That's a good find. Bush and congress dropped in the same time frame. And polls started coming out that people don't trust congress to do what the laws say.
Posted on 07/11/2007 7:59:23 AM PDT by hardback
Heheh----good one. You think fast.
B U M P
LOL!!
Teddy!! I didn’t TRY anything. I live in WA state and this kind of garbage is all over the place.. The story is a dud and I said so.
So who will you vote for??
And you are behind which candidate??
It's deeper and worse. The final product was either a vote for illegal aliens OR American citizens. 80% of everybody crashed the Capitol phone system when they clearly understood this.
What's worse is that Bush used up about the last of his political capital on amnesty also. 6-8 Middle East countries could be burning in a year because of this.
That's a good find. Bush and congress dropped in the same time frame. And polls started coming out that people don't trust congress to do what the laws say.
I support Hunter (I don't think he's necessarily done yet, Bill Clinton had 3% in the polls in October of 1991) and will gladly take Fred.
One thing I will not support is running a New york lib against a New York lib. That's bad politics and bad marketing.
I totally agree...Mitt has money, and people around him that could put him in the WH, but I don’t think America wants that. I like Rudy because he is a proven leader, but he is a lib on a lot of points. Until or unless someone else comes along..I will watch him. Fred is a winner, but it takes fire in the belly to want this job, and I am not sure he has that. He might work well with Rudy...and as you say...we shall see.
I like Hunter also...but who he is and mounting the PR mountain would be HUGE for him.
Don’t even go there!!
Fixed it, nice chart.
Note to self: Post on blog. Need to refute MSM nonsense about McCain’s Iraq surge support being reason behind his downfall.
“Agreed. Rudy has a far more substantial national campaign than Mitt and one is astounded at the numbness of many Pub voters when they delete him already .”
Rudy is a liberal who is wrong on immigration (pro ‘sanctuary city’), guns (pro gun control), welfare reform (opposed it), abortion (got an award from NARAL), judges (thinks pro-Roe judges are just fine), Constitution (see previous on his weak bill of rights record), spending (for more spending), stem cells, marriage (against FMA). He’s on the Democrat’s side on many issues, which is wrong!
We want Rudy to not win because nominating a Liberal Republican will destroy the unity of the party, destroy our chances in many races, and hand over massive majorities to the Democrats. That’s just mindless!
” The MSM wants Rudy gone. They will also try to delete Fred. If that leaves Mitt, we are all toast.”
The MSM has attacked Mitt Romney more than anyone else...
And yet in the Mitt Romney versus Hillary Clinton matchup, Mitt was down only 5 points. All this without the national name ID of Hillary.
” The Rudy-Fred ticket is still the one that I think could actually win.”
WRONG! Rudy is *LESS ELECTABLE THAN FRED THOMPSON* and less electable than Mitt Romney. Here’s why:
1) All Rudy’s liberal positions will poison the base towards him. For years the conservative base has carried the water for less-conservative national candidates, in hopes of getting some crumbs from the table ... Well with the big spending GOP Congress and Bush’s immigration reform, the base has rebelled... they (we) will not carry water for RINOs any more. I personally am not contributing to RNC anymore because of RINOs and you can see it in fundraising overall - GOP fundraising is down at these ‘central groups’.
2) Rudy’s other big weaknesses are corruption and competence. Just watch while Kerik and other Rudy decisions/friends come back to haunt him as the MSM tars Rudy as another GWB. This is the them the Dems will run on, and Rudy plays right into it.
” We shall see. The Dems could still implode but with the surrender monkeys in the NE RINO Pub Senators, the GOP might implode before.”
We have to be SMART if we want to avoid implosion, and the number 1 key is to get a unifying candidate. RUDY DIVIDES THE PARTY due to his many deviations from the core principles of the party, SO HE IS UNACCEPTABLE. If Romney, Thompson, Hunter, or whoever else can come forward and *unite* the party - that person should be our candidate.
A UNITED REPUBLICAN PARTY CAN WIN IN 2008!
“Mitt the Mormon will both crumble...too much baggage”
“huh? Mitt’s gonna hack a heck of a lot less baggage than Fred and all the tail he’s been chasing in Hollywood.”
It’s a bizarre comment, indeed.
Mitt: Multi-millionaire super-succesful venture capitalist, who is still married to his first wife and has grandkids, but looks real good for his age, and is amazingly articulate on TV. So articulate the main hit on him is that he is ‘too smooth’. Smart, successful, family man, and managed to win in a blue state.
Mitt’s baggage so far is that he locked his dog in a cage when he took his dog on family vacation 20 years ago(!)
The word weird has been used against Mitt. I’ll tell you weird, it’s the weirdness of the attacks on him. He’s ‘too slick’ - after years of lamenting how bad GOP PR is. His religion - when we are facing a Dem party that has become anti-religious. The fact that he’s become prolife conveniently after running differently in a blue state where such a position would be politically fatal - Mitt gets the hit yet all these others who had similar shifts have their bios ignored.
Maybe Mitt’s problem is that, while he’s running as a Reagan, we don’t quite believe it; maybe, we are more likely to get a smarter, more articulate, more competent, slightly-more-conservative-than George W Bush ... and many conservatives are not really wanting it. We really want Reagan.
Problem is, even Reagan wasn’t “Reagan” the myth. Reagan compromised, enjoyed Tip O’Neill’s company, raised taxes (after he cut them), and gave us at least one supreme court justice who caused heartburn for conservatives - Sandra Day O’Connor. Reagan wasn’t about doing everything right for conservatives, but about standing for conservative principles as best he could.
If we have a candidate will to articulate conservative principle, advocate them, govern on them, and do his best to convince others to think and do likewise, we can’t go wrong. While I understand skepticism about Mitt’s campaign, we should at least appreciate his embrace in the campaign of conservative positions on life, small government, free markets, marriage, etc. Romney has to prove he really means it ... and so does Thompson.
Don’t tell me what you are against, tell me what you are FOR.
I will support the nominee, period. My guess is that in a national campaign, Rudy will draw as many as any of the guys we have. But, then I would support a Fred-Rudy ticket.
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.