Free Republic
Browse · Search
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 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 581-586 next last
To: davidlachnicht
If you’re willing to turn the country over to LIBs because of this issue

It's not just one issue. Giuliani is a liberal, period. Voting for him is turning the country over liberals and assure both parties are left-of-center.

241 posted on 10/04/2007 12:16:37 PM PDT by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist
It’s proof that a Pro-Life third party would be idiotic, not proof that Rudy can’t win.

Political rhetoric stated via a POTUS runner previously, "A giant sucking sound" has been given new meaning via a 3rd party in this millennium.

242 posted on 10/04/2007 12:17:31 PM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

Important Post Bump.

If Mr. Giuliani is the Republican nominee and Mrs. Clinton the Democrat nominee, then a liberal Democrat will be the next president, no matter which nominee wins the election.

243 posted on 10/04/2007 12:17:52 PM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: Hydroshock

>>Rino Rudy is a globalist, statist, socialist liberal.<<

Following below is a news release summarizing the findings of the pro-free market Club for Growth regarding the record of RG. Suffice it to say that he is none of things you allege.

Rudy Giuliani Enacted Pro-Growth Policies Despite Liberal New York Environment

Washington - Today, the Club for Growth released its presidential white paper on Republican presidential candidate New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. The fourth in a series of white papers on presidential candidates, the report (reprinted below and as a PDF file) provides an extensive summary of Rudy Giuliani’s economic policies during his eight years as the mayor of America’s largest city.

“Mayor Giuliani’s economic record is not perfect, but he deserves credit for the remarkable nature of his accomplishments,” Club for Growth President Pat Toomey said. “In a city long accustomed to high taxes and ballooning budgets, Rudy Giuliani successfully cut taxes; kept spending below the growth of inflation and population; instituted sweeping welfare reform; privatized and deregulated many aspects of the city’s bulky bureaucracy; and fought aggressively for school choice.”

The white paper emphasizes the liberal context in which Giuliani was forced to govern. Although the Mayor took a number of anti-growth positions-such as his opposition to NAFTA, his support for McCain Feingold, and his opposition to several tax cuts-he used free-market, limited-government values to turn around a faltering economy in a political environment dominated by a left-wing City Council; public sector labor unions; social welfare activists; and an unfriendly media.

“Rudy Giuliani will still need to flesh out his positions on a number of federal issues, and we hope he will reconsider his few anti-growth positions,” Mr. Toomey said. “But it is impossible to ignore Giuliani’s overall commitment to a pro-growth philosophy and his executive talent for implementing that philosophy in a hostile political environment.”

244 posted on 10/04/2007 12:18:07 PM PDT by NKStarr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: NKStarr
With RG, you are dealing with someone who is likely going to give you at least a moderate conservative

You're certainly not basing that comment on his record, which is more liberal than Bill Clinton's was in Arkansas.

245 posted on 10/04/2007 12:18:41 PM PDT by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Jen's Mom
I am rather disgusted the the attitudes of people who are so blinded by their hatred of Rudy that they obviously don't give a rat's patoot that their arrogance is in Hillary's favor.

Sorta reminds one of the democRATS who are so blinded by their hatred of Pres. Bush that they'd rather see us defeated by our enemies.

246 posted on 10/04/2007 12:18:55 PM PDT by Salvey (ancest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
Easy. Guili can be restrained by his party and the party's members.

Why wait for it to get to a point where you have to restrain him after he becomes President? He should have been restrained by telling him before his entering the race that his presence will split the GOP. he should be restrained now by not allowing him to become the nominee.
247 posted on 10/04/2007 12:20:05 PM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: joonbug

There are 2 liberals appointed by Clinton on the court. All the past and present liberals with the exception of Breyer and Ginzburg going back to Ford have been appointed by Republican presidents, and including two “moderate” Justices appointed by Reagan, Kennedy and O’Connor who voted more with the liberals than the conservatives. Your chances of getting conservatives from a Republican President are not good to start with; from a liberal Republican President, virtually none.

248 posted on 10/04/2007 12:20:23 PM PDT by penowa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC
While I have respect for the statistical aspect of Rasmussen I have to keep a clear eye to the marketing aspect of Rasmussen in designing a poll for an instance the isn't yet upon us because the media wants to buy the future envisioned.

In order to get the socialist elected, the media will plumb the possibilities of fear and conflict to bring about whatever scenario damages the opposition the most. This means damage to any opposition. They want Fred declared dead, with characterization of asleep and detanched. They want Mitt shown as a waffling poligamist, they want Rudy in drag to scare Pubbie base outside New York, they want the McCain to channel Nixon and the others to be invisible.

Rasmussen is trying to sell product and so he devises a one time poll and if the media buys it and re-commissions it for payment and tweaking they will run it until it is one of the many stumbling blocks being thrown in the path of all who oppose Chairman Hillary.

On this site of long standing where debate should be reasoned and spirited together, we can watch the media's manipulation play out as we fight with each other in accordance with their plan.

249 posted on 10/04/2007 12:22:11 PM PDT by KC Burke (Men of intemperate minds can never be free...their passions forge their fetters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: going hot
I am much happeir moving the ball a few inches to the right than a few yards to the left.

The country will be moving far more to the left if Giuliani becomes President.

There is no stopping liberalism when it is advanced by a Republican, especially one that will presiding over a shrinking Republican minority.

Hillary's election, at least, sets the stage for Republicans to take back Congress.

250 posted on 10/04/2007 12:22:23 PM PDT by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: what's up
Listed them already

Then you already have been rebutted. Completely. And I haven't barely begun to list all the betrayals by the phoneys. Which are more than W, of course. Lugar, Spectre, McCain, Martinez, Coleman etc.

And you need to also be aware that I was quoting Steven Sabin...about the RNC, whom I concurred with, in his feelings, to wit:

I am also increasingly feeling as though there is nothing conservative about the RNC in terms of actual practice.
Tell me how conservative the 2000 convention was. Friends of mine, revered elder statesmen and women in the Reagan movement, were horrified by the back-of-the-bus treatment they received. All for the "Diversity Train" package...that no one even televised or watched. And let's not talk about the damage he did to the Platform often disengenuously...i.e., duplicitously.
251 posted on 10/04/2007 12:23:09 PM PDT by Paul Ross (Ronald Reagan-1987:"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
Reagan won because Anderson split the dem vote with Carter.

Presidential Election of 1980:

Ronald Wilson Reagan: 50.7%
James Earl Carter, Jr.: 41.0%
John Bayard Anderson: 6.6%
Ed Clark: 1.1%
Barry Commoner: 0.3%

Even if you add all of the other candidates together, you get less than Reagan's total (obviously, since he won a majority of the vote).

So, your statement is incorrect.

252 posted on 10/04/2007 12:24:43 PM PDT by B Knotts (Tancredo '08!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: NKStarr

So he is also a free traitor, another reason not to vote for his worthless hide.

253 posted on 10/04/2007 12:24:44 PM PDT by Hydroshock ("The Constitution should be taken like mountain whiskey -- undiluted and untaxed." - Sam Ervin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: Dudoight
Here we go again. Conservative third party puts another Clinton in the White House.

You are wrong about '92: Perot was not conservative. This time, the blame would go to the RINO's who voted for Rudy in the primaries.

254 posted on 10/04/2007 12:28:25 PM PDT by stillonaroll (Rudy = Hillary: pro-abortion, pro-gay, anti-gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Bob J

Reagan won California and Florida by 17 points. Try again.

255 posted on 10/04/2007 12:28:30 PM PDT by B Knotts (Tancredo '08!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: NKStarr
Whatever RG’s social views might be, you certainly can’t put him in the socialist camp.

You're right. It's OK to sacrifice some of our Conservative principles by accepting some Socialist values in the hope of preventing more socialism in the future. That's tantamount to saying let's throw only a little gasoline on the fire to prevent the fire from growing. That type of thinking has become a slippery slope for the GOP that has caused it to lose power in Congress and create a split in the GOP. Great strategy!
256 posted on 10/04/2007 12:28:54 PM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Hydroshock

>>So he is also a free traitor [sic-trader], another reason not to vote for his worthless hide.<<

As am I. As was Reagan.

257 posted on 10/04/2007 12:29:27 PM PDT by NKStarr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
With Rudy I may get some of the things I want, with Hillary I know I will not only get zero but a painful asskicking for 4-8 years.

Just the opposite is true. You're FAR more likely to get what you don't want under Giuliani, who has a far better chance of getting liberal legislation passed than Hillary Clinton does.

Meanwhile, electing Giuliani assures Democrats gain seats and control Congress for, probably, a decade. While Hillary would set the stage for Republicans gaining back Congress.

258 posted on 10/04/2007 12:29:39 PM PDT by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: penowa
Most recent Presidents aside from Clinton have been Republicans. I agree that there have been some bad Republican appointees, but that many of these have drifted left after joining the court (eg Souter). Odds are still better with a Rep Pres than a Dem Pres.

I see little to gain favoring a sure thing that I won’t like versus a possibility I won’t like. Hannity is on the radio now making this exact point.

259 posted on 10/04/2007 12:34:47 PM PDT by joonbug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: inkling
"Those pure "conservatives" gave America eight years of Bubba."

Blaming the GOP loss on the grass-roots makes no sense to me. I place all the blame squarely upon the GOP "leadership".

That is where the blame belongs.

The voters will vote for a candidate or they will vote against a candidate, depending on the choices offered.

Just who the heck are these "swing voters" anyway?

Why do you think they will swing either direction?

The GOP does not own over 50% of the vote, and probably never has.

We depend on swing voters to make up the majority.

260 posted on 10/04/2007 12:35:59 PM PDT by Designer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 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
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson