I guess no one has posted on it here yet, but Dave Reichert endorsed Rudy Giuliani for President.
The P-I runs an AP story on Mitt Romney's momentum in Iowa and New Hampshire. The analysis by one pol that Romeny "'is now positioned as the front-runner for the nomination'" seems more than a little hasty though.
Meanwhile local Fredheads can rejoice about a new poll in South Carolina from a reputable firm showing Thompson vaulting into the lead at the same time as John McCain absolutely plummets. South Carolina may well be the first "must win" state for Thompson's campaign, much like Romney probably has to do likewise in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Posted by Eric Earling at June 18, 2007 07:47 AM | Email ThisDo we, as a country, want a traditionalist in the sense that terrorism (only issue in my book) is nontraditional and the method to defeat it is also nontraditional?
But, I didn't like it when Giuliani and McCain snub the game, either by conceding Iowa straw poll. On the other hand, are they the nontraditionalists we need to win the war on terrorism?
No answers, no more questions. Just random thoughts on what I am looking and thinking about.
Posted by: swatter on June 18, 2007 08:22 AMBill H
Posted by: Bill H on June 18, 2007 09:55 AMHow do we do that, by spreading capitalism and democracy throughout the Middle East? We'd be better off leaving them alone to fight their own civil wars.
Democracy has done wonders Palestine.
Of the three, the only one who will get the support of the social/Christian conservatives is Thompson.
Posted by: Don on June 18, 2007 10:57 AMRemember, however, that activists of any sort are a small percentage of the population. What matter is what Republican primary voters do. So far polls show that most of them are willing to support candidates the activists won't support. (ie, Rudy McRomney)
We'll see. Long way to go.
Posted by: Chris Vance on June 18, 2007 11:46 AMFirst, you stand tough in Iraq, even if it means you get voted out of office. There, now you are gone.
I would hope you two Libertarians could see how fragile the Middle East is in relation to Iran and the very real potential for World War. The takeover of Palestine by Iran (aka Hamas), the very real danger of Musharaff getting booted, Syria (aka Iran), the Lebanon mess (aka Iran) should show how close Iran is to realize their dream of the Second Mongrel Horde and the coming second Dark Ages.
Posted by: swatter on June 18, 2007 11:47 AM1. It was "Mongol Horde," and they weren't Moslems.
2. Pagans, not Moslems, brought down Rome and ushered in the Dark Ages.
Posted by: Chris Vance on June 18, 2007 11:52 AMDon't let this thread become an off topic Iraq troll rant. That's what those folks want.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 18, 2007 11:57 AMAlthough, again, it is early and Thompson has done no campaigning. But it does show that he has some ground to make up.
Romney is playing a strategy that I have always thought was smart. That is to really focus on the early primary states and hope your national numbers increase. Although virtually every other pundit has always said that eventually your national numbers MUST increase before those primary states as there are some other indicators that are just as if not more important. I have never looked that deep into those other indicators but just have taken the word of those who have been watching and researching presidential primaries for years.
They have said that even though you may be focusing on those early states, and you may be showing some strong polling numbers there, that for some reason if there is not a national surge in your numbers that those local numbers are a mirage'.
The reality? We'll see if Romney can either buck history or if he can raise his national numbers.
The one thing Romney really has going for him is that he is a strong administrator (read: Executive) and has a good team in place. While Romney is not my first choice as nominee I'll give him props for being a solid executive. He has demonstrated that several times over in other venues.
yip yip
Posted by: Coyote on June 18, 2007 12:06 PMSometimes it takes war to bring peace...look at Post-World War II Europe. They've managed to put aside their differences and form a single unified currency. They even have a Govt. that is represented by multiple members of different countries.
Japan, the US, and China seem to have put their differences aside for now and eagerly conduct massive amounts of trade with each other.
Maybe the best thing is to let them duke it out, let the bigger players ( US/Europe/Asia) sit on the sidelines and try to keep it contained to the middle east. It seems they have some serious issues they need to work out.
If Guiliani is the nominee, and he won't be; social and Christian conservatives will sit out the election in very large numbers. And it won't just be activists who stay home.
My first preference is Brownback, but I am realistic enough to know he has no chance of winning. Thompson is the only candidate who would definitely defeat any Democrat. I think many knowledgeable Democrats are scared of a Hillary nomination because many people would be motivated to vote against her and take out many reps and senators along with her.
Posted by: Don on June 18, 2007 12:49 PMPeople have been saying that about Guiliani for over a year now and it has yet to be reflected in the polls. We'll see.
Posted by: Chris Vance on June 18, 2007 01:15 PMI think Christian conservatives truly struggle with Romney also. Regardless. I am a Christian and will absolutely refuse to sit out. That is a cop out for a loser. It will ensure disaster. A bunch of self righteous steaming horse manure.
If Guiliani is indeed nominated (which he may very well be) and Hillary the evil scorned witch, Christians best figure it out PDQ and get off the pot to the poles! Those that pull "I just can't vote because of my convictions" are feeble minded. Vote for a reasonable person who may be persuaded ... or let the socialist unstable feminazi carry us to economic and foreign oblivion. How can they (nay, how dare they) sleep at night and wake up to President Clinton again? Whom then I ask, did they truly serve? Themselves and the enemy. That is who.
Chris Vance is it any wonder that you didn't make
much of a party chairman. Its the activists that
make the party go. It just something in the state
of Washington that the Gop leadership doesn't seem
understand. Going to a Presidential primary like
the state gop has done here is not how you build
a party.I have to wonder if you and your buddies in the establishment crowd will ever realize you don't how to win anything and you never will.
I am a social conservative and will vote for whichever candidate has the best chance to beat Hillary. It is imperative that radical Islam is stopped. I don't see any of the candidates other than McCain appointing a Supreme Court justice that isn't a strict constructionist so I don't have to worry about abortion right now, that is for the Senate races, not the President.
Any candidate who lies or changes positions to further their career depending on the electorate is automatically DQ'd as well. So far the only viable candidates left are Rudy, Thompson and Huckabee, but at this stage Rudy has the best chance to beat Hillary. If it's like that in February that is where my vote will be. If Thompson has the best chance by then he'll have my vote.
You want to explain your outburst?
What's inaccurate or disparaging about the statement that activists are a small percentage of the population? Or are you just running around with a chip on your shoulder looking to take offense?
Posted by: jopalm on June 18, 2007 03:23 PMAny other inferences are entirely yours.
And I get your point that not all Muslims are bad. And I get your point Rs shouldn't be drawing those inferences, like they shouldn't get the label they are anti-Hispanic if they want the borders secured. Point taken.
Posted by: swatter on June 18, 2007 04:10 PMCheck this out: On passage of Tancredo's recent successful amendment to the Homeland Security bill, that withholds federal funds from 'sanctuary' cities such as Seattle and San Fransisco, and which passed 234-189, 49 Demoncats voted for it while just 9 Republicans voted against.
Guess who saddled up and led that posse of nine liberal R's??!
-JP
Posted by: Jefferson Paine on June 18, 2007 05:56 PM
No, Phil, actually, they don't, and they never have, in either party. And when they have the most influence, they have tended to destroy what they are working for.
Of course, this depends entirely on your definition of an 'Activist', but given what I know of you, I'm pretty sure I know what you mean by it, and it's totally and completely wrong. Activists of your sort are, at best, a quarter of what really makes the party run. 10% is more likely.
Let's put it this way: "Activists" of your sort, ran the campaigns of Howard Dean and Alan Keys, respectively.
From the sounds of Vances comments it sounds like all activists (libertarian leaning or not) are discouraged by party leadership.
Posted by: Travis Pahl on June 18, 2007 10:21 PM''.... activists of any sort are a small percentage of the population. What matter is what Republican primary voters do.''
There is not even a hint in that statement about discouraging activists; Chris just (quite rightly, IMO) pointed out that said activists are a small percentage of the voting population. And for whatever my opinion as an activist is worth, I have no doubt Chris is absolutely right about that. . . . In fact from what I have seen since attending my 1st GOP State convention in 2000 and a couple since then, I would venture that it might even be accurate to say that serious activists are a TINY percentage of the total voters.
Posted by: Methow Ken on June 18, 2007 11:21 PM