Apparently, the Tea Party activists are going after Ron Paul for not being "conservative enough." Although Paul has been supportive of the movement, he's been moving away from them recently because he feels the tone has been overly-antagonistic.
Ron Paul's 2008 Presidential bid is what was the catalyst for the Tea Party movement! I cannot stand for this, and I'm already going to endorse Ron Paul for re-election to his seat in the House of Representatives.
See, this is what happens when you don't stick to your fundamental principles because you attract the wrong kind of people. I'm so angry at this right now, I'm ready to tell the Tea Partiers to stop dumping the tea, and jump off the ship themselves.
Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Monday, February 8, 2010
An Objective View of the Tea Party Movement
I'll preface this by saying that I've never attended a Tea Party demonstration. I do like the initial principles that were espoused by the Tea Party: limiting government, promoting free enterprise, and protecting individual freedom. I am skeptical about where this movement may be headed, given the philosophical predilictions of those who have jumped on board with the Tea Partiers in recent months.
Anyway, I'm going to take a look at the Tea Party, where it can do a lot of good, and what it needs to do to avoid being "hijacked" by people who don't understand the true principles of the movement.
Let's be real, here...the Tea Party Movement is too large to be considered a bunch of "fringe right-wing wingnuts". This movement is something that has appeal to conservatives, libertarians, and third-way/centrist Democrats who saw the prosperity that came with the 1990's and the continuation of non-expansionist government policy.
There are those who think that it is a racist movement, since it is anti-Obama. I'm a bit tired of this rhetoric. As long as Obama is black, there will always be someone who claims any attempt to push back against his agenda is rooted in some kind of blatantly racist motive. Since Obama will always be black, there will always be someone who pulls the race card to discredit the push-back.
While I'm sure there are those who may hold such sentiments within the movement (as there are in all political parties), it is an obviously small minority. There are too many people who favor the Tea Party principles that it isn't some kind of tiny fringe group who happen to make a lot of noise. Get over it, race-baiters, the Tea Party principles of good, limited government are more in line with Ron Paul than with Pat Robertson, despite what others may want you to think.
While many may knock Sarah Palin, she said some things that many people across the majority of the political spectrum (except for dedicated "progressives"). In fact, I was watching MSNBC after Palin's speech, and they had the always-thinking Lionel talking about what Palin said. I do not remember who was hosting the post-speech commentary, but I know it was someone who was a part of the left (I think it was Ed Schultz, but I could be wrong). However, Lionel told the host that in Palin's speech "she said things that, if it wasn't Sarah Palin saying them, you would agree with."
Palin's general stance on the fact that government should roll back it's size and scope is one that many, many people can agree with. Given Palin's populist appeal, she can be a lightning rod for the Tea Party Movement to push forward with more support.
The movement (and using Palin as a lightning rod) is not without faults, though.
First of all, the Tea Party Movement (in principle) should really have nothing to do with religion. However, using Palin as a lightning rod will naturally attract a lot of social conservatives. The same social conservatives who supported the Republicans who allowed government spending and budget deficits to expand on their watch for 6 years under George W. Bush. If we want to move in a different direction, we have to change fiscal thinking and reduce government's size and scope. This will require moving away from the social issues, as they are not part of the Tea Party's principles.
There are those who want to push very "Christian" ideals in the Tea Party (I guess sensing an opportunity to "start over and get it right" in their opinion). Some of the ideas I've heard tossed around have involved pushing Christianity in schools (or "keeping God in school"). I've found this to be odd, because all through my 13 years of primary education, I only found "God" to be a part of school twice...once, in Kindergarten, at a Lutheran school...and the other in 8th grade, at a Catholic school. The rest of the time, I was in public school, and I don't remember there being a God to remove...so how can we put him back if he wasn't there in the first place?
OK, obviously I was going for a little humor there, but the point is made. We can teach kids the basic morals of civilized society (which yes, I do believe are derived from religious beliefs of many different kinds...which goes to show you that religions aren't as different as some may think). Most of the people who are pushing these things are new to the Tea Party, and see it as some kind of new conservative party, instead of a push for fundamental change in governmental philosophy back to the foundation set by our founding fathers.
Secondly, the Tea Partiers must recognize that the Republicans are jumping on board because the concepts of limited government and personal freedom (sound familiar libertarians?) are part of the core of conservatism (see the Reagan quote in the subtitle of this blog)...which the Republicans moved away from over the past decade or so. They know to win back the populous, they need to adopt these aspects of the Tea Party. However, those who hold true to the Tea Party's principles need to make the politicians move to them, and not the inverse.
See, if they move towards the Republican Party in it's current state, you're moving towards such politicians as Tom Tancredo (whose stance on immigration is more than just anti-illegal immigrant), the hardline SoCons (who want to ban gay marriage and all abortions, as well as bring about more theocratic philosophy), and RINOs.
So I warn the Tea Party...stick to the principles that the majority of people believe in (which is a mostly libertarian-based philosophy with some conservative elements). Keep government's size and scope in check, allow for free enterprise for all, a strong national defense that is for defensive purposes (emphasis on "defensive"), and reforms of ineffective government policies (like current immigration laws).
Otherwise, you will allow the more extreme elements that have joined your movement to allow you to continue to be marginalized by politicians and the media elite.
As for Palin for President in 2012? I doubt it. She is better in her role as a spokesperson and rally artist for a governmental philosophy, but I do not necessarily see her as a leader of a nation, as she carries a lot of negative baggage. Then again, if she can prove to me that she is a better candidate in 2012 than she was in 2008, I might change my mind. However, right now, I can't say that I could go with her as a potential presidential candidate.
On that note (2012), I would like to see Ron Paul run for President again, but that's just me :)
**Addendum To This Post - 8:16 PM**
Leslie Carbone, one of my favorite intellectuals anywhere, addresses some of my same concerns in her latest post, "The Problem With Palin", and brings up a few new issues as well.
Anyway, I'm going to take a look at the Tea Party, where it can do a lot of good, and what it needs to do to avoid being "hijacked" by people who don't understand the true principles of the movement.
Let's be real, here...the Tea Party Movement is too large to be considered a bunch of "fringe right-wing wingnuts". This movement is something that has appeal to conservatives, libertarians, and third-way/centrist Democrats who saw the prosperity that came with the 1990's and the continuation of non-expansionist government policy.
There are those who think that it is a racist movement, since it is anti-Obama. I'm a bit tired of this rhetoric. As long as Obama is black, there will always be someone who claims any attempt to push back against his agenda is rooted in some kind of blatantly racist motive. Since Obama will always be black, there will always be someone who pulls the race card to discredit the push-back.
While I'm sure there are those who may hold such sentiments within the movement (as there are in all political parties), it is an obviously small minority. There are too many people who favor the Tea Party principles that it isn't some kind of tiny fringe group who happen to make a lot of noise. Get over it, race-baiters, the Tea Party principles of good, limited government are more in line with Ron Paul than with Pat Robertson, despite what others may want you to think.
While many may knock Sarah Palin, she said some things that many people across the majority of the political spectrum (except for dedicated "progressives"). In fact, I was watching MSNBC after Palin's speech, and they had the always-thinking Lionel talking about what Palin said. I do not remember who was hosting the post-speech commentary, but I know it was someone who was a part of the left (I think it was Ed Schultz, but I could be wrong). However, Lionel told the host that in Palin's speech "she said things that, if it wasn't Sarah Palin saying them, you would agree with."
Palin's general stance on the fact that government should roll back it's size and scope is one that many, many people can agree with. Given Palin's populist appeal, she can be a lightning rod for the Tea Party Movement to push forward with more support.
The movement (and using Palin as a lightning rod) is not without faults, though.
First of all, the Tea Party Movement (in principle) should really have nothing to do with religion. However, using Palin as a lightning rod will naturally attract a lot of social conservatives. The same social conservatives who supported the Republicans who allowed government spending and budget deficits to expand on their watch for 6 years under George W. Bush. If we want to move in a different direction, we have to change fiscal thinking and reduce government's size and scope. This will require moving away from the social issues, as they are not part of the Tea Party's principles.
There are those who want to push very "Christian" ideals in the Tea Party (I guess sensing an opportunity to "start over and get it right" in their opinion). Some of the ideas I've heard tossed around have involved pushing Christianity in schools (or "keeping God in school"). I've found this to be odd, because all through my 13 years of primary education, I only found "God" to be a part of school twice...once, in Kindergarten, at a Lutheran school...and the other in 8th grade, at a Catholic school. The rest of the time, I was in public school, and I don't remember there being a God to remove...so how can we put him back if he wasn't there in the first place?
OK, obviously I was going for a little humor there, but the point is made. We can teach kids the basic morals of civilized society (which yes, I do believe are derived from religious beliefs of many different kinds...which goes to show you that religions aren't as different as some may think). Most of the people who are pushing these things are new to the Tea Party, and see it as some kind of new conservative party, instead of a push for fundamental change in governmental philosophy back to the foundation set by our founding fathers.
Secondly, the Tea Partiers must recognize that the Republicans are jumping on board because the concepts of limited government and personal freedom (sound familiar libertarians?) are part of the core of conservatism (see the Reagan quote in the subtitle of this blog)...which the Republicans moved away from over the past decade or so. They know to win back the populous, they need to adopt these aspects of the Tea Party. However, those who hold true to the Tea Party's principles need to make the politicians move to them, and not the inverse.
See, if they move towards the Republican Party in it's current state, you're moving towards such politicians as Tom Tancredo (whose stance on immigration is more than just anti-illegal immigrant), the hardline SoCons (who want to ban gay marriage and all abortions, as well as bring about more theocratic philosophy), and RINOs.
So I warn the Tea Party...stick to the principles that the majority of people believe in (which is a mostly libertarian-based philosophy with some conservative elements). Keep government's size and scope in check, allow for free enterprise for all, a strong national defense that is for defensive purposes (emphasis on "defensive"), and reforms of ineffective government policies (like current immigration laws).
Otherwise, you will allow the more extreme elements that have joined your movement to allow you to continue to be marginalized by politicians and the media elite.
As for Palin for President in 2012? I doubt it. She is better in her role as a spokesperson and rally artist for a governmental philosophy, but I do not necessarily see her as a leader of a nation, as she carries a lot of negative baggage. Then again, if she can prove to me that she is a better candidate in 2012 than she was in 2008, I might change my mind. However, right now, I can't say that I could go with her as a potential presidential candidate.
On that note (2012), I would like to see Ron Paul run for President again, but that's just me :)
**Addendum To This Post - 8:16 PM**
Leslie Carbone, one of my favorite intellectuals anywhere, addresses some of my same concerns in her latest post, "The Problem With Palin", and brings up a few new issues as well.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Ron Paul for Senate or Governor in 2010?
I'm hearing rumors of both. Would be interesting if Kay Bailey Hutchinson does indeed step down. Then again, if she doesn't step down until after 2010, current Texas Governor Rick Perry would be waiting in the wings as well, and he's got solid approval ratings and a pretty decent campaign machine behind him.
I like Perry, I also like Ron Paul, though there are some differences between them and there are some different reasons why I like each of them...both seem to have a pretty good handle on the Constitution and the limits it places on the federal government.
I like Perry, I also like Ron Paul, though there are some differences between them and there are some different reasons why I like each of them...both seem to have a pretty good handle on the Constitution and the limits it places on the federal government.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Rand Paul Promises to Introduce Downsize DC Agenda
This the stuff I want to hear! Time to break out the old endorsement panel for the son of liberty's best friend.
The agenda includes...
The Read The Bills Act (make Congress read the bills before they debate and vote)
The One Subject At a Time Act (keep all amendments germane to the bills)
The Write the Laws Act (make Congress write the laws, instead of allowing unelected bureaucrats to do so)
Also, Rand Paul promised to co-sponsor the Enumerated Powers Act (force federal government to obey the 9th and 10th Amendments), and reintroduce the Fiscal Responsibility Act (cut Congressional pay each year we run a budget deficit, cuts grow larger in consecutive deficit years).
The agenda includes...
The Read The Bills Act (make Congress read the bills before they debate and vote)
The One Subject At a Time Act (keep all amendments germane to the bills)
The Write the Laws Act (make Congress write the laws, instead of allowing unelected bureaucrats to do so)
Also, Rand Paul promised to co-sponsor the Enumerated Powers Act (force federal government to obey the 9th and 10th Amendments), and reintroduce the Fiscal Responsibility Act (cut Congressional pay each year we run a budget deficit, cuts grow larger in consecutive deficit years).
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Fred Thompson Drops Out of GOP Race, Who Should I Endorse Now?
So my man, Fred Thompson, is out of the race officially. Between the not-so-hot finishes in Iowa and South Carolina, tending to his sick mother last week, and a mixed GOP base...I can see why things just didn't go for him this time.
Since Thompson hasn't endorsed anybody, I now have to find a new candidate to support.
Do I go with John McCain, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, or Ron Paul? Well, let me weight them out...
Mike Huckabee...while I like the idea of the FairTax, I don't think it is something that could be implemented without serious short-term economical damage. Other than that, Huckabee doesn't have much going for him with me. His record on issues isn't very sparkling when it comes to fiscal prudence, and he's heavy on the SoCon platform, which is very divisive in today's political sphere. Factor in Huckabee's lack of real ideas on the foreign policy front, and there isn't much for me to agree with as far as I've seen. Until he shows me something different, I cannot (in good faith) support Huckabee. Not with these other candidates in the field.
Ron Paul...while I like limited government and free markets, Paul strikes me as just a tad too isolationist for my tastes, especially since we're a big part of the global economy. Paul wants to pull out of Iraq immediately, even though many Dems even agree that things are now going in our favor and we can create a better situation in that region if we continue on the current course. I like libertarian ideals, but I'm a federalist at heart, and Paul and I just don't quite click enough to work.
John McCain...I respect McCain's independent streak, and I agree with him on fiscal issues (not just tax cuts, but spending cuts are necessary). He claims to have "heard the people" in regards to immigration, but that remains to be seen. McCain has the experience, the bipartisan appeal, and the intelligence to be a good leader. However, with that comes a certain amount of unpredictability about his performance. Then again, I thought McCain would've been a good leader in 2000 over George W. Bush. 50/50 shot with McCain, here.
Rudy Giuliani...The man I originally leaned towards for President until Fred Thompson came around and inspired me to endorse him. Rudy is smart on most of the issues, but has been basically repeating the same routine for about 8 months now. However, should he win Florida, the race changes dramatically. I like Rudy, and I think he'd make a pretty good leader. However, he's been dormant for so long that I don't know what to think.
Mitt Romney...Mitt appeals to me on fiscal issues, but has changed his position on various issues to move himself further to the right from where he was as a candidate for the U.S. Senate and as Governor of Massachusetts. With the economy being the top priority for the majority of voters right now, I would believe that Romney could be one of the best candidates to bring revival to the American economy, as he (along with his father) is a model of capitalist success. Another possible pick, but I'm just not sure at this point.
Do any of you have any ideas? Here's your chance to sell your candidate to me.
Since Thompson hasn't endorsed anybody, I now have to find a new candidate to support.
Do I go with John McCain, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, or Ron Paul? Well, let me weight them out...
Mike Huckabee...while I like the idea of the FairTax, I don't think it is something that could be implemented without serious short-term economical damage. Other than that, Huckabee doesn't have much going for him with me. His record on issues isn't very sparkling when it comes to fiscal prudence, and he's heavy on the SoCon platform, which is very divisive in today's political sphere. Factor in Huckabee's lack of real ideas on the foreign policy front, and there isn't much for me to agree with as far as I've seen. Until he shows me something different, I cannot (in good faith) support Huckabee. Not with these other candidates in the field.
Ron Paul...while I like limited government and free markets, Paul strikes me as just a tad too isolationist for my tastes, especially since we're a big part of the global economy. Paul wants to pull out of Iraq immediately, even though many Dems even agree that things are now going in our favor and we can create a better situation in that region if we continue on the current course. I like libertarian ideals, but I'm a federalist at heart, and Paul and I just don't quite click enough to work.
John McCain...I respect McCain's independent streak, and I agree with him on fiscal issues (not just tax cuts, but spending cuts are necessary). He claims to have "heard the people" in regards to immigration, but that remains to be seen. McCain has the experience, the bipartisan appeal, and the intelligence to be a good leader. However, with that comes a certain amount of unpredictability about his performance. Then again, I thought McCain would've been a good leader in 2000 over George W. Bush. 50/50 shot with McCain, here.
Rudy Giuliani...The man I originally leaned towards for President until Fred Thompson came around and inspired me to endorse him. Rudy is smart on most of the issues, but has been basically repeating the same routine for about 8 months now. However, should he win Florida, the race changes dramatically. I like Rudy, and I think he'd make a pretty good leader. However, he's been dormant for so long that I don't know what to think.
Mitt Romney...Mitt appeals to me on fiscal issues, but has changed his position on various issues to move himself further to the right from where he was as a candidate for the U.S. Senate and as Governor of Massachusetts. With the economy being the top priority for the majority of voters right now, I would believe that Romney could be one of the best candidates to bring revival to the American economy, as he (along with his father) is a model of capitalist success. Another possible pick, but I'm just not sure at this point.
Do any of you have any ideas? Here's your chance to sell your candidate to me.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
N.H. GOP Primary: McCain's Win Anti-Climactic, Romney's Still Got a Chance
Anyone else feel that John McCain's win in New Hampshire was not nearly the surprise that some have made it out to be?
Sure, he's come back from being nearly dead in the water 8 months ago. However, for about 2 weeks now, we've pretty much known that McCain would overtake Mitt Romney in New Hampshire and win. McCain has been surging for 2 months now, and is actually starting to take away Mike Huckabee's heat (thank God).
Many are already counting Mitt Romney out, but be careful about that kind of prognostication. If McCain, Huckabee, and Rudy Giuliani trade victories all over the United States, Romney seems poised to come in 2nd or 3rd in all of the primaries. He still will collect plenty of delegates even if he gets mostly silver-medal finishes.
With Huckabee's popularity pretty well isolated to evangelicals and other social conservatives, and McCain being a "boom or bust" candidate whose boom or bust depends on the state, Romney could be the most consistent "delegate-collector" of all the candidates.
With the possibility of a contested convention in September, and no one candidate really breaking away to collect enough delegates to win on the first ballot, Romney may put himself into a very advantageous position by winning a few states, and getting a lot of 2nd place finishes.
Honestly, as wide open as this race is...I can definitely see the possibility that no GOP candidate reaches the magic number of 1,191 delegates by the time this thing is over.
After New Hampshire, CNN has the delegate count as follows...
Romney 30, Huckabee 21, McCain 10, Fred Thompson 6, Ron Paul 2, Giuliani 1, Duncan Hunter 1. While it's still REALLY early, we've got Michigan, Nevada, South Carolina, and Florida coming up before Super Tuesday.
Fred Thompson is making his "Last Stand" in South Carolina. Smart move to hedge his bets there, as that is the next "big focus" primary, and the site of the next debate. This is his best shot to get back into this thing.
Sure, he's come back from being nearly dead in the water 8 months ago. However, for about 2 weeks now, we've pretty much known that McCain would overtake Mitt Romney in New Hampshire and win. McCain has been surging for 2 months now, and is actually starting to take away Mike Huckabee's heat (thank God).
Many are already counting Mitt Romney out, but be careful about that kind of prognostication. If McCain, Huckabee, and Rudy Giuliani trade victories all over the United States, Romney seems poised to come in 2nd or 3rd in all of the primaries. He still will collect plenty of delegates even if he gets mostly silver-medal finishes.
With Huckabee's popularity pretty well isolated to evangelicals and other social conservatives, and McCain being a "boom or bust" candidate whose boom or bust depends on the state, Romney could be the most consistent "delegate-collector" of all the candidates.
With the possibility of a contested convention in September, and no one candidate really breaking away to collect enough delegates to win on the first ballot, Romney may put himself into a very advantageous position by winning a few states, and getting a lot of 2nd place finishes.
Honestly, as wide open as this race is...I can definitely see the possibility that no GOP candidate reaches the magic number of 1,191 delegates by the time this thing is over.
After New Hampshire, CNN has the delegate count as follows...
Romney 30, Huckabee 21, McCain 10, Fred Thompson 6, Ron Paul 2, Giuliani 1, Duncan Hunter 1. While it's still REALLY early, we've got Michigan, Nevada, South Carolina, and Florida coming up before Super Tuesday.
Fred Thompson is making his "Last Stand" in South Carolina. Smart move to hedge his bets there, as that is the next "big focus" primary, and the site of the next debate. This is his best shot to get back into this thing.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
"New Hampshire" = "Nasty Heat" for Candidates
These were the best debates, so far. Charles Gibson did a good job moderating the debate, and the format was much more of a "debate" and less of a "question and answer" session. Kudos to ABC, and the "unity" moment of having all the candidates from both parties greet each other onstage between debates was a nice touch.
Diane Sawyer, though, really seemed out of place in the whole scheme of things. Anyway, on to my thoughts.
On the GOP side...
- Fred Thompson had an excellent debate, and even George Stephanopoulos said so in his post-debate comments. He put Romney on the spot without attacking him (and forced Romney, on one occasion, to completely waffle on a question), handled Ron Paul like nobody else has done, and had a generally good overall performance. He seemed very comfortable in this debate, was on-point with his policies, and answered questions directly. Also, I noticed that more candidates said "Yes, Senator Thompson is right..." and would go on to repeat Fred's words. That's because Fred is correct.
- Mitt Romney was attacked by everyone on stage in some way, shape, or form. I must say that Romney handled most of the criticism well, considering the bombardment of attacks from many sides, especially from John McCain. McCain, while having some good quips, seemed more intent on spitting out a "zinger", then flashing a silly grin right before they cut away from him. His performance was a bit forced, in my opinion.
- Huckabee was almost non-existant for long stretches, playing the "let them knock each other out" card. Good job by Charles Gibson not to allow that to go on forever. Giuliani had a relatively strong performance. He made his stances fairly clear, pointed to his record of law enforcement and economic turnaround in New York City, and deflecting criticism for being more liberal in his policies in the past.
- Ron Paul did a good job espousing his views, but also took more heat than normal, probably because he's a more serious threat than most of the other candidates realized. He got burned by Fred on the "money-printing/Iraq War/health care" tie-in that Paul stretched to make.
On the Dem side...
- All 4 candidates had relatively decent nights, nobody had a "bad" night. However, if anyone should come out of this looking better than before, it's Bill Richardson. He was on a much more level playing field in terms of speaking time, and made good use of it. Richardson will probably give Hillary more problems than Obama and Edwards, and Richardson appeals to the "experience" base of the Democratic Party.
- Obama is really pushing for the Independent/Republican cross-over vote. He made a point to address them as necessary to create a majority consensus for his policies. Unless someone like Huckabee gets nominated, I don't see many Republicans crossing over.
- As usual, more "anti-Republican" sentiments from the Dems than "anti-Democrat" sentiments from the GOP. In fact, the only time the GOP addressed the Dems was when they were asked to compare themselves to Barack Obama. The Dem candidates had a habit of bringing up "those horrible Republicans" when they needed a rallying point...instead of rallying around what they stand for.
- Hillary had a stronger debate than the previous few debates she took part in. However, Obama was solid and Edwards also had a stronger-than-normal debate. None of which helps her in the long run.
Diane Sawyer, though, really seemed out of place in the whole scheme of things. Anyway, on to my thoughts.
On the GOP side...
- Fred Thompson had an excellent debate, and even George Stephanopoulos said so in his post-debate comments. He put Romney on the spot without attacking him (and forced Romney, on one occasion, to completely waffle on a question), handled Ron Paul like nobody else has done, and had a generally good overall performance. He seemed very comfortable in this debate, was on-point with his policies, and answered questions directly. Also, I noticed that more candidates said "Yes, Senator Thompson is right..." and would go on to repeat Fred's words. That's because Fred is correct.
- Mitt Romney was attacked by everyone on stage in some way, shape, or form. I must say that Romney handled most of the criticism well, considering the bombardment of attacks from many sides, especially from John McCain. McCain, while having some good quips, seemed more intent on spitting out a "zinger", then flashing a silly grin right before they cut away from him. His performance was a bit forced, in my opinion.
- Huckabee was almost non-existant for long stretches, playing the "let them knock each other out" card. Good job by Charles Gibson not to allow that to go on forever. Giuliani had a relatively strong performance. He made his stances fairly clear, pointed to his record of law enforcement and economic turnaround in New York City, and deflecting criticism for being more liberal in his policies in the past.
- Ron Paul did a good job espousing his views, but also took more heat than normal, probably because he's a more serious threat than most of the other candidates realized. He got burned by Fred on the "money-printing/Iraq War/health care" tie-in that Paul stretched to make.
On the Dem side...
- All 4 candidates had relatively decent nights, nobody had a "bad" night. However, if anyone should come out of this looking better than before, it's Bill Richardson. He was on a much more level playing field in terms of speaking time, and made good use of it. Richardson will probably give Hillary more problems than Obama and Edwards, and Richardson appeals to the "experience" base of the Democratic Party.
- Obama is really pushing for the Independent/Republican cross-over vote. He made a point to address them as necessary to create a majority consensus for his policies. Unless someone like Huckabee gets nominated, I don't see many Republicans crossing over.
- As usual, more "anti-Republican" sentiments from the Dems than "anti-Democrat" sentiments from the GOP. In fact, the only time the GOP addressed the Dems was when they were asked to compare themselves to Barack Obama. The Dem candidates had a habit of bringing up "those horrible Republicans" when they needed a rallying point...instead of rallying around what they stand for.
- Hillary had a stronger debate than the previous few debates she took part in. However, Obama was solid and Edwards also had a stronger-than-normal debate. None of which helps her in the long run.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Wonderin' Bout Wyoming
As many bloggers have pointed out, the GOP Caucus in Wyoming is today. While most are ignoring it, a few are paying attention.
From what I understand, the three names to watch in Wyoming are Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and possibly Ron Paul.
3 men who all need momentum.
From what I understand, the three names to watch in Wyoming are Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and possibly Ron Paul.
3 men who all need momentum.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Iowa Results and Fallout
Dem Caucus
- Obama 38%, Edwards 30%, Clinton 29%, Richardson 2%
GOP Caucus
- Huckabee 34%, Romney 25%, Thompson 13%, McCain 13%, Paul 10%, Giuliani 4%, Hunter 1%
Note: Thompson edged out McCain in the number final number of votes each received, which gives Fred a third-place finish.
Last night was a spectacle to behold, really. While the GOP is smart to keep it simple and plain in their caucus (which really makes it more like a primary), it is notable that the Dems have a much more interesting way of going about their caucusing because it involves a lot more interaction and stumping by caucus-goers for their candidate.
- Clinton was destined to lose, here...but not by 9 percent. With New Hampshire a total dogfight between Obama and Clinton, Hillary has a lot of making up to do and only a few days to do it.
- Fred Thompson got the 3rd place finish that he needed to move forward with some momentum heading towards South Carolina (Fred isn't getting much in New Hampshire, and never really will). If Huckabee gets stomped in New Hampshire, that helps Fred...but also helps Mitt Romney in South Carolina. The next 2-3 weeks are key for Fred's campaign.
- Ron Paul polled a solid 10%, it will be interesting to see the effects that will have.
- Joe Biden and Chris Dodd both have dropped out of the running for the Dem nomination. Somewhere, Johnny Camacho is weeping gently over a piece of Biden's hairplugs.
- ABC has dropped Duncan Hunter, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich from Saturday night's GOP and Dem debates. The reason was due to the fact that none of the 3 met any of the requirements to debate. There are 3 requirements, and a candidate must reach one...those requirements are: Finishing 4th or better in Iowa, poll 5 percent or better in New Hampshire, or poll 5 percent or better in one of the major national surveys. This, combined with the dropouts of Biden and Dodd, leave 4 Democrats and 6 Republicans to debate on Saturday.
- Obama 38%, Edwards 30%, Clinton 29%, Richardson 2%
GOP Caucus
- Huckabee 34%, Romney 25%, Thompson 13%, McCain 13%, Paul 10%, Giuliani 4%, Hunter 1%
Note: Thompson edged out McCain in the number final number of votes each received, which gives Fred a third-place finish.
Last night was a spectacle to behold, really. While the GOP is smart to keep it simple and plain in their caucus (which really makes it more like a primary), it is notable that the Dems have a much more interesting way of going about their caucusing because it involves a lot more interaction and stumping by caucus-goers for their candidate.
- Clinton was destined to lose, here...but not by 9 percent. With New Hampshire a total dogfight between Obama and Clinton, Hillary has a lot of making up to do and only a few days to do it.
- Fred Thompson got the 3rd place finish that he needed to move forward with some momentum heading towards South Carolina (Fred isn't getting much in New Hampshire, and never really will). If Huckabee gets stomped in New Hampshire, that helps Fred...but also helps Mitt Romney in South Carolina. The next 2-3 weeks are key for Fred's campaign.
- Ron Paul polled a solid 10%, it will be interesting to see the effects that will have.
- Joe Biden and Chris Dodd both have dropped out of the running for the Dem nomination. Somewhere, Johnny Camacho is weeping gently over a piece of Biden's hairplugs.
- ABC has dropped Duncan Hunter, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich from Saturday night's GOP and Dem debates. The reason was due to the fact that none of the 3 met any of the requirements to debate. There are 3 requirements, and a candidate must reach one...those requirements are: Finishing 4th or better in Iowa, poll 5 percent or better in New Hampshire, or poll 5 percent or better in one of the major national surveys. This, combined with the dropouts of Biden and Dodd, leave 4 Democrats and 6 Republicans to debate on Saturday.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Fatal 4-Way: 2008 Election May Be a Multi-Candidate Slugfest
We could have a legitimate 4-way race for President this coming fall. Think about it.
You'll have the Democratic Party nominee, the Republican Party nominee...that is certain. However, given the current buzz going around, we may now see a viable Independent and a Constitution/Libertarian Party candidate. Imagine this ballot...
- Dem Candidate (insert Clinton/Obama/Edwards here)
- GOP Candidate (insert Giuliani/Romney/McCain/Huckabee/Thompson here)
- Michael Bloomberg (Independent)
- Ron Paul (Constitution and/or Libertarian Party)
There is a good possibility that all of these candidates could snag 10% of the vote, especially with Bloomberg and Paul pulling at swing voters. Turnouts would be tremendous, and the winner would be whoever gets a plurality, but not a majority.
Bloomberg is as close to running as possible without having announced or formed an exploratory committee, and he has already committed up to $1 billion of his own money towards a presidential bid. Bloomberg, currently mayor of NYC, is a former Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-Independent whose appeal is targeted at social liberals and fiscal conservatives.
Paul has already implied that he may look into going the 3rd Party route if he doesn't get the GOP nomination, and both the Constitution and Libertarian Parties have made overtures to Paul to run as their candidate. Considering his campaign has raised tons of money without having spent much of it, Paul might very well be positioning himself for a strong 3rd party run.
Now, consider the slight possibility that if John McCain wins the GOP nomination, Joe Lieberman might be his running mate (a bit out there, but possible), and the entire race is thrown into a whole other world of possibilities and uncertainty.
Can you imagine a 4-way race with non-mainstream candidates who are actually viable contenders for the White House? Folks, we may be sitting on the cusp of history.
You'll have the Democratic Party nominee, the Republican Party nominee...that is certain. However, given the current buzz going around, we may now see a viable Independent and a Constitution/Libertarian Party candidate. Imagine this ballot...
- Dem Candidate (insert Clinton/Obama/Edwards here)
- GOP Candidate (insert Giuliani/Romney/McCain/Huckabee/Thompson here)
- Michael Bloomberg (Independent)
- Ron Paul (Constitution and/or Libertarian Party)
There is a good possibility that all of these candidates could snag 10% of the vote, especially with Bloomberg and Paul pulling at swing voters. Turnouts would be tremendous, and the winner would be whoever gets a plurality, but not a majority.
Bloomberg is as close to running as possible without having announced or formed an exploratory committee, and he has already committed up to $1 billion of his own money towards a presidential bid. Bloomberg, currently mayor of NYC, is a former Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-Independent whose appeal is targeted at social liberals and fiscal conservatives.
Paul has already implied that he may look into going the 3rd Party route if he doesn't get the GOP nomination, and both the Constitution and Libertarian Parties have made overtures to Paul to run as their candidate. Considering his campaign has raised tons of money without having spent much of it, Paul might very well be positioning himself for a strong 3rd party run.
Now, consider the slight possibility that if John McCain wins the GOP nomination, Joe Lieberman might be his running mate (a bit out there, but possible), and the entire race is thrown into a whole other world of possibilities and uncertainty.
Can you imagine a 4-way race with non-mainstream candidates who are actually viable contenders for the White House? Folks, we may be sitting on the cusp of history.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Iowa Polls: Huck and Mitt Still Lead, Fred Entrenched in 3rd Place
Courtesy of Real Clear Politics, here are the latest Iowa polls.
LA Times/Bloomberg (12/20-12/26)
- Huckabee 36%, Romney 28%, Thompson 10%, McCain 8%, Giuliani 8%, Paul 1%
Research 2000 (12/26-12/27)
- Huckabee 34%, Romney 27%, Thompson 11%, McCain 8%, Giuliani 8%, Paul 8%
Strategic Vision (12/26-12/27)
- Huckabee 29%, Romney 27%, Thompson 15%, McCain 14%, Giuliani 4%, Paul 4%
Interesting, even though all 6 candidates place in the same general order, some conclusions can be drawn from these polls.
First, while Huckabee leads in all 3, his amount of support wavers quite a bit between the 3 polls. Romney seems to have the steadiest base of support. Fred's numbers go up 4-5 points from pre-Christmas to post-Christmas. McCain has spotty, but all-over-the-place support. Giuliani has no hope in Iowa, and Ron Paul goes from 1% to 4% to 8%...which one is it?
Nonetheless, I'm coming to the conclusion that Huckabee/Romney will be a 1-2 finish either way, but the coveted 3rd spot (which candidates need to carry momentum past Iowa) should go to the now-resurgent Fred instead of John McCain, who seems to be betting on New Hampshire as his true launching point.
LA Times/Bloomberg (12/20-12/26)
- Huckabee 36%, Romney 28%, Thompson 10%, McCain 8%, Giuliani 8%, Paul 1%
Research 2000 (12/26-12/27)
- Huckabee 34%, Romney 27%, Thompson 11%, McCain 8%, Giuliani 8%, Paul 8%
Strategic Vision (12/26-12/27)
- Huckabee 29%, Romney 27%, Thompson 15%, McCain 14%, Giuliani 4%, Paul 4%
Interesting, even though all 6 candidates place in the same general order, some conclusions can be drawn from these polls.
First, while Huckabee leads in all 3, his amount of support wavers quite a bit between the 3 polls. Romney seems to have the steadiest base of support. Fred's numbers go up 4-5 points from pre-Christmas to post-Christmas. McCain has spotty, but all-over-the-place support. Giuliani has no hope in Iowa, and Ron Paul goes from 1% to 4% to 8%...which one is it?
Nonetheless, I'm coming to the conclusion that Huckabee/Romney will be a 1-2 finish either way, but the coveted 3rd spot (which candidates need to carry momentum past Iowa) should go to the now-resurgent Fred instead of John McCain, who seems to be betting on New Hampshire as his true launching point.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Ron Paul Running as a Consitution Party Candidate?
Interesting, I thought he would run on the Libertarian Party's ticket, due to his base of support there and the fact that the Libertarian Party has better name recognition and fundraising capabilities.
Paul could conceivably score 5-10% on a national ballot running as a third party candidate. He already pulls about 30-35% when matched up against Dems as a possible GOP candidate. If he runs on a third-party ticket, he would be a serious blow to GOP support in the actual election as Paul draws most his support from the libertarian and constructionist wings of the GOP.
Don't think the Dems don't know this, either. In fact, the article referenced above cites the fact that Paul has received funding and/or support from 9/11 conspiracy theorists, anti-war supporters, and possibly from both George Soros and MoveOn.org. However, it should be noted that once MoveOn's Paul supporters were "found out" by other Paulites (which are made up of largely "small-l" libertarians who don't like Democrats), they were not greeted with open arms.
(h/t Spark It Up)
Paul could conceivably score 5-10% on a national ballot running as a third party candidate. He already pulls about 30-35% when matched up against Dems as a possible GOP candidate. If he runs on a third-party ticket, he would be a serious blow to GOP support in the actual election as Paul draws most his support from the libertarian and constructionist wings of the GOP.
Don't think the Dems don't know this, either. In fact, the article referenced above cites the fact that Paul has received funding and/or support from 9/11 conspiracy theorists, anti-war supporters, and possibly from both George Soros and MoveOn.org. However, it should be noted that once MoveOn's Paul supporters were "found out" by other Paulites (which are made up of largely "small-l" libertarians who don't like Democrats), they were not greeted with open arms.
(h/t Spark It Up)
Friday, December 21, 2007
GOP Polls Gone Wild
Talk about some strange numbers, here's some of the latest out of Iowa...
Strategic Vision
- Huckabee 31%, Romney 25%, Thompson 16%, McCain 8%, Giuliani 6%, Paul 5%
American Resource Group
- Huckabee 28%, McCain 20%, Romney 17%, Giuliani 13%, Thompson 5%, Paul 4%
Insider Advantage/Majority Opinion
- Romney 28%, Huckabee 25%, Thompson 11%, McCain 7%, Paul 6%, Giuliani 5%
Rasmussen
- Huckabee 28%, Romney 27%, McCain 14%, Thompson 8%, Giuliani 8%, Paul 6%
Now, this is interesting. In some of these polls, Fred Thompson has established himself as the presumptive "bronze medal" winner, but John McCain claims that title in other polls. I've always felt that Thompson and McCain tend to draw from a similar crowd (the C-SPAN crowd). That coveted "3rd place" spot is important for momentum heading forward, as both Thompson and McCain are trying to drive their campaigns forward.
Either way, once you get past Huckabee and Romney, Iowa is a total horserace.
Two interesting notes from the American Resource Group poll. One is that 36% of caucus goers were "undecided". Another note of interest is that 98% of Romney supporters say their support is "definite", same goes for 80% of McCain supporters and 67% of Giuliani supporters. However, only 38% say the same for Huckabee. This means that anyone who will be running a solid, aggressive campaign in Iowa over the next few weeks (Fred Thompson comes to mind) might be able to break into Huckabee's seemingly impressive poll numbers.
On to South Carolina...
CNN
- Huckabee 24%, Thompson 17%, Romney 16%, Giuliani 16%, McCain 13%, Paul 11%
SurveyUSA
- Huckabee 28%, Romney 18%, McCain 16%, Thompson 15%, Giuliani 12%, "Other" 7%
Rasmussen
- Huckabee 23%, Romney 23%, Thompson 12%, McCain 12%, Giuliani 11%, Paul 5%
A lot of uncertainty in South Carolina, despite Huckabee's lead in all 3 polls. In the Rasmussen poll, only 51% of Huckabee voters were "certain" to vote for him in the primary, and Romney could only count on a certain vote from 41% of his bloc. Fred Thompson can rely on 59% of his supporters, McCain get's 55% certainty, and Giuliani 53%.
It's odd how the front-runners (Huckabee and Romney) have the least amount of certain support. The question remains, can any of the candidates behind these 2 capitalize on their shaky base of support?
Looking at the national polls...
USA Today/Gallup
- Giuliani 27%, Huckabee 16%, Thompson 14%, Romney 14%, McCain 14%, Paul 3%
Rasmussen
- Huckabee 19%, Giuliani 16%, Romney 15%, McCain 15%, Thompson 11%, Paul 6%
Reuters/Zogby
- Giuliani 23%, Huckabee 22%, Romney 16%, Thompson 13%, McCain 12%, Paul 4%
The Rasmussen Poll is crazy, as no candidate cracks 20%. The only poll where Giuliani really appears to be "the" front-runner is the USA Today/Gallup poll. He's virtually tied in the Reuters/Zogby poll and losing to the Huckster in the Rasmussen poll.
McCain and Thompson, again, seem to be battling for the same group of voters. Romney is joining those 2 on a national level, but is really fighting Huckabee and Thompson in Iowa and South Carolina.
Ron Paul keeps marching along, snagging up about 4-6% in the polls and being very loud and active with his fundraising. Those dollar bills, however, have not added up to support in the polls.
Strategic Vision
- Huckabee 31%, Romney 25%, Thompson 16%, McCain 8%, Giuliani 6%, Paul 5%
American Resource Group
- Huckabee 28%, McCain 20%, Romney 17%, Giuliani 13%, Thompson 5%, Paul 4%
Insider Advantage/Majority Opinion
- Romney 28%, Huckabee 25%, Thompson 11%, McCain 7%, Paul 6%, Giuliani 5%
Rasmussen
- Huckabee 28%, Romney 27%, McCain 14%, Thompson 8%, Giuliani 8%, Paul 6%
Now, this is interesting. In some of these polls, Fred Thompson has established himself as the presumptive "bronze medal" winner, but John McCain claims that title in other polls. I've always felt that Thompson and McCain tend to draw from a similar crowd (the C-SPAN crowd). That coveted "3rd place" spot is important for momentum heading forward, as both Thompson and McCain are trying to drive their campaigns forward.
Either way, once you get past Huckabee and Romney, Iowa is a total horserace.
Two interesting notes from the American Resource Group poll. One is that 36% of caucus goers were "undecided". Another note of interest is that 98% of Romney supporters say their support is "definite", same goes for 80% of McCain supporters and 67% of Giuliani supporters. However, only 38% say the same for Huckabee. This means that anyone who will be running a solid, aggressive campaign in Iowa over the next few weeks (Fred Thompson comes to mind) might be able to break into Huckabee's seemingly impressive poll numbers.
On to South Carolina...
CNN
- Huckabee 24%, Thompson 17%, Romney 16%, Giuliani 16%, McCain 13%, Paul 11%
SurveyUSA
- Huckabee 28%, Romney 18%, McCain 16%, Thompson 15%, Giuliani 12%, "Other" 7%
Rasmussen
- Huckabee 23%, Romney 23%, Thompson 12%, McCain 12%, Giuliani 11%, Paul 5%
A lot of uncertainty in South Carolina, despite Huckabee's lead in all 3 polls. In the Rasmussen poll, only 51% of Huckabee voters were "certain" to vote for him in the primary, and Romney could only count on a certain vote from 41% of his bloc. Fred Thompson can rely on 59% of his supporters, McCain get's 55% certainty, and Giuliani 53%.
It's odd how the front-runners (Huckabee and Romney) have the least amount of certain support. The question remains, can any of the candidates behind these 2 capitalize on their shaky base of support?
Looking at the national polls...
USA Today/Gallup
- Giuliani 27%, Huckabee 16%, Thompson 14%, Romney 14%, McCain 14%, Paul 3%
Rasmussen
- Huckabee 19%, Giuliani 16%, Romney 15%, McCain 15%, Thompson 11%, Paul 6%
Reuters/Zogby
- Giuliani 23%, Huckabee 22%, Romney 16%, Thompson 13%, McCain 12%, Paul 4%
The Rasmussen Poll is crazy, as no candidate cracks 20%. The only poll where Giuliani really appears to be "the" front-runner is the USA Today/Gallup poll. He's virtually tied in the Reuters/Zogby poll and losing to the Huckster in the Rasmussen poll.
McCain and Thompson, again, seem to be battling for the same group of voters. Romney is joining those 2 on a national level, but is really fighting Huckabee and Thompson in Iowa and South Carolina.
Ron Paul keeps marching along, snagging up about 4-6% in the polls and being very loud and active with his fundraising. Those dollar bills, however, have not added up to support in the polls.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Watch Ron Paul Lose Any Hope of Winning the GOP Nomination
In 3...2...1...
"When facism comes it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross..."
First of all, how many Democrats have said this? And secondly, while Ron Paul is entitled to his opinion and I'm fine with the fact that he doesn't want to pander to the evangelical vote...that's still a very stupid statement to make when you're running for the Republican Party nomination.
I'm convinced that he's pretty much giving up on a GOP nomination and looking at a Libertarian Party bid.
"When facism comes it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross..."
First of all, how many Democrats have said this? And secondly, while Ron Paul is entitled to his opinion and I'm fine with the fact that he doesn't want to pander to the evangelical vote...that's still a very stupid statement to make when you're running for the Republican Party nomination.
I'm convinced that he's pretty much giving up on a GOP nomination and looking at a Libertarian Party bid.
Monday, December 17, 2007
A Contested Convention...?
A column in the Washington Times anticipates the possible spectacle of a contested Republican Convention. This being based upon the fact that there doesn't seem to be a real frontrunner, and each of the candidates could carry large numbers of delegates into the convention.
There has not been a contested presidential nomination at a convention since 1948's Republican National Convention, when Thomas Dewey finally triumphed over "The Boy Wonder of Politics" Harold E. Stassen and Robert Taft right before the 3rd ballot due to Taft's concession.
It would be interesting to see such an event, although it may mean more fragmentation within the GOP. However, having the national convention be more than a glorified coronation would be a lesson in politics for the current generation, and it would also provide infinite amounts of topics and events for us pundits.
It would also be interesting to see Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, and even Ron Paul duke it out in a convention, especially once a candidate was eliminated...it would be very interesting to see who those delegates would support.
There has not been a contested presidential nomination at a convention since 1948's Republican National Convention, when Thomas Dewey finally triumphed over "The Boy Wonder of Politics" Harold E. Stassen and Robert Taft right before the 3rd ballot due to Taft's concession.
It would be interesting to see such an event, although it may mean more fragmentation within the GOP. However, having the national convention be more than a glorified coronation would be a lesson in politics for the current generation, and it would also provide infinite amounts of topics and events for us pundits.
It would also be interesting to see Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, and even Ron Paul duke it out in a convention, especially once a candidate was eliminated...it would be very interesting to see who those delegates would support.
Friday, December 7, 2007
The Ron Paul Blimp
You read that right. There is going to be a Ron Paul blimp flying over the skies of the eastern seaboard.
It will launch from Elizabeth City, N.C. on December 10th (this coming Monday), and will arrive on December 16th in Boston...just in time for the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party and the base for Paul's latest "Money Bomb" event, where Paul will attempt to raise $10 million in campaign funds in one day. The blimp will also dump tea ("enough to be symbolic," blimp organizers say) into Boston Harbor to celebrate the anniversary of the historical event.
From the Politico...
Each payment will fund a portion of the $350,000-a-month blimp rental fee and associated costs ($10 pays for 1-minute’s worth of advertising on the blimp, while $1 million buys 10 weeks, according to the website).
The plan also calls for a spotlight truck, remote-controlled blimps trailing the main blimp and paid support staff, as well as the 10-seat blimp, which measures 190-feet long and 60-feet high and until recently was leased to the U.S. Navy.
The odd thing is...Ron Paul's campaign has virtually nothing to do with this blimp. This is an effort undertaken solely by Paul's supporters. Also, they'll be advertising the candidate more than the campaign.
The blimp itself will be affixed with banners asking “Who is Ron Paul” and will urge people to “Google Ron Paul.”
The other side will feature the distinctive “Ron Paul Love Revolution” logo gracing countless pro-Paul web forums and blogs.
“We specifically left off any reference to an election, because most people do not care about politics,” the effort’s website explains.
You have got to hand it to Ron Paul supporters, they come up with the most creative and innovative ideas to push their candidate. If you're interested in seeing the blimp, here is the blimp's itinerary.
It will launch from Elizabeth City, N.C. on December 10th (this coming Monday), and will arrive on December 16th in Boston...just in time for the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party and the base for Paul's latest "Money Bomb" event, where Paul will attempt to raise $10 million in campaign funds in one day. The blimp will also dump tea ("enough to be symbolic," blimp organizers say) into Boston Harbor to celebrate the anniversary of the historical event.
From the Politico...
Each payment will fund a portion of the $350,000-a-month blimp rental fee and associated costs ($10 pays for 1-minute’s worth of advertising on the blimp, while $1 million buys 10 weeks, according to the website).
The plan also calls for a spotlight truck, remote-controlled blimps trailing the main blimp and paid support staff, as well as the 10-seat blimp, which measures 190-feet long and 60-feet high and until recently was leased to the U.S. Navy.
The odd thing is...Ron Paul's campaign has virtually nothing to do with this blimp. This is an effort undertaken solely by Paul's supporters. Also, they'll be advertising the candidate more than the campaign.
The blimp itself will be affixed with banners asking “Who is Ron Paul” and will urge people to “Google Ron Paul.”
The other side will feature the distinctive “Ron Paul Love Revolution” logo gracing countless pro-Paul web forums and blogs.
“We specifically left off any reference to an election, because most people do not care about politics,” the effort’s website explains.
You have got to hand it to Ron Paul supporters, they come up with the most creative and innovative ideas to push their candidate. If you're interested in seeing the blimp, here is the blimp's itinerary.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
GOP Poll Bits and Bites
GOP Poll numbers...these are all over the place.
RealClearPolitics(RCP) GOP Nomination Poll Averages...
- Giuliani 25.3%, Huckabee 13.8%, McCain 13.7%, Thompson 13.2%, Romney 10.7%, Paul 4.7%.
Latest Rasmussen Reports GOP Poll...
- Huckabee 20%, Giuliani 17%, McCain 13%, Romney 13%, Thompson 10%, Paul 7%
Latest USA Today/Gallup Poll...
- Giuliani 25%, Huckabee 16%, Thompson 15%, McCain 15%, Romney 12%, Paul 4%
So Huckabee has taken over 2nd Place from Fred Thompson in the RCP Average, and leapfrogged McCain in the process, who also jumped past Fred by a slight margin. Huckabee's showing in the latest Rasmussen poll is crazy, as Giuliani has sunk to his lowest margin of support in that poll.
Going to individual states, here's the RCP averages for the key early states, and the delegates at stake...
Iowa (41 delegates)...
- Huckabee 26.6%, Romney 25.8%, Giuliani 12.0%, Thompson 10.4%, McCain 6.4%, Paul 5.0%.
New Hampshire (24 delegates)...
- Romney 34.2%, Giuliani 17.8%, McCain 16.2%, Huckabee 10.0%, Paul 6.2%, Thompson 3.2%.
McCain is posing a serious threat to Giuliani's once-solid 2nd place standing...Fred has no traction in this state.
Michigan (61 delegates)...
- Giuliani 23.7%, Romney 20.3%, Thompson 14.0%, McCain 12.3%, Huckabee 6.7%, Paul 3.7%.
Given that Romney's father was governor here and a former candidate for President, you'd think he'd be in the lead here.
Nevada (34 delegates)...
- Giuliani 28.7%, Romney 21.0%, Thompson 14.0%, McCain 9.3%, Paul 7.3%, Huckabee 5.0%
Sun Belt states will like Giuliani.
South Carolina (47 delegates)...
- Romney 19.8%, Thompson 16.8%, Giuliani 16.0%, Huckabee 13.3%, McCain 10.8%, Paul 5.8%
If Fred can get a boost somewhere here, he may snatch this state from Mitt.
Florida(114 delegates)...
- Giuliani 30.6%, Romney 15.0%, Huckabee 12.8%, Thompson 12.0%, McCain 10.8%, Paul 4.3%.
I'm a bit surprised Huckabee is ahead of Thompson, here...even more surprised that Mitt is doing as well as he is.
So, if these polls were to hold up going into Super Tuesday, things would look like this...
Giuliani - 209 delegates
Romney - 71 delegates
Huckabee - 41 delegates
So, despite Huckabee's surge, this race is still Giuliani's to lose at this point. Factor in the fact that, according to RCP, Giuliani leads big time in California (174 delegates) and is polling over 50% in New Jersey (52 delegates), suddenly Giuliani can add another 226 delegates to his column.
The other candidates have some work to do.
RealClearPolitics(RCP) GOP Nomination Poll Averages...
- Giuliani 25.3%, Huckabee 13.8%, McCain 13.7%, Thompson 13.2%, Romney 10.7%, Paul 4.7%.
Latest Rasmussen Reports GOP Poll...
- Huckabee 20%, Giuliani 17%, McCain 13%, Romney 13%, Thompson 10%, Paul 7%
Latest USA Today/Gallup Poll...
- Giuliani 25%, Huckabee 16%, Thompson 15%, McCain 15%, Romney 12%, Paul 4%
So Huckabee has taken over 2nd Place from Fred Thompson in the RCP Average, and leapfrogged McCain in the process, who also jumped past Fred by a slight margin. Huckabee's showing in the latest Rasmussen poll is crazy, as Giuliani has sunk to his lowest margin of support in that poll.
Going to individual states, here's the RCP averages for the key early states, and the delegates at stake...
Iowa (41 delegates)...
- Huckabee 26.6%, Romney 25.8%, Giuliani 12.0%, Thompson 10.4%, McCain 6.4%, Paul 5.0%.
New Hampshire (24 delegates)...
- Romney 34.2%, Giuliani 17.8%, McCain 16.2%, Huckabee 10.0%, Paul 6.2%, Thompson 3.2%.
McCain is posing a serious threat to Giuliani's once-solid 2nd place standing...Fred has no traction in this state.
Michigan (61 delegates)...
- Giuliani 23.7%, Romney 20.3%, Thompson 14.0%, McCain 12.3%, Huckabee 6.7%, Paul 3.7%.
Given that Romney's father was governor here and a former candidate for President, you'd think he'd be in the lead here.
Nevada (34 delegates)...
- Giuliani 28.7%, Romney 21.0%, Thompson 14.0%, McCain 9.3%, Paul 7.3%, Huckabee 5.0%
Sun Belt states will like Giuliani.
South Carolina (47 delegates)...
- Romney 19.8%, Thompson 16.8%, Giuliani 16.0%, Huckabee 13.3%, McCain 10.8%, Paul 5.8%
If Fred can get a boost somewhere here, he may snatch this state from Mitt.
Florida(114 delegates)...
- Giuliani 30.6%, Romney 15.0%, Huckabee 12.8%, Thompson 12.0%, McCain 10.8%, Paul 4.3%.
I'm a bit surprised Huckabee is ahead of Thompson, here...even more surprised that Mitt is doing as well as he is.
So, if these polls were to hold up going into Super Tuesday, things would look like this...
Giuliani - 209 delegates
Romney - 71 delegates
Huckabee - 41 delegates
So, despite Huckabee's surge, this race is still Giuliani's to lose at this point. Factor in the fact that, according to RCP, Giuliani leads big time in California (174 delegates) and is polling over 50% in New Jersey (52 delegates), suddenly Giuliani can add another 226 delegates to his column.
The other candidates have some work to do.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
You Know What...
...looks like my initial assumption about the Ron Paul "busgate" incident at the RPV Advance was wrong.
They just took the time and the initiative to show up, whereas people like me did not. Then again, I have a job and a family that I don't really see any time except the weekends, but kudos to them for their efforts and show of support for their candidate.
Now, it should be put out there that there have been allegations and reports of Paulites being bussed in to other straw polls (I remember a big hullabaloo about this during the Ames, Iowa straw poll). That being said, I probably should not have opened my mouth so wide only to partially stick my foot in it (because my jumping on what others said had some historical background to it).
Nonetheless, congrats are due to the Paulites for putting in the effort to "be there" at the Advance.
However, I'm inclined to believe that this was not simply a "lie from Thompson supporters" as some have claimed, because I've heard the same statements from Huckabee and Romney supporters, too.
They just took the time and the initiative to show up, whereas people like me did not. Then again, I have a job and a family that I don't really see any time except the weekends, but kudos to them for their efforts and show of support for their candidate.
Now, it should be put out there that there have been allegations and reports of Paulites being bussed in to other straw polls (I remember a big hullabaloo about this during the Ames, Iowa straw poll). That being said, I probably should not have opened my mouth so wide only to partially stick my foot in it (because my jumping on what others said had some historical background to it).
Nonetheless, congrats are due to the Paulites for putting in the effort to "be there" at the Advance.
However, I'm inclined to believe that this was not simply a "lie from Thompson supporters" as some have claimed, because I've heard the same statements from Huckabee and Romney supporters, too.
Ron Paul Gets Ripped
From a conversation I've referenced previously in earlier posts (see here, here, and here), Former Mitt Romney aide and now Mike Huckabee supporter Hunter Golden ripped into Ron Paul recently in a manner that I'm surprised nobody else has done. This was in response to someone calling Paul the "only conservative in the field".
I'm fine if you want to vote for him, but really, the guy's as electable as my keyboard is in the end. We can debate what a pure conservative is and isn't until the cat comes home, but it doesn't mean a lick in the end. Right now he's sitting on about 13% of the Republican vote which makes up less than 5% nationally. Hardly electable. Sure, I'm sure the always cynical independents will like him, but they've got brains and would rather support a winner in the end. Really, it's all moot.
He's sat around in Congress doing a whole lot of nothing for 20 years except tell us what he 'believes in' for 20 some odd years yes hasn't passed much in the way of anything important. He likes to play the 'conscience' of the congress thing, but really it doesn't fly when you don't vote on much of....well....anything. The guy won't even vote to condemn genocide because it conflicts with what his view of the U.S.'s role in the world should be. The last thing this country needs is a "take my ball home when I don't get my way" legislator racking his brain for four years trying to figure out how to do the same as an executive. Our current President's most admirable quality and glaring fault is his unwavering commitment to his ideals. It makes for great men, but not great government.
Paul's problem isn't his conservatism, it's presence or lack thereof. It's the fact that he's 1) got nothing to run on; 2.) as a result, is based on what everyone isn't doing. If he were President he would, uh, not do what everyone else would do. Great.
Golden makes a lot of sense, here. While Paul is running on a libertarian platform, a lot of his message is comparing his libertarian principles to other candidates, instead of simply presenting these principles.
You would think that if he felt these principles were right for America, he would've pushed them harder during his tenure in Congress...maybe introducing some libertarian-based legislation, or something. Instead, he simply votes "no" on most issues or abstains altogether.
As I've said previously, I like a lot of what Ron Paul stands for. However, I think most people have a problem with the messenger more than the message.
I'm fine if you want to vote for him, but really, the guy's as electable as my keyboard is in the end. We can debate what a pure conservative is and isn't until the cat comes home, but it doesn't mean a lick in the end. Right now he's sitting on about 13% of the Republican vote which makes up less than 5% nationally. Hardly electable. Sure, I'm sure the always cynical independents will like him, but they've got brains and would rather support a winner in the end. Really, it's all moot.
He's sat around in Congress doing a whole lot of nothing for 20 years except tell us what he 'believes in' for 20 some odd years yes hasn't passed much in the way of anything important. He likes to play the 'conscience' of the congress thing, but really it doesn't fly when you don't vote on much of....well....anything. The guy won't even vote to condemn genocide because it conflicts with what his view of the U.S.'s role in the world should be. The last thing this country needs is a "take my ball home when I don't get my way" legislator racking his brain for four years trying to figure out how to do the same as an executive. Our current President's most admirable quality and glaring fault is his unwavering commitment to his ideals. It makes for great men, but not great government.
Paul's problem isn't his conservatism, it's presence or lack thereof. It's the fact that he's 1) got nothing to run on; 2.) as a result, is based on what everyone isn't doing. If he were President he would, uh, not do what everyone else would do. Great.
Golden makes a lot of sense, here. While Paul is running on a libertarian platform, a lot of his message is comparing his libertarian principles to other candidates, instead of simply presenting these principles.
You would think that if he felt these principles were right for America, he would've pushed them harder during his tenure in Congress...maybe introducing some libertarian-based legislation, or something. Instead, he simply votes "no" on most issues or abstains altogether.
As I've said previously, I like a lot of what Ron Paul stands for. However, I think most people have a problem with the messenger more than the message.
Monday, December 3, 2007
In Case You Missed It
Which you probably didn't, I did a "Candidate Analysis" last week on all of the candidates that are still in that race for the presidential nomination in both major parties. Here's a list and link to each of the remaining 17 candidates.
Republicans...
- Rudy Giuliani
- Fred Thompson
- Mike Huckabee
- Mitt Romney
- John McCain
- Ron Paul
- Tom Tancredo
- Duncan Hunter
- Alan Keyes
Democrats...
- Barack Obama
- Hillary Clinton
- Joe Biden
- Chris Dodd
- John Edwards
- Dennis Kucinich
- Mike Gravel
- Bill Richardson
I also added the websites for each individual candidate to their profile, so you can check them out further if you feel inclined to do so.
Republicans...
- Rudy Giuliani
- Fred Thompson
- Mike Huckabee
- Mitt Romney
- John McCain
- Ron Paul
- Tom Tancredo
- Duncan Hunter
- Alan Keyes
Democrats...
- Barack Obama
- Hillary Clinton
- Joe Biden
- Chris Dodd
- John Edwards
- Dennis Kucinich
- Mike Gravel
- Bill Richardson
I also added the websites for each individual candidate to their profile, so you can check them out further if you feel inclined to do so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
