October’s 2008 GOP straw poll (Update: Bumped overnight)

posted at 10:22 pm on October 11, 2006 by Ian

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Good grief. I look at the choices here and find nothing appealing. Tancredo is the best of the lot, but that’s not saying a lot. And why does Newt Gingrich keep showing up in these things?

Bellicose Muse on October 10, 2006 at 11:03 PM

> And why does Newt Gingrich keep showing up in these things?

He has to be thrown in; we don’t have a lot of choices!

Alex K on October 10, 2006 at 11:05 PM

McCain’s negatives say a WHOLE LOTTA SOMETHIN’!!

SouthernGent on October 10, 2006 at 11:12 PM

Newt Gingrich would be a great choice if he could win. He is smart, intellectual, a true conservative, and best of all articulate. We need a president who can do what Hannity, Rush, Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin, etc. do on a daily basis–convince Americans about the merits of conservatism.

President Bush, while being a good president overall, has been woeful at public relations.

Actually, McCain went up in my book today with his criticisms of President Clinton’s North Korean policy. I also believe McCain can win a general election. He is a conservative on foreign policy and is pro-life.

januarius on October 10, 2006 at 11:19 PM

januarius, I don’t think I would hold up Hannity as a wellspring of well-articulated conservatism. He is basically a talking-point machine who comes across worse the more you hear him… at least for me.

The others I’ll go with… but, even Rush–who I love and listen to most days–has gotten to the point where he sounds angry most of the time (not that I blame him, really). When he isn’t like that, he can win some people over, but lately those moments are few and far between.

DaveS on October 10, 2006 at 11:44 PM

Heh… sorting results by RINO produces a div-by-zero error. That either means that there aren’t any self-proclaimed RINOs, or the PHP interpreter has a low opinion of them.

DaveS on October 10, 2006 at 11:46 PM

januarius, I don’t think I would hold up Hannity as a wellspring of well-articulated conservatism.

I got you 5 by 5 on that one, good buddy. And on the Rush comment, which hurts a lot because he’s the only reason I’m on this site; I owe my entire worldview to Rush. But you nailed it, Dave.

Hannity is a waste of our valuable air…

Jaibones on October 10, 2006 at 11:50 PM

PS The poll is amazing. How on earth does McCain run for President in that environment? He is utterly despised.

He is thisclose to Hagel, who will lose his next election, no matter what office it’s for…

Jaibones on October 10, 2006 at 11:53 PM

I’m actually surprised at how well Gingrich is coming out in this poll. I’d like to see Gingrich get back into the scene. If we could get an intellectual conservative out there, the Dems wouldn’t know what to do. Even their intellectuals are morons (Chomsky, Vidal, etc)

DaveS on October 11, 2006 at 12:01 AM

It’s good to see Texans are really going for Giuliani. Maybe we aren’t so lousy with social cons after all.

If he can win Texas, he can take other southern states too.

Mark V. on October 11, 2006 at 12:31 AM

Well, he may be able to win among Texans who read this subset of the blogosphere which has presented the poll… but that’s something.

DaveS on October 11, 2006 at 12:38 AM

How ’bout this…a Giuliani/Gingrich ticket. Should make the debates enjoyable.

What…? No fans of Savage here?!?

Wedge Plissken on October 11, 2006 at 1:26 AM

What on earth ever happened to last month’s straw poll?

I never saw any analysis of it after it ran… it just sort of disappeared. Now we have another?

Watcher on October 11, 2006 at 2:04 AM

Ha! The net hates McCain and Frist! That’s great.

My ideal ticket? Brownback/Gingrich. Brownback for his foreign policy and Gingrich for his domestic policy and his understanding of how to move Congress. As long as Brownback doesn’t go too far right on social issues he’d be fine. I agree with anti-abortion and anti-embryonic stemcells, but prayer in school and curbing the “adult” nature of music, movies, and television is a bridge too far. Kids can pray if they want already and let the market sort out entertainment. If he can keep from throwing the churches red meat (they’re gonna vote for him anyway) I think he would have a real shot. Plus he’s a real-life honest-to-G_d spending hawk and we really need that right now.

The Apologist on October 11, 2006 at 4:04 AM

Gingrich is unelectable. Right now the last thing the GOP needs is a candidate with scandal baggage, and Newt has that. Are we forgetting his ethics violation(s)? Also, Newt is a values-oriented conservative, but he cheated on his wife. Et too Giuliani. You can bet that would get thrown out there by those damnable political hit squads known as 501 groups.

Gingrich is articulate and offers very credible apologies for conservatism. But he comes with too much baggage and, because of his political career, is probably considered too devisive.

BTW, are any of the choices in this poll completely free of any accusations of scandal, past or present? I believe Romney is, but am unsure about the rest.

Bellicose Muse on October 11, 2006 at 6:38 AM

I guess being a Goldwater conservative I need to classify myself as a RINO.

Alan on October 11, 2006 at 7:46 AM

Baggage be damned, put someone up who articulates the conservative agenda and has a plan.

Campaign on conservatism, sell it, and don’t forget what happened when “foleygate” hit via the MSM. Investigations will find the dirt. Skunk the responsible.

Next election will have everyone in line to vote, no matter what the dhimmicr@ps say or lose this time.

tormod on October 11, 2006 at 9:01 AM

Newt Gingrich was the Speaker of the House who was charged [by democrats] of committing over 300 crimes. He went to court on at least 3 of those charges, and was found to be innocent of them all. That alone would be quite a message to run on, and I’ll vote for him over the rest if given the chance.

Pick any conservative candidate and I’ll show you the one who liberals will smear, no matter the accuracy of those.

DannoJyd on October 11, 2006 at 9:18 AM

Newt is a smart guy and an action oriented guy. He would probably upset many people, but he would be fun to watch. He is a world class debater, and would give the mush-mouth dems hell. He had better watch out for the skirts, though.

Shmo on October 11, 2006 at 10:08 AM

For a bunch of homophobe, anti-abortion nazis we conservatives sure love Giuliani!

I always get a kick out of how the left portrays us as not being open-minded. Those folks make me laugh every day.

SouthernGent on October 11, 2006 at 10:38 AM

Bellicose Muse is correct.

Guiliani would make a terrific attorney general, because he has the background, the leadership, and he doesn’t care what anyone thinks of him personally. But despite the “America’s Mayor” image from 9/11, which he earned thoroughly, he isn’t a real conservative. I’d hold my nose if he was the VP on a ticket.

Newt Gingrich is a secretary of state perhaps, maybe chief of staff, but the LLL would have a field day with him in a national campaign. They would try to remind us about the ridiculous, failed, “Contract with America”. Of course, the reality is that a good portion of the Contract was accomplished, and in spite of Clinton, who as usual later claimed credit for getting those things accomplished as if they were his idea. But we all know where reality falls on the moonbat scale.

George Allen is a good man, and is marginally acceptable, but I get the impression that the Democrats think so too, and have been clobbering him for months on everything that comes to hand. On a national stage, there may be more negative than positive in the publics mind.

The list should begin and end with Tancredo as far as the Republicans are concerned. Now cue the chorus of “no name recognition”. That election is 25 months from now.

I flat guarantee that less than 10% of the people who frequent HotAir knew the name William Jefferson Blythe Clinton in October 1990. If you did, then you lived in Arkansas or Tennessee. When I first heard that the dufus governor or Arkansas was running for the Democratic nomination, I couldn’t believe it. I’d been stationed at the Naval Air Technical Training Center in Memphis for about three years. At the time, Arkansas was the butt of many jokes in the mid-south region. The state had bumper stickers which said “Thank God for Mississippi!”, because the Arkansas public educational system was 49th in the country, ahead of Mississippi.

After his first term as governor, Clinton was popularly voted out because of his failed policies, rising taxes, and continuous scandals (he had immense training in being Slick long before the White House). But two years later he was returned to the Arkansas Statehouse, and in late 1991 he decided to run for President. He had much less name recognition then than Tom Tancredo does now, be assured. Add to this that Clinton’s presidential campaign actually unravelled in early 1992 with bad showings in the early caucuses, as well as the first “Bimbo eruption”. And yet, he somehow managed to turn it around and secure the nomination.

Sorry for the history lesson, the point is simple. Don’t avoid the most qualified conservative because you think he isn’t famous enough yet.

Here’s a ticket for you;

Tom Tancredo

Fred Thompson

Ok, maybe I should have used this link for Sen. Thompson

Freelancer on October 11, 2006 at 10:48 AM

Tancredo? Meh. He’s the epitome of a one-issue candidate, and he’s a legislator, not an executive.

Guiliani/Romney.

Slublog on October 11, 2006 at 10:56 AM

Gingrich is unelectable. Right now the last thing the GOP needs is a candidate with scandal baggage, and Newt has that. Are we forgetting his ethics violation(s)?

Newt was exonerated of those ethics violations, so please quit repeating the MSM/liberal narrative. No wonder they spend so much time manufacturing charges against powerful conservatives – even many of our own will fall into line with their wishes.

His extramarital affairs are another issue, but can you really think the libs have any chance of effectively running against Newt on that? He should at least get consideration for being on the ticket, and he is clearly the smartest guy in the field. I would love a Romney-Newt ticket.

I like Rudy too, but I’m still waiting to see him take a harder line against lawless open borders and to be a bit more supportive of the 2nd amendment.

Brownback is a non-starter with me for his open-borders advocacy. I’ve put my last two presidential votes on someone who won’t enforce the borders, my ’08 republican primary vote will definitely go to someone who does.

I know this is not a scientific poll, but nevertheless I am greatly encouraged by what it shows about the blogosphere’s opinion of McVain. He’s spent the last 6 years sticking the knife in the back of conservatives and now, at least according to this poll, they are ready to return the favor. Karma’s a bitch, ain’t it, Johnny Boy?

thirteen28 on October 11, 2006 at 12:53 PM

I know this is not a scientific poll, but nevertheless I am greatly encouraged by what it shows about the blogosphere’s opinion of McVain. He’s spent the last 6 years sticking the knife in the back of conservatives and now, at least according to this poll, they are ready to return the favor. Karma’s a bitch, ain’t it, Johnny Boy?

Hee hee.

Sorry. I just enjoyed the same thing and am glad to see others share my mirth.

Slublog on October 11, 2006 at 2:53 PM

Tancredo? Meh. He’s the epitome of a one-issue candidate

That’s one issue more than the rest of em.

Perchant on October 11, 2006 at 10:56 PM

I take that back. McCain’s got issues.

Perchant on October 11, 2006 at 11:02 PM

There is good reason that Newt is leading the pack, and for you who don’t really know Newt you can learn about the man here, and here. BTW, Newt married the women he had affairs with. Some call that love [I call it masochism], but others say it depends on what ‘is’ is.

Newt will be great in 08!

DannoJyd on October 11, 2006 at 11:27 PM

My favorite candidate gets ignored, even though she came in second in last week’s Marist Poll and at a straw poll taken in Iowa.

Lothar on October 11, 2006 at 11:56 PM

I think the Noot will surprise some of you pundents. There’s Bush and then there’s the AntiBush. Newt is the AntiBush, articulate, masterful at debate, task oriented, and with enough marital scandal behind him to win the respect of pederast lovin’ Democrats everywhere.

Mojave Mark on October 12, 2006 at 12:37 AM

Thirteen wrote:

Newt was exonerated of those ethics violations, so please quit repeating the MSM/liberal narrative. No wonder they spend so much time manufacturing charges against powerful conservatives – even many of our own will fall into line with their wishes.

I am not a parrot of the left and happen to prefer the elected men and women of our government to walk the straight and narrow. From Newt’s Wiki:

All charges were eventually dropped following an investigation by the Republican-led House Ethics Committee. However, Gingrich admitted to “unintentionally” giving inaccurate information to the House Ethics Committee during the course of the investigation. The committee did not indict him on charges of intentional perjury. The matter was settled when he agreed to reimburse the Committee $300,000 for the cost of prolonging the investigation. The payment was described as a “cost assessment” and not a fine by the Committee.

The Governor of my state, Ohio, admitted to “unintentionally” failing to divulge perks, which led to a misdemeanor conviction on ethics charges for him. Whether either or both of these men simply forgot to divulge pertinent information is debatable, but the stain of their actions remains.

While Gingrich railed against Bill Clinton for his sex escapades he was doing the same thing himself. That is called hypocrisy. Reading Newt’s Wiki brought back several remembrances of him, none of which are good (his attempt to misrepresent the HEC ruling, the attempted coup against him as SotH, his 28% approval rating, the lost seats under his leadership, etc.). He’s not all bad by any means, and he has some very strong traits. However, he also has some very poor character issues in his past, and those alone would preclude me from voting for him.

Bellicose Muse on October 12, 2006 at 12:37 AM

Count me firmly in the Gingrich camp. The man understands war and military strategy. He also understands better than anyone out there who and what our enemy is. He’ll be a kickass Commander in Chief, and that’ll send the moonbats into lunar orbit. It’ll be fun to watch.

RedWinged Blackbird on October 12, 2006 at 8:47 AM

Ugh, why can’t I get a constitutionalist as a choice?

rattrap47 on October 12, 2006 at 9:22 AM

Ugh, why can’t I get a constitutionalist as a choice?

My thoughts exactly. This nation could use a statesman the caliber of James Madison right now, but I don’t see any on the horizon. While it’s only my personal opinion, I don’t see any GOP candidates whose names invoke excitement with me. Looks like I’ll be voting 3rd party again in ’08.

Bellicose Muse on October 12, 2006 at 10:12 AM

I sumbit again that the closest thing to a constitutionalist on that list of choices is Tom Tancredo, with Fred Thompson as VP. He prioritizes issues along the same lines as Michael Savage; borders, language, culture.

Don’t make the mistake of thinking Tancredo isn’t a leader. Reagan wasn’t believed to be a leader even after 6 years as governor of California.

I’m seriously thinking of started a barrage of letters to all of the heavy-weight talk radio hosts to begin plugging Tancredo at every opportunity.

Gingrich unfortunately wears his past political difficulties as the explosives belt of a suicide bomber, and the liberals hold the detonator. As I posted before, he’d make a good Secretary of State, and wouldn’t that heat the Democrats’ hatred to boiling?

Serendipitously, Fred Thompson has been sitting in for Paul Harvey this week, and I’ve been enjoying his commentary immensely.

Freelancer on October 12, 2006 at 6:32 PM