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 ...
Good comments!
Good post devolve
"McPain" is said to be even a bigger 'pain' off camera!
Odd man!
Triple-Bumperooooooo!
Thank you devolve!
"Giuliani says a woman's right to choose is constitutional." Giuliani acknowledges that the Supreme Court has ruled that is the case. It is true that it was settled law in some states LONG before Roe including your state and his. It is also true that what is required is to change the hearts of people wrt abortion and is it also true that Giuliani's views are not that different from those of the majority of Americans. Most Americans still believe conservatives are hateful and care nothing about the living women who would be having the babies. Such perceptions are devastating to our chances of maintaining political power. Their total falsity is irrelevant.
"He says regulating guns is constitutional as long as it's done consistent with the second amendment." Rudy's primary concern with guns was removing them from the hands of the criminal class. The fact that the PEOPLE have a right to keep and bear arms does not mean that every Person has that right at all times. The Crips have no right to bear arms in criminal activity. Nor do the other gangbangers who use them to shoot at other gangbangers, miss and blown some little girl's head off. I believe there are some major misunderstandings of the role and meaning of the Second amendment.
I also believe that Rudy would NOT interfere with the Second. Of course, I cannot prove that is the case but it is only my belief. Being a member of the NRA I am not inclined to undermine the rights of law abiding citizens and don't believe Rudy would as president.
"He'll push for judges that share his liberally warped interpretation of the constitution. He won't lift a finger to push judges that respect life and liberty through the confirmation process." I don't share that belief. There is a big difference in governing the most liberal city in the US and in governing the US as a whole.
However, the real question is should Rudy get the nomination (and I think he should be considered the most likely candidate) then what? Do we allow a woman who will exemplify everything conservatives have fought against for decades to take power or assist a man whom is not all we would wish but is far better than the alternative?
No one would be happier than I if conservativism was more popular and could produce a leader capable of gaining sufficient votes to become president. But lets face it conservatives have been demonized by the Treason media to such an extent that it is difficult to elect ANY on a statewide or nationwide basis outside of Idaho, Utah and a couple of other states.
#371 is filled with them.
Then coming up with one shouldn't be a problem for you.
I'm waiting...
Most of those supporting Rudy have not said that he is the only one capable of beating Hillary though most also see NO alternative. Your objection might hold a little more water IF you had any alternative actually polling in double digits.
"The arrogance (LIE) of coming to the most rightward forum on the web and stridently peddling the most liberal candidate in party history (LIE)while taking potshots at conservatives at every turn (LIE) is more than a little off-putting."
"But then, the Rudyites aren't really trying to win over anyone. (LIE) They're counting on Democrats in New Jersey (while igoring conservatives in Missouri, Virginia, Florida and Ohio)(LIE). They're just here for the sport of it." They come for that "sport" only after they've pulled all their teeth and quit pounding their heads against the wall.
How does someone pleading with the Unappeaseables to nominate a candidate with some appeal past the small minority become someone "not trying to win over anyone"?
"...the front runners who sold the party's soul after one election loss in 14 years." That is one of the most bizarre comments I have ever seen.
In 371 you accused me of not wanting a conservative to win. That is a flatout total LIE. How does someone speculating that a candidate cannot win become a "desire" that he NOT win? Only in Bizarroland.
It is a LIE to claim I "doggedly shove" my concerns in people's faces. I DO have a right to express my opinions but am respectful of those who are respectful of me. I do not lie about what they are saying.
I did NOT imply Hunter's campaign was "fraudulent" merely that I was sure he knew he had almost no chance of getting elected and was likely shooting for another post. This is COMMON as anyone familiar with history or politics can tell you. Candidates OFTEN campaign strictly to get a certain perspective before the voters. There is nothing dishonest or deceptive about this.
How many more LIES do you want documented?
You're talking entirely too much sense. No stop it :-)
Reagan had the name recognition thing long before he got the Conservative chops, and I don't know that there is enough time between now and election to elevate any individual who is not already recognized to that level of recognition.
What I think we COULD do, is elevate that individual by using another one during the next few years.
Let's use Duncan Hunter as an example.
Impressive, but very little is known about him; I'm better informed than most, and I've just started leaning about him.
Is he all those things that you say he is?
I don't know, and neither do the overwhelming majority of the voters.
What's the best plan for him?
In my mind, he should be on the ticket as VP if he fails to get the nomination, and give him exposure that way.
"Oh ye of little faith. Men like this come in every battle, every war, every crisis, from nearly any walk of life. It's the way of great nations, great men and great heroes."
I like that...very poetic, and you know what a sucker I am for the emotional stuff.
Yet...I've been looking for a whole lifetime, and I've only found one Ronald Wilson Reagan, and no one who's even come close before or since him.
"Most electable gave us Dole."
Babe Ruth held two records...the most home runs, and the most strike outs.
It happens.
Losing the war on terror will make every other issue moot.
I offered that as one of two alternatives reflected in your attitude. If you reject that one, then I can choose to believe your denial, in which case the other one applies; which is that you are too cowardly to face an uphill fight on behalf of a conservative candidate. You can call my opinion a lie, too, if you like, but to do so would only reflect the same misunderstanding of what the word "lie" means that the left has so thoroughly embraced as a means of discrediting President Bush regarding the war.
How does someone speculating that a candidate cannot win become a "desire" that he NOT win? Only in Bizarroland.
Again you display a very selective memory as to the tone of your comments. You have gone far beyond "speculating" that the candidate in question cannot win. If you were merely "speculating," there would be room for me to engage you with reasoned debate as to why I believe it is possible for him to win, and I would have done so; all the while acknowledging the odds and obstacles that are against him. You, on the other hand, have categorically stated, with no margin for error, that he cannot/will not win. I have no respect for such arrogance, and have therefore responded in the sort of tone you seem to prefer.
It is a LIE to claim I "doggedly shove" my concerns in people's faces.
Again, you try to couch your dead-certain predictions as "speculating" about "concerns." As for the use of my phrase, you can argue semantics if you want, but I stand by this description.
I DO have a right to express my opinions but am respectful of those who are respectful of me.
No argument on the first point, but I hardly think it respectful when coming out of the gate you're declaring someone's choice to be a loser. But then, you consider such declarations merely to be expressing "concerns." If you were to demonstrate respect initially, you might be less likely to be sniped back at.
I do not lie about what they are saying. I did NOT imply Hunter's campaign was "fraudulent"
Yet it appears you will lie about something you've said to others. You can deny the implication of suggesting that Hunter doesn't really believe he can win all you like, but that's what the clear meaning of your words suggests.
merely that I was sure he knew he had almost no chance of getting elected
How are you sure? You've asked him? Your egotistical tunnelvision is such that you truly can't conceive that he, like those of us who support him, might sincerely see a reasonable sequence of events that would lead to success. Again I will say it. What colossal arrogance.
and was likely shooting for another post.
Yes; more specifically, that he was angling to be the running mate of someone who he is diametrically opposed to on most issues. Sure, that would be a natural Plan A, wouldn't it?
This is COMMON as anyone familiar with history or politics can tell you.
As a consolation prize, sure, when it is evident that the candidate is not going come out on top, but to presume that a candidate initially sets out on this course, especially when the one to whom he would attach himself is so ideologically opposed to him, is nothing short of a bizarre fantasy.
Candidates OFTEN campaign strictly to get a certain perspective before the voters. There is nothing dishonest or deceptive about this.
Who are you going to cite for examples? Jesse Jackson? Al Sharpton? Ralph Nader? It might be a little harder to come up with someone of intellect and integrity who's taken this approach; and even that assumes that you can document some statement by the candidate where he admits he never had any interest in winning. I have yet to see an argument from you that isn't based on massive presupposition.
How many more LIES do you want documented?
Still waiting for the first.
You can't even get through one disingenuous claim without insulting them.
That is one of the most bizarre comments I have ever seen.
Either you're prone to hyperbole, or you've lived a very sheltered life.
I think there is alot of misconceptions about what constitutionalist judges are all about. They aren't conservatives. Scalia isn't going to rule that a state based gay civil union law, is unconstitutional - because it isn't. Scalia is againt Roe (as I am), but that doesn't extend to believing that there is a constitutional basis to outlaw all abortion - control would return to the states. I've heard Scalia say this himself, bluntly.
I think alot of people want our side to use the federal courts, like the left has. they want conservative legislation from the bench.
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.