An Opinion Research Poll shows Hillary Clinton (37%) with a substantial lead over possible candidate Barack Obama (15%), and probable candidates Al Gore (14%) and John Edwards (9%). On the Republican side, Rudy Giuliani (29%) and John McCain (24%) are neck and neck, with Newt Gingrich (13%) and Mitt Romney (6%) trailing. Some thoughts: Hillary Clinton is clearly the candidate to beat. But one wonders what happens to her support when Al Gore makes an issue of her support for the war in Iraq. By virtue of her very public life, she is practically immune to a scandal derailing her candidacy. The issues, where she has tried to cynically play both sides all too often, can work against her. So can the desire of Democrats, who've been out of the White House for eight long years, to actually win in November '08. The anti-war southernor Gore, who has been cultivating the Deaniacs during his time in the wilderness, is in the best position to do this. The GOP primaries are ripe for a conservative candidate to exploit the plenitude of moderate to liberal Republicans in the race. The frontrunner Rudy, for instance, is on the wrong side of illegal immigration and gay marriage--not to mention the war (mea culpa, I mentioned it!). The pack lacks a conservative who stokes the fires of primary voters. It's there for the taking. The question is: is there a credible conservative with the ability to take it?
Dan, what TRUE conservatives are actually out there in the public eye anymore?
Ones that have not sold out the conservative principles to gain votes from one side or the other are hard to find, are they not?
Be well,
Sponge
Why isn't Newt a credible conservative? Is it because he has too much baggage? no executive experience? or is it his futuristic perspective?
What in the name of little green apples has Barack Obama done? Answer: outside of shady real estate deals, nothing much. Yet, he ranks #2 on the Dems hit list? Has the party gotten so weak as to elevate one term Reps. to Presidential hopeful status?
Obama is crazy .. like a fox. Did you see him at last nights game he's a fricken moviestar.
Your right he's done nothing but despite his name he talks like the lead male from a Jane Austin novel. He's the devil I tell you the devil!!
Just shows how goofy (and desperate) the Dems really are.
Doc, I don't see Newt as a credible candidate. Yes, too much baggage. It also seems to me he was leading during the Clinton admin and blinked in that budget impass. Yes, he's some damn good ideas, but he'd be better as a behind the scenes kind of guy.
Believe it or not, I know people in the conservative movement who remember when Newt ran (unsuccessfully) as a Rockefeller Republican for Congress in the mid 1970s. I think Newt did a good job holding down spending in the '90s. Particularly in retrospect--experiencing what we've experienced since--he looks a lot better now than he did then. He's got a lot of ideas, not all of them good.
Newt would be an excellant candidate for the Republican party.
He's someone who really exposes conservatisim for what it really is: a barbaric, religious based ideology that favours the elites.
Nominating Newt would mean Commander In Chief Hillary Rhodam Clinton or Barack Hussien Obama.
That plus a Democratic Congress means reason and
moderation will rule for at least a decade.
Oh and by the way, we picked up another seat in Texas yesterday. Just like Hayworth, this guy went down cuz of his Lou Dobbs stance on immigration.
Democrats now have 233 seats in the 110th congress, more than Republicans have had since 1952. The Republican "revolution" never secured this large a majority in the House.
Republicans will be shut out of power for a generation, and you have George W Bush to thank.
