick's (think "softballs for Stewart/Colbert" IMO) assuming the contest is between those 2, and frankly I hope it's not. If Newt's so good at debate and so good on limited government, he should have no-problem dispatching Dr. Paul and the others in actual -- not hypothetical -- debates. Besides (see Open Thread cloaked-comment today where I posted John Fund's awesome WSJ column) I'm still crowing about the fact that Professor Williams once-again has the very same opinion as sarcasmo...Maybe there's hope for actually-smaller government (especially spending!) in this country, rather than just the usual diet of stolen small-government rhetoric during election season only!?!!!
JMR
Dr. Paul?Isn't he the guy tha
March 3, 2007 - 03:43 ET by NeoConfirmedDr. Paul?
Isn't he the guy that stands next to Gene Simmons in KISS? Or maybe the sandwich between Peter and Mary. No, wait, I know, he's the wasted twenty something that starred in such classics as 'Encino Man' and 'In the Army Now'. Of course, sans the y at the end of his name. I think it makes him sound more Presidential.
Your candidate has as much chance of winning as I do. But maybe he'll succeed in creating the 'Nadar Effect'. Who knows?
Hmmm. Maybe that's true if
March 3, 2007 - 04:09 ET by sarcasmoHmmm. Maybe that's true if you somehow got your candidacy endorsed in the WSJ by Limbaugh replacement-host Walter Williams, but let's face 2 facts: You didn't & Dr. Paul just did! My point is to make people think about solutions to problems besides big government. And Dr. Paul's the guy who had the guts to vote, alone, against a Congressional gold (real gold, not plated-crap like big government passes-off on heroic US soldiers who receive the MOH -- one of the few areas where sarcasmo supports spending-more) medal for Rosa Parks, because Dr. Paul has the balls to vote the Constitution. And it's not just the great Professor Williams saying I'm right, check out what conservative star Bruce Bartlett says. One quote: "It’s worth noting that in
2006, when Republicans were losing control of Congress, Ron got 60 percent of
the vote in his district." The TV news media are trying, desperately-hating-the-'net all the while, to keep you and members of your party from knowing anything about this man. For a reason, IMO....This ain't no "Nader effect," it's instead a plea for smaller government in reality, not just rhetoric -- and apparently it's catching-on...
JMR
It's funny though.. one thi
March 3, 2007 - 06:55 ET by jiminjerseyIt's funny though.. one thing the MSM doesn't say is Rudy doesn't need a tremendous amount of conservative support to win the White House. He will force the Democrats to spend time and money in California and the liberal Northeast, something they haven't had to do in a while. If he starts picking up states like New Jersey and Pennsylvania (which polls indicate he will) and locks up Florida the Democrats are in a lot of trouble. They know it and are terrified.
MSM truly fears Rudy G.
March 3, 2007 - 11:21 ET by Dave RThey may have a point about support for Rudy, as I have a few problems with him myself.
Having said that, I think that what has Mouthews and Crawford along with the rest of the liberal pro-democrat MSM constantly untying the knots in their boxers is that Rudy is not only polling well against other republicans, but against The Hildebeast as well.
I also sense that there are a fair number of democrats who have grown tired of the Clinton dog & pony show (God knows most of us tired of it years ago) and are seeking an alternative, which for the moment is Barrack Hussein Obama.
Besides, Hillary seems to be encountering a few more bumps in the road than she anticipated.
Do you see a swaztika armband on Chris Matthews?
March 3, 2007 - 21:39 ET by j17ghsSometimes when I see Chris "Goebbels" Matthews, I think I also see him wearing a swaztika armband. Is this just me, or do others see it, too? Of course, it may be that his goofy bleached blond hair merely projects that image. Mmmm ...... has anyone ever seen Goebbels and Matthews at the same time?!?!?!?
j17,Do not feel alone.I have
March 3, 2007 - 21:42 ET by bigtimerj17,
Do not feel alone.
I have seen it too.
LOL!