Skip to comments.Giuliani starts strong in test of Republican voter allegiances
Posted on 03/03/2007 10:04:21 PM PST by FairOpinion
The man who was named Time magazine's "Person of the Year" for his response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks is now leading in a slew of national polls and testing whether cultural and religious conservatives in the GOP will support a candidate who offers strong leadership on security and terrorism rather than ideological purity on social issues.
Whit Ayres, a Georgia-based Republican pollster, said he has been struck by the number of conservatives he encountered who disagree with Giuliani on abortion or gay rights but are still attracted to him as a possible Republican nominee. The issue is whether that appeal can survive through a long campaign in which Giuliani's New York record, his position on issues, his three marriages and his complex business dealings will be subjected to withering scrutiny.
The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll showed Giuliani leading McCain by 44 percent to 21 percent, with former House speaker Newt Gingrich at 15 percent and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney at 4 percent.
Many GOP strategists still question whether Giuliani can survive the scrutiny and develop a message that appeals to voters across the spectrum of Republican conservatism. In his speech Friday at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, Giuliani highlighted his record as a tax cutter, crime fighter and welfare reformer. But he offered little resembling a traditional conservative agenda for the future, other than saying the United States must remain on offense against terrorism. The speech won a polite but hardly enthusiastic response from the audience of activists.
(Excerpt) Read more at unionleader.com ...
The R nominee Hillary most fears is indeed Giuliani.
Unless they're too busy reading their Bibles, that information is already out there for years.
((((( PING )))))
THIS IS THE RUDY PING LIST
Let me know if you want on or off the list
She shares his agendas.
"Unless they're too busy reading their Bibles, that information is already out there for years."
For years they had no reason to give a damn about rudy giuliani. I know I didn't. Now that he wants to get the republican nomination for president, they're going to want to know a few things.
"One-third of voters take issue with a presidential candidate who supports gun control or has been married three times like Rudy Giuliani, a new Time magazine poll shows.......30 percent couldn't back a candidate who favors gun control, while another 35 percent have trouble with someone with three marriages. That includes 48 percent of "born-again" white Christians. But the survey also shows 56 percent don't know Giuliani's marital history, 68 percent don't know his stand on gun control (he's been saying it's a state matter), and nearly 80 percent don't accurately know where he is on abortion rights (he favors it)...."
Well, I haven't been real impressed with "Republican strategists" lately. It may very well be that they are out of touch, and this is a different Republican Party than they know.
Really? He's been running for the presidential nomination for 2008 since the end of 2001.
As an evangelical Christian, I hang out with a lot of conservative Christians. I've been asking people I know and fellowship with what they think of the candidates. About half haven't decided whom they'll be supporting. The other half are for Rudy.
Divide and conquer works. Take a good look at how the coverage of the immigration issue was purpose designed to split conservatives over a domestic issue, enabling Liberals to pick up seats in the House and Senate.
I saw the coverage, and I recognized it for what it was - a liberal stratagem. Immigration is like Social Security, is like Welfare Reform, is like Tax Reform... They are highly controversial, no-traction political issues that divide conservatives over little details on how to implement the reforms, but which politicians try and avoid doing anything with because it usually spells disaster when the MSM attacks whatever reforms are proposed. And in the end, conservatives get so riled up about it, that they prefer to fight one another than join forces to stop liberals from advancing their agenda.
There's a time to fight conservatives over the details on which reforms take precedence, and how to accomplish and implement those reforms. Now is not the time to bicker. Conservative standards for candidates are so high that it is difficult finding candidates who pass the smell test for ethics, honor, and honesty.
We keep on going back to the adage, "Don't let perfect be the enemy of good enough." After the primaries, we must absolutely put aside our differences and join forces on the basis that even if the winning candidate isn't perfect, at least he must be good enough.
"Really? He's been running for the presidential nomination for 2008 since the end of 2001."
Which was a moot point until recently, unless there was a real danger of the republicans running someone other than GWB in 2004.
I am never to busy reading my Bible to point at Rudy and say "look there goes a RINO". I then gingerly go back to my reading and when election comes vote for someone else.
He's been preparing for a presidential run ever since he got appointed by Ronald Reagan as a federal prosecutor in New York.
And when you have Rudy (aka Rooty) leading GOP primary polls in Alabama and Georgia, it's not like all those conservative southerners are unaware of his past.
In addition to their Bibles they will be reading comparison material before the election. I've even taken mine in with me to the polls with names circled before:')
They were probably just busy, (those pesky Christians aren't too sophisticated, they'd rather try to adhere to the Ten Commandments than partake in those hip activities like Rudy's supporters are accustomed), and missed out on Sir Rudy's escapades. I'm sure, more than sure, that they'll become attuned to his antics in the upcoming months.
Enjoy the primaries, LdSentinal. I know I will.
all the social conservatives need from Rudy - is one SCOTUS judge. just one. the addition of Ted Olson to his team is significant - presidents don't vet judges, they assemble an advisory team to select candidates. its far more important to see which people he surrounds himself with who have expertise in matters of the federal judiciary, then it is to dwell on political positions he took while trying to become mayor of a place with the political demographics of NYC.