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 ...
By seven what? Mistresses? /sarc
Carry CA against Clinton? I cannot see that ahppening. NY may be a toss up but I doubt it, Rudy never ran for election statewide in NY.Ok, I'll say it one more time:
1) No other REPUBLICAN candidate has a better CHANCE of taking the state of New York in the general election than Giuliani.
1) No other REPUBLICAN candidate has a better CHANCE of taking the state of California in the general election than Giuliani.
If someone else tells me that his chances aren't good against Hillary in either of those states, I'm just going to repeat myself again.
Rudy supports a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. He's no different than President Bush, as far as I can see. On the other hand, President Bush was more passionate about this cause. He seems obsessed with opening the floodgates and giving everyone amnesty.
There's more Republicans in CA than you think. A lot are just in hiding.
"I'd like to hear from him about his judicial philosophy and what kind of judges he'd be willing to support."
Rudy has been clear that he supports strict constructionists and refers to Chief Justice Roberts as the ideal jurist.
I think you're right.
Arnold could win here, but he's not eligible to run. Reagan would still win here.
What's needed is an almost nationalistic concervative who's more libertarian with regard to social issues, against taxes, and against gun control.
Oh. And who speaks with eloquence and conviction. Someone at home in front of television cameras, while standing up for conservativism and especially, for America.
If we can find someone like that - we cannot lose. They'll roll Hillary and Obama like the socialist weenies they are.
But it's important we find someone with that ability to communicate. Bush is right on most things (except immigration) but he can't talk for beans.
"1) No other REPUBLICAN candidate has a better CHANCE of taking the state of New York in the general election than Giuliani.
1) No other REPUBLICAN candidate has a better CHANCE of taking the state of California in the general election than Giuliani. "
===
Agreed.
CA just reelected Arnold Schwarzenegger governor, while conservative McClintock couldn't even get elected Lt. Gov.
It really does not matter who Freepers prefer as the Republican nominee.
The media will decide by virtue of coverage volume:
1. pushing(McCain).
2. degree of personal/political destruction (Newt)
3. character assassination (Newt and Rudy)
4. Right Wing Extremist (Santorum)
5. Marginal religion (Mitt)
6. Militaristic (Duncan)
This is just not true...but there's no point in trying to convince some people otherwise.
Regards, Ivan
What do you mean by your tagline "Election 2006: For Republicans, the results were comprehensive"?
Are you glad that Republicans lost, "it serves them right" -- and you are joyous that the Dems are now in power?
Sounds like your ego is more important than the fate of the country.
If THIS is what your tagline means, then YOU are personally responsible for the devastation the Dems are already starting to do to the country. Is that what "conservatism" means to you -- put the liberal Dems in power?
THAT is what your tagline implies to me.
If this is not the case, please explain what you mean and you might want to change it, so it doesn't create the wrong impression.
But it's important we find someone with that ability to communicate. Bush is right on most things (except immigration) but he can't talk for beans.So true. I used to blame his handlers, but I've finally come round to the idea that he is just incapable of connecting with folks through the TV lens. Which is too bad, because I still believe that W is one of the best Presidents we've ever had. Despite his slip-ups (like signing CFR).
Then there's Romney who has a coin of his own and switches from one side to the other whenever he thinks it will advance his career.
Interesting theory but it has one flaw: if McCain doesn't get the nomination you're theory isn't worth a hill of beans. Because as you say, the media will be pushing McCain all the way.
And I hate to break it to you (seeing how it's going to wreck your theory, and all), but McCain is NOT going to get the nomination.
The only poll that really matters will be taking place on November 4, 2008.
What do you mean by your tagline "Election 2006: For Republicans, the results were comprehensive"?
Are you glad that Republicans lost, "it serves them right" -- and you are joyous that the Dems are now in power?
-
I voted Republican, without any hesitation.
But I really, truly believe Bush's "comprehensive" stance on immigration is the reason Republicans lost.
I cannot understand it. I don't support it. Sometimes I think back to those days when GWB first was being talked about as a candidate, and there was that time when he expressed some hesitation - and there were whispers of something in his past which might be sensitive.
At first, I thought that was the "drunk driving" stink. Recently I've begun to wonder whether there are not people in Mexico who have some sort of leverage over the younger Bush, due to something in his youth, and his partying south of the border.
There is no excuse for selling out our nation, and allowing our borders to be overrun by illegals.
Yet - we find our party run by those, who loudly insist it's good for us.
It. Is. Not. Good. For. Us.
Republicans should never, ever again speak the word "comprehensive".
It's why Democrats won.
Please refer any additional questions to my illegal immigrant assistant. A more comprehensive response will follow.
/s
Starting the day after the elections,the liberal media was pushing these 2 clowns to try and pick our candidates for us.Their thinking was,even if they lose the next presidential election they will still get a leftist in the white house.Their socialist agenda will remain alive and a conservative congress will not be able to get anything through.
should've used letters not numbers. I have no idea how the GOP primaries will turn out - but the media clearly wants a Hillary presidency.
It's possible they see McCain as her weakest opponent.
The media has the "Build you up to tear you down" policy
for any GOP nominee - following the Conventions.
Up until Roe v Wade was conjured up, it WAS up to the states to ban abortion. And they almost all did, although that was about to change. That's the whole point of objections to Roe--it's out of the hands of the states.
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.