Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rudy Hitting His Stride? {abortionist lover]
captains quarters ^ | 8/16/07 | Ed Morrissey

Posted on 08/16/2007 6:15:38 PM PDT by 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.

 


TOPICS: Extended News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2008; 2008polls; duncanhunter; electionpresident; elections; fredthompson; giuliani; hillary; rasmussen; romney; rudy; rudymcromney; stoprudy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240241-248 last
To: Chunga
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.

If you think someone so rabidly in favor abortion that he has supported taxpayer funding of abortion, tried to redefine what a strict constructionalist is and spoken before NARAL is going to nominate a justice to overturn Roe, you're living a fantasy world.

Giuliani's Record on Abortion

As mayor, Rudy Giuliani will uphold a woman's right of choice to have an abortion. Giuliani will fund all city programs which provide abortions to insure that no woman is deprived of her right due to an inability to pay. He will oppose reductions in state funding. He will oppose making abortion illegal. New York Times, August 4, 1989

Giuliani said in a speech back in 1989: “There must be public funding for abortions for poor women,” Giuliani says in the speech that is posted on the video sharing site YouTube. “We cannot deny any woman the right to make her own decisions about abortion.”

Leaflets distributed by the Giuliani campaign .... said that he opposes restrictions to Federal Medicaid financing for abortions and opposes the Hyde Amendment, which is intended to deny support for that financing. New York Times, June 18, 1993.

On Partial Birth Abortion: Mr. Giuliani has said that New York State law should not be changed to outlaw the procedure. New York Times, January 7, 1998

"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." -- CNN.com, "Inside Politics" Dec 2, 1999

"I never called for the overturning of Roe vs. Wade." Rudy Giuliani, New York Newsday, September 1, 1989

On Parental notification, Giuliani says he's for it now. But read this excerpt from a New York Times article written last month:

"On a 1997 candidate questionnaire from the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League of New York, which Mr. Giuliani completed and signed, he marked ‘yes’ to the question: Would you oppose legislation ‘requiring a minor to obtain permission from a parent or from a court before obtaining an abortion.’”

As these comments from a 1989 conversation with Phil Donahue show, Rudy Giuliani is staunchly in favor of abortion:

"I've said that I'll uphold a woman's right of choice, that I will fund abortion so that a poor woman is not deprived of a right that others can exercise, and that I would oppose going back to a day in which abortions were illegal.

I do that in spite of my own personal reservations. I have a daughter now; if a close relative or a daughter were pregnant, I would give my personal advice, my religious and moral views ...

Donahue: Which would be to continue the pregnancy.

Giuliani: Which would be that I would help her with taking care of the baby. But if the ultimate choice of the woman - my daughter or any other woman - would be that in this particular circumstance [if she had] to have an abortion, I'd support that. I'd give my daughter the money for it."

From the FEC database: 04/24/1999 Donations

NEW YORK STATE NARAL INC WOMEN'S HEALTH PAC

NARAL donated exclusively to Democrat candidates with one exception----Rudy Giuliani.

Giuliani accepted $1,000 from NARAL in 1999.

NARAL gave $250 to Hillary Rodham Clinton.

NARAL gave $1000---4 times as much-----to pro-abortion Giuliani.

241 posted on 08/18/2007 5:48:08 PM PDT by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky
A conservative voting for a liberal is what in unintelligent and guaranteed to result in the advancement of liberalism.

A conservative voting against the Republican nominee is what is unintelligent and will guarantee the advancement of liberalism...because this time, they're going to try to do away with the electoral college and implement universal socialist health care. Once that happens, you can say goodbye to a Republican President for 20 years...in fact, it's entirely possible that I won't see another one in my lifetime...and by then the terrorist-appeasing pro-amnesty America-hating anti-war wing of the Democrat Party will have done its damage. It will be too late. Wake the hell up.

I'd much rather have Hillary in office for four years with a chance of electing a conservative in 2012 and with the an increasing number of Republicans in Congress than be stuck with a liberal Republican or Democrat for eight years and shrinking Republican minority in Congress.

This will not be your scenario should you allow Hillary to be elected by not voting against her in the only real sense...by voting Republican.

You've got a lot to learn about this woman.

NO CONSERVATIVE WILL CAST A MEANINGLESS, THROW-AWAY THIRD PARTY VOTE TO TEACH REPUBLICANS A LESSON IN '08.

(now please, if you have any pull at all, see about getting Fred Thompson on the stick.)

242 posted on 08/18/2007 11:48:30 PM PDT by Chunga (Conservatives Don't Let Democrats Win Elections. They Vote Republican.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: Chunga
A conservative voting against the Republican nominee is what is unintelligent

No, a conservative voting for A LIBERAL of either party is unintelligent, especially when the liberal is running as a Republican.

And, again, I'd much rather have Hillary in office with Republicans gaining seats in Congress and chance to get a conservative elected in 2012 than have a RINO in office with shrinking Republican minority and no chance of a conservative reaching the White House until 2016.

Finally, I don't vote for politicians with no moral compass that support killing unborn children.

243 posted on 08/19/2007 8:17:58 AM PDT by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: Chunga
A conservative voting against the Republican nominee is what is unintelligent and will guarantee the advancement of liberalism...because this time, they're going to try to do away with the electoral college and implement universal socialist health care. Once that happens, you can say goodbye to a Republican President for 20 years...in fact, it's entirely possible that I won't see another one in my lifetime...and by then the terrorist-appeasing pro-amnesty America-hating anti-war wing of the Democrat Party will have done its damage. It will be too late. Wake the hell up.

I agree. She's already tipped her hand. Remember her statement about changing the electoral college system after 2000, and the hints thrown in since then? Of course, we all do. The only time I'll take that carpet-bagging, grasping powermonger at her word is when she tells us how she intends to increase her power and decrease our freedoms. That's not a system I'm going to game for the "promise" of increased Congressional seats.

"We're going to take things away from you for the common good."

244 posted on 08/19/2007 9:28:16 AM PDT by bootless (Never Forget - And Never Again. And Always Act.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: ASA Vet
I do not want to be the head on the "RinoRudy" supporters, mainly because I am still looking at options of Mitt, Rudy, and Fred, but I must say that this site is sticking it's head in the sand! I love Free Republic, and I have been here a long time. I started posting in 2001, but that was after years of lurking. I was always impressed with this Anti - Clinton site. In fact I think the majority (pre 2001) joined this site because of its strong dedication to fighting the Clintons. Yet what I see today is a place that is actually willing to put them back into office because they think it would "prove" their point that life is better when we have only a true conservative in office.

I have no doubt what so ever that if Hillary gets in office (something many here are willing to promote) that life will be hell in 8 years. We will be overrun with IslamoFascits (much like Europe is today), because we will have a President unwilling to stand up to them. We will have "free healthcare for all", although my wallet will be much lighter. We will definitely have a few new Justices on the Supreme Court who will be willing to defend Roe V Wade, and will also strip all powers away from the fight for the War on Terror.

As a pro life, pro Husband and Wife conservative, I may not see my issues come to life under a Rudy Presidency, but I know that if Hillary is President they are for sure out the window. Also on the day abortion becomes illegal, I want to be able to Thank God, and not praise allah.

In life we pick our fights, and for me in 2008 that fight is for the security of my Country, and my Family. Rudy assures that, Hillary does not.

In the primaries we have a choice, I applaud everyones free will with choosing who they think best fits their ideals, but when it comes to the general election it is a different dynamic.

245 posted on 08/19/2007 10:17:09 AM PDT by codercpc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: Saint Louis
"Ronald Reagan was once a liberal Democrat union organizer whose first vote was for Franklin Roosevelt."

A moot talking point. When Reagan was a "democrat" (and there is nothing describing him as a "liberal" one, except you), the democratic party was a much different organization, with all of the beliefs of today's Republican party. Where do you think all of the "sane" democrats went when the radical, subversive, commies moved into the democratic party?

Get your facts straight, you'll get nowhere trying to argue with "snippets" and out-of-context liberal talking points. Those tactics belong over on DU
246 posted on 08/19/2007 10:27:34 AM PDT by FrankR (FredHead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: codercpc
Also on the day abortion becomes illegal, I want to be able to Thank God, and not praise allah.

In life we pick our fights, and for me in 2008 that fight is for the security of my Country, and my Family. Rudy assures that, Hillary does not.

In the primaries we have a choice, I applaud everyones free will with choosing who they think best fits their ideals, but when it comes to the general election it is a different dynamic.

Yes, yes, yes, thank you! I will fight like hell for the most conservative candidate (not-nutcase category) possible in the primaries. But I absolutely will not ignore the lessons of 1992 and allow another Clinton in the White House, even if it gets us every single danged Congressional seat available. I didn't think it would be necessary to pull together Hillary's most egregious recent quotes to remind us of what she is capable of, but I might need to do that.

247 posted on 08/19/2007 10:51:56 AM PDT by bootless (Never Forget - And Never Again. And Always Act.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: FrankR

Yeah, unfortunately, the Democrat Party of our youth was a mucn different from than we have today. Well, it’s gone. Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman may be the only remnants of their ideals left today. And one if out of Congress, and the other had to run as an independent because Connecticut Democrat Party, in its infinite foolishness, ran a Marxist wannabe.

Sad. I am all for a loyal opposition. The disloyal opposition is a danger.


248 posted on 08/19/2007 10:54:07 AM PDT by bootless (Never Forget - And Never Again. And Always Act.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240241-248 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson