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.
LLS
Yes it will, and "things will go badly" if either Hillary or Rootytoot is elected. Two candidates from two parties with one basic agenda, more big government and more jackbooted authoritarianism.
No, if enough Americans buy the lie and elect this unqualified hack THEY will deserve what they get. Those of us who would never vote for a Democrat in 1000 years WON'T deserve what we will get if she or any other Democrat is elected, which I believe will happen if her opponent is Rudy.
He had cancer for Christ's sake! What a ridiculous thing to say.
If you think there is no difference between Hillary and ANY of the Republican candidates then you deserve to live under her regime for the 8 years. But I don’t deserve it.
If the latter, then why should we permit abortion at all?
Why indeed? Excellent questions and sound logic P-M.
“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.”
This is an excellent question, and I have had this discussion on several occasions with doctors, religious leaders and ethicists. Your view is that at conception there is human life. That view is not absurd to be cast aside as out of hand. However, is a 24 hour fertilized egg a human being? Many doctors will tell you that they do NOT believe that is a human being. My Episcopal Priest explained to me once that the Catholic Church once condoned early term abortions. I know that many Catholics get very angry when this argument is used, but there is some historical evidence of this.
Of course, history does not decide this issue. Does science? I tend to think so, but I am not 100% sure on that. I suppose it many depend on faith.
Obviously, some believe based on faith that a newly conceived fetus is a human being, even before the brain or basic organs are formed. Some do not believe this?
My Daughter had a an ectopic pregnancy. She could have died from that had the physician not ended that pregnancy. Is that taking a human life. By your definition, I would presume it would. Was the doctor a murderer because he saved my Daughter’s life. I know some might believe so. Of course, you might justify ending the ectopic pregnancy on the basis that it was doomed, however methphysicially, this there was still, according to your definition, a human being.
On another note, I frequently ask freepers that respond to the abortion issue as you have what they would do if their Wife or Daughter was raped and became pregnant. 99% of them NEVER respond to this question. Is abortion the better choice than continuing a pregnancy that may psychology damage a loved one?
That's not at all what I said, I said that I don't believe Rudy can defeat Hillary. And if that's the way it turns out those of us who tried to warn Rudytooters will NOT deserve what WE get. Clear now?
This is categorically UNTRUE. It might be a lie spread by anti-Catholic bigots, but there is no evidence of this.
I have debated with many non-Catholic FReepers and I think we would all agree that things get heated at times and I think it would be fair to say that both sides have been guilty of at least stretching the truth. But I have NEVER heard any of my Evangelical FRiends suggest that the Catholic Church EVER supported abortion in any form.
On another note, I frequently ask freepers that respond to the abortion issue as you have what they would do if their Wife or Daughter was raped and became pregnant.
I'll respond. I have a dear family friend who was raped and became pregnant. She will tell you that keeping the baby was the most best thing she ever did and it has helped her heal from the rape.
Let me ask you this, what civilized country that follows the rule of law has ever suggested that an innocent child should be executed for the crime of one their father?
Polls , Polls , Polls . At this point in the game , They are not much more than wishfull thinking ,In the 13 months remaining before the election , I am shure there will be 1000 more polls . Mostly by the Liberal news media . I guess they tend to soothe the Liberal mind . But little else , Also please remind yourself of the Sept & Oct Polls in 2004 . Kerry by a Landslide .
Polls , Polls , Polls . At this point in the game , They are not much more than wishfull thinking ,In the 13 months remaining before the election , I am shure there will be 1000 more polls . Mostly by the Liberal news media . I guess they tend to soothe the Liberal mind . But little else , Also please remind yourself of the Sept & Oct Polls in 2004 . Kerry by a Landslide .
>>That’s not at all what I said, I said that I don’t believe Rudy can defeat Hillary.<<
LOL.
But if you thought he could win, then you’d be all for him, right?
Not many pro-life advocates believe that ending a pregnancy that would otherwise take the mother's life constitutes murder or any other crime.. There is a vast difference between taking human life in defense of one's nation or family and shooting down an innocent man on the street because he was an inconvenience to the shooter. The Judeo-Christian bible gives many examples of Godly men such as David or Gideon who killed other men in defense of themselves or their nation and were apparently justified in th eyes of God in so doing. The same basic principle applies to a life threatening pregnancy and the life of the mother.
Of course the fetus in such a case is not at fault and is no less an innocent, living human being than the fetus who is killed simply for the mother's convenience, but the situations are so different that comparison between the two situations is invalid.
I'll answer that.
You call me a "defeatist" when I explicitly stated in my original post to you that I intend to support and vote for the Republican candidate for president (all ALL other offices) this coming election. And I intend to do exactly that.
Yet YOU are the one who specifically stated that you WOULD NOT support the Republican party and their candidates, if the candidates are not exactly the candidates you wish for. Instead, you will pick up your toys and let the Democrats win.
Who is the "defeatist" here? Who is the realist?
- John
I would not vote for Rudy under any circumstances other than him totally and truthfully renouncing his positions on the issues that are most important to me, but that isn't what I said in the post you referred to. I don't expect all or even most of those who oppose Rudy at this point to not vote for him in the general election.
But I still maintain that there will be a significant number of socially conservatives who oppose him on so many crucially important issues such as 2nd Amendment rights, abortion, homosexual "rights", illegal immigration, globalism, etc, etc, that they can't in good conscience vote for him, and that without those votes he will lose the election if he's nominated and Hillary is his opponent.
If I haven't made myself clear by now I doubt that I could with another explanation, so let's just agree to amicably disagree, OK?
LLS
No it is not. My dad at 73 had the same thing and took radiation treatments. It slowed him down for about a week and ever since he is going strong at the tender age of 87. What the truth of the matter is Rudy had too many negatives from his private life and saw the hand writing on the wall that he could not beat her.
Look historically at both Bill and Hillarys election won/loss records and you will see why the big money is on Hillary. We are in deep doodoo.
Rudy cannot beat her in 08 just like he couldn’t in 00.
Hillary is the most hated candidate I've ever seen that is ahead in the polls. Something is not passing the "smell test!"
I personally believe the HUGE DIVISION in our nation is because Clinton should have resigned during impeachment. He put himself above his country. Nixon, in history, will have more honor!
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.