Posted on 03/01/2007 3:51:33 AM PST by Liz
One-third of voters take issue with a presidential candidate who supports gun control or has been married three times like Rudy Giuliani, a new Time magazine poll shows.......30 percent couldn't back a candidate who favors gun control, while another 35 percent have trouble with someone with three marriages. That includes 48 percent of "born-again" white Christians. But the survey also shows 56 percent don't know Giuliani's marital history, 68 percent don't know his stand on gun control (he's been saying it's a state matter), and nearly 80 percent don't accurately know where he is on abortion rights (he favors it)....Giuliani is partly an unknown quantity nationally..... according to 1,144 registered voters nationwide.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I can say that I would not have considered voting for Giuliani pre-9/11 for many reasons. But today I am at least favorably inclined. Perhaps I am just projecting, but I think many conservatives and right-libertarians agree. While it is easy to dismiss early polling showing Giuliani consistently in the lead for the Republican nomination, these poll respondents who are currently making it through a "likely voter" screen are also the type of political junkies who would know that Giuliani is pro-gay-rights and had a messy personal life. Indeed, in one recent poll, majorities of Republicans who were informed of Giuliani’s views on social issues said that they were either minor issues or no issues at all; only 16% said that they wouldn't vote for him after being informed of these views. In the online GOP Bloggers poll, Giuliani is consistently one of the few candidates to end up with a net positive acceptability rating. These internet denizens are well-informed, and overwhelmingly self-describe as conservative (78% self-describe as 7 or higher on a 10-scale of conservatism). If these people can support Rudy, anyone can.
Judging how the author of the article attempts to marginalize those who believe abortion and gun rights are important social issues lends credence to the belief that the author doesn't consider them to be.
If you were a Republican who didn't care about abortion or gun rights, would you still consider yourself "7 or higher on a 10-scale of conservatism"? Most are self-centered enough to.
The New York Post poll in this thread is in black and white and doesn't play word games.
I am aware of what he's done recently, and I'm not saying it isn't important. But if you just looked at what Romney's said in the last year he'd be golden -- the charge is that he only is saying and doing stuff now because he's trying to be president.
Where is the history of being a leader on issues of importance, of being able to sway others, or being looked to for decisions and direction? He's been in congress for well over 20 years, if he had true leadership qualities where is the evidence?
Or has he just now learned how to be a leader?
For example, you could look at Bush's life back to 1990 and see signs of leadership, signs of swaying other's opinions, signs that he could make decisions and get people to follow them.
You could see that with Rudy all the way back when he was in police work. His personal life sucks but he is clearly a leader, a person who makes decisions, sticks by them, AND can get people to follow.
I'll give you a counter example for Hunter, but it's a bad example in my mind because Hunter is absolutely correct to stay as far away from it as possible. But those who are on the other side of this issue might think about it: The BP Agents Compean and Ramos.
Hunter is on board with trying to get hearings for these two agents. He is even cited as being on board with the calls for pardons, although I don't say one way or another if that is true.
But what IS true is that he is NOT the leader of that movement, even within his own house caucus. Poe is further out front than he is. Rohrbacker is doing actual speeches and rallies. Tancredo is pushing strong. Hunter is FOLLOWING, not LEADING, on that push.
I hope it's because he's smart enough not to get burned by that issue when the truth comes out. But for those who think it's a travesty, AND who support Hunter, how do you justify his taking a back seat on what is such an important issue?
I just want someone who, when sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, will protect and defend the whole thing, not pick and choose which rights can be thrown out--especially the RKBA.
Priests are ordained, saints cannonized, and the Holy Father voted on by the Curia, franky, I don't get to elect any of them anyway.
I have stated repeatedly on these threads that I have never missed a general election since I was old enough to vote in them in the election of 1968 at age 23. I voted for Nixon in that one and have never failed to vote for the Republican candidate since then.
I don't expect that to change and I have also stated, the Republican party can do a hell of a lot better than Rudy. The time to sink Rudy and his liberalism is in the primaries.
I don't believe that Rudy will be the Republican candidate in the general election, furthermore I don't believe that the dreaded Hillary will be the rat candidate. We will just have to wait and see.
Yep. They promote him because they know they will be able to demolish him at will.
Totally agree.
Oh, be sure to ask Mitt about the "assault weapons" ban he gleefully signed in Massachusetts in 2004.
Not usually according to Patrick Walsh. MOST radical prostatectomies spare functionality. Radiation is another matter.
Hillary still polls over 40% negative and I'm talking "will vote for Satan first". Good numbers of her own party feel that way.
Really both party's elites are cramming nominees down their rank & file's throats...
The hold your nose and vote for the 50% of what you believe in worked... the same isn't going to work at the 10%/20% level...
I can see this as a 20% to 40% Libertarian election. (I've never voted Libertarian if you think I'm recruiting)
Nothing can make Bill Clinton look like a boyscout, including the trail of bodies that litters his wake,
Liz DID NOT GO into a meltdown---every thread permits the inclusion of the poster's personal comments at the end of the chosen news article.
Well-informed posters choose to add knowledgable, documented comments that are pertinent to the thread, comments that might add to FReepers knowledge of the particular subject.
If the poster has a wicked sense of humor, all the better.
There are some knowledgable and proficient posters on F.R., Liz, you are among them.
Doctors diagnose cancer in "stages." Apparently Rudy's cancer was in its initial states and was thankfully treatable. He seems to be robust, conducts business, and travels all over the world.
lol. First time I heard that. Nice.
bump
If you can, also ask him about illegal invadres, amnesty to illegal invaders, and building a fence to shut them out.
For a finisher, ask him about abortion.
Then check out Duncan Hunter.
I should have looked more closely. Thanks for correcting me. It's still a wild post!
Yeh...I didn't know it was possible to use the word 'sex' so many times in one short composition. Felt like I needed a shower after I read it. ;)
Not commenting on my wicked sense of humor really hurt (grin).
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.