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

Skip to comments.

Running the Republican Numbers on Rudy (50% won't support liberal, 57% don't know Rudy is)
Fox News ^ | 18 February 2007 | Tom Bevan

Posted on 02/18/2007 2:31:51 PM PST by Spiff

Running the Republican Numbers on Rudy

Trying to read too much into any 2008 poll at this point, especially with respect to horserace numbers, is somewhat silly and a waste of time. But a recent FOX News poll does have some interesting tidbits in the internals asking about voters' general impressions on issues.

[snip]

Are you more who are more or less likely to support a candidate who is pro-choice on the issue of abortion? Republicans only: More likely 22 percent (a lot more likely 12 percent, somewhat more likely 10 percent). Less likely 46 percent (a lot less likely 36 percent, somewhat less likely 10 percent). Not a major factor 30 percent.

Are you more who are more or less likely to support a candidate who supports civil unions for gays and lesbians? Republicans only: More likely 8 percent (a lot more likely 5 percent, somewhat more likely 3 percent). Less likely 50 percent (a lot less likely 39 percent, somewhat less likely 11 percent). Not a major factor 38 percent.

[snip]

The biggest red flag for Giuliani has to be that only 42 percent of Republicans surveyed correctly identified him as pro-choice. Twenty-one percent of Republican voters have it wrong and think Giuliani is pro-life, and another 36 percent of Republicans don't have a clue what his position on abortion. In other words, nearly six out of 10 registered Republican voters have yet to learn something about Giuliani which, we can infer from the first question on abortion, will make close to half of them either "somewhat" less likely or "a lot" less likely to vote for him. There's no doubt the same holds true of his position on civil unions for gays, and the Second Amendment as well.


(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: giuliani; gungrabber; msmcandidate; rino; rudy; rudyasureloser; rudytrolls
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 341-354 next last
To: LtdGovt
“C'mon guys, gals... whatever... ARE YOU WITH ME?!”


41 posted on 02/18/2007 2:58:29 PM PST by johnny7 ("We took a hell of a beating." -'Vinegar Joe' Stilwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: OMalley

It is giving some of the rights of a married couple to two people. It depends on the state statute. You would have to be more specific.

And besides, what's it to you what two people do? Sometimes I wonder if you people get so worked up on gay marriage because you would fall to tempation without laws against it.


42 posted on 02/18/2007 2:58:43 PM PST by republicanwizard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
It is what all the states agreed to when admitted into the Union...

So what? The reason why we don't have 231 constitutional amendments, is because we allow matters to be decided by individual states, rather than imposing a national solution through the consent of 3/4 of the states.
43 posted on 02/18/2007 2:59:13 PM PST by LtdGovt ("Where government moves in, community retreats and civil society disintegrates" -Janice Rogers Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: republicanwizard
Giuliani has never supported gay marriage.

I guess you people prefer it if we call it 'civil unions' (wink-wink).
44 posted on 02/18/2007 2:59:13 PM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: All
Compare with Giuliani with Tancredo and get back to me:

http://www.teamtancredo.com/issues.php

45 posted on 02/18/2007 2:59:21 PM PST by NapkinUser (Free Ramos and Compean! Disbarment for the Nifong-wannabe Johnny Sutton.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: M. Thatcher

Opposition to Giuliani is centered around a bunch of extreme fringe zealots. Good riddance to them. I welcome their exit from the party.


46 posted on 02/18/2007 2:59:45 PM PST by republicanwizard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: LtdGovt
Since you are so new here, I was wonder are you one of rudy's paid posters. Are should we just assume that you are and have registered for that purpose.
47 posted on 02/18/2007 2:59:49 PM PST by org.whodat (Never let the facts get in the way of a good assumption.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LtdGovt
Why infringe upon state's rights when there is no reason to do so?

No infringement at all..

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;...

48 posted on 02/18/2007 2:59:49 PM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Spiff

If you are going to continue to post the same crap over and over, cutting and pasting and spamming the threads, at least get it right.

Rudy is on the record, again and again, as stating that he believes marriage is between one man and one woman. Rudy is OPPOSED to same sex marriage.


49 posted on 02/18/2007 3:00:17 PM PST by Cincinna (HILLARY & HER HINO "We are going to take things away from you for the Common Good")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Post-Neolithic
Heres the facts, if the Senate and House passes a Pro-Gay bill(IE. Gay Marriage), which is very possible given the current make-up of the House and Senate,and the President is Pro-Gay then the bill passes and becomes law. If the President is Anti-Gay-Marriage and this same type of bill passes, the President vetos said bill, the House and Senate has to get a 2/3 majority to override the veto.

Nice try, but marriage is defined at the stat level.
50 posted on 02/18/2007 3:00:18 PM PST by LtdGovt ("Where government moves in, community retreats and civil society disintegrates" -Janice Rogers Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: LtdGovt
we allow matters to be decided by individual states, rather than imposing a national solution through the consent of 3/4 of the states.

No we don't... 98 U.S. 145, REYNOLDS v. UNITED STATES, 98 U.S. 145, October Term, 1878.

51 posted on 02/18/2007 3:02:12 PM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
I believe McCain will get the nomination at this point. Eventhough many don't like him, he at least has some conservative views. I would put Romney at a close second, and he himself may even win.

I don't yet have strong feelings one way or another regarding the media's designated "front runners", before going in we all know Rudy has a clear liberal record, and McCain is widely disliked by the republican base. Romney is a bit of a clean slate, which will make him easily defined by his opponents, but if he has a good campaign he can easily overcome such things with a good solid message.

What I think doesn't matter anyway, I'm not even a republican, I just tend to vote for them in general elections.

52 posted on 02/18/2007 3:02:36 PM PST by KoRn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zendari

"What have "pro-life" politicians done to criminalize abortion?"

We have had almost 16 years of avowedly Pro-Life Presidents. Abortion is still legal.


53 posted on 02/18/2007 3:02:43 PM PST by Cincinna (HILLARY & HER HINO "We are going to take things away from you for the Common Good")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

Just for the record, Giuliani didn't have anything to do with Gotti's eventual downfall. He did prosecute the heads of the five families in the 80s, but Gotti didn't get taken down until 1992.


54 posted on 02/18/2007 3:03:15 PM PST by garv (Conservatism in '08 www.draftnewt.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: LtdGovt
Yet another 'untruth' from you, Spiff. The FMA doesn't ensure that states "could ban gay marriage", it would even prevent them from voluntarily allowing gay marriage.

Government doesn't "allow" gay marriage. It uses its coercive power to force everyone else to recognize it and accommodate it.

If it's a matter of "allowing" gay marriage, that's already the state of affairs in every state but Massachusetts and Vermont. In forty-eight states gays can exchange wedding vows and can even get the unholy union blessed by any of a number of liberal churches. What they cannot do is call in the government to bash everyone else over the head and force them to recognize it as a marriage.

Except in Massachussets and Vermont. You ignore and disregard gay marriage at your peril in those two states.

55 posted on 02/18/2007 3:03:26 PM PST by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

Don't just copy and paste, connect the dots between state's rights and the decision you referense... if you can.


56 posted on 02/18/2007 3:03:49 PM PST by LtdGovt ("Where government moves in, community retreats and civil society disintegrates" -Janice Rogers Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Spiff

Why all the Rudy smearing on this site? The only social issues a Republican President (and for that matter Congress) should be concerned with are Federal judge appointments and Rudy has alreay stated he will appoint justices in the Roberts mold.

Social issues should be left to the states- despite what the wacko right and left want otherwise.


57 posted on 02/18/2007 3:03:58 PM PST by chet_in_ny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinna

NO get it thru YOUR head there is NO difference between civil unions and marriage. its a word game-get it.


58 posted on 02/18/2007 3:04:04 PM PST by OMalley (HAPPY BIRTHDAY MOM!!!!! Just say NO to Rudy "Tootsie" Giuliani-GO Duncan Hunter 08:))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: LtdGovt
...but marriage is defined at the stat level.

No, it is not...

REYNOLDS v. UNITED STATES, 98 U.S. 145, 98 U.S. 145, October Term, 1878.

Look it up...

59 posted on 02/18/2007 3:04:19 PM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

Though gay marriage is a states' issue there are also questions at the federal level. For instance, should the IRS recognize a gay union as a legal marriage for tax purposes? And what about federal death benefits to the surviving spouse? A president will eventually have to take a stand on this issues and not defer to the courts to decide them.


60 posted on 02/18/2007 3:04:25 PM PST by LiveFree99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 341-354 next 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