Romney Wins. Huckabee Shines. The light on the horizon is T. Thompson and D. Hunter in flames.
By Erick Posted in Elections — Comments (144) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
First, congratulations to Mitt Romney. He and Mike Huckabee deserve a round of applause.
It would have been a disaster had Mitt lost. In a pay to play straw poll, the guy with the most money should win. He out organized and out funded the field and he deserves the credit.
Huckabee is dazzling. I've said all along that Huckabee has been the stand out guy in all the debates. He's won several of the debates, even though the media would rather fixate on McCain.
It just might be time for Brownback to call it a day, though Ames plausibly gives him staying power.
Sadly, Ames will give Tancredo and Paul credibility they do not deserve, which is why, at the end of the day, I can't give Ames much credibility. At least we can be done with Tommy G-string Thompson.
There is no way Tancredo is going to get the nomination and there is no way he'd win the general even if he somehow was able to. Same with Ron Paul who garnered 1039 votes, which be every Iowan Ron Paul supporter total.
I have to tell you though, I'm really interested in the bottom of Ames, which is where I think a lot of the media guys are going to be focused.
Read on . . .
Beyond a shadow of a doubt, both McCain and Giuliani have better name ID than either Duncan Hunter or Fred Thompson. Yet, of the three guys leading all the national polls, Thompson beat out both Giuliani and McCain, while Hunter beat McCain.
This is bad news for McCain. Though Ames is essentially meaningless, and we should point out that McCain did equally badly in 2000, then went on to make a good show of it, he should be concerned.
Duncan Hunter? It's time to run for Vice President, which I suspect he is doing anyway.
It was a great night for Romney and Huckabee. Romney certainly proved he's got the organizational power. But I still can't treat a pay to play straw poll very credibly when Tancredo and Paul do that well.
Romney is a winner and a real candidate. So is Huckabee. The three stooges are not. And it speaks ill of Ames that they did as well as they did.
« Question and answer time: the Wes Clark thing. — Comments (50) | It's Florida All Over Again. Or is it St. Louis. Or is it New Orleans. No, It's IOWA!!!!! — Comments (8) »
Romney Wins. Huckabee Shines. The light on the horizon is T. Thompson and D. Hunter in flames. 144 Comments (0 topical, 144 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Not so great. Steve Forbes spent more money than Bush in '99 and still lost. The big loser tonight was Fred Thompson who now will have to contend with another Southern candidate inching into first tier status. The difference between them is that Huckabee has actually lived in the South for the past 30 years.
Someone had to finish in second place, and Huckabee took it. Romney wasn't going to sweep the poll, and Giuliani/FDT/McCain weren't going to get anywhere, so it was going to be a Huckabee or a Brownback or a Tancredo or a Paul.
That doesn't mean Huckabee is making any progress. Anyone who's paying attention this early to know about this straw poll, is going to know this, too, so Huckabee isn't suddenly going to get big boosts in donations.
that are not quite as much of political nuts as we are that will hear the news that Huckabee came in second. This will maybe make them think huckabee has a chance and more people will look into him and he will rise in the polls. The important thing to realize is, that the straw poll doesn't have to mean anything as far as guaging support - it just has to get the media talking about a candidate and giving free publicity to that candidate.
Don't be so quick to dismiss the results of this straw poll. If you look at the past 4 winners you will find that 2 of them went on to win the nomination and one ended up as VP on the ticket.
Huckabee coming in second will have a significant impact. It's inevitable that he will stay on the race longer and as other candidates drop out he will get more exposure.
For Fred Thompson this is bad news because he is only leading in a handful of Southern states and now that base will be challenged. Huckabee as a baptist minister will have more appeal to evangelical voters and will be very competitive in Arkansas, South Carolina, etc..
Have you EVER posted a single thought on ANY blog that did NOT include a swipe at Fred Thompson?
Methinks you doth protest too much!
Fred scares the bejeebies out of you, doesn't he! Tout your own candidate all you want, but stop trying to stand on the shoulders of your betters!
I did not take a swipe at Fred Thompson. Read my post again.
I was only disagreeing with the assumption that the results are determined by who spends more money. Forbes spent more money than Bush in '99 and lost in Ames, Brownback spent more money than Huckabee and did worse than him yesterday.
And as for Fred Thompson and the rest of the trio who were afraid to face a crowd of Iowan farmers yesterday I can only say that a forfeit counts as a loss. So yes, they were the big losers yesterday and this is not a swipe, just reality.
Um, Fred isn't an official candidate so he couldn't participate right? If he had, well then folks would have been attacking him for that. I think questions about McCain and Rudy are fair though as they have been candidates for 6+ months now. If you want to question/attack Fred after he's officially announced, go for it.
Fred Thompson has been a candidate since around March. He has no job and has been engaged in this full time.
The story behind the no announcement flap becomes very clear once you understand that Fred Thompson is an elitist. He has been a Washington insider for decades and has worked for many international corporations, mostly British ones like Equitas, etc..
He will not get into the race because competing against the gnats is beneath him. So he is waiting for them all to drop out so the coronation can proceed. Meanwhile he will not attend any debates, will not lay out specific proposals and if anyone dares to question him this person will most likely be escorted away by armed guards and will then be smeared in the press as some kind of loony heckler who dared to disturb the peace of the new Reagan.
if you think Fred's not getting in. Ha! I know you are praying he doesn't.
btw, just because you write those words doesn't make them true. He's second in the national polls. He's no elitist. He connects with people (probably what scares you the most) and he's no insider. Oh and he hasn't been a candidate since Feb (like I said, just because you write it......), but he will be in September, so get yourself ready!
I'll end with this. I know Fred is the best candidate, but I will get behind any conservative candidate up against Hillary. I am a conservative first and foremost.
but his nanny state rhetoric and proposals just grate on the ear. Its like Bill Clinton at times.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
I really like Huckabee, and would have NO problem at all supporting him if he can get some traction.
BUT, what I am SICK AND TIRED of is all the IDIOTS who can only attack other candidates, rather than provide any substantive reason to support their own! (NOTE: I am not calling you an idiot, but the die has been cast!)
...That Rudy and McCain declined to participate in the straw poll. How you can spin that getting a low turnout in a contest they didn't even enter is somehow a "bad sign" is beyond me.
Because neither did Fred Thompson.
So, the three front runners lose and the one of them in the lead is the guy who isn't even a candidate yet.
Yes, Thompson beat McCain by over a hundred votes. But there were 14,000 votes cast. To look at it from a different light:
F. Thompson - 1.4%
R. Giuliani - 1.3%
J. McCain - 1.0%
That's not statistically significant.
Neither is it significant that Fred Thompson "isn't a candidate yet", by virtue of the fact that he hasn't made an official statement of candidacy. For all intents and purposes, he's a candidate, *especially* among Iowa voters. I don't buy the inherent argument that Fred Thompson would have done even better at Ames if he were announced.
However, any focus on Thompson, Giuliani, and McCain detracts away from attention that should go to Romney, and more important, Mike Huckabee. Huckabee is the most likable in the field, and judging from his stump speech at Ames, from his numerous debate victories, and his results today, he clearly has a gift of connecting with people. Combined with his executive experience and his solidly-conservative-but-not-fringe record, its about damn time that people start paying attention to him.
It's not a matter of just Fred not announcing, he didn't spend a single dime!! ;) Um, the leaders of the pack spent MILLIONS!!! HA, you must be kidding me. Fred is going to be in this very soon my friend, and then this will all be over. Run Fred Run!
While Romney easily spent over $1mil (if you include his television advertising in the run-up to Ames), the others did not. Brownback spent about $600k, Huckabee $150k, and the rest in that range as well. *MILLIONS!!!* is a bit of an exaggeration.
The bottom line is that, while Romney did OK considering that he was up against the 2nd/3rd tiers, 3/4 of the upper tier didn't even show up. We really have no idea what the real dynamic of the race is.
I just read that Brownback only spent $350,000. I'm too tired to remember where I found that, but google it.
And Huckabee getting that number of votes is suspicious to me, being that I was actually AT the poll and he didn't have near the supporters for that amount.
"I'm just beginning...The pen's in my hand...Ending unplanned"
Remeber Romney beat McCain and Giuliani in June when they dropped out to avoid the embarrassment, That's a pretty good indicator.
www.mymanmitt.com
www.race42008.com
Member of Romney for President Faith and Values Steering Committee-an unpaid advisory position, that does not require an endorsement.
Actually, I heard on Fox this morning that he spent $3.5 Million for this. They also threw out some number like $800+ per voter. Sounds like millions to me.
But to the contrary, Fred Thompson actually did spend $10,000 to set up a table at the poll. That's probably more than Huckabee spent total.
Spiker wrote, "Fred Thompson actually did spend $10,000 to set up a table at the poll."
I don't know where you got your information, Spiker, but it is wrong. Fred didn't spend a dime on Iowa. Four guys, strictly grassroots volunteers, spent their own money to get to Iowa from Texas and Tennessee. They raised $1,000 from other grassroots volunteers at two pro-Fred websites to buy a table at Ames.
They gave away 15,000 Fred Thompson bumper stickers and heard most of the people who asked for the stickers say that they would have voted for Fred in the Ames straw poll if only former Sen. Thompson had been an announced candidate. That will no long be a problem from Fred shortly after Labor Day.
So Fred was neither a winner nor a loser in Iowa, and neither were Rudy and McCain. All three, the real leaders in the GOP race, chose to skip the meaningless straw poll and participate instead in the much more significant Iowa caucuses, which are still five months away.
I appreciate the fact-check, as the source I got the information from clearly didn't have the full story.
I agree that Fred, McCain, and Giuliani neither won nor lost yesterday, but I don't know how credible the claim is that people don't view Thompson as a candidate simply because he hasn't announced. No one on this site feels the same way.
Well, Fred had 0 organization there, spent 0 dollars there and hasn't been to Iowa to my knowledge. He also hasn't declared his candidacy, which means he couldn't participate officially right? Wouldn't folks be calling him out if he had participated while not legally a candidate?
Fred's status at he moment would prevent him from spending money at Ames right? I KNOW that we would have heard from others and the MSM if Fred spent a dime there.
As it was, many many people donated to grassroots leaders like jeffmacguy (runs www.draftfredthompson.com and also blogs here) who drove 11 hours and spent a lot of his own money to pass out bumper stickers with three others. I know you know all about this effort Sturm, but thought I would reiterate.
Actually what is more statistically significant is that Fred got as many votes as he did given that he hasn't been buying votes and twisting arms for six months like Romney has.
This was brilliant strategy by Fred and Rudy. Don't show, don't participate and then when the guy that is going to win anyway still out spends you then you can claim it's no big deal because you weren't there in the first place.
Romney has been banking on Iowa putting him over the top for six months and yes he won. Now he will find out that it wasn't a big deal and he now has to spend a lot more money competing with the candidates for the caucus' in Dec/Jan.
Brandon
www.conservativesuperiority.com
www.fredthompsonnmo.wordpress.com
www.blogsforfredthompson.com
www.redstate.com/blogs/brandonf
Romney gets a HUGE boost for participating in the Straw Poll.
In January, when the caucus comes, do you think people will vote for the guys who said "you can take your tradition, your primary GOP fundraiser of the cycle, and stick it?"
You don't think Romney, Huckabee and whoever else is still around won't remind Iowa voters of that?
A large majority of the money Romney invested in Iowa will pay off in January, not in August.
__________________________________________
First State Politics
I'm just wondering why Rudy or McCain dropped out if Romney is similar to a Forbes with lots o cash in 1999 and ends up in second place. Why the fear? They both saw the risk and stayed away. Do we want a risk-averse President? But at least they're in the race.
Fred lost my interest when he felt that staying off the island is the best way to not be voted off.
It's hard for me to believe the overall drop in interest in Ames is because McCain and Rudy dropped, although that definately would have increased the numbers, but things aren't as rosy for us Republicans as it was in 1999. Not as many independents like to stand with us today as back when Clinton was lying to all of us about a blue dress.
You sure have the oldies on TV down pat--do you ever read and know what's going on today? I do believe you are missing out on real life... try it you might like it! Politics may not be your forte however.............
First, I'm not trying to dimish Romney's victory BUT he didn't beat the big names, so he hasn't proven anything yet.
Secondly, I'm not suprised Paul and Tancredo did that well. In a pay-to-play primary of core activits, it can't bt suprising that these two did as well as they did since its these votes they are after.
-------------------------------------
"As nations can not be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this."
- George Mason
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Yea Hunter has such wide support, maybe in Puget Sound @ the Lazy B plants, but that's about it.
Duncan Hunter -- 174
Hunter actually showed up in Iowa, actually gave a speech and still managed to come in 9th behind Fred Thomson, not even in the race, and Rudy G. who did not even bother showing up. But Hey Hunter beat McCain and John Cox.
OH BOY Feel that ground swell to Hunter...that ought to bring in the campaign contributions.
_______________________________
None of the Above !
Huck seems like a likable guy who knows how to connect with people. For the longest time I felt people thought didn't really like him--even as a VP. Although Romney was pretty much "expected" to win in Iowa, I think Huckabee surprised quite a few people, given that he didn't have to invest as much money (or buses) for the Straw Poll. I wonder if people will get the message and start "winnowing" already.
P.S.>> Had anybody used the word "winnow" before this week? Is "narrow" not good enough?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=jRnAUFMSUZc
He sounds like a Republican Edwards. Completely adopts the populist blue-collar rhetoric, and pulls it off.
He comes across as genuine, likable, and with good values.
Why isn't he the front runner? Does he torture kittens or something?
Although I'm a FDT supporter, I like "Huck" and thought his speach we very well delivered. I think he deserved his votes. Also, I hear he didn't use busses to get his voters there. Romney was the only one to bus folks in.
Anyone know how much per vote it cost Mitt to buy this straw poll?
I don't think Huckabee was that flush with cash, so could not have spent that much, "Sam I Am" has lived in Iowa for months now and it looked like he spent big bucks.
Still...Romney got that 'Mo thing going now...
Yea right.
_______________________________
None of the Above !
And I hate the moniker "Sam I Am." It makes him sound like a cartoon character and he's a genuinely nice guy. I really wish that before everyone talks about how much he spent they'd actually attempt to determine the amount through some kind of verified source.
"I'm just beginning...The pen's in my hand...Ending unplanned"
Laura Ingram was the first one to use that moniker yesterday, live from Iowa. I rather like Laura, listen to her, and think that "Sam I Am" is a great nick name for the part time Senator from Iowa.
What is next for the Brownback campaign now that he has had a so so showing in Iowa?
_______________________________
None of the Above !
Why do I get the feeling that when you watch this primary, Steve, you hear the fight music from Star Trek?
I wish you'd ease up a bit and not be so harsh all the time about so many of our candidates.
I posted earlier that I heard on FNC this morning that Romney spent $800+ per vote for a total of $3.5 Million. I think I read here somewhere that Huckabee spent somewhere around $350k.
I think Paul actually lost a little credibility here, but I feel bad about his wife's health scare earlier in the day. My prayers are with her.
Brownback would have been better off getting third place behind Tancredo or Paul, considering that Huckabee and Brownback are really going for the same group of voters. He'll stay in though.
This is great for Huckabee. Even the MSM picked up on the race for 2nd being important, and the fact that he did it without buses or very much money at all speaks volumes. I like to note that he's the only second-tier Republican to show up on the general polling for Iowa (current poll avg.: 3.5%). Hopefully, this will propel him closer to the top tier--at least where Richardson is for the Dems.
Let's hold off on sending him to the Arkansas Senate race for a moment, okay? Just for one week.
But those of us that live here in Arkansas need SOME republican to run against Sen. Pryor who might actually win... Who else are we going to put up -- Jim Holt? That didn't work the last time.
He's a nice guy. He just didn't have the financial backing. That's starting to sound like the theme song to my life.
"I'm just beginning...The pen's in my hand...Ending unplanned"
I liked Jim. He is a solid man -- but he makes a lot a gaffes that the media around here play on. I was questionable on him when he ran last year for Lt. Guv. until I heard him in a long interview on the radio. That said -- our bench in Arkansas is very weak.
We've moved past this.
"I still can't treat a pay to play straw poll very credibly when Tancredo and Paul do that well."
...
"Sadly, Ames will give Tancredo and Paul credibility they do not deserve, which is why, at the end of the day, I can't give Ames much credibility. At least we can be done with Tommy G-string Thompson."
Amen.
The 2008 primary is going to be a truly national campaign.
Keath Milligan
Austin, Texas
I left Ames this morning to avoid the near doubling of the population with 375 tour buses full of republicans pulling into our small town.
Headed instead to Des Moines - the state fair, where the REAL poll was happening. The Iowa Seed Corn Poll. It goes like this: Anyone who cares can take a single kernel of corn and drop it through the hole in the top of the mason jar representing the candidate.
Its a good poll - only those who care bother to step up and vote. Each jar is clearly labeled and with a photo of the candidate. And a huge cross section of the population is represented.
The final result won't be known till the fair is over next week. But if what I saw so far (after just 2 days of "voting") is representative, the only real contest is who will win the democratic nomination.
All 3 front runner Republicans combined didn't equal the number of votes for Hillary alone. For the Republicans Mitt was leading with 1017 votes, Giuliani was 2nd with a mere 383 and F. Thompson was close behind with 363.
On the Democratic side however, Hillary had 1319, Edwards 1003 and Obama had 896. Democratic total was 3218 compared to the Republican total of 1763.
While Democrats are starting to bunch up behind the top 3 (and Richardson was also showing well)the Republicans seem to be pretty spread out. Huckabee was just edging out Brownback, both were right behind Giuliani, McCain and Paul seemed to be tied and neither dong well. Tancredo was pretty well represented too.
All in all, the corn seed poll may be a better representation of how things really look in Iowa right now.
joe
It really doesn't matter who wins corn polls or straw polls on the democratic side. Hillary will be the nominee and that is great news for republicans because she is hated by more Americans than any other democrat in America.
Brandon
www.conservativesuperiority.com
www.fredthompsonnmo.wordpress.com
www.blogsforfredthompson.com
www.redstate.com/blogs/brandonf
Could it be that many of the Republicans (that care) in Iowa were in Ames at the Straw poll and therefore the Dems had larger numbers? Also, as I understand it, Des Moines is a more Democratic area of Iowa. The Straw Poll is a test of organization, nothing more or less. The Corn Seed Poll seems about as useful as an internet poll (which Ron Paul and Alan Keys have been know to win).
James
James - I thought about that, but the attendees at the fair come from all over the state, and the numbers are huge, off-setting any impact from those attending the straw poll. Most at the straw poll only came for a small part of the day, so could have easily attended the far as well, maybe even more likely to do so since they were in the neighborhood anyway.
I also read it has proven very reliable in the past - don't know this for sure though. I do know that many older males were hurrying past to get to the erotic corn dog eating contest - that may have skewed the results a bit :-)
joe
Romney 1017 Rudy 383 Thompson 363 = 1763
Hillary = 1319
Any poll that's got Edwards that high is wrong or rigged.
Did they let you dump all those little buggers out to count em?
Yea Cowboy - I noted that already :-)
The corn seeds are counted by an electronic corn seed counter (yea, we have those here). But it was easy to just look at the mason jars (you know mason jars?) and tell relatively who was where.
Your wrong about Edwards. He's been hanging around Iowa for a long time and polls well here. I think a lot of older farm wives secretly think he's cute, but wouldn't dare tell their husbands.
This race is about Romney, Giuliani and Thompson. Forget the rest. Romney deserves credit for the win. He did exactly what it takes to win this event. Give him credit for whatever the Straw Poll is worth. He did beat everyone including the 1st tier candidates, because he forced them to quit.
I think Giuliani may have made a smart decision to drop out when he did. The damage is not that bad (mostly in Iowa) and he saved a considerable amount of cash. I'm not sure if it would have benefited him all that much more if he participated and came in 2nd.
Giuliani's Iowa strategy seems to be Thompson's national strategy. Don't participate so that you can save money. Let the media do it for you free of cost, which is a reasonable strategy, but should not be taken too far. He probably would have been smart to announce in July, because the media buzz is fading and there is too much pressure to live up to the hype when he does announce.
Huckabee is a fine person and certainly can communicate. However, I'm not sure he as enough of a commanding presence to go that much further. I think he would be in grave danger of losing to H. Clinton. I hope January or February is not too late to run for the Senate. I also hope he doesn't decide not to run for senate in hopes he will be selected for VP. I think the VP should be someone who would also be a great Presidential candidate.
James
They didn't play not because they wouldn't win, but because they knew how far the would be from Romney. By not showing up they have an excuse. If they had showed and lost big they would have no excuse. And they would have lost big.
And just to correct something alluded to upstream - candidates can pay for buses and tickets to the straw poll, but they can't control who rides the bus. They are just free rides open to anyone who wants to come to come to the poll. They have some control by bringing buses from areas of the state they think they are strong in, but anyone can ride them.
"All 3 front runner Republicans combined didn't equal the number of votes for Hillary alone."
OK, so my math was off :-)
Hilary had 1300 or there 'bouts, the top 3 republicans had about 1700.
joe
Figure me this (and this is the first comment . . . I think I can safely say . . . from someone who was actually in Ames today):
What person would “jump at the great deal” of giving up an entire Saturday during peak vacation season, getting up before 7AM, waiting on a bus to take a 2-4 hr bus ride EACH WAY on a very hot and sweltering day (the heat index was far over 100 degrees), all for a T-shirt, a $35 entry ticket, and a meal?
You see, short of unknown $100 bills slipped into everyone else’s pockets but mine, there is no way for Romney or any other candidate to “pay for votes” at the Ames Straw Poll. You have to have ACTUAL IOWANS who are ACTUALLY MOTIVATED enough for your candidacy to go through a long and difficult day.
Plus, in 1999 Steve Forbes had all the money in the world AND a great gimmick movement (The Flat Tax) and he could only get 20% of the vote.
And although TV ads have admittedly given Romney some soft support and raised his general population poll numbers, mass advertising does not translate into Ames Straw Poll votes (though both Huckabee and Brownback seemed to imply that they would have done much better today if they had). Plus, Rudy has been hitting the radio airwaves hard in Iowa for several weeks . . . but it sure didn't give him any support at the straw poll, eh?
What gets people to straw polls (one or any combination of the following):
1) Dedication to a candidate (or their message)
2) Religious "duty" (Huckabee and Brownback worked the Evangelical circles hard enough to outweigh any boost from the small fraction of Mormons in Iowa for Romney)
3) Gimmick/Core Issues (and not to say that they are not worthy . . . but many people become irrationally impassioned about them) such as the Flat Tax, the Fair Tax, Gun groups, Pro-life groups, etc . . .
Having more money does help get your people out, but they have to be YOUR people (and it quickly falls victim to the law of diminishing returns).
Jeff Fuller
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/
See my disclaimer of Romney Support at my blogsite line above (essentially I'm an unpaid grassroots supporter/blogger).
Why? Because Mitt was handing out freebies like shirts, fans and some odd foam thing like crazy. He also blew a ton of money on a huge grandstand and some serious bling. It made sense to me that he was next to the portapotties.
Anyway...
What you must not have seen today was that Mitt's people were following the other campaigns and harassing them. Not only that, but many of those that were "supporting Mitt" with their freebies ended up in line for the other candidates offers, too. It was interesting that there were several organizations that were attempting to sway opinions.
I'm not buying that Mitt won this one fair and square.
"I'm just beginning...The pen's in my hand...Ending unplanned"
I'm not buying that Mitt won this one fair and square.
It's a straw poll, Mitt played within the rules set. Unless you have some evidence that he cheated? Astroturf or green grass, Mitt won.
___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
Jeff -
Mitt pad a consultant $200,00 to do nothing but manage this straw poll campaign. That is in addition to his TV buys - including anti Brownback ads that I've been watching day after day.
I can't say his money bought his win, but it helped.
Brownback (or Huckabee, I can't figure out which is which) hurt himself with comments he made 2 weeks ago in Ames that indicated he badly misunderstood farm conservation, set-aside programs and farm markets.
Of course Romney hurt himself by going off on his radio interview when he thought the mics were off. Really showed another side of himself!
And of course, we could build housing for the homeless with the huge number of Ron Paul signs covering every square inch of Hilton :-)
And actually, your the 2nd person from Ames posting here today :-)
joe
Another Ames Attendee here too . . . good.
But, please explain the "anti-Brownback ads" that Romney has been running. I haven't seen them and haven't heard of them.
Nearly anyone who watched the full 20 minute video with Romney (that "oh, we're off the record now . . . but we'll backstab you and put it on our website as soon as you leave the door" interview) got to see one of the best sides of Mitt . . . a fighter with a sharp wit and a sharp tongue. Most people I've seen/read have been impressed that Romney put that joker in his place (even the liberals!).
The Ron Paul people were SCARY, eh?
Jeff Fuller
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/
See my disclaimer of Romney Support at my blogsite line above (essentially I'm an unpaid grassroots supporter/blogger).
Maybe they were anti-Huckaby ads? Are Huckaby and Brownback really two different people? They seem identical to me.
Which ever one s from Hope, Arkansas was the target of these negative ads. - Raise taxes, etc. Politicians are all a blur to me already. I'm fatigued and it aint even fall yet...
joe
. . . the ads from "The Club For Growth" that are starting to expose Huckabee's tax-raising, big-government, nanny-state record. Those are not coming from the Romney campaign. I get frustrated when people post stuff like that without being clear (at all) on the facts. Politics is a nasty enough game . . . don't go make it confusing too!
Jeff Fuller
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/
See my disclaimer of Romney Support at my blogsite line above (essentially I'm an unpaid grassroots supporter/blogger).
Let's give credit to Romney when credit is due. He came to the state with a purpose - win the straw poll. He spent MILLIONS and did.
I do have to agree with some of the other posters that he really was only competing with 2nd and 3rd tier candidates.
Fred is waiting to spend money and resources when they actually count towards the nomination. Some of the other candidates chose to do the same. Personally, I think this is a smarter move.
Most discount the viability of this poll to accurately predict the Republican nomination and with the top candidates not participating I have to agree.
Richard Rios
Director and Chief Coordinator-California For Thompson
State Coordinator-FredHeadsUSA
State Coordinator-DraftFredThompson
www.californiaforthompson.com
California's largest grassroots effort to support Fred Thompson for president.
Fred is actually waiting until he HAS money resources to spend. If waiting were a qualification for President, Fred would have the nomination locked down.
Fact is, if anyone thought they could win Ames, they'd have been there. They all knew they were going to lose, so they bailed.
"Most discount the viability of this poll to accurately predict the Republican nomination and with the top candidates not participating I have to agree."
1999 Straw Poll Winner - Bush. Nominee - Bush.
1995 Straw Poll Winner - Dole(t). Nominee - Dole.
__________________________________________
First State Politics
Even I recognize that Giuliani, Thompson, and McCain are the front runners of that Republican race. Romney has trailed them in the National polls for some time. So why would the top tier candidates throw away the nomination by not participating in the straw poll? Because they recognize better strategic placement of resources.
Now that all is said and done, most of the media have reported that the poll is not reflective of the actual race and have discounted it due to top tier candidates not participating. Collectively the plan was well executed for the top tier. Romney obviously has the personal wealth to put money into this campaign. So why not let him burn millions on a one man straw poll race that in the end will not be given much value?
You mention 1999 and 1995; the dynamics are vastly different in that the top tier candidates participated then.
Fred Thompson waiting has been a brilliant move. He has received more free press than any other candidate, let the others attack themselves, and has been able to focus on building support without having to deal with the rest of the group. Besides, when has it been necessary to declare YEARS before a Presidential election? If you study history and when candidates have announces in the past you will find nothing odd about Fred Thompson's timing.
Richard Rios
Director and Chief Coordinator-California For Thompson
State Coordinator-FredHeadsUSA
State Coordinator-DraftFredThompson
www.californiaforthompson.com
California's largest grassroots effort to support Fred Thompson for president.
"Even I recognize that Giuliani, Thompson, and McCain are the front runners of that Republican race."
I had to stop there. If you have John McCain as a front-runner, well...
__________________________________________
First State Politics
To deny that McCain is not one of the top three nationally is just ridiculous. Many polls have shown us this. I'm a FredHead and even I recognize that. Romney is nowhere nationally, just as he will be come the *real* elections.
I will say this though, Romney did setup an organization in Iowa that should be taken seriously with the *real* election comes around.
FirstState
You state "Fact is, if anyone thought they could win Ames, they'd have been there. They all knew they were going to lose, so they bailed."
Hmmm could it be that many of the other campaigns were viewing Iowa as a needless battle, which would cost a lot of money to fight, with the Romney Astroturf machine?
Romney has scads of money, and he's willing to use it to buy every straw poll out there. Good for him, and it seems to be his strategy to use his war chest to built an aura of inevitability, in short a band wagon is one that he's going to stick with. Yet at the same time Romney is not catching on outside of places where his war chest and his Astroturf machine is not in place. Ever wonder why?
I personally think Mitt Romney is a fine politician, a fine family man and way smart, and I'll gladly cast a vote for him over Hillary in November 08, but get excited about him, nope. He's too slick, too processed, too packaged. Plain and simple, Mitt does not excite people, he does not connect, he does not excite. Newt with all his warts excites, Fred with his kabuki dance of getting in the race excites, Sam I Am and Huckabee sort of excite social conservatives, but Mitt he just does not excite people, outside of RomneyBots that is.
Can you tell me why?
_______________________________
None of the Above !
most of our Presidents don't excite.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Rudy has as much money as Romney right now. He could have played, and so could McCain. They chose not to, because the risk was too high of a loss.
He excites me, because he's done nothing but succeed as an executive his entire adult life, and he is the most competent candidate running.
This idea that Romney bought the straw poll is disingenuous and was handled well by Brad Smith.
are running for President, not Ames HS Prom Queen.
This thing was a complete exercise in stupidity. I was going to say futility, but it doesn't rise to that high level. Romney absolutely bought the silly thing and there's nothing wrong with that. Hey, it's mostly his money anyway and he's entitled to spend it any way he wants. I think it was a stupid way to blow his money, but hey, I once bought a Peugot so who am I to cast stones.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Mostly his money?
Hardly. He's raised $35 million and put in $9 million.
Don't let the truth get in the way, though.
You think RG and JM were "above" Ames? Please.
__________________________________________
First State Politics
He has put in $9MM of his own money. First of all, I don't give a rip if he was 100% self financed, makes no difference to me at all. He put in $9, he spent $3.5 (roughly) in Ames. It's an arguable point, but I'm not going to argue it with you.
The point is, Ames is meaningless. See John Podhoretz comments in NRO yesterday. 14,000 people got bussed to Ames and paid to "vote" for somebody. This thing was nothing more than a Republican fund raiser (which, in fact, it is) and the equivalent of electing the Ames prom queen.
I don't think Rudy and Fred were "above" Ames, I think Ames is such a petty exercise in silliness it's below EVERYBODY. It generally says nothing about any of the candidates, nothing about any of the issues, nothing about the candidate's ability to get actual, real votes, and is an utter waste of time, energy and money.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Romney drew less votes than the combination of Huckabee and Brownback. The straw poll may not mean much, but I think it clearly shows that Romney is in trouble when it comes to drawing a sizable enough chunk of the social conservative vote to offset Rudy's huge advantage with the Rockefeller Republican crowd. Unless Huck and Brownback both drop out, he's going to have difficulty competing.
This may have similar implications for Fred Thompson. It may be very difficult for him to unite social conservatives behind his banner when someone as articulate as Huckabee is in the mix and when someone with as solid a conservative track record as Brownback has is running.
You hit the nail on the head.
The Republican candidates pull the party apart. They have the social conservatives, the brash, liberal New Yorker, the slick New Englander (former Democrat), the Hollywood actor, the anti-immigration guy.
Republicans don't know who to turn to and have very weak enthusiasm for their candidates. Their only hope is for a ground swell of anti-Hillary, or anti-Obama sentiment. But the strong anti-democrat republicans are in the minority. Most republicans are not anything like the "base" And will stay home or even vote democratic rather than vote for someone who they fundamentally dislike or disagree with.
The fundamentalists won't vote for Romney or Giuliani. And I see very little interest in F. Thompson - he just doesn't get people interested, except for those who don't like exsting candidates.
Maybe after the primaries the winner will hone his message a bit better.
First of all, I think Fred Thompson is VERY motivating. History certainly seems to bear that out in Tennessee. It's too early to tell, of course, how effective he will be at the National Level.
Second, I don't think the differences between most of the Republican candidates are all that significant. In many cases it's more a matter of emphasis than of overt disagreement. For instance, all of the candidates but Rudy claim to be pro-life. There is pretty much universal opposition to illegal immigration and the Amnesty Bill (outside of McCain, of course). Only Ron Paul opposes the war in Iraq. And so forth. In other words, the candidates line up with the Republican mainstream most of the time on most of the issues.
The notable exceptions are Rudy and Paul. But for all their posturing to stand out, the rest of the pack seem pretty similar to me. They differ more in terms of ability and track-record than in platform.
I also think that most rank-and-file Republicans will support the nominee unless Rudy wins the nomination (which is likely, but not a foregone conclusion). If Romney wins, that may require some nose-holding from certain elements of the party, but I think they will jump on bus.
It will be interesting to see what happens to the social conservative vote when Thompson makes up his mind what he wants to do. That bloc of voters is far more important than most of the pundits acknowledge, but is currently split three or four ways (between Huckabee and Brownback, with some support going to Romney or holding out for Fred Thompson), but as candidates begin to drop out of the race (who knows? Fred might decide he doesn't LIKE the water!) and things coalesce, Rudy could suddenly find himself in second or third place. That could make a huge difference in party motivation.
One is always a little suspicious of someone who walks into the house and immediately drops a turd on the carpet. No credibility established, you see. But lets take your statements as though you are sincere...
the social conservatives, the brash, liberal New Yorker, the slick New Englander (former Democrat), the Hollywood actor, the anti-immigration guy
Yes, Rudy is a "brash" New Yorker, who established himself in the bastion of liberalism, New York City -- reduced crime -- cut taxes -- and helped the city through the worst terrorist attack in history on American soil. I can certainly see why Republicans would stay home and not vote if he finds himself the candidate up against a TRUE conservative like Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama. PLEEEASE, get a grip. Any one of the top five candidates on the Republican side are more qualified for office than ANY Dem (except one! Richardson is the only one with actual credentials to hold the job, and he cannot hope for anything better than VP)
Fred is JUST an actor. Seems to me we had another "just an actor" who did pretty well as President. Seems to me that the left painted him as an idiot, just ready prepared lines, who's handlers did all the thinking for him. It also seems to me that history has proven those leftists wrong! But then, that's just me.
And that "anti-immigration guy." Would you POSSIBLY mean anti-ILLEGAL immigration guy? No, that couldn't possibly be what you mean, because anti-ILLEGAL immigration wouldn't be an intended smear. And, after all, shouldn't ALL the candidates, both Dem and Rep be against ILLEGAL immigration? But then again, maybe, that's just me!
HEY, when you were trashing the other candidates, how come you didn't mention the funny little Texan who wants to bring all US troops home and become Isolationist again. OR, is this the guy that you like?
Quite the contrary, Republicans have very STRONG enthusiasm for their candidates, and that is part of the problem. SO many good candidates to chose from that each one has to take the others down a notch in order to make headway himself. But then, you know that...
As for the "ground swell" of anti-Hillary or anti-Obama -- you're kidding right? Over 50% of Americans (not Republicans -- but all Americans) say they would NEVER vote for Hillary. If you are sitting back waiting for a ground swell, maybe you need to look down the mountain you are sitting on!
The fundamentalists won't vote for Romney or Giuliani. And I see very little interest in F. Thompson - he just doesn't get people interested, except for those who don't like exsting candidates.
Ahh, yes, the old Romney is a Mormon and Rudy is a liberal theme. Yep, nobody would vote for either of those guys. And Fred is, of course, nothing but an empty suit who is too lazy to become President.
IF you are still posting here in, say three months, I MIGHT begin to take what you say seriously. But when you are here less than 10 hours and immediately trash all the candidates I have to wonder what motives you have.
that the poster you responded to came across as someone just trying to tear down the candidates. But than you say this, "quite the contrary, Republicans have very STRONG enthusiasm for their candidates," Strong enthusiasm for our candidates? Do you have anything to back this up with? I heard some people say that Fred was able to rise because of dissatisfaction with our choices. The democrats have had way more money raised than us. And I seem to recall polls that show that a good number of republicans are not happy with the current candidates. I have not seen evidence of strong enthusiasm for our candidates. Good enthusiasm for Fred, but not very strong evidence for our candidates.
Tancredo is anti-illegal immigration, and anti-unending mass legal immigration. Guess what...those positions are firmly in the mainstream of American views. Most Americans want tougher actions taken to stop illegal immigration, and most (or a plurality) usually support a reduction in legal immigration.
Aurelian
No Tancredo's views represent the extremist position on the issue of illegal immigration. While you are correct in your statement that most Americans want something done about the issue of illegal immigration, they realize that Tancredo offers no solutions to the problem short of "round them up, send them home", which people are smart enough to reject his message of anger.
Any fool can rail against the rain, it takes a wise man to understand that you need to build a roof over your head to keep the rain out. Tancredo is all about yelling at the rain not about solving the problems facing this country. Tancredo's anger appeals to some people for sure, but fear is a poor place and a poor way to build a future on.
_______________________________
None of the Above !
"Tancredo's views represent the extremist position on the issue of illegal immigration."
No, they don't. Tancredo's views on illegal immigration represent the majority of Americans and this party's grassroots and that should be clear after this straw poll. How else do you explain that Tancredo with very little money and known for no other issue but immigration did so well?
Tancredo is perfectly mainstream on ILLEGAL immigration. What he's way out there on is LEGAL immigration.
When asked about legal immigration, a majority or plurality of Americans usually express support for reducing legal immigration. Tancredo supports reducing legal immigration.
Tancredo supports reducing legal immigration to between 200-300,000 per year. That is no doubt a very mainstream position. Just because Giuliani and McCain react with leftist-style indignation at the suggestion (poorly articulated by Tancredo I will admit) that legal immigration be reduced does not make the suggestion out of the mainstream.
It is those who support increasing legal immigration who are out of the mainstream. That position rarely cracks 20% with Americans, yet massively increasing legal immigration is what Bush, Kennedy, McCain, Pelosi, Reid, Hagel, Martinez, Hillary, and Obama all want. They of course never come out and say this, but it is what they want. Why the Dems want it is no mystery; it will bring in even more future Democrats. But why so many Republicans want to speed up their journey to demographic doom is beyond me.
If you doubt that increasing legal imm is the out-of-the-mainstream position, then just ask yourself the following;
1. Why do the parts of the 'comprehensive' reform that would increase legal immigration get so little attention from the press, and why do the sponsors never see fit to brag about it?
2. If we had a direct national vote, and Americans could vote for increased legal immigration, reduced legal immigration, or maintaining current levels, which do you think would come in last?
There are good reasons why I don't favor Democracy, and your reliance on public polling to me is suspect.
on nearly all of the major issues facing us now, the "majority" popular opinion is better than the crap we get from inside the beltway.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
I didn't say we should have direct national votes on particular issues. On some issues I would love it -- like immigration -- while on others I would not like it. I merely put it out there as a thought experiment. So again, which path do you think most (or a plurality) of Americans would choose with regards to legal immigration? There is no doubt in my mind that it would come down to 'reduce' vs 'maintain', and if the public were made aware of just how high current levels actually are, and of how much our high population growth is due to immigration, then I think 'reduce' would win in a landslide.
Polls can be manipulated, but the ones I speak of generally put the question in very simple terms, and don't provide any of the info I spoke of that would undoubtedly increase support for reducing legal immigration. If its not the polling data, but rather my reliance upon them that you question then fine, but how else are we to determine what is and is not mainstream?
What makes you think that Tancredo's support for reducing legal imm to 200-300,000 per year is so out of the mainstream? It would certainly be demagogued by the media, Democrats, and professional ethnic grievance groups, but those entities hardly speak for the mainstream.
When I judge the issue's mainstream position, I go with my gut. I don't trust public polling, period.
And my gut tells me that when Tom Tancredo allies with the Buchanan siblings and links prominently to Evilcon Steve Sailer on his Team America (First) PAC website, he's teetering too far toward that crowd to be in the mainstream.
So you go by your gut, and you don't like some of Tancredo's allies.
Let's go with the gut first. Does your gut really tell you that a desire to have less immigration is out of the mainstream? Do you really sense a longing out there for unending high levels of immigration?
As far as the Buchanan's and Sailer's are concerned; well, even if a person is out of the mainstream (allegedly or actually), that doesn't mean that certain positions they hold aren't in the mainstream. Buchanan, like Tancredo, holds very mainstream views on immigration. This includes support for reducing legal immigration. Even if you despise these two men, as a conservative you should at least recognize that they are prime examples of how anyone endorsing conservative imm reform will be demonized by the Left and the media. And one reason the media loves to demonize them is because they know their actual positions on immigration are mainstream, so instead of attacking the position head-on, they go after the messenger and try to taint the position by association. Afterall, who wants to admit to sharing evil Pat Buchanan's views on anything, even if they really do?
So I will ask you very simply; do you think that a desire to reduce legal immigration is out of the American mainstream?
Vryheild
Tancredo is selling fear plain and simple. Fear of the Brown hordes trying to overrun our country, fear of changes to our culture these Brown people bring and that fear sells well to some people.
I very much disagreed with the President, Lindsey Graham and McCain on the Shamnesty bill, but one things that came out of that battle was clear, the problem of illegal immigration is not going to be easy to fix and those that are just pandering to people's worst fears are as bad as the open borders types.
Show me one bill, one piece of legislation that the Congressman from Colorado has introduced and has any backing and any chance of being passed into a law that deals with the issue, there isn't one. But when you are a merchant of Fear, then you don't need to have a plan to fix problems, all you have to do is pander to people's fear and Tancredo does just that. All due respect to the people in Iowa, but fear is a lousy way to deal with a problem and they should know better.
_______________________________
None of the Above !
"Tancredo is selling fear plain and simple. Fear of the Brown hordes trying to overrun our country"
Sounds like a column from The Nation. When has Tancredo ever said anything close to that? Tancredo is in no way practicing unfounded fear mongering. He is bringing to light a huge problem that has been completely ignored by the political establishment for nearly two decades. What Tancredo has done by running for president and participating in the debates is forced the party establishment to finally take note of what the grassroots of the party has saying for years. Look at what happened in Newark this past week? Three kids murdered by an illegal immigrant with a previous criminal record. If we had any sort of sane immigration policy he would have been punished, deported, and never allowed in America again.
Vryheid
Fine, then we can expect Tancredo to introduce legislation to actually do something about criminal illegal aliens? When can we expect that? Or will he use this as another tool of spreading fear, just like you are doing.
Real problems require real laws, that can pass the House, Senate and be signed by the President. Selling Fear requires none of that sort of silly compromise and actually working on legislation does it? It also takes leadership, which is very difficult when you're busy fanning the flames and using an issue as your platform.
Tancredo can introduce a bill when congress reconvenes that puts an ICE agent in just about every jail, every prison and start looking for and deporting criminal illegal aliens. Nobody, even Heraldo can argue against that.
_______________________________
None of the Above !
I look forward to a response to your question of when has Tancredo ever said anything that would support the claim made by SteveLA.
Tom Tancredo is right about illegal immigration. I agree with every vote he has taken on the subject of illegal immigrations.
I do not agree with Fred Thompson's statement in 2006 that "[y]ou're going to have to, in some way, work out a deal where they can have some aspirations of citizenship". I don't believe this country should give illegal alien lawbreakers aspirations of citizenship.
This country doesn't have to pass a single new law for millions of illegal alien to return to their home country and apply to enter this country legally.
"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo
Tom Tancredo voted for H.R. 4437 in December 2005. Though the bill wasn't perfect, it did contain some good enforcement provisions and did not include any amnesty provisions. Rep. Tancedo was a strong supporter of H.R.4437 and spoke out if favor of it on the House floor. J.D. Hayworth, a staunch opponent of illegal immigration actually voted against it because he believed it wasn't tough enough.
H.R.4437 was a good bill that had the overwhelming support of House Republicans. Unfortunately, a minority of Senate Republicans combined with the overwhelming majority of Senate Demcorats to pass an amnesty bill, instead of an enforcement only bill. That is not the fault of Tom Tancredo, Jim Sensenbrenner, Peter King or any other House Republican that supported H.R.4437. The fact that there wasn't an enforcement only bill is the fault of those Senate Republicans that supported an amnesty bill.
"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo
raider
You should really point to one of the more cumulative sites which track a large number of votes.
http://grades.betterimmigration.com/testgradescategory.php3?District=CO&...
_______________________________
None of the Above !
Vryheid, you are correct. Tancredo's views on illegal immgigation are in the mainstream. They rerlect the beliefs of a sizeable majoity of Republicans across the country.
"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo
Since Tancredo's views "represent the extremist position on the issue of illegal immigration", I'm sure it would be very easy for you to name two (2) votes that Rep. Tancredo has cast on the issue of illegal immigration with which you disagree.
What are two (2) votest that Rep. Tancredo has cast as a member of Congress on the issue of illegal immigration with which you disagree?
"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo
raider,
Good trick, but the question to ask a leader is where are they leading us, where is the Legislation that they have introduced? Not what they have voted for or against. Any fool can vote against something, it takes a leader to be for something, even if it's the wrong thing in the case of President Bush.
As the leading Immigration Fear monger, Tancredo has what legislative programs and proposals that he's ready to implement if we elect him President? I think they call that being a leader. I also think that's a fair question to ask of anyone asking to be the leader of our country, don't you.
But if you're going to be a merchant of fear, all you have to do is dress in sack cloth, point at the hordes of brown folk invading our country and scream. It's much easier that way.
_______________________________
None of the Above !
kyle
I understand why you want something done about illegal immigration, but Tancredo is channeling Tail Gunner Joe on this issue. He's not working to solve anything, he's just gumming up the works while things are only getting worse. If that's OK by you, then I'm sorry you're that frightened.
I've got no time for those that don't have and offer up realistic solutions to the problem of illegal immigration, and waiting until that grand day when the rest of us come to see the problem in the same black and white terms they do is dumb.
_______________________________
None of the Above !
tancredo, and several others all have plans for doing "something" to control borders, you might not like those plans but hey guess what, Nearly everyone now at least realizes there is a problem. Well, just a few years ago, tancredo was the ONLY one who was raising this issue. So before you go and call him a demagogue, maybe you can tell me who has MORE creditability on this issue, Bush? Gonzales? McCain?
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Kyle8, you are right about Tancredo. He has offered concrete solutions ot the problem of illegal immigration.
Thus far, SteveLA has failed to name a single legislative proposal regarding illegal immigration that he supports.
"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo
SteveLA, what candidate has "offer[ed] up realistic solutions to the problem of illegal immigration"? Please tell me what legislation introduced by that candidate on the issue of illegal immigration that you support.
Please name me a single piece of legislation, past or present, in the U.S. House of Representatives that you believe offers "realistic solutions to the problem of illegal immigration".
Tom Tancredo vocally and strongly supported H.R. 4437. That legislation was overwhlemingly supported by House Republicans and supported by the entire House Republican leadership. Was Tom Tancredo "gumming up the works" when he supported H.R. 4437?
"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo
On July 19, 2005, Rep. Tancredo introduced H.R. 3333. Here is a link to that legislation:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.3333: . The legislation comprehensively addressed the issues of legal immigration and illegal immigration. The bill was sponsored in the United States Senate by Senator James Inhofe.
Please tell me all about the comprehensive legislation that Fred Thompson introduced to address the issue of illegal immigration while he was a member of the United States Senate.
Apparently, you can't name a single vote cast by Rep. Tancredo with which you disagree. Do you agree with every vote taken on the subject of illegal immigration by "a meerchant of fear".
"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo
Raider
From the horses mouth, aka tancredo.org
"Immigration
There is no doubt that America is facing an illegal immigration crisis. Currently, there are at least 12 million
illegal aliens living in America. I am absolutely opposed to amnesty. In addition to rewarding those who
broke our laws, amnesties simply do not solve the problem of illegal immigration. The only realistic solution
to the problem of illegal immigration is a strategy of attrition, which seeks to reduce the flow of the illegal
alien population over time by cutting off the incentives for coming to and staying in America - most
importantly by eliminating the jobs magnet. America must also reexamine its legal immigration policies.
Since 1990, that number has been roughly one million yearly - and that doesn't count illegal aliens. America
should reduce legal immigration to 250,000 people a year, which will allow the newcomers to assimilate."
That's not a legislative program proposal, that a load of Fear mongering and that's all that Tancredo is selling.
No Sale!
_______________________________
None of the Above !
In 2005, Rep. Tancredo introduced comprehensive legislation, H.R. 3333, to address legal immigration and illegal immigration that I have now mentioned in a post after you posted the comments to which I am responding in this post.
Please tell me a legislative proposal regarding illegal immigration you support that was introduced by a Republican candidate for president.
"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo
A bill with 5 cosponsers that went no where. Such grand leadership on the issue of immigration. Put up a way out there bill that stands no chance of passing, yea that's the ticket, that's the hallmark of someone trying to actually fix the problem....NOT!
The quote I posted earlier is all that the Merchant of Fear Tancredo has to say about the issue of illegal immigration, and frankly it's nothing more than the same Fear Mongering he's been selling for a while. Ron Paul can be nutty on the war, I guess Tancredo and his followers can live in their own fear factory while the rest of us try to figure out how to solve problems, not exploit them.
_______________________________
None of the Above !
Well, I've defended Ron Paul and Mitt Romney today, so now it's time for the trifecta.
I don't think it's fair for you to criticize Rep. Tancredo for allegedly not putting up a plan with specifics, then turn around and criticize him again because he did put up a bill with a specific plan, because the bill didn't have the support of the leadership and get gobs of cosponsors.
He has specific gripes, he has specific solutions. You may not like what he has to say, and what he proposes, but that doesn't mean you can wave it all away and accuse him of working purely on emotion.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
You asked what legislation Rep. Tancredo has introduced to address the problem of illegal immigration. I gave you an answer. My answer pointed to a bill that comprehensively addresses the problem of illegal immigration.
Rep. Tancredo also strongly supported Rep. Sensenbrenner's enforcement only bill that did pass the U.S. House, but died in the Senate because too many Senate Republicans supported amnesty. That was not Tom Tancedo's fault or the fault of the House Republican leadership.
A simple question for you. Did you support passage of H.R.4437?
Tancredo did try to fix the problem of illegal immigration by supporting H.R.4437. Hugh Hewitt and others said Tom Tancredo would never support any bill on illegal immigration because it would end his cause. Hugh Hewitt and those others were wrong.
You criticize Tancredo for not achieving passage of a bill that addresses the problem of illegal immigration. Can you name a member of Congress that has passed a bill in the last ten years that comprehensively addressed the problem of illegal immigration?
You say "the rest of us [are] try[ing] to figure out how to solve problems, not exploit them." Since you are trying to solve the problem of illegal immigration, please name a single piece of legislation currently before Congress that you support. Can you name a single piece of legislation addressing illegal immigration before Congress that you support?
Please name a single piece of legislation, past or present, that has been put forth by any presidential candidate that you believe would effectively address the problem of illegal immigration?
Thus far, you've done nothing but criticize Rep. Tancredo in this thread without disclosing a single piece of legislation addressing the problem of illegal immigration that you support.
"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo
A) There's not a single thing in here to elicit fear. He does nothing but state fact - the same numbers that were voiced repeatedly during the recent amnesty-fest.
B) Tancredo proposes "attrition" to "reduce the flow ...by cutting off incentives for coming and staying..." This is precisely the approach that the Georgia and Arizona state legislatures have pursued in putting strong punishments in place against businesses who hire illegals. And it has already had an impact. Businesses have already begun more thorough checks and illegals are fleeing for states with less strict regulations. Do a little Google searching for specific stories. I wrote a diary entry on this a month or two ago.
So his proposal on attrition is the basis for legislation already, and it is successful. Try again, and maybe you won't look foolish the next time.
And by the way, I support Fred Thompson, not Tancredo.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
The line you use about 'hordes of brown people' and fear-mongering is leftist nonsense, pure and simple.
Otherwise, you misrepresent Tancredo on illegal immigration. He supports the attrition method. Don't say it can't work until it has been tried. Deportation is of course a key component of the attrition strategy, but it is hardly 'round them up and send them home.' When it has been honestly explained in polls, attrition does quite well with the public.
And Bob Dole got fewer votes than Pat Buchanan and Alan Keyes combined in 1995.
And GWB got fewer votes than Forbes and E. Dole combined in 1999.
Your point, again?
__________________________________________
First State Politics
The poll is meaningless!
http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/08/gop-holds-straw-poll-in-iowa-shou...
With malice towards none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see right.
I suppose that some of the Tancredo haters in the media and elsewhere said often enough that Tancredo would get one percent (1%) in the GOP caucuses and primaries that they actually began to believe it. Even after the straw poll, some of those same Tancredo haters still believe it.
Tom Tancredo worked hard in Iowa and will continue to work hard in Iowa. He has peformed well in several of the presidential debates, including the last one, though the Tancredo haters would never give him any credit for his debate performances.
Many Republican Iowa voters do realize that every candidate or potential candidate in so-called first tier support rewarding millions of illegal aliens with legal status and also realize that many in the so-called second tier also support such a policy. Many of those voters supported Tom Tancredo at the straw poll and many will support him in the Iowa caucuses.
Tom Tancedo has an outstanding conservative record. His lifetime rating (97.8%0 from the American Conservative Union is higher than any other candidate running for president. he has received an "A" from the National Taxpayers Union for each year that he has served in Congress. He has consistently received a score of "100%" from the National Right to Life Committee.
If Tommy Thompson and Duncan Hunter drop out of the race and Fred Thompson enters the race, there will presumably be eight GOP candidates participating in the Iowa caucuses (excluding John Cox). As at the Ames straw poll, Tom Tancredo will do better at the Iowa caucuses than the Tancerdo haters expect him to do.
Many Iowans want a candidate with the outstanding conservative credentials of Tom Tancredo that as president will oppose any attempt to give legal status to illegal aliens. Many Iowans reject the claim from the Tancedo haters that the anti-illegal immigration policies of Rep. Tancredo are racist.
I look forward to Rep. Tancredo performing well in the Iowa caucuses.
"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo
...but we moderate pro-amnesty RiNO squishes loathe Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul! a heckuva lot more these days than we do your guy. I still can't stand Tancredo's immigration policy (and I won't vote for him in the primary), but I'm pretty sure that otherwise he won't lock the controls and send the [expletive deleted]er right into the sun (thank you, Dennis Miller).
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Moe, I don't believe that simply because someone supports amnesty that they are automatically a moderate or a RINO or a squish.
In 2004, you posted the following on your blog:
"By now all y'all have probably seen Bush's immigration proposals. I want to see the concrete plan first, but I'm generally in favor of an amnesty for illegal immigrants, so I'm always ready to at least consider policy changes that might make that more likely."
In the same blog entry, you also posted the following:
"I want an amnesty so that we can come up with a rational immigration system and put in some anti-exploitation laws with teeth to them (I regret that there'll probably have to be an amnesty for that as well, but I can't fix the world all at once); if that jacks up the price of a tomato, so be it. Besides, as I said over here anything immigrant-related that annoys John Derbyshire can't be all that bad".
I'm not and never have been "generally in favor of an amnesty for illegal immigrants". I don't believe that illegal aliens that have deliberately violated the immigration laws of the United States, including Title 8, Section 1325 of the United States Code should be rewarded with amnesty.
I'm not "ready to . . . consider policy changes that might make that [amnesty for illegal aliens] more likely".
That being said, I have not and would not suggest that because someone has supported amnesty, as you have, that it disqualifies that person from being called a conservative.
I agree with most of Tom Tancredo's votes that have led him to achieve the lifetime rating of 97.8 from the American Conservative Union. You've supported amnesty and Rep. Tancredo has never supported amnesty. It could be, though, that with the exception of his votes on the issue of immigration that you would also agree with many of his votes that led to that rating.
"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo
All you RINOs will be eating your words very shorthly!!! Fred will announce in a few weeks, and it will be all over for you!
----------------------------------
I'm a FRedNeck!
it might be all over for Fred.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
he isn't my friend who shares that exact birthday...
___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
Romney bought the vote so this poll is meaningless. The fact remains that he is still a flip-flopper who will jettison his newly embraced conservative "principles" just as soon as the national polls tell him to do so.
Ceterum censeo, Iran delenda est!
In last month's straw poll of the Arkansas Republican Assembly, a caucus which includes some of the most conservative activists in the state, Fred Thompson won with a whipping 86% of the vote. That Huckabee was defeated so soundly in his own home state says that Arkansas conservatives don't have much confidence in him.
Here's why:
"By the end of his ten-year tenure, Governor Huckabee was responsible for a 37% higher sales tax in Arkansas, 16% higher motor fuel taxes, and 103% higher cigarette taxes according to Americans for Tax Reform "(01/07/07), garnering a lifetime grade of D from the free-market Cato Institute..."
"Under Governor Huckabee's watch, state spending increased a whopping 65.3% from 1996 to 2004, three times the rate of inflation (Americans for Tax Reform 01/07/07). The number of state government workers rose 20% during his tenure (Arkansas Leader 04/15/06), and the state's general obligation debt shot up by almost $1 billion, according to Americans for Tax Reform..."
"Governor Huckabee has consistently supported and initiated measures that increase government's interference in markets, thereby impeding economic growth..."
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/01/a_report_on_mike_huckabees_fis.php
So, while Mike Huckabee may be a social conservative, he by no stretch of the imagination an economic one.
I suspect that movement conservatives, as they learn more about Huckabee's economic liberalism, will be less kindly disposed toward his presidential aspirations, just as they are becomming less enthralled with Rudy as they learn more about Giuliani's social liberalism.
did need much of the infrastructure spending.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
I discovered after analyzing the CFG 2007 RePORK card that the House members for NY are more economic conservative than the House members from AR.
"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson
should also be evaluated differently from federal lib-con evidence.
Let me make some preliminary remarks. I recognize that most fed pork to states is unconstitutional as per the constitution as written. We have lived under new deal rulings for 60 years that opened the floodgate and so, I wouldn't want my congressmen to forego my state's share if pork is going to flow. I favor a return to pre- new deal policy as much as possible. But it would have to be gradual and really, given the post agrarian modern world, we would have needed a const amendment if the court didn't open the gate to a bigger role for the fed govt.
Moreover, pork is so small compared to entitlements and is also a facilitator for compromise on some needed legislation.
Also, southern states have needed and some still need pork to catch up given reconstruction and their lag in joining the modern economy.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Georgia and South Carolina both have excellent grades from CFG for how their House members vote against pork. It puzzles me that the other southern states like Alabama, Mississippi, and Arkansas can't follow the example of Georgia and South Carolina.
"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson
I just can bring myself to get exorcised about such a small part of the budget. Probably a sign of bad character. we pray
I also just didn't like the idea of Sanford and Inglis committing a form of suicide for a principle that would disadvatage my state with no chance of making a larger difference overall.
I want to talk about entitlements and health care.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
You do know that 3 out of the 4 Representatives from Arkansas are Dems, and both Senators are Dems right?
from Saul Anuzis.
Iowa Republican Party chairman Ray Hoffmann announced results after a more than hour-long delay. The numbers came amid rumors of a pending interruption from supporters of Texas Congressman Ron Paul, who plan to dispute the results almost no matter the results, despite oversight by State Auditor Dave Vaudt.
Disputing the results regardless of the outcome? This does NOT sound like a Republican tactic, a Conservative tactic, nor a Libertarian tactic.
Let me think about this for a minute. Who is it that disputes the results of every election that they lose? Who is it that tries to undermine the confidence of the American public in the integrity of the voting process?
It is beginning to come to me...let me see...FL 2000, WA 2000, 2002, 2004...WI 2000, MO 2000 -- wait, it is beginning to become clearer...
I guess that Ron Paul DOES cross party lines in his support!
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
at the Corner. It sounds like Paul had nothing to do with the complaints and tried to discourage them.
in going along with this tsunami to marginalize this President by accelerating the 2008 election process. NO election "season" has EVER begun this early, with both Parties starting the 2008 election campaigns BEFORE the 2006 mid-term elections had even taken place. Once the Dems had won back control of Congress, the chum was in the water, and the process just accelerated even more.
Had the Republican Party (and Republican candidates) shown the B*LLS to hold off until next year, or at least until this fall before campaigning, without frontloading the entire primary process into January and February, I firmly believe the American people would be appreciative.
By next summer, VOTER BURNOUT will have set in, with most Americans totally tuned OUT to the political process. Had Republican candidates allowed the Dems to start early, then stayed with the normal political timetable, the American people would be much more receptive to the Republican message.
BUT, once again, by allowing the Dems to set the agenda, the candidates and the party have allowed themselves to be pulled into a "rope-a-dope" no-win election process guaranteed to turn OFF the American electorate.
Were there any candidates willing to WAIT to begin their campaigning, they would have had a HUGE advantage.
WAIT...a couple of names seem to me to come to mind. Aren't there a couple of names, often bandied about by conservatives, who have NOT as of yet declared their candidacy?
I guess we will have to wait to see if that was a wise decision. It is still too bad that the Party allowed itself to be railroaded into the front-end loading of the Primaries, however. A long spring 2008 Primary season of real debate among Republican candidates would have been a real winner with the public...especially with Hillary already crowned the Dem Candidate...with all her warts on display.
It was an opportunity missed IMHO!
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
and like you, I was one of the first he contacted about writing for that site. It has excellent content, and is really well done. But...
At the time I had some trepidation about the acceleration of the process, and expressed them to him. I did however promise to provide (what has become too infrequent) content.
has many reasons for concern, but contrary to this post, I don't think his poor showing in this straw poll is one of them. He did about the same as Thompson and Rudy, and Thompson is running for the most part. This poll doesn't measure much so I really don't think this should be all that much cause for concern for McCain.
but not legally. Thompson hasn't spent a dime there for Ames. Anyone that voted for Thompson did that on their own, just as I'm sure the McCain and Rudy folks would say. Only problem with them is that McCain and Rudy have been candidates for 6+ months now with official campaigning and fundraising. Fred has not. When a non-candidate shows up candidates that have been in the race for many months longer, it's not very good news.
That said, I think for McCain, Thompson and Rudy, this is pretty meaningless as they spent $0 and Romney spent $3.5 Million. Let's wait and see what happens come election time (i.e. the voting that counts). I think Rudy and Thompson are headed to Iowa in the next couple of weeks.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson