Posted on 03/17/2007 6:58:02 PM PDT by FairOpinion
Republican Rudy Giuliani is the most appealing presidential contender in the United States, according to a poll by Rasmussen Reports. 31 per cent of respondents say they will definitely vote for the former New York City mayor if he runs for president in 2008.
Democratic New York senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is a close second with 30 per cent, followed by Democratic Illinois senator Barack Obama with 28 per cent, Republican Arizona senator John McCain with 21 per cent, and Democratic former North Carolina senator John Edwards with 20 per cent.
When asked which candidate they would definitely not support in the 2008 presidential ballot, 46 per cent of respondents mention Rodham Clinton. Edwards is second on the list with 39 per cent, followed by Obama with 37 per cent, McCain with 34 per cent, and Giuliani with 28 per cent.
(Excerpt) Read more at angus-reid.com ...
Why?
Calling people names ("TROLL") is a violation of the TOS. It is a personal attack. Please stop.
You are right. And it's coming around to you. You completely made up a bogus accusation about me posting "lies" about some sort of Santorum endorsement - which I never did - and you don't have the cajones to say, "Oops, I mixed you up with another poster. Sorry."
As I thought, no class.
It is a correct claim. It is accurate. Ronald Reagan did NOT reduce spending. Yet his record of cutting taxes, which led to a virtual doubling of the take to the treasury by the end of his term, is properly seen as a fiscally conservative record. Exactly what Rudy did, whether you like it or not.
Sorry, that is not up to you. I'm a FReeper, have been for far longer than you. I am an evengelical, pro-life, lifetime NRA member. I am a social conservative. And, I am a Giuliani supporter - as many social conservative voters are. Giuliani IS going to be the next president, and I guarantee you that a lot of people trashing him on this board will eventually be his greatest fans.
By the way, semper fi.
Ronald Reagan wasn't in charge of spending. Smearing Reagan to defend an extreme leftist.
Now it's my turn to apologize, LOL! I did not see this. Thank you very much for your apology - I appreciate it more than you know.
I'm not smearing anyone, as opposed to you smearing Giuliani. I'm stating the facts. It is true that the increase in spending under Reagan was due to Congress. My point is that Reagan was indeed a fiscal conservative despite the fact that spending was not reduced. As is Giuliani.
The spending side of the equation is always more complicated than the sloganeers allow, as you see with Reagan, and I once again humbly suggest you read my long post up the thread to provide you some context.
There are definitely things to criticize Giuliani for, but his fiscal conservatism is not one of them.
I've been here since 1999....but lost my password when I bought a new computer and had to re-register.
I'm 59 years old, have three children and 8 grandchildren, have a masters degree and worked at the state level to get my cousin elected to the state legislature in 1989...I also worked on the Reagan Campaign in 1980.
With a screen name that partakes of one of the Great women of History....M Thatcher I want to give you every courtesy I can.....but frankly, I think you are "off the edge".
A nice way of putting that is this - I believe in the strongest terms that you are In Denial.
Sorry.
You're demeaning Reagan to defend a leftist scumbag. Rudy drove his massive spending and government growth.
As far as your accusation that I'm "in denial," the opposite is the case. My positive assessment of Giuliani comes from familiarity. The reason I like Giuliani is that, as a New Yorker, my knowledge of his record comes from his being a fixture of my experience - not from reading agenda-driven jeremiads about him.
Please show me where I am wrong then ;-)
Asserting the objective fact that spending did not decrease under Reagan in order to explain to you that fiscal conservatism is defined by tax cutting and economic growth polices is not demeaning by any measure.
"Demeaning" is calling names like, oh, I don't know, "leftist scumbag."
Start here.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1799059/posts?page=174#174
Or treasonous abortionist.
I've been called that.
LOL, I have been in that boat many times.
Perhaps a percentage of ill will on this board could be avoided if we all heeded you on that point.
I will NEVER forget that vile "blood on your hands" smear. Unforgiveable.
Falsely implying Reagan drove spending, rather than the Democrat Congress. Pushing a strawman, because the criticism of Rudy wasn't that he failed to reduce spendng, but that he massively escalated spending.
The common perception that Mr. Giuliani has reined in spending results from misleading city budget reporting practices that omit increased spending on debt service and do not adjust for the transfer of one year's surplus to the next.Accurately reported, New York City spending grew 6 percent a year from fiscal year 1997 to 2001, while inflation averaged 2.3 percent. In a comparable period (1985 to 1989) under Mr. Koch, spending grew 6.7 percent a year while inflation averaged 4.5 percent.
New Yorkers should not believe that the recent growth in the number of police officers and teachers was accomplished with budget restraint.
MARCIA VAN WAGNER
New York, Aug. 17, 2001The writer is deputy research director and chief economist, Citizens Budget Commission
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.