27% of Republicans Would Vote for Pro-Life Third Party Instead of Giuliani (Proof Rudy CAN'T Win)

Rasmussen Reports ^ | 10-4-07 | Rasmussen Reports

[Tarpon]

If you mean me, I am definitely not pro-abort.

[roses of sharon]

Even if a FT is nominated, we will have trouble beating the triumphant return of King Bill and Hill.

They have been working for a 3rd and 4th term since the day he left.

They are extremely angry about his Impeachment, and want payback.

And Hill and Bill KNOW modern day Americans, and KNOW most Americans WANT universal healthcare, and other goodies.

They also have their “WAR ROOM”, ie, the entire media, academia and Hollywood.

So it really matters not who we nominate at all.

Our mission at FR should be to destroy the MSM, completely discredit all of them, reporter by reporter.

FR should be funding ads against the MSM right now.

[finnman69]

third party like Bloomberg?

[Grunthor]

Nobody is “threatening” anything. We are STATING an iron clad, irrefutable FACT!

CONSERVATIVES DO NOT VOTE FOR LIBERALS, BE THEY SOCIAL OR FISCAL!

[MichaelP]

So it says. I will tell you something, take that poll again with Hillary staring you in the face. Do you really want to cut your nose off to spite your face, just to "give them a lesson", and have Hillary as President, and just maybe, filabuster proof majorities in both houses of congress?

Personally, I am backing the candidate who has the best chance to beat the democrats. Right now that is Fred Thompson. However, whoever gets the GOP nomination will get my vote, because the alternative is irrevelentcy. Your views won't matter! The democrats will simply steamroll over what we believe and when they are done, we will live in socialist europe.

So all you ideologues out there better be sure; the world with Giuliani as President would be a conservative utopia compared to the alternative...

Mike

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

should start your party now.

If I thought your analysis was correct, I would be doing that right now!

[joonbug]

“A socialist is a socialist regardless of whether there is an R or D after the name! “

Hillary is a definite socialist (or worse). I don’t think Rudy would be any more of a socialist than Bush (No Child Left Behind, Medicare Drug Bill, lack of border enforcement, etc). But I would much rather have a big government Republican that will keep us safe than a bigger-government liberal who will get us killed.

The federal government has grown (spending, regulations, etc) under every President regardless of party. I would welcome a real third party alternative that has a chance, but unfortunately the reality is two parties and a choice of one or the other.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

I suspect you knew that when you were supporting him a few months ago.

Back then there were only 3 horses in the race, and I didn't know the extent of his left-wing views until he imploded on CNN with the support for taxpayer funding of abortions.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

You don’t care if Hillary wins.

I ain't scared of a Hillary presidency, unlike you guys who whine for your Mommas whenever she's mentioned.

[finnman69]

I seriously doubt christian right to lifers can get a 4th party candidate por-life single issue candidate on the ballot in 50 states.

I say 4th party because its far more likely you see someone like Bloomberg buy their way in to 3rd party ticket as an independent sucking up the oxygen.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

In the history of American politics, has a candidate for his party’s nomination ever announced his third party contingency plans in the middle of the primary?

Dr. Paul promised his wife of 50 years that he would not run as a 3rd party or independent candidate, and I'll take his word over the rest of the so-called Republicans who spin like Maytag washers.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

we will no longer recognize the United States of America.

There is a question as to whether the US could or SHOULD survive with a unanimously pro-abortion political system.

I fear for my country when I reflect that God is just--Thomas Jefferson

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

There is no surer way to cement Roe v. Wade as the law of the land than by voting for a third-party candidate and ensuring Hillary's election. Her replacements for Stevens, Souder, Ginsburg and possibly Scalia will lock in the liberal pro-abortion stance for decades. Third- party advocates should come out and say it: They love abortions because they want the issue.

"Always vote on principle, though you may vote alone, but you may cherish the sweet reflection that your vote is never lost."

[Man50D]

CONSERVATIVES DO NOT VOTE FOR LIBERALS, BE THEY SOCIAL OR FISCAL!

This socially conservative/fiscally liberal(or vice versa) term is a bunch of baloney! That is a euphemistic term for moderate. Moderate is another term for socialist. You can't support holding the line government programs while at the same time support spending large sums of money to for those programs. Either a person is a conservative or a liberal.

[Cosmo]

Ain’t nuttin principled about giving the country to hillary.

[hoyaloya]

Cool. I was looking for the meeting place for all of those folks who wanted to cut off their nose to spite their face.

[scarface367]

"Always vote on principle, though you may vote alone, but you may cherish the sweet reflection that your vote is never lost."

But if your vote "on principle" accomplishes not only nothing, but has brought about a worse outcome, then you and your efforts are a failure.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

But if your vote "on principle" accomplishes not only nothing, but has brought about a worse outcome, then you and your efforts are a failure.

My vote on principle means that I refuse the accept the quasi-socialist status quo that Rudy-toots is pushing, and the subsequent demise of the GOP.

You can vote for this fascist authoritarian freakazoid who invokes 9/11 like John Kerry invokes Vietnam, but my vote and support will go elsewhere.

[Man50D]

Hillary is a definite socialist (or worse). I don’t think Rudy would be any more of a socialist than Bush (No Child Left Behind, Medicare Drug Bill, lack of border enforcement, etc). But I would much rather have a big government Republican that will keep us safe than a bigger-government liberal who will get us killed.

So you admit the GOP has socialists. By all means, let's settle for some socialism to prevent too much socialism. That only creates a gray area where The question then becomes when is there too much? Your type of thinking reflects the slippery slope the GOP has followed for decades and has resulted in the socialism creep now present in the Republican party. By your line of thinking a small house fire is OK because it would prevent a bigger house fire. The GOP should be focusing on putting out the fire by eliminating socialists from the party.

[Man50D]

Ain’t nuttin principled about giving the country to hillary.

There's nothing principled about giving the country to socialists, be they Republican or Democrat.