Giuliani Leads Three Democrats in Florida

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

[Hatband]

Right, and those are his good points.

[OldFriend]

The perception is reality, IMO. These young ones saw Rudy after the attacks. They feel in their heart that he did the very best he could.

My daughter's group of twenty somethings lost a schoolmate in the WTC, they saw Rudy as strong and determined.

They don't want to think that their peers or their parents will be caught in another attack.

Rudy is the face of comfort during that terrible terrible day.

My son, on the other hand, is a bit older, and his peers like the strength that Rudy presented in the aftermath. Needless to say, the media proclaiming his America's Mayor and making him Man of the Year has cemented their favorable impression of the man.

That he took part in a fundraiser and dressed as woman means absolutely nothing to these modern adults.

[PhilDragoo]

Thanks for this great news. Nothing succeeds like success.

[California Patriot]

California is capable of electing a Republican governor if he's not a real Republican. We just did, twice. I don't believe we will elect a real Republican senator (though Arnold is a possibility) either in the foreseeable future. Nor will anyone who is not a completely obvious RINO possibly carry California in a presidential race in the foreseeable future. In most or all states, including CA, the governor's race is less partisan than Senate and presidential races.

You're right to this extent: Results of ballot measures do suggest that, even today, there is not an ideologically liberal majority in California on most issues -- economic or social. But unfortunately, Democrats have a tremendous PR advantage and an equal financial advantage. Both of these things make it hard for the Republicans to get really good candidates, and the vicious cycle continues. Also, there's that little immigration problem, which is slowly sinking us politically and otherwise.

[California Patriot]

I hate 80-plus degree weather in March. And inland, it can get really terrible in the summer, which lasts from May through October. And it's often humid now, which it didn't used to be.

Yet another reason for leaving the formerly Golden State.

[California Patriot]

Yes, that's a real threat.

[California Patriot]

If I lived in FL, I'd probably want most of the NY people gone too. But there they are.

[nopardons]

bttt

[Proud2BeRight]

Is the election next week? I hate big goverment but I'm getting to the point that I wish Congress would pass a law banning campaigning until the year of the election. I'm getting sick of seeing Obama's face every night on the news and all the other crapola every day. Don't all these candidates have jobs?

[Doofer]

"The fact it's still slightly less than 20 months before the election ..."

That I agree with completely. Way tool early to make decision.

As another poster mentioned the Republican nominee will probable be chosen in February or early March at the latest of next year.

Less than 12 months away.

[Man50D]

Never said it wasn't. What I DID say, is that I take a dim view of someone, a voter, voting for a Third Party candidate, knowing full well, the dangers that this country faces should a Hillary Clinton or Barak Hussein Obama be elected.

It is a tired old refrain that not voting for anyone who is Republican is tantamount to voting for a Democrat even though they never have any hard facts to back up such a statement. The translation is vote Republican regardless of the candidate's position on the issues or the voter having a more favorable candidate in mind. It assumes only Republicans can take a strong stance against the war on terror. That assumption could not be more incorrect. It's a poor scare tactic.

[sofaman]

Explain to me, please, how a vote for a third party candidate does not equate to a vote for a Democrat? It is one less vote for the Republican candidate, is it not?

Also: "The translation is vote Republican regardless of the candidate's position on the issues or the voter having a more favorable candidate in mind."

There are ebbs and flows in politics just as there are in life. Sometimes the party tilts more conservative, sometimes it tilts more moderate. At this point in time, it is tending to tilt a little more moderate. Not an ideal situation.

However, the reality is that, as of right now, there is not a conservative candidate out there that has the remotest shot at winning the Presidency, which is why we see Newt Gingrich's name being bandied about.

Newt, while he may be a master strategist, is beyond damaged goods. He's been demonized to the point of no return, both by the media and by his own actions and will be destroyed in a general election.

"It assumes only Republicans can take a strong stance against the war on terror. That assumption could not be more incorrect. It's a poor scare tactic." I choose to look at the Presidential race realistically. There are issues on which I would prefer the party remain a little more resolute. I agree with you on that.

However, far from being a scare tactic, I would ask you to explain to me how a second Clinton as POTUS would not be an unmitigated disaster?

Far from being a scare tactic, it is reality. Dismissing reality is only an attempt to validate a third party vote, by refusing to recognize and acknowledge the dangers we face from a Dem President.

I do not regard my possible support for Giuliani as a compromise of certain of my principles. I, simply, recognize that it is not an "all or nothing" situation. I am fine with agreeing with him on 50 percent of his platform, because I agree with Her Thighness on nothing, and with Osama Obama on less than nothing and 50% is better than nothing. The alternative is totally unacceptable. I recognize the implications of either of those two becoming POTUS. I have no choice. I must do everything I can, as a citizen, to protect my country and all I have at my disposal as a weapon, is my vote!

Lastly, I must commend you and thank you for discussing this with me. You have been civil and respectful, which is a breath of fresh air because the discussion hasn't degenerated into a mud-slinging contest as this type of debate so often does.

It has been an absolute pleasure discussing this with you, even if it IS as devil's advocate. I respect your positions immensely and will continue to do so as we move through the primaries and into the general election.

Take care.

[aligncare]

The anti Rudy folk have had my head spinning.

Thanks for helping me to screw it back on right. Political reality is a stubborn thing.

I want a candidate with a history of successful governance - and not just someone who is winning the conservative spitting contest on Free Republic. Someone who has thrown the money back into the face of the Saudi oil prince, and who fully understands the seriousness of the threat to America in these perilous times. I'm voting for the Commander-in-Chief...not the Moralist-in-Chief. I suspect all of the same social issues will still be around after the radical Jihadists are defeated.

[Man50D]

Explain to me, please, how a vote for a third party candidate does not equate to a vote for a Democrat?

You are still under the misconception the Republican and Democrats are two distinct parties. I can only reiterate what I stated to you in post #129. There are socialists in both parties and are becoming more alike as time passes. They are essentially one party. Conservatives forming their own party would be the second party. Every time someone assumes not voting for a Republican is tantamount to voting for a Democrat fails to back up such a statement with hard facts. Making such a vague and unsubstianted statement does not make it a fact.

There are ebbs and flows in politics just as there are in life. Sometimes the party tilts more conservative, sometimes it tilts more moderate.

True there are ebbs and flows in politics. The term moderate is another way to rationalize sacrificing one's principles by attempting to reason with those who are diametrically opposed to your beliefs with the hope of finding some common ground in order to please everyone. As they say when you try to please everyone you end up pleasing no one. Neville Chamberlain found that to be true when he tried to compromise with Hitler.

At this point in time, it is tending to tilt a little more moderate. Not an ideal situation.

A little is an understatement. The Republican Governor of Connecticut wants to raise taxes 10% over the next two years, is for civil unions. Guiliani's socialist positions are well stated in post #51, not to mention the following Guiliani comments "Most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine." - Rudy Giuliani
"Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do and how you do it." Rudy Giuliani

If his positions on those issues and comments are just a "little more moderate" then Hillary Clinton is another Ronald Reagan.

However, the reality is that, as of right now, there is not a conservative candidate out there that has the remotest shot at winning the Presidency, which is why we see Newt Gingrich's name being bandied about.

"As of right now" is the operative phrase. We are many months away from any caucuses and primarys. There are other viable candidates who reflect Conservative values Unlike Guiliani, such as Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo. It's illogical and far too early to rule anyone in or out.

I would ask you to explain to me how a second Clinton as POTUS would not be an unmitigated disaster?

You again presume this can be the only scenario but don't provide any facts to reaffirm your vague statement.

I do not regard my possible support for Giuliani as a compromise of certain of my principles.

Obviously you don't.

I, simply, recognize that it is not an "all or nothing" situation.

Defining all or nothing is a very subjective term. If you are implying you are willing to sacrifice some of your principles then you are heading down a very slippery slope. The question is why would anyone be willing to sacrifice their principles when there maybe a candidate who reflects their all of their fundamental beliefs?

I am fine with agreeing with him on 50 percent of his platform, because I agree with Her Thighness on nothing, and with Osama Obama on less than nothing and 50% is better than nothing.

I remind you of Rudy's comment earlier in this post "Most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine." - Rudy Giuliani. By supporting Rudy you are supporting Hillary.

I must do everything I can, as a citizen, to protect my country and all I have at my disposal as a weapon, is my vote!

I couldn't agree more but it can be done without voting for a socialist.

Lastly, I must commend you and thank you for discussing this with me. You have been civil and respectful, which is a breath of fresh air because the discussion hasn't degenerated into a mud-slinging contest as this type of debate so often does.

It has been an absolute pleasure discussing this with you, even if it IS as devil's advocate. I respect your positions immensely and will continue to do so as we move through the primaries and into the general election.

Take care.

Right back at ya! I can see you gave much thought to my posts and I appreciate it.

[BykrBayb]

It's a poor scare tactic.

That's the one thing I disagree with you on. It's a very good scare tactic. It works. There will be people voting for Guiliani because of the boogey man.