We here at Sound Politics often find ourselves in disagreement with the P-I's Joel Connelly, but props to that paper for actually investing the resources in sending its top political reporter to Iowa to cover the political story dominating the news. Connelly's coverage is available via blog and in the paper's regular editions. It's worth a read, particularly for those interested in tracking the Democratic race, where Connelly's observations are most applicable.
It wouldn't be a normal post about Connelly, however, if this blogger didn't object to an aspect of his latest report. To be honest, the broader theme of conflict within the GOP and the core issues at play in that divide are generally correct (though as usual Connelly has some individual observations to which readers can object). There is one fact in the article that lacks proper context:
Huckabee hit back Monday, unveiling a TV spot that questions Romney's much-publicized flip-flop on abortion and his tendency to tailor his opinions to the fashion tastes of the electorate he is courting.
Huckabee did hold a press conference to announce the TV ad Connelly mentions. But Connelly's report implies the ad is running. It's not. Huckabee's presser was one of the most bizarre events of the campaign season. Huckabee surprised even his own staff by deciding right before the event to not actually air the commercial. He then nonetheless proceeded to play it for the assembled who's who of the national press corps, evoking outright laughter (hint: reporters laughing at you at your own press conference is not generally a good thing).
Now, the effect of the strange event is as unpredictable as the Iowa caucuses themselves. The national press corps almost universally thinks the move was a gaffe of the first order, but the local Iowa press corps that plays an equally important role in reaching the caucus-goers as well is less condemning (both angles summarized in this report).
Either way, Connelly's reporting on Huckabee's ad neglects to point out that Huckabee's odd behavior became the news. The back and forth between Romney and Huckabee, which at least in theme Connelly captures reasonably well, is by comparison a lesser story, at least in the current news cycle.
Posted by Eric Earling at January 01, 2008 04:56 PM | Email ThisMy brother who is not religious and very conservative told me yesterday, he's a Huckabee supporter. We haven't discussed this election until yesterday, when I asked about Romney, he showed the sign for waving in the wind. When it comes time to vote in Iowa and NH, those people that aren't fully decided will make a final judgement based on who they can trust. It will be most interesting to see which way those people fall at the caucus.
If a candidate doesn't pick up their proportion of undecideds then that will bode very poorly for them going into NH.
Say Eric, how about a little prediction thread the day before the Iowa Caucuses, see which of the readers ends up closest. Right now, looks like: Iowa: Huckabee 33, Romney 23, McCain 16.....
Even CNN was great except for one or two.
But, back on point, I find it quite humorous that Democratic journalists really don't understand the Republican and the decision making process they have. They give all the buzzwords and talk to Rs, but they really don't understand Rs.
It is my thought that the reason Rs haven't selected their candidate yet is because there are so many good ones to choose from. It is like a buffet at Anthony's instead of the local Scarf-and-Barf where the Democrats hang out.
Republicans really can't go wrong- except for a couple of them.
So, whenever I hear the D journalist posing as an independent and diving the R voter, I roll my eyes.
And then, why is it that the ultra-Democratic newspapers in NH and Iowa get to pick their preferences for the Republican nominee? Very amusing.
Posted by: swatter on January 2, 2008 07:18 AMUnless someone makes a last minute blunder, my predictions will be as follows for Iowa:
Democrat side:
1. Obama
2. Edwards
3. Clinton, but Biden will make it close
Republican side:
1. Romney (Unfortunately)
2. Huckabee
3. McCain
What the real results on the Democrat side will be:
1. Dodd drops out and endorses Edwards.
2. Biden drops out and endorses Hillary.
3. Richardson drops out and endorses Obama.
4. Kuchinch drops out and endorses Kennedy, oh wait he isn't running. Who is the UFO candidate to endorse? Who knows or cares.
5. Others drop out. No one cares who they endorse.
On the Republican side, the real results will be:
1. Fred goes home with an upset stomach and doesn't endorse anyone.
2. Ron Paul stays in thinking he will still win NH and somehow that winning NH will springboard him to the nomination.
3. Who else is runnning yet? Oh, well it doesn't matter. The rest other than now top four, plus Paul go on to fight another day.
4. Romney goes on to win NH, but very narrowly.
5. Huckabee wins SC, but then gives his delegates to McCain, since he is out of money at this point and can't continue. He interviewed for VP position, now it is up to McCain to decide whether to gamble with him. Rollins goes over to McCain campaign.
6. McCain wins Michigan, which will be a slap in Romney's face.
7. Rudy pulls through in Florida, now with Huckabee dropping out.
8. On Feb 5., Romney wins the Northern conservative states, McCain Western States over RP, Guiliani the Northern liberal Republican states, and the South will vote for none of the above. This will through the Republican race into a complete mess.
9. With the Republican race in complete mess, Bloomberg will announce his third party candidacy with Hagel as running mate and promising Sam Nunn Department of Defense.
Of course, this will all mean that whoever the Democrats nominate will win the White House.
In summary, this is the nightmare scenario, which doesn't have to happen. It is unfortunate, but the way I see it the Republicans either have two choices: (1) Nominate Romney to please the Wall Street types and lose big in November, or (2) Eat crow and nominate McCain and stand a chance for a close election. If they don't decide soon which path they want the infighting will open the way for a serious third party run and could mean total country realignment with Democrats gaining a lot of control. Nominating Romney, while not who I would like, is a smart path if one wants to try to fight another day. Don't worry about the Presidency, but try to hold onto the below veto proof strangehold in Congress, so that whoever the Democrats nominate will either have to work with the party or will get nothing done, thus dooming them to a single term.
The other options is to eat crow, realize that McCain is your only shot at possibly winning the White House and retaining the near 50-50 split in Congress. Any other scenarios open up a Bloomberg candidacy right in the middle, leaving open the possibility for huge Congressional losses.
Posted by: tc on January 2, 2008 07:51 AMSeriously, I have no idea how Iowa or much of the rest of the race will actually turn out or what the impact will be. The only thing I can say with confidence is that I will be glad when Iowa is over.
Posted by: tc on January 2, 2008 11:37 AMRomney & Clinton win in New Hampshire.
In NH, Paul makes his best showing of the campaign season by coming in 4th.
Huckabee wins SC, McCain hangs on and wins Nevada.
GOP gets screwed because of infighting among the ranks. Desperate Romney looses White House to Clinton in November.
Likely wrong, but a lot can happen between now and November 4th.
RealClear Politics polls since October have shown McCain as the only game we've got. Medved a few minutes ago cited two national polls, Pew and Rasmussen, in which McCain tops our pathetic pack.
I heart Huckabee, of course, and would have loved to tip a temperance egg nog with him two nights ago. To meet him is to love him. But to know him is to love him less. He's a loser, even if he wins Iowa, with a winning personality.
Mormon Mitt will be buried by bigotry, even if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire. Fred's a fizzle. Rudy reeks. Reagan -- the real one, not the ballerina who tarnishes Reagan's name by wearing it as his own -- is nowhere in sight.
McCain's all we have, conservatives, despite his inconvenient history.
Let's grow up and admit that 'conservative' Rush Limbaugh led us over the cliff with 'conservative' George Bush. Rush, wrong about almost everything else since 1995, was right about a few of McCain's bad calls but was destructively wrong to try to destroy McCain.
Thank God McCain's still standing. If conservatism and the Republican Party stumble out of 2008 alive, only McCain will get us through.
Posted by: AUH2O on January 2, 2008 01:08 PMIf not they just become disenfranchised with the political process and jump start the Pat Buchanan/Perot party for 2012. I just can't see them sitting idle for very long.
Third Party runs are only meaningful if you can have a voice in the process (e.g., Wallace, Perot, Nadar). With the likelihood of a Bloomberg run, it would be unlikely for a second major third party run to meet the level of significance to be involved in the debates. Even Nadar had a hard time being considered for the debates. The success Perot had was getting his message out concerning the deficits, which in turn helped set the table for the Newt Contract with America and Republican winning of the House.
What Ron Paul needs to consider is how can he win in the long run and get his ideas through. In this respect, I do see him hammering away on his themes through to the Republican Convention and possibly trying to shape the platform. Other than platform shaping, however, he would be best to bank the rest of his money for future contests.
Posted by: tc on January 2, 2008 01:46 PMThe Libertarian Party is positioning itself to take on the Ron Paul supporters after the R's make the mistake of nominating someone else. If we can pull this off, it will be a huge boost for the third biggest political party in the US. And the R's and D's loss.
The other thing that might happen is that Ron Paul supporters will work to get in to positions of responsibility within local R organizations, and push out the big-government RINO's. This is similar to what happened to Howard Dean in the Democrats. His supporters got him elected chair of the party.
And yet another possibility is that many Ron Paul supporters will fade back in to apathy and not be heard of until another Reagan/Goldwater conservative with principles comes along.
But I think that Ron Paul is the tip of the iceberg. There is a groundswell of libertarian sentiment, especially among the young, college-aged folks. Even if Ron Paul is not nominated or elected, he has helped bring these people in to the political process, and furthered the freedom movement. Other parties will be wise to try and cater to this segment.
I think a big fear of the R's should be, what would happen if the D's took on the mantle of free trade and limited government along with civil/constitutional rights, peace and social tolerance? They could erode a lot of support from R's. Imagine a fiscally conservative, pro-trade Democrat... I could almost vote for that... In fact, Bill Clinton sounds more like that all the time...
Ron Paul will use some of the money in his war chest to get re-elected to his congressional seat.
Don't worry about Bloomberg. He is running for NY governor.
It'll be Hillary vs. a Republican hawk, and Hillary will win because the Iraq war is unpopular.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 2, 2008 02:44 PMBruce G., realistically, it will be hard to keep the troops motivated. Even Jesse 'the Belly' Ventura couldn't keep the troops motivated- and I can't even remember the party name they had.
And sorry there Goldwater aka auh20, I disagree and think the Rs have a strong field. I also predict Rudy will make a comeback- how far I don't know.
Posted by: swatter on January 2, 2008 02:59 PMThat's what they said about Dean...they said the Deaniacs would stay involved. It was the cyber campaign, the new generation. He lost, they became disenfranchised, and held their nose and voted for Kerry. Four year later are any of them still around trying to revive the Meetup movement? Nope.
People who are disenfranchised either suck it up and vote for the parties choice, or they give up, don't vote, and disappear for four years. Maybe this year they will vote Libertarian and be the spoiler candidate for the GOP. Seems unlikely but possible.
Has anyone seen the Nader folks around this year? =P
Don't assume the current anti-government emphasis of current day Republicans equates to support of libertarian ideas? Its simply they don't like big government and government that intefers with their life. They still want government that builds roads, educates their workforce, provides economic protection, etc.
Posted by: tc on January 2, 2008 03:31 PMOnly 5 February matters.
My predictions:
McCain will be the R nominee in November after losing IA and SC (by a mile!) and winning or coming in a close 2nd in NH, thanks to Super-Dooper Tuesday. Maybe.
OTOH, I'm dead certain Hillary will still be the D nominee in November after losing IA and SC and squeaking by in 1st or 2nd place in NH. She'll win Sooper-Dooper Tuesday in all those big states where nobody's campaigning yet, and win by 20 points.
Of course, the Hillary nomination will be the gift that keeps on giving in November. If our (R) nominee is, say, Huckabee, she might squeak out the win - but the House and Senate will both flip 'R' way on her coat-tails (broomstick trails?).
(Bonus prediction: Lieberman becomes the flip margin in the senate as he starts caucusing with the right side of the aisle.)
And honestly, with a Republican senate and house, you could do worse than Hillary as president if you had to pick a D. It's not like she'll be able to do anything anyhow. She'll be a sideshow like Bill in the '90s when Newt was the real prime mover.
Now, where we really have to worry is if it's Obama v. Romney or Obama v. Huckabee - but I rate Ron Paul's chances on Sooper-Dooper Tuesday as better than Obama's.
Posted by: iowa doesn't matter on January 2, 2008 04:39 PMThis basically sums up my view of the CNN/YouTube/GOP debate. Many of the questions were dumb, like the one on the flag, and the one on the Bible. But they were not, I think, intentionally dumb. I think the CNN people simply didn't understand the Republican electorate very well, and thought these were things Republican voters wanted to know about.
The Bible question was triply dumb. First, they didn't understand what the asker was actually asking, which was whether the candidates believed that the King James Version specifically was the correct and proper version of the Bible. If they understood the question, the would not have used it, because most people do not care about the issue of KJV Supremacy.
Second, it's not a question you can reasonably answer in a soundbite, because it depends on what you mean by the words. Does "believe every word of the Bible" mean that you believe that what happened to Job was literal in every sense? Can you believe that some parts of the Bible are written by God, and intended by God to be metaphorical? Does that count? It's silly.
Third, this isn't a burning issue for Republicans anyway, not at the soundbite level anyway.
A separate example: I had a brief e-mail discussion with Paul Solman, the PBS economics guy, where I had mentioned this in regard to a piece he had done which mentioned federal spending priorities: I wish that some of the discussion about "priorities" would have mentioned that many Americans believe that federal spending on most of those "priorities" -- schools, housing, health care -- is unconstitutional as per the Tenth Amendment. Too often such claims that the federal government should spend money on social programs go unchallenged.
His response? Verbatim: I don't know much about the Tenth Amendment (I'll look it up), but am certainly appreciative of your email.
Boggle.
Much of the media not only doesn't understand Republicans, but also doesn't understand Republican issues. At all. The reason we don't see reporting on violations of the Tenth Amendment is because most of the media have no clue what it is, what it means, or why it is important. So we see story after story about SCHIP and whether or not to help kids and no concern from the media at all about the fact that it violates the Constitution. But the media plays up "constitutional" concepts that do not exist in any of our founding documents, like "coequal branches" and "separation of church and state," every chance they get.
It is truly unbelievable.
And the Beltway politcos class are just as bad.
Posted by: swatter on January 3, 2008 06:37 AM