Posted on 12/16/2004 11:18:44 PM PST by kattracks
WASHINGTON — The stink of Bernard Kerik's rotten bid to become homeland security czar hasn't stuck to his chief cheerleader, Rudy Giuliani, who is a top pick for the presidency among Republicans, a new poll shows.A whopping 68 percent of Republican voters want to see Giuliani run for the White House in 2008, according to a new Quinnipiac University poll — showing little fallout among the party base in the wake of Kerik's embarrassing exit.
[snip]
And it shows that if party faithful get their way, Giuliani would face off against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in an Empire State showdown — which Giuliani would win, 45 percent to 43 percent.
[snip]
Although she's a favorite among Dems, 50 percent of all voters don't want to see the former first lady run for the White House.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Exactly my thoughts.
I can support Rudy for a state position- as I supported Arnold for California. But President? Can't do it- for either of them. I'd leave the box blank.
Consider George Allen from VA......
Jeb has problems--a wife who tried to escape $16000 in customs fees for designer dresses, a drug addict daughter, and a charming son who got into a fight in his girlfriend's front yard with her new boyfriend. He's great, but a rest from the Bushes will mature his family, build his base, and make him a welcome addition to the scene in 8-12 years. After all, he's still young!
She is shrill, strident, and there are a million feet of footage showing her raving and ranting about every darling cause of the liberals. When she "delivers" a speech, she yells so loud that she sounds like a fishwife. Do people really want to elect a President who reminds them of what their mother sounded like when she had PMS?
Neither is Bush. You can't be a fiscal conservative when you have that much 'compassion' in your heart.
It will be Rudy.
Conservative enough, or NOT.
the only other option?
Hillary.
and if conservatives stay home or jump to third parties on principle?
Then we may lose.
It's that simple.
It's about time the three percenters who keep taking credit for this election and threatening to leave "if this or that" doesn't happen their way, to start acting out...
Yup, we need their vote.
Nope they don't run or even control the majority of the party. The pubbies were once the minority party. We may be again.
the holy roller 'my way or no way' folks will FOREVER have to vote between the available selection of 'bad,' and 'not as bad'... all out 'baby killers' or 'life and health of mother' pro choicers.
it's that simple.
And Rudy will MOST likely be the man.
And if he is, he will win, with or without the 'abortion is my primary issue' folks in our party.
We here at freerepubic do NOT represent the core of the republican party. We have a lot of constitutional party members, a lot of libertarian types, and a lot of middle of the extreme right wingers.
NONE Of which runs the republican party.
The republican party will pick who can win.
Whether we like it, or hate it.
End of story.
If bush does not get at least two conservative, prolife judges on the supreme court... our window of opportunity will have been lost, for our lifetimes.
Check your radar. In the summer of 1999, Jim Quinn, (www.warroom.com -- you can listen to his show in archive form) was already making the case that Bush would be the next president. Not that he wanted Bush to be, just that he would be. Bush may not have been on everyone's radar, but he certainly was here in Pittsburgh PA.
Lay off the Kool-Aid, pal. It's making you irrational.
What has become the status quo would have been inconceivable, just a few decades ago.
I bet that you are wrong. Pro life and pro gun does matter to the vast majority of us.
I'm guessing that you've been on vacation and missed all the threads over the past year about liberal RINO Specter. He has said that he will toe the line. But who trusts him? I don't.
Check what I said. I said 1998 and much of 1999. I didn't say all of 1999.
I like JC, but I wouldn't consider anyone who supports affirmative action to be a staunch conservative.
Since when does supporting abuse of the Constitution make one a conservative. Misusing the Constitution to enforce your beliefs is no better than when the liberals do it.
In case you didn't know, the Constitution is supposed to be a restraint on the powers of government, not on the rights of people. I oppose so called 'gay marriage', but I oppose an amendment banning it even more.
I will agree that Reagan didn't get done much of what he campaigned on, but he also had a very antagonistic DEMOCRAT Congress. Yet, despite that drawback, he succeeded in passing real tax cuts whose impact we felt for almost 20 years. Maybe the difference is in personal charisma or in drive, but I just don't buy Bush's 'conservativism' as being a core part of who he is to the degree that you do.
I'll support Tancredo, but I don't see myself supporting or voting for Santorum again. And I speak for a lot more Republicans than you'll admit or know.
They never pay attention to their own rhetoric, do they? On the one hand they always claim the LP is miniscule and insignificant and in the next breath blame the LP for the GOP losing elections.
I don't think that the GOP even helps Paul in his races. The last I heard they were looking for someone to run against him, but he keeps winning.
You understood correctly...and for all those FREEPERS who cling to the "I Like Dole" and the other sundry "good ole' value boys" I say...LOOK AT HITLERY's numbers....and go down in defeat if you so choose...
"Hillary's Poll Numbers Startling
If the 2008 presidential election were held today, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton would handily defeat three of the top Republicans being touted as possible candidates, a startling new survey by Fox News Opinion Dynamics shows.
In a race between Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Clinton, the New York Democrat would win by 7 points, defeating Frist 40 percent to 33 percent, the poll found.
Story Continues Below
Matched against New York Gov. George Pataki, Clinton's margin of victory drops by 1 point, but she'd still win 41 percent to 35 percent.
In the most stunning development, the Fox survey found the former first lady would even defeat Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, 46 percent to 35 percent.
Opinion Dynamics also found that "a clear majority of voters thinks Hillary Clinton is qualified to be president of the United States (59 percent), including a third of Republicans, 58 percent of independents and 84 percent of Democrats.
Two of the most popular Republicans, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Arizona Sen. John McCain, were not included in the poll.
However, a Quinnipiac University survey released last week showed that Giuliani would defeat Clinton 45 percent to 43 percent if he were to run for her Senate seat in 2006.
The Fox poll also showed that John Kerry would defeat Gov. Bush if Kerry were to run again in 2008, but by a smaller margin than Clinton - 45 percent to 37 percent.
Opinion Dynamics conducted the national telephone survey of 900 registered voters on December 14-15."
Right now Giuliani is the only Republican candidate who could get votes. McCain is too whishy washy to do well with republicans, and there are no others, right now.
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.