Posted on 02/15/2007 3:20:42 PM PST by MittFan08
Rudy Building Lead Over McCain... [Rich Lowry]
...according to the new Fox News Poll. Asked who would they support in a Republican primary if the choices were McCain or Giuliani, 56% of Republicans said Giuliani, and 31% said McCain. 50% of Independents said Giuliani, and 27% said McCain. This represents a big bump for Giuliani since early December. Then, 42% of Republicans said they would pick Giuliani, 40% McCain, and 35% of Independents said they would support Giuliani while 41% said they would go with McCain.
02/15 05:34 PM
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Spoken like a real DUer.
And Rudy has had three wives. Less people are inclined to consider voting for a thrice-married candidate than a Mormon candidate. People don't really know much about Rudy, yet.
I was waiting for the Rudy pushers to argue that Sessions is too conservative, but naw, they couldn't come out and say that here could they?
I have nothing but respect for Pete Sessions, and his family. I've actually worked for him.
That comment on 280 was for your border friends who call the President "Jorge".
What class.
By the way, Rudy will not make abortions more available, will not take away your guns, and will not sanctify gay marriage, no matter what the anti-Rudy zealots say.
But he WILL keep this country SAFE
I have liked much of what you have written on this thread tonight, but I want you to consider the following:
Rudy believed it was totally acceptable to implement extensive gun control in NYC as a means to control crime. He believes that was effective and has convinced many others of the same thing. What if he decided that in order to control terrorism - the likes of which we saw Monday night in SLC - that we needed nationwide gun control? Would it be ok then? He would be ostensibly fighting the war on terror.
IMHO, Rudy's primary core value is his belief in Rudy. I don't see a controlling philosophy. I don't hear references to the Bible, the founding fathers, the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. I constantly see him referencing his own performance as a leader. He has proven himself effective. That effectiveness combined with little evidence of core values that I believe in and share makes me more fearful of his effectiveness and what he might do to remain effective than confident that that effectiveness will protect the Constitution. The Constitution and the limits it puts on Goverment is the only reason I am willing to trust Goverment at all.
I would much rather see him as SECDEF in anyone's adminstration, where someone with a core philosophy can direct his talent and ambition to truly keep the country safe.
Does that make me an anti-Rudy zealot?
Kindest regards,
TS
You're the one who showed your utter disrespect for FReepers by saying they wouldn't support him because he has a Hispanic wife.
At this point, I wouldn't support him because he would support a leftist like Giuliani.
It's my new litmus test for candidates.
You'll get the last word, because I'm going to bed.
President Bush (elected in 2000, reelected in 2004) is a staunchly prolife Christian conservative and he made great strides in the battle against the culture of death.
Blocked abortions on military bases overseas, pushed for and got passed a ban on partial birth abortion, blocked federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, nominated, pushed for and obtained the confirmations of some great constitutionalist judges, etc., etc., etc.
And that all adds up to laying the groundwork for the next conservative prolife president to make even more headway. If Bush doesn't actually get Roe vs Wade overturned during his second term, perhaps his prolife successor will.
Here's what our pro abortionist political foes say about Bush's pro life record:
"The Supreme Court Decision in Bush v. Gore appointed George W. Bush to the presidency of the United States on January 20, 2001. Since then the Bush administration has quietly, but relentlessly, done all it could to reverse nearly 30 years of progress in women's rights—especially reproductive freedoms."
Continues here:
http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/roe30/record.html
Very neat graphic Phil, I missed it earlier!
tough street fighter BUMP, devolve!!
No! Not at all. Heck, I'm not a pro-Rudy zealot. But what is being said against him on this forum is ridiculous. Do you think RG performs abortions?
Everything changed on 9/11, Shrew. Especially, Rudy changed.
I guess it boils down to whatever the number 1 issue is to you.
I'm pro-life, I have a concealed/carry permit, I own 3 guns. I understand the Constitution, and I know that a President cannot confiscate my glocks. I also know that a President cannot declare abortions illegal, and stop them immediately. Most importantly, I understand a President has control of the execution of the war on terror.
As far as biblical references, I mean, that's a criteria??
Again... I am not on the Giuliani team, but he could take on the CiC job, no doubt.
The man's mettle has been tested, and he just might be the right man for this time in our country's history.
Actually, it is not. However, the support for abortion and other liberal positions are key elements that will most definitely disqualify a candidate from being considered for the Republican nomination. Obviously, the three decade plus fight against Roe vs Wade, abortion and the liberal/socialist culture of death is very important to conservatives. Conservatives dedicated to this fight will not roll over for an abortionist or anything less than a bona fide conservative. Witness the aborted Miers nomination after conservatives applied pressure.
If the Democrats get their way (and they will with the press on their side), this election will be looked at as a referendum against the war. The Democrat will win the antiwar department hands down no problem. They get the solid antiwar vote. But we'll be able to pick off any Democrats and swing voters that believe the war is necessary to our long term national security.
The second major issue will be illegal immigration. As long as our guy is solidly anti illegal immigration, anti amnesty, and 100% opposed to pandering to illegals or their employers and is fully committed to securing the borders we win. And this issue will pull in many Democrats and swing voters, even Californians who are opposed to illegal immigration and government pandering of same. Our guy wins this issue big time if he has a solid track record on secure borders, no pandering to lllegals, etc.
The third big issue will be taxes. Again, we win this issue bigtime with a solid supply side taxcutter. We'll even pick up Democrats and swing voters here.
The issues of abortion, gay rights, gun control, voting records, military history, etc, are lessor issues to most people but will be hotly contested in the primary fight within each party's base. And they obviously are very dangerous issues for the candidates that go crosswise to their base.
If I could appoint a President it would be Newt but the MSM has hung too much baggage on him. I think the Hildebeast has the Dim nomination in the bag (Edwards and Obama are beginning to have accidents, strange isn't it.) If Rudy can stop the Hildebeast, then go at it, Rudy!
It's my new litmus test for candidates.
Yeah, why support a conservative congressman when you can support a conceited head case who has always been wrong:
Keyes Won't Cry 'Uncle'
Politics/Elections News Source: CBSNEWS.com Published: 02/29/00 Posted on 02/29/2000 19:13:33 PST by JohnHuang2
SYRACUSE, N.Y.
AP
Alan Keyes on the stump
(AP) America's moral house is on fire and the country's moral foundation must be repaired, said Republican presidential candidate Alan Keyes, who refuses to bow out of the race despite his dismal showings in opinion polls.
Campaigning in New York, Keyes said he's the candidate to answer the repair call and that he won't quit his underdog campaign because “politics isn't about votes only.”
The Republican is getting single-digit support in polls that place him third as New York's March 7 Republican primary draws near.
Keyes, a radio commentator, told reporters prior to a speech at Syracuse University that he is “making sure that people have a choice, a choice that is good for America.”
“I'm not giving up. I won't give up,” he said. "America's moral house is on fire.”
Keyes also made it clear he's unlikely to support Texas Gov. George W. Bush or Arizona Sen. John McCain should either win the party's nomination.
Keyes said an abortion rights nominee or a plank that protects abortion would drive him from the party.
Keyes said Bush doesn't have a chance to win. Republicans wouldn’t win the general election, he continued, because the national economy is strong under the Democratic Clinton administration. Vice President Al Gore and former New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley are frontrunners for the Democratic nomination.
A recent CBSNews/NYTimes poll finds Bush leading McCain with 46 percent as compared to 36 percent of the likely Republican voters for McCain, while Keyes is a distant third with 3 percent of the voters.
Copyright 2000 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
For Education And Discussion Only. Not For Commercial Use.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38bc8add3436.htm
The comments on that thread are golden. Thank God Keyes was not CiC on 9/11.
God bless you Jim Robinson. Thank you for saying this.
BTTT!
Thank you for postung that!
LOL. Social conservative? How about just a plain old principled conservative. A pro defense, small government, low tax, principled conservative dedicated to defending country, family, life and liberty. You know, conservative principles and values more in line with Ronald Reagan's. Why settle for someone who gets it only half right?
As far as biblical references, I mean, that's a criteria??
It's a criterion for me. What I am saying is that I want a leader with a conscience. My referral to Biblical References is that I want an indication of a conscience, a guiding philosophy, core beliefs other than just the belief in that "I am capable and I am gifted. Follow me."
Again... I am not on the Giuliani team, but he could take on the CiC job, no doubt.
I think he could take on the CIC Job. I would just rather see him as SECDEF with someone holding his leash so to speak.
Do you think RG performs abortions?
Everything changed on 9/11, Shrew. Especially, Rudy changed.
I guess it boils down to whatever the number 1 issue is to you.
No. I don't think RG performs abortions. I think much less changed on 9/11 than I wanted to change. I changed on 10/23/83 it took the rest of the country nearly 18 years to catch up to me! The democrats - all of them - scare me worse than the Taliban. As far as I'm concerned they're on the same side! The democrats didn't change on 9/11. They're back to the same playbook they've been using since 1963.
Hopefully, I'll 'debate' rationally, courteously and effectively. A month is a lifetime in politics. Rudy is the Flavor of the month. Let's talk in March. We can have this discussion again.
Regards,
TS
Do you believe a Hillary or Obama Presidency will execute the war as capably as Giuliani?
Conservatives dedicated to this fight will not roll over for an abortionist or anything less than a bona fide conservative.
I just have to say this again...I am a conservative, and to the right of many here on the abortion issue. To offer positive posts about Giuliani does not make me an abortionist.
That's a great answer!
The democrats - all of them - scare me worse than the Taliban. As far as I'm concerned they're on the same side! The democrats didn't change on 9/11. They're back to the same playbook they've been using since 1963.
The Taliban is worse, Dems a close 2nd.
Hopefully, I'll 'debate' rationally, courteously and effectively.
What a breath of fresh air. I look forward to it, TS.
Sorry, I disagree. The Taliban is a known enemy. The Dems are an insidious enemy who live among us. They look like us, they dress like us and sometimes they even behave like us. However, their ultimate goal is power. If they had the opportunity they would seize as much power as the Taliban ever dreamed of, and then they would say, "We're doing this for your own good. - Or - Your children's good, because we know better than you do." That makes them worse than the Taliban in my book. The Taliban just want to kill me. The dems on the other hand want to emasculate me and then have me thank them for having done it.
Thank you for your kind words. I look forward to it as well.
Kindest Regards,
TS
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.