Ah, back from a not-so-refreshing family vacation (as if any vacation with young kids in tow leaves one fully recharged), and I see some people have had a thing or two to say about Mitt Romney's doings at the Ames Straw Poll. An odd discussion broke out in the comments at Stefan's thread, and Don Ward chimes in with a missive that, though it gives me little joy to say it, is spoken like a true bitter McCain-backer strikes me as terribly incorrect.
Let me post a thesis that shouldn't be too groundbreaking, but which some people seem to be struggling to grasp: Mitt Romney is a serious candidate for the Republican nomination for President. He might not win; he's not the front runner. It's still a very fluid field, with Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson (probably) looking like formidable competitors. Yet, he's clearly a top-tier candidate. Thus, all this nay saying from some corners about Romney every time he does something good is painfully shortsighted.
I'm not sure which argument is more flawed. Doug in the comments (not Doug Parris...though his comments were their usual amusing selves) at both threads noted above doing wacky back-of-the-napkin comparisons between one poll of potential "likely caucus goers" versus the different universe of straw poll attendees to throw cold water on Romney. Or Don, breathlessly reporting that Mitt Romney bought the $35 tickets of his supporters. I'm disappointed Don is ignoring the fact it is a rare thing to find any straw poll attendee who didn't have his/her ticket paid for by one of the campaigns (not to mention the free food and entertainment offered up by all the candidates).
The Ames Straw Poll is what it is. It's no great sample of even likely primary voters, but it is the first contest of the Presidential primary season where votes are actually counted - even if they don't lead to delegates - and Presidential campaigns have a chance to show their skills (nunchuck skills, bowhunting skills, etc.). Romney was expected to win after chasing Giuliani and McCain out of the contest and he did so, convincingly. It wasn't earth shattering, but such is the price of high expectations. Don can claim Romney "lost" all he wants. The headlines speak for themselves, as do the pundits.
The great subplot post-Ames is Mike Huckabee doing something besides look good at a debate. Can he translate his surprise second place showing into some sort of organization and fundraising, both of which have otherwise been terribly weak? Furthermore, whither Sam Brownback? He spent more money and had way more organization than Huckabee but still trailed in the end at Ames. These two gents look poised to fight over the same set of social conservative voters who don't like any of the first tier. The continued fragmentation of that voter block has to be viewed as a good thing by Romney, and probably Thompson as well.
Either way, this whining about Romney's effort just reeks of silliness. One gets the impression Romney could win in Iowa and New Hampshire, picking up some sort of resulting bounce, only to have the same nay sayers grousing that Romney out-spent and out-organized their preferred horse. Well, that's how campaigns get won sometimes, right?
Ames is no great panacea. But the favorable publicity coming out of it is obvious, whatever one thinks of the actual shakedown event hosted by the Iowa Republican Party. It reminds me of a point made last month at the HorseRace blog:
Why is Romney the only top-tier candidate between the two parties who was not a legitimate celebrity before the campaign began? Of the seven top-tier candidates - Clinton, Obama, Edwards, McCain, Giuliani, Thompson, and Romney - the former Massachusetts governor is the only one who was not a bona fide star to begin with. How is it that Romney - and only Romney - is the non-celebrity to have broken into the top? A big reason has to do with his very well-conceived, well-executed campaign strategy, which - as I said - includes running up his numbers in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Who knows if Romney will actually win the nomination. But those who continue to dismiss him even as his campaign meets benchmark after benchmark need a bit of a reality check.
UPDATE: Don Ward informs us at comment #2 that he's not a McCain backer, only a comparative McCain sympathizer. I misconstrued his past comments at this site and regret the error.
Posted by Eric Earling at August 13, 2007 01:28 AM | Email ThisBack about 1915 or so we had a politician named Woodrow Wilson that accepted a bribe to create the Federal Reserve. They were a group of very powerful bankers and businessmen from around the world at the time. Through the monopoly of being the source of our money and by being outside of our government, or paying any taxes, they have built up a fortune that, I believe, includes owning most of the politicians of the world.
It is going to take a determined, We the People, to restore law and order in our government before we can restore law and order in our once great nation.
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."
-Woodrow Wilson
I am not and have never been a member of the "Straight Talk Express"
I am not and have never been a supporter of either of John McCain's presidential runs, either now or in 2000.
Send me an e-mail next time before going out on a limb because you kind of sound like a petulant Romney rooter:-)
Of the original "Big Three" candidates McCain is obviously the more conservative when compared to either Romney or Guiliani and I tend to like him better than the other two. But that's like saying RC Cola is better than Mr. Pibb or Tab because the intestinal cramps one gets after drinking it are slightly less severe.
But then again I'm not the one who's actively supporting a candidate who was snubbed in favor of a group of political blips by a two-to-one margin in the beauty contest that Romney basically funded.
Christ Eric. Given the choice of your guy or anyone else, more people bolted for Tancredo, Paul and Tommy Thompson.
Posted by: Don Ward on August 13, 2007 05:55 AMSO WHAT?
Posted by: pudge on August 13, 2007 06:35 AMGiuliani and McCain were in there the last few weeks trying to gum things up, but they failed.
Traditionally, Iowa and NH were the bellwethers, but this new cycle is kind of scary. We are so front-loaded I am not sure the vetting process is going to work and I am afraid we are going to wake up in the middle of February and realize that we have 11 months till the inauguration of yet another Clinton.
Thompson's lift-off delay in this front-loaded cycle may or may not work, but if it does, and he is the guy, is there time to vet him? His body of work, IMO, is not enough for me to be completely comfortable with him for president; yet, of all the candidates at this time, I like him the best.
Take a looke at most of the polls dealing with likely Iowa caucus goers and you will find a disturbing result. If Romney polls in the high 20's, the undecideds are in the high 20's and the other big three in the mid to high 20's combined. What happened to the percentage (40-50%)that makes up the last two groupings at the Ames Straw Poll?
Go ahead and tell me what happened to the undecideds and the percentage left off the table not voting for the other big three? Only one thing happened to them, THEY DID NOT VOTE FOR ROMNEY, THEY VOTED FOR HUCKABEE, BROWNBACK, TANCREDO, etc.
It is very obvious that reasoning is not flawed, but you and the Mitt media can focus on his winning margin, etc. but the truth of the matter is that in Iowa where he spent so much money his support has topped out, he won't be claiming any of the votes from F. Thompson, Rudy or McCain, those people aren't voting for him. He is seriously topped out on the undecideds, the undecideds have already decided not-Slick Romney, they just haven't decided on the others or are still awaiting another candidate.
Posted by: Doug on August 13, 2007 07:26 AMI am not a big fan of those candidates who do not follow the Constitution (taking away my gun rights for example), but I will guarantee that if McCain is the nominee he will get my vote over any of the socialist that are currently called "front runners" from the Dims camp.
Personally I have never eaten my own. Hope Don & Eric find they don't tast good.
Posted by: Old Sgt on August 13, 2007 07:45 AMOne of Doug Parris' self-proclaimed conservative posters refuses to answer the question. Doug Parris has also been posed the question and I am awaiting the answer.
Posted by: swatter on August 13, 2007 08:08 AMI took a serious look into his record and background and began closely following his political work. I became completely disenchanted with him and remain so. He is an ill-tempered vindictive egomaniac. He would be a disaster as president.
Unfortunately, giving his campain money is like stepping in a deep pile of sticky dog poop with your best pair of shoes. They have been hounding me for years trying to get more money. I have told his campain phone solicitors dozens of times to take me off of their list and leave me alone. I have also sent letters and emails, but they keep calling back. No matter how hard I scrub... the poo won't come off completely.
I try not to be too cruel, because many are volunteers unwittingly wasting their time working for someone they obviously know very little about. But how many times do I need to argue with these misled souls? How many examples of his character flaws and ill-temperment do I need to bring up? He would not be a good president.
Posted by: Steve on August 13, 2007 08:38 AMRomney's win is important to him. He had a LOT riding on it as demonstrated by the amount of money he spent. He absolutely needed the win.
It was not an astounding win in that the Huckabee/Brownback vote also came from what could be the Romney constituency. Yet it was also not such a poor win by him that folks can write him off.
Unfortunately for Romney the Huckabee campaign was just given new life and that could cause Mitt some problems. Because Romney just can't seem to, in the national polls, get above what some baseball fans call the "mendoza" line.
There is also some scary news in this for Guiliani. He is trying a path that has no historical record of success. That is to weather the loss of the first two primaries (Iowa and NH) and bet on the national super duper primary day.
An odd situation here with Romney playing the game by the book and playing it well, yet still drawing 10's for his hand instead of face cards and aces. If he has enough chips to keep running up the price of staying in the game it could (should) work, but with some Kings and Aces still in the deck and perhaps in someone elses hand he could very well be drawing dead with the flop and river card yet to come.
And Thompson (admittedly my guy thus far) not even taking a hand yet... oiy...
But all a lot of fun for political junkies like me and we (Republicans) still have the best hand in terms of candidates thus far.
Posted by: Coyote on August 13, 2007 08:44 AMRomney actually did even worse than I had given him credit for.
The turn out was wayyy low. So not only was his win not decisive but it was with a turn out that was about 10,000 fewer attendees than the last competitive event.
He is already being forced to declare that his win "was not hollow." Uh oh. You don't want THAT to be the Monday headline.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070813/D8R0798G0.html
And national pundits are already pooh poohing the victory. Said Byron York.
"Instead, after beating Huckabee 4,516 to 2,587, Romney's celebratory words seemed a little muted.
"Today the people of this great state sent a message to America, and that is that change begins in Iowa," Romney told his supporters. That's a favorite theme of his of late -- he means change from the bad old days of Republicans who don't know what their true values are -- but tonight the change that had begun was that Romney seemed a little less the juggernaut than he had seemed just the day before."
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDhhNTUxODM5NjIyMjhjNGMwN2Q5MGRlMzNhZGJhODE=
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!
Posted by: jimg on August 13, 2007 09:28 AMSounds like something someone would say about Ron Paul. Romney / Paul in '08, they're serious candidates...really.
It shows Romney following the rules, organizing and leading the traditional way, and generally being Presidential, the traditional way. He is very impressive and has been impressive as a businessman and saving the Olympics. Whether this translates in this new media and new world is my big question?
My big wish is if one of the Rs, as a nominee, can bring New York and California into play. Both states have been solidly Democratic and the Ds have not had to spend money or time there. They don't have to win, but if the Ds had to spend money there, it would be great. Giuliani and to a lesser extent, Romney, would play into that wish.
Posted by: swatter on August 13, 2007 09:49 AMAs I said in the original post, you're comparing two universes of people that aren't the same. Just as "likely caucus goers" are a subset of general election voters, Ames straw poll attendees are a subset of "likely caucus goers." They're not the same group.
Moreover, if you read up on the straw poll you find that contrary to the high numbers of undecideds found in most current polls, there are hardly any such folks at Ames. It simply isn't an event undecideds flock to in significant numbers (just as similarly there weren't many folks for Giuliani, McCain, or Fred Thompson). Thus, I just can't take your analysis seriously.
Posted by: Eric Earling on August 13, 2007 09:56 AM"Yesterday, on "FOX News Sunday," Iowa Straw Poll winner Walter "Mitt" Romney demonstrated yet again that he's a clueless flip-flop-flipper when it comes to Islam and terrorism. He told host Chris Wallace that one of the things he'll do differently (from Bush) to fight Islamic extremism and terrorism is to "hire people and work . . . to move the Islamic world into modernity."
The Islamic extremists are smart enough to send terrorists to the US, a country that is dumb enough to let the terrorists go to flight school, to learn how to fly very big airplanes into very tall buildings.
Islamic extremists are smart enough to photoshop war scenes so that they fool the so-called professionals working for those news agencies, and most times the general public, until some conservative blogger looks at the pictures or IDs the phony.
Islamic extremists are smart enough to get American leftists terrorist supporters to scream and shout about how the US military is killing people, so that effective US military fighting men are taken out of the war to stand charges. An action that insures that other US military members
think that the American backstabbers are more dangerous than the enemy. So the American military spends more and more of their time trying not to get stabbed in the back by American leftists and less and less time defeating the terrorists.
American needs more people making sure that the Islamic extremists don't defeat us on the home front by using our laws and technology against us; and less Americans thinking they can some how change Islamic extremists and their way of thinking.
As for undecideds, the reports where that quite a few of the people were still undecided after leaving Ames. So of the last six polls just take the ones with low undecided numbers. One poll had 7%, another 11%. Romney avg. 24.5%, the other big three averaged a total of 38%. Once again Romney's effective Straw Vote total was 20.5% (assuming 35 of the 38 pts didn't turnout because their candidates weren't there).
Mitt has lost support since those polls based on this number and has not gained from the undecideds. He will now have to pull a Brownback and attack Huckabee. No sense in him going after McCain or Rudy at the next debate unless if he does it in a way to pull Huckabee support. That's what will happen if his campaign is looking at the numbers like I am.
Even bad statistics and sampling can have useful nuggets of information in there if you look and there is some in the straw vote results.
Posted by: Doug on August 13, 2007 10:37 AMI did like his line about Obama going from Jane Fonda to Dr Strangelove. If he gets the nomination I hope he keeps up great one liners like that.
Posted by: pbj on August 13, 2007 10:59 AMYou're continuing to play "what ifs" with people (undecideds & supporters of non-straw poll attending candidates) who simply weren't a consequential portion of the straw poll attendees, let alone the fact you don't seem willing to acknowledge Ames straw poll attendees and likely caucus goers are not the same crowd. Thus your continued comparison with Iowa caucus polls and your related extrapolations don't make any logical sense.
As for Huckabee, here's a good breakdown of how even he had a rhyme & a reason to his strong showing. In the meantime, since he continues to lag in fundraising and organization I don't think Team Romney will spend much time on him at all, just like they largely ignored Brownback's repeated attacks in the weeks leading up to Ames. And speaking of Brownback, if anyone is going to be going after Huckabee it's him. He's on the verge of losing the mantle of the leading social conservative outside the first tier. His campaign can't tolerate that turn of events if it sticks.
Posted by: Eric Earling on August 13, 2007 11:02 AMThe Big Winner: Mike Huckabee
Iowa Republicans voted for Huckabee and the like (conservatives) 2 to 1 over Judy McRomnesty (Democrat, Flipper, Maverick).
Huckabee and Brownback ALONE garnered more votes than Romney. Mitt spent upwards of $1,000 per vote whereas Huckabee spent less than $100 per vote. That's at the very least a 10 to 1 ratio of campaign spending in Iowa!
Check out Mike Huckabee; there's good reason he's the effective winner of this poll.
So let's stop pretending Romney did poorly, because, simply put: Romney did about as well as anyone ever has in the Iowa Straw Poll, including George Bush. There's simply no sense in saying he did poorly. You can say his win is virtually meaningless, sure, but not that it is negative.
For Huckabee, Brownback, and Tancredo, it probably means they should stick around awhile longer. Tommy Thompson and Duncan Hunter should probably get out of the race now, as their base is being taken up by others. Paul should stick around no matter his result, because he is not running to win anyway.
Why?
Posted by: pudge on August 13, 2007 02:33 PMThe answer is yes.
The democrat candidates are trying to out-do each other on who can get us to socialism the fastest. Not even the democrat hated President Bush has advocated abortion for all fetuses nor cradle to grave health care as the "leading" democrats do daily. This new "liberal" religion is not a replacement for right, truth and freedom.
There is a really good definition of Liberalism, Libertarianism and Conservatism at Patriot Post.
http://patriotpost.us/pub/07-32_Digest-print.htm
Wish all candidates would read it.
The difference is Forbes and Libby Dole were prominent candidates with a bit of national recognition. If either of them were in this race they would be instant frontrunners.
Romney's three major competitors, all of whom are polling ahead of him for what it's worth, skipped the straw poll. With the exception of Huckabee, perhaps, Romney was facing no credible challengers. Yet despite that, by more than a two-to-one margin, the participants said no to Romney.
Disastrous.
Zombie Taft or Eisenhower's Nail Shavings, if they were on the ballot, would outpull Tancredo, Tommy Thompson and Paul. And more people wanted those three jamokes than Romney. Hardly an endorsement.
And no, Forbes and Dole would not be frontrunners now. You're delusional. Both are, categorically, duds.
Further, NO ONE has EVER done significantly better than Romney in Iowa. EVER.
Also, you're wrong about McCain: the most recent poll has Romney ahead of him.
Not sure if there was anything you were RIGHT about.
Posted by: pudge on August 13, 2007 06:48 PMBut there is no such fact or truth. There are polls, but everyone knows polls that ask those kinds of broad questions are worthless. I would never vote for a Democrat ... well, except for my Congressman, who I like. I'd vote for a black guy ... just not one I can think of right now.
Yes, many people would never vote for a Mormon, right up until they do.
I don't put any faith whatsoever in those kinds of questions. Most people I've talked to who say they wouldn't vote for a Mormon don't know anything about Mormons; putting up an actual person they get to know can change that very quickly. Now, I accept that in the primary, it can hurt him. But if he wins the primary, I do not believe for a moment that Protestant Republicans will stay home in any significant numbers, when faced with a choice of Mitt or Hillary, just because Mitt's a Mormon.
I am a conservative Protestant. I went to a nondenominational evangelical university. I know these people who say they won't vote for a Mormon, and they are wrong: if Mitt wins the nomination, almost all of them will.
Posted by: pudge on August 13, 2007 06:54 PMThis Tancredo supporter was busy living life. I do it all the time. But it is interesting that Huckabee is such a winner in 2nd place with 1929 votes behind Romney, but Tancredo is only 626 votes behind Huckabee, but we're supposed to write him off.
Eric wrote:
These two gents look poised to fight over the same set of social conservative voters who don't like any of the first tier. The continued fragmentation of that voter block has to be viewed as a good thing by Romney, and probably Thompson as well.
Very good observation. You forgot to add Tancredo in there too. Most of the voting block that Huckabee and Browback fight over have an opinion about illegal immigration, and if they've thought about it enough, they agree with Tancredo. Huckabee sounds much closer to Tancredo, on it, as he campaigned against the most recent unpopular amnesty bill, but in reality, he too suffers from what Tancredo calls "amnesty amnesia" which plagues Romney, Huckabee and Brownback. Give it a little more time, and a little more sunlight, and the positions of these three will be better known. Ditto Rudy and Fred.
The Inside Washington Insider's Poll isn't worth much as a poll, but comments supplied by submitters can be interesting, if not telling. The author of the following submitted statement to the question "who is the most overrated Republican candidate" seems to have a good sense of the Romney candidacy, and why his strength is likely limited to small contests:
"His checkbook will probably carry the day in the Iowa straw poll, but it will fall far short of what is needed to make him electable in the Iowa caucuses, let alone all the way to the nomination."
"He has an invisible Mormon 'volunteer' army in 50 states, perfect for tipping small contests, but if nominated, he won't win 15 states in November--the worst Republican washout since Goldwater." "The true test with Romney will begin once someone decides to take a shot at him over the airwaves."
The most likely scenerio is that Romney will fade as Rudy, and perhaps Thompson, gain strength (which has been happening on the national level since Eric made his prediction). Latest polls show Romney with no support at all (2%) among independents leaning R. This is a horrible indicator for a putative R nominee in a tough election cycle.
Add to that the fact that conservative people, the mainstay of the Republican party, don't invite newcomers (and it's not all name ID) to lead their parades. For those operating under the belief that Mr. Romney's experiences as an Olympics organizer will somehow translate into credibilty and stature by early next year (or ever for that matter) should conduct a base-check and consider how few people watched or cared what happened in that or any other winter Olympics.
Mitt is in a bit of a box. He's a pleasant guy, and would make a great candidate if he were 1) known; 2) had done something sufficiently impressive to make a national impression prior to running for office; or had been before the public, watched and evaluated, over a course of years sufficient to have created a positive impression. As it stands, any information received on Mitt will come filtered through the prism of a campaign, whereas most, if not all, people who have won the R nomination in the past have been pre-evaluated through a non-campaign prism. There are those who have argued on this site that all Mitt needs is greater name ID to win the nomination, something that will come as a matter of course from winning in IA. I disagree. He needs something more substantial, both name ID and a significant accomplishment. It is the latter he's most in need of and the latter that cannot be obtained prior to the primaries.
Posted by: Not Declining on August 14, 2007 08:13 AMWhat I said, of course, was not "No one has done better in Iowa than Romney EVER!!!," but "NO ONE has EVER done significantly better than Romney in Iowa."
Emphasis added for those with reading comprehension problems.
If Dole, a female Senator, or Forbes, with the political capitol they possessed in 99 were running today, yes they would have just as much chance as any of the folks running now. Not sure if that's saying much. Difference of opinion I suppose.
Yes, the difference is, your opinion is crazy.
For Romney to have any chance this election cycle he needs to pick up conservative support. The moderate wing of the party has already been picked over fairly closely by McCain and Guiliani.
That's obviously not true. McCain is behind Romney in some polls and is losing more support every week, and Romney could pick up a lot of that, not to mention any bumps he gets from Iowa and his generally outstanding debate appearances.
Given a choice between Romney and the single-diget kids by a two-to-one margin conservatives in the Iowa Straw Poll said we like these guys who can't win.
Yes, which is the same thing they said about Bush in '99. Whatever happened to that guy? Why do you keep pretending that you have a point, when recent history shows conclusively that you don't?
Michelle: you're right about Tancredo. The only two candidates who should drop out now, having no chance of winning AND no chance to have any significant effect on anything, are Thompson (who did drop out) and Hunter. Tancredo is still a force, and Paul is Paul. People like Paul, Kucinich, Sharpton have no reason to drop out since they are not in it to win anyway: the longer they stay in, the more their voice is heard, which is all they could really have hoped for.
Tancredo is not quite in that camp, of course, but he clearly doesn't have much chance to win the nomination. But I think he is the most attractive conservative left, since Brownback has really turned me off with his attacks on Romney, and I don't think Huckabee is very conservative to begin with. Especially if for some reason Thompson doesn't enter the race, Tancredo has an outside chance to pull something off.
Posted by: pudge on August 14, 2007 08:26 AMRomney was hoping for a big win, somewhere around 50% or more. The other top tier candidates decided to skip it leaving Romney as the presumptive front runner. In 1999 the top tier candidates did not skip so that 31% was much better. Even in a field of also rans Romney could not get a decisive win. Not saying his campaign is over of that he has no chance, but he needs to improve his campaign stratagy. You simply can't spend this kind of money for every poll or vote (especially with bad returns like this). Romney's rich, but not that rich.
For historical context, Bush 1 won the straw poll too, in 1979. In 1987 Buchanan was the winner. In 1995 Phil Gramm tied with Dole for win.
Posted by: Giffy on August 14, 2007 08:37 AMFirst of all, it wasn't a "nuke the mosques" comment. It was "bomb Mecca" as an OPTIONAL response to a NUCLEAR attack on the U.S., making it known that he would be a president who would say to the Islamic terrorists, "if you do this, you might risk your holy site being taken out." Since this is a religious war for them, this could be the only deterent that means anything to them, since threatening their lives doesn't. What would YOU suggest instead to deter a nuclear attack from the terrorists?
It was brought back up again in the last Republican debate, and while you say that idea "doesn't sit well with the rest of the country", that audience gave him enthusiastic applause when he stood by his statement.
On another note, the Des Moines Register reported that a hoax e-mail went out to Tancredo supporters before the straw poll and notifying them that several select Tancredo buses were "cancelled" and some had a "time change". This went out to 490 of his supporters. It has not yet been reported whether or not this deterred any of them from coming. The hoax e-mail and its source is not yet known, but being investigated.
Posted by: Michelle on August 14, 2007 12:45 PMSounds like politics as usual on the PUSA front. I think they drove the Ron Paul buses off a cliff somewhere.
The rest of the top tier candidates (Rudy, Fred, etc) were wise to bow out. I wouldn't waste my time with a bunch of hypocritical Iowa corn farmers who want to pay less taxes while asking for more Govt. farm/ethanol subsidies.
Not smart by a long shot.
Posted by: swatter on August 14, 2007 02:48 PMBush proposed it, why didn't he pressure Congress to pass it like he did his FISA bill? I guess it's not a top priority.
My guess is that it would be a very unpopular move for Congress to do if you were say a politician trying to win re-election. Since George can't run again he can talk all he wants about ending subsidies, but I don't see either party making a move to act upon W's proposal.
Assume you have 86% of a religion (based on actual polling of the Arab street) because your teachings of violent conquest are perfectly aligned with its ancient original founder, all the holy writ and hundreds of years of your religion's history.
Because you have clawed your way to the top of a murderous heap of violent political infighting you know that the source of all the blood and destruction around you are your own lies and those of your closest allies and that the whole juggernaut, at base, is your own evil and deception. But you have survived when all those who began with you are in their graves and it is because, above all, you have your senses about you.
Then, suddenly, there is a shock, worldwide. A man whose enemies in America hate and fear him becomes President. He is a man to take seriously because he speaks seriously, without "showmanship" and has absolutely no infection of the "political correctness" that you have been leveraging, in the West, to your advantage. Those were the "weaklings" the new President defeated to win. And you know that this happened once before in history... in 1980... and that the world eventually bowed before American power when used by that serious leader who followed the Western God... and that on the day that President took office the Muslim world salvaged its own survival by capitulating and releasing its hostages. And you know that you, as well, face the serious use of power as no True Muslim has faced in two decades. And you do as was done in 1980.
Brilliant.
But you're right that the perceived flip-flopping is a big hurdle. Social conservatives will say, if they believe he is sincere, "well fine, he's a Mormon, but at least he believes what I do." But if they don't believe he is sincere, that's another matter entirely.
However, you are demonstrably wrong about this: "(choice and gay rights) are non-negotiable issues to values Republicans and it's suspect that a man would change his mind about them so late in life, if it weren't politically convenient."
Romney had already changed to pro-life when he ran for governor of Massachusetts. I was there: everyone on both sides knew where he stood. However, he vowed to not try to push his pro-life views on the state, since everyone also knew the state was fundamentally pro-choice. So tell me, how was his pro-life view when running for governor of Massachusetts "convenient"? Obviously, it wasn't. Obviously, his change was not for political convenience.
Posted by: pudge on August 15, 2007 07:29 AMYou are giving Reagan way way too much credit.
And, since I can't understand what you were getting at, I paraphrase- you think it okay to bomb mosques or 'threaten' to do so.
Posted by: swatter on August 15, 2007 01:11 PM