August 20, 2007

Rasmussen: Giuliani Opening a National Lead, But What About Individual States?

Carroll Andrew Morse

I know it’s early, but a primary (ha ha) point here is to put certain quarters of the Republican coalition on notice that the idea that “George W. Bush screwed things up so badly, we never stood a chance” will not be accepted as an excuse for losing the 2008 Presidential election. From Rasmussen’s latest national head-to-head polling…

  • Rudy Giuliani 47%
  • Hillary Clinton 40%
  • Fred Thompson 43%
  • Hillary Clinton 46%
And for those who point out (rightly) that state-by-state results as more important than nationwide results in the American electoral system (a factor that Republicans like to consider before going into an election, not after) here is Rasmussen’s latest from Ohio (survey conducted August 8)...
  • Rudy Giuliani 44%
  • Hillary Clinton 43%
  • Fred Thompson 43%
  • Hillary Clinton 44%
...and Wisconsin (survey conducted August 15) …
  • Rudy Giuliani 44%
  • Hillary Clinton 45%
  • Fred Thompson 41%
  • Hillary Clinton 45%
However, a definite warning sign for Republicans is Florida (survey conducted August 9), which went for George W. Bush in both 2000 and 2004…
  • Rudy Giuliani 44%
  • Hillary Clinton 49%
  • Fred Thompson 40%
  • Hillary Clinton 53%
Finally if the trend of strong national support for Giuliani coupled with multiple battleground state toss-ups continues, expect progressive support for “National Popular Vote” to mysteriously disappear.

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

I like the new portraits. Great idea!

Posted by: Matt Jerzyk at August 20, 2007 12:17 PM

I like 'em too. And on that note, guys PLEASE do not ever switch to the awful format that RIFuture has switched to. I don't know what the point of having a 1024x768 monitor is when the article space takes up about 400 pixels across.

Posted by: Greg at August 20, 2007 12:24 PM

Ron Paul is blacklisted here as well? {sigh}

Posted by: PDM at August 20, 2007 5:36 PM

Paul blacklisted? No way. He's the Republican's answer to Dennis Kucinich!

Posted by: Greg at August 20, 2007 5:45 PM

Ron Paul is not being blacklisted. We're just waiting for him to say something worthwhile.

Posted by: Andrew at August 20, 2007 7:18 PM

Ron Paul is not being blacklisted. We're just waiting for him to say something worthwhile.

Posted by Andrew at August 20, 2007 7:18 PM
I guess dismantling the police state and the Empire aren't "worthwhile" in your mind.

Posted by: Mike at August 20, 2007 8:06 PM

Ron Paul voices no objection to empires and police states created by countries other than the U.S. And he seems to object to the U.S. taking steps to defend itself from those police states and imperial wannabes.

I'll wait for a libertarian who doesn't elevate a blame-America-first mentality over his libertarianism, if you don't mind.

Posted by: Andrew at August 20, 2007 8:25 PM

"expect progressive support for “National Popular Vote” to mysteriously disappear."

Yes, it all depends on whose ox is being Gored.

Posted by: SusanD at August 20, 2007 8:51 PM

I've met Ron Paul on more than one occassion. I actually met his son Rand Paul only a few weeks ago. Truly no finer a man -- and one committed to principle at that. Unfortunately, they're just not necessarily the right principles for this period in history.

When the choice has gotten to be "convert to our way of thinking or we'll kill you and your family" by either beheading or stoning, I'm not sure how relevant one's stand on warrantless wiretaps, tracking international calls to Afghanistan, or providing free legal representation to terrorists is exactly. Pretending that the rest of the world doesn't exist, or that many within it mean you and me great harm -- no matter what we do to "offend" their sensibilities -- is not a foreign policy strategy.

He's a nice man, and I'm sure he means the best, but he's also his own worse enemy (in that respect, he reminds me quite a lot of our own Rod Driver).

Posted by: Will at August 20, 2007 9:14 PM

First, thanks Andrew for posting the state data. It's very useful.

As for national vote, I hope that seeing that it can cut both ways shakes out the unprincipled proponants. Then we can have the debate on principle.

SusanD is way out ahead in competition for pun o' the month.

Ron Paul was a guest on NPR's wonderful news-quiz show "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me" this weekend. Smart guy, but the irony of that appearance was truly stunning.

I agree with Greg that RIFuture's new format is not a step forward.

Posted by: Thomas at August 20, 2007 9:20 PM

If you believe Ron Paul has yet to say anything worthwhile, you are not listening. He is spot on.

The terrorists are here because we are over there. Period. Osama "hates our freedoms", so we cleverly get rid of them. That will teach him. If this is the solution, count me out. Cowards.

Someone mentioned Rod Driver. Rod is a stand up guy. If we had more like him in the state house maybe the place would not stink like the only port-o-john at a three day rock festival.

Posted by: PDM at August 20, 2007 10:09 PM

1. One of OBL's stated grievances is the loss of Spain from the Islamic caliphate. Who exactly is the "we" and where is the "there" where Spain is involved?

2. It is not a libertarian position to say that it's "nobody's business" when a group of people want to impose an authoritarian government on others. But Ron Paul supporters don't see any connection between preventing Jihadists from trying to restore their vision of the caliphate through the use of violence and a supposed libertarian philosophy of limited government, because they place their blame-America-first ideology ahead of their libertarianism.

3. To stand quietly aside saying "not my business" while a group plots and executes the mass murder of others is as cowardly as it gets.

Posted by: Andrew at August 21, 2007 9:00 AM

"because they place their blame-America-first ideology ahead of their libertarianism"

Is that an accurate description of why Ron Paul and his supporters want to stay clear of foreign entanglements? Or is it, America is great and we didn't cause any of this. We're staying clear because this doesn't involve us; we're strong and we can kick butt on American soil as needed.

- Advocatus Diaboli -

Posted by: SusanD at August 21, 2007 9:37 PM

Ron Paul is not blaming America, but rather poor foreign policy. Good try. Next time weave in something about how he does not support the troops.

We were told that the reason for the September 11, 2001 attacks resulted from "evil doers" who "hate our freedoms". The simpleton's explanation, I know. This gem from youtube should clear that up -

And from wiki:

The September 11 attacks were consistent with the overall mission statement of al-Qaeda, as set out in a 1998 fatwa issued by Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Abu-Yasir Rifa'i Ahmad Taha, Shaykh Mir Hamzah, and Fazlur Rahman.[93] The fatwa lists three main "crimes and sins" committed by the Americans: U.S. military occupation of the Arabian Peninsula, U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people, and U.S. support of Israel. The fatwa also specifically condemns the U.S. for "plundering" the resources of the region, oppressing the people by supporting abusive regimes in the region, and dictating policy to legitimate leaders. It also opposes the presence of U.S. military bases and installations in the region, especially on Muslim holy land, which are used to "threaten" Muslim countries, while fomenting disunity and strife. By a similar token, it decries the continued refusal to address the "occupation of Palestine".

The CIA reports the same. Silly to think we were hit because of OBL's beef with Spain.

Yes, it is the business of every American to oppose the group of people who want to impose an authoritarian government on others. Wake up and smell the fascism oozing from DC.

Posted by: PDM at August 22, 2007 6:30 PM

Bin Laden opened his videotape immediately after the September 11 attack by directly comparing the situation in today’s Palestine to the “tragedy of Andalusia”, i.e. the ejection of Muslims from Spain. His November 3, 2001 videotape was more extensive in its catalog of grievances…

Our brothers in Kashmir have been subjected to the worst forms of torture for over 50 years….
The crusader Australian forces were on Indonesian shores, and in fact they landed to separate East Timor, which is part of the Islamic world.
In southern Sudan, hundreds of thousands were killed.
(This last one refers to the civil war in Sudan that began when the Southern Sudanese revolted against having Islamic law imposed on them). Then, of course, he plays his old standard…
But when we move to Palestine and Iraq, there can be no bounds to what can be said….What is taking place cannot be tolerated by any nation.
Now pay attention here, because this is where Ron Paul supporters tend to get confused. Bin Laden’s grievance about the Kashmir doesn’t involve America. Bin Laden’s grievance about East Timor doesn’t involve America. Bin Laden’s grievance about Southern Sudan doesn’t involve America. America didn’t even exist when the Muslims were ejected from Spain in the 15th century. Bin Laden really does want to establish the Caliphate over an extensive geographic area.

And what’s the typical Ron Paul’s supporter response to this? Oh, Bin Laden didn’t really care about these other places he’s mentioned; the only one he really cares about is Palestine, because it’s just plain obvious that America creates the biggest problems in the world, so to understand Jihadist terrorism, just ignore anything mentioned by Bin Laden that doesn’t directly involve America.

That reasoning is why Ron Paul and his supporters are accurately viewed as part of the blame-America-first wing of American politics.

Posted by: Andrew at August 23, 2007 10:34 AM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Important note: The text "http:" cannot appear anywhere in your comment.