Posted on 10/04/2007 6:43:43 AM PDT by presidio9
Democrat Hillary Clinton would beat Republican Rudolph Giuliani in the race for the US presidency if the election was held now, according to poll data released Thursday.
Senator Clinton, wife of ex-president Bill Clinton and the strong front-runner for the Democratic nomination for next year's election, held a 51-43 percent margin over Giuliani in a Washington Post-ABC News poll.
The poll showed Democrat voters favoring Clinton over Giuliani by 88-9 percent while independents were for Clinton 48-44 percent. Republican voters preferred Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, 88-10 percent.
The poll also showed that two-thirds of voters believe Clinton would take the country in a different direction compared with her husband during his 1993-2001 presidency, with most considering that "a good thing."
Another Washington Post-ABC News poll released Wednesday showed Clinton was the solid favorite for the Democrat nomination in the November 2008 election.
She held a 33 point lead over her closest rival, fellow Senator Barack Obama.
Giuliani, meanwhile, leads most polls in his party's race,but is more closely dogged by rivals Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson.
So now I'm stuck eh? I don't think so.
First, "life" isn't an issue. It is a "right" enshrined in the basic documents of our Founding Fathers.
Without that "right" to life, no other rights or issues matter. You don't care if you're pro-gun if you've been murdered.
However, there are plenty of issues/reasons for opposing Rudy beyond the right to life.
He's anti-gun.
He's anti-family
He's anti-marriage
He's pro-illegal immigration
He's inexperienced.
He has a huge cesspool of personal problems that will doom him in this election.
He's marched with pro-gay activists in support of their causes.
He supports Federal Funding of abortion (focus on the forced Federal Funding of a controversial medical procedure.)
We could go on.
It’s not a matter of stuck. It’s a matter of answering your question in which you asked “how?”.
Well, now you know “how” it happened.
We have an unidentified candidate with the following positions:
1. They support abortion on demand throughout pregnancy, though they have made comments to the effect that they don't like abortion and would like it to be "safe and legal and rare." They have the highest possible rating from NARAL.
2. They support "civil unions" that essentially mimic marriage for homosexuals.
3. They support the strictest possible gun control laws.
4. They support amnesty for illegal aliens.
Based on these facts, would your initial guess be that this unnamed candidate is a liberal Democrat or a conservative Republican.
There is ONLY ONE “one issue” candidate in the race and that’s Rooty Toot and the reality is that his single issue was more a matter of happenstance than anything.
The WTC was a KNOWN terrorist target and it was KNOWN that evacuation would be critical. In seven and a half years as mayor, Rooty Toot did NOTHING to develop an evacuation plan. Rooty Toot put a command center in the middle of a known terrorist target (which totally contradicts thousands of years of strategic practice) to use for his adulterous liasons, having this command center here actually made matters worse on 9/11. Rooty’s role in the aftermath of 9/11 was cheering and going to funerals.
Rooty Toot did LESS to prepare NYC for terrorism than Ray Nagin did to prepare New Orleans for Katrina.
Don’t insult me by accusing me of not having principles because I don’t agree with your position on abortion.
That type of attitude has fostered religious extremism. I don’t believe in abortion on demand, especially mid and late term abortions, but I don’t object to limited abortions.
In my opinion, going back to making criminals of women that choose abortion is not good policy. Better policy is to facilitate adoption, discourage abortion with better education.
Well, if you were to tell me that he also opposed numerous tax cuts, then I’d say we’d have to be talking about a Democrat.
You misunderstood his question. If I understood correctly, he asked which principle would you die for?
Well?
See #122
At this point I say, have a nice day. Then I close the door on those preaching on my doorstep. ;-)
NIXON put more liberal on the Supreme Court than Rudy will. Nixon MAY have been a bit more conservative on social issues (of course he was President almost 40 years ago). Rudy is far more conservative on issue that really matter to a Presidency. Issues like Defense, Homeland Security, Taxation.
You're right, having no regard for the sanctity of life IS a principle.
That type of attitude has fostered religious extremism.
You mean the religious extremism of secularism and their slaughter of over 3500 infants every day in the United States?
I don’t believe in abortion on demand, especially mid and late term abortions, but I don’t object to limited abortions.
So, you're okay with killing babies at 90 days, but after that it should stop?
In my opinion, going back to making criminals of women that choose abortion is not good policy.
Who is talking about making women who have abortions criminals? This must be a new pro-abortion talking point because I don't remember seeing until a couple months ago.
Better policy is to facilitate adoption, discourage abortion with better education.
American women are better educated that any women in any nation at any time in history, they had 3500 babies murdered YESTERDAY.
I do like the term “ex-president” in lieu of “former president”.
How could anyone believe that when we know that Hillary was the real power behind the throne who ran the administration and pushed her own personal agenda, while Billyboy was happy to just use his high position primarily to seduce impressionable young women and indulge his insatiable ego?
Fred's going to lose. He's Bob Dole without the energy. His heart may be in the right place, but that won't help if he doesn't have the "delivery power"; judging by his recent campaign performances, he doesn't. This problem will become more evident when he is a choice to be made in front of all Americans, rather than just the Republican faithful.
Your post exemplifies the reason as to why _Republicans_ will _also_ lose in 2008, the presidency, and otherwise.
BTW, I will support and vote for the Republican nominee, no matter WHOM he may be. I will never, never, NEVER vote for a Democrat again. EVER. Got that?
- John
BTW, in 1992, immediately after the Democratic convention, I told a friend, "we're going to lose this one". Was right that time, too. I hope to be proven wrong this time. We'll see.
Nixon didn't know they were liberals. And we have NO REASON to believe that Rooty Toot would appoint anything other than liberals; after all, why would any president knowingly appoint judges with views that were the exact opposite of their own.
Nixon MAY have been a bit more conservative on social issues (of course he was President almost 40 years ago).
Out comes the moral relativism. LIFE is every bit as important today as it was 40 or 400 or 4000 years ago. Moral relativists like yourself seem to think that moral principles can change based on convenience, they don't.
Rudy is far more conservative on issue that really matter to a Presidency. Issues like Defense, Homeland Security, Taxation.
First of all, there is no evidence of this. I have yet to see where Rooty Toot plans to lower taxes. And defense is neither a conservative nor liberal issue (the fact that most conservatives support the war and most liberals oppose it notwithstanding). Moreoever, all of the major Democrat candidates are now on record saying that they will continue to fight the war, so that issue is now off the table for Rooty Toot.
More Americans have died in abortuaries THIS WEEK than have died in the war on terror, why is it that you don't think THEY are important?
I asked you whether you had any CORE principles. I suspect that you, like most people, do have plenty of principles, but the questions is whether or not you are willing to sacrifice those principles for political expediency? If they are CORE principles, then you would not be willing to sacrifice them.
I don’t believe in abortion on demand, especially mid and late term abortions, but I don’t object to limited abortions.
Why? If the thing being aborted is not a human being, then why would you care if it is removed from the womb? If it were just a glob of tissue, then nobody would care if it were removed. The fact that you don't believe in "abortion on demand" suggests to me that you believe that there is a human being in the womb, and if that is true, then abortion is murder.
In my opinion, going back to making criminals of women that choose abortion is not good policy.
They never made criminals out of the women. They made criminals out of the doctors.
Better policy is to facilitate adoption, discourage abortion with better education.
What would we teach? That fetuses are not human beings or that they are human beings?
If the former, then why should we discourage abortion at all?
If the latter, then why should we permit abortion at all?
I agree, but the GOP is dominated by morons. It's telling that the most conservative candidate in the current primary field, Duncan Hunter, is near the bottom of the polls, and the most liberal, Rudy, is at the top. A lot of that is due to the country club RINO faction's nonsensical insistence that Rudy is the only Republican who can defeat Hillary, but even so only the most gullible or wishy-washy example of a so-called conservative would buy that specious argument and even think of voting for him in the primaries.
IMHO a nationally well known conservative would win against any of the current Democrat contenders if the Repub primary voters had the b***s to nominate someone like that, but too many of us have bought into the country-clubbers' lie that a real conservative can't win the White House. Maybe that isn't a lie in this day and age, but I would like to at least see it proved true before I will buy it myself.
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.