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 ...
Okay, fair enough - I may well have misunderstood your position. Are you persuaded that as more Republicans truly know Rudy's real positions, his support will drop? That's my read of your underlying stance. If I've got it wrong, how would you put it? Thanks.
Reagan biographer Lou Cannon. Fred Barnes wrote shortly after Reagan's death:
"In 1967, then-Gov. Ronald Reagan signed a bill that virtually decriminalized abortion. At the time, Mr. Reagan was troubled by the passionate lobbying against the bill by Cardinal Francis McIntyre. But on the advice of two of his most conservatives advisers, Ed Meese and Lyn Nofziger, Mr. Reagan signed anyway."
"Within a year after signing the abortion bill, Mr. Reagan told political writer Lou Cannon that he'd never have done so if he'd been more experienced in office. It was 'the only time as governor or president that Reagan acknowledged a mistake on major legislation,' Mr. Cannon writes in his new book, 'Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power.'"
As the San Francisco Chronicle described:
"The California Legislature sent Reagan a measure in 1967 that legalized abortion in cases of rape and incest and when a doctor found that a pregnancy would endanger the life or health of the woman. Reagan agonized over the measure, fearing that doctors would exploit a mental heath loophole to approve many abortions. But in the end he signed it."
By any honest evaluation and analysis, Ronald Reagan never supported abortion on demand. As a newly elected Governor of California, Reagan reluctantly signed a bill which allowed the abortion exceptions of rape, incest and to save the life/health of the mother. As Lou Cannon stated, Reagan was obviously troubled by his decision and said it was a mistake. By 1968 Reagan was already becoming a strong pro-lifer. After the 1973 SCOTUS decision making abortion on demand 'the law of the land', Reagan came out in opposition to Roe v Wade. In 1983, Reagan went onto write his essay, "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation". A excellent defense of the pro-life position as seen the through the eyes of America's first pro-life President.
Dubious sources. Reagan himself defended his decision to sign the bill in a 1975 radio broadcast, even though he did not mention the mental health loophole. I think that if your charges are true, and he did regret his decision, it was because of the mental health exception. I can't imagine Reagan being in favor of forcing women who have been raped, to bear the child of a rapist.
I do believe incinerating Jews was legal in Nazi Germany... was it not?
Certainly. Now answer my question. Is the fact that 50 million fetuses have been aborted 8-9 times as bad as the Jewish holocaust? Is the US more evil than Nazi Germany?
Bold talk and nothing to back it up. Lou Cannon and Fred Barnes aren't dubious sources. Get real.
>>>>Reagan himself defended his decision to sign the bill in a 1975 radio broadcast.
I've got the transcripts from 1975, as detailed in the book/tape, Reagan In His Own Hand. So don't give me any of your 'cockinbull' storyline.
"It was a subject I'd never given much thought to and one upon which I didn't really have an opinion."
Reagan went onto say, he did extensive research on abortion and "soul searching" and concluded that abortion was the taking of a human life. That was Reagan's position in 1968! Less then one year after his regretful decision.
Now, what facts do you have to back up your silly accusations against Ronald Reagan?
There is a big difference between pointing out the insanity of comparisons between aboritionists and terrorists/Nazi's and saying that abortion is something that should be ignored. Such rhetoric divides America and pits Americans against other Americans, that's something I don't want. Americans should be united against our enemies, the terrorists, not against ourselves. A house divided against itself cannot stand.
One through all legal means available, and the other through the superior training and firepower of the finest fighting force the world has ever seen...
the U.S. military (of course, in concert with many other agencies and departments, our TRUE allies overseas, and some tough American leaders that put America's security FIRST, without trampling on our rights in an effort to achieve that security).
To claim that the man who wrote Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation secretly harbored support for abortion is patently absurd and just another example of how supporters of a radical pro-abortionist will use any means necessary to prop up their leftist candidate.
Certainly not.
But there are many in America who stand on no higher moral plane than Hitler's eugenicists.
And those of us who are pro-life do not and will not stand with them.
You can hate ALL murders, I just want to know what is more important, since some people here are perfectly willing to allow Hillary to enter the White House, over a pro-WOT Rudy. And because of what? Abortion?
Did I say that Reagan harbored warm feelings for abortion? No, I said that he definitely favored exceptions in cases of rape, incest and for the life of the mother.
Well spiff, bottom line is that you rudy bashing will likely be as effective as your efforts to get randy graf elected.
That border thing is really working out well too with Nancy, Harry and the rest of their pals in charge.
All fine and good but the problem is to find someone to beat him. McCain is the only one with a chance and he is more hated than just about anyone.
So until you can answer the questions "Why can't the Right field a candidate who can get any traction?" and "How do we communicate to the average voter that the GOP is not a coven of evil?" Nov's conservative wipeout clearly shows that until we can conservativism is in trouble having been successfully painted as religious extremism by the Treason Media.
No, you said there was no evidence that he was troubled by his decision to sign the 1967 law and that he did not express any regret later. You called the assertions by Fred Barnes and Lou Cannon dubious.
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.