Posted on 02/17/2006 8:01:45 PM PST by Mia T
|
![]()
|
|||
|
|||
|
This is HARDBALL on MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[NOTE: My comments in blue.]
MATTHEWS: We're back with Anne Kornblut of "The New York Times" and Dana Milbank of "The Washington Post." Let's talk about Gotham's candidates for president.
First, Rudolph Giuliani, the pro-choice, pro-gay rights, former mayor spent today, or the day in Orlando speaking to a conference of Evangelicals.
Dana, he's up to it, isn't he? This is below the radar. This is Rudy campaigning for president in the south.
MILBANK: This is about as convincing as Jerry Falwell at the gay pride parade.
MATTHEWS: You don't buy this?
MILBANK: Well, he can try to do it. But, look, he faces an awful uphill battle in winning over the typical Republican voter in a primary. Now, if the election was fought on national security, he is fine. But he's never going to convince them that he is one of them, that he is a religious conservative.
KORNBLUT: Right and not only that, but he's going to be in a death struggle with John McCain for the exact same constituency.
MATTHEWS: Let me tell you something. I'll say it here a thousand time. Watch Rudolph Giuliani. Watch him. Security is the issue in this country. Whoever is the next president is going to be seen as more on the ball than even this president on security and terrorism. This country is not going sort on terrorism. We are going to get smarter on it is my hunch.
And Rudy is the guy to do it. And he can be an SOB in many ways. But this country may really want an SOB, a really tough cop as the next president. So watch Rudy, I'm saying it.
Now here is Hillary Clinton, that other New Yorker in the subway series. A new Gallup poll just came out. "USA TODAY" Gallup poll, it shows that 16 percent say that they'll definitely vote for Hillary right now, 32 percent say they might vote for her.
But here's the dagger in the back. Fifty-one percent say they would definitely not vote for Hillary Clinton already the campaign hasn't begun.
KORNBLUT: I mean, this is exactly what Democrats are worried about is that already people have made up their minds. I would argue, I guess, that it is awfully early. We all know how early it is to be talking about this.
MATTHEWS: Definitely.
MATTHEWS: But there's lot of tooth behind that. If somebody tells a pollster, I've already made up my mind definitely.
KORNBLUT: And, look, I know more Democrats who believe this though than Republicans. A lot of Republicans say that this is a deceptive number, that once she gets out there with all of her money running against who, Giuliani or McCain, the numbers may not be that weak. [She has 100% name recognition, Anne. You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear. Even when the sow isn't hillary.]
MATTHEWS: How much of that is don't throw me in that briar patch, Dana? We're so afraid of Hillary. Please don't run her against us. She'll kill us.
MILBANK: Anne is right that these polls are completely useless because you don't know what the alternative is. But the fact is that she... [Earth to Dana: 51% would vote for their mother-in-law before they would vote for HER.]
MATTHEWS: OK. McCain against Hillary. Who wins?
MATTHEWS: Well, let me ask you about these definite numbers in a poll. Do you believe the definite? Do you believe somebody right in 2006 knows how they are going to vote in 2008?
MILBANK: I think they definitely think that's what they are going to do right now, but they have no idea what they are going to be doing in a couple years. And Hillary is going to have the opposite problem of Rudy. And that is she's absolutely fine with her base if she decides to run. But she is seemingly incapable of crossing over.
MATTHEWS: The poll was taken over the week right through Sunday, the Gallup poll. And the Gallup poll is, of course, the most prestigious poll there is right now and has been for years.
Dana, do you think she's paying the price for her plantation remark last week?
KORNBLUT: And I would add to that. It's 51 percent say definitely not. Remember the margin that's we've been talking about in the last few presidential races, 51 percent is terrible, but all she would have to do is bump it by a few numbers, a few percentage points and be OK. [I can see why Pinch hired you, Anne. Your Alice-in-Wonderland illogic is quintessential New York Times. With 100% name recognition and roughly 10% corruption recognition (thanks in no small measure to your rag), missus clinton has only one way to go. And it isn't up.]
... Anyway, thank you Anne Kornblut of "The New York Times," Dana Milbank of "The Washington Post."
Join us again tomorrow night at 5:00 and 7:00 Eastern for more HARDBALL. Right now it is time for "THE ABRAM'S REPORT" with Dan.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
Copy: Content and programming copyright 2006 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
HARDBALL WITH CHRIS MATTHEWS |
|
|
|
|
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006
Undeniable are Rudy's pugilistic tendencies...
and pencil-neck lawyer Lincoln's obvious limitations as a hat model,
be it Stetson or stovepipe. ;)
I've always held that believing one could--or should--be president should be an automatic disqualifier.
Are you saying that you disagree that the overriding problem is electability?
Of this I can strongly affirm to. As I am of the utmost confidence that Giuliani would never survive the Republican primaries and that a candidate Pence, or Allen, would soundly thrash any Democrat opponent, especially Hillary Rodham Clinton.
But it's not why I posted the quote from Luke.
This was in response to your haughty presumption that we conservatives aren't aware of the pernicious climate in the world today and the threat to America.
Not only are we keenly aware of it, we possess also the confidence that America can defend herself without shedding our responsibility to other components, (economical, social, cultural, and moral), that make up our nation.
If you require evidence of this, look no further back than the 1980s, when the conservative of that era threw down the gauntlet to the world's leading 'terrorist' of that time, the USSR.
America faired pretty well in that decade. She stood tall among the nations of the world - morally, economically and as a guarantor of peace.
If the denizens of NYC are so enthralled with Giuliani, then reelect him as your mayor and allow the less sophisticated to focus on the war on terror along with attending to those other elements ascribed in our Constitution.
Your erroneous implications about my political leanings and your ad hominem characterization aside, you misuse the term.
'Terrorism' implies asymmetric warfare and the absence of both a nation-state and the deterrent of MAD. The cold war, OTOH, was contained and containable -- and ultimately winnable -- precisely because the actors were rational and could be counted on to act rationally, power varied directly with weapons stock... and any attack would necessarily come with a return address.
The '80s is not a template for 2008.
My argument centers not on your lack of awareness of our perilous state, but rather on your priorities. You have told me you would place a de facto vote for hillary clinton, i.e., sit out the election, before voting for someone not conservative enough for you.
To my mind, that is beyond naive. It is even beyond confused. It is plainly dangerous. By placing a de facto vote for hillary clinton, you would be helping to empower precisely what you profess to revile, what you must know would be lethally dangerous for our country.
This is an utter fabrication.
"de facto vote for Hillary" is the phrase you use to describe anyone who refuses to abandon their consciences, ideals and even personal or religious beliefs if they won't capitulate to your wishes of the nation voting en masse for any (R) opposing Hillary Clinton.
I've never said I'd "sit out" an election. I did say that I'd vote only for the true conservative candidate. If no such candidate were on the ballot for POTUS, (hypothetically, as there will be), I would then pass on voting for that particular office.
And you throw that term "ad hominem" around quite leisurely.
If the Chesterton fits...
I don't do fabrication, jla. I was speaking shorthand. It is a distinction without a difference. Either sitting out the election or voting for Perot redux is placing a de facto vote for hillary. You confirm my account.
Indiana. Dunno why it says KY there.
And btw, no semantic games. We are talking president, here. In this context, not voting for president is 'sitting out the election,' whether or not you vote for any of the offices down the line.
thanx pagey :)
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.