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 ...
I actually listened to Reagan himself. I might upload the radio broadcast for you this week, if you don't believe me.
As I already said, any regret would be over the mental health exception. But Reagan was firmly in favor of exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother.
I will, but let the record show, I asked you a question at the beginning of the conversation that you answered with your own question. I'd still like to know why the origins of an 800 year-old word meaning "mass slaughter" should not be used to describe the mass-slaughter of 49 million innocent Americans.
Is the fact that 50 million fetuses have been aborted 8-9 times as bad as the Jewish holocaust?
We just think about these things in fundamentally different terms. I've never considered one act of evil to be any "times" more evil than the other. Evil will kill as long as its permitted to do so. As far as I'm concerned, the only difference between Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein is luck. If Florida swings the other way in 2000, Saddam's facing Al Gore instead of Bush and he's probably still a holocaust in-progress. But both men were equally committed to evil, there can be no doubt about that.
I see abortion the same way. It's evil, doing what evil does: killing as long as its permitted to kill.
Hitler killed more than 50 million people, combined. Stalin killed 50 million. Mao Zedong killed 50 million. Abortion in America has killed 50 million. The fact that abortion in one country has killed as many people in a civilized western society as the armies of the most brutal dictators in history leads me to believe that abortion, the act itself, may be the greatest act of evil ever visited upon mankind. Especially when you consider how many children are aborted every day world-wide. It has to be a staggering number.
Is the US more evil than Nazi Germany?
No. But that doesn't mean evil doesn't exist here. It does, and it's able to kill more than a million kids right under our noses every year. That should tell you something about the way evil works.
Just look at a MULTITUDE of previous posts, including Spiff's table showing where rudy agrees with not only the dem platform, but with hillary as well, on MOST of the issues...
and there are MANY.
We obviously won't vote for hillary, or rudy, if, God forbid, he gets that far.
Don't be deceived by Spiff's post. He disregards important issues and pretends that Hillary supports the WOT.
That's fascinating since he supported the constitutional amendment banning abortion in all instances except the life of the mother.
Well, it's a fact, whether you like it or not. I heard Reagan himself say it.
You telling me about something you heard on the radio 32 years ago is not "fact".
Well, I'll prove it to you later this week. Just send me a private message so I don't forget your screenname.
I've been hearing that lie in similar form since 1960. Nothing quite like an unsupported assertion that flies in the face of historic experience:
Eisenhower (RINO) killed a Republican majority in Congress and was followed by Kennedy.
Nixon/Ford (RINOs both) never gained a majority and were followed by Carter!
Bush I, upon taking over from a wildly popular Reagan, killed that opportunity and left us a government with both Congress and the Presidency under Slave Party control.
Bush II inherited a Republican Congressional majority, pissed it away by (among other things) alienating his base (get the pun?), barely beat two Democrat losers he should have buried, and left no successor candidate. What a guy!
The ONLY Republican President since Coolidge who was followed by yet another Republican Republican was (conservative) Ronald Reagan. In both elections he won by a substantial majority.
If that's your interpretation of what I said, I'm gonna throw in the towel on this one.
Go ahead and take the last word.
"When Reagan signed the 1967 Therapeutic Abortion Act, he said he did it out of sympathy for the victims of rape, incest and for those women who may be facing health risks or worse, death from childbirth. Reagan did not sign it out of political expediency. There was no flip flop in it. This was one of the first actions taken in the modern abortion battle. An action Reagan regretted within a year and a decision that haunted him for the remainder of his life.
The three exceptions rule is not the same as abortion on demand. Rudy Giuliani has made countless public statements over his entire public career supporting a womans right to choose death, and to kill her unborn child using abortion as a birth control measure..... 95% of the time! Give me a break. Reagan's position on abortion was the complete opposite of what Rudy`s abortion stance is today."
Now, exactly what are you talking about? What I posted in #271 is exactly what Reagan said in 1967 when he signed the Therapeutic Abortion Act into law; exactly what Reagan told Lou Cannon in 1968 about regretting his decision to sign it the year before; and exactly what Reagan said in his 1975 radio essay. I have the book and supposedly you have the CD/tape on that book, "Reagan In His Own Hand". In addition, I reviewed this same information in my post at #283.
So, what is your problem?
"The author"? You don't know who Jim Robinson is after several years on this board?
Yeah, those marriage VOWS are really not promises.
The author who made that typo is Jim Robinson, the owner of the FreeRepublic website. That's kind of like insulting a man in his own living room. Anyway, I can't believe that you can't respect a person's opinion because they make a typo. How does researching a subject keep you from making a typo?
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.