Posted on 12/10/2006 11:57:45 AM PST by FairOpinion
Rudy Giuliani remains the most popular presidential hopeful for Republican Party sympathizers in the United States, according to a poll by Opinion Dynamics released by Fox News. 30 per cent of respondents would vote for the former New York City mayor in a 2008 primary.
Arizona senator John McCain is second with 23 per cent, followed by former House of Representatives speaker Newt Gingrich with nine per cent, and Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney with eight per cent. Support is lower for Kansas senator Sam Brownback, New York governor George Pataki, and California congressman Duncan Hunter.
(Excerpt) Read more at angus-reid.com ...
"1992 that showed Bush with a fairly strong conservative base (85%)"
That means that 15% of "conservatives" voted for Perot or Clinton - more evidence THEY elected Clinton.
Santorum may be the closest we will have to a Churchill. Anyway, I am not on-board with another RINO.
You-can-say-that-again BUMP for you, FReeper FRiend!
This FReeper ain't votin' for a liberal tax-and-spendacrat, either, whatever their party. I'm with you on that.
So what? If he makes it even remotely competitive, it'll be a blowout nationally.
I'm not backing Rudy at this point, and I don't think I'll be backing him in the primaries because of some of his stances, but let's go in with eyes open. If NY is close, Clinton is dead nationally.
What's even worse is the people that think Santorum is a RINO because he backed Specter in 2004.
Speaking of polls, surveyusa.com has an interestng interactive ... shows an electoral outcome of Hillary 184; Rudy 354 were those two to become the nominees.
I think a G and G ticket would be interesting. No McCain at any cost. His arrogance already has divided conservatives over this last 6 years of campaigning and with his deals and squeals, even though he is pro-war vs Islamofascism, he has soured me on him. I like Rudy-Newt as that ticket.
"Oh, goody -- another Hillary voter, do you think she qualifies and passes your litmus test? -- Because that's whom you are going to get, unless you vote for an electable R in the primary and THE R candidate, whoever it will be in the general election. I do hope it's not going to be McCain -- that's why I plan to vote for whoever the electable R candidate will be whether Giulianin, or Newt or if someone else rises."
Sorry, I refuse to sell myself out to a RINO or a conservative poser. I realize there is no such thing as a candidate that I 100% agree with, but I won't support someone that is so different in their worldview from mine, regardless of how "electable" or "popular" they are. I will be accountable for my actions someday, including who I voted for. Zip
I'm not backing Rudy at this point, and I don't think I'll be backing him in the primaries because of some of his stances, but let's go in with eyes open. If NY is close, Clinton is dead nationally.
And I am not dismissing Rudy's chances at all, there are primaries and debates and fundraising to still be done.
Out of the box, Clinton has a advantage in NY, she just won by 70% or so, so do try and keep your eyes open about that.
Would Obama be any better than Hillary?
If it's Guilani against Clinton, I'll take Guiliani. If she gets in and the terrorists have their way, we are all going to be abortions if we don't covert!
Giuliani has said, repeatedly, that Alito and Roberts are "promises kept" and refered to them as great picks.
That's the thing that makes me think I 'might' be able to support him, although I still have serious reservations.
I think this is the way Giuliani can win over pro-lifers, including myself, is by credibly saying something along the lines of:
"I personally think abortion should be legal, but there are some cases about it at a judicial level that have given far too much priority to the federal government and not enough to the States. As President, I wouldn't sign a law banning abortion, but I would support justices who would judge fairly, from an original intent perspective. the Constitution like Alito and Roberts (hint, hint)."
While I definitely have qualms about Guiliani, I don't think that conservatives should rule him out. In spite of his regrettable stands on social issues, he has implemented conservative policies in New York City and made them work, against great odds. If he will commit to naming Constitutionalist judges, conservatives should at least give him a second look instead of reflexively rejecting him.
I agree, but since he's not even that, what's the point? He's not particularly fiscally conservative, socially liberal, and for all I see soft on immigration.
His ONLY strength would be the WOT, and, while important, that's not enough on it's own.
Okay, so what's the most constructive way to turn this around? Is it yelling at people who haven't voted the way you wanted them to in the past? Or is it developing a coherent message that convinces the majority of people to vote for our candidates? I would say the latter.
I believe we already have a strong, effective message (think Reagan): we love America, we believe in a strong national defense, and on domestic issues, we believe in small, unintrusive government, free enterprise and private sector solutions. We need to discuss this here and elsewhere, and decide whether conservatives and Republicans can agree on this message. Then, we need candidates who believe these messages and can convincingly communicate them. Then, we need candidates who, after getting into office, actually do what they say they'll do.
The current problem is that I'm not sure that conservatives and Republicans do agree on this core message (or any other). And even if we do agree, I don't think we have many candidates who agree with these principles and can communicate them...and I know we don't have many elected officials who are willing to actually carry them out.
Joe Lieberman is also good on that, and that aint worth much to me by itself. Unless hes a Milton Friedman on economics, I think he has to be toast. (Of course, hes better than McCain, but that aint saying much)
Donkey obstruction is the reason the Republican-controlled Congress spent pork at LBJ-era levels? The donks are the reason for unConstitutional campaign finance "reform?" It's the donks' fault that 20 million Internet gamblers were suddenly deprived of their hobby only weeks before the election? Or that Homeland Security now includes provisions to prevent us from buying allergy medication without a license, when the whole reason the agency was formed was to focus exclusively on urgent national security issues?
C'mon. We can blame the dems for any number of things that didn't get done (social security reform, permanent tax cuts, etc.), but the republicans bear most of the blame for the crap that did happen.
It's a quagmire, conservatives need to redeploy (cut and run) from the Republican party... </sarcasm off>
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.