Skip to comments.27% of Republicans Would Vote for Pro-Life Third Party Instead of Giuliani (Proof Rudy CAN'T Win)
Posted on 10/04/2007 9:38:23 AM PDT by TitansAFC
click here to read article
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.
Political rhetoric stated via a POTUS runner previously, "A giant sucking sound" has been given new meaning via a 3rd party in this millennium.
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.
>>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.”
You're certainly not basing that comment on his record, which is more liberal than Bill Clinton's was in Arkansas.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So he is also a free traitor, another reason not to vote for his worthless hide.
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.
Reagan won California and Florida by 17 points. Try again.
>>So he is also a free traitor [sic-trader], another reason not to vote for his worthless hide.<<
As am I. As was Reagan.
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.
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.
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.