Posted on 12/10/2007 5:12:59 AM PST by advance_copy
DES MOINES, Iowa, Dec. 9 (UPI) -- A lackluster couple of weeks on the campaign trail has taken a toll on Rudy Giuliani's bid for the Republican presidential nomination.
The former New York mayor has slipped in the polls as GOP rivals Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney have taken up much of the media spotlight in early voting states such as Iowa, The Boston Globe reported Sunday.
All the while, Giuliani is focusing on later-voting states, including California and Oklahoma, which both of which will hold primaries Feb. 5, known as Super Tuesday.
Recent polls show Giuliani in third in Iowa and slipping in South Carolina, which will hold its primary Jan. 19.
(Excerpt) Read more at upi.com ...
GOOD NEWS on this nasty Monday morning!!
With Mike Huckabee "surging" it just splits the other delegate states more than before, we will have to see if any of the other candidates makes a comeback.
For months I thought it would be between Romney and Rudy, now it could be Huck vs Rudy?
I, for one have NEVER understood the Rudy craze.
Sometimes, I feel that we just doomed period.
Rudy is a radical liberal and is not acceptable to the base.
Romney is recently a radical liberal, had a suspicious conversion when the campaign season began, and now is not acceptable to the base. He blames it on their anti-mormonism.
I blame in on the water in the flip/flop state of Kerry, Kennedy, and Dukakis.
Romney drank so much of it, it turned his brain to mush.
His leads in the larger states will slip if he loses in the early primaries. You are under the false assumption that he is in no danger of further scandal revelations.
“Guiliani slips - “
Maybe the title of the article simply meant that JulieAnnie slipped on the skirt of one of his drag costumes?
I like Thompson and Hunter - always have. Romney/Huckabee would be an acceptable alternative. Giuliani would only be the lesser of the two evils. McCain will never get my vote, nor will Ron Paul - the Republican Party’s answer to “Moon-bat” Brown of California.
The best I could come up with was that it was a cult of personality phenomenon. Past history, facts, and logic meant absolutely nothing to the Rudy fanatics because he could “lead.”
Hannity must be worried...
Goodbye weasel.
The level of idiocy in this forum apparently has no upper limit.
Rudy has hit his high water mark. He will never garner more than 25 to 30 percent of the GOP vote, which means that the other 70 to 75% will determine the nominee. I serioiusly doubt that any candidate will win enough delegates to win on the first ballot. It will be a brokered convention, which should help a consensus candidate like Thompson or Romney.
Rudy Giuiani:
Anti-life
Anti-gun
Anti-family
Pro-illegal amnesty
Pro-gay agenda
Mistresses
Mob ties
Family hates him
Sounds like Ted Kennedy & Bill Clinton to me.....radical liberal.
He isn't my cup of tea...but this forum loses credibility when fiscally conservative social liberals are smeared as "radical liberals" by posters engaging in ridiculous hyperbole.
Rudy embraces positions bad enough to render him unsupportable. He doesn't need to be vilified beyond the point of the truth.
Um, no. Romney was never a radical not liberal.
If you want to know Mitt’s 1994 positions, look at his flyers:
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/166511.aspx
http://www.politico.com/pdf/wmr_1994_senate_flier_side_1.pdf
In 1994, he ran as a mostly-conservative candidate against Ted Kennedy.
Mitt’s 1994 positions:
- pro death penalty
- pro mandatory sentences
- pro welfare reform: require work with welfare, drug testing
- opposing Clinton tax increases
- supporting tougher measures to stop illegal immigration
- support school choice through vouchers
- oppose govt takeover of healthcare, oppose employer mandates, opposed increased taxes to pay for govt healthcare
- support term limits
- oppose taxpayer finance campaigns
- support requiring congress live by laws they pass
- oppose higher taxes on social security recipients
his liberal positions were
- fight discrimination of all kinds
- women’s right to choose
Brody file says:
“The mainstream media likes to run with the flip flop angle. There’s validity to it but let’s also be real here. It’s a sexier story than one that shows how Romney’s been a pretty consistent conservative for awhile. This 1994 campaign flyer is being discussed on blog sites like Iowans for Romney.
Romney has taken a lot of heat for changing his position on abortion. But you have to wonder: Maybe Romney’s been a conservative all along. It’s just that in liberal Massachussets, to get elected, sometimes you have to bend a little more than you want to.”
There has been a lot less ‘conversion’ than assumed. On almost all issues (with the notable exception of abortion/life), Romney has been *consistently* and genuinely on the conservative side all along.
See above. I’ve corrected him on Mitt Romney, who was actually a pretty conservative candidate for Massachusetts in 1994.
If we waste the label ‘radical liberal’ on Republican candidates who are not fully conservative, what word is left for an Obama or a Hillary?
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.