Most Electable Republican Candidate

Rasmussen Reports ^ | October 19, 2007 | Scott Rasmussen

[Reagan Man]

I heard something a while back about Coulter equating Fred with Obama. Just not enough to comment on. It fits recent patterns for Ann, however. While I always give kudos to anyone who trashes a liberal, never been a fan of Coulter’s. She can be a smart ass and a bit too ditzy for my tastes. Two attributes I find unimpressive. I do know, Coulter doesn’t like Fred. And since Fred is our -— conservatives -— best chance of knocking off Rooty, I think Ann’s popping off doesn’t help matters one iota.

[DoughtyOne]

Where she is popping off against Thompson, I would have to agree with you. I not immune to the arguement that she isn’t exactly our cup of tea either.

I try to be very careful about x-ing out support for someone just because the left takes offense at their statements. Look at what the left tried to do to Rush. That’s their MO.

Where I’ve seen Ann get into trouble before, was making a comment that the left could capitalize on and blow up out of preportion. I just refuse to by into that on any level.

I do think everyone on our side should be careful what they say. Still, people being what they are, most of us will screw up once in a while.

If she doesn’t like Thompson, I cannot understand why. If she has a problem with a stance, she should say so. The rest of us would like to know what it is. If it’s just a general dislike, she should put a cork in it.

Thompson and Hunter are the two best guys in this race. Hunter isn’t going to be able to muster the support IMO. That leaves one viable alternative for me. And it is destressing to hear that someone who should be aware of this, might be dumping on him.

You take care.

[perfect_rovian_storm]

Romney’s experienced?

Experienced at what? Being a liberal? Talking out of both sides of his mouth? Socializing medicine? Providing taxpayer funded abortions? Appointing gay activist judges?

No thanks. I’ll pass.

[goldstategop]

Its all about who can win as opposed to conservative principles. If that's the mood of the party's voters, its gonna get a major shellacking in 2008. Don't blame me - the Democrats looked for the same thing in John Forbes Kerry and as they say, the rest was history.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[tear gas]

What will happen if Rudy gets the nomination and THEN it becomes public that he's a bisexual, or something even worse?

It would be better if he became the new Yankee manager.

[Bobbisox]

Well...alright! I like that. I watched his speech and it was very good. PROUD FredHEAD!

[fish hawk]

I really like Hunter also. Air time is so important. I knew nothing about Huckabee until Glenn Beck had him on for the whole hour yesterday. Now I also like Huckabee. I hope both get way more airtime before the elections so more can get to know them. The debates are a waste of time. Got lefties asking the questions of Republicans and the lesser know ones hardly get asked questions anyway. Even when they do they get a half minute to answer.

[fish hawk]

two words: McCain Feingold. (ring a bell?)

[Finny]

Rudy is the LEAST electable Republican.

I agree. There is as big a danger in OVERESTIMATING Hillary Clinton as there is in underestimating her. By overestimating her, some Republicans have been panicked into supporting liberal Giuliani -- and that's dangerous. So many Republicans would stay home and not vote that Hillary would win. He'd be a train wreck, alright -- a train wreck caused by people OVERESTIMATING Hillary Clinton.

You can't fool all of the people all of the time, and Hillary is in fact and reality shrill, frightenening, negative, nanny-ish, bossy, bitchy, and cold. For all the MSM's cheerleading, they cannot keep American voters from seeing and knowing that truth. There is not a snowball's chance in hell that Hillary would win the presidency legitimately against a common-sense everyman Republican (and I think Fred is an okay fit for that bill). Barring Giuliani as her opponent, in which case she might win by default of Republcans who stayed home, the only way she might not lose would be massive organized voter fraud (which the Democrats have down to a science, I believe) and/or a third-party spoiler.

Of all times in history, this is ONE TIME when Republicans have a real chance to WIN with a real conservative. People instinctively reject Hillary on a gut level. If Republican's don't win this one, it will be a textbook example of why they call it "the stupid party."

[stockstrader]

So true.

If a liberal like Rudy can't excite and energize the base against someone so outrageous and disgusting as Hillary,,,

then he is TRULY THE WRONG CANDIDATE!!!

[lesser_satan]

You’re an idiot. Fred is kicking Wee Willard’s sorry RINO ass in EVERY SINGLE POLL. NOBODY likes Wee Willard because he’s a pathetic pandering flip-flopping RINO. He’s the John Kerry of Republicans. The only difference is Kerry wanted to ask the UN and Europe for permission to defend our country, and Wee Willard wants to ask lawyers for permission. Frankly, I have more respect for Ruity. At least he doesn’t pander and lie about his positions.

[Huck]

Governing. He's been a governor, which is pretty relevant. Much more so than being 1 of 100 senators. Wasn't he in charge of the Olympics one year? That's a pretty large project. Definitely takes some management skill there. I'm not endorsing Romney, but you can't deny his experience.

Meanwhile, Fred was a senator for a few years (one term? two?) And he's read lines in front of a camera.

[Huck]

Wee willard? Who is that? I’m not up on the slang. So you’re all about polls, eh? Good luck with that.

[Huck]

The Fred/Obama comparison is that voters of both parties, unhappy with their frontrunners, are investing an irrationally large amount of emotional support in candidates (fred and obama) who don’t deserve it.

[lesser_satan]

Oops, I thought you were a MittWit, but I see that’s not the case. Sorry.

[perfect_rovian_storm]

So, Howard Dean is experienced too. Does that mean you’d choose him over Fred too? At what point is a candidate’s record so abhorrent that he is unacceptable?

One would think that a conservative would feel that when a governor’s ‘experience’ is in taxpayer funded abortions and appointing gay activist judges that one should be looking elsewhere for a presidential candidate.

Fred was a senator for 8 years, btw.

[Huck]

At what point is a candidate’s record so abhorrent that he is unacceptable?

That's a fair question. In the general, assuming there's a DEM running against the GOP, I doubt the GOP candidate can ever be more abhorrent than the DEM candidate, so really, there's probably no limit. I thought GWB was pretty incompetent, but I voted for him. Even after he'd peed all over the Constitution.

In the primary, one should pick the candidate they like the best. I can't see how any conservative can pick Fred over Hunter on that score. Why pick a first amendment desecrater like Fred (CFR) when you can have a solid conservative? Splain me that?

[Huck]

pathetic pandering flip-flopping

To me, complaigning about a politican pandering and flip flopping is like complaining about a fish being wet. What's Fred's take on Campaign Finance Reform? Why did he support John McCain in 2000? Why are his views different now? hmm?

[DoughtyOne]

The Fred/Obama comparison is that voters of both parties, unhappy with their frontrunners, are investing an irrationally large amount of emotional support in candidates (fred and obama) who don’t deserve it.

I don't see Obama as an entry solely to offset a dislike for Hillary.  Here are some reasons why.  They both entered the race fairly early on.  Their platforms are quite similar.  The problem Hillary has, is that the party has demagogued the issue of race to the point that some people are going to glom onto anything remotely looking as if it would lead to a minority becoming President.  That's the one thing Obama can offer that Hillary can't.  As evidenced by her successful Senatorial bid from New York, she does have wide appeal to the left.  It's just that in this instance, she can't match the other candidate's qualifications.  Is that an irrational situation.  I believe there is a valid arguement for that view.  Obama having less experience, is vulnerable, and platforms being similar I don't think he can best Clinton.  I still don't see him as a me too candidate due to the fact that he is black and Hillary isn't.  I see them as two candidate seeking the nomination on their own merits.

I suppose the case could be made that Thompson has entered the race due to dissatisfaction with the leading candidates.  If that were the simple reason, I suppose I could buy into it.  The fact is though, that Thompson has an entirely different platform than Rudy or Romney.  It's one he's adhered to his whole political life, not just a recent come to Jesus political moment.  He is pro-life and always has been.  He is anti-illegal immigrant and always has been.  He is a supporter of a federalist doctrine and always has been.

Thompson, like him or not, is different politically from Rudy and Romney.  That's why he is doing well in the polls.  No he hasn't appeared in all the debates, in fact has only participated in one.  As far as the overall impact of that on his chances, I don't really care.  It is not irrational to support a man because he shares your views.  It's not irrational to support a man when he gets his message out by somewhat unconvential methods.  His speeches address his views.  They are widely reported.  People know what he stands for.  Some people may be supporting Thompson from an informational vacuum, but I don't think that slice of his supporters is very large.

If you buy into the race game, Obama is a valid candidate.  I don't think he has the experience, but that's my opinion.  I will remind folks that Hillary doesn't have more experience than he does when you get right down to it.

If Duncan Hunter's popularity were to rise, I'd be happy to support him over Thompson.  Until such a time I'll have to stick with Thompson.  That's not irrational.  It's prudent.  His platform is solid and that's the platform I want carried into the White House.

Thompson will surround himself with good people.  I have no doubt he would make a good President.

I simply cannot support Rudy, Romney or McCain.  I won't be voting for one of them if they win the nomination.

I would suggest the Republican party do some interviews of their phone solicitors.  If they do, they will find out that there is a massive backlash forming in this side of isle, and if they don't get with the conservative program they are going to experince one hell of a tsunami in November of 2008.  I expect that fence to be built.  I expect our borders to be brought under control, and I expect to see a lot of repatriations.  Baring this, I at least expect to see the leading candidate call for this.  Otherwise, my vote for President in 2008 will remain in my pocket.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>two words: McCain Feingold. (ring a bell?)

Old news. Fred has denounced the issue ad(s) provision of CFR. At the same time, the SCOTUS has seen fit to strike down that portion of CFR, making it irrelevent. Fred`s main concern was eliminating unregulated soft money and increasing hard money limits. It was Fred`s amendment that raised the $1,000 limit to $2,000 --- which he still believes is too low --- and tied future contribution limits to inflation. Thanks to Fred, campaign donations are now up to $2,300.