« "...And They'll Be Happy Little Beaners" | Main | Asswipe of the Day : The New York Giants Football Club »

Rasmussen: Romney Surging in Florida

Update: Here's the Rasmussen poll:

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds Mitt Romney with a slight lead in Florida's Republican Presidential Primary. John McCain and Rudy Giuliani are close behind in what may develop into a three-man race. It's Romney at 25%, McCain at 20%, and Giuliani at 19%. Romney has picked up seven points over the past week while McCain and Giuliani each inched up a point.

Drudge reports that Rasmussen will be releasing the newest GOP poll in Florida which shows that Romney leads the pack at 25% with McCain in second at 20% and Giuliani in third at 19%. I agree with Ann Coulter and National Review that Mitt Romney is the best choice for the Republican nomination.

Johnathan Adler has a post at The Corner in which he says he sympathizes with Stephen Bainbridge's argument that, with Thompson no longer a viable candidate, he may sit this one out because it would force the GOP leadership to be more attentive to conservative principles. Let's not make that same mistake. In 1992, many conservatives thought it would be good to punish George HW Bush for breaking his no new taxes pledge. Were 8 years of the Clintons good for the GOP or America? The Clintons used the Lincoln bedroom as a fundraising scheme, issued pardons to the highest bidder, sold military technology to China, took money funneled from the Chinese government through DNC fundraisers Charlie Trie, Johnny Chung, and others. The list goes on. If your memory of the Clintons' many scandals and ethics lapses is fading, refresh your memory here.

Added: And let's not forget the worst part of the 8 years of the Clinton Administration: the US retreated from Somalia in 1993, al Qaeda struck the World Trade Center for the first time in 1993, the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the USS Cole. Clinton did nothing of any significance in response. The result? 9/11.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (25)

"Were 8 years of the Clinto... (Below threshold)
civildisobedience Author Profile Page:

"Were 8 years of the Clintons good for the GOP or America?"

Actually, they weren't that bad. Politically we got a GOP congress, slammed liberal policies from emerging (health care), got some conservative policies enacted (welfare), good economy, and a do nothing clown of a president.

There were negatives as listed, absolutely, but it could have been much worse for the GOP and Americans.

I will vote for Mitt, though I am uncertain what he will do. No way am I voting for turncoat McCain, because I know exactly what he will do.

If Clinton's did such a hor... (Below threshold)

If Clinton's did such a horrible job in addressing the growing Islamic jihad threat, whi did Bush do NOTHING betweem January of 2001 and 9/11? 9/11 happened on his watch, not Clinton's. Where was the outrage at the GOP convention in 2000? Where was the outcry from Bush and company when they took office. You cannot have it both ways, blame Clinton and then absolve Bush. Under your logic, we can blame George HW Bush for doing nothing, leading to all of the attacks during Clinton's terms. What happens during your watch is YOUR responsibility. And if your predecessor leaves you a bad deck of cards, you should probably seek a new one instead of vacationing in Crawford all of August and ignoring CIA urgent releases for fishing and hunting trips.

Personally, I will probably... (Below threshold)
Alan Orfi:

Personally, I will probably use my Florida vote next week to support Romney over McCain despite having spent much time and effort working for the Huckabee campaign. I find it more important to make sure McCain is not our nominee than to waste my vote making a statement for Huckabee. I think we will see a huge groundswell of support for Romney over the next two weeks as Thompson and Huckabee supporters realize their candidates are not going to win.

So Tony, if you are hired t... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

So Tony, if you are hired to do a job and your predecessor left little surprises that it will take a year or more for you to even find out about, when they go off it will still somehow be your responsibility because the guy before you cut out before the SHTF?

That perspective is clearly lacking in reality, but then it's hardly surprising. Dems don't want to admit that Carter handed a manure pile to Reagan in virtually all respects, nor that Clinton enjoyed the benefits of Reagan-Bush's 12 years of hard work building the military and the economy. Far easier to pretend that things are instantly bad or good depending on which party was just elected.

Democrats - the party of bad fiction.

Nine months was long enough... (Below threshold)

Nine months was long enough to reward himself a vacation, so if the job Clinton did was so inferior, how many months do you think it reasonably should have taken before "the decider" at least publicly acknowledged the issue. FOR THE FIRST TIME. You just cannot help playing the blame game. The fact that the guy told his briefer, after being warned of an "imminent" Al Qaeda attack, "now you've covered your ass" before resuming his vacation; and played 18 holes of golf the day AFTER Katrina are easy to condone. But, Clinton should be blamed for something that happened nine months after he left office. He is a grossly irresponsible leader and you should face it. Having said that, since I vote the person not the party, I support Mitt Romney.

I'm from AZ and a veteran. ... (Below threshold)

I'm from AZ and a veteran. Wake up GOP voters McCain is a huge mistake! He is a Senator of a boarder state and has done NOTHING to stop the illegal immigration problem. We are struggling done here with crime and health care costs directly related to the problem.

I'm voting for Mitt. He knows the economy and he knows how to take a problem and get it solved.

I repeat DO NOT vote for McCain, this will be a huge mistake he is the biggest double-talker politician out there. Don't believe a word of the straight talk express. He has lied to us and he will do the same to the American people.

Point of fact, Jimmy Carter... (Below threshold)

Point of fact, Jimmy Carter encouraged the Islamofacist with his overthrowing of the Shah of Iran and allowing the Ayetollah to come to power. Then when our embassy was taken over, (remember it is American soil) he did nothing for more then a year. Reagan, whom I love, backed down when the marine barracks were bombed. GHW Bush did nothing of significance when airliners were being bombed out of the sky. Clinton had many attacks by the Islamofacists and chose to do nothing. GW chose and acted against this scum. Now the lefties are having much enjoyment out of slamming GW for being the only president to do something about this. Tony, learn your history. It will help. ww

It should also be noted tha... (Below threshold)

It should also be noted that the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996 was the work of Islamic radicals, possibly tied to the Iranian government.

In 1995, two members of our consular staff were assassinated in Pakistan, and the "Bojinka plot" to hijack and blow up eleven American airliners simultaneously was discovered in the Phillipines. And in 1999, a man was arrested attempting to enter the country through Washington state for the purpose of bombing LAX on New Year's Eve.

Tony - "Bush do NOTHING... (Below threshold)

Tony - "Bush do NOTHING betweem January of 2001 and 9/11? 9/11 happened on his watch, not Clinton's."

Ttpical knee-jerk blather from Clinton apologists.

Tony, one simple question to test your knowledge, did Clinton hand the Bush Admin a comprehensive plan for terrorism and Osama?

To his credit, after the 19... (Below threshold)

To his credit, after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing Clinton did launch a major offensive - against conservative talk radio.

Rasmussen, btw, has consistently show Giuliani's support at a significantly lower level than other polls have. He had Thompson quickly beating Rudy when Fred first entered the race, for example. I'm not saying it is intentional, but clearly something in Rasmussen's model tends to yield lower results for Giuliani than the others'.

I see there are those logge... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

I see there are those logged on here who have a very limited knowledge of what the job of President of the United States consists of. To believe the President gets to take a vaction is to suspend one's believe in reality. Tony, the President is on the job no matter where he is. Be it in the oval office, in Air Force 1, Crawford, Texas or Dixie. Washington. Location changes, not the job. I don't think any President has ever taken a vacation in the sense you mean. The only exception might be when Bill was vactioning in Monica.

You again compare apples an... (Below threshold)

You again compare apples and oranges. Bush's actions AFTER 9/11 and Clinton's before are like comparing your budgets before and after having children. With the exact same set of circumstances that Clinton had faced when bush took office, he did NOTHING. He ONLY did something after 3000 people were dead and two buildings lay in ruin. The "at least he is doing something unlike Clinton" is one of the most disingenuous arguments I know. Did Bush do anything knowing full well about Kobar, about 1993 WTC about the embassies? Did he live on Mars and not know about those incidents when he ran for office and took the oval office? He did nothing facing the identical circumstances that Clinton did. 9/11 did not happen on Clinton's watch, so we will never know how he would have responded. And, read the 9/11 commission report. Sandy Berger, the commission reported, did leave a comprehensive report. I am not saying Clinton acted vigilintly. He did not. But Bush did not either, until more Americans died in one day than in our history.

Zelsdorf, I suppose Bush's,... (Below threshold)

Zelsdorf, I suppose Bush's, "now you've covered your ass" comment was great leadership. Do you think so? I am not a Clinton apologist nor even a supporter, but to pin 9/11 on him when it happened nine months into bush's term is pure myopia. Clinton did leave Bush a plan. But, I think even if that was insufficient, nine months was ample time to mention the issue one time publicly. Delude yourself into believing it was all Clinton's fault. The bottom line is that a hell of lot fewer Americans died of Islamic terrorism under Clinton than under Bush. And, I say again, if Clinton's leadership on the issue was so terrible, where was the outcry then, from Bush, from anyone associated with his administartion, in January of 2001, February, MArch, April. May. June. July. August. September 10, 2001. His response since 9/11 is commendable, though I think the Iraw war was a gross mistake. But, this all started with the author above blaming Clinton, not with me blaming Bush.

Being a Fred Thompson guy, ... (Below threshold)

Being a Fred Thompson guy, I have to agree with Ann coulter also. Mitt is the only conservative choice left.

Buy I must note and agree with civildisobedience--
"though I am uncertain what he will do. No way am I voting for turncoat McCain, because I know exactly what he will do."

"But, this all started w... (Below threshold)

"But, this all started with the author above blaming Clinton, not with me blaming Bush."

I'm trying to understand why that statement has any merit in the discussion. Because the author said something you disagree with, your response is the valid one? Especially when you start off your first two missives with some sophomoric notion about Bush's vacations.

You need to face the facts here. 9/11 happened because of a long line of presidents passing along "the plan" to his successors and never doing anything more substantive than revising "the plan". Do you also need to be reminded that 9/11 was in the planning before Bush took office? Who was responsible for that? Whose policies allowed that plan to remain undetected? Do you also have to be reminded of the hurdles Bush had to go through just to get Judicial nominations in his first months. There's a whole lot you're not considering when you so casually lay the blame at his feet and criticize others for having the gall to consider that this was not one man and a brief few months that brought 9/11 to bear.

The only thing I fault Bush for is not cleaning out the entire State and Justice Departments on January 21st. Nine months might have been long enough to rewrite the book, but likely not long enough to implement new policies that could have prevented 9/11. Even if he started on day one and did not devote any time to a new energy policy, tax reform or nominations (you know, all the other things presidents do) it likely would not have been avoided without a monumental stroke of luck.

Another sobering fact to consider. People spit, scream and holler about policies implemented now to prevent another 9/11. Just how receptive would they have been to such policies before 9/11?

20/20 hindsight is a beautiful thing, isn't it?

Oyster said it well.... (Below threshold)

Oyster said it well. I'll add only this, Tony. You said:

The bottom line is that a hell of lot fewer Americans died of Islamic terrorism under Clinton than under Bush.

And the same may be said of dead Americans under Roosevelt versus Roosevelt, Truman versus Roosevelt, and JFK versus Johnson ad infinitum ad nauseum. And what did each know during his first nine months of office and what did they do about it?

Your polemic (I'm sorry, what it is again?) relies superbly on hindsight relative to the Bush administration and yet you offer the requisite homilies to being no Clinton fan:

I am not a Clinton apologist nor even a supporter

since I vote the person not the party, I support Mitt Romney.

Consider the context, as ww suggested. Bush had just come into office after the most viciously contested Presidential election in recent history. He also inherited the dot com bust and subsequent economic downturn. Nothing focuses the mind of the Executive like a recession. Ask James Carville.

As for demanding that the new President deal in a manner that would preempt tragedy in the way you argue Bush should have is to demand, by your own logic, that FDR was an anti Semitic conspirator who sanctioned the murder of Jews. How far do you want to proceed with this argument?

Most offensive is your invocation of Sandy Berger, which example belies your sorry logic, poor grasp of context and history, and lays bare your real allegiance.

As another troll has said here: it's time to-----------------------MoveOn. Away with you.

We've already lost this ele... (Below threshold)
The Exposer:

We've already lost this election if we consider Flip Romney a "Conservative alternative." There isn't a Conservative bone in his body. If we want to elect a leftist, vote for Obama and let the Democrats get the credit for failed policies. Elect this sleazy, lying Massachusetts liberal Romney, and he'll cripple the national GOP worse than Watergate did. After all, he killed his own state's party and now he wants a promotion. He's running in the wrong party.

Just say NO to Rudy McRombee!

I find this line to be laug... (Below threshold)

I find this line to be laugh inducing:

it would force the GOP leadership to be more attentive to conservative principles.

So, Mitt Romney who is running for President and would then be the defacto GOP leader has become more attentive to conservative principles, hasn't he?

And yet Bainbridge says he won't vote for the guy in order to get the GOP to be more attentive to conservative principles?

Too funny.

Mr. Addison,Rasmus... (Below threshold)
Alan Orfi:

Mr. Addison,

Rasmussen severely weights their data in accordance with their expectations of actual turnout. The guy is usually dead-on in the end and it is his ability to determine actual turnouts that make the difference. The two polls that have been most accurate over the past decade are Rasmussen and Mason Dixon. The worst have been SUSA and ARG.

Nice little pollster clash ... (Below threshold)
Alan Orfi:

Nice little pollster clash here as SUSA has very different numbers than Rasmussen. If recent history proves consistent, Romney will prevail in Florida.

Baggi #18 ~ I agree - The c... (Below threshold)

Baggi #18 ~ I agree - The concept of staying home/voting third party to "force the GOP to pay attention to conservatives" is a thoroughly STUPID idea. Bainbridge is often on target, but way off in this.

How well did it work in '06? Or '92? Those who want to "send a message" by staying home only send the following message: "IGNORE ME! I'm not voting! I desert you on a whim! Why pay attention to my concerns?"

I think he's just a sad little fellow at the moment, and we're supposed to fall all over him to convince him not to take his marbles and go home. Personally, I say "Let those without the stomach for the wet work go home!"


Alan Orfi #19 ~ His margins were off in New Hampshire, for one thing. And this was a robo-poll, I've just found out. Heck, I don't even answer those calls. But we will find out soon enough, won't we?

Romney is going to garner t... (Below threshold)
HT Springer:

Romney is going to garner the lion's share of Fred's followers. With the economy faltering and all the retirees in Florida watching their 401K's evaporate before their eye's, we're going to see a decisive victory for Mitt next Tuesday. If the economy remains the focal issue of the presidential campaign. Romney will be the next president. He is the only candidate who has any credibility to address the economic woes of our nation. His extraordinary success in business is undisputed. All the others are just talk.

Romney is correct that the ... (Below threshold)

Romney is correct that the bureaucacy in Washingon is messed up.

They don't have a clear direction for improvement.

Even the economy is now on a run away train with a one way ticket. Their right hands don't know what their left hands are doing.

America needs Romney right now.

McCain stands for war(s).

Romney stands for economy and jobs.

The American priority should be the economy and the developments of jobs to employ Americans and Veterans.

Help is comming ............... Romney.
Help is here ........... support Romney.

Romney is clearly the best ... (Below threshold)

Romney is clearly the best leader of the current GOP candidates. His perspective on the economy and jobs would be a huge benefit to the domestic agenda of the country.

For a military man, it's cl... (Below threshold)

For a military man, it's clear....Romney is the only man standing who will beat Hillary.

Why? Simple, you don't have to chase bullets to be a hero....this guy is incredibly smart, a great problem solver, a man that stands out in a crowd in a great way. After 30+ years in the military, we recognize our hero's. Mitt is one...look at his life...impressive.

We don't need a 2.0 GPA in the White House, we need smarts and a person of vision.

Hope others will begin to wake up and see what I see....Mitt, be the man!






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy