August 13, 2007

CBS: Rudy Strengthens His National Polling Lead

This post will need multiple disclaimers. First, the CBS poll has had sampling issues in the past, and this one has a relatively small sample of Republican voters (only 302 respondents). Second, national polls do tell an important story, but not as important as state-by-state polling. Third, this poll got conducted over a weekend, which tends to skew polls more to the center and left.

Given that, CBS reports that Giuliani continues to strengthen his lead, and Fred Thompson may be falling back:

According to a new CBS News poll out Monday, Rudy Giuliani retains a significant lead nationally among Republican primary voters in the race to become the party’s presidential nominee.

In all, 38 percent of Republican primary voters favor the former New York City mayor, a slight increase from last month. Senator-turned-actor Fred Thompson is next; he's favored by 18 percent of Republican primary voters, a seven-point drop from last month. Thompson has yet to officially announce his candidacy.

The third choice, at 13 percent, is former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who improved five points from one month ago. He was followed by Arizona Sen. John McCain, who came in at 12 percent.

Not only has Rudy picked up five points in the last month, half of that support comes from voters solely choosing Rudy because they like him. Forty-five percent select him for himself, even with some reservations. Only 8% choose him because they don't like anyone else.

Fred has dropped seven points, the biggest change in the poll. Romney moved up five to 13%, a good move but still behind the undeclared Fred. McCain dropped into a virtual tie with Romney at 12%.

Again, it's good news for Rudy -- but only if one finds the CBS poll reliable.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference CBS: Rudy Strengthens His National Polling Lead:

» Fred Fading? from Hennessy's View
A new CBS News poll of 302 Republicans shows that Rudy Giuliani has widened his lead over Fred Thompson.   Captain’s Quarters breaks down the unreliability of CBS, the problems with the sample, etc, so I won’t repeat that here. Instead, l... [Read More]

Comments (40)

Posted by CJW | August 13, 2007 6:45 PM

I am not voting for Giuliani under any circumstances.

While I'm sure he was a more than adequate mayor of New York, I don't live in a city or near a very big city and don't want someone who is a large city boy having his mindset governing the whole country. The needs of those outside of big cities are plenty different from those within the cities. He has shown me nothing at all that leads me to believe he will represent me where I live.

If he by chance gets the nomination, as a conservative, I will write in Smilin' Bob before I will vote for him, regardless of what some MSM poll says about him.

Posted by arb | August 13, 2007 6:48 PM

Rudy, for sure.

Rudy and Mitt, or Rudy and Fred, but Rudy, definitely.

(NYC native)

Posted by Bennett | August 13, 2007 7:03 PM

The most interesting general election race IMO would be Rudy vs. Hillary. Both have similar personal baggage (sort of anyway) and both have positions on some things that aren't within the mainstream of their respective bases (Rudy on some social issues, Hillary on the Iraq war). It would put more of the country in play than we typically see, especially the mountain and western states.

I can see Rudy being competitive in typical Democratic strongholds (e.g., CA) whereas I can't really see Hillary being competitive in traditional Republican states (can anyone really see her making a race of it anywhere in the South outside of possibly FL?). But she's more likely to hold her base possibly than he is. Or hold it better. I think staunch Dem voters, as much as they hate the Iraq war, care more about abortion on demand, gay rights, environmental issues, etc., than they do about the War and will not stay away from the voting booth because of her position on Iraq.

Staunch Republican voters? I don't know, I think the same may be said of them, that they care more about those issues too (for different reasons) than they do about Rudy being right on the GWOT and Iraq. So they wouldn't vote for her but they might just stay home.

And the middle? That could go either way.

Posted by Eric | August 13, 2007 7:11 PM

I am currently undecided between Rudy, Mitt or Hillary, however, I will say that I have always been a fan of Rudy and what he accomplished in NYC. I travel to NYC at least yearly and during his term(s), the city was at its peak. I can get beyond some of the personal baggage, but I'm not sure the voting public can. I love his clarity of thought, and his ability to speak well in public.

Hillary is still in the race for me because of her position on energy independence and her superb intellect. I am worried about the healthcare thing though -- I already pay way too much in taxes, although I consider it to be a privilege, and I would support passing this privilege along to all working Americans, including the poor. If only $1, they deserve the right to contribute to our wonderful nation.

Mitt has all of these qualities as well with less baggage than the other two. Anyone who has an issue with his faith does not deserve to live in this country. He's a great thinker and a tremendous manager.

Posted by Eric | August 13, 2007 7:20 PM


You're a great strategic thinker and I think that what you've said is right on the money. I think that this could be the NYC election if it comes down to Rudy and Hillary. That is to say that NYC is a Democrat stronghold and carries the entire state of New York -- which always goes blue. Rudy would likely get NYC, which would pull the entire state Red. I don't think that Hillary can pull a red state blue -- at least one that is large enough (such as Florida or Texas.)

Whomever wins NYC, will be the next President. Our current President is in office because he won the small towns of Ohio - Newark, Coshocton, New Philadelphia, Cambridge - a combined population of about 200,000. That was Karl Rove genius at work.

Posted by Del Dolemonte | August 13, 2007 7:25 PM

CJW: "While I'm sure he was a more than adequate mayor of New York, I don't live in a city or near a very big city and don't want someone who is a large city boy having his mindset governing the whole country."

I live in northern New England, but also lived in NY City for 3 years. Rudy is the best Republican candidate out there. And he's at the moment the only one with a chance of beating Madame Bovary.


"Hillary is still in the race for me because of her position on energy independence and her superb intellect. "

I don't know about her energy positions, but remember that her party has not let us build any new oil refineries or drill for domestic oil for many years.

As for her "intellect", remember that she was stupid enough to believe her husband when he lied to her about Monica, and she was also stupid enough to believe Bush's "lies" about Iraq. If she could be taken in so easily by a grifter from Arkansas AND an idiot from Texas, that's not the definition of "intellect" on my planet.

Posted by Bennett | August 13, 2007 7:31 PM

I think Hillary beats Mitt. He's from Massachusetts, which will still go blue, regardless of his presence on the ticket. He gets no real traction in other typical Dem states IMO, NY, NJ, PA, IL, CA and would have to depend on pulling essentially the same states Bush did in 2004 but without the ties to the South that Bush has (no brother as governor in FL, e.g.,) and I think FL may go blue if it's Hillary vs. Mitt.

I agree that a candidate's religion shouldn't matter but there are a whole lot of Southern Baptists in the south who I think might have a problem with a Mormon candidate. Don't know this, just my speculation.

And I'm not a great strategic thinker, I just like pure politics (without the name calling and the extremist ideology on either side...just that glorious map of the US laid out on election night as the numbers drop in...nothing more exciting IMO).

Posted by Eric | August 13, 2007 7:41 PM

Del Dolemonte,

Yes, Hillary's party has stopped progressive oil exploration within the US. They have also stopped the cleanest form of energy known to man, which is nuclear -- I have real problems with this.

And yes, Hillary did believe her husband when he lied about Monica. I'm not bothered by her believing this, nor am I bothered by her forgiving it for the sake of the marriage. I am, however, very bothered by him doing it. I believed him also when he said "I did not have sex with that woman -- Monica Lewinsky," with an anger that surly demonstrated sincerity. I have since learned that Bill has a "tell" to borrow a poker term. When he is lying, he becomes seethingly angry. It's the only time you will ever see him loose his temper -- when he is lying. Hillary, interestingly, has the same "tell." Did you see the video of the reporter asking her about the failed healthcare of Britain, France and Canada? Did you see how mad she got? It's because she could not counter with intellect and had to refer to subterfuge. That makes the Clintons angry -- when people "force" them to lie.

She is, however, one of the ten smartest people on Earth -- I'm certain of it. I've read her writings. You are right, though, that doesn't mean she'll be the best President.

Posted by Bennett | August 13, 2007 7:48 PM

I agree that Hillary is smart. As far as believing her husband, who knows if she did or not? I remember those days, and that was a White House that felt itself under siege (maybe rightfully so) and both Clintons went to the mattresses (maybe a poor choice of words) over the Lewinsky thing, dug in and tried to tough it out. Hillary made that deal to protect Bill at whatever cost a long time ago. I don't think it will play into the 2008 race.

The biggest unknown is how many women will really think it's that big of a deal to see a woman in the White House as President enough to vote for her and how many men will dislike her enough to vote against her (regardless of what they tell pollsters now).

Posted by Mwalimu Daudi | August 13, 2007 7:49 PM

I support Rudy (so this poll ought to be good news for me), but anything that comes from CBS must be treated with caution. The small sample size of the CBS poll is also a concern.

Posted by J. Mark English | August 13, 2007 7:49 PM

Its Rudy's election to lose...

Now he'll bring on Karl Rove...

Posted by Eric | August 13, 2007 7:55 PM


It might well be. I Live in Florida and I would be surprised to see Hillary beat Mitt in Florida. It's a very conservative state at heart. I think that in Florida an issue more important than his religion, will be his stance on the war, which will be viewed with favor by the Florida electorate. Our current Governor that was just elected is a Republican also and that happened in the 2006 election. Even our Democratic Senator is one of the only two Democrats to vote with the Republicans on the war issues.

I know this: The next President of the US is likely to continue the war regardless of what they are saying in the campaign. Why? Because it's already won and it's almost over.

I really feel strongly that energy is going to be the topic of 2008 and Hillary is the only person who has figured that out so far (again -- she is smart.) I think the others have plans, but they just don't have the data mining necessary to understand that it will be the hot issue. Hillary does have that amount of organization behind her at the moment.

Posted by Bennett | August 13, 2007 8:07 PM

I live in FL too and I think the panhandle and the central part of the state are not going to find a northeasterner all that appealing. Bush won FL in 2004 because he carried those areas and garnered enough votes in the southern counties to be competitive there without I think actually winning any of them.

And I do think that the religion issue may be a factor for Mitt, I really do. Southern Baptists (which I think is the predominant Protestant denomination down here) do not generally look favorably on Mormon doctrine. Would that be enough to keep them home on election day? I don't know.

This doesn't mean those voters will vote for Hillary, it just means they may not be energized to vote for Mitt in large numbers. Guiliani is also a northeasterner but unlike Romney he's seen as having GWOT credentials (because of 9/11) and even though he's not "right" on certain social issues I think that doesn't hurt him as much, maybe because he's always been consistent on them, whereas I don't know that Romney has. Guiliani I think just seems more real than Mitt, the kind of guy people down here in the more conservative areas could feel that they could trust even if they don't agree with him on everything. Romney just seems maybe a little too slick for these folks.

And Guiliani on the ticket definitely puts the southern counties in play.

Posted by kreiz | August 13, 2007 8:12 PM

Rasmussen polling is showing Clinton v. Giuliani as a deadheat. What's interesting is whether '08 will resemble '80, when Reagan v. Carter polling was dead even until 2 weeks before the election, and undecideds broke for Reagan. In 08, the question is whether Hillary can get independents to break her way on election eve. (Rick Moran noted that the fervor of Yearly Kos reminded him of the conservative push in 1980).

Posted by Eric | August 13, 2007 8:35 PM


I'm a big fan of Rudy. I think his straight talk would go far in Florida. He's just an awesome leader.

The largest religious group in Florida (and in fact the entire U.S.) is actually Catholic by a large degree -- not Southern Baptist. Catholics (of my age) remember the difficulty that JFK faced and I think they will be likely to rally to a person who states his opinion well and will overlook any distaste associated with Mormonism (which I don't feel is very common.)

If religion is an issue for voters, then that will be a plus for Rudy because he is Catholic. It will be a huge negative for Hillary (if an issue,) as she has written that she is agnostic. She may have since changed that belief or she may have since become saved. I was once agnostic, but have become saved and am now Catholic, so I will believe her if she states that she is saved (I think that she has stated so and is.)

Mitt -- well he's 100% sincere, and I have no doubt of that what so ever. I'd have no problem with him at all and, in fact, if I see people persecuting him for his beliefs, I'll be more strongly inclined to support him for that reason alone. It's un-American. In's Islamic.

Rudy is a Rockefeller Republican, or as I like to say, a Ford Republican. That is to say a Moderate Republican with some progressive values and some conservative values. It may be time for another Ford. In fact, you would have no difficulty convincing me that it’s time for another Ford (Rudy.) He was a great President and healed a lot of our nations’ wounds.

Obama, Edwards, McCain – I think they are distracting at this point. I like the lower tear politicians more than these guys. Hucklebee – hoping he gets VP for the Republicans. Biden – he’s the best bet for the Democrats VP (he’ll never get it.)

After the election – who ever wins will be my President and will receive the benefit of the doubt. This is a courtesy that GWB43 has not received from most Americans.

Posted by Carol Herman | August 13, 2007 9:27 PM

To "strengthen his lead," Guiliani would be smart to read Doris Kearns Goodwin's LINCOLN book: TEAM OF RIVALS.

Once he knew he nailed the nomination, he went to his rivals and offered them cabinet positions.

Guiliani could do that. Let alone how beautiful it would look to see Fred Thompson as veep. (Definitely NOT McCain! If Guiliani wants to burn bridges, he pals out with McCain, and the stink will spread onto him, too.)

The other bet I'm willing to make?

Guiliani could ask Rove to join his team, once the nomination is nailed.

It will give the Bonkeys something to scream about; while they get sidelined.

And, it would pick up lots of reluctant GOP voters. Because there's always some of those, threatening to "sit on their hands."

I was sure, when the pack broke in early, that Bush was in trouble. (And, yes. His polling numbers showed it.)

But now? It's congress that has the worst numbers. Along with the press. Bush is scooting up, again, in the polls.

This could mean a UNITED GOP party goes to the nomination! WIthout hard feelings. And, nobody will dare diss Bush in the months ahead. Not internally.

While this Rove move is just brilliant.

Yes, I read he's doing this because his wife and he want to be closer to their son in college. His son's in San Antonio. And, they live about 30 miles away. It's that. Or an empty nest.

General Douglas MacArthur's mom followed him to West Point. So, it's not unheard of.

The other shining brilliance is that Rove wasn't forced out. All that crazy effort by Fitzmas, over a remark "I heard that, too." Pales, now, into insignificance.

HA! The guy just resigned on his own.

You think candidates aren't calling? My money's on a move in this direction. NO. IT WON'T BE JEB! But, yes, you can expect Rove won't be retired long.

Nor will any book he writes be a bust.

Timing's everything. Seems Rove has a good eye for a caledar of events.

Posted by Charles D. Quarles | August 13, 2007 9:33 PM


Hillary is or was a Methodist. Sadly to say, Methodists have lost their way Scripturally; having become besotted with "liberation" theology, which is code for socialism. President Bush is a Methodist, but, it seems, his move to Texas (Baptist country) helped save him.

Posted by Eric | August 13, 2007 9:43 PM

Rove is by no means retired. He's too large of a brain to be retired. The democrates don't like him for his victories.

Someone that we have not discussed is Newt. Man is he smart! He's in the club with Hillary. I've been reading some of his stuff lately and I just shake my head and say "how do people get this smart?"

I know that he has some form of baggage (although for the life of me, I can't remember what it was,) but I'm thinking Rudy/Newt08?

Any thoughts on that...Rudy/Newt 08, or for that matter Mitt/Newt 08, or for that matter, Rudy/Mitt or Mitt/Rudy 08?

Posted by Fight4TheRight | August 13, 2007 9:49 PM

Lot of talk here about Hillary, considering it's a post about a Republican poll! haha

Bottom line is this with Madame Hillary. She'll do anything to be President. And I mean anything.

She knew Bill had a track to it and by him getting the Presidency, it would spring board her chance at it. If he failed, she would fail. So she overlooked Paula Jones and Jennifer Flowers and the other dozen women Bill messed around with. She ignored Monica Lewinsky. All because she HAD to, in order to get her chance at the Big Chair.

There's a difference between a candidate that will do anything to be President and someone that is driven to assume that role. Hillary will do anything. She voted for the War In Iraq when she thought being tough would get her the White House. She voted AGAINST the war funding bill when the War in Iraq looked bad. And now, with the surge working, she's gone back to tough talk about meeting with Syria, Iran, etc.

Bottom line is that she gets her hand on that Bible. As for who is left in her wake, it doesn't matter to her. Just ask Vince Foster (oops, sorry you can't), just ask Barack O'Bama in six months and in two years, ask every American troop what price they paid for her to get her prize.

Some say she is smart. I say she is devious. Some say she is strong. I say she is a fake. Some say she is progressive. I say she is dangerous.

Remember, it takes a village to elect a madwowan.

Posted by edward cropper | August 13, 2007 9:51 PM

Rudy may get the nomination, but there is a large segment of this country who are hard line conservative who will not vote for him under any circumstances. He is a NYC liberal who fence rides whenever it benefits him politically. Hard line conservatives hate fence riders.
Goldwater had loyal supporters who went to the mat with him knowing he really didn't have a chance. They preferred Goldwater in defeat to a Rockefeller,
Scranton, or any other Eastern liberal in victory. Rudy will see this if he gets the nomination.

Posted by Bennett | August 13, 2007 9:53 PM

I think Newt's baggage relates to his time as Speaker and marital issues. I don't see him on the ticket, He comes across a little wonky and while probably perfectly engaging in real life, not especially likeable IMO.

No way does Rudy pick Mitt as a running mate. Gives him nothing really, another northeasterner who's been a little squishy on some social issues in the past? I don't see that happening. I see Rudy going with a Southerner, maybe someone not in the race now at all. If he wanted to be creative, maybe someone like Kay Bailey Hutchison but I think most likely a man.

If Mitt gets the nomination (which I'm now on record as doubting) I think he goes South too for his VP.

But in either case, I wouldn't count out someone say from either CO or AZ. Not sure who that would be (and no not McCain) but as I've said, I think the mountain and western states are going to be in play, especially if it's Guiliani.

Posted by Bennett | August 13, 2007 10:02 PM

"Lot of talk here about Hillary, considering it's a post about a Republican poll! haha."

I'm the one who brought her up to begin with I think because it's kind of pointless to talk about the Republican front runners without some thought against whom they will eventually compete. While I don't think Republicans should make the same mistake the Democrats did in 2004 (nominating Kerry because they thought his supposed war hero status would play in the general election and not because they really wanted him otherwise), I think the party does have to pay some attention to whom the likely Dem candidate will be in weighing the choices. The election is about winning.

And while I wouldn't disagree that Hillary Clinton is driven, possibly manically so, I don't know that this makes her any different than any other Presidential candidate. Bush, for example, in 2000 was just as determined as Gore was to take that election and didn't back down an inch during the FL vote count fiasco. He played hardball too, only he did it better. I guess I don't assume that one side is any more pure than the other when it comes to this, mostly because the stakes are so incredibly high.

Posted by Eric | August 13, 2007 10:07 PM


Truth is, I can't say that you're wrong. What you're suggesting has crossed my mind -- I chaulk it up to political sabatoge, but I don't have these worries about others. Why are they not being sabatoged?


Posted by Hugh Beaumont | August 13, 2007 10:26 PM

Any hard core conservative who sits at home if Rudy is nominated, is a jackass of the highest order.

Not to mention, an ally of George Soros.

If for nothing else, a vote against Hillary is one more vote to keep the Soros influence out of the White House.

Posted by Del Dolemonte | August 13, 2007 10:44 PM


You totally ignored my other point, that "one of the ten smartest people in the world" was duped by the evil Bush about Iraq. Is that a touchy subject?

Fact is, she has never been seriously questioned by the people who mold and shape public opinion in this country, namely the media. She refuses to go on a certain news channel, for instance, even though one of her opponents, John Edwards, has appeared on that same channel over 20 times. What is she afraid of? Being asked real questions, of course.

FYI, CNN now has some friends of hers for their official polling partner. Anyone who can't see that connection is about 17 light years from here.

Posted by Ron C | August 13, 2007 11:18 PM


All of this is so much piss in the wind. Ninety percent of the voting public is barely interested, most completely oblivious - yet they control the election, once they do get serious about a presidential race - and that BEGINS to take place late this year.

Polling taking place sometime early next year ~might~ be somewhat relevant - but even that is usually wide of the final mark.

Junkies here - cool your jets. Virtually none of what you see now has anything to do with the real race, which will begin to take place just prior the now very early primaries, and the nominating conventions. The gear up is certainly interesting to me - and those here... but, none of the MSM spin and polling now amounts to more than useless twaddle and lame speculation.

Posted by Rose | August 13, 2007 11:39 PM

Nothing on the planet could get me to vote for Rudi, Mitt, Fred, or McCain, or Newt.

And I fail to see ANYTHING about any of them that would draw as many voters for them to the General Election as Robert Dole got.

This is a thoroughly disgusting field.

I think I'll write in Duncan Hunter or Ann Coulter in the General Election.

Posted by Adjoran | August 13, 2007 11:40 PM

With a national sample of only 302 voters, you are looking at a margin of error around 6%. Don't ever forget, also, that MOEs are given as "plus or minus" the range, so the actual result could be 6 points higher or 6 points lower. That's a 12% range.

With samples that though, the reliability also comes into question. Even on a 1200 sample, you get a 3.5% MOE with a confidence of 95% - which means the actual number is within the MOE - plus or minus - 19 out of 20 times. That's what a poll tells you, nothing more.

I'm no statistician, though, perhaps one can explain this better.

Posted by Rose | August 14, 2007 12:07 AM

Any hard core conservative who sits at home if Rudy is nominated, is a jackass of the highest order.

Not to mention, an ally of George Soros.

If for nothing else, a vote against Hillary is one more vote to keep the Soros influence out of the White House.

Posted by: Hugh Beaumont at August 13, 2007 10:26 PM

You predicate THAT upon the mad presumption that Rudi is BETTER than Hillary or George Soros.

Most of us don't agree.

And for example, I present to you - Dah Ahnold Man!

Those who want to defeat Hillary need to offer the VOTING BASE a candidate they consider to be TO THE RIGHT of Hillary, AND NOT HER EQUAL.

If you insist on nominating a candidate they have told you they WILL NOT vote for UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, based on specific ETHICAL REASONS, then the onus is upon those who deliberately nominate such a candidate to find winning shares of voters ELSEPLACE - rather than blaming us for refusing to succomb to your emotional BLACKMAIL.

People have proven that on the Conervative side, they will NOT violate their CONSCIENCE to vote for a bad, immoral candidate, regardless of the consequences - because THAT is precisely THE ONLY REASON that CARTER AND CLINTON got elected - because the opposition GOP candidate WAS UNACCEPTABLE to the MORAL MAJORITY on the RIGHT - and the NATIONAL COMMITTEE IGNORED all the warning SCREAMS..

I've never heard of anyone who REGRETTED their votes in THOSE ELECTIONS, when they voted against Gerald Ford and Robert Dole.

NEVER. And I am one of them. I do NOT regret voting against Gerald Ford or Robert Dole, or against H. Ross Perot.

And I'll never regret hating Dah Ahnold Man's bloody stupid guts, either.

So if you vote for a "Ahnold Man" in the Primary, instead of a "Tom McClintock" - then I'll be perfectly delighted to see you have to live with whichever damn Liberal you get.

You want MY vote in the GENERAL, then you best vote for a Tom McClintock in the PRIMARY.

If not, then don't blame ME for the mess you land yourself with.

Posted by Rose | August 14, 2007 12:17 AM

Rudi/Newt '08??????????

TWO MEN ON THE TICKET with their THIRD MARRIAGES, with #2 and #3 in BOTH CASES due to ADULTERY on wives #1 and #2 - and assorted affairs in between???????

Oh, yeah, THAT'll draw the CONSERVATIVE VOTING BASE to the election polls!


Besides, I saw them on TV when Newt laughed at Sean Hannity for wanting Border Security, and when Rudi said that "IF THE PEOPLE REALLY WANTED HIM..." when they were heckling his appaearances with calls to set aside a DULY CONSTITUTED ELECTION to appoint him, in Bloomburg's place.

They would make a PERFECT DEMOCRAT TICKET, nothing could be more suited to following HANOI JOHN'S CANDIDACY.


Posted by Rose | August 14, 2007 12:33 AM

Rudy is a Rockefeller Republican, or as I like to say, a Ford Republican. That is to say a Moderate Republican with some progressive values and some conservative values. It may be time for another Ford. In fact, you would have no difficulty convincing me that it’s time for another Ford (Rudy.) He was a great President and healed a lot of our nations’ wounds.


Ford healed NOTHING! He is DESPISED by too many Conservatives.


He was NEVER elected. He replaced an honest man by UNCONSTITUTIONAL MEANS.
He pardoned a crook without a DUE PROCESS or a TRIAL or ANY CONSENSUS by ANY of the Americans who watched those Watergate hearings DAY BY DAY.

Him "PRONOUNCING" that the nation was "HEALED" by that pardon was worse than a JOKE!

THAT is why the Conservative base voted for a FARMER, a PEANUT FARMER - thinking an outside the beltway FARMER, even a DEMOCRAT had to me more acceptable.

And as horrible as Carter was/is, you don't hear those CONSERVATIVES LIKE ME who voted for him REGRETTING IT - we do not - we hated Ford even worse.

Ford was SELECTED by a DEMOCRAT CONGRESS to replace Agnew, who was hounded out of office to RESIGN - IN THAT CLIMATE, IN SHAME, because he was a GREEK - because HIS ACCOUNTANT "forgot" to list a $13,000 piece of property for taxes and when discovered, he immediately paid it - but they told him, "IT HAD THE APPEARANCE OF WRONGDOING" - in those days, of NIXON, of UNCONSTITUTIONAL ASCENCION TO VICE-PRESIDENCY, of KISSINGER, and the UN, and a lot of CROOKED DEALINGS in Washington - AND HONEST MAN was forced to resign in same over one skipped property his ACCOUNTANT was responsible for - under the kind of covered property management trusts that assets of high elected officials had to put their property into - and Ford violated our conscience - we were screaming for Nixon to have JAIL TIME - NOT for him to be PARDONED.

NOTHING was HEALED for the GOP when this DIM-PICKED RINO pardoned Nixon.

He was on the Warren Commission, too, You see America HEALED by the WARREN COMMISSION on Oswald??????????

Good COW!

Posted by La Mano | August 14, 2007 12:42 AM

Hillary smart, you must be kidding. Conniving, yes, intelligent, nope.

Posted by Rose | August 14, 2007 12:49 AM

After the election – who ever wins will be my President and will receive the benefit of the doubt. This is a courtesy that GWB43 has not received from most Americans.

Posted by: Eric at August 13, 2007 8:35 PM

That is a kind, generous, and totally American sentiment.

However, I did that for Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Clinton.
I won't do it for any more RINOS and DIMS.

Our Founding Fathers said that a single instance of a betrayed CHARACTER was enough to realize a man was NOT fit for Public office, even if the incident was in his private life.
There are several critical incidents already known of each of these GOP RINOS and these DIM LIBERAL candidates that showed they don't have the character necessary to carry the full weight of this office.
Their ability to get themselves elected to it, primarily by default - absent any statesmen in the race with name recognition sufficient to seriously compete with these celebrity politicians - does not then embue them with the character to conduct themselves in that office with honor and respect.

Each of these clowns have LOST the respect of the American voters, already - by deliberate and wilful acts of displays of lack of character and moral rectitude - the onus to have that respect is their responsibility to EARN - and they show NO INTEREST in THAT.

Posted by Adjoran | August 14, 2007 2:48 AM

Actually, Rose, Agnew accepted bribes for getting construction projects approved. He was caught because he pressured the payers to keep the payments coming while he was Veep, and they turned state's evidence.

Posted by Hugh Beaumont | August 14, 2007 3:41 AM


Are you on Allan Keyes staff?

Hilarious parody.

Posted by patrick neid | August 14, 2007 6:29 AM

"She is, however, one of the ten smartest people on Earth -- I'm certain of it. I've read her writings."

Eric get some help. You mistake her Faustian bargain for political power as intelligence.

Hers is the typical, appeal to the uneducated with socialist tripe, political campaign rhetoric that does win elections. As to indicating intelligence I think not. You are confusing intelligence for emotionalism. You know--it's for the children nonsense or whatever other trite victim phase wins the day.

Net, net, she's clueless in the real world. She has been on the government tit her whole adult life. She's hollow.

Posted by Brett | August 14, 2007 6:52 AM

If Hillary's so smart, why is she so unwise?

Posted by mrlynn | August 14, 2007 7:06 AM

A few belated points:

My 93-year-old mother will vote for Mrs. Bill Clinton "Because it's time for a woman President." Of course, she has never voted for a Republican in her life. But the female factor is going to be huge in the general election, one that the Republicans will have trouble overcoming.

When Mayor Guiliani declined to run against Mrs. Bill for the NY Senate seat (he had prostate cancer), it was by no means clear that he would have won.

I personally like Duncan Hunter's positions, but he is flat as a pancake on TV. I suspect the only Republican who can overcome the "It's time for a woman" sentiment is the avuncular Fred Thompson.

If the over-capitalized ROSES among us sit out the election because the Republicans fail to nominate a 100% hard-line conservative, then Mrs. Bill Clinton will be signing socialist legislation and appointing federal and Supreme Court judges for the next eight years. Is that what they want?

/Mr Lynn

Posted by james23 | August 14, 2007 7:45 AM

Fred 20 points behind and sinking like a stone? Why, that poll can't possibly be right.

Message to Fred--don't bother. People aren't looking for a Procrastinator in Chief.

Posted by filistro | August 14, 2007 9:35 PM

I just saw this somewhere online:

"Rudy Guiliani will make an ideal president. He combines George Bush's foreign policy genius with Bill Clinton's sexual impulse control."

Post a comment