Monday, August 13, 2007
|
|
Grasping at Straws
|
|
Posted by:
Dean Barnett at
11:43 AM
|
So how much did this weekend’s little event in Ames, Iowa matter? On the one hand, you had some guy at the Beauchamp Gazette gushing that “it's hard to overstate the significance of Huckabee's performance here” before predicting that Huckabee-mania would swamp the nation like a global-warming induced tsunami. On the other hand, you had analysts like John Podhoretz bluntly opining, “I hate to be nasty, but anybody who takes the Ames Straw Poll results seriously is an idiot. A bunch of people spent ludicrous amounts of money to bus-and-truck 14,000 people to a big picnic, and the guy who spent the most bought the win with a mammoth 4516 votes. Goshers! 4,516 votes.”
Yes, unduly nasty, but his comments hit close to the mark. When all the frontrunners bailed on Ames except for Mitt Romney, the straw poll instantly became a freak show for fried-Twinkee craving political obsessives. Mitt Romney did what he had to do. He won and continued to show his commitment to Iowa. After McCain, Rudy and Fred decided not to attend, I bet the Romney campaign wouldn’t have minded if the Ames people called the whole thing off. Would have saved a few bucks, and it’s not like he needed the boost.
For those who say Romney’s looking less juggernaut-ish than he did before Ames because of Huckabee’s second place finish, I’d ask when precisely did the Romney campaign turn into a juggernaut. He’s still a relatively obscure figure with roughly half the name recognition of Rudy Giuliani or Hillary Clinton. As Hugh pointed out over the weekend, the Romney campaign has met every goal he has set. But the will goals get harder to reach to as the calendar progresses. Winning in Iowa once looked like a long shot for Romney. Not anymore. Winning in South Carolina and Florida still look tough. He’s got to keep moving forward. I’m sure the campaign knows this. Mitt ain’t exactly the presumptive nominee just yet.
ONCE AGAIN, GENERALLY SPEAKING, J-POD IS RIGHT. Since the Ames event wasn’t competitive, it became a non-event. Does anyone who knows anything about Republican politics think Mike Huckabee has a chance to win this race? Republicans don’t nominate inexperienced people; our least qualified nominee of the past 60 years was George W. Bush, and he had been Governor of a large state for 6 years and he had the proper bloodlines.
Huckabee seems like a great guy, and he’s run a nice campaign, but his resume is too slight to get a seat at the top-tier table. Yes, he’s been Governor of Arkansas; Republicans don’t think the last experiment of electing someone with that background worked out particularly well. By the way, the resume-thing is the reason Duncan Hunter hasn’t been able to break through, even though he’s very impressive. In the eyes of the Republican electorate, he’s just a congressman, and I can’t remember someone with a background like that even seriously contending for the Republican nomination.
As far as the other candidates are concerned, the Ames results are also a non-event. You could say the results prove that Ron Paul isn’t a serious candidate for the Republican nomination. But you know what? If Paul had won the straw poll with 80% of the vote on Saturday, his Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs campaign would still be a non-starter. Republicans aren’t going to nominate Ron Paul for the presidency. We’re not even going to consider it.
Some people say the fact that Brownback came in third means he can’t get any traction. Really now - don’t the facts that he hasn’t raised any money or budged at all in any polls more strongly suggest what a failure his campaign has been? I know Patrick says the Brownback campaign has “rock stars like Leon Wolf and Billy Valentine running their e-efforts.” Perhaps that shows the value of having “e-effort” rock stars. Campaigns are big things, and “e-efforts” remain a small part of the big picture. Even the best e-efforts can’t overcome a terminally lame candidate.
The Brownback campaign has been a vile little thing, attacking other candidates from way back in the pack, violating the 11th Commandment constantly. Sam Brownback appears to be a deluded man, laboring under the impression that he actually has a chance in this race and that the ends therefore justify the means. Yes, the same Sam Brownback who switched his vote on McCain/Kennedy in a span of minutes to be on the winning side, an act caught for posterity on C-SPAN, actually thinks he has a chance to be the next President of the United States. It’s nice that T. Thompson and Gilmoar dropped out, but Brownback has been the least distinguished member of the field. The race will benefit from his absence.
One could say that we should be thankful for Ames because it clarified some things. But for the last time, J-Pod is right. It was a non-event, and the campaign looks exactly the way it did on Friday. Rudy’s the frontrunner, Romney’s the strong second and Thompson’s the wildcard. There’s probably room in the top tier for another candidate, but none of the existing lower-tier candidates have the stuff to capitalize on the opportunity.
Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com
|
|
Romney is getting a boost in the national polls. That is a very big payoff from Ames if he holds the numbers.
Huckabee is getting a lot of talk on TH but his national poll numbers are not moving. He may get more money from the TH talk but he is not a top tier candidate and won't be unless he starts generating at least 3 mill a month. He gives some Evangelicals a place to go if they do not like Romney, Fred or Rudy, beyond that he is not going anywhere and should fade after this week. |
|
All this has nothing to do with Dean Barnett's blog post, so I apologize to everyone else here for spamming your discussion.
Someone on the right has to stand up for Israel, a free and decent capitalist democracy and a reliable if small ally. Not many people on Townhall.com seem to have the courage or the inclination to do that, so I felt duty-bound to speak up on behalf of a truly good country (if you would only travel there, you would see that instantly).
There are many people on these blogs, and throughout the world, who hate Israel and blame her for all their favorite ills. They are entitled to feel that way, but surely there must be some conservatives willing to take a public stand when Israel is unfairly maligned. |
|
2. The slogan "a people without a land for a land without a people" is just that, a slogan -- not an argument. It was dreamt up for public relations purposes in the heat of a pitched propaganda war. The land, in fact, had many peoples, among which the Jews themselves were always prominent. All those peoples had an equal chance to marshal their resources and take power in the lawless vacuum left by the British retreat. The Jews lost 30% of their adult males to the ensuing war. What more would you have had them do before you would grant them the right to exist?
3. There are many Irish-Americans who consider themselves Irish patriots as well as American patriots. Are they accused of having dual loyalties? Of conspiring to exercise sinister influences on our government?
4. The United States gives aid to Israel because our policymakers have determined that it is in our national interest to do so, just as they have with Saudi Arabia and with Egypt. Governments do not just give away their money at the suggestion of some influential citizens. There is always a target, an objective. Aid to Israel started as a critical investment in curbing Soviet power in the Middle East. It continues today as a curb on Arab power. The money is not given out of friendship.
5. The USS Liberty affair is by far the most tragic and frustrating chapter of US-Israeli relations. At best it was a grossly incompetent and criminally negligent error. At worst it was an outbreak of actual hostilities between our two countries, however brief, stemming from a rash and hot-headed misunderstanding of US intentions. It should never have happened, and all sincere supporters of Israel should be ashamed of it. Sometimes we fight with our friends. Israel made a terrible mistake that day, but show me a government anywhere in the world that had not made some fatal mistakes. |
|
None of that was ugly, Sir. What I called ugly was your use of the term Zionist as a gratuitous insult. In fact, those were my exact words. I expected more precision from you.
At any rate, you're entitled to believe all of that. We can disagree. However, if you're inclined to discuss your views, please allow me to respond to some of your points.
1. The Native Americans had a uniquely legitimate claim, one that is heart-wrenching and tragic in a way the Palestinian Minister of Propaganda could only dream of. But as far as I'm aware, no serious person is arguing that consequently the United States doesn't have a right to exist. Who, anyway, grants the right to exist? The fact is that states have historically often come into existence by the application of decisive power by one of the sides in a territorial dispute. This process is frequently tragic and has often involved brutal atrocities. The Thirty Years war, in which most of today's familiar European states took shape, involved brutality on a scale that dwarfs even the Holocaust. Does that mean France and Germany do not have the right to exist?
|
|
We don't need another George Bush big government 'compassionate' conservative. we need a reagan-thatcher type to come back and save us from going way in the wrong direction. Huckabee is not our guy for this!!
http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/print.aspx?ArticleID=7ecd2abc-c7b0-4016-8683-adf10e6265ac
Yes he is a social conservative, but that is it. and can anybody see him being a commander in chief? What has he ran or done to have experience with security. both guliani and romney have that and they also have a bona fide strong record of limited government and lower taxes.
|
|
Let's get something straight.
Zionism is the idea that Jews form both a religious community and a nation with a historical homeland. This homeland, traditional Palestine, is also claimed by other peoples, with some legitimacy. Nonetheless, the Old Testament makes it plain that Palestine was the seat of Jewish national sovereignty for 1000 years, in which time its people produced two great sister religions, Judaism and Christianity. There has also been a continuous Jewish presence there for 3000 years. The Jewish claim to these lands is consequently as legitimate as any other. In the end, the Jews and the Arabs had a war, which the Jews won. This is how nations are made. Just as we and the British had equally legitimate claims to the 13 colonies, and we had to fight a war to force them to accept our claim to nationhood as a fact, so too with the Jewish nation.
Since the Jews now have a national homeland, it is no longer relevant to advocate that they should or should not have it. They do, in fact, have it. Therefore today, Zionism means simply Jewish patriotism. You can argue that one can't be a patriot of two different nations simultaneously (though between allied fellow democracies, that seems oddly purist), but you can't argue that Jewish patriotism is wrong while American patriotism is right. Israel has her national interests -- military, economic, propagandistic -- just as we do. On what grounds can we hold her to a higher standard than we do ourselves?
Your use of the term Zionism as a gratuitous insult to centrist republicans, in a context that bears no relation to Israel or Jews, betrays either ignorance of its meaning at best, or something far uglier at worst. In any event, not everyone on the right will let that kind of ugliness stand unchallenged.
Respectfully, --Joe |
|
that he knows nothing about Iowa politics. We like to have our candidates actually come spend time here and participate.
Here is reality. Huckabee spent way less than most other candidates - approximately $90,000. He did not charter any buses, and yet still earns 2nd place. That means his message is resonating among the people of Iowa, and this is finally getting him the national attention that he deserves.
I don't think it unrealistic at all to think he could win the nomination. I'm not ready to coronate anybody yet. |
|
Romney's run for the presidency becomes more and more impressive by the day. His organizational skills and business acumen are far and away better than any other candidate in the race, Republican or Democrat.
McCain is running on fumes. Brownback offers nothing that Huckabee doesn't, and he should bow out. Tancredo is Paul's shadow, and should bow out. A race between Romney, Giuliani, Paul, and Huckabee would be a fine one to watch. I could vote happily for 3 of the 4 (not Giuliani), but I do think Romney offers the greatest all around package. |
|
I have been to 3 of these things, now. This one was different than others in 2 ways. First, there was not the excitement that there was this time around that there was at the two previos ones. Second, there was no real fealing that there was a real front-runner. 14,000 voting Iowans came to Ames in a state where total turnout at the caucuses are about 100,000 people. What that means is that 14% of the people that will be part of the first group to actually have a say were at the event. I drove 2 hours, and waded around in 100 degree heat to take part in it. From what I could tell, most other Iowans there did not have their minds made up. In the end, almost 70% of the people voted for a candidate that "does not have a chance". Rudi, McCain, and Thompson did themselves no favors by trying to not pull an Elizabeth Dole, and lose the nomination by finishing badly in Ames. By telling such a large block of voters that they do not matter, they really got some folks mad. This has sort of gotten lost in the din of the national news covering the non-event of campaigns shipping people in from anywhere they can get them to look like they have more support than they actually do.
I listened to the candidates, got all of the material that they were passing out, and even talked to many of them (you can actually walk right up to most of them, look them in the eye, and get a sense of what they are all about). For many active Iowa Republicans, the straw poll is when we start making up our mind. I went in with a bend toward Tancredo, even voted for him. After coming home, thinking, talking to my family, praying, and even calculating a little, I was won over by Huckabee, and have decided to start giving him my support (and a check). Today I had a chance to compare notes with some friends that went, and found that they had the same experience. |
|
Moonkeeper, you said that Ron Paul was
"only congressman that voted against both of them (i.e., the two final spending bills, HR 2829 & HR 2643). I looked up the votes on these bills, and they were as follows:
HR 2829: Jun 28, 2007: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by roll call vote. The totals were 240 Ayes, 179 Nays, 13 Present/Not Voting.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2829#votes
HR 2643: Jun 27, 2007: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by roll call vote. The totals were 272 Ayes, 155 Nays, 5 Present/Not Voting.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2643#votes
Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo were among those voting against these two bills.
|
|
|
|
He's the antidote to Rockefeller Republicans. And the cure to tax and spend Democrats. He's the real deal. The breath of fresh air.
Let's get back to basics and put a man in the White House who knows what higher gasoline prices really costs the working man and woman.
Will you just close your eyes, hold your breath and pull the lever for some guy you really don't agree with because some political talking head thinks he can beat Hillary? Or will you go to work for a guy who has the vision to really make a change.
I voted against Gore and then I voted against Kerry. I'd like to vote FOR a candidate. 2008 I'd like it to be Mike Huckabee. |
|
Two things that unfortunately seem to go hand-in-hand.
It starts with,
Ron Paul loves the constitution.
Then,
If you hear Ron Paul speak you will love Ron Paul.
Then,
The "media" is smearing/ignoring Ron Paul.
Finally
If you don't love/support Ron Paul you're mindless sheeple.
The Cult of Paul. If you don't join nobody will like you and you don't get the "secret" constitutional handshake.
|
|
You said, "I believe you may have misread the study. The study showed how Congress voted on amendments, and not the FINAL BILLS themselves."
No, I did identify them as amendments, not the votes on the final bills, and I made the point that even if RP voted against the final bill, the final bill was inflated with pork that he had voted for during the amendment process. This strikes me as a rather strange way to support Federalism. In every case, the amendments were targeting pork barrel spending that went beyond the bounds of Constitutional authorization.
I'm glad that RP voted "no" on the two final bills that you cited, but his votes on the amendments do matter. If a Congressman claimed to be pro-life, but voted against life during the amendment process and then for life on the final bill, I think that it would be legitimate to question their pro-life credentials. |
|
The political ideology of the Club for Growth is irrelevant because the rating percentages are not based on subjective factors. The percentages represent how each Congressional representative voted on a series of 50 different anti-pork amendments to various appropriation bills. They list and describe the 50 amendments on which their report is based. These 50 amendments were not cherry-picked -- they constitute every anti-earmark/pork amendment brought to the floor of Congress this year. It is pretty clear that in every case, the amendment was intended to squash a dubious earmark. Look over the list, and tell me if you think that any of the earmarks are justified.
Again, Ron Paul voted "yes" (i.e., against the earmark/pork) only 12 times out of 41 votes cast. I posted (above) the names of every Congressional representative who had a better record than Ron Paul on these anti-pork amendments. There were many who were far worse, but most of them were Democrats. There is much about RP's Constitutional philosophy that I find appealing, but his voting record does not seem to comport with the rhetoric of all of the "Paulists" posting at Town Hall. |
|
|
He supports illegal immigration. Are the Republicans even more stupid than one can imagine electing this dolt? |
|
I haven't made up my mind yet, but I'll not be voting for another Rockefeller Republican as long as I live (I voted for Bush twice).
At least President Hillary will stab me in the front.
|
|
"Do not try to dodge the issue by changing the subject to the final vote on each appropriation bill. The fact of the matter is that each of those appropriation bills were laden with pork -- pork that Ron Paul voted for 71% of the time. If more of our Congressional representatives followed the example of Jeff Flake, John Shadegg and Mike Pence, we could put an end to budget-busting, government-expanding earmarks. What we need are more representatives who will say no to pork 100% of the time."
I would have liked to have spent more time answering your question, unfortunately, I was in a hurry to do something else. Here is a mor in-depth answer.
I believe you may have misread the study. The study showed how Congress voted on amendments, and not the FINAL BILLS themselves. Instead of taking it at face value, I decided to look up the wording of the bills themselves, and the votes on the final bills themselves. I looked through the first 10 amendment votes or so, and found they were connected to 2 seperate bills.....and Ron Paul is the only congressman that voted against both of them. They were HR 2829 and HR 2643.
The Ron Paul side wins again! |
|
I've never heard of them, so I went to their website. At the top of their page is the suggestion that Smoot-Hawley was responsible for the Great Depression. Good one. China SHOULD be viewed as an enemy, NOT given MFN status.
I read a little further and came to the decision that CFG is a group of Rockefeller Republicans.
They gave Jeff Flake a 100%? This is the same guy who is co-sponsering Flake/Guitterez, the House version of the Senate amnesty bill. According to Heritage, each family of an illegal costs taxpayers $21K per year. And Flake wants more. Please explain CFG's 100% rating for Flake.
I hate to disagree gentlemanscholar, but Club For Growth cannot be trusted. |
|
Do not try to dodge the issue by changing the subject to the final vote on each appropriation bill. The fact of the matter is that each of those appropriation bills were laden with pork -- pork that Ron Paul voted for 71% of the time. If more of our Congressional representatives followed the example of Jeff Flake, John Shadegg and Mike Pence, we could put an end to budget-busting, government-expanding earmarks. What we need are more representatives who will say no to pork 100% of the time.
Ron Paul's record on earmarks/pork suggests that he is still playing the game of going along to get along and get some for his own district. He is part of the problem, not part of the answer. |
|
On CNN Romney said:
ROBERTS: Romney, himself, has no significant foreign policy experience, and never served in the military.
(on camera): You have five sons. None of them have ever been in the military. Might that become an issue?
ROMNEY: Each of my five sons gave two years of their life to the service of their church and I consider that service to be laudable. But I very highly value those who serve in the military. But it is a volunteer military. And I hope we keep it that way.
****
Here Romeny can't even tell the difference between church and state! Explain to me again why the Romney boys don't join the US ARMY. |
|
"Of course, you mean your particular version of the consittution don't you? Every congressman believes he or she votes with the U.S. Contitution. You assertion is a very thin reed upon which to base an arguement."
My particualr interpretation comes from the reading of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, along with James Madison's notes on the discussion relating to the Constitution. |
|
|
first we're busting on Cocoa Puffs, and then I read someone disparaging Coke in quantities other than six. All the hate is just too much. |
|
"He voted for the anti-pork amendments just 12 times. 12 out of 41 = 29%"
What was the rate of voting on the bills themselves by every congressman once the pork was included? |
|
Marchant (R-TX-24) 61% 30 / 49 Boehner (R-OH-8) 60% 29 / 48 Buyer (R-IN-4) 60% 30 / 50 Platts (R-PA-19) 58% 29 / 50 Gohmert (R-TX-1) 56% 28 / 50 Mica (R-FL-7) 56% 28 / 50 Souder (R-IN-3) 55% 27 / 49 Putnam (R-FL-12) 54% 27 / 50 Rogers, Mike (R-MI-8) 54% 27 / 50 Buchanan (R-FL-13) 52% 26 / 50 Kingston (R-GA-1) 52% 26 / 50 Radanovich (R-CA-19) 52% 25 / 48 Biggert (R-IL-13) 50% 25 / 50 Herger (R-CA-2) 47% 22 / 47 Brown-Waite, G. (R-FL-5) 46% 23 / 50 Ehlers (R-MI-3) 45% 22 / 49 Camp (R-MI-4) 44% 22 / 50 Johnson, Timothy (R-IL-15) 44% 22 / 50 Foxx (R-NC-5) 43% 21 / 49 Upton (R-MI-6) 42% 21 / 50 Castle (R-DE-AL ) 40% 20 / 50 Brady, K. (R-TX-8) 38% 18 / 47 Carter (R-TX-31) 38% 18 / 48 Fortenberry (R-NE-1) 38% 19 / 50 Tiberi (R-OH-12) 38% 19 / 50 Goodlatte (R-VA-6) 36% 18 / 50 Dreier (R-CA-26) 34% 17 / 50 Hall, R. (R-TX-4) 32% 16 / 50 Weldon (R-FL-15) 30% 15 / 50 Paul (R-TX-14) 29% 12 / 41
|
|
|
Cooper (D-TN-5) 98% 49 / 50 Feeney (R-FL-24) 98% 48 / 49 Jindal (R-LA-1) 98% 42 / 43 Jordan (R-OH-4) 98% 47 / 48 Miller, J. (R-FL-1) 98% 49 / 50 Price, T. (R-GA-6) 98% 49 / 50 Bachmann (R-MN-6) 96% 48 / 50 Cannon (R-UT-3) 96% 48 / 50 Chabot (R-OH-1) 96% 48 / 50 Linder (R-GA-7) 96% 48 / 50 Myrick (R-NC-9) 96% 43 / 45 Akin (R-MO-2) 94% 47 / 50 Blackburn (R-TN-7) 94% 46 / 49 Musgrave (R-CO-4) 94% 45 / 48 Petri (R-WI-6) 94% 47 / 50 Sali (R-ID-1) 94% 47 / 50 Sessions, P. (R-TX-32) 94% 31 / 33 Sullivan (R-OK-1) 94% 44 / 47 Conaway (R-TX-11) 92% 46 / 50 Pitts (R-PA-16) 92% 46 / 50 Royce (R-CA-40) 92% 46 / 50 Terry (R-NE-2) 92% 46 / 50 Davis, David (R-TN-1) 91% 43 / 47 King, S. (R-IA-5) 91% 43 / 47 Barrett (R-SC-3) 90% 45 / 50 Inglis (R-SC-4) 90% 45 / 50 Mack (R-FL-14) 90% 45 / 50 Duncan (R-TN-2) 88% 44 / 50 Coble (R-NC-6) 87% 39 / 45 Issa (R-CA-49) 86% 43 / 50 Neugebauer (R-TX-19) 86% 43 / 50 Rohrabacher (R-CA-46) 86% 43 / 50 Walberg (R-MI-7) 86% 43 / 50 Wilson, J. (R-SC-2) 86% 43 / 50 Ramstad (R-MN-3) 84% 42 / 50 Smith, Adrian (R-NE-3) 84% 42 / 50 Stearns (R-FL-6) 84% 42 / 50 Tancredo (R-CO-6) 84% 21 / 25 Cantor (R-VA-7) 82% 40 / 49 Pearce (R-NM-2) 82% 41 / 50 Poe (R-TX-2) 82% 41 / 50 Fossella (R-NY-13) 81% 39 / 48 Bilbray (R-CA-50) 78% 38 / 49 Burton (R-IN-5) 78% 39 / 50 Graves (R-MO-6) 76% 38 / 50 Roskam (R-IL-6) 76% 38 / 50 Shimkus (R-IL-19) 76% 37 / 49 Gingrey (R-GA-11) 74% 37 / 50 Lungren (R-CA-3) 74% 37 / 50 Schmidt (R-OH-2) 74% 37 / 50 Johnson, S. (R-TX-3) 72% 28 / 39 Bishop, R. (R-UT-1) 71% 30 / 42 Burgess (R-TX-26) 71% 34 / 48 McHenry (R-NC-10) 71% 35 / 49 Nunes (R-CA-21) 69% 34 / 49 Hastert (R-IL-14) 68% 26 / 38 Keller (R-FL-8) 68% 34 / 50 McCarthy, K. (R-CA-22) 66% 33 / 50 Barton (R-TX-6) 64% 32 / 50 McCaul (R-TX-10) 62% 31 / 50 |
|
|
Flake (R-AZ-6) 100% 50 / 50 Campbell (R-CA-48) 100% 50 / 50 Hensarling (R-TX-5) 100% 50 / 50 Broun (R-GA-10) 100% 12 / 12 Deal (R-GA-9) 100% 50 / 50 Franks, T. (R-AZ-2) 100% 50 / 50 Garrett (R-NJ-5) 100% 48 / 48 Heller (R-NV-2) 100% 50 / 50 Kline, J. (R-MN-2) 100% 50 / 50 Lamborn (R-CO-5) 100% 49 / 49 Pence (R-IN-6) 100% 44 / 44 Ryan, P. (R-WI-1) 100% 50 / 50 Sensenbrenner (R-WI-5) 100% 50 / 50 Shadegg (R-AZ-3) 100% 50 / 50 Thornberry (R-TX-13) 100% 50 / 50 Westmoreland (R-GA-3) 100% 50 / 50 |
|
Moonkeeper wants: " ...someone could cite for me a candidate that votes with the US Constitution more often.... "
Of course, you mean your particular version of the consittution don't you? Every congressman believes he or she votes with the U.S. Contitution. You assertion is a very thin reed upon which to base an arguement.
Paul is probably a good guy, ad good doctor, a patriot and a consciencious congressman, let's leave it there.
|
|
|
The Club for Growth has put together a Re-Pork Card delineating how every member of Congress voted on a series or 50 anti-pork budget amendments this year. Ron Paul cast a vote on 41 of these amendments, and guess what? He voted for the anti-pork amendments just 12 times. 12 out of 41 = 29% He talks a good fiscal conservative talk, but how can anyone be regarded as a fiscal conservative when they vote FOR pork more than 2/3rds of the time? -- especially after we, the GOP base, made it clear in 2006 that we were sick and tired of Congress's spendthrift ways. |
|
For all the talk about Ron paul being a kook or a tin foil hat wearer, I'd really appreciate if someone could cite for me a candidate that votes with the US Constitution more often....
Perhaps they would get me to change my vote :)
|
|
I sometimes wonder if people just turn on their personal filters and tune out when someone other than THEIR favorite candidate is speaking. Romney SUPPORTED THE SURGE from the very first time he was directly asked the question months ago. He was excoriated by his detractors for taking this position. He said (and continues to say) over and over again that before Americans cut and run the new Bush strategy had to be given time to work. Joe, I get really tired of this nonsense. Listen up or clam up.
Romney already beat Rudy and John by chasing them out of the state (They can read the polls ... it might have been closer but they would lose...we'll never know).
EVERY single vote cast for EVERY single candidate was BOUGHT by the candidates. No one paid for their own ticket. That is the name of the game and those not willing to play pickup their bat and ball and go home whining all the way. And the MSM (and some at Townhall) cry boo hoo in lock step.
Mitt, Rudy and John promised the good folks of Iowa that they would participate in the straw poll. Who kept his word and who quit when the going got tough despite their word?
Everyone but the losers think the Ames straw poll was a success, especially the Iowa Republican Party. The fact that the participants picked up the lions share of the tab speaks well of them. It will help all republicans in the General Election.
I'm sorry to see Tommy Thompson leave the field. His service to all Americans has been long and self-less. In my book Thompson left a winner because, even though he knew he would lose in Ames, he kept his word and he left with his integrity intact. Rudy and John should be ashamed.
|
|
The Huckabee min-wave is interesting.
If you were Rudy Giuliani and Sen. John McCain having bowed out of Iowa for strategic reasons, for whom would you encourage Straw Poll delegates loyal to you to vote? Huckabee, Brownback or Romeny?
|
|
I really wish you Ivory Tower types
living on the coasts would STOP talking down to the voters in Iowa and elsewhere.
_____________________________________________
Hey now, don't blame me because I live in the Great NorthWest. LOL
|
|
|
I love Fred Grandy. I listen to Gopher every morning here in NoVA. |
|
living on the coasts would STOP talking down to the voters in Iowa and elsewhere.
How about you stop telling us what is important to US????
This poll means A LOT to the Republicans in Iowa.
Are you going to tell the Republicans in Idaho they aren't important? Missouri? North Carolina? Alaska?
|
|
and the Butter Cow; but I don't look to them to tell me how to vote.
Anyone else who does is about 5 cokes short of a six-pack, if you know what I mean...
Romney won because of a number of reasons; but "popular" and "wins elections" doesn't mean "best Candidate".
No, I don't support Ron Paul (this generation's answer to Governor Moonbeam). But anyone liberal enough to be elected Governor of Massachusetts may not really be a Conservative.
|
|
It's a giant political stunt, but a lot of politics is perception.
It may shock many of the self-appointed pundits, but it hardly matters that Guiliani and McCain sat it out. All most people will see are the numbers and they'll note that Romney has a surge of support, and that some of the so-called 2nd tier candidates placed higher than the anointed folks, which will lend their campaigns more legitimacy and will ensure that they will continue to have a platform and a voice in the campaign well into the early primaries next year.
Guiliani and McCain both shot themselves in the foot.
As to whether or not, Dr. Paul's campaign and message of limited government and liberty catch on over the course of the next year or not, I think it largely depends on whether or not a sufficient majority of Americans are sick and disgusted with a choice between big government conservatism and big government liberalism.
While the idealist in me would like to think that this is so, and that we just might get a president who would believe in and follow the document he swears to uphold, the cynic in me believes that people are so enamoured, comfortable with and dependent on the Federal largess that they will vote for candidates that support the status quo, thereby ensuring that we get at least four years of President Clinton II. |
|
Cocoa Puffs do not need to take responsibility for everyone who's cuckoo for them. (Personally, I'm a granola guy, but that's neither here nor there, and anyway the R party is a big enough tent for that, right?)
And I have no doubt whatsoever that Ron Paul is running a serious campaign with a serious chance of victory in the pseudo-alternative pseudo-universe where apparently he and most of his supporters dwell. |
|
|
If Ron Paul doesn't win, it won't be because of lack of fundraising. It won't be out of lack of support or a poor campaign (He scored 5th place while having been in Iowa for a couple days), It'll be because the media and the blogosphere will be doing the equivelant of covering their ears, and going "Lalalala! I can't hear you!" He doesn't have a shot in hell, he's a loon, etc. Well, he's gaining a heck of a lot of momentum, *no thanks* to the media whatsoever. |
|
You're an idiot, Dean. And a bit egocentric in what you write. You don't know squat, period, about how Republicans will vote for their nominee. What a shameless rant you went on in this article.
The neocons have ruined the Republican Party. Take it back, people. Small government. Less Spending. No foreign interventions. Federalism. Big tent.
Period. |
|
... to annoy us and (use up valuable TH space with their stupid comments)???
Cause if they're gittin' paid to annoy us- Is there someplace where we kin sign up to git paid to annoy THEM???
I can't jus go to those Lefty nutball sites fer nuthin'- they make me want to puke. |
|
|
I'm having trouble trying to understand exactly why this is bad for Romney. He wanted to win. He did win. He wanted to win by double digits. He did win by double digits. He was so fierce in Iowa, he chased Guilani and McCain out from evening throwing their hats in the ring. So where are the negatives for the Romney campaign? All this criticism seems like a preemptive strike to me. Romney may be trying to market himself as the 2nd place underdog at this point in the game, but make no mistake, he's the frontrunner, and his opponents on both sides of the aisle know it. |
|
"Republicans aren’t going to nominate Ron Paul for the presidency. We’re not even going to consider it."
WE'RE not going to consider it? What, does Dean Barnett speak for all Republicans everywhere? I guess so as it's seems they can't think for themselves.
We already knew an anti-war candidate would be tough to push through on the neo-cons, it's not a surprise. The funny thing is the republicans think they can nominate another neo-con like Romney or Giuliani and have a "serious" shot at the presidency.
lol indeed |
|
Except for your ideas on Paul and Huckabee -- as long-term elected officials we have to assume they're not complete fools about elections, so both realize they don't have realistic chances of assuming White House residency.
Huckabee's goals are a) becoming VP or Cabinet material and b) getting his name out nationally. This is what motivates the second-tier candidates, beyond the narrow hope that some or all the first-tier candidates implode.
Paul belongs to another category as he's not interested in currying favor with what he sees as overly hawkish opponents. He's essentially like Tancredo -- both are running protest candidacies for their respective causes. By any measure -- visibility, debate "moments," talk show guest spots -- Paul is more successful.
Oh, and let's not forget plain, garden-variety ego. Why do you think Alan Keyes kept running?
DU |
|
1. Romney is the one to beat in Iowa.
No duh, right? He's following his strategy, yes he's thrown millions into the state, but he's had to. He's not just coasting along running a good-hearted campaign, he's actually putting a ton of effort in on all fronts. Like he said on Fox yesterday, when people look at the ads, they think he was doing it for the Straw Poll, which is true to a point, but the big picture is the Iowa caucus. People forget that him doing well there and leading in Iowa can potentially propel him in other states. IOW, it gives him credibility. His skills of managing and organizing coupled with a huge effort and fundraising spooked the supposed frontrunners.
2. What is a the top tier?
McCain has imploded and looks like a gimp, not showing up at Ames further validates this assertion. And Fred, that "lazy" moniker is looking spot on right now. I have a heck of a lot more respect for those that are out there and campaigning, meeting people, basically those that are in it to win it...as opposed to trying to show up and steal it. Giuliani, is running on 9/11 and it's unclear just how much good he really did. He's clearly likeable and well known, and the "tough guy" that will take the fight to islamic jihadists yet refused to take the fight to Ames. Their spinning it well, and it probably was smart politically...at the same time...I boo when pitchers intentionally walk Bonds. Prudent, probably. Chicken? You betcha.
3. Top tier chickens = chance for 2nd tier
The lack of a presence from the non-participants now gives fuel to a lesser known...like Huckabee and could threaten someone like a Thompson. I highly doubt it...but Huck is likeable and has a bit of the southern charm in him. We'll see if people open their checkbooks for him.
|
|
Romney never equated driving around Iowa in a Winnebago with fighting in Iraq. He simply said that his sons' helping in is campaign is service to the nation, which it is. Your statement is absurd.
Having said that, Romney's statement about his sons was a bit lame, but not nearly as lame as the question he was answering. If the questioner was implying only people who either have served in the military or whose family members have served are qualified to be president, then that eliminates all three of the top Dems (Clinton, Edwards, and Obama). The questioner was trying to set a trap.
|
|
SonnyJim,
Cocoa Puffs is the best crappy cereal out there! Dean should be ashamed of himself in debasing it in connecting it with Ron Paul. However, we need to be careful with our host. We make him mad and he'll put up that photo of chowdah again!
Far as Ames goes.... ZZZZZZZZZZZZ. At least J-Pod was able to stay awake. |
|
I'm a Romney supporter who would not mind Huckabee as Mitt's running mate should he win the nomination. North / South covered. Their debating skills would decimate the Dems. Two Governors likely versus two Senators unless the dems are smart and have Richardson as their VP nominee.
And those republicans downplaying Romney's win. His win shows more of what the other candidates want. Organization, energy and money. What's the excuse when he beats them at the debates? |
|
Dean called Ron Paul cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.
I resent that.
I really like Cocoa Puffs. |
|
It shows that Guiliani and McCain are whiny babies, who pulled out because they didn't prepare enough and didn't want to get scorched. They skewed the whole contest which has been part of the game for years. They proved themselves to be lazy and selfish.
Fine examples of leadership. Not. |
|
Romney remains strong.
The non showing of some, does hurt them.
Fred T is getting a little silly.
No guts, no glory...
|
|
narcissistic sociopaths. They care for themselves, their families and their cronies, and nothing else.
|
|
Hostility to Romney was more the order of the day than credible analysis of the straw poll. Something prevalent even before the poll where you have petty blogs like Jim Geraghty trot out some half-named political operative named "Mark" to diss Romney.
The straw poll means squat statistically. The NYT showed the most accurate history of few thousand respondents to the now tens of thousand with a fluid result of who won Iowa and the nomination.
It does provide an indication of good organization and commitment to winning.
The same people that want to twist the poll negatively will tell us that a snap-shot sample of few hundred people tells us who the front-runner is when it tells us only who has name recognition and nothing about their actually ability to run a campaign.
Romney's response to his victory was honest on all fronts. He said what it does mean and what it doesn't mean.
|
|
According to Dean's post Huckabee is not qualified because he is simply a governor. But Romney was also a governor, might I ask why he is more qualified? Reagan was an actor-turned-governor. He did rather well, no?
I'm not talking about campaign organization & strength. I'm addressing the idea that governors in general don't have enough experience to be President and why Romney is apparently separated from that questionable standard |
|
Romney is not a juggernaut because no one in the first tier bothered to compete in the Straw Poll. Yes, it was a victory, but Ames was simply a political show. A few thousand attendees are simply not indicative of how the whole state is going to go.
Now, Romney might win Iowa. But lets not pretend that this event was the first major victory of the race, because it wasn't. |
|
|
|