Giuliani Seen as More Likeable Candidate in U.S.

Angus Reid Global Monitor ^ | March 18, 2007 | Angus Reid Global Monitor

[FairOpinion]

Republican Rudy Giuliani is the most appealing presidential contender in the United States, according to a poll by Rasmussen Reports. 31 per cent of respondents say they will definitely vote for the former New York City mayor if he runs for president in 2008.

Democratic New York senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is a close second with 30 per cent, followed by Democratic Illinois senator Barack Obama with 28 per cent, Republican Arizona senator John McCain with 21 per cent, and Democratic former North Carolina senator John Edwards with 20 per cent.

When asked which candidate they would definitely not support in the 2008 presidential ballot, 46 per cent of respondents mention Rodham Clinton. Edwards is second on the list with 39 per cent, followed by Obama with 37 per cent, McCain with 34 per cent, and Giuliani with 28 per cent.

[M. Thatcher]

I don't "shill" for anyone. I post my actual opinions, just like anyone else here. A certain contingent on this board wants to subject those of us who support Giuliani to a vicious online version of the Amish practice of "shunning" - but that merely reflects poorly on them.

I say, support your guy, debate the merits of all comers, and may the best man win.

I have yet to have an anti-Rudy poster exhibit that kind of class in return.

[onyx]

I led you to the SPAMMER and yet you cannot see the repeated postings of same charts and posts? I can't help you any futher. Sorry.

[Mojave]

I don't "shill" for anyone.

Someone must have guessed your password.

I say, support your guy, debate the merits of all comers

Rudy followers avoid debating the facts. Not that they have much choice.

[Spyder]

Never in my worst nightmares would I believe Republicans, much less FReepers, would willingly go along with the wholesale slaughter of our helpless unborn generations. Shameful. May God forgive us. ~Jim Robinson~

Have you checked the record for New York City during the Giuliani years? The # of abortions dropped by a large percentage. A lot of the vice crime was cleaned up as well. You can legislate against something as hard as you want but until you get closer to the root cause of such ills, you're not going to stop it. By making a healthier environment, Rudy accomplished that in spades over many "true conservative,""less liberal" politicians. How can you support someone who does nothing to change people's minds but instead drives them even further to the left?

[bluecollarman]

I'm sorry but that is not spam. Each of those were on different threads. That is not spam.

[dmw]

"Ping to post 47, where dmw was badmouthing you behind your back, without the customary courtesy ping to you. :

Granted, I admit I made a mistake in ommiting areafiftyone's name from the post (I apologize), there is nothing in that post that badmouths him.

You are a dishonest and deceptive individual who has no comprehension of what it means to have an honest converstion. You lied about Rick Santorum supporting Rudy, and now you are lying by saying I badmouthed areafiftyone. Having no ethical or moral standards fits the description of a liberal--the shoe fits you perfectly.

[onyx]

Yes, it is SPAM. It's SPAMMING threads with same posting. That is called SPAM.

[azhenfud]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0216071giuliani1.html

He costs more than he's worth, too.

[Mojave]

Have you checked the record for New York City during the Giuliani years? The # of abortions dropped by a large percentage.

No source, naturally.

As Murdock acknowledges, the number of abortions was declining nationwide during this period -- obviously for demographic reasons -- and New York City merely reflected that trend.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/01/giuliani_and_abortion.html

[Mojave]

It's SPAMMING threads with same posting.

Like your endlessly repeated "spam" accusation postings?

[onyx]

Go to bed Roscoe. You've had a long day.

I have never SPAMMED.

[dmw]

"Santorum's own words that I posted were CLEARLY supportive of Rudy. "

SEVERAL people challenged you on that and you never backed up your comment with any evidence to prove that Santorum supported Rudy. Now you are being deceptive AGAIN by changing what you originally said by using the phrase "supportive of Rudy". You clearly said that Santorum supported him in his bid for president. If you want to keep on lying about it go right ahead and make a bigger fool out of yourself than you already are.

[bluecollarman]

No it's not. That is not the definition of spam. I thought we cleared that up earlier.

[onyx]

I have accurately defined SPAM, but I have lost interest in trying to convince you.

[bluecollarman]

Rules on spam

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1802597/posts?page=105#105

[bluecollarman]

"I have lost interest in trying to convince you."

ADD kickin' in huh?

[Mojave]

I have never SPAMMED.

How could you? You don't criticize Rudy.

[M. Thatcher]

Rudy followers avoid debating the facts

BS.

[upsdriver]

Being on a par of likeability with Mrs. Bill Clinton isn't much to crow about!

[Blackirish]

GOP seems to be uniting behind Rudy....it's just a few on FR that are all hysterical.