ThackerAgency on November 8, 2007 at 8:32 AM

You have stated several times that you won’t vote for Rudy. Your analysis doesn’t carry much weight. I probably know a bit more about the south than you seem to.

Every time I say “President Hillary Clinton” in my head, I feel the need for a very strong drink.

Sounds like a good drinking game.

“Slick” is an adjective that Romney’s detractors (on both sides of the aisle) would like to pin on him. Pray tell, where does “well-prepared & highly knowledgeable” end, and “slick” begin?

With the hair. Definitely the hair.

I want to know what is wrong with the 2 out of 10?
Entelechy on November 8, 2007 at 1:51 PM

That part made me laugh. Thanks!

Clinton’s appeal overall falls as income rises, the reverse of the findings for Obama.

That doesn’t surprise me in the least where Shrillary is concerned, but why does the same trend not hold true for BO?

…36% of women wouldn’t vote for Clinton…

This doesn’t surprise me either, although I thought it would be higher. I would never ever vote for her, and I don’t think I know any women who would. She pissed off the stay-at-home moms with her “never stayed home to bake cookies” comment. Those of us who have succeeded in male-dominated fields find her tag-along with Bill disgusting. She plays the gender card far too easily. She would be nowhere without Bill. Although she knows this, she would certainly never admit that. Every time I say “President Hillary Clinton” in my head, I feel the need for a very strong drink.

“Slick” is an adjective that Romney’s detractors (on both sides of the aisle) would like to pin on him. Pray tell, where does “well-prepared & highly knowledgeable” end, and “slick” begin? That’s rhetorical; the point is, every positive character trait of every candidate can and will be spun into a character flaw by their opponents. And as supposed flaws go, the “slick” meme isn’t as bad as some others I could name (moderate, inexperienced, nanny-stater, undisciplined, etc.)

More than eight in 10 Republicans and more than half the married men in a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll say they definitely wouldn’t vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton for president…

I want to know what is wrong with the 2 out of 10? They must be really confused and clueless of what’s to come.

Mitt will not be the nominee. Too slick. 2008 will not work for slickness. The libs will choose Hillary and then she’ll be chopped down in the general, no matter who’s the nominee on the right. They know this but can’t help themselves.

- The Cat

The New York Times is going to lead a campaign against Guiliani, the likes of which even the NY Times has never done before.

That will probably boost his national numbers.

If there are some things you don’t like about Huckabee (and not all those criticisms are even accurate), you certainly can’t claim with a straight face that Rudy is preferable.
Jared White on November 8, 2007 at 10:52 AM

Yes, I can. Watch me.
[straightface] “Rudy is preferable to Huckabee.” [/straightface]

Jared, you apparently think that all conservatives have the same priorities as you; thus your use of the word “certainly.” You’re wrong. I’m a hard-right Christian conservative who’s pulling for Romney, but I won’t cry if Rudy is the nominee. No promises if Huckabee starts getting traction.

I’m hearing Rudy can’t win because the Clintons will haul out enough ‘dirt’ on him to turn off most of the values voters, once the primaries are over. But really, how bad can it be?

petefrt on November 8, 2007 at 8:26 AM

No one has more dirt associated with them than the Clintons. No one.

Jared White on November 8, 2007 at 10:52 AM

That is an unsustainable argument. The national polls mean nothing. We don’t have a national election for president. We have 50 state elections, so the more telling poll numbers would be the state polls. Huck has a lot of ground to make up and no money to do it. His message would have to be overpowering in order to make up the ground. No one has seen that yet. Huck is the master of the one liner sound bite. Unfortunately, no one falls for that any more. Especially since his one liners are getting more attention than his substantive policies. We require substance and if Huck is serious he needs to going on it.

The real candidate who is rising in the polls and has the principles, rhetoric, and experience to beat Hillary in 2008 is Mike Huckabee. But don’t take my word for it, ask Rasmussen.

Look at this latest polling data for a general election matchup and then tell me that Rudy is the only one who can beat Hillary. If there are some things you don’t like about Huckabee (and not all those criticisms are even accurate), you certainly can’t claim with a straight face that Rudy is preferable. A liberal hawk? No thanks. I’ve had enough centrist neocon shenanigans for one decade, thank you.

The tipping point seems to be this:

Would independent thinking evangelicals rather vote for a Mormon who holds their same basic social values, or a candidate who has very little in common with them but appears to have a better chance to win? I’ll tell ya, I am VERY conflicted about it, but I am a very pragmatic conservative. I feel that ANY rep is better than ANY dem. At this time, if everything were equal, I’d lean toward Mitt because he has the more complete package. But everything isn’t equal. Rudy is a stronger candidate and will have to vote for him in the primary unless Mitt makes some serious moves that put him over the top. I felt that event had occurred with the Weyrich endorsement. But now that Robertson has endorsed Rudy, Weyrich’s endorsement is balanced out.
But for some reason it doesn’t strengthen Rudy in my mind because Rudy isn’t trying to convince us that he is a social conservative, but rather you get what you get with him. Robertsons endorsement was based on Rudy’s ability to win and his assurances that Rudy would appoint strict constructionist justices. This has been my biggest question mark with Rudy. Will he REALLY appoint constructionist justices and will he fight for them to the bitter end? I have heard accusations that he appointed the team that selected the liberal judges he appointed during his time as mayor.

It conclusion, it isn’t so much that Rudy has diminished in my mind, but that Mitt has made up some serious ground in being a viable challenge to the dems. The choice is just too close to be able to make a definitive decision.

I think if Mitt can minimize Robertsons endorsement by gathering some more big name evangelicals, he will emerge as THE conservative candidate for America to rest their hopes on.

Off Topic:
If John Taylor was running for president that might be a problem. It’s too bad for the bigots that he isn’t because then they might have a reason to espouse their bigotry and get away with calling it rational debate.

You can see the Democrats want to destroy the family. They believe it is necessary to destroy the family in order to save the country. (With saving the country meaning electing more Democrats.)

The entire field (R and D) is like watching Dancing with the Stars. Not a single one of them has…I dunno….spark?
Gravitas?….Statesmanship?

To me the entire country is walking around with their chins on the ground and waiting for a commercial break. Weird times. I still believe it will boil down to ‘bad’ Rs not getting votes. ‘Anything but R’ is going to be the footnote in some history book.

I totally agree withe the first statement, but I don’t agree with the second. If the Republicans can find a good candidate, he will win. People vote for people they like. Al Gore would have won if he wasn’t such a downer.

Like you, I think the entire field is p poor. I guess dynamic, fun, and capable politicians are extinct.

ThackerAgency on November 8, 2007 at 8:32 AM

Mitt has dumped 17 mil of his own money (can’t raise any money from the people, just his business friends). And he is sitting at 10%, barely.
How many churches is Mitt going to go to? How many pulpits are going to open up to him? The whispering campaign has begun, he looks pretty, has plenty of money, but he doesn’t connect with everyday people. He wears undergarment to protect himself from evil…how many baptists are going to vote for that? Now that may or may not be true, but that is the type of cr*p that he has to deal with.
Carter—Christian
Bush 1—Christian
Clinton–Christian
Bush 2—Christian
Next—–Better be Christian (sorry that’s how it is for now)
Look how Barack has had to distance himself from the Muslim identity. And that is with a party that loves that stuff.
When was the last president elected that was shunned by the churches, or when was the last president elected that tried to buy his way into the office? Forbes? Perot?
Rudy has his faults, and churches can point to him and call for redemption or forgiveness or whatever example…but Mitt is vowed to a religion whose founders and leaders hold Christians as “”We talk about Christianity, but it is a perfect pack of nonsense” that is from their Journal of Discourses, John Taylor LDS’s third president (and prophet), not something Mormons tend to ignore.
So Mitt is going to deny his Church leaders or embrace the hatred.
I think it is wrong but that is what will happen, and that is why his candidacy is doomed.
Quite frankly his political history and flip-flopping would and should be enough to sink him.

Texas Nick 77 on November 8, 2007 at 9:21 AM

Hey, did Giuliani dress in drag a few times?

Wow, I had absolutely no idea! No one ever mentions it on this site.

You people have to tell me these things.

/sarc

It’s funny, I had a dream last night where almost the entire country turned blue because the South decided to stay home.

BKennedy on November 8, 2007 at 7:53 AM

Put Rudy at the top of the ticket, and your dream may come true.