October 1, 2007

IS THERE ANY CONSERVATIVE:

for whom Rudy won't rank last among the Republicans using this tool?

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 1, 2007 7:37 AM
Comments

Huckabee and Brownback lost to Rudy, for me. McCain was at the top and Kucinich was dead last, which is reassuring.

Posted by: Twn at October 1, 2007 8:57 AM

That thing is garbage. I came up with Tom Tancredo, and I wouldn't vote for him without a gun to my head. One of the Tancredo "disagrees" for me was immigration - seems just a touch more important than agreeing on Iraq or taxes.

Posted by: Brandon at October 1, 2007 10:51 AM

I had Rudy 1rst (!) and McCain a very close second. I found a lot of the questions phrased in such a way that I really couldn't give an answer that matched my views, though...

Posted by: Mike Earl at October 1, 2007 10:53 AM

McCain 1st closely followed by Hunter and Thompson. Paul and Romney were slightly behind Rudy at the rear of the Republicans.

Obama, Clinton and Kucinich tied for last overall.

Posted by: Patrick H at October 1, 2007 11:11 AM

My result matches Brandon's. My top scorer also was Tancredo, at 40 points, but immigration was a point of disagreement. For him that's the defining issue, and if you disagree with him on that, as Brandon and I do, it is preposterous to consider voting for him. I've already erased my results, but Rudy was, I think, the lowest Republican on my list.

Also odd, Richardson and Edwards led among the Dems, with Obama and Clinton scoring the lowest (one point each). Yet, if forced to pick a Dem, Clinton would probably be first choice, and Obama definitely above Edwards. Even Kucinich scored more than one point somehow, and he's even scarier than Tancredo.

Posted by: mgarbowski at October 1, 2007 12:08 PM

Mine came out Tancredo's too, at 33. However, Brownback and McCain were very close behind at 31. As for Rudy, let's just say Bill Richardson was ahead of him on my scorecard.

And no, there's no way I'd vote Tancredo. I'd sit out the 2008 election before I mark off for Tancredo.

Posted by: Brad S at October 1, 2007 12:23 PM

Hunter, Thompson & McCain in a 3-way tie. Rudy was last among Republicans at 13. BTW, what a gastly picture of McCain! Among the Democrats, all scored in the single digits.

Posted by: Dave W at October 1, 2007 12:24 PM

So Rudy's the bottom Republican and Joe Biden's the top Democrat, separated by a mere nine points, with the latter in single digits. (Tied at the top, albeit in the lofty high 30s: Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter, and Tom Tancredo, although I echo most of the comments above re: Tancredo and immigration).

Biden wins points for saying something that can be construed as responsible about Iraq, although how on earth they think they can tell what Joe Biden really thinks, let alone what he would actually do if, per impossibile, he were elected president, is beyond me. Perhaps they don't have to listen to him as much as we Delawareans do. He and the mainstream Democratic contenders (Obama, Clinton, Edwards) won points for saying they support capital punishment, although I think everybody who's paying attention realizes they're lying about that. Capital punishment, by any method whatever, is per se cruel and unusual punishment and racist to boot, according to today's lefty shibboleths, and I imagine we can count on any SCOTUS nominee of the next Democratic president so to vote. Kucinich is at least honest about that, hence his goose egg.

Who on earth thinks the line item veto is going to be an issue next year?

Posted by: Random Lawyer at October 1, 2007 2:44 PM

My worst Republican (Il Duce) was much better than my best Democrat.

Now ask me whether it is better to win with Il Duce than to lose with any of the others.

Posted by: Lou Gots at October 1, 2007 2:46 PM

is better to win with Il Duce than to lose with any of the others?

Posted by: Benny at October 1, 2007 3:31 PM

Yes. A scary guy, not that there's anything wrong with that.

Posted by: Lou Gots at October 1, 2007 3:56 PM

No. Hillary would be better.

Posted by: oj at October 1, 2007 4:19 PM

OJ,
I'd agree that Hillary would be better if not for the SCOTUS situation. At the very least she'd get to replace the aging Stevens with a young leftist. A Republican, even Rudy, would likely get to replace him with someone more to our liking.

Posted by: Patrick H at October 1, 2007 6:14 PM

Yeah, the wrong SCOTUS could do much more damage than Rudy.

I used to like him, but the answering the wife's call during engagements is just pathetic.

Get a hold of yourself man. You might have to lead the free world one day!

Posted by: Benny at October 1, 2007 6:50 PM

Rudy is pro-death. He'll appoint a liberal Republican. She'll appoint a reasonably conservative Democrat. The latter make better judges.

Posted by: oj at October 1, 2007 6:53 PM

Where is this "conservative democrat" jurist of which you speak and what makes you think Hillary wouldn't put another Ginsburg on the bench? It would surely be a pro-death woman, so I don't know how Rudy could do worse.

Posted by: Patrick H at October 2, 2007 1:24 AM

Stevens & Souter are worse than Breyer & Ginsburg.

Posted by: oj at October 2, 2007 6:03 AM
« OCCAM'S SCIMITAR: | Main | FROM REVOLUTION TO ELECTION: »