September 3, 2007

Desperation in the ranks

During Sunday's "Meet the Press", Timmy quoted a poll (sorry, I had to go to the transcript and it doesn't mention which poll) taken among Republicans, and I found the results interesting.

According to the quoted national poll among Republicans, as to which candidate they favor at this time, Giuliani wins with 27%, Fred "Hounddog" Thompson, who's FINALLY going to throw his hat in the ring Thursday, comes in second with only 17%, and Prince Romney, who's literally spending a fortune on his race, trails with 15%, and McCain gets 12%, showing that "straight talk" isn't appreciated in the Republican party.

How bad are things when Rudy Giuliani is comfortably atop that poll? And what does it say about Republicans? I'd suggest it shows that they show a penchant for being easily frightened, as that's pretty much the only feature of Rudy's campaign so far, banging on 9-11 and trying to scare the bejesus out of people about the real or imagined terrorist threat, and suggesting he's the only one who can keep us "safe".

But making the above numbers even more remarkable is the result of a poll among Republicans asking who they felt had the best chance of winning against a Democratic candidate.

Rudy does even better on that score, with a whopping 38% saying he'd be the most likely to win, then comes Thompson with 13%, McCain moves up one slot with 13%, and Romney trails with 11%.

As someone who knows another Republican administration would be a continuation of the past disasterous reign, I find these polls heartening.

Rudy Giuliani?

I think revelations about his past, his many associations with shady figures and habit of having his top assistants revealed to be crooks, dope dealers, etc. will tarnish him terribly.

His entire campaign is perched upon the publicity heaped on him as Mayor of NYC during 9-11.

Why did he get this publicity? Because George Bush ran like a rabbit and followed his insincts to go AWOL when the going got tough.

The nation was desperately looking to leadership, and Bush was hiding in a hole, only emerging on a short video that looked like a hostage tape with little George looking like he was so scared he was wetting his pants. Not exactly reassuring.

Rudy was there and performed well for the cameras, and the country was eternally grateful.

Then there's the liklihood Giulliani be eaten by his own for not conforming to the rigid intolerant standards of the fundy right which have been allowed to dominate his party.

Such backwards medievel notions might be on the way out even among Republicans. We can only hope they are for the country's sake, though if they really are determined to lose, let's hope they are every bit as obsessed with other people's sex lives. After dozens of the most strident fundy followers are revealed to have not practiced what they preached, maybe more people will realize, as the country has for the previous several decades, that intolerance isn't a moral value, doesn't strenthen our society, but tears it apart, and is not the way to prosper in the future.

Why Rudy?

And what does it say that Romney, who someone aptly compared to a Sears underwear model, is trailing so far behind?

What sort of field do the Republicans have when a guy who hasn't even announced is ahead of all but one other candidate?

One of the pundits on Meet the Press accurately described all of the Republican front-runners as having "glass jaws".

Can any of them give the Dem nominee a challenge?

And as long as we're at it, I might as well throw out the question of whether Hillary Clinton would be a lock to win were she the Dem nominee, or, as the Republicans (and Dems who fall for it) would have us believe, would she so energize opposition that she'd be vulnerable to defeat?

A good point was made by James Carville when he noted that being hated by hard-core Republicans isn't exactly the kiss of death. The rabid right would never vote for her anyway.


At 9/03/2007 8:09 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why print this tripe and not cover the scholarship scadel that has rocked Mike Boland's world?

The race between Boland and former Lane Evan's point man Jerry Lack is the one to watch. Lane knows how to win. Ask Phil!

At 9/03/2007 8:17 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think Hillary is a lock. I am impressed with her campaign, steadily ratcheting up since April to now. Her campaign almost seems like it is on auto pilot, and now this weekend, Bill coming with her to Iowa, only solodifies her lead. Edwards has to pray he wins Iowa, or he is done. Obama has to pray for a miracle right now, or he is done. What for me is more compelling now, is the race for VP.

At 9/03/2007 11:22 AM, Blogger nicodemus said...

Both Newt Gingrich and Dick Morris have publicly stated that it is all but inevitable that HRC will win this thing. (Or at least that it's hers to lose) And I have talked to some ordinary rank and file Republicans who quietly concede the election to her. I'm like "WOW!"..I mean talk about defeatism.

Now yes she is polarizng and has some high negatives. But I think that the Right's animosity toward HRC, ...while it is still there, is not nearly as powerful as it was, say 13 years ago. Enough time has passed that their hatred has lost steam and faded somewhat. Unlike Obama, HRC kept her word and served out her Senate term, and without controversy. And look at the way that the Clinton machine successfully drummed out of the race all credible Republican opponents before the 2006 election even occurred. This is a testament to Clinton's political prowess.

I am not saying that I like HRC because I never did, on a gut level. I am saying that she is going to be a formidable candidate and that the Republicans who underestimate her do so at their own peril.

I do support Rudy and I am convinced that he is the only one who can win. Rudy will put New York State into play, as well as other swing states. Other GOP candidates, as good as they are, can't pull it off. In the 6 years since 9/11, as the American public grows more complacent and cynical, polls show that Rudy's popularity has not faded whatsoever. Any personal baggage that Rudy may have has not hurt him either.

I don't think the general public cares so much anymore about a president's personal morals. Bill Clinton changed all that. He successfully lowered the bar when it came to good character.
Just my two cents.

At 9/03/2007 6:18 PM, Anonymous QC Examiner said...

Yeah, I remember back in the olden days ('04) when everyone just knew Howard Dean was a "lock" for the Dem nomination, or even further back in '00 when everyone just knew that Al Gore would slam-dunk landslide the presidency.

Live and DON'T learn for some people, but please continue to parrot those CW predictions---it will be fun to taunt your foolishness after 11/4/08, if not before.

At 9/04/2007 5:26 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Hmmmm QC Examiner, care to put some money where you're well exercised mouth is?

Let's make it interesting, shall we?

By the way, Al Gore DID win by a larger margin of the popular vote than nearly all previous presidents.

I assume you're referring to the one vote on the supreme court shutting down the counting of votes as Bush's "landslide".

Dream on sister.

At 9/04/2007 6:21 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think that once this thing turns into a two person race between Clintn and Obama that it will get interesting. If it stays three or four people then it will go to HRC. The dark horse is Edwards with his huge union support. We will see what labor is made of here.

At 9/04/2007 8:49 AM, Anonymous close said...

Boland did nothing wrong giving a supporter a scholarship for her daughter. There are no rules that people have to be poor to get a legislative scholarship. If you get one from Mike you have to campaign for him.

There's nothing wrong with that!

It's not even news (to the first commenter). The paper is after him.

At 9/04/2007 1:34 PM, Blogger UMRBlog said...

Rovie saying HRC is a walkover and the one they REALLY fear is Obama puts me in mind of Br'er Rabbit begging "Please don't throw me in the Briar patch!"

Continued success

At 9/04/2007 3:20 PM, Anonymous QC Examiner said...

Jeez Dope, I expected some idiot to bring up the SCOTUS business, but I didn't expect it to be you.

You'll notice in my comment that my point is how wrong CW can be. The CW during the '00 POTUS race was that the economy was booming, Gore had way more experience than Bush, and while Gore was tied down with the battleship chains of Horndog Bill, he would not only win, but win in a landslide, because Bush was a nobody with no foreign policy experience---or any other experience, for that matter. (Note: I didn't vote for either---they both too icky.)

Did Gore win in a landslide? Uh, no. He did win the popular vote by 150,000 (I think, that might be the wrong figure) but he lost the Electoral College vote, and after the election, when a number of organizations, including the not-exactly-right-wing NYTimes-Democrat did a recount, they discovered Bush would have won the vote, even without SCOTUS help.

But so what? My point was that all the pundits, inside-the-beltway cognoscenti, press, Democrat operatives, etc. all thought Gore would win in a LANDSLIDE---but it didn't happen. Which is why I'm skeptical about all the Hillary hooha---and ALL hooha, for that matter. Remember, CW said Dean would be the Dem nominee in '04 (and I backed him) but that didn't happen either.

Sometimes Democrats are too inclined to believe their own bullsh*t.

At 9/04/2007 10:28 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

And nearly all of the time Republicans rely on bullshit entirely.

Such as you're uninformed idea that Gore won by 150,000 votes in the popular election.

Try 500,000. That's a tiny bit more.

And not that you'd ever be interested in looking into it, but there were blatant and undeniable election frauds perpetrated on behalf of Bush in not only Florida, where they were rampant, but in other states as well.

And before you howl about a few cases where fraud was alledged against Dems, let's be clear here. The instances documented in Florida alone were many times over any allegations about impropriety which favored Dems.

You may think you've gotten to the point where you can just laugh away all the real instances of fraud and corruption in the 2000 election, but that is more a reflection on your lack of standards for clean elections than anything else.

The fact is that fraud did occur, that the Florida Supreme Court did find that a fair vote count had not occured, and that the Supreme Court issued a wildly unusual opinion in which they simply said that counting all the votes might harm George Bush, and so it must be stopped, and by the way, this is a one time decision and this shouldn't be used for future precident.

The legal community, of which I believe you're familiar, was largely aghast at this decision and it will undoubtedly be recorded as up there with the handful of the Supreme Court's most infamous decisions in history.

Read a few books on the matter and report back.

Laughing away evidence of open fraud and corruption employed in the election of a president isn't really honorable.

You say your point is that the CW felt Gore had a lock on the election. By all exit polls he did, but by the actual jiggered vote count, he lost.

The fact is that if the election had been allowed to proceed unmolested by goons sent down to Miami from Republican congressional offices, and Cruella DeVille's mind-bending perversions of law on behalf of Bush, as well as Bush's attempt to steal the election having been thwarted all the way up the ladder only to be finally "fixed" by a right leaning Supreme Court, that Al Gore would have indeed won by a fairly comfortable margin.

And I am perfectly content that history will bear that out.

At 9/05/2007 6:47 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

close said... The people dissagree with you. The woman lives in Iowa for heavans sake.

At 9/05/2007 8:29 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Giving taxpayer fiananced scholarship to the daughter of a woman that built a $330,000 home in Iowa and doesn't pay Illinois' taxes doesn't make sense to me. I don't care if this women gave Boland $15,000, she doesn't live in ILLINOIS!

I remeber when Boland took away that African American girl's scholarship because her elderly father wouldn't campaign for Boland.

This time I don't care how much more money Madigan gives Boland to run those stupid campaign commercials about Boland' turning light bulbs, this time I am voting Jerry Lack.

At 9/05/2007 9:53 AM, Anonymous McFly said...

Why are we attacking poor Mr. Boland in this article about the presidential race?

Doesn't it belong somewhere else?

Talk about being off track!

I think that Romney is going to have to realize that he can't buy his votes, though he was a huge hit with a friend of mine that went to the straw polls in Iowa a few weeks ago.

Bush has ruined the republican efforts, at least during this election. The country has been not been at ease with any of the President's decisions for some time.

At 9/05/2007 11:35 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...


You're right... talking about Boland is off-topic here. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home