The Republican nominee will be...

When respondents were asked in November to indicate which candidate they felt had the best chance to be the Republican nominee for president, the clear winner was again Rudy Giuliani with 44%. In this week's survey, the winner is Mitt Romney with 25%. Giuliani fell to second with 21%.

The rise of Mitt Romney is again due to conservatives slowly starting to coalesce around him. Huckabee's record is coming to light, and candidates like Giuliani and McCain (despite his win in New Hampshire) are simply unacceptable to conservatives. The fall of Giuliani is due in great part to the "out of sight, out of mind" perception. Giuliani has not contested the early races and has thus been out of the media spotlight. Perhaps his strategy of contesting Florida and the Super Tuesday (Feb. 5) states will pay off, but it has definitely set him back in the minds of the survey team.

These changes in the overall perception of the candidates are remarkably clear when we get to the issues. GOPUSA asked respondents to indicate which issue groupings were most important to them out of "Defense and Security Issues," "Taxes and Economic Issues," and "Social Issues." In November, the clear leader was Defense and Security with 64%, followed by Taxes and Economy with 14% and Social Issues at 12%. In this week's survey, the results are basically identical: Defense/Security - 65%, Taxes/Economy - 15%, Social - 11%. What did change significantly was the survey team's thoughts on which candidate could best handle those issues.

In November, Giuliani was the clear leader on Defense/Security issues with 29%. This week, he fell to second place behind Fred Thompson. Thompson finished with 26% to Giuliani's 21%. Up significantly was Sen. John McCain with 17%. Romney rose five points from November to 12%.

On the Taxes and Economic Issues, Thompson and Romney each rose from November, now placing first and second with 29% and 27%, respectively. On Social Issues, previous winner Mike Huckabee fell to second place behind Fred Thompson, 29% to 21%. Romney rose three points to take third place with 18%.

Border Security and Immigration remain the "most important issue" to the survey respondents with 44%. This is followed by the War on Terror with 24%. Moral Decline and Government Spending are the next two issues, 6% and 5%, respectively.

It is clear that the presidential race is still wide open. The shifts witnessed from the November survey to this one indicate that conservatives are paying attention. They watch what is going on and it affects their preferences. There are many contests remaining, and the race for the nomination is still up for grabs, but it is clear from this survey that the biggest winner was Mitt Romney.

Huckabee may be able to attract evangelical Republicans, but he won't attract less tax, small government Repubs,

and he won't attract Repub foreign policy hawks.

More importantly, he won't attrack big contributions. Populists don't usually get the support of the Big Money, unless it Unions, and that money goes to Dems - no question.

BTW: Is it true that <snip> Arkansas' public schools are ranked #8 in the nation?

K-12 Achievement

In the Fox debate last week one of the candidates made the claim that Clinton gutted the military. This is all well and good except for the fact that 6 of Bill Clinton's 8 budgets were passed by Republican majorities in both houses of Congress. So if the military was gutted in the 1990s it was Republicans, like McCain and Thompson and Paul, that gutted it. Huckabee is the only candidate in the Fox debate whom I remember expressly calling for increasing the size of the military. I would rather risk an unknown than knowns whose records are dismal.

flaja wrote:

In the Fox debate last week one of the candidates made the claim that Clinton gutted the military. This is all well and good except for the fact that 6 of Bill Clinton's 8 budgets were passed by Republican majorities in both houses of Congress. So if the military was gutted in the 1990s it was Republicans, like McCain and Thompson and Paul, that gutted it. Huckabee is the only candidate in the Fox debate whom I remember expressly calling for increasing the size of the military. I would rather risk an unknown than knowns whose records are dismal.

And as a matter of fact....Bush Sr. gutted the Army, not Clinton.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Huckabee may be able to attract evangelical Republicans, but he won't attract less tax, small government Repubs,

Is this constituency large enough to put someone in the White House? Are there at least 50,000,000 voters who want their taxes lowered?

BTW: Is it true that Huckabee raised taxes in Arkansas because the courts said he had to spend more money on public schools and that by raising such taxes and spending such money Arkansas' public schools are ranked #8 in the nation?

Quote:

and he won't attract Repub foreign policy hawks.

In the Fox debate last week one of the candidates made the claim that Clinton gutted the military. This is all well and good except for the fact that 6 of Bill Clinton's 8 budgets were passed by Republican majorities in both houses of Congress. So if the military was gutted in the 1990s it was Republicans, like McCain and Thompson and Paul, that gutted it. Huckabee is the only candidate in the Fox debate whom I remember expressly calling for increasing the size of the military. I would rather risk an unknown than knowns whose records are dismal.

Quote:

More importantly, he won't attrack big contributions. Populists don't usually get the support of the Big Money, unless it Unions, and that money goes to Dems - no question.

If Huckabee has a message or campaign style that can attract 30-40% of the GOP primary electorate what need will he have for large contributions? Personally I wouldn't want a candidate that thinks he has to have large contributions because by accepting them the candidate subjects himself to large obligations- which are likely detrimental to my personal welfare.

maporsche wrote:

flaja wrote:

In the Fox debate last week one of the candidates made the claim that Clinton gutted the military. This is all well and good except for the fact that 6 of Bill Clinton's 8 budgets were passed by Republican majorities in both houses of Congress. So if the military was gutted in the 1990s it was Republicans, like McCain and Thompson and Paul, that gutted it. Huckabee is the only candidate in the Fox debate whom I remember expressly calling for increasing the size of the military. I would rather risk an unknown than knowns whose records are dismal.

And as a matter of fact....Bush Sr. gutted the Army, not Clinton.

How so? Just what did George H. W. Bush do the army?

Giuliani falsely blamed President Clinton for cuts in the military that occurred in large part under President George H.W. Bush and Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. He said that "the Army had been at 725,000; it's down to 500,000." That's true, but it was down to 572,423 by the time Clinton took office.


...



Actually, most of the cutting to which Giuliani refers occurred during the administration of George H.W. Bush. At the end of fiscal year 1993 (which was Bush's last one in office), the Army had 572,423 active-duty soldiers - a far cry from 725,000. In fact, to get to that number, one has to go back to 1990, during the first gulf war. Moreover, Clinton's cuts in the military, while large, were nowhere close to 25 percent to 30 percent. Between 1993 and 2001, the Army went from 572,423 to 480,801, which is a decline of 16 percent. The entire military went from 1,705,103 to 1,385,116, a decrease of 18.8 percent.

Compare that with the far larger cuts made during the first Bush administration: In 1989, the military stood at 2,130,229 and the Army had 769,741 soldiers. By 1993, those numbers had declined by 19.9 percent and 25.6 percent, respectively.

And as we've pointed out before, it was the first Bush administration - specifically then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney - that began bragging openly of the peace dividend.

Huckabee is not attracting the support of either fiscal conservatives or foreign policy hawks. The social conservatives who he does attract do not represent a large enough bloc to carry him through, even assuming he can capture them all.

All candidates need big money supporters. It's nice to imagine that the grass roots could fund a candidate with contributions of $5 and $10 but this isn't going to happen in this race and especially not so if Huckabee can't attract more than 50% of the rank and file.

flaja wrote:

maporsche wrote:

flaja wrote:

In the Fox debate last week one of the candidates made the claim that Clinton gutted the military. This is all well and good except for the fact that 6 of Bill Clinton's 8 budgets were passed by Republican majorities in both houses of Congress. So if the military was gutted in the 1990s it was Republicans, like McCain and Thompson and Paul, that gutted it. Huckabee is the only candidate in the Fox debate whom I remember expressly calling for increasing the size of the military. I would rather risk an unknown than knowns whose records are dismal.

And as a matter of fact....Bush Sr. gutted the Army, not Clinton.

How so? Just what did George H. W. Bush do the army?

It was Giuliani who mentioned this is in the debate. Read the blurb by www.factcheck.org below.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nh_debate_the_gop_field.html

Quote:

Giuliani falsely blamed President Clinton for cuts in the military that occurred in large part under President George H.W. Bush and Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. He said that "the Army had been at 725,000; it's down to 500,000." That's true, but it was down to 572,423 by the time Clinton took office.


...



Actually, most of the cutting to which Giuliani refers occurred during the administration of George H.W. Bush. At the end of fiscal year 1993 (which was Bush's last one in office), the Army had 572,423 active-duty soldiers - a far cry from 725,000. In fact, to get to that number, one has to go back to 1990, during the first gulf war. Moreover, Clinton's cuts in the military, while large, were nowhere close to 25 percent to 30 percent. Between 1993 and 2001, the Army went from 572,423 to 480,801, which is a decline of 16 percent. The entire military went from 1,705,103 to 1,385,116, a decrease of 18.8 percent.

Compare that with the far larger cuts made during the first Bush administration: In 1989, the military stood at 2,130,229 and the Army had 769,741 soldiers. By 1993, those numbers had declined by 19.9 percent and 25.6 percent, respectively.

And as we've pointed out before, it was the first Bush administration - specifically then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney - that began bragging openly of the peace dividend.

I don't recall Giuliani, or who it was, talk specifics about military cuts.

I don't recall Giuliani, or who it was, talk specifics about military cuts. So how can anyone know that it was George H. W. Bush's cuts that he was talking about?

MR. GIULIANI: If I may add, I think one of the things that would -- would help answer some of the issues that have come up is we should increase the size of our military. Bill Clinton cut the military drastically. It's called the peace dividend, one of those nice- sounding phrases, very devastating. It was a 25, 30 percent cut in the military. President Bush has never made up for that. We -- our Army had been at 725,000; it's down to 500,000. We need at least 10 more combat brigades. We need our -- we need our Marines at 200,000. We need a 300-ship Navy. This president should do it now. If I'm president, I'll do it immediately.

flaja wrote:

I don't recall Giuliani, or who it was, talk specifics about military cuts. So how can anyone know that it was George H. W. Bush's cuts that he was talking about?

Well then you weren't paying that much attention. I'll link to the entire transcript of the 1/5/08 debate in NH. I've quoted the section where Giuliani talks about Clinton cutting the military.

Read this, then refer back to my last post.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/us/politics/05text-rdebate.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

Giuliani wrote:

MR. GIULIANI: If I may add, I think one of the things that would -- would help answer some of the issues that have come up is we should increase the size of our military. Bill Clinton cut the military drastically. It's called the peace dividend, one of those nice- sounding phrases, very devastating. It was a 25, 30 percent cut in the military. President Bush has never made up for that. We -- our Army had been at 725,000; it's down to 500,000. We need at least 10 more combat brigades. We need our -- we need our Marines at 200,000. We need a 300-ship Navy. This president should do it now. If I'm president, I'll do it immediately.

I remember the remark about the peace dividend and it didn't have anything to do with Clinton.

love Huck's flat tax, but if it's going to happen it won't be a one-man show, so I'd hate to burn 4 years for it.

Ron Paul, if every man had a 9-inch wand and every woman were powerful and revered, he'd be in - it is only for our personal weaknesses that he shall fail.

McCain, hard grizzled war hero, the only one with the rocks to start a new legacy, yet lovable and caring. If he fails it will be because people want to push their **** on others more than they want a great nation. Best bet all around.

Romney, 5-grandmothered mexican fascist. Only one with greater Democrat beating power than McCain, but only cuz he's fulla ****.

McCain is not a war hero. He was a POW, who committed war crimes when he bombed cities and villages. He is Bush Lite.

eb, ...

.. how you love to judge people! Why don't you make, and back up, a point occasionally.

We bombed the **** out of an agrarian country that never hurt or threatened us, killing over 3 M people. McCain was an enthusiastic participant. To you, this makes him a war hero.