Mitt Romney's religion speech tomorrow is going to occupy much of the political news for a while, and may well set the tone for his broader campaign in the closing weeks, before the Iowa caucuses kickoff an intense month of primary contests. Indeed, "the Speech" may be more of a "this who I am" moment for Romney with most voters than anything else. If he knocks it out of the park he's in excellent shape. If the speech fizzles he might be toast. One speech. No pressure.
In the meantime, two other developments worth keeping an eye pre-January 3rd aren't getting much attention despite their import:
1) Rudy Giuliani might really be fading
I mentioned the idea last weekend, but the trend shows signs of acceleration since then. After nearly three weeks of TV ad buys Giuliani is consistently coming in 3rd or tied for 2nd in the latest New Hampshire polls. Signs are that McCain has gained a slight advantage on Giuliani, even as both men remain well back of Romney in the Granite State. Marc Ambinder notes that despite the lack of correlation between the endorsement of the Union Leader and the actual winner of the New Hampshire primary, McCain's campaign is using it as a nice little momentum boost.
More importantly, Giuliani's campaign seems to have lost its way. Rich Lowry touches on the funk, including the oddly off-tone Iran ad now running. Lowry also alludes to the fact Giuliani seems too focused on his past record in New York City. I think that's a bigger issue than people are realizing.
Successful runs for the Presidency need to communicate a vision for what the candidate will do as President. Giuliani's excessive recounting of his record as Mayor doesn't fit that bill; most of American not actually being like the nation's largest urban center and all. While a solid resume validates the ability of the candidate to enact his (or her) agenda, the vision itself is what ultimately remains most important. Rudy's campaign ads aren't presenting that forward-looking view of what the candidate would actually do as President. In contrast, Romney's and McCain's ads do a much better job communicating a vision. Not to say Giuliani's ads are bad. They're not; they're actually quite good in many ways. They're just not conveying the appropriate message.
Furthermore, Giuliani's campaign doesn't seem firmly in touch with voters. Part of the tonal problem with the Iran ad, besides the NIE news this week, is that non-domestic issues are fading, not growing, as top tier issues in the Republican nomination. In the midst of Rudy's failure to capitalize in New Hampshire, a couple recent polls tell the tale. The Marist survey shows the economy and immigration as the two top issues for Republican primary voters. Rudy is way behind Romney on those issues in that poll (as he is also in a recent ABC/Washington Post poll [pdf]).
Furthermore, there's disconcerting evidence outside of polls that something is amiss. Giuliani's own campaign is acknowledging, amidst a flurry of skeleton-in-the-closet stories, that it's "holding multiple conference calls with influential supporters to address their concerns." It doesn't take a brilliant political strategist to figure out that's not a good thing a month before the delegate selection process begins.
No matter where you look, the story isn't good. The RealClearPolitics national average and Pollster.com's equivalent are starting to trend down, with the last few polls consistently heading south. Giuliani is cratering in the Rasmussen daily tracking poll. Finally, Giuliani has no positive momentum in any pre-February 5th state, with the exception of Florida (where his numbers are benefiting more from Fred Thompson's total collapse than anything else).
Long story short, Giuliani is in serious trouble. It's tough to see a scenario where he gets to Florida in one piece if he can't turn it around in New Hampshire and place at least a solid second.
2) Huckabee's small staff is an accident waiting to happen
The media scrutiny of Mike Huckabee is picking up steam, on topics ranging from the Fair Tax, to immigration, to Wayne Dumond. Huckabee's amazing little campaign might be able to weather those storms, especially with the "Revenge of the Evangelicals" fueling him (especially in Iowa).
But - and it's a big "but" - his shoestring campaign operation is treading on very thin ice. First it left him flapping in the breeze, unaware of the Iran NIE after it had been dominating the news for a full day. Now his campaign set up an interview with a former Arkansas official to defend him on the tragic Dumond case, only to have it turn out to be a serious negative for Huckabee.
The pace of this once-in-a-generation open contest, especially given the fluidity on the Republican side, is simply too much for an under-equipped campaign operation to sustain. The fact is even more true for Huckabee, now that he's under the klieg lights of increasing media coverage that is no longer reliably friendly - not to mention the watchful eye of competing campaigns. The signs are there that Huckabee's campaign operation is inadequate to his current standing in the race. That could be the cause of a very harsh stumble at a very inopportune time if it's not fixed. Fast.
Lastly, just a final thought on the importance of earned media. We've discussed it before, how the rise of various candidates at various points in the campaign cycle has been due in large part to favorable media coverage. Consider the current bout of Huck-mentum. Is there any other substantive cause for that phenomena in full than such attention from the Fourth Estate? All the more reason the early contests and the resulting press will be so important in deciding the eventual nominee.
Posted by Eric Earling at December 05, 2007 10:13 PM | Email ThisIn other words, nobody has the first clue what's going on or who's in the lead, and nobody is really likely to know in the near future.
Posted by: cliff on December 5, 2007 10:17 PMAnd due to a Huck collapse there will be some reinvigoration of the Giuliani campaign.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 5, 2007 10:17 PMAlso i believe American Presidents need to portray an image of American strength and power. Now let me challenge you to find pictures of Huckabee with his two sons. Lets just say the Huckster shed the pounds but his two sons have really let themselves go. This is not an image i want to be building our country's image abroad.
Also, lets just say if the judge Romney appointed was supposed to make him look bad on crime???
how does Huckabee advocating to the parole board to release a raper who committed murder parallel in any way to what Romney did.... it doesn't Huckabee is a farce.
We also know none of the social issues Huckabee is running on will be changed in the next 8 years anyway can we please elect someone with sustenance beyond the typical abortion, gay marriage, and stem cell research.
Posted by: Andre on December 5, 2007 10:36 PMPlease tell me you didn't just disqualify someone for President because his sons are overeaters.
I've heard some dumb reasons before, but this has to be the worst.
And Huckabee is probably my 6th choice of the remaining 8 candidates.
Posted by: cliff on December 5, 2007 10:40 PMThese are tough times for Rudy fans like me. But I think if he makes it to the end of the week, without any other personal stuff dropping, and with steady poll numbers, he'll be in very good shape.
Libertarians for Giuliani
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
Or, the Arkansas dynasty thing is weighing on me also. Perhaps it is the overly Bible-thumping. But, maybe it is the Gomer Pyle, my favorite private, look that I see.
I just don't know what it is, but there is something there.
With that said, the Democrat pretenders are in AA to Huckabee's major league.
Posted by: swatter on December 6, 2007 07:08 AMI think Eric has it right in the fact that Huckabee's biggest problem is his shoestring campaign. Not being informed on the NIE is a mistake, but not being able to have the staff to neutralize the Dumond issue will be the serious issue he will have to deal with. The Left is already using it against him, since they don't like him because he is an evangelical. He had to deal with it in Arkansas in past Governor races and will have to deal with it now. It is better to have it come out now than later down the road. I think it is disingenious for the Parole Board members to pin the blaim on Huckabee, stating that he was so persuasive that he convinced the Democratic Parole board to release Dumond. Was he wrong in hindsight in approaching the Parole Board? Yes. So were a lot of Congress and the President wrong in believing their were WMD. We can't go back and change poor decisions. We can learn from them and state we won't make the same mistakes again (something Cheney and company are unwilling to learn when it comes to Iran).
Posted by: tc on December 6, 2007 07:48 AMhttp://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/
Posted by: Tom on December 6, 2007 07:49 AMTom, come on, you can do better than a socialist's cartoon, can't you? Save this one for the general election.
Dick Morris was talking about Giuliani's fall and how he might recover. One thing is for Huck to fail quickly- those supporters would more than likely go to Giuliani. Morris also had a good take on HRC and her fall- her best bet may be losing Iowa and NH.
Posted by: swatter on December 6, 2007 08:06 AMAs for Huck's weight issues reflecting his mental health, I'd rather have a president who was once fat than a president who was once a drunkard.
Posted by: Tom on December 6, 2007 08:21 AMGood God, this country is doomed if that's how you people base your presidential vote and quite frankly, if you do then you have absolutely no basis to comment about any of the results of your asinine votes.
Lets looks at Mitt Romney's speech today. IT really was masterful, and i think that was from his heart not from "his genius mind that flip flops for convenience". He is an impeccable candidate who was never obese, never a drunk, or a drug addict so i am very happy with that.
Posted by: Andre on December 6, 2007 08:42 AMExtreme weight loss is an issue. There are lots of issues to weigh besides weight. andre mentioned mental, but extreme weight loss or gain also brings physical issues. If McCain's cancer were more serious or if Giuliani's prostrate cancer occurred in the early 80s, wouldn't you be concerned if he were running when the survival rates weren't as good?
Huck looks great on the trail and full of energy. It may not be a problem, but there is something about Huck that bothers me and I can't place it.
And, I look at a man/woman for President or office different from most. I pay little attention to the drivel coming out of the pols mouth, but spend more time on demeanor, past record, composure, presence, etc. If a guy doesn't look presidential then I don't give them a second look. Huck is such a person, as is Edwards, Kerry, Gore, or Paul. I never voted for George Bush, Senior, but Jr. twice. I never voted for Clinton, either, but voted for Nixon even knowing that he screwed up in Watergate.
Posted by: swatter on December 6, 2007 08:53 AMLet's just say I'm glad nobody made you God when William Howard Taft was President and later Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Posted by: cliff on December 6, 2007 08:54 AMIt also represents ignorance on the part of the media to recognize that 90% of Americans live in one of 30 "urban centers" (such as New York City).
Look -- as cute as all those truck ads are, most people get in their car or SUV and drive to work around an urban center (such as New York City).
We are not farmers or Yankee maple syrup refiners.
As such Iowa and New Hampshire are quaint anachronisms. In addition, a quick look at their demographics show they are overwhelmingly white, and old...and nowhere near the current average American population.
My greatest hope is that this election, once and for all, shows how off little these states matter. It's a very sad thing that so much focus is on these states...which do not represent America 2008.
Posted by: John Bailo on December 6, 2007 09:33 AMYou "didn't hear a single flaw?" Sorry, I heard one, and a BIG one.
Romney said "freedom requires religion." That right there will sink him like a rock, and he will have earned it.
People in this country are damned tired of you right-wingers pushing your religion on us, and of politicians in either party pandering to religious busybodies, snoops, and public scolds.
Religion is a private affair between the individual and spirit, and I support people's rights to practice their religion in private -- and even to proselytize -- but only to those who wish to hear the message.
"Freedom requires religion" is antithetical to everything the Constitution contains. Freedom of religion, on the other hand, always has included freedom FROM religion.
Politicians who try to subvert that will find to their dismay that they should have left that one alone, because most real Americans still believe in "Don't Tread on Me," and "Mind your own business."
This odious person, who a lot of people around here regard as a hero for some reason, agrees with me, as you can read at the link.
Posted by: ivan on December 6, 2007 10:29 AMRomney said "freedom requires religion." That right there will sink him like a rock, and he will have earned it.
well i am sure Romney isn't courting your atheist voting block so if you think that the republican party is full of atheists then yes he screwed himself.... but the republican is full of people of all faiths so i am sorry but that statement didn't hurt anybody but make you look an ignorant atheist
Posted by: Andre on December 6, 2007 10:55 AMI will laugh last on Election Day when we have a Democratic president and have re-elected our Democratic governor. It will be wonderful to read the whining and bleating at this site then.
Eric in 8 says he is in the 'libertarians for Guiliani' organization? Isn't that kinda like being in a Capitalists for Castro club?
Andre @4,
My understanding is Romney got a lot early on but has seen his lead in WA state campaign donations disappear since July. Who has been leading the last few 5-6 months or so in WA state?
Posted by: Travis on December 6, 2007 12:05 PMEven Madison, one of the main authors of the constitution, said in Federalist 37, in describing the difficulty in reaching agreement on the constitution:
"The real wonder is that so many difficulties should have been surmounted, and surmounted with a unanimity almost as unprecedented as it must have been unexpected. It is impossible for any man of candor to reflect on this circumstance without partaking of the astonishment. It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution."
Throughout the American Revolution and the forming of the constitution, the founding fathers felt that Divine Providence was the key to the winning of the revolution and to the founding of the country.
Huckabee released murderers rapists theifs and drug dealers.... He is an all to forgiving person
Posted by: Andre on December 6, 2007 12:37 PMOh and how are illegitimate chrissy's numbers?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 6, 2007 12:43 PMAs for me, Im sticking with some combo of Huckabee, Giuliani, Thompson, and McCain. Any one of these combinations would win, but Mitt cannot.
Posted by: Fark on December 6, 2007 02:48 PMAfter that, all hell breaks loose and the Congress thinks they are President, and you know Congress (at least this one) is do-nothing.
So, this is where you should be basing your presidential position on. Who do you want in the White House to get things done 100 days into the term? Romney has the most experience at getting it done and Giuliani is the street fighter. Thompson hasn't done anything, McCain fights with his friends and Huck- again, there was the Texas and the previous Arkansas experience.
Posted by: swatter on December 6, 2007 03:11 PMThe biggest threat to Giuliani was fundamentalist Christian voters. Now that bloc has been split down the middle and neutralized. Divide et empera!
Posted by: AD on December 6, 2007 03:36 PMGuiliani and Huckabee both look to government as the solution rather than as the problem. Sure Romney does to, but not to the degree these guiliani and Huckabee do. Romney still has some business roots to him.
Paul however shares huckabees good side (the religion) without the federal government enforcement of it. Paul views the government as a problem rather than a solution for most issues ans looks to keep the government out of things. Even when he thinks something is horrible he thinks it would be even worse for the feds to try and regualte it.
Posted by: Travis on December 6, 2007 04:17 PMI'm so sick of hearing about Paul...can't we get through one thread without some stupid Ron Paul supporter piping up about how fantastic his candidate is? I swear the Ron Paul people are worse than those idiots who show up at my door try to guide me to their particular view of salvation.
If you believed in Paul you would let people debate other candidates without interference.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 6, 2007 01:18 PM"
"History" doesn't decide anything, Ragnar. People do.
Posted by: stu on December 6, 2007 06:11 PMRomney's declaration of faith is against what Jesus says to do. He said we should not pray in public like the Pharisees, but instead we should pray in the back rooms of our houses. Those who make a big point of talking about their faith are trying to use religion to gain some public advantage. It is quite unseemly.
The Constitution also guards against mixing religion and politics with the first amendment. Article VI prohibits any religious test for holding office. Declarations of faith do not violate the letter of the Constitution, but they certainly violate the spirit.
Whether you value the Bible, the Constitution or both, you should be concerned about the actions of Romney and others.
Ron Paul's view is better. He is a Christian, and pro-life, but he does not like to use his faith to promote his candidacy, as Romney and Huckabee appear to be doing. He's a class act.
Thompson and Tancredo will soon be out of the race. Ron Paul will be a factor all the way to the convention. He has raised over $10.7 million this quarter alone to get him there. I know that Ron Paul has gotten the most money from active duty military personel, and I think that Travis may have been suggesting that he gets the most from WA donors of any R candidate. I wouldn't be surprised, though we will not know for certain until 4th qtr FEC reports come out.
Now that the war is fading in importance (though it will remain in the top three or four issues thorugh Nov '08) Ron Paul still has an advantage, because immigration and the economy are strong issues with him.
Cato, posts about Ron Paul do not in any way impair your ability to discuss other candidates. I suggest you just ignore us. The rest of us will miss you, but will just have to struggle on without you.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on December 6, 2007 07:10 PMYou said "Article VI prohibits any religious test for holding office". Funny, that's exactly what Romney said. Far from using religion to gain some public advantage, he said that a candidate should neither be elected nor rejected for their religion.
I agree with you that Huckabee seems to be using his religion to advance his candidacy, but Romney is not. He has been honest about what his religion is, and used this speech to clarify what the constitution and the founding fathers have said about religion in the public square.
Before you comment more on this, you should really listen the speech. It was really very good.
Posted by: Bill H on December 6, 2007 07:38 PMIf you believed in Paul you would let people debate other candidates without interference
Have I stopped anyone from debating about other candidates? Have I interfered? No.
If you do not like hearing about Paul, then do not tune in to GOP presidential candidate threads because unfortunately for you he is running and doing a mighty fine job of it.
I am tired of hearing about Guiliani from day 1 of this campaign. I lived in NYC while he was mayor and know him far to well. He scares the heck out of me and I do not want to see him president. Oh and I can not stand his smirk. It is worse than Bushes!!!
I also can not stand Romney. Anyone who implements even more government into our health care system is no better than Hillary to me.
But I have to hear about these guys constantly! Far more than you have to hear about Paul. But do I complain when people mention guiliani or Romney? No. I understand that some people support them and want to speak out for them. If I happen to be their audience because I am on a forum they are writing on, or standing on the corner where they are educating people about those candidates, I understand that I have the choice to either listen or leave but that it would not be appropriate for me to tell them to stop talking/writing.
The funny thing is that there does not seem to be that many people on the internet or out on the streets or at functions or anywhere that seem to be that excited about anyone enough to push those candidates. The only place I have to put up with it is the media for the most part.
Travis Pahl
It does defend the separation of church and state and the religious tolerance that gives us freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. In this regard it is an excellent speach.
But it also, as I predicted, includes MANY public professions of faith. Here are a few:
"I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers - I will be true to them and to my beliefs. "
"Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. Americans do not respect believers of convenience.
Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world."
"There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths."
"As I travel across the country and see our towns and cities, I am always moved by the many houses of worship with their steeples, all pointing to heaven, reminding us of the source of life's blessings."
"I was taught in my home to honor God..."
"...any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me."
"In that spirit, let us give thanks to the divine 'author of liberty.' And together, let us pray that this land may always be blessed, 'with freedom's holy light.'"
At the end, there is almost a prayer. This is just the thing that Jesus says we should not do.
Let me modify that a little bit. I am not saying that Jesus would never have wanted us to pray in groups. What he would have objected to was people using prayer and professions of religious faith in order to manipulate public opinion or gain power. I think he is doing this in this speach.
But here is the thing about his speach that I liked the most: he says that our liberty does not come from government, but instead should be defended by it.
This is a very libertarian idea, and makes me think much more highly of him. I wish that his actions supported the idea that he believed these words. His health care program in MA speaks otherwise.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on December 6, 2007 09:01 PM2. Although, the head of the Mormon Church had to receive a very recent "Revelation" before Blacks were admitted into the Morman Priesthood, I am not aware that Romney has an association with Nazis, Aryan Nation types or KKK. I am not aware that he recieves contributions from them either.
If I am wrong, post the info. He seems like a stand-up guy who would return such donations unlike the favorite go-to-guy of a couple of the regular posters.
3. I think people need to get real. I don't know all the facts, but he was elected in the same state that elected Kennedy senator in perpetuity.
So, if people are conservative and are wondering how to get elected and govern in the burbs, then he needs a serious look.
4. As for Huckabee, to dis the guy because of his weight. Pleeeeze. Before people accuse me of defending him because of a weigh problem, don't have one now and never had one. The guy comes from the South and any one who has traveled through that region knows that it has terrific food that would probably make Kate Moss, the anorexic model fat if she lived there.
5. I enjoy the discussion of the various candidate supporters take on their candidate and specific positions. In all honesty, Paul's positions have been thoroughly aired and I am not just saying that because he is the only canidate running that would move my vote away from Nader for sure and get me doorbelling.
Posted by: WVH on December 6, 2007 10:45 PMWith that said...
I really don't think the DuMond case is the end of Huckabee. The truth is, this was brought up six months ago and Huckabee got through it. Yes, it is different now that he's ahead in the polls, but this is simply OLD news that was brought up as a political attack during his campaign for Gov. of Arkansas.
Gov. Huckabee either denied clemency or took no action (same as denial) for DuMond four separate times. There was even doubt as to whether DuMond was even guilty the first time around.
Interestingy enough, it was NOT Huckabee's decision that made DuMond eligible for parole. (DuMond's original life sentence made him ineligible for parole.) It was Jim Guy Tucker, in 1992, who granted DuMond executive clemency, reducing his sentence to 39.5 years, automatically making him eligible for parole.
This was dumped on Huckabee's plate in 1996. There was a request for DuMond's clemency (pardon) in August of that year. FYI, governors in Arkansas cannot grant parole, only the Parole Board can do that. The Parole Board at that time was made up of people that either Bill Clinton or Jim Guy Tucker appointed.
Huckabee was going to grant clemency (again, doubt to whether he was guilty the first time around), and the "secret" meeting with the Parole Board actually was to dissuade Huckabee from granting clemency, NOT Huckabee pushing the Parole Board to issue parole for DuMond.
Huckabee eventually denied the clemency request, and as I said before, ended up doing so four separate times.
If he really wanted DuMond set free, he could have done so via clemency/pardon. Gov. Huckabee believed that parole would have been the best way for him to re-enter society.
In 1999, the Parole Board granted DuMond parole. Huckabee did not even know this was coming, and he had no part in it.
Posted by: Cydney on December 6, 2007 11:28 PMRon Paul has raised over $10.7 million.
That's three times the money that Huckabee has raised. It is money that wins elections. This is not as it should be, but it is. Ideas and character should win elections. Ron Paul wins in these areas as well.
Ron Paul's national poll numbers DOUBLED in the last month.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on December 7, 2007 03:11 AMRP can raise all the bucks he wants, doesn't mean people will either listen or elect him!
His poll numbers are still very low and the fact his buddies flood evey internet site with phony numbers does him NO good!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on December 7, 2007 06:36 AMOne point, however, and Huckabee stated it, is that everyone failed. It wasn't just the parole board, Tucker, or Huckabee. Everyone involved in the case failed. I was glad to see Huckabee admit this.
Posted by: tc on December 7, 2007 07:29 AMBruce & Travis, good luck with that Ron Paul blimp thing.
You are right about one thing though. Ron Paul will be a distant memory by the end of February unless he elects to run as a 3rd party candidate to try to get the Dems elected...
Posted by: Bill H on December 7, 2007 11:44 AMJust watch when people like Bruce and Travis will show up along with their Ron Paul buddies, take over the caucus, and drive the votes towards Ron Paul. Unlike the other GOP candidates it's pretty much a given that the Ron Paul folks will show up and stay for the long haul. I'd expect to see several local caucuses go the way of Ron Paul because no one locally will care enough to show up after Feb. 5th.
Clinton vs. Huckabee...vs. Bloomberg. Another successful businessman with quasi-political ambitions steps in and steals some economic conservatives who don't like religious wing driving the party (into the ground). Seems unlikely but possible. =)
"San Francisco Straw Poll Canceled After Paul Supporters Stream In
Story Created: Dec 5, 2007
Story Updated: Dec 5, 2007
The San Francisco Republican Party straw poll was canceled Tuesday, after a majority of attendants showed up to vote for Texas Congressman Ron Paul.
The San Francisco Republican Alliance hosted the event at the Holiday Inn on Fisherman's Wharf with featured speaker, Republican State Senator Sam Aanest (CA 4th SD).
Aanest reportedly discussed his support for former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson, before a flood of Paul supporters, paying the late comer $5 non-banquet fee, entered the room to join those supporters already in attendance.
Event organizer, Gail Neira, then canceled the poll citing issues of fairness...."
http://www.kcrg.com/explorepolitics/?feed=bim&id=12183556
The Paultard movement is akin to the "brown shirt" movement in Germany.
I suppose there is an up side. Many people like me who have not been politically active will have to get off our butts and campaign against this loser and his followers. Should Paul get the republican nomination, I will be doorbelling and contributing to the dem, most likely the crook.
Posted by: WVH on December 7, 2007 12:09 PMIt would not surprise me if one follows the money to the Paultard campaign that one would uncover a really strange group of bedfelows:
1. Young idealists who are fed up with both parties and have a sense the country is headed in the wrong direction.
2. Nazis, Aryan Nation types, and Christian Identity types including the KKK who feel that Paul best represents their interests.
3. Hillary supporters including money from Soros and Peter Lewis of Progressive Insurance funded individuals and groups who feel the only way she can win is a third party.
Expect Paultard to announce that he can't let his supporters down, their message is too important and they will form a third party.
A stake has to be driven through its heart and even then it won't die. Nazis have been around for how long?
Posted by: WVH on December 7, 2007 12:17 PMCare to elaborate on this? What are thier interests in Paul? It he going to create a Pure White state or something? I hear much more anti-immigrant rhetoric here than I hear from folks here than I've heard from the likes of Bruce or Travis.
Who's the bigger idiot here, the anti-immigrant name calling biggot like yourself or the pesky but positive Ron Paul supporter who likes to talk excessively about how great his candidate is.
The choice seems clear to me, I think your views are much more in synch with Nazisim than those of Bruce and Travis.
1. First you said:
"Who's the bigger idiot here, the anti-immigrant name calling biggot like yourself or the pesky but positive Ron Paul supporter who likes to talk excessively about how great his candidate is."
Now, I am anti-illegal immigration or migration whatever it is called. I am for the following reasons:
a. the systems of support for poor people will be overwhelmed and I believe that the duty of this country is to care for its citizens first.
b. I am not against legal immigration. I believe that legal immigrants bring skills and other positive attributes to this country.
So, you are incorrect in calling me anti-immigration.
2. Now these are the goals of Nazism:
PBS has a documentary on Nazis:
http://www.pbs.org/auschwitz/learning/guides/episode_3.html
3. Why the Nazis and others support Paultard, would only be a guess but, see this article linking Nazis with Darwinism and race superiority:
http://www.trueorigin.org/holocaust.asp
and this article on eugenics:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/short-essays/why-the-germans.shtml
The link with Paultard and the Nazis is found here:
November 14, 2007
The Ron Paul Campaign and its Neo-Nazi Supporters
By Andrew Walden
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html
Now, Cato, I challenge you to find that I am bigoted against another, race, creed, or religion.
I routinely hammer Paultards and will continue to do so.
Now, weren't you the person who said "morality is in the eye of the beholder"
Anyhow, you are proving my point that Hillary supporters and Paultards are linking up. Read the stuff on the Nazis, its an eyeopener.
The essential element in Nazis philosophy was race superiority based upon biology. Go to the KKK website:
http://www.kukluxklan.bz/
You said:
"The choice seems clear to me, I think your views are much more in synch with Nazisim than those of Bruce and Travis."
So, once you have visited the sites I have posted on the Nazis and KKK, please show how my views are linked with those philosophies. I suppose morality is in the eye of the beholder, right?
It really is, your morality is based on a collective of teachings and experiences that are different than mine. Obviously my morality is different than yours. There are societal values which can shape and modify our morality so that we don't think it's OK to walk into malls and start shooting people.
"I like people of faith who share similar values to me." - WVH
Nice of you to point me to the KKK websites, you have those in your permanent bookmark collection?
For the record I'm not a Hillary supporter, I'm just sticking up for Bruce since you see to be accusing him of being the American equivalent of a Nazi. It's quite childish of you.
BTW, you still haven't answered the question, what do Neo-Nazi racist nimwits stand to gain from Ron Paul? Seems to me Ron Paul is pulling people from all over the political spectrum.
WVH: I am sure this rule has been mentioned to you before, do you know the name I can not remember it and it is driving me nuts! Nuts enough to vote for Ron Paul! :)
Posted by: Travis on December 7, 2007 04:12 PMI think I will start using that rather than try and continue to prove the obvious to WVH.
Posted by: Travis on December 7, 2007 05:02 PMIf this were, in fact, the race, you could be right! However, I really don't think Huckabee will win the nomination regardless of how well he appears to be doing now--I could see him as the VP choice for either Giuliani or Romney, however.
As far as Bloomberg getting in--I think he'll save his money and run against Spitzer for governor. Depending on who the Rep candidate is, I'm not even sure if he would take more votes from the Dems or Reps--it would depend on how he ran. I believe he is a lifelong Democrat who switched to Republican to run for mayor. Now he is an "Independent". A real wild card.
When Ron Paul was asked in the last debate if he would run as a third party, he did not give a definitive "no", even though Bruce Guthrie has consistently said he would not run as a third party. We'll see. Even if he were to run, he might take as many votes away from Hillary (if she is the Dem nominee) as he would from the Republican candidate. If Obama was the Dem candidate, Paul would be more likely to hurt the Republican nominee (because the respective history of the Iraq War among Hillary, Obama and Ron Paul).
1. I have not accused Bruce and Tyler of being Nazis or otherwise. They support a candidate with a 20 year association with such. See, Amrican Thinker.
2. You accused me of being a bigot and Nazis. I simply supplied you with the defintion. Care to still accuse me of being a Nazis or do you even know what the term means?
3. I suspect if my posts were driving you nuts and making you a probable Paul voter, you were there already and I had nothing to do with it. Remember, you are the one who said "morality is in the eye of the beholder." and the context of the conversation was one can't make judgments. That is your philosophy, not mine. I'm sure that Paul will welcome your support.
Posted by: WVH on December 7, 2007 05:34 PM10 posts later @73...
"I have not accused Bruce and Tyler of being Nazis or otherwise"
So do you not think of Bruce as a Paultard? Or do you not think of "Brown Shirts" as Nazis.
If you really were just refering to people who as a group tend torwards brown shirts over other shirts, you must not being close attention. There is a slight preference to yellow shirts amongst Ron Paul supporters. I think it has to do with a desire to return to a gold standard.
Speaking of shirts and political leaders, if really can not help comparing Ron Paul to a historical political mass murdering assholes, I think your best bet would be Che Guerrera. I have been seeing lots of Ron Paul shirts in the same design/style as the Che shirts. The shirts and the desire for political change is about where the comparison ends so do not go off the deep end.
Posted by: Travis Pahl on December 7, 2007 05:44 PMFirst apologies for incorrectly identifying you as Tyler.
1. Both you and Bruce are Paultards. I do not have enough information about either of you to accuse you of being Nazis or any of the other groups. I believe you both self-identify as being supporters of Paul. He has a twenty year association with Nazis and others, see American Thinker cited above.
2. Brown shirts are the storm troops of the Nazis movement. Refer to PBS series, above.
3. What makes you think that I would be a fan of Che other than you are angry that I keep reminding you of YOUR candidate's associations with some fairly unsavory types? Have I ever posted anything to indicate that I would favor a socialist atheist who believes in violence as a political tool? Can you quote my comments that would lead you to that belief? Remember I call YOUR leader Paul/Chavez/Mugabe, that is not a term of endearment.
4. YOUR candidate won't answer Medved or any other questioner. Despite your attempts to smear Romney and Huckabee do you think that either of them would keep a $500 donation from a Duke supporter? For that matter do you think that Mc Cain or Guiliani would? YOUR candidate did.
Don't get mad at me for asking questions.
Posted by: WVH on December 7, 2007 06:32 PM1. Okay, now that you have established that you think we are paultardss and you think paultards are akin to brown shirts we can move forward.
2. You now have confirmed that your use of brownshirts was in fact the nazi reference.
So you admit you think we are paultards and you think paultards are akin to brownshirts which you understand to be nazis, how do you reconcile this with your other statement saying you do not think we are being nazis?
3. I do not think you like Che nor did I suggest it. I suggested that if you insist on comparing Paul to such characters as mugabe, hitler and the likes, you might do better comparing him to Che. Also I am not mad, I am having fun. :)
1. I am not aware that Paul has any association with Marxist revolutionaries, so I don't think that Che is appropriate. Che trained to be a doctor in Argentina. When doctors go round the bend, they really seem to lose it.
2. I do believe that followers of Paul are totally devoted to their man and the cause. They will use any means necessary to advance the cause. That was also true of the brown shirts in their devotion to national socialism. The reason I add Chavez/Mugabe to the moniker is that their followers did a lot of the dirty work and allowed both "gentlemen" to stand back and bask in the adoration, all the while keeping their hands out of the muck. How I reconcile the reference of brownshirts and being involved in a movement to not calling you Nazis. I simply don't know your associations. Also, some people are followers of movements and simply don't understand the ramifications of the movement. If you study the recent history of Germany and Austria, many of the elite and politicians that were youths during the Third Reich claimed that they had no understanding of the meaning of the Nazis movement. Many were involved in Nazis youth groups. Kurt Waldheim of Austria comes to mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Waldheim
3. Personally, I get the feeling that you are a very likeable guy who is hardworking and devoted to his family. I think that you love this country and think that it is headed in the wrong direction. Both parties have abandoned what is left of the middle class and pitched their message to a very narrow segment. Issues that would make most the lives of most average people better don't get the attention that is needed. So, I think Paul's message resonates because he appears to focus on issues you think are important to turning things around. You should read some of Hitler's speechs. He had the same appeal for the Germans. I do understand the appeal. I disagree with the movement. Paul really needs a "Sister Souljah" momment with his Nazis supporters to be considered to mainstream candidate.
From all of the polling going on, Hillary IS NOT doing well.
But if you think she can win, well be my guess!
It is not clear that Giuliani will lose Michigan.He lead earlier polls there but I have not seen a recent one. Look at these other states: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina. Do they have large Italian or Catholic populations? Many of the Feb 5 states do. New Hampshire was next to Ma. Romney should do well. But Giuliani will have a similar advantage in New Jersey down the road. Huckabee winning two rural states like Iowa and South Carolina does not prove Giuliani cannot get the delegates he needs for nomination in more urban areas where the New York urban background Rudy has is more relevant.
Rudy has a compelling story but I agree with Eric that he needs his forward looking agenda to get more out front now that most people know the job he did turning New York around. His energy and immigration proposals show that he pursues the practical versus the warm and fuzzy but infeasible proposals of the populists.
Posted by: KW64 on December 7, 2007 08:57 PM2. The supporters of Paul are devoted to the cause and are doing alot to help him move the cause forward. But the cause Paul is pushing is one of non-initiation of force. This means they will not do anything for the cause because any of the horrible things you keep trying to associate Paul with are the exact things Paul is fighting against. To use them to promote paul would defeat the point.
3. I have followed Pauls career for at least 12 years now. He is one of hundreds of others out there that are pushing for smaller government. He is a remnant of what was the reagan revolution. Paul was one of 3 congressman that endorsed reagan in 1976.
Posted by: Travis on December 7, 2007 09:22 PMThere are numerous dissertations and articles written about the psychcology and sociology of reform and reform movements. There seems to be a life cycle. After the "leader" emerges then there is the march to the "goal" and what happens after the "goal" is key as to whether the "reformer" is benign like Mandela and Václav Havel, who led reform movements and then had the grace to leave.
Some "reformers" like Chavez and Mugabe morph into despots because the Constitutional systems of their country do not allow rapid change, so it becomes necessary to reinterpret and Change the Constitution,
The genious of our system of three branches with checks and balances is that it is difficult to change. From what I have been able to gather from the Libertarians who post here about their philosophy is that the Constitution has thus far been misinterpreted and this misinterpretation grants too much power to the federal government at the expense of personal liberty. So, Ron Paul appeals to that thought. Some presidents are more effective at working with Congress or outsmarting them. Whether one agrees with Reagan's policies or not, he was masterful at getting around congressional objection. He and Bill are probably two of the best politicians of the past century.
As far as I can determine from his legislative history, Paul doesn't have Reagan's ability to outsmart Congress, he is an idea man. Both Chavez and Mugabe found it difficult to work with their legislatures and both started out as "refomers."
If the "reformer" is not able to manipulate the legislative process, they look for shortcuts, eventually the road leads to despotism. In my opinion, Paul does not have the skills to work within this system and that is the difference between him and Reagan and Bill. Hillary also doesn't have the skills to work within this system either and should she stumble into office, I expect large segements of both parties in Congress to be against her. Like it or not, the ability as Kenny Rogers says to "know when to foldem" is not a strong suit for either Paul or Hillary. Also true of Chavez/Mugabe.
Posted by: WVH on December 8, 2007 12:02 AMHmm... well it is a theory I suppose.
Posted by: Travis Pahl on December 8, 2007 10:28 AM