Posted on 03/29/2007 9:02:28 AM PDT by drzz
Why, in poll after poll, including the new TIME poll, does that advantage seem to disappear whenever voters are asked to pick a president in hypothetical head-to-head match-ups among front-runners with solid name recognition. In our poll, Hillary Clinton loses to John McCain, 42-48%, and to Rudy Giuliani 41-50%. Even though Clinton maintains a 7% edge over Obama among Democratic respondents, Obama fares better in the general election match-ups. It's so close that it's a statistical dead-heat, but Obama still loses: 43-45% to McCain, 44-45% to Giuliani.
It's hard to know exactly why respondents who are generally unhappy towards — and in many cases fed up with — the GOP might still prefer a Republican for president over a Democrat. Much of it has to do with the individual candidates involved. In Clinton's case, as TIME pollster Mark Schulman points out, "with Hillary the Democratic front-runner, most voters have made up their minds about her, both pro and con. She may have limited upward potential against Republicans. The emerging anti-Hillaries, Obama and Edwards, suffer from low awareness at this point."
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
I heard that Life magazine just printed its final issue.
"A vote for Rudy is a vote for liberals."
Let's say Rudy is like having the flu and Hillary is like having cancer.
Which would you pick?
My goodness, why the vitrol? You dont agree with him, but you are treating him like a Democrat.
Being healthy! LOL!
Yeah, both Giuliani and clinton are diseases. The political scenario right now is not as neat as you define. Besides, Fred Thompson is more electable than Giuliani or Clinton. Isn't that all that matters?
To me, this demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of conservatism. Beyond question, Churchill was an incredible leader, one of the best EVER. But that DOES NOT make him a conservative. The UK has only ever had one true conservative leader and that was Margaret Thatcher, and when you get right down to it Reagan was our only one.
I can't help but laugh when Reagan's momentary support of abortion is brought up. Reagan signed one bill PRIOR to Roe v. Wade that made abortion more accessible in California. However, once he saw the carnage of abortion, he spent the remainder of his life fighting to end it. Rudy was once pro-life and then (I suppose he liked what he saw after Roe v. Wade) he became pro-abortion. THERE IS NO COMPARISON. Trying to compare Rudy to Reagan on abortion, would be like trying to compare Osama bin Laden to Saint Paul on Christianity.
Vitriol? LOL, no, more like truth. I just express things as they are.
You are welcome to disagree with me. You'd be wrong, but that's your right, too.
LMFAO!
This is the Thompson piece I was refering to about his character issue, and this shows hes a complete fake. This is from the New Repubic blog.
"REALLY LOVELY WOMEN JUST SEEM TO LIKE FRED":
"Color me extremely skeptical of the "Fred Thompson for president" boomlet currently sending shivers down conservative spines. A Hollywood actor, high-priced attorney, and lobbyist (for Toyota and the S&Ls, among others), who ran for Senate as a pro-choicer and had a reputation as a considerable ladies man before marrying his second (much younger) wife doesn't seem to me to quite fit the profile of white knight for the political right. Still, those interested in the good and bad of ol' Fred may want to take a look at this piece Michelle wrote for the Washington Monthly back in 1996, the last time there was a wave of buzz for a Thompson presidential candidacy. The intro alone, capturing Thompson's faux folksiness, is worth the price of admission:
True story: it is a warm evening in the summer of 1995. A crowd has gathered in the auditorium of a suburban high school in Knoxville, Tennessee. Seated in the audience is a childhood friend of mine who now teaches at the school. On stage is Republican Sen. Fred Dalton Thompson, the lawyer/actor elected in 1994 to serve out the remainder of Vice President Al Gore's Senate term (when Gore's appointed successor retired after just two years). The local TV stations are on hand as Thompson wraps up his presentation on tax reform, in the plain-spoken, down-to-earth style so familiar to those who have seen him in any of his numerous film and television performances.
Finishing his talk, Thompson shakes a few hands, then walks out with the rest of the crowd to the red pickup truck he made famous during his 1994 Senate campaign. My friend stands talking with her colleagues as the senator is driven away by a blond, all-American staffer. A few minutes later, my friend gets into her car to head home. As she pulls up to the stop sign at the parking lot exit, rolling up to the intersection is Senator Thompson, now behind the wheel of a sweet silver luxury sedan. He gives my friend a slight nod as he drives past. Turning onto the main road, my friend passes the school's small, side parking area. Lo and behold: There sits the abandoned red pickup, along with the all-American staffer."
The man is all hat and no cattle. I think thats the pharse in the South isnt it?
This is from the New Repubic blog.
Interesting source, btw.
Americans, left and right do not want either a Clinton or a Bush in the White House in '08! Other than that, anything is possible.
Hmmm. Last time I checked a guy with "impeccable" conservative credentials on the "litmus" test issues (gun control, gay marriage, abortion) voted with Senate Democrats on a timetable for surrender in the war on terror.
I'd rather win the war on terror with a short Italian catholic guy who has sinned than watch Hillary, Obama, or Edwards fritter it away. Those are the choices, sorry.
Fred Thompson is surely a wonderful man. He's also an older, hefty, waspy guy from Tennessee who effuses good old boy. Now, I don't have any issues with any of those things. But the American electorate in 2008 simply won't buy it. (Being conservative with less baggage don't make someone electible. If they did, my grandma would win.)
Nor will we tolerate it.
Ya I respect what that magazine has to say. They have their heads on straight even when I disagree with them. Most of the time they are pretty reasonable. Not anywhere near the leval of the Huff Posters and Daily Kos.
That's hilarious!
The Republicans will do well to field a proven, experienced conservative candidate if they wish conservative support. You have let the media pick your candidates for you (meaning the Republican Party).
Your liberal candidate is no different than Clinton. Let the voters pick their candidate in the primaries.
Bttt!
Vote however you please. Its a great country right.
Frankly I dont see how 2 or 3 issues make you a liberal in the whole context of politics. Rudy is closer to the right than he is to the left. Especially when it comes to the most important issue of our times, the WOT. I consider myself a conservaitve who disagrees with Rudy on some points but thinks hes better than McCain. I see us as having only 2 electable candidates. McCain and Rudy, voting for anyone else as I see it, is voting for the Democratic nominee. Just image Barak Obamas touchy feely Iran policy, or his speding priorites. It will be a direct result of sour grapes conservatives if Rudy wins the primary fair and square.
Your telling me Calvin Cooledge wasn't conservative?
Calvin Coolidge certainly believed in a laissez faire, free market economy. But he was not a Reagan conservative.
Ok your all over the map here. You claim in order to be a true conservative you must be a Reagan conservative, and only Reagan conservaitves are conservative. So is your claim of Churchill not being conservative based on the fact that he was not a quote "Reagan Conservaive." I dont think you alone can define conservatism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.