Hwww.dakotavoice.com/2007/10/rasmussen-measures-third-party-appeal.htmlC:/Documents and Settings/Bob Ellis/My Documents/Websites/Dakota Voice Blog 20081230/www.dakotavoice.com/2007/10/rasmussen-measures-third-party-appeal.htmldelayedwww.dakotavoice.com/\sck.nqbx([I 9oOKtext/htmlUTF-8gzip9oJ}/yWed, 31 Dec 2008 22:05:12 GMT"146dc65b-0f9c-4ad0-af12-1e00faf3c9c2"gcMozilla/4.5 (compatible; HTTrack 3.0x; Windows 98)en, en, *&[I Dakota Voice: Rasmussen Measures Third Party Appeal

Featured Article

The Gods of Liberalism Revisited

 

The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever.  But how can we escape the snare?

 

READ ABOUT IT...

Thursday, October 04, 2007

Rasmussen Measures Third Party Appeal



Rasmussen Reports has a new poll out which looks at the "third party option" if Giuliani receives the nomination for president from the Republican Party.

In case you haven't heard, although Giuliani is solid in a number of areas, his pro-abortion and pro-homosexual positions are unacceptable to many people who hold to traditional values.

Here's what Rasmussen has to say:

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%.

Remember Ross Perot in the 1992 election? If there'd been no Ross Perot to siphon off those limited-government conservatives (Perot got nearly 19% of the popular vote) who didn't like the first President Bush and his broken "no new taxes" pledge, there would not have been a President Bill Clinton.

The article says that once a potential third party candidate was actually named, that 14% might drop lower due to a variety of factors, and that might be true. But it only takes a couple of percentage points to doom a presidential bid.

Even if it's half or even a third of that 14%, I think it's safe to say that if Giuliani gets the nomination and there's a third party candidate that limited-government values voters find appealing, it's virtually assured that we'll have a Democrat president in 2008--that is, unless an unexpected amount of middle-of-the-road voters also decide they've had enough of the status quo and opt for the third party. But either way, it means no Republican president.

Those who underestimate the sincerity of values voters on this Giuliani/third-party issue do not understand how seriously they take their values, especially on killing unborn children and promoting a sexual perversion that destroys the health of those who practice it and aims to wreck the institution of marriage.

Many values voters and limited-government voters also feel very betrayed by the lack of progress on core Republican values--and government spending like drunken Democrats--during Bush's administration and Republican control of congress. They probably aren't feeling exceptionally loyal to the Republican Party, these days. A Giuliani nomination would tell values voters "we don't give a rip about you" and would be more than enough to push them over the edge.

If some Republicans doubt values voters will pull the trigger on a third-party option in the face of a Giuliani nomination, they're playing Russian roulette...with 5 of the 6 chambers loaded.

(Are you listening, Republican Party establishment?)

Posted by Bob Ellis at 12:17 PM

Labels: ,

| Digg It | Stumble It | Reddit | | Yahoo Bookmark | Facebook |

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

All of the other republicans have supported socialist policies like drug precription benefit programs and progressive attempts at nation building abroad at the expense of hard working americans who give large percentages of their paychecks to the government.
All of the other republicans are scared to criticize marxists programs fruadulent, unconstitutional pyramid schemes like Social Security and Medicare.
All of the other republicans seem to believe that stretching our military recources thinly across Germany, the middle East and all the way to North Korea while running us into huge debt with the Chinese government is somehow a “Strong Defense”, when in fact it makes us extremely vulnerable to attack financially and militarily.
All of the other republicans appear hard pressed to name one decent book that would help explain their intellectual philosophy. This can be best explained by the fact that no consistent philosphy underlies their decisions except a Machiavellian drive to consolidate power and exploit the tax payers in the most efficient manner.
Ron Paul is the only candidate who truly has the taxpayer interests at heart.
There will never be another Republican president who is a member of the CFR(Council on Foreign Relations). The CFR republican is the same thing as a CFR democrat. 5%-10% of the voting public is now fully aware of this and any propaganda to the contrary merely reinforces this idea. The sooner the MSM and big GOP guys realize this the better chance they have of maintaining a credible party. Something tells em they will need to have it shoved in their face.
We are tired of being lied to by big government republicans about EVERYTHING, from foreign policy to their support of outright socialism.

10/04/2007 12:49 PM
Bob Ellis said...

Ron Paul is on-target in many areas such as taxes, America-first, illegal immigration, and such.

But he's dangerously naive about foreign policy as it relates to national defense and fighting the bad guys overseas. He sounds like a Leftist with the "Bush lied, people died" garbage which is demonstrably false. I understand his reluctance to get involved in foreign wars, as the Founders wisely warned against it.

However, the Founders, as wise as they were, didn't live in a day and age when an ICBM could strike American soil and wipe a city of millions off the face of the map in less than 30 minutes. They also didn't live in a day and age of enemies so cowardly that they would refuse to wear a uniform, and ran around deliberately targeting civilians for grisly deaths. We should still exercise caution about our foreign military engagements, but sitting around waiting for the enemy to strike on American soil in this day and age is an invitation for a lot of civilian deaths (remember 911?).

Iraq was believed by pretty much the entire world community to be working on or having WMDs (I still believe he had help hiding them and/or getting them out of the country before the invasion). Iraq was also defying 17 UN resolutions (I'm no fan of the UN, but those resolutions were being backed up by US political and military strength, so defying them was defying us), which had to be dealt with to maintain our respect in the world community. Iraq was also firing on US aircraft in the no-fly zone on a weekly if not daily basis. Saddam was also funding terrorism in Israel (this is completely documented) and there is strong evidence to indicate he was funding and supporting other terrorism (Salman Pak?), and may have even been connected to 911 (one of the 911 terrorists visited with an Iraqi official a few months before the attack). Further, Iran is on track for a nuclear program, and has been one of the top funders of terrorism for decades. Iran badly needs to be dealt with, but we could not deal with Iran with our flank in Iraq unsubdued and exposed. We had to deal with Iraq before we could deal with Iran.

No, though Ron Paul is an excellent choice in many policy areas, I simply cannot support someone for president who takes a head-in-the-sand approach to national security. As important as taxes and educational choice are, they take a backseat to keeping enemy missiles and terrorists out of this country.

10/04/2007 5:50 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
 
Clicky Web Analytics