Posted on 10/02/2005 10:56:50 AM PDT by InvisibleChurch
Sunday, Oct. 2, 2005 1:04 p.m. EDT NY'ers Back Rudy Over Hillary for Prez
New York State voters would back former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani for president over home state senator and Democratic Party favorite, Hillary Clinton, according to a Marist College poll released Friday.
Forty-nine percent of New Yorkers say Rudy should run for the White House, while only 40 percent want Hillary Clinton do the same.
While more than two-thirds of Empire State Republicans [67 percent] want Rudy to seek the Oval Office, just 54 percent of Democrats [52 percent] say Hillary should run.
What's more, despite two years worth of media coverage touting her White House bid, an astonishing 36 percent Democrats in that bluest of blue states say Hillary should shelve her presidential ambitions for 2008.
Only 28 percent of Republicans turn thumbs down on President Rudy.
The news is even worse for Mrs. Clinton among those not affiliated with either party - a segment that usually constitutes the all-important "swing-vote" in national elections.
While 51 percent of Independents back Rudy for president, just 38 percent want to see Hillary back in the White House.
A full 57 percent of New York Independents say they oppose a presidential bid by Hillary.
Marist surveyed 707 registered voters in New York on September 26th and 27th. The poll has a margin of error of +/- 4 percent.
Can you name a NY Rpublican in the last 30 years that won statewide without also being on the Conservative Party ballot line?
"This man has a charismatic personality that is rarely seen on the American political landscape, and an appeal to the American public-one that isn't evanescent, but enduring-that transcends any of these other significant character defects or policy failures."
Same words could be said about Bill Clinton.
And I will predict that a Giuliani Administration will have its own Monica Lewinsky, except she'll probably be prettier.
what is Bush doing about abortion? Gay marriage is making its greatest strides in the US - with Bush as president. there isn't much he can do about either.
How faithful he was to his former wife is a matter for speculation-though I honestly believe that she was just as culpable, if not more so, for the failure of their marriage as he was-but I don't think the analogy to Bill Clinton is an apt comparison.
He has had a turbulent personal life-the abortive marriage to a cousin being one of the more bizarre manifestations of that-but I don't think anyone can question his integrity as a public official.
I'll take character over charisma any day.
Also, how is Rudy going to handle religion in the election? Last I checked, he's an excommunicated Catholic (twice-divorced, pro-abortion.)
IMHO Rudy's has ZERO chance of winning ANY of those states. The guy has so much baggage - ALL bad and on almost every issue dear to Conservatives - and even RINO's.
It also seems that 'people' have a very short memory about Rudy. On Sept 10, 2001 New Yorkers couldn't wait for him to leave office fast enough. They in fact hated his guts.
As to him being a so-called 'hero' on and after 9-11, I say how so? What exactly did he do that was so freaking heroic? I was glued to the TV and Fox News, he didn't do anything that any competent mayor wouldn't do. So he's not a boob like Nagin in N.O., whoop-dee-doo! That doesn't give you the keys to the WH.
Rudy is "PRO" a lot more than just abortion. His social politics are repulsive to many conservatives.
I think his credentials-as a Roman Catholic politician-are a lot better than you're willing to concede.
Granted, he's no Sam Brownback or Frank Keating, but he was the most prominent elected official to denounce the reprehensible, bigoted "Sensation" exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum.
He also had a collegial relationship with the late Cardinal John O'Conner, among other high-ranking officals in this city's archdiocese.
If that's what it takes to keep Hillary out of the White House then so be it...
Pete Wilson was probably the best candidate the Republican Party had to offer in 1996, and could have-theoretically-defeated Bill Clinton if given the opportunity.
Instead what transpired was a gross distortion of his stances on that issue-as well as immigration reform-which was trumpeted by the liberal media, and which resulted in his being denied potentially lucrative fund raising sources, and being forced to prematurely withdraw from the race.
I'm not saying that Rudy is the best choice-or even a good one-for the 2008 ticket, only that we shouldn't preemptively blackball one of the more talented, appealing members of the GOP because he might-emphasis on that word-have national ambitions.
Think about this...if we are no longer a free country, would you want to be born?
I can't think of one.
Although James Buckley did manage to win a seat in the United States Senate by running solely on the Conservative line.
Those were the days.
Don't disagree with your statements, but can you learn how to use loses instead of "looses." Lots of people do this and it drives me nuts.
It isn't just abortion, he is very liberal in his social politics.
Unfortunately New York City is the tail wagging the State of New York's dog.
Political control is so tight in NYC it is very doubtful if anyone but a true liberal can be elected.
Former mayor Rudy Giuliani might not be an obvious far left liberal but neither is he a conservative.
In the interest of fairness, I'll send you a link to all of the negative aspects of a potential Giuliani candidacy, had it been launched over a decade ago.
That's just a shame..with what's going on in our country today, to be that single mindedly stubborn is just...sad.
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.