Posted on 06/28/2007 9:15:53 AM PDT by jamese777
The GOP is a lot more liberal than you might think, according to a surprising new poll that finds fully 60% would vote for a pro-choice candidate - great news for front-running Rudy Giuliani.
Republican pollsters Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates found Giuliani leading the field with all segments of the party - even among the 24% of so-called "moralists" who are most focused on social issues.
Giuliani's campaign rationale has always been that his reassuring leadership amid the trauma of 9/11 would trump his pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-gun record.
The sweeping survey, a bid to paint an in-depth portrait of the Republican Party, suggests he might be right.
Giuliani leads among even social conservatives because they consider him "a strong leader," said pollster Tony Fabrizio.
While many more Republicans consider themselves "conservative" than did 10 years ago, a remarkable 75% say the party is too focused on social issues. All but the vocal "moralists" call fiscal and security issues more important.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
Well, those polls are legitimate because they really, really, really want them to be. Simple, really.
“For the Eye altering alters all.” - William Blake
First of all make your preference known in the primaries but if Rudy wins it what good would it do us to pick up our chips and cash in? If we select a pro life candidate that can appeal to a majority we win. I won’t turn the keys to White House over to Hillary because I’m in a snit with the Republican party.
SORRY!!! I WAS NOT SUGGESTING YOUR DATA WAS WRONG.
Polling is one of my pet peeves,I was only pointing out that the politicians do hire pollsters but they don't use newsweek type polls and they don't publish the findings.
“There are lies, Damn lies,...”
First of all make your preference known in the primaries but if Rudy wins it what good would it do us to pick up our chips and cash in? If we select a pro life candidate that can appeal to a majority we win. I won’t turn the keys to White House over to Hillary because I’m in a snit with the Republican party.
THIS IS WHAT I MEANT....Its my opinion that if a pro abortion candidate ever wins the GOP nomination and goes on to win the WHITEHOUSE,the GOP will never nominate a pro lifer again...you cant go back once you make such a move IMHO....meaning the true Christian/pro lifers will leave the party.
Nominating Rudy does not equal “A SNIT” it`s far beyond that.
Bill Clinton, who portrayed himself as a moderate, never won a majority of the vote and would likely have lost both races without the outside influence of Ross Perot.
Hilary has worse negatives and will need someone (like, say, Bloomberg) to siphon votes so that she could win.
Bloomberg takes votes away from the ‘rats, not us.
Bloomberg would take away the moderates and well as the BLUE DOG DEMOCRATS that have been voting for the GOP because they can't stand how far left that their party has become.
True, but he’s well left of center. On a national level, he’d get maybe 1%.
It is simple.
Giuliani takes of abortion as some of inherent right when the Constitution does not even mention the word in it.
Roe /Wade decision that established abortion as some kind of constitutional right is a blatant example of a judicial activism gone berserk, the legal decision is purely against the constitution when it implies a right that is not there and also erodes states rights.
Also the 14 th amendment says ‘nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’ .
Abortion rights can be argued to violate this amendment. Hence it can be implied the Giuliani’s position on abortion is against the US constitution.
I agree with you, but that's the law of the land as of now. And the USC isn't limited to its text. For example, 'Congress shall pass no laws abridging the right to bear arms' sounds clear and straightforward, but in fact there are laws doing so. Felons can't get guns legally, for example. I don't know many folks who argue against this concept credibly.
And in any event, even if Roe is overturned, it just means states decide the abortion policy. They are free under the USC to pass laws OKing abortion in their jurisdiction. Indeed, that's the 'good old days' that some pro lifers harken back to.
Also the 14 th amendment says ‘nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’ .
Abortion rights can be argued to violate this amendment. Hence it can be implied the Giuliani’s position on abortion is against the US constitution.
The problem with this analysis is that it just asserts that a preborn infant as a 'person' under the meaning of the Amendment. I don't think there is anything in the text or history of that Amendment to support that reading, sorry. You can make a case, but it will be just as flimsy as the right to abortion that was imagined in the USC, which you rightfully decry.
I don't think a mature, educated reading of the USC could find a right to abortion, but I also don;t think a mature, educated reading could find a federal prohibition of the practice. The classic conservative view on abortion was that policy should be left to the states. This idea that the USC forbids the practice is a strange modern creature that should be discouraged.
I'm sticking with states having the right to set their own policies, and let the chips fall where they may.
I think this whole thing about Rudy having these great leadership skills is a CROCK OF BLANK, just my opinion.
As for me, I am with Tony Perkins, Dr Land and Dr Dobson. and as I said...I don't see how you can come back ever to a pro life candidate once you go with a pro abortion pro gay guy.
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.