FReep this poll: Giuliani vs Duncan Hunter

FR ^

[68 grunt]

... All you wanna do is stand around holding hands with all those "civil" talkers and keep moaning "Cumbuya... Hmmmmmmmmmm, Cumbuya..."

I know you're kinda dim so I don't think you're knowingly lying, just letting your imagination run, but thanks for calling me 'civil', I guess. LOL

Go Duncan Hunter!

[MattinNJ]

I'd be happy to have an intellectually honest conversation with you.

It bothers me to no end when pubbies attack each other.

Hunter is my first choice becase I agree with him on every single issue. I undertand that he faces a tough road and needs a massive grassroots campaign. Should he fail to catch on fire, I am perfectly happy to support Rudy. I grew up around NYC and saw first hand the magnificent job he did. I disagree with him on social issues and his comments that Ginsberg is a fine SCOTUS concern me. However, my first two priorities are the WOT and fiscal responsibilities. Rudy gets an A on both those counts. My third priority is strict constructionist judges. Rudy has me worried on that count.

[Brandie]

Easy choice for me.

Duncan Hunter, there is no other conservative in the running. I have read a lot about him and I think he is fantastic.

As far as Rudy goes, the lesser of two evils is still evil.

[paulat]

This is a conservative site.

I have been here since 1999. You don't have to lecture me about FR.

[Antoninus]

Right now, the people seem to be choosing Giuliani.

What people? The polls at this point measure only name recognition.

Stuff the polls until a month before the primaries. And even then, realize that they are *trying* to get you to vote a certain way.

[nepppen]

Lets mix it up. If Duncan Hunter is POTUS what would his foreign relations policy be with Chavez?

[68 grunt]

Projecting again troll?

You should say, "Still projecting troll?" I've been constant on message. You are a fifth columnist at FR, intent upon dividing and disrupting us. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to repeat it.

One thing that'll get me to stop. Don't be a disruptive force. You can't stop, EVie, thats why I'm sure you're a disruptor. It will be interesting when Duncan Hunter becomes viable how you try and sabotage him.

Go Duncan!

[Kevmo]

You're a hall monitor, or just a cur attacking an injury?

***I don't know because I don't understand what you're asking. If it's because I'm a dog attacking an injury, well, maybe. O'Malley accused me of being feisty & I do act like a bulldog when someone disses FreeRepublic. If it's because you consider me to be a mean, cowardly person attacking an injury, which injury would that be? The original flame wasn't aimed at me, I was trying to dig down past a lie that even JimRob says might be so. If it's because you think I'm a goody-2-shoes, well whatever. So are you a cur?

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source cur /kɜr/ Pronunciation Key -–noun 1. a mongrel dog, esp. a worthless or unfriendly one. 2. a mean, cowardly person.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

Hunter just might be able to do it this time, I hope so. Four years of Hillary or a RINO would be a disaster.

[Antoninus]

"This is NOT a scientific poll. It is not in anyway an accurate representation of the electorate as a whole. Any attempt to pass this poll off as scientific or an indication of anything will make you look very stupid!!!"

A Free Republic poll is the equivalent of a straw poll of activists and political junkies, particularly when looking at the "member votes."

The media polls at this point are a meaningless joke. To attach the word "scientific" to them is accurate only as far as statistical analysis goes. They don't really measure anything other than name recognition. You do realize that as late as December 2003, John Kerry was polling at 4%, right? I wonder who the Democrat front-runner was 10 months prior to that?

Activist polls like those on FR and other conservative blogs are much more indicative of where a campaign may be headed than polls of random anybodies who aren't even paying attention yet.

[68 grunt]

Yes.

[paulat]

I'd be happy to have an intellectually honest conversation with you.

...and me with you!!! I have not made a declaration for Rudy in any way.

Here's my statement...which I've posted several times:

I am not supporting anyone right now.

I just want someone with executive experience who has run a state or major municipality.

I want a guy who can appoint a GREAT judiciary and who is strong on national defense.

The Chief Executive cannot control states' rights issues. Getting bogged down in them simply fractures our side.

I don't want someone who has "just" been a Senator or House member.

That said...please convince me otherwise...but don't insult me.

End quote.

[EternalVigilance]

You're a joke grunt. You always have been.

[wireman]

You certainly have a way with words...

[SierraWasp]

Now gruntster, you need to settle down. We agree on this candidate for some undiscernable reason, because the way you've swooned over Schwartzenegger to the detriment of CA, I'm still shocked and stunned that you would EVER leave Arnoiled's side where Rudy resides and try to snuggle up to a consistent conservative like Duncan!

It just does NOT compute under ANY circumstances... unless, you're just normally an inconsistent person with no real consistent reason to consider yourself a consistent conservative candidate supporter whatsoever!!!

Please explain yourself to me right here and now as to your reasons for shifting from Schwartzenegger to Hunter when Guiliani has EVERYTHING in common with the Schwartzenfrauder!!! I think YOU are the one that is shifting around just to "divide" up the FR troops, right?

[Soul Seeker]

Since you feel free to lecture the owner of this site about what type of polls he can run, I don't think the date of registration on your part vs my registration date is a moving rebuttal.

Even if you hadn't showed such inconsistency in your arguments, date of registration as means to silence another is weak. It's a game I don't find myself intimidated by. You should respect that, as you claimed yourself above intimidation by the poll....

the fact remains Rudy is a Liberal Republican and I am hostile to liberalism as presumely the bulk of posters on this site are regardless whether they have a "D" or an "R" by their name. And the pushback against the default designation of a Liberal Republican as the Republican standard bearer in '08 will continue. Even if we're labeled schoolyard names for that effort.

[My GOP]

"My third priority is strict constructionist judges. Rudy has me worried on that count."

Rudy has said he supports strict constructionist in the mold of Roberts and Scalia. Ted Olsen, who worked with Rudy when both were working in the REAGAN Justice Department in the early 80s came out last week and said that Rudy has always supported strict constructionist.

[FreePoster]

If someone had an interest in doing so, they could make a list of Ronald Reagan's actions, statements, or positions that could be construed, at least by some, as un-conservative. I put a lot more stock in Duncan Hunter than in the analysis of him on that web page. First of all, those Yes and No votes are not red-flag, liberal bills, they are things that good conservatives can have honest and reasonable differences of opinion on. I disagree with the poster on at least some of those. Most of the Republican members of the House disagreed with the poster on most of them too.

Click through those votes for the details. Only 8 out of 435 members voted against "No Child Left Behind." Only 9 voted against the highway bill. Only 3 voted against the "Sarbanes-Oxley" bill. On the "2003 Medicare Drug Benefit" bill and the 527 bill he voted with the Republicans (their version of the bill) and against the Democrats. You can disagree with some of these votes, but they are hardly scandalous revelations. And I'm a little curious if the Growth Club has a more conservative candidate in mind. Who?

I read people calling him "protectionist." Listen to what he says before believing that. I agree with what he says on the subject. Capitalism doesn't mean we should accept fraud. Being civil doesn't mean you let yourself get beat up. Freedom of international travel doesn't mean we shouldn't enforce our border. And free trade among nations doesn't mean we should let foreign governments manipulate trade economics to our national disadvantage.

[68 grunt]

You're a joke grunt. You always have been.

Whatever, its me. You, however are a phony, pretending to be a conservative whilst you do your best to alienate as many as possible.

[ZULU]

So do I.

But if Hillery gets in in 2008, she'll make so many enemies and screw things up so badly the Repubs will sweep Congress in 2010, crippling her.