Townhall.com The Blogspot for Political, Conservative and Republican Blogs and Bloggers

 

The latest Marist Poll shows that just 26% of New York voters think Gov. David Paterson is doing either an excellent or good job in office. That's a drop of 20 points since the end of January.

In fact, Paterson's approval rating is the lowest any New York governor has received in the poll's nearly thirty year history.

In a general election match up, Rudy Giuliani (R) crushes Paterson 53% to 38%. The two were in a statistical tie two months ago.

In a Democratic primary, Andrew Cuomo also crushes Paterson 62% to 26%. However, Cuomo would defeat Giuliani 56% to 39%.

Workin' it...

Rasmussen Reports, which for me is the pound for pound most accurate polling done today, has Mitt Romney back out in front of McCain by nearly the complete margin of error.

But for the time being forget the actual polling numbers and consider the little tidbit towards the end of the report concerning the "markets" leanings. In a very savvy move Rasmussen allows a free market approach to the prediction process and that "markets" are indicating a 56% chance of a Romney victory as opposed to the 42% chance McCain has at present. That number for McCain is deflated from nearly 70% immediately following the win in South Carolina.

Surprisingly - in this do or die for Rudy Giuliani - he's given only a 7% chance.

Early evening results... Romney cruises to third win, second in a row, in Nevada. Huck is poised to score a come from behind win tonight in South Carolina, with McCain expected to be a close second.

How big will his win be?

We already knew that the late polls broke a seven point lead over Hillary into his favor. Kucinich the mighty midget who can not see over the corn stalks in Iowa except when the UFO's sweep low enough threw his considerable heft to Obama's camp, but now the man long rumored to be near the top of Hillary short list for Veep's is (if reports are true) now directing his Iowa support to the Senator from Illinois.

Rich Lowry said on Fox News yesterday that in attendance at an Obama event earlier in the week (he was ashamed to admit) he felt "inspired."

Who said it before anyone else? Who was the first to say that Obama would become the nominee - and that if the GOP gets their nomination choice wrong (Giuliani for sure) that Obama would sweep to the presidency? Who? Rush Limbaugh knows who...

Rasmussen: Huck holds nationally...

With just a week to go until the Iowa caucuses, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll continues to show five Republican hopefuls in double digits nationally. In the race for the Republican Presidential Nomination, it’s Mike Huckabee at 20%, Rudy Giuliani 18%, John McCain 14%, Mitt Romney 13%, and Fred Thompson at 11% (see recent daily numbers). Ron Paul currently attracts 5% of Likely Republican Primary voters nationwide.

"movin on up!"

Remember peeps - there is only ONE pollster worth watching - Rasmussen got it right in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006. And NOW he's got Mitt and Rudy TIED - NATIONALLY!

"ANYONE BUT RUDY!" (An idea whose time has come.)

"...Quakin' in Cali, Failing in New Hampshire, Desperate in OHIO..."

"ANYONE BUT RUDY!" (An Idea whose time has come...)

Listen "LIVE" - 2-4p EST
Listen ON DEMAND anytime!

2pm:
Seeing those who would like to President get teary on the campaign trail hurts their chances at being seen as strong leaders. Mitt Romney cries on - Meet The Press - when recalling the moment he heard that the "faith of his fathers" had decided that racism was finally a bad thing - in the middle of the 1970's. Personally - I have no doubt  believing that this was an important moment to Mitt. I don't sense a single racist bone in his body, and his father marched with Martin Luther King Jr. But I do have this personal issue with seeing leaders get misty that rubs me wrong. Steve and Gretchen on Fox-n-Friends disagreed on it this morning. Gretchen saying, "to see a man cry makes him appear more manly to women!" My only question is "how?" 800.345.WMCA.

2:45pm:
We will qualify our first contestant for Lord's Diamonds Christmas Gift...

3pm:
Americans fundamentally overlook Adultery. 66%-70% of the respondents to a recent poll of registered female voters think its just peachy if Judith Giulianni or Bill Clinton become first spouse. So at least in the White House we would tolerate it/overlook it. I have theory though that at some point we would draw the line. How much would we accomidate it in a President, a Pastor, a Principal - a SPOUSE? For me it's a total deal breaker. I'm human - what can I say, I can't tolerate it because twice it has touched my life - once as an adult, once as a child. Trust is too hard to build, and I'm just being honest. 800.345.WMCA.

3:55pm: The McCULLOUGH PUNCH
New Jersey Democrats have nearly sexual lust for protecting rapists, murderers, and child molestors!

Weekdays 2-4pm EST
Listen "LIVE" click here.
 Listen "ON DEMAND" click here.

Iowa, Michigan, South Carolina, Florida
...NATIONALLY...

All of these numbers are impressive given what Huck has actually spent. Matt Lewis is attempting to out Huck everyone here on TownHall and he points to the naming of Ed Rollins to Huck's team. He also highlights the Jim Pinkerton piece that I failed to mention.

And he surmizes that the more liberals bash Huck the better he does... Which I could not agree more with.

That is also fundamentally the problem with a Rudy general election. No daylight between a Rudy vs. Hillary race. With Mitt or Huck you get enough daylight to ram a Mack truck through - and the MOST IMPORTANT THING THE GOP needs in its general election candidate is...?

CONTRAST!

From Ruffini's post this morning:

GOP primary voters feel passionately about two things: values and the war. Huckabee has cornered the market on the first. His success is not about ideology, but identity. For his voters, he’s a Christian first, and a conservative second. Attacking him on conventional conservative issues won’t undermine his core support because it has nothing to do with being a conservative.

It is telling that RUFFINI put the two items in the order that he did. VALUES then the war. And THAT is fundamentally why Mitt should have never stepped into the FAITH arena at all. Mitt's message was never about faith - for the core of the party he needs to elect him. It's about the VALUES that they hold. The more I reflect on the Mitt speech from a week ago the more sick I am that he gave it...

And I know that makes me "untrustworthy" and all... but let's face facts - no one is talking about it, few remember it - and in general it DID NOT connect with the American people, much less the core GOP voter.

Has he seen a bump in any poll?

And what has happened to Huckabee in return? Bumps across the board! And now challenging Rudy for National Polling lead. Even off the increased poll standings Huck can and should be raising money, setting up offices... Florida and Michigan are both within his grasp.

I would support either Mitt or Huckabee if they are the nominee.  (I could also support Fred if he'd start campaigning...) But my eye is on the ball... RUDY must NOT receive the nomination...

Rudy as a candidate looks fundamentally little different than Hillary.

The key to GOP success in November 2008 - is STARK contrast, contrast that can clearly be seen in the debates, and one that honestly and genuinely connects with the hearts of the American voters watching...

Sanctuary And The City!

Pandermania... this time the thrice married, twice divorced, philandering GOP version of a Clinton is attempting to argue that he was actually tough on illegals in his own mind and how he would have deported 400,000 aliens... but "practically speaking..."

I mean...

Practically speaking... it'd be a good idea to stay married to your first wife wouldn't it?

Practically speaking... your word doesn't have to mean anything does it?

Practically speaking... it'd be a refreshing idea to not fight the LINE ITEM VETO...

Practically speaking... a child fighting for life would prefer not to be aborted - wouldn't she?

Practically speaking... a man and a woman - in life-long monogamy - DOES provide the best living environment  for what's best for a child?

Practically speaking... it's better to obey the law, and carefully account for city resources and not charge tax-payers for overtime for your adulterous flings right?

PRACTICALLY SPEAKING?

"ANYONE BUT RUDY - an idea whose time has come!"
(...practically speaking...)

"Overtime... what overtime?"

"Anyone but Rudy!"

New York Daily News is now reporting that Judith Nathan did in fact receive security services earlier than the Mayor had previously reported.

"It went on for months before the affair was public," said Lee Degenstein, 52, a retired Smith Barney vice president who formerly lived at 200 E. 94th St., Nathan's old building.

"It was going on longer than anybody thought," added Degenstein, who, along with others in the neighborhood, said they often saw Nathan hopping into unmarked NYPD cars in early 2000, before the affair was revealed that May.

When pressed by The News Thursday, aides to the Republican presidential hopeful conceded that Nathan got police protection "sporadically" before December 2000 - the previously acknowledged beginning of her taxpayer-funded detail.

Then-Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik said in January 2001 the NYPD assigned Nathan round-the-clock protection the month before because of an unspecified threat against her on a streetcorner near her home. He insisted at a news conference she had no guards until then.

Thursday, Giuliani aides changed their story. They said Nathan had received previously undisclosed "threats" earlier in 2000, and that protection was provided at those times.

Lying about sex, lying about public trust, lying about tax-dollars, lying to your wife...

Pardon me - but how does any of this make Rudy any different than Clinton?

ALL of the GOP candidates will drop a bomb on Iran if we have to. (Well except PaulPot who might well then be tending his garden or some such...) But GOOD GRIEF... is that what we want?

There's a hair's worth of daylight between Romney and Huck... Heck PUT 'em BOTH on the ticket - I don't care. JUST FOR HEAVEN's SAKE don't curse us with this kind of mess all over again...

I do NOT want to have to defend this nominee to my listeners/readers and I do NOT want to be told I'm "not to be trusted" if he's the choice I'm left with...

AAAAeeeeccchhhh!