Updated- Here are the complete results:
American Research Group Iowa Caucus Poll, conducted July 26th-30th, 2007
- Rudy Giuliani 22%
- Mitt Romney 21%
- John McCain 13%
- Fred Thompson 13%
- Newt Gingrich 4%
- Tommy Thompson 2%
- Duncan Hunter 2%
- All others <2%
- Undecided 17%
Here’s the breakdown: Mitt Romney leads Rudy Giuliani 24% to 21% among Republicans in Iowa. However, the MOE is ? 4.
American Research Group New Hampshire Poll, conducted July 26th-30th, 2007
- Rudy Giuliani 27%
- Mitt Romney 26%
- Fred Thompson 13%
- John McCain 10%
- Newt Gingrich 6%
- All others <2%
- Undecided 13%
Giuliani leads Romney 31% to 29% among Republicans in New Hampshire, while Fred Thompson leads Romney 25% to 20% among independents in New Hampshire, with Giuliani at 19%. Once again, the MOE is ? 4.
American Research Group South Carolina Poll, conducted July 26th-30th, 2007
- Rudy Giuliani 28%
- Fred Thompson 27%
- John McCain 10%
- Newt Gingrich 7%
- Mitt Romney 7%
- Mike Huckabee 3%
- Ron Paul 3%
- All others <2%
- Undecided 13%
Giuliani leads Fred Thompson 29% to 25% among Republicans in South Carolina, while Fred Thompson leads Giuliani 43% to 17% among independents in South Carolina, with McCain at 14%. The MOE is ? 4.
The main criticism of ARG polls around the blogosphere is that they oversample Independents. So let’s all agree to concentrate on just the Republican results. In these polls (all with a MOE of ? 4) Mitt leads Rudy 24% to 21% in IA, Rudy leads Mitt 31% to 29% in NH, and Hizzoner bests FDT in SC 29% to 25%.
July 31st, 2007 at 11:24 am
Holy…. YES!!!!!!!!
July 31st, 2007 at 11:27 am
So Giuliani is tied in the 1st 3 states according to one poll?
Woopidee do!
Glad it doesn’t take much of substance to impress Giuliani voters. Of course given their candidate that’s a given.
July 31st, 2007 at 11:28 am
You know Iowa…
If I wasn’t so reliable in terms of keeping things in confidence, I could have made a prediction and looked like a genius right now. Darn ethics
!
July 31st, 2007 at 11:31 am
I think this shows that he is making progress, and that voters like his electability along with the substance.
July 31st, 2007 at 11:33 am
That’s a nice outlier.
July 31st, 2007 at 11:34 am
Wow!
This looks like something significant for the GOP.
Rudy may be the only candidate that can save the GOP from a complete disaster in 08.
July 31st, 2007 at 11:35 am
ARG? Show me at least one other poll confirming this in all three states.
July 31st, 2007 at 11:36 am
I’m not surprised after seeing the CSpan video of Rudy in Iowa and now there is another video out of Rudy’s townhall meeting in NH. It’s still early and all within the margin of error and it is a poll, so who knows where they polled in the states. It does look good for Rudy though. I have a hard time not being skeptical of polls .
July 31st, 2007 at 11:38 am
Is anyone other than me more than a little suspicious of these results?
SC I’ll believe, not the other two. Its going to take another confirmation poll to make me believe.
July 31st, 2007 at 11:39 am
looks like romney’s having some problems buying early primaries. imagine how low those numbers would be if he ran out of money.
time for romney to open his wallet back up and drop another $10 million into his campaign.
July 31st, 2007 at 11:41 am
Hello-
As the one who finds “much to admire in Senator McCain’s candidacy”
I am surprised at how low McCain’s numbers are, particularly given the fact that the ARG polls had traditionally been the ones in which he had run the strongest.
It also appears – counterintuitively – that these results are bad news for Romney. Here’s why-
Nationally, Romney is not making any traction in terms of polls. Chris Cillizza of The Fix noted that if it weren’t for his strong polling numbers in IA and NH, it would be difficult to keep him as the #1 candidate.
I agree 100% w/ Cillizza’s point. And thus I would respectfully disagree w/ Cillizza’s continued placing Romney at #1, for precisely that reason. Why is Romney running well in those two states? Because he’s the only one who’s spending any money on TV there. It would stand to reason that when his opponents start spending money on ads there, he’ll drop. (And in NH – despite the additional advantage of being well-known, due to his term as Mass. governor, he is only in a statistical tie w/ Rudy.)
Look at his numbers in SC – flatlined.
July 31st, 2007 at 11:42 am
Yeah,
I won’t be suspicious of this poll till I see other polls confirming this. Isn’t it just a bit suspicious that Rudy is somehow +1% in both IA & NH?
I guess since ARG has decided they can’t favor McCain any longer that they’ll favor Rudy.
July 31st, 2007 at 11:44 am
Retain your water there Sampo, It is just one poll. I have some huge grains of salt for any who would be needing some.
July 31st, 2007 at 11:46 am
People always talk about how Romney is the only one spending money, but you ignore one fact: Romney started as an unknown. Rudy Giuliani and John McCain enjoyed nearly total name recognition from the time they started running, Romney did not. Romney has had to spend a ton of money just to get his name recognition up.
Bad news for Romney? Only if these results are confirmed by another poll. ARG tends to produce a strange – and skewed – poll every once in a while. If Rudy had done enough to catapault him into the lead the lead in all three of these states, you would have seen upward movement nationally, even if just by a point or two.
July 31st, 2007 at 11:49 am
Are 20% of Iowa Caucus goers usually independents? If not, that might explain the strange results.
July 31st, 2007 at 11:49 am
Whether accurate or not it’s a good thing for polls like this to come out. It encourages Republicans to be vigilant about the possibility of a liberal becoming the nominee.
R I N 0
U 8
D
Y
July 31st, 2007 at 11:50 am
Crazy stuff.
Of course, this just happens to be Rudy’s highest level in Iowa since back in March (pollster.com average for him right now is 15%)… as well as his highest level in NH since March (average at 19%).
If you check out the pollster.com charts, it’s pretty amazing how big of outliers these polls are. See the purple line. Then see that purple dot way above the purple line. Almost comical.
http://www.pollster.com/08-IA-Rep-Pres-Primary.php
http://www.pollster.com/08-NH-Rep-Pres-Primary.php
July 31st, 2007 at 11:51 am
act blog,
why does romney have such low name recognition? because no one knew who he was a year ago. people never SAW him do anything nationally.
surely i’m not the only one that thinks a presidential candidate should be watched by the nation DURING their service in office!
July 31st, 2007 at 11:51 am
Well, if Rudy becomes the nominee, I may very well be in the business of shopping for a new party to support in 2008. If the GOP was gaurenteed to have a majority in the Congress, I would not be so concerned about Giuliani, but, since there is no such gaurentee, I have a very hard time supporting him.
July 31st, 2007 at 11:52 am
I have updated the post with the complete results, including the breakdowns of strictly GOP voters.
July 31st, 2007 at 11:54 am
ARGGGGGH! seems to produce outliers like, I dunno, Rosarita makes refried beans. However, it’s certainly not bad news for Rudy, and not good news for the Mittster.
Given Mitt’s poor national polling, his huge and personal investment in NH and IA, and his natural advantages in both places, anything less than resounding 1st place finishes could be fatal. As we know, he appears to have staked everything on the traditional early primary launching pad strategy. IF Rudy starts polling consistently neck and neck with or ahead of Mitt, then, given his presumed advantages in the big follow-on states, he starts taking on an aura of inevitability, and the pressure will build on the SoCons to unite around an Anyone But Rudy standard-bearer before the race completely escapes them.
It might even be better tactically, for the above reason and for the sake of the expectations game, for Rudy not to peak too early, but Rudy’s a baseball guy. You take your runs and your wins when you can get them.
I’m looking forward to nuclear combat toe to toe between Fred and Mitt this Fall-Winter, assuming Fred’s got game.
July 31st, 2007 at 11:54 am
Hmmmmmmm…Early sign McCain supports are moving towards Rudy?
July 31st, 2007 at 12:07 pm
sampo, I don’t care how much attention a candidate got when he was in office. What I care about is what he did. Romney is a master of turnarounds, and has proven himself to be an extremely sucessful leader.
I don’t know, the prospect of Giuliani as our nominee makes me really concerned about the future of the party. My fear is that if Giuliani becomes the nominee, we are stuck with a liberal for the next eight years, and probably more becuase I don’t see the population electing 3 Republicans in a row. In addition, if Giuliani becomes the nominee, then I don’t know if the GOP would still be the party of life, family, morality, traditional vaues, etc.
I’m a strong Mitt supporter, and am in no way a fan of Fred Thompson, but if it comes down to it, I would rather have Mitt drop out and support Thompson so that we can run with a candidate who is at least something of a Conservative.
July 31st, 2007 at 12:10 pm
EDIT: EGS I am not going to allow even our most loyal readers to spam the comments. Got it?-KWN
July 31st, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Act Blog, I think many share your sentiments in #23. I’ve never voted third party or sat out an election, but I just can’t forsee any scenario that would make me vote for Rudy. Fiscally, the Republicans already act like Democrats; now we are possibly going to move left socially too?
July 31st, 2007 at 12:15 pm
I would rather have Romney over Thompson. At least Romney would look like the GOP is trying to win.
That said, it is becoming very clear that Rudy is the only candidate that can save the GOP next year.
July 31st, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Act Blog… Another prime example of someone who would consider Chuck Shumer a conservative if he was simply Pro-Life and remained unchanged on every other issue.
Which begs the question: Where would Barry Goldwater fit in this political spectrum?
I will enthusiastically support whoever wins the GOP nomination, be it Rudy, Mitt, or Fred. Campaigns are long and have many ups and downs folks… How much value is the support of someone who will take his ball and go home if he doesn’t get his way?
July 31st, 2007 at 12:17 pm
The funny thing is…. Rudy has barely spent any money in these states…. just last week he started airing his first radio ads….. he has spent the least amount of time in Iowa compared to the other guys.
I will support whoever the Republican nominee is…. but I’m leaning towards Rudy due to electability….and I really like his 12 commitments. He can fix America just likes he fixed New York.
July 31st, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Well, TM, I disagree that Rudy is the only candidate that can “save” the GOP next year. I think that Rudy or Mitt, and maybe Fred could win.
However, I’m quickly making up my mind that I would rather have 4 years of a Democratic President than eight years of a RINO. At least we can run a Conservative against Hillary in 2012 if it comes to that. I think the damage that would be done to the GOP by Rudy is too great to ignore.
July 31st, 2007 at 12:20 pm
most never watched him govern, so you cant form your own opinions from what you saw. only what you heard. and much of what you hear comes straight out of romney’s mouth. factcheck.org has a VERY different perspective on romney. while in office he was VERY liberal. now he paints himself as a Reagan conservative. unless you go back and read what he did in his state or hear what he campaigned on, or hear stuff he said and did in office, most people are going to give him the benefit of the doubt. much of what he says is very misleading. no question his message today is more conservative than rudy’s, BUT a VERY good case that romney was more liberal than rudy while they were both in office.
what’s more important, record or rhetoric?
July 31st, 2007 at 12:23 pm
#26 personally attacking the credibility of those who don’t share your views? you’re better than that.
July 31st, 2007 at 12:24 pm
What is most important to me is how a person is going to serve as President. To me, Romney seems genuine, and I believe that he would be a Conservative President. Rudy, on the other hand, would be a liberal President – and I have a hard time accepting that.
July 31st, 2007 at 12:24 pm
KWN, hearing you loud and clear.
BTW, Barry Goldwater ran a lot further right in 1964 (at least rhetorically) than he did in his last Senate race.
1964 AuH2O would probably fit in as a Bob Barr or Doug Forrester (ha!) type of Republican.
1980 AuH2O would probably be off the reservation. Which means he’d be a pro-choice John McCain.
July 31st, 2007 at 12:30 pm
JB,
How is that a personal attack? I didn’t insult him or call him a name in any form.
Rudy Giuliani is a strong fiscal conservative and also in the GWOT. So what else could Act Blog possibly be referring to in his “8 years of a liberal President” than abortion? He clearly stated that he is willing to elect a Dem President than support a Republican who disagrees with him on this single issue.
If pointing this out is “personally attacking” someone I suggest that thicker skin is needed.
July 31st, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Kavon, unlike you, I don’t think I should support a person just becuase they have a “R” next to their name. I won’t support a person unless they are a Conservative on the three major fronts: Social, Economic, and Militay.
Apparently you don’t put value on Social Issue. However, I actually care about unborn life, I actually care about the survivial of future generations, and I care about maintaining something close to the traditional family.
July 31st, 2007 at 12:33 pm
saying someone is uninformed or narrow-minded enough to consider schumer a conservative – I would be insulted; but accept my appology if I’m wrong.
July 31st, 2007 at 12:33 pm
I’d like to point out something about Romney’s fundraising numbers. In my view, Mitt has completely won the money race and people are willing to give for him like no other candidate. Here’s why:
1. On his first day, Romney raised $6.5 million dollars, completely dwarfing the rest of the GOP candidates.
2. To date, Romney has raised the most money of any other GOP candidate. First and second quarter results combined yield: Romney ($44 Million), Giuliani ($35 Million), McCain ($25 Million), Brownback ($3.3 Million), etc.
3. Romney won the first quarter fundraising
4. In the second quarter, Romney came in second place. What a lot of people fail to realize though is that if you look at the money that can be spent for just the primary election and not the general election, Mitt Romney came in second place just barely. Right now Giuliani, McCain, etc. are raising money for both the general election and the primary, where Romney is only raising money for the primary right now. If you look at the numbers for money that can be spent in the primary election, Giuliani raised $14.7 Million and Romney raised $13.9 Million. He barely trailed Giuliani, even in a quarter when Giuliani was focusing on fundraising, and Mitt was focusing on getting his message out in the early primary states. These numbers don’t include the $6.5 million dollar loan Romney made to his campaign. If you include that then Romney actually outdid Giuliani by several million.
Mitt Romney is obviously doing very well with fundraising. And the advantage of his strategy of not collecting general election funds right now is that if he wins the primary, he can go back to every single one of his donors (even the so called “tapped out” ones, and get another round of funding). Mitt Romney is in a very good position and people are giving money to him because they believe in him, believe his message is right for America, and that he’s a true conservative and can bring change to this country, and they’re willing to put their money where their mouth is.
July 31st, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Kavon, if Giuliani agreed with you on every issue except that he wanted to cut and run from Iraq, would you support him?
The “single issue voter” crap does not fly with me. To me, Giuliani is strong on Economic matters, and on Military matters, but he flunks on Social Issues, and 66% is still a “D”
July 31st, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Act Blog,
Then by your definition, Barry Goldwater, the John the Baptist of the American Conservative Movement in the 20th Century, was not a conservative.
July 31st, 2007 at 12:42 pm
But Rudy does not want to cut and run from Iraq. Nor does he want to expand abortion rights in the United States. He has clearly stated, time and again, that in the most important arena in which the issue of abortion can be impacted-judges, that he believes in appointing Strict Constructionists like Scalia , Thomas, Roberts, and Alito.
It sounds to me that you want Rudy to have personal beliefs that match yours exactly. Which sounds suspiciously to me like a religious test, which I thought “Romney Guys” vehemently opposed.
July 31st, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Goldwater ran in 1964, correct? That was long before Roe v. Wade, unless I am wrong, that was when abortion was still a state issue. Roe v. Wade made it a federal issue. If I am wrong, and it was a federal issue when he ran, well, then maybe he would not have been Conservative enough for me.
Put it this way: I wan’t a strong America, and I want the country to have a bright future. The reason that I put social issues on the same level as economic and military issues (though perhaps a little lower than military issues) is becuase abortion and the breakdown of the family are just as detremental to our future as a huge defecit or a weak economy. Its great to have a strong economy, and to be able to defeat our enemies, but what good does it do if we don’t have the population to sustain a Strong America?
July 31st, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Do you want to know my problem with the Giuliani judges arguement? Its that he has made no promise to appoint pro-life judges, and that he has said that Roe v. Wade was good law. What good does it do to appoint “Constitutionalist” judges if he sees mandated leagal abortions as a Constitutionalist ruling?
I also have one more problem: even if it does come to the point where Roe v. Wade does get overturned, Rudy does not strike the kind of President who could lead a push for anti-abortion legislation, or the kind that would deffinately sign pro-life legislation.
As for the “religious test” thing. I don’t want any candidate to be selected or opposed becuase of their religion, but policy is largely determined by personal opinions, so yes, I do want a President who agrees with me on issues.
July 31st, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Kavon,
Are you actually likening the desire that our presidential nominee share our respect for human life with the desire for our nominee to share creedal tenants?
And when Rudy promises to nominate strict constructionist judges, please remember that to Rudy, “strict constructionism” calls Roe good constitutional law and demands government funding for constitutionally guaranteed rights. It is such an empty phrase coming from him.
July 31st, 2007 at 12:53 pm
sampo, I disagree with your assessment that Mitt Romney in office was very liberal. The Boston Globe at the time would disagree too with their constant hits on Mitt with all kinds of stuff as “not willing to increase taxes” even in support of good causes, and how dare Mitt dare to give money to conservative think tanks ($50,000) during his time as governor to the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies.
Mitt got the government of Massachusetts from fiscal disaster to fiscal surplus, without having to raise taxes. And instead of supporting measures to raise taxes for the healthcare program as many Democrats had supported, he said “I can’t imagine a tax that I would support”.
The Boston Globe reported at the time, “But the prospect of a tax increase complicates the picture for Romney, who is widely seen as wanting a healthcare bill that he could boast about if he runs for president in 2008. Romney has ruled out new taxes to finance an expansion of health coverage.” (Oct 16, 2005).
We could go on about countless issues where Mitt held his ground in conservative princinples while governing here, despite great political risk to himself. I’m sure he wasn’t the most conervative governor ever, but he was able to do a lot to keep liberals at bay while in office. Besides, rather than just calling him a liberal, why don’t we look at his record?
July 31st, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Barry Goldwater was personally Pro-Choice and remained so until his passing in 1998.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Some of you look like little babies….This is one poll on the last day of July…. the race is far from over….. grow up
July 31st, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Kavon,
“It sounds to me that you want Rudy to have personal beliefs that match yours exactly. Which sounds suspiciously to me like a religious test, which I thought “Romney Guys†vehemently opposed.”
It sounds to me like you may be confusing Romney guys with some the FDT evangelicals.
Seriously though, social issues are important enough for me to not consider voting for any candidate regardless of party affiliation. Most Rudy supporters seem to have social issues near the bottom of their priority list, which sounds very liberal-democratic-like to me.
If I have to vote between Rudy & Hillary, I see little difference from a values / social perspective. I can see little difference from a fiscal perspective between Democrats & Republicans. What’s that leave? The war? If things don’t turn around for the better in Iraq, Rudy will find himself on the losing side of that issue. In fact, any liberal would argue that he is already on the losing side of that issue.
This is why many of us may change our party affiliation to Independent and go-fishing on election day.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Hard to see how anyone is acting like a “baby” – most of the latest posts have been discussion on issues.
And yes, this is one poll, but, even if nothing more than an one-time skewed poll, it highlights the fact that Giuliani could still be our nominee – which, for some of us Conservatives – is a very real and pressing problem.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:06 pm
ACT Blog = Scared
July 31st, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Well, I don’t know about going fishing – its a little cold up here that time of year – not unheard of for there to be snow.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:08 pm
If Rudy is the nominee…. you all should support him. He is going to nominate conseravative judges… will have a pro-life vp and will be much better than Hillary.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:10 pm
It is easy,
You get a little shack to block out the wind, bring yourself a gas heater, bring your ice pick, your worms, your lunch, and a few other pals.
It is not about the fishing, it is about getting out & way, and also – sending a message.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Iowa,
Strict conservationist and conservative judges who (like Rudy) believe Roe is “good constitutional law” and that the government must subsidize constitutionally guaranteed rights?
I realize I bring this up a lot…but that’s because Rudy supporters refuse to acknowledge it, and keep on using the worthless “strict constructionism” line.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Miguel Estrada would be a Rudy Giuliani SC judge….
July 31st, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Iowa, we have no idea whether he’ll nominate anti-Roe judges or not. He think Roe is good law and doesn’t think a strict constructionist has to oppose it.
For my part I’d be satisfied with Rudy only if he gave the choice of Supreme Court justices to someone I could actually trust on the issue.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:15 pm
I think the main problem here is that a disproportionate amount of “I’ll let the Dem win before I vote for Rudy” are “Romney Guys”. At least here at this site.
This makes all of us “Non-Romney Guys” a little nuts considering that Mitt didn’t even agree with you 100% until 2004, which just happens to coincide with the beginning stages of his presidential campaign.
Now I have stated on numerous occasions that I don’t really care about this. Race 4 2008 will become the most ardent Pro-Romney site on the internet should Mitt win the nomination. I am personally committed to defeating the Democrats in 2008 no matter who the nominee is.
But I have to tell you it will be difficult at first considering that all the non-Romney folks were willing to commit to supporting Mitt should he win, and a large portion of the “take my ball and go home crowd” are “Romney Guys”. Which is especially ironic considering how vehemently Mitt supported abortion in debates with uber-liberals Ted Kennedy and Shannon O’Brien.
That’s the honest truth folks… And I believe I speak for the vast majority of Non-Romney supporters out there.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Iowa, I support people who support the same things I do, not becuase they are the “lesser of two evils”. Will Giuliani appoint pro-lifew judges? I don’t know, he has not said so himself. Will he pick a pro-life VP? Probably, but a VP has little authority over issues.
As for me being “scared” of something, it depends on what you are talking about. Yes, I do have serious concerns that Rudy’s nomination would do long-term damage to the GOP, though I think the word “scared” might be a bit of a reach.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Kavon… well said.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Kavon:
here here
July 31st, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Kavon,
I was giving my opinion. I don’t think that it is right to extrapolate my opinion to all Romney supporters on this site or others.
In fact, I think Romney himself would be the hardest worker for Rudy should Rudy win the nomination.
Again, I was speaking for myself – lowly ‘ol cwpete – a nobody..
July 31st, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Since you anti-Rudy types keep bringing up the “Roe is good law” argument, could one of you at least link to the statement so that we could (re-)assess the larger context?
I think it might be time for an all the quotes in one place linkfest for Rudy on abortion and social issues. Anyway, I’d welcome it, or a link if it’s already been done.
Anyway, Rudy’s not going to give any ironclad guarantees about “appointing pro-life judges.” The only candidates who do that are typically the ones who don’t have any chance of winning, since, once President, applying such statements would virtually doom any judge up for confirmation. A judge is supposed to advance his or her principles and agree to judge each case on its merits, not give outcome guarantees.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:28 pm
I think there are things about all of the support factions that drive the others a little crazy.
I get irritated by the Thompson supporters who say “He is the only Conservative” and the Rudy supporters who say “Its Rudy as the nominee or Hillary as President”.
But, of all of those, inclding the “a Dem before Rudy” line you mentioned, isn’t the stance that you will only support a candidate who agrees with you, and not the candidate who is the “lesser of two evils”, the most reasonable statement?
July 31st, 2007 at 1:29 pm
I’m a NON-Romney guy but I care how the Court looks at social issues. Rudy supports abortion and doesn’t think a judge needs to oppose Roe to be a strict constructionist.
Where does that leave someone who has a pro-life litmus test for Presidential candidates?
For a Catholic like Rudy to not care about abortion also troubles me deeply. In addition to his personal indiscretions it makes me wonder if he’s a functional atheist. _That_ is scary.
If we begin pulling troops out of Iraq before November then there will be nothing important to divide Hillary and Rudy on the issues.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Kavon, I’m a Mitt Romney supporter, but I’ll likely support whomever the GOP nominee ends up being, as I think most of us will.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:32 pm
I am surprised at the remark that someone made about people not knowing who Mitt Romney is. Do you all think that is true? I have known his name forever it seems and I live in the Midwest. I think Mitt should be a lot higher in the polls than Fred, who has an incurable cancer, no executive experience and a weak resume plus no plan for his Presidency. I have been told by someone who knows a lot about polls, that you can sway a poll just by the areas you decide to do the polling in. so, in Florida if you just poll the panhandle and not the southern part of the state, you will get a skewed result. I have no idea if this is what is happening to Mitt. I also think that we should know for every poll that is posted who is paying for this particular poll. Mitt should be a strong candidate and I don’t know, or neither does anyone else, if some of the polls are cooked with special sauce. Mitt has the executive experience and the resume to be a great CIC. I am still hoping that Rudy wins but will gladly support Mitt if he wins the Primary.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:36 pm
That statement about what is and isn’t “scary” qualifies as an attack on the beliefs of other contributors here. I thought that was verboten. It’s either fighting words or pretty darn close.
If TLG is paying attention and is in the mood, we can probably anticipate a long series of posts in which believers are vilified as people who insist on imposing their fairy tales on people who either believe different fairy tales or prefer something other than fairy tales. It’s a no-win proposition.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Funny how all of the sudden Iowans don’t seem to care that Rudy skipped out on their straw poll. I don’t think this poll is very accurate given that most Iowans resent Giuliani for skipping out on Ames.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:40 pm
econ grad student, I think you misquoted Rudy. He never said that he does not care about abortion, he said he had to follow the law. Rudy also said he personally does not like abortion and will push adoptions. Do you really think that President Bush could have changed the law about abortion. Why has GWB done nothing about it? Even Justices Roberts and Alito said they have to follow the law and cannot on a whim change it. What could Rudy or Mitt or Fred do about abortion? Most of the laws governing abortion are being made on the state level. In my state, Illinois, the Dem governor ordered all pharmacists to dispense the morning after pill or have their licenses revoked. econgradstudent, I also think judging Rudy’s morals is not any of our place. That’s up to God not us. If the Catholic Church is not villifying him, then neither should we.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:46 pm
all i can say is there’s a lot of mitt bot fans that would be in denial or be very enlightened if they read factcheck.org a little bit.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Getting back to the poll itself, I think this poll is a reflection of one big thing: Two big name Conservatives are competing for the nomination. The Conservative base is divided between Romney and Thompson, and, sure enough, it created the one senario where a liberal like Giuliani can win the GOP nomination. One of them has to drop out or fall significantly in the polls before either can win.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:50 pm
I absolutely reject the contention that someone must believe in God to be a conservative.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Act Blog,
Your continued referral to Rudy as a liberal is coming dangerously close being considered trolling.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Iowans don’t care about the Straw Poll anymore… Fred and John aren’t going, why should Rudy?
July 31st, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Pisces:
Going off your FL poll example, it is absolutly true that a poll in N. FL would yield
far different results than a poll in S. FL. The two have almost 0 in common other than the
same liscence plate. It is almost like polling 2 different states.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:56 pm
#70
Why?
I mean I suppose someone could choose to support conservatism which is inconsistent with materialism but why would they?
July 31st, 2007 at 1:59 pm
ACT Blog,
Three days have passed since you conveniently disappeared from the thread titled “A Red State No More” in which you made the following fallacious argument and then never responded to my answer and follow-up question.
ACT Blog: (3 days ago…)
Enough of the “single issue voter†crap.
Aron, let me ask you a question, would you vote for a Republican who wanted to drastically raise taxes and increase regulation? How about one who wanted to cut our military by 50% and try to make friends with Al-Qaeda and Castro?
If the answer is no, how do I know you are not a single issue voter?
I for one, would not vote for a candidate who was in favor of either, becuase those are un-Republican positions. Its not that I’m a single issue voter, its that I don’t support any candidate who is not strong on all three primary issues: economy, military, and family/life.
My response to you:
Thank you for providing examples to perfectly illustrate my point.
The percentage of Republicans who would vote for a GOP candidate who wanted to drastically raise taxes and increase regulation is probably somewhere between zero and 3 percent.
The percentage of GOPers who’d vote for a Republican who wanted to cut our military by 50% and try to make friends with Al-Qaeda and Castro is, I’d guess, between 0 and 1 percent.
The percentage of Republican primary voters who’d vote for a Republican who supports abortion rights is over 60 percent nationally, and only 23% of Republicans in the socially conservative state of South Carolina say they wouldn’t vote for Giuliani in the primary under any circumstances (and that figure would be much lower if he were the nominee up against Hillary Clinton in the general).
And now, in #37, you’ve chosen to try and play the same ridiculous card again, asking Kavon: If Giuliani agreed with you on every issue except that he wanted to cut and run from Iraq, would you support him?
What you are seemingly oblivious to is that you are demonstrating just how weak your position is within the Party by the comparisons you make.
The percentage of Republicans who’d vote in the primary for a candidate that wanted to cut and run from Iraq is somewhere between 3 and 5 percent.
I’ll ask this question one more time. Perhaps a more honest social conservative than yourself will be willing to offer an answer…
If Rudy becomes president and replaces Justices Stevens and Ginsburg with two strict constructionists in the mold of Alito and Roberts; and they overturn Roe, reverting abortion back to the states, will social conservatives then follow through on their threat to sit on the political sidelines, or will they turn out in droves in 2012 to reward and reelect the pro-choice Republican who was responsible for eliminating their entire political platform’s raison d’être?
July 31st, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Kavon, interesting isn’t it that a lot of people on this site are calling both Rudy and Mitt “liberals”?
July 31st, 2007 at 2:03 pm
The fact that not a single political figure of importance showed up at Falwell’s funeral should be sufficient indicatin that the hijacking of the Republican party by Socons is officially over.
July 31st, 2007 at 2:03 pm
ACT blog, I am beginning to wonder if Fred will decide not to enter the race. He keeps pushing his announcement date back and won’t talk about his health issues. He remains in hiding and won’t tell us his specific plans for the Presidency. He really doesn’t sound like he wants to be President. I have felt for awhile that his supporters want it more than he does.
July 31st, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Emtee, It’s because they ran as far left as they needed to in their far-left state (city) and now are trying to suddenly appeal to conservatives.
A politician who spends their entire career appealing to liberal Democrats has a credibility problem with actual conservatives.
July 31st, 2007 at 2:16 pm
I don’t know, here’s why:
If Roe v. Wade is overturned, Social Conservative would be very happy, and would probably be alright re-electing Rudy. The problem, however, is that the discussion and debate would then turn to what national limits, if any, should be placed on abortion. Naturally, Social Conservatives are going to want to place federal limits on the procedure, since not every state would ban abortion. If Giuliani is unwilling to support those limits, well, I don’t know what would happen.
July 31st, 2007 at 2:21 pm
I’m curious to see a poll without Thompson in it. Who will his people turn to if he doesn’t
get in. Romney as a way of stopping Rudy? Giuliani as the inevitable front-runner or the other
man who has yet to get in the race Gingrich?
July 31st, 2007 at 2:24 pm
“…since not every state would ban abortion.“
You are correct. Unfortunately (or fortunately), that is that way the U.S. Constitution was written. The 10th Amendment was meant to make issues like abortion one for the individual states to decide.
And if you are referring to a Constitutional Amendment to ban abortion… In what universe does that amendment pass by a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress and then be ratified by 37 states?
July 31st, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Without the civil war I wonder if we’d still be trying to pass an anti-slavery amendment.
It’s really discouraging to discover how few Americans have cared about the unprotected among us.
July 31st, 2007 at 2:32 pm
econ grad: are you saying that those of us who support Rudy automatically by virute of
choosing him as a candidate don’t care about the abortion issue?
July 31st, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Do you really believe that the Founders would have supported mass legal abortions like we see today?
And Johnathan, if it looks like a duck… Rudy Supporters either: 1) Don’t care about abortion, 2) Are in favor of abortion, or 3) Don’t care about it enough to oppose Giuliani.
And, if Roe v. Wade is overturned, you don’t need a Constitutional Amendment, you simply need a law passed by Congress – which only requires half +1, a much more attainable number.
July 31st, 2007 at 2:48 pm
How about 4.) that it is not the only issue on which we should elect a President of the
United States
July 31st, 2007 at 2:51 pm
No, Jonathan I don’t.
I’m sure some people who support Rudy actually believe they’re not doing something wrong.
Someone could only not care about abortion once they realized Rudy was an enemy of pre-birth human beings.
July 31st, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Someone could only not care about abortion once they realized Rudy was an enemy of pre-birth human beings.
Statements like this are exactly why Socons are toast.
July 31st, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Kavon (#55),
Well said. Speaking as a Romney supporter who would take my ball and not only go home should Rudy win, but possibly play for the other side, your frustrations toward several pro-Romney folks are understandable. FWIW, I see a majority of Romney folks (on this site, as well as Romney blogs) willing to say they’d also support Rudy if he won. I also see non-Romney folks who refuse to support Rudy.
The fact that you’d be willing to support Romney doesn’t make my refusal to support Rudy any easier for me. Trust me. But I can’t in good conscience say that I’d support a candidate because of my fondness for that candidate’s supporters, or out of a belief that party loyalty comes before policy loyalty. My opposition to Rudy is rooted in the issues at stake, not simply the fact that he’s “not Romney”. For example, I’d support McCain, Gingrich, Fred, Huckabee, Brownback, etc if they won.
July 31st, 2007 at 3:20 pm
CK MacLeod: Since you anti-Rudy types keep bringing up the “Roe is good law†argument, could one of you at least link to the statement so that we could (re-)assess the larger context?
I’m always a fan of making sure the context and facts of an argument are straight. In 1999 or 2000 Rudy was asked by George Will on ABC whether or not Roe v. Wade was “good Constitutional lawâ€. Rudy said “Yesâ€.
July 31st, 2007 at 3:23 pm
ACT,
Guess What? Your precious anti abortion savvior Willard Mitt Romney doesn’t support national limits on abortion either. Read that sentence again and let it sink in.
He doesn’t support the Human Life Amendment
He refuses to call abortion murder
He says that he’s perfectly fine with states keeping abortion legal if Roe was to be overturned
He does not support federal limits on abortion(except on the margins which Rudy does as well)
He will not lead a fight for national abortion limits
He too says he won’t have a litmus test and he hasn’t promised to appoint pro life judges
It’s amazing how he’s snookered you
July 31st, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Actually, ACT, you need at least 60 votes since the pro choice dems would 100% mount a filibuster to prevent such a thing. WHen you add in the pro choice Repubs such as Specter, Collins, Snowe and a few others, it will never happen
2nd, such a law would be clearly unconstitutional and even judges liek Scalia and Thomas and have said theu they would strike such a law down so all your efforts would be in vain
Try again
July 31st, 2007 at 3:28 pm
econ grad student, I agree that Rudy and Mitt ran on platforms more to the left than they are running now. Mitt was, for example, still far to the right of his Democratic opponent in the race for governor, but not running on a platform as conservative as the one he’s running on right now. But if he’d run too conservative a platform at the time, he wouldn’t have had a chance to win Governor. And that would have been a loss because we’d rather have someone who could win and govern more to the right than have someone too far to the right, unelectable, and then have someone on the far left win instead.
I personally don’t have a problem with this. Why can’t the candidates run on different platforms in different races? What’s important is they keep their election promises, and Mitt did that. He vowed to bring the state into fiscal shape after their disaster, while avoiding tax increases wherever possible. He did that.
July 31st, 2007 at 3:37 pm
From Mitts interview on ABC in Februrary
Stephanopoulos: So if abortion is the taking of a life, should women who have abortions and doctors who perform them be jailed?
Mitt Romney: My view is that we should let each state have its own responsibility for guiding its laws relating to abortion.
(Doesn’t sound like he’s pushing federal limits to me)
My preference would be to see the Supreme Court do something which is up to them, not up to me. Even if elected president, I don’t guide this. The Supreme Court does.
But I’d like to see the Supreme Court allow states to have greater leeway in defining their own laws.
Stephanopoulos: But if it’s killing, why should states have leeway?
Mitt Romney: You know, that’s one of the great challenges that we have. There are a lot of things that are morally very difficult and, in some cases, repugnant that we let states decide.
For instance, Nevada allows prostitution. I find that to be quite repugnant as a practice.
He compares abortion, which many believe is murder to prostitution and says he’s ok with letting states decide to legalize it)
Stephanopoulos: But murder is illegal in every state.
Mitt Romney: And so we let states make some of these very difficult decisions. That’s one of the difficulties here.
(Apparently Mitt would be ok if NY decided to legaize murder)
Also, I feel a great empathy for women who have difficult decisions in this regard. I don’t want to impose my view on the lives of women, and yet this is one of those points where mature men and women have to come together and say, “What’s the right course?” And in my particular view, I believe in life, I believe in respecting life, and I believe that we should, as a series of states, allow states to make their own choice in this regard.
(He doesn’t want to impose his views and he thinks that pro choice states should be able to remain pro choice. Doesn’t sound so pro life to me)
Stephanopoulos: But, personally, what do you believe the punishment should be for an abortion?
Mitt Romney: Well, I’m not about punishment. That’s not what I’m considering.
I’m saying that, in my view, we should let the states make that decision and I am in favor of life and in favor of choosing life.
(He won’t even come out and say what he think sthe punishment for abortion should be. Way to be brave and take a stand for life there, Mitt)(AGain, he will let states decide. So much for you r thoughts that he’ll support and push for a federal ban. Of course given his record of flip flops, he may well do so_
Stephanopoulos: So you’re not going to say what the punishment should be.
Mitt Romney: I don’t begin to have any idea for what a particular state’s decision should be. I think the…
(He doesn’t even have any idea about punishments for abortion)
Stephanopoulos: But you’ve been governor of a state. You have to have some idea.
Mitt Romney: Well, our state is overwhelmingly a pro-choice state and Massachusetts would, under the construct I suggested, remain a pro-choice state.
(IOW, every pro choice state will REMAIN pro choice and Mitt won’t do a thing a bout it. Is that really the pro life leader you want?)
This is not about punishment. This is about allowing states to make a decision on an issue of great moral significance to a lot of people and I think, state by state, we should allow a federalist approach as it relates to the issue of abortion.
(A federalist, state by state approach. Hmmm? Sounds like your belief that he’ll push for federal limits just doesn’t hold water)
July 31st, 2007 at 3:37 pm
I have a hard time understanding why the abortion issue is such a big deal, I guess for me fiscal policy, economic policy and foreign policy are ten times more important. That’s why I support Romney. The presidency isn’t a job for someone with no executive experience. I mean seriously, the government is out of control as far as spending and taxation. We need someone who can run it like a business, not a unilateral tax and spend organization with no motivation to improve.
I could care less what Giuliani or Romney’s position is on abortion since this is an issue decided by courts long ago, and I’m not so sure even Scalia would overturn Roe v. Wade given the emphasis he places in the Stare Decisis doctrine. And how would stopping abortion make families stronger in America?
July 31st, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Fine, so you would need a Constitutional Amendment, yes, it would take a long time.
I think it comes down to one simple thing: Romney opposes abortion, Rudy supports it. Becuase of that fact, I trust Romney much more on the issue.
Yes, Mitt has said he will not make abortion a litmus test, but, since he sees Roe as bad law, it seems highly unlikely that he would ever appoint a pro-choice judge. Rudy is the opposite.
No, Romney is not ideal, If we were not in the middle of a war, Romney might not be my top pick (I originally liked Brownback), but he is a lot better than Giuliani.
July 31st, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Emtee, abortion is a big deal for people like me because we see it: 1) As a horrible practice that takes innocent life, and 2) Becuase abortion is destroying future generations. In a decade or so, the Baby Boomers will start to die off, and its possible that that would lead to a declining population. A declining population makes this country weaker. It decreases the size of our economy, and could also lead to decreased influance in the world. Essentially, it makes us like Some of the Western European countries: A dying nation.
For some people like me, when you see that there are more than a million abortions per year, more than 48 million since Roe v. Wade, and that for approx. every 4 births there is 1 abortion – that is just unacceptable.
July 31st, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Jim,
It comes down to this:
Who is more likely to appoint Pro-life judges? Romney.
Who is more likely to sign anti-abortion legislation? Romney.
end of story.
July 31st, 2007 at 4:03 pm
I see abortion as a repugnant practice too. But in my view, so is premarital sex. How many married couples get abortions? Probably very few. The abortions are people that are having kids that probably have no way to support such kids and don’t want them. So should we make premarital sex illegal since that is the real root of the problem? Does it make America a better place by forcing people to have unwanted children? Does that strengthen families? Is that the solution to a declining U.S. population?
Yes abortion is a repugnant practice and I would argue that the decision to have the kid had already been made when the person decided to participate in the act. Nevertheless, do we want government mandating this to the people? If they mandate abortion, why not sex? Don’t we as conservatives want LESS government interference in our lives? Less taxes, less regulation, etc. Do I want the government to tell me I can’t own a gun? Do I want the government to tell me how many kids I can have?
July 31st, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Abortion should only be an option in cases where health or life is involved or where rape was the cause. Rather than allowing unrestricted abortions, we need to make it so that unwanted children are put up for adoption.
Yes, as Conservatives we want less government, but there a few, very few cases where we have to consider allowing government regulation and interference to help keep the country strong. Abortion is one of those cases.
July 31st, 2007 at 4:19 pm
I guess to summarize my view, like Giuliani, if Roe v. Wade were overturned it would be “OK”. It’s an issue that’s up to the courts. For court nominees any strict constructionist or originalist will do. I don’t want an abortion litmus test of any kind. I also think it’s important to stick to precedent. I just don’t care about this issue as much as other issues that will be so critical to shaping the future of America.
July 31st, 2007 at 4:50 pm
So much for Romney having that massive lead in NH and Iowa. And considering Rudy has not even started to properly campaign, and run big shot television spots, watch out.
July 31st, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Kris,
You need to take one of my huge grains of salt I’ve offered in #13. This is ARG we are talking about here.. It is just one poll..
July 31st, 2007 at 5:30 pm
act blog, tell me why you think a guy who says this would champion the pro life cause:
i am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice and so far I’ve been able to successfully do that and my personal philosophical views about this issue is not something that i think would do anything other than distract from what i think is a more critical agenda which relates to the topic we’re talking about today but also jobs education and health care.
did he just say jobs were more important than abortion?
July 31st, 2007 at 6:00 pm
sampo, tell me what’s wrong with having a different platform for a different race? When Romney ran for governor, he wouldn’t have been elected in Massachusetts if he had run on a platform of pro-life. He chose a position that although he may have personally objected to, was the one that the majority of the people wanted. Now that he’s running for president with a different set of constituents, he has chosen to run a different platform. What’s wrong with that?
July 31st, 2007 at 6:00 pm
“Romney opposes abortion, Rudy supports it.”
Maybe some Rudy-ite has done additional research on the George Will interview and whether Rudy’s reply fairly or fully represents his views. On the other hand, what difference does it make whether Rudy does or doesn’t consider Roe “good law” (whatever that means, precisely)? He’s not running for Justice.
As John Schmitz used to like to say (anyone else remember John Schmitz?), there ain’t a dime’s worth of difference between Rudy and Romney in any practical sense. They both claim to oppose abortion personally. They both promise to appoint conservative judges. They both would leave decisions to the states if Roe is overturned. They both favor polices that would reduce the number of abortions. They both support the Hyde Amendment.
The only difference is that Romney makes a point of caressing and cooing in ways that make Socons feel better. What y’all are really in a snit about is that Rudy instead tells it like it is. Given that it was already far too late in the game to pretend that he was “one of you,” he’s decided instead to see how far he can get without support that he was never going to get anyway, and it probably serves his larger purpose of making up the difference with moderates and independents to have hardcore RTL conservatives attacking him – especially since fear of RTL conservatives is probably as strong or stronger among moderates as fear of “functional atheists” is on the religious right.
In the meantime, it’s an insult and a distortion to toss off lines like “Rudy supports abortion.” The truth is that he doesn’t oppose it in language that’s as superficially strong, if fundamentally empty, as that of the candidates who have been trying to woo the Socons more ardently.
July 31st, 2007 at 6:15 pm
emtee,
I heard it from a Romny-bot. He DOES change his positions on even number years.
July 31st, 2007 at 6:19 pm
sampo, you still haven’t answered my question. What’s wrong with changing your position over time as long as you keep your campaign promises, and especially when you are running for a different office with different constituents? Also, for extra credit, point to me a politician that hasn’t changed his mind on an issue or two.
July 31st, 2007 at 6:35 pm
what’s wrong with undermining your personal convictions and integrity to get elected?
surely you jest.
here’s your answer:
people respect politicans who stand for something. romney has a very big problem with that.
few respect politicans who claim to be life long hunters who claim to be life long hunters one day. then the next day admit they’ve been hunting twice. then the next day admit they’ve been hunting “more than twice”
i’m not a hunter, i care little either way about gun laws. what i do know is that i dont respect being jerked around like that.
July 31st, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Ah, yes — CK Mcleod — I just got here.
But I’m angered at this –
“# econ grad stud Says:
July 31st, 2007 at 1:29 pm
I’m a NON-Romney guy but I care how the Court looks at social issues. Rudy supports abortion and doesn’t think a judge needs to oppose Roe to be a strict constructionist.
Where does that leave someone who has a pro-life litmus test for Presidential candidates?
For a Catholic like Rudy to not care about abortion also troubles me deeply. In addition to his personal indiscretions it makes me wonder if he’s a functional atheist. _That_ is scary.”
Oh no — the big scary atheists. I wish that Rudy were an atheist, but he is certainly not. I’m actually getting a little sick of talking about Rudy and abortion, because — as Kavon has pointed out — for you Romneybots, there is literally no other issue other than abortion to determine conservatism. To hear Rudy be called a “liberal” is so silly, it doesn’t even merit a response. I think calling Rudy a liberal says a *lot* more about econ grad stud than about Giuliani.
I’ve always maintained, however, that Giuliani is a functional social conservative, not a functional atheist! You pointed out his personal indiscretions — I guess atheism goes hand-in-hand with adultery (thanks for that one) — as a sign of ‘functional atheism.’ What in hell does that have to do with his policies, even if cheating on your wife was a sign of atheism?
July 31st, 2007 at 6:42 pm
ACT Blog— All I hear from you is anti-Rudy this and anti-Rudy that.
Remember that the Constitution Party is searching for a viable candidate for 08’ and you are not obliged to remain with the GOP if your sense of morality dictates so.
The party where family and freedom comes first is now the party where corruption and cronyism takes precedence.
And guess whose watch this has occurred under? No, not the moderates or libertarians…. The RR? Yes sir.
We have a RR anointed President who has done SFA to advance the abolishment of R v W. We also have a RR anointed President who is pushing for comprehensive immigration reform, and a bloated federal government, which places him against the heart and soul of the Republican Party.
So where does the moral compass point?
I think you are expecting too much and confusing your own personal prejudices ahead of reality. The reality being- Giuliani, as a fiscal conservative who respects your social views, can beat Clinton, Obama and Edwards.
Your point about voting for a Democrat over a “RINO” has crystallised the point that intrinsically you are the furthest thing from a Republican.
I’m happy Rudy is provoking these kinds of reactions from so-called social conservatives. Remind me of your dedication to preserving the sanctity of life when Clinton, through your direct action of sitting back and allowing her to take office, nominates Ted Kennedy as a SCOTUS nominee.
We need someone like Rudy or Mitt (I hate admitting it) who are true reformers
capable of changing Washington for the better. The party requires a new face and a new style of leadership.
I see no difference of opinion between Rudy and all the other top-tier candidates when it comes to the issue of abortion.
Get off your high horses and focus on the issues that truly matter: Rudy opposes abortion and won’t be pushing pro-life measures if elected.
July 31st, 2007 at 7:08 pm
…. and he won’t be pushing pro-life or pro-choice measures because he is a man of the law. Those kind of matters are best left to the states, I agree.
Kavon, ACT Blog moronically implied that Rudy supporters either don’t care about abortion or support it. As a pro-life conservative, I’d like to register my offence, as to imply Giuliani supporters welcome the theorem of abortion is both wrong and erroneous.
ACT- Blog you really need to be mindful of the opinions of others. The issue of abortion is not an issue that should be thrown around with ease and carelessness.
I think you’ll find many social conservatives on Rudy’s side— conservatives who understand and respect his view on more adoptions and less abortions.
July 31st, 2007 at 7:11 pm
I’m having trouble understanding (96) regarding Romney’s belief that ROE is bad law.
If one has a conversion of the heart and comes to believe that abortion is wrong, that seems to me understandable. In fact, that’s what happened to me.
I don’t understand how Romney would, in the same respect, come to believe ROE is bad law. I don’t mean morally bad but set upon a poor legal basis.
Examening the merit of the law, as it is, shouldn’t change one way or the other.
Anyone with me on this line of thinking?
July 31st, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Yes, we do need a candidate like Romney, who can reform government, shrink the deficit, and advance the cause of Military, Fiscal, AND SOCIAL Conservatism.
If all I cared about was social issues, I would be supporting Brownback
If all I cared about was military issues, I would be supporting Giuliani or Hunter
If all I cared about was economic issues, I would be supporting McCain
If all I cared about was immigration, I would be supporting Tancredo
The fact is, I want a candidate who is strong on all fronts, and so far, Romney is the only person who fits that description.
Its amazing how much hate gets thrown your way just becuase you are a social conservative.
July 31st, 2007 at 7:16 pm
sampo, #109 I guess I’m one of those people that think that sometimes politicians should not stick to whatever they personally believe in if the people overwhelmingly want something else. I also think that politicians should stick to their campaign promises. If they don’t there’s no integrity there. It is better to have a Romney not tampering with the status-quo on abortion in Massachusetts than it is to have his liberal counterpart as governor. I respect John McCain for sticking to his unpopular principles, but not enough to vote for him when I think he needs to give some of them up when a strong majority of people believe he is wrong. I repeat: Romney would not have made it in Massachusetts as a pro-life candidate. But I’m glad he got elected and kept his campaign promise not to interfere with the law as it stood.
TLG, I don’t appreciate being labeled a “Romneybot”. Respectfully, I don’t label Fred or Rudy supporters with any derisive name. And I disagree that for we “romneybots”: “there is literally no other issue other than abortion to determine conservatism”. I’m a Romney supporter, and guess what, I don’t care about the abortion issue. I like Romney because he has integrity, leadership experience, and I think can address the issues of fiscal reform, taxation, and foreign policy. Those are so much more important than abortion in my view. Please don’t throw us all into the same mold.
July 31st, 2007 at 7:24 pm
CK, I trust Romney more on social issues, ok? You don’t have to, but after 115 posts, I’m clearly not going to convince you. Some of you support abortion, hate the religious right, love Rudy, etc., etc. I don’t. I care about abortion, see it as an important issue, and want a President who opposes abortion. Rudy is, if not pro choice, indifferent, which, in my book, are virtually the same thing.
And let me point out, Abortion is not the only social issue. Social issues are also about strong families, and Romney has not only taken a stronger line on this issue, but is also a much more trustworty person on social issues. Think about it, which candidate would you trust more to encourage strong families? The thrice-divorced, astranged from his kids, mistress living in the mansion candidate OR the one wife of 38 years, five sons, model father candidate?
and Scott, it is understandable why a person could change views on Roe v. Wade. Think about it like this: If you support abortion, you are likely to beleive that the privacy of the mother trumps the rights of the child. In that sense, you agree with Roe v. Wade – you see abortion as a “privacy of the woman” issue. If you oppose abortion, you probably believe that the child is entitled to a “right to life” – and you disagree with Roe.
July 31st, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Lord have mercy!
July 31st, 2007 at 7:53 pm
ACT Blog,
116. I’m talking about bad law concerning the sake of the law and the basis on which it is made. For instance, Alan Dershowitz the famous liberal pro-choice lawyer has long stated ROE to be bad law just on it’s face.
Putting aside moral convictions as honorable as they are, if we approach it from that stand point others may be more willing to address those concerns rather than and ideological, or religious point of view which are obviously not shared.
Mr. Romney seems to be a very intelligent person. It would seem to me he would be quite capable of seperating his new moral convictions from whether or not the law is good or bad in a legal sense. Otherwise it, to me, seems somewhat a politically expedient statement on his part.
July 31st, 2007 at 7:56 pm
“Well, if Rudy becomes the nominee, I may very well be in the business of shopping for a new party to support in 2008. If the GOP was gaurenteed to have a majority in the Congress, I would not be so concerned about Giuliani, but, since there is no such gaurentee, I have a very hard time supporting him.”
ACT blog, you are a genious as usual, but if we don’t vote for Guiliani (if nominated) in the general, our vote will be thrown away. When or if I vote for Rudy, it’s an anti-Hilary vote. Rudy is no Mitt, but he is also no Clinton! I’ll hate the vote I cast, but it’s better than not voting at all or voting for someone I know will lose. The good news is that Rudy probably won’t be nominated-why-because he isn’t Republican enough. If he is nominated, we might as well call the party the GNP (grand new party) instead of the GOP.
July 31st, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Rudy is not leading here in Iowa, he’s maybe 3rd…
July 31st, 2007 at 8:36 pm
I am as pro-Romney as anyone and I am also as pro-life as anyone (though it isn’t my only issue) and I would vote for Rudy in a general election, but not in a primary unless I became convinced that nobody else could get elected. My priorities for considering a candidate are their level of conservatism, their competence and finally electability.
I think the reason Kavon and others think that Romney guys are overwhelmingly anti-Rudy is because the site is almost totally Rudy and Romney. Obviously the Rudy guys have no trouble supporting him so that means most of the people who won’t vote for Rudy are Romney guys. Take a stroll over at Free Republic or fRedstate and you will see that the Fredheads dislike Rudy much more than most Romneybots here.
July 31st, 2007 at 8:39 pm
As for the polls, does anyone really believe that Rudy is ahead in Iowa and NH? Everyone who called out ARG for the outliers with McCain ought to be honest enough to recognize that these are almost certainly outliers in Rudy’s favor.
I do believe however that for some reason Rudy is probably doing that well in SC, but not in Iowa or NH, at least not this quickly. Eventually there is the possibility that Rudy could catch and pass Mitt in those states, but there is no way he did it already.
July 31st, 2007 at 9:02 pm
The poll is garbage as most ARG polls are but that said…
Enjoy this day Rudy fans. Feel proud that Rudy has a great chance at winning NH and IA. It will make his sound defeat by Mitt this January all the more sweet knowing he spend time and money to try to win it and still lost.
August 11th, we will see who is king in IA. And his name aint Brownback.
July 31st, 2007 at 9:10 pm
3 cheers for Husky, especially about Brownback!
July 31st, 2007 at 10:51 pm
This just shows what a HUGE mistake it was for Rudy to skip Ames.
All he needed to do was to win Iowa or NH and he’d be unstoppable.
Now that looks forlorn.
August 1st, 2007 at 2:11 am
114 – “If all I cared about was economic issues, I would be supporting McCain”
OH MY GOD.
August 1st, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Look here, A poll just out today Aug 1st showing Romney 1st with 25% of the vote & Rudy 3rd with 13% of the vote.
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=16689
Does not look like other polls will sustain ARG’s numbers. We’ll see.
August 7th, 2007 at 10:12 am
[...] is the third poll in the last week (the ARG three state poll dump and the Pew poll are the others) that show Thompson trailing among Conservatives/registered [...]
August 7th, 2007 at 10:28 am
[...] is the third poll in the last week (the ARG three state poll dump and the Pew poll are the others) that show Thompson trailing among Conservatives/registered [...]