Thompson
49% (1124 votes)
Romney
11% (261 votes)
McCain
1% (27 votes)
Giuliani
26% (597 votes)
None of the above
12% (276 votes)
Total votes: 2285
|
|
home blogs about forum contact search account 
“Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias”
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Who Will Win GOP Nomination?
Read comments
Related Stories
Most Emailed StoriesRelated Topics | |
Comments Policy
After watching the debates
September 7, 2007 - 05:58 ET by Dan The Man 2After watching the debates he is the only canditate that makes sense and is electable. Teh question is though are there enough social liberals in the GOP to vote for Gulianni or Romney. I for one will not vote for eitehr of those men because of their social liberalism. They can say anything they want but they have voted liberal social in the past and are for abortion.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Not enough social liberals and not enough isolationists
September 7, 2007 - 13:39 ET by Lame CherryThere are not enough social liberals in the GOP to provide Gulianni or Romney the win just as there were not enough isolationists like Pat Buchanan or the current meld of Ron Paul to give him a win beyond Jeff Rense kook polling where the same 500 people descend upon polling sites for "his victories".
The candidates have all eliminated themselves from McCain bashing the Limbaugh listeners and his attacks on Bush the first 5 years to the "none of the aboves" which when the vote is divided do not even compare to John McCain's dismal numbers.
Thompson will have to earn it just like Reagan did, but Thompson is following exactly Ronald Reagan's strategy. Reagan shuffled people in his staff and did not get into the race until after Labor Day knowing candidates wear thin on voters in early starts.
The liberals know Thompson is the landslide threat. The local midwest stations are all smiling and giving glowing accounts of him in the same way they give glowing accounts to democrat Tim Johnson. That is the Reagan democrats already leaning hard as they do not like Hillary, are uncomfortable with the girly Edwards (have no heard a thing about him has one lately) and the Oprah Obama they just know in their guts he is incapable of doing the job.
This is the current trend and it will only encompass Thompson more the minute bin Laden turns up, Iraq reaches stability, terrorist threats become reality and Putin becomes more of a menace.
Thompson as one astute blogger said months ago here is the one on the side of the illegal issue which this election will turn.
There is reason Howard Baker and Mike Deaver along with the old Reagan guard picked Thompson and his attractive driven spouse. They are akin to Ronald and Nancy Reagan on and off the court.
Thompson is the only candidate who can pull in the GOP vote and in the general will pull in the Reagan democrats. Those are the numbers which count.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Romney is as social
September 7, 2007 - 15:17 ET by Conservative VoiceRomney is as social conservative as Thompson. All in all I could easily vote for either Rudy, Romney or Thompson, they all have issues. In order of preference, my concerns are the war, illegal immigration, upholding the constitution, and taxes and spending.
On the war, they are all equal.
On illegal immigration, Romney wins ( Thompson speaks tougher, but his voting record doesn't match his talk, and Rudy is pretty weak on this ).
On Constitution, Romney wins. ( Thompson's campaign finance reform, though he admits it was a mistake hasn't done anything to reverse it, and Rudy isn't real strong on the 2nd Amendment. Romney is luke warm on the 2nd Amendment, as he thinks we should have limits on what kind of guns Americans can own. )
On Taxes and Spending, they all win, though Rudy and Romney have more experience in this area in showing they can do it in hostile environments
On social issues, Romney and Thompson are equal, Rudy is more liberal. But Congress determines social issues more than the President. Would I prefer a social conservative...sure, but not as important as how they will manage the war / foreign affairs, illegal immigration, will they uphold the Constitution, and their position on taxes and spending. Because social issues won't matter if we no longer have our country.
I do think honesty is also
September 7, 2007 - 15:26 ET by Conservative VoiceI do think honesty is also important, and I see Rudy the more honest of the three.
Romney still haven't escaped the pander box. Thompson has lied about lobbying for abortion groups.
Romney has better organization skills, Rudy is a better figher, and Fred is a great writer. Still anxious to see Fred think on his feet.
Honesty?
September 8, 2007 - 05:19 ET by Daniel BakerRudy's former wife doesn't think he is so honest.
Romney five sons and wife think he is honest
Thompson should stay home and raise his little kids just like I think Edwards should do the same.
Yes, that is Romney's
September 8, 2007 - 16:34 ET by Conservative VoiceYes, that is Romney's strength over Rudy. What I meant to say is Romney still comes across as someone who panders, doesn't have the fire in his belly. He lacks the passion that Rudy has, and comes across as someone who is running a business...that is his points seem calculated not owned. Rudy has pretty much said I have nothing to hide, I am what I am. Rudy has the fire in his belly, he is fun to listen to.
I like Romney, and could easily vote for him, but he needs to show more passion, he needs to show more confidence in America and less confidence that he is the savior or government in general is the savior, and he needs to not go negative on Rudy if he wants to move ahead. But more importantly, he must do this while being himself, because people smell fake. Claiming he was a lifetime hunter when he went hunting like twice in his life is fake. People keep bringing up his position on abortion, why? Because they don't see his passion. Its the same with Fred for me. He said he is sorry for helping push McCain's campaign finance reform...but has done nothing to remove the law that is a direct assault on our freedom of speech.
All in all I haven't decided yet. But for me its between Rudy and Romney. I am leaning toward Romney because he has shown he is loyal and faithful to his family, and I think he will be faithful to his campaign promises. The two concerns I have with Rudy is his posisiton on gun control and his illegal immigration position. If he tightens his position on illegal immigration he will move ahead for me. They are both strong on Iraq, but Rudy comes across as tougher.
Romney is a successful
September 7, 2007 - 15:26 ET by TruthMongerRomney is a successful two-term governor - thus the most qualified for POTUS...
Furthermore a republican re-elected in one of our most Democrat states...
He's got the all of the votes East, North, and West - all except the south - and his VP (Thompson) will bring those in...
Protest Craig's conservative abandonment - vote Democrat in 08'
I thought it was just one
September 7, 2007 - 15:47 ET by Conservative VoiceI thought it was just one term?
Romney served one term
September 8, 2007 - 22:21 ET by Conservative_in_mass.Romney served one term here 2002-2006. He did not seek re-election (which he would have won by a landslide), instead he focused his efforts on the Presidential campaign. Unlike Mike Dukakis, who was re-elected and immediately began his Presidential campaign, Romney decided not to be a part time Governor. The other end of the spectrum was Dukakis who once began to answer a question during his second term by stating , "if I were the Governor". (Yup, thats how detached he became, but I digress).
In 1994, Romney ran against Ted Kennedy and nearly beat him (an amazing feat when you consider this state worships the Kennedy clan, even those with poor driving skills).
I can tell you that during his term as Governor, he implemented several initiatives that helped reverse the economic slide the state was experiencing under his predecessors Paul Celucci & Jane Swift (both were Republican BTW). All this while being hounded by the very liberal, and very vindictive Mass state legislature.
I am still undecided as to whether he is the best candidate for the Republican Party, the national stage is a whole different animal. He has reversed himself on some very key issues, including abortion. This is troubling, and may be a problem when things really heat up next year.
As for his character, it is beyond reproach; even his worst detractors would not question that.
"Good News is not News" MSM mantra.
Yeah, but...
September 7, 2007 - 15:21 ET by TXKafirI'm a social conservative, too but I support Giuliani. The social issues we care about (abortion, gay rights, gun rights, etc.) are things that will be decided in Congress. Therefore, I would not vote Rudy for Senator. The things I agree with Rudy on (the war, the economy, judges) are going to be within his power to effect. We need a tough executive who is not afraid to push the envelope of executive power. The only candidate that fits that bill is Rudy.
I find it hard to believe that even the most stauch anti-abortionist would allow the election to go to Hillary just to make a point. I think the war on Islamofascism is more important than abortion because abortion is OK with Islamists if it occurs within X number of days of conception.
The one thing I find funny
September 7, 2007 - 15:27 ET by BinxlyThe one thing I find funny is it is not a socially conservative position to support gun rights. True, conservatives are by and large for it, but when you are speaking in literal terms, gun rights is a liberal view. yet, still to this day, liberals call gun restrictions a 'liberal' view. Its laughable how much of the vernacular has been appropriated by one side or another and now is used in a *completely* bass ackwards way.
I think most Social
September 8, 2007 - 07:04 ET by BritcomI think most Social Conservatives support the 2nd Amendment. I think the NRA position is the right one, but I would entertain a Switzerland style appoach as well. (In Switzerland every male head of household is REQUIRED to keep a military issued assault weapon.)
WRONG
September 8, 2007 - 05:14 ET by Daniel BakerThe are decided in the Supreme Court which the president selects.
Daniel
September 8, 2007 - 11:32 ET by botgCongress writes the law which affect the social issues, SCOTUS interpretes the law which effects social issues. Rudy has pledged to nominate constructionists to the SCOTUS though his record conflicts with this. Mitts record in Massachusetts is also cause for concern.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Hello
September 8, 2007 - 05:35 ET by SportPoliticsYes, well this is a voter who won't vote for an abortionist.
As far as letting it go to Hillary, that would be the GOPs fault not mine, the electors fault not mine, and the pieces of crap and the rest of the pieces of crap since 1972.
Ya think 1.5 million babies a year is more important or not ? American babies, not illegals hauled in to replace the dead Americans, who amount to 45 mllion or more now. How the hell is that not important ?
Don't think, it's better not to.
GWB was anti-abortion from the word go, and he hammered away, right away, and look what has already happened... the SCOTUS looks a lot better, the money for planned parenthood dried up and the libs flipped and ground their teeth, there is a sustained pressure and some turnarounds on not notifying parents, and the partial birth murdering is struck down.
Do you really think any young adult can respect this country, when they realize murdering OUR OWN is the way of the USA ? I don't. Sorry, that is a #1 key issue. It is definitely a key to the whole expanse of the problems.
Don't even expect me to consider it.
None of the Repubs support abortion.
September 7, 2007 - 15:33 ET by general companyI really do not understand folks when they suggest that they will not vote for so and so, because he had once supported abortion. Do they not understand that all of the Dems do. Not to mention they will expand the feds ability to fund it along with adding laws to protect it. No mater witch Repub gets elected, they will never do this. BTW Romney said he will try to overturn RvsW, how is that pro abortion?
Fruit
September 7, 2007 - 18:46 ET by Britcom"By thier fruit ye shall know them."
We have their voting records.
So ?
September 7, 2007 - 21:53 ET by general companyMeaning,,, what exactly? You afraid they may lie? Because the Dems aint lying, they mean it!!
gee general company
September 8, 2007 - 05:22 ET by SportPoliticsI guess it means Mitt Romney is a big fat liar. How did you happen to miss that ? The dems mean it ? Ohhh... gosh we didn't know... and Romney was recently on their side, and meant it then too - and now he doesn't. Ya got that EXACTLY now ?
Sorry to the other poster, I know, you had the strength to pass it by, but I just CANNOT stand the pretense of stupidity.
It's Too Soon to Tell
September 7, 2007 - 06:27 ET by BradyFred is still an unknown to most paying attention (and these are a small fraction of the general electorate); although Rudy is the frontrunner, frontrunners don't often win; if Mitt would throw away his script and leave behind his boardroom personna he could be formidable; McCain is beginning to remind me of Vice Admiral Jim Stockdale who during the 1992 vice-presidential debate, quipped "Who am I? Why am I here?"; and Ron Paul (not one of the choice in this poll), WOW! Can't you just see yourself pulling the lever for this guy? I know that beauty is only skin deep and ugly goes all the way to the bone, but am unsure as to the depth of insanity but am fairly convinced that it goes all the way thru the brain.
None of the above!
September 7, 2007 - 06:49 ET by BritcomNone of the above!
Social Conservatives will NOT vote for any of these either in the primary or the general election.
IF Fiscal, Moderate, and Libertarian Republicans work together to nominate any of these over the objections of the Social Conservatives then the next President of the United States will not be a Republican and neither will the Social Conservatives be anymore.
At the moment the Social Conservatives have a lock on the South and a Republican can't win without carrying the South. (Remember there are A LOT of conservative Reagan-Democrats in the South who won't be interested in voting Democratic this year and who can't vote in the Republican primary. They are also not interested in any Moderate Republicans who don't share their values.
It seems the Republican party has lost touch with its VOTING base. They have a real good hold on the FUNDING base, but without the votes on election day, the election is lost and ALL THAT MONEY WASTED.
Now if you want to do another poll on who should be the presidential nominee, include Hunter, Tancredo, and Cox, and then we will see what the real numbers are.
Pfft... Its less than a week after Labor Day and people are already trying to eliminate candidates. At this stage of the race in 2000, no one even knew George W. Bush had a chance to win the nomination let alone the election. Lets not make that mistake again.
HUH?
September 7, 2007 - 07:41 ET by NoMoreClintonsSocial Conservatives will NOT vote for any of these either in the primary or the general election
Definitely not true - you think they'll stay home if HC is the dem nominee and let her get elected? No way.
Social Conservatives
September 7, 2007 - 10:45 ET by BritcomSocial Conservatives, those who are Pro-life, Pro-2nd Amendment, Pro-border control, etc. are not in a compromising mood this cycle. Just ask them if you don't believe me.
If they don't have a horse in this race, they will be looking at third parties.
Right now there is a war for control of the Republican Party. One group or the other is going to walk out. Republican Party leadership seems to have sided with the libertarians on social policy. This has effectively frozen out the Christian conservative voices in the party, and Christian conservatives who think abortion spills innocent blood and fear God's wrath, will not be pulling the lever for a Pro-Choice candidate or one who waffles on the issue. Period. Only a Reaganite can save the party at this point. I'll let you figure out who the Reaganite is.
Rubbish...
September 7, 2007 - 11:01 ET by heldmywYou think conservatives are a pack of petulant whiners who'll stay home if I don't get everything our own way?
I say again: RUBBISH.
We'll work hard for everything we want and will vote for the best we can get! Warts, hairs, and all!
Anything to put Hillary in the 'lose' column.
Heck. I'd support Satan before I'd let Clenis & Clunt move back into the White House!
held... Hear! Hear!
September 7, 2007 - 11:08 ET by bigtimerheld...
Hear! Hear!
Hobson's choice
September 7, 2007 - 11:17 ET by BritcomChristians don't make hobson's choices, they trust God, and let the chips fall where they may. No Christian who actually believes what his/her Bible says will pull the lever for someone who is soft on "Thou Shalt Not Murder".
Christians don't believe the Republican Party is more important than the Kingdom of God.
Render unto Caesar
September 7, 2007 - 13:26 ET by Lame CherryRender the things unto the government the things which are the government's secular vista and the things which are God's unto God's Spiritual moral direction.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
agreed, but the economical
September 7, 2007 - 14:06 ET by Binxlyagreed, but the economical benefits and social structure are autonomous of the church (unless directly in the church's social realm) are no business of the church. I have absolutely no issue at all at churches having a social conservative stance, speaking out against homosexuality and such, that is fine, but God has no business in legislation either. Lest we forget, America was founded under the principle of a government governed by the people OF the faith, not governed BY the faith of the people.
I myself am also a christian, but I think it is ludicrous for those whom have a strong religious foundation to believe it is the job of religion to shape social policy in the public sector or in the homes of others. No gays in a house of God? fine by me, just don't expect me at that church, but you are entitled to that choice. However, when someone says it is 'correct' to allow the law of God to be applied as the law of the land in the US, that's where I draw the line. Not everyone in our nation is of our faith, and nor should they be forced to conform to such (outdated and flawed in my opinion) viewpoints in order to be a citizen of the US.
The "Church"
September 7, 2007 - 17:41 ET by BritcomLet us be clear here. The term "The Kingdom of God" does not refer to the Church, nor is it any currently existing body of religion. The Kingdom of God is that future government of the whole earth that will be set up and ruled by the King of Kings (Jesus). So when we are talking about the idea of what is the church's business and what is not, I think we are talking about two different ideas of what "church" means. To me "the church" is not a building or a governing body of an organized religion, "the church" is the "body" of believers as a whole. This is what the Bible teaches. So in order for what you say to be true under our form of government, you would have to disenfranchise every believer from his or her right to vote in elections because naturally each Christian is going to vote for candidates that reflect his or her values, values that come straight from the pages of the Bible.
I think the assumption is often made that the Bible is a religious book. It isn't. It is a collection of books containing the wisdom of the ages. That wisdom has been transmitted to the each succeeding generation by means of ritual and religion, but the wisdom itself stands upon its own as the best collection of "rules for success" that we have as species. The rules are not arbitrary any more than the law of gravity is arbitrary. The rules are insights into the workings of the human nature and how it works, and how it fails. The rules are an attempt to educate people on how to avoid the pit falls of life without having to experience the actual pain of that fall. Though these days the stiff necked will not heed the rules and prefer to learn the hard way, but the Christian knows better not to take the fall and as the custodian of his right to vote and his responsibility to vote for benevolent government, he naturally gravitates toward those who think similarly. Add to that the fact that many of the founding fathers spoke, taught, and enshrined Biblical principals within our body of laws and the constitution, the elected Christian lawmaker will naturally seek to preserve, protect and defend those principals with a greater fervor than others may. So as I see it, the Voter, the Christian, and the Church are all part of the individual and not separable within the mind of the believer.
I know what I have just described does not fit with the idea of what Christianity is to many people, but many non-Christians think all Christians think alike and they often assume that that thinking is similar to the Roman Catholic thinking, and that is just not the case, especially in the South where Catholicism has never had much influence or following. Whereas in the Northeast, Catholicism is dominant and many there have only been exposed to Catholic religious ideas.
Not all libertarians are ok
September 7, 2007 - 11:03 ET by BinxlyNot all libertarians are ok with the idea of abortion. I agree, the conservative party *is* moving more to the 'do as you please in your personal life' stance when it comes to gay marriage and such, but homosexuality isn't murder and it certainly isn't abortion. I agree it makes me nervous that abortion is allowed still, but, again, that is why I think such decisions should be left up to the state. Don't like how a state handles it's business? Simple, move.
Also, while I dont necessarily have any problem voting for someone who wants to overturn Roe vs Wade, I do have a problem when religion, christian/catholic or otherwise, is used as a moral yard stick leading our government to make decisions on personal things such as who we marry and the lifestyles we choose based on said religion. In fact, if someone isn't hurting anyone but themselves, and if the people involved in said acts are all consensual, I dont care what your religion says, you can't say that gives you a right to MAKE them conform to your moral standard. This is a free nation, and sadly, that means you *will* have people and lifestyles you disagree with, its a shame, but thats freedom, get over it.
However, I *totally* agree on abortion. Although I think there are *extreme* cases, for the sake of the woman, where I think its a viable option to consider, I am absolutely appauled at those who want to legalize it for the sake of another form of birth control, as well as organizations as planned parenthood who want to legalize aborting babies carried by extremely young women (we're talking 12-15 years old here) and yet *never* report it to their parents. I respect privacy rights, but I'm sorry, children are an extension of their parents until adulthood. They are synonymous and while the child has the right to not have the abortion news shared with their peers, the parent IS part of the child and therefore, privacy rights or not, is 100% deserving of being included in this information.
If we don't bite THAT in the butt right now, we'll soon have 12 year old drug addicts and girls turning tricks for sick pedeophiles for money. Parents may be a pain, but its a necessary pain. If a child does not have an active, concerned, and even at times controlling parent, they have less potential to grow into a well adjusted adult. That isn't speculation, that's fact.
I think you might agree
September 7, 2007 - 11:36 ET by BritcomI think you might agree even though you support the right for people to marry and presumably have sex with those whom they wish, that that "right" would not extend to a forced acceptance of that conduct upon people and organizations who's faith abhors such conduct.
In other words, I think you might agree that if such conduct were legal, that Churches, The Boy Scouts, Christian bookstores, Christian Television stations should not be required to accept or promote such conduct and that the first amendment protects those who disagree with that conduct and want to teach their members and their children not to engage in such conduct or do business with those who do or advocate it, and likewise not be forced to expose their children to people who engage in it or promote it, especially in school, nor should their tax dollars go to promoting it, and certainly I think that you might agree that saying that one is opposed or advocating against that conduct in a public forum, on the air, or in private or choosing to boycott those who promote it should not be considered a "hate" crime. Would you agree?
I agree 100%. I think
September 7, 2007 - 15:31 ET by BinxlyI agree 100%. I think anyways that sex itself should not be taught until the age where it becomes necessary, but again, this goes back to personal parenting. Parents need to raise their children knowing that they should feel comfortable asking even the most uncomfortable questions and also be active enough in their child's life to know when something is amiss or perhaps the child has a question of such issues.
I certainly do not believe in these gay pride parades where leather daddies and penis mascots parade the streets. If it was more of a family festival, I wouldn't mind at all. They claim homosexuality is more than sex, that in fact sex isn't the focus. However, sadly for the 'normal' majority of homosexuals, its the 'in yo' FACE' homosexuals that give not only homosexuals a bad name, but also their cities (Boston, San Fran, etc.)
However, you are absolutely correct. Government should not be the judge of what people can or can't do in their private life, but that also means private organizations, ie churches, are ALSO free to do what they wish, even if it means excluding some members due to sexual orientation.
That said though, it works both ways. If a homosexual runs a business and dislikes christians or catholics, they have a right to boycott them, speak against them, and also refuse them service. You need to remember it works both ways.
Agreed.
September 7, 2007 - 16:36 ET by BritcomAgreed. but there is the matter that discrimination on the basis of religion is already illegal.
Between the two of you?
September 7, 2007 - 22:07 ET by general companyGood grief,
Britcom
September 8, 2007 - 05:47 ET by SportPoliticsNow just a minute here. I don't quite understand what God's Wrath has to do with it.
If you're a piece of ****, and because you are, you support murdering a baby, and keeping it law, and promoting it as "freedom", then forget all about God's Wrath, because I'm ready to club you over the head for being a jackass, and a fool.
Ok ? This imaginary "base of Right Wing Christians" is something the idiotic talking point peons had better get out of their head, and they had better start paying attention to people who have enough common sense to know when murdering a baby is murdering a baby, period. It really doesn't get very much simpler. Alive. Dead. Alive. Dead.
Not real hard to figure out.
Well yes, certainly there
September 8, 2007 - 06:51 ET by BritcomWell yes, certainly there are those kind of people out there.
Other than that, I couldn't possibly comment. :)
social conservatives
September 7, 2007 - 14:54 ET by JudithJUST ONE STINKING ISSUE IS ALL I HEAR ABOUT SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES. WE CANNOT BE A ONE ISSUE PARTY AND WIN. I HATE ABORTION BUT WILL PUT THAT ASIDE (FOR NOW) AND SUPPORT THE CANDIDATE WHO WILL KEEP ME AND MY COUNTRY SADE AND KEEP BILLERY OUT OF THE WH. GO RUDY!!
...hey now don't
September 7, 2007 - 15:04 ET by TruthMonger...hey now don't forget GLBT marriage, ped rights, legalized prostitution and drugs, freedom of Christianity - we're pretty damn busy:)!
Protest Craig's conservative abandonment - vote Democrat in 08'
I have noticed something Judith
September 8, 2007 - 06:09 ET by SportPoliticsThere is already a rising panic in the republicans self-talk and assessments. I think it is so pathetic. I've heard republican strategists and analysts already anouncing their '08 defeat, and announcing the congress going to hell in a dembasket next time.
I have never seen such a band of wincing fools so collectively brainwashed by their own enemies rhetoric in my entire life.
What I find IMMENSELY irritating is the republicans tendency to EXAGGERATE the demcorats midterm barely squeaked by snake oil luck. The truth is, they barely made it '06, and they only made it following '04 an UNHEARD OF 2nd term REALLY MASSIVE GROUNDBREAKING A** KICKING TRUE THUMPING that Bush and Co. delivered during an "unpopular war" that WAS AN UNPRECENDENTED VICTORY NEVER HEARD OF BEFORE IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA !
I mean do you GET THAT ? THE REPUBLICANS DID A FULL BODY SLAM AND QUINTUPLE DUPLEX SLAM TO THE MAT ON THE DIMDEMS, THEY PASSED OUT, BEATEN TO A PULP, IT'S NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE, in such a way.
Them the dhimmies got the average standard nothing going slow nothing usual run of the mill return, even with gigantic massive total hatefilled over the top constant worldwide blah Bush blah BDS.
THEY GOT NOTHING!!!! IN OTHER WORDS- ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
I just don't understand it. Now I've seen people I have respected talk about the destruction of the republican party and "we're doomed".
Now, I certainly recall republicans telling the democrats the SAME THING when the republicans hammered them '04, but NONE of the democrats agreed.
Now that is wrong with that picture ? Plenty.
The demobrats have no more chance than they ever did, and their chances are not good, they are not better than before, than '04, '06, and their crazy crap is going to squeeze them, and declaring them better than they are is of no use- except to them, and THEY SUCK, and THEY LIE A LOT.
Don't believe their lies, and don't repeat what the good sport GWB said - "thumpin'", cause being nice to 'em is a ONE TIME deal, and he already did that.
Funny how limited our choices are...
September 7, 2007 - 07:17 ET by sarcasmoNot surprising, mind you, considering the biases I've busted, but funny nonetheless. :) And yes, as usual with NB, the missing choice in this field is NOTA, so once again I did not vote.
Matthew, even if you didn't want to put the "minor" candidates, not-putting NOTA effectively-deprives Republicans here & the media in general of any measure of just how DISsatisfied we are with that field. I suppose it's possible that some of you simply don't want to know how big & powerful that discontent really-is, but you're likely to find out anyway, come election-time...
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
sarcasmo - seejay - good points
September 7, 2007 - 08:37 ET by zeestephenNewsbusters should list all the candidates.
Dissatifaction with our choices is the Number One GOP issue.
I'm a foreign policy hawk, a fiscal conservative, and a social moderate, and I can barely bring myself to support Romney.
I won't even go that far...
September 7, 2007 - 09:23 ET by sarcasmoNotice I was not asking for "all candidates" here. I was instead merely asking for the always-missing & usually-needed NOTA choice, as that would have measured something we seem to be trying not to measure here.
It's Matthew's property to do-with as he pleases, though. Besides, "NOTA" winning would suck for NB's neocons just as much as another poll where Ron Paul wins would suck for them, so it's not like they had-or-wanted that much of a choice when they tried this one. :)
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
candidate
September 7, 2007 - 14:48 ET by JudithVote for Rudy then because he qualifies for all the points you listed.
Should it really matter?
September 7, 2007 - 09:09 ET by rightsideShould it really matter? This is just a silly, non-scientific poll here are Newsbusters. The text-in poll during the GOP debate was scientific, and he won that handily with 114% of the the vote.
Having said said that, it's clear Ron Paul will win the nomination, and the presidency in '08, thereby rendering this poll and it's choices moot.
:^)
Yes! Have some.
New poll
September 8, 2007 - 06:59 ET by SportPoliticsThese peons think Paul can win ?
Oh, well, the whining, disgruntled, dissatisfied, always irritated, grunts probably do, otherwise why would they whine so much about how much discrimination they are a victim of ? They need to check the cuckoo clock sitting on top of RP's bulbuous protrusion. Plus he's a closet gay so who can trust him.
GOP nomination
September 7, 2007 - 08:22 ET by seejayCome on Newsbusters! Put Dr. Ron Paul's name on your list. Are you short on cyber-ink?
Even if he was on the ballot here...
September 7, 2007 - 09:27 ET by sarcasmoI'd still advocate a "NOTA" choice, which (if it got a lot of votes) would still tell us something about the rest of the candidates as a group. But I also still suspect it's something not-all of us WANT to hear... :) The really-funny part is McCain's still on the ballot, proving once and for all that hope springs eternal!
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Inclusion is Important.
September 7, 2007 - 11:03 ET by heldmywYeah!
And where's Elvis and Mojo Nixon?
You have a debate on Fox
September 7, 2007 - 13:47 ET byYou have a debate on Fox News. Ron Paul the only anti-war candidate next to dems Dennis Kucinich and Mike Graavel, is clearly the winner. The next closest candidate only garnering half the votes Paul received. Ron Paul's comments are being cheered by what I can only gather must be a fairly conservative audience. Sean Hannity is so taken aback he claims there must be a flaw in Fox's secure voting method.
My opinion is that if Ron Paul fine tunes his campaign to make his more obtuse points on the government more acceptable to the common voter, he'll beat any candidate the dems put up, even the Mighty Hillary, who contrary to popular belief, is not very well-loved by most liberals.
Have you seen him give a speech?
September 7, 2007 - 14:00 ET by third eyeWhy will Ron Paul lose the nomination?
I am all for smaller government, less censorship etc. However Ron Paul is a political amateur, who in theory makes a great candiate, but in reality hes just a very angry old man with no politcal/speaking skills. He would be crushed by Hillary. Crushed. Im not too worried because theyre are not enough "anti war" Republicans in the world to nominate him. However if you only counted single white males under 30, your right, he would do very well.
he looks old, he is old -
September 7, 2007 - 14:08 ET by TruthMongerhe looks old, he is old - that killed Bob Dole...
20 and 30 somethings vote, you know...
Many have never heard of the Carter presidency...
But they just know it when someone "looks" presidential...
Hello Mitt Romney:)!
Protest Craig's conservative abandonment - vote Democrat in 08'
Howdy TM...You against
September 7, 2007 - 14:11 ET by bigtimerHowdy TM...
You against being older and sage? (I am referring to Thompson here...lol)
Big difference between Dole and Thompson IMHO.... ;~)
I'm not - but too
September 7, 2007 - 14:16 ET by TruthMongerI'm not - but too many voters are - I voted for Bob Dole...
Thomsen doesn't look old...
Protest Craig's conservative abandonment - vote Democrat in 08'
Im in my 20s and I know all
September 7, 2007 - 14:48 ET by third eyeIm in my 20s and I know all about Carter...I went to public school...the teachers all thought he was Einstien.
Any Republican
September 8, 2007 - 06:18 ET by sarcasmoWill do best against Hillary, IMO. The very-partisan Dems I know despise her, and were disgusted with Bill's last-minute pardons. They're dismayed that she's in the lead, because they know she motivates the Republican base -- ironically, Hillary Clinton probably does that better than any Republican candidate out there right now!
That's why, IMO, Hsu-gate is actually bad news to the extent that it sticks to Hillary as a scandal (which seems minimal -- thank you for-once, biased media!). It may still give the other Democrats a chance, and I fear the other candidates might be stronger against a Republican than Hillary.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Oh seejay the dreamer
September 8, 2007 - 06:16 ET by SportPoliticsI tell ya right now I'm for Duncan Hunter, but I wasn't about to whine that he wasn't there.
NB is ALLOWED to have it's editorial opinion polls, and ya shouldn't whine about them have some realistic viewpoint, eh.
This isn't a "who are you for" poll.
It's a "who will get the nomination".
Now thank them for preventing you - well - trying to prevent you from making a fool of yourself.
Notice...
September 8, 2007 - 06:35 ET by sarcasmoI was satisfied once Matthew added a NOTA choice (I assume you voted NOTA, too?). Do you think McCain would beat Duncan Hunter here, if Hunter were added? I don't. This seems to be a place that strongly supports Duncan Hunter & Fred Thompson, so I was a bit surprised to see McCain's name there instead.
I think McCain's only possible qualification for being up there instead of one of the others (pick one randomly) is the tremendous quantity of early money he's managed to waste so-far on expensive-but-worthless consultants. It's telling, and voters got the clue he's another big-spending RINO by ignoring the "straight talk" and following his wasted-money instead. McCain will not recover, as his miserable showing in our poll tells us right now.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
McCain At TWO Percent?
September 7, 2007 - 08:27 ET by zeestephenIf McCain can't beat the "statistical error" with NewsBusters conservatives, his campaign is finished.
I think Thompson's NB numbers come down real fast from here.
I think Giuliani retakes the lead within a month.
My man, Romney, looks like second choice veep material.
NewsBusters next poll - will the GOP ticket be Giuliani-Thompson or Thompson-Giuliani?
Or even perhaps Newt. he
September 7, 2007 - 08:45 ET by BinxlyOr even perhaps Newt. he was on Fox last night talking about alot of good points and spoke as close to my personal sentiments on many issues in a way only second to Dr. Paul. He thinks we need a defined endgame in Iraq (much like McCain said) he also thinks there's alot of missteps that our current administration did make, but, unlike the dems, he believes, much like Dr. Paul, that these missteps were done with good intentions if not a little misplaced attention in areas not needed and ignorance in areas where some focus could've been better spent.
Either way, my personal choice aside, it is rather awful they left out anyone who isn't a media front runner. I find it somewhat distressing that almost *always* the canidate who wins is always one from the spotlight. Are we then to believe that we have to choose one of these 'front runners' or waste our vote? If so, tis a sad day for the Republic indeed.
Giuliani/Huckabee
September 7, 2007 - 13:14 ET by third eyeI agree with most of your statement, however I believe the ticket will be Giuliani/Huckabee.
McCain would have had a
September 7, 2007 - 14:18 ET by TruthMongerMcCain would have had a much better shot running as a Democrat...
Protest Craig's conservative abandonment - vote Democrat in 08'
The question is "Who will win the GOP nomination?"
September 7, 2007 - 09:13 ET by RJCome on, people! The question is NOT "who do you like?"
The Paul supporters can be outraged and complain all they want that, but he has little chance of winning the nomination.
I voted for Rudy, not because he's my first, second, or even third choice. But because, at this time, I think he's most likely to win the nomination.
You know, when you mention
September 7, 2007 - 09:28 ET by BinxlyYou know, when you mention it like that, I suppose you have a point. That said I do think Dr. Paul has a chance and just two months ago, although I still liked him as much, I thought he had no shot, so in two months from now he might very well have a much greater chance than even now. That said tho, I guess I suppose I believe Rudy still has the best shot with Thompson a close second and McCain a distant (yet gaining ground at a great pace) third.
I'd put Paul just slightly behind Romney, in 5th, at least in overall public view, but time will tell if these rankings will change. I believe they will.
That's the same reason I
September 7, 2007 - 12:16 ET by mulerider24That's the same reason I voted for Romney. Not because I prefer him as a candidate, but I just think he is the "safe" guy that will get the default nomination once the true race gets going. The press will have a problem attacking him more than the others and he is definitely the most polished of the field. Once again, just calling it like I see it, not how I want it.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. - Abraham Lincoln
RJ
September 7, 2007 - 13:15 ET by third eyeI voted for Rudy, not because he's my first, second, or even third
choice. But because, at this time, I think he's most
likely to win the nomination.
Amen to that RJ
None of the above option added
September 7, 2007 - 09:32 ET by Matthew SheffieldAnd reset.
Remember, though, this is not a poll of who you want to win but rather who you think will win.
Thank you. And voted-for. :)
September 7, 2007 - 09:42 ET by sarcasmoLet's see what happens. From the standpoint of the advice in the Reason article, this was a good move, so bravo.
And no, I don't think any of the northeastern RINOs (or CFRed) can win the nomination, but I agree it's getting fun -- especially if we get a Huckabee one-on-one debate. I say bring it on.
JMR
PS This grassfire poll of conservatives had interesting results, more in keeping with reality IMO than the usual "mainstream" poll, and no, Dr. Paul didn't win.
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Well, if I was going to
September 7, 2007 - 09:47 ET by Ruths husband BenWell, if I was going to vote for who I want, it would be None of the Above. I agree with almost everything he stands for. The thing that intrigues me about him the most is that he is so mysterious. What does he look like? Is he even a "he"? Is he stinky in the morning?
On the other side of the isle, I hear that Osama bin Laden is releasing a video soon, announcing his intention to run for the Democrat Presidential Candidacy. He may have a chance, if he can get past the citizenship issues, as he shares a common interest (loathing for the United States) with all the libs. Since Obama has pretty much crapped in Hillary's nest with some of the stuff he has said, Osama figures he can at least get the VP nod.
To me, he looks like...
September 7, 2007 - 10:08 ET by sarcasmoThe only candidate-choice in this poll who actually, as opposed to rhetorically, wants to decrease the size (& not just the growth-rate!!) of government, and that -- for once in my life -- would smell very-good morning, noon, or night.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Sarc - I'm driving through
September 8, 2007 - 00:32 ET by mulerider24Sarc - I'm driving through downtown Fort Worth tonight and stop at a major intersection which serves as the epicenter of local nightlife. On each of the four corners I see large groups of people holding up large banners and enthusiastically chanting to passersby. My initial fear was that my beautiful city had been attacked by bus loads of transient street preachers. I rolled down my window to make out their rants and, lo and behold, I was definitely way off base with my initial assumption.
The 60-70 participants were all holding Ron Paul signs and vehemently shouting his praises to any pedestrian within earshot. Without stating the obvious questions that popped into my head from this encounter, I couldn't help but appreciate their energy and fervor. They were having fun with it and were entirely light hearted about the whole ordeal. I gave them a big honk and went on my way.
My wife, who doesn’t share the same interest in politics, asked what that was all about. I couldn’t help myself... “Damn street preachers!”
I may question their sanity, but never their fire.
I have a problem with ALL
September 7, 2007 - 09:48 ET by paulnashtnI have a problem with ALL the candidates listed (or not listed) BUT I will be at the polls early pulling the lever(or touching the screen) for whomever the republican candidate happens to be.
I CANNOT imagine this countries future with either Hillary or Hussein in the White House.
“I would remind you
that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind
you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
"I still have the same common-sense conservative beliefs,"
September 7, 2007 - 10:00 ET by vrwc13"I still have the same common-sense conservative beliefs," Thompson said in Iowa, citing his belief in the "sanctity of life, lower taxes, less regulation, market economy, free competition, respect for private property rights, free and fair trade." Fred Thompson
hmm...not a hint of socialism as the dems would have it. Sounds like the VRWC got to him.
v
Vrwc, I recently did alot
September 7, 2007 - 11:41 ET by BinxlyVrwc, I recently did alot of reading on Fred and, although I am a big supporter of the majority of Ron's stances, Fred and McCain are making a strong case for my vote and it will be interesting to see not only if Fred keeps speaking to my liking (he's a big supporter of the constitution and framer's idea that there should be less power nationally and more left to the states much as Reagan suggested) but also if McCain can still keep up this strong, confidant footing he had in the debates without letting his temper or bad habit of comming off a lil too 'boring' on issues. So far I think its only going to get better. Afterall, even if my guy doesn't win, its nice to know that it could very well be one of these two. It definately helps me rest my head easier at night no doubt.
I hope the dems are ready, the boys we have running on our side, no matter HOW bad and 'bland' the MSM tries to paint them, they whoop ANYONE the dems have save maybe Obama.
HRC and Rudy, not much difference
September 7, 2007 - 10:03 ET by Casey97What would be the difference between HRC and Rudy, except the war and taxes? They are both:
Pro-Abortion
Pro-illegal Immigration
Pro-Hugo Chavez
Anti-Gun
Pro-Gay marriage
/*-/*-/*-/*-/*-/*-/*-/*-/*-
With Democrat revisionist history and liberals guaranteeing the future (global warming, nuclear destruction, etc.) only the future is certain; the past is always changing.