31% of Republican voters do not share the same values as Giuliani
Can Giuliani win the GOP nomination?
NYT-Mr. Giuliani supports abortion rights, and about half of Republican primary voters are aware of that. More specifically, about 6 in 10 conservative Republican primary voters, who overwhelmingly favor tightening or eliminating abortion rights, know where Mr. Giuliani stands on the issue.
Additionally, Mr. Giuliani may still face difficulty in overcoming the doubts of some Republican voters troubled by aspects of his personal life, including his strained relationship with his children and the fact that he has been married three times.
Two-thirds of Republican primary voters said candidates should be judged not only on their political records, but also on their personal lives.
Is that title right? I would think that only 31% share the same values as Giuliani and 69% don’t share those values.
Dubious has held on to his 0.1% edge in popularity over Attila the Hun, among the 95-99 age demographic.
Many “average Joes” who don’t try to act “holier than thou” still would prefer politicians with some class rather than people who’s personal life is a friggin disaster. It makes sense to elect high quality people not low lifes.
Headline should be (if the numbers are true) — 69% of GOPers support Rudy’s moral standards — former mayor on way to landslide victory!
Bart
What you feel is not what the polls say.
From TownHall
Rudy Down / McCain Up?
From the WaPost …
Rudy Giuliani “has seen a dramatic erosion in his support, which now stands at its lowest point of the year, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.”
And … “for all the anticipation about his candidacy, (Fred) Thompson is roughly even with Sen. John McCain …”
More …
Over the past two months, Giuliani has suffered sharp declines in support among women and self-identified Republicans. In July, he was the first choice of 40 percent of Republicans and 41 percent of women. The new poll showed that 28 percent of Republicans and 27 percent of women back his candidacy.
Giuliani now stands at his lowest point yet among mainline Republicans, men, conservatives and white evangelical Protestants. Until now, the former mayor had led his rivals for the nomination among these evangelicals; now 29 percent support Thompson, while 25 percent support Giuliani.
John,
Do you think that the GOP base will concede that the “culture war” is lost and nominate Giuliani?
No I do not think Giuliani can win. The only way is if the enough candidates stay in and the votes get split up.
I do think he will be on the short list for VP.
Who, in your estimation, will get the nomination? IMO, all the front runners are losers in a general election.
The Republicans that I know are Fred supporters but I don’t run in fundamentalist circles. It seems that they came to support Fred because he’s not Rudy, McCain or Romney not because of any particular stance or record.
I would say Fred and Romney have the best chance.
I just do not know how the Mormon issue will play in the south.
The mormon issue is a big one to southerners. There are lots of Southern Baptists who are taught that Mormonism is a cult. I don’t think that they’d vote for Romney. Polls show that 14% of the public won’t vote for a mormon. Too bad. His religious beliefs really shouldn’t be an issue but when a party lives by the religious litmus test they die by the religious litmus test. It’s also another reason why we shouldn’t try to fuse religion and state.
I would bet the Dems want Rudy to win the nomination.
If Hillary is the nomination it takes the character and family value issues of the table if she runs against Rudy.
The other problem with Rudy is the more people find out about him he falls in polls..
I think if Romney won, being a family man still puts that issue in play against Hillary if he won.
Also Romney does come across well as a leader, but as I said the Mormon thing is a wild card that could cut either way in a general election.
As far as Fred that is not a card he his played in his past and his baggage on the issue is not near what Rudy is dealing with.
I do think Ron Paul is the GOP best hope in a general election. Yet Fred and Romney could make a run at it.
John,
The Dems don’t care who wins the GOP primary. If you are planning on cranking up the “culture war” to try to win you will surely lose. The only people that care about that are the fundamentalists who are 70% of a party that has the support of 25% of the country.
Romney won’t win against Hillary because he’s mormon. Too many people see that as a bigger issue than anything else out there.
Fred Thompson’s record as a lobbyist will kill him in a general. We are now dealing with the mortage debacle but remember the savings and loan disaster in the eighties? That was Thompson’s lobbying baby.
They all start to drop once you find out about them. Romney polls the worst. Last poll I saw had Hillary even carrying the south with Romney at the top of the ticket.
If you want the short of it:
It won’t matter who the GOP nominates because all the front runners are carrying the torch of George W. Bush into the general election. Unless you guys decide not to invite him to the convention, all America is going to see W endorse whomever the GOP nominee is. It’s the kiss of death.
You are underestimating Hillary baggage. Her negatives are sky high out side of the Dems!
John,
Her negatives are half of what the Republican negatives are and lower that W’s in 2004. They can be overcome and you guys have built her up into some kind of devil with horns in her head (much like Lazio did) that when she shows up to debate her negatives decline. All the hysteria from the GOP does nothing but help her.
Do you really think that running on personality is going to win another election? Do you think that the electorate will conveniently forget what the GOP has done the last 8 years? The GOP seems to think that they can pull a candidate out of Hollywood who has a reputation for not working and the populace will forget about Iraq etc.
Once again, is the GOP planning on disinviting Bush to the convention?
It is Hillary and she does have high negatives. And her plan for the Middle East is the same as GOP front runners. Also she is bad on Education, immigration, trade and is all over the board on a real healthcare fix because of donations.
John,
Do you realize what the Republian negatives are? 85%. As far as trade, all the Republicans are free traders so I guess they are all bad on trade too? Her plan isn’t “stay the course”. The GOP’s plan is “stay the course”. While her plan isn’t perfect she doesn’t want to continue the Bush plan like the GOP. She hasn’t even released a healthcare plan so how can you say that? Immigration?
Are you planning on disinviting W to the GOP convention?
When it comes down to giving W a third term or voting for Hillary, Hillary will win.
All of your frontrunners are very weak candidates for a national race. Have you looked at the issue polls? The GOP loses on every issue! The campaign ads just write themselves. Heck, I could even do it.
James Carville says “When you opponent is drowing, throw him an anvil.” Expect a lot of anvis coming down on the GOP the next few years.
Caroline,
Hillary’s plan for Middle East is long term having troops on Muslim soil. Also she wants to expand the amount of troops. Please help me understand on a macro level what she is saying different then the GOP front runners?
Bottom line all of them are going against what the CIA, NEA , 9/11 report recommended. All experts agree our military being on Muslim soil long term increases the threat of terrorism.
Here you go:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/iraq/
One difference, the GOP supports permanent bases in Iraq she does not. She has proposed legislation to reovoke Bush’s authorization to be in Iraq. The only thing she wants to leave is a few troops to continue to train Iraqi’s (which I disagree with). All that is different from the GOP’s proposed permanent occupation of Iraq.
caroline
On a macro level she does not want troops out of the Middle East.
Do you get that is the problem?
When the country witnesses the Democrat party falling over itself to appease its far left base, support for Republicans will continue to rise. You can only do so much with a web of deception.
John,
What about the GOP then? They want permanent bases.
Hoads,
The American public has had years to decide about the GOP. 75% say no thanks. Bush has ruined the GOP for a generation.
Caroline,
If the startegy is to keep the military in the Milldle East long term why does it matter?
John,
You don’t see a difference between a few temporary troops and permanent bases?
Do you understand Hillary wants the military in the Middle East long term? The issue is do you think having military on Muslim soil long term is a good idea?
John,
You didn’t answer my question. And if you read her website she wants to get out of Iraq completely unlike the GOP candidates.
I checked the websites of the GOP frontrunners. Giuliani’s sounds like it could have been written by Bush. He uses the exact same talking points.
Romney hardly mentions Iraq. He’s all about war with Iran.
Thompson doesn’t have ANY policy stances on his website.
John McCain wants to increase troop levels in Iraq. At least he has a detailed plan which is more than I can say for the others.
caroline
FYI
NYT-Even as they call for an end to the war and pledge to bring the troops home, the Democratic presidential candidates are setting out positions that could leave the United States engaged in Iraq for years.
John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, would keep troops in the region to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north. And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis.
These positions and those of some rivals suggest that the Democratic bumper-sticker message of a quick end to the conflict — however much it appeals to primary voters — oversimplifies the problems likely to be inherited by the next commander in chief. Antiwar advocates have raised little challenge to such positions by Democrats.
John,
Residual forces? That’s the same as permanent bases?
Who do you think has the best chance of getting us out of Iraq? Dems or Repubs? The majority think that the Dems will get us out quicker than the GOP. None of the GOP is even advocating drawing down troops. As I mentioned above, it’s mostly “stay the course.”
At the end if you read between the lines both Parties front runners want our military to protect the oil.
The issue is do you think having military on Muslim soil long term is a good idea?
And you will not answer that question.
Residual forces? That’s the same as permanent bases?
BTW according to our intelligence it is our military on Muslim soil that is the problem.
So your question makes no sense.
John,
Residual forces means that forces will be drawn down and eventually eliminated. Permanent bases means Iraq Forever! Which would you choose?
I don’t see that drawing down forces over time and eliminating our presence is the same as permanent bases. Are you going to vote for GOP candidates that want permanent bases?
caroline,
That is not what Obama and Hillary are saying. At the end they are calling for about the same as GOP front runners. You are hearing what you want to hear.
READ
FROM NYT
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north. And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis.
These positions and those of some rivals suggest that the Democratic bumper-sticker message of a quick end to the conflict — however much it appeals to primary voters — oversimplifies the problems likely to be inherited by the next commander in chief. Antiwar advocates have raised little challenge to such positions by Democrats.
I am more focused on a plan that gets our military off Muslim soil. Also a plan that gets us off the need of foreign oil. Neo Libs and Neo Cons at the end think they know best for the world which is how we got into this mess.
This attitude that if people just meet us they will become us is short sided and selfish view of the world.
This is why our trade deals are also messed up with China. You cannot force people to change, you can act in a manner that is honorable and hope they find the way and not enable negative behavior.
As I said Hillary and Bush are very similar and I cannot believe how both Parties get the base so fired up on the spin and do not focus on the policy.
If you read this Blog David and Bart would claim they are against each other. Yet if you read what they write about trade and immigration it is very similar.
And both claim to have a different view on the war, yet when you pull away the spin Rudy and Hillary are very close on how to handle the Middle East.
At the end both think our military is the solution. All they are arguing is how to use our military.
That is why the NYT article is so interesting because I do not think the party faithful on both sides understand how close the front runners are on the war. All they hear is the red meat statements and not the truth.
Dems have been advocating getting off foreign oil for decades now.
Actually, Hillary and Rudy are very different on Iraq. Rudy supports “stay the course” while Hillary wants to change it. When was that NYT article written? Obama just made a major policy speech.
While Bart and David may agree on trade I hardly think that they agree on anything else. John you have very narrowly defined litmus tests. When anyone is outside of those litmus tests you tend to say that they “agree” when in reality they don’t. You are essentially saying that “stay the course” and “change the course” are one in the same. I think that most people will disagree.
I think that the bottom line will be that the GOP nominee will be carrying the Bush torch and hence the Bush failures into the Nov ‘08 election. The underlying message will be that the GOP nominee will be giving Bush a third term. It will be a losing proposition.
I’m not trying to convince you to vote for any of the Dem nominees. I think that you’ll probably sit out the ‘08 election.
caroline
You are for a strong U.S. military on Muslim soil why?
John,
Your information is wrong. The next post states that Obama supports pulling ALL troops out of the middle east.
Are you calling a few troops “strong military on Muslim soil”?
Are you saying the New York Times is wrong about Hillary and Obama interview and the PR on the campaign website of both candidates is right?
Are you for our military on Muslim soil?
John,
Apparently the NYT article is old or erroneous. You have more current information from Obama’s speech on the next post.
John I don’t think we should be in Iraq at all, however, I don’t have a litmus test when it comes to that. Who is more likely to get us out?
FROM OBAMA
The redeployment of US troops will enable a more effective use of our resources against other pressing threats that we face. Within Iraq, we should keep a limited number of US troops to continue counter-terrorism strikes, train Iraqi Security Forces, and protect US military and civilians. Within the region, we should maintain a robust force to contain Iraq’s sectarian strife, curb a humanitarian catastrophe, and reassure our allies that we will stay engaged in the Middle East.
FROM HILLARY
Clinton Sees Some Troops Staying in Iraq if She Is Elected
NYT-Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced but significant military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.
In outlining how she would handle Iraq as commander in chief, Mrs. Clinton articulated a more-nuanced position than the one she has provided at her campaign events, where she has backed the goal of “bringing the troops home.”
She said in the interview that there were “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq” that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.
John,
This is a link from your own post:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/09/12/obama-we-have-to-begin-to-end-this-war-now/
John,
http://timesunion.com/AspStories/storyprint.asp?StoryID=572170
Your information is 6 months old.
caroline
This is clear Hillary is staying with troops.
Clinton: Troops stay in Iraq
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced but significant military force there to fight al-Qaida, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.
In an interview with The New York Times, Clinton said the scaled-down U.S. military force that she would maintain would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing.
In a more nuanced position than the one she has provided at her campaign events, where she has backed the goal of “bringing the troops home,” she said in the interview that there were “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq” that would require a continuing deployment of U.S. troops.
She declined to estimate the number of U.S. troops she would keep in Iraq, saying she would draw on the advice of the military officers who would have to carry out the strategy.
“Immediately begin to pull out troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year.”
This does mean he is taking all the troops out of the Middle East. This means they will not fight in day to day operations in Iraq.
John,
Those cut n pastes are old like I told you. Do you have more current information?
Obama sounds like he’s going get all the troops out to me.
caroline
I took the lines from what you posted!
Yes, John and the article I linked to was over 6 months old. The CNN link is current.