Posted on 02/12/2006 5:39:07 AM PST by johnny7
I just heard from the marvelous Stacie Rumenap (who makes CPAC run) that Sen. George Allen (R.-Va.) won this year’s CPAC straw poll. I don’t have the complete results at this point, but as soon as I get them, I will post. Here are some details:
(Excerpt) Read more at humaneventsonline.com ...
True or not, Bill Clinton himself gave Ross Perot credit for his first election and called him a factor in his 2nd election.
In 2000, Ross Perot endorsed Bush, and did so again in 2004.
James Carville, several times, on CNN credited Ross Perot with peeling off Bush Sr. votes, and names several states where he believed that to be the case.
However, there is a debate, since other polls that ran have been known to contradict their statements.
They really do not know what "conservative" means...either ignorant or dumb, take your pick (I would hate to think they were both).
The first 2 people you named, are committed and on record as NOT running for president in 2008.
Romney is running, but will probably be out of the elections by super tuesday.
Gingrich is a wild card, but probably not going to run and will use election talk to push his book (great book by the way).
Rudy will not placer higher then 3rd in New Hampshire, and will be finished by South Carolina.
Mike Pence would never, ever take a VP slot, and Rice is already ruling it out.
George Allen, if he gets right endorsements, will probably wind up with the nomination, his good luck might be that he faces a really weak democrat in the general election, if he is lucky, it will be Hillary Clinton.
He and Hillery would make a good ticket, that would split both parties.
That isn't very comforting since Ross Perot split the vote and we got X42.
If he throws his hat in, we can go over all the issues in a calm, well reasoned manner...much like your post.
Well, I have to admit, that picture of Rudi in drag, and I've seen the good one, won't help among the Clemenzas of the world.
Is there anyone in the world you hate more than Rudi?
Some of us will never vote for McCain. For those of us that won't vote for him we got a few choices. Stay home and not vote, vote 3rd party or vote for everything but the presidency. I am more inclined to do one of the last two.
Hopefully, the GOP wil find someone other than Rudy or Allen, an unapologetic conservative fighter.
With you there, FRiend.
>If McCain is the nominee millions of conservatives will stay home<
True. Everyone should write the RNC to tell them this. Maybe there's time to make a difference yet. (Do you suppose that the GOP is throwing in the towel so the New
World Order can take over?) :>(
Why do you think that Rudy has some "stance" on national defense that gives him any edge ? He was just the friggin mayor of NYC.
Exactly. Why are so many on this board so eager to see Rudi as some kind of man on horseback ?
There is no good reason to vote for Giuliani.
Why are you so eager to ascribe to him these heroic man on horseback qualities ? Those of us who have lived in the metro NYC area and are more familiar with him know that he has a LOT of skeletons in his closet and is total cultural liberal. There is no reason to see him as having some special credibility on national security other than pure wishful thinking.
Clemenza sees him as he is, not as you wish he was. You could throw a dart at the list of nominees and it would land on the name of someone with total credibility on national security which you hardly earn by being mayor of NY.
It's still very early...
Because he is smart, articulate (indeed a fantastic speaker), popular, has good judgment, is not fickle, is a proven leader, is not gratuitously abrasive, does not demonize those who in good faith disagree, agrees with me on the issues I really care about, and I think what the balance wheel of American voters care about, and can win. That is why I support him. And that is why a lot of folks in places that surprise support him, including the South. I hope he runs.
In the end, you want a guy with good judgment and courage to be CIC. One never knows what crises or issues will pop up. Rudy is the man to meet them with the right stuff.
I hope that helps.
Oh well of course. And we all know everything politicians say is 100% factual. I don't care if Bill Clinton thanked the Virgin Mary, the reason Perot got votes is because neither of the politicians represented those voters. And for one brief moment, we were reminded of what the Framers intended when it came to the responsibilities of voting. To actually vote for what you believe instead of voting for a party.
What would say would happen if the talking head shows gave actual equal time to some of the third parties? Say the two major alternate parties. Not just bring them on to discuss the fringe issues (i.e. Libertarian Party (big L) and drugs) but serious mainstream issues. Equal time on the 24/7 networks when serious issues are discussed for 6-8 months before the elections. I'd gather you'd find more than a few defecting from the one party system we currently have.
Then maybe perhaps we'd have a real shakeup in Washington DC
Perot did not cost Bush 1 the presidency. He took some more Bush votes than Clinton votes in the South, and some more Clinton votes than Bush votes in the north. Without Perot, Clinton would have won an absolute majority. I don't think Perot made any difference in the electoral votes in any state, certainly none of any consequence. Bush 1 was off his game in 1992, due to a thyroid problem, a weak economy, and Clinton was on his game, the most talented political salesman to come along in a long time, a very long time. The die was cast.
Exactly what I was saying. Bush I (whether it was health issues, economy, etc.) cost himself the election. And Clinton was there. However that doesn't negate the fact it's about time the media starts giving some third parties recognition. We need some wildcards in Washington instead of the same old same old
Actually, Torie, he IS gratuitously abrasive (recall his sneering response to all those police excessive force scandals on his watch. None of which have happened on Bloomberg's watch.), most definitely does demonize those who in good faith disagree (because he finds it impossible to believe that anyone who would disagree with him could be acting in good faith), cannot tolerate subordinates more talented than him (he dismissed Bratton as police commissioner because he was too popular and successful), and would as President bring a circle of associates into the White House that would make one yearn for the Grant and Harding administrations (imagine someone like Kerik wielding the powers of the Patriot Act).
What cost Bush I the presidency was the correct perception that he wanted to Commander in Chief of the Free World, not president of the United States. And that is because of a personal failing that I think he possessed. He's a snob. Look at his inner circle. All whitebreads born to wealth.
Bloomberg has the right stuff eh? :) You have advantage as a New Yorker, when it comes to anecdotal impressions. We shall see. If Rudy runs, his character will come out, be it your version, or mine.
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.