Presidential nomination races for both parties are reaching a frenzied pace with less than two months to go until the state-by-state contests of Iowa, New Hampshire, et. al. commence. A run-down of key recent events shaping the respective campaigns:
It's nearly now-or-never time for Barack Obama. The current media story-line is that Hillary Clinton has stumbled. Obama drew rave reviews in the local and national press at Iowa's Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner (the same such event that jump-started John Kerry's rise in Iowa late in 2003).
Obama has the cash and the enthusiasm in his supporter base to potentially topple Clinton. But given the scope of her polling leads nationally and in almost every early primary state, the only place to slow her down is in Iowa. There, as this most recent poll affirms, Obama actually has to get his enthusiastic (though often younger and less politically active) supporters to out to the caucuses.
Over on the Republican side, the Campaign Spot says the buzz is that it's a race between Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney.
Chris Cillizza types out what poll observers have been seeing for a while, Fred Thompson is heading down everywhere one looks in the polls. Key takeaway:
Still, the overall trajectory of Thompson's campaign -- as judged via polling -- is downward. It's clear the initial fervor and excitement over the TV-star-turned politician has worn off and voters have not flocked to Thompson as many people expected.The problem for Thompson is that there isn't an obvious way to turn this narrative around. He is not a flashy campaigner and his fundamental message -- competent conservatism -- isn't the sort of thing that builds a grassroots movement.
...
He's got 51 days left before the Iowa caucuses. As we know from the 2004 Democratic nomination fight, that's plenty of time to turn things around. But Thompson needs to start soon. Like, now.
Team Thompson will take heart, however, in the National Right to Life Committee's endorsement, while expanding their Iowa ad buy into a major foray onto the South Carolina airwaves too.
Speaking of TV, where's Rudy? Can anyone imagine a Senatorial or Gubernatorial candidate not being on TV in mid-September? That's the equivalent of what Giuliani's campaign is doing right now by being the only major campaign not fighting in that staple of campaign forums as early January approaches. The strategy increasingly looks like Giuliani might actually defy logic, downplay the early states, and hoard cash for Florida and February 5th. On one hand, that could be a catastrophic blunder if it fails, given the more than decent chance to nip Romney's candidacy in the bud in New Hampshire . On the other hand, it might be a cute ploy to downplay expectations in the Granite State for a few more weeks (and as the campaign hasn't totally bailed out of Iowa either). If not, someone may want to tell the Giuliani campaign that paid media can actually work.
Meanwhile, Romney doesn't seem inclined to give "the Speech," which seems a topic for potentially endless debate.
Mike Huckabee is all-in in Iowa. And hey, why not?
McCain fights bravely on, including vigorous push-back against 3rd party ads supporting him (define irony).
And finally, we still don't know what's going on with Michigan's primary/caucuses/convention, which now may or may not be sandwiched between New Hampshire on January 8th and Nevada & the GOP contest in South Carolina on January 19th.
UPDATE: typo fixed, plus check out this smart take on Obama's challenge drawing out younger voters in Iowa.
UPDATE II: As if on cue, Giuliani finally launches an ad in New Hampshire.
Posted by Eric Earling at November 13, 2007 09:54 PM | Email ThisBottom line: If the Republican candidate hopes to win next November, they must:
1) Distance themself from Bush's foreign policy, but demonstrate toughness on Islamo-jihadists and national security.
2) Demonstrate that they will secure the borders and enforce existing immigration laws and be open to a guest worker program.
3) Demonstrate that they will make government smaller, eliminate our budget deficit and support a balanced-budget amendment.
Actually all three will distance them from Bush and...It will take nothing less to defeat the Democrat - Hillary or whoever..
Except, he doesn't need one. He needs votes. Rememeber the biggest grassroots movement in 2003 was for Dean. Grassroots movements aren't everything. And he doesn't even need to win, he just needs to stay alive (although winning is far better), because he could fail to win every primary and STILL have a chance at getting the nomination at convention, if the other candidates can't pick up a majority.
And yeah, the NRLC thing is HUGE. It's by far the biggest endorsement in the GOP race so far.
I think Romney has a much better chance at this point, but it is far from over. Thompson probably needs to win big in some debates over the next couple months, but that's quite doable.
Posted by: pudge on November 13, 2007 10:51 PMDid you feel at all embarresed leaving Ron Paul out of your summary?
Posted by: Travis Pahl on November 13, 2007 11:16 PMI think these polls greatly understate Ron Paul's support.
His next "money bomb" is scheduled for 12/16/07, the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. Already, over 10,000 people have pledged to donate $100 on that date, and the number of pledges continues to rise. I'll be donating. Only about 18,000 people pledged before his $4.3 million haul on 11/5, so this understates the future potential. I think he will raise over $5 millon on this day. And the cool thing is that since this is all spontaneously arranged on the internet, there are no commissions (often 20%) to pay to fund-raisers on these contributions!
Ron Paul has over $5 million in the bank with no debt! McCain just loaned his campaign $3 million. His campaign is cash-poor and full of debt. I wonder if he will pull a "Bruce Guthrie" and pay himself back his loan? It could be the smart thing to do in his position... :)
People are sick and tired of the usual corruption and the bipartisan government growth, mismanagement and over-spending. The Ron Paul phenomonon is huge and national and growing.
I agree that Romney and Giuliani are the frontrunners, but it is too early to rule out Ron Paul. I hear that John Kerry was in fifth place at this point in 2003, but went on to take the D nomination.
Ron Paul can unite the right and left. The Iraq war is unpopular. If the Republican nominee backs it in the months before the general election, we can expect him to lose. Ron Paul is more socially conservative than Romney or Giuliani, AND is more fiscally conservative as well! Give up on the Iraq war and two out of three ain't bad!
Ron Paul can beat Hillary because Hillary votes for the Iraq war and voted for the USA PATRIOT Act and the recent erosion of habeas corpus. Ron Paul voted NO on these and so can "get to her left" on these issues and undermine her base.
Also, look to either Giuliani or Romney to move left on the Iraq war right after the nomination. They will have to do this because the war is unpopular. They will advocate troop withdrawals and you hawks will be ticked-off. This will also make the Republican look like a hypocrite. Ron Paul does not face that obstacle.
Ron Paul wants to eliminate the IRS, reduce spending, balance the budget, prevent socialized medicine, leave abortion to the states, return to Constitutional limits on government and focus on defending the US borders. Sounds good to me!
It really feels good to support Ron Paul. Join us! :)
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 13, 2007 11:47 PMOnly in laughter, my friend.
I'm a Democrat, and if the circumstances made me tempted to vote for a Republican (if Edwards wins the Dem nomination, for example), I'd put Paul behind Romney, McCain, Huckabee, and Thompson as my preferred choice of the GOP candidate.
Posted by: mr. smitty on November 14, 2007 12:53 AMAre you a pro-war, pro USA PATRIOT Act Democrat like Hillary Clinton? If so, I'm not surprised you would support McCain et al.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 14, 2007 03:15 AMLike it or not Bruce, it will do him in!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 14, 2007 06:47 AMPLUS: It HELPS to be a 'little' telegenic !
Posted by: Duffman on November 14, 2007 06:57 AMDon't ya just love the LEFT.. nothing but a bunch of WACKOS!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 14, 2007 07:01 AMThe media has given her a pass for years--the last couple of weeks has shown what a wimp she really is when she gets a few tough questions. She looked pathetic in that debate a couple of weeks ago! Pretty poor showing for "the worlds smartest woman"! Maybe the Dems will come to their senses and nominate Obama--at least he can coherently argue his positions (I don't agree with them, but at least I believe he honestly holds them--unlike Hillary).
Posted by: Bill H on November 14, 2007 07:23 AMExcept now we have to add a disclaimer -except Ron Paul.
I really really like the R candidates. This time around, they live up to their name- The party of grownups. All four or five of the mainliners are respectable candidates.
You don't see them browbeating CNN and Wolf Blitzer about phony questions or demanding softball questions.
Posted by: swatter on November 14, 2007 07:54 AMSure, they are grownups. Grownups with views that are antithetical to mine in terms of small government and/or social conservatism.
Yes, I'd rather have Giuliani than Clinton, and Giuliani can beat Clinton while Paul can't. I think we agree there. So maybe I am not disagreeing with you, I can't really tell.
Right now my list of personal favorites is Fred, then Mitt, then McCain. After that Hunter and Tancredo. Paul, Huckabee, and Giuliani bring up the rear, in varying order depending on my mood.
But I really really LIKE all of the candidates. I just don't want some of them to be President.
Posted by: pudge on November 14, 2007 09:34 AMWhoope de do... THIS IS ONLY PRIMARIES!
Do you honestly believe DEMOCRATS will vote GOP in the general??
I sure as heck don't.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 14, 2007 09:51 AMRon Paul, the angry prophet, has little honor in his own land
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 14, 2007 10:07 AMAnd just to make your toes curl and your face light up:
Paul Returns Donations From Stolen Cards
Overseas Thieves Apparently Used Presidential Campaign To Test Stolen Credit Cards
Hells bells, RP might desrve a buck donation just for his entertainment factor! :)
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 14, 2007 11:33 AMYou saying that your against people exersising their first amendment rights?
BTW, if Nazi's want to donate to Ron Paul that's their problem not his. Donation does not equal association.
Army M/V, why do you hate the Constitution so much? Why do you want to destroy the very rights America holds dear?
Better yet, shift up a gear and hit the throttle....
Posted by: Saltherring on November 14, 2007 02:03 PM
Ah, but Bruce, Uncle Rons #1 Paulbearer here at Sound Politics, claims differently. He says all those contibutors are bright and shiny new members of our Grand Old party.
Ouch! Talking points, people! Get on the same page.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 14, 2007 02:34 PMSince the first amendment was ratified and by Brandenburg v. Ohio.
I believe those actions fall into Article III Section 3
People in Oly have a right to peacefully protest what they consider an unjust war. It falls into Article III Section 3 when you actually give aid and comfort to the enemy or wage war on the US Govt (ie. you start shooting soldiers or tossing grenades at the train/ships) They should be prosecuted for property destruction if they actually did pour concrete on the tracks.
Posted by: Cato on November 14, 2007 03:38 PMThey could be, I'm sure the Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms types will welcome them into the GOP with open arms.
No, I think they would feel more comfortable with Sheets Byrd! He's actually still in the Senate...
Posted by: Bill H on November 14, 2007 05:52 PMCato, I have no sympathy for them when they cross the line of peaceful demonstrations into full out acts of war.
Posted by: Doug on November 14, 2007 08:36 PMNo it's not...you can't lump that guy who fought for the Taliban and actually shot at US soldiers with some dude who pours concrete on a railroad track. If they blew up the rails that in my mind could be called treason (permanent damage). Concrete takes a long time to dry (especially in our wet/cold winters), sound like the port arrested the people who poured the offending concrete and washed it all off with a hose.
People have a right to peaceful protest guaranteed to them in the 1st Amendment. Getting arrested for blocking a train hardly constitutes a treasonous act. I believe the court system would agree with me.
First, a lesson: Concrete doesn't dry, it cures. In fact moisture actually allows it to cure harder and faster so the rain isn't a "mitigating" factor but was actually acting to form a more formidable obstacle more quickly.
Second, you surely aren't seriously putting forth the proposition this was done just to be a nuisance and force somebody to hose off the tracks are you? If you are, no one's buying it. This was an attempt to block train traffic with the high probability of a derailment if it went undetected. Both results, if successful, would have been highly celebrated.
Believe what you want but there's nothing peaceful about these acts and they certainly aren't legitimate first amendment expressions. If any agency has the political courage to arrest these criminals then I believe you won't find the courts to be quite so sympathetic to your viewpoint.
-John
Posted by: jopalm on November 15, 2007 11:12 AMI say smack those snot-nosed America haters with a fire hose, slap the cuffs on then lose their processing paperwork for a few years... or better yet send their treasonous butts down to Gitmo so they can commiserate with fellow America-hateres... of course, they ARE America to those particular prisoners. Oh gee, too bad.
Cato, either your brainwashing is 100% complete or you are naively dancing through life with your eyes scrunched shut.
Either way, you give me a headache.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 15, 2007 11:12 AMLet's look at this point by point:
1. Yes they attempted to block traffic (a crime for which they were arrested for).
2. High probability of derailment seems unlikely since the train is likely going as such a slow speed entering and leaving the port. I imagine they will go at a slow speed anyway since people are likely laying on the tracks.
3. It's unlikely that it would go undetected since the local police are watching the site 24x7.
Believe what you want but there's nothing peaceful about these acts and they certainly aren't legitimate first amendment expressions
Peacefully blocking the train with your body is a form of protest and is supported by the first amendment. It's also a criminal act for which you get arrested for (which happened). Pouring concrete is a criminal act as well and should be punished with serious jail time. It is NOT an act of treason.
Maybe Britain should posthumously convict the members of the Boston Tea Party treason. After all they denied the British troops tea (which in turn could have pushed the troops over the edge and started the Revolutionary War) This argument for treason would be equally absurdity as yours.
Anti-war mom drops baby human shield as anarchist kiddie shields watch
"After the military convoy was forced to retreat, a victory celebration ensued, with chanting dancing, etc. I was horrified to watch as the woman in the attached photograph, distracted by events, allowed her infant to fall from her lap and land, face first on the pavement. The second photo shows her retrieving the crying baby as her other two children, dressed as terrorists look on." -B., works at the Port of Olympia
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 15, 2007 06:01 PMLet's look at this point by point:
OK, you got it, here we go...
1. Yes they attempted to block traffic (a crime for which they were arrested for).
Agreed.
2. High probability of derailment seems unlikely since the train is likely going as such a slow speed entering and leaving the port. I imagine they will go at a slow speed anyway since people are likely laying on the tracks.
Wrong. A train can easily be derailed at less than walking speed if the flangeway is obstructed. The wheel climbs the obstruction and is off the rail.
3. It's unlikely that it would go undetected since the local police are watching the site 24x7.
So a serious, life threatening act is OK with you if it's likely to be interrupted? And if it's not?
Peacefully blocking the train with your body is a form of protest and is supported by the first amendment. It's also a criminal act for which you get arrested for (which happened). Pouring concrete is a criminal act as well and should be punished with serious jail time. It is NOT an act of treason.
You're seriously arguing that the Constitution 'supports' illegal activity? I'll let your own word speak for themselves.
Maybe Britain should posthumously convict the members of the Boston Tea Party treason. After all they denied the British troops tea (which in turn could have pushed the troops over the edge and started the Revolutionary War) This argument for treason would be equally absurdity as yours.
Yeah, I'm sure all who read this can see the correlation. You really should avoid arguing through analogy. You're not very good at it.
I'm glad you recognize your point is absurd. As to treason, I've never used that word. You argue your points and allow me to argue mine. You attributing words to me really doesn't bolster your case.