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

Skip to comments.

27% of Republicans Would Vote for Pro-Life Third Party Instead of Giuliani (Proof Rudy CAN'T Win)
Rasmussen Reports ^ | 10-4-07 | Rasmussen Reports

Posted on 10/04/2007 9:38:23 AM PDT by TitansAFC

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 581-586 next last
To: joonbug
"I would much rather take my chances with SCOTUS appointees from Rudy than from Hillary."

Since you're buying that, perhaps you would be interested in a bridge I have for sale.

161 posted on 10/04/2007 11:03:29 AM PDT by penowa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC; Old Retired Army Guy; Bainbridge; roses of sharon
This thread is a sad reminder of what has happened to Conservatism. Now, FReepers boldly admit that they will vote for "Left" in order to keep "Lefter" out of office.

You don't suppose that the country clubbers who run the Republic Party are counting on that, do you? You don't suppose that they know they can run a Liberal for the Presidency because those geldings who used to call themselves Conservatives will grovel before anyone who will promise to save them from Big, Mean Momma, do you?

This fight is not over. Those who haven't the belly for it, leave it to those who do.

162 posted on 10/04/2007 11:04:53 AM PDT by Dr. Thorne (Compromise on your vote and you get a compromised government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: penowa

>>”I would much rather take my chances with SCOTUS appointees from Rudy than from Hillary.”
Since you’re buying that, perhaps you would be interested in a bridge I have for sale.<<

Can you explain that comment? Are you suggesting that there is an equal probability of a conservative SCOTUS appointment from Rudy as from Hillary?


163 posted on 10/04/2007 11:08:13 AM PDT by NKStarr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: ulm1
Dear ulm1,

“then you will get a worse one (HILLARY) by default”

Could be.

But if Mrs. Clinton wins the presidency, the party of life remains to fight another day. The Republican Party can and will oppose her and her liberal policies. Opposition to the first President Clinton brought about a conservative Republican congressional majority, and tempered the remaining years of Mr. Clinton's presidency.

If Mr. Giuliani wins the presidency, there will be no more party of life, only two parties of murder and slaughter. We’ve seen that Mr. Bush was able to pass many liberal policies through a Republican-controlled Congress. It’s tough for a party in Congress to oppose the policies of a president of its own party.

I have no doubt that if Mr. Giuliani were unfortunately elected president, he would take the Republican Party down the path of death and destruction, and then we’d merely have two liberal parties instead of one liberal party and one not-so-liberal party.

No thanks.

I’m not voting for a baby murderer.


sitetest

164 posted on 10/04/2007 11:09:45 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC


There is no surer way to cement Roe v. Wade as the law of the land than by voting for a
third-party candidate and ensuring Hillary's election. Her replacements for Stevens, Souder,
Ginsburg and possibly Scalia will lock in the liberal pro-abortion stance for decades. Third-
party advocates should come out and say it: They love abortions because they want the issue.

.


165 posted on 10/04/2007 11:09:50 AM PDT by OESY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scarface367
You are ignoring the political reality. There are a vast number of people that don't fit neatly into the left or right, for variety of reasons.

No. There are only two reasons. Not a "variety". Confusion (stupidty, ignorance, etc) or Cowardice. Take your pick.

Like it or not, that is the group that ultimately decides elections.

But even confused or cowards don't want confused or cowardly leaders.

That's not saying a conservative can't win, only that a conservative also needs moderate support to win.

Which is exactly how Ronald Reagan won in a landslide. He backed the working man. Today, the GOP CFR clan appears to be the enemy of that man and woman.

166 posted on 10/04/2007 11:09:50 AM PDT by Paul Ross (Ronald Reagan-1987:"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Hydroshock
“I would rather put up with Hitlary for 4 years then rip the prolife plank out of the republican platform by electing Rino Rudy. IF he I nominated I am going thired party.”

Let me tell you what will happen if the pro life voters all move to a third party.

The GOP will be forced to move further to the center to pick up your lost votes and you and the pro life movement will be consigned to political obscurity for decades. The left will never move closer to you position and the right will now be dominated by center left and right voters who will not believe you’re issue to be critical.

If this is what you consider to be a successful long term strategy, you deserve to be in the political wasteland.

167 posted on 10/04/2007 11:10:24 AM PDT by Bob J (sis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: penowa
You really believe that conservative principles would have a better chance under a Hillary SCOTUS appointee than one from Rudy? Like a Ginsburg or Breyer or a Janet Reno?
168 posted on 10/04/2007 11:11:50 AM PDT by joonbug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: going hot

B.S. I do NOT ever vote for liberals and I don’t care what letter appears after the candidate’s name. If I can’t find a suitable conservative to vote for in the general, I skip the race. I finished with “the lesser of two evils” along time ago. When both are evil, neither gets my vote.


169 posted on 10/04/2007 11:13:14 AM PDT by penowa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: 3AngelaD

You may be voting for Hillary or for a liberal Republican, but I won’t be. But, yes, it’s Hillary if Giuliani is the nominee, and I’ve been telling anyone who would listen that because Rudy = 3rd party = President Rodham.


170 posted on 10/04/2007 11:18:08 AM PDT by penowa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
Dear Bob J,

“Let me tell you what will happen if the pro life voters all move to a third party.

“The GOP will be forced to move further to the center to pick up your lost votes and you and the pro life movement will be consigned to political obscurity for decades.”

That’s one possible outcome.

But that wasn’t what happened when the low-tax conservatives abandoned Mr. Bush I in 1992.

The other outcome is that when Mr. Giuliani fails to score 40% of the vote in the general election, folks in the Republican Party who would like to run for the presidency will understand that being a pro-abort makes it impossible to actually win the election.

Just as Mr. Bush I’s defeat in 1992 after violating his “no new taxes” pledge confirmed every serious candidate thereafter as a fervent tax-cutter, Mr. Giuliani’s defeat in 2008 (God, please do not let this moral monster be the nominee) would likely confirm Republican presidential candidates long into the future as fervent pro-lifers.

The alternative to voting third party for social conservatives is to become the blacks of the Republican Party. They can count on our votes without ever taking our agenda seriously.

No thanks.

I won't vote for a baby murderer.


sitetest

171 posted on 10/04/2007 11:18:17 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Bob J

I doubt it, the prolife movement is large enough that they have to come to us. Yes we can not win with out the reps but they can nto win with out us either.


172 posted on 10/04/2007 11:18:42 AM PDT by Hydroshock ("The Constitution should be taken like mountain whiskey -- undiluted and untaxed." - Sam Ervin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
"Which is exactly how Ronald Reagan won in a landslide."

Reagan won because Anderson split the dem vote with Carter.

GWB won because Nader calved off enough of Gore's votes to make a difference in several key states.

In other words in two elections the left split their vote with a third party candidate and ushered in the Reagan and Bush revolutions...exactly what you're planning on doing, in reverse, but neither do you see or are willing to admit it.

Is it just me or have IQ's on FR dropped precipitously?

173 posted on 10/04/2007 11:18:54 AM PDT by Bob J (sis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: NKStarr

All of your caveats apply to my original question, so answer it.


174 posted on 10/04/2007 11:20:29 AM PDT by TitansAFC ("My 80% enemy is not my 20% friend" -- Common Sense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: jonathanmo
He was clearly less conservative than John McCain in 2000

What were you smoking during the 2000 primaries? McCain was the running as moderate and attack Christian conservatives. McCain was the one trying to lure independents to vote for him because conservatives were backing Bush. Bush was viewed as the conservative in the 2000 primaries.

175 posted on 10/04/2007 11:20:57 AM PDT by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
Dear Bob J,

“Reagan won because Anderson split the dem vote with Carter.”

Although Mr. Anderson certainly added to Mr. Reagan’s margin of victory in 1980, Mr. Reagan actually won an outright majority of the vote in 1980. Even if Mr. Carter had received every single one of Mr. Anderson’s votes, Mr. Reagan would have still won the election.


sitetest

176 posted on 10/04/2007 11:21:36 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Jen's Mom
Do you honestly think Roe V. Wade will ever be reversed?

If five judges are confirmed like Scalia and Thomas, it would be overturned. There may be four votes or overturn it now.

It most certainly won't be if Giuliani becomes President, however.

177 posted on 10/04/2007 11:23:01 AM PDT by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Jen's Mom
....."We have plenty of pro-life candidates — today. What about yesterday?".....

I don't think I get your point? Bush is pro life, probably the most pro life president we've had in 40 years. Reagan was pro life. Bush 41 was at least not pro choice, probably just wanted to be "reasonable". Getting a pro life president isn't like getting a pro life king. If Bush could get a few Judges appointed, we would already have Roe turned over. Getting Rudy will definitely be no help. What you have is people voting for Bush for prez, and voting Dem for congress because they bring home the pork. Most elections are within the margin of error unless they are in "carved out" districts. If a abortion was voted on as a national referendum, it may not be turned over, but there would be severe restrictions on it.

Republicans like Spector, Chafe, Snow,and a few others is the problem. We had the power, we just didn't use it.

178 posted on 10/04/2007 11:23:59 AM PDT by chuckles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Thorne
LOL, precisely as I said up thread, why all the lamenting about the GOP being “split up” if the Republican primary voters produce RG.

I thought FR hated the GOP, calls them “country clubbers”?

FR members have refused to fund them for years, and left the GOP over illegal immigration, right?

Also, many conservatives lost in 06 because FR, conservative media, talkies, and commentators encouraged voters to PUNISH the GOP for spending too much, and amnesty legislation.

The GOP has been blamed here for the individual perverts who have shown up in Congress over the years also.

So don’t give me the “don’t break up the party”, excuse. Plenty here could care less about the GOP.

The GOP is not responsible for RG running for President, and only the primary voters who nominate him will be responsible.

And who knows if that will even happen? Its very, very, early, FT has not even debated yet.

179 posted on 10/04/2007 11:24:45 AM PDT by roses of sharon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC
Lord, please don't let the GOP select a candidate that is no different from Clinton on the issue of killing unborn babies.

I've never voted for a pro-abortionist and will never do so . . . no matter what party they claim.

GOP fanboys can whine about me "giving the election to the Dems" or whatever mantra they choose. Know this though: if the GOP puts a pro-abortionist on the 2008 ballot for President, I - and many others - will know the party is lost and vote accordingly.

That said, I know a person's personal beliefs can change over time. If Rudy turns out to be a pro-lifer, God bless him.

180 posted on 10/04/2007 11:27:18 AM PDT by DesertSapper (Republican . . . for now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 581-586 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