Rudy's incredible shrinking campaign

Townhall.com ^ | December 16, 2007 | Salena Zito

[gpapa]

With fewer than 20 days until the Iowa caucuses, three men in the Republican Party stand to get their tickets punched out of the Hawkeye State.

While everything is still in flux, those likely winners will be Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson.

Notably missing out on Iowa’s political rocket fuel is national frontrunner Rudy Giuliani.

While most political insiders and pundits have known for months that Giuliani had no plans to compete in Iowa, the general American electorate probably does not. Known to not pay attention to the early political pontificating, the average voter may wonder where the former New York mayor is when the big news the next day is not about him.

[AliVeritas]

Hillary’s will be done. The choice that is no choice.

Two of the guys wouldn’t return fire on Al Q when the next attack comes and could give a damn about the border either.

Welcome to Globalism.

Time to pray, get back to our roots and test the spirits.

[Joe Boucher]

Rudy is a damn liberal RINO who supports:
the homosexual agenda
Special rights for homosexuals
gun control
abortion
govt. paid for abortions
big govt
amnesty for illegals
I am a Reagan Republican and I will not be voting for Rudy the RINO.

[counterpunch]

I’d rather see Giuliani than Huckabee.

[Flintlock]

Neither is acceptable.
Nor is McNut, for that matter.
It’s gonna be vote for a Conservative, or go fishing.

[JCEccles]

I’d rather see Giuliani than Huckabee.

Ditto.

NO contest.

[JRochelle]

Rudy and Romney were at the bottom of my list.

Huckabee has now taken Romney’s spot. Romney moves up one.

I am almost to the point of saying I’ll never vote for Huckabee, nominee or not. I am never voting for Rudy. If we have a liberal in the WH, I prefer they be a democrat.

Huckabee’s only good point is that he is pro-life. Thats it.

[Joe Boucher]

Great, let’s pick the better of two bad choices.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I personally think Rudy started strong because many conservatives (not me and mine, but many) were willing to overlook the fact that he's a NY liberal, only because they thought he's (let's all chant it together)"The only Republican who can defeat The Hildebeast."

Now that it looks like The Hildebeast may be KO'd by Mr. Clean and Articulate, there's no really compelling reason to go for Rudy. Hence the growing hopes of all the other Republican munchkins.

As I've said all along, if I wanted to vote for a NY liberal, I'd be posting on Daily Kos

[Route66]

Rudy is still polling well nationally and I’m sure he plans to save some money and see how the first voting shake out. The field will eventually narrow and he plans to still be able to continue as others drop out. If the conservative vote stays split among the rest, he is in a good spot. I’m still hoping for facts to seep into this race and for reason to prevail.

[qman]

I think rudy’s rise was because of 911 as he was seen as strong against terror, now that we’re obviously winning in Iraq “per the lack of coverage out of Iraq” he will disappear from the radar screen.

Huckabees rise is media related and a flash in the pan.

Romney’s is based on unlimited personal funding. Check his record, he’s a Massachusetts liberal. Mass has no republican party. There are only moderates and liberals.

Ron Paul is the kook fringe, always about 3-5% of the nutty right and left.

McCain is the liberals conservative. Real conservatives honor him for his service, but know he’s just wrong on most of the issues.

Duncan Hunter great VP.

Tancredo, sorry but who really cares anymore, all of the candidates are at least paying lip service ot illegal immigration.

Fred Thompson, the most electable conservative, we will see if he has it in him.

[Old Professer]

Rudy has Ca, Illinois, NY and Pa in his pocket, doesn’t he?

[BillT]

If you do not vote do not complain, period.

[steadfastconservative]

If we have a liberal in the WH, I prefer they be a democrat.

That's what some conservatives said in 1992 when Bill Clinton ran against George H.W. Bush. They thought it would be good for America and good for the Republican Party if Clinton defeated Bush because Bush had reneged on his "no new taxes" pledge and was not conservative enough for them. Unfortunately, they were wrong. Clinton's presidency was bad for the country and even though a backlash against Clinton allowed the Republicans to take over the House of Representatives in 1994, the "Republican revolution" was short-lived. Indeed, no one can argue that Clinton's election in 1992 had the effect of permanently making the Republican Party more conservative. I don't think that anyone can argue that it would be good for the U.S. or good for the GOP for the Democrats to win next year.

[qman]

The republican revolution failed because it turns out not to be a conservative revolution, but became a power hungry revolution. They started well and even though they did not get much of the contract enached, they had thier power and in the end ‘conservatives be damned’ as long as they vote republican.

Newt right now is doing more for the country than any president or congress will ever do.

[Joe Boucher]

I go to daily Kos occationally just for comic releaf.

[Sonora]

So, what if Rudy gets the nod - what will you do?

[Joe Boucher]

Conclude that it is time for a new REAL conservative party.

[George W. Bush]

I see Salena is expanding her audience.

Waiting for the big-state primaries has always failed as a strategy. But that is what Rudi is doing. He may make a play at NH but that is very unlikely to give him a win or any positive news.

[Salena Zito]

Hey Happy Festivus