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 ...
Pride goeth before the Fall . Beware of hubris.
Mull said:
"Well, I'm shaking in my boots because of this one lousy poll a full three years before Iowa and New Hampshire. We just won an election with the largest number of votes ever given to a presidential candidate, we held onto the U.S House for the sixth consecutive congressional term and added five seats to our margin in the U.S. Senate. Forgive me if I'm not about to subscribe to this "sky is falling" mentality, but I'm going to enjoy my holidays and save time for sweating these absurd public opinion polls till about a week before Election Day 2008 when they may have a shred of significance.
245 posted on 12/20/2004 11:26:31 PM PST by mull
I've heard great things about Governor Pawlenty. He's one of the standouts from the class of '02. He's one of the ones I'll be watching closely over the next couple of years. It helps that he comes from a borderline blue state too. He could possibly put Minnesota and Wisconsin in the GOP column if he was to win the nomination.
I just don't think that a defeatist attitude serves us well at this early stage. There's a long way to go between now and '08 and absent an heir apparent, there will be plenty of new faces emerging in our party between now and then.
Besides, four years is a lifetime in politics. Who knows for sure if Hillary even wins reelection in '06?
Santorum is pro-life, I believe he is pro-second amendment, he's young, energetic, appealing and he would carry a huge home state. If I'm not mistaken, the media has taken him to task over his views on gay marriage. If his major failure is his support of an incumbent Republican, it seems to me that his good far outweighs his bad. I think he might be a player in four years.
Are you in PA?
Are you aware of the anger towards Santorum for his support of Arlen Specter?
He could have backed someone whose beliefs were the same as his, but he chose to do the old boys club thing and betrayed the people who put him in office.
He backed the man whose votes cancel his own. Does that make sense? Rather than advance the values that he claims to support, he did his best to crush it. Principle means something to a lot of us and he turned his back on that for what he claims is party but is really to secure help for himself as he rises (if he does) through the party ranks.
He is damaged goods to a lot of us. You may not like that, but it's the truth.
Santorum is pro-life, I believe he is pro-second amendment, he's young, energetic, appealing and he would carry a huge home state. If I'm not mistaken, the media has taken him to task over his views on gay marriage. If his major failure is his support of an incumbent Republican, it seems to me that his good far outweighs his bad. I think he might be a player in four years.
Sorry for the double post.
I'll give a hint as to who I will not be voting for, John McCain or any other Republican who thinks trashing George Bush or Don Rumsfeld for four years will get them elected. A message to these fools, it doesn't work for Democrats and it is reprehensible by Republicans. We may need to do a little more house cleaning in 06 and 08.
Did you vote for President Bush this year?
In the days before the election, I fell for the hype that the race was close and I couldn't bear the thought of Kerry winning in a close race, so I did vote against Kerry by pulling the lever for Bush.
The next day, I wanted to rescind that vote.
For every little good thing that Bush does or says, he seems to do 2 or 3 bigger things that really piss me off.
If we could vote all over again, I'd vote for a 3rd party.
What did Bush do the next day that made you wish you hadn't voted for him?
The next day (or a few days later, whatever) he seemed to back off some things that he teased conservatives with -- like the FairTax. Plus his continued support for Specter.
there is no Reagan in that group. The key to Reagan's 1980 run was his exposure in 1976 against Ford - he was the man in the bullpen for 1980 based on that. We don't have that for 2008, the two people closest to fitting that role are McCain and Rudy, and you can see how most freepers feel about them.
why vote for them at all? to keep Hillary out of the white house of course. while we might be unsure and can debate the policy stance of people like Rudy/McCain/Powell, we know what Hillary is all about.
What's the point in that? You yourself just said that nothing dangerous the President could do would ever get past the Congress. So if all my objections about electing a RINO don't count on that ground, then how can you honestly claim dire consequences if a Democrat beats Democrat Lite?
C'mon now...be logically consistent at least.
Could you honestly have said after the '96 election that John McCain was going to turn out to be the force that he was during the 2000 primaries? I don't think anyone could have forecast that he would have such an impact in 2000 and that we'd be talking about him as a top tier presidential candidate for '08. My point is there is plenty of time between now and then. There's nothing that says we need to crown somebody our only hope against Hillary only weeks after the '04 election.
It baffles me that there is this widespread assumption in some corners that Hillary is a lock for the White House in 2008 unless we sell our souls and embrace the RINO wing of the party. I wish somebody could tell me howe Rudy's positions on the issues are any different than Lincoln Chafee's because I don't see an ounce of daylight between them.
the president has plenty of powers, appointments, etc, that do not require congressional approval. certainly McCain or Powell wouldn't do to the government what Hillary would do - we don't even have to guess, we saw what the Clintons did the first time around - weakened military, gutted FBI and CIA, etc.
Which is PRECISELY why I don't want a Liberal RINO running the joint, thankyouverymuch.
the scenario under discussion is: Hillary, or McCain/Rudy/Powell (hypothetically), I'll take my chances with their appointments, over Hillary's, and day of the week.
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.