Another surprise preceded Mitt Romney’s speech to CPAC. Newly elected Sen. Scott Brown showed up to give a surprise introduction for Gov. Romney.
Romney is always well-recieved at CPAC, though Scott Brown probably got a bigger ovation.
Littering his speech with jokes, Romney was unsurprisingly well received (he’s won the CPAC strawpoll for the last several years). First, he said Olympic Gold Medalist Lindsey Vonn had her medal stripped because Barack Obama has been going downhill faster than she did. Later he said, “President Obama’s self-proclaimed B+ will go down in history as the biggest exaggeration since Al Gore’s invention of the internet.”
Romney spent a lot of time addressing the President’s various attacks and blame deflection. He noted the President’s inappropriate (and factually deficient) attack on SCOTUS during his recent State of the Union address. He also defended President Bush, who Obama continues to blame daily for his every failure. He then scolded Obama’s “reckless” and “anti-business” agenda.
Finally Romney got to his own ideas. “Americans are looking to conservative for leadership,” he noted, before highlighting his “three pillars” of strengthening the economy, strengthening our security, and strengthening families.
After very briefly addressing these pillars with fairly standard ideas, he talked about America’s pioneering spirit and defended the US as a force for good in the world that we should not apologize for. It was a good line to end on, and all well and good, but I thought he missed an opportunity to use his business background to push detailed ideas.
Update: Here’s Scott Brown’s introduction of Romney:
And here’s Mitt’s speech:
Comments
Print This Post
I was too tired to do a write-up after the last two days of the conference, so I’ll recap my impressions of them both now.
Day 2
Although there were a number of good speeches, the star of day 2 was Newt Gingrich. Like many speakers, Newt quickly picked on Eric Holder’s “nation of cowards” remark. Unlike others, however, he flipped it completely around on Holder and challenged him to a dialogue on cowardice in Detroit, where “bad government, bad politicians, bad bureaucracy, [and] bad ideas” have driven the city into the ground. He adds that “we should be committed to eliminating bad government, bad bureaucracy and bad politics to liberate the people of Detroit.”
Newt went on to argue that the democrats actually think we’re “just plain dumb.” As examples he cites Obama’s pledge to allow no earmarks when he was about to sign a bill with 8,000, Obama’s attack on CEO’s who use private planes while Pelosi flies around privately thanks to U.S. taxpayers, and finally, Obama’s claim that he wouldn’t raise taxes on anyone making $250,000 while at the same time making clear he is for an energy tax which, since everyone uses energy, would significantly raise taxes on people making less than $250,000.
He also laid appropriate blame on the last minute policies of the Bush administration and talked of an Obama-Bush economic continuity that cannot work. He then further criticized Obama’s desire to punish companies for taking jobs out of America instead of rewarding companies for bringing jobs in. There was plenty more in the speech than I touched on here, so you can see it for yourself at Newt.org.
Day 2 also saw good speeches from Ron Paul, Wayne LaPierre and Mitt Romney. Ron Paul (speech available here) received a pretty positive reception, including on issues which he might not have in the past. His call to change our foreign policy is clearly getting wider consideration within the conservative movement. While I don’t agree with the degree to which he’d have us retreat from the world stage, I think it’s an important realization that we simply cannot afford to do again what we did in Iraq, regardless of whether one thinks it was necessary (or we were justified in believing so based on the evidence) or not. The movement, myself included, got a bit too caught up in Wilsonian idealism in response to 9/11. The goal’s of the Bush Doctrine are admirable and would improve our security, but spreading democracy is not as simple as removing a dictator. Democratic government first requires democratic culture, and that has to come from within. Open economic and cultural trade and soft power need to be used in all but the most extreme circumstances.
I was also glad that Ron Paul clarified that he does not want to abolish the Fed entirely, but thinks it needs serious reform. He cited a bill recently introduced to audit the Fed, which got widespread applause. Clearly the institution needs reform. The idea that we can count on technocrats at the Fed to tweak interests rates and perfectly balance between the triple threats of unemployment, inflation and speculative bubbles is simply no longer credible. We need to rethink the government role regarding the money supply, and reforming the secretive nature of the Fed is a necessary first step.
Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer of the NRA, offered a stern warning against the Obama administration’s plans for gun rights. Following the recent and fallacious comments by Eric Holder attributing Mexico’s problems to our gun freedoms, he portrayed the administration as poised to strike against gun owners. It was highly effective and, if the administration pursues a reckless gun grabbing agenda, it is likely that the NRA could return as a potent political force in the next election. Guns motivate the right, and Obama would be wise to remember this.
Mitt Romney’s speech was also well received. He said a lot of right things, but it all just felt like a testing ground for potential campaign lines. Still, he had a few memorable lines. Perhaps my favorite was when he said that “passing on that kind of debt to our children is not only fiscally irresponsible, it is morally wrong.” He also defended his support of TARP, saying “I believe that it was necessary to prevent a cascade of bank collapses.” I’m not convinced that is true, but it’s more plausible than any justification given by proponents of the other big spending initiatives.
He also won the straw poll with 20%. Following him was Bobby Jindal (14%), Ron Paul (13%), Sarah Palin (13%) and Newt Gingrich (10%). I did not catch the speeches of John Cornyn or Jim DeMint , and there were other good ones I have not mentioned.
Day 3
Day 3 saw a number of terrific speeches and presentations. In addition to the expected headliners, there were a few surprises, for me, in day 3. Niger Innis of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) gave an impassioned speech on why energy taxes are an attack on the poor. He got everyone fired up and received a grateful ovation from a crowd that was clearly bored by the previous presentation. Ward Connerly followed with a strong but calm speech on ending racial preferences.
The next two presenters were a big thrill. Out to talk about their recent film (Not Evil, Just Wrong) on how the environmentalists agenda destroys lives, Irish couple Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer mixed in various clips with the story of how they converted from European leftists to free marketeers – or “recovering Europeans,” as they called themselves. They are doing exactly the kind of works conservatives need to support to help counter the powerful hollywood propaganda machine of the left. I missed the speeches of Rick Santorum, Tim Pawlenty and Ann Coulter.
Of course, the main attraction of the day was none other than the Maha Rushie himself, Rush Limbaugh. For hours leading up to his speech, you could feel the anticipation grow in the crowd, finally erupting when he came on stage to his signature introduction music. The extemporaneous speech (Rush made a point of highlighting that he had no teleprompter or script) was broadcast live on Fox, C-SPAN and CNN, and Rush made light of this fact numerous times by referencing it as his “first address to the nation.”
In the first part of the speech, Rush gave an impassioned explanation of conservative principles. Conservatism wants people to succeed and all obstacles that stand in the way of success to fail. He repeatedly highlighted the difference between the left’s agenda of punishing success in the name of equality of outcomes, and the conservative ideas of liberty and opportunity. Philosophy, not narrow debates over process and even policy, are how he says conservatives must sell themselves. As usual, Rush is right. I could probably say a lot more about the speech, but I highly suggest you watch it for yourself. It is an hour and a half long (an hour longer than his original half-hour scheduling), but it’s worth it. You can find the transcript and links to video on Rush’s site.
Over the course of the entire convention, some issues stood out more than others. The most notable observation is that domestic issues were prominent. There was still a consensus that the jihadist threat is real and we must remain vigilant, but there was some disagreements over the nature foreign policy should take, and it was more than just Ron Paul on the side of less interventionism. This is a healthy debate to be having.
Domestically the most important issues included education, health care, unions and “card check,” and the free speech (fairness doctrine). On education the view was unanimous: we need school choice. On health care the main theme was that we cannot allow universal health care to happen. Ditto on card check and the fairness doctrine.
All in all I’d say the future of the conservative movement is bright. People were excited about the future as they could see conservatism returning to it’s roots of limited government and personal responsibility. The first step to ending the era of big government was ending the idea of big government conservatism, and I’d say CPAC all but completed that task.
Comments Print This Post
Following his disappointing showing on Super Tuesday, Mitt Romney threw in the towel and gave an impassioned speech at CPAC.
As I said to you last year, conservative principles are needed now more than ever. We face a new generation of challenges, challenges which threaten our prosperity, our security and our future. I am convinced that unless America changes course, we will become the France of the 21st century?still a great nation, but no longer the leader of the world, no longer the superpower. And to me, that is unthinkable…
And that is why we must rise to the occasion, as we have always done before, to confront the challenges ahead. Perhaps the most fundamental of these is the attack on the American culture.
…The threat to our culture comes from within. The 1960?s welfare programs created a culture of poverty. Some think we won that battle when we reformed welfare, but the liberals haven?t given up. At every turn, they try to substitute government largesse for individual responsibility. They fight to strip work requirements from welfare, to put more people on Medicaid, and to remove more and more people from having to pay any income tax whatsoever. Dependency is death to initiative, risk-taking and opportunity. Dependency is a culture-killing drug?we have got to fight it like the poison it is!
The attack on faith and religion is no less relentless. And tolerance for pornography?even celebration of it?and sexual promiscuity, combined with the twisted incentives of government welfare programs have led to today?s grim realities: 68% of African American children are born out-of-wedlock, 45% of Hispanic children, and 25% of White children. How much harder it is for these children to succeed in school?and in life. A nation built on the principles of the founding fathers cannot long stand when its children are raised without fathers in the home.
…Europe is facing a demographic disaster. That is the inevitable product of weakened faith in the Creator, failed families, disrespect for the sanctity of human life and eroded morality. Some reason that culture is merely an accessory to America?s vitality; we know that it is the source of our strength. And we are not dissuaded by the snickers and knowing glances when we stand up for family values, and morality, and culture. We will always be honored to stand on principle and to stand for principle.
…Most politicians don?t seem to understand the connection between our ability to compete and our national wealth, and the wealth of our families. They act as if money just happens–that it?s just there. But every dollar represents a good or service produced in the private sector. Depress the private sector and you depress the well-being of Americans.
That?s exactly what happens with high taxes, over-regulation, tort windfalls, mandates, and overfed, over-spending government. Did you see that today, government workers make more money than people who work in the private sector. Can you imagine what happens to an economy where the best opportunities are for bureaucrats?
It?s high time to lower taxes, including corporate taxes, to take a weed-whacker to government regulations, to reform entitlements, and to stand up to the increasingly voracious appetite of the unions in our government!
And finally, let?s consider the greatest challenge facing America?and facing the entire civilized world: the threat of violent, radical Jihad. In one wing of the world of Islam, there is a conviction that all governments should be destroyed and replaced by a religious caliphate. These Jihadists will battle any form of democracy?to them, democracy is blasphemous for it says that citizens, not God shape the law. They find the idea of human equality to be offensive. They hate everything we believe about freedom just as we hate everything they believe about radical Jihad.
…Soon, the face of liberalism in America will have a new name. Whether it is Barack or Hillary, the result would be the same if they were to win the Presidency. The opponents of American culture would push the throttle, devising new justifications for judges to depart from the constitution. Economic neophytes would layer heavier and heavier burdens on employers and families, slowing our economy and opening the way for foreign competition to further erode our lead.
Even though we face an uphill fight, I know that many in this room are fully behind my campaign.? You are with me all the way to the convention. Fight on, just like Ronald Reagan did in 1976. But there is an important difference from 1976: today… we are a nation at war.
And Barack and Hillary have made their intentions clear regarding Iraq and the war on terror. They would retreat and declare defeat. And the consequence of that would be devastating. It would mean attacks on America, launched from safe havens that make Afghanistan under the Taliban look like child?s play. About this, I have no doubt.
I disagree with Senator McCain on a number of issues, as you know. But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Osama bin Laden, and on eliminating Al Qaeda and terror. If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.
This is not an easy decision for me. I hate to lose. My family, my friends and our supporters… many of you right here in this room… have given a great deal to get me where I have a shot at becoming President. If this were only about me, I would go on. But I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, I feel I must now stand aside, for our party and for our country…
He seems to be setting himself up as the default conservative standard bearer for the future. How well that will work after a long campaign of never really being embraced by conservatives remains to be seen. It was a good speech nonetheless.
Comments Print This Post
| State | Winner | Delegates | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| McCain | Romney | Huckabee | ||
| West Virginia | Huckabee | 0 | 0 | 18 |
| Georgia* | Huckabee | 3 | 0 | 45 |
| Alabama* | Huckabee | 16 | 0 | 20 |
| Connecticut | McCain | 27 | 0 | 0 |
| Delaware | McCain | 18 | 0 | 0 |
| New Jersey | McCain | 52 | 0 | 0 |
| Massachusetts | Romney | 18 | 22 | 0 |
| Missouri | McCain | 58 | 0 | 0 |
| Oklahoma* | McCain | 32 | 0 | 6 |
| Tennessee* | Huckabee | 14 | 9 | 21 |
| Illinois* | McCain | 54 | 2 | 0 |
| Montana | Romney | 0 | 25 | 0 |
| Arkansas* | Huckabee | 1 | 1 | 26 |
| New York | McCain | 101 | 0 | 0 |
| Arizona | McCain | 50 | 0 | 0 |
| Colorado* | Romney | 0 | 22 | 0 |
| Minnesota* | Romney | 0 | 36 | 0 |
| Utah | Romney | 0 | 36 | 0 |
| North Dakota | Romney | 5 | 8 | 5 |
| California* | McCain | 116 | 3 | 0 |
| Alaska | Romney | 3 | 12 | 6 |
| Super Tuesday Totals: | 568 | 176 | 147 | |
| Overall Totals: | 680 | 270 | 176 | |
*Delegate numbers incomplete
12:18 PM EST Update: FOX has called California for Romney. This and the lose in Missouri are disappointments for Romney, though he’ll get a lot of delegates from California. The exact numbers won’t be known until tomorrow.
12:00 PM EST Update:Will this clown never shut up?
11:52 PM EST Update: Colorado now goes to Romney.
Also, does Obama ever say anything of substance? No wonder his supporters always come off so vapid when interviewed.
11:15 PM EST Update: Romney picks up Montana caucus. He’ll probably add Colorado to that list shortly.
10:41 PM EST Update: Huckabee picks up Tennessee and Georgia. McCain finally wins his home turf in Arizona.
10:33 PM EST Update: Romney picks up the North Dakota caucus.
10:11 PM EST Update: Huckabee speaks and takes a shot at Romney. “People have been saying it’s a two-man race. It is, and we’re in it.” That will sound rather empty if Romney ends the day with more delegates, as is likely if he shows strong in California.
10:02 PM EST Update: FOX called Oklahoma for McCain. Utah polls just closed and immediately called for Romney, obviously.
9:21 PM EST Update: FOX calls New York for McCain. No surprise there. Still no call in Arizona.
9:03 PM EST Update: Echoing what we saw earlier, FOX is saying they cannot yet call Arizona, John McCain’s home state. He’ll probably end up winning, but even the fact that it’s remotely in play is a blow to McCain, and shows just how much his immigration position has alienated Republicans.
8:28 PM EST Update: Polls in Arkansas will close momentarily. Huckabee will be called the winner immediately.
8:05 PM EST Update: Right off the bat we see McCain taking Connecticut, Illinois and New Jersey. No surprises there. Huckabee will Take Alabama and Romney has his home state of Massachusetts.
7:58 PM EST Update: Georgia is still trickling in. It looks like a battle between McCain and Huckabee, with Romney 10% behind in a distant third.
Nine states are about to close their polls.
7PM EST Update: NRO has some exit poll numbers from key states.
Romney had been surging in California leading up to the vote, but so far these very early numbers (which won’t include California’s large percentage of absentee voting) show McCain up on Romney 40-36%. In MO, which is an important bell-weather and winner-take-all state, the race is even with Romney barely up 34-32 over McCain.
Possible bad news for McCain in his home state of Arizona, where he has only a 44-39 lead over Romney.
Polls have just closed in another important and competitive state of Georgia, which is way too close to call and the exit polls have a three way dead heat.
It’s a big day for the Republican nomination. McCain comes in the heavy favorite following a flurry of endorsements and media pronouncements that he has the race wrapped up. With a strong national lead in the polls, McCain is sitting pretty. Huckabee still has no shot at the nomination but is staying in to help McCain. Romney’s objective is to stay within 250 or so delegates of McCain. If he can do that he can stick it out for the long haul. With a recent poll showing him up by 7 in California (note: California is not state-wide winner-take-all, but awarded county by county), that’s certainly a possibility.
Our first news of the night comes from West Virginia. In what will no doubt further fuel rumors of a McCain-Huckabee alliance, Huckabee has won the closed convention after being behind Romney 41% to 33% after one round. In this caucus style convention, voting is conducted until a candidate receives a majority, with the lowest supported candidate being removed after each round. After the first round, it was Ron Paul that was dropped, and yet all of McCain’s support mysteriously went over to Huckabee, giving him the majority and a 52-47% win over Romney.
Comments Print This Post
The democrat race is quite easy to summarize: It’s a toss-up.
The Republican race is a bit more complicated. First things first, ignore the media. They’ll tell you Mitt is out. They’re wrong. They’ll tell you Rudy is out. They’re wrong. They’ll tell you Fred is out. They’re wrong.
Why is the media so wrong? Simply put, they have an overstated opinion of themselves and what they mean to the race. They buy into the idea of massive coverage generating overwhelming momentum for whoever they anoint as the front-runners. Their ego’s prevent them from questioning this assumption even as the present election represents a completely new phenomenon and is unprecedented in it’s compactness.
Here’s the real truth. Yes, momentum matters. But no one has enough to have eliminated anyone else. Rudy is still sitting on some big delegate states and, despite being written off by the media, can easily take the delegate lead on super tuesday. Amazingly enough, Mitt Romney is being declared dead even as he has the most delegates! He’s very competitive in Michigan and, with a win there, would probably be the *real* front-runner. Fred is hurt, but still not out. While McCain, Romney and Huckabee are duking it out in Michigan, he’s in South Carolina all by himself. A win there could give him a crucial second look, though another else is the end of the road.
So that’s where it stands. Don’t listen to the media. No one is out and everyone still has a path to the nomination.
Comments Print This Post
Here I’ll rank how the candidates did on each issue. The topics came back and forth a little bit so it’s not strictly arranged by subject. But I’ve tried to kept it in the sections Wallace used.
Taxes & Social Security
Rudy: Rudy laid out his tax cutting record, then went on to talk about cutting corporate taxes. He correctly pointed out that the U.S. has the second highest corporate tax rate. 4 points
McCain: Despite being criticized for voting against the Bush tax cut, McCain actually came out alright on taxes because of his focus on spending and explanation that he wanted the tax cuts to include spending cuts. This also just so happens to be what most conservatives wanted as well. He didn’t make the argument for his vote against the Bush tax cuts as clear as he could have, and that kept him from the top spot in my ranking on this issue. McCain’s additional comment on social security was also a solid boost. 3 points
Romney: Romney’s tiff with Huckabee on this issue got things off to a heated start. Mitt got a little flustered when he fell back and meekly repeated his “facts are stubborn things” line. Still, he gave a good low tax answer and came out the better against Huckabee. 2 points
Thompson: Wallace dragged Fred into a discussion of Social Security and didn’t let him answer the taxes question. I think I understand his explanation of why reducing future promises of increases isn’t a cut, but it was probably all too confusing for most. 1 point
Huckabee: Huckabee dodged Mitt’s question and came off rather weak here. Zero points
Populism & “Change”
Romney: You’re not going to help the wage-earner in America attack the wager-payer in America. Romney leveraged his private sector experience well here. In his battle with McCain he came out on top. “Washington is fundamentally broken” was succinct and to the point. He managed to successfully hit all the issues in this section. 4 points
Thompson: Thompson, as usual, gave an honest answer on the Fair Tax. A constitutional amendment to ensure that an income tax won’t return in addition to a consumption tax makes this an unlikely solution. Otherwise he likes the idea. “Change has been a part of every election since the dawn of elections, if you weren’t an incumbent.” More important than change is leadership and being honest with the people about the problems we face. That’s the change we need. 3 points
Rudy: Rudy took Wallace’s question on the Fair Tax and completely disregarded it, instead choosing to reach into his New York grab-bag to pull out welfare reform. Not a bad issue in it’s own right. He made a strong case in explaining how important it is to take the case to all people that conservative solutions work better than liberal pandering. But so blatantly not answer questions doesn’t impress voters. Rudy recovered well when he was able to speak on “change”. It can be for good or bad, what matters is the direct. “Change is a slogan.” Essentially he is saying Democrats are for bad change. 2 points
Huckabee & McCain: Huckabee gave a decent answer and avoided the demagogic populism that he uses on the campaign trail. But the video played of his prior statements was enough to hurt him here. Romney twisted that knife further. McCain sounds like he was in the Democratic debate, trying to out “change” the changeofiliacs. His new “agent of change” persona sounds too much like what Hillary to adopedt after Obama’s Iowa victory, and no more sincere. Such platitudes don’t belong in serious discussion and is unbecoming a Republican. He recovered a bit when he was able to bring up his leadership experience in the Navy. 1 point each
National Security & Leadership
McCain & Romney: Romney and McCain highlighted the historically lopsided battle between Senators and Governors. Both won because they were able to dominate the discussion and left the other three candidates all but forgotten on this issue. They were both able to highlight their own experiences and both did so impressively. McCain gets the slight edge because he got the last word and said it wasn’t just his Senate experience, but also his life experience that he brings (which reminds us all he is a war hero). 3 points each
Thompson: “These are different” times that require more foreign relations experience. Fred made fun of the other candidates listing off all the countries they’ve visited and then went on to lay out his solid credentials. He got in a hit on Huckabee’s positions on Gitmo, Cuba and his “bunker mentality” statements. 2 points
Rudy: Trying to compare managing New York to dealing with foreign threats was a stretch. Romney made a much better case for translating domestic executive leadership to the Commander-in-Chief role. Rudy wasn’t bad, but wasn’t strong either. 1 points
Huckabee: Wallace’s litany of Huckabee’s gaffe’s on knowledge of foreign issues was a huge blow. He was obviously flustered by the question and never recovered on this issue. That he had to fall back on leadership of domestic issues only highlighted his weakness. Fred also got the best of him. He scored some points saying Gitmo is too hospitable, but flopped when he said it doesn’t matter where we keep them. Zero points
Immigration & Amnesty
Romney: Pointing out McCain’s statement saying amnesty must be part of the solution was a blow. Pointing out the incentives that amnesty gives to encourage others to enter illegally was an excellent answer. He took a hit when McCain struck back and threw out his quote stating McCain’s plan was reasonable and not amnesty. 4 points
Rudy: Rudy hit all the solid points. Nothing flashy but he got in the “secure the borders” and everything that comes with it lines. 3 points
Thompson: Rudy and Huckabee had polices that “if you made it in, you were home free.” Our policies are encouraging the next generation of people to try and cross the border. Finally someone criticized the President of Mexico for thinking he can tell us not to enforce our borders. He didn’t give any specific for what he would do though. 2 points
Huckabee: Huckabee gave an alright answer. People in the U.S. should live in the shadows, he says. In order to live with dignity they should go home and come back legally. I don’t think his taking umbrage at Mitt’s question came off too well. He didn’t answer Wallace’s question well on when exactly it’s punishing the children and when it’s not, as Huckabee said in the past children should not be punished for the parents crimes. 1 point
McCain: McCain struggled and seemed defensive. He says fixing borders first is his priority, but no one believes him at this point and I don’t see he did anything to change that fact. Zero points
Bonus Round
*I’m not going to rank the question on negative ads and the various questions that went with it because the candidates got different questions. Rather, I’ll give plus or minus one point depending on how each did, or zero if I think they came out about even.
Romney: +1. Romney got in a good point about the difference between an attack ad and an ad on people’s records. Contrasting records has an important role in the campaign process. Once again providing both the setup and punch line to the joke about hair was lame, though. He answered the flip-flopping charge very well.
Huckabee: -1. Mitt got the best of him yet again.
Rudy: 0. Did a good job of dispatching the Kerik debacle, but didn’t gain anything
McCain: +1. Dealt with the age issue with good humor and dispelled it well
Thomspon: -1. Fred loses through no fault of his own. Not included in this discussion, the viewer probably forgot he was even in the debate.
Closing Arguments
Romney: Romney wins basically just on presentation. With a question in which all candidates are saying basically the same things, presentation matters a lot. He came across as the most inspiring. 3 points
McCain: McCain was as positive and upbeat as he is capable of, but still couldn’t match Romney. Having the last word also helped. 2 points
Rudy, Thompson & Huckabee: Rudy is the man for big ideas, he says. Good answer, but yet again nothing stood out. Fred got in the only reference to appointing judges that aren’t activists. Cited his 100% pro-life record. Made reference to being on the short-end of some 99-1 votes, but didn’t explain how that was an example of his strong federalist principles. His tone was rather lackluster and uninspiring. Huckabee starting with a religious reference got him off on the wrong foot. He went into a stronger answer after that but it didn’t stand out. 1 point each
So here’s how my tally came out:
Romney: 17
Rudy: 11
McCain: 10
Thompson: 8
Huckabee: 2
Print This Post
As the Iowa Caucus finishes up, the winners and losers have been decided. Let’s take a look:
The Winners
Huckabee: Huckabee had to win Iowa to have a shot and he did that. He still has an uphill battle. I hope he trips.
McCain: With Romney and McCain battling for first in New Hampshire, Mitt’s Iowa loss is McCain’s win.
The Losers
Romney: Yes he got second and did better than McCain, but Romney has always relied on an early state strategy. Perception is everything, and Romney is going down while McCain is going up. If Romney isn’t careful, McCain will steal his spot as chief rival to Huckabee. As I said in my previous post, Romney isn’t dead for second. But he has to be dissappointed.
Thompson: Tied for 3rd at 13% isn’t good enough. Thompson is out. He hasn’t the money or support in other major states to fall back on. He may or may not stay in through the New Hampshire debate and hope to capture lightening in a bottle. I’m not holding my breath.
The Republican Party: A demagogic, identity-politics-using populist (Huckabee) has won 2.5 times as many votes in Iowa as the only true conservative in the race (Thompson). This is disaster for the Republican party. It’s a recipe for one thing: President Obama.
America: See above.
Comments Print This Post
Given this campaign season’s radically altered primary schedule, many pundits are asking what this means for the importance of Iowa. However, I’m not going to weigh in here on what the Iowa primary means as a whole, or whether or not the state deserves its long held spot at the front of the primary pack. Rather, I’d like to consider what today’s results will mean to each candidate.
Romney: Long ago assumed to be the winner in Iowa, Romney has relatively recently found himself defending his lead against an insurgent Huckabee. Second place, however, will not significantly harm Romney. He’s strong in New Hampshire and his pockets are deep.
Huckabee: Unlike Romney, Huckabee has to win. He doesn’t have much support in New Hampshire nor a strong national organization. Second will be spun poorly and used as evidence of his implosion due to numerous recent gaffes.
Thompson: Thompson’s best hope for the nomination is already a long shot. He needs at least a strong third (mid to high teens in the polls) to have any shot. He has zero New Hampshire support (he wrote essentially wrote the state off) and will finish behind Ron Paul in the granite state. A strong third, however, will provide significant media coverage as it will be seen as surpassing expectations. He’ll need to parlay this into a bounce in South Carolina, which he has to win to have any shot at the nomination.
McCain: McCain is battling Thompson for the third spot, though he has a bit more leeway. About even with Romney in New Hampshire, a close 4th will keep him alive. Barely.
Rudy: Rudy is not competing in Iowa. Rather, he’s relying on the more populated states, such as Florida and California, to propel him to the nomination. Whether his present support in those states can survive the month long media onslaught of the top candidates coming out of Iowa and New Hampshire remains to be seen. But it makes little difference who those candidates are, and thus who wins Iowa.
Comments Print This Post
Another week and another republican presidential debate. Ok, maybe they aren’t happening that often, but it feels like it. I’m not going to recap the entire thing. Rather I’ll hit what I think are the highlights and important developments, though in no particular order.
Fred Thompson can be exciting. After some lackluster performances I was beginning to question whether Fred Thompson was capable of energetically delivering what are quite sound and desirable positions. Last night he took a big step in the right direction. He also called Ted Kennedy fat. Mega bonus points. He got hit on tort reform, and though his answer included his federalist argument (one I sympathize with), his answer also rambled a bit. It was the only issue that provided a real weak point, though.
If John McCain is a top-tier candidate, so is Mike Huckabee. There’s no doubt that McCain gave many strong answers. His statement that he would rather lose a campaign than lose a war probably the most memorable of any candidate in the entire debate. It was that rare occasion where not only was a politician putting principle above politics, but it was believable. He also joked and got the laughs just as well as any of them. Yet it doesn’t seem to be enough to connect with the voters. He did possibly flub one answer, when he talked about the importance of reconciliation with former “enemies”. Though he was making a valid point, lumping the religious right into the same category as the Vietnamese may not have been quite what he intended. Mike Huckabee, on the other hand, continues to impress. Even where I disagree, the clear sincerity behind his views is itself inspiring.
Rudy Giuliani is still the front-runner, but not by much. The most striking observation to take from this debate is that this race is wide open. Giuliani has the best position at present, but any of the five main candidates (I’m including here Huckabee) could catch fire and make a run for it. Giuliani gave a potent line in response to a question about whether he can win teachers over. He said he cared more about students than teachers. Right on. Rudy didn’t step into anything here, so in so far as he came in ahead, he also came out ahead. Romney didn’t do anything particularly memorable, but he was similarly without any major flops. He’s warming on me, slowly.
Ron Paul would be right if he weren’t so wrong. His first question (on gay marriage) actually showed his intelligent, rather than crazy, side. But then we got to foreign policy. Nonintervention is a preferred default policy. But there are times when that policy is completely disastrous. Our nonintervention, and the nonintervention of Europe, in the lead up to WWII nearly let Hitler and his evil ideology triumph. Nonintervention in todays world would be just as dangerous, as radical global jihad poses the same threat. But we should temper our action with the awareness that it’s best not to engage in such policies if we don’t have to. It’s just not acceptable to adopt Ron Paul’s philosophy of complete isolationism.
Edit: I almost forgot to include one of the most stark comparisons presented by this debate.
Fox News is light years above the rest of the media. This debate outclassed the rest by miles. That hack Chris Mathews and his joke of a debate that he hosts on MSNBC has now been twice blown away by Fox.
Comments Print This Post
If only you believe the polls. He managed 33%, a plurality, in the post debate text message poll (I voted for Huckabee). Naturally, this is due to Paulites spamming the poll which is standard operating procedure for them. Sites like this one act as repositories for Paul’s sad few supporters to go out and vote in every poll anyone can find. This biases the sample for those polls greatly in favor of Paul’s supporters.
Cries one Paul Spammer:
Fox News LIES about their own post debate poll…Fox News reported last night on Hannity and Colmes that Ron Paul supporters were spamming the text poll vote after Ron Paul wins with a overwhelming 33% of the vote.
No! Ron Paul’s supporters would never do that! (This was posted on a website which links to various online polls so they can more easily spam them)
This man is an unfunny joke. I hope he runs as a third party candidate. He might think he’s hurting the Republican’s position, but he’d actually be stealing nutroots votes from the dems I think. How satisfying was Huckabee’s Ron Paul beatdown last night? Ron Paul is boohooing about how the party is losing elections because of our position on the war. Then Huckabee, “Doing what’s right is more important than winning elections.” (paraphrased). You’re damn straight it is. That’s what sets Republicans apart from the democrats. Or at least it should be. And it’s pleasing to hear that from a candidate. Chris Wallace even mixed it up a little when he asked Paul if he takes his marching orders from Al Qaeda. He deflected the issue, of course, but it’s hard to tell when the man says we should withdraw from the middle east because our presence there is one of the excuses the terrorists have made up to justify violence. They’ll only run out of reasons to kill us when we stop breathing, Mr. Paul. Even the biggest fool should understand that by now.
In the same vein of failed logic, on the topic of torture, it was said that if we engage in torture that it will be an excuse for our enemies to torture our captured soldiers. Please. History has shown time and again that our enemies don’t need any excuses to torture our soldiers. Let’s put that argument to rest already.
I don’t mean to make this summary of the debate all about Ron Paul. Credit is due for the worthy performances of some of the others on stage. Huckabee foremost in my mind, though at times it sounded like the hamster wheels in his head needed a little WD40. He’ll need to work on being more fluid with his off the cuff remarks if he wants to compete in the final laps. McCain I thought did surprising well. He actually sounded appealing. Whether we can trust his changes of heart or not is a question we might have to ask ourselves soon. But darn it if he didn’t look and sound presidential up there. Romney was polished as ever, and dealt with the hypothetical question better than the rest. Giuliani was apparently the mayor of some city called New York. I wouldn’t even know it if he hadn’t reminded me fifteen times last night. Still, he’s right when he says he’s probably the most capable guy out of both parties’ pool of candidates to run this country. I thought the family values question was a little lame. What was that?
Then there’s Fred Thompson. Glad to hear he’s finally in. He’ll bring a whole new dynamic to the race. If I have one criticism already, it’s that he needs to try and keep his head still while speaking. On that commercial, every time he enunciated a word it’s like he was trying to head-butt some invisible bat flying around his face.
All in all, an excellent debate. It had more substance than all fifty-eight democrat debates combined. And I’m now feeling much better about our choices next year.
Comments Print This Post
Sorry, no posts matched your criteria.
I am a libertarian-conservative blogger living in the DC area. I have a Master's degree in Political Science and work in public policy, but please don't hold that against me.
