shotbanner.jpeg

July 19, 2006

How Far Do We Go?

The latest Gallup Poll shows that a sampling of Republican-leaning voters prefer Giuliani and Rice among the field of GOP presidential hopefuls:

Republicans are closely divided in their evaluations of Newt Gingrich and George Allen as presidential nominee material. They tilt against the candidacies of Bush, Sen. Bill Frist, and Gov. Mitt Romney, and appear to reject possible runs by Dick Cheney, Gov. George Pataki, Gov. Mike Huckabee, and Sen. Sam Brownback. Of this second-tier of candidates, Huckabee, Brownback, Allen, and Romney are the least well known, so evaluations of them are probably most subject to change between now and the primary season.
Giuliani.

He's a "get things done" guy. He's done the impossible - fought and beaten the New York City public employees unions, among other invincible establishments. He is the first big (nationally-known) hero of the War on Terror.

What is most notable in the Republican data is the substantial proportion of party supporters (41%) who would consider McCain an unacceptable nominee for their party. In polls measuring nomination preference, McCain usually places first or second to Giuliani. In early June, the last time Gallup measured nomination preferences, 28% of Republicans said they were most likely to support Giuliani and 24% McCain for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. He's also pro-choice, anti-gun and "moderate" as the day is long.

Conservative-favorite Warner Allen (UPDATE: Duh. Ooops). comes in waaay down the list.

So whaddya think, Republicans? Go for the win, knowing that a loss in '08 turns the nation over to people who just. aren't. serious about terror, even though Giuliani isn't all that conservative? Or go with Warner and his lousy name recognition and his (as I see it) inability to sell conservatism outside the base (which was the great talent of Ronald Reagan and, for that matter, Newt Gingrich) and risk turning the nation's security over to the Dems, some of whom shouldn't be trusted to drive, much less defend this nation?

Posted by Mitch at July 19, 2006 11:38 AM | TrackBack
Comments

I think it might be best to wait until after the midterm elections before debating who we want to run in 2008. The midterm elections will decide the political fates of a lot of governors, Senators, and Representatives and thus whose on the field of likely nominees.

Posted by: Thorley Winston at July 19, 2006 11:43 AM

I am curious as to conservative's views about Gov. Mitt Romney.

Posted by: fulcrum at July 19, 2006 12:25 PM

Mitch offered:

"Giuliani.

He's a "get things done" guy. He's done the impossible - fought and beaten the New York City public employees unions, among other invincible establishments. He is the first big (nationally-known) hero of the War on Terror."

Or as you would call him, a RINO. No way in hell he makes it alive through the primaries. The kooks on the right (you guys!) will tear him up. Plus he chickened out last time he faced the prospect of running against Hilary.

Posted by: angryclown at July 19, 2006 12:38 PM

Not to mention the fact that he committed adultery.

My prediction is that Republicans will abandon the theatrical moral outrage that helped put a morally bankrupt guy like Bush in office and will continue to dig into the 9/11 bag of tricks and put Giuliani up.

Fortunately, I've found that the Rapure Right is easily spooked. The strategy for us liberals is to go undercover and infiltrate churches and hammer the infidelity angle.

Posted by: Doug at July 19, 2006 01:13 PM

You'll find that he's not all that. He was magnificent on for a couple weeks in September 2001, but he's got some issues too. Plus he talks like Elmer Fudd. And the right will eat him alive. Zero chance at the top job - maybe not even VP.

Posted by: angryclown at July 19, 2006 01:21 PM

“I am curious as to conservative's views about Gov. Mitt Romney.”
The conventional wisdom is that governors tend to be better candidates than Congressmen in part because they have executive experience and by the time we elect a president the public is so sick of “partisan bickering” that they want someone from outside the beltway. A Republican governor from a blue or purple State (Romney, Pawlenty) or a Democratic governor from a purple or red State (Bresden, Richards) is probably the best bet for the parties in 2008.

Generally I have a favorable impression of Romney but I reiterate that it’s probably best to wait until after the midterm elections because that will have a huge impact on who the likely candidates are and who will be offering them their support.


Posted by: Thorley Winston at July 19, 2006 01:24 PM

“Not to mention the fact that he committed adultery. ”

So that means he’ll be getting a lot of Democrats to crossover and vote for him.

“Fortunately, I've found that the Rapure Right is easily spooked. The strategy for us liberals is to go undercover and infiltrate churches and hammer the infidelity angle.”

Word of advice, when you and the rest of the Moby Brigade decide to infiltrate churches, the book of Job is found in the *Old* Testament.

Posted by: Thorley Winston at July 19, 2006 01:41 PM

Word of advice, wingnuts, there books in the New Testament *in addition* to Revelations.

Posted by: angryclown at July 19, 2006 01:58 PM

Conservative favorite Warner? He's a Democrat.

At this point, I'd like to see Sam Brownback take a good run at it.

Posted by: Jeff at July 19, 2006 02:09 PM

Angryclown, Hyperbole

Hyperbole, Angryclown

Posted by: chaosfish at July 19, 2006 02:46 PM

Chaosfish, my pimply white a55.

Pimply white a55, chaosfish.

Posted by: angryclown at July 19, 2006 02:55 PM

I am the boogie man of which the usual braying asses on this thread most probably speak: a conservative AND an evangelical Christian. You are so very fond of caricatures, aren't you angryclown? Yet you decry them when they are used in illustrating or describing anyone else. Odd. Concerning who conservatives would vote for has been discussed quite a bit at Lucianne.com and the consensus seems to be that most right-leaning people would indeed vote for Guiliani. There are certain social issues they have problems with, but better to have a strong defense so we still have a country in which to debate and change all that down the road a bit. Hand it to the Democrats these days and killing your children yourself will be a moot point if they decide to lay down and let Islamists take over the world. Same with Romney. He's a decent man and his religion doesn't bother me a bit. Integrity, decency, strength and leadership. That's what we look for.

Posted by: Colleen at July 19, 2006 03:05 PM

It's tough to see Giuliani making inroads with the crowd that rejected McCain in 2000. Endorsing Ralph Reed for the Lieutenant Governorship of Georgia won't isn't going to be enough to bring over that crowd. Also Giuliani had a close call with cancer a few years ago, and I expect we'll here more about that as 2008 approaches.

Posted by: Terry at July 19, 2006 04:16 PM

"Integrity, decency, strength and leadership. That's what we look for."

...and a guy who cheated on his wife fits the bill for integrity, decency and strength eh Colleen?

You must have simply adored Bill Clinton.

Like I said, you guys will abandon your professed values if it means holding on to power.

You would vote for a man whom you know violates your own moral code over a Democrat simply because you assume all Democratrs MUST inherently be weak on defense.

What was that thing you said Colleen?

Oh Yeah...

"You are so very fond of caricatures, aren't you angryclown?"

Caricatures indeed.

Remember Colleen honey, in 2000 there were a ton of swing votes for Bush because you guys did a really good job of portraying Democrats (via Bill Clinton) as morally and ethically challenged.

Now, Mr. Bush has proven himself to be not only morally and ethically bankrupt but also a foul mouthed slob, misogynist, a buffoon and a fraud and the stench of his failure is rubbing off on quite a few Republican leaders.

Add to that, the Republicans in Congress who can't control their own pork spending, can't pass a law without having it written for them by the Drug and Energy companies, can't make decisions for themselves without the Presidents direction and you're left with the "strong National Security" meme.

Go ahead. Put Rudy forward. I for one would love to hear more details about he and Bernie Kerik's relationship.

Posted by: Doug at July 19, 2006 07:45 PM

I think that a poll 28 months before an election is pretty much irrelevant.

Posted by: Scott at July 19, 2006 08:34 PM

Oh, Dougie.... First off I didn't think about Bill Clinton one way or the other. If anything I thought of him as a big, sweaty goofball who had the self-control of a 15 yr old.

But I must say, this paragraph is something else:

"Now, Mr. Bush has proven himself to be not only morally and ethically bankrupt but also a foul mouthed slob, misogynist, a buffoon and a fraud and the stench of his failure is rubbing off on quite a few Republican leaders."

He says "s**t" and the ever-tolerant left gets a case of the vapors apparently. You really don't know any conservatives and Christians, do you? Plus, you must be positively apoplectic if you've ever heard good ol' Hilary and her foul mouth in action!

And BTW, there are one or two Democrats I would consider voting for based on defense...Joe Lieberman who your party is trying to get rid of is one that comes to mind.

Posted by: Colleen at July 19, 2006 11:05 PM

Doug -
What's your problem? Aren't democrats also looking for candidates with "Integrity, decency, strength and leadership"? Do you think that either party's chosen candidates have a corner on the golden halo market?
A lot of republicans (and democrats as well)were not so much dismayed with Bill Clinton for his private adultery but for his legal perjury. The "Giuliani didn't do anything Bill Clinton didn't" argument is a non-starter because it's simply not true.
Also a lot of republicans -- and I suspect the majority of people who voted R in the last two presidential elections -- did so not as a positive endorsement of W's policies but because in 2000 he was not Al Gore and in 2004 he was not John Kerry.

Posted by: Terry at July 20, 2006 12:15 AM

If the Republicans were to nominate Rudy Giuliani, it would be a welcome sign that the party is willing to ignore the religious right and run somebody who can unite a broad coalition of Americans. That's exactly why it won't happen.

You guys flatter yourself by pretending you belong to a party that could nominate Rudy Giuliani. He is pro-gay and pro-choice. The abortion thing - he said he would have voted against the partial-birth ban - disqualifies him as a national Republican candidate. The religious nuts who control the party will kill him in the primaries if he's crazy enough to run. Period.

The Republicans will either hold their noses and nominate McCain, so you can hold on to the White House for another term, or dump him in favor of somebody the religious right can stomach. Maybe some callow 1-1/2 term governor with little baggage. My guess is you'll go with what has worked in the past.

Posted by: angryclown at July 20, 2006 08:09 AM

Colleen...

"I thought of him as a big, sweaty goofball who had the self-control of a 15 yr old."

uh huh... You mean like this?

http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumor&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dw_bylg-Jjz8

You're a fraud Colleen. If you were concerned about national security, you would support a person who appeared, acted and carried himself like the leader of the free world.

Even though I didn't always agree with Reagans policies, at least I respected him and thought he acted like a true statesman.

Instead, you support a guy who stuffs his pie hole while talking to other world leaders, gives an unwelcome shoulder massage to Angela Merkel, blathers on about the size of Russia and China.

I would think that one of the first objectives in keeping this country secure would be to ensure that other countries have a little respect for our leaders. Instead, we have a President that is the laughing stock of the rest of the industrialized world.

That you guys support him with unquestioning cult-like adoration threatens my safety and security.

"You really don't know any conservatives and Christians, do you?"

Yes Colleen dear, I know plenty but calling yourself a conservative Christian doesn't make you a conservative Christian.

Supporting an unnecessary war against Iraq disqualifies you on both counts.

Posted by: Doug at July 20, 2006 08:20 AM

Terry said,

"I suspect the majority of people who voted R in the last two presidential elections -- did so not as a positive endorsement of W's policies but because in 2000 he was not Al Gore and in 2004 he was not John Kerry."

In 2000, Bush was the failed CEO who was playing Governor in a State whe the Governor has little actual responsibility. Perfect for Bush.

When Bush's team used unethical tactics against McCain and won the GOP endorsement in 2000, the Christian Right and pseudo-conservatives convienently looked the other way.

You guys have always just looked the other way.

When Bush fell off the couch and suffered a black eye, bruised face and broken lip - on a carpeted floor no less - after allegedly eating a pretzel, you guys just looked the other way.

Come on. You know who and what this guy is. He shows himself everyday but you just keep looking the other way.

Posted by: Doug at July 20, 2006 08:49 AM

Do you have to be condescending to people when you write in order to make your "points" little Dougie? Oh, believe you me, I'm a Christian Conservative (er...religious nut..whatever). I do not fully support Bush becasue I don't think he's conservative enough. I don't worship and adore him and neither do MANY conservatives. I think he's who we see, however...an intelligent, Christian man of principle (and there's the rub,isn't it...the Christian part). But, like Terry said above...he's not the non-leader that Kerry or Gore would have been...aaargh...just the thought...If either of those people had or were President, I would have gotten on with my life and hoped for better and different next time rather than base the rest of my life on worrying about whether they swear or talk with food in their mouths (like real people). Hmmm....food in the mouth...bl**-job under the desk in the Oval Office. Nope, I can see why you're so unhappy. The "faux pas" of Bush just don't rise to the occasion, do they?

Posted by: Colleen at July 20, 2006 09:43 AM

Scary Colleen wrote: "I do not fully support Bush becasue I don't think he's conservative enough."

So who's your dream candidate, Colleen? Darth Vader? Mussolini? Amos, the guy who does morning drive on your Canadian Mennonite station?

Posted by: angryclown at July 20, 2006 09:57 AM

I'm not a Republican but I would vote Giuliani over anyone the Dems have to offer. If he survives the primary, he wins the presidency hands down.

Posted by: Yakov Smirnov at July 20, 2006 10:30 AM

personally i think there is no way Guiani gets past a primary with the adultery issue, and being pro choice and pro gay marriage. I mean look at what McCain is doing in a potential run-up for the '08 nod, cozy up with the religious right, the same religious right he was admonishing a few years ago.

Anyways, it would be refreshing to finally see a candidate that can stay true to his word, from either party.

Posted by: fulcrum at July 20, 2006 10:46 AM

I think he's who we see, however...an intelligent, Christian man of principle (and there's the rub,isn't it...the Christian part).

No Colleen. That's not the rub. The rub is that you believe this qualifies as intelligent:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQDxfg3RQwc&search=bush

The rub is that you believe starting an unnecessary war is Christian and the rub is that you believe giving an unsolicited backrub to a woman like some adolescent office letch shows a real strength of character.

At best, you're a sycophant. At worst, a complete fraud. You cite a strong national defense and you believe both Gore and Kerry would have been inferior leaders without any demonstrable evidence acting as world leaders.

Yet, when you have boatloads of examples of Bush failing miserably as a leader, you default to the he's a good Christian crap.

He's proven himself to be a failed leader and a fake Christian. The only option you seem to have is fretting about what MIGHT have been if Gore or Kerry were elected and obscessing about Bill Clintons phallus.

Posted by: Doug at July 20, 2006 12:20 PM

As to Doug's last comments concerning Gore or Kerry: Are you kidding me?!!

Angryclown: Zell Miller-dream candidate. Too bad he's so old. J C Watts would be pretty good as well. And, hey-I didn't realize it was so easy to be "scary"! A 51 yr old grandmother that smiles and is polite to everyone she meets...scary. Hmmm. You must be quite the nancy-boy.

Posted by: Colleen at July 20, 2006 01:10 PM

"...He's proven himself to be a failed leader and a fake Christian..."

...according to people who are unqualified to judge him on either count.

Posted by: mitch at July 20, 2006 03:36 PM

Yeah Doug, don't you know the right-wing kooks own the flag *and* Jesus?

The savior would be totally behind the war in Iraq. Especially the torturing and whatnot.

Posted by: angryclown at July 20, 2006 04:00 PM

Why does anyone think Jesus would care one way or the other about the war? Not sure how someone who was concerned solely with eternal things would be so troubled with temporal ones.

Incidentally, Redstate is conducting a poll on ideal Republican 2008 candidates now. Assclown and Dougie might be interested to know that Giulani is doing well , essentially tied for second with Gingrich and Romney behind George Allen.

Posted by: SteveM at July 20, 2006 05:13 PM

"letch" I'll bet Bush can spell better than Doug, too! Hey, Doug. Do you remember all the guys on your "side" that voted for the war? Were they all Christians or non-Christians too? Which is it preferable to be or which is the "correct" side to be on-I lose track. And you can save your time posting links...it's not like I'm going to look at them and think "Oh crap-how could I have been so wrong....thank you, Dougie, thank you!!!". I could post links of Kerry and Gore in prime dork mode, but what that has to do with anything is beyond me.

Posted by: Colleen at July 20, 2006 10:40 PM

Colleen Hon, Letch is an alternate spelling of lech.

"Do you remember all the guys on your "side" that voted for the war?"

I remember all of the guys on my side that voted to give the President the authority to use force to disarm if diplomatic efforts failed.

There were no weapons, the 1800 inspectors on the ground were saying there were no weapons days before the launch of the war, 50 percent of the pre-war intelligence sources (the ones we didn't get to hear about) said Iraq didn't have wmd's and Iraq was allowing the UN access to all suspect sites.

The decision to start a war was entirely the Presidents. Not the Democrats or Republicans in Congress.

The President is a grown man Colleen. He doesn't need you to pass the blame off on Democrats for his protection but then again, rich, spoiled frat boys rarely take responsibility for their actions.

Actually, I figured out who you sound like. You sound like a battered spouse who defends the piece of crap that knocks her around then blames her husbands employer and co-workers for all of his problems.

Interesting...

"I could post links of Kerry and Gore in prime dork mode, but what that has to do with anything is beyond me."

Well Colleen dear, let me explain it to you.

In the video I linked to, Bush was asked a simple yet unscripted question. Mr. Bush made a jackass of himself because he couldn't answer the question. What makes it all the worse was the number of people laughing AT the President.

The fact that the guy can't put a coherent thought together by himself and can't make appearances in a serious public setting without handlers and a teleprompter should be a clue that he is not fit to lead Webelos much less the country.

But for you, it's ok because he's a Christian - A Christian who doesn't act anything like Jesus says a Christion should act.

Posted by: Doug at July 21, 2006 12:26 AM

Some guy who's not all that bright asked: "Why does anyone think Jesus would care one way or the other about the war? Not sure how someone who was concerned solely with eternal things would be so troubled with temporal ones."

Plus he's already busy spending all his time worrying about a couple of dudes getting married. Dumbass.

"Incidentally, Redstate is conducting a poll on ideal Republican 2008 candidates now. Assclown and Dougie might be interested to know that Giulani is doing well , essentially tied for second with Gingrich and Romney behind George Allen."

Sure, South Carolina Republican primary voters will pick a pro-gay, pro-choice candidate whose last name ends in a vowel.

Giuliani is the candidate who gives you kooks the opportunity to pretend you're broad-minded. He's the wingnuts' flavor of the month. He'll walk into a religious right buzzsaw if he's foolish enough to run.

Posted by: angryclown at July 21, 2006 06:07 AM

"Giulani is doing well , essentially tied for second with Gingrich and Romney behind George Allen"

Well, I suppose that makes sense. I imagine there are quite a few visitors over at Redstate that remember him as the lovable cigar smoking fella who portrayed God alongside John Denver's humble Grocery manager character.

Posted by: Doug at July 21, 2006 08:48 AM

"visitors over at Redstate that remember him as the lovable cigar smoking fella who portrayed God alongside John Denver's humble Grocery manager character."

Low-key. Pithy. Funny. Neither mindlessly confrontational nor snidely condescending...

...OK, you bastard, what have you done with the real Doug?

Posted by: mitch at July 21, 2006 09:48 AM

Mitch, I'm sorry you have confused my posts in the past as mindlessly confrontational or snidely condescending.

By the way, have your new hair plugs taken yet?

Posted by: Doug at July 21, 2006 10:40 AM

Yeahhh... This will play really well among the Rapture Right crowd...

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/154212/rudy_giuliani_in_drag/

Posted by: Doug at July 21, 2006 11:40 PM

Geez, I forgot about that one, Doug! Yeah, there are a few things out there that will make the tiny religious right heads explode when they come around to Rudy. He can't get the nomination, which is really too bad.

Posted by: angryclown at July 22, 2006 07:13 AM

You know, to hell with it-- I say run Bush again.

He's only been elected once.

Posted by: Joshua at July 24, 2006 01:59 AM

"You know, to hell with it-- I say run Bush again."

That's an excellent idea! I personally believe in the "rock bottom" theory.

Nothing will change or improve until we hit rock bottom and we're not quite there yet. Four more years of Bush should just about do it.

There is an alternative to actually holding an election though. Bush could simply attach a signing statement to the law that limits his service to 2 consecutive terms and declare that, due to national security reasons, the 2008 elections will be postponed indefinately.

Posted by: Doug at July 24, 2006 11:36 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?
hi