Posted on 02/16/2007 4:56:04 AM PST by Spiff
Barney Frank had Newt's number. He said Newt was a guy that was in love with the idea of having an idea.
As for myself, I question Newt's judgment and emotional maturity. If there were a Dem that were half way acceptable (alas at the moment there is not, since Mark Warner is not running), I would cross party lines.
I just crunched him under my tires actually. :)
Is Newt the next one to get thrown under the bus?
It's a rather silent thread right now --- stunned silent, I reckon.
"I am a born again Christian and would have a rough time going into the booth and voting for Rudy. I would take him over any of the democrats, but it would be an extremely hard vote to cast."
Ditto. He is the lesser of two evils compared to a democrat but I cannot stomach a GOP candidate who is pro-abortion.
Newt is totally unelectable,
It's a rather silent thread right now --- stunned silent, I reckon.
FOTFLOL! For repairs or refueling?
Good analysis. As the population in general becomes less interested in the "details" of politics, the populism you describe is a natural drift. It's easy to understand and "feel" for many people
Newt has a voice that is too high-pitched and is somewhat nasal. And his mannerism is that he's a know-it-all.
Those don't set well with much of the public and that's before you even consider what he's saying.
Many conservatives, even to the right of me, consider him unelectable, so it must be true. I like to hear his thoughts. I don't always agree with them, but usually I do.
Regardless, I don't think he's getting into the race. Like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, he's got a good gig, and not much motivation to change that.
I have never heard him deliver a full speech. Have mainly heard him on Hannity. He sounds to me like a professor(which he was) lecturing. I don't know if that might have something to do with his negatives.
Agreed. Shifting everything to the extreme of any base alienates more people who are not extreme. I'd rather have a small government, fiscal conservative who is not very socially conservative than a socially conservative who is liberal everywhere else. Being socislly conservative does not translate into actually changing the country into one which is more socially conservative. There is little a president can do, besides sound off from the bully pulpit, on abortion, gun laws and gay marriage. The president does have control over budgets, immigration, and defense, wherer I think the issues are. Social conservatism is important, but the fiscal and small government trump social values to me.
Interesting analysis.
Taking your analysis one step further, one can argue that there exists one R--Giuliani--and only Giuliani-- who can overcome the GOP breakup and win.
As someone whose appeal transcends party, Giuliani will compensate for the loss of Rs with a pickup of Ds.
I am a born again Christian and would have a rough time going into the booth and voting for Rudy. I would take him over any of the democrats, but it would be an extremely hard vote to cast.
Perhaps knowledge of the following will help to ease your difficulty and resolve any moral conflict:
WHY THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT MUST MOBILIZE AGAINST HILLARY:
CLINTON CONFLATES EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS AND ISLAMO-FASCIST TERRORISTS
AFTERWORD: A Note to the Religious Right
bump
Thanks. Good reading and listening. I have passed the link on.
We can try to use that as a baseline. Knowing Bush's history as TX Governor and his campaigning statements and criticisms of him, the Christian voter turned out at 78%.
Now, in 2008, we can try to estimate what the percent turnout for Rudy would be by comparing his history as NY mayor, his campaign statements, and criticisms to Bush's in 2000.
As a skilled estimator, I say 68%. Looking at the current poll on FR, it might be lower.
But what about my thesis, that Giuliani is the one R who would be able to offset the loss of Rs with a pickup of Ds?
It is most critical in Florida where Bush fluked by in 2000. The polling from 10 days ago showed Rudy leading Hillary by 3 points with a margin of error of 3.8. Against McCain, she led by 3. I don't recall the exact numbers but she was about 15-25 up on Romney.
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.