Posted on 12/16/2004 11:18:44 PM PST by kattracks
WASHINGTON — The stink of Bernard Kerik's rotten bid to become homeland security czar hasn't stuck to his chief cheerleader, Rudy Giuliani, who is a top pick for the presidency among Republicans, a new poll shows.A whopping 68 percent of Republican voters want to see Giuliani run for the White House in 2008, according to a new Quinnipiac University poll — showing little fallout among the party base in the wake of Kerik's embarrassing exit.
[snip]
And it shows that if party faithful get their way, Giuliani would face off against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in an Empire State showdown — which Giuliani would win, 45 percent to 43 percent.
[snip]
Although she's a favorite among Dems, 50 percent of all voters don't want to see the former first lady run for the White House.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
How many governorships do we control? Close to 30? We also have 55 Senators in the next Congress. If we cannot nominate a candidate from within our farm system with strong conservative credentials (i.e. 2nd Amendment, family values, pro-life advocate) then the GOP is in a lot more trouble than I could have ever imagined.
Four years out, Rudy is simply one of the most conspicuous members of the GOP, enjoying high name recognition and popularity in the aftermath of 9/11. Still, let's remember that pre 9/11, Rudy was going to leave office with his approval ratings in the toilet, scarred by a messy affair that had his mistress living in Gracie Mansion with his wife and children. His illness in 2000 also gave him an out from a race against Hillary that was quickly becoming unwinnable.
It is inconceivable to me that we could support a candidate that is to the left of a party platform that has offered us so much success on a national level since Reagan's victory in 1980.
Yes, he did ably fulfill his role, and I am glad that we weren't forced to endure the leadership of Mark Green at the particular historical moment.
Putting that aside, I don't see how this makes him indispensable to the future of the Republican Party.
Granted, his positions on foreign policy/national security are probably the most desirable part of any purely theoretical Giuliani candidacy, but that presumes that any prospective opponent would be worse on these issues, which has yet to be established, in my estimation.
Condaleeza Rice in her own words has defined herself as an "all over the map Republican". At the end of the day her positions on the issues would be no more palatable to the GOP base than Rudy's. Having said that, I think she has been a fine National Security Advisor and will be just as successful as Secretary of State.
I honestly think you would have to go all the way back to Eisenhower to find a candidate on a major party ticket who had never run for any kind of office before, statewide or national. This would be a serious impediment to any Rice candidacy regardless of where she stands on the issues. In the modern political era, with raising heaps and heaps of a requirement of any political campaign, I don't see how Rice makes a successful run. At this point, I couldn't even identify her base.
Hmmm. The media sure is looking to annoint George W. Bush's successor and he hasn't even taken the oath the second time.
How about the Rats? Why aren't we seeing their "next in line"?
Or do the Dummycrats want to know who they should be targeting so that they can campaign for 2+ years against HIM as they did campaigning against George W. Bush?
This Quinny poll must be of New York Republicans...
All things considered, are there really any substantive policy differences between Rudy and say a Lincoln Chafee? None that I am aware of, and I am totally repulsed by the thought of a Chafee candidacy (not that it would or could ever happen).
Stop with the Clinton v. Rice, or Hillary v. Rudy nonsense.
We need to quash this inane focus on name recognition and celebrity, and start looking for a candidate that can accumulate the requisite number of electoral votes to be elected to the White House four years hence.
The point is, Rudy has too much baggage to ever be elected to a national office.
It's unfortunate, but it does happen to have the benefit of truth.
I am keeping my fingers crossed that the Dims hop on the Hillary '08 train and ride it right over the cliff.
Keep your powder dry.
Uh, no. Beating Hitlery by 2 points is not a good sign. A Grilled Cheese Sandwich that looks like Richard Nixon would beat her by more.
"At this point, I couldn't even identify her base."
1. me (a long time 'on the committee' Republican) and other non-pigeon hole Republicans, conservative on some issues, moderate on others but never blindly lockstep; loving critics of GWB
2. women - vote for her 'put up or shut up
3. MANY blacks - the time is right and even overdue
4.a counter to Hitlery Clinton ; perfect foil in all respects
5. an expanded Republican "Base" read Party
6. George W Bush's wholehearted endorsement and run a
Senator as VP
7. a whole bunch of "undecideds'- Dr Rice is VERY electable if the Republicans do not become lockstep, fundamental and arrogant...or is the deal already cut? GW today HC tommorrow?
Go Rudy. He's tough, charismatic, has enormous appeal to the moderates who will swing the next election much like they swung this election.
I agree that we need to get beyond the Rudy, Condi, Pataki and God forbid, Schwarzeneggar talk and start dealing in political reality.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, after the '96 election, the names being bandied about, and dominating the public opinion polls were Powell, Kemp, Quayle and Elizabeth Dole. The early speculation may be fun, but it is indeed pointless. A few months ago, the MSM was speculating that Cheney would drop off the ticket to be replaced by Rice, Powell, Rudy or McCain. Complete and total foolishness.
2008 will be the first time in recent memory that the GOP does not have a designated heir apparent. After the dust settles on Bush term 2, we need to start investigating options and not be blinded by these baseless public opinion surveys taken a full three years before Iowa and New Hampshire.
I believe you have it backwards. We need to find a candidate that is a real conservative and will actually advance a real conservative agenda (like maybe vetoing some spending bills). Like my man Ron Paul. And then we need to try and persuade the voters that they should vote for a conservative. You will never make progress toward the conservative goals, which are to the right of the average voter, if you just count heads first.
Stay outa da Bushes!
That's why the Democrats are fighting so tenaciously to wrest it from the grasp of the GOP.
If not for some creative acts of ledgermain on the part of the Census Bureau, that extra congressional seat that currently belongs to North Carolina would be in Utah.
If Republicans were smart they would nominate someone from out West.
Frederick Jackson Turner's thesis aside, the West is where it's at.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.