As I've been saying for a good while now, if any other Republican candidate was leading in Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan and doing well in South Carolina, he would be considered the frontrunner. However, because it is Mitt Romney who is in this position, the GOP nomination is considered "wide open," or narrowed down to Rudy, Romney and Huckabee.
Why?
Because Mitt Romney hasn't polled well in national polls and he has very little name recognition especially when compared to Rudy.
But...
National polls don't mean anything. They don't take into account the electoral college... they disregard the fact that a candidate can win the presidency without winning the popular vote. In the primary the early states are incredibly important, which is why the candidates focus their time and money campaigning in them.
Anyway, the Talking Points Memo has an article on an "epiphany" the writer had about how well Romney is doing.
Face it, Rudy is really only doing well in Florida, Thompson is wasting his time campaigning in states where the primary isn't so important and McCain, well, there's been a lot of talk about his resurgence but he had his time as the frontrunner (way back when before the presidential campaigns really got started).
Oh, and Huckabee? The TPM says, "We've given a lot of editorial attention to Huckabee's surge in Iowa and the consequences it could have for Romney. I still believe that. But the graph makes pretty clear that the issue is Huckabee's surge, not any drop off in Romney's support. He's still rising, albeit at a slower pace. And that may simply be due to the fact that in a large field it gets harder to keep up the rate of increase in support as you near 30% of the total."
The italicized sentence is really important and something that no one has touched upon when talking about Huckabee's performance in Iowa.
On the Democratic side in Iowa, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich believes Obama is going to prevail. My question: why do we even care what Gingrich says? He was the Speaker during the 1994 Republican "revolution" and he's written a few books, but his place is in policy-making, not in election-predicting.
1. Selective Pregnancy Reduction(aka abortion) is the thing to do when you decide you have the right to play God. If you get pregnant by "accident" and decide the baby's life is not worth having (even though adoption is always an option), remember this phrase and you'll feel better about yourself and your ability to have a choice.
2. John Howard, former PM of Australia and Bush-ally, lost his re-election bid. So, should liberals be jumping up and down for joy? Not really since the new PM, Kevin Rudd, is likely to follow Howard's foreign policy route. In a summary of the election, Time writes:
"A vote for Rudd was a vote for someone new. But not too different. Cartoonists drew Rudd as a mini-Howard. A satirical video on YouTube cast the Chinese-speaking Labor leader as Chairman Mao, with subtitles reading: “Rudd unnerve decrepit Howard with clever strategy of ’similar difference.’” Rather than attacking Howard’s strengths, Rudd appropriated them. “I am not a socialist,” Rudd insisted. “I am an economic conservative.” On issue after issue, from federal intervention in dysfunctional Aboriginal communities, to national security, to the expansion of coal and uranium mining, Rudd adopted the government’s line."
More importantly:
"On Iraq, Rudd has moderated Labor's earlier "pull-out-now" policy. He says he will bring home the 1,400 Australian troops in Iraq and the Gulf gradually, in a "negotiated, staged withdrawal." He is prepared to send more troops to Afghanistan."
1. Push polling? on religion nonetheless? Despicable. However, I think this shows that Romney is the Republican candidate to beat in the primaries despite the nonsense floating about the media that the R primary is "wide open." If it was anyone else leading by the margins Romney is in the key states of Iowa and New Hampshire as well as topping the polls in Michigan and Nevada, they would be deemed the frontrunner. But, because Giuliani is leading in national polls (which, by the way, mean NOTHING), and Mike Huckabee is "gaining momentum," which he really isn't, it's been decided there is no frontrunner. Any what's the real reason behind this? Conservatives are so concerned with beating Hillary (the perceived Dem frontrunner), they'll sell out their values and throw support behind the winnable candidate. Well, this can only hurt the Republican party in the long run. Maybe we should focus on spreading the message of conservatism and its benefits instead of attacking the Democrats. I'm disappointed.
2. On a lighter note, Dave reported on "Swiftkids for Truth" videos. They're actually pretty entertaining, even though they are also part of what makes people aversive of politics. Here's the video on Hillary:
3. Speaking of Hillary, Liz reported on the female McCain supporter who referred to Hillary in a very derogatory way. While I agree that elected officials should be respected, a least a little, I think Joy Behar on The View was a little ridiculous about this occurrence. Okay, she likes Hillary. Well the McCain supporter didn't. Joy doesn't like President Bush- the PRESIDENT! But it's okay for Joy to talk in an insanely defamatory way about the PRESIDENT on national television would be but it's not okay for a citizen to express her point of view? Where's all the freedom of speech talk? Amazing. And again, what should McCain do? He didn't say anything. Do the producers of The View have to apologize for Joy's comments? No. Not even when so attacks religion by saying that prayer is a distraction. Seriously...
4. Media Matters for America got all upset because the Politico and CNN's Costello reported that the Democratic leadership in Congress is 0 for 40 when it comes to doing something policy-wise on the Iraq war. Okay, so they were able to pass legislation, just for it to be vetoed. They probably knew it would be vetoed- and this is just another part of their political game in which they strive to show that President Bush, and therefore Republicans in general, are awful and shouldn't be elected in 2008. Seriously- part of being a good leader, and especially a good legislature, is to be able to get things accomplished. Not just passing legislation for it to not come to fruition. You may say the this is just rhetoric for me to say that it's the Democrats playing politics. Well- they are. Not only are they recessing early, they've been wasting time trying to reignite the Fairness Doctrine and impeach Dick Cheney and hold votes of no confidence regarding Bush administration officials. Well, there are more important things, such as MAKING SURE AMERICANS DON'T DIE IN ANOTHER TERRORIST ATTACK. But no, they'd rather waste time and blame everything on Pres. Bush and Republicans. Secretary Gates has said he will have to layoff people in the Army and Marines and cease operations at Army bases. DURING A WAR? This is a huge weakness - thanks to Democrats who won't just suck it up and provide the troops the money they need without the pork programs. They claim the surge isn't working - a lot of reports have come out about this being the deadliest year. Well, in case you forgot/didn't know, after the surge we had a HUGE decrease in deaths. Oh, but let's leave that part out and then claim that conservatives refuse to put things in context. Okay. And then, let's use this to not pass funding for the war so that Osama Bin Laden, who isn't a real threat anyway, will see this as a big weakness and plan more attacks on us. Oh but wait, we shouldn't err on the side of caution- this isn't a serious threat. We don't know terrorists and Islamofascists are out to get us. Seriously?!!! The democrats want so badly to win the presidency in '08 that they are willing to put us in danger and then blame it on President Bush. They've already said that they are going to make the '08 election about Pres. Bush's presidency.
What did he ever do to any of you who despise him so much?
Basically, I'm so tired of all the partisan politics and political games on both sides. However, the Dems, with their majority in Congress, are putting us in danger. And this is NOT okay.
