Iowa Caucuses '08

Apparently, Tancredo is bailing out of the race, and endorsing Romney. Whoever voted Tancredo in the poll, it's time to choose another stiff.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/new...aying-in-race/

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

DES MOINES, Iowa - Rep. Tom Tancredo officially bowed out of the race for the White House today, declaring a moral victory despite never escaping the bottom rungs of the polls.

At an afternoon news conference in Des Moines, the Colorado congressman also endorsed Mitt Romney, saying he was satisfied the former Massachusetts governor is well-suited to drive many of the same immigration reforms that Tancredo has been pushing on the campaign trail.

Tancredo called Romney "the best hope for our cause."

Time's top 10 Campaign Gaffes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Time's top 10 Campaign Gaffes.

---

The Times is absurd. They could attack every leading candidate twice except Hillary - the biggest joke in the race and Huckabee - who nobody on the left wants to stop from butchering the chances of the GOP keeping the white house.

I hate Fox, I don't trust (but I like) drudge, and I think CNN is out of touch but more moderate. TIMES is a fraud when it says it has no allegiances to partisan issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Apparently, Tancredo is bailing out of the race, and endorsing Romney. Whoever voted Tancredo in the poll, it's time to choose another stiff.

---

I did, but it was a joke.

Anyway, since my opinion on the field hasn't changed one iota since last month, I choose Chris Dodd next. Why not?

from the little i now on them i can't decide between clinton and obama

Our little poll here would have Obama squaring off against Ron Paul. While I don't see that happening, I confess that I would find it entertaining....

Both O and P are extremely popular with the under-40 set. The Org skews heavily toward that demo for obvious reasons. Iowa, on the other hand, may well be decided by the over-60 bunch.

Right. The org skews heavily to the under 30 international set. I was just interested in what everyone thinks, since we are still masters of the universe for the time being.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Our little poll here would have Obama squaring off against Ron Paul. While I don't see that happening, I confess that I would find it entertaining....

---

If I could only be so lucky.

Ron Paul would win in a landslide.

Voted for Ron Paul. :balloon2: :2thumbsup:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

He's the best solution from Serbian perspective as finally somebody who understands what's going on in Balkan Peninsula. And he’s good for American people, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DukeofSerbia

Voted for Ron Paul. :balloon2: :2thumbsup:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

He's the best solution from Serbian perspective as finally somebody who understands what's going on in Balkan Peninsula. And he’s good for American people, too.

---

This may be the best and most reasonable expression of support I have heard of for Ron Paul. No airy parsiflage or "the systme must be swept away" silliness about it. Good show.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

This may be the best and most reasonable expression of support I have heard of for Ron Paul. No airy parsiflage or "the systme must be swept away" silliness about it. Good show.

---

Thank you. ~;)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

US military action taking place in Serbia is unconstitutional, Dr. Ron Paul, March 24, 1999

"As bad as the violence is toward the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, our ability to police and stop all ethnic fighting around the world is quite limited and the efforts are not permitted under constitutional law. We do not even pretend to solve the problems of sub-Saharan Africa, Tibet, East Timor, Kurdistan, and many other places around the world where endless tragic circumstances prevail. Our responsibility as U.S. Members of Congress is to preserve liberty here at home and uphold the rule of law. Meddling in the internal and dangerous affairs of a nation involved in civil war is illegal and dangerous. Congress has not given the President authority to wage war."

"Sympathy and compassion for the suffering and voluntary support for the oppressed is commendable. The use of force and acts of war to pick and choose between two sides fighting for hundreds of years cannot achieve peace. It can only spread the misery and suffering, weaken our defenses, and undermine our national sovereignty."

"Only when those who champion our war effort in Serbia are willing to volunteer for the front lines and offer their own lives for the cause will they gain credibility. Promoters of war never personalize it. It is always some other person or some other parent's child's life who will be sacrificed, not their own."

---

Quote:

---

Burning bridges: Attacks on Kosovo unjustified, shameful, Dr. Ron Paul, March 29, 1999

"This is not a proud moment for America, as the United States military has been used to invade a sovereign nation that threatened neither our security, nor even the borders of our allies or friends."

"Most importantly, though is the simple fact that meddling in the internal affairs of a nation involved in civil war is quite dangerous. Both sides believe themselves to be correct, and neither side will appreciate the other side receiving assistance."

"Sympathy and compassion for the suffering and voluntary support for the oppressed is commendable, even honorable. But as history shows, ethnic peace is not achieved by outside forces committing acts of war to pick and choose sides in fighting that dates back hundreds of years."

---

Quote:

---

Crisis in Kosovo, Dr. Ron Paul, April 14, 1999

"It has been said that we are in Yugoslavia to stop ethnic cleansing, but it is very clear that the goal of the NATO forces is to set up an ethnic state."

"There was a headline yesterday in the Washington Post that said: Count Corporate America Among NATO's Staunchest Allies. Very interesting article because it goes on to explain why so many corporations have an intense interest in making sure that the credibility of NATO is maintained, and they go on to explain that it is not just the arms manufacturers but the technology people who expect to sell weapons in Eastern Europe, in Yugoslavia, and they are very interested in making use of the NATO forces to make sure that their interests are protected. I think this is not (a) reason for us to go to war."

---

Quote:

---

The Big Lie: NATO's campaign of deception in Kosovo, Dr. Ron Paul, March 13, 2000

"David Ramsey Steele points out that in Kosovo we were told before the bombings that there was mass genocide occurring, the figure of '100,000 or more' was tossed around even though there was no evidence to back-up this claim ... Later after the NATO bombs began dropping, the official NATO claim was dropped to around 10,000 as it became clear no mass graves or killing fields even existed. The actual number of people found in the reported mass-graves totals slightly more than 2,000, a far cry from the hundreds of thousands that we were told originally."

"Steele points out that the stories about Kosovo came not only from NATO officers but also from officials of the United Nations, as well as from our own government ... The sad trail of lies in Kosovo merely reinforces two facts. The first is that our republic depends upon a press that will question the claims of our leaders instead of just accepting them. The second is that Congress has shirked both its Constitutional responsibility to declare war before U.S. troops are sent into battle and its oversight responsibility to closely monitor the administration in its carrying out of foreign policy."

---

And the latest:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihadists themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price.

Pat Buchanan does a pretty good job of handicapping the race. Sadly, my favorite is 6-1. But I've won bets with worse odds ...

So, two weeks out from Iowa, here are the odds.

Rudy and Thompson each 20-1. John McCain 6-1. He has to win New Hampshire, and even if he wins there, he would be an underdog. Grass-roots conservatives do not like him and would prefer Huckabee.

Mitt Romney 3-2. If he wins Iowa, he is almost unstoppable. If he loses Iowa, he has to come back and beat McCain in New Hampshire. Then it would a Mitt-Mike race through Feb. 5.

And Huckabee? He has to win Iowa. If he does, he will be the favorite in South Carolina and for the nomination, as well.

Looks like a Mitt-Mike race, with Iowa and New Hampshire giving us by Jan. 9 the two candidates from whom the nominee will be chosen. And isn't that how it usually is? Iowa and New Hampshire choose for America.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Pat Buchanan does a pretty good job of handicapping the race. Sadly, my favorite is 6-1. But I've won bets with worse odds ...

So, two weeks out from Iowa, here are the odds.

Rudy and Thompson each 20-1. John McCain 6-1. He has to win New Hampshire, and even if he wins there, he would be an underdog. Grass-roots conservatives do not like him and would prefer Huckabee.

Mitt Romney 3-2. If he wins Iowa, he is almost unstoppable. If he loses Iowa, he has to come back and beat McCain in New Hampshire. Then it would a Mitt-Mike race through Feb. 5.

And Huckabee? He has to win Iowa. If he does, he will be the favorite in South Carolina and for the nomination, as well.

Looks like a Mitt-Mike race, with Iowa and New Hampshire giving us by Jan. 9 the two candidates from whom the nominee will be chosen. And isn't that how it usually is? Iowa and New Hampshire choose for America.

---

I was gonna post that. I think it's pretty adept. For some reason the national polls don't favor Mitt against the democrats. Why do you think that is, Lemur?

I don't really have a clue. I haven't been paying attention to anything but primary polls. Maybe Romney's good points get lost in his obvious fakeness? For me, a little fakery is not a deal-breaker, but for some folks it is. I read there was some kerfluffle recently over Romney claiming his dad marched with Martin Luther King, Jr., when, um, he didn't. Not even vaguely. Unnecessary lies like that will put off a lot of voters. Bad Clinton memories.

I continue to be amazed at how much some Democrats despise Obama for talking about working with Republicans. I mean, they really hate it. Obama mentioned that he would consider putting Republicans in his cabinet, and the reactions are overwhelmingly negative. Example: "Here we go—the good old bipartisan garbage."

What is the problem, exactly? Are these people so completely lost in their tribal identity that they can't see any virtue to compromise and cooperation?

Maybe I'm just sick of the Baby Boomers and their neverending feuds. It's like they want to fight 1968 again every election cycle. I guess that's why my #1 pick is too old to be a Boomer (McCain) and my #2 is too young (Obama).

-edit-

Here's the latest Zogby polls. I'm not sure they mean much of anything a year out from the general election. Nobody's had a chance to slime, slander, Swiftboat or generally malign their opponents yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

What is the problem, exactly? Are these people so completely lost in their tribal identity that they can't see any virtue to compromise and cooperation?

Maybe I'm just sick of the Baby Boomers and their neverending feuds. It's like they want to fight 1968 again every election cycle.

---

Obama certainly wins cool points with me for this.

I don't want to bore anyone with Sarkozy in this thread, but the above sounds too frustratingly similar to not suggest a comparison to the case in France. The problems are the same - partisan tribalism and the stranglehold of the 1968 generation. The solution possibly too. Sarkozy did exactly what Obama is trying to do: overcoming '1968' partisanship for the precise reason of a radical breach with existing politics. It is quite succesful and refreshing.

Quote:

---

Sarkozy's "policy of openness," whereby the top man in Elysee Palace wants to bring about a radical all-around renewal of the nation.

In order to achieve this, Sarkozy put together a diverse, 33-person cabinet: Almost a fifth of the ministers come from the left, and one-third are women. Sarkozy gave prominent Socialist Party member Bernard Kouchner the position of foreign minister (more...) and he managed to woo five other left-wing politicians into his cabinet by offering them high-ranking positions, while a politician from the political center was put in charge of the Defense Ministry.

Giving high-powered women prestigious positions such as those of interior minister, economics minister and education minister gives Sarkozy the aura of being a pioneer for equal opportunities.

A "policy of openness"? What the Swiss daily Neue Zürcher Zeitung characterized as a "pretty risky personalization of his style of government" is a calculated strategy used by Sarkozy to secure power for himself. The non-partisan distribution of offices to members of a Socialist Party without significant power in parliament provided the head of state with almost unlimited authority -- one who openly describes himself as "a president who wants to govern."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I read there was some kerfluffle recently over Romney claiming his dad marched with Martin Luther King, Jr., when, um, he didn't. Not even vaguely. Unnecessary lies like that will put off a lot of voters. Bad Clinton memories.

---

A lot of conservative voters are already worried that Romney is a phony. Stuff like this does not help in the least. I mean, I guess I'd still want him as president instead of Hillary... probably. :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DukeofSerbia

Voted for Ron Paul. :balloon2: :2thumbsup:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

He's the best solution from Serbian perspective as finally somebody who understands what's going on in Balkan Peninsula. And he’s good for American people, too.

---

Good to know.

I cast my absentee ballot today at my local town hall.

:balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Are these people so completely lost in their tribal identity that they can't see any virtue to compromise and cooperation?

---

We need a smiley that's pointing at it's nose for this comment. You have, I believe, brought down the whole thing to one question. Regrettably, the answer is a Yes.

The partisans want to win the fight, conquer the city and hit exterminate. Enslaving for long-term gain might be barely acceptable, but simply living and let living will not do. Ideological blood must be shed.

The last time we were this divided was at the turn of the 19th. Today's parties are every bit as rabidly partisan and vindictive. Jackson then came in, ran roughshod over everybody, and things calmed for a few years until the slavery expansion fight degenerated into bloodshed (reading Kerns Goodwin on Lincoln right now, wonderful book.).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

The last time we were this divided was at the turn of the 19th. Today's parties are every bit as rabidly partisan and vindictive. Jackson then came in, ran roughshod over everybody, and things calmed for a few years until the slavery expansion fight degenerated into bloodshed (reading Kerns Goodwin on Lincoln right now, wonderful book.).

---

Civil War, 2030 style?

:beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I don't really have a clue. I haven't been paying attention to anything but primary polls. Maybe Romney's good points get lost in his obvious fakeness? For me, a little fakery is not a deal-breaker, but for some folks it is. I read there was some kerfluffle recently over Romney claiming his dad marched with Martin Luther King, Jr., when, um, he didn't. Not even vaguely. Unnecessary lies like that will put off a lot of voters. Bad Clinton memories.

---

George Romney had a very admirable civil rights record and Martin Luther King knew him. Both of the Romney brothers remember their father saying something about marching with King. I think that they may have misunderstood their father.

I don't fully understand what this row is about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

A lot of conservative voters are already worried that Romney is a phony. Stuff like this does not help in the least. I mean, I guess I'd still want him as president instead of Hillary... probably. :sweatdrop:

---

What don't you like about Romney? Do you perceive him as fake?

Which policy plans do you dislike?

Just curious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Maybe I'm just sick of the Baby Boomers and their neverending feuds. It's like they want to fight 1968 again every election cycle. I guess that's why my #1 pick is too old to be a Boomer (McCain) and my #2 is too young (Obama).

---

Were I able to contribute, this is the ticket that would most appeal to me. Both candidates appear to have a good level of personal integrity, and Sen. McCain appeals to me as the kind of conservative I understand (and would consider myself to be, but then we have such different definitions across the pond). I think he has made some mistakes (I'm not at all fond of what I read about his campaign finance reforms) but he thinks as though he cares about the United States and her people.

Sen. Obama's ideals excite me but I feel he would benefit hugely from serving as vice-president to someone like Sen. McCain. It might temper some of his more extreme thoughts whilst providing energy and innovation to a conservative administration. He may well then go on to make one of the finest presidents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

What is the problem, exactly? Are these people so completely lost in their tribal identity that they can't see any virtue to compromise and co-operation?

---

Alas, this seems to be the pattern across Western democracies. As Louis notes, attempts have been made in some places, but it is vanishing as an aspiration. We are guilty of such tribalism even here in this microcosm of the Backroom.

Perchance it is the end result of too much comfort. Despite our governments inventing ever so more creative ways to terrify us into partisanship, the west feels remarkably safe and its people can indulge in yah-boo politics knowing that not much will change. I would characterise the above suggestion as a government of national unity, and they seem long gone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

What don't you like about Romney? Do you perceive him as fake?

Which policy plans do you dislike?

Just curious.

---

Well, yes, I do perceive him as fake. As for the linky, well, here's what I didn't like: Basically the ENTIRE foreign policy, with exception to immigration. Also, I dislike his economic policy, as I get the feeling he's just going to end up like Bush, spending and spending, but not taxing enough, especially the wealthy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kamikhaan

Well, yes, I do perceive him as fake. As for the linky, well, here's what I didn't like: Basically the ENTIRE foreign policy, with exception to immigration. Also, I dislike his economic policy, as I get the feeling he's just going to end up like Bush, spending and spending, but not taxing enough, especially the wealthy.

---

I'm pretty much you with you here.

We probably agree on foreign policy and spending, but differ on taxes.

Mitt would be like George W Lite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

I'm pretty much you with you here.

We probably agree on foreign policy and spending, but differ on taxes.

Mitt would be like George W Lite.

---

only an absolute genius.

A remarkably unfriendly editorial about Romney from NH.

Romney should not be the next president

If you were building a Republican presidential candidate from a kit, imagine what pieces you might use: an athletic build, ramrod posture, Reaganesque hair, a charismatic speaking style and a crisp dark suit. You'd add a beautiful wife and family, a wildly successful business career and just enough executive government experience. You'd pour in some old GOP bromides - spending cuts and lower taxes - plus some new positions for 2008: anti-immigrant rhetoric and a focus on faith.

Add it all up and you get Mitt Romney, a disquieting figure who sure looks like the next president and most surely must be stopped.

Romney's main business experience is as a management consultant, a field in which smart, fast-moving specialists often advise corporations on how to reinvent themselves. His memoir is called Turnaround - the story of his successful rescue of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City - but the most stunning turnaround he has engineered is his own political career.

If you followed only his tenure as governor of Massachusetts, you might imagine Romney as a pragmatic moderate with liberal positions on numerous social issues and an ability to work well with Democrats. If you followed only his campaign for president, you'd swear he was a red-meat conservative, pandering to the religious right, whatever the cost. Pay attention to both, and you're left to wonder if there's anything at all at his core.

As a candidate for the U.S. Senate in 1994, he boasted that he would be a stronger advocate of gay rights than his opponent, Ted Kennedy. These days, he makes a point of his opposition to gay marriage and adoption.

There was a time that he said he wanted to make contraception more available - and a time that he vetoed a bill to sell it over-the-counter.

The old Romney assured voters he was pro-choice on abortion. "You will not see me wavering on that," he said in 1994, and he cited the tragedy of a relative's botched illegal abortion as the reason to keep abortions safe and legal. These days, he describes himself as pro-life.

There was a time that he supported stem-cell research and cited his own wife's multiple sclerosis in explaining his thinking; such research, he reasoned, could help families like his. These days, he largely opposes it. As a candidate for governor, Romney dismissed an anti-tax pledge as a gimmick. In this race, he was the first to sign.

People can change, and intransigence is not necessarily a virtue. But Romney has yet to explain this particular set of turnarounds in a way that convinces voters they are based on anything other than his own ambition.

In the 2008 campaign for president, there are numerous issues on which Romney has no record, and so voters must take him at his word. On these issues, those words are often chilling. While other candidates of both parties speak of restoring America's moral leadership in the world, Romney has said he'd like to "double" the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, where inmates have been held for years without formal charge or access to the courts. He dodges the issue of torture - unable to say, simply, that waterboarding is torture and America won't do it.

When New Hampshire partisans are asked to defend the state's first-in-the-nation primary, we talk about our ability to see the candidates up close, ask tough questions and see through the baloney. If a candidate is a phony, we assure ourselves and the rest of the world, we'll know it.

Mitt Romney is such a candidate. New Hampshire Republicans and independents must vote no.

Remarkably unfriendly. It is just a summarization of all of the negative press he's had so far. Nothing biting or deep. PLUS, NH is remarkably friendly to Romney in general.

Interesting bit of polling data: Clinton and Romney have the highest unfavorable ratings nationally. McCain and Obama have the lowest.

I just recently learned that only 6% of Iowans actually go to the caucases. I assume that the number is roughly the same in New Hampshire and South Carolina sooooo....

You can only go to one caucas so divide that 6% in half.=3%

The winner rarely has more than 1/3 of the votes so divide by 3=1%

And once those three states are done the candidates for each party have virtually been decided.

So let me get this strait. 1% of Iowans, New Hamshirans, and South Carolines decided the democrats nominee for president and 1% decide the republican nominee for president. What the...

Our systems completely :daisy:'d up:dizzy2:

O, and then we get to the general election where we have the electoral college cuz apparently.