Rudy Hitting His Stride? {abortionist lover]

captains quarters ^ | 8/16/07 | Ed Morrissey

[bnelson44]

Rudy Giuliani got good news earlier this week from a CBS poll that most people have learned to mistrust -- for good reason -- but Rasmussen may provide some corroboration today. According to the normally reliable pollster, Rudy has his first significant lead in head-to-head polling against Hillary Clinton, and the crosstabs show some surprising depth (via Instapundit):

After being virtually tied with Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for several months, Republican contender Rudy Giuliani now leads Clinton up 47% to 40% in the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

In the match-up of the frontrunners, this result marks a significant shift. For the last three months the two frontrunners have never been further apart than three percentage points. Last month, Giuliani and Clinton were separated by just a single point.

Senator Clinton fares modestly better against former Senator Fred Thompson. Clinton now has a three point edge over him, 46% to 43%. All four previous Clinton-Thomas have also been toss-ups.

It's significant that neither top 50% in the poll. Eight percent insist on voting for another candidate, even when the question gets posed as a two-choice affair. Five percent are unsure. We'll come back to them in a moment.

Rudy has some surprising strength in the demographics, especially women. While pundits believe that Hillary would motivate women to flock to her banner, Giuliani actually edges Hillary 44%-42% in this poll -- within the margin of error, to be sure, but much closer than most would imagine. Giuliani has a majority of those between 30-39 years of age (54-36) while Hillary has a slimmer majority in the 40-49 range (50-44). Despite Democratic claims on the youth vote, Hillary only gets a single percentage point lead on Rudy on the 18-29 demo (38-37), and Giuliani has significant leads among those 50 and older.

Otherwise, the only other surprise among the demographics are black voters. Hillary has a lead on Giuliani there, but Rasmussen shows the split 48-41 Hillary. I'd guess this to be a typo. The "Others" category is split 55-11 for Hillary, and I'd wager that they have the two turned around. Even so, only getting 55% of the black vote in a two-way race (18% unsure) looks like a huge problem for the Democrats.

As to those who are unsure, the most significant demographics for the undecided are those that favor Giuliani. That means that we could expect them to break more towards Rudy than Hillary when push comes to shove. All in all, this seems like the kind of boost that Rudy can use to make the case that he provides the best chance for Republicans to beat Hillary next November. John Podhoretz should be dancing over at The Corner with this news.

 

[Ol' Sparky]

One thing I like about Rudy is that he promises to appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court.

Why would you believe he would do that when 1) He appointed liberal judges by an 8-1 margin in New York City and 2) Has be trying to redefine what a strict constructionist is by stating one could vote to uphold Roe?

[Ol' Sparky]

My point is that everyone makes mistakes and everyone evolves.

Well, given that Giuliani has in the past several months supported taxpayer-funded abortions, a path to citizenship for illegals, gun control, the idea of man-made global warming and tried to redefine what a strict constructionist judge is, why on earth do you think he's changed?

It's also a little silly to claim he has changed in the five short years since he was a liberal mayor in New York.

[Ol' Sparky]

So, if Rudy wins the primary, you’re not voting against Hilliary, huh?

Right. I'd rather endure four years of Hillary than eight years of a RINO and/or another Democrat.

[Reagan Man]

Heads up: Saint Louis is gone from FR.

[Ol' Sparky]

If you say you can't see the difference between HILLARY EFFING CLINTON and Rudy Giuliani, you're either insane or pathological.

Let's see...Here's one difference -- Hillary has never filed a a lawsuit on behalf of illegal immigrants.

Here's another difference -- Rudy definitely looks better in a dress than Hillary.

[ASA Vet]

Head up: Saint Louis is gone

Yep, who wants to be the next new leader of the RinoRudy supporters?

[elizabetty]

Rudy couldn't even out-poll Hillary during the 2000 NY Senate race when he was sitting mayor of NYC and she was a carpetbagger wife of an impeached president.

Actually, if he HAD the courage to run against and beat her, he would be in a much better position now. He would have a new level of experience to add to his Resume and Hitlery would have been denied a crucial step in her march toward the Democrat Nomination next year.

Rudy drops out of races he is going to lose. If he thought he could beat Hillary then he would have run.

[elizabetty]

Here's another difference -- Rudy definitely looks better in a dress than Hillary.

How do you know that? Has Hillary ever worn a dress?

[dirtboy]

Another Rudy toot tries to take down the Reagan legacy ... and gets taken out with the trash instead.

[alicewonders]

Another Rudy toot tries to take down the Reagan legacy ... and gets taken out with the trash instead.

And I say GOOD RIDDANCE! It's funny, but I've noticed since the RINOS got defeated in their attempts to ram that illegal alien debacle down our throats, that FreeRepublic has been "under attack". Bore O'Reilly, a local FOX affiliate, and now from some of own own Freepers (FRINO's). Clearly, the agenda here is to throw Frooty support back here in this forum to split us and keep us bickering with each other.

If the worst scenario happens, and Frooty is our nominee - I'm out of the Republican Party. I will want no part of it. I am a conservative first & a Republican second. If this party insists on going more to the left - I'm out of there. I will not check my principles at the door when I vote again - that is what is wrong with this country right now.

[pissant]

IF you consider weakness on illegal immigration, gun control, nanny statism, the 4th Amendment, and pandering to leftists as “social” issues on which a candidate’s positions are unimportant, than Rudy could be your guy.

[pissant]

What a shock. LOL

[calcowgirl]

Yep, who wants to be the next new leader of the RinoRudy supporters?

Plenty of supporters are still left. But insulting Freepers and sliming Reagan with lies to prop up Rudy is a sure fire winning strategy to be banned.

[TommyDale]

"If the worst scenario happens, and Frooty is our nominee - I'm out of the Republican Party. I will want no part of it. I am a conservative first & a Republican second. If this party insists on going more to the left - I'm out of there. I will not check my principles at the door when I vote again - that is what is wrong with this country right now."

You and several million other conservatives with principles. Well said!

[Sola Veritas]

“Rudy might not be a conservative, but he sure is not someone Republicans should hate.”

True, hating him is a waste. It is sufficient to merely loath and despise.

Folks a vote for Rudi is a vote for the destruction of the Republican party.

[Sola Veritas]

“THIS DEFINES ME AS A CONSERVATIVE.”

No, that simply means you aren’t very intelligent (or lacking a moral center) in that you can’t see that Rudy and Hillary are both equally bad.

[Chunga]

No, that simply means you aren’t very intelligent (or lacking a moral center) in that you can’t see that Rudy and Hillary are both equally bad.

I disagree with your opinion.

You don't decide who's conservative, moral or intelligent.

In fact, evidenced by your post, I would suggest that you are exactly the opposite of intelligent, based on your inability to designate tax cuts, support for The War In Iraq, support for The War On Terror, support for Israel, opposition to universal health care, fiscal conservatism and promises to appoint constructionist judges as "good."

Rudy is not the best Republicans can do...but if the alternative is Hillary Clinton and you vote Third Party, that makes you unintelligent, lacking a moral center and blind as a bat.

[narses]

I’m pro-choice. I’m pro-gay rights, Giuliani said. He was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions. “No, I have not supported that, and I don’t see my position on that changing,” he responded. Source: CNN.com, “Inside Politics” Dec 2, 1999 http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Rudy_Giuliani_Abortion.htm

ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES (November 14, 2006)

RUDY GIULIANI (R), FORMER MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY: I'm pro- choice. I'm pro-gay rights.

KING: Giuliani supports a woman's right to an abortion, and back in 1999, he opposed a federal ban on late-term abortions.

GIULIANI: No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing.

KING: Immigration could be another presidential landmine. Back in 1996, Mayor Giuliani went to federal court to challenge new federal laws requiring the city to inform the federal government about illegal immigrants.

JEFFREY: He took the side of illegal immigrants in New York City against the Republican Congress.

KING: Giuliani opposes same-sex marriage but as mayor, he supported civil unions and extending health and other benefits to gay couples. He also supported the assault weapons ban and other gun control measures opposed by the National Rifle Association.

GIULIANI: I'm in favor of gun control. I'm pro-choice.

Republican Big-Wigs Support Pro-Abortion Event in NY

Pro-abortion Governor George Pataki and New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who also supports unrestricted abortion, are co-chairs of the 2000 Choice Award Presentation to be held on May 30 at the St. Regis Hotel in New York City. The event is sponsored by the Republican Pro-Choice Coalition, a group that is campaigning for the removal of the pro-life plank from the Republican National Platform.


http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200503010743.asp

[Sola Veritas]

“In fact, evidenced by your post, I would suggest that you are exactly the opposite of intelligent, based on your inability to designate tax cuts, support for The War In Iraq, support for The War On Terror, support for Israel, opposition to universal health care, fiscal conservatism and promises to appoint constructionist judges as “good.””

The man cannot be trusted. Every point you make of the “good” of Rudy have been throughly sliced and diced by others here. He is bogus. I’m still affiliated with the military (reservist), and I don’t want this fool for C&C any more than I want Hillary. I equally distrust both to pursue this war against Islamic Radicals or any that would use “islam” as a rally against the United States. Also, his idea of a “strict constructionist” is Judge Ginsburg. Give me a break. No substantial difference exists between Guillani and Clinton. I won’t vote for either in a general election. If the Republican party wants me to support its candidate in the general election the candidate must clearly be to the right of center on abortion, homosexuality, and the 2nd Ammendment. Rudy fails on all three.

[Chunga]

Well, here are a few facts for you:

Giuliani supports the ban on partial birth abortions. He once stated that he wouldn't support such a ban (in 1999), but in May he stated that he does support it. Is he flipping like John Kerry? I don't judge that. All I know is that he has stated that he supports the ban.

Hillary has stated that she is against the ban. Hillary voted against the ban.

Rudy has stated that it would "be okay" if Roe vs. Wade were overturned by a judge. This means that Giuliani believes that leaving abortion to the states is a valid scenario. This is precisely what Pro-Lifers like myself have been hoping for for years. He does believe Roe should be determined in the courts, and that's disappointing...but it is a far cry from Hillary's "abortion at anytime anywhere" stance.

Your point is refuted. Hillary and Rudy do not espouse the same views on abortion. They are in fact very different.

Regarding terrorism, Giuliani has issued statements calling on Democrats to use the term "Islamic Terrorists" when refering to Islamic Terrorists. You also know that Giuliani refused a $10 million donation for disaster relief from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal after the prince suggested U.S. policies in the Middle East contributed to the September 11 attacks. He has vocally and ubiquitously supported the Bush administration at every turn in The War In Iraq

Giuliani is as far to the right as any candidate on American foreign policy outside the Ron Paul/John Birch/Pat Buchanan wing.

Now listen carefully: Rudy is not the best candidate running. I disagree with the man more than I disagree with any other GOP candidate other than Paul (and Paul's stance on Iraq defines him as a member of the kook fringe). But, if he is elected, he will be beholden to his Party, just as Hillary would be beholden to hers.

Would you rather have a President beholden to the party intent on prosecuting a necessary war, securing the borders and protecting the 2nd Amendment, or a President beholden to Code Pink, The Daily Koz, CAIR and socialized medicine proponents like Michael Moore?

I think the choice between these two are obvious, and in a general election matchup between Rudy and Hillary there is no doubt who is the better candidate and who is more conservative.

Anyone claiming they're the same is blind...that being said, it's important to try to nominate a more conservative candidate than Giuliani in the primaries. He is not conservative enough for my tastes, but he is conservative enough to get my vote if he's running against HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON. For crying out loud.