Poll: Giuliani, McCain lead the pack [Giuliani's numbers plunge]

CNN ^ | May 07, 2007 | None Attributed

[gpapa]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A year and a half before the 2008 presidential election, Rudy Giuliani and Sen. John McCain are leading the Republican pack, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll out Monday.

Asked whom they would most likely support for the Republican nomination, 25 percent of people who identified themselves as Republicans or leaning Republican cited the former mayor of New York and 23 percent cited the senator from Arizona.

[Grunthor]

“Right now I’m leaning heavily toward Hunter, but since he’s not going anywhere, I will probably back Fred if he gets in.”

That’s about where I am as well, except I might hold my nose for Romney.....still iffy on that one.

[Mr. Silverback]

That’s about where I am as well, except I might hold my nose for Romney.....still iffy on that one.

If we have to have one of the top three, I want Romney. But I hope fervently that we don't have to make that choice. Heck, he'd make a great VP for Fred, and we can make Hunter SecDef and Giuliani can be UN Ambassador, Attorney General or FBI Director.

[Mr. Silverback]

But what's happening here isn't merely "comparing candidates." There's a very sour tone to the debate and I, for one, think that we're dead in the water in 2008 unless something changes.

There's a very sour tone because a pro-abortion extremist is being considered for the GOP nomination for the first time. It will pass.

[Mr. Silverback]

And I'm afraid we will have plenty of time to argue over who is the purest of the pure while on the way to the re-education camps.

It's called a primary. Jeez, would everybody man up a little around here?

[Mr. Silverback]

Americans are just not interested in a conservative candidate for 2008.

No, don't lose hope. Hunter right now is like Jimmie Johnson with no transmission in his car. Nobody's going to expect Jimmie to win a race if he literally can't put the car in gear. Hunter hasn't found first gear on his campaign, so nobody expects him to go anywhere, so they aren't showing interest in an ideological package that will never get to the White House.

Hunter has to get moving. He can't become the frontrunner on debate performance if there's nothing else going on.

[mkjessup]

Do yourself a favor and COUNT the venomous anti-Giuliani threads. I'm not favoring Giuliani -- I agree that he's not ideal. But what's happening here isn't merely "comparing candidates." There's a very sour tone to the debate and I, for one, think that we're dead in the water in 2008 unless something changes.

The reason there are 'venomous anti-Giuliani threads' is because Rudy is a liberal RINO that is seeking to portray himself as a latter day Ronald Reagan which is about as funny as Louis Farrakhan offering to host a bar mitzvah for his Jewish friends (hint: he hasn't got any).

As for the 'very sour tone to the debate'? That is exactly what happens when liberals try to foist a fake conservative on REAL conservatives with REAL principles and REAL values. Giuliani doesn't have anything of the kind.

[Mr. Silverback]

I'd just like to note that when someone gets up in front of Kate Michelman and the other NARAL harpies to praise a eugenicist Nazi, and then expects to be the nominee of the party of Lincoln and Reagan, it makes me pretty darn "sour."

FR is tough on liberals. That's why we're tough on Rudy.

[George W. Bush]

Right now I'm leaning heavily toward Hunter, but since he's not going anywhere...

Only if you believe libmedia is doing us a favor in accurately reporting these polls.

I think it's very possible that Hunter is emerging from the second tier of candidates. But I do recall how often they cited in the 1988 race that no sitting vice president had been elected in something like 150 years. It was very comparable to the length of time since we had elected a congressman as president. But somehow, they failed in 2000 to mention how only one sitting VP had been elected in the last 160 years. Funny how that works, isn't it? Their enthusiasm for history is strangely selective.

Libmedia is not our friend. We have seen, over and over, that they use these polls and the historical data against us.

Stick with your candidate unless you see someone just as conservative and/or more electable. Don't let libmedia's poll-manipulation turn you away from your own candidate. Especially not this early.

They are not our friends. And after 2004, who can doubt they will not fabricate anything they can get away with?

[Jim Robinson]

Hey, we support conservatism and conservative candidates here. If you wish to support a NARAL loving abortionist, thought crimes pushing gun grabber, take it to some liberal/socialist site. You sure as hell will not receive any sympathy here, RINO lover.

[xzins]

Giuliani & McCain = 48%.

I wonder how it can be that such a large number of pubbies see no more clearly than that.

[George W. Bush]

But there is no doubt in my mind that liberal polling outfits do there best to shape opinion. It is the nature of liberals.

Thanks for restoring my faith that at least some of FR's old hardnosed cynics still understand that libmedia is nothing but an arm of the Dim party and, generally, of the Xlinton machine.

[Antoninus]

The circular firing squad around here is emblematic of why we’re looking at President Hillary.

You wanna avoid President Hillary? Tell Rudy the liberal to pull out of the race. He's her ticket.

[Lexinom]

That is a highly perceptive analysis. It is important we not trust the polls at this point - and that we consider 1) the source, and 2) its motives. Everything at this point is in flux, volatile, highly susceptible to manipulation.

[Antoninus]

Right now I'm leaning heavily toward Hunter, but since he's not going anywhere, I will probably back Fred if he gets in. I think there are a lot of people like me.

I was like you, until I heard Fred's speech the other night. I don't care if he is an actor, that speech was a snooze-fest and Fred looked very old and very tired.

Hunter's my guy. I give no credence to the polls and remain confident that he will break out of the pack.

[Antoninus]

That is a highly perceptive analysis. It is important we not trust the polls at this point - and that we consider 1) the source, and 2) its motives. Everything at this point is in flux, volatile, highly susceptible to manipulation.

Polls at this point are about nothing but manipulation. I keep reminding people that John Kerry was at 4% in the Dem polls in December 2003. To be declaring anyone a "prohibitive favorite" at this point is playing right into the hands of the LSM/DNC. Our "prohibitive favorites" at this point are who the media wants them to be.

[TAdams8591]

"still understand that libmedia is nothing but an arm of the Dim party and, generally, of the Xlinton machine."

Believe me, I have understood since Reagan first ran for the presidency (it's gotten even worse since then) and have NOT forgotten. : )

[George W. Bush]

Do yourself a favor and COUNT the venomous anti-Giuliani threads. I'm not favoring Giuliani -- I agree that he's not ideal. But what's happening here isn't merely "comparing candidates." There's a very sour tone to the debate and I, for one, think that we're dead in the water in 2008 unless something changes.

I have debated a few of these repugnant creatures here at FR who tout the entire Sanger line on eugenics. They speak of how if we don't allow and promote abortion, the minorities and undesirables and those of low intelligence will breed like flies, bankrupting the welfare state and enslaving us all by voting for increased socialism. They speak of thinning and culling that herd that would otherwise destroy us with breeding their undesirable and unproductive offspring.

Now, most of the Juliebots don't understand this, taken in by the rhetoric and the fiction of only-Rudi-can-beat-Hitlery but some of their ringleaders do take this exact position. Make no mistake, this is exactly what is meant when a NARAL Champion Of Choice like Guiliani gives speeches that praise Margaret Sanger. The praise of Sanger is the praise and advocacy of exactly these policies. That is what it means when NARAL gives Giuliani four times as much money as they gave Hitlery. Planned Barrenhood and their political arm, NARAL, still pursue these same Sangeresque goals.

There is not room on one forum for pro-lifers and those who take the position of racial eugenicists and spout the Sanger talking points and who support candidates who praise Sanger.

JimRob was very wise to rid our forum of this repugnant and racist element. This is not the first time that such persons and their dupes had to be ejected from the forum.

This is a pro-life forum. It always has been. And I believe JimRob when he says that it always will be.

[TAdams8591]

"Fred is doing pretty well, considering that he hasn’t announced."

And is unlikely to.

[Vn_survivor_67-68]

“I have debated a few of these repugnant creatures here at FR who tout the entire Sanger line on eugenics. They speak of how if we don’t allow and promote abortion, the minorities and undesirables and those of low intelligence will breed like flies, bankrupting the welfare state and enslaving us all by voting for increased socialism. They speak of thinning and culling that herd that would otherwise destroy us with breeding their undesirable and unproductive offspring.

Now, most of the Juliebots don’t understand this, taken in by the rhetoric and the fiction of only-Rudi-can-beat-Hitlery but some of their ringleaders do take this exact position. Make no mistake, this is exactly what is meant when a NARAL Champion Of Choice like Guiliani gives speeches that praise Margaret Sanger.”
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

THAT is very hard-hitting if one is searching for a perspective. One should also consider it (the above) a convenient distraction to rudees sanctuary and “comprehensive” reform positions, which are harming America-as-we-have-known-and-loved-it waaaay more than than the few actual “defectives” described above who are aborted ever could.

[publana]

Agreed. I’ve unavoidably been away for a while and am apalled at the tone of some of these threads. The libs aren’t going to have to rip us apart. We’re doing it to ourselves.

I am supporting Fred, but these horrible anti-Rudy threads turn my stomach. The man is deserving of respect if not our votes.

In the end, I will wholly support whoever wins the brass ring in the primaries (even if, horrors of horrors, it is McCain and I say that with much pain). I’d prefer there not be a trail of swill to be followed here. Also, I fear the vitriolic attacks against each other’s candidates will leave many Freepers so disenchanted and disgusted with the chosen candidate that they will not go to the polls in November 2008.

Can’t we have discourse and debate without dissolving into juvenile and nasty attacks?