Analysis from Rasmussen:
Arizona is the home state for John McCain, but Fred Thompson is the strongest GOP Presidential candidate in the state at this time.
A Rasmussen Reports telephone survey found that Thompson leads Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton by seventeen percentage points, 51% to 34%. Thompson will be formally announcing his candidacy this week.
Rudy Giuliani, who leads the polls for the Republican Presidential nomination, leads Clinton by eleven points, 49% to 38%. McCain has a ten-point edge over Clinton, 46% to 36%. With McCain as the GOP candidate, 15% of Arizona voters say they’d select a third party option. Mitt Romney is the weakest of the GOP candidates in Arizona but still leads Clinton by seven points, 46% to 39%.
NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence
September 4th, 2007 at 9:35 am
What’s going on in Arizona that Thompson is beating Bush’s performance in 2004 (he won by only 11 percent)? I don’t think I’ve seen a poll showing even Giuliani (the strongest candidate at this point) *matching* Bush’s performance in any state, let alone outperforming him. Maybe this poll is an outlier.
September 4th, 2007 at 9:45 am
Color me skeptical of this poll. Arizona is not that red anymore.
September 4th, 2007 at 9:52 am
Romney is the weakest again.
September 4th, 2007 at 10:11 am
More anti-Romney venom from GG.
September 4th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Venom? Venom? He said “weakest.” That’s venom?
ACT, I wouldn’t worry about anti-Romney sentiment on Race42008, since over 50% of posters here are pro-Romney, compared to the % of Republicans that barely breaks the teens.
THIS board is the outlier.
September 4th, 2007 at 10:17 am
I think it is worth bringing up the point that, while Romney is clearly the weakest of the GOP top tier nationally, he is the only one who has shown the ability to work hard, improve his numbers, and then keep that extra support (as well as the original support he had). Say what you want about the so-called “electability” of Giuliani or Thompson, but the fact remains that all GOP candidates would likely loose to Hillary if the election were held today – even if some beat her in national polls. Whoever we nominate, they are going to have to improve their polling, and, so far, the only candidate on our side who has shown any ability to do that, is Romney.
September 4th, 2007 at 10:18 am
These match-up polls are ridiculous. Even if Romney was in the lead I’d think they were ridiculous because they are completely invalid.
September 4th, 2007 at 10:21 am
MetroRepublican, just asking here, but are you new to this site?
September 4th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Intersting, more proof that Hillary can not bring the southwest into play like other Dems could, likely meaning see has to focus on Ohio, Missiour, the Boarder South with ARK, and FL to flip.
September 4th, 2007 at 10:23 am
The Mountain West is turning out to be the GOP’s best region in these polls. Colorado showed the same thing.
Remember, AZ is about the only state where a GOP Senator with mediocre approvals beat back a well-funded challenger with some experience. The GOP holds all the statewide offices except governor, and controls both statehouses. It’s still pretty red.
September 4th, 2007 at 10:23 am
Romney is the only one to show the ability to work hard? Facts please. All the candidates would lose to Hillary even if they lead her in the national polls? What is that “analysis” based on? Since the Romneybots are probably telling the pollsters they won’t vote for Rudy, Rudy is probably stronger against Hillary than the polls show. Lets win this thing.
September 4th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Ryan –the old polls are invalid ploy. Romneybots mantra is the polls are invalid, but if they are valid, Romney is such an amazing candidate he can overcome anything. Seems like only the Romneybots-not the voter-see Romney as that amazing. I wonder who is right.
September 4th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Romney is the only one to show the ability to work hard?
No, but he is the only candidate who has proven his ability to improve in the polls through hard campaigning.
–
“All the candidates would lose to Hillary even if they lead her in the national polls? What is that “analysis†based on?”
State polls. Remember, the Presidency is decided by electoral votes, which are decided by the results in individual states. You show me a situation, using state polls, where any GOP candidate would win the general at this point.
–
“Since the Romneybots are probably telling the pollsters they won’t vote for Rudy, Rudy is probably stronger against Hillary than the polls show.”
ehh? Come again? If people won’t vote for Rudy, they won’t vote for Rudy, its that simple.
–
“Lets win this thing.”
I agree, I want to win, but not at the cost of sacrificing Social Conservaism. We have been over this many times, you are asking socons to make a big sacrifice by voting for a Republican who believes in a Constitutional right to an abortion.
September 4th, 2007 at 10:41 am
ACT, I’ve lurked here for a long time and recently started posting. It only takes a day or so to see how lopsided this board it. That’s why I decided to start posting.
September 4th, 2007 at 10:42 am
Abortion, abortion, abortion–I can’t think of any other issue that matters in this election. If Hillary were just pro-life, we could all vote for her.
September 4th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Metro–keep posting.
September 4th, 2007 at 10:45 am
Just for fun, someone should start a thread and have all of us post who our horse is in this race. That way we could have an honest assessment of the percentage of support for each candidate on this site. There can be no debate that Romney has a much higher percentage of support on this site than he does overall with Republican primary voters.
September 4th, 2007 at 10:45 am
Come to think of it–Harry Reid is pro-life. We should all get behind Harry Reid.
September 4th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Bob Casey Jr for president
September 4th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Metro,
Glad to have you. This board does have a tilt in one certain candidates direction, but, oh well.
Anybody noticed that Rasmussen has yet to update it’s daily poll? Gotta run, so if he puts it up while I’m gone, don’t think I’m ignoring it, because I’m not going to be here for a while.
September 4th, 2007 at 10:48 am
Although when I took the politichoice poll the other day, I most agreed with Mitt’s “present” positions, my horse is Rudy Giuliani. I want to win.
September 4th, 2007 at 10:49 am
Metro – then you may want to read some of Grant’s other posts in other topics – he is highly anti-Romney. And if this board is really biased, its against Romney. Many of the big names on this forum (TLG,Grant,Awakened), are against Romney.
Grant – there are obviously other important issues, but abortion is also important, as are other Social Issues. The reason I support Romney is because he is strong on ALL fronts. Rudy is not, and, because of it, does not have my vote.
September 4th, 2007 at 10:55 am
“And if this board is really biased, its against Romney”
Oh man. Kavon, Tommy, LJ (If you’re still here), Aron we REALLY should do a site poll just to put this issue to bed.
September 4th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Arizona will clearly not decide the primary. Romney needs to deal with Iowa, NH, Nevada, Michigan, (Wyoming?) before he worries about Arizona.
September 4th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Number of front page supporters openly supporting a candidate-
Rudy:
Kavon
DaveG.
Aron Goldman
Jennifer Rubin
Mitt:
Jason Bonham
Matt C. (Heavy M)
Justin Hart
Gamecock
Thompson:
Me (Tommy O.)
Gary Matthew Miller
McCain:
LJ
Brownback:
Billy Valentine
We have more posters but many are not openly advocating one candidate over another, have yet to make yp their minds as to who they will support, or are keeping it to themselves.
September 4th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Wyoming is partial (12 of 28 delegates), and I think it’s an insider thing for party officials only. That’s not going to carry the weight of a caucus or primary.
September 4th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Tommy – they don’t poll over the holiday weekend. The next poll comes out Wed.
Grant – Sorry, but we just don’t agree. Somethings are more important than electability, like issues. I consider Social Issues to be important, you don’t. You consider electability to be of major importance, I don’t. I think Romney can win, you don’t. You are willing to throw out some of your positions to win one election, I’m not. What good does it do me to support a candidate “who can win”, if I don’t agree with him on issues I consider important?
Like I said in my last post, Social Issues are not the only important thing, nor are they the most important thing, but the ARE important to me. I’m looking for the all-round best candidate on issues, experience, and record. For me, that isn’t Giuliani.
September 4th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Tommy, I’m referring to the commenters/discussion when I say it’s over 50% pro-Romney.
September 4th, 2007 at 11:03 am
Interesting there are no Huck supporters among the front page contributors. Given his rise (in visibility if not polling #’s) it probably isn’t the worst idea in the world.
September 4th, 2007 at 11:04 am
The statement that this board is somewhat lopsided is true at times. Looks like most posters are either Romney or Rudy fans with just a few Fred-heads around. I don’t think anyone should be surprised at that since those candidates offer the most appeal and reason to get excited.
As far as “lets win this thing” goes, there are basic core principles of which I am unwilling to compromise. Many of you know exactly what I mean by that, other don’t. Apparently, there are those that would compromise just about anything for a win, not me – and not certain social conservative values. If the choices are between Rudy and some Democratic candidate, many of us will feel as if we’ve already lost.
September 4th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Tommy,
I’m with Metro. Sorry if I didn’t make that clear. For every Kavon there is a CWpete, a Matt, a Matt C and an ACT Blog. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. But it would be nice to have a guage of support.
September 4th, 2007 at 11:08 am
Gamecock now for Romney? When did that happen? Thought he was undecided. Anyway, that is good news to me..
September 4th, 2007 at 11:09 am
#25 Tommy
Pencil me in as a Romney supporter.
That being said I WILL vote republican in the general regardless
of who gets the nomination, 4 – 8 yrs of Hillary makes the little
hairs on the back of my neck stand up!!
September 4th, 2007 at 11:14 am
“That being said I WILL vote republican in the general regardless of who gets the nomination, 4 – 8 yrs of Hillary makes the little hairs on the back of my neck stand up!!”
It does the same to me, but so does the thought of the GOP being taken over by moderates and liberals (within the GOP), which is what I fear a Giuliani nomination would cause.
September 4th, 2007 at 11:19 am
Actually I don’t hate Romney. In fact, in office I think Romney and Rudy would be nearly identical in their policy positions. I would take either but the polls are important because they show me how other people feel. Given how demos and independents feel, I believe it is the problem with the Romneybots on this site that they are pollyannaish about Mitt’s chances. If Mitt could win , he is fine with me. I think it is obvious that he won’t beat Hillary. So, it is unfortunate that some of the most vociferous Romney posters say they won’t vote for Rudy when Rudy will do in office about what Mitt would–which is way better than Hillary. We need a Republican pres–elections are too important to waste.
September 4th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Hey, I’m in agreement with you. To gauge Romney support on this site, all anyone needs to do is post an anti-Romney article, and then they come from everywhere. This site has always tilted towards Romney commentor’s in opinions. Guys like TLG stick out more because they are vocal and are in disagreement with the majority.
Shoot, when I first started posting here, I’d get flammed by Romney supporters (and still do to some extent). Not all of them were vehement, and some were very nice to have a conversation with, but I got some of the hatred directed in my direction as well.
September 4th, 2007 at 11:21 am
Grant, I just want to point out that Act Blog does have a valid point. Rudy did peak out in mid 40s. Now he is in about mid 20s. If his support has been eroded that easily, what is there to say Hillary won’t draw away his support? We could discuss what he has not done to keep his support as high as it should be. This is a valid topic we should discuss in another post (R48 staff, any take?). And yes, Act is right in that Romney’s national polls trend has been going upward. But so is Fred’s. Here is the national chart from pollster.com: http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Rep-Pres-Primary.php
September 4th, 2007 at 11:22 am
cwpete,
Gamecock has been in Romney’s camp since the first debate. He’s been pretty vocal about it when he posts.
September 4th, 2007 at 11:24 am
to expand on my last post, I see a Giuliani nomination as the start of what I fear would be an irreversible trend that moves the GOP from being a party of principle to a party of popularity. Rather than sticking to our guns and trying to convince the voters why we are right, we would start picking candidates who we think “can win”. That would likely move the party to the center, and leave Conservatives (of all kinds) out in the cold.
September 4th, 2007 at 11:24 am
ACT, time to stop smearing the Rudy camp as “liberals and moderates.” Most of us actively supporting Rudy are Club for Growth types, who have previously sent our money to DEFEAT the Specters and Chafees of the GOP. If you lump Rudy with them, then you really don’t understand what’s going on with his support among Republicans.
September 4th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Glad to hear some of you say you would vote for any Republican. That is progress given what many have said on this board. We all should be friends on this board since our candidates are the good guys.
September 4th, 2007 at 11:25 am
SGS: Support within a party and among the general electorate are not the same. In fact, they are typically inversely related.
September 4th, 2007 at 11:27 am
cwpete, don’t tell me you miss one of the most amazing article Gamecock ever written! Let me see if I can find it… Ahh, the original article at The Charlotte Observer is no longer available. I believe he did post a copy here, let me see… Well, he quoted only part on this site, and linked the full article at a Mitthead site. I hope you don’t mind: http://www.mymanmitt.com/mitt-romney/2007/07/why-southern-baptist-leans-to-mitt-for_16.asp
September 4th, 2007 at 11:27 am
ACT, actually I think Rudy would do a better job of getting America to understand, respect, and go along with conservative principles when it comes to the economy, taxes, healthcare, entitlements, the war and national security.
You won’t get conservative action on cultural issues from the President, but we’ll go way farther to the right on everything else. In a climate that would make that impossible with any other Republican. Heck, it was impossible under a pro-GOP climate because Bush wasn’t able to communicate and get respect on fundamental reforms.
September 4th, 2007 at 11:28 am
ACT, The party has survived that before. Rockefellar Republicans ruled the party from the 1930’s until the mid 1970’s. The pendelum swings back and forth.
( I’m not accusing Rudy of being a Rockefellar Repub., just using that as an example of the shift between moderates and socials in control)
September 4th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Metro (#42), true, it depends on which polls, as some of them look at the likely voters, rather than likely primary voters, etc… But still, it does not change the fact that there are the same polls back then as now, and they all showed the decrease in his support. Again, remember, I do like Rudy, and he is my close second choice. It is just that it surprised me that he has not done everything he can to keep those supports. As I said, we could go into details about why it is not so easily, which is why I am proposing a separate article for this. It is bad enough to have a way off topic under this article (or any, for this matter).
September 4th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Thanks for sharing SGS, I did not get that article.
September 4th, 2007 at 11:33 am
The problem with the party presently is that Bush has effectively split it into so many little splinter groups that there is no majority opinion anymore. You have your Brownback type of Republicans, you have your Romney type of Republicans, you have your Rudy type republicans, you have your McCain type republicans, you have your fred type republicans, and you have your Ron Paul republicans. All put different weight on different issues, and each thinks theirs is most important.
September 4th, 2007 at 11:35 am
Tommy, I just want to help nug you in a good-feeling direction, so here is one from a Mitt supporter, I do appreciate what you have brought to this site. I had wanted to study all of the candidates, and you have done your part in helping me. I know there are many who have yet to study, so please do continue what you (and the rest of you, including TLG, Awakened and even Sampo
) have done on this site. I do appreciate it. And admittedly, I agree with you, Tommy, that there have been some supporters here from each candidate that may be a bit illogical. Oh well, there’s always one in each crowd.
September 4th, 2007 at 11:36 am
“We need a Republican pres–elections are too important to waste.”
Well, that depends on what your idea of a waste is. To me, supporting a candidate who actually shares you values, even if he does not win the election, and seeing the cause live to fight another day is not a waste. On the other hand, selecting a candidate because of popularity, even though he does not fully represent your positions, all to win one election, is the real waste. I’m just not completely sure that Social Conservatism could survive a Giuliani Presidency.
September 4th, 2007 at 11:39 am
To be fair, I think all of the candidates are politicians. If Mitt hadn’t been liberak, he wouldn’t have been gov–if Rudy hadn’t been liberal , he wouldn’t have been mayor. If they had not been elected, they wouldn’t be candidates for pres. If Mitt and Rudy hadn’t now moved right, they wouldn’t have a chance to get nominated. A sen from Tenn or Ariz can run as a conservative more than a gov of mass or mayor of nyc. Reagan was a more liberal gov than he was a presidential candidate. Goldwater was a candidate of principle–few others are.
September 4th, 2007 at 11:40 am
Right Tommy #48:
Not only did Bush spit Republicans as you described. Bush as also done Republicans harm with spending / debt. He had Republican control of both houses of Congress for the first 6 yrs of his presidency. As a fiscal conservative, I would have liked to have seen less spending, lower deficits and perhaps maybe even a small surplus. I think Republicans do have a black eye when it comes to fiscal conservatism.
September 4th, 2007 at 11:41 am
Adam (#31), actually, this site has seen quite of tiling toward various candidates during the year. There was one time when this site was so biased toward Rudy in that every other candidate was clawed down badly, that I was all set to stop coming here. Then I saw its balance has been restored. We have seen the same with Brownback, Fred Thompson and McCain (yes, much earlier this year, way back!) Now, I agree with you that we are somewhat tiled toward Mitt. It is definitely a balancing act trying to cover all candidates in the fair light. I appreciate the efforts of R42008 staff. I suppose they could use some of our help keeping everything in the balanced matter.
September 4th, 2007 at 11:41 am
ACT, you didn’t respond to my point that most of us supporting Rudy are anti-RINO Republicans. The fact is, Rudy is moderate-liberal on some cultural issues, but is very far to the right on everything else. He is eclectic, not moderate. One of a kind.
Social conservatism wouldn’t survive a Giuliani Presidency? Given the the deep conviction they have for their views, I very much doubt So Cons are going to quit running for office and voting for So Cons in the House, Senate, Governorships, state legislatures, etc. And running for President. Rudy can only serve two terms.
September 4th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Tommy Oliver: ‘Number of front page supporters openly supporting a candidate-’
Most of the front-pagers are smart enough not to openly shill for one candidate or another. It’s more significant who the commenters support, since they can pretend that their candidates are perfect and that all others are Satanic, or whatever. According to GOPstrawpolls.com, people from race42008.com voted as follows:
Romney 127 (52.5%)
Giuliani 50 (20.7%)
F. Thompson 17 (7%)
Huckabee 15 (6.2%)
Not too many Thompson-supporters. It’s no wonder that the most grotesque insults are leveled at him.
September 4th, 2007 at 11:46 am
ACT Blog: ‘I’m just not completely sure that Social Conservatism could survive a Giuliani Presidency.’
If I thought that was true, I would be volunteering for Giuliani. It seems more likely that Giuliani won’t survive social conservatism and that he will sell out his ‘core convictions’ for political gain. Some tough guy.
September 4th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Metro (#54), I want to point out that Rudy was starting to go in the right direction with his 12 commitments, but then, he has been pretty much silent about many of those commitments, especially the one related to the social issues. We are still waiting to hear more from him on them. But for now, he has the right promises.
September 4th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Awakened (#55), umm, may it has to do with the actual grassroot organization movement? We know who has the best one. The rest, we know needs some work.
September 4th, 2007 at 11:51 am
One compelling reason for Giulaini’s candidacy is that he has monster ammo against HIllary that neither Th Thompson nor Romney has, for example this:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/08/the_30second_giuliani_v_clinto.html
September 4th, 2007 at 11:58 am
‘Awakened (#55), umm, may it has to do with the actual grassroot organization movement? ‘
That Romney can get people to visit this site and support him? Seriously, if his strategy is based on getting people to post positive comments about him on blogs, I think he’s in big trouble.
September 4th, 2007 at 11:59 am
“The problem with the party presently is that Bush has effectively split it into so many little splinter groups that there is no majority opinion anymore.”
Well, two things:
1) You can’t really place the blame on Bush for any of this. The reason that the party is so heavily spit is because this is an open seat election. There is no incumbant (VP or Prez) running, and there is no successor (originally, I think Allen would have taken it fairly easily, but we know how that turned out).
2) There is still a majority opinion, just not a selected nominee. The majority of Republicans are pro-life, the majority are pro-economy, and the majority are pro-military.
—
I also wanted to mention this, and I have not really mentioned it before, because it uses the past to predict the future, but if Hillary won in 2008, it is far from the end of the GOP. Consider this:
- Going back to the 1950’s, a President has a 50% chance of dying in office, not running for re-election, or being defeated in their re-election bid.
- Going back to the 1920’s, presidents following predeccessors who defeated an elected incumbant have always served two or more terms themselves.
- Also going back to the 1920’s, the list of defeated incumbants and those who declined to run for re-election alternates between the GOP and DNC in a 1,1,1 pattern (Hoover, Truman*, Ford, Carter, Bush I)
Now, that makes the senario where Clinton runs, wins, looses re-election, and is followed by a two-term Republican extremely possible.
September 4th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Regarding Romney & working hard:
“Romney was the only GOP contender in New Hampshire on Labor Day, and two of his main opponents, the undeclared Thompson and former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, did not hold any events yesterday. ”
From:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/03/AR2007090301234.html
My perception is that Romney is not only a workhorse, but that he works harder than most his opponents most of the time. Here is an example recently where Romney and all his family were pounding the pavement campaigning on a holiday while his two main opponents did not hold any events.
September 4th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
#44 GG
You watch the change in this board after the GOP nomination no matter who it is.
The nomination will bring all republicans together to try and defeat Hillary (in my opinion)
Yes, I do see a day where the FT, Mitt,Rudy,McCain,Huck,etc.. supporters come together
in force to make sure we don’t see another Clinton in the Whitehouse.
We as republicans shouldn’t under estimate the GOP nominated candidate regardless of what
the general elections polls are showing us this early, I also don’t think we should
elect our own purely based on “electability numbers”, I think we should elect
the best “republican” and what that stands for to each of us (that is why
we vote, folks) then take it from there.
If that nominated republican can’t pull it off in the general, then we have
bigger issues to deal with then second guessing ourselves on who we should have
put up there. Whoever the GOP nomination goes to, I like to think 99% of us here would
support that person. Personally I’m a Romney supporter but have no problem supporting
who ever wins the GOP nomination.
September 4th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
The reasons that I say I don’t know if Social Conservatism could survive a Giuliani Presidency are:
1) It could encourage GOPers to start going after the moderate vote rather than the Conservative vote, mean social issues could be left behind
and
2) Nominating a candidate who supports a Constitutional Right to an abortion would render the GOP unable to claim the title a “consistantly pro-life party”, and would make us more concerned about holding power than legislating our positions.
September 4th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Nothing can so unite the GOP as the prospect of another Clinton in the White House. Think of it my friends, if our nominee wins this election, than we will never have to hear about another Clinton presidency for a very long time, that in itself should be reason to unite and work hard for a GOP victory.
September 4th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
ACT, when has the GOP claimed it is a consistently pro-life party? I’d think the 1/3 of Republicans who are pro-choice would be very interested to learn about that.
September 4th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
I am new to your site, and I have read most recent posts. Mostly the same people all the time. Awakened seems uniformly reasonable. Why do you support Rudy? Do you really like the guy’s positions/abilities, or do you think he’s just the best poised to beat Hillarious?
September 4th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Awakened (#60)
Come on, man (or are you a woman?), you know what I mean. The supporters like you and I are one who try to convience others to go for their own candidates. Yes, it is part of EVERY candidate’s strategy, to draw in more supporters, but it is not THE strategy. Stop kidding yourself.
September 4th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Tyler: We Rudyites believe he is the best candidate to lead America. He has the most executive experience of any of the candidates and has proven that he can get stuff done. He made NY a stable, actually liveable big city, and his leadership on 9/11 was above and beyond the call of duty. Those are but a few of the reasons we support Rudy
September 4th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
[...] post by Tommy Oliver and software by Elliott [...]
September 4th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Tyler, I hope you don’t mind my throwing in some points concerning Rudy. First, Jonathan is correct in that Rudy has the most government executive experience of all candidates. In fact, he may has the most one ever. No argument there. However, some of us want to see our government running as if it is a business. If that is also how you feel about, we believe Mitt has even more experiences in that area. Next, after 9/11, he did provide us with a face we need to stand up again, and together. However, it has been often argued here on this site that it has nothing to do with the war against terrorists itself. Some of us questioned his actual experiences on the terrorists — comparing with McCain, no explanation needed, Romney with his services on homeland committees, bio-hazard committees, olympics security, etc… We believe Rudy would do very well with the diasters like the aftermath of Huricance Kathrine. But it is not the same thing as managing the war itself. Even then, we do acknowledge that Rudy has often proved he is willing to put his live on line for his duty – against mafia and such. Then, some of us do feel that we need a leader to restore the respect of this position that Bill Clinton has destroyed. For that, we need a person with strong characters, one who is willing to work with others in impartial ways, but yet, be firm in standing up for the rights. Again, we recongize that Rudy is willing to fight up for something in any way and to the full degree. It may be good for many of us, but it does concern many of us, too. Rudy does have his history with media and other city leaders which gives some of us hesitation. But, yes, Rudy is a worthy candidate to study. I encourage you to think throughout what matters the most important to you, and determine if he is the best candidate for them.
September 4th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Tyler: ‘Why do you support Rudy? Do you really like the guy’s positions/abilities, or do you think he’s just the best poised to beat Hillarious?’
I have lost a lot of respect for Giuliani in the last 6 months, as he is pandering his way to the nomination. But here are my reasons for supporting him:
- He is pro-choice
- He is tough enough to take on the Islamic fascists
- He has proven to be a good executive and a good crisis manager
- He doesn’t fear fighting the liberal establishment
And, of course…
- He is the most electable candidate
A defeated Thompson/Romney won’t make us succeed in Iraq, nor will he stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Those are the two most imporant issues, in my opinion. And that’s the reason why some people support Giuliani, despite the differences they might have with him on social issues (I don’t have those). The specter of two men getting married pales in comparison with Tel Aviv going up in smoke.
September 4th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
‘Come on, man (or are you a woman?)’
I sure hope I don’t sound like a woman. My stance isn’t exactly wide.
‘The supporters like you and I are one who try to convience others to go for their own candidates.’
I’m not trying to convince anybody, simply because I know that nobody can be convinced. At least, not on a political blog like this. You would need to catch people who are less informed if you want to convince people.
‘Yes, it is part of EVERY candidate’s strategy, to draw in more supporters, but it is not THE strategy. Stop kidding yourself.’
Excuse me, but I didn’t say that it was THE strategy. I merely said that *IF* this is his strategy, he is in big trouble. Also, I didn’t quite understand what you meant with your post. Did you mean that the Romney-campaign sent people to vote through this website, or that they sent people to post on this website, or something else?
September 4th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Having just read the 70 comments so far I’m encouraged. We need to be unified next year, and if we are, we will win this election regardless of whether Mitt or Rudy is our candidate. Hillary has high negatives already and during the course of the general those negatives will go far higher. She wears on people. The so-called Republican Attack Machine will become real…right now it’s a figment of the Left’s imagination, but during a Hillary run for the presidency it will spontaneously emerge and become a real force. Either one of our guys will look Promethean coming out of a debate with her. Her base has about as much passion for her as Bill does. I sense that the political mood in America is changing in out direction. 2008 will be a good year.
September 4th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
SGS,
And then there are those of us who don’t want to see our government run as a business. That’s the GW Bush way of things.
September 4th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Why does it matter if a blog has more supporters for one candidate than another again?
last I checked, all were free to post as they want.
September 4th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
awakened,
it is not that guliani is a moderate liberal type in every way and is like specter……as you mentioned in response to actblog in an earlier post.
yes, he is more fiscally conservaitve and has a better view about governmen than specter and chafee types, but he is socially liberal and it is about perception.
the media will construe it as the GOP has finally said social isssues are not that important anymore. It will be the end of an era where these were defining and musts to succeed in our party. Some of us do not want that.
That is why I support Romney with Guliani as my second choice. I think I like them more than the others becuase they are so simliar as far as fiscally philosophy and competence. i tip to Romney because he is socially conservative as well however. I will vote for guliani probably in a general but with some reservation and disappointement because i really don’t trust him to appoint conservative judges and becuase it will be perceived as a rejection by both parties of social conservatism.
September 4th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
But if Rudy picks a strong socon as his running mate (say Huckabee for instance) it will show that they still have a place in the Republican Party
September 4th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
JON: ‘Why does it matter if a blog has more supporters for one candidate than another again?’
It doesn’t matter, but some people were claiming that Romney-supporters are not in the majority here, so I had to set the record straight. If you have a problem with that, you can take it up with them.
‘yes, he is more fiscally conservaitve and has a better view about governmen than specter and chafee types’
He is more fiscally conservative than anyone else running for President right now. Except perhaps Ron Paul.
‘I will vote for guliani probably in a general but with some reservation and disappointement because i really don’t trust him to appoint conservative judges and becuase it will be perceived as a rejection by both parties of social conservatism.’
That would be great. Social conservatism is nothing more than religious totalitarianism. There is nothing conservative about it. Conservatism is about getting the government off our backs, and out of our bedrooms. But social conservatives think, for example, that it is legitimate to ban me from gambling on the Internet. Or to teach creationism in the public schools as science. Or to force ineffective, inaccurate and dangerous abstinence education on teenagers unlucky enough to get such ‘education’. Or to ban the morning-after-pill. In short, I’m tired of a minority forcing its views on everybody else.
I for one will praise Giuliani’s name if his nomination leads to the religious right’s wretched fall. But I doubt it.
September 4th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Awakened–the religious right is good for our country–i hope Rudy sees that.
September 4th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
We need a uniter, not a divider.
September 4th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
‘Awakened–the religious right is good for our country’
No it’s not. What have they done but stick their noses into other people’s business?
‘ hope Rudy sees that.’
Rudy will ’see’ whatever is to his political advantage.
‘We need a uniter, not a divider’
And right now, the religious right is the most divisive political force of significance.
September 4th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Actually, many of the alternative lifestyle people have rubbed the religious right’s noses in it. I don’t blame the religious right for being pissed.
September 4th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
‘Actually, many of the alternative lifestyle people have rubbed the religious right’s noses in it.’
Excuse me, the religious right is the one rubbing the religious right’s nose in whatever it is. I’ve never seen people so obsessed with sex, not even during my college years. They need therapy to get rid of their pathological obsessions, and be repressed no more.
Actually, I agree about alternative lifestyles. There are people out there who pay prostitutes to equip them with diapers and then get pleasure out of getting beaten up. What a disgusting alternative lifestyle. No wait, that was actually David Vitter (R-Diaperville), a prominent member of your beloved religious right. And a hypocrite to boot.
The religious right is offended that people they don’t like exist, and that the government won’t put them in prison. By the way, Rudy Giuliani was a strong supporter of whatever it is you’re referring to as ‘alternative lifestyle people’. Be it fornication, cross-dressing, adultery, (I’m a strong supporter and practitioner of the first) whatever.
‘I don’t blame the religious right for being pissed.’
How shameful that you defend the domestic Taliban. You know they’re wrong. My gambling through the Internet had absolutely no effect on their pathetic, repressed non-lives. And yet they did everything in their power to prevent me from having fun. Someone once said: “The puritan hates bear-baiting, not because it pains the bear, but because it gives pleasure to the spectator.” Again, it’s shameful that you are defending these scumbags.
September 4th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Just popping in here. Just want to say that, yes, this is mostly a pro-Romney board, but that’s why I stick around. It’s no fun to go back and forth with people who do nothing but agree with you all the time. I like the debate.
September 4th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
TLG you might not like this but I agree with you
September 4th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Awakened–I assume you are a young man–I give you the benefit of the doubt by attributing your diatribe to immaturity. You need to develop some mature views about sensitivity to others. Inflammatory language is a bad habit you should try to overcome. Grow up.
September 5th, 2007 at 7:01 am
‘Awakened–I assume you are a young man–I give you the benefit of the doubt by attributing your diatribe to immaturity.’
Did I ask for the ‘benefit of the doubt’? Not from the likes of you. The people who care about your opinion can be counted on the fingers of one hand (when all the fingers have been amputated).
‘You need to develop some mature views about sensitivity to others.’
Your ‘advice’ is unwelcome, neurosuctioned one.
‘Inflammatory language is a bad habit you should try to overcome. Grow up.’
Yeah, yeah, whatever. Now instead of dodging the issues and coming up with excuses, will you comment on
1) Rudy Giuliani’s cross-dressing and adultery? Was he rubbing it in your beloved religious right’s noses?
2) How gambling is rubbing anything in their noses.
3) David Vitter (Giuliani-supporter)
No wonder Giuliani is in bad shape, if you are one of his supporters.