Nevada Caucus Results
Mitt Romney will win the Nevada caucuses today. With 19% of precincts reporting, he has over 50% of the vote. John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, and Sen. Thompson are in a close contest for second with roughly 10% support each. The large LDS population in Nevada certainly helped Romney but his support goes far beyond that population. With these results I think that Thompson, Giuliani, Hunter, and Tancredo should drop out of the race. It's true that Thompson and Giuliani will do better in other states; however, the Republican party needs to focus on the three to four front-runners. I would even like to see Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee drop out of the race. I think that they are both decent candidates - Paul is too extreme for most people though - but they will not win the candidacy. Neither could win the national election either. The Republican race is turning into a race between McCain and Romney, regardless of how the candidates do in South Carolina.
It's too early to comment on the Democratic race. Even though Clinton is ahead in polls I think that Obama will certainly give her a run for her money. I think that John Edwards will be out of the race after Nevada's caucuses. He'll still campaign but he will drop out of the serious contender category.
What the campaigns have shown so far is that while Democrats tout themselves as upholders of diversity, the Republican contest shows that the Republican party has a much greater diversity of ideas than the Democratic party does. Clinton and Obama are essentially identical ideologically, although Obama is more liberal. Edwards is very similar to both. It is among the Republican candidates that you can see diversity - libertarianism, social conservatism, economic conservatism, social liberalism (relatively), economic liberalism, and so forth. It does not mean that the Republican party is splintering, it just means that there is a great diversity of ideas and beliefs within the Republican party.
Earlier I mentioned how the strong LDS population in Nevada helped Romney's win. I don't think that Mormons are block voting for Romney just because he is LDS - although there is certainly some of that going on. His political beliefs just coincide with a lot of other LDS church members' beliefs. I'm not shy about criticizing Evangelicals for voting for Huckabee just because he is Evangelical. I'm also not shy about criticizing LDS members for voting for Romney just because he is LDS. I think you should vote based on political ideologies not religion. That is my biggest problem with so many Evangelical (and other people) voters; I don't care as much about them voting for a certain person because of his or her religious beliefs. I care more about them voting against someone because of their religious beliefs. Women shouldn't vote for Clinton just because she is a woman; African-Americans shouldn't vote for Obama just because he is African-America. People shouldn't vote against any of the candidates because of their skin color, gender, or any other characteristic like those. Vote based on political beliefs, not demographic characteristics.
John Edwards’ Media Coverage
John Edwards' campaign recently produced a video demonstrating how little attention Edwards is receiving from the media. While this might come across as whiny ("Hey, look at me! No one ever pays attention to me.") he has a point.
John Edwards is running for the Presidency. He has spent countless dollars and hours to make his dream a reality. While never really considered the front-runner, he has held his own in the elections so far and performed respectably. However, all you really hear about any of the Democratic candidates is: "Clinton" this and "Obama" that. Edwards certainly does not seem to earn his equal share of the sun.
On the other hand, not every candidate or potential candidate can or should receive equal media spotlight. Is it fair to the people partaking of mainstream media's offerings to be subjected to news stories about minor candidates who have no real chance at winning (I'm not saying they shouldn't win, I'm just taking a realistic perspective here). I'm also not saying that Edwards is a minor candidate but the line at mass coverage needs to be drawn somewhere. From the media's perspectives (forgive the anthropomorphism), there are two major candidates - Clinton and Obama, with Edwards a close or not-so-close third. They are going to provide coverage for the most viable candidates (i.e., who "sells the most stories").
This shows how influential the media is. It can be frustrating when you are not covered or are only negatively covered, so Edwards' position is understandable. However, he isn't the front-runner and so the media aren't talking about him as much as the two leading candidates. Maybe the chicken came before the egg and they only became the leading candidates because the media covered them more than they covered Edwards. Who knows? In any case, the media has a responsibility to be as benign as possible. That's a stretch, but in the ideal world it could be reality.
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.
Positive Aspects of John Edwards
Following my post about writing nice things about the candidates (regardless of political beliefs or general personal qualities), I've decided to focus on John Edwards. I'm not putting my support behind him but I would like to make a brief case about why he could be a good President.
John Edwards seems like a person you would like as a friend. He comes across as genuinely nice, in spite of his tort law background. Although, tort lawyers at least put on the facade of focusing on people, on being personable. After all, they are fighting capitalism for retribution when the individual is trampled by the herd stampeding to drink from the corporate water hole. So what if the tort lawyers take their own barrel-fulls from that same corporate water hole, they've helped the little guy.
Back to John Edwards. He is a good family man. He has a nice not-quite-rags-to-riches story. He seems like someone who makes informed decisions before he acts and is willing to listen to opposing viewpoints, after all he is a lawyer. They are successful when they know how to anticipate opposing arguments and counter then with arguments of their own. John Edwards seems like someone who would be able to work with both sides of the political spectrum while still striving towards his ideological goals.
You can visit his website here: John Edwards for President.
Note: This post, as mentioned above, does not constitute an endorsement of John Edwards.
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