27% of Republicans Would Vote for Pro-Life Third Party Instead of Giuliani

[Bronco Bob]

27% of Republicans Would Vote for Pro-Life Third Party Instead of Giuliani


Thursday, October 04, 2007

If Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican nomination and a third party campaign is
backed by Christian conservative leaders, 27% of Republican voters say they’d
vote for the third party option rather than Giuliani. A Rasmussen Reports national
telephone survey found that a three-way race with Hillary Clinton would end up
with the former First Lady getting 46% of the vote, Giuliani with 30% and the
third-party option picking up 14%.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/27_of_republicans_would_vote_for_pro_life_third_pa rty_instead_of_giuliani


{Like maybe Ron Raul?}

[Taco John]

I really believe that Ron Paul is going to win the Republican nomination. I think when it gets boiled down, conservatives are going to vote in their own best interests, and there aren't enough of them who think that policing a civil war in Iraq is in their own best interest.

The hedge that I would make, though, is that if there is another terror attack that gets through, people will vote for Giuliani overwhelmingly.

[defenseman]

27% of Republicans Would Vote for Pro-Life Third Party Instead of Giuliani


Thursday, October 04, 2007

If Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican nomination and a third party campaign is
backed by Christian conservative leaders, 27% of Republican voters say they’d
vote for the third party option rather than Giuliani. A Rasmussen Reports national
telephone survey found that a three-way race with Hillary Clinton would end up
with the former First Lady getting 46% of the vote, Giuliani with 30% and the
third-party option picking up 14%.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/27_of_republicans_would_vote_for_pro_life_third_pa rty_instead_of_giuliani


{Like maybe Ron Raul?}

Rasmussen is about as reliable as they come. If this is true, it should raise some eyebrows with both the GOP and the DEMS. Looking forward to see how this plays out..dman

[Taco John]

I think Rassmussen is a hack...

[defenseman]

I think Rassmussen is a hack...

compared to?...dman

[alkemical]

I think Rassmussen is a hack...

http://www.worsleyschool.net/socialarts/rasputin/rasputin.JPG

[Taco John]

compared to?...dman


I'm not comparing him to anyone. I think his methods are whack. He polls to get the result that he wants.

[Bronco Bob]

I think Rassmussen is a hack...

Rasmussen isn't the only one who has Hillary ahead of Giuliani.
Two other recent polls also have Hillary ahead.

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Sept. 27-30, 2007. N=1,114 adults nationwide. Fieldwork by TNS.

"If the 2008 presidential election were being held today and the candidates were Rudy Giuliani, the Republican,
and Hillary Clinton, the Democrat, for whom would you vote?"

Rudy Giuliani 43%
Hillary Clinton 51%


FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Sept. 25-26, 2007. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3. LV = likely voters

"Thinking ahead to the next presidential election, if the 2008 general election were held today for whom would you vote
if the candidates were [see below]?"

Rudy Giuliani 39%
Hillary Clinton 46%

http://pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

In fact since mid-July every major poll has had Hillary ahead of Giuliani
except Rasmussen, and as you see, even Rasmussen now has Hillary
ahead.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_giuliani_vs_clinton-227.html#polls

[Taco John]

I don't trust many polls. Their methods are antiquated.

I'm not saying Hillary doesn't have a lead. She probably does. But I think the margin of error in most of these polls is at least 10%-15% because of factors like cell phones and caller ID. They all say they take measures to guard against statistical bias, but when you dig in, they're weak. Plus, they're unscientific. They measure "likely" voters based on who voted the last time around. They don't measure for new voters who have either renewed their interest in politics, or have issues coming around that they think are important.

Polls are good for one thing, and one thing only: providing the media with something to write about, for the sake of writing about it.

[defenseman]

I don't trust many polls. Their methods are antiquated.

I'm not saying Hillary doesn't have a lead. She probably does. But I think the margin of error in most of these polls is at least 10%-15% because of factors like cell phones and caller ID. They all say they take measures to guard against statistical bias, but when you dig in, they're weak. Plus, they're unscientific. They measure "likely" voters based on who voted the last time around. They don't measure for new voters who have either renewed their interest in politics, or have issues coming around that they think are important.

Polls are good for one thing, and one thing only: providing the media with something to write about, for the sake of writing about it.

Agreed. However, they'll give you a ballpark figure. Why do you say, they don't measure for new voters?...dman

[Rohirrim]

I find it hard to believe that more than 60% of the American people want this war to end, and yet they'll vote for Billary who won't even promise to end this war within four years! It makes no sense.

[defenseman]

I find it hard to believe that more than 60% of the American people want this war to end, and yet they'll vote for Billary who won't even promise to end this war within four years! It makes no sense.

With some real inspection on your part, I think you'll find, she won't promise anything of substance, because, she doesn't commit one way or the other. It's considered politically, a safe move. You know the old addage, walk down the middle of road long enough, it's just a matter of time before you are run over...dman

[Bronco Bob]

I find it hard to believe that more than 60% of the American people want this war to end, and yet they'll vote for Billary who won't even promise to end this war within four years! It makes no sense.

Keep in mind this particular thread is a head to head between
Giuliani and Hillary. With that in mind, Giuliani won't even commit
to reducing troop levels.
Hillary is on records for troop withdrawals, but recognizes there will
still be a need for troops in the region to protect the embassy
and to fight al-Queda. There-in lies the difference. People see
Giuliani as Bush 2. At most some may see Hillary as Bush-lite,
but are won over by her stand on social and environmental issues.
And on social issues Giuliani loses the religious right because of
his pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control stance.
Hillary wasn't going to get their votes anyway, so this doesn't
hurt her.

[Bronco Bob]

With some real inspection on your part, I think you'll find, she won't promise anything of substance, because, she doesn't commit one way or the other. It's considered politically, a safe move. You know the old addage, walk down the middle of road long enough, it's just a matter of time before you are run over...dman


So basically you're saying the best that Obama, Edwards, and the GOP
can hope for is that Hillary trips over her own feet. Because none of
them have seemed to be able to stick a foot out far enough to trip
her up so far. With every attempt so far she just nimbly hops over them
and keeps on going.

You could also make a bowling analogy. Which ball is most likely to score
a strike, one that rolls right down the center of the aisle, or one that
veers off to the left or the right?

[Taco John]

This is how Rassmussen's automated pollers ask questions:


"Who is your candidate for president:

For Rudy Giuliani, press 1
For Fred Thompson, press 2
For Mitt Romney, press 3
For John McCain, press 4
For Mike Huckabee, press 5
For other candidates, press 6"


Nice and scientific...

[Crushaholic]

I find it hard to believe that more than 60% of the American people want this war to end, and yet they'll vote for Billary who won't even promise to end this war within four years! It makes no sense.

A choice between Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton would suggest voting the Republican would get us out of Iraq more quickly. Oh, the irony...ROFL!

[Bronco Bob]

This is how Rassmussen's automated pollers ask questions:


"Who is your candidate for president:

For Rudy Giuliani, press 1
For Fred Thompson, press 2
For Mitt Romney, press 3
For John McCain, press 4
For Mike Huckabee, press 5
For other candidates, press 6"


Nice and scientific...

Interesting. Because in their daily tracking poll they don't include Huckabee.
So if you add up all of today's numbers for the first four and subtract from
100, 30% are either for Huckabee or some other candidate. Which is more
than for any of the four candidates they do list.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/daily_presidential_tracking_polling_history

[Garcia Bronco]

Sweet...those 27 percent should head on out then. :)

[Taco John]

My quote is a paraphrase. They could have dropped Huckabee in the "other candidate" category by now. A lot of Ron Paul supporters have complained about the polling calls they've received from Rassmussen.

[Garcia Bronco]

I find it hard to believe that more than 60% of the American people want this war to end, and yet they'll vote for Billary who won't even promise to end this war within four years! It makes no sense.

The truth is she shouldn't make that promise, but on the surface it can boil the blood.

[Bronco Bob]

The truth is she shouldn't make that promise, but on the surface it can boil the blood.

Making promises you can't keep comes back and bites you in the butt.

George H. W. Bush may have lost to Bill Clinton in part due to his
"Read my lips. No new taxes" statement. And then he had to raise taxes.
And that was used against him.

Who knows what the hell will be going on in Iraq in 2013?

To make a promise to get all the troops out by then is stupid,
even if that is her goal.

[REB]

Making promises you can't keep comes back and bites you in the butt.

George H. W. Bush may have lost to Bill Clinton in part due to his
"Read my lips. No new taxes" statement. And then he had to raise taxes.
And that was used against him.

Who knows what the hell will be going on in Iraq in 2013?

To make a promise to get all the troops out by then is stupid,
even if that is her goal.


That's why I didn't vote for him. Fool me once...

[sisterhellfyre]

(snip)You could also make a bowling analogy. Which ball is most likely to score a strike, one that rolls right down the center of the aisle, or one that
veers off to the left or the right?

The hook-shot that veers to either left or right of center, spinning madly against its own direction of motion, then breaks sharply back into the center just before hitting the pins... :-)

Regards,
m.

[Bronco Bob]

The hook-shot that veers to either left or right of center, spinning madly against its own direction of motion, then breaks sharply back into the center just before hitting the pins... :-)

Regards,
m.

Still, you go too far to the left or the right and you end up in the gutter.

[REB]

Still, you go too far to the left or the right and you end up in the gutter.



QFT :thumbsup:

[Garcia Bronco]

Making promises you can't keep comes back and bites you in the butt.

George H. W. Bush may have lost to Bill Clinton in part due to his
"Read my lips. No new taxes" statement. And then he had to raise taxes.
And that was used against him.

Who knows what the hell will be going on in Iraq in 2013?

To make a promise to get all the troops out by then is stupid,
even if that is her goal.

The President doesn't raise taxes it just gets his thumbs up or down. Congress does raise and/or lowers taxes, but you are right in the way people perceive it.

[epicSocialism4tw]

A vote for Ron Paul is a vote against the status quo.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/rudy-not-now.jpg

[peacepipe]

I find it hard to believe that more than 60% of the American people want this war to end, and yet they'll vote for Billary who won't even promise to end this war within four years! It makes no sense.
It would beyond niave to come out & say that. I hate this war but the reality is there is no easy fix for it & right or wrong it going to take alot of things bouncing the right direction in order for ANYONE to even think that this mess can be cleaned up in 4 yrs.

[Rohirrim]

It would beyond niave to come out & say that. I hate this war but the reality is there is no easy fix for it & right or wrong it going to take alot of things bouncing the right direction in order for ANYONE to even think that this mess can be cleaned up in 4 yrs.

I don't agree. I think that from the moment Bush entered office he has been wrong. He's wrong on Iraq as well. If we leave there will be no Al Queda bases. That's :bs: The Iraqis will kill the foreigners or drive them out, just like they did in 1918. This ain't Afghanistan. Besides, this argument is blatantly false on the face of it. What have we done to stop Bin Laden from building new bases in Afghanistan or Pakistan? Nothing. So, there's some difference between Al Queda bases in Iraq and Al Queda bases in Afghanistan? The last thing I read said there may be Al Queda operations in 60 countries. How does the war in Iraq help us with that? In fact, it does just the opposite, and we know that. The war in Iraq has created more recruits to Al Queda, not less. :bs:

Iran has already infiltrated Iraq to such an extent that there's nothing we can do about it now. We didn't launch this thing with enough troops to seal the borders (like Gen. Shinseki warned us) and now we pay for it. Iran wins. We can stay ten years and we won't change that. Israel couldn't drive the Iranians out of Lebanon. Iraq is five hundred times larger. You think we can drive the Iranians out of Iraq? :bs:

Politically, Iraq is fractured into a million pieces. We can stay ten more years and there's no guarantee the politics will change. None at all. Maliki spent his years in exile living where? Ding, ding! We have a winner: Iran. The hawks also like to argue that there will be a bloodbath if we leave. Compared to what? What's happening now? As the NCOs who wrote that letter to the NY Times pointed out, the police and the Iraqi army are escorting those who are planting the IEDs that are killing us. It's all :bs:

And meanwhile, Blackwater runs our names through the mud with their Sand Creek mentality while we flush $10 billion dollars a month of our grandchildren's wealth down the tubes.

We need to get out now. We did what we came for. We destroyed Saddam and installed a democratic government. Now it's up to the Iraqis to keep it, if they can, or if they want to. Save the troops that we can save. Stop flushing our wealth down that toilet. Rebuild America.

Being president is about being a leader. Tell the nation what is the right thing to do, why we should do it, and how you propose to do it. The only candidates I've seen exhibit that kind of leadership on this issue are Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.

Bush and the hawks are full of :bs:

[Chupacabra]

The only candidates I've seen exhibit that kind of leadership on this issue are Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.

What if Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich (in that order) were on the independent ticket?

[peacepipe]

It's a big F'n mess & it's going to take some time to fix it. I hate GWB.

[alkemical]

What if Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich (in that order) were on the independent ticket?

that would maybe pulll alot of the "middle" out of the two "major" parties.

[Bob]

I really believe that Ron Paul is going to win the Republican nomination. I think when it gets boiled down, conservatives are going to vote in their own best interests, and there aren't enough of them who think that policing a civil war in Iraq is in their own best interest.

The hedge that I would make, though, is that if there is another terror attack that gets through, people will vote for Giuliani overwhelmingly.

There is much that I like about Ron Paul -- I think as a third party he would get some votes (if he decides to go down that path.) I think that we need someone with convictions – I don’t agree with some of Ron Paul’s convictions, but respect him, like I do Obama.

The truth is I don’t think he has a prayer of getting the nomination -- I don’t think the polling numbers support the notion that he has any traction. The media black-out also creates a self-fulfilling uphill struggle – not to say I don’t wish him well – I do -- his voice is important, it would however, be the biggest political upset in America politics in the past 100 years though (maybe that’s part of the appeal.) I think that I would be more inclined to support someone like him before 911 -- when I believed that we could isolate ourselves and we would be left alone. I would like him even more if it were 1950 -- people in America were more responsible and had the heart to govern themselves -- a government envisioned by Jefferson (and folks like him) are so dependant on the people being governed by a collective conscience that is deeply rooted in a similar belief system, and are willing to take personal responsibility. I wonder if Ron Paul has too much faith in the American people (I feel sick to say it, but New Orleans and the LA Riots made me loose some faith in the goodness of America.)

There are many Americans who want Freedoms, but do not have the stomach to LET NATURAL Consequences fall on the heads of those who are the slackers in any community. Hell, some on this board wanted the government to bail out moronic homeowners who recently bought houses they could not afford. The mooches, and the media would spot-light their cause and demonize anyone who would deny them what they thought was their collective “right” to everything NOT included in the constitution. We want to the government to go into “save” mode – and cant let people deal with the hurt necessary to teach them the lessons that could eventually save us – so we will become bankrupt.

By the way, people who think that Giuliani are going to get the Repub nod are insane -- If moderates are thrown into the mix in the nomination process (in heavy doses) he would do well, but everything that I have heard about the nomination process is that the base are the folks that vote in primaries -- and I hate to say it, its the fringe like me who choose -- so I like Huckleby (I don’t see him winning either.) I think that Thomson takes it for the Repubs. I am LDS, but don’t like Romney, he seems too plastic for my tastes -- not sure if he wouldn’t change his position on additional issues if elected -- and I am tired of flip-floppers.

[Bob]

Rasmussen isn't the only one who has Hillary ahead of Giuliani.
Two other recent polls also have Hillary ahead.

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Sept. 27-30, 2007. N=1,114 adults nationwide. Fieldwork by TNS.

"If the 2008 presidential election were being held today and the candidates were Rudy Giuliani, the Republican,
and Hillary Clinton, the Democrat, for whom would you vote?"

Rudy Giuliani 43%
Hillary Clinton 51%


FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Sept. 25-26, 2007. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3. LV = likely voters

"Thinking ahead to the next presidential election, if the 2008 general election were held today for whom would you vote
if the candidates were [see below]?"

Rudy Giuliani 39%
Hillary Clinton 46%

http://pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

In fact since mid-July every major poll has had Hillary ahead of Giuliani
except Rasmussen, and as you see, even Rasmussen now has Hillary
ahead.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_giuliani_vs_clinton-227.html#polls

Most in the "mainstream media" polls always have the Dem ahead, and we make it close every time or win. I do think that Hilary has the momentum and will likely win, but those left of center in the media are frequently surprised about how many folks have not adopted their new druid-faith despite their years of propaganda, and consensus science.

[Bob]

I don't agree. I think that from the moment Bush entered office he has been wrong. He's wrong on Iraq as well. If we leave there will be no Al Queda bases. That's :bs: The Iraqis will kill the foreigners or drive them out, just like they did in 1918. This ain't Afghanistan. Besides, this argument is blatantly false on the face of it. What have we done to stop Bin Laden from building new bases in Afghanistan or Pakistan? Nothing. So, there's some difference between Al Queda bases in Iraq and Al Queda bases in Afghanistan? The last thing I read said there may be Al Queda operations in 60 countries. How does the war in Iraq help us with that? In fact, it does just the opposite, and we know that. The war in Iraq has created more recruits to Al Queda, not less. :bs:

Iran has already infiltrated Iraq to such an extent that there's nothing we can do about it now. We didn't launch this thing with enough troops to seal the borders (like Gen. Shinseki warned us) and now we pay for it. Iran wins. We can stay ten years and we won't change that. Israel couldn't drive the Iranians out of Lebanon. Iraq is five hundred times larger. You think we can drive the Iranians out of Iraq? :bs:

Politically, Iraq is fractured into a million pieces. We can stay ten more years and there's no guarantee the politics will change. None at all. Maliki spent his years in exile living where? Ding, ding! We have a winner: Iran. The hawks also like to argue that there will be a bloodbath if we leave. Compared to what? What's happening now? As the NCOs who wrote that letter to the NY Times pointed out, the police and the Iraqi army are escorting those who are planting the IEDs that are killing us. It's all :bs:

And meanwhile, Blackwater runs our names through the mud with their Sand Creek mentality while we flush $10 billion dollars a month of our grandchildren's wealth down the tubes.

We need to get out now. We did what we came for. We destroyed Saddam and installed a democratic government. Now it's up to the Iraqis to keep it, if they can, or if they want to. Save the troops that we can save. Stop flushing our wealth down that toilet. Rebuild America.

Being president is about being a leader. Tell the nation what is the right thing to do, why we should do it, and how you propose to do it. The only candidates I've seen exhibit that kind of leadership on this issue are Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.

Bush and the hawks are full of :bs:

Do you think that Obama lacks leadership qualities? he seems to have been pretty consistant on his anti-war stance as well -- or am I missing something?

[Rohirrim]

Do you think that Obama lacks leadership qualities? he seems to have been pretty consistant on his anti-war stance as well -- or am I missing something?

He also could not guarantee that our people would be out of Iraq by 2013.

[Bronco Bob]

Most in the "mainstream media" polls always have the Dem ahead, and we make it close every time or win. I do think that Hilary has the momentum and will likely win, but those left of center in the media are frequently surprised about how many folks have not adopted their new druid-faith despite their years of propaganda, and consensus science.

If you click on the second link you will find that you made a false statement.
Rudy was substantially ahead earlier this year. It wasn't until mid July when
Hillary started pulling ahead of Rudy. In fact that is what the knock was
on Hillary for months now, that she was unelectable, that Rudy had much
better poll numbers. A lot of people still repeat this mantra. Rudy is even
campaigning on the claim he is the only one who can beat Hillary.
That's sort of why I started the thread in the first place, to show that
the idea of Rudy beating Hillary wasn't a foregone conclusion, other things
could come into play, such as a revolt by the Christian conservatives.

[Hogan11]

Split the party Baby!!!! If Ron Paul leaves for the Libertarians, then it'll be split three ways with a Rudy nomination. Hello President Clinton.

[Bronco Bob]

A GIULIANI NOMINATION DOOMS THE GOP & MAYBE AMERICA



By Pastor Chuck Baldwin

October 5, 2007

NewsWithViews.com

This past week, I was interviewed by best-selling author and World Net Daily columnist Jerome Corsi. (Read the column here (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57953)) The subject of the interview was the potential conservative Christian response to the possibility that Rudy Giuliani would gain the Republican nomination for President next year. (We also discussed the cozy connection between the Bush and Clinton families, which will probably be dealt with in a future Corsi column.)

I told Dr. Corsi, "A lot of conservative Christians will never vote for Rudy Giuliani." I will even go so far as to say that no genuine Christian conservative could possibly vote for Giuliani. And, no, it does not matter that Hillary Clinton might be elected President as a result. A Giuliani or Clinton choice is tantamount to a choice between Nero or Caligula.

Let me say it plainly: a Hillary Clinton administration would be no worse than a Rudy Giuliani administration. In some ways, it might not be as bad. At least, with a Democrat in the White House, conservatives might try to act like conservatives and muster the energy to actually oppose some of her liberal proposals.

The record is clear: when a Republican is in the White House, conservatives not only lose their backbone, they also lose their brain cells. They walk around in a daze without the ability to even see what is going on right before their eyes. They become "mind-numbed robots" with no commitment to principle whatsoever. Why? Because one of "their own" is in office. At that point, it becomes a "see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil" situation. If two George W. Bush administrations have taught us anything, they have taught us that.

Of course, there are pseudo-conservatives who will argue that Giuliani is better than Hillary, because he will not be as prone to raise taxes as Hillary would be. These are the Rockefeller Republicans who could not care less about the murder of unborn babies, or the destruction of the American family, or whether any citizen maintains the right to keep and bear arms, or whether U.S. sovereignty is surrendered, or whether our country is led by a modern Napoleon, or whether America is merged into a North American Union, or whether illegal aliens are granted citizenship, ad infinitum. The only thing they care about is their pocketbook. They are piranhas who only want to manipulate politics to feed their own selfish and greedy interests. They would vote for the devil himself, if he promised them more money.


Not that liberals are any better. They are not. But at least one knows exactly what to expect from liberals and how to oppose them.

If real conservatives within the GOP want to head off a Giuliani catastrophe, they need to get behind someone such as Ron Paul. If Giuliani obtains the presidential nomination, one of two things will happen: he will lose the general election and facilitate massive Republican losses in both houses of Congress, or he will win the election and turn the GOP into a Big-Government, police-state, warmongering leviathan that will forever corrupt the Party, turning it into something reminiscent of Nazi Germany. America loses either way.

Grassroots Republicans have an opportunity in the primaries to reject the liberal, Big-Government path that the GOP leadership is forcing on the Party by rejecting the Big-Government candidates, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, and John McCain. Candidates such as Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, Alan Keyes, and Ron Paul give conservatives within the GOP alternatives to these Big-Government neocons. (Mike Huckabee is too much in the mushy middle for me.)

However, if the Rockefellers succeed in nominating someone such as Giuliani, real patriots will do what they have always done--stand for principle and vote independent. (It is time we had a major independent challenge to the two major parties, anyway.) If you want to start doing some homework how about the possibility of voting for real conservatives in the 2008 elections, do what that person in California did and check out the Constitution Party.

The line in the sand is being drawn. Better start thinking now about where you will stand. As for me and my house, we would rather stand on the Bible and the U.S. Constitution and vote our conscience than bow the knee to madmen such as Rudy Giuliani.

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin404.htm

[Hogan11]

Break out the drumbeats of fear Pastor....it's what you excel at.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Break out the drumbeats of fear Pastor....it's what you excel at.

That's silly.

He's saying that the Republican party have earned distrust.

Why wouldnt you be afraid of wasting your vote on someone who could further set you back?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I really believe that Ron Paul is going to win the Republican nomination. Yeah right, but enough to put your money where your mouth is, we've already been through this.

[Bronco Bob]

More displeasure over Rudy by religious right

Social conservative: GOP cannot win with Giuliani

by Mark Silva
As “social conservatives’’ assess the field of Republican presidential candidates and attempt to rally around one, a leader of the movement maintains that one is not only unacceptable, but also unable to win a potential contest with Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton.

That’s Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York, the only Republican voicing support of a woman’s right to choose abortion.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council and host of a forum for the candidates next week in Washington that will culiminate in a straw poll of conservative voters, says activists who have long worked to promote “a culture of life’’ will be unable to support Giuliani -- and that spells defeat for the party at the polls. Yet, dismissing talk of any need for a third party candidate, Perkins does not believe it will come to that.

“There is no desire to create a third party. There is no action underway,’’ Perkins said in a conference call with reporters today. “There is simply a statement that if the party breaks ranks with social conservatives, there will be a number of social conservatives who break ranks with the party…. If the Republican Party advanced a pro-abortion rights candidate, then we simply couldn’t be there.’’

It’s not enough that social conservatives would be upset with Clinton winning the Democratic nomination, he says. Conservatives will need someone to rally their support at the polls.

“I don’t envision the majority of social conservatives actively moving toward endorsing a pro-abortion rights candidate,’’ he said. “This issue runs strong, and just to sing the simple ABC song – Anybody but Clinton -- is not enough to rally social conservatives who have been working for 30 years to support a culture of life.’’

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/social_conservative_gop_cannot.html

[Rohirrim]

Personally, I find it hilarious that the Christian Righties are wringing their hands over which warmonger to select who will continue and maybe expand the war while promising to save the unborn and stop gay marriage. You'd think they'd wise up by now. They've got the SCOTUS they always dreamed of and STILL nothing is happening. Their litmus test is dead. They should actually back Ron Paul. He promises to stop the war ASAP, not get us involved in other countries' wars plus he's opposed to abortion and the death penalty.

[Spider]

LOL while I dont agree with TJ about the methods of polling , the reason polling is unreliable is we are a bunch of flip flopping idiots that answer questions with a bias and limited information .........

[Bronco Bob]

Giuliani's Christian-right foes to meet again

At a second meeting this weekend, leaders will mull mass defection from
the GOP if the pro-choice New Yorker is the party nominee.

By Michael Scherer

Oct. 18, 2007 | Washington -- Key conservative and religious leaders will
continue discussing a mass defection from the Republican Party (http://dir.salon.com/topics/republican_party/) in a private
meeting at a Washington hotel Saturday afternoon, just hours
after the pro-choice presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani (http://dir.salon.com/topics/rudy_giuliani/) speaks before
thousands of pro-life voters.

The unnamed group of about 50 people first met in late September in
Salt Lake City, sending shivers through the Republican establishment by
adopting a resolution to consider a third-party candidate if Republicans
nominate someone like Giuliani. "If the major political parties decide to
abandon conservative principles, the cohesion of pro-family advocates
will be all too apparent in 2008," warned Dr. James Dobson, of Focus on
the Family, in a published article (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/opinion/04dobson.html) after the meeting.

In addition to Dobson, the September meeting was attended by the
Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, conservative activist
Richard Viguerie and former presidential candidate Gary Bauer,
who called in by phone. Before the meeting ended, the group agreed to
meet again this weekend at the Hilton Washington Hotel, where thousands
of social conservatives are expected to gather for a "Values Voter Summit"
beginning Thursday.

"There will be further exploration of what is to be done," said Howard Phillips,
the president of the Conservative Caucus, who participated in the Salt Lake
meeting. "And there will be some discussion of who would be a viable
independent candidate."

Conservative (http://dir.salon.com/topics/conservatives/) circles
have been buzzing for weeks about the possibility of a third-party bid,
which remains a heavily disputed idea even among religious conservatives.
On Wednesday, longtime conservative leader Paul Weyrich, president of the
Free Congress Foundation, published a
column (http://www.aim.org/guest_column_print/5828_0_6_0) laying out three requirements for a successful third-party bid:

1) Major defections of elected officials from the Republican Party.

2) The financial backing of an independently wealthy individual.

3) The support of a major news organization, like the Fox News (http://dir.salon.com/topics/fox_news/) Channel or the Wall Street Journal.

"If the walkout of Republicans grassroots were dramatic enough and if it
enticed major figures to join, which in turn caused millionaires to follow along
and caused major media continually to provide favorable treatment, a third
party could work," Weyrich argued in the article.

Ever since the September meeting in Salt Lake, conservative
Christian (http://dir.salon.com/topics/christian_right/) leaders have been increasing their public protests of a Giuliani candidacy,
arguing that it would sever the coalition between evangelical voters and the
Republican Party that dates back to Ronald Reagan's 1980 presidential
campaign. "The establishment just doesn't get it," said Dr. Richard Land,
a leader in the Southern Baptist Convention, in a recent interview.
"I cannot vote for a pro-choice candidate as a matter of conscience."

The fact that Giuliani continues to lead national polls has only increased the
dissatisfaction of many conservatives, who feel betrayed by President Bush
and Republicans in Congress. "The train has left the station in terms of
conservatives being committed to a different relationship with the Republican
Party," said Viguerie, who pioneered the use of direct mail to raise money for
conservative causes. "It is not clear what track it is going to go on.



http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/10/18/giuliani/

[TailgateNut]

Let's see:

Republicans
Democrats
Independent

or Zealot!;D