I just got back from the Republican Caucus. Well, actually, I just got back from the Democratic Caucus as well. We got some bad information and showed up at Obama headquarters and spent a few embarrassing minutes figuring out we were at the wrong place. So, we ended up being a few minutes late when we finally got to the Republican Caucus.
The Democratic Caucus process is really complicated. They have “viable” candidates and “non-viable” candidates and revotes and groupings and all sorts of things. The Republican process is much simpler. Each candidate gets five minutes of promotional time. Speakers must be from the precincts which are caucusing. We live in Precinct 29 and caucused together with Precinct 34. The first speaker for each candidate gets three minutes then another may speak for two minutes.
As we got there (a few minutes late) while the speakers were just starting. I will give some of the highlights (and lowlights) of the speeches.
Michelle Bachmann – One young man spoke for Bachmann, emphasizing her faith in God and her commitment to undoing Obama’s policies. He was very soft-spoken and probably didn’t help the cause too much. Bachmann is projected to finish last in the race (except for Huntsman who didn’t even show up here) and will probably drop out of the race soon.
Newt Gingrich – Two speakers spoke on behalf of Newt’s candidacy. The first, a younger woman, emphasized his experience and tried to tie him to Reagan and his policies. The second speaker spent his time addressing Newt’s problems. I thought this was a mistake – to remind people of all the problems that have been raised. The divorces – he mentioned that Newt has now been married for 12 years and has repented of his previous sins. He cataloged some of Newt’s positions that are unpopular and even some of the ethical questions. Again, I think his speech was effective in reminding caucusers that Newt has a lot of baggage.
Ron Paul – One young man spoke for Ron Paul. It was clear he was reading from a written set of remarks. I wondered as I listened if campaigns perhaps give out “talking points” speeches for various caucuses. It was an informational, even inspirational speech read poorly. An appeal from the floor produced no one else that was interested in talking on Paul’s behalf.
John Huntsman – the precinct chair asked if anyone wanted to speak for John Huntsman. One guy raised his hand and shouted, “He has really nice hair.” That was the funniest moment of the caucus.
Rick Perry, Mitt Romney – No one spoke for either of these candidates. I thought that was strange. Romney is one of the leaders and Perry was once a powerful force in the Republican discussion. But no one wanted to speak for either candidate.
Rick Santorum – A chiropractor I know spoke first for Rick Santorum. He made a passionate appeal for Republicans to unite around whomever the candidate is and to defeat Obama. He was followed to the stage by a stunningly handsome Baptist pastor who edits a Southern Baptist blog which shall remain nameless.
I spoke about the struggle I had to select a candidate this time. I had liked Santorum all along but he had been so low in the polls that it seemed almost silly to vote for him. Once he started to surge, I became more enamored with him. I appreciate his character, his conservative stance on social issues, and his record of work in congress.
After that, we voted.
Here is how the vote broke down at our precinct: (300 total ballots cast)
Santorum – 142 votes.
Romney – 57 votes.
Paul – 44 votes
Newt – 40 votes
Perry – 14 votes
Bachmann – 3 votes
Huntsman – 0 Votes.
Of course, those results do not reflect the statewide race which last I checked was pretty much a 3-way tie between Santorum, Romney and Paul. Bachmann’s campaign is pretty much over. Perry is also circling the drain, and unless Newt makes a huge comeback in New Hampshire or South Carolina, he will be close behind.
Paul had a strong “ground-game” and put a lot into organization here in Iowa. His support is not surprising, though it is a little higher than I thought. Romney, right now, is right were he has been all along.
The Iowa caucuses are not about selecting a nominee. They are about thinning the herd. So, coming out of Iowa, here is where things seem to stand.
1) A big deal will be made about who wins. But if the candidates remain as they are now – the top three within a point of two of each other – winning is insignificant. All three of the top candidates get a bounce and a boost.
2) Romney has a huge problem. He is the leading candidate, but consistently, 70 percent of Republicans remain enthusiastic about him and his candidacy. “Anti-Romney” candidates come and go as people switch support from one to the other. But they are not going to Mitt.
3) I still don’t think Ron Paul is viable, but that may be wishful thinking. His supporters are passionate, almost messianic, about him, but I just don’t see the appeal. However, he has shown that at the very least, he cannot be marginalized or ignored.
4) Santorum is in the limelight now. The Santorum surge seems to have been real. He will likely be the big news. Two weeks ago he was polling around 6 percent and now, he may win or at least finish within shouting distance of the top. He’s in the limelight, but he is also now a target. Each time a candidate surged, the political hit-men went to work. In the last couple of days I got a bunch of prerecorded calls telling me how awful Rick Santorum is. Evidently, Rick was mentored by Stalin, probably venerates Hitler as a saint and tortures puppies for sport. I never stayed on long enough to hear who was paying for these calls, but they disgust me.
5) I am SO glad that the caucus is over and all the calls will stop. It has been increasingly annoying even as I grew increasingly interested.
So, this is probably my last political post for a while.
Here is a link to the results, for you political animals.
Latest results – Santorum with 25%, Romney at 24% and Paul at 22%.
I make a solemn PROMISE that I am through with political commentating for several months (unless I change my mind).
And boy, when I said loudly at the Democratic Caucus, “We’re Republicans” – we got some VERY dirty looks.
I bet…lol.
**snortchucklegaffaw**
That hurts. That really hurts.
Let’s see…lives up north, roots for Yankees, attends Democratic Party Caucus.
Yep. Pretty sure Dave Miller is Catholic.
For clarity, I stumbled into the Democratic Caucus – which is where ours was last time. My wife and daughter say I made a scene, but that can’t be true.
ROFL 🙂
Here’s something to celebrate ALL the good people who had enough hope in the American dream to turn out to caucus
in Iowa tonight . . .
even if a few a them got a little bit lost along the way 🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oaaa_Ll20co&feature=related
Stumbled into the Democratic Caucus??? been drinking ALCOHOL! hummm, Dave?
David 🙂
I keep hearing stories of craziness. My district was dull.
The only exciting part at mine was the last speaker of the night – second Santorum speaker.
Who won yours, Dan?
Did you go to Bob’s inauguration today?
With just over 107,000 votes counted, Santorum leads Romney by 45 votes. Its a good thing this is a caucus, not an election, or there would be recounts until June.
Make that 13 votes out of 110,000 or so.
Still 13 votes out of 112,350, but now Romney leads. This is the closest race I’ve ever seen.
Now, with 96% counted, it remains at 13 vote difference – with Santorum back in the lead. Never saw anything like this.
I’m still a Romney guy, but this will prompt me to give Santorum a closer look. Up till now I haven’t really paid any attention to him.
Dave,
“Messianic?” Really? I think you and others that use that term are being a bit dramatic and over the top.
Yes, they are very passionate- it is because they know he is the only guy running that will actually make big needed changes and deal with the debt. Any vote that isn’t for Paul IS a vote for more of the same.
Do I think he will win the nomination? No. Do I think any significant change will happen? No.
Sanatorum is the only other guy with integrity and brains running though so I’m glad he did well.
“it is because they know he is the only guy running that will actually make big needed changes and deal with the debt. Any vote that isn’t for Paul IS a vote for more of the same.”
Comments like that kinda make my point, Matt. Ron Paul is the only one who can change things in America. It’s a little like the hype that surrounded Barack Obama – and I suspect just about as true.
Actually, the reason for saying that Ron Paul is the only one that isn’t like the others is because he isn’t. Have you heard anyone else promise to cut $1 trillion dollars? And furthermore, would you actually believe that any of the others would do it even if they did say they would?
The financial state of our country is what will sink us long before any of the other problems get a chance. Most of the modern Republican party has been just as happy to spend money as the Democrats who are in office. They just want to spend it in different places sometimes. Bush set records for federal debt while in office that have only been surpassed by his successor.
The fact that Ron Paul has promised to slam the door on the treasury and axe the Fed is the reason why he has come under fire now that it looks like he has a chance. He is taking fire from both sides of the tracks because he is promising to upset the gravy train and they are scared that he just might do it.
Here is the problem that you, other Paulbots, and Ron Paul himself is forgetting (though I question whether Ron Paul actually forgot this or if he is playing everyone as fools like a typical politician). You say Ron Paul is going to do all of this (kill the FED, cut spending, ect). You also say he is a strict constitutionalists. So how do you reconcile those two when Paul will NOT be supported by Congress in may of these areas? The Constitution does NOT give the President the power to do these actions unilaterally (or any action unilaterally for that matter), without the support and consent of Congress. So, HOW is he going to do these things that that he says he will do? Could it be that the reason why other candidates are not saying these same things is because they know that the President CANNOT do these things?
Quite true. In case you haven’t noticed, most of Washington isn’t playing by the rules anymore, particularly those in the White House. Executive Orders, which are not constitutional in the first place, can be overturned by the same office that issued them (in theory) if the holder of that office has the temerity to do so. And you read far to much into my comment above. I am not sure that he can actually accomplish any of these things at all. I am quite sure that he would at least try.
And just for kicks, I would like to posit how these things can be done by the president. The spending cuts would be the easiest. Simply refusing to increase the debt ceiling anymore would force spending to be cut and can be done without causing default on our debt or even the big entitlement programs like SS or Medicare. This means that a lot of other spending will have to be cut, but it can be done (at least at the moment, that window keeps shrinking by the day). Presidential veto is a powerful thing, particularly when the two chambers are so evenly split that a veto override is less likely to happen. People said that Reagan had no chance of getting an entirely Democrat controlled Congress to pass tax cuts back in the day, but it happened. The audit of the Fed (which would most likely kill it or else they wouldn’t fight it so hard) would need congressional consent, but they have had more supporters for that bill every time he has introduced it and I have a feeling that IF he were elected president, a lot more congresspersons would feel inclined to jump on board that train after such an election result.
I am still chuckling about the “Paulbot” reference. I have never been called that before. I haven’t voted for a Republican candidate for president in a long time, but Paul might actually get me to consider it. I don’t know enough about Santorum to say if I would vote for him either. The rest of them I have concluded that I have no interest in voting for whatsoever.
Besides, I figure it is a moot point anyway. Paul isn’t likely to be elected. And in that case the next president will continue to exacerbate the current economic situation (the only difference will be in degree and speed) and we will march happily toward the cliff for as long as it takes to get there. In the meantime, there is a more important Kingdom to occupy my time.
I use “paulbot” because you Paul supporters are getting dangerously close to sounding identical to the supporters of another crazy man. Todd Bentley. Never heard of him? He had a “revival” in Lakeland florida a few years back. Look up some videos on him on Youtube, particularly “Exploding Tumor!!!!” and “Worst Assault at Todd Bentley Raging Revival”. I had the “wonderful” opportunity to debate some of his supporters (and other WoF folk to who I will lump in this group for this example). And the sheer blind fanaticism of his (and the WOF movement as a whole) supporters was very frightening. There were more than a few who were saying that Bentley was one of the only Christian leaders preaching the Gospel anymore. Even after Todd Bentley was caught in adultery, cheating on and leaving his wife for a 18 year old “intern”, people were still supporting him. Frankly, they were worshiping him.
Now I am no where close to being willing to say Ron Paul is demonically possessed as I am able to do with Todd Bentley, but the blind fanaticism that his supporters are showing, is making me question the man even more. I am sorry, but only Jesus should get such blind devotion from people. No created thing should ever get such devotion that one looses ones grasp on reality.
Smuschany,
If the comments I have made here sound like “blind fanaticism” to you, then you have misread them badly. I just threw my opinion into the ring. I have nothing invested in Paul, but he does have more credibility with me because of his track record compared with any of the other candidates at this point. It is as simple as that.
I am really amused at your comparison to Todd Bentley fanatics. I am fully aware of who he is and the issues. I think I even blogged about him at the time. I think your comparison of those who have mentioned Ron Paul on this blog with that situation is way over the top silly. I am going to be charitable and assume you are going for satire of the highest sort.
If you are simply trying to talk about a segment of hyperactive Ron Paul supporters elsewhere and not here then you might have a more valid argument (unless you can point to a “blind devotion to Ron Paul” example or two in the comments here that I have missed anyway). All the same I can assure you that there are groups of Romney, Santorum, Bachmann, Cain, ect. supporters who are just as rabid as that lot. I cannot figure why Paul annoys you so much, but he obviously does. Fair enough. It is the last time I will mention him. I really don’t care all that much about the whole thing at this point.
And the idea that a vote for the other candidates is the “more of the same” is simply not dealing in reality.
I think denying that is simply not dealing with reality.
When you look at everyone proposals only Pauls are truly different.
I’m just wondering, Matt, why you think Paul would be effective as President?
Yea, I agree with you that his ideas as radically different from those of the other candidates. But that’s exactly the point, right? How is a guy who shares little in common with his own Party supposed to be able to get something done?
It takes two to tango. Paul can’t pass legislation. He needs Congress and most in Congress don’t agree with Paul and, to his credit, Paul doesn’t seem to bend on anything. He’s the purist not the compromising consensus-builder (the latter is a good thing in my book).
Now, what he can do single-handedly is quite frightening with regard to foreign policy. I think many Americans – small government types on the right and dove-ish folks on the left – agree with Ron Paul to some extent on foreign policy questions whether it be our decade-long wars or Israel. But most just aren’t willing to embrace the truly radical nature of Paul’s proposals.
I’m with Paul on alot of issues TO SOME EXTENT. I don’t like the wars. I’m not a neo-con who champions interventionism. But I’m not isolationist either. Paul represents an extreme. Most people like to hangout somewhere in the BROAD middle. That’s where elections are won because that’s where the majority of voters reside…
BDW,
You and I disagree a lot but here you and I are in full agreement. You express yourself very well.
Matt,
All this Ron Paul and no one else attitude is going to accomplish is the very more of the same that you fear because it will ensure a victory for President Obama. There are very real differences in governance between Republicans and Democrats and we need to make sure that President Obama is a one termer. I’m willing to compromise a little to accomplish that.
Ron Paul is like Glenn Beck. A little brilliance surrounded by a whole lotta crazy. People are finally waking up to the fact that Newt Gingrich is an intelligent dirtbag politician.
That’s funny.
It appears that there is a scandal brewing in Iowa. Due to our liberal gay marriage laws, many folks changed their registration and voted Republican, thinking they were voting for RuPaul, not Ron Paul.
We do a primary rather than a caucus in Oklahoma. I like the way Iowa does it because it accomodates greater political involvement. Having said that I couldn’t vote for Ron Paul because of his foreign policy position especially concerning Israel. (I don’t expect ammils to agree with me) I like his small government stances though.
The caucuses are nice because everyone gets together and talks things over. It’s interesting.
Sounds like after everything has been counted, Mitt Romney gets a 14 vote victory. Incredible. 125,000 votes and a 4 vote separation. Hanging chads, anyone?
One thing is that the popular vote in Iowa doesn’t really matter. The Caucuses actually elect delegates to the state convention at which delegates to the national nominating conventions. So, basically, in what matters (delegates) Romney and Santorum tie. Gingrich, Perry and Bachmann lose.
Actually, it was 8 votes. 122,000 votes cast and 8 votes separate them.
Well, 8 votes in the final count is, in a way, 4 votes—had 4 of those 8 voted for Santorum instead of Romney, it would have been a tie.
So it was 4. And it was 8.
And I just got done with business meeting, so I’m out of brain.
I was a PoliSci major for a while in college and learned more there about massaging numbers to fit presentation than I’ve learned as a Baptist pastor.
I like Santorum but I really think that Romney is our best bet against President Obama.
Thanks for this report and your participation in the caucus.
The test for the major parties every 4 years is once a candidate is selected will the supporters of the other candidates get behind that candidate, or will they “take their toys and go home.” Usually, everyone rallies around the standard bearer.
But that’s for later, not now. The primary process is important and all Republicans and Democrats should make the selection they feel is best.
I believe that for Romney to win Iowa is a huge thing, even if he only won by 8 votes. He will win New Hampshire, the rest of the Northeast and the West. The South will be similar to Iowa, if he wins it will be close.
I believe that based on his level of sophistication, planning and fundraising, it is probably going to be Romney. But there’s a lot of voting left to do.
If it is (and I am not saying he is the best candidate…), my hope is that my fellow Southern Baptists who are Republicans and will vote for the Republican candidate will not let disagreements over Romney’s religion cause them not to vote for him, or not to vote at all. Some Southern Baptists will vote to re-elect President Obama. But I hope that none who would have otherwise voted for Romney decide not to do so because he is a Mormon.
“But I hope that none who would have otherwise voted for Romney decide not to do so because he is a Mormon.”
A-Men Louis, I will ride the river with you on that. I would just about vote for an Amazon River Cannibal over the incumbent.
CB:
Let’s hope that it’s not just because of the incumbent’s performance or perception of his performance, but also because we are wise and charitable people.
Louis,
Last election the so called “evangelical vote” did not rally around John McCain.
Today John McCain announced his support for Mitt Rommney.
What Biblical principle or command would you use as the guiding text for your call to political pragmatism. I see none.
What you do with the Biblical admonish-on to choose leaders who fear the Lord. In fact does not the Lord promise His Wrath on those follow after idols. I am assuming you agree that the god of Mormonism is an idol.
I for one, will Never vote for Mitt Rommney. Even the loss of this nation to
the wickedness of Barak Obama pales in comparison to countless lives lost forever in Hell because we Christians voted for a man who worships a false god.
Maybe I can say it this way…..If we gain America(with the election of Mitt Rommney), but lose one soul(to the idol of Mormonisn). How does that profit a man
No Pastor Jeffries was right. As were his sermons behind his statements.
Looks like you carried the night for Santorum, Dave. Ask for the Ambassadorship to the Vatican as a reward.
It seems Pat Robertson already has the inside scoop but he isn’t talking. Probably quietly placing bets with Las Vegas casinos.
I asked God about the majority thing that Pat alluded to and I reminded him, gently of course, of statements like having a remnant, and such did not seem to support majorities being necessary for him as a matter of principle to give his blessing. Then I went silent and listened.
All this time, we have been getting it wrong on this account. As it turns out, someone wasn’t paying attention, I learned. It is not that God has a remnant, as we have been led to believe. He has a Rembrandt. Easy enough to understand how such could happen.
Can someone get Pat to open up and save us the trouble?
Dave,
Thanks for the personal peek into the Iowa caucus. A strange mix so far as I am concerned. I presently wander in the dessert wilderness with no political manna in sight. Indeed I have no clear choice now that Gingrich looks like he may go the way of Cain (albeit not for the same reason). Of course, it could be argued that the potato state is much too small to get excited about any loss or any victory (no, wait! that’s Idaho!:)
With that, I am…
Peter
Actually, here in Iowa, at least, the cases are not that much different. Cain’s candidacy, which I found intriguing, was shipwrecked by accusations of moral indiscretions – real or not. Many people I talked to here really liked Gingrich, but his candidacy was derailed largely because of the marital issues of long ago.
Actually, if Newt didn’t have all that baggage, he would have been a fascinating candidate. I guarantee you that Obama would not have wanted to debate him. Smart and well-spoken.
He’s not completely through, but if he’s going to make a charge, it better start soon.
The idea that republicans and democrats are basically the same is a real head scratcher for me. The two have totally different philosophies. For instance I pay about $1000 less per year in taxes thanks to Pres. Bush’s tax cuts. Did Bush spend a lot of money? Yes, way more than I prefer, but Pres. Obama has spent way more in 3 years than Pres. Bush did in 8. I feel that my votes for Bush were justified in just two decisions namely Roberts and Alito. The partial birth abortion ban is another. The current administration is on the wrong side of every issue. Our Attorney General is a disaster. And to say that a vote for Republicans is a vote for more of the same?
What do you guys think of the suggestion I have heard that Romney has been proping Santorium up and/or surreptitiously supporting him against Gingrich, Paul, and the others because he figures that if it come down to a two-man race for the nomination, he will be considered more “electable”?
FYI: I would consider voting for either Romney or Santorium, though I want to see whether they move more to the fringes or more to the center. If they move toward the fringes to get the Tea Party & conservative evangelical votes, it virtually guarantees an Obama victory. Why? Because just like before, Obama will then capture the center or at least most of it, and that plus the left will outnumber the right. (That too is why Paul is unelectable, at least in my humble opinion.) I am as against abortion as anyone else on this board, but I see making it the centerpiece of one’s candidacy as almost a kiss of death at the polls. Unless the make-up of the Senate changes drastically, no Supreme Court nominee who is opposed to it will be confirmed no matter how many are nominated. Consequently, to get the number of justices required to reverse Roe v. Wade will be a classic case of the cat eating the grindstone (to use a Southernism). For you from the northern climes: first, cats don’t eat grindstones, and second, if they did, it would be S-L-O-W. Now I don’t doubt that God has and still does perform miracles, but then I don’t often see God’s hand in American politics, not from either party. Bottom line: an anti-abortion Presidential candidate may secure the conservative evangelical/social conservative vote, but it will have no more effect than did 8 years of the Bush Presidency.
I could not vote for McCain last time because of his age and who was a heartbeat away from the Presidency. Yes, he is still alive and serving in the Senate, but there is tremondously more pressure on a President than there is on one of 100 senators. I cannot think of a President who has not aged beyond his years after 4 years in office, much less 8; Theodore Roosevelt for instance went lion-hunting after he left office just to relax. I don’t trust Gingrich for one set of reasons and Paul for another. Sometimes I have to wonder if the top Republican leadership does not figure that their candidate–whoever it is–has little chance of winning the White House, and is not just using 2012 as a testing ground for who to run in 2016 (or at least who not to run) , when there will not be an incumbent opponent. No evidence, mind you. I don’t know anyone (Democratic or Republican) at that level, in fact no one except low-level grunts on either. It’s just a thought that cropped up in my head.
So much for my frustrated rant.
John
Honestly, I don’t think any of these campaigns could plan far enough ahead. No, the Santorum surge was almost exclusively a Christian conservative movement – very strong in Iowa.
I’m leaning strongly towards Santorum now.
David
“It takes two to tango. Paul can’t pass legislation. He needs Congress and most in Congress don’t agree with Paul and, to his credit, Paul doesn’t seem to bend on anything. ”
I think the support of Paul from many quarters is the frustration over things. And I totally understand it.
We do need radical change as we are hurdling down the road to full socialism at breakneck speed.
It is just that the strategist that lives in me knows it won’t work. Unless Paul could make such a case on several issues to the voters and he has a clear mandate for those issues like Reagan did over Carter. Even then it won’t be easy to pass the legislation as Reagan found out. And Reagan kept to a few big goals which he communicated clearly over and over. Paul is all over the board.
John:
Your theory about Romney helping Santorum in is interesting.
There are always all types of psy-ops going on in politics. It is really interesting.
I have always believed that Perot was a loose cannon who was goaded or egged on into running by Larry King and Mario Cuomo.
Most of you will not remember this, but before Perot actually threw his hat in the ring in 1992 Cuomo was talking him up on King’s show. King had him on and gave him encouragement to run based on his $5 haircut and direct manner. And the rest is history.
It took a lot more than that, for sure. But often political opponents are working for the success of the easiest guy to beat, or they are trying to split the vote of someone who is formidible, or they are just trying to dispirit people who vote for the other side.
In 2008, at the DNC the word was “hands off Huckabee.” I would not be surprised if they spread some money around to promote him. Here was an unknown conservative who would split the conservative Repulican vote even further than it already was split. This wiped out Thompson and others and gave us McCain, who was the worst Republican candidate in my memory, even though the media kept talking him up as a “centrist” who “knows how to get deals done” etc.
I remember Republican acquaintances who were campaiging FOR Jesse Jackson to get the Democratic nomination in 1988.
This year, I think the Repubican political opponents have been pumping a series of different candidates, all with the effect of hurting Romney.
In succession, several Republicans have gotten great praise and enthusiasm, only later to fade or be trashed. I think the order was Perry, Gingrich, now Santorum.
And of course Paul has been covered favorably by the national media and will be pumped by the media until he bows out.
Part of it’s the love of the horse race.
But part of it is psy-ops.
It’s just hard to figure it all out for sure.
But the candidates and their campaigns and the media are very sophisticated about these things.
Nothing would surprise me.
One thing: the hands-off-Santorium is not my idea. I heard it somewhere, I think on one of the news shows, but I do not remember which. I watch a wide variety, from Fox to CNN to MSNCB to the broadcast channels.
And yes, I know enough about politics to know that Machevelli today would be considered a rank amature, but I do not have the gift–or curse, whatever–of unraveling it all. My father was a small town police chief for 10+ years, and it beats me how he survived that long; he got the job on merit after a succession of politicals who could manipulate themselves into the position, but didn’t know law enforcement from a pile of manure, and I suppose kept the job as long as he did from merit, until local politicans tripped him up. I’m the same in church (but I am not claiming the sort of abilities he had); I don’t play politics, be it national, local, or internal. Makes my head hurt.
I suspect you are right about Perot. I’m old enough to remember what you are referring to.
John
Another place you see this is in the media obsession with the possibility of a “Third Party” candidacies and movements.
I firmly believe that Pat Buchanan’s becoming involved in the Reformed Party to kill it and stop the blood letting in the Republican circles.
I also believe that Ralph Nader’s candidacy was assisted in some quarters by closeted Republicans.
Some thought McCain would run as an independent in 2000 when he lost to Bush – and that Perot would help fund him.
Some tried to goad Jesse Ventura into getting in the race in 2000, which would have hurt Bush much more than Gore.
This time around, there are been serious stories about third party candidacies – Trump (at first, and now again), Bloomberg, and Paul.
The media running stories about them, and quoting fawning supporters saying “there’s no difference between the 2 major parties” yadda, yadda, yadda, is so predictable.
Just the other day, another lawyer I know who is a big Obama supporter was rooting for Gingrich because the lawyer reasoned that Gingrich would be easier for Obama to beat.
In Iowa, I think the rules are pretting loose. I think that lots of Dems can show up at the Republican caucuses and vote to influence the Republican nominee.
This goes on both ways.
Louis the bottom line is that these guys who are on the Ron Paul only bandwagon are only ensuring we get more of the status quo under President Obama. Ron Paul cannot win. And even if he ran as a third party candidate he would not win he would just reelect the President.
Louis, I think you are right there are psy-ops. But I would also mention that I saw the DNC talking points from BEFORE Perry entered the race. They were very afraid of Perry early on. They need not to have worried.
As to Perot, there was long time personal animosity for Bush going on there, too. He did not have to be goaded too far. Does anyone remember that SNL skit they did on Perot and Stockdale? (His first running mate) It was hilarious!
Obama was Jesse Jackson running without the personal baggage. Their politics are the same.
Why do people seem to assume because one holds the office and speaks behind a presidential seal, that makes one presidential material? (wink)
Lydia:
It is interesting to look at people’s perceptions of leadership.
And you are right about Perry. I have heard that he has done some (not all) good things in Texas and that he was re-elected by a wide margin.
But I don’t think I have ever seen a candidate come off as badly as he has.
I do remember the SNL skit – “Why am I here?”
To My American friends who support Mitt Romney.
Beware of the Judgement of God
http://tinyurl.com/88tajb3
Is it too late to get CB Scott and Dave Miller on the ballot?