That might be a bit of an overstatement, but the current Republican Presidential campaign contest is shaping up to be a barn burner.
Contrast that with the hammerlock Hillary Clinton seems to be putting on the Democratic contest. Using the pollster.com charts, she's firmly ahead nationally and in every early state except Iowa. Yes, Obama has excitement (so did Howard Dean), but Hillary looks increasingly like the nominee.
Meanwhile, the Republican race is fluid and entirely unpredictable, plus there are a couple dynamics worth watching in the coming months with barely more than 100 days to go until Iowans caucus.
First, the horserace. Ever wonder why conservatives get so irritated at the MSM for perceived bias? Media coverage matters. Fred Thompson has had oodles of it surrounding his long-awaited announcement. John McCain has garnered no small amount of it too following the last debate and the prevalence of the surge in political discourse. No surprise then that both candidates are soaring in the RealClearPolitics national poll average. Mitt Romney's post-Ames bounce is gone and Rudy Giuliani is holding steady though his overall lead has shrunk mightily.
Will McCain's own surge drift back down once the Iraq debate has less visibility? Can Thompson sustain the momentum after his kickoff? Conservative icons George Will, Robert Novak, and Paul Weyrich are skeptical; but it's possible persona may trump meaty substance with enough voters. Either way, will national gains by McCain and Thompson translate to the early states where the delegates actually get decided?
Now that Thompson's announcement is over and the Petraeus/surge debate begins to recede, the candidates are going to be focused on vacuuming up cash in advance of the September 30th fundraising deadline. Absent creative, pro-active campaign efforts or capitalizing on an opponent's misstep (which Thompson has teetered on the edge of), the candidates are likely to receive less national media attention for the time being.
Pressure will be on Giuliani and Romney to stay at the front of the fundraising pack. Concurrently, McCain and Thompson need to demonstrated some ability in this arena too; McCain after his disastrous cash flow problems the first half of the year and Thompson after his tepid earlier announcement of $3.4 million raised instead of the expected $5 million haul. Any candidate failing to meet expectations will rue the resulting media coverage.
Longer term it will be immensely interesting to watch where the candidates spend their time as the state-by-state series of contests that actually comprise the nominating process takes shape. Given the growing collection of states holding primary contests before Super-Size Tuesday on February 5th, candidates and their campaigns will have to make some strategic choices. Simply put, there are too many contests before even Florida on January 29th for candidates not to pick at least a couple earlier states in which to show some strength. Understanding each such contest is thus important; let's review:
Iowa, caucuses approximately January 3rd - Romney holds a huge lead with an open opportunity for someone to at worst "surprise" with a strong 2nd place finish. Romney has to win here and any top tier candidate finishing below Mike Huckabee won't be looking too hot. In theory Thompson could be the one to grab a solid 2nd though his initial campaign swing didn't show the intensity of retail politicking necessary with that state's demanding electorate.
Wyoming - the GOP is holding "county conventions" to begin the delegate selection process on January 5th. They're not likely to get much public attention from either candidates or the media given the probability of being bookended by Iowa and New Hampshire.
New Hampshire, primary approximately January 8th - a serious battle between Romney and Giuliani is brewing here. Romney's early ads and focus on grassroots campaigning has shown dividends yet Giuliani's recent attempts to match the pace in the Granite State have put him firmly in second. Romney needs to win here too though this might be the best chance for Giuliani to pull off an early win, ruin Romney's strategy, and slingshot himself forward instead. This is also probably McCain's last stand. If he can't replicate his success from 2000 the final nail will be driven into the coffin of his candidacy. Thompson starts out in comparatively low in the polls here and had a rocky start with the locals to say the least.
Michigan, primary January 15th - perhaps the biggest wildcard of the primary season. In theory Giuliani and Romney start out well, though polling data isn't particularly rich. Romney and McCain have the best organizations in the state, though given its size the campaigns will need ample resources as well. If Romney wins Iowa and New Hampshire he likely creates enough momentum to win Michigan as well. Winning the first three major contests in a row, including a large state like Michigan, would put Romney in excellent overall position, even to absorb a probable loss in South Carolina. Such a turn of events would put Giuliani and Thompson in a do-or-die battle in that First in the South primary. No candidate wants to roll into Florida later in the month without at least one victory or "surprise" 2nd place showing under their belts. All the more reason for Giuliani to put a major effort into New Hampshire. Simply put, the winner of that state will be in excellent shape for Michigan.
South Carolina, primary January 19th - Much like New Hampshire looks to be shaping up into an important contest between Romney and Giuliani, this state looks to be a critical contest between Giuliani and Thompson. This is the latter's must win state. The outcome of the earlier contests will affect how important South Carolina ultimately is for each candidate, though expectations for Romney are low and McCain's potential hopes here remain predicated on a must win in New Hampshire. This will also be a test for Giuliani to prove the punditocracy wrong, that a moderate Republican can win in a conservative bastion thanks to the powerful appeal of his leadership qualities on key national security issues (translation: he's the tough SOB Republican voters are looking for). Will it work?
Nevada, caucuses January 19th - abstractly a great potential win for either Giuliani or Romney to showcase the ability of a Northeasterner to win in the West. Unless the state moves the date away from South Carolina, however, it will be badly overshadowed. There's not enough current polling data to say who the frontrunner is with any confidence.
Florida, primary January 29th - the winner of this battle will get a wave of publicity in the old and new media headed into Super-Size Tuesday. Every candidate needs a win to roll into California, Illinois, et. al. with strength. Giuliani has latent strength that decisive day in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. Thompson has his own in states like Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee. But any candidate winning Florida will be in strong, potentially dominating position, given how their victory will dominate press coverage until February 5th. How the pre-Florida states unfold will do much to shape the final electoral battlefield for January 29th, but watch how much time in the next few months Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson spend in the Sunshine State to lay the groundwork.
The fascinating thing about all of this is there are clear, realistic scenarios for Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson to win the nomination. Each is unique. Each involves different strategies, with different points of focus, and different allocation of limited resources. It's like a great political chess match, but there are multiple players, all competing for the same ultimate prize. A truly fabulous and historic contest.
UPDATE: typo fixed.
UPDATE II: Patrick Ruffini has some good and interesting thoughts on some of the same issues.
Posted by Eric Earling at September 16, 2007 05:03 PM | Email ThisI read a fascinating book a few years ago that provides an alternative lense through which to view American politics. It is "Indispensible Enemies" by Walter Karp.
The main thesis is that both of the two parties have two camps within them which vie for power: the hacks and the true believers. The hacks are merely there for the power. They have few if any principles. They follow polls and advocate whatever will win them votes, get them campaign contibutions or special favors from those who want to bribe them. The true believers are principled and are there to make the world a better place. We may not agree with their principles, but we have to admit that they have them.
These categories are not perfectly discrete. Some politicians are mostly true believers, but act like hacks every once in a while. Others tend to act more like hacks, but act on principle when the costs of doing so are low.
I'd say that people like the Clintons, GW Bush and GHW Bush, Nixon, Rove, McCain, Maria Cantwell, etc. are all party hacks. There are many fewer true believers at the top levels, and more in the rank and file, but some top level true believers include Reagan, Colin Powell, Goldwater, Tim Eyeman, Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader and Ron Paul.
These are all debatable, and I don't really care to argue about who is and who is not a true believer, but the really interesting thesis in Karp's book is that the cynical party hacks in both parties collude with each other, across party lines in order to keep the true believers on both sides out of power.
Why? Because hacks can work with other hacks. They can compromise with them. "You get what you want, I get what I want, and the public gets screwed." In the process of this compromise, they sell their constituents up the river. True believers are hard to work with. They don't like compromise.
Remember what Goldwater said about compromise to liberty being no virtue and extremism in the defense of liberty being no vice? Those are the words of a true believer.
So we have the Republican hacks making the following deal with the Democratic Party hacks: "We'll let you have all the social spending increases you want so you can keep your poor constituents dependent on your largesse, as long as you give us spending increases for the military-industrial complex that funds us in return. We'll justify it all with another war." This is why the war is a bipartisan thing. The R's got the bad end of this deal, because the D's have been able to make the tar baby of the failed war strategy stick to the R's.
You can see this collusion between D and R hacks all over the place. Republicans in Eastern Washington get pork for their agri-business constituents while "wet-side" Democrats get to control state highway spending in an automobile-hostile way.
Can principle win in the end?
The media also tries to bury the true believers because they get their information from the hacks in power. This is why we hear so little about Ron Paul and Mike Gravel.
This model doesn't describe all political action, but it is surprising where you can see it if you look.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on September 16, 2007 05:59 PMGod bless you Hillary and we hope you get over your illness in time for the 2012 election!
Posted by: me on September 16, 2007 06:14 PMVery good overall analysis by EE.
One sidebar comment:
I expect you can stike the word ''probably'' in front of ''McCain's last stand'' (in NH):
pollster.com shows Sen. McCain down to 9.8 % in NH; and the RCP average is only just a couple points better. It's hard to see how McCain can come back to lead the pack and win in NH.
But overall it certainly is still a horserace; the next few months will be interesting.
Posted by: Methow Ken on September 16, 2007 06:38 PMYou can't have the majority of the government and spend, spend, spend. Its un-Republican.
Newt knows what the GOP stands for. However, Newt can't run because he couldn't keep his hands off of an interin and inspite of his aptitude, the GOP needs a moral baring (something that's its also missing).
Romney has the most fiscal aptitude and the highest moral bearing (one women his entire life - even with a head of hair that good). Nevertheless, he's unknown; but IF he could have Newt as a running mate, he could unite the now heavily divided and apthetic GOP.
Come on Newt endorse Mitt and this Great Race will be over...
Posted by: ClubbieTim on September 16, 2007 08:09 PMYou may not like what he has to say, you may argue he is not republican (although you would be wrong), but he has as much of a right to be up there as any other candidate.
As for his chances of winning, they are currently at 8:1, the same as Romneys according to Vegas odds makers. It would be much higher if the MSM stopped pretending he had no chance of winning. When ever I hear anyone say he has no chance of winning, what I hear is "I wish he had no chance of winning".
After NH you will see what his true chances are. I am guessing you and many others will be VERY surprised.
Posted by: Travis Pahl on September 16, 2007 08:28 PMWell to get to less than zero percent chance he has a long ways to go. Odds makers in vegas put him at 8:1. Same as Romney.
Are you sure you are not confusing your desire to see him have no chance with actual reality?
If you do not like Dr Pauls platform, may I as what part of the constitution do you not like?
Posted by: Travis Pahl on September 16, 2007 09:02 PMRemember even 2% of the American public is still a few million adults. Since fringers are usually more 'active' then non-fringers a small number of them can have a huge result on the internet.
Posted by: Giffy on September 16, 2007 09:07 PMWe went and had brunch with some Democrat friends today and they were actually of the same mind on the odds making.
Posted by: Andy on September 16, 2007 09:28 PMIt seems that you are not following what is happening with the Paul campaign/revolution. It is far more than the internet. He is also winning straw polls across the country. He is attracting crowds of hundreds and thousands (one in Seattle just last Friday). Sure he is not in the lead yet, but it is more than what you seem to think this campaign is. He is attracting more people in real life than any other republican candidate.
Posted by: Travis Pahl on September 16, 2007 10:32 PMWhy are you concerned that Paul might rn as a third party candidate? If he is such a bad candidate for the republicans, then even less would votet for him as a third party candidate. Why worry about such a small amount of votes?
Anyways who cares if one of the other GOP candidates loses if they get the nomination. We want small government right? None but Paul promise small government.
Posted by: Travis Pahl on September 16, 2007 10:35 PMMedicare and Social Security are already broke, and they want to add the whole nation to a medicare style plan.
I gotta see the deficit bulge on this massive giveaway...
Hillary said she will redistribute your money, so dig a deep hole because this liberal is the queen of all tax happy liberals.
Posted by: gs on September 17, 2007 12:27 AMBiggest question I have: "will the MSM ever begin to ask Her Royal Candidate tough questions?" I think it imperative it happen and I hope, after Hsu, they are not afraid of her as they have been. You know, getting cut off and all that from access to HRC.
Eric, you seem to be saying and suggesting that each candidate can cherry-pick (an early state to their liking), spend money there, win that State to show strength and then move on. This year, if you are correct, the later states will have more oomph than ever before. I'm reading it that way.
Posted by: swatter on September 17, 2007 06:56 AMNothing like gender confusion in a wacko liberal town.
Posted by: Independent Voter on September 17, 2007 07:06 AMIf that were enough we would be talking about president Nader or even president Dean. Hell Dean actually was doing well in polls in addition to a huge internet presence.
The only real measures of viability are actual polls and fund raising. Everything else is just show. Now Paul is doing ok in fund raising, not great, but ok. However, if this 'revolution' were anything more then a few excited libertarians willing to part with some money, Paul would be above 2% in polls.
When he breaks 10% he can be considered a serious candidate. If he wins the nomination then maybe talks of a 'revolution' can be appropriate. He still has to face a general election in which polls constantly show people want government to actually do things.
Posted by: Giffy on September 17, 2007 07:17 AMMichigan is a big one for Romney. If he gets that one and makes it a trifecta, Romney looks like he is on the way.
Giuliani doesn't need New Hampshire and Iowa if he chooses to ignore them because of the condensing. His personality doesn't do well in those type of states.
Posted by: swatter on September 17, 2007 07:52 AMRon Paul isn't a "serious" candidate and won't be covered by the media until he breaks 10% in the polls.
BUT
The media, including Eric Earling, shuts him out, preventing him from reaching more people and getting 10%.
I went to the Ron Paul rally at the Westin Hotel in Seattle on 9/14/07. There were 1,000 people there. No exaggeration. I counted 25 full rows (of 35 in the hall) with 40 seats in each row. I've allowed for empty seats in each row.
And this is not just some libertarian fringe group. I've never seen that many people at a Libertarian NATIONAL convention, and this was just a local Seattle event.
It's not just the internet for the Ron Paul campaign.
Ron Paul is really popular among the tech-types at Google and Microsoft. His demographic group is younger, and includes more women than do most Republican or Libertarian groups. Ron Paul represents the Reagan/Goldwater wing of the Republican Party.
My point is, that for a large percentage of Republicans, this is one of the most exciting things about the '08 Presidential race, and Eric Earling ignored it in his article above. Not even one line in a long article. There is a chance that this was not an accident on his part. Perhaps he prefers other candidiates, and perceives Ron Paul as a threat. If so, this belies the idea that Ron Paul is not a significant part of the story of this election cycle.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on September 17, 2007 08:25 AMWhile they claim to be Reaganites and Republicans, they can't even acknowledge they would vote for the Republican presidential nominee if their guy loses. Some Republican, huh?
Are you also suggesting that when google and microsoft run polls from their sites (or subsidiaries), the supporters who work at google and microsoft "cook" those polls? You must or what other relevance would there be to make the comment.
Posted by: swatter on September 17, 2007 08:37 AMHell Paul is getting more coverage online and elsewhere then most candidates with his numbers, yet he is not really moving in the polls.
His debate performance has been subpar and he has yet to figure out how to work with the media. While he can attract a small number of people, yes a thousand is a small number, to an event, that matters for nothing.
Posted by: Giffy on September 17, 2007 08:46 AM"Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Rudy Giuliani both poll at 41 percent in Washington state, with 18 percent undecided or opposed to both candidates, according to a survey by Moore Information."
Posted by: John Bailo on September 17, 2007 09:06 AMWhen goods cross borders, troops tend not to. There has never been a war between two countries, both of which had a McDonalds'.
Globalization will enhance our security as it ties us together in mutually beneficial trade relationships. Private trade relationships between individuals and companies are FAR more influential and effective than top-level diplomacy at preventing international conflict.
The Smoot-Hawley tarriff barrier was a significant cause for war in the 20th Century.
An isolationist wants to stop international trade, as well as foreign troop deployments. So Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist.
RE; Giffy @27: the libertarian wing of the Republican Party is much larger than 2%.
His debate performance has been excellent. You are just pissed off at him because he opposes your Iraq war policy.
If you Republicans want to turn around your dismal prospects in Seattle and the rest of the "wet side" of Washington State, you would do very well to run Ron Paul-like candidates. Fiscal conservatives who are NOT social conservatives or foreign interventionists would really set the Democrats scrambling!
That would be the day...
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on September 17, 2007 09:16 AMPolitical party with early front runner wins Presidency.
Political party with lots of candidates and lots of infighting amongst candidates looses the Presidency.
Clinton has a money problem but knows how to work herself out of it (see Whitewater). In other words she can play the political smear game with the best of them.
Meanwhile on the GOP side it's going to be either Mitt or Rudy. Rudy has fidelity issues and the NY Firefighters hate him. Mitt has a flip-flop & religion issue. Clinton holds the center ground and wins the Presidency. Simple as that.
Rudy sweeps the electoral college by winning all the States.
Posted by: swatter on September 17, 2007 10:48 AMMitt sweeps the electoral college.
The Dubai thing is new stuff coming out. I thought Americans elected the President and not the Chinese, Iranians, or other Arabs. Oh, the shame of it! The Democrats, though, don't know what shame is.
Posted by: swatter on September 17, 2007 10:52 AMWhen goods cross borders, troops tend not to. There has never been a war between two countries, both of which had a McDonalds'.
That is patently false. Serbs loved their Cheeseburger Royales, just as NATO bombed the crap out of them.
Israel is the LARGEST trading partner with the Palestinians in Gaza, yet is rocketed almost daily. Funny, when I was in that part of the world a few years ago McDonald's were quite popular.
Argentina had McDonald's when the kerfuffle over the Falklands erupted.
And I believe Noriega could order his Big Mac before we yanked him out of Panama.
About trade? The New World traded more with England than anyone else, and we had this little revolution.
The war of 1812, the Spanish American War, WW1, WW2, and on and on, has seen pre-war trade between the parties of the war. In some cases, a lot of trade.
Ron Paul's policies of isolationism don't apply any more. Back 100+ years ago, when it would take months for a force large enough to cause damage to come to our shores, it made some sense to stand away from the rest of the world.
Now that a single person can get on a plane and be here in 10 hours or less, and do more damage than a battalion of 1880s soldiers, isolationism no longer works. The fundamental playing field has changed, and you can't keep the same playbook.
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on September 17, 2007 11:34 AMI assume you mean this article.
That the best you can come up with is that Bill got paid for speeches and got money for his library? You are going to have to come up with something much better than that. If anyone is in bed with the arabs it's going to be the oilman in chief. Bush has never led a company/country he couldn't bankrupt.
Tell me just ONE free trade agreement that Ron Paul has voted for. Just tell me one free trade agreement that was to REDUCE trade barriers and REDUCE regulations that he was not opposed to. That's right give me that slop that says he voted against those because of some other reason.
I'm for free trade, I'll say it again, I'm for free trade. I'll say it again, I'm for free trade. There it is so, don't say I'm not for free trade, even though my voting record is poor on it. Ron Paul is the definition of Isolationist at this point. If his voting record reflected support for reducing trade barriers rather than just his mouth, then we may consider him just a plain non-interventionist nut job.
I'd invite all Ron Paul supporters to take your little test in the last post, my guess is that a vast majority of them would line up with Ron Paul, and three Democrats for their top political matches and 4 Republicans for their least political matching.
Ron Paul's support is the hippie wing of the Democratic party and the liberal half of the libertarian party. No threat as a 3rd party candidate other than to Hillary.
Eric, good status report, but Newt should run as there is an opening for him. He would hurt Thompson but be guaranteed a spot as a VP on one of the Northern boys' ticket. The convention would swing his delegates to whoever made that deal.
Posted by: Doug on September 17, 2007 12:19 PMNo, Cato, this one. Right now it is simmering below the radar, but my comments were predictions for the near future.
Posted by: swatter on September 17, 2007 01:13 PMHere is the latest from Dick Morris ultraanalyzing the Thompson campaign. If true, it doesn't look good for Fred.
Posted by: swatter on September 17, 2007 01:22 PMIsrael has McDonald's. Palestine Doesn't. Our ousting of Noriega was hardly a war. It was more of a police operation. There were no troops who opposed us. You might be right about Serbia, though.
But my point was that international trade tends to reduce the likelihood of armed conflict, not that miniscule trade always prevented it.
Of course there was trade before WWI, WWII, etc, my observation was that just BEFORE these big events, there was a rise of protectionism that reduced, if only temporarily, the amount of trade. Smoot Hawley is the classic example of a protectionist trade barrier that increased the likelihood of war.
Yes, the world has changed since the Constitution was written, and since the 1880's. But the ways in which it has changed, as you note above, actually make a non-interventionist policy MORE beneficial. When you occupy a nation, you tend to piss off the populace. No one likes being occupied. When radicals within the populace have the ability to perform acts of terror with modern technology, then you have even MORE incentive not to piss them off.
Our borders are too long. Our country is too free. Our Liberties are too important to sustain our imperialism. We have troops permanently stationed in about 130 of the world's 190 or so countries. Even if we are not telling them how to run their civilian governments, our presence is resented by the locals, and represents a drain on the wealth of the taxpayers. What we are experiencing now is "blowback" from our past imperialism.
Look, why should we spend another dollar, or another human life, defending the Iraqis? They had their chance, which we generously gave them, to build a free country. The chance is now gone. They did not seize it. They want civil war. They have got civil war. We can not prevent it, and I am inclined to say that many of them deserve it.
Why should we pay for the defense of S. Korea? We have about 50K troops there, and they send us Hyundais! Great cars, but they can fund their own dang defense. I say, get the S. Koreans, Japaneese, Germans, French and the Iraqis off the dole! Bring the troops home to defend US borders. Ron Paul voted for the border fence. That's not something I agree with, but I am guessing you will.
Doug and E. Dan: Ron Paul is indeed for free trade and for the Constitution. This is why he voted against CAFTA, NAFTA, etc. I happen to disagree with him on this issue, but he voted against them because they contain special subsidies to special industries and they were totally unecessary. All you really need is to unilaterally drop all of our tarriffs. The result would be lower consumer prices in the US, lower costs of goods made in the US with foreign components, and overall economic growth and job growth. This is what Ron Paul, and anyone who has studied economics advocate.
Doug: What kind of hippie wants to eliminate the IRS and by reducing spending, replace it with nothing? What kind of hippie wants to gradually privatize Social Security? What kind of hippie is opposed to socialized medicine? What kind of hippie endorses your individual right to own guns?
Ron Paul and his supporters are not hippies. We are individualists and we love the Constitution. I am really happy that there are some of us left in America.
By the way, happy Constitution day! :)
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on September 17, 2007 02:12 PMHe didn't donate to the campaign itself (that would be illegal), he donated to the library. A sheik who hired her husband (who if I'm not mistaken is a private citizen now) to give some speeches and maybe some lobbying.
Bizarre as it may be nothing here is illegal and certainly not anything scandal worthy.
Imagine these plausible scenarios to illustrate my point:
1) For Rudy: Romney wins Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, and Nevada. Thompson wins South Carolina. If that happens Rudy is in deep trouble headed into Florida. He would benefit greatly from picking a state prior to South Carolina to show some strength with a win or at worst a "strong second" to carry him into SC and on to Florida.
2) For Thompson: Romney wins Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, and Nevada. Giuliani rolls into South Carolina from his strong 2nd place showing in Michigan, itself aided by his near toppling of Romney in NH. Thompson would be in a bad place if that happened. He needs a good showing in one of the first three significant contests to create have some momentum prior to South Carolina. Iowa, given the yawning gap between Romney and the rest of the field that is begging to be filled, is a prime opportunity to do that if the Thompson campaign can get its act together. Absent any momentum against a strong Giuliani candidacy, Thompson may well lose South Carolina, which would doom him.
Bigger picture, my point in discussing the states is that despite the focus on Florida and February 5th, the way the primary calendar is actually shaping up means each candidate will have to pick at least a couple of the four earlier states (IA, NH, MI, & SC) for which they will make a serious effort.
Posted by: Eric Earling on September 17, 2007 06:24 PMTo suggest that Paul is not an advocate of free trade is quite frankly above the people on this list. If you do not support him, fine... explain why. Do not try to paint him as something he is quit clearly not. It only makes you look desperate and intellectually dishonest which I do not think you are nor intend to portray.
Travis
Though I mostly agree with what you're saying, except I don't think Thompson needs to do top-two in any state before South Carolina, although certainly Nevada would be helpful to him: but Iowa doesn't mean much, NH is Rudy's and Mitt's backyard, Michigan is Mitt's second home. So Nevada is clearly a place for him to target, but as long as he doesn't get blown out, he will still be OK if he wins South Carolina.
That said, I still find most of the discussion of all this pretty boring. :-)
Posted by: pudge on September 17, 2007 08:27 PMTravis
Posted by: Travis on September 17, 2007 10:18 PMI guess it's where you get your marching orders for free trade, mine basically is Cato where the WTO is believed to be doing wonders for bringing down trade barriers while still maintaining US Sovereignty. Anti-Protectionism and Free trade, where does Paul stand on the WTO - yep, opposed to reducing trade barriers.
Why vote for someone who if was President wouldn't be able to accomplish a single thing he believes in? Paul is a man who would end up vetoing everything and wouldn't know how to reduce trade barriers if the legislation came up and bashed him over the head like a ton of bricks, he would just veto it, saying it doesn't go far enough.
On every subject it would be the same exact thing. I admire yours and Bruce's Libertarian stick-to-it-ness, but the end result is that in order to get where you want to be, it's going to take politicians that are willing to slowly move you there gaining ground here and there, with Paul, it's all or nothing so only nothing would happen.
The military would have no dollars, there hasn't been a spending bill for the military that he would accept. As for the economy, it would be pins and needs, ups and downs if he ever got his way which would never happen because it's all or nothing with him, just not the qualities that your CEO needs to be.
Think of it this way, overall, does the legislative branch cause more good or harm at the margin when it passes laws these days? As the federal register expands, are things getting better or worse, overall? If you think that on balance, things are getting worse, then you prefer gridlock! You would trade the small gains you would expect to get through legislation, in exchange for avoiding the greater impact of the bad laws that would have been passed.
I think Americans want grdilock. This is why the economy tends to grow faster when the majority party in Congress is different from the party of the President, and why American voters put us in this configuration so much more often.
Anyway, Congress could over-ride Ron Paul's vetos with a 2/3 super-majority, and this would mean that most of the really important stuff would still get passed.
I was a Gingrich fan on the economy. Gridlock is good. Ron Paul would do more good than harm by preventing bad laws from getting passed.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on September 18, 2007 08:10 AMYes. Americans want gridlock. And I would love to see the government MUCH smaller. But Paul has expressed that he would remove even perfectly constitutional agencies like the FBI and CIA, and leave us without the law enforcement and intelligence we need.
Not to mention that he could never possibly win in 2008 because of his desire to get rid of the FDA and FTC at the height of a Chinese Goods scare. That alone would sink his candidacy, even against someone like Kucinich or Gravel, let alone Clinton or Edwards.
Posted by: pudge on September 18, 2007 09:32 AMCato rates Ron Paul very high on Free Trade. Iff you truly take your marching orders on free trade from Cato as you claim you should stop representing Paul as anti free trade.
Posted by: Travis Pahl on September 18, 2007 11:11 AMRomney just seems to keep on plugging, playing by the rules and it seems it will pay off for him. If so, I like him a lot for his organization and management skills. This is the first time I've seen them in action and I am impressed.
I still think if Giuliani wins, he has a shot to run the table.
Both candidates would be great for the Rs.
Anybody hear anything Fred has done except take time off? Anything? Anybody?
Posted by: swatter on September 18, 2007 12:10 PMFor me, I am in my mid-forties (same age as Obama), and I look to this race as one that needs to turn the nation to the future and not continue the past. I view it as a Kennedy/Nixon race, not another Gore/Bush race. I want outside/new thinking. To me the best race of ideas would be a Romney/Obama race. You would have a clean race focused on the differences of approaches, instead of race focused on who can get the least muddy in the process. With Hillary, it is mud-slinging both-ways, all the way to November. How depressing? Outside of Romney, with his business background, you have a bunch of old-hat politicians that all have their own baggage. McCain would have been idea, except for his sucking up to Bush for the last eight years to try to inherit the heir-apparrent throne. It totally defeated who he was and what he stood for. He no longer is the independent, maverick thinker.
Everybody talks about the wild-card and the thinking that one of today's candidates are who we will see. What if, the Republicans get to the convention and don't have anyone with a majority (i.e., a three way draw split at the convention)? Then, what? Would the nominee be one of the current crop, or would Karl Rove then have his day to put his man in? Let's say, Jeb Bush to the rescue, or someone else in the inner Bush/Cheney/oil circle (Baker, or a younger oil exec with state department credentials). What is missing from the Republican candidates is someone who could negotiate a proper Iraq exit plan and get all the other nations back at the table. Hillary can't do this. Bill's administration's legacy in the Middle East is mixed.
If I could chose a Republican ticket that would win in November against Hillary, inc., most likely it would be something like a Powell/Huckelbee or Powell/Romney ticket (although I doubt Romney would go for 2nd fiddle). Colin Powell is the only Republican (unless he of course endorses Obama, which would put him out of the running), that has the stature to get us out of Iraq, properly. He couldn't appease the conservative side of the party, however, so a Huckelbee or someone with solid conservative credentials would need to be the VP candidate (governor being better suited -- i.e., not part of the current legislative/executive apparatus that has prolonged this mess). I can only hope that Republicans wake up and see their real calling, instead of rehashing the Bush/Clinton years and the misery it has brought on our nation.
We need a strong leader that can bring the world together to address world issues (not US issues), and help us graciously exit the mess Bush has put us in in Iraq, where are brave men and women are continuing to die, daily, over a foolish neo-con folly/oil grab.
Just my nickel's worth.
Posted by: tc on September 18, 2007 01:18 PMOr, do you still believe the war was about WMD's (strike that, per the latest from the Bush/Cheney team, it was about Al Queda, since they were so prevelant in Iraq when we first started the war)?
Posted by: tc on September 18, 2007 04:13 PMYou need to read Greenspan for yourself. He was so misquoted intentionally he had to point out what he said in the book as compared to what the radical press said he wrote. I am ashamed of the Huffington Post- usually they are more up on things.
Confucious once said: "whether I read the right or the left, I need to keep things in context".
So, bottom line, I think Bush has done a pretty good job. Now, tell me which Republican I should vote for and why.
Posted by: swatter on September 18, 2007 04:47 PMTC, the war is about making the future of America safer, by denying militant radical Muslims the ability to kill thousands of innocent Americans in one fell swoop, over and over again. One part of that war includes the need to change the geopolitical structure of the Middle East. Theocracies, Politics, base economies all have to change to reduce the number of Muslims that are willing to commit the horrendous acts of war and it has to be done before it's easy to get nuclear weapons, which probably is just around the corner.
Other aspects include espionage/intelligence and policing and likely countless others already planned through and reviewed hundreds of times by various people in our intelligence depts.
I really don't care how the administration portrays the war or tries to get people to understand the need for it, just as long as the job of protecting my children gets done. I would leave that up to the experts, which is not I, you, any political party, or any individual member of MoveOn.org, or any journalist for that matter.
Posted by: Doug on September 18, 2007 06:51 PMHow has the Iraq war made America safer? Inquiring minds want to know. Is it we now control the oil industry?
Pre-Iraq War, there was no Al Queda in Iraq. Sadaam would have nothing to do with them. My guess, it was mainly an ego-trip thing, since there goals were probably close. No, Sadaam was contained and couldn't do much damage, other than the supposed WMD argument, which was the reason for the war. Without the WMD angle, the timing of the war made no sense. One could argue a just war on other angles, but it wasn't argued at that time. If it was to remove a ruthless dictator, then why are we not going into Sudan. There is genocide going on today there. Sadaam wasn't currently involved with ethnic cleansing at the time of the Iraq War. Other than humanitarian reasons, a contained Sadaam was a better neutralizer than what we have today, which is basically handing the control of the southern part of the country over to Iran, and the Sunni region to Syria. The only stable region is the Kurdish north. Yes, Sadaam was an evil dictator. Are you saying US Foreign policy should be the sole policeman of the world to remove any evil dictator that should arise? We don't have the resources to fight the world's battles.
Our battle with terrorism in this country rests solely with Al Queda. This is why Afgahnistan is a no-brainer with an overwhelming majority of the American public. This is where the true enemy that attacked our country resides (not Iraq). We pulled resources from Afgahnistan to fight the Iraq war. Why? The only argument, it turns out was a flimsy WMD argument, that was at the time even being revealed as unreliable. Do you really think Sadaam would have given Nuclear Material to Osama Bin Laden and give up the glory of using it himself (say on Isreal, who to him was the true target--US was a target to him only because we stood up to him and we support Isreal)?
Doug, you have drunk too-much of the neo-con Kool-aid to think that toppling one regime in the region would lead to the others following suit.
Posted by: tc on September 19, 2007 11:56 AM