Romney: Michigan Primary Winner
By Daniel Kay
Romney’s home court advantage proved to be a valuable “firewall” in his GOP bid for the nomination. Though the media gave him little credit for the win or national hype, the win was decisive, gaining support from every GOP demographic. Surprisingly, he won more votes from evangelicals than even Huckabee. Importantly, Romney won 24 of the 30 delegates in Michigan. This brings his delegate count to 54; that is, 39 delegates more than McCain and 32 more than Huckabee. While McCain, and Huckabee fight it out for 1st and 2nd in South Carolina to win a portion of the 24 delegates up for grabs there, Romney is focusing on Nevada to widen an already wide lead over his opponents in the state which has 34 delegates. While Romney will miss out on the hype in South Carolina, he will win the most delegates over the weekend. I am sure it will be reminiscent of McCain’s only win (New Hampshire) where he won 7 whole delegates and received national acclaim while Romney won Wyoming and gained 8 delegates - both unreported by the media.
The question is which strategy will impact Super Tuesday, McCain’s hype or Romney’s consistently strong showing state-to-state and ability to win delegates? Should Romney have tried to battle it out in South Carolina where he could potentially win some hype but could also lose momentum, or was he right to skip SC and go to Nevada where there are more delegates but less hype? If there is any logic to this race I think he did the right thing, winning delegates should matter more than winning hype. After Saturday, Florida will have a chance to decide. Where South Carolina once was viewed as the gateway to the GOP nomination, Florida may be so this year with 57 winner-take-all delegates before the Super Duper Tuesday. Already Romney is playing down his chances in SC, predicting even fourth is possible, even though he is statistically tied for second with Huckabee in an opinion poll released today. A big win in Nevada for Romney and a big win in SC for McCain will set a very nice stage in Florida for the first winner-take-all delegates contest. There is a four way tie in Florida currently but we will soon see if the hype pays off for McCain or if the consistency of Romney will win the day.
Media Manipulations
By Daniel Kay
I’ve had my fill of media spin this election season. CBS, AP, and even Fox News have lost a lot of credibility in my eyes. It is outrageous what they are doing to this election. Today a reporter from the AP interrupted, insulted, and even laughed at Romney during a press meeting. When did reporters become paid hecklers? Leading up to Iowa and New Hampshire you could not find a positive word about Romney in the news. Then after his 1st place finish in Wyoming there was no news at all on the win. Who do they think they are kidding? They take great pains to take everything Romney says out of context and put it in the most negative light. I too lost heart after the media misrepresented Romney’s comment about his father being a civil rights activist that was a leading political leader who, like millions across the country marched with Martin Luther King Jr. While everyone could not be arm and arm standing next to King, that does not make their march any less meaningful: they all marched with that great leader. One thing is clear, the liberal media is afraid of Romney. It is sickening how they think that they should have the power over who the GOP nominee should be. Good for Romney for sticking it to this AP guy. The liberal media is not going to sway my vote. I used to trust the “mainstream media” but after the past few months, I can see there is no objectivity to their work. Most make endorsements for one candidate over another and twist the fact to suit their ends.
I think most news agencies will do whatever it takes to make the GOP contest go to convention, to make the next big news event. That would explain why the media did not have a thing negative to say about Romney between New Hampshire and Michigan. Now they are trying to make Thompson look good and saying, “Oh yeah, he has a chance.” Giuliani will be next I am sure. I keep hearing reports say, “Wouldn’t it be great if the GOP contest went to convention. That would be a reporter’s dream come true.” No surprise, many reporters' dreams are the same as the Democrats. The longer this GOP contest goes on the better for the Democrats. It is time for the GOP to realize that Huckabee is “Huckabust,” Thomson is getting none, Giuliani is not on the money, and Paul’s supporters are off the wall. McCain and Romney need a clear one-on-one battle without his tag team partner, or should I say Vice President, Huckabee getting in the way and the other “also-rans” giving false hope to and conning money and votes out of their supporters. Be not deceived, it is and has been a two man show for several weeks: Romney vs. McCain. The question is does the liberal media support McCain and if so, why? Some may argue that they do, and it is because he is socially liberal for a GOP candidate (he does seem to get the most media endorsements); others say it is because McCain has less chance of generating GOP grass roots support and enthusiasm from core Republicans which typically gets them to the polls to beat the Democratic candidate in November (this seems unlikely as many Republicans will vote against a Democrat no matter who the GOP candidate is). I am not sure if the media favors McCain but it is clear they do not favor Romney.
Who Will the Michigan Democrats Vote for in the GOP Primary?
It seems odd that Democrats should have the opportunity to play a key role in who wins Michigan’s GOP primacy and potentially the GOP nomination. However, Democrats may never have a better chance. Because Democrats can vote in the Michigan GOP primary and there is no real Democrat race, there is high incentive for Democrats to cast their voice in the GOP contest. The question is which GOP candidate will the Democrats choose?
McCain
If they vote for McCain they will be voting for the candidate which polls show has the best chance of beating Hillary or Obama in November. Voting for McCain will also add momentum to his nomination which is at the verge of critical mass already. Both these options should deter Democrats from voting for McCain assuming they want the Democrats to have the best chance of winning in November and they want to prevent the GOP from identifying their candidate quickly. Nonetheless, McCain is leading the GOP for support from Independent and Democrats in opinion polls. Perhaps many Democrats in Michigan are trying to setup a win-win situation for November: If their candidate loses, at least McCain is more liberal (i.e., moderate) than most of the GOP candidates and will be more palatable as president for them.
Romney
If they vote for Romney they will vote for the main candidate that has one of the least chance of beating Hillary and Obama in November according to current opinion polls. Voting for Romney will also create a three man race which will draw-out the GOP contest, increase tension within GOP party lines and decrease the odds of a strong unified GOP to contest with in November. A few Democrat strategists have advocated this tactic; I would expect at least some Democrats to make this move and vote Romney.
Huckabee
The only reason that a Democrat in Michigan would vote for Huckabee is because Huckabee, like Democrats, is a populist and perhaps they think Huckabee would be a palatable consolation prize if their Democratic candidate loses in November. I find this unlikely as most realize that a populist GOP president is much less likely to have the ability (due to GOP opposition and greater difficulty working across the isles) to fulfill his populist promises as a Democratic president who has most populists on his/her side of the isle.
Thompson/Giuliani/Paul/Hunter
Will these guys ever quit? The writing is on the wall, but I guess they need to spend the money they raised. Regardless, there is no reason for Democrats to vote for them in Michigan there aren’t enough Democrats that will vote in the GOP race to raise them from single digits to compete with the front-runners.
Romney has never had a better chance to win a big contest. Michigan is his birth state, he leads McCain 2-1 among GOP voters there and the questionable politics of the Democrats should be on his side.
Candidates of Change
It seems as if each candidate in both parties is touting him or herself as the candidate of change. Romney started saying something to that effect back in February 2007, other candidates have been saying it for months as well. Recently, however, it's become the catch-phrase of the candidates. "I represent change" says one. "I'm not part of the establishment" says another. What's humorous is yes, all candidates are technically candidates of change. They would be someone different than the current President and therefore a change. That's not what they mean but in that sense their chants of change are redundant.
Who has the most ability to create noticeable change in the executive office? Any of the Democratic candidates certainly would (by raising taxes, starting a national socialized medicine plan, etc.); we've had a Republican president in office these past 7 years. All Republican candidates would bring real change as well, although I think that McCain, Romney, and Giuliani would try to change less than the other candidates. McCain would work with Democrats more than Pres. Bush has done (although No Child Left Behind is an example of working with Democrats - it is actually a liberal policy, as much as I hate to label things liberal or conservative). Other than that, McCain wouldn't change very much except for immigration. Romney would try to fix the economy and budget. He would also try to fix immigration. He would also work with Democrats to try to effect change. Giuliani would, well, I'm not sure what he would do. Huckabee would try to expand the federal government; Paul would try to cut it down.
I don't believe that any of the Democratic candidates would try to reduce the size of the federal government (other than reducing defense spending). Romney is the only viable Republican candidate who would - McCain might try to fix some things - and he might fix the budget - but there is nothing in his past experience that demonstrates that he actually could fix it. Huckabee is a "neo-conservative" (as much as I dislike that term, it applies) - he does not stand for small government.
All candidates trumpet their status as the delta candidate (i.e., change [over time]) - the candidate of change. All would be a change but few could effect positive, lasting change.
Economic Experience
The overwhelming number one concern for people in political polls is the economy. This should be very good news for Romney who clearly has the best economic policies and experience of any candidate. I think he should tout his economic experience a little more than he has been doing. Romney was a venture capitalist who invested in companies and helped them turn around financially; he was very successful. He swooped in on the SLC Olympics and turned them around from a financial disaster to the most successful Olympics from a financial standpoint. He also helped turn around the budget of Massachusetts as governor.
Huckabee's budget plan is radical, it's untested and likely untenable. He's running on promises that can't be fulfilled. McCain has great foreign policies but doesn't have strong plans to fix the economy. Clinton's plan for the economy (and budget deficit) generally would be to raise taxes, as would be the other Democratic candidates. You can't fix a broken system by throwing more money at it. Romney wants to cut out waste, trim budgets, and keep taxes low. It is possible that just by cutting out excesses (i.e., redundant, ineffectual programs; needless pork) we could solve our budget problems - all without changing tax levels. Our tax system is paraplegic and needs to be fixed but it should only be fixed after we remove waste. Then we can start changing and tweaking and simplifying the system.
Again, I think that the Romney campaign, while focusing on all its strengths, needs to highlight Romney's economic strengths more. People certainly should not give up on Romney either - he is leading the delegate count for the Republicans, as my colleague mentioned in his post earlier today. So Romney has 2 silvers and a gold - he's still in the lead overall. It's funny that New Hamshire receives so much attention and McCain's win received so much attention when Romney won 8 delegates in Wyoming to McCain's 7 in New Hampshire. Romney has staying power. I like McCain and I like Huckabee but they would not do as well as President as Romney would.
Iowa’s Caucuses
Tomorrow is the big day for presidential candidates. They find out how accurate the polls were, how effective their ads were, how beneficial their campaigning was, and if the time spent was worth it. This is the state that can - for better or for worse - make or break a candidacy. Whoever wins Iowa will not automatically receive the nomination, obviously, but winning provides momentum. With polls all showing such close results, it's hard to tell who will win.
Recent Romney Ads
A recent analysis by CNN showed that recent Mitt Romney ads are bending and playing with the truth. I think that Romney has a strong enough position that his campaign should not resort to such tactics. I'm disappointed. He shouldn't resort to such tactics regardless of his position. While it may be good campaigning and certainly good politicking, it is just wrong. Romney should know better; after all, it is a common Anti-Mormon tactic to bend the truth. Part of this stems from my dislike of negative ads in general. Even though they are highly successful, negative advertisements often come across as spiteful and disingenuous - even if they are not. I believe that candidates need to address the qualifications of other candidates (or the lack thereof) but should mainly focus on their qualifications and skills and their past performance and goals for the future.
On the other hand, as President (and in other political offices), you do have to bend the truth sometimes (mainly for national security reasons). However, there is no room for such bending of truths while campaigning. However, I do commend the Romney campaign for making the negative ads pretty respectful overall with time taken to praise his opponents. The Presidency isn't worth the damage to your character that spreading such half-truths can cause. Then again, I'm not a politician and don't have a desire to be one because you often have to deal with half-truths.
Will such tactics result in me not voting for a candidate? Certainly not. Campaigns are, after all, mostly about dousing yourself in perfume, donning formal-wear, and turning your good side to the public while sloshing a little dirty water on you opponents. In other words, you can't fully trust campaigns. You need to look at the record of the politician as well (if there is one). This is why, as I stated in an earlier post, that I stopped liking Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate. I started liking her more than the other Democratic candidates but quickly realized that what she was saying was at odds with her record as First Lady and on the Hill.
More Anti-Mormon Tactics
A disturbing event in South Carolina came to light recently. Christmas cards purported to be from Mitt Romney were sent to a number of people around the state. They state that they were "Paid For By The Boston Massachusetts Temple," which is not remotely true. They also highlight a number of "differences" between LDS doctrine and that of Protestant Christianity. The cards are simply classic Anti-Mormon tactics.
The real problem with the cards is that they suggest that Mitt Romney and the LDS endorsed them. First off, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not endorse any candidates and very rarely becomes involved in politics (and then only to make a statement against same-sex marriage, for example).
Whoever produced these postcards should be prosecuted - not for the Anti-Mormon statements but for the pretense of acting on Romney's behalf. Should the person or persons be jailed? No, but they should at least receive fines or some other fitting punishment. We don't need any underhanded antics or other illegal, unethical, or immoral actions by individuals trying to falsely attack the beliefs of a candidate.
You can read more here.
Iowa Republican Debate
I think the CNN headline is telling: "GOP Candidates Stay Polite." There is hope for America when we can have a political debate (which I did not watch) and have mostly positive comments (i.e., focused on personal policy and not on each other). I know that sometimes candidates need to point out flaws or weaknesses in their opponents but that can be done cordially or with humor. That is one thing I really like about Mike Huckabee - he is very polite and runs a positive campaign. I still think that his popularity is more infatuation than substance (it could turn into substance later but now it isn't) and might die down quickly.
Why Kucinich is a Dangerous Candidate
Dennis Kucinich is a representative from Illinois. It is commendable that he takes strong stances on issues and is not shy to share his beliefs. However, his ideologies on one hand tear at the fabric of America (which is a little ironic considering there is a large "Defend the Constitution!" splashed across his campaign issues site) and on the other display what is great about America - that we can have such broad viewpoints.
- He seeks universal government health care in a form that is more extreme than any other viable candidate. I'm not commenting on socialized medicine but he seeks the most extreme form possible. Extreme is actually a common theme with Kucinich.
- On his website it states: "In an interconnected world of trading partners afloat with nuclear weapons, war is unthinkable. The Europeans have turned away from the catastrophic wars of the last century which took over 100 million lives to embrace a new understanding of diplomacy and dialogue as well as a new understanding of patriotism. So must the United States. The world depends on it."
- Europe has turned away from war? Hardly. War is unthinkable because countries have nuclear weapons? War could be catastrophic but it isn't unthinkable. Besides, even if they have, war has not and will not turn away from them. As much as I hate war (I think we should avoid war at almost all cost), I also recognize that we will never see an end to war through political discussions. Some people (and ideologies like radical Islam {or Communism, Fascism, etc.}) just will never respond to diplomacy. It may not even be wise to try diplomacy with everyone (as nice as that would be).
- "Saving Capitalism": He has a "plan to instill ethics, accountability and fairness in global trade and big business." Basically the plan is to save capitalism through socialism, thereby incapacitating capitalism. He wants to save it from itself. Capitalism isn't perfect but we need less regulation and more education to fix the problems it may create.
- He's for ending poverty in the world (which would be nice) but against genetically engineered food (which allows more people to grow more food).
- He's against racial discrimination ("I proudly endorse a comprehensive non-discrimination policy, including nondiscrimination based on race"), which is wonderful, but for Affirmative Action ("Affirmative action is necessary, affirmative action is right, and affirmative action must be preserved"), which is a policy that discriminates based on race.
- He supports same-sex marriage. We have enough problems with marriage (high divorce rate, high cohabitation rates) without completely destroying the sacred institution of marriage by allowing people of the same-sex to marry. This has nothing to do with being homophobic, which is so often thrown back at anyone who stands up for traditional marriage; this has everything to do with supporting the moral foundation of our nation. I'll be friends with, work with, talk with, and serve with people who are gay or lesbian but I don't support their homosexual behavior and I don't think we should change the meaning of marriage to include same-sex couples.
- He wants the immediate and complete withdrawal from Iraq. You may support the war or not support it but that would be a disaster for Iraq and the Middle East. It would tell the extreme Islamic militants that they won. I respect the Islam faith, there is much great about it, but some people twist the doctrines and plan to either convert the whole world or destroy those who won't convert. The radical militant Islamists are no different than Genghis Khan was back in his day.
- On logging: "The United States was originally blanketed with a billion acres of forest. Now only 40 million acres remain uncut." We also didn't have 300+ million people in the United States. "We must end public lands logging...." Which would result in more forest fires. We need to conserve the environment intelligently and not go to either extreme.
This list could go on. You can read more about Kucinich's views here. There is also a short biographical sketch about him here.
I think that Kucinich is a dangerous candidate because his political views are on the extreme left of the ideological spectrum. That does not mean that I think that they are all wrong but he's just way too extreme. We've already had a general liberal drift in this nation over time, especially morally. Things that used to be unacceptable are now acceptable. We don't need more extremists because extremism only creates rifts between parties and people. Kucinich is farther to the left than any of the Republican candidates are to the right - even Ron Paul balances out quite moderately. We need to return to our roots and our values. We don't need a radical shift away from the country our Founding Fathers established, we need to return to that. Kucinich would take us in the wrong direction.
Tags
Blogroll
Recent Posts
- Which Party Ruined the Economy?
- Mitt Romney’s Tax Returns
- The Shooting of Rep. Giffords
- Truth, Freedom, and Religion
- Respecting the President
Recent Comments
- Miranda on Mitt Romney’s Tax Returns
- kem on Why McCain Should Not Pick Romney as VP
- Lonnie on Thomas Jefferson on Religious Liberties
- Tweets that mention Thomas Jefferson on Religious Liberties | US Political Scene -- Topsy.com on Thomas Jefferson on Religious Liberties
- Jonathan on Thomas Jefferson on Religious Liberties
Archives
- February 2012
- January 2012
- January 2011
- April 2010
- November 2009
- October 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007