Posted on 11/10/2007 10:35:20 AM PST by Ol' Sparky
(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton could defeat Republican Rudy Giuliani in the 2008 United States presidential election, according to three recent voting intention polls. In a survey by the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion released by WNBC, 50 per cent of respondents would vote for the New York senator, while 40 per cent would support the former New York City mayor.
In a study by Gallup for USA Today, Rodham Clinton holds a six-point lead over Giuliani. In a poll by Opinion Research Corporation released by CNN, the Democrat also leads the Republican by six points.
(Excerpt) Read more at angus-reid.com ...
And, when the Democrat is unpopular and not some unknown and still has a commanding lead, there is a problem with the Republican being polled against her.
Don’t panic. Howard (SCREAM) Dean had the DNC by the b@lls and still lost the nod.
‘The Beast’ will NEVER be President. Never. Six points ahead and a year to go. She’ll implode. She’ll have a “family crisis” or some “health issue” to save face.
And if not, she’ll be “Swift-Boated” worse than the worst nightmares John Kerry is still having, LOL!
(Not necessarily by the GOP, but by the likes of you & me and Doug in Upland, MiaT, etc.)
No doubt...
OTOH, Kerry took it up the ying-yang with no effective response..
Do you really think that the Clinton War room (with helpers like Larry Flint) hasn't got a 5 inch thick folder on every Republican contender documenting every sin that these guys ever had or can be made to believe they had.
This time it'll be the battle of the swift boater - put your money on it.
“This time it’ll be the battle of the swift boater - put your money on it.”
No doubt. Goodness wins, though. :)
Nah, the polls are inaccurate if Hillary is winning the male vote. History tells us this very clearly.
“Hillary, on the other, would lead to resurge in conservatism, just as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton did.”
Burning the village in order to save it didn’t work in Vietnam, it won’t work in politics. The country is very different now than it was at the time it elected Reagan and even since 1994 when it but the GOP in charge of Congress. The country has taken a hard left hand turn, driven by this idiotic idea that things are so terrible now, and a huge influx of Hispanic voters. Theoretically conservative backlashes a decade hence are not enough to make palatable what will come of having an extremist Hillary White House and an extremist Pelosi and Reid Congress rubber stamping one another’s far left wing initiatives.
The Dems. will spend the next 8 years implementing socialism and creating middle class depedency on the government just like in Europe and the Dems. will manage as a result to create a semi-permanent majority and White House presence. When the GOP does manage to get back into the White House, perhaps 2 decades from now, just like European conservatives we will be unable to touch anything of the middle class welfare programs the Dems. will have created, as it will become another 3rd rail in American politics. Government run health care and other middle class vote buying schemes the Dems. will have dreamed up will have entrenched themselves permanently into American governance and the psyche of the American voters.
The GOP will be left to acting as nothing more than protectors of the welfare state thus created if they ever want to be in power again, the only difference being they’ll slow the creation of more and more socialism rather than being able to roll it back outright. You only need to look to Europe to see how that happens. That is what will move the GOP to the left, not Rudy’s election. He has never been a proponent of big government programs. That’s Mike Huckabee.
The difference between you and me is that I don’t believe Americans are against government nanny state any longer. I see more and more our spoiled society demanding government create a risk free, adversity free life. And that starts with healthcare. More and more Americans are becoming convinced that government needs to have a bigger hand in health care. And the first thing Dems. will do when they have total control of the federal government is to create government healthcare and then campaign from there to eternity on protecting it and on the fear campaigns of Republicans rolling it back if they get into power.
Sorry, what you propose is far too dangerous at a time like this. In addition to creating a dependency culture, the Democrats will dismantle our homeland security apparatuses, including the Patriot Act and NSA wiretapping and retreat from Iraq which will likely lead to an Al Qaeda and Iranian victory in Iraq, and the loss of the overall war on terror stemming from our capitulation in Iraq. Meanwhile, Al Qaeda and Iran will grow bolder from their victory, sitting atop billions in oil wealth to wreack havoc with in the world while the US retreats within itself to create a European-style dependency culture.
The Democrats just simply do not take national security seriously. To suggest we can afford 4-8 years minimum of them in charge of it while more and more of our enemies are sharpening their knives against us to create some imagined conservative renaissance is folly. Meanwhile, what will have become of our security stance and our position in the world while all this is going on? How many years can our country’s security survive in the face of Democratic neglect? How big of a hit will our economy take while our enemies take over control of the oil resources of the Middle East while Democrats just wave it all off saying oil is just evil anyhow. How many Americans will have to die for this experiment of yours?
In the end, the basis for claiming we’d get 75% of what we don’t want from Giuliani is simply his governing stand on abortion, identical to Thompson’s by the way, which is it should go back to the states to decide which is consistent with an overturn of Roe and his stand on guns (from the 90s) which he’s said there will be no new gun laws on his watch, realizing as the Democrats do that gun control is a political disaster. Otherwise, Rudy is solid on fiscal, tax and security issues, having cut taxes and spending in New York. He’s got conservative Ted Olson advising him on judge appoints and has said he will appoint Scalias to the bench. That being the case, whose judges are you more likely to get an overturn of Roe v. Wade from if that’s your goal, Hillary or Rudy’s?
You compare Rudy to Arnold. The difference is, Arnold is a Republican governing a liberal state one where he unfortunately felt he had to move left in order to keep power. Being a Californian, as pissed as I’ve been at Arnold’s leftward turn in the last 2 years he has stopped some of the worst Democratic excesses here by vetoing tax hikes, bigger spending in some instances, implementing worker’s comp. reform which literally saved this state’s economy, vetoing driver’s licenses for illegals and California’s version of the illegal alien Dream Act and a lot of other unbelievably looney things our Assembly as cooked up that would make your head spin. While Arnold has not been as conservative as I’d like and I’ve actually turned against him for the most part, I have to say we are still better off having had him as governor than a far left wing lunatic like Gray Davis, Cruz Bustamante or Phil Angelides who’d have rubber stamped everything coming out of our far left wing State Assembly. As disappointed as I’ve been since his re-election, I would rather have him as governor as not. I just think he wasted an opportunity in turning to the left on some things when he’s not even up for re-election again.
But back to my point. Rudy as president on the other hand would be governing a more conservative country than is California, even accounting for the leftward drift I see in the nation. Rudy will not have to move left to maintain himself in office like Arnold did. With him as president, socialism can be forestalled. But when Americans get a bigger taste of it under complete Democratic control, they’ll be intoxicated by it just like Europe. You may dispute the idea, but I do see Americans becoming more and more like Europeans as we become more secular, more thin skinned in their ability to deal with adversity and more adverse to self-sufficiency in the face of mounting economic and financial challenges.
Experts are saying the newest generation of Americans entering the workplace may be the first to have a lower standard of living than their parents. That almost guarantees Americans will relish government doing more and more to make up for that. Rudy will slow if not stop that process. Hillary will accelerate it.
So knowing all this, where does this idea come from that Rudy is predominantly liberal? Frankly he has fewer liberal positions than Thompson’s record in the Senate (I can provide a record of this if you don’t believe me) and Huckabees’s as governor. Read Rudy’s REAL conservative record, as opposed to the propagandistic misrepresentation put out by his opponents: http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_1_rudy_giuliani.html
well, there’s Bill but *technically* he’s not single
Yah? And when did that start happening??? ;)
If the choice is between two NY liberals it’s only natural to go with the Dem.
You’re not going to suck me down into this “Nattering Neighbob of Negativity” thinking. :)
She will not win. A good 50% of REAL, voting Americans loathe her.
Those inside the Beltway and NY Politics (leftist journalists included) are afraid of her; hence the reason they sing her praises and publish bogus “polls.”
And if, through skulldugery or cheatin’, she wins, you can come back and rub my nose in it; I’ll welcome it. I’ll embrace it! I’ll learn from it and come back even stronger than before. :)
(Count your blessings that Alito and Roberts sit on the Supreme Court right now; if 2008 comes down to counting and counting and counting and then re-counting those last remaining votes, just remember what President Bush did for us.)
But, FRiend, we will be up to our @sses in alligators by then and both you and I will be a little too busy to play “I told you so!” I’m a gracious loser, but an even MORE gracious winner. :)
I hope you’re wrong, too. I NEVER wish America ill, but d@mmit, it’s pretty much time for us to flush the losers in Congress and take back our government; From the People, By the People and FOR the People.
(Sorry! My ‘Constructionist’ leanings are showing through tonight, LOL!)
(You said) Hillary, on the other, would lead to resurge in conservatism, just as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton did. And, that is better than have a hostile takeover of the GOP by liberals.
I am not waiting through four and most likely eight years of Hillary! ruining my country for a conservative. I’ll do my best during the primaries, but will vote for the GOP candidate (even if I have to hold my nose if it’s Romney). Republicans need to unite, not insist on dividing ourselves.
Actually, it sounds like you're promoting a bit of RECONSTRUCTION.. and I'm with you on that. :)
That is utter nonsense. We know what happened when Bill Clinton reached office with a Democratic congress -- the Republicans filibustered Hillary's health care plan and other radical legislation. Such radical socialism resulted in Republicans winning a landslide election in 1994 and retaking Congress. That, in turn lead to welfare reform and balanced budget under Clinton.
It's also absurd hyperbole to assume someone as unpopular as Hillary Clinton could get reelected.
And, where do we get the idea Giuliani is a liberal? FROM HIS RECORD. He was radically pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, pro-gun control, coddled illegals, left New York with the second highest debt in the nation, supported affirmative action, supported McCain-Feingold, opposed school choice and appointed liberal judges by an 8-1 margin. HE'S LIBERAL. DENYING OTHERWISE IS DELUSIONAL.
Jimmy Carter didn't ruin the country and he gave us Reagan. Bill Clinton didn't ruin the country and he gave us the first Republican majority in Congress in 40 years, which led to a balanced budget and welfare reform.
What will ruin the country is electing Guiliani and allowing him and other RINOs to turn both parties into socialist ones.
Liberal Republicans ARE the greater of two evils as they eliminate conservatism form the political equation.
“That is utter nonsense. We know what happened when Bill Clinton reached office with a Democratic congress — the Republicans filibustered Hillary’s health care plan and other radical legislation. Such radical socialism resulted in Republicans winning a landslide election in 1994 and retaking Congress. That, in turn lead to welfare reform and balanced budget under Clinton.”
The country and the Congress as well as the Democratic party is far different than it was in 1993. All have moved to the left. People have become much more enamored of big government, and it wasn’t Republicans who filibustered Hillary’s healthcare plan. It never made it out of the Senate finance committee thanks to Senator Moynihan. Well guess what, there are no Senator Moynihan’s left to stand up to the radicals, because the radicals rule the roost in Congress. Moveon.org controls them as Pelosi and Reid go to kowtow to them at every turn. The few Democratic moderates left have been driven out or independent, whether Zell Miller or Lieberman. Even Democratic Congressman Brian Baird, an anti-war liberal, is being targetted by Moveon.org and has been completely black balled by the Democratic caucus merely for asserting the Surge is working. Sorry, the Congress now is under the control of radicals and there are enough REAL RINOs in the Senate who will go along with Hillary’s toned down government health care that there will be no filbuster of it, esp. with the fact the Dems. are likely to gain seats in the Senate in 08.
“It’s also absurd hyperbole to assume someone as unpopular as Hillary Clinton could get reelected.”
We said that about Bill Clinton in 1992. How did that work out for us? But dammit, we were just so mad at George Bush 41 we were going to show him by voting for Perot! And how do you know Hillary will be unpopular? She actually has the highest favorability ratings of ANY candidate in the race, Republican or Democrat. And after she buys the country off with big govt. schemes, she’ll be plenty popular. I really think you underestimate the extent to which big govt. is becoming an opiate for a country that’s deeply spoiled and inexplicably feeling like they’re in the depths of misery.
“And, where do we get the idea Giuliani is a liberal? FROM HIS RECORD. He was radically pro-abortion,”
No, Giuliani is pro-choice, personally opposed to abortion who wants it to go back to the states to decide, which is what will happen if Roe is overturned. His is a 10th amendment argument on abortion, which by the way Thompson announced last week is his position as well. Thompson took it even further than Giuliani though saying he opposes the GOPs anti-abortin plank, something Giuliani has not said. Funny how so many on Free Republican were extolling Thompson’s “federalism” for having the same governing opinion of abortion as Giuliani. But when it’s Giuliani, he’s “radically pro-abortion.” Too funny.
“pro-homosexual,”
Being for civil unions is not “pro homosexual.”
“pro-gun control, coddled illegals, left New York with the second highest debt in the nation,”
Rudy has said there will be no new gun laws as president. He did what he had to do to get a liberal city council to go along with his tough anti-crime measures. It was a position he took as mayor of a violent city that he says he would not need as president. I accept that.
As for illegal immigration, he opposed the Kennedy-McCain amnesty, and he has outlined a tough position on controlling the borders and illegal aliens. Go look up what he’s outlined. Here is the statement from his 12 Commitments “-I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders, and identify every non-citizen in our nation” — He has a strong plan to make that happen.
From CNN, October 27:
‘Rudy Giuliani said Wednesday that if elected president he would end illegal immigration in as few as three years by employing the same police tactics he used to reduce the crime rate as New York mayor.
Stopping illegal immigration ‘is not impossible,’ presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani said Wednesday.
‘It can be done. It is not impossible,’ Giuliani told his audience at a town hall-style meeting. ‘You can do this, you can stop them at the border.’
Giuliani said he would boost the number of border security agents to 18,000 from the current 12,000, and build a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border with technological monitoring to reduce illegal immigration.
He also would deploy federal agents along the border at 50-mile intervals, using high-tech monitors to detect people trying to enter the country illegally.”
And what do you mean he left New York with the nation’s second highest debt? You’re talking about Governor Pataki. Mayor Giuliani balanced the budget.
“supported affirmative action, supported McCain-Feingold, opposed school choice and appointed liberal judges by an 8-1 margin. HE’S LIBERAL. DENYING OTHERWISE IS DELUSIONAL.”
Fred Thompson is the big supporter of McCain-Feingold. McCain even said of Thompson’s support “We couldn’t have done it without him.” Giuliani says it was a mistake.
For that matter, Thompson voted AGAINST denying welfare benefits to illegal aliens and against toughening employer verification. Talk about coddling illegals. But pre-911 I think a lot of our leaders underestimated the problem of illegal immigration. I think what’s important is that both Rudy and Fred have awaken to the dangers of illegal immigration and they’re now on the right side of the issue.
And as for liberal judges, sorry, you’re leaving out key facts including the fact the mayor of New York appoints judges from a choice of 3 given him by a liberal judicial panel. He cannot just chose whomever he wants. He did the best he could to get tough on crime judges, but his hands were tied and the best he could do was choose the least worst among the 3 given him each time there was a vacancy. From the Politico, Feb 28:
“Giuliani’s judicial appointments continue to win good reviews in New York legal circles for being what conservatives sometimes say they want: competent lawyers selected with no regard to “litmus tests” on hot-button social issues. Many of these people were in the mode of Giuliani himself: tough-on-crime former prosecutors with reformist streaks and muted ideologies.
‘He took it very seriously — he spent a lot of time with these candidates,’ recalled Paul Curran, a Republican and former U.S. attorney who chaired Giuliani’s Commission on Judicial Nominations. ‘He was looking for judges who were willing to enforce the laws.’
The mayor of New York appoints judges to three of the state’s lowest courts, the Criminal Court and Family Court, which deal with lower-grade crimes than the state’s Supreme Court, the main trial court and the Civil Court, which deals in relatively small financial disputes.”
As I pointed out, Giuliani has Ted Olsen advising him on judge appointments and will continue to do so if Rudy wins the White House. Ted Olsen isn’t going to advocate for liberal judges.
You’re ignoring key facts and the overwhelming preponderance of Giuliani’s record to focus on a few things where he went off the reservation. Every candidate we has either now or in the past have taken liberal positions on things. The only way you can get a candidate who perfectly reflects your views is to run yourself.
Again I invite you to read Rudy’s REAL record. This is from a news publication, not a campaign source: http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_1_rudy_giuliani.html
Rudy is probably one of the few Republicans that can’t beat Hillary. That is why the media feeds us these junk polls showing him in the lead every day!
“I thought I saw a poll where 46 to 48 % of the people polled said they would not vote for Hillary under any circumstances. So much for that poll.”
Sadly, such polls cannot be trusted. People’s opinions of Hillary are already about as negative as they can get, meaning she has nowhere to go but up. Many people, who have hated her by reputation, are deciding she isn’t so bad. And others, who love “America’s Mayor” (similarly, just on reputation) are finding there’s really no “there” there. That’s the danger of this election season.
We have to nominate someone who makes Hillary look like the nasty old cougar she is, and who citizens can feel confident in electing.
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.