Posted on 02/18/2007 2:31:51 PM PST by Spiff
Trying to read too much into any 2008 poll at this point, especially with respect to horserace numbers, is somewhat silly and a waste of time. But a recent FOX News poll does have some interesting tidbits in the internals asking about voters' general impressions on issues.
Are you more who are more or less likely to support a candidate who is pro-choice on the issue of abortion? Republicans only: More likely 22 percent (a lot more likely 12 percent, somewhat more likely 10 percent). Less likely 46 percent (a lot less likely 36 percent, somewhat less likely 10 percent). Not a major factor 30 percent. Are you more who are more or less likely to support a candidate who supports civil unions for gays and lesbians? Republicans only: More likely 8 percent (a lot more likely 5 percent, somewhat more likely 3 percent). Less likely 50 percent (a lot less likely 39 percent, somewhat less likely 11 percent). Not a major factor 38 percent. [snip]
The biggest red flag for Giuliani has to be that only 42 percent of Republicans surveyed correctly identified him as pro-choice. Twenty-one percent of Republican voters have it wrong and think Giuliani is pro-life, and another 36 percent of Republicans don't have a clue what his position on abortion. In other words, nearly six out of 10 registered Republican voters have yet to learn something about Giuliani which, we can infer from the first question on abortion, will make close to half of them either "somewhat" less likely or "a lot" less likely to vote for him. There's no doubt the same holds true of his position on civil unions for gays, and the Second Amendment as well.Running the Republican Numbers on Rudy
[snip]
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Right, guess we'll just quit and forget about this whole pesky business of babies being slaughtered everyday in this land of liberty.
Because you will lose... I don't join a political party to be "bi-partisan."
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.
What salient facts do you base this on?
"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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
ROFLMAO! Quoting President Bush on conservative credentials!?!?!?!?! What next, you gonna quote me Rudy Giuliani on what makes a good marriage?
Giuliani's Star Might Be Rising (Lavish Praise from Gingrich Caps Big Week for 'America's Mayor')
religious right-do gooders?
Those things weren't mentioned.
Talk about your INCOHERENT RAMBLINGS.
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.