Captain's Quarters -

it's time rasmussen put the gop likely candidates vs gore in the fall.

Cap'n Ed wrote:

...it shows Hillary's weakness. She has not broken through the 50% barrier on these matchups, primarily due to the extraordinary percentage of voters determined to vote against her in a general election. While she continues to blow away her primary competitors, she has made no headway in alleviating those negatives at all.

Oh, give the MSM a chance! When the Hilldabeast becomes the dem nominee, we'll be innundated with fluff stories about how nice she is, how personable, how much "the man on the street" is impressed by her and loves her. "Saint Hillary" will ride again! There will be all sorts of polls showing a solid majority of Americans who are ready for a female president, who desperately WANT a female president, and who think she'd be just PERFECT.

Over the past several years, we've become increasingly aware of the MSM's ability and willingness to slant and outright manufacture the news; don't be surprised when they give the Evil One an extreme makeover to get her into the Oval Office.

"The primary race has been framed as a challenge to decide between a movement conservative or a centrist who can marshal support outside the party in order to prevail in November 2008."

Centrist???

http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2006/col20060531.asp

Arb - That's the Republican primary race Ed is referring to. Last I saw, Hillary Clinton was a Democrat.

Ed -- The Real Clear Politics poll shows Hillary hasn't moved an inch (just .1%) amongst Democrats since February. That's a fairly emphysemic "blowing away." Granted that she leads, but there's no indication that she can improve her position, even given withdrawals. As I wrote, in the same time Fred has moved up about 20 points on the Republican side, and saved a whole bunch of money while he was doing it. -- Bob

Ed,

Delete this if you wish, it is politically incorrect in the extreme, to some it will be very offensive, to others simply in bad taste, but it goes beyond the clearly sexist term and sums up Hillary Clinton so very well. It is a saying offered to me by an old Aussie friend of mine describing this woman. It is crude but it is true.

"A cunt is a cunt is a cunt is a cunt"

Frankly, I offer no apologies.

fine by me.

If Billary wins the nomination over Obama - I will have no problem with Fred wining the general.

ABB - Anybody but Billary.

Ed: You appear to believe that Thompson has a real chance. That's an awful lot of wishful thinking that once he really subjects himself to examination will not hold up.

But good luck with wishing that the neocons can find another GWB, cuz it just "ain't gonna happen." Not in America. Not again. Fool us once or twice, but that's the limit.

"Ed: You appear to believe that Thompson has a real chance. That's an awful lot of wishful thinking that once he really subjects himself to examination will not hold up."

Jim they just threw 35 YEAR OLD DIRT at him today. Show's the desperation. They've already tried to dig up dirt on his kids. Didn't work. Guess they just say 'screw it' and make stuff up. Wake up, they've been "examining" him at length already.

Go Fred!!

It just dawned on me.

Since Hillary cannot ever poll the 50% plus one she needs, the only way she can win is if a 3rd party candidate enters and pulls votes from the GOP.

After all, her sociopathic husband would never have won in 1992 had it not been for Ross Perot pulling enough votes from 41 to emerge the victor.

Unlike the polling for a party that has reliably elected their hacks for almost 50 years without question (see Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd), the GOP field is still wide open.

Keep an eye on how CNN covers the race, after all they parted ways with Gallup to partner with them in their polling. The replacement is a company run by Clinton supporters. Gee, I am shocked!

By now, most Americans know all polls are skewed. Even if you're testing Pepsi against Coke. How so? Which brand is warmer to your lips?

And, if Pepsi was sponsoring the test, do you really think negative results would make a play date in public?

Fred, by the way, has an enthusiastic reception waiting for him, as soon as he announces; which, if he's smart he'll do closer to September; just to drive the old media crazy. Running up "those" negatives ain't gonna hurt him.

While on the other side of the equation, McCain won't admit it; but he's through.

Mike Gavel and Ron Paul won't admit it, either, but they're polling around Ralph Nader's numbers, on one of his good days.

Hillary isn't "A" choice, she's basically the only choice the Bonkeys' have. Because those who are in charge, WANT HER TO RUN! And, there's not much out there, in terms of competition.

And, how are you factoring in Michael Bloomberg's MONEY? He can spend a billion. I guess he's out to scare George Soros, huh?

The best part of the GOP races is that many of the folk, running, look exciting. And, sound bright.

While to find Brownback, you'd have to lift up the McCain spill. In other words? How will republican senators explain: Trent Lott, Mitch McConnell, Dr. Frist? and the stink-o leadership that's been running the GOP since 1994?

Oh, and if Newt Gingrich enters, expect Tom DeLay to raise a lot of noise.

Lots of stuff going on back stage, as usual.

With the best shots towards the nomination being, Rudy. Followed probably by Fred. And, both horses will run towards the center at some point. Why wait till after February 2008? What if the whole primary process is changing?

How important is advertising money in attempting to change Hillary's image? (During Clinton's presidency she did play "First Lady." And, there was a coffee table book that came out for her. Will it be important for her to have a chocolate chip recipe?

And, when it becomes important for the republicans to admit Dubya carry's the GOP label in this White House; how can some of it be counter-acted? Can he come on stage with his momma? Is Laura, enough?

Sometimes, politics looks like the circus. So you almost know what to expect. Except for the acts that don't use a net. Given how some of those spills go "splat.' (McCain just went splat.)

Ah, and the Internet. Really a player, now. How will Fred do his spots? Given how successful Michelle Malkin was with her "Mucias Gracias" take out of Lindsey Graham. Isn't it possible that some of the most successful stuff in the world is just about TIPPING POINTS?

When ya find 'em, bundles of dough gets cancelled.

Do I think Hillary runs? When Adeli Stevenson ran twice. (And, Bob Dole, in 1996, ran once.) Americans take these losers in stride.

I'd also gamble money, that when Fred comes out, he does it in a way that spells success. No. I have no idea how he'll do this. But, why not?

Hillary may indeed need a third party candidate in order to win. If Giuliani wins the primary, I doubt Bloomberg will run. If Thompson wins, he might. Despite theorizing that Bloomberg hurts the Democrat, polls so far suggest he hurts the Republican.

Rasmussen shows Giuliani not just tying Hillary but beating her. Look at the New Jersey polls. Giuliani beats Hillary. Thompson does not. Where does Thompson beat Hillary that Giuliani does not? Giuliani can hit Clinton on her lack of executive experience. Thompson cannot because he is lacking in that area also.

Why take chances on a Thompson that may have already hit his high water mark? Giuliani is a much safer bet to not only stop the Democrat but to actually make a change in the Government status quo because he already did in New York City-- and with a Democrat City Council to boot.

Thompson's big problem may be in peaking too soon. If he surges into immediate national contention, as some polls are already indicating, he may find it impossible to beat the expectations game. Giuliani led the 2nd quarter in GOP fundraising after seeing his support fall (mainly to Thompson), so he has already faced his "dip" into adversity.

Romney has seen his numbers increase, but not enough to threaten for the lead, and may be encountering a "plateau" phenomenon. Still, he has invested heavily in the earliest states, gambling on an early upset or two to push him into contention.

McCain has fallen as far as he can fall. He is fighting like a wounded dog now, and he knows how to fight.

Thompson isn't going to walk into a race with these three, who have spent much time, energy, and money in seeking the nomination, and have them step aside for him. There are still large questions about Thompson, primarily experience and "fire in the belly."

Incidentally, I've seen a couple of references to "polls showing Bloomberg hurting Republicans more," but I have yet to see a link, nor am I aware of national polls being conducted on the question yet. Are we talking online polls by MSNBC or Zogby, or what?

Perhaps it is different in the northeast or the west coast (where Republicans haven't been winning much lately anyway), but there just aren't Republican voters in the rest of the country who would vote for Bloomberg.

KW
Bloomberg is in the race specifically to take Guliani out for HIllary. If Guliani doesn't make it, look for Bloomberg to fold and another more conservative 3rd party candidate to take his place.

The other candidates have already begun to 'saturate the market.' They've also given themselves much more time to make more mistakes. By the time the primaries roll around, voters will be just about sick of 'em. Later in the campaign, Thompson'll still be using fewer words - and saying more - than most of the other candidates. He is articulate and concise

As is well-known, Thompson has yet to declare and has yet to spend anything like the money other candidates have spent. His use of the internet and the media at this point has been masterful and even ground breaking for a national level candidate. Most of his positions have already been well-articulated and have been shared without later caveat or 'spin.'

He has also managed to maintain something of a balance between experience in the political sphere while being a relative outsider. i.e. he isn't a career politician like the rest of the candidates. Rudy's a good man, but he has a few 'issues.' Fred is as close to squeeky clean as anyone's gonna get. (All of his ex-girl-friends have fully endorsed him. LOL.)

The advantage the Republicans have in the Presidential race is that there are two very principled men who presently lead the race. Second, both are well able to articulate their positions and as principled men, their positions haven't changed much over the years. Their Democrat challengers cannot even begin to say the same.

(Speculation: A possible money factor, at present, is that many of the most ardent supporters of [already declared] individual candidates will be about tapped out by the time the campaign is well and truly started. I also think that more money will accure to the Republican Party as soon as Fred officially declares. )

Whether it is Rudy or Fred, I'm waiting for the first Republican vs Democrat Presidential debate. Guess who'll walk away with that one? :O)

It's very early, yet, but I think we'll be looking at a series of debates between Fred and Hillary. (Hillary's gonna eat Obama's lunch, Daily's 'Machine' or not.)

As for alot of the Senate and House races? ...anybody got a coin?

Last night, Alan Colmes pointed out one reason they can feel comfortable that Bill Clinton and his pardons were not wrong, while Bush is guilty of horrendous wrong in commuting Libby's jail time, is that the REPUBLICAN SENATE found Bill NOT GUILTY of PERJURY.

That was due in LARGE PART because Fred the Former Prosecutor was one of ONLY 4 GOP SENATORS who voted that Bill WAS NOT GUILTY of PERJURY in his INTRENATIONALLY AIRED deposition - and Fred told Sean about a month ago that IT WAS A TRIVIAL MATTER and it would not rise to the level of impeachment in the minds of our Founding Fathers.

I fail to perceive a noticeable difference between Hillary and Fred.

I won't be bothering to try to SPIT between the difference.

If Fred succeeds in attaining the GOP nomination, I will do a WRITE IN, in the General Election.

Over the past several years, we've become increasingly aware of the MSM's ability and willingness to slant and outright manufacture the news; don't be surprised when they give the Evil One an extreme makeover to get her into the Oval Office.

Posted by: docjim505 at July 5, 2007 7:48 PM
*******************************

Maybe they 'll take her to John Edwards' barber!

Hate to barge in on this process discussion, but don't we have an obligation to choose the BEST nominee available? Don't the times demand it? I mean, once the candidates have passed the electabiilty test? Which Fred! and Rudy both have done?

Now if you are ideologically driven and right-leaning, you may on that basis choose Fred!

For me, it's about the war, 'small' and large. And while Rudy or Fred! or Mitt are all infinitely preferable to any Dem running, that's faint praise.

Who has PROVEN he can walk the walk? Crush bad guys? Lead in a crisis (a terror attack crisis, moreover)? Stand toe to toe with the MSM (personified by the NYT) and win?

It's Rudy all the way.

Rose - Clinton, as bad as he was, was a damn sight better than Gore would have been. I believe that he deserved the humiliation of impeachment, but did not want him removed from office in favor of Gore. I can't believe that I'm the only one.

The anti-Fred posters here are in for a surprise - Fred is going to run away with this, so far and so fast I think even the most ardent Fred-heads are going to be surprised.

There are three things that have rolled very far, very fast that convince me that Fred is, or already has become a virtual steam-roller - the number of volunteer sign-ups, the amount of money coming in, and the across-the-states organizational line-up taking place.

Fred already has almost as many volunteers as Rudy (and a far-better web-presence,) and he's been raising money at an astonishing rate, nearly surpassing everything I've seen in presidential politics going back to Reagan's first election - and his national organization continues to collect the best in the business, with new top-of-the-line state leaders joining almost daily.

The only thing that can stop Fred at this point is probably Fred himself through some major blunder - but, I think he's smart enough to avoid that kind of thing, and smart enough to flatten the best the left (and the RINO faux-right) has to throw at him.

Those who think Fred has 'peaked to soon' are in for a shock. Hell, the man has hardly began yet - and he's already tied with the favorite media-darlin'.

Ahh, another one bites the dust.

Romney's campaign calculus depended on him being the only "conservative" in a race with a pro-abort, gun-grabbin', cross-dresser and a despised McQueeg. That calculus died when Fred's boomlet began and Willard Romney is now a 2nd tier candidate doomed to remain there.

Now with this news of the as yet undeclared Thompson running even with the "smartest woman in the world" and the Donks presumptive nominee, Rooty JuliaAnnie's campaign calculus begins to crumble.

Rooty the Roe Supporter expected us conservatives to hold our nose and vote for him because ONLY HE could stop the Hildabest and her Flying Monkeys. But now we see someone has emerged who can beat the evil one without his supporters having to ignore the stench and vote for the LESSER EVIL.

With Fred's poll numbers in the head-to-heads rising, Rooty Poot becomes less attractive by the day.

The VP slot could play a very important role in this. My dream ticket would be Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter. Would it be strong enough to get over the top of a dem ticket? Not sure. Rudy would also be wise to pick a "farther right" VP to balance out his social policy "missgivings".

The same would go to who the Dem winner picks as their VP. Even a moderate 3rd party contender on either side could mean disaster in a close race to the finish line.

So many variables and mood swings, and the upcoming battle with the MSM, (with their skewed polls) will be necessary to keep them in check. Can the blogosphere really keep the MSM from their runaway bias?

The bottom line will be who can defeat Hillary and her ambassador for the world husband?

Yuck! Think I'll go brush my teeth again.

Adjoran wrote: "Incidentally, I've seen a couple of references to "polls showing Bloomberg hurting Republicans more," but I have yet to see a link, nor am I aware of national polls being conducted on the question yet. Are we talking online polls by MSNBC or Zogby, or what?"
********
Real Clear Politics keeps averages of head to heads between Giuliani and Clinton with and without Bloomberg. With Bloomberg Clinton leads by 4.7 . Without Bloomberg, she leads by 1.2. Similarly Quinnipiac's poll for New Jersey shows Giuliani leads there by 3 (47 to 44)without Bloomberg but is tied by Clinton at 36% with Bloomberg in the race.

Assuming Bloomberg ran to win, he needs a Democrat on the left and a Republican on the right to make enough room for him in the center to win. Rudy does not leave him much room. That is why I do not think he will run if Giuliani wins the primary.

If he ran merely to help Hillary win as Jya Lai suggests, it would be because he too believes that Giuliani would beat Hillary without a third party candidate. That is another argument for Giuliani rather than against him as it suggests that he is a formidable foe for any Democrat.

By the way, I still see no answer from Friends of Fred (I like Fred too by the way) about what state he can beat Hillary in that Giuliani would not beat her.

Fred is as close to squeeky clean as anyone's gonna get. "All of his ex-girl-friends have fully endorsed him. LOL."

Just askin'...could Hillary say the same thing?

Rose - Clinton, as bad as he was, was a damn sight better than Gore would have been. I believe that he deserved the humiliation of impeachment, but did not want him removed from office in favor of Gore. I can't believe that I'm the only one.

Posted by: Immolate at July 6, 2007 6:24 AM

***************

A whole lot of Republicans felt that way. And they were likely right - all things considered.

And if Fred had said THAT is why he voted NOT GUILTY on PERJURY, I might have understood.

Even though THAT is still way too terrible a slap in the face of the Republican House of Representatives and what they went through to mount that prosecution. Which Bill certainly deserved.

Remembering that the GOP supported the Watergate hearings and prolly pushed that much harder than the DIMS.

But he didn't give that excuse - and Sean asked him first about it about 3, maybe 4 months ago and at first, he just said, well he felt comfortable with knowing he'd made the best decision he could at the time.

Then in JUNE, about one month ago, he ups and clarifies - " "TRIVIAL MATTER" NOT UP TO THE LEVEL OF IMPEACHMENT BY FOUNDING FATHER'S STANDARDS".

He could have gone almost ANYWHERE on the planet but THERE - with me, or also with Ann Coulter who followed him on THAT show.

THAT was a most insulting mouthful of balderdash to attempt to excuse himself with.

"The vote of your opponents is the most honorable mark by which the soundness of your conduct could be stamped. I claim the same honorable testimonial. There was but a single act of my whole administration of which [the opposing] party approved... And when I found they approved of it, I confess I began strongly to apprehend I had done wrong, and to exclaim with the Psalmist, 'Lord, what have I done that the wicked should praise me?'" --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1812. ME 13:162

Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation for 'tis better to be alone than in bad company.
- George Washington

Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience.
- George Washington

It is better to offer no excuse than a bad one.
- George Washington, letter to his niece Harriet Washington, October 30, 1791

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.
George Washington

I hope I shall possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider the most enviable of all titles, the character of an honest man.
George Washington

It so happens that I am one of those Americans who sat on the couch daily with my family to watch the Watergate hearings, and had my favorite uncle explaining it all to me, and why it was important - because at that time, I was so cynical, I considered the Watergate break-in too trivial a matter for criminal charges or impeachment of a President and his administration and campaign staff.
Frankly, I considered it to be likely too common among politicians.

I also heard all the early broadcast interviews of Larry Nickles.

Fred isn't an ordinary citizen actor-turned-Senator - he is a former Prosecutor.

I won't take this insulting effrontery from him.

I won't help elect an ENABLER of Bill CLINTON.

Once again, the nation is deciding to follow California off a cliff.

They had Tom McClintock as the front runner doing very nicely until Dah Ahnold Man jumped in - suddenly it was all about "most electability" and they got what they deserved - Dah Ahnold Man. NOW claiming that Tom never could have won.

Now the national contest is shaping up the same - any MODERATE RINO in a storm - as long as he seems to be "MOST ELECTABLE", too.

I'll so let you hang yourselves by your own petards and a few million Conservative voters with me - who refuse to be blackmailed for some Lefty RINO.

I'm busy researching some Conservative I'll fill in as a WRITE-IN.
I won't endorse someone who is indistinguishable from a DIM.

If THAT costs the GOP an election, so be it.

It ain't as if they are COURTING the votes of the Conservatives, is it.

You Moderates call it the REVENGE of the CONSERVATIVES if we won't support your RINO choices.

What do you call it if your RINO WINS and is (AS ALL THE RINOS CURRENTLY INDICATE RIGHT OUT OF THEIR OWN MOUTHS) worse than BUSH? Worse even than Hillary?

Just "Star Power"?