This from Bryan York over at National Review:
When Republicans were asked, "If the 2008 Republican caucus were held today, which of the following candidates would you vote for?" these are the results:
John McCain 27%
Rudy Giuliani 26%
Mitt Romney 9%
Newt Gingrich 7%
Condi Rice 4%
George Pataki 1%
Jeb Bush 1%
George Allen 1%
Sam Brownback 1%
Keep in mind that the leader of the pack was too liberal to earn the nomination in 2000; instead the GOP nominated the bulwark of conservatism known as George W. Bush who thereupon ran to the left. Keep in mind that the second place stooge is on his third marriage, favors gay marriage and is pro-choice--good family values, that--favors gun control
The fellow in third is Mormon, which means he's probably unelectable--though he might serve well as fodder for the Lizard Queen to devour. Newt Gingrich, in fourth, has no qualms with restricting speech rights. What a swell pack of gentlemen. I know I'm looking forward to voting for the GOP, yes sir.
The same shows Hillary doing poorly, but I see little reason to fret. Edwards and Obama are soft candidates. They are likeable, at least Obama is--I cannot understand the affinity for the slimy lawyer from North Carolina, except that anyone looks good when they stand next to John Kerry. But I really can't see Obama winning an election. To be perfectly blunt, he's too young and stupid. Oh, I know he's written a book and all that, and he's charismatic as all get-out, but can anyone really see him delivering a substantive speech? I can picture him smiling, and he could probably be trained to give powerfully good sound-bites, but I cannot fathom him articulating an interesting position, much less one genuinely controversial.
I shouldn't underestimate the power of charisma, especially in a nation so packed with imbecilles as is ours. Talk to anyone about President Clinton; nine-tenths of the comments concerning him will have nothing in the way of substance. Liberals liked him, but they cannot come up with anything he did which they liked; conservatives loathed him, but they are likewise ineffectual at discussing the reason why they loathe him so. But he was a Clinton, and he won two elections.
All of which brings me to his lizardly wife. Hillary is far too smart to let Obama get the best of her in a debate. She would carve him up and eat him for dinner. She is, for all her flaws, an intelligent woman who knows how to win.
Obama has peaked too early. If he is smart, he will gracefully step aside and get ready for 2016. Much can change by then, but by all accounts he should have a better chance when he is a bit older.
The Clintons should not be underestimated, and I stubbornly cling to my prediction. Beware the queen.
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I am surprised that you feel that Rudy could beat her. On what issues does Mr. Giuliani agree with most conservatives?
If the conservatives do elect him, I will be forced to reconsider my viewpoint on mankind. I have always given man the benefit of the doubt in terms of cluelessness and immorality; I cannot conceive how I could have figured too highly.
If the Religious Right votes for a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, twice divorced charlatan, I may be forced to eat my hat.
Hillary need only be better than him. The bar hasn't been raised too highly.
Quite a stable full (or should I say sty)Somebody gave me Obamas book for Christmas and it's pure pablum.Im going back to my Adorno.
I'm glad you didn't like the Obama book. This way I won't have to read it.
Post a Comment