$27 million for Hillary in the third quarter?
posted at 9:10 am on October 2, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
The siren is up at Drudge. She only did $26 million in the first quarter, which is typically the bonanza period.
The numbers I saw for the GOP yesterday were $10 million for Mitt (plus $7 million more out of his own pocket), around $9 million for Rudy, and $8 million. She raised as much money by herself as our big three did combined. Couple that with the fact that some pro-life grassroots activists are already promising not to volunteer if Rudy’s the nominee and I fear we’re looking at a very harsh reality:
It’s game over, man.
Update: Belated exit question — is the scourge of Hillary so awful that we should hope for the Goracle to take revenge and jump in?
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 3 4 Next »
Impressive. I didn’t realize there were that many Hsus in her closet.
Sue on October 2, 2007 at 9:12 AM
Sure looks like it.
nailinmyeye on October 2, 2007 at 9:15 AM
Hmmm… speaking of Hsu, have the checks gone out yet?
You know, the ones she said she would give back?
Enquiring minds want to know.
Romeo13 on October 2, 2007 at 9:16 AM
27mil damn, cant wait to see the donors list for this coup.
trailortrash on October 2, 2007 at 9:18 AM
It isn’t game over you quitters…it just shows that libs like to throw there money away. God, I hate quitters.
tomas on October 2, 2007 at 9:20 AM
Yeah, but consider the fact that she’s the de-facto only candidate on the Dem side, and the whole Dem campaign has been a sham since Kerry concieded The nomination is, was, and always has been hers from the get-go. So basically, the rest of them are running for the VP slot.
I mean, really… if we had an “inevitable” candidate, I think they’d probably be raising as much as the big three combined as well.
And it’s only “game over” for the convention. I really think when push comes to shove that most Republicans will hold their nose and vote for Rudy if he’s the nominee rather than hand the election to Clinton once more without a majority of the popular vote. Memories of Ross Perot ‘92 and ‘96 will come back to haunt them.
crazy_legs on October 2, 2007 at 9:22 AM
Love this quote from the NRO article:
I think the tension between the social cons and the moderates has reached a breaking point.
Slublog on October 2, 2007 at 9:23 AM
This takes begging, borrowing and stealing to a new level. Is it feasible that any sane American would turn the national security of our country over to this shill? Where is the proof she returned the money that Hzu donated to her?
volsense on October 2, 2007 at 9:24 AM
I’m afraid your right. Our only hope now is that somehow this money brings her down. As in, she gets tied to the campaign finance lawbreaking that you know has happened here. But I fear that she could be holding the smoking gun on that one and the MSM would give her a pass.
Sigh
conservnut on October 2, 2007 at 9:24 AM
I doubt 27 billion dollars is enough to scrub away those negatives.
Asher on October 2, 2007 at 9:26 AM
Over? Did you say “over”? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
there it is on October 2, 2007 at 9:28 AM
Rudy vs Hillar = liberal vs liberal
Holding your nose and giving Rudy the vote will just make the GOP think it can still win while ****ing their base up the ass. Let Hillary have this one, if she’s as bad as people say we’ll win the next election and hopefully the GOP will have learned its lesson by then.
Darth Executor on October 2, 2007 at 9:28 AM
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Its as if she got a million dollars for every ear blasting, forced laugh, cackle she ripped off over the last couple of months. Thats pretty much my worst nightmare ever.
Hillary is our next president. Sorry tomas. The Dems are going to control the House and the Senate during her reign. I’m fearful that, unlike George Bush, she is going to govern like she actually has a majority.
Zetterson on October 2, 2007 at 9:29 AM
Justice John Paul Stevens is 87.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 74.
Justice Anthony Kennedy is 71.
Justice Antonin Scalia is 71.
Justice Stephen Breyer is 69.
Justice David Souter is 68.
Slublog on October 2, 2007 at 9:29 AM
“Game over”? Nevah!
If Newt (the girl, not the former Speaker) could survive alone with all those nasty aliens, we can avert total destruction from a *gasp* Hillary Presidency.
JetBoy on October 2, 2007 at 9:29 AM
“I will gladly pay you Tuesday, for a Hamburger today…”
Whimpy…
“I will gladly give your children $5000 each for a campaign contribution today…”
Shrillary
Romeo13 on October 2, 2007 at 9:30 AM
Yep we are in a heck of a fix. It is time we get off our prancing pony. The only thing, at this point, that might flip it back are outside events. Smell the coffee people.
Limerick on October 2, 2007 at 9:30 AM
Hey, just think of how much she would have had If Hsu hadn’t been exposed.
I wonder if Hsu is working on the convict vote for her now.
JohnnyD on October 2, 2007 at 9:30 AM
I have two friends who are intelligent, educated and conservative but SADLY uninformed who have both told me “I don’t really like her policies, but I like HER, and I want a woman in the white house!” and I explain to them how much it’s going to cost them, what it’ll do to the country, and they just look at me like “Oh, sure, like that would really happen…”
It is unsettling, to say the least…
JustTruth101 on October 2, 2007 at 9:31 AM
yikes, AP would love to see a post on current match up polls, with hillary head to head with rudy mcromney.
zane on October 2, 2007 at 9:32 AM
It’s about who pumps up their base. These fund raising figures are a real good indicator of how determined your particular base is. The Republican base is fractured badly And without a real serious real conservative in the race to get the base excited, I am pretty gloomy right now about next November. Something can still happen to change that, but it is looking pretty bad right now.
The Libs are determined to take back the White House and that shows in the fundraising that all of their candidates have done. We don’t seem that committed to keeping it.
conservnut on October 2, 2007 at 9:32 AM
84′ in reverse.
Limerick on October 2, 2007 at 9:33 AM
I wonder how much is laundered PRC money ala Hsu.
wordwarp on October 2, 2007 at 9:34 AM
You can’t rip on candidates if you aren’t up for the fight yourselves.
tomas on October 2, 2007 at 9:36 AM
Holy crap! Who are these people excited by the prospect of a Hillary presidency? Or are they afraid what will happen to them if they don’t donate and appease her?
frankj on October 2, 2007 at 9:36 AM
there it is, I think you meant the Japanese, no?
Melba Toast on October 2, 2007 at 9:37 AM
Drudge:
the dem money numbers are mindboggling, they are outraising the GOP by double.
zane on October 2, 2007 at 9:37 AM
It’s a quote from Animal House. Bluto was not a smart man…
Slublog on October 2, 2007 at 9:39 AM
Heh, that’s a perfect clip AP.
That’s a Belushi quote from Animal House.
SouthernDem on October 2, 2007 at 9:39 AM
AP, you might want to put a NSFW language warning on that clip. I love that movie, and it doesn’t bother me, but some people are at work.
ReubenJCogburn on October 2, 2007 at 9:42 AM
OH, get over it Allah. You really think this whole race is over if Giulliani gets the nom, or are you just trying to shovel poop so “Aww Shucks” could get the nomination?
The whole lot of you can run home and cry to your mommies. This race is far from over, and Rudy WILL carry us to victory.
Vincenzo on October 2, 2007 at 9:44 AM
That “Compassionate Conservatism” sure was lovely for us wasn’t it. A compassionate conservative cuts taxes but not quite as much as JFK. A compassionate conservative likes racial preferences and affirmative action. A compassionate conservative spends money like a drunken sailor. A compassionate conservative signs into law McCain/Feingold. A compassionate conservative talks about the need to shut down Gitmo. A compassionate conservative buys into the entire Global Warming farse and talks weekly about the need to “combat climate change”. A compassionate conservative refuses to enforce our immigration laws.
Those compassionate conservatives sure do get the Republican base fired up don’t they! Thank you Mr Compassionate Conservative for converting executive power and control of congress into a Shillary Presidency. Fantastic!
Zetterson on October 2, 2007 at 9:44 AM
Is there a cap on how mach an individual can donate to each candidate?
elBarto on October 2, 2007 at 9:45 AM
ahhh awesome clip! thats my favorite movie ever
ernesto on October 2, 2007 at 9:47 AM
Tomas…we do fine ripping on the opposition. We are 1%. The other 99% are going to get (based on the fund raising numbers) 10 minutes an hour of ‘Bad GOP’ spots to our 1 minute of ‘Bad Dems’ spots. The sheeple will follow the money, it is as simple as at.
Limerick on October 2, 2007 at 9:47 AM
It may be over for Obama, but not for us. All the money in the world won’t get her to be liked more and the people who hate her really, really hate her. No way it is over.
ctmom on October 2, 2007 at 9:47 AM
Doesn’t matter. Republicans suck at picking judges anyway. They’ll all end up liberal sooner or later.
Darth Executor on October 2, 2007 at 9:48 AM
On top of that, what did you expect to happen? We have been shattered by that assclown Bush. Had we had anyone up there who could speak like an adult, we’d probably have a lot more support right now. Hopefully Giuliani can bring that back next year before November, and convince people Republicans aren’t a bunch of idiots.
Vincenzo on October 2, 2007 at 9:49 AM
I think part of why the Dems and media have lied so much about the war and such, is this reason right here. They lose this election they lose their god for a generation.
jp on October 2, 2007 at 9:51 AM
The scourge of Hillary is just what this country needs… to forever end the Democrat party’s hold upon the poor & minority voters, because her election will lead to the worse depression in America’s history.
Griz on October 2, 2007 at 9:51 AM
Yeah, that Scalia and Thomas are just liberal weenies, aren’t they?
Slublog on October 2, 2007 at 9:53 AM
apparently Ron Paul raised $1 million bucks fast recently, the question is the money coming from legitimate political sources? I can see this virus spreading and may peak at around 10% poll support, then they will expose him hopefully and support will drop.
jp on October 2, 2007 at 9:54 AM
Not game over, man.
Remember Perot. His gazillions could not get him anywhere near the White House.
There are other very harsh realities about Hillary that will make many fence-sitter voters fear and loathe her – the whole game will be about getting those realities into the light past the MSM (her shield and force field). We can do it.
Halley on October 2, 2007 at 9:55 AM
Ummm… Rudy will fracture whats left of the party.
There are a lot of Americans, myself included, who will no longer vote for someone, just because the other parties candidate is more odious. You saw it in the last election, but the GOP has not learned that lesson. They are continuing to put up CRAP candidates, who do not stand with the Conservatives of America.
Rudy is pro abortion, anti gun, and ran a sanctuary city… three hot button issues with conservatives … he will NOT get the Evangelical vote, and will NOT get the votes of people like me, who actualy pay attention to politics.
The Presedential election should not come down to One New York Liberal, VS another New York Liberal…
Romeo13 on October 2, 2007 at 9:57 AM
If she wins, the game’s over, over in the fullest meaning of the word. Hillary intends to change this country profoundly, in ways that eliminate the possibility of ever going back.
petefrt on October 2, 2007 at 10:01 AM
If Reagan screwed up I doubt another Republican president with a democrat congress will do better.
Darth Executor on October 2, 2007 at 10:01 AM
Thread over.
Someone, anyone, show me in the constitution the passage that demands we hold popular elections for this office.
Instead of this crap-o-la chief exec beauty contest we go thru every four years, can we instead just tally up the bank total, and spare us all this teeth gnashing, last-liar-standing brawl??
locomotivebreath1901 on October 2, 2007 at 10:02 AM
Exit answer: Yes. It is that aweful and anything that could potentially shake up what she has going is good for America. Hillary is worse then Gore.
Zetterson on October 2, 2007 at 10:03 AM
This is insane and ridiculous! It sounds like a silly kids game, whoever ends up with the most marbles at the end wins, but everyone keeps forgetting the cheating factor, how could one person be that much better than everyone else, what did they have to do to get all that? Does everyone think that Hsu was her only corrupt fundraiser? I know many of the Dems are willing to forget and overlook quite a lot when it comes to that shrew, but we need to keep bringing it up and shoving it in their faces.
4shoes on October 2, 2007 at 10:03 AM
It makes no sense to me to sit out an election and give Hillary the presidency. That will show republicans alright. It sure worked out well the last time everyone sat home and showed them.
Sue on October 2, 2007 at 10:04 AM
No you can’t. Conservatives have proven over and over that they simply aren’t competent enough to take on the MSM and truly come out on top (I say “they” rather than “us” because nobody listens to me and as such I wash my hands of it). We need to play dirty or not play at all.
Darth Executor on October 2, 2007 at 10:04 AM
Okay, who believes that Hillary’s astounding pile of cash was acquired legally? Anyone?….. Anyone?……
There’s no way you can make me believe that that many people are that excited about Hillary.
No. Freaking. Way.
aero on October 2, 2007 at 10:12 AM
The picture used to highlight the article says it all.
“THIS IS A STICK UP-DOWN ON THE FLOOR AND PUT ALL OF YOU MONEY IN THE BAGS PROVIDED YOU AND DO IT NOW.
DON’T TRY TO BE A HERO AND TELL ANYONE YOU WERE BEING SHAKEN DOWN.
THANK YOU AND WE WILL BE BACK NEXT WEEK FOR MORE.”
MSGTAS on October 2, 2007 at 10:12 AM
So you are going to vote for the Democratic candidate?
tomas on October 2, 2007 at 10:13 AM
This is very troublesome, but not necessarily panic-worthy. She’s obviously getting loads of money from the far left, but only so many of them vote. Really, she has to capture the middle and I’m not convinced she can get many of them to vote for her. That being said, the attack on her from the right must be perpetual and vicious.
I might not remember correctly, but didn’t Dole have a LOT more money than Clinton but didn’t use it and also didn’t win? Money isn’t everything, but the best tonic for her and her money would be an electrifying Pub candidate!
Darksean on October 2, 2007 at 10:14 AM
By sitting at home they are in essence voting for the democrat. To show the republicans. Makes perfect sense to someone, I’m sure, but not me.
Sue on October 2, 2007 at 10:15 AM
Gore isn’t very bright. He may do something right by accident.
Amazing how very young and full of world domination ambition Hillary looks in that picture.
Numenorean on October 2, 2007 at 10:20 AM
The beauty of our party is that its supposed to stand for enough things that encompass a majority of the voters:
-Low Taxes
-Christian Values
-Strong Military
-National Pride
-Limited Government
Now, aside from Giuliani being pro-abortion, he pretty much sums up every thing else what a Republican should be. And he does it well.
I don’t buy this sanctuary city crap either. When you are in a job(like Mayor of a LARGE city), you have to deal with realities like gun control and immigration. He did what he had to do. He did it well. He cleaned the filth out of Times Square. He made the streets safe again.
Now, as he runs for the position of POTUS, he’s changed his position on guns becuase he’s in a different office, with a different jurisdiction.
Go ahead and keep poo-pooing on him all you want. You aren’t listening to his speeches and promises, or you choose not to believe them. I’d like to know when Giuliani went back on his word. I’ve known him for a long time, and don’t remember him lying to the extent you expect he would.
One last thing; while I’m not telling you to chagne your views on abortion, we risk becoming the same as the nutroots on the left. We must be the bigger people and accept candidates that will not fit every facet of our beliefs. If we do that, we can pick someone who is the best for the biggest group of our party.
I’ve had to suffer in two elections voting for George Bush. I voted for him becuase he was the best man for my beliefs. I didn’t agree with him on a lot of things, and found him to be a bumbling idiot. But I voted for him anyway, becuase I knew we needed a Republican and not a Democrat in office.
So now perhaps the fundies will have to do the same thing for the moderates like me. We supported your assisne candidate and got him two terms. Now support our assinine candidate!
Vincenzo on October 2, 2007 at 10:22 AM
Not talking about staying home. None here will (well almost none). My point is we are full of ourselves, our mission, our ‘right’ thinking. We are nothing. While we all tear each others candidates to shreds the Billary machine is putting together the anti-GOP machine, not the ain’t-Billary-wonderful machine.
Our wishy-washy RNC is to blame. Our amnesty loving, PCd, reach across the aisle leadership. We don’t know how to attack. We don’t know how to fight as a team.
Limerick on October 2, 2007 at 10:22 AM
I said this last night in the thread about the Christian Right contemplating a third-party candidate, but I’ll say it again here.
Those of you who think it might not be such a bad thing to let Hillary have free reign for four years because then everyone will see how bad she is and vote a Republican into the White House in 2012 need to really think hard about this. She’s a socialist. A SOCIALIST. Socialist programs, once in place, never, ever go away! It’s almost impossible to pry a handout out of the hands of the masses once they have it. If Hillary gets just one major socialist program in place–like universal healthcare–it will impact the nation for generations to come. And she will get socialist programs signed into law because she’ll have a compliant Democrat-controlled Congress helping her every step of the way. This is scary, scary sh*t, people!
Then there are the Supreme Court justices. Do you really want a 6-3 liberal court for decades to come? This stuff matters far beyond the four years of any one president’s term!
AP’s probably right. It’s probably impossible to keep Hillary out of the White House at this point, but we have to at least try. We can’t just roll over, or stay home, or stubbornly refuse to support an inferior Republican candidate because we think “we can survive” four years of Hillary. There’s a very real possibility that we can’t survive it–not in the long-term. One more large-scale socialist program and our economy is quite literally sunk.
aero on October 2, 2007 at 10:24 AM
You know, sometimes reaching across the aisle isnt a bad thing. Lots of times its not a good thing, but sometimes its not a bad thing.
But like I said in the previous post. Us moderate conservatives up here in the northeast voted two times for your George Bush. Now its time for you social conservatives to return the favor and vote for our candidate up here.
Vincenzo on October 2, 2007 at 10:24 AM
I think it probably won’t be the Goracle, but about the only hope against this tide is that, when she starts running for the general election, Hillary won’t be able to run as far left (e.g. “Pull out now!”) as she needs for her base. So a hard-core anti-war candidate might jump in.
I’ve thought for a long time it might well be a 4-party race: Anti-war – Dem – Rep – Social Con. But my tea leaves are too cloudy to be able to figure out what that would do.
eeyore on October 2, 2007 at 10:25 AM
Look people, the game hasn’t even started yet. I would HATE to have you people on my team in a sporting event. You would look at the other team with big and strong players and say ‘lets just not play because we can’t win’.
NO MATTER HOW MUCH MONEY SHE RAISES, IT DOESN’T TAKE AWAY FROM THE FACT THAT RAISING TAXES IS NOT POPULAR AMONG ANYONE!
Why do you people think George H. W. campaigned ‘no new taxes’? THAT’S WHAT PEOPLE WANT TO HEAR. When they hear anyone from the Democrats speak, all they say is ‘we are going to tax the crap out of you’.
People don’t pay attention to the government until they start taking your money. People won’t even start paying attention to this election until Thanksgiving at the earliest. At this point in the last election cycle, Howard Dean was the big money man who couldn’t be beaten by the Republicans. . . we all know how that worked out.
At this point, my money is on McCain getting the nod from CONSERVATIVES. I don’t like him either, but he’s the ‘next in line’. When people start to pay attention in a couple of months, they’ll look at all the candidates, and say ‘McCain is the most trustworthy of the bunch’.
You heard it from me first. Clinton will get the Republican base out more than any Republican. So if she is the Democratic nominee, that would be better for the Republicans than anyone else.
But really AP and people who say ‘the sky is falling’. . . most people aren’t even paying attention. They don’t know and don’t care how much money she has. THEY WILL CARE how much money she will take in taxes and won’t vote for her.
ThackerAgency on October 2, 2007 at 10:30 AM
Why would Perkins and Dobson have to look outside the candidates to find their choice? Does Huckabee not fit the bill? Throw all their support in getting Huckabee nominated and if he doesn’t get it, support the candidate that does. I don’t understand why Huckabee isn’t the obvious choice for them.
Sue on October 2, 2007 at 10:31 AM
That is the worst logic for electing a president that I’ve ever heard of. . . and you wonder why southerners still have issues with ‘Yankees’ – it’s this attitude.
Bush is more Yankee than Texas – didn’t he go to school up there somewhere? He’s hardly ’southern’ anyway for you to say ‘we voted for your guy now you vote for our guy’. That’s ridiculous.
ThackerAgency on October 2, 2007 at 10:32 AM
Probably because they are more concerned with knocking Giuliani than they are picking another candidate. Instead of honoring a candidate that fits their bill, they need to smear and attack. It’s sickening. I’m literally sickened by the actions of our side sometimes.
Vincenzo on October 2, 2007 at 10:33 AM
Well FWIW, Allah is my favorite pessimist…
Hoodlumman on October 2, 2007 at 10:34 AM
$27 Million Dollars? How the hell did that happen?
SoulGlo on October 2, 2007 at 10:34 AM
Yankees expect the rest of the country to want the two people we have to choose from in the general election to come from NY. Who wouldn’t want NY representatives representing them? Aren’t NY values the same as the rest of the country?
/sarc
ThackerAgency on October 2, 2007 at 10:34 AM
Seven years of college down the drain.
daveintexas on October 2, 2007 at 10:35 AM
Dude, I’m not putting the South down. I’m just saying he was your guy. He WAS your guy. His positions and candidacy ran on things favorable to the social conservative from the South.
He’s played to the South his entire two terms.
Again, that’s in no way putting down the electorate, or even saying Bush is a Southerner. I’m just saying he was YOUR guy in the sense that he did YOUR bidding.
Now we’re saying, vote for OUR guy.
Vincenzo on October 2, 2007 at 10:35 AM
redstate had a good blog yesterday on Barry Goldwater and the last time the ‘base’ just had to have ‘ideological purity’ and what that resulted in.
http://redstate.com/blogs/mbecker908/2007/oct/01/barry_goldwaters_legacy
and for the Paultards, RP is to the left of Barry Goldwater and a kook, not ‘ideologically pure’. Goldwater was a Vietnam hawk and did not favor ‘Blame America First humiliation’ as paul does
jp on October 2, 2007 at 10:37 AM
But Vincenzo, Bush wasn’t ‘our guy’. I just thought he won because he was ‘next in line’. I didn’t see anyone lining up saying ‘our guy, our guy, our guy’.
He was next. McCain nearly beat him in the last primary – how is that saying that Bush is ‘our guy’? Was McCain YOUR guy? Is he still your guy?
Bush wasn’t the ‘conservative guy’ that everybody wanted. He was next in line and he was electable but nearly lost.
ThackerAgency on October 2, 2007 at 10:39 AM
I wish you were right, but evidence clearly suggests you’re wrong on this one. Though I cannot fathom why, a majority of voters seem willing to pay more in taxes these days. They’re even going so far as to be angrily opposed to maintaining what tax cuts we have. It’s as if they’re begging to be shaken down by the government. All the Democrat candidates are openly admitting that they are in favor of raising taxes. Yet, all the “generic” Democrat-versus-Republican polls show a dramatic lead for the generic Democrat in almost any federal office, including the presidency. Clearly, the fact that Dems have promised to raise their taxes isn’t putting potential voters off one bit. In fact, they seem to feel morally superior about wanting their taxes raised—they think it’s just the right and responsible thing to do to pay more taxes so the government can “fix” things that are bad. They think people who want lower taxes are selfish and short-sighted. Really.
What I hear a lot among “normal” people (as opposed to political junkies like us) just talking about politics in public is that they think giant, expensive entitlement programs like Social Security and universal healthcare are “worth it” and that Bush’s tax cuts were a disaster for the economy. They think we “can’t afford” the tax cuts and that we’re worse off because of them. They believe talking about tax cuts is short-sighted and stupid. They also seem to think that military spending is breaking the bank—they have no apparent understanding of the fact that the giant entitlement programs they like so much absolutely dwarf military spending. It’s a truly sad state of affairs. I think these people absolutely will vote for Hillary, even after they learn exactly how much higher their taxes will be under her administration.
What it boils down to is this: People love voting themselves money out of other people’s pockets.
aero on October 2, 2007 at 10:44 AM
To the Office of the President is all about character… is all about core beliefs.
Saying he flip flopped on MAJOR issues because he is now running for another office??? Changing his stance on a BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT??? That shows a lack of character to me…
His personal life… shows a lack of basic moral compass…
His taking phone calls on stage??? no… wrong… shows a total lack of respect for his audience…
His abortion flip’n around??? lack of character.
Ran a Sanctuary city but now says he’ll be tough on the border??? yeah… right…
You do know that over 75% of the judges he appointed in New York were DEMOCRATS!
He is a New York “Conservative”… ie… Conservative in name only… and only by defining and comparing him with people who are worse… and he will NOT get my vote…
As to who I will vote for if its between one New York Liberal and another New York Liberal??? I’ll find a third party candidate, just as I have in other elections.
GOP is now part of the problem, not part of the solution. They did NOT get the messege last election, and some of you will allow them to continue down the wrong path… putting up crappy candidates just so the other guys won’t win.
My guess is this is the real reason Newt won’t run… he sees the way the wind is blowing…
Romeo13 on October 2, 2007 at 10:47 AM
Oh, please.
Thank you. Bush was elected twice simply to keep the “greater of two evils” out of office. Aside from maybe a few marginal one-issue voters and the neoconservative crowd, Bush really didn’t/doesn’t have a whole lot of real support. As you said, he was just next.
2Brave2Bscared on October 2, 2007 at 10:48 AM
If having the most money means you’re inevitable, does that mean I’ll be pulling the lever for Romney in the primary?
a4g on October 2, 2007 at 10:48 AM
But, but, but he PROMISED to appoint only strict constructionist judges as President! He promised!
Judge a man by his actions, not his word.
2Brave2Bscared on October 2, 2007 at 10:52 AM
Oh this is rich. So Republicans didn’t really want Bush in the first place? Goodness.
SouthernDem on October 2, 2007 at 10:55 AM
Well, he came out of Texas, and played to the core Southern Christian right. He played it well. Heck, he owned a baseball team and oil fields!
Please don’t take my comments as negative to the South or Christians. It’s just that his game plan meant plucking all the right strings for the South, all the right appointments, and all the right talk.
Now, we have a potential winner in Giuliani. Yes, he’s a Yankee, yes, he’s from NYC, but…
Did he cut taxes over and over?
Was he tough on crime?
Did he end silly serparist ethnic commitees and offices?
Did he clean up the streets in New York?
Was he successful as a Republican in A Democrat city?
Was he conscious and tough on terror or potential terror?
He’s far from perfect. But most likely better than most running. He’s not perfect becuase he had to actually do things instead of just saying he’ll do this or that. That’s not a knock on the other guys, its just a reality.
So I stand by what I said, it’s time for the South to give in a bit and vote with us up here so we can get a good leader who may just end up being a great leader.
Vincenzo on October 2, 2007 at 10:56 AM
So then you wouldn’t have voted for Reagan either, huh?
Vincenzo on October 2, 2007 at 10:57 AM
You can thank the mainstream media for that. And our liberal
educationindoctrination system.Of course, if we had a great, conservative candidate to put up against the Dem nominee, he could explain to the American people why such entitlement programs don’t work, and that they’re essential immoral. But good luck getting a denouncement of such programs from the big-government RINOs like Romney and Giuliani; all they’ll end up doing is putting a Republican spin on them and then they’ll present that to the people as the ‘conservative’ alternative. Bush did the same kind of things.
2Brave2Bscared on October 2, 2007 at 11:06 AM
Um, did I bump my head and lose an entire year sometime? Isn’t it 2007? Doesn’t the election happen in 2008?
It’s far too early to suddenly decide the election’s done until the election is actually done. Look at what happened in Canada. All those Easterners kept looking at Steven Harper with disdain and disgust and suddenly he WON the election. Look at Ariel Sharon winning in Israel. He was a pretty polemic character, yet he won.
And election isn’t done ’til it’s done. Hill is a singularily unpleasant character and I really doubt, when push comes to shove, that a whole bunch of conservative voters won’t vote just to “show ‘em”, unless they are really four years old maturity wise.
mjk on October 2, 2007 at 11:06 AM
We are not quitting. The questions are:
If we win what do we get?
If she wins what do we lose?
The first question is a strong incentive to stay home. The second question may yet drive the base to the polls.
Valiant on October 2, 2007 at 11:11 AM
It’s a harsh reality, but we’re not doomed.
And even though I think Huckabee is the least worst of all Republicans, I’d vote for Rudy if he wins the primary. Although I’m pro-life, I lived in NYC and know he was a very good mayor even before 9/11. He significantly weakened the mob and lowered all crime and helped the economy. And being the opposite of Bush, he held a short press conference almost every single day and was able to answer tough critics coherently and persuasively. He stayed on message and was a good leader–which was only magnified by 9/11. On the downside, Rudy has a NYC attitude that got him into a bit of trouble as mayor, but that arrogance will hurt him more on the national scene. Also, positively, I don’t think he will execute laws against pro-life or pro-gun interests.
Fred is on par with Rudy as far as my mild support goes. He’s more likeable, but rambles without a script.
G. Charles on October 2, 2007 at 11:12 AM
mjk on October 2, 2007 at 11:06 AM
the primaries are in less than 4 months, from that point on this battle is on. So when people say but hey its a year away, they need to understand that whoever leaves the blocks last and stuttering will not cross the finish line a winner.
zane on October 2, 2007 at 11:13 AM
Ummm… actualy?… no.
Those in control of the party put up a couple of candidates in the primary who were even worse than Bush. It was not a meritocracy so much as who was the least obejectionable..
But look where that got us.
This whole government is currently disfunctional. We don’t enforce our own laws (border), we’re subverting the Constitution (Habeus Corpus?), we’re not fighting the intrusion of the Judiciary into public policy, and we’re in a two front war which we will NOT do what needs to be done to win (bomb the safe havens in Pakistan and Iran).
And our Congress is so worried about Rush that they havn’t got the appropriations bills done for the fiscal year which started YESTERDAY!.
The two party system has created a class of profesional politicians who are the new aristocracy…
I mean come on… this is America and we’re going to have a Bush, Clinton, Bush, possibly Clinton series of Presidents??? How is that NOT an aristrocracy.
Congressmen stay in office for 20 or 30 years… and get RETIREMENT BENEFITS FROM IT!!!
And yet, when some of us say the GOP is part of the problem… you accuse US of being the problem…
Put up a good conservative Candidate and I’ll vote for him… Put up crap and I won’t…
Romeo13 on October 2, 2007 at 11:14 AM
it sounds like some of you are actually thinking of staying home and not voting?
tomas on October 2, 2007 at 11:15 AM
Rudy and Shillary are completely different animals. Its not intellectually honest to group them into the same category simply because they both govern in New York. Hillary is a true believer in Socialism and believes the quasi-European system is the model government. Rudy is not even close to this. Lets be honest here.
Zetterson on October 2, 2007 at 11:19 AM
Romeo,
You don’t get to whine about aristocracy if you stay home.
Sue on October 2, 2007 at 11:20 AM
Why do you think that common sense and conservative logic is a geographical phenomenon? What’s right, what makes sense — what’s constitutional — doesn’t change whether you live in the North or the South or the West or East. Or does it say somewhere in the Constitution that the only place the 2nd Amendment is worth anything is in HillbillyLand? Killing babies is OK if it’s done above the Mason-Dixon Line?
This is not a North vs. South issue; it’s a conservative vs. liberal issue. It’s a right vs. wrong issue. It’s voting for a candidate who’s going to respect the Constitution of the United States vs. one who’s going to trample all over it.
I can understand the position of many here who would reluctantly vote for Giuliani in the main election to keep Hillary out of office. What I can’t understand is supporting him in the primaries. Or do you not consider yourself a conservative? Cause you certainly don’t sound like one.
2Brave2Bscared on October 2, 2007 at 11:21 AM
Hey now, I didn’t accuse anyone of being the problem. However, the infighting will go one of two ways, obviously: Either it will be resolved to make the Right stronger or it will self destruct you till 2012.
But the rest of that was dead on.
SouthernDem on October 2, 2007 at 11:22 AM
It’s game over, man.
Huh? The 3 Republican candidates got $27 million combined, which is one million more than Hillary.
Maybe the “man” AP refers to is Hillary.
Buy Danish on October 2, 2007 at 11:25 AM
actually, the Mayor of New York picks judges in an entirely different system than the President does. Rudy was given a list of Judges to choose from, the list came from liberals and in most cases his only option was Democrat Judges.
some of you guys need to get a Tactical/political brain. To win the office, you have to convince around 60 million americans to go to the polls and vote for you. I got news for you, those 60 million aren’t going to have the same views as you and the fact is you have to appeal to them in some way to win.
What is Rudy really is ALOT more conservative than he was as mayor of NYC??? ever think of that, but was pragmatic and wanted a political career in a Liberal ocean of NY…..think Bill Clinton(i.e. Slick Willie)
jp on October 2, 2007 at 11:25 AM
I’ve voted in every election since I came of age…
But I’m an independant, not a party hack. To my shame I voted for Bush twice, because I thought the other guy was worse.
I will no longer do that. I will vote for the person I think would make the best President… I won’t vote for someone simply to elect him so the other guy does not get in.
Bush is giving away my country. He has pandered to Mexico, and other countries while giving away our sovereignity. He will not actualy NAME our enemies (war on Terror vice war on Islamic Jihadists) so we can’t know whether we’re fighting the correct enemy or not. He won’t enforce the border laws, and won’t force DHS to do that part of their job. FEMA has been sucked into a larger Beurocracy and is now less effective. The CIA continues to be substandard, and ineffective (come on, how long does it take to get proof that Iran is supplying weapons to insurgents?)…
I want an AMERICAN President… not a globalist. I want someone who will LIMIT government, not make it larger. I want a CONSERVATIVE not a Neo Con or RINO….
Put one of them up and I’ll vote for your party…
Don’t and I’ll find a third party candidate to vote for.
Romeo13 on October 2, 2007 at 11:27 AM
or for that matter, John Edwards in North Carolina. When he ran for Senate, he told the voters he would vote in line more often with Jesse Helms than the Democrat Establishment. All so he could WIN, which he did barely thanks to lying.
its how the game is played, its called politics.
the fact is, not voting for Rudy or whoever the RNC nominates is a vote for full blown Hillary style Socialism…read the redstate link on what happened thanks to Goldwater. Reagan couldn’t reverse any of the Great Society, so nobody can. If it is advanced by Hillary and Dem congress then it will be that way permantley and thanks in part to Hard Headed, politically ignorant conservatives. who “stayed home” or voted 3rd party.
jp on October 2, 2007 at 11:29 AM
I agree. And the best way to do that is to win them over with sound conservative logic and sense, not by trying to be less liberal than the other guy. The latter is a losing strategy.
2Brave2Bscared on October 2, 2007 at 11:29 AM
I can promise you that just about everyone here will show up and vote against Hillary in the general. Its just primary election season and we are fighting about putting up the best representitive for our party we can offer. The true end goal is to offer a candidate who can beat Hillary. The best case senario will be to offer a candidate who can beat Hillary and simultaneously lead a conservative/republican revolution.
Last election we got the first part right. Bush beat Gore and Kerry. Bush, unfortunately, was unable to lead or even stand up for conservative/republican beliefs. In the end, he squandered his political capital in record breaking fasion and left our party in shambles. Because of him there are now many wrongs that are going to have to be righted. That is one reason why people here are so passionate about electing the right candidate this time around.
Zetterson on October 2, 2007 at 11:30 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 Next »