Roger L. Simon: "Fear of Rudy" at the New York Times

It's not quite as pronounced as Erica Jong's "Fear of Flying" but the "Fear of Rudy" is nonetheless palpable beneath the NYT's routine thumbsucker "Some in G.O.P. Express Worry Over '08 Hopes" by Adam Nagourney and John M. Broder. (subtext: I hope they lose, I hope they lose, Please, God, I hope they lose!)

This is the kind of article the Times prints as serious journalistic analysis when even the slightest perusal demonstrates the usual tawdry mix of bias and wish fulfillment. To make their point they have to resort to the by now comically tired cliché that McCain was once the "presumed front-runner." To whom? Not to anyone paying the slightest attention to the campaign. McCain has been trumped by Giuliani in virtually every poll for the last year. Slaughtered (scroll down at the link) might even be a more apt description. In the most recent Gallup Poll of a couple of days ago, Rudy stands at 38% and McCain at a declining 16. Add Thompson, Romney and Gingrich into the total and only then - put together - do they pass Rudy ... and only by four percent.

So far Giuliani is doing just fine by anyone's standards. He (not McCain) is decidedly the front-runner and has been for some time. So what's the NYT so afraid of? Obviously, that Rudy could win. Hence, the article and its take, emphasizing the disgruntlement of conservatives with the current candidates. This is another cliché that we have been hearing for the better part of a year now. Continuing with this ultra-conventional wisdom, the Times tells us that these same conservatives are suspicious of these same current candidates because they have been hiding their liberal social views. The Times says this even though they know damn well - anyone paying the slightest attention knows this - that Rudy has been very clear in front of conservative audience 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?

But enough of this. It's all, as the Yiddish grandmothers say, bubbe meise. As we all know, in 2007-2008, it's the war, stupid. And not just the Iraq War, but the greater war on Islamofascism. Where that stands a year and a half from now will tell the whole story. And no one knows the answer to that. Not even Adam Nagourney and John M. Broder

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

That is why the Dems want to retreat now, ban the term War on Terror, and muddle the issue with making Global Warming a national security issue.

The most disgusting thing is they want us to actually lose in Iraq to deprive Bush and the Reps a victory. Pelosi's Syrian visit was to boost to the terror master's confidence to undermine our efforts in Iraq. Their passing laws to set time line for withdrawal and depriving funds to the war was another attempt to declare defeat.

I don't think Pelosi went to Syria just to help the terrorists, I think the idea was that she was going to harken in a new era of understanding and buddyship between a contrite United States and the much put upon Arab dictator. However, I don't think she expected the reaction she got either.

I wonder if those polls are skewed by libertarians posing as conservatives (to pollsters) and supporting Rudy. I don't see a conservative base supporting him. I'm not as conservative as most (being a classic liberal most of my life) but I certainly wouldn't vote for Giuliani. I think well of him as a mayor, but it's obvious he holds most conservatives in low regard (as do most libertarians if you listen to them).

Sitting out an election is unwise. The Kossacks aren't about to sit out an election. So if you can't have a conservative you prefer a pacifist liberal? If you aren't prepared to put a little water in your wine you may have nothing to drink but vinegar.

As opposed to the expression War on Terror or War on Islamofascism I prefer The Defense Against Islamism.

They started it and they will spread Islam by the sword if we don't defend against it at every turn.

mikem, with all due respect,you can't be serious! Your assertion about skewed polls above is statistically ridiculous (did you follow the link?). The percentage of people who self-identify as libertarians ... or even know what that is ... is so small in our society they could never skew polls like Gallup and Rasmussen to any significant degree. I'm assuming also that, in the face of Islamofascism, you will be able to rise above your more orthodox concerns when you actually have to vote. If you can't, we're all in a frightening situation - and so are you.

I'm neither Liberal nor Conservative, but so far Rudy seems a more useful candidate than I've seen elsewhere. Obama may not be a terrible choice (surely better than Hillary!!!) he doesn't seem to have much experience at all. Rudy doesn't have a great record (pre-911) and he's only be a mayor (as opposed to some larger area of responsibility). However, he does actually seem to stand for things that are traditionally considered conservative, including his social views. That is, he seems to represent those who wish to see a smaller less influential federal government in the social arena and a strong government in the International arena. This concept that banning Abortion at a national level or amending the Constitution over the gay marriage debate seems, to me, as ill conceived as National Healthcare or Federal control of the marketplace.

Government needs to focus on national defense, interstate commerce and ensuring that all citizens are protected under the Constitution. In fact, I'd wager that Bush would have had more support if the liberals hadn't been able to paint him as anti-gay, anti-abortion etc. Many people were against Bush because of his social views as supposed religiously fed politics, long before 9/11... By the time we had to fight the enemy, he had already lost a large portion of the country. If the War is really the hot issue (single issue voting seems like such a bad idea to me) then Rudy may be the one man that can continue to battle the "global jihad" and not alienate half the population that he's supposed to be representing.

You can't be serious, being mayor of NYC is like running a state with the added piece of "the world" since the UN is there.

Roger, you were right in that last post you did on Pelosi: She's definitely acting more like royalty than anything else, at least in her oblivion to reality.

My point was not that NYC wasn't a big accomplishment, it was and Times Square (while looking somewhat fake, now) is surely a much safer place for tourists. My point was that running a city, even a big city with the UN there... isn't the same as running a country, nor is dealing with the UN from a logistics perspective vs. a political perspective.

That being said, I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. It means we have less data with which to guess at how he might handle things, but considering past examples (Clinton and Bush) past performance isn't necessarily indicative of future results.

Every candidate has good points and negative points... his lack of experience in higher levels of government might be a negative, but I don't think its an important one.

Keep telling conservatives, "It's the war, stupid," when, in an oh-so-bothersome way, they question Rudy's stance on abortion, gun control, the gay agenda, immigration. That'll gettem to the polls for your guy.

Ohhh those poor little authoritarians... are they unhappy that they might not get their way?

I will laugh until I fall over if Hillary gets in office while Social Authoritarians sit home and pout. Talk about getting marginalized! Do they think that the GOP will crawl back to them after that, or do they realize that their temper tantrum may end with their complete marginalization?

The can stay home if they want, I can still separate my favorite political positions and choosing between the lesser of two evils.

I trust Rudy Giuliani. He is an honest man. The fact that he remains pro-choice on abortion somewhat consoles me. People who reverse positions on a dime should worry us greatly. I could care less about Giuliani's personal beliefs. The really important thing is his legal perspective on the issue. New York's former mayor is committed to selecting judges who follow the law---and not adhere to "modern sensibilities." That's more than enough for me. It should also be more than enough to satisfy the rest of the doubters.

Funny how that Social Authoritarian thing works. Oppose abortion and one is a misogynist, desiring Society to impose values on an individual, robbing her of Choice. But let her choose to have a child and suddenly the same people who smugly speak of Social Authoritarians have absoultely no problem imposing 18 or better years of economic servitude on the poor smuck who thought he was just hooking up for the summer weekend.
Choice for Women / No Choice for Men.

And yeah, I know, it's for the children, unlike anti-abortionists who just hate women.

And I guess we should add Rudy-deniers to the list of unreasonable conservatives.

SJ: Maybe. So what? That doesn't hold any water in abortion debates. Try telling a woman she gives up her Choice rights by being stupid or lazy.

1. Little mention of some of Rudy's statements about guns "OK in rural areas", which concerns me far more than his, IMO, mainstream views on abortion.

Why not? I would think this posting group would have more to say about it. I am horrified at reports I see from Britain where extreme gun control and related self-defense laws have created a herd of sheeple from a great nation.

2. Once Newt Gingrich and Fred Thompson break cover, we will see better how the polls break. Once the hoped for candidate is for real, people often shift away from them and take choice C.

Someone at Yale did study recently where adding a new choice (to a restaurant in the example) influenced the choice between the original options even though the added option was rarely chosen itself.

Dick Morris thinks that many are holding back, waiting for "Mr. Right", I also think the holdouts will get second thoughts - Can X beat Hillary/Obama?.

Finally, Roger, I agree about the war, though I wonder if its impact isn't heavier for Democrats than Republicans (who are pissed about corruption and mismanagement, but don't want to lose in Iraq or anywhere else for that matter)

If you haven't seen it, here is something to ponder about our legacy in Iraq, come what may:

Newt Gingrich does not stand a chance. I think Thompson has a better chance. As for Rudy and guns, well I own guns and live in a rural area. Every since the days of Dodge City there have been restrictions on gun ownerhsip. That is just a fact. I got the impression that Rudy thinks the locals should control some of these things and I think his attitude about guns is directly related to his past as a Prosecutor and a Mayor.

The job of the President is not to rule every aspect of our lives, it never was. And there is no way we will always agree with any of these people. I don't see any indication that Rudy is planning on repealing the second amendment.

I agree about Newt, but he's the man. I really like to hear him talk and I think he has more real ideas than the rest put together - not sure he would actually make the best president.

I live in a metro area and I have a gun. If I understand Rudy correctly, he doesn't think I need one. If I understand recent crime statistics, gun ownership suppresses crime. If you look at England, the ratio of burglaries where the home owner is home is way up compared to the US.

I have a problem with this. Don't confuse gun control as in registration with gun ownership suppression as in DC.

But let her choose to have a child and suddenly the same people who smugly speak of Social Authoritarians have absoultely no problem imposing 18 or better years of economic servitude on the poor smuck who thought he was just hooking up for the summer weekend.

I suppose there might be some people that think that way. I however, consider that position just as Authoritarian. If a man and woman willingly do the horizontal mambo and a pregnancy results, its the responsibility of those two people to figure out what the heck to do. It's not my job to be involved, nor should it be my tax dollars that pay to prosecute the guy. If a woman sleeps with an irresponsible jerk... then she was being just as irresponsible. I have long found the "Women's Choice" as misogynistic, in cases where the guy has NO Choice.

BINGO. The Federal government is tasked with Interstate Commerce, National Security and the protection of Citizen's rights under the Constitution. Federal rules about Guns, Pot, Gay Marriage, Global Warming (ad nausea) should be in the hands of the State... more specifically the hands of the citizens of a State. Rudy strikes me as a guy that understands this limited role. Maybe I'm wrong (unfortunately we don't have a lot of historical data to go on here).

At any rate, he's sure a better choice than Hillary and Newt seems unlikely to live down his past.

Let me begin by saying I am probably more conservative that the average regular RLS reader and sometimes commentator. I arrive at this intuitively by having actively visited this site beginning with the 2004 Presidential campaign.

Regarding Rudy, I disagree with a number of his social views. However, I do believe that Rudy respects the rule of law and will appoint judges that hold to that judicial philosophy. From that perspective, he is conservative. Another unanswered question is how fiscally conservative is he.

It also places the social issues back in the legislature where those issues belong in the first place. One of my big complaints with liberals is that they do not have broad popular support for their views and so they have resorted to stacking the courts with liberal judges who create law via judicial fiat bypassing the legislative process.

I happen to agree with jdwill. Newt is that man. I have met him. I have heard him speak. I have read his many position papers.

Newt has more well thought out ideas than all of the candidates combined. He has the intellect to comprehend the issues, to develop responsible actions and to articulate why actions make sense for Americans. He is fallible like all of us. Nevertheless, he is unlikely to be President.

On the other hand, Rudy is likely to be elected. I believe most conservatives will vote for him because they think Rudy is tough enough to handle the war with the Islamists, articulate enough to make the case for his intiatives, and appoint judges who will follow the rule of law.

Not everyone who votes for him will be happy, but he is better than the alternatives (i.e. Hillary or Obama). However, if we don't stand up to and win the war with the Islamists, there is not much else that will matter.

Mikem, if the choice issue seems so one-sided to you, remember that a man can pretty much take away the woman's right to choose by wearing a condom in the first place. But beyond that, your entire "Choice for Women/No Choice for Men" argument is specious. Please point out the long line of outraged men protesting the fact that women they've impregnated are choosing to have abortions against the men's wishes. It is infuriating and tiresome to continually have the abortion debate focusing on women alone. From (many but certainly not all) Pro-lifers one gets the selfish or irresponsible woman stereotype, from a lot of pro-choice people, it's the feminist "my body" line. The fact is that very rarely are these choices made in a vacuum, and frequently "facts on the ground" change radically from the moment of inception. I actually think that the pro-choice movement has made a mistake by focusing so intently on the "woman's right to choose" argument when we all know that in reality, her choice is likely the man's choice too.

It is truly beyond belief that any libertarian would ever vote for Giuliani. The man is authoritarian to the core, and pretty much is an Anti-Christ figure insofar as libertarianism is concerned.

What does "authoritarian to the core" mean? Are you saying he wants to take away our freedoms?

The 2008 Presidential race is actually over - Rudy Giuliani will be our next President!! The logic behind my conclusion is based on simple arithmetic of state by state electoral votes. The new accelerated primary schedule guarantees Rudy's nomination. This is so because he will win all the big states (meaning those carrying the largest electoral votes) by Feb 5, 2008. And then, for the general election, all Giuliani needs to do is win one big or two small blue states to tilt the national balance in his favor. And he is all set to do just that. This is so because the national electoral votes map is critically and evenly balanced as evidenced by the past two presidential elections. However, between now and Nov 2008, all the political junkies (including me!)will have a great time watching the professional pundits spinning randomn events to their own agenda view points. Numerous commentators, journalists, reporters and consultants will constantly distract their audience from this clear and logical conclusion - and in the process will make substantial earnings thru this period. So let us all just enjoy the journey of this political campaign - the destination is already known!

"Please point out the long line of outraged men protesting the fact that women they've impregnated are choosing to have abortions against the men's wishes."

Excuse me? If some men are OK with abortion, that makes it, by default, a non issue for all others, both men and women? Are you seriously saying that men who wish to be fathers are not utterly crushed when a woman, perhaps his wife, changes her mind and decides to abort instead of carrying to term?

What I know, and apparantly you find of no context, is that a woman's right to choose is so powerful and sacred to Society that she can have a doctor kill her (and her husband's) full term fully viable baby to save her from forced parenthood. But a man who never agreed to fatherhood, who never wanted a child, who has no intention of having a child is coerced by threat of imprisonment, economic ruin, and public shame into paying out a large portion of his income so that a woman's absolute right to choose is not burdened by the full financial responsibility of that choice. But that seems fair to you.
Now, I'm willing to look the other way for a father who agrees to be a father and changes his mind. That is, I'll stick him with being a parent even though I would be a misogynist to treat women the same.

But you look at that disparity in respect for the right to choose and find it all specious?

And save the "use a rubber" tactics. Woman have many methods of birth control as well. If they don't want to be mothers, they can use them. Otherwise, as you infer, whoosh... no right to choose!

Gingrich is too brilliant by half. Guys like Gingrich get bored much too easily to ever "stay the course." I don't want a razzle dazzle intellekshal as President. I want a President with CHARACTER!

Character is the first step in the diligence process. However, character without intellect will not yield the desired results.

I hear Thompson has character. WhaddoIknow? But at least he looks the part. In any case, all the ex-democrats who gather on this site will be disappointed when the Republicans go with Thompson, or maybe The Mormon, as their candidate. Rudy's just too much of a fish out of water for the party's core voters. Yup, the ex-Dems will just have to hold their noses and vote for a real Republican.'Tis a pity but true.

I don't like Newt Gingrich. I would only vote for him if there was no alternative. There was a reason that Newt Gingrich's had higher negatives than Hillary Clinton. And I don't think he did the Republicans much good in the long run.

BTW, I work in health care and when he tried to balance the budget in regards to Medicare, all he did was shift those costs to the Meicaid system. It took awhile for the governments to adjust and a few old people lost service, but in the end that bit of smoke and mirrors did not accomplish a damn thing.

That is ridiculous. I defy you to find me an example of a woman walking into a hospital and demanding that a doctor kill her full term baby just to spare her the responsibility of parenthood... with or without the consent of her husband.

The only thing that bugs me about Rudy is the way he shafted Milken; giving him a choice of accepting a plea in return for not going after his brother. Nice!! I really hate prosecutors with virtually unlimited resources. But then he recommended him for a pardon; if Milken can move on then I guess I can too.

Rudy for Pres, Fred for Veep, and Newt for Chief of Staff--where the intellect will do some good.

Terrye: Partial Birth Abortion. A woman has the right to abort her child up to birth, at nine months or later, whatever. There are about 50, 000 Partial Birth Abortions a year. Abortion supporters call that "rare" because it amounts to a few percent of all abortions. Not all PBAs are at nine months, of course, just as not all babies wait nine months to be born.

"...just to spare her the responsibility of parenthood"
The reasons given in the majority of cases, according to abortion providers (the doctors) are finances, relationship changes and so on. Only around 22% are done due to medical risk to the mother.

It's not demogaguery to point out the realities of abortion. Did you really think that abortions are not done if the fetus is viable? Have you ever read the accounts of women who have assisted in PBA procedures, their heartbreak? I'll save you a description, but it is not being performed on dead tissue, that's sure. Did you think that we are a lifeless clump of cells until our mothers give birth? You should look up PBA and read how it is done before you dismiss those who condemn it.
As a female blogger once smugly told me in one of these discussions. "I [she] wasn't a baby until my mother said I was." That's it in a nutshell.

Terrye did not, in her comment, dismiss those who condemn partial birth abortion. As an informed member of the health care profession, she is, I suspect, quite familiar with how it is performed. She did not anywhere in her comment support or condemn the procedure. Mikem, you misread her, just as you misread me. There is really no point in engaging in this conversation with you, since you hear only what you want to hear. Fortunately, the majority of Americans recognize that the issue is far more complex and heart-wrenching than the extremists on either side allow. If you truly believe the current abortion policy works out as simplistically as "Choice for Women/No Choice for Men", you are sadly hidebound. Regarding your aside that it works for half the human race, I am embarrassed for you. With radical Islam brutalizing women all over the world, a more appropriate synthesis of the current situation throughout much of the world would be the very opposite - Choice for Men/No Choice for Women.

SJ: Great diversion. Man, you took the wind right out of my sails by bringing Islamic brutality towards women into the picture. Until we can solve that problem, lets put everyone else's rights on the "who cares" burner, gay rights, black civil rights, hell... Israel.

It's "complex" for everyone, including men and fathers. Recognizing the complexity doesn't change the reality of the issue. Women have mixed feelings about getting an abortion? I should hope so, although pro-choicers seem to downplay the possibility of moral qualms and emotional damage associated with abortion.

Roger says (in an earlier post) that we should just accept abortion as a done deal. I think that is probably practical, but then again many issues of morality. some that America still is ashamed about, were once deemed done deals.

My issue is men's rights. I bring up abortion rights because it showcases the extreme value that society places on a persons right to freely choose or reject motherhood (and so, therefore, fatherhood). It is a freedom that is so important to a free society that we give a women the right to abort even at full term, well after viability has been reached. That is a hell of a statement.
There is no justification for the blatant violations of men's rights that some child support laws impose. I say some because I think once a man has agreed to fatherhood, he should pay child support (assuming the woman allows the child to be born) even if he changes his mind later before the child is born. That's actually generous considering the rights of women.

Choice for Women / No Choice for Men. It works for half of the American population! (Better?)

Like all fanatics you choose hysteria over reason. the kind of abortion you are talking about is very rare and is only performed under certain circumstances, one of which is not the desire of the mother to avoid parenthood. If you think it is, you don't know what you are talking about.

So, is rape a man's right too? How about slapping the little lady around? If you are going to assume that it is all about a man's right to force his will on a bad baby killing woman, just how far does that right go?

I don't know why I'm bothering. Just a personal peeve I have about not being understood, I suppose. But Mikem, you seem incapable of comprehending what I wrote. When I called the issue complex, I was OBVIOUSLY referring to both sexes. I specifically criticized the emphasis in the pro-choice movement on women's rights exclusively, when EVERYONE knows that in so many (not all, obviously) cases the decision to abort is made as a result of both partners' wishes - explicit or implicit. In many cases, a man does not come out and say he wants an abortion, but his actions or absence speak as loud as words. It was just as much his decision, but he abdicates all responsibility for it. Am I suggesting that there are never cases where women have abortions against the wishes of men? Of course not. But those numbers are far fewer. That doesn't mean those situations should be ignored, or that men's rights should be trampled on. On the contrary, if the extremes on BOTH sides of this debate would acknowledge the rights and responsibilities of both sexes, we would be at the start of an honest discussion.

"...the kind of abortion you are talking about is very rare and is only performed under certain circumstances."

Absolutely untrue. There are no restrictions on PBA, not on circumstances, not on lateness of term. None. It's been tried but the courts have said no. And while a small percentage of total abortions may be your idea of "rare", the numbers certainly don't match my idea of rare.
Calling me a hysteric for pointing out the statement that PBA and abortion itself makes concerning the importance of our rights is hysterical in itself.

"Men's right my ass". Thank you. It took you a while but you finally stated your bigotry and hatred clearly. To hell with men. To hell with my sons and grandsons. They (and your sons and grandsons) don't deserve the same rights as your daughters and granddaughters.
You'll be proud to know that "men's rights my ass" and your next smear are easily the most common responses to my plea for men's rights regarding child support.

"So, is rape a man's right too? How about slapping the little lady around? If you are going to assume that it is all about a man's right to force his will on a bad baby killing woman, just how far does that right go?"

Are you foaming at the mouth at this point? Does the fact that more men rape women than the other way around mean that all men are rapists or that all men have lesser rights than women. How about women who deliberately infect their children with poisons and infectants to gain sympathy? Is that a right? How about women who murder their husbands? How about women who murder their children? (And then gain sympathy from other women. When fathers kill their children, they are hateful controlling monsters, when a mother does the same, she "must be sick" because women are NEVER hateful or controlling or monsters.) You're going off your rocker with blustering shock toward the notion that men should have rights too. But you are in sync with most women in doing so, believe me.
Do you have a whole string of lesser rights for blacks, who lead in many violent crime categories? But no, I'm sure your bigotry is reserved for all men and you would never be so ignorant as to suggest that some black men's wrongdoing negates all black men's rights, would you?

"If you are going to assume that it is all about a man's right to force his will on a bad baby killing woman, just how far does that right go?"

What the hell are you talking about? This is the sickest strawman yet. I suggest no such thing. I suggest that men have the right to choose parenthood too. I'm not even suggesting that a man have a say in a woman's right to choose, either to abort or not to abort. I'm saying that men should have the right to refuse fatherhood, at least in the form of child support, if they never agreed to have a child in the first place. That's pretty non drastic compared to the solution that women use to protect their rights. Your response is to accuse me of being pro-rape and pro-abuse. And you call me hysterical??

Well, since SJ, Terrye and mikem have already pulled the thread somewhat OT, I'm going to jump in.

SJ, Terrye and mikem: How many aborted babies (pardon, fetuses) could be adopted if carried to full-term? Granted that all pregnancies carry some risk, why should we not expect a woman who conceives to bring the baby into the world for adoption, and the man to bear any financial costs involved?

Following my responses to a remark about conservative "Social Authoritarians" in which I compared choice for women to the lack of choice afforded to men, I received a notice from a legitimate name and personal email account (I googled) at a Planned Parenthood address. It accused me of trying to send pornography to the personal account of a woman staffer there.
Typekey does not display email addresses, but Roger has had differing posting systems since I started posting here. Regardless, they accessed my email address somewhere and, of course, Roger would not have provided it. I know that without asking.
The timing is certain though, knowing my posting history on the subject. It was sent in response to my comments here.
I posted for years with my email address on display and only stopped after spam became an issue. And yet this is the first time I have been harrassed for posting anywhere on any subject, although I have received angry but reasonably civil emails.
No BS about feeling intimidated, I don't. Just sure that I have touched a vulnerable spot in suggesting that men deserve a reasonable degree of choice also. That idea is apparantly beyond the pale to some "pro choicers". Even to the degree that they will falsely accuse others.

I obviously disagree with you quite vehemently on the subject of abortion, mikem. And my identity is clear to anyone who cares to pass their mouse over the typekey logo at the bottom of my posts. But I am truly sorry for any harrassment you have received. Shame on the perpetrator, who only does a disservice to the cause he/she purports to support.

April 10, 2007: "Fear of Rudy" at the New York Times

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post