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

Fox News ^ | 18 February 2007 | Tom Bevan

[Spiff]

Running the Republican Numbers on Rudy

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.

[snip]

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.

[LtdGovt]

Hmm ok, so what you are saying is that the President of these United States plays absolutely no role in a Marriage bill? Suppose the House and Senate pass a bill that says states that do not support gay marriage can no longer receive Federal monies for anything?

In that case, yes, but don't hold your breath. Such a bill is not going to be passed in a hundred years.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

You need to read the case and the Constitution...

Something you and your gun grabbing liberal Giuliani has no clue about...

[Cincinna]

No need to shout. You certainly won't convince anyone with those tactics.

Marriage and Civil Unions are very different. Civil Unions are private contracts between two individuals.

Marriage is a sacrament, not a contract.

[Post-Neolithic]

"In that case, yes, but don't hold your breath. Such a bill is not going to be passed in a hundred years."

Which is just the kind of thinking that got us Seat Belt Laws and the biggest of all, CFR. Never say never when it comes to politicians.

[republicanwizard]

Nah, I've given tons of time in service to the party, but a party of government is inclusive, not exclusive. And I view the GOP as a party of government. I'm weary of social conservative zealots and their purist ideology. They have caused massive headaches for the GOP in states as divergent as OK and PA.

[republicanwizard]

I welcomed the depature of people like Chafee because of his lack of loyalty to the party. That said, I also welcomed the exit of Allen and Santorum who thought they could build the party in sparsely populated formerly Democratic regions of their states by thumbing their noses at once heavily Republican suburban voters. We want low taxes and security.

Abortion and gay marriage are non-issues in our lives.

[NapkinUser]

No need to call people who disagree with you, "moron".

I didn't. I just called your post "moronic". I never specifically called you yourself a moron.

Eight years of Ronald Reagan plus almost eight of GWB sure adds up to 16 to me.

Again, not in consecutive terms. There was a president in-between Reagan and Bush, name was Clinton maybe you've heard of him, who kind of ruined everything with justices Breyer and Ginsburg. Also ruining the pro-life presidents' effects was the senators who voted against Reagan's pick of Robert H. Bork. Hopefully Roberts and Alito are turning things back in the right direction.

[JCEccles]

Short of that, they want the Courts to ignore established precedent and allow one State to make public policy for the rest of the State via a faulty reading of the FF&C Clause.

And they may very well have five votes on the SCOTUS to do just that.

That's the risk.

[CindyDawg]

They all promise stuff during campaigns. I vote according to what they have or haven't actually done.

[LtdGovt]

Which is just the kind of thinking that got us Seat Belt Laws and the biggest of all, CFR. Never say never when it comes to politicians.

I do know what you mean, the feds always use funding to force a state to adopt certain laws. But I assure you, one denying funds to states with same-sex marriage is not going to pass. In fact, I don't expect that it's even going to be introduced.

[quantim]

I believe McCain will get the nomination at this point. Eventhough many don't like him,

[DocH]

How many Republicans will not vote for Giuliani because he is opposed to gay marriage? 2? 3?

Another UNSUBSTANTIATED "ONE ISSUE" charge (will they never end?).

RINO-rudy has MANY LIBERAL issues that we TRUE CONSERVATIVES are against, and have pointed out in thread, after thread, after thread...

Hey Spiff, please post your chart directly to LtdGovt (LoveToDateGiulianiOverVodka&Tonic?), how about it?

Thanks.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Marriage is a religious rite, not a civil right.

"Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?"

"Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? [98 U.S. 145, 167] To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances."

[Anti-Bubba182]

"..Any republican, even McCain, is acceptable to me except for Giuliani and, to a lesser extent,.."

McCain isn't doing well here or outside. Newt isn't running and is a big longshot if he does. Hunter won't make it. Tancredo is a one issue candidate. Romney is possible, maybe Brownback, but none are as strong as Rudy right now in the general outside of FR.

Free Republic Opinion Poll: If the short list for Republican Nominee were narrowed down to the following, which one would you favor?

Composite Opinion
Newt Gingrich	27.3%		2,318
Duncan Hunter	21.2%		1,797
Rudy Giuliani	15.4%		1,310
Tom Tancredo	11.4%		966
Mitt Romney	9.5%		807
Undecided/pass	6.6%		561
Ron Paul	6.3%		531
John McCain	2.3%		194
	100.0%		8,484
Member Opinion
Newt Gingrich	26.0%		907
Duncan Hunter	26.0%		906
Rudy Giuliani	14.2%		493
Tom Tancredo	10.3%		359
Undecided/pass	8.6%		300
Mitt Romney	7.9%		274
Ron Paul	5.5%		191
John McCain	1.5%		54
	100.0%		3,484
Non-Member Opinion
Newt Gingrich	28.2%		1,411
Duncan Hunter	17.8%		891
Rudy Giuliani	16.3%		817
Tom Tancredo	12.1%		607
Mitt Romney	10.7%		533
Ron Paul	6.8%		340
Undecided/pass	5.2%		261
John McCain	2.8%		140
	99.9%		5,000

[ More Opinion Polls · Return to Forum ]

[MSF BU]

The personal stuff is just as damaging. It makes a difference that enough conservatives value somebody who treats their wife as though they love them; Rudy, Newt and to some extent John blow their chances here.

[CindyDawg]

We want low taxes and security. Abortion and gay marriage are non-issues in our lives.

You don't speak for me

[LtdGovt]

And they may very well have five votes on the SCOTUS to do just that. That's the risk.

Imagine if they do have five votes, and the precedent is overturned. What would prevent us from acting after the fact?

[dangus]

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.

[processing please hold]

Since you are so new here, I was wonder are you one of rudy's paid posters.

I've thought the same thing myself and this one isn't the only one. It'll get worse before the election.

[ipwnedu50]

And they may very well have five votes on the SCOTUS to do just that.

I don't think they have 5, YET, but just the risk alone is enough to have the FMA.

Conservatives go the correct route, and follow the Constitution and work to amend it, leftists and homo-activists get the Court to do their work for them. That alone is enough justification for the FMA IMO.