Posted on 02/15/2007 3:20:42 PM PST by MittFan08
Rudy Building Lead Over McCain... [Rich Lowry]
...according to the new Fox News Poll. Asked who would they support in a Republican primary if the choices were McCain or Giuliani, 56% of Republicans said Giuliani, and 31% said McCain. 50% of Independents said Giuliani, and 27% said McCain. This represents a big bump for Giuliani since early December. Then, 42% of Republicans said they would pick Giuliani, 40% McCain, and 35% of Independents said they would support Giuliani while 41% said they would go with McCain.
02/15 05:34 PM
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I don't know what a "Burn the Bridger" is.
And I'm not keeping a running tab of your posting history.
If you meant something other than what you said, use better words next time around.
Brownback, Hunter, Huckabee, Hagel all have no chance.
It is not too early at all. In fact, now is the time that the money and organizations are being put together for next February. After Super Tuesday it will all come together very quickly.
Those who are threatening to bolt the GOP if they don't get their way are "Burn the Bridgers".
My posts are clear enough when read without preconditions.
"Purity over Victory!"
Does it bother you that there are a whole lot of DU posters with a better understanding of the 2nd Amendment than you?
In other words, a "Burn the Bridger" is anyone who doesn't just shut up and take it. Got it.
"Purity over Pyrrhic Victory!"
Fixed
If they had any idea what a pyrrhic victory was, they wouldn't be here doing what they do.
Okay, and thanks for providing one later in the same post. Saves me the trouble of going back into old ones. Try this:
Just because Hunter's followers here are unaware or pretend to be that he cannot win does not mean I believe HE believes he can.
So you've just insinuated that he's running a deceptive, fraudulent campaign.
Or you can just apologize now for LYING about my concerns.
You are in dire need of a dictionary or thesaurus. If all you were expressing were "concerns," then you and I would likely agree on several things. Despite your portayal of us Hunter supporters, we actually do understand that the odds are heavily against us. Your tendency is to prognosticate what can and can't happen in the coming months, which, given the number of variables in play in both parties, is either wishful thinking on your part -- reflecting a desire that a conservative not win -- or stubborn cowardice in the face of an uphill fight.
NONE of those concerns are that Hunter is too conservative for me merely too conservative to win the votes of some of the 60+% of the voters who are NOT conservative.
Gee, when have we heard that before? Around 1980 or so, wasn't it? Yes, times have changed, but since Bush was elected twice painting himself as a conservative, you don't really have anything going for you except the results of last November's election, which only put us back into the same Congressional situation we had when Reagan was elected. And since you so doggedly shove your "concerns" in our faces, without the humility to acknowledge that things could develop in a way that you don't see as likely, I absolutely question your sincerity, since the only impact expressing your "concerns" is likely to have is to recruit others to your sorry outlook.
However, running is a good way to open the possibility for the VP spot on a Giuliani ticket which is the best the social conservatives could hope for given the current electorate.
You'll have to pardon me for giving the conservative message, powerfully articulated, a little more credit than that. The real delusion is thinking that Rudy can be elected if faced with a ticket led by a woman and/or a minority. When liberal meets liberal, party loyalty will take the day.
Rudy will do to the GOP, what Klinton did to the RATs.
Just because you don't agree with me, don't hide behind an insult in comparing me with a DU poster. Defend yourself intelligently, not by using Jr High tactics. Do you believe that people who are insane should have the right to carry a gun?
They shouldn't be on the streets. If they're well enough to be trusted in public, I have no problem with them being armed.
Nope, merely one threatening to burn the bridges or bolt the party. I have nothing against anyone running any candidate in the primary but the constant "If I don't get my way I am leaving" get VERY old.
"So you've just insinuated that he's running a deceptive, fraudulent campaign." Nope merely that he has more commonsense than those pushing him.
"Your tendency is to prognosticate what can and can't happen in the coming months, which, given the number of variables in play in both parties, is either wishful thinking on your part -- reflecting a desire that a conservative not win -- or stubborn cowardice in the face of an uphill fight." Sorry but I am a realist not inclined to identify my opinions with those of the majority of the American voters. FALSE speculations on my motivation are irrelevant to the truth.
Given your tendency to LIE about what I have said when you are not misrepresenting it or distorting it I don't care in the slightest about your opinion that I lack integrity.
Pointing out obvious truths is enough to earn your scorn. So be it.
And you articulate nothing effectively rather your mendacity and insults merely undermine your candidate.
Cite one lie.
Not as old as the ever-present "MY candidate's the only person on the planet who can beat Hillary, you stuck-in-the-muck conservative rube". (I know you never said that, and I never said what you quoted... we're obviously talking in general now).
The arrogance of coming to the most rightward forum on the web and stridently peddling the most liberal candidate in party history while taking potshots at conservatives at every turn is more than a little off-putting. It's also a piss-poor strategy to win over potential voters. But then, the Rudyites aren't really trying to win over anyone. They're counting on Democrats in New Jersey (while igoring conservatives in Missouri, Virginia, Florida and Ohio). They're just here for the sport of it.
Like I said, I'm not going anywhere. If you get your way and Rudy gets the nomination, I'm not voting for him, but I'm not leaving the party, either. Somebody's going to have to be around to pick up the pieces after the fall, and it isn't going to be the front runners who sold the party's soul after one election loss in 14 years.
I meant it will be a lessor issue in the general election IF we have a prolife nominee. I don't think the Democrats will raise it to the level of the war.
On the other hand, if Giuliani is the candidate in the general, then the Republican party comes apart at the seams.
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.