Sponsors



  • Advertise on blogs

    The links directly above and below are advertisements only. The views and opinions expressed by advertisers are solely their own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of Resistance is futile!

    Gullyborg is a proud capitalist, and encourages you to explore these NON-GOOGLE advertisements.


Shop Amazon


  • If you are going to shop, shop Amazon.com. Find just about everything you want from the comfort of your own home. By searching Amazon.com through this site, you are helping to support Resistance is futile!

  • Search Now:

Worthy Causes

Endorsements

Blogfamily

Dead Fish Wrappers and Bird Cage Liners

Carnival of Cordite Submitters

« Now there's a good question... | Main | Well, DUH! »

Thursday, 29 November 2007

Comments

Publius

I would give McCain a easy First. Huckabee a far second. Romney a close third. Thompson a far fourth (he did not say much, I think quite a few people were disappointed in him). And Giuliani a far fifth. The more Giuliani talks, the lower he polls.
1. McCain
2. Huckabee
3. Romney
4. Thompson
5. Giuliani

Gullyborg

I don't think people are disappointed in Fred so much as the establishment folks are anxious to push him off the edge. The money special interests like Romney. The RINO special interests like Rudy. The Jesus Freaks like Huckabee. That's three powerful groups pushing their own agendas. Problem is, they aren't all the rank and file regular Joe Republicans who just want limited conservative government, lower taxes, strong defense, and otherwise to be left alone.

The rank and file loved Reagan. The establishment at the time hated him and aggressively fought him - until it was clear his nomination was inevitable, and then all of a sudden, the establishment "realized" Reagan was right and rallied around him. You see, they knew they needed to be part of his administration if they wanted any power of their own. But after 1988, many of the establishment went back to business as usual. Oh sure, they SAY they are "Reagan Republicans," because that's what people want to hear. But actions often say otherwise. Where were the "Reagan Republicans" when Congress and GHWB raised taxes in 1990? Where were the "Reagan Republicans" when GWB turned education over to Ted Kennedy and the GOP Congress spent almost 3 TRILLION dollars per year?

The only time "Reagan Republicans" ACT like "Reagan Republicans is when they are out of power and are desperate to get it - like 1994.

Right now, we are out of power and need to get it back. We need the REAL Reagan Republicans to step forward. That means Fred Thompson, and to a lesser extent Duncan Hunter. That's your winning ticket right there.

But the establishment folks have other things in mind...

Yes, McCain did OK. But he BLEW it when he claimed his amnesty bill didn't give amnesty. That put the final nail in his coffin.

Huckabee did well overall, but his tuition breaks for illegals will hurt him a LOT. However, he did a great job playing to the fundy base he covets.

Romney came off as a buffoon. Giuliani came off as a baboon. Paul came off as a kook.

I would say Huckabee narrowly "won" by encouraging his religious base, while at the same time not coming off as extreme and pissing off seculars. The immigration issue hurts him, but he is probably still stronger on immigration than Romney or Rudy.

Thompson came in second. He was hampered by not being given enough opportunity to speak. But when he did speak, it was clear, concise, conservative speak. He is the ONLY serious candidate you can honestly say is actually conservative.

McCain probably comes in third. People who hate him over immigration are already there, and his big gaffe can't do TOO much more harm there. He did well otherwise.

Hunter is fourth. Like Fred, he didn't get to say much. Not even as much as Fred.

Tancredo and Paul were irrelevant.

The big losers: Rudy and Romney. They spend more time bickering about each other's faults than making their own cases for themselves. Romney more so than Rudy. Rudy at least does a good job of making the point, again and again, that he cleaned up New York. That DOES matter, and the more he says it, the more it sinks in. But he needs to stick with that, and stop attacking Mitt every question.

peter

Well after seeing that debate last night Huckabee gets my vote. He was head and shoulders above all the other candidates.

Gullyborg

why? what did he do well? what did the other candidates not do well enough? give us some substance instead of just campaigning for him.

IMHO, Huck did a good job. He talked naturally and came across as a caring and friendly person. He talked passionately about his faith, but did so without coming off like a Bible thumper or someone out to force his religion on the nation. However, he really blew it on a big immigration issue, and failed to adequately defend himself on the nasty "I love all taxes" speech he gave to the AR legislature.

Therefore, I can only conclude that if this debate made you a Huck fan, you are a single-issue Christian-values voter and don't worry so much about taxes or illegal immigration. There's nothing WRONG with that (you can believe whatever you want to believe), but it may differ from what others reading this believe.

Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports,

[this comment deleted for violating terms of use by copy/pasting copyrighted material - Resistance is futile!]

Romney and Mike for president 2008

[this comment deleted for violating terms of use by copy/pasting copyrighted material - Resistance is futile!]

[and if the same person does it again, because I know by IP addresses it was the same person posting as "Scott Rasmussen" above and elsewhere, he's getting banned]

The Brottons are idiots

[duplicate comment spam by the Brottons deleted - oh, and FRED was the ONLY candidate to answer the gun questions correctly - Resistance is futile!]

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Contact Gullyborg


  • g u l l y b o r g A T
    g m a i l D O T c o m

Numbers!


  • Ignore this
    google91704c084091e61d.html