He was all excited to be Vice President, but now his ticket to “the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived” doesn’t look so hot.
As a matter of fact, the whole Republican field doesn’t look so hot. You’ve got the king of all flip-flopers, a guy with more skeletons in his closet than a mortician, and a guy who might as well change his middle name to Iraq.
But seriously, how bad is it when the “establishment candidate” of the Republican Party only raised a third of what the leading Democrat raised?
Maybe you oughta play nice with the DFLers in the Legislature, Timmy. It looks like you are going to be here for a while longer than you thought.
Loading ...
Or, conversely, how bad is it when Mitt Romney raises nearly as much money as the Democrat front-runner, Hillary Clinton? The fact of the matter is the field on both sides of the aisle isn’t too hot. Regardless, what I find interesting is that the top-tier GOP candidates still best the top-tier Democrat candidates.
This is gonna leave a mark: http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/4/3/11936/97033
WTM,
Mitt has been to the left of Ted Kennedy as governor of Mass. He can raise 100 million and still not be good enough for the nuts that control the endorsement on the Republican side.
As a matter of fact, I’m hoping that Mitt and Rudy do raise a crap load of money and run as Independents together. More votes for Dems.
Speaking fo more votes for Dems- the Republicans are at a high dissatisfaction with their choices (hence Thompson and Gingrinch hanging around) and will flock to a third choice that’s not a Dem. Democrats on the other hand are quite happy with our feild and will be strongly behind whomever gets the nomination.
Your Rinos and NeoCons are coming to a head over there and whomever the loser be- will have enough money to run independent and thus splintering the vote on the Right, or keeping you guys from stealing another one.
Have a good day.
Perhaps Tim Pawlenty needs to spend more time in Minnesota seeing to the state’s business rather than trapsing about the country seeking voters to look at him as a potential VP candidate for McCain.
Given that Fred has pointed out the article claiming that McCain (at least his staff) gave serious considerations to flipping in ‘04 what is the potential for T-Paw to flip if his Repub. VP slot vanishes?
Stranger things have happened - T-Paw would need to change shift his war position soon though.
DJZ,
If the country hates Republicans right now and think, as you apparently do, that Republicans are the scum of the earth, why is it that the leading Republicans (Giuliani and McCain) beat the leading Democrats (Hillary, Obama and Edwards) in every poll that’s been taken in the last five months?
kathy,
I don’t know why you would criticize Pawlenty for campaigning in Iowa for McCain. I seem to recall Paul Wellstone travelling around the country (as opposed to just going to Iowa) for Bill Bradley in 2000.
Oh Chris,
The following link shows the latest polls which shows major dems leading major reps in several head to head contests nationwide. Even Faux news has Clinton beating Giuliani by 2% seven days ago. You know your credibility is pretty well shot here. Just because you keep repeating stuff doesn’t make it true. Get a grip man. http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/#block-views-breaking_polls
The VP spot isn’t worth “a pitcher of warm piss.” Pawlenty would be smart to take himself out of consideration and prepare for 2012. He’d be leaving office right in time to get to Iowa and New Hampshire.
I’d watch for a GOP darkhorse candidate. Brownback? Or, dare I say, Michele Bachmann!?
(The other Chris.)
Attila,
No, dude, you’re the one who needs to get a grip. Both Time and Fox have separate polls that verify the leading Republican candidates — Giuliani and McCain — beat the leading Democrat candidates — Clinton and Obama — in head-to-head match-ups. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html
atilla,
The link you provided shows nothing about Dems beating Republicans. In fact, all of the statistics listed, except for the Rasmussen poll showing Rudy beating Obama, are poll numbers of Democrat and Republican primary contests in the various states. The other exception is head to head Quinnipiac polling done in Florida showing Guiliani beating Hillary 50-45, McCain beating Hillary 45-44, Guiliana beating Obama 52-36 and Guiliani beating Edwards 50-40.
You completely misrepresented the Fox News poll (3/27-28) which shows Rudy beating Hillary 45-44, McCain beating Hillary 47-43. The only Republican losing to Hillary, Obama and Edwards is Mitt Romney.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html
Atilla, once again, it’s your credibility that’s shot. You misrepresented the Fox News poll and you provided a worthless link. Stop repeating what MoveOn and the Daily Kooks tell you to say and get a clue!
The other Chris,
I think you might be right about a darkhorse candidate coming from the GOP. But I think it’s not going to be Brownback and it sure as hell won’t be Bachmann. I think there could be a movement around Fred Thompson, who has a distinguished public service career as well as television and movie fame.
Because it is early in the Presidential Campaign season, polls are likely to favor the GOP right now bya few percentage points.
But that is going to change significantly due to Iraq and how the Economy is looking. By summer of 2008, it will be looking better for the Democratic Party.
kathy,
I have to challenge you on your point. The Democrats just picked up large numbers in the House and they knocked off enough Republicans to take a narrow majority in the Senate. Bush’s poll numbers are low. Why shouldn’t the Democrats be leading Republicans by double digits in these polls? If the 2006 election had gone the other way for Republicans, I would agree with you. But by any estimation, Republicans should be trailing — yet they lead by significant margins. How can that be if the country has shifted to the left, as many here repeatedly say?
Chris and WTM,
Try this link which sorts the polls and includes only national polls.
You could have scrolled down to find these but this makes it easy for you.
http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/election_tags/pres_08
You will see in this sort, as well as in the polls referenced in your own link, that it is not true that “the leading Republicans (Giuliani and McCain) beat the leading Democrats (Hillary, Obama and Edwards) in every poll that’s been taken in the last five months”
Get a grip. Tell the truth.
Atilla,
The link you provided is to a liberal blog. I don’t accept information from liberal bloggers (no offense to MNPublius). Look at Real Clear Politics, which is non partisan. Read the Time, Newsweek, Gallup, Zogby, Fox polls listed at RCP and tell me where I am wrong.
Attila,
I just checked out your link and it confirms what Chris and I have stated — the leading GOP candidates beat the leading Democrat candidates. Heck, the Rasmussen poll listed on the website you link to even has Fred Thompson beating Hillary Clinton, your party’s leading candidate. Please, stop trying to make a patently obvious, factually incorrect argument; it’s embarassing.
I disagree with Kathy that the Democrats’ electoral prospects will improve in 2008. The Democrats had a good election cycle in 2006, however electoral fortunes ebb and flow, and it generally does not flow in one party’s direction overwhelmingly in successive cycles. Now that they are in the majority, the Democrats now share the blame if the economy sours or, most importantly, if the Iraq War ends poorly. The blame-the-GOP game that worked well last cycle no longer holds as much water because the Democrats control both chambers of Congress and will be held responsible for the direction of the country.
Chris, As per RCP:
Newsweek has Clinton over McCain
Newsweek has Obama over McCain
You stated “the leading Republicans (Giuliani and McCain) beat the leading Democrats (Hillary, Obama and Edwards) in every poll that’s been taken in the last five months”
This is untrue as per two examples in the last 7 days.
This is factual information. Lets be honest.
Oh yes,
In addition to the above, several polls have Edwards over McCain and recent polls have every Dem beating GOP Golden Boy Mitt Romney by wide margins.
wtm, yes I am embarrassed by your ability with numbers.
Speaking of John McCain, here’s a little tidbit I found funny….http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/01/mccain-iraq-stroll/…………
McCain Strolls Through Baghdad Market, Accompanied By 100 Soldiers, 3 Blackhawks, 2 Apache Gunships
Sen. John McCain strolled briefly through an open-air market in Baghdad today in an effort to prove that Americans are “not getting the full picture” of what’s going on in Iraq.
NBC’s Nightly News provided further details about McCain’s one-hour guided tour. He was accompanied by “100 American soldiers, with three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships overhead.” Still photographs provided by the military to NBC News seemed to show McCain wearing a bulletproof vest during his visit.
McCain recently claimed that there “are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today.” In a press conference after his Baghdad tour, McCain told a reporter that his visit to the market today was proof that you could indeed “walk freely” in some areas of Baghdad.”
_______________________________________________________
“Walking freely” through the streets of Baghdad?? All the while surounded by armed Soldiers and enough air support to wipe out a neighborhood at a moment’s notice, while wearing a protective flack vest?? This dog don’t hunt! Nor does it bark!
Does John McCain think Americans are stupid??? Is the surge working?
83 American forces died in January and 80 in February, according to the AP tabulation and the Washington Post. 81 more Americans dead in March, 1 more than February before the surge. Iraqi ministry figures listed 1,872 Iraqi civilian deaths for the month of March. There should have been less American and civillian casualties due to the surge.
John McCain needs to spend less time being a Bush cheerleader and more about gradually getting the hell out of Iraq.
McCain is a complete and utter looser, and if he had half an ounce of dignity, he would drop out even at this early stage. His press conference in Iraq was embarrassing, to put it mildly. Furthermore, who gives a crap if the leading Dems are beating the leading R’s? If they aren’t leading the top R’s by double digits, the D’s simply need to re-think their media strategies and come out way stronger than they are. They need to rock the boat. Until they get that, those numbers will continue to be close. The R’s are always rocking the boat, albeit in the direction that is most dangerous to democracy, but nonetheless, they have the cahones to do it. It’s our turn. And when I say “our”, I mean those of us who are sick of the status quo in American politics.
I, for one, couldn’t give less of a shit about which any one of the Democratic candidates right now, especially Hillary Clinton. Until someone has the balls to come out in favor of impeachment, like Kucinich does, and not be the bitch of the mainstream media machine, bringing back the real grassroots movement that needs to be built, not one of the front runners will have my vote!
I am quite sure that I am not alone when I say that I am more angry now than I have been in my whole life, politically and socially speaking.
kathy,
One adjective that has never described Sen. John McCain is a Bush cheerleader. McCain supports the mission in Iraq and believes that leaving Iraq prematurely would be a disaster for America. Obviously, a Presidential candidate and high ranking U.S. official needs security in Iraq. That doesn’t change the fact that the surge is working. There have even been festivals in and around Baghdad where people have been able to safely congregate.
The point is that most Americans aren’t with the Democrats who want to just leave Iraq. If Americans believe, as Harry Reid does, that this war is not worth one more casualty, the Democrats would be able to force withdrawl immediately. They don’t even have the votes to sustain a most certain veto of the unwise arbitrary timetables for withdrawl.
Of the polls recently conducted, here is the breakdown of who leads in head-to-head match-ups:
Giuliani v. Clinton — Giuliani leads in 6 out of 6
Giuliani v. Obama — Giuliani leads in 5 out of 6, with one tie
McCain v. Clinton — McCain leads in 3 out of 4
McCain v. Obama — McCain leads in 2 out of 4, with one tie
Attila, I encourage you to continue to take solace in the fact that you can cherrypick a poll that supports your delusional argument or that fifth-placed candidate Mitt Romney, who registers single-digit support among GOP supporters, is bested by Democrats because willful ignorance like yours will only redound to the benefit of the GOP.
Chris,
Leaving Iraq will not be a disaster for America. The disaster already happened when we went into Iraq.
The surge is working? by what objective measures? or just cause you say so? (that worked real well with your poll numbers!)
The entire Republican Iraq adventure has been a disaster, our Republican leaders have proven themselves totally incompetent, and the Republican congress have been corrupt beyond belief (with Republican US Attorneys no less!)
Normy is in deep poo and is destined to loose by double digits to whomever runs against him. Same with a lot of other republican senators.
Where do you get that Kool-aid Chris?
wtm,
yes of course you are right with those numbers which do make my point. I was responding to Chris’ very specific comment which has been proven false. Interesting that both of you are so truth challenged to be unable to admit it!!!
Enjoy the Kool-aid
Oh and by the way Chris and wtm,
The greatest mass murderer of Americans remains at large, (dead or alive, you can run but you can’t hide, etc.) and this inept Republican administration has been wholly incapable of a policy which will lead to his capture, greatly as consequence of the disasterous Iraq misadventure.
I
atilla,
I can’t let you get away with your misleading comments. First, you misrepresented the Fox News poll. Second, you found two Newsweek polls that showed McCain down by one point, well within the margin of error. Fine. Then not every single poll for the last several months shows the leading Republican candidates ahead of the leading Dems. Two polls show the Dems up by a point. Those polls are contrasted with several others showing the Republicans ahead. Fine, I hope that makes you feel better.
The real point is that if the President’s policies in Iraq are so bad, why aren’t the Democrats leading by double digits? Why aren’t any of the Democratic Presidential candidates calling for an immediate withdrawl from Iraq?
As for your misleading comments about 9/11, yep OBL is still at large. He’s been hiding in a cave somewhere along the Afghan/Pakistan border in the mountainous regions. He also hasn’t attacked us since 9/11. The reason is that al Qaeda is bigger than one guy. Bush’s policies has resulted in the capture or death of countless al Qaeda leaders — including terrorist mastermind Kahlid Sheik Mohammed.
As for the surge, I can tell you from my relatives fighting in Iraq, that our troops can tell a significant difference on the ground. But you’ll never acknowledge that. You might even be inclined to make fun of the troops, like another person who posts here calling my cousin in Iraq a dweeb.
Chris,
Just a clarification (again) in the other thread, the other person called YOU a dweeb, not your cousin in Iraq, because you form your position based on a single data point. Nice preemptive strike though, to imply that anyone who disagrees with you doesn’t support the troops. You’ve been reading the Republican talking points!
My question is, why didn’t Bush do this surge two or three years ago??? It seems so OBVIOUS that more troops would have been the solution long ago and been far more effective earlier on.
Kahuna,
OK, so I’m the dweeb for believing my cousin who is on the ground in Iraq instead of believing the liberal talking points from people who have never even been to Iraq let alone fight a war there? You people say you’re for the troops but then completely discount what they say about their conditions on the ground.
I agree with you that Bush should have considered the surge, perhaps in 2005. Of course that would have presumed the generals in Iraq had drawn up plans for a surge, which apparently they did not. Bush replaced the outgoing generals with the military’s top counterinsurgent expert, who was unanimously confirmed by the Senate. Intersting that the Democrat U.S. Senators say they are against the surge, but nobody objected to the confirmation of the surge’s architect.
I’m not going to argue with you about whether or not the surge is working. Some troops say yes and others say not so much - I think it’s too early to tell. I heard a story the other day on NPR (yes, by a member of the liberal elite embedded media) about a unit whose leader was talking about the surge. He said that any day everyone in his unit came home safe was a good day and he thought they were doing some good. It was a great interview and really made you appreciate how difficult their job there is. Unfortunately, the reporter ended the story by saying that the day after the interview, the unit was attacked by insurgents and lost four guys. I felt sick to my stomach. Your cousin may believe that everything is going great but not everyone might necessarily agree. I appreciate that he has his view though.
And by the way, you can hate the liberal media all you want but you can talk to any of the troops in Baghdad who are familiar with Anne Garrels of NPR and they have nothing but admiration for her.
OK,
so what does it mean when the poll support
& $$$$ are at serious odds with each other?
It means that you cannot extrapolate results with any reasonable percentage of error. I would double that /- 3% at the very least, just on good measure.
If a small, but active or wealthy segment donates to Mitt Romney - can they translate that to votes? It might erode some coverage that would otherwise go to McCain & Guiliani - but to expect it to roll into a win?
However, when the dollars coming in to the poll front runner isn’t what should be expected, commensurate with their public support, especially when its a Republican, those who get big donations from big companies…
“Chastened McCain Retools Money Team, Delays Entry”
Does Timmy play hockey well enough to make it a career?
Kahuna,
I actually don’t at all disagree with what you said. I think your comments are both thoughtful and fair. What upsets me are the knee jerk liberals (actually, they’re just plain jerks) like that lady who called me a dweeb or my cousin a dweeb (whichever interpretation you prefer) because we think, based on personal accounts - and even news reports, that things are improving in Iraq. In fact I heard last night on ABC radio news that there is actually an amusement park open in Baghdad. Some people hate the administration so much that all they believe are the MoveOn and Daily Kooks marching orders they read on the internet.
Obama just reported 25 million dollars raised!
Look out Hillary!