19%

[R.R.]

Senate Leader Harry Reid Sees Favorability Drop After Immigration Fight
Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Fox News

WASHINGTON —  A new Rasmussen Reports poll finds only 19 percent of American voters look favorably upon Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. According to the poll, 45 percent of voters view the Nevada Democrat unfavorably.

That's the same favorable rating as former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, now sentenced to 30 months in prison in the CIA leak case. Lewis' unfavorable rating reached 57 percent in the same survey.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,281046,00.html

-----------------------------

The approval rating of the Democrat congress is now lower than it was for the GOP just before the 2006 elections. If we nominate quality candidates at the top of the ticket, like Rudy or Fred!, and we stand on conservative principles, we'll win the congress right back from the liberal left in 2008.

[gipper]

I was surprised to find what that percentage referred to, not that I'd shed a tear if Harry went into retirement. But I fully expected such a number to arise, say, from a poll of experts (or common folk) asked to judge the rate of success of the Iraq venture.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The approval rating of the Democrat congress is now lower than it was for the GOP just before the 2006 elections. If we nominate quality candidates at the top of the ticket, like Rudy or Fred!, and we stand on conservative principles, we'll win the congress right back from the liberal left in 2008.

=============================================
Giulani has very little chance of getting the nomination. He is too liberal socially. Plus many of his other views are nutty.

Fred Thompson is bald. BALD. And he's not Eisenhower.  Not much chance there, either.

The war is not going well. The massive surge does not appear to be working. The public is not going to stand for another 10 years in Iraq. And why should it?

Then there is Mitt Romney who wants to DOUBLE the number of prisoners in Guantanamo. Being as many have not done more than be caught in Afghanistan in the wrong ethnic area, who is there left to put there?

The GOP is not a quality party and it does not appear to have any 'quality candidates'.

[R.R.]

But I fully expected such a number to arise, say, from a poll of experts (or common folk) asked to judge the rate of success of the Iraq venture.

The initial takedown of Saddam was very successful, and if the media put the “venture” into context rather than just endlessly showing the terrorist attacks, people would have a much different view.

The amount of terrorists being killed in Iraq is 10 to 1 compared with our casualties, a fact the liberal media will not report.

The amount of Iraqi civilians dying in Bagdhad is down huge since the surge began; I just think you need even more troops than we have now. Maybe 100,000 more to crush the terrorists.

I want victory in Iraq, not a cut and run.

[R.R.]

Giulani has very little chance of getting the nomination. He is too liberal socially.

I’m surprised you’re not praising him for his liberal social positions. I recogonize that a guy from New Yawk may not be as conservative as I am, but he’s right on the war on terror, he’s right on judges, and he’s right on taxes and spending. Somebody that agrees with you on 80% of the issues is a friend, not an enemy.

Fred Thompson is bald. BALD.

Hillary Clinton has fat ankles. So what?

The war is not going well. The massive surge does not appear to be working. The public is not going to stand for another 10 years in Iraq. And why should it?

And yet the Dems don’t have the cajones or the votes to cut off funding or to deauthorize the war. They are totally feckless.

Then there is Mitt Romney who wants to DOUBLE the number of prisoners in Guantanamo. Being as many have not done more than be caught in Afghanistan in the wrong ethnic area, who is there left to put there?

I agree with you about Romney. He’s a flip flopper and somebody I would never vote for. A complete phony.

The GOP is not a quality party and it does not appear to have any 'quality candidates'.

Yeah they do, Fred! and Rudy.

Rudy defeats every Dem in the polls.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Rudy will NOT get the nomination.

Your beloved GOP is not about to nominate some pro-abortion, twice divorced, balding Noo Yawk Eye-talian.
Rudy has a ton of dictatorial and pro business policies that leave him open to all manner of criticism once the campaign gets underway, which is is not likely to do, because he won't get the nomination.

The Mormon Church has been collecting God's money for over a century, and somehow God hasn't actually spent much of it. Romneys' got the deeper pockets, but he is not likely to win.

So he was a semi-decent mayor. So what? NYC is not the USA, it's not even typical of the rest of NY State.

It matters not one whit that he leads in polls, which I doubt.

Thanks to the incompetent blundering warmongering Juniorbush and Cheney, the Republicans are DOOMED in 2008. The stink of death and decay is upon then, and yea, they shall not prevail.

Unless they steal the election. THAT is a possibility.

[R.R.]

Rudy will NOT get the nomination.

Your beloved GOP is not about to nominate some pro-abortion, twice divorced, balding Noo Yawk Eye-talian.

You guys belittled Reagan as well, that he was divorced, pro-abortion as Governor of California, a former B rate actor. He would never actually win, you guys claimed.

Rudy will beat Hillary.

So would Fred!.