Posted on 04/23/2007 4:08:19 PM PDT by wagglebee
In February's poll, the former New York City mayor had 39 percent of the support of Republican voters but that dropped to 35 percent in the April 17-18 survey.
Arizona Sen. John McCain, who opposes abortion but supports embryonic stem cell research, has dropped as well. He's slid from 19 percent in February to 16 percent in April.
The leading candidates have dropped because Republican voters are shifting to more conservative presidential candidates or others whose names have been bandied about as possible GOP nominees.
Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who recently changed his position on abortion, moved up from 6 percent in February to 10 percent in the April Fox News poll.
Meanwhile Newt Gingrich and Fred Thompson, who have not announced a bid, jumped from 7 percent to 9 percent and from not being in the poll to 8 percent, respectively.
Looking at other candidates, ex-Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson moved up from 2 to 4 percent, pro-life Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback stayed the same at two percent as did pro-life Rep. Duncan Hunter. Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas Gov. had one percent but no other candidates reached one percent in the poll.
Some 11 percent of Republicans were unsure.
Last week, Giuliani came under fire for telling pro-life advocates to get over the abortion issue.
"Our party has to get beyond issues like that," he told the Des Moines Register newspaper.
He also appeared to indicate that the Republican Party won't gain supporters if it retains its pro-life position.
"Our party is going to grow, and we are going to win in 2008 if we are a party characterized by what we're for, not if we're a party that's known for what we're against," he said.
Those comments followed the flap on abortion funding.
wow. are the primaries over already? Rudy won and he’s running against Hillary. How long have I been alseep?
*Blush*
Be that as it may, why do you seem to think that only Mr. Guiliani can beat the Democrats' nominee? Have you, for example, overlooked Mr. Thompson (Fred, that is)?
As to the destruction of the GOP, my viewpoint is that if the party cannot nominate candidates who genuinely support conservative values, then I really don't care what happens to the Republicans. Why, as I earlier stated, support someone who doesn't agree with our values? Then, it becomes supporting just shades of political philosophy with the Democrats being the worst.
If the GOP nominates Giuliani (he's not "Rudy" to me...don't know the dude), I can guarantee you that true conservatives will not vote for him and it's unlikely that he can win the Presidency. .
And, lastly, if the Democrats win and then try to impose harsh gun controls, open immigration, all the plethora of leftist issues that are so dear to them, this country will harshly split, hopefully just philosophically but maybe worse.
Bear in mind that the Third Wave will impact the way in which people can utilize the First Amendment and "petitioning the government" could turn out to be a mild term for what happens. The Third Wave technologies include the enormous impact that the Internet provides. And we all know how influential the Web is on public opinion.
I think you know in your heart that Mr. Giuliani is a New York liberal. Granted, he has skills as a public speaker but he still repudiates the GOP's major values and if he somehow gets the nomination, you may vote for him and your vote will merge with those of the 10.9 percent of Freepers who support him, which is likely representative of the GOP voting bloc. Good luck!
I will not vote for Giuliani.
How interesting that he wants the party to GET OVER a plank in the party platform!!
That, plus the fact that he's "America's Mayor". People say that Mr. Guiliani was tough and would dish it back to the LameStream Media of New York and, given our missing-vertebrae crop of RepubliCAN'TS, he sounds like a breath of fresh air.
Doesn't mean I'm going to vote for him, though.
Fred Thompson is 2nd highest in value there now and he isn’t even in yet.
Here's Fred's chart...
“There are some lines one just can’t cross, son. When you grow up a little, you might realize that. If you never do, then I pity you and your ‘ilk’.”
Figure I have a few years on you, sonnie. Growing is realizing that life is full of choices, and unfortunately some of those choices involve accepting compromises in order to obtain some of your goals, rather than none of them. Is Guilaini perfect? Not by a long shot. But if you goal is to deny the White House to the Democrats, then Mr. Guilaini represents the best shot at obtaining that goal given the current field. You have to remember the 30-30-40 rule in American politics. 30 percent are Democrats even if Jimmy Carter heads the ticket, 30 percent are Republicans even if Warding Harding is the nominee, and the remaining 40 percent decide the election. That 40 percent likes Guiliani and prefer someone “closer” to their moderate views. Like it or not this is a divided country on every major issue from the war, global warming, abortion, the border, etc. etc. There is no mythical white knight to ‘rescue’ the party and unite the nation. Not Fred Thompson, not Gingrich, not Rommney, not Hunter, or anyone else on the national scene. There is no Ronald Reagan, no TR, no Lincoln, no Ike. Damn, there isn’t even a Richard Nixon. I’ve surveyed the field and surmised that a certain mayor from New York represents my party’s best shot at keeping the White House from the grasping clutches of the Hildebeast. To me that is the most important consideration.
I was looking at the sheet that had them all listed. Fred was just over McCain.
At first Rudy was my man, someone who could beat Clinton but then something strange happened.
What was that?
I learned were he stood on the issues and came to the conclusion that if he was the only one who could stop Clinton I'd hold my nose and vote for him anyway.
But then he came out with that statement about the public funding of abortions for the poor and that pushed me over the edge.
Now there's no way in the world I'd vote for the guy even if it meant a Clinton in the White House.
My friend, we must hope against hope not to have to make such a horrible choice next year. I will not even contemplate it.
I firmly believe that each and every one of us will someday be required to stand before our Creator and give a detailed accounting of what we did with our talents and our time in this life. Even with that realization and my best efforts I am going to have a hard time on that day. I can’t imagine what it will be like for those who have betrayed their country and their country’s fighting forces in return for having power in this life.
I don’t know the answer, but it’s the question that we’ve got to ask.
Ha, I feel like that some day too and I'm only in my 40's
Rudi-cide......That’s great....
Daniel Pipes included Giuliani in his article about “ostriches” who denied domestic terrorism.
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16926
Key excerpt: Law enforcement seems more concerned to avoid an anti-Muslim backlash than to find the culprits. This attitude of denial fits an all-too-common pattern. I have previously documented a reluctance in nearby New York City to see as terrorism the 1994 Brooklyn Bridge (“road rage” was the FBI’s preferred description) and the 1997 Empire State Building shootings (“many, many enemies in his mind,” said Rudolph Giuliani). Likewise, the July 2002 LAX murders were initially dismissed as “a work dispute” and the October 2002 rampage of the Beltway snipers went unexplained, leaving the media to ascribe it to such factors as a “stormy [family] relationship.”
*****
Here’s more from Pipes on one of the pre-9/11 terrorist attacks on NY under Giuliani’s watch (which he used as a platform to call for stricter national gun control):
Ali Hasan Abu Kamal, a Palestinian gunman hailing from militant Islamic circles in Florida, took a gun to the top of the Empire State building in February 1997 and shot a tourist there. His suicide note accused the United States of using Israel as its “instrument” against the Palestinians but city officials ignored this evidence and instead dismissed Abu Kamal as either “one deranged individual working on his own” (Police Commissioner Howard Safir) or a “man who had many, many enemies in his mind” (Mayor Rudolph Giuliani).
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0702/pipes1.asp
*****
Here’s information on an earlier terrorist attack on NYC while Giuliani was mayor:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9801E2DD113AF936A35750C0A962958260
Key excerpt: The Mayor’s urgency to quash the widespread reports of a link between the shooting suspect and the well-known terrorist organization fit a pattern he established immediately after the Tuesday shootings. From the beginning, he personally took control of all briefings on the matter, often appearing with the Police Commissioner at his side, and took pains to dampen the rumors that might pit one ethnic group against another or raise the city’s level of fear.
Even now, Mr. Giuliani and the Police Department have refused to discuss the question of a motive in the van shootings, which left one student brain-dead, another in poor condition and two others with less serious wounds. Though many Hasidim say they are certain the students were shot because they are Jews, the police say they have not determined the shooting was anti-Semitic.
Yesterday morning, Mr. Giuliani met for 40 minutes with a group of Arab restaurateurs, business owners and community leaders from Brooklyn. He told them that Arabs as a group should not be blamed for the shooting, and the Arab leaders put out a statement expressing condolences to the families of the victims and noting that Arabs were instrumental in contributing information that led to Mr. Baz’s arrest.
*****
This particular attacker was linked to a hotbed of Brooklyn Islamofascism centered in Bay Ridge. But Giuliani didn’t follow up to see if there was a wider pattern of Islamofascist attacks being planned/supported/funded there - he treated the shooting as an isolated crime, tried to avoid admitting any links to terrorism, and met with leaders of Brooklyn’s Arab community.
The picture that is emerging when Giuliani was confronted with a terrorist attack on NYC is of a mayor who tended to deny a terrorism motive, and prosecuted the attack as a stand-alone crime (rather than what they were: part of an interconnected war the Islamofascists were waging against us). He rejected the idea that these murderous Islamofascists were basically being encouraged and deployed by a larger community of global Islamofascists (some of these communities operated right in NYC), and instead took pains to insist that Islmofascist communities as a whole were in no way responsible for the actions of an individual attacker. This is the action of a crimefighter, not a warfighter.
Even when he later called something terrorism, or broke up a terrorist plot, he didn't connect the dots back to a concerted war against us -- he just kept swatting at flies.
Having said that, I don't envy a mayor who has to make public statements about acts of terror in NYC. If the mayor (whoever it is) comes out and apportions blame, than he would put himself and his administration in position to be blamed for any acts of vigilatism from his remarks. He would also be blamed for any public acts of violence by any group because of his remarks.
The many cities are powder kegs waiting for a fire to set it all off. If you were the mayor- what would you say? Maybe you are right and he should have used the terms that would apportioned blame, but then again maybe not.
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.
