Posted on 01/27/2007 9:01:32 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
Melissa Russo, political reporter for NBC's NYC affiliate WNBC, recently followed Rudy Giuliani up to New Hampshire. In her report on this morning's "Today," Russo stressed that at a GOP campaign stop, Giuliani failed to inform the Granite State Republicans that "he's far from a social conservative."Definition: Push Poll: "A push poll is a political campaign technique in which an individual or organization attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll. Push polls are generally viewed as a form of negative campaigning. The term is also sometimes used incorrectly to refer to legitimate polls which test political messages, some of which may be negative. Push polling has been condemned by the American Association of Political Consultants."
View video here.
So Russo decided to take it upon herself to inform them. Here's Russo interviewing a nice Republican lady:
Russo: "Did you know he was pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro gay rights?"
Nice Republican lady: "No-o-o-o."
Russo: "Would that affect your support for him?"
Nice Republican lady: "Ye-s-s."
Have a look again at that definition of push polling. Sound to you like Russo was engaging in it?
Contact Mark at mark@gunhill.net
lol...quoting a fellow freeper without providing an original source isn't exactly a powerful argument.
It is all your fault for posting this! :) And my fault for calling it a push poll as well! :)
The Keyes people will say and do anything to attack Rudy -- seen it before and will continue to see it. The rest of us just keep plugging on because we realize the most important issue of our time has to do with national security.
When the one issue crowd threw their temper tantrum in 2006 in staying home or voting for the most conservative candidate they thought (DemocRAT), they made themselves pretty irrelevant in this election because as one Freeper said the Traditionalist Conservative Republicans are taking back over. When the evanglicals and one issue folks drank the koolaid of the DemocRATs and put them back in power because there was no difference, that did it for me.
National Security is my #1 issue. Social Conservatives picked the statewide candidates in the primary in OK and look what happened, we got clobbered in the general election in a conservative state. They pushed their agenda too far and became arrogant. You have to have balance and they had none!
OK, I'm tired of arguing about Rudy and Mitt and McCain. So I'll just focus this time on what NBC is trying to accomplish.
I'll just say, once again, that this IS a push poll. It IS the Official Leftist Media trying to influence Republicans and Conservatives by attacking either Giuliani or Romney, whom they have attacked now on a daily basis ever since the campaign season opened, while pushing McCain as the guy Republicans should really vote for in the primaries.
What does that tell you? It tells me that, whatever you think of these candidates, the leftist press really, really wants to see Giuliani and Romney beaten out by McCain.
This is in the primary nomination process. In the general election, they will turn against whatever candidate the Republicans nominate. Meantime, McCain is their favorite, and they hate Rudy.
And I'll donate to whomever is going to run a poll like that. Get the truth out to the Republican voter about liberal Rudy and you'll see his numbers drop as the Republican voters select actual Republican candidates.
If Rudy McRomney told you he was a Buick, would you believe him?
I'm shocked and amazed at the propensity of some FReepers to give credence to the claims of any liberal of either party. It betrays either a politically suicidal impulse, or a poster who is actually a liberal masquerading here as some sort of "conservative." One of the two.
Well...does her crusty black pantsuit qualify her as dressing like a man? I guess not.
This article proves one big point...the Rudy-haters are coming from the same point of view as NBC.
You think Rudy's a liar?
No, it sounds like a TV interview. And since the question accurately reflected his views, I don't even think the it was out of line.
Depends. Hitlery against ANYONE, I go anyone. Obama vs. ANYONE, I go anyone. My choice is Newt. But it may never happen that way.
"masquerading here as some sort of "conservative."
Over the last 14 months or so, I've probably posted at FR close to 1,000 of my NewsBusters items. Please feel free to check them out and tell me if you think I'm a faux conservative.
And this is supposed to be a knock on "Keyes people"? LOL...
But, even if we were disposed to "say and do anything," which we're not, there is no need for such tactics. Giuliani's words and record, starkly presented with little comment, attack Rudy's credibility with principled Republicans more than sufficiently.
The rest of us just keep plugging on because we realize the most important issue of our time has to do with national security.
Rudy Giuliani fought the law and Congress for years before 9-11 to keep NYC an open sanctuary city for illegal aliens...foreign nationals of the exact sort who flew the planes into the WTC.
The claims that a leftwing Republican would be strong on national defense are specious, at best. History proves otherwise.
It's laughable, really, and shows either dishonesty or extreme ignorance and naivete.
Those Self Righteous folks are some of the nastiest people I know here in Oklahoma -- no way you can measure up to them unless you agree with them 100!. Better known here as the my way or no way crowd. You don't dare question anything or out you go. You are not worthy enough to be part of their group because they know everything.
Live with it here in OK and now it bit Republicans but nothing to what is about to happen in the OK House. One of our Republican State Reps voted 'present' in the election for Speaker of the House and now the Speaker and his cronies want to kick him out of the caucus. Even the Dems never had that rule.
The 'my way or no way' crowd is striking again if they go through with it on Monday in the Caucus. He also dared question how they spent campaign contributions which shall we say were not the most ethical spending in the State in 2006. Some might actually allege it was 'corrupt!' The alleged 'corruptness' brought to you courtesy of the 'my way or no way' crowd! The person they want to kick out is one of the best researchers I know and they are going to rue the day they took him on. In the last election, they got a primary opponent against him but he won handily.
This is an example of the social conservative movement here in OK that gave us Istook who lost by more than 2-1 in my Republican County to the Dem pro-abortion, anti-tort reform liberal trial attorney Governor. If the pendulum swung here, I cannot even imagine what it would do nationwide if we nominate the wrong candidate that is a social conservative.
Well, I will keep my remarks confined specifically henceforth to this vapid piece that complains about anybody telling the truth on Rudy.
Here's a link to my archive at NewsBusters:
http://newsbusters.org/blog/40
So which is it, am I a deep liberal mole, or just naive?
Then, if you really are a conservative, you must fall into the first classification I gave: "politically suicidal." Rudy McRomney WILL nuke the Reagan Republican coalition if nominated.
Well, Mark, at least Ms. Russo provided the right information.
Tell me how you think Rudy is the best candidate for national security? Please be sure to explain his national security superiority over the other candidates in light of the FACT that he twisted President Bush's arm to appoint Rudy's mobbed up, corrupt political crony and business partner, Bernard Kerik, to be the head of the Department of Homeland Security. And then tell me how someone who is more interested in political cronyism in the selection of such a critical, national security position - after the 9/11 attacks and during a time of war - is better on national security than any of the other candidates. Despite getting the reports about comms not working between FDNY and NYPD during the 1993 WTC attack, Giuliani didn't fix the situation and 8 years later found the city unprepared for the 2001 WTC attack. Tell me how that helps his image on national security and war fighting issues. I mean, if a glaring security and safety deficiency, exposed by an attack on us, is found in our national security or our armed forces, will it take President/Commander in Chief Giuliani 8 years to fix it if he even attempts to fix it?
In truth, the whole national security thing with Giuliani is purely myth. Yes, he's a war hawk. Just like almost every other Republican Presidential candidate right now except for Paul and Hagel. But his actual record on issues that directly pertain to how he would operate as President is not going to help him.
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.