PDA

View Full Version : The Real Loser in Iowa:


patteeu
01-04-2008, 01:28 PM
Mainstream conservatism. At least according to Paul Mirengoff at Powerline (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/01/019450.php).

To the extent that a skewed caucus process in one state can produce a loser, last night that loser was mainstream conservatism. That's because the only two major Republican candidates who take mainstream conservative positions across-the-board both fell short of expectations. Mitt Romney finished a distant and disappointing second, while Fred Thompson failed to finish a strong third, which he said he needed to do at a minimum. Thompson is plainly on the ropes and Romney will be if, as I expect, he fails to win in New Hampshire.

By contrast, Mike Huckabee (who deviates from conservative orthodoxy on economic issues and has Carteresque tendencies when it comes to foreign policy) and John McCain (whose deviations need hardly be recounted) are sitting pretty today. And Rudy Giuliani (who isn't a social conservative) emerged from last night unharmed. None of these candidates can even claim to be a hardliner on illegal immigration, supposedly the "table stakes" of playing successfully in the Republican primaries this year. As mayor, Giuliani told illegal immigrants that he wanted them in his city. Huckabee wanted to give them college scholarships and failed to enter into an agreement with the federal government to cooperate on enforcement of the immigration laws. McCain was a main supporter of legislation that would have led to citizenship for millions of illegals.

How is it that mainstream conservatives find themselves on the verge of having no viable like-minded candidate early this year? The easy answer is to focus on the flaws of Romney and Thompson. Romney has only recently embraced conservative positions across-the-board. In addition, his religion probably hurts him and he seems to have difficulty connecting with voters. Thompson entered the race late and has failed to show the fire voters apparently are looking for.

But the deeper answer, I think, lies in the perception that Republicans haven't governed very well during the past seven years. If the Republican Congress had performed better in general and if President Bush had handled the war in Iraq better (or arguably if he hadn't launched it), one can easily imagine that George Allen (or perhaps Bill Frist) would be the frontrunner for the nomination right now. The perceived failures of Congress and of the president knocked both of these Senators out of the box, and Bush's lack of popularity has Republicans flirting with non-traditional Republican options.

There's irony here because I would argue that the flaws of the Republican Congress and of the Bush presidency don't stem from adherence to conservative principles. But life is unfair. I've long suspected that the Republican party (which is synonymous in large segments of "the public mind" with "conservative") isn't perceived as having performed well enough to elect a mainstream conservative president this year. It may turn out that it isn't viewed as having performed well enough even to nominate a mainstream conservative.

patteeu
01-04-2008, 01:30 PM
I don't think it's really accurate to say that Thompson fell short of expectations, but he didn't launch himself into top tier status either. OTOH, I do think that Romney failed to meet expectations. A close loss would have been different, but this wasn't a particularly close loss. I hope Mirengoff is wrong about Romney's prospects in NH.

Mr. Kotter
01-04-2008, 01:36 PM
... I hope Mirengoff is wrong about Romney's prospects in NH.

My take is he is off-base with the overall assessment, but correct about Romney's demise. If Huckabee or Giuliani end up as the nominee, he could be right on the broader critique though....

patteeu
01-04-2008, 01:38 PM
My take is he is off-base with the overall assessment, but correct about Romney's demise. If Huckabee or Giuliani end up as the nominee, he could be right on the broader critique though....

Trying to decipher your statement here wrt the "overall assessment". Does that mean that you consider McCain a mainstream conservative?

Mr. Kotter
01-04-2008, 01:40 PM
Trying to decipher your statement here wrt the "overall assessment". Does that mean that you consider McCain a mainstream conservative?

McCain? Eh, he's at the edge of what I consider to be mainstream conservatism....though I realize ideological purists wouldn't agree.

Cochise
01-04-2008, 01:41 PM
big winner: Huckabee
winner: Thompson
neutral: McCain
losers: Romney, Paul, Giuliani

Silock
01-04-2008, 01:45 PM
How is McCain neutral and Paul the loser? Iowa was the evangelical state, so really, it was a race for 40-50% of the vote between the other candidates. Getting 10% of that isn't bad at all.

Chiefnj2
01-04-2008, 03:10 PM
Big winner = God. After all, he wants Huckabee to win.

Cochise
01-04-2008, 03:56 PM
How is McCain neutral and Paul the loser? Iowa was the evangelical state, so really, it was a race for 40-50% of the vote between the other candidates. Getting 10% of that isn't bad at all.

McCain is neutral because there was widespread talk about his numbers bumping up, but he couldn't separate from Thompson or make it close to the 20s. It was about what he could have expected, didn't help or hurt. New Hampshire is way more important for him anyway.

Paul is the loser because even with the variables in his favor regarding the election format, he still came in last among candidates who competed in Iowa. Between a disappointing result in the Iowa straw poll and today, through all their efforts nothing had changed. There was no massive influx of unpolled voters or party-line crossers or independent voters to push him above last place among competitors in Iowa.

He needed to be third, and then third again in New Hampshire. As it stands he might finish third in New Hampshire but probably not, and he won't register at all in South Carolina, probably not Florida, and without poll numbers or momentum things just start looking bleak in a hurry.

To me it says that his ceiling among Republican voters is probably around 10%. The guy who finishes 5th out of 6 is generally not going to be cast as a winner.

Taco John
01-04-2008, 04:27 PM
There was no massive influx of unpolled voters or party-line crossers or independent voters to push him above last place among competitors in Iowa.


Actually, Ron Paul won the battle for independant voters in Iowa.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/the-independent.html

HonestChieffan
01-04-2008, 04:49 PM
If any demo gets elected America is the loser. We are fighting to survive.

Cochise
01-04-2008, 04:58 PM
Actually, Ron Paul won the battle for independant voters in Iowa.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/the-independent.html

The statement you quote, however, is correct.

HolmeZz
01-04-2008, 04:59 PM
If any demo gets elected America is the loser. We are fighting to survive.

Life will basically cease to exist. Those who don't die after our country gets bombed into oblivion will be enslaved in short order.

patteeu
01-04-2008, 04:59 PM
Actually, Ron Paul won the battle for independant voters in Iowa.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/the-independent.html

Which vaulted him into 5th place in a contest between 5 competitors and a guy whose effort consisted of merely throwing his political jockstrap (and a groupie from the University of Iowa) on the field.

Mr. Kotter
01-04-2008, 05:04 PM
Life will basically cease to exist. Those who don't die after our country gets bombed into oblivion will be enslaved in short order.

Ah-yes, in you is the "dark side" strong....Darth HolmeZz. :fire:

Silock
01-04-2008, 05:08 PM
Which vaulted him into 5th place in a contest between 5 competitors and a guy whose effort consisted of merely throwing his political jockstrap (and a groupie from the University of Iowa) on the field.

That's because Iowa was a caucus for the evangelicals. They turned up in HUGE numbers, and those crazy ****s aren't going vote for anyone except who can stand on the temple steps praying the loudest.

Cochise
01-04-2008, 05:14 PM
Life will basically cease to exist. Those who don't die after our country gets bombed into oblivion will be enslaved in short order.

I for one welcome our new overlords. As a trusted poster on this message board, I could be helpful in rounding up other posters to toil in underground sugar caves.

Adept Havelock
01-04-2008, 05:15 PM
I for one welcome our new overlords. As a trusted poster on this message board, I could be helpful in rounding up other posters to toil in underground sugar caves.


Of course you do, you wacky big-government authoritarian.

patteeu
01-04-2008, 05:21 PM
That's because Iowa was a caucus for the evangelicals. They turned up in HUGE numbers, and those crazy ****s aren't going vote for anyone except who can stand on the temple steps praying the loudest.

We were told that the Ron Paul crazy ****s were going to turn out in large numbers too because of their wild eyed, will-not-be-denied zealotry for freedom.

Silock
01-04-2008, 05:23 PM
We were told that the Ron Paul crazy ****s were going to turn out in large numbers too because of their wild eyed, will-not-be-denied zealotry for freedom.

We were? All I recall hearing was that it was a possibility. It was pretty much a foregone conclusion about the Christian Crusaders.

Cochise
01-04-2008, 05:25 PM
Not that I want to give you Paulites any free advice, but you have to manage expectations beforehand, not afterwards.

HolmeZz
01-04-2008, 05:27 PM
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Cochise again.

Silock
01-04-2008, 05:30 PM
Not that I want to give you Paulites any free advice, but you have to manage expectations beforehand, not afterwards.

No one ever expected Paul to win Iowa. Ever. Double digits is good, but it certainly could have been better. If he doesn't place well in NH (3rd or better), then there's a serious problem with his campaign.

Not sure what else you want, except for us to support another more "viable" candidate.

HolmeZz
01-04-2008, 05:34 PM
No one ever expected Paul to win Iowa. Ever. Double digits is good, but it certainly could have been better. If he doesn't place well in NH (3rd or better), then there's a serious problem with his campaign.

Not sure what else you want, except for us to support another more "viable" candidate.

I'm sure it was more directed at TJ, who went from predicting Paul would finish 3rd to celebrating the fact that Paul managed to get to 10%.

patteeu
01-04-2008, 05:36 PM
We were? All I recall hearing was that it was a possibility. It was pretty much a foregone conclusion about the Christian Crusaders.

I'm confident that I heard, on more than one occasion, that the caucuses were well suited for the committed nature of Ron Paul's base of support. I'm not sure I ever heard a Paul supporter mention how difficult it was going to be to match the enthusiasm of Iowa's Christians.

Taco John
01-04-2008, 05:36 PM
Not that I want to give you Paulites any free advice, but you have to manage expectations beforehand, not afterwards.



Whose expectations are we expected to manage? Yours? You had Paul in single digits coming in behind everybody, including Giuliani, no?

Pretty much, mainstream expectations were that Paul would finish in last place. He didn't. In fact, he competed with McCain and Thompson, and beat the entire Republican field in attracting independant voters to the party.

HolmeZz
01-04-2008, 05:38 PM
Whose expectations are we expected to manage? Yours? You had Paul in single digits coming in behind everybody, including Giuliani, no?

Pretty much, mainstream expectations were that Paul would finish in last place. He didn't. In fact, he competed with McCain and Thompson, and beat the entire Republican field in attracting independant voters to the party.

It was pretty clear to anyone paying attention that Giuliani would finish last. Even you predicted it(about the only thing you did predict correctly).

Silock
01-04-2008, 05:39 PM
I'm confident that I heard, on more than one occasion, that the caucuses were well suited for the committed nature of Ron Paul's base of support. I'm not sure I ever heard a Paul supporter mention how difficult it was going to be to match the enthusiasm of Iowa's Christians.

I guess we just hang out in different circles, then.

Taco John
01-04-2008, 05:39 PM
I'm confident that I heard, on more than one occasion, that the caucuses were well suited for the committed nature of Ron Paul's base of support. I'm not sure I ever heard a Paul supporter mention how difficult it was going to be to match the enthusiasm of Iowa's Christians.


Huh? That's ridiculous. Not a single Paul supporter that I know of thought we'd be able to match the enthusiasm of Iowa's Christians. Huckabee had that one pretty well nailed down. We were hoping to be competitive for third, and yes, even take third. We didn't take third, but we have nothing to hang our heads about.

The fact that everybody here is spending so much time trying to convince us that we should be depressed is enough acknowledgement for me that we're doing ok.

Cochise
01-04-2008, 05:40 PM
Whose expectations are we expected to manage? Yours? You had Paul in single digits coming in behind everybody, including Giuliani, no?

Pretty much, mainstream expectations were that Paul would finish in last place. He didn't. In fact, he competed with McCain and Thompson, and beat the entire Republican field in attracting independant voters to the party.

From the Iowa prediction thread:


I think Huckabee will win, and Romney will finish a close second... I have an inkling that Huckabee could however win this thing by more than most people are expecting, too... McCain will probably come in third... Paul more than likely will be fourth


So, I thought Thompson would show much lower than he did, and Paul would beat him and end up fourth. The only surprise to me was that Paul couldn't beat Thompson who looked like he might drop yesterday if he did poorly.

On the other hand:


Republicans:

1. Mitt Romney - He has the money, and he has the organization. Mitt Romney proves that if you throw enough money around, you can buy favor. A win in New Hampshire might just make this thing official.

2. Mike Huckabee - Doesn't have the organization, but does have enough of the anti-mormon crowd to make a second place showing. It doesn't matter though, as the story line here is "Huckabee loses to Romney."

3. Ron Paul - The second shock out of Iowa (after Edwards). The enthusiasm in the Ron Paul campaign materializes in a third place finish and turns the Republican race on it head.

4. John McCain - Not as close as the pundits had imagined he'd be, John McCain finishes in fourth place and is ready to make his case for New Hampshire where everything is staked.

5. Fred Thompson - First of all, can I get a round of applause as I make my way towards the exit signs?

6. Rudy Giuliani - Finishing behind Ron Paul and Fred Thompson and having Romney win first place - pundits start blasting Giuliani and wondering if he's even going to be around for Florida, or if Romney will have is sewn up by then.


So were you doing something other than predicting with that post in the prediction thread...?

patteeu
01-04-2008, 06:01 PM
Huh? That's ridiculous. Not a single Paul supporter that I know of thought we'd be able to match the enthusiasm of Iowa's Christians. Huckabee had that one pretty well nailed down. We were hoping to be competitive for third, and yes, even take third. We didn't take third, but we have nothing to hang our heads about.

I'm only talking about Paul supporters on this forum because I don't go to meetups or hang in Paul forums. I'm not saying that you guys didn't recognize that evangelicals were motivated voters nor am I saying that you guys thought you'd win Iowa, but none of you talked about the difficulties you faced. All you talked about was the surprise that people were in for when the polls turned out to have missed the silent strength of Ron Paul's unconventional phalanx of voters.

The fact that everybody here is spending so much time trying to convince us that we should be depressed is enough acknowledgement for me that we're doing ok.

I don't care what you say, Taco, you can't be happy with a 5th place finish. Guys like ClevelandBronco can be happy because this finish is enough to keep Paul's abiltity to get a message out alive, but for people who have hopes of seeing Paul nominated, last night can't help but take some wind out of your sails.

Calcountry
01-04-2008, 08:16 PM
So says the neo-coms.

BucEyedPea
01-04-2008, 08:38 PM
Paul Mirengoff is one to critique what mainstream conservatism is. Geesh!
It's still only Iowa folks. Reagan lost Iowa too. Geesh!

Let's face it the GOP is divided...and the Dem's far less so.

Sully
01-04-2008, 08:57 PM
Huh? That's ridiculous. Not a single Paul supporter that I know of thought we'd be able to match the enthusiasm of Iowa's Christians. Huckabee had that one pretty well nailed down. We were hoping to be competitive for third, and yes, even take third. We didn't take third, but we have nothing to hang our heads about.

The fact that everybody here is spending so much time trying to convince us that we should be depressed is enough acknowledgement for me that we're doing ok.
I don't know how valid this is, but MSNBC said 52% of those who identified themselves as Evangelical (IIRC) didn't vote for Huckabee.

Cochise
01-04-2008, 09:06 PM
I don't know how valid this is, but MSNBC said 52% of those who identified themselves as Evangelical (IIRC) didn't vote for Huckabee.

I think you're reading that backwards a bit, though, because in a party with 6 candidates, one of them took half of the evangelicals. That means the next closest guy (Romney) probably took about 20% of them or a little under, and the rest just a small fraction.

Being that I doubt Rudy got many, it probably went Huckabee ~50% of evangelicals, Romney 20, McCain and Thompson 8-10% each, and Rudy and Paul just a few. Paul more than Rudy, probably.

No real basis for that, just guessing.

Cochise
01-04-2008, 09:11 PM
I'm only talking about Paul supporters on this forum because I don't go to meetups or hang in Paul forums. I'm not saying that you guys didn't recognize that evangelicals were motivated voters nor am I saying that you guys thought you'd win Iowa, but none of you talked about the difficulties you faced.

To expound on that, a lot of people said that Bush had so depressed evangelicals, as did the lack of a strong conservative and religious candidate, that evangelicals were going to turn out poorly. In fact, they didn't, they turned out strongly like they always do.

And, I'm not saying it's happening much here, but if you go over to Paul forums, there was some rancor being directed at evangelicals by the people on those that I saw, saying that they could gave done much better, of course, if it weren't for all the mindless God-bots. It was pretty off-putting to see, from my perspective anyway.

It felt like the attitude was, oh well, we don't need them to win, but it turns out you still can't really do well without them.

Silock
01-04-2008, 09:37 PM
but it turns out you still can't really do well without them.

Only if you're a post-Newt era Republican candidate.

patteeu
01-04-2008, 11:44 PM
I don't know how valid this is, but MSNBC said 52% of those who identified themselves as Evangelical (IIRC) didn't vote for Huckabee.

On his radio program, Bill O'Reilly was saying that something like 60% of the total Republican vote came from evangelicals. BOR kept saying that Huckabee got "all of it" which is ridiculous because Huckabee's total was only 34%. But it seems reasonable to me to believe that he got 48% of the evangelical vote. That would mean he had to get about 13% of the non-evangelical vote (which I guess would be people like Iowanian).

It would be interesting to see how the 52% of evangelicals that didn't go to Huckabee were divided.

patteeu
01-04-2008, 11:47 PM
Only if you're a post-Newt era Republican candidate.

I'm curious what this has to do with Newt. Ronald Reagan forged the coalition that brought large numbers of evangelicals and other cultural traditionalists into the Republican fold. Did Newt do something special that I'm missing?

BucEyedPea
01-05-2008, 12:07 AM
On his radio program, Bill O'Reilly was saying that something like 60% of the total Republican vote came from evangelicals. BOR kept saying that Huckabee got "all of it" which is ridiculous because Huckabee's total was only 34%. But it seems reasonable to me to believe that he got 48% of the evangelical vote. That would mean he had to get about 13% of the non-evangelical vote (which I guess would be people like Iowanian).

It would be interesting to see how the 52% of evangelicals that didn't go to Huckabee were divided.
Iowanian sounds religious to me. He said he's a RC. Those guys could like a Huckabee because of the social values.

Silock
01-05-2008, 12:09 AM
I'm curious what this has to do with Newt. Ronald Reagan forged the coalition that brought large numbers of evangelicals and other cultural traditionalists into the Republican fold. Did Newt do something special that I'm missing?

It doesn't really have a lot to do with Newt. I was just using that as a timestamp. I disagree about Reagan, though, but only because it wasn't until the early 90's that the Republican party was hijacked by religious nutjobs. They turned out to vote Republican before that, but they hadn't taken full control of the party yet.

patteeu
01-05-2008, 12:21 AM
Iowanian sounds religious to me. He said he's a RC. Those guys could like a Huckabee because of the social values.

Yeah, he's Catholic and I'm sure social values have something to do with it, but I wouldn't think that he'd be classified as an evangelical by the polling/demographic people.

patteeu
01-05-2008, 12:32 AM
It doesn't really have a lot to do with Newt. I was just using that as a timestamp. I disagree about Reagan, though, but only because it wasn't until the early 90's that the Republican party was hijacked by religious nutjobs. They turned out to vote Republican before that, but they hadn't taken full control of the party yet.

I don't think so-called religious nutjobs have taken control of the party at all. They are certainly an important power base and candidates generally have to pay some level of homage to them, but I don't see them as having control over the party. They've been lucky to get a policy bone here and there, IMO. They get a lot of lip service, but aside from policy that is desireable by the entire coalition (e.g. tax cuts, conservative judges, etc.) they get relatively little in the way of policy (i.e. partial birth abortion ban but not a complete ban on abortion, defense of marriage act but no constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage, faith based initiatives but no prayer in school, etc.).

FWIW, religious conservatives like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell rose to political prominence during the Reagan era.

Silock
01-05-2008, 04:42 AM
I don't think so-called religious nutjobs have taken control of the party at all. They are certainly an important power base and candidates generally have to pay some level of homage to them, but I don't see them as having control over the party. They've been lucky to get a policy bone here and there, IMO. They get a lot of lip service, but aside from policy that is desireable by the entire coalition (e.g. tax cuts, conservative judges, etc.) they get relatively little in the way of policy (i.e. partial birth abortion ban but not a complete ban on abortion, defense of marriage act but no constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage, faith based initiatives but no prayer in school, etc.).

FWIW, religious conservatives like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell rose to political prominence during the Reagan era.

The only reason that the neocon Republicans win elections is by pandering to the religious right. Everyone else can see through their empty rhetoric and blatant disregard for traditional Republican ideals. If Bush hadn't had the support of the crazies, he'd never have been elected. Twice.

I think the reason they get little in the way of the policy we want is because of the checks and balances in our system and not because of a lack of desire to please the constituents by the Neocons.

Cochise
01-05-2008, 06:26 AM
FWIW, religious conservatives like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell rose to political prominence during the Reagan era.

I was going to say the same thing, that it was Robertson with the Christian Coalition and others like and including Falwell that convinced Christians they have a duty to participate in politics and vote values and such. I'm not old enough to remember but I would say it probably started in the late 70s. Certainly earlier than the 90s.

Baby Lee
01-05-2008, 07:21 AM
The fact that everybody here is spending so much time trying to convince us that we should be depressed is enough acknowledgement for me that we're doing ok.
Yes Mr. Quixano, the windmills of La Mancha await your steely blade.

stevieray
01-05-2008, 07:44 AM
The only reason that the neocon Republicans win elections is by pandering to the religious right. Everyone else can see through their empty rhetoric and blatant disregard for traditional Republican ideals. If Bush hadn't had the support of the crazies, he'd never have been elected. Twice.



STFU

patteeu
01-05-2008, 09:12 AM
The only reason that the neocon Republicans win elections is by pandering to the religious right. Everyone else can see through their empty rhetoric and blatant disregard for traditional Republican ideals. If Bush hadn't had the support of the crazies, he'd never have been elected. Twice.

I think the reason they get little in the way of the policy we want is because of the checks and balances in our system and not because of a lack of desire to please the constituents by the Neocons.

I have to assume that when you say "neocons" you mean something other that "neocons".

KILLER_CLOWN
01-05-2008, 09:45 AM
I have to assume that when you say "neocons" you mean something other that "neocons".

no it's only the truth that the neocons have taken over since Reagan left office. I do not see anything conservative about the current crop of repubs save Ron Paul.

Silock
01-05-2008, 12:19 PM
I was going to say the same thing, that it was Robertson with the Christian Coalition and others like and including Falwell that convinced Christians they have a duty to participate in politics and vote values and such. I'm not old enough to remember but I would say it probably started in the late 70s. Certainly earlier than the 90s.

Of course, but it wasn't until the early 90s that they took over the party.

patteeu
01-05-2008, 12:51 PM
no it's only the truth that the neocons have taken over since Reagan left office. I do not see anything conservative about the current crop of repubs save Ron Paul.

Neocons were a part of the Reagan administration. The Reagan foreign policy was largely a neocon foreign policy. Reaganesque cold war, anti-communism hawkishness is what brought the neocons over from the left (although for the originals, it happened before Reagan took office). It's nothing but :BS: to say that the neocons, as a group, are not conservative.

patteeu
01-05-2008, 12:53 PM
Of course, but it wasn't until the early 90s that they took over the party.

:shake:

Taco John
01-05-2008, 01:00 PM
Yes Mr. Quixano, the windmills of La Mancha await your steely blade.


Say whatever you want about our Quixotic quest... No pro-war Republican is going to win the Whitehouse this year. The party either wakes up about it, or continues their quixotic quest.

I'm quite satisfied with pushing the only Republican candidate who has a shot against Obama. No Republican brings in more independant voters than Ron Paul, and that's where Obama's strength is.

mlyonsd
01-05-2008, 01:50 PM
I think mainstream conservatism started to take it in the shorts with the previous congress, maybe sooner.

go bowe
01-05-2008, 02:58 PM
I think mainstream conservatism started to take it in the shorts with the previous congress, maybe sooner.in the shorts?

what have you got against tall conservatives?

why do the shorts get all the love?

Cochise
01-05-2008, 03:36 PM
Say whatever you want about our Quixotic quest... No pro-war Republican is going to win the Whitehouse this year. The party either wakes up about it, or continues their quixotic quest.

I'm quite satisfied with pushing the only Republican candidate who has a shot against Obama. No Republican brings in more independant voters than Ron Paul, and that's where Obama's strength is.

I'm not of the belief that the war is going to be the major issue or maybe even a major issue in this campaign, given our recent success there. It's already easy to see the reporting of it declining.

BucEyedPea
01-05-2008, 03:38 PM
This elecion is about "CHANGE" and this will hurt the GOP, unless they wake up and CHANGE themselves. That and that Obama will remove any CHANGE you have left. LMAO!

(sorry 'Bama folks)

Cochise
01-05-2008, 03:54 PM
I'm not of the belief that the war is going to be the major issue or maybe even a major issue in this campaign, given our recent success there. It's already easy to see the reporting of it declining.

By the way, this probably helps Paul anyway, because he would never gain traction with Republican voters advocating his run and hide Iraq policy. His people should hope that everything continues to go well for his campaign's sake and the issue sinks in the minds of primary voters.

I might even be willing to attribute that to what gains he's been able to make in the polls in the past 6 months or so. It's probably in spite of the one issue that brought all the Paulites who were likely to support liberals previously on board to begin with.