January
4th 2008
Posted under Election 2008 & Mike Huckabee & Politics
Give us your thoughts on the Iowa results below.
One thing that strikes me is that conservative Christians really flexed their muscles. They just flexed them for the wrong guy, Huckabee. I am curious to see if the establishment cons will go back into anti-Huckabee meltdown mode, or will they reconcile themselves to the fact that this guy might actually win the nomination? Do they really want to tear this guy down if they may have to rehabilitate him later on?
Andrew T. on 04 Jan 2008 at 5:09 am #
Ron Paul placed fifth in a close three-way race (Paul, McCain, and Thompson) for the third slot. Honestly, I’m disappointed at this. Not because Ron Paul was actually pretty close to getting third, but the exposure and respect he could have gotten if he actually did get the couple thousand more votes to place in third. The MSM reports as much as they produce self-fulfilling prophecies.
I’m still very hopeful about New Hampshire. The man that fights for our nation and our freedoms is a natural favorite there. In South Carolina, too. There is no other acceptable candidate. Do everything before those next primaries come up to tell everyone you know about Ron Paul. Show them the respective letter addressed to them on LewRockwell.com. We have a lot to fight for.
Andrew T. on 04 Jan 2008 at 5:16 am #
Lew offers a hopeful prediction for the upcoming primaries:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018215.html
Marc on 04 Jan 2008 at 7:07 am #
It appears Huckabee and Paul have been named the most family friendly candidates: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59521
IMO if you look at Huckabee’s record of pardoning criminals as governor of Arkansas that would exclude him from being family friendly, leaving only Paul.
levotb on 04 Jan 2008 at 9:55 am #
Why wasn’t Thompson named? Because he’s got a foxy and smart wife. I saw Huckabee’s wife tonight and I almost gagged…
I have a prediction. RP will bolt to The CP after or just before Super Tuesday next month. This will create dissonance with some GOP conservatives who won’t necessarily want to leave the GOP to vote for him. This will benefit Thompson, if he’s still in the race. I predict that this move, while necessary as RP has no chance of winning the GOP nomination, will cost RP conservative crossover votes. With the rise of Obama’s popularity, RP won’t have as many liberals crossing over to vote for him. In the end, RP will have plenty of money but not nearly enough support as a third party candidate. He will stay in till the election and garner 10% of the total electorate vote.
Weaver on 04 Jan 2008 at 10:43 am #
That’s an excellent point regarding Obama stealing from Paul; Obama spoke out against the war early on and promises to bring “change.”
Thompson’s a fraud, how could anyone who cares about immigration consider backing McCain? And he’s a member of the CFR and AEI.
And he voted for amnesty.
—
Thompson’s latest (sounds like amnesty):
Bede on 04 Jan 2008 at 11:27 am #
One of my good friends, who usually isn’t too interested in politics, actually went to Iowa last week to work on Paul’s campaign – do footwork, etc. He said that around the caucuses, there appeared to be more Paul and Huckabee supporters. I only spoke to him for a couple minutes last night, but he was really shocked Paul got 5th.
roho on 04 Jan 2008 at 11:44 am #
Never underestimate the “Silent Majority”……….They are the football fan that never fights the traffic, hates the crowds at the stadium, prefers their own food, despises a school band behind them while watching a game, and NEVER invites the “Other Fan” to watch the game with them!……………But he NEVER misses a game.
The Silent Majority voter will vote………………..And regarding Obama’s chances in the South?………………………………………..NO WAY!…….A reincarnated General Sherman’s chances would be better.
Kevin Thompson on 04 Jan 2008 at 11:49 am #
It is interesting to note that Huckabee won becuase of conservative Christian support. I say that because most Christians I know have convinced themselves that they can’t win – therefore they must support the lesser of two evils to ward against Hillary winning. I still endorse Chuck Baldwin for President!
Harold Crews on 04 Jan 2008 at 1:20 pm #
As to whether the establishment is willing to support Huckabee in the hopes of compromising him, I’m not sure that is their thinking. Huckabee has limited appeal. I can’t imagine how he could beat any Democrat. Though I admit it could be more the result of a lack of imagination than anything else. Huckabee more than anyone is a continuation of Bush: the exploiting of his faith for political gain, the corruption, reliance on his ‘likability’, warmongering, the reputation for being beyond his depth intellectually, generally favouring amnesty (despite the recent conversion), etc. The country is tired of Bush. I don’t believe the establishment considers Huckabee a threat. The real question is what they think of Hillary or Obama. Hillary is pure establishment. A big win with a mandate for her greatly furthers the establishment agenda. Obama as far as I can tell is less obvious. Who are his key people? Where is he getting his money from? Just how establishment is he. I’m assuming he is more or less establishment. He wants change, but is short on particulars. Is this because he doesn’t really want change but is only using it for campaign purposes or does he actually want great change but doesn’t want to turn the establishment against him? The former is more likely.
If the Democrat nominee is solid or pure establishment, my guess is that Huckabee will be pushed to be the Republican nominee. That way Huck would go down in crushing defeat and the establishment president will have a mandate. If it comes to look like the Democrat is not so much an establishment candidate then they will turn on Huckabee in order to get an establishment Republican candidate to hedge their bets.
As to whether a black candidate could do well in the South there are arguments for both positions. Speaking for myself, I’m a Southroner, an SCV member and I have supported black conservative candidates with my vote, time and money. At this point I’d much rather have Obama than Hillary. Not that I think their positions are that different, but I think Hillary is malicious. Obama I think is more likely to moderate some of his more onorous positions.
Bede on 04 Jan 2008 at 2:58 pm #
I disagree about Obama. On immigration, he’s horrible, even worse than Clinton, McCain or Giuliani. He’s about as politically correct as a candidate can get, wants to start a “second civil rights movement,” and himself is an interventionist. He has stated numerous times that, if elected, he will invade Darfur, and possibly even other African countries, as he wants to be known as the “African president.” The only good that could come out of an Obama presidency would be the widespread discontent and reaction it would cause.
Weaver on 04 Jan 2008 at 3:31 pm #
I suspect Obama’s a black nationalist at heart… The Black Value System of Obama’s Church.
It sounds like a black version of La Raza. And that might be fine for blacks in their own communities, but we can’t make someone like that President. And yes, I realise I wouldn’t mind a somewhat similar white version, say, in the form of Buchanan or Tancredo. This is not hypocritical though because the US has always been a white majority nation, founded by Western and Northern Europeans. And too, I’m of that demographic. Just as blacks would tend to like Obama I like candidates to have my own interests at heart. However, since Tancredo and Buchanan aren’t in the race and Hunter has no chance, Paul, who represents all, is the next best choice.
—
I tell you, I’m concerned about abortion, war, and the economy, but even with those evils and others we could at least survive as a nation. The border comes first, though I realise too that the majority of America doesn’t seem to believe immigration matters as much as it does. They oppose it but not strongly enough. The dominant position seems to be: “we’re melting into a unified global society – it’s inevitable and wrong to oppose, though it is regretful.”
Weaver on 04 Jan 2008 at 3:41 pm #
Trinity United Church of Christ website.
I’ve met black nationalist before, I’ve even befriended a few. They tend to believe they are the true Jews, quoting “[Christ's] hair was thick as wool.” I wouldn’t be surprised to learn of such a comment either on that website or somewhere on records.
Y’all’ve probably seen the youtube video of Nation of Islam’s Farrakhan, whom Sharpton associated with. I just hope Obama doesn’t hold the same aspirations…
Bede on 04 Jan 2008 at 3:42 pm #
Weaver,
You should make the above comment a post.
Bede on 04 Jan 2008 at 3:43 pm #
The one on black nationalism.
Harold Crews on 04 Jan 2008 at 3:55 pm #
I was going primarily by impressions. I could support neither Hillary or Obama. Obama generally comes across a ‘nicer’ than Hillary. I have no doubt that he is a socialist. He just appears to be less willing to start a gulag system than Nurse Ratchet. I have no interest in either one of them so I’ve never looked either of their views up.
Patroon on 04 Jan 2008 at 4:28 pm #
My thoughts on last night:
1). What hurt Paul more than anything (and subsequently has helped McCain) has been the so-called “surge”. Forget thinking of the “surge” as a military strategy and think of it politically. It froze GOP support for the war. I had thought by the fall support for the war among Republicans would collapse and that would benefit RP. It didn’t happen. Paul won among Republicans who were disastisfied with the Administration but they only made up 32% of the caucus goers.
2). The turnout was higher than I had expected, over 100,000 Iowa Republicans. Huckabee’s rise had something to do with it but I think the close race and the media attention also drew in a lot of regular Republican types that voted for McCain and Thompson. There was no other way they could have gotten all those votes on their own because they didn’t have the organizational strength to turnout that many voters. They barely had skelton crews in Iowa. That really hurt Romney, who could have used their votes (combined they made up 26% of the vote). A lower turnout would have helped RP.
3). Regardless of all the attacks and all the bad press, Huckabee got his people out to the polls in defiance of the media. Now maybe that will hurt Huckabee later on, but it shows he has the deep support of a good chunk of the party regardless what you think of him. This was their way of giving the finger to his detractors in the press and on the right.
4). It wasn’t a good night for Paul but not a total disaster. He finished ahead of Guliani, won a county and won amongst independents. But it also shows that while internet organizing is important it still needs good old fashioned shoe leather to win elections (the personal always wins over the impersonal). Ron Paul did not make the effort needed to win Iowa. His camapaign is not an organized structure with a plan of attack but like an organism that subdivides and grows so it has growing pains. Unless he can finish in the top three in the remaining states his campaign will peter out. But even if it does, he should run in all 50 state contests and see if he can get delegates and make sure that his movement, at least if it can’t change the GOP, can steer it in the right direction. A non-major party campaign in my judgement would accomplish nothing for the future. Competing in the GOP can. And even if Paul is not the one to carry the message and the cause through, another, more telegenic, more articulate spokesperson is out there waiting to do so. But they can only do so if the movement is inside the party not outside, like it or not.
5). For the Dems its pretty simple, Obama, Edward and Clinton. Whatever you think of Obama and Edwards you have to be happy at the dethronement of Clinton dynasty (I heard she had Mad Bomber Madeline Albright next to her on the camapaign stage last night. Not a smart move.) As for the GOP the picture is very muddled. Romney was hurt but was he fatally wounded? Does Huckabee try to make a stand in New Hampshire or head south to defeat Thompson in South Carolina and then become the “Southern” candidiate. Does McCain have the resources to make a New Hampshire win into something more? Is waiting for Florida and Super Tuesday really a realistic strategy for Guliani? We’ll see.
6). Paul showed the difficulty of running as a libertarian-conservative. The problem is one of emphasis of issue. Do you focus on immigration and abortion to try and microtarget certain elements of the GOP and alienate the libertarians? Or do you emphasisze libertarian positions in closed party primaries and caucuses? It’s not easy to do. The trick is to find issues of common ground among libertarians and conservatives such as fiscal responsibility, foreign policy, freedom, and demphasize the divisive issues without changing’s one positions. Perhaps that was the biggest mistake the Paul campaign has made but it takes good candidates to run with that kind of unstable coalition.
Andrew T. on 04 Jan 2008 at 5:32 pm #
levotb,
How much more of an ignoramus can you be? Paul has said repreatedly and unequivocally that he will NOT run as a third-party candidate!!!
Andrew T. on 04 Jan 2008 at 5:33 pm #
Kevin,
Is Chuck even running this time? Stop sitting on the sidelines! Support Paul!
Weaver on 04 Jan 2008 at 5:35 pm #
Bede, I’ll work on it later. You can post one in my stead too if you like.
ERIC on 04 Jan 2008 at 5:36 pm #
I’ve said it before thousands of times and I’m gonna say it again.
1) There is a culture war going on in this country with 2 main issues multiculturalism and secularism.
2) The war on terrorism is not the biggest issue within the republican base, it is the culture war.
3) The biggest constituancy in the republican party is white evangelicals and their biggest issue is secularism and the fight against it.
Their 2nd is multiculturalism.
Unfortunately their 3rd issue is the war on terrorism and defense of the jew country Israel.
The problem with Ron Paul is that not that he ignores the culture war, but his main issues are foreign policy and economic policy, therefore he comes across as ignoring the culture war.
And his libertarian side when it comes to the culture war does not sit well with white evangelicals, they want an active government to put an end to secularism and multiculturalism.
Instead of joining forces with leftist anti-war liberals like Paul is doing, and putting foreign policy/economics at the front of everything, the paleo movement should join forces with white evangelicals by putting the culture war 1st, not non-intervention foreign policy and economic stuff.
All of this is exactly why Paul isn’t going to get the nomination.
Andrew T. on 04 Jan 2008 at 6:00 pm #
ERIC,
To your points.
1.) Yep
2.) It’s possible. The GOP base loves to drone on about the “Islamo-fascist threat”, but it may be more embarrassed to say it’s semi-interested in the culture conflict
3.) As I’ve already said before, the way that Evangelicals have become mobilized into politics as they are is problematic.
Multiculturalism is hardly even in the American Evangelical playbook. What planet are you from? The Moral Majority’s “big-government (sic) values conservatism” is focused on transferring an ethnically neutral values doctrine to political action; they are hardly focused on culture per se at all.
You have to get some spine behind you, ERIC. Your livelihood should not be dictated by masses of voters. Realize how readily the government destroys cultural and civil stability by acting outside its capacity, how the State is virtually impossible to redeem for a bastion of moral solvency. Don’t love Leviathan.
Ron Paul isn’t “joining forces” with anti-war liberals. Many of them simply come to his campaign because they selectively like his message. Would you with a straight face tell me you’d turn away some of your voting constituency?
Andrew T. on 04 Jan 2008 at 6:11 pm #
Going further, there is something profound I’ve noticing about the GOP and Dem candidates this time around — they’re mostly running on vague, nearly meaningless notions with virtually no real philosophical basis.
For the Democratic candidates, this vague notion they want to convey is “change”. The voters, particularly Obama’s, are empowered by the prospect of a moderate proletarian revolution of not-Bush.
The GOP candidates are touting a different line: “strength”. Stay the course of disaster.
The candidate that matters is running on a sound, Constitutional, philosophy. He has little use of petty notions that can’t be transferred into quantifiable results, except for timeless values, such as “freedom”.
Filmer on 04 Jan 2008 at 6:22 pm #
Obama is not a black nationalist. With all due respect, I think that is silly. He has a black absentee father, and was essentially raised like a white kid. I suspect he joined that Church for political reasons. To give himself black street cred. The reason blacks have not been supporting him in droves is because they doubt he is really one of them. Most of his support is from whites.
Now I do think the positions of the Church could be used against him, even though I doubt he personally holds them. The question is does anyone have the gonads to bring that up as it would immediately illicit howls of racism.
That is the double standard we are dealing with. When Huckabee was questioned about the SBC’s stance on gender roles, no one howled anti-evangelical.
Filmer on 04 Jan 2008 at 6:24 pm #
One thing that has surprised me. Paul supporters are treating this like a defeat because they expected better, but the media was totally overlooking Paul. I have heard a few people say that they thought his 10% showing was impressive and respectable. Wolf Blitzer did last night.
Filmer on 04 Jan 2008 at 6:29 pm #
Kevin Thompson,
Do you have any intel on the Constitution Party race? I too favor Chuck Baldwin for that nomination, assuming Ron Paul doesn’t win the GOP nomination or run third party, but I haven’t heard much at all about who is vying for the CP nomination. Will Baldwin get it by assent?
Andrew T. on 04 Jan 2008 at 6:29 pm #
Filmer,
The disappointing part is that with just a couple thousand more votes, Paul would have gotten 3rd and way more media recognition. It would have been strategically important. Shame on any Paul supporters that didn’t go out there yesterday.
The non-disappointing part is that Iowa is about the most Theocratic state in the union and supports massive subsidies for corn, ethanol, and aggressive wars, so 10% of the population voting for the Buchanan candidate is impressive. And guess which county our man won for 1st place — Jefferson county!
Sara on 04 Jan 2008 at 7:16 pm #
I find it interesting that religion as a “qualification” has become such a big issue. And now, with Huckabee’s win in Iowa, continues to be so. Both he and Romney made subtle jabs at each other this morning on NBC.
Christian conservatives certainly flexed their muscles … my wonder in regards to Huckabee is if they flexed them for him because he is “one of us” or because he is the one they saw as the most electable.
I’m interested to see the role that faith and politics plays out in the NH primaries – that could be the telling vote, in prep for SC, which is a divided battleground. On that note – has anyone heard of the upcoming indy film, Article VI? (http://www.articlevithemovie.com)
Patroon on 04 Jan 2008 at 7:42 pm #
The media spin has actually been pretty positive for a fifth place finish. They really must have throught this campaign was a joke until they saw him draw 11,600 votes. They anticpiate him doing well in New Hampshire and third place is a possibility there plus the money he has gives him credibility, otherwise he would be written off like Duncan Hunter.
We’ll see what happens…
Weaver on 04 Jan 2008 at 8:24 pm #
Filmer,
Obama wrote in his book:
The man seems to have joined early in his life.
Weaver on 04 Jan 2008 at 8:47 pm #
Andrew, your objection has been preemptively noted, but no one else covers this type of issue:
Take a look at this CofCC article:
CofCC’s latest article regarding the Obama win in Iowa.
Obama’s a member of CFR too, gosh I guess everyone who’s anyone is a member…
Andrew T. on 04 Jan 2008 at 8:57 pm #
Weaver,
The CofCC is in cahoots with Paul Fromm. Fromm is a German-saluting Neo-Nazi. If you want a real paleoconservative organization with decades of history behind it, go with the John Birch Society.
Weaver on 04 Jan 2008 at 9:12 pm #
Noted.
Here’s an article by a citizenist then, Filmer you’ll remember this one:
and the article continues on for a while.
This amcon article was the first I’d heard of Obama being strongly attached to his blackness.
andyt on 04 Jan 2008 at 9:13 pm #
Was delighted to see Hillary pace 3rd even though the pant-suited,strident evil witch would be a better president (perish the thought) than the other two Gomers.
Filmer on 04 Jan 2008 at 10:22 pm #
Andrew, I wouldn’t call the JBS paleo. They are constitutionalists, and they used to, more than now, have strong conspiratorialist leanings.
Filmer on 04 Jan 2008 at 10:36 pm #
Weaver,
Don’t you think some of that stuff is posing? Why would being a bitter black man not show itself on the campaign trail? Is he that good? And Sailer’s elaboration on the quote seems like quite an extrapolation. It seems to me that Obama has rather adeptly used his half whiteness.
Here is another passage.
“Obama has molded himself into the male Oprah Winfrey, the crown prince of niceness, bravely denouncing divisiveness, condemning controversy, eulogizing unity, and retelling his feel-good life story…”
The question is whether that is real or all put on. If it is real that helps us. Better a liberal who wants to keep everybody happy and avoid conflict (Obama) than a liberal who invites and relishes conflict (Hillary). Hillary, because of her husband, has a big chip on her shoulder, and would be happy to rub her victory and power in the face of conservatives every chance she got.
Andrew T. on 04 Jan 2008 at 11:13 pm #
Filmer,
In what respect is the JBS not paleo (any more than the Constitution party)? In almost no respect that I know of.
The conspiracy stuff has been extinct for years and years.
Michael L. McKee on 05 Jan 2008 at 12:58 am #
I believe our main concern is NAME RECOGNITION. We must redouble our efforts to get the Name of Ron Paul to become what we once called a “household” name. The younger members of this revolution must get their parents and grandparents out of the “follow the mainstream mentality,” and away from party-line politics. I am 60 years old, and I only needed about 5 minutes to know that Ron Paul was a Statesman in the truest sense of the term. The others are merely different versions of the same old “flim-flam” routine. They are “slick willie” politicians who will say everything to get your vote, and then they will go to work to disassemble more of your freedoms once they go through the ceremony to feign their allegiance to our Constitution.
If Ron Paul gets any notoriety at all from the MSM, it will likely be too little, too late and will also be presented in such a way as to have little positive effect on the unenlightened. I believe we need to utilize POLITE and RESPECTABLE “in their face” tactics to get the people asking, who is Ron Paul? I have found I get better results by simply handing them a few “slim-jim” cards and telling them that he is the presidential candidate who will restore their freedoms and safeguard those that are still in tact. Ask them to take a look at him and what he represents. We are not going to awaken those who are too far gone to save, but there is hope for those who have a functioning brain and are willing to think things through on their own. We must remember that most of us have been subjected for many years to a very subtle form of stealth brainwashing and our freedoms were usurped because we were first made to believe that we were doing the right thing. Well, I have seen the enemy, and he is us.
I also believe in prayer and I believe there is an Unseen Hand at work Who will aid us in our efforts because they are RIGHT. We must set the example to others by being firm, but fair. Remember this, the so-called “separation of church and state” is a bogus lie used by liars to tell lies to those who do not demand absolute truth. We do not need to be concerned about our small numbers against the rich and powerful because we can call upon our Lord to lead us back to freedom.
Weaver on 05 Jan 2008 at 7:28 am #
Filmer,
Obama seems to just be talking the talk regarding unity…
Was I a black nationalist, I’d support the same policies he does; they’re all in the best interests of blacks.
His book was even named after a speech given by his preacher… Obama seems to legitimately be devoted to him.
It’s common for nationalists to identify with one part of their heritage if of mixed ancestry.
Blacks just don’t usually view the world in raceless terms like whites; it’s folly to assume Obama does. And too, they blame everything on whites. His identifying as black makes him black; it’s a matter of identity.
—
Hillary isn’t as skillful as Obama; Obama is dangerous… he’d get a lot passed. Hillary is divisive; Obama is charismatic.
—
Reading that preacher of Obama’s… South Africa comes to mind. I guess I’ll continue searching the web for info though. I could be wrong since I’m not all that familiar with him, though currently most evidence points towards him being black nationalist, whether the media portrays him as such or no.
Black nationalism is an abstract tie; it could easily be formed while being raised by whites. Isn’t abstract nationalism often defined by what one is not rather than more natural, particular ties? Not to say there’s no place for weaker abstract ties, but that’s another issue.
—
Elizabeth Wright is a unique exception of course; I wouldn’t mind her being President I think. And I’m aware there is a small group of similar black conservatives, but Obama is not one of them.
Andrew T. on 05 Jan 2008 at 5:49 pm #
Weaver,
Obama is hardly a black nationalist. Multiculturalist is the right description here.