Bits and pieces taken from the Politico.com forum
With 100 percent of precincts reporting, Obama had 38 percent, while John Edwards narrowly defeated Clinton in the race for second, 30 percent to 29 percent...
The Iowa results also began winnowing the Democratic field. Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, who moved his family to Iowa in an effort to make a strong showing, ended his campaign after a dismal finish. Dodd was tied for sixth place with 0 percent. Delaware Sen. Joe Biden also quit the race after finishing in fifth place with 1 percent.
Huckabee was declared the winner at 9 p.m. Eastern time, easily besting Mitt Romney — a storyline that was unthinkable just weeks ago. With 93 percent of precincts reporting, Huckabee led Romney 34 percent to 25 percent...
Roughly 60 percent of Republican caucus-goers were evangelicals, according to entrance surveys — approximately double the evangelical turnout in the 2004 general election...
So, how do you feel about the results here? I am somewhat surprised. Surprised both in a fairly pleasant way and a frightened way. First the Republicans: I do not like basically any of Mike Huckabee's stances on the issues, of course I feel that way about all the Republican candidates, except Ron Paul. Huckabee is everything I do not want in a president, except he is a decent speaker. A win for Ron Paul on the Republican side would have been nice (pipe dreams I know) but even Guiliani or McCain would have been less scary. Now the Dems: Obama beat Clinton... well good. I like him a whole lot more than her, though he is no Kucinich. I am glad to see Edwards edging her out too. Perhaps an Obama-Edwards ticket would work well for the dems? Or Edwards-Obama depending on how the next few states go. Anyway, in summation: Rep results = frightening, Dems results = nominally good.
12 comments:
I agree on both counts. Huckabee scars the bejesus out of me. The earth is 6000 years old? Seriously? Consumption tax? Seriously? Surgically re-implanted dimples following massive weight loss? Seriously? Christian rock band? Need I continue? Anyway, I am lukewarm on the Dems. I like to see Hillary lose. She sucks, and I will not EVER back a candidate that voted to give the pres the powers to invade Iraq, hold POWs while ignoring the Geneva Convention, restrict civil liberties, and undermine the fabric of the Constitution. F-them! Sadly that leaves about 4 US reps (go Kucinich you magnificently bizarre bastard!) and the people that were not then members of Congress (not that I assume they would have voted differently, but who knows). So, my option are limited. At least Edwards said the vote was a mistake. Obama wasn't there, so he's sort off the hook. Hillary can suck it.
Huckabee...seriously?
Heheh...Huckabee scars me. I meant scares...didn't I?
Well, my viewpoint as an independent conservative:
The Good
1. Hillary lost. And not just lost. stomped. All in a state that she was actively campaigning for. And given that her election strategy revolves around winning Iowa, New Hampshire, etc in rapid succession and sealing the deal early and from the get-go, this is pretty serious. Couldn't happen to a better person.
2. Obama won. And if Obama can use this momentum to carry New Hampshire, he'll be in a good position to take the nomination. And frankly, if Obama carries the nomination, then my worst-case scenario isn't so bad anymore. For me, the whole "inexperience" thing isn't as important as integrity, and not making me want to hide in a closet when you speak in public. Obama strikes me as an honest, decent man, and even if I disagree on many levels with him politically, I would still trust him to do what he fundamentally believes is right. And even if I disagree with many of those things, he'd still be making those decisions for the right reasons.
3. Romney Lost. So, a well organized campaign and assloads of money doesn't equal victory.... Excellent. Like Hillary and Edwards, Romney is one of those candidates that just gives me the creeps... the way dolls in dark rooms do. Everything that comes out of his mouth makes me cringe, because you know there's no way to know whether he means what he's saying. He's almost a caricature of the consummate politician, and I'm more than happy to see him go down in flames.
4. McCain? Really? Where did he come from? McCain's strong showing in Iowa really surprised me... But in a good way. AND he's in a good position to take New Hampshire, (or at least do very well) which is also pleasantly surprising, especially considering about a year ago, he was absolutely broke, riding around in the last seat in Coach, wondering where his campaign had evaporated to. Personally, if McCain does well, I'll be tickled.
The Bad
1. Huckabee?! Jesus Christ! To me, the only thing worse that could happen on the GOP side than a Romney nomination would be a Huckabee nomination. For F’s sake! Why don't you just vote for the democratic candidate instead? A vote for Huckabee now is a vote for losing the presidential election. Now, his strong showing in Iowa, a very religious state by most measures, shouldn't be too surprising. But secular Republicans are lukewarm to him at best, and independents are even less enthusiastic, for several reasons:
- He's a baptist minister. Constitutional conservatives aren't terribly enthused about the idea of a religious figure holding the highest office in the land.
- He's a baptist minister. Meaning, he believes certain things that, in my mind, make me question his judgment. Mainly because these beliefs qualify him as being bat-shit crazy... but I digress
- His recent negative ad fiasco... the one about Romney? "I've decided not to run this ad, because I don't want to run a negative campaign. I'm now going to show you the ad. Enjoy!" I don't care how you look at it, this was calculating, manipulative, and just so transparently lame that it's embarrassing.
- He's said several things to the press recently that are.... well, just not true. One good example is the fact that on several occasions, he's told interviewers that he's "The only candidate with a degree in Theology". Well, no you're not. Not because someone else has one, but because you don't. Your degree is in Speech and Communications... and while you did attend Seminary School for your masters, you never finished. Neither qualifies as a degree in Theology, Religion, or anything other than Speech and Communications. Pretty bizarre. So bizarre that one thinks "...well, was that really an outright lie, or was he mistaken? Because that's a pretty dumb thing to lie about... and it’s a pretty dumb thing to be mistaken about…" Either pay, poor judgment.
2. Edwards did reasonably well. Ugh. Again, Edwards is one of those people who smiles, and makes my skin crawl. Did anyone read that interview with one of Kerry's campaign aids, who said Kerry thought Edwards was "actually a little creepy?" He recounted how in a semi-private meeting, Edwards told Kerry "now, I never told anyone this before... but I got into politics because of my son...", and went on to tell him about how the death of his son affected their family, and how they wanted to build the kind of world they wished he could have lived in, etc. Something that on the surface sounds inspiring, heart felt, and sincere... Until Kerry mentioned to this aid later how he'd overheard Edwards telling someone else that very same story verbatim to someone else about a month prior. And later, he was overheard by someone else giving the very same “I’ve never told anyone this before…” speech to another potential political ally months later, and another some time after that.. Now, I’m not saying Edwards and his family didn’t suffer a tremendous, gut wrenching, earth shattering loss. As a father, I don’t doubt that he thought his world was coming to an end, and he has all the sympathy in the worlds from me for that. But to have built the level of detachment required that allows him to tell the story as a close and personal political bridge building tool at cocktail parties rubs me the wrong way, and is just inappropriate.
Overall Conclusions
For me, it looks like the worst case scenario isn’t going to happen: Hillary vs. Romney. However, if Huckabee winds up on the ticket (God forbid, no pun intended), I will have to weigh my options between Obama and the Libertarian candidate.
Out of everyone on the roster, I still feel that Giuliani is the one I’m most closely politically aligned with…. And I hope his Later States campaign strategy pays off (thought Huckabee is making me very nervous). For me, the best case scenario would be a Giuliani / McCain ticket vs. an Obama / (someone other than Hillary or Edwards) ticket. In which case, I wouldn’t have that dreadful feeling of “OMG, these are my choices?!?” as I did in 2004. And while I would obviously prefer the Giuliani ticket, I would be reasonably content to give Obama a fair shot at the daddy pants if he won.
BTW: LOL Reed!
Oh, and it turns out my Dad has recently "discovered" Ron Paul... he and his Republican buddies are a fan club in the making, it seems. Too bad he doesn't stand a snowball's chance of getting the nomination. :|
Oh well. November, Ho!
I can understand how a secular conservative would be scared of Huckabee. But then, the conservative outreach to the religious nut-job base has been in the works since Reagan and is definitely well-entrenched in the Bush administration. It smells like a crisis for conservatives overall. They need the zealous Christian nuts to get elected (apparently), so does the party let them take the helm or does it marginalize them and risk losing the election on substantive policy failures like health care, education, the economy, etc?
I don't envy the secular conservatives at all. They are faced with limited options. I say this because I think that when push comes to shove in the general elections McCain and Giuliani would both flub it up big time. McCain is pretty much done as a contender I think. Giulini will lose out huge with his nominal pro-abortion rights stance, affairs, and divorces (though Newt G. divorcing his wife while she was in the hospital with cancer didn't hurt his appeal with religious voters--damn are people stupid!).
Sadly, perhaps ominously, many of my colleagues that study American political behavior believe that Huckabee would trounce Clinton. Again, I am no Hillary fan, but the idea that someone like Huckabee could win the "daddy pants" scares the crap out of me. What the hell is wrong with America?
Ron Paul is increasingly something of a cult among young secular conservatives (which perhaps needs its own post), and I really think that this is the model for the new secual conservative. From what I see, most secular cons are more libertarian minded in that they are most in favor of limited government involvement, and while they may not be marching in gay pride parades, going to ACLU meetings, or attending abortion rights rallies, they pretty want the government to allow people the widest level of freedom and privacy. This clearly clashes with the Christo-fascists that want the state to make sure that the government explicitly prevents same sex couples from marrying, denies women the right to family planning, and wants Jesus in every public space (and home)...everyone else be damned.
So where to go? The party may split, pretty much along the Ron Paul (and to a lesser extent Giuliani) and the Huckabee-Romney lines. And, as an unrepentent lefty, I could see nothing better since that opens the door for Dems to rule the country. Wahahahaha. But seriously, the Dems suck too. What I hear are shades of suck that I can barely differentiate. That is why Huckabee scares me. McCain or Clinton, Giuliani or Edwards. Mostly status quo. Slight variations on the same old crap. Huckabee (and Romney), though, are in my mind pretty much like Christian equivalents to Amadenajad or any other populist-religious zealot.
I won't register as a Republican is for the very reasons you mention. The fact that 40% of the GOP consider themselves to be Evangelical Christians is horrifying, and leaves me totally bewildered. That's a huge chunk of the party base that a viable candidate has to appease to make it anywhere... Which is exactly part of McCain's problem. Until he made any attempt to make nice with them, he was a political dead end.
Well, there is an undercurrent of "crisis of conscience" among most of the Republicans I know now. On the one hand, you see the party becoming a bastion for Christian fundamentalists, which chafes against the practicalness and "each to his own" aspect of the Republican spirit. On the other hand, you also have a feeling of discontent, even betrayal, by this movement of so-called "neoconservatives" who have completely boned our standing on the global stage as a standard bearer of the free world and modern western values, spend as much money as any democrat that's ever lived, and are content ignoring parts of the constitution that are inconvenient. Which in case you haven't put two and two together, pretty much makes Neoconservatives not very conservative... Their only saving grace is that most of them think the fundamentalist Christians are crazy people.
I see the modern Neoconservatives almost as wayward disciples of Bush Sr.'s doctrine of foreign policy; The difference being that he was good at it, and they are, well, not. Bush Sr. had a fundamental grasp of the intricacies and nuances of the geopolitical stage, he knew how to build bridges and maintain them... and that America's hegemony, while supported by our military strength, is really rooted in our economic relationships and the exporting of our ideals. And to Bill Clinton's credit, he took the baton from Bush Sr. and ran with it, building on those relationships and allowing them to flourish.
The neocons, on the other hand, wield foreign policy with no grace or style what so ever, acting like America can do whatever it wants because we're the last superpower standing, and you aren't! So suck it! For some reason, this rubs folks the wrong way... go figure.
Anyway, I digress; Ron Paul is appealing to people like me and dyed in the wool Berry Goldwater conservatives like my Dad because he appeals to the roots of the party's platform: fiscal responsibility, a belief that social issues aren't any of the government's damned business until they involve a breach of constitutional rights, a supreme court that doesn't legislate from the bench (for any ideology, including ours), and a foreign policy that actually preserves our strength and influence without undermining or sacrificing our shared fundamental principles and ideals.
Why Ron Paul hasn't defected to the Libertarian party, I don't know... but I hope he doesn't. I hope he stays a Republican, and contributes to a re-awaking of the Republican spirit, bringing conservatives back into the fold of actual conservatism. Not this hodge podge of reckless neoconservative/religious fundamentalism the GOP has leading the party around by the nose right now. A pipe dream, perhaps... but it's better to hope than to despair.
At the moment, I want Giuliani on the ticket more than anyone else... but I'm pretty sure that if the Dems have to endure another 4 years of Republicans in the oval office, there will be a total meltdown of the liberal half of the American psyche. San Francisco might very well secede from the union. :P (wait, is that bad? “OMG! The U.S. just lost 80% of its fashion sense! Oh nos!”)
Whatever the case, I'm drawn to moderates because I firmly believe that the ultra-polarized, knee jerk politics of today are undermining our democracy... we need someone in a position of leadership that doesn't practice politics of exclusion.
Maybe what we need is ultra-radical-extreme change! I think a Ron Paul / David Kucinich ticket is in order!!!1! I can see the bumper stickers now: "Magnificent Bastards for '08"
2 Quick notes to Mr.Beck:
1.Ron Paul did run as the Libertarian candidate in the 1988 presidential election.
2. It's Dennis Kucinich, not David ;-)
I do feel sorry for the more "traditional conservatives". The GOP has been hijacked by a bunch of crazies (whether neocon or fundy). And though I don't agree with Ron Paul on all issues, I do feel he is someone who is at least rational enough to listen to the other side and think through his ideas. He is the best man on the Rep side in my mind hands down. Of course he will never be the party's candidate... sigh. At this point, it seems that the Republican party has traded values and ethics for power and position and is in an attempt to redefine what the GOP is, because W has helped screw it royally (though people like Limbaugh and Hannity and Newt don't help the party either). Good luck Republicans, buying back your soul is hard work (j/k).
Dammit! That's EXACTLY why we need to be able to edit our posts. :P Oh well. I'm sure Dennich Kucennis will find it in his heart (20% of which, I think, resides in his ears) to forgive my clumsy fingers and failing brain. It's too bad spellcheck doesn't fix dumb.
Anywho: Well, if the democrats were any better, I'd defect. But then I would have to affiliate my self with people like Nancy Pelosi, Ted "The Manitee" Kennedy, and Rosie O'Donnel. Freakin' A, No Spanks!!!
I still don't see what your problem is with Ted. Sure, he's a rich, drunk, jerk Kennedy, and he and Nanci can both such it my humble opinion. But you also seem to think the sun shined out of Reagan's ass. Sure, he "saved" the world from the horrors of communism , but he did it by propping up the rightist regime in El Salvador (whose death squads killed 8000 civilians per year between 1980 and 1983) and backing the Contras (who had a policy of mutilating children in front of their parents) and supporting the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan (who later turned in the Taliban). Ted and Nancy might suck ass, but at least they don't have the blood of literally tens of thousands of innocent civilians on their hands....well, not explicitly anyway. Ummm...Rosie can suck it too, but for different reasons.I won't touch walrus politics for the time being...though I guess I sort of did in discussing Ted.
BTW Beck, great rip on Dennis! I laughed out loud!
Well duh, Reed. The sun DID shine out of Reagan's ass. That's why American is the shining city on the hill, foo! Graciously illuminated by Reagan's buttocks.
And in all seriousness: Yes, Reagan made some very unsavory decisions... but almost every single one of them were made in collusion with and the support of many a Democrat.
And really, how unsavory are these decisions when compared to those made by recent Democratic leadership, like Clinton, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Kennedy?
The fact of the matter is, the President of the United States will sometimes have to make hard decisions that will cost lives (including innocent ones). Reagan made them, Clinton made them, as did Johnson and Kennedy. But I don't believe for a minute that those decisions were ever made outside of the intent of doing the right thing for our country and its people... even if I think some of those decisions were stupid ones.
Now, if you will excuse me, I have to go bask in Reagan's ass-glow.
Bask well by friend. And for the record, screw LBJ and Kennedy as well, another good example of our anti-communist policy mistook a peasant war against a colonial regime or repressive group of self-serving autocrats for a global tide of Red pouring over the globe. Did no one ever bother to ask why peasants took support from Russia or China? Man, when the landlord has you balls in the vice (sometimes literally) you'll take help from anyone offering. Glad the we ahve learned from these errors and pursue rational policy informed by hard evidence and void of ideological self-interest...oh crap, never mind.
Clinton....eh....I am not going to bat for him. At best I give him marginally better and more moral (in terms of policy) than most of his predecessors. But that may be a little like saying Darth Vader was slightly less evil than the Emperor. Now Carter, he was a moral man who tried hard to make good policy that didn't support grossly violent regimes in the name of ideology. But guess were that landed him? Out in four years and one of the least popular presidents of all time. I guess the office just attracts douche bags, and the bigger the douche the more successful they will be. How sad.
Post a Comment