Running the Republican Numbers on Rudy (50% won't support liberal, 57% don't know Rudy is)

Fox News ^ | 18 February 2007 | Tom Bevan

[jla]

We have had almost 16 years of avowedly Pro-Life Presidents. Abortion is still legal.

Right, guess we'll just quit and forget about this whole pesky business of babies being slaughtered everyday in this land of liberty.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

You can't have a productive intra-party fight with the extremist fringe.

Because you will lose... I don't join a political party to be "bi-partisan."

[Delphinium]

Now the 2nd amendment question?

We need a poll on FR with that being the question.

[NapkinUser]

"So...a pro-lifer can't even win a Republican primary...."

Your just trying to be purposely ignorant, aren't you? Specter was an entrenched incumbent who barely squeaked by with more money and president Bush's support. Most incumbents win in the range of 80%. You're really reaching.

Pro-life Tim Walberg knocked out pro-abortion incumbent Joe Schwarz in a blue state. So it can happen.

And yes, pro-abortion republican candidates can win. I'm not trying to say you have to be pro-life to win. Some people have really poor reading comprehension.

[M. Thatcher]

You mean the increasing support that exists only in you and the other Rudymites own minds? Sorry if that is unconvicing.

It's fine with me if you choose not to believe that the center of energy, money and support is Rudy Giuliani. Me, I like being in reality.

There is no other explanation for the increasing panic in the anti-Rudy camp. If he truly had no chance, he would be ignored by his detractors.

[LtdGovt]

Why is it that the ONLY issue you bring up, concerning the MANY issues that RINO-rudy is on the WRONG, LIBERAL side of, the homosexual issue?

Your incoherent ramblings cannot be comprehended by anyone, not even by one who is well versed in the English language.

Have you had the "great" honor of prancing beside RINO-rudy in a nyc sweetpea parade?

You're referring to gay parades? I don't think so, I think they're a disgrace. But then, I don't spend all my time thinking about them. You could learn from that.

There are MANY, MANY other reasons NOT to vote for RINO-rudy, besides his pro-gay positions, unless of course, you are... 1. A liberal. 2. A liberal demonRAT. 3. A liberal RINO. 4. On RINO-rudy's staff (so to speak). 5. Rino-rudy's mother, or some other relative. 6. A criminal who LOVES seeing citizens disarmed. 7. An abortion doctor who's making a great living.

Yeah, liberals will love his insistence on national security, limited government, entitlement reform and WINNING the war on terror. Criminals loved to see crime being cut into 1/3 in NYC. Abortion doctors would just love to see another Roberts on the court.

As for who I am, I'm a Barry Goldwater Republican. I think the government should get out of our economic and social lives. I don't agree with religious right-do gooders who insist that gambling be outlawed.

[jla]

...the vast majority of social conservatives will eventually support him

What salient facts do you base this on?

[NapkinUser]

"What do you mean? He isn't in."

I know. Gingrich said he'd make his choice in September. But he is second or third place in most of these early meaningless polls despite not having formed any committees or raised even so much as a single dollar. Gingrich is the conservative who can save the party from Giuliani and McCain.

[Blackirish]

Month after month .....week after week...

We keep hearing the same whistling by the graveyard mantra....

"Once the voters...REALLY...REALLY TRULY ...REALLY...get to know Rudy his poll numbers will drop"

But as time goes on and people get to know him ...his numbers go higher!

Whatever your doing Spiff it doesn't seem to be working.

[BonnieJ]

I'm sure they'll find a poll or a few of them that show him going down. They do believe in polls when they support their positions.

[NapkinUser]

"What salient facts do you base this on?"

More made-up Rudymite facts. If Giuliani somehow gets the nomination, and loses, these people will probably blame conservatives who didn't support their crappy candidate and instead voted for somebody like Jim Gilchrist or stayed home. Same as in 2006. Don't piss on people and tell them it's rain. And don't push leftists and say they're conservatives.

[M. Thatcher]

You can't have a productive intra-party fight with the extremist fringe.

I don't think it's intellectually honest or useful to demonize or dismiss those who have legitimate criticisms of Giuliani's positions.

It's the same fallacy many anti-Rudy posters use, dismissing Giuliani supporters as liberals and commies and such.

[Spiff]

Rudy Giuliani is pro-choice the way Ronald Reagan was. He has promised to appoint Supreme Court justices like Roberts, Alito and Scalia. A CNN article tries to make it sound like he would also appoint Ginsberg, but he was really defending the selection of Roberts by saying that a President should have nominees passed.

Your statement is absolutely wrong on many points.

First, Reagan was the father of the pro-life movement in the Republican Party and founder of the pro-life plank. Reagan was pro-life. Giuliani is pro-abortion no matter what he's trying to sell you now that he's in campaign mode. At the end of this post I will post for you his actual statement wherein he express support for the most barbaric form of abortion, partial birth abortion. His position on abortion is as extreme as any Democrat's if not worse.

Second, Giuliani's record of appointing judges demonstrates that his "promise" to put up justices like Roberts and Alito is an empty promise or pure, dishonest pandering.

Third, he wasn't just defending the selection of Roberts. He was trying to equate a man like roberts with a commie hag like Ginsburg and he heaped praise upon her in the process.

Now, here's the part about how Giuliani supports partial birth abortion that I promised you. And my promise was not an empty one like Giuliani's:

Rudy Giuliani Supports Partial Birth Abortion

[GEORGE] WILL: Is your support of partial birth abortion firm?
Mayor GIULIANI: All of my positions are firm. I have strong viewpoints. I express them. And I--I do not think that it makes sense to be changing your position....
ABC News February 6, 2000

---

TUCHMAN: Giuliani was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions, something Bush strongly supports.
GIULIANI: No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing.
- CNN December 2, 1999

---

BLITZER: If you were in the Senate and [President Clinton] vetoed, once again, the [ban on the] so-called partial-birth abortion procedure, you would vote against sustaining that against the -- in favor of the veto in other words, you would support the president on that.
GIULIANI: Yes. I said then that I support him, so I have no reason to change my mind about it.
BLITZER: All right. So the bottom line is that on a lot of these very sensitive issues whether on guns, abortion, patients' bill of rights, taxes, you are more in line with the president and by association, with Mrs. Clinton, than you are against them.
- CNN February 6, 2000

---

MR. RUSSERT: A banning of late-term abortions, so-called partial-birth abortions--you're against that?

MAYOR GIULIANI: I'm against it in New York, because in New York...

MR. RUSSERT: Well, if you were a senator, would you vote with the president or against the president? [Note: President Clinton was in office in 2000]

MAYOR GIULIANI: I would vote to preserve the option for women. I think that choice is a very difficult one. It's a very, very--it's one in which people of conscious have very, very different opinions. I think the better thing for America to do is to leave that choice to the woman, because it affects her probably more than anyone else....

MR. RUSSERT: So you won't change your view on late-term abortion in order to get the Conservative Party endorsement?

MAYOR GIULIANI: It isn't just that. We shouldn't limit this to one issue. I'm generally not going to change my views
- NBC Meet the Press, February 6, 2000

---

***Note: the version of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban that Giuliani opposed in 2000, that he said he supported Bill Clinton in vetoing the Republican-controlled Congress's legislation, contained the exception for the life of the mother that Rudy is now trying to pretend is a prerequisite for his support of it.

[jla]

You said, "we allow matters to be decided by individual states".
Now why can't any state(s) then abrogate any existing laws regarding the press, religion, firearms?
I'm just trying to stay abreast of your logic regarding abortion being solely a 'state right'.

Now, if federal/Constitutional laws/rights concerning the former, (press, religion, firearms), had to at some point be made to "exist", why couldn't the same occur for outlawing abortion? In which case a pro-life POTUS would make this more achievable, right?

[Unmarked Package]

"Where does Romney stand on this? I don't think there's anyone against civil unions."

Mitt Romney touched on this topic during an interview today (2/18/2007) on ABC News This Week with George Stephanopoulos.

In summary, Mitt Romney does not favor action at the national level to sanction civil unions and would leave it to the several states to define the permissible contractual relationships between two people. Romney would not seek to impose, at the national level, a prohibition on contractual relationships between two people.

Romney has always opposed same-sex marriage and has diligently lobbied Congress in favor of a Federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage to be between one man and one woman.

The pertinent excerpt of the transcript for the television interview today is provided below:

Mitt Romney: From the very beginning of my political life and well before that, I've felt marriage is between a man and a woman and not between people of the same gender.

Stephanopoulos: You have been consistent about that, but what do you think about legally recognizing domestic partnerships for gay and lesbian couples?

Mitt Romney: I don't know if there needs to be a legal recognition, meaning two people can enter into a partnership, whether they're people who love each other or whether they're just friends. They can enter into a contract and have contractual relationships with one another.

Stephanopoulos: But not sanctioned by the state.

Mitt Romney: But that doesn't require a sanction by the state and so that's a decision each state would have to make. I wouldn't seek to impose, at the national level, a prohibition on contractual relationships between two people.

But my view is, at the national level, we should define marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. And this isn't about adult rights.

A lot of people get confused that gay marriage is about treating gay people the same as treating heterosexual people, and that's not the issue involved here.

This is about the development and nurturing of children. Marriage is primarily an institution to help develop children and children's development, I believe, is greatly enhanced by access to a mom and a dad.

I think every child deserves a mom and a dad, and that's why I'm so consistent and vehement in my view that we should have a federal amendment which defines marriage in that way.

[LtdGovt]

He was trying to equate a man like roberts with a commie hag like Ginsburg and he heaped praise upon her in the process.

Only 3 Republicans voted against the 'commie hag', and they are all gone (Nickles, Helms and Smith of NH).

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

The evidence is open to interpretation.

The people your refer to as shrill and self-marginalizing, the Rudy opponents on Free Republic, are in the 85% majority here.

The dignified and imminently reasonable Rudy-backers (like the guy on this thread who wants all Rudy opponents ex-communicated from his party) account for 15%.

"Increasing support" is in the eye of the beholder, I guess.

Of course, he is leading in the nation polls, where nearly sixty percent of his own party doesn't know anything about him (see poll at the top of this thread), but that doesn't exactly make the case that Rudy's supporters are effectively persuading anyone. It suggests that nobody knows anything, because nobody's started campaigning yet.

It also suggests that when Republicans know fully what Giuliani stands for, as they do in large numbers here, they have a very hard time supporting him.

[LibertarianInExile]

ROFLMAO! Quoting President Bush on conservative credentials!?!?!?!?! What next, you gonna quote me Rudy Giuliani on what makes a good marriage?

[Anti-Bubba182]

Newt knows his negatives well. In the end, I think Newt will not only not run but will endorse Rudy.

Giuliani's Star Might Be Rising (Lavish Praise from Gingrich Caps Big Week for 'America's Mayor')

[DocH]

gambling?

religious right-do gooders?

Those things weren't mentioned.

Talk about your INCOHERENT RAMBLINGS.