Posted on 03/29/2007 9:02:28 AM PDT by drzz
Why, in poll after poll, including the new TIME poll, does that advantage seem to disappear whenever voters are asked to pick a president in hypothetical head-to-head match-ups among front-runners with solid name recognition. In our poll, Hillary Clinton loses to John McCain, 42-48%, and to Rudy Giuliani 41-50%. Even though Clinton maintains a 7% edge over Obama among Democratic respondents, Obama fares better in the general election match-ups. It's so close that it's a statistical dead-heat, but Obama still loses: 43-45% to McCain, 44-45% to Giuliani.
It's hard to know exactly why respondents who are generally unhappy towards — and in many cases fed up with — the GOP might still prefer a Republican for president over a Democrat. Much of it has to do with the individual candidates involved. In Clinton's case, as TIME pollster Mark Schulman points out, "with Hillary the Democratic front-runner, most voters have made up their minds about her, both pro and con. She may have limited upward potential against Republicans. The emerging anti-Hillaries, Obama and Edwards, suffer from low awareness at this point."
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
People do like Rudy. I like Rudy. I will not vote for Rudy, but I like him.
Rudy is no Reagan. Not even close.
Bwhahaha Reagan hahahaha 2 hahahaha You have got to be joking
So, he got a deferment. In other words, he didn't go. I don't fault him for that.
MY point has consistently been that we have to stop faulting people, with the exception of those who actually fled the country or otherwise broke the law, for their actions during that time. That includes Giuliani, Thompson, Quayle and maybe even George W. Bush (I don't buy all the criticisms, but he certainly didn't choose active duty).
I graduated high school in '76 and chose not to enlist. The prevailing attitude at that time (at least in my area) was that if you could go to college, you did. Some 30 years later, I'd do it differently.
All I'm saying is be careful about throwing around the term "draft dodger" because it could come back to bite.
And if you think that the Soros/Moveon/Satan wing of the Democrat(ick) party won't throw that at Thompson, you're being incredibly naive.
I'm not criticizing Thompson for not serving. Just pointing out that he'll need to have a solid answer when the question arises.
No way. Now your disreguarding everything else besides the war. Do you beleive a Rudy Supreme Court would look the same as FDR's supreme court? If so that is crazy. Comparing him to Cold War liberal presidents just doesnt compute.
Rudy is more like having the "clap"
How did you arrive at Thompson/Hunter. My guess, that you supported Hunter until Thompson came in, which you saw to be more electable, than the obviously no chance man Hunter. So electablity does have some merit I see.
I sure hope so. Illinois doesnt, thats for dam sure.
Actually ... you are right. I was (and still am) for Duncan Hunter BUT Fred Thompson is more electable. Hooking Duncan up with Fred gets Duncan in the spotlight for 2012-2016
That's one way to put it. Here's another:
You want a Republican to win, then don't sit out the election and allow Hitlery/Hussein to win the White House. Period.
Based on Rudy's liberalism, I have no reason to believe otherwise.
IIRC, having children usually resulted in an exemption from the draft.
Well, the reason you should believe otherwise is he is saying for all to hear that he will appoint conservaitve judegs. Isnt that more important than any personal feeling he might have as the issues?
AGAIN!?
How many final issues will they print!
Just wait in a few months we will have a new FIRST issue collector's item.
Give me one single reason that we should believe ANY president would KNOWINGLY appoint judges who have philosophies that are the TOTAL OPPOSITE of their own?
Typical Time Magazine newsroom liberal culture: faggots, feminists and effete freaks.
"I would want judges who are strict constructionists because I am," he told South Carolina Republicans last month. "Those are the kinds of justices I would appoint -- Scalia, Alito and Roberts."--The man himself
What if I referred to an anonymous candidate and I did not give you their party affiliation, but gave you the following information:
- The candidate believes in the "right" to abortion, including partial birth abortion.
- The candidate believes in the "right" of homosexuals to have a legal union that resembles marriage.
- The candidate believes in the "right" of illegal aliens to illegally enter and remain in our country.
- The candidate believes government has the "right" to modify the Second Amendment of the Constitution at will to curtail the right to keep and bear arms.
If this was the ONLY information you had, would your conclusion be that this unnamed candidate was a conservative Republican or a liberal Democrat?
I believe Cheney also received such an exemption.
If he says hes going to appoint justices like Scalia how is any of that relevent? There personal positions. The President doesnt write legislation.
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.