Giuliani Leads Three Democrats in Florida

Angus Reid Global Monitor ^ | March 12, 2007 | Angus Reid Global Monitor

[DKNY]

Did you know that Thompson is a great friend of McCain and supported him against President Bush?

Add his support of McCain to Bob Beckel's comment and I am sure I don't want Thompson running.

[sofaman]

No idea, and I hionestly couldn't care less. IMHO, planes flying into skyscrapers, out-ranks Cedric and Cecil tying the knot in a civil union, which is what Rudy supports. He doesn't support Gay Marriage.

In the interests of full disclosure, though. I must tell you that I have not committed to any candidate as yet. I hope that as Republicans, we are adult enough to move beyond the Rudy-bot name calling, and will debate the candidates honestly.

For example: there is the "Judge appointment" canard that is doing the rounds. The Mayor in NYC is required to choose from candidates that are nominated by a nominating board or committee. This committee is run by Democrats. Can Rudy change the composition of the committee? He did, although admittedly, it remained heavily partisan.

However, in fairness to Rudy, one must point out that city government in NYC is heavily Democrat. No surprise there. If anyone wants to get anything done in NYC, he/ she had better be prepared to play ball to an extent.

The fact remains that Rudy turned NYC around. Ask any FReeper that lives or lived in NYC before and after Rudy. He was a very successful and effective Mayor, despite the hysteria that we witness on FR everyday now.

Sorry for the long-winded post.

[FairOpinion]

LOL! ;)

He, who laughs last has the best laugh.

This is like deja vue from the CA elections, so I have lots of practice. :)

And Arnold DID win.

I think Rudy actually has a decent chance of carrying CA, which would really set the Dems back some.

[Dstorm]

Post your proof the those who don't support Rudy are in the minority! I think you need to go back to school and learn about percentages. Listen I'll give you a little lesson Rudy say 33% everyone else 67% that means there are 67% who do not agree with Rudy being the nominee, that would mean that we are the majority and your are the minority trying to dictate.

[FairOpinion]

Good one!

[do the dhue]

Quinnipiac University provides a strong liberal arts education

Quinnipiac University

Time Poll



More proof of liberal BS

Look, the liberal media is trying to tell good Americans that they need a liberal to beat a liberal. IF their polls were right back when, John Kerry would be your President. Or Coward Dean would have been the Demoratic nominee in '04.

The only thing I have seen from Time that makes sense is this:

Last winter Democratic-primary voters played political consultant. They tried to step inside the minds of swing voters and figure out which Democratic presidential candidate could beat George W. Bush. With an eye cast coldly on November, they rejected the man who had first won their hearts, Howard Dean, and flocked to the more "electable" choice, John Kerry. Among New Hampshire voters who said beating Bush was their biggest concern, Kerry beat Dean by a whopping 52 points.

If Dean were the nominee, flip-flops wouldn't be the issue; Iraq would. The former Vermont Governor opposed the war from the start, and his rationale was as simple as Kerry's was convoluted:

I think the same may be for Guiliani, put him on the same ground socially as the Demorat, and you take away the debate about Gun Control, Abortion, God in public view, and NORMALphobe marriage.

The rats will dig up every mistake Rudy made before 911, the Police Chief issue, and his personal past which can be compared to Bill's in some ways.

We have a strong candidate in regards to the War on Terror (his son has been to Iraq twice), strong on Border Security, A+ rating from the NRA, stands strong for Life, and has fought to keep God in public view.



I say that if we want to fight for the issues, we put our best man in and make it about the issues. We didn't need to believe the fear mongering media who would have you believe that we need a liberal to beat a liberal. Lying to the public is the only way the media can get their types elected.

This Party is the last stand for the unborn baby, the right to keep and bear arms, and for the free exercises of religion. The Commie Demorats are here to take it away. If we do not make this election out of the issues, there will be nobody to protect the unborn, our guns, the sanctity of marriage, and God in public view.

Thanks for listening

[G-Man 1]

COME ON NUTE AND RUN.

[My GOP]

I'm not sure if Rudy can carry CA but he would at least make it more competitive which would force the Dems to defend there, resources that won't be used in battleground states.

[wouldntbprudent]

bbbbwwwwaaahhhh!

[California Patriot]

Rudy will do well with Italians, and if he does win NY state, that's how it will happen. Unfortunately, he may not do well with (increasingly liberal) non-ethnics, Hispanics, and Jews. After all, D'Amato -- who is a very skilled politician -- was defeated handily by Schmuck Schumer, and that was eight years ago. Politically, NY has gotten even worse in subsequent years.

[wouldntbprudent]

Gimme a "S"! Gimme a "O"! Gimme a "FAMAN"!!! SOFAMAN! SOFAMAN! SOFAMAN!

Liked your post, in case you didn't notice.

I especially liked the part about the Buchanan Putsch. ha!

[FairOpinion]

CA elected Arnold.

Rudy appeals to the center and that can make the difference.

Bill and Hillary both came to CA and supported Angelides and it didn't do him any good. I take that as a sign.

[wouldntbprudent]

Don't forget California! It could happen!

[Man50D]

I'm giving Hunter some serious thought but it's much too early to decide on a candidate.

[California Patriot]

Your points are all good ones. But as I've said, we don't know Rudy would be the best on terror. We just kind of assume it. And in fairness to the Rudy critics, I do think that weakness (or worse) on social issues can be yellow lights in terms of other issues. That's all I'm saying.

[wouldntbprudent]

Shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you.

[FairOpinion]

By all means, let's talk about the issues:


Duncan Hunter, RRRINO: Reincarnated Reagan Republican In Name Only


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1798412/posts


"Like most Republicans, he's strong on tax cuts, but he's been part of the big government spending spree of the last 6 years. He also has a protectionist streak in him. Here are some of the more troubling votes:

NO on NAFTA YES on No Child Left Behind YES on Sarbanes-Oxley YES on the 2003 Medicare Drug Benefit NO on CAFTA YES on 2005 Highway Bill YES on the 527 bill (like most Republicans, he flip-flopped, having first voted NO on McCain-Feingold) Hunter also went 0 for 19 on the Flake anti-pork amendments.

Despite being a member of the Republican Study Committee, Hunter frequently votes NO on their fiscally conservative annual budgets (2006, 2005, 2003...)

We gave him a 49% on the 2005 Club for Growth scorecard. That places him 187th within the House GOP conference, out of roughly 230 members.

National Taxpayers Union shows a more telling trend. He was strong in the early 1990s, getting "B's" and one "A", but as time went by, like most politicians, his score dropped. For the past few years, he's been getting "C's". "

[California Patriot]

"I take that as a sign." Nope. Angelides was an absolutely awful candidate. Also, the Rat machine didn't do much for him. Also, Arnold had clearly built a very nonpartisan image. It is much harder to do that in a presidential campaign, even as a moderate.

I agree that Billary weren't of much help to Angelides, and outside endorsements won't carry the state for the Rat presidential candidate. But other things will.

[CWOJackson]

Some things about Duncan Hunter they won't tell you:

- Congressman Hunter used is committee position to help kill an amendment sponsored by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) that would have required a Department of Defense spending bill report card revealing to the public all pork barrel spending in Congressional bills, along with the names of their sponsors. Why? His website brags about "helping local companies obtain defense contracts." One such company received a $9,000,000 contract to convert old Amry records regarding the Panama Canal to digitial archives. They Army did not want it, the GAO said it took money away from important programs.

- He voted for the largest expansion of Medicare since its creation, and voted to support a 2005 highway bill which was filled with tens of thousands of earmarks for Congressional spending projects, many unrelated to highways or even roads.

- He voted for No Child Left Behind.

- He voted to impose Sarbanes-Oxley accounting regulations on American businesses, making it diffciult for many small businesses to cope with the new red tape.

- He voted to support restrictions on free speech in political campaigns (McCain-Feingold) after first voting against it. In the 2000 election cycle he received $197,000 from defense industries. In 2005 he fell to second place with just $118,000.

- The Club for Growth says "he's been part of the big government spending spree of the last six years," and gave Hunter a 49% rating on its 2005 scorecard, that's 187th out of 230 Republicans in the House GOP Conference.

- While he had higher ratings from the National Taxpayers Union earlier in his career, the group now routinely gives Hunter "C" ratings.

[FairOpinion]

Bump and thanks for your excellent post!


Rudy said and TEd Olson confirmed that Rudy would indeed nominated judges the likes of Scalia and Alito. What more can we expect?

Compare that to the UNCHECKED power of a Dem president, with a Dem Congress, giving us liberal activist judges, fully controlling all three branches of the government.

2008 election is the most important in history, the fate of the nation is literally at stake.