Giuliani Continues to Lead Clinton, Gore (New Rasmussn Poll)

Rasmussen ^ | 12/21/06

[Gene Eric]

>> I have no idea who this could be given the horizon.

True, since an unknown candidate would obviously suffer from lack of 'popularity' despite any credentials. It's amazing, however, that we have so few choices. What happened between 1992 and today?

>> Much of the anger comes from the frustration .. and have no viable alternatives to offer.

This sentiment runs deep given what I believe is the concern of Rudy's position on social issues. To many, the social issues are on par with the concerns of our security and sovereignty.

[top 2 toe red]

One can have dreams cant they?

Lol...certainly!

Just realize if you cling to an unattainable dream, we just might all wake up to a REAL LIFE NIGHTMARE the day after the 2008 election...President-elect Hillary Clinton! {{{shrug}}}

[justshutupandtakeit]

Last elections wiped out some of our most promosing conservatives. I particularly liked Santorum and believed Allen might grow into a leader.

Since 1992 the leader of the conservative movement, Newt, has been discredited and has no chance. Media assaults on him because of his success were inevitable and have accomplished their goal. Delay showed himself to be an idiot and is gone. McCain has made many enemies especially here.

Conservatives have been painted as fanatics by the Treason Media and the electorate bought it.

Those who cannot see that issues of National Security and sovereignty make social issues pretty much irrelevent cannot be counted on and should not be relied upon. Kowtowing to them will just cost us more votes.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>You need all the lecturing anyone is willing to dish out ....

You're not qualified to lecture me either. But I am qualified to lecture you.

Pay attention now. The poll by John McLaughlin was taken on election day 2006. Just a little over six weeks ago. It was taken of Republican voters ONLY. This wasn't some popularity poll of ALL namebrand candidates from both major parties, but rather a poll of GOP voters choosing between possible GOP candidates. A certain percentage of those GOP voters will be voting in the Republican primaries and caucuses come 2008. They're the voters who count most to any candidate attempting to secure the GOP nomination. Its a good snapshot of reality. In the 2004 McLaughlin poll, Rudy led McCain by 12%. In the 2006 McLaughlin poll, McCain leads Giuliani by 6%. Rudy Giuliani has got a huge hurdle to get over. Conservatives who vote in the GOP primaries won't be voting for any pro-choicers or liberals like RudyG. Period.

[Reagan Man]

>>>While I will be the first to admit these towns/cities are not huge in the sense of NYC, it does prove that your statement was dreadfully incorrect.(In other words wrong)

>>>>Now, if I had the time or cared I would do a search for the entire country, fortunately I have more important things to concern myself with. Your statement has been manufactured out of thin air.

Well, I did a little research and found the following data. Sorry, but if I'm not mistaken, I was CORRECT in what I posted.

List of US Cities with a mandatory city income tax

Alabama: Bessemer, Birmingham, Gadsden

Colorado: Denver

Delaware: Wilmington

Kentucky: Bowling Green, Covington, Florence, Frankfort, Lexington-Fayett, Louisville, Owensboro, Richmond

Michigan: Flint, Lansing, Pontiac, Battle Creek, Detroit, Grand Rapids, Saginaw

New York: New York

Ohio: Akron, Brecksville, Brook Park, Canton, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Fairview Park, Heath, Mansfield, Newark, Oberlin, Sharonville, Springfield, Toledo, Whitehall, Youngstown

Pennsylvania: Bethlehem, Caln, Carlisle, Erie, Fairview Township, Greene Township, Gregg Township, Hanover Township, Harrisburg, Horsham, Kelly Township, Lancaster, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Plains Township, Reading, Scranton, South Lebanon, Susquehanna, Tinicum, Warminster Township, Wilkes-Barre, York

West Virginia: Charleston, Huntington

Total = 64 cities in the US have a city income tax. There are approximately 30,000 incorporated cities in the United States today. Bottomline: Roughly, 2/10ths of one-percent of all US cities, have a city income tax. In the big picture, I'd say that qualifies as "few".

[You Dirty Rats]

Well, I did a little research and found the following data. Sorry, but if I'm not mistaken, I was CORRECT in what I posted.

Actually you are mistaken. The link you provided leads to a site that lists mandatory withholding jurisdictions. There are many other jurisdictions that have city income taxes that are not on that list, such as Cleveland Heights:

http://www.clevelandheights.com/citydept_finance_incometax.asp

First you make a blanket statement, then you admit you guess, then you do inadequate research and claim to have found the truth. In between you see fit to classify your fellow Freepers as cretins, and state that we are worse than anyone Reagan had to deal with.

You really should avoid attacking others as juvenile. That indicates a clear case of projection that is not attractive to see.

[Jim Scott]

Frankly, if Ronald Reagan was around today, and thinking about running as a conservative Republican in 2008, I gurantee you the RudyRooters would be trashing him at every opportunity.

Unfortunately, you may be right.

Had this website been in existence in 1978, I can almost imagine some contentious, implacable FR posters questioning Reagans' commitment to conservative values based on his former Democrat party affiliation and union leadership. Then, his age (67 in 1978) would probably be dragged out as well as his 'Hollywood' background. Anything Reagan did as California governor that didn't fit someone's personal ultra-conservative template would have been attacked as 'proof' Reagan was 'really' a 'closet liberal' and would turn the U.S. into a socialist state if elected, or some such nonsense.

I sometimes think that some folks here take politics a bit too personally and actually enjoy finding fault with any Republican candidate that shows even a remote chance of actually winning a presidential election. Then, they attack others who dare to disagree with them while pouting like children in the process. Hey, it's the internet.

I'm far from enamored with Rudy Giuliani and even less so with John McCain, who I think is potentially dangerous. The jury is still out on Romney - but I have my doubts. So far, I see few Republican candidates that impress me. However, as the '08 election draws closer, I'm sure some viable folks will emerge. I doubt we'll get another Reagan but I don't think we'll end up with Giuliani or McCain, either. That's what primary elections are for...to weed out the undesirables despite what the MSM is pushing.

Bottom line is that only a very strong leader will survive the primary process and he'll have to be a lot closer to conservative values than McCain or, especially, Giuliani. Mitt Romney still has a shot - but he has to do a lot of work in the next 12 months to convince Republicans that he isn't simply a 'fair-weather conservative' who adopts conservative political positions as a disguise to get votes, than goes all liberal once elected. We'll see.

Thanks for your input. Don't let the obdurate whiners and crabby crybabies get you down. It's just the 'net

[Reagan Man]

You're mistaken, I was right. I knew there were not many cities in the US that have an city imposed income tax. Out of roughly 30,000 incorporated US cities, only 64 have a mandatory city income tax. There are other cities which have a voluntary city income tax. Frankly, as much as you want to object to the truth that I was right, that is your problem and you have to deal with it.

>>>>In between you see fit to classify your fellow Freepers as cretins, and state that we are worse than anyone Reagan had to deal with.

First off, I never classified all my fellow FReepers as cretins. That would be a flatout lie. I did say: "Reagan didn't have to deal with the cretins around FR". And that is true. I believe the vast majority of FReepers are good conservatives. Its just the rotten apples I object to. You seem to have a problem when presented with the truth and seem real unhappy when faced with the facts. Even when they're smack in your face. You're one unhappy fellow. Maybe you should seek out professional help.

[Reagan Man]

Thanks for the kind words, Jim Scott.

If folks debated the issues and stayed away from kicking in with ad hominem responses, we'd all be better off. Frankly, I'm not real thrilled with any of the cnadidates, but I've only ruled out voting for one. That would be Rudy Giuliani. Some folks may have lost their minds and have no problem voting for a big time liberal like Rudy. I'm not about to throw away my conservative principles just to please a bunch of moderate-centrist-liberal RudyRooters. Not gonna happen. ;^)

[Tarheel]

http://www.orcities.org/Portals/17/A-Z/finadm178.pdf

The above will take you to a pdf article from the National League of Cities and a discussion, along with some FACTS, about municipalities who levy an income tax. This article was written in 2001 so approach it with that thought in mind. One of the most revealing facts within the body of the article was in only 15 states are municipalities permitted to levy an income tax. Since that eliminates 35 states from your argument, your statement--

64 cities in the US have a city income tax. There are approximately 30,000 incorporated cities in the United States today. Bottomline: Roughly, 2/10ths of one-percent of all US cities, have a city income tax. In the big picture, I'd say that qualifies as "few".

becomes even more incorrect!

[Reagan Man]

>>>>> .... becomes even more incorrect!

I don't see it. The statistical data I provided is more then adequate to validate my original statement.

According to the link I provided you to the statistical data at the National Finance Center, there are currently nine (9) states that have cities which actually impose some type of city income tax on the individual worker. Covering the effective years 1983-2006. There are 64 cities in those nine states which have a mandatory city income tax. There are some cities which impose a voluntary city income tax. I didn't include them. Maybe we could add another 6-9 to that list. Even if the number was 300 and not 64 effective cities, that would still be a mere 1%. When you consider there are 30,000 incorporated cities in the USA. Reference: Wipikedia: "There are approximately 30,000 incorporated cities in the United States, with varying degrees of self-rule." List of cities, towns, and villages in the United States

The link you provided is very interesting, but its not specific about mandatory city imposed income taxes on the individual worker. It encompasses many aspects of taxation. Personal income tax, individual income tax, business income tax. Taxes from earnings, taxes from profits. Read:

"The local income tax is far less common among cities nationwide than the property tax or sales tax. A variety of methods for setting the local tax rate and determining who is subject to the tax are found within state laws. ... some cities levy a local income tax on earnings, as well as a local tax on business net profits. Also, some cities apply income taxes on earnings to both non-residents and residents, requiring people who live outside of the city to pay income taxes in the cities where they work."

The bigger point I was attempting to make and the one which has been lost in all this, was a simple one, and I'll post it again.

As the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research said: "Even with the tax cuts of the last several years, New York remains by far the most heavily taxed big city in the country." ..... during the time that Rudy Giuliani was Mayor of NYCity.

[Long Island Pete]

There is no need for foul language during the Christmas season. LOL

[texicali]

I hear ya there...it is beautiful to watch isn't it?

[TAdams8591]

That's probably true. He is calculating. It was Newt's belief that Clinton should not have been impeached and thrown out of office, less an incumbent Gore win the presidency. And then there was the problem of his own marital indiscretion. But I don't think Newt can ever win the presidency, in 2012 or ever. He just isn't likeable enough.

[Hildy]

Looking good!

:)

[Tarheel]

In the spirit of the holiday, may you have a Merry Christmas and enjoy the holiday long weekend.

[Reagan Man]

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and yours.

Later

[Gene Eric]

I have few disagreements with your observations.

Those who cannot see that issues of National Security and sovereignty make social issues pretty much irrelevent cannot be counted on and should not be relied upon. Kowtowing to them will just cost us more votes.

This is our Achilles heal; the inability to join for the collective good. I voted last election despite my protestations and regret others didn't as well. The elections were ours to lose, and the ideologues made it so.

As a party, we're failing to surface the candidates we demand. It's not the fault of McCain, Rudy, or Newt; it's our responsibility and we have only ourselves to blame. We're suffering from 'group think' at the expense of new ideas and the hope for new candidates and new victories. You're correct when you raise the issue of timeliness; that shouldn't discourage us, however, from continuing parallel efforts going forward.

Regarding the infighting, I no longer see it as a sign of the healthy exchange of ideas.

[sanjacjake]

"Theee are a few librals now..in the "R:" party...
and with the latest election, it appears they may be
around awhile..JK

[justshutupandtakeit]

As to infighting begin productive, it is a fine line. Some is when based upon a geniune desire to make the strongest party lineup possible.

The "Rule or Ruin" mentality must be recognized and fought.