Rasmussen: Fred! 44, Hillary 43
posted at 3:25 pm on March 23, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Now don’t get too excited. As the crosstabs show, that’s not so much Fred-love as Hillary-hate at work. Head to head with Obama he trails by 12 points, which I guess answers the theological question of who would win if the Messiah took on God.
Still, for Hillary to be down a point to a guy who isn’t even the race must be … of concern to her team, I’d imagine. She’s seven and eight points behind McCain and Giuliani, respectively, too. Obama fares better against both of them. Fred, meanwhile, already is ahead of Romney in Iowa, although Ryan Sager says he’s drawing more votes away from another guy who’s not in the race (yet) than from Mitt.
Rudy’s people are confident notwithstanding the revelation that he and the missus have fully five marriages between them. “Strong and growing” reads the Hotline description for his stategy director’s memo, which is nonsense given how unrealistically large his lead is right now. This is interesting, though:
Mayor Giuliani has a wider lead among social conservatives than he does among Republicans in general. Social conservatives already know who Rudy Giuliani is. In fact, more than 70% say they know “some or a lot” about him – these numbers are almost identical or better than other candidates in the race.
“Some” doesn’t mean much given that Rudy’s best known for his hawkishness, not his domestic liberalism. Social cons aren’t going to be thrilled when this headline starts to trickle out, either. Which leaves hizzoner with little choice but to toss them some red meat by coming to Jesus on gun rights:
[A]s a presidential candidate, Mr. Giuliani now talks very differently about guns as he tries to allay the concerns of Republican primary voters. He says he supports the right of individuals to bear arms, and that states — and generally not the federal government — should decide whether to put some limits on that right. He also spoke in favor of a federal appeals court ruling this month that struck down a District of Columbia ordinance barring people from keeping handguns in their homes.
Perhaps most striking, Mr. Giuliani’s campaign says it is not clear that he would support a measure he once championed, an assault weapons ban. In explaining his past positions, he and his aides say they were about fighting crime in New York City when he was mayor, adding that restrictions that make sense there can be wrong for other parts of the country.
Exit question: Is Karol right? Is Fred!’s dream over before it’s begun?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Don’t care if its kankle hate or fred love…I will carry this through the weekend with a smile on my face.
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!
sunny on March 23, 2007 at 3:27 PM
Horsepotatos! If Rudy thinks that is gonna get him a pass in the West he is waaaaayyyy out of touch. Like I have said here before it is the 2nd Amendment issue that is going to sink him.
Limerick on March 23, 2007 at 3:29 PM
What’s wrong with Romney?
billy on March 23, 2007 at 3:30 PM
The fact that he’s even been forced to say that is stunning. I didn’t think he’d do it. I still think if congress plopped a AWB bill in front of him he’d sign it.
Bad Candy on March 23, 2007 at 3:32 PM
Rudy w/ Fred as VP. DARE I TO DREAM!
JayHaw Phrenzie on March 23, 2007 at 3:33 PM
I think, considering his previous opinion, this is as far as he can go without seeming like a pander bear. I prefer federalism to his previous stance.
Slublog on March 23, 2007 at 3:34 PM
If Fred is even close to Giuliani’s stance on abortion … he still beats his @ss on every other issue. There’s still no contest.
And being within 12 points of Obama without even being officially in the race? Even better than I expected.
Gregor on March 23, 2007 at 3:34 PM
billy, good question. Mitt has only been getting about 10% (or less) of the Republican vote, consistently.
Rudy also mentions on his site, he now believes abortion should be decided between a woman and God. So, if the woman really believes in God, it would then hold that abortion would be the wrong answer, correct?
amerpundit on March 23, 2007 at 3:35 PM
Nothing. Except he is going to have a terrible time in the southern primaries. He has past problems with his stance on abortion, universal healthcare issues, and sadly-being a mormon will have an influence on the Baptist south. Shame, but true.
Of those (contenders) in the race, I would have to vote Romney, but Newt or Fred getting in destroys his primary campaign.
sunny on March 23, 2007 at 3:36 PM
Allowing ‘States Rights’ to be the trump card on the 2nd Amendment will end up just like the gay marriage issue…..
Everyone will have different rules, everyone will argue it in court, and every other week the 9th Circuit will be throwing out your right to bear arms.
Limerick on March 23, 2007 at 3:37 PM
I’ve got to defend Giuliani on the gun thing, though. In New York City, a liberal city, crime was huge while I was living there, before Giuliani. Most of the good, honest, innocent civilians, didn’t possess guns, so the controls didn’t affect them. It majorly, affected the criminals. It reduced crimes. If the citizens don’t own guns, why let the criminals?
amerpundit on March 23, 2007 at 3:37 PM
What angers me, though, is that we only choose the Republican nominee, not the final President.
amerpundit on March 23, 2007 at 3:38 PM
Holy Cow! This is great news for Fred Thompson. Even if he trails Barack Obama by 12 points now, this is stunning. I have a sneaking suspicion that not a whole lot of people really know who Fred Thompson is yet. Couple that with the fact that Obama has been pretty universally canonized by the press (until he’s forced to get into the dirt with Hillary), and you have a pretty big wave you can ride, Mr. Thompson!
Please, please run.
Matticus Finch on March 23, 2007 at 3:39 PM
No, Karol is not correct. Fred’s position in ‘94 is a federalist position, which is hardly pro-choice. There’s a distinction between being pro-life and wanting to outlaw all abortions from the federal level. What he’s said is that he believes RvW to be “bad law” and “not the court’s business” which indicates a solidly pro-life position.
The dream is not over.
spmat on March 23, 2007 at 3:41 PM
Exit Answer: No, Fred!’s dream isn’t over; his voting record shows what his feelings are on the issue.
dalewalt on March 23, 2007 at 3:41 PM
I’ll take Fred/(anyone of the following; Newt, Delay, Steele, Limbaugh, Malkin)
- The Cat
MirCat on March 23, 2007 at 3:42 PM
Poll numbers please. Otherwise, please stop indulging your own hateful stereotypes.
spmat on March 23, 2007 at 3:43 PM
That’s my dream too, JHP.
I might pick Fred for top dog, if I thought he could communicate and lead as effectively as Rudy.
As a social (libertarian) conservative, it’s the gun control issue that worries me most.
petefrt on March 23, 2007 at 3:45 PM
It seems Romney hasn’t bounced back from his poor choice of terms in speaking with Cuban Americans in Florida. I’m still shopping and very happy to have 4 Republicans that I would vote for in 2008 (Thompson,Romney,Hunter, Tancredo)and only two (Giuliani and McCain) who I wouldn’t.
For Thompson to be within the error percentages of Hillary when he hasn’t even announced is awesome. Romney needs to firm up his position in people’s minds regarding the border, illegal immigration, 2nd amendment, and abortion. Hunter and Tancredo need to take on Rudy over those same issues and get more press and air time.
Yeah, Rudy’s past plus gun control etc. isn’t going to help him west of the Mississippi.
Buzzy on March 23, 2007 at 3:46 PM
“I, Fred Freakin’ Thompson, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Darksean on March 23, 2007 at 3:47 PM
For me it’s Thompson/Rice. I know Condi has a way to go (especially on the Israel/Palestine front), but she’s an attractive candidate. And it pretty much inoculates the Republicans from the inevitable race card that’s such a staple of the donks.
Matticus Finch on March 23, 2007 at 3:48 PM
Exit question: No. Is the Presidency Fred’s dream, or is it some of ours? I prefer Duncan Hunter, but Fred has the presence.
CrimsonFisted on March 23, 2007 at 3:50 PM
spmat,
How about the fact, that every poll that’s been taken, Romney’s received only about 7-10%, where as Newt has received in the late teens? And Newt hasn’t even announced a candidacy. If you’d like links to these polls, I can provide them.
amerpundit on March 23, 2007 at 3:50 PM
I hadn’t heard that. As a Fl resident, what happened? Do you have a link for me?
Thanks!
CrimsonFisted on March 23, 2007 at 3:51 PM
I prefer Fred Thompson over any of the other “Republicans” now in the race. So much so that I would for the first time consider donating $$$ to a candidate.
Yakko77 on March 23, 2007 at 3:52 PM
No Doubt. :P
- The Cat
MirCat on March 23, 2007 at 3:54 PM
I haven’t seen any polls on this specifically. But anecdotally, I’ve heard Evangelicals and others say they would never support a Mormon.
More important is the perception that Evangelicals won’t support a Mormon.
billy on March 23, 2007 at 3:55 PM
Malkin/Prestion ‘08?
amerpundit on March 23, 2007 at 3:55 PM
Sorry, that should be:
Malkin/Preston ‘08
Allah could be the Secretary of Defense or State. Ian would have the other position.
amerpundit on March 23, 2007 at 3:56 PM
How is that an indicator that being a Mormon is an issue specifically with the Baptist South?
spmat on March 23, 2007 at 3:56 PM
billy, you’re right. I live in FL. I know several people who won’t vote for Romney, because he’s Mormon.
amerpundit on March 23, 2007 at 3:57 PM
The point being: Newt is an established conservative from the South. Rudy has name recognition and positive press on his hawkishness. Romney is an unknown with heretofore ambivalent positions on important social conservative issues.
I like Romney. I would vote for Romney in either a primary or a general, but any reservations I would have in either case have nothing to do with his Mormonism. Indeed, my reservations come from his past willingness to reject his Mormonism in favor of political expediency.
spmat on March 23, 2007 at 4:00 PM
I fail to see where I have been hateful, but I think I’m beyond stereotypes. I live in SC where my religion is a minority. Almost all my friends and co-workers are Baptist. I may be working off anecdotle (spelling) information, but I don’t think I’m being hateful. I don’t know of a poll of Baptists, so I cannot site.
sunny on March 23, 2007 at 4:01 PM
Made all the more believable because of your willingness to accept it as fact. I’m from the south and I know quite a few Baptists that do support Romney, myself included.
spmat on March 23, 2007 at 4:03 PM
Abortion is about #400 on issues I care about. Pro choice or pro life isn’t any deciding factor in a candidate, in my book. Taxes, immigration, and national defense are on top. That is what 2008 needs to be about.
lorien1973 on March 23, 2007 at 4:11 PM
It’s not hate speech, it’s bad punctuation the way I read it.
Try this…. And sadly, being a mormon, will, have an influence on the Baptist south.
And BTW, I’m baptist.
CBarker on March 23, 2007 at 4:12 PM
You, among others, are taking it upon themselves to tar and feather Baptists as religious bigots, sans proof. The proof might be there, I don’t know, but I have just as much anecdotal evidence to the contrary.
Point being, I’ve found far more non-evangelicals speaking for evangelicals on this issue, in every case based on anecdotal evidence, and it sounds like projection to me.
spmat on March 23, 2007 at 4:14 PM
Thank you cb, to think I was a communication major.
sunny on March 23, 2007 at 4:16 PM
You’re an idiot. Did I tar and feather anyone? I stated an opinion that is backed up by my experience. I gave you the point that I could not site a poll. So now I hate Baptists? Blow it out your ass.
sunny on March 23, 2007 at 4:24 PM
Exit question?
Nope..Fred’s been clear he’s a States’ Rights guy and prefers the States to decide that matter (as it is “bad law” as stated above.) And even if by some freakish occurance, he did turn out to be a pro-choicer…who gives a flip? We have MUCH bigger fish to fry than RvW right now. Nothing is going to be done anytime soon on RvW…but we CAN focus on WOT, taxes and immigration.
Thompson/Steele ‘08!!!
tickleddragon on March 23, 2007 at 4:27 PM
Well I hope you’re right, because I think Romney would make an excellent President.
But it brings back my original question: Why isn’t his campaign getting any traction?
billy on March 23, 2007 at 4:28 PM
These polls don’t single out Baptists, but they do seem to suggest that to some, Romney’s faith could be an issue.
Slublog on March 23, 2007 at 4:29 PM
Maybe I’ve got tunnel vision, or just stupid, but when a conservative enters the voting booth, and closes the curtain, I think there is one primary factor in their choice for CIC…….’What will this man/woman do when some world leader tells them to sit down and shut up?’ I don’t think religion gets in the way of that. Personally I don’t care….then again I’m not a every Sunday Christian either.
Limerick on March 23, 2007 at 4:29 PM
It’s one thing to be nominally religious but not really. But among Evangelicals, it’s quite another thing to be in a heretical cult. Mormonism will play a factor among Christians and to suggest that it won’t is silly, especially among Christian groups that take social/religious issues seriously. I know several people who won’t vote for a mormon short of that mormon promising to make a necklace of terrorist teeth.
Lehosh on March 23, 2007 at 4:37 PM
The first candidate that promises that will not only have my vote, but will get a campaign donation of one crisp George Washington.
Slublog on March 23, 2007 at 4:42 PM
Same here. I’d probably vote for Rosie the Hutt if I thought she was committed to the “Tooth Necklace” platform.
Lehosh on March 23, 2007 at 4:54 PM
It’s sort of interesting that you think someone suggesting Baptists might be less inclined to vote for a Mormon is bigotry … but it kind of seems like it’s you who is using the bigot label, since you’re applying it to all of those – Baptist or no – who might have some issues with a Mormon President.
I’ll confess: I know enough about Mormonism that it gives me a few concerns regarding Romney. Am I bigot? Or am I just factoring in all the facts and raising a few questions? If I were Baptist, would I be more – or less – of a bigot, for being honest about my concerns?
(For the record, I’m not sure I’d want a real hard-core evangelical Baptist as my first choice, either … so I’m probably doubly the bigot, huh?)
Setting aside my own bigotry, I don’t think it comes close to bigotry to just point out a very obvious truth – that for some groups out there, Romney’s Mormonism will affect his votes. That’s not bigotry, it’s reality.
Newsflash: some people will be less inclined to vote for Obama because of his skin color, too. They might be bigots. But pointing out their voting patterns doesn’t make me a bigot. C’mon.
Professor Blather on March 23, 2007 at 5:01 PM
Lorien, I share your priorities.
amerpundit on March 23, 2007 at 5:03 PM
More important comment:
Hillary’s not gonna get the nomination, is she?
After all this time, everybody so sure it was her … and in the end, I think she’s done. They’re going to go for Kerry-esque “electability,” aren’t they?
It won’t be Hillary. I don’t think it can be Obama.
President S. Pony?
I hate to jinx it, but I think it’s a Republican White House, probably through ‘16. Thompson/Gingrich is unstoppable.
Professor Blather on March 23, 2007 at 5:07 PM
Fred Thompson … “I’m not only a craptastic politician, I play one on TV.”
friggin limousine liberals
SilverStar830 on March 23, 2007 at 5:09 PM
Ditto. I’m strongly pro-life, but we really need to stop using abortion as the main litmus test for presidential candidates. Other than using the bully pulpit to convey his or her own opinion on the matter, the president’s only direct impact on the abortion issue is the judges he appoints. And in that regard, I want my president to appoint judges who are constitutionalists, not specifically pro-life. I believe a court stacked with constitutionalists will ultimately straighten the issue out for the better.
aero on March 23, 2007 at 5:09 PM
P.S. I’m saying “ditto” to lorien and amerpundit regarding abortion being a low priority for pres. candidates.
aero on March 23, 2007 at 5:10 PM
You’ve blamed Romney’s lack of traction in large part to the intransigence of Baptists in the South. Without proof. Without polls.
That is a blanket denunciation of blind bigotry on the part of Baptists in the South. It’s sad that you would be so quick to judge. Perhaps it would be better to say that Romney might have a problem in the country in general.
You showed your nethers. Don’t get huffy with me for pointing it out.
spmat on March 23, 2007 at 5:33 PM
If you said that Baptists reject Romney simply because he’s Mormon, then yes you are demonstrating an irrationally negative view of a particular group of people. That’s bigotry.
And yes, it is bigotry to reject Romney out of hand because of his Mormonism. The Mormon church has its quirks, but it is irrational to impute to all Mormons an incapability to perform the duties of President based on their faith. It is not irrational to do the same for a Scientologist or other cult member, as such cults are demonstrably shady and questionable (thus, their status as a cult).
Again, if there is proof that Baptists and evangelicals make Romney’s Mormonism their greatest reservation, then I stand corrected. But I don’t think that’s what it is.
spmat on March 23, 2007 at 5:41 PM
spmat, you are an idiot. You have this tendency to single out the most innocuous comment, then fabricate all kinds of non existent intent behind the comment. Then, after being told that you’re off-base, you just won’t let it go. STFU!
And to those that spar with this dimbulb, shame on you for feeding the trolls.
cmdrsubfleet on March 23, 2007 at 5:45 PM
Um, I think it’s safe to say that as a metric of any particular Christian sect’s distaste for Mormonism, this poll is a bit inconclusive:
Los Angeles Times / Bloomberg
NBC News/Wall Street Journal
Those polls are ostensibly reflective of the country as a whole. Romney’s woes in the South, if they exist especially there at all, have far more to do with his triangulation than his religion.
spmat on March 23, 2007 at 5:50 PM
I’m a Fred Head!!!
Brent on March 23, 2007 at 5:50 PM
I said 1/3 of his problem would be Baptists, based on what I know from personal experience in South Carolina.
Once again, you’re an idiot. You’re just looking to be offended. “It’s sad that you would be so quick to judge.” Cry me a river!
sunny on March 23, 2007 at 5:52 PM
Who are you? I’ve never seen you before.
spmat on March 23, 2007 at 5:52 PM
Aren’t you trying to offend me now?
spmat on March 23, 2007 at 5:53 PM
lol
sunny on March 23, 2007 at 5:54 PM
I’m thinking of throwing my hat into the ring on a pro nuke Iran platform.
(Ours, not theirs.)
Buck Turgidson on March 23, 2007 at 6:01 PM
So, how do you feel about Greg Ellison?
That right there, is only your opinion. How do you prove the view is either “irrational” or “negative?”
The opinion that it’s a “negative” view would vary based on how strongly you agree or disagree with the Morman faith.
It’s only “irrational” if you don’t have strong disagreements with the Morman faith. Is it “irrational” to worry about Muslims being elected to political offices? So, what’s the difference here?
And no, I’m not comparing Islam to Mormans. I’m not intending to bash Mormans, but only suggesting that those with different views have every right to worry about who’s going to make decisions regarding this country. I would be concerned having an atheist running the country. Is THAT okay? Or is that bigotry too?
As for the suggestion that Southern Christians will be influenced by Romney’s Morman faith … I’m not sure how you can believe it won’t have an effect, just as Ellison’s Muslim faith causes concern with most of us.
Irrational? Not a chance.
Gregor on March 23, 2007 at 6:12 PM
LMAO! You just did yourself.
Gregor on March 23, 2007 at 6:14 PM
The left is already
gunningsnarking for Fred. Forced to listen to NPR in my AM-challenged vehicle, they ran an “oh-god–not-an-actor” hit piece on Thompson. The phrases “Senator”, “Assistant US Attorney” “Watergate co-chief counsel” never came up. The core of the piece was to say maybe they would use the Law & Order “ka-klung” segue for everything announced out of the White House.To be fair, the guy was consistent. You could hear him throw up a little when the name “Reagan” came out of his mouth.
eeyore on March 23, 2007 at 6:14 PM
I’m sorry, but I’m just not sold on Fred!
I certainly like what he says but as they say, talk is cheap.
I’d rather have someone like Romney or Guiliani who’ve proven they have the gumballs to take on an established liberal bastion like D.C. even if I don’t line up 100% behind their social views.
billy on March 23, 2007 at 6:25 PM
OMG! That just might be the most off-base comment I’ve ever read.
Gregor on March 23, 2007 at 6:36 PM
OMG! That just might be the most off-base comment I’ve ever read.
Gregor on March 23, 2007 at 6:36 PM
Care to elaborate?
billy on March 23, 2007 at 6:41 PM
Yes. Especially with Giuliani. He’s NOT A CONSERVATIVE, in any sense of the word. So who exactly was he “taking on?”
Basically, what you’re saying is that you’re not quite sure if Fred is truly as conservative as he says, so you’ll just vote for the admitted liberal instead.
Gregor on March 23, 2007 at 6:44 PM
How do I feel? I don’t feel anything. I know he has questionable funding sources and unsettling ties to CAIR. That is a rational basis for concern.
spmat on March 23, 2007 at 6:48 PM
I’m sure Fred! is every bit as consevative as he says he is on The Paul Harvey Show
But how conservative would he be 2+ years into his term of office when the press is jumping down his throat and the approval polls are dropping and the Euroweenies are whining and the mid-terms didn’t go so well?
Romney and Rudy have been in that situation and have remained fiscal conservatives at least.
Fred!?
We don’t really know.
billy on March 23, 2007 at 6:52 PM
Gregor I know how you feel about Rudy. billy’s right. Rudy – Republican mayor of liberal NYC. Mitt – Republican Gov of liberal Massachusetts. DC more liberals. Not off base.
Buck Turgidson on March 23, 2007 at 6:53 PM
Exactly. And I’m sure that concern would effect your vote, if you were given a ballot with Ellison’s name on it. And there are many who have strong problems with some of the beliefs and practices in the Morman Church. I’m sure you would agree that it’s safe to say that Romney is not going to deny “having strong ties” to his Morman faith, correct? So is it “irrational” to believe that those people who have problems with the Morman Church would hesitate to vote for Romney?
Gregor on March 23, 2007 at 6:56 PM
This is OT but,
after 70+ comments among conservatives from across the country about who should be the next Republican nominee, did anyone bring up the Maverick Man?
billy on March 23, 2007 at 7:03 PM
Are we electing a President or a pastor in ‘08?
billy on March 23, 2007 at 7:04 PM
Even Rudy could do better in the scotus appointee category than Sandra Day O’Connor and David Souter. You still consider Reagan a conservative right Greg? (I know DS was GB41) Just sayin.
Buck Turgidson on March 23, 2007 at 7:13 PM
Errr … not a chance.
Gregor on March 23, 2007 at 7:24 PM
Doesn’t matter if your question is valid or not. The fact remains that many people will let the man’s faith influence their vote. Like it or not, right or wrong … it’s a fact.
Gregor on March 23, 2007 at 7:26 PM
Rudy’s judicial pool of appointments for NYC was somewhat… limited. He has been endorsed by Ted Olson which from a strict constructionist point-of-view, is pretty solid.
billy on March 23, 2007 at 7:33 PM
Me? Just someone that gets paid to read every comment in every topic on this blog and a handful of others. Just someone that has observed you, going out of your way to be offended or feign offense where none usually exists.
LMAO! Yeah. Ironic, ain’t it?
cmdrsubfleet on March 23, 2007 at 7:35 PM
I’m officially endorsing Michelle Malkin for vice president. Can you imagine how much fun we’d have watching Michelle preside over the Senate. I’m swooning just thinking about it!
jaleach on March 23, 2007 at 7:39 PM
Johnny Mac? Dead Man Walkin’!
BTW, I don’t remember who here used Johnny Mac as a reference to John McCain, but I strongly urge this name be uused to describe him in all subsequent thread titles. It cracks me up everytime I hear it!
jaleach on March 23, 2007 at 7:43 PM
Forget MM.\\
Go AP
sunny on March 23, 2007 at 7:46 PM
I read the link Gregor. Like I said, I know how you feel and I’m not saying your full of it. But you didn’t address Reagan’s appointment of O’connor so we’ll call it a draw?
Buck Turgidson on March 23, 2007 at 7:56 PM
voices, a thousand thousand voices.
name that tune
sunny on March 23, 2007 at 7:57 PM
I thought you were CIA or Corrections officer? Ya know, dozens of hangings and all. No hard feelings btw.
Buck Turgidson on March 23, 2007 at 8:03 PM
You might also check out this article too.
I ain’t sold on Rudy or Romney, but I don’t think the next Republican POTUS can be another Bush. Not that I don’t support him, but his background, Republican governor of a deeply red state, left him unprepared for the take no prisoners Beltway left.
Is Fred! that guy?
Maybe.
But it’s gonna take more than a few good lines on the radio to convince me.
billy on March 23, 2007 at 8:14 PM
The reason Romney’s campaign isnt getting traction is that concervatives are somehow STILL buying what the MSM is cooking. Michelle just gave us an excellent example of this by buying, hook line and sinker, the Boston Heralald hit job on Romney. The current poll situation is entirely created by the press. Who really wants Mccain and Obama but the press?
I agree with Billy. A candidate with a proven track record who served and actually got things done while battling a liberal establishment tooth and nail beats anyone who makes grandiose concervative statements with no hope of getting anywhere with them.
Resolute on March 23, 2007 at 8:31 PM
Touchet. Thats why if I voted today, it’d be Rudy. I encourage all to read the linked article. Thanks, bill
Buck Turgidson on March 23, 2007 at 8:36 PM
Allah, can you confirm or deny?
Buck Turgidson on March 23, 2007 at 8:41 PM
It was an absolute disaster. No argument from me, lol.
Gregor on March 23, 2007 at 8:46 PM
There are Mormons funding terrorist organizations? Oh, you must mean all those creepy guys on the bikes. Yeah, they look like terrorists to me. Those bikes are probably pipe bombs.
How about this Muslim? You gonna give him the boot for being a dusky heathern, too?
Seriously, I have real problems with the doctrines and practices of the Mormon church, as I do with the Catholic church, but both of those institutions are well within the bounds of legitimacy when it comes to their membership seeking political office. I mean, no one’s seemed to have a problem with the state of Utah, which has been run, and run well, for quite some time now by Mormons.
And I brought you out of deep cover. Lucky me.
spmat on March 23, 2007 at 8:51 PM
Billy, I also have my reservations on Thompson, but mostly because we’ve been conned so many times before. The thing is … I don’t have any questions about Rudy or Romney. I KNOW they aren’t what I want. I know what we get if they win and I don’t like it.
I’d much rather have Tancredo, but unless something unbelievable happens quick … he’s not going to happen and Thompson is by far the most believable and consistently conservative candidate we have. At least, of those who can win.
Gregor on March 23, 2007 at 8:52 PM
Also, it is not the fact that one’s faith would influence his vote. My faith influence my vote. Romney’s Mormonism will affect my vote, as it will affect everyone in America’s vote. The issue is whether his Mormonism is the decisive factor in the decision. That is not a rational decision, given that the Mormon church’s membership has more than 100 years of validation as a constructive part of the United States of America and its government (Utah joined the union in 1896).
They’ve been a part of the country for a long time, paying taxes, voting, serving in the military and building strong communities. They’ve well earned a place in the top spot, if their boy can win it.
spmat on March 23, 2007 at 9:00 PM
You just continue to misrepresent what’s being written. None of the comments you have responded to have suggested that being Mormon should disqualify Romney. The only suggestion that’s been made is that there are many people who will let it effect their vote. Period. There’s been no argument as to the fairness of this fact. Only that no matter how much we whine about how unfair it is … it’s going to happen.
Gregor on March 23, 2007 at 9:02 PM
I’m not misrepresenting anything, Gregor. You attempted to point out my hypocrisy by bringing up Ellison. I responded that my concerns about Ellison are not associated with his religion but with his ties to questionable representatives of his religion, thus making it a rational decision, based on his actions. Then you equivocated the two situations, with Ellison and Romney. The two are not remotely the same.
spmat on March 23, 2007 at 9:07 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »