Posted on 02/14/2006 4:58:53 AM PST by Liz
Right. Perhaps in the upstate social utopia of new yawk, in the clean red conservative states both hillary and "rudy" are considered the equivalent of dog chow......lump mcinsane in that group also. Either get a conservative or watch 20 million or so of us sit on our hands.......
Times have changed. We don't want or need liberal candidates like Rudy.
Liberals softened up America which inevitably lead to 9/11.
The Republican candidate we support will be pro-life, and strong on national defense.
Why should we settle for less?
Why should we settle for a RINO like Rudy who will strengthen liberal's continued destruciton of our culture?
Supporting Rudy is defeatist thinkng of people who have hidden agendas.
They should go over to DUmmies with the rest of the the liberals.
I really wish Rudy had run for Governor or Senator in NY this year. As it is, NY will probably end up with a Democratic governor and a re-elected Hillary Clinton, and Rudy CANNOT win the primaries.
I think the only way Hillary can win a national contest is if the Republicans split. Rudy and McCain almost ensure this.
For the entire year?
Ugh. Rudy making USSC appontments----great aversion therapy for the Rudy-inclined.
George Allen will head the ticket, with Rudy as the Veep. Bet on it. I can see McCain as Sec. of State. That would be a hoot. He'd make heads spin worldwide.
I'm with you...If the Republicans force this liberal on us, they deserve Hillary...
Republicans are now left of center but their only redeeming value is that they still claim to be to the right of the Democrats...
Americans who regularly attend worship services and hold traditional Christian religious views increasingly vote Republican, while those who are less connected to religious institutions and more secular in their outlook tend to vote Democratic, according to a major study by the Pew Forum. Some of the conclusions of this report were already evident in 2004 exit polling data.
For example, voters who attend church more than once a week (16 percent of all voters) chose Bush over Kerry by a margin of 64 – 35 percent.
Likewise, those who attend Christian denominational Churches on a weekly basis (26 percent of voters) supported the President by a 58 – 41 percent margin. Also very telling, those who never attend Church (15 percent of voters) overwhelmingly supported Kerry 62 – 36 percent.
The study further found that traditionalist elements within each religion tended to vote Republican, while modernist groups within the religions trended towards the Democrats. A multiple regression analysis of exit poll and public opinion survey data from 2000 and 2004 enabled the Pew Research Center to assign a relative weight to various demographic markers.
Interestingly, church attendance was tied with race as the most significant factor. But even that number is deceiving; in that race is only an important factor due to the high level of support the Democrats receive from black voters.
These trends represent a major shift over the past forty-five years.
White Christian Evangelicals in 1960 favored Democrats by a two-to-one margin; now they are Republican by a 56 – 27 percent margin. Seventy-eight percent of them voted for President Bush in 2004.
In 1960, 71 percent of Catholics were Democrats and now Democrats have only a slight edge among Catholics (44 – 41 percent) and Catholics voted for President Bush (52 – 47 percent) in 2004. These trends have also brought an increased acceptance of religion in the public square. While Americans do tend to favor the separation of church and state, 70 percent of voters want their President to have strong Christian religious beliefs.
Likewise, the study reveals that 52 percent of Americans believe that Christian churches should express political views. Surprisingly, support for political involvement of churches is strongest among younger voters age 18 to 29 (59 percent).
I know what you mean - my opposition to Rudy is due primarily to my belief that he cannot win broad and loyal Republican support, whether I like it or not. I just can't bring myself to tell a large portion of the Republican coalition that their deeply-held beliefs just aren't that important.
Maybe that's circular logic, I don't know. In my post above on this thread I lamented the fact that he didn't run in a NY statewide race in 2006. He would have been a shoo-in. There are MANY things I like about him.
It's early. Name recognition will be less of a factor as the process gets underway. Let's hope we can find someone who will enjoy broader support. If Rudy or McCain got the nomination, the MSM would turn on them immediately anyway. They are touted now in part because they are seen, to varying degrees, as troublesome to Bush.
IMHO.
I've seen no evidence that Guiliani is a "Christian-hater", and we ought not to use such strong terms unless warranted. However, he is a leftist and I will never vote for him, not in a primary or a general. He is hard-core pro-choice and that is enough, but add in the other issues and it becomes easy.
Sounds good to me!
I won't support Rudy because at heart he's nothing more than a RINO.
No doubt Guiliani would be effective in our national security. But if he is on the ticket, the GOP will go down in defeat in my opinion. In fact, I think it wouldn't even be close. I am somewhat familiar with base Republican voters (at least here in Texas) and many would flatly refuse to vote for him. Frankly I couldn't blame them.
The only "Christian-hater" I notice, is the one using Christianity as a weapon against good people, claiming everyone who doesn't practice a certain bigoted version of Christianity is an infidel. What is difference between that POV, and the jihadis? That sort of over-the-top language is incendiary and bigoted, no matter who uses it inappropriately.
A: Because Americans are armed to the teeth.
I really don't care about SNOW WHITE.
He, or anyone else who seeks to disarm America is NOT POTUS material.
It is where he has stood on all the other issues as well which guarantees he will never get my vote.
We can find others who will fight the war on terror without hamstringing us at home.
As for pulling votes from the Democrats, the reason is obvious. He is running with their platform planks. As if we need two liberal moonbat parties. Sheesh!
Glad to hear you oppose Rudy based on his ardent pro-choice advocacy.
However, the issue of Christian-hating must be factored into the political mix.
Remember, candidates do not operate in a vacuum.
Anytime a candidate takes a pro-abortion, pro-gay, anti-gun position, this indicates the candidate is ceding government power to those forces who malign Christians and who use every opportunity to poke a thumb in the eyes of Christians.
A candidate taking liberal social positions has made promises to Christian-haters that he/she will use govt power to subjugate Christians.
A candidate aligned with the forces of Christian-hating cannot be considered qualified for office, at any level of government.
Q Why are the 1.5 million Muslims in the United States not rioting in the streets over cartoons?
A: Because Americans are armed to the teeth.
Wait a second there -- NYC has both a huge Muslim population and very stringent gun control laws. Very few people are armed to the teeth.
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.