<p>I just want to know who is going to represent my party, the GOP. Fred T. is quite a ladies’ man. (Newsweek in mail today). Isn’t there any GOP candidate, other than Romney, that hasn’t had more than one wife to death do us part?</p>
<p>thisoldman:</p>
<p>You and me both. As a political junkie, I’m really frustrated trying to handicap the Republican race. It’s tough when “none of the above” is leading in all the polling.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ha. That’s so funny. I’m still reeling over ID’s comment a week or so ago that Bill Richardson is apparently a womanizer. Who knew? How do men who look as bad as those 2 manage to attract anybody?? I find the concept bizarre.</p>
<p>^. Did you see the photos. IMHO, attractive and smart women, which I would not ashamed to squire. I am personally attracted to strong women, you should see and hear mine. Feeling her wrath is …</p>
<p>But there is more than just the opposite sex, there is a morality that is certainly lacking in my party.</p>
<p>I don’t even begrudge the Republicans their indiscretions. After all, they are human, too.</p>
<p>But what makes it so annoying is the hypocrisy of putting themselves on a “family values” pedestal and pretending that they have cornered the market on “morals” for one political party.</p>
<p>^ and that just makes me mad. I feel that I have been raped, pillaged, cheated, and robbed, in no darn particular order, too.</p>
<p>
Bizarre but true. And, yes, there is persistent scuttlebutt from knowledgeable sources about Richardson’s “zipper problem” but, oddly enough, Bill Clinton may have innoculated everyone on both sides of the aisle about this issue, at least narrowly. Giuliani’s behavior with his second wife has yet to penetrate the consciousness of most Americans and it will be interesting to see what his numbers do or don’t do when that happens.</p>
<p>But the phenomenon is not at all bizarre: it’s been known for several thousand years that power is an aphrodisiac and love potion all in one.</p>
<p>Yes-- power may, indeed, be an aphrodisiac, but Thompson, Richardson, and–okay-- I’ll throw in Giuliani as well, since you mentioned him-- are amazingly unattractive-- I don’t care how much power they might have. I mean, seriously unattractive–most especially Thompson and Guiliani. I just find Thompson, in particular, utterly repulsive… None of them seems to be particularly charismatic, either; if they are, that charisma doesn’t shine through my TV screen. </p>
<p>I have not seen the latest Newsweek; I hope I get it in the mail tomorrow.</p>
<p>Jack, your problem is that you are not a ladies man; Unless you are a Jackie and not gay. </p>
<p>My problem is that I know that I am not a ladies man, and “they” know it too. But I am still attracted to strong women. </p>
<h1>27
</h1>
<p>I would concurr. Just ask any of our present fundementalist, of any religion.</p>
<p>“Jack, your problem is that you are not a ladies man…”
(Hopefully not a manly lady either,and attracted to strong women.)
…Another bizarre concept. ;)</p>
<p>Another bizarre question. Do strong ladies or weak men find Hillary attractive? :D</p>
<p>ID, I never said I was interested in any polls I don’t think. I was presenting a view other than your own. I didn’t say it was my view. You are the one who is hanging your hat on the early polls, and declaring a victor so early in the game. I am just not rushing to judgment. 
</p>
<p>Haha. Very funny. I saw Guiliani and his wife interviewed, some months ago, on one of these TV talk shows. They just came across like some tacky couple you might find in anybody’s neighborhood to me. Can’t imagine him as president, or her as the first lady. Neither seemed particularly bright, either. I did see a photo of Thompson standing beside his wife in some newspaper recently; frankly, I thought she looked a bit-- how shall I say this–well, on the cheap side. Okay, she looked like a hooker to me.</p>
<p>My understanding is that Guilliani also has a kid that attends a school in NC that doesn’t even talk to him because of the way he treated one of his wives. :o</p>
<p>It appears that Guilliani didn’t even attend his son’s high school graduation (according to news articles). The kid is now a senior in college.</p>
<p>sokkermom, I’d forgotten that his son attends Duke, doesn’t he? I agree that when all this surfaces, any appeal Guiliani currently enjoys will go straight down the tubes.</p>
<p>Yes. Apparently he is an awesome golfer, who hopes to become a pro.</p>
<p>His daughter attends Harvard. I believe she is estranged as well.</p>
<p>I think the fact that his own children do not support him speaks volumes.</p>
<p><a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070806/ap_on_el_pr/giuliani_daughter[/url]”>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070806/ap_on_el_pr/giuliani_daughter</a></p>
<p>The following was taken form the 8/2/07 Pew Poll. The whole poll can be found here <a href=“http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/345.pdf[/url]”>http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/345.pdf</a>. </p>
<p>Clinton Widens Lead, Giuliani Slips</p>
<p>Hillary Clinton now holds a nearly two-to-one lead
over Barack Obama. The current survey finds 40% of
registered Democrats and independents who lean
Democratic say they would most like to see her nominated
as their partys presidential candidate. Obama is the choice
of 21% while Al Gore is favored by 12% and John
Edwards by 11%. Pews April survey had found Clinton with a more modest 34% to 24% lead
over the Illinois senator. Over this period, support for the former first lady has increased most
among independent Democrats, liberals and moderates, college graduates, middle-aged and older voters.</p>
<p>On the Republican side, Rudy Giuliani remains the top
choice for the presidential nomination among 27% of all
registered Republicans and GOP-leaning independents. The
poll finds 18% favoring Fred Thompson, 16% John McCain
and 10% Mitt Romney. Since April, Giuliani support has
declined (32% to 27%) as has McCains (23% to 16%) while
Thompson has gained significantly (10% to 18%.). Thompson
has caught up to Giuliani among independents who lean
Republican, as Giulianis support has fallen by half. But
Giuliani remains the frontrunner among those who identify as
Republicans, with no overall change in his support since April.</p>
<p>I suggest those who have a real interest read the whole poll; it is full of interesting tidbits. </p>
<p>Things like:
The small overall drop in support for Rudy Giuliani
reflects a sizeable shift in opinion among Republican-leaning
independents, which are about half as likely to back him today
(18%) as they were in April (34%).
For those who dont read polls on regular bases if this continues it will point to a weakness for Giuliani in the fall of 08.</p>
<p>The survey also finds that Giulianis generally pro-life position on abortion continues to be unknown to most Republicans. Barely four-in-ten (41%) Republican voters, including independents who lean Republican, can identify Giuliani as the GOP candidate who supports a womans right to choose when it comes to abortion, while the rest either incorrectly named another GOP candidate (12%) or say they do not know (47%).
This could mean that when the Republican base finds out about Giulianis position they may move away from him.</p>
<p>A majority of Republicans continue to want a GOP presidential nominee who will take a different approach on Iraq than President Bush. Fully 53% of all registered Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say they want their partys next nominee to follow a different course on the war while 36% want a candidate who will continue the presidents policies.
The meaning of this is clear</p>
<p>read the whole poll it’s interesting…</p>
<p>Offhand, I would say that strong women and strong men are probably both turned off to Hillary. These people don’t need Big Mama taking care of them.</p>
<p>^ I agree. Could also be that those groups are avoiding the premature pollsters! ;)</p>
<p>I didn’t read the entire pew poll link. However, I got to the top of page 3 where it clearly states that fewer than one in three (30%) of citizens have given much thought to the candidates.</p>
<p>(That means that 70% are still undecided or avoiding polls. I admit, I’m in that group. Most of us may be.)</p>
<p>I have read the article referred to in post #17 and have copied the following paragraph from the article. </p>
<p>“Prevailing wisdom in 1968 thought that former Michigan Governor George W. Romney, Mitt Romney’s father, would be the Republican party’s nominee. Romney wasn’t the GOP nominee in 1968. The man who everyone said would never be a candidate again in national politics–Richard M. Nixon–won the nomination and the presidency going against prevailing opinion of the time.”</p>
<p>Both of these statement are dead wrong, who ever wrote them apparently was not involved in the 1968 campaign and has not read any accurate account of the election year. Romney was picked by some, but by no means all of the political community, to win the NH primary, he did not. The people who thought Romney would win the NH primary did so for the most part because Romney’s pollster was giving them selected polling information. Most of the political community thought that Romney had to win in NH to have any chance against Nixon, they were right. Nixon won every primary he entered in 1968 except OR, which Rockefeller won. </p>
<p>Nixon campaigned in 160 congressional districts in 1966, at that time everyone knew he was doing so because he was running for president in 1968. In the fall of 1964 after losing the race for governor of California people (including Nixon) thought he was out of politics for good, which had all changed by the spring of 1966. </p>
<p>Whoever wrote the article referred to in post #17 was just writing a ‘good story.” However that story should not be taken as serious political journalism. Any conclusion to come form this article is suspect.</p>
<p>posts 36 and 37 the known facts as they stand today don’t agree with your personal opinions</p>
<p>The article (#17) was posted to offer another view. The author is Robert Guttman. I’d say he has a pretty impressive bio, whether I agree with what he says or not. He has credentials that far surpass most anonymous bloggers in my opinion. :eek:</p>
<p>"Robert J. Guttman is the Director of the Center on Politics & Foreign Relations (CPFR) at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, D.C. where he co-hosts a series of conferences on politics and foreign policy with the Financial Times newspaper group.</p>
<p>He teaches courses on politics, the media and foreign policy at the Johns Hopkins University School of Government. </p>
<p>Previously, he was editor-in-chief of TransAtlantic: Europe, America & the World, at the Center for Transatlantic Relations at SAIS, Johns Hopkins University. As editor-in-chief of TransAtlantic Magazine, Guttman gave talks on EU-US relations to interested groups in the United States and Europe.</p>
<p>From 1989 to 2003, Guttman was head of publications for the European Commission office in Washington, D.C. and editor-in-chief of Europe Magazine. He is the author/editor of the book Europe in the New Century: Visions of an Emerging Superpower published in 2001.</p>
<p>Guttman has been an adjunct professor of political communications at The George Washington University and an adjunct professor of American politics and communications at The American University in Washington, D.C."</p>