Posted on 04/04/2007 11:01:48 AM PDT by FairOpinion
The former mayor of New York leads Sen. John McCain by a 36 percent to 24 percent margin among the state's likely GOP primary voters, and is the choice of nearly four in 10 of those who say they are "strongly conservative."
"Voters are not picking up fully on his positions or tending to discount them because of overriding issues like terrorism and Iraq, " DiCamillo said of Giuliani.
Only one in five California Republicans say there is no chance they would vote for Giuliani, and he enjoys an 80 percent favorability rating.
But no matter which of the top GOP candidates gets the nod, they will have a fight on their hands in California come the November 2008 general election. In hypothetical general election match-ups, Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama and 2004 vice-presidential nominee John Edwards beat Giuliani and McCain.
Clinton gets 53 percent of the vote compared with Giuliani's 40 percent, and she beats McCain by a 48 percent to 43 percent margin. Obama gets 51 percent of the vote matched against both. Edwards receives 51 percent of the vote vs. Giuliani and 49 percent when pitted against McCain.
And those who are declined-to-state or belong to a party other than the Democrats or Republicans also support the Democrats.
"California remains a blue state," DiCamillo said.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
Just keep voting for the most conservative candidate on the ticket.
Hint: It ain't Hillary.
In that event, paleoChuckie will help divide the antiAmerican antiwar vote, shaving perhaps 1/2% off the Demonrats’ normal base. More if America is lucky!
Preaching has nothing to do with stopping rape, murder or theft, even though all three are prohibited by religion. Is theft a freedom or liberty? Is rape a freedom or liberty? Why not?
OK, auto power, ya’ got it. Before I would vote for Rooty I’d vote for a yella’ dog and then shoot the dog.
well now...see???? You didn’t take long to bash Rudy....
Oh, 14 or so : )
I just didn’t want to disappoint you.
The supreme court is where you should direct your anger, not the president - he can do very little to stop the wholesale slaughter of generations of our children...just for the sake of convenience for the mom or the dad.
While America is a largely a Christian nation, the First Amendment tells the feds they cannot respect the establishment of a religion.
The government is not my church...I believe the liberals think of government in that way. Conservatives should not.
Strongly conservatives hate them both. In case you were wondering. Neither is marginally acceptable.
The links don’t work. Was this a Field poll, or some other company’s poll?
“I wonder how many whom identify themselves as “Strongly Conservative” are actually Conservative.”
Can you direct me to the official “definitions?”
Most of the problems for Republicans have to do with emphasis between national defense, low taxation/small government, personal freedom, moral issues.
The conservatism of Barry Goldwater and Milton Friedman clearly doesn’t please Dr. Dobson.
And vice versa.
...my parents being from Michigan which you show as a state flag would say that statement is ignorant and emotional
I fail to see much of anything on ‘the right’ as far as Arnold’s concerned. To win is to go left!?
I live in Cali...it’s electoral count is about the only reason why it’s politically important. But I doubt Rudy can win here. It’s slowly turning into leftists haven.
Repubs should work for an electoral limit of states. The only reason why we lose California is that there’s a higher margin of leftists. Not that much more in hindsight. North and South California?
It seems when I went to it from Google News it worked, and when I just tried it, it wanted registration.
Here is the link to the Google News with multiple articles about this:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1115090161
It’s a Field poll.
Hahaha! I don’t have many props for Michigan conservatives either.
LOL. I’m just saying that, for California, those who say they are strongly conservative are probably more liberal than those in the south who say the same thing.
And how many pro-life presidents did we have since R v W? And it’s still the law.
The role of the president is to defend the nation and nominate judges — and Giuliani already said he would appoint judges like Scalia and Alito.
Not to mention — ask yourself what kind of judges will Hillary nominate, which the Dem Congress will pass.
This babykilling rethoric is getting a bit old, especially since it’s used TO PROMOTE HILLARY.
Nixon gave us Rehnquist as an AJ. Bush the Elder gave us Clarence Thomas. Reagan gave us Scalia and Rehnquist as CJ. Dubya gave us Alito and Roberts. Right now, we have a reasonably sure four seats. Kennedy is a squishball looking for human respect from the likes of Lawrence Tribe of Harvard Law School. One cannot completely write off Kennedy (former pro-lifer and father of nine) but we ought not rely on him either. We need two more AJs at least to feel safe. Given the history, it is necessary to overdo it.
We need the Senate and we need a RELIABLE pro-life POTUS to ram through the SCOTUS appointments. I am not particularly harsh on Rudy but he is not the potential POTUS to get this done. He will be a fine Attorney General when the smoke clears and he has been appointed by President Fred Thompson. Rudy will seek civil judgments against the Islamofascisti and acquire IslamicOil (all of it) be court decree. He will relentlessly pursue legal remedies against the Islamofascisti even more enthusiastically than he once ran the Five Families of New York to ground. He may even crack down on massive Demonratic voter fraud.
Rudy's ballerina gown, faux beauty mark and garish makeup photo from a "gay" "rights" NYC fundraiser is not likely to allow him to survive as a candidate.
Personally, I don't care if he has been married as often as Mickey Rooney, so long as it is always to a woman as was the case in each of Mickey Rooney's spouses. I hate divorce but it won't begin to determine my vote.
Rudy was a terrific mayor of New York, one of the best ever, but different qualities are needed nationally and, as Attorney General (without input on social issues) he can do everything that many of his supporters hope he would do as POTUS if the test is the WOT.
I disagree with you very much on the main strategy. Yelling at the SCOTUS has gotten us nowhere for 34 years now. What makes progress is making it clear to GOP candidates for POTUS that they will neither be nominated nor elected unless they are ABSOLUTELY reliable on the babies.
Church has nothing to do with it. I am a Roman Catholic. My Church believes many things, quite important to Catholics, that our presidents can feel free to take or leave without being hurt by Catholic voters: The Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of Mary, the infallibility of popes on matters of faith or morals when speaking ex cathedra and specifically invoking that infallibility, the literal changing of mere bread and wine into the Body and Blood of our Savior under the continued appearances of bread and wine, the nature and meaning of the Mass and of the seven sacraments, and many similar matters even more essential to our Catholic Faith than is abortion.
On those essentials, we Catholics are not entitled to expect anything whatsoever from American public office holders other than that they leave us alone to practice our Faith (and to extend the same policy to those of other faiths or none so long as neither our nor their beliefs cause harm to others in any way cognizable by law).
Abortion is traditionally a secular civil crime like theft, robbery, murder, assault, fraud. Each of these is widely considered criminal regardless of the faith or lack thereof of the perpetrator or victim, much less of the government which is not to have an established faith by the First Amendment. If there are Marxists in our society or other members of the wierdo-American community who believe that property itself IS theft (and trust me, such people exist, ask any college student or gummint skewel student you happen to know), that does not render laws against robbery or theft or land fraud invalid due to alleged religious controversy between believers and non-believers much less a denominational squabble).
Read the First Amendment. It prohibits the Establishment of any religion. That means in historical context (not a noted skill of SCOTUS) that while Virginia had established the Anglican church and Connecticut had established the Congregational church (until its 1818 written constitution, no Connecticut person could either vote or own real estate in Connecticut without membership in the Congregational Church/and Catholic Masses were prohibited in Connecticut long after they were being said in the Illinois Territory) and other churches were "established" in ways similar to Connecticut in other states, the First Amendment denied to the new federal regime the right to "establish" a National Religion. It has worked well until SCOTUS in about 1948, utilizing its curious notion that the 14th Amendment "incorporates" some, but not all, provisions of the Bill of Rights (the juicy ones from the left point of view) decided to go on the attack against religious values and religious people with many of the most preposterous decisions ever handed down by SCOTUS.
Of course, if presidents had taken care to appoint to SCOTUS, only those who were competently literate, possessed of actual well-thumbed copies of the constitution and had a demonstrated willingness to apply the constitution as written rather than as liberals wished, this conversation of ours would be utterly unnecessary. Abortion and homosexuality would still be generally illegal rather than misconstrued as "constitutional" "rights." And there would have been many more benefits in areas not touching particularly on morality, as well. Alas, that was not to be.
I am quite satisfied to have my religion governed by Pope Benedict XVI without any help or interference whatsoever from Dubya, Bush the Elder, even a Ronald Reagan, much less Mr. or Mrs. Arkansas Antichrist or that smarmy liar peanut farmer from Georgia with the fake piety. Neither house of Congress ought have any religious say so. Nor the courts. As to these, their only role is to enforce the First Amendment and relevant laws.
Summary: We apparently join in believing in the policy I laid out (if not the characterizations) in the immediate previous paragraph and that we are pro-life. Let us join in nominating and electing a candidate who agrees with us ABSOLUTELY on both scores.
Anger has nothing to do with my post. When (not if) victory over SCOTUS is obtained, it will be the sort of revenge that is said to be best served cold.
This is not so. I was raised and grew up in California before I moved to Oregon and know many fine conservative Republicans from both states. A conservation Republican in California is the same as a conservative Republican in any state.
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.