Posted on 06/16/2007 5:23:09 AM PDT by Degaston
Rasmussen Poll, read it.
Not sure what planet this group is on.
A flip-flopping liar, then. Maybe he *says* he's no longer a baby killer just to get your vote?
I’m about as far away from being a Hillary fan as you can get. Giuliani was about to get his azz kicked in the Senatorial race against Hillary in NY when he bowed out citing health reasons. More likely, Hillary’s machine had the goods on him.
Mitt’s past is clean as a whistle. As a package, he really does “have it all”. His critics say that he is “too slick” or “too polished”. That’s the criticism levied against people when you have nothing of substance to throw at ‘em.
Once America's full attention focused on the race and the voters are able to compare and contrast in real time the charismatic, articulate, upbeat, highly accomplished Romney against the leaden, dull, hectoring, lecturing, frowning, frump Hillary they are going to give Romney the win in a landslide.
Mitt is real. He's got the spark to ignite the flame. All Hillary offers is a wet, soggy horse hair blanket.
But you just admitted he lied to get elected.
Well the flip-flops are going to damage him. He’ll have Hilary’s dogs on him so hard even HE won’t remember what stance he’s supposed to take in the issues. It would be ugly.
Mitt vs Hillary...we will become to Socialist Republic of the USA.
Bill Clinton hadn’t even declared for the Presidency until October, 2001. When he entered the race, he had 1% of the vote in polls. As late as December, 2001, he was trailing at least 5 or 6 other candidates in polling with about 5%.
All you have to do is see how high Giuliani had peaked early on, and how far he has fallen since then.
Most people aren’t paying attention to the race at the same level that most Freeper’s are. Right now, polls are a name recognition contest, and nothing more.
However, in every straw poll taken of people who have actually paid attention and/or attended a debate or speaking engagement of the candidates, Mitt comes out on top. That’s why Giuliani and McCain are avoiding the Iowa straw poll like the plague. Their campaigns could not withstand a solid trouncing this early in the race from a guy that most major polls list as 3rd or 4th overall.
It’s safer for them if they allow the media and bloggers to keep reciting some meaningless poll numbers rather than to compete in the first, real actual “poll” that means something.
Exactly. Mitt's life is a proverbial open book. The harder his detractors dig the more they verify that Romney is exactly what he appears to be: an enormously successful and faithful husband, father, chief executive, and public servant.
No smoke and mirrors, no con job.
Look what the Democrats say about Romney and his Socialized Medicine (which changes nothing except to tax and fee the citizens in the RomneyWAY):
Sen. John Kerry to Don Imus: "I like this health care bill".
Sen. Hillary Clinton: "To come up with a bipartisan plan in this polarized environment is commendable."
James Carville: "It's a feel-good story, this Romney thing. Romney is an ascendant guy."
I agree with the very last part of that, but I can’t see how being the smartest one of the Three Stooges equals anything close to a win.
The Reagan democrats switched parties over God,Guns,and Gays and those are the things Romney catered to the Mass moonbats on.
You have to first be able to rally the Republican base in the red states before crossover dem votes mean anything.
If any of the so called top three win the nomination we will lose in a landslide in the general election.
Okay. They can split the liberal vote. But who's the Republican?
“But you just admitted he lied to get elected.”
Yup.
The only guys (and women) on that debate stage telling the truth are guys who don’t have a prayer at getting elected. Sad, isn’t it?
But since this country is going to elect a panderer (again), we might as well elect someone (Mitt) who is a conservative, but who has a history of pandering to the middle and left for votes...rather than elect someone (Hillary) who is a Marxist-Leninist and has just started pandering to the middle for votes.
Or you can stick your principles, vote for a solid guy like Hunter, and watch Hillary run this country into the ground for the next 8 years. I like Hunter a lot, but he doesn’t have a chance in hell at getting elected as POTUS. He’d make a terrific VP though.
It looks like Hunter and Thompson, does it not?
...should have read “until October, 1991”...
What polls are they smoking? Unless some major trend changes this will be the matchup in November 2008.
The only major trend is Fred Thompson. Romney is stagnant at best in the national polls.
On Hillary’s coattails the Democrats gain Senate seats in Oregon, Minnesota, Georgia, New Hampshire and Maine. Republicans pick up South Dakota. Dick Durbin replaces Harry Reid as US Senate Majority Leader as Harry too proves to not have the strength in his loins and sinews to handle the 2008 political season.
Bob Dole carried those three states. If those states aren't in the bag, we are in serious trouble.
A lot of these sound very dubious. Mitt only slightly ahead in states like North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, and Mississippi, all of which went more than 60% for Bush in 2004? Mitt must be a lot weaker than the media wants us to believe.
If you run a candidate who supports abortion, illegal immigration, and/or has been divorced several times, you’re going to lose those states to Hillary because the conservatives will just stay home rather than vote.
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.