April 6, 2007

Blaming Bloggers For Discussing The Issues?

Did Rudy blame bloggers for his tough week after his remarks on abortion and federal funding? Some apparently believe so, including Matt Lewis , who read Roger Simon's report for The Politico. Roger asked Rudy about whether he realizes how tough the race will get, and he got this response (via The Corner):

Has it crossed your mind that this may be an extremely rough primary in 2008? I asked him.

"It has, and it will be," Giuliani replied. But he also said he did not think the attacks would come directly from other Republican presidential candidates.

"I think more of this comes from the atmosphere in the blogging atmosphere, in the instant news atmosphere, and the minute analysis atmosphere," he said.

If Rudy spoke in reference to the abortion debate this week, then I would agree with Matt. It's hardly an "attack" to discuss the policy positions of the various candidates. Giuliani said that he supported public funding for abortions, a policy that puts him outside almost the entirety of his party. It would seem strange if it didn't get debated.

However, from reading the entire article, it's not clear at all to me that Rudy's response referenced his bobble this week at all. The Mayor provided that answer in the context of all the commentary about his personal life -- three marriages, two divorces, the last a messy and public affair during his term in office. The abortion debate comes after this statement in the article, where Rudy insists that he will not change his views on policy just to get elected. "Better off you vote against me than I change who I am," he replied, and many would see that as rather refreshing, regardless of policy differences.

I think Matt's off base here. While it's clear that Rudy fumbled the ball this week, he wasn't blaming bloggers for discussing his policies. Indeed, he made it clear that he wants the debate to remain focused on the issues, and not his personal life, as it should be.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Blaming Bloggers For Discussing The Issues?:

» Rudy Giuliani Watch: Blaming the Blogosphere? from FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog
Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani speaks after picking up the support of South Carolina Treasurer Thomas Ravenel, far left during a news conference, Thursday, April 5, 2007, at the Statehouse in Columbia, S.C. Giuliani: Take Me Or Leave Me... [Read More]

» FRI APR 6 The Manliness of Christ from The Pink Flamingo

Darn these GLOBAL WARMING FREAKS!  I’m cold.  I like warm wea...

[Read More]

Comments (10)

Posted by RBMN [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 6, 2007 12:46 PM

It may have profited Rudy to spend some time in a legislative body. Congress members, either State or Federal, know that your "good friend" from pick-a-town is not so "good" that they won't turn and trample you next week when you're in their way. You just have to pick yourself up and brush off the dust. It's not personal. Usually not.

Posted by rjschwarz [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 6, 2007 1:03 PM

If you define blogs to include DailyKos and DU I think he'd be fool to think he wouldn't be attacked rather frequently as the race goes on.

Posted by TomB [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 6, 2007 1:12 PM

I think that blogs brought back very important but almost lost part of Democracy: free exchange of ideas. We almost didn't realize that free exchange of ideas, feasible in small communities of the founders, were monopolized by mass media. We almost lost our freedom of speech, WHICH IS HEARD BY OTHERS. Now thing start to come back to where they should be, MSM being biggest losers.

Posted by Brooklyn [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 6, 2007 4:45 PM

* still not certain if Rudy fumbled the ball...

seems most are upset, he has not changed a standard position he's held for years...

perhaps this was poor interpretation, communication, in regards to the issue, with the confusion greatly exaggerated by the Media coverage and some rushes to judgment.

when asking a friend if they thought Rudy made a mistake, the friend admitted he never read the transcripts, but made an opinion on roughly viewing a high profile blog. thus, simply trusting the bloggers take.

if the blogger is wrong, this creates a huge problem, as many seem to get information in a very fast manner, the the so called 'conventional wisdom' is cemented even before it has a chance to be considered.

in this case, the former Mayor of NYC can be correct.

the rush to judge, the hype, the lack of responsible expression, fast pace of information, will confuse many issues and many reputations in a very concerning fashion.

a number of issues (again repeating), were blown beyond any sense of proportion in the bloggosphere after the 2004 election, which eventually helped to undermine conservative interests in Washington.

certainly, the positives of the free expression provided by the bloggos is a treasure, especially in context of the bias in other Mediums.

anyway, if Rudy wins the primary, he will appreciate having many more conservative bloggers join his side, focused on the misguided Democrat candidate.

thus, it can be as helpful, as well as more challenging.

but it is concerning, with Conservative bloggers who seem eager to jump on the Republican Rudy and make mountains out of a completely generic review of the internet - blogs, instant 24 hour cable news, and constant pundit analysis on tv?

they seem more 'focused' on this, than they do regarding Hillary's lie about her vote on the authorization for the use of force in Iraq...

we simply cannot afford to lose sight of the big picture again.

Reid and Pelosi are working to undermine the USA as it fights to build an Ally in Iraq in the GWOT...

we must remain focused.

Posted by staleoreo [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 6, 2007 6:44 PM

Rudy's comments seemed rather innocuous -- he was simply acknowledging the fact that blogs have and will continue to play a role in the political process.

I don't see how anyone can read them and draw the conclusion that he's laying blame for anything on anyone, even given the fact that he's drawn some criticism in recent days. The timing, in this case, is irrelevant.

Posted by Rose [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 6, 2007 8:40 PM

Character matters.

Our Founding Fathers found that the conduct of one's personal life gave vital clues to one's ability to be found FIT for public office, and I agree.

This argument of leaving one's personal foibles out of the debater began in earnest with Bill Clinton - and he proved how unable HE was to keep his personal life OUT of the OFFICE, on many various levels.

He who is void of virtuous attachments in private life is, or very soon will be, void of all regard for his country. There is seldom an instance of a man guilty of betraying his country, who had not before lost the feeling of moral obligations in his private connections.
- Samuel Adams

Samuel Butler - Authority intoxicates, And makes mere sots of magistrates; The fumes of it invade the brain, And make men giddy, proud and vain.

Patrick Henry - ...Virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone that renders us invincible. These are the tactics we should study. If we lose these, we are conquered, fallen indeed...so long as our manners and principles remain sound, there is no danger.

Elias Boudinot: | Portrait of Elias Boudinot
“ Be religiously careful in our choice of all public officers . . . and judge of the tree by its fruits.”

John Jay: | Portrait of John Jay
“Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” Source: October 12, 1816. The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed., (New York: Burt Franklin, 1970), Vol. IV, p. 393.

“Whether our religion permits Christians to vote for infidel rulers is a question which merits more consideration than it seems yet to have generally received either from the clergy or the laity. It appears to me that what the prophet said to Jehoshaphat about his attachment to Ahab ["Shouldest thou help the ungodly and love them that hate the Lord?" 2 Chronicles 19:2] affords a salutary lesson.” [The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, 1794-1826, Henry P. Johnston, editor (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1893), Vol. IV, p.365]

Another popular proposal to the Great Seal of the United States was:
"Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God"; with Pharoah's army drowning in the Red Sea

It would seem the general consensus was that they considered character essential in the CITIZENS - for the NATION to continue to exist, and that would seem to indicate they felt the character of their leaders to be so vital as to constitute the difference between leadership and tyrants.

A man who isn't willing to be fully transparent in his leadership is a man who will build structures in the office he holds that more closely resemble that of a tyrant.

I've attended leadership training sessions for almost 30 years, and I have yet to attend one that did NOT stress transparency.

I realize in some cases, that is terribly painful.

However, bringing one's "secret things" into the LIGHT robs them of the power to create fear, or to be used as weapons, either against the individual or the individual to use against others.

Posted by Rose [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 6, 2007 8:51 PM

If you define blogs to include DailyKos and DU I think he'd be fool to think he wouldn't be attacked rather frequently as the race goes on.

Posted by: rjschwarz


You make it sound as if those on the Right should love him more than those on the Left should.

Interesting POV. Novel, in fact.

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 6, 2007 9:02 PM

Politics is a "funny" business. Most of us are not players. And, yet? One of the things that seems to be a place where "influence is gathered," gave the conservatives a bigger boost. How so? The votes shifted away from the donks making it into the white house.

And, if you think there's a "game now," you're missing all the stuff that went before!

Including putting dogs in the white house.

I define a "dog" as a man who is NOT LOVED.

LBJ, was NOT loved! And, he didn't deal with the rejection very well, either.

Nixon? Another example of a man who had no idea how to tap into the American psyche. He was not only NOT LOVED, he hated the People! And, acted like a despot.

Motivating Nixon? His hatred for the Rockefellers. The Rockefellers abused him at every turn. And, he finally "got even" by NOT giving Nelson the veep slot. Instead? Picking Gerald Ford.

Gerald Ford was LIKED. But he was also dumb. And, he said, originally in 1974, that he would not run for the presidency. He changed his mind. Or, he lied. Go pick.

But in 1976, using all the GOP tricks in the book, Gerald Ford made it to the GOP nomination stage; blocking Reagan.

The word went out: Reagan is too old to win.

When Reagan won, however, what was lost on a lot of people, is that he GRABBED democratic voters by the boat load.

While the press tried to paint him as a John Bircher. (Back in 1980, the words "john bircher" were synonymous with "conservative." Especially in California. Because there's a strong conservative movement, here. One that rarely gets to get elected. Till Schwartzenegger took advantage of moneys spent by a conservative.)

One good example of the Schwartzenegger victory, is that people who are, in fact, conservatives, in California, voted INSTEAD for the man who could win. The man who would unseat Gray Davis.

Unbeknownst to most Americans, Gray Davis was actually heading towards the White House. When he lost his governor's job.

While today?

Bush is NOT LIKED! If you separate out the disease called Bush Derangement Syndrome, you'd notice that Bush is unable to become popular. He can't speak worth a darn. And, because he's weighted with the Saudi's desires to grow stronger in the Mideast, there's very good reasons to assume WHY Bush is more unpopular than he should be. If he had been on the up and up.

Still, Bush became president through the nomination process, that is now in disarray.

Do conservatives like Rudy Guiliani? You're kidding me!

What you see, though, is that your strengths in getting a piece of dreck like Bush nominated; has dissolved. You can't do the Bob Jones university "schtick" and get people to take you seriously.

You can't do "push calls" anymore.

Nor is abortion the "hot ticket issue" that drives people in how they vote. (You could learn a lot from O'Connor. Because she recognized pulling the plug on Roe would be the death knell for the GOP.) She kept the bad stuff from happening at court. Though it looked more like magic tricks, than forks.

And, you're still not "home" at the court, either. Since Glenn Reynolds popped a link to Professor Bainbridge. Where it's pointed out, that to "get cooperation" for Bush's next nominee; he was up in arms that it could be the ubber-Yale-Dean-liberal: KOH. A switch in affirmative action to a newcomer.

But if this is behind the screen? Doesn't mean you're in good shape NOW, to call the man who gets the nod. (Because you need mainstream voters to win.)

And, that's where Rudy went and put a "lock." At least for the time being. He's got the "big one's. California, Ohio, Pennsylvania. And, probably New York. Makes the old hew and cry from the "john birchers" practically meaningless.

While I do see a need to produce somebody that at least garners attention.

Here? Glenn Reynolds says Fred Thompson; short on cash. And, well behind Rudy. Will "come out" in the beginning of May. At an "invitational" set up by California Conservatives.

Of course, politics is always fun to watch.

Which is what we do.

Rudy running without competition? Hardly likely.

That most people vote FOR Prohibitions? No. NOT. And, certainly not ahead.

Lincoln knew this. Because he saw the WHIGS collapse. (They collapsed because they wanted to prohibit liquor. And, they hated the incoming Irish for being Catholics. Oh, and they hated the incoming germans.)

While Lincoln saw COW SCHOOLS. And, a reason to hope America could grow with immigration, to boot.

Few people realize the south started the Civil War with a STUPID MOVE. Rebellion. And, pulling the American flag off their flagpoles. (Not all slave states rebelled, either.)

But the reason Lincoln went to battle was to cure the idiots from "leaving the Constitution." Which, if it got rediculous, would allow you to fly your own flag; and stop paying taxes. Something that should you choose to do, would put you in jail.

Again, carrots are nice. But sometimes ya have to get tough.

That conservatives aren't happy with Rudy? No surprises, here.

But can they stop a ground swell? Okay. I'd call that surprising.

But I'd also call Bush becoming "popular and liked," about as impossible as it was for LBJ, Nixon, and Jimmy Carter.

Seems some men, when they get into the white house, only get a very limited amount of love.

Honeymoon's end.

Turns out to be the story.

Posted by TomTom [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 6, 2007 11:03 PM

Carol, you really shouldn't stop taking your medicine. Never mind the side effects. The nice doctor promised it would make you better, fix what he called 'pressured speech'.

Posted by CayuteKitt [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 7, 2007 5:38 AM

The astute Captain said:

"The Mayor provided that answer in the context of all the commentary about his personal life -- three marriages, two divorces, the last a messy and public affair during his term in office."

It's that last part about Rudy's last messy and very public affair during his term in office that bothers me the most.

Rose's assessment was dead on, and character does matter. If Rudy does not have the good grace to conduct his messy private life privately, then he invites public assessment of his character, or lack thereof, by virtue of his very public messy private life's activities.

And if he doesn't exercise good judgment in his private affairs, how could we begin to trust his judgment in the very complex world of public government and international affairs?