Wednesday, January 23, 2008

State of the Primary

The Republican Presidential Contenders

Rudy Guiliani
Mitt Romney
John McCain
Mike Huckabee
Ron Paul
Tom Tancredo
Duncan Hunter
Fred Thompson
Ray McKinney
John Cox
Sam Brownback

So, the race has been significantly winnowed down from last summer.
Right now, there are 5 players in the race, and while I personally believe Ron Paul has little chance of winning, he is a rather significant player in this, so the count stays at 5.

Who's got the momentum? John McCain, or it is perceived as his momentum. Yet, as much as the media may appreciate the maverick, he isn't winning.
As much as Huckabee's populist campaigning is adored by the press, he isn't winning.
Rudy? Hah, he's got nothing yet. But it hasn't hurt him, nor will it hurt him in the end.
Ron Paul has his very dedicated base, but I believe he fell short on his best shot in New Hampshire.
And so that leaves...

Mitt Romney???
With little fanfare, and a well sustained beating from almost all quarters, Romney has stayed his course and conquered in the early political battles.
Sure, he lost Iowa to Huckabee. But he won Wyoming in the same week Sure, he lost New Hampshire to McCain. But he won Michigan in the same week
Sure, he lost South Carolina to McCain. But he won Nevada in the same week

So how do the delegate numbers break down?
  • Mitt Romney: 72
  • John McCain: 38
  • Mike Huckabee: 29
  • Ron Paul: 6
  • Rudy Giuliani 2

My point is this: The most successful candidate is the most lampooned and caricatured candidate by the liberal media.
I think it indicates something. The left is afraid of him, because Romney is an articulate conservative with a clean background who has the proven capacity to reach across party lines.

I'll be honest with ya'll, now that my beloved Fred has left the race, Romney is now my primary choice, and followed in second by Rudy Giuliani.

Now, to look at the big picture.

Delegates Tallied as of 1/23/07: 156
Final number of Delegates: 1, 191

Yeah, we've got a ways to go before it's time to get really excited. Perhaps after Febuary 5, we'll know more.


Kingdom Advancer said...

You forgot about Tommy Thompson.

I don't really agree with what you said about Romney, but...I'm too tired to try to type out why.

SolaMeanie said...

I can't support Romney, McCain or Giuliani. I don't trust any of them.

Besides, if you've ever been winnowed, you know how painful that can be.

bcbcFriend said...

There is nothing more compelling than ignorance of a favored candidates record and positions. It always overcomes any other candidate, regardless of how good they may actually be. The filter of "small sample set" is a cruel filter, especially when used to decide on Presidential candidates. Put the same effort into Romney's record as the others (especially Huckabee's), and Huckabee will have a fighting chance for your vote. Frankly, I find it hard to see why Romney doesn't scare the hooky out of you.

Palm boy said...

Tommy... Yeah. I did forget him. heh.

Sola, winnowing does sound painful.. but I can't claim to have been through it. :D

BCBC, Romney doesn't scare the hooky out of me because he's been solid on 2 of my 3 main issues (National Security, Economy, Illegal Immigration), and mediocre/competent on the immigration front.
As far as relion goes, when speaking politically, Mormonism and the Evangelical Christian's political goals overlap.

He also has been very competent in crafting his own buisness, and I think that is a very large selling point for a president.

Guitarman said...

People say a mormon could never be elected! Phooey, a few years back they elected a corrupt, philandering, bag his best friends daughter, snake oil salesman with a lesbian for a wife!

Lillgw said...

Perhaps you should take another look at the three issues you find most important. Is it possible to construct a more self-centered list of the main issues of today?

Hannah said...

As for leading Republican candidates, I don't have much confidence in Romney's persona. He fits too well into the Republican stereotype: a white, (extremely) wealthy male with the good looks of an all-too-smooth politican. Voting issues aside, I think voters will have a tough time connecting with his personality alone. Wasn't it only a few days ago that he commented on the "bling-bling" of an infant in a crowd of African American supporters? Another faux-pas like that (reminiscent of Howard Dean's campaign-ruining scream) and he could lose all hope of election.

Palm boy said...

Guitarman, thats a pretty harsh summation of the Clintons. I doubt anyone seriously places mormonism on the same scale as that. :D

Aaron... I could be far more self centered. Welfare handouts for the privilaged middle class, perhaps. :D

Hannah, that stereotype has yet to seriously harm us. Heck, Bush was a rich, politically savvy Texas oilman with foreign policy right out of a John Wayne western.
Personality matters much less when we arrive at the general election then they do in the primary. This is mainly due to the fact that the candidates policies are stark opposites of each other, whereas in the primaries, they are remarkable similar in most respects.

Jeana said...

To bcbcfriend:
Why I won't vote for Romney:

Why I won't vote for McCain:
(but not limited to this)

Why I won't vote for Guiliani:

Why I won't vote for Huckabee: Well, I think Palm Boy did a excellent job of blasting him here:

Palm Boy, don't push Ron Paul out of the race too quickly. I live in Florida, supposedly the Rudy Giuliani state, but not one sign or bumper-sicker have I seen for him. I have seen: 1 Mitt Romney sign, 2 Fred Thompson, 2 Mike Huckubee, and 1 Duncan Hunter. I haven't bothered to count the Ron Paul, but there are many. I know that signs and bumper-stickers don't tell who'll win the nomination, but it is still interesting. And many of the people who I know support him aren't exactly who you'd expect. One woman is the wife of a Muslim (not a Muslim herself though), who spent ten hours walking around to distribute Ron Paul information. I don't personally know the guy who runs the Tattoo&Body Piercings, but he's got a Ron Paul sign out in the front of his shop. And then there's my family, respectable but also distressingly independent and slightly weird. And consider this, youtube search results: the numbers of videos made for each candidate:
Romney has 9,000
McCain has 4,530
Guiliani has 19,200
Huckabee has 7,570
Paul has 109,000

Also, PB, I was rather surprised at what you wrote. Surprised is not the right word for it, more like shocked. You would take Romney! He might be the hottest republican running, but John Edwards fills that square, too. :D Seriously, He's no more trust worthy than Obama. Sure, what he says sounds right, but what do his actions tell you? Or his voting record? And if you take the time to really listen to his arguments, you'll see that his logic doesn't ring true. With his past record of Massachusetts liberal republican, and his current inconstancies, there's no way I could be prevailed upon to vote for him. And your second choice: RUDY GIULIANI? The man is a huge liberal! Oh boy, I really hope you're kidding us!

Jeana said...

By the way, you left Alan Keyes out of your list. Has he dropped?

Mercy Now said...

The other question is who has the best chance to beat the Dems be it Hillary or Obama.

Jeana said...

MercyNow, considering the fact that the "top" republican candidates are just as liberal as the democrats, I couldn't care less if the republicans win in the general election or not, if Ron Paul doesn't win the primary. Actually, while I won't vote for either, if the general is between Obama and McCain, I would rather see Obama than McCain win.

However, if Paul wins the primary, I believe he would stand a strong chance of beating the democrat, since he is the only one who is not a big-spending, big-government liberal.

under_the_mercy said...

Mercy Now,

you must also consider the long term results of voting to beat (who you consider to be) a worse candidate. I believe in the end it always results in a gradual shift by the party away from the principles you currently hold.I wrote an essay on the topic entitled "The Moral Voter", you can read it here if you'd like:


Though I don't like either Obama or McCain, I would defintiely choose McCain over Obama for two major reasons. First, he does not support socialism to the same extent Obama does, and second, being a former soldier himself and actually having been a POW and all that entitles, I do not believe he would sent American troops around the world needlessly. I personally view both these issues to as core, uncompromisable essentials.

Jeana said...

I know that Obama is a very nasty democrat, but so is McCain.

You "do not believe he would sent American troops around the world needlessly." Want to bet? Watch this and pay close attentions to McCain's gestures right at the end:

However, I do agree with you, partially. McCain's war knowledge would be an asset in conducting a war. Now this is going to sound ungrateful but it is a fact: the major reason I would take Obama over McCain is because McCain has been a POW. The Vietanmise did horrible things to the POWs, and it is not impossible, not even improbable, that the torture effected his mind. Personally, I would rather have a evil, power grabbing man, who is still somewhat sane in charge of the country, than a little less evil, power grabbing loon.

Jeana said...

Oh, PB, this bit might interest you, since you also support Israel:

Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

I better not say anything.

Palm boy said...

Jeana, (I'm glad you've got your name on here, btw :D)

Pro-Life is, in my book, a small issue in a executive branch leader. This desiscion will have to once again be routed through the courts, and I trust any of the candidates running on the Republican side to appoint a real judge, not a bench legislature, particularly in the first term. There is little a president can to to affect Abortion as it currently stands.

McCain... yeah... but at least as a Maverick, he'd be the first real indipendent we've had in a really really long time. He is my 4th choice right now.

Rudy concerns me on Babies, Gays and Guns, but hits my big three quite nicely. He's certainally my 5th choice out of the original list I have up there.

Thanks for the nod on Huckabee. :D

Ron Paul? I have not been a fan of his since his campaign spammed my church parking lot with flyers under the windshield wipers while we were in service. It's not just my church, I have some friends who have had the same experience in other states.
As for his policies, I love most of his domestic policies, but his foreign policy is the worst possible one in this race. I thought, as a nation, we had learned our lesson about isolationism in 1917, prior to the Great War.
What can be expected to happen if the good do nothing?

I think Romney would be a competent presdident with a conservative agenda.
Rudy would also be competent, and his 12 point plan is something I could get behind.
We'll be safe with either one for the first term.

Alan Keys? haha... funny.
The only man in the race who makes Ron Paul look moderate.

Mercy, I don't care who the democrat nominie is.. they're policies are identical, and in the general election, policies matter far more then personality.

Jeana, that's a pretty harsh and inaccurate judgment of the 'top' candidates. Of all the top candidates, only McCain comes close to the liberality of Clinton or Obama.

Palm boy said...

haha... more posts since I last responded.

Under, I think the long term look is appropriate, especially this early in the primary.
I would also firmly support McCain over either democrat, although is is no where near my top choice.

Jeana, again.
I think McCain's record stands for itself in regards to his mental stability. One does not served the senate for decades without being sharp of mind.

Ron Paul's policies do not support Israel. Withdrawing from the region is an absolutely ridiculous way to deal with islam.

Matt, that cracked me up.

Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

Would a little liberality hurt?

SolaMeanie said...


I can't speak for how things are in the UK, but here in the U.S. political liberalism and theological liberalism go hand in hand. Also, liberal doesn't mean the same thing it used to mean. I think "libertine" would be a better word for American liberalism.

If you want to get a good look at American political/theological liberalism, look at the United Church of Christ. Senator Barack Obama attends one of them. They are as apostate as the day is long.

I personally think John MacArthur is right. America is due for God's judgment and we might be about to get it.

Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

Yeah, the United Church of Christ is a rotten denomination.

I dont like the word 'liberal', it means too many different things. I think all you guys are liberals in the 19th century political meaning of the term.

What I would like to see in the sense of a more 'liberal' candidate is somebody who does not think tax cuts are ALWAYS the answer (as important as they are in the long term), who is willing to consider European models of social policy and who does not talk about illegal immigration all the time.

If that makes me a liberal in your eyes, then I am happy to be a liberal.

Every Blessing in Christ


SolaMeanie said...

No, Matt..I wouldn't call you a liberal. I save that epithet for special occasions. ;0

I am not enamored of European socialism (or American hybrids) because it tends to make dependents out of people instead of people who are self dependent. Europe tends to have a collectivist mindset. The Western European socialist model is the more benevolent, while the Eastern European/communist model is more invasive and brutal.

The ideal is for government to help those who are truly needy (actually, it's preferable that churches do it). But to make government benefits available for everyone "womb to the tomb" is a long term recipe for disaster. Under America's Constitution, government is designed to be limited. But no one seems to pay much attention to the Constitution any more.

under_the_mercy said...

"The ideal is for government to help those who are truly needy (actually, it's preferable that churches do it)."

So you think the rich people should be forced to be charitable for the good of the community?

SolaMeanie said...

That was a bit nasty, wasn't it? My comment wasn't saying anything different than Ronald Reagan always said. There is a difference in making some assistance available for genuine hard luck cases, and perpetuating generational welfare.

Most rich people have no problem with that concept. Keep in mind, I pay taxes also, and have no problem with some of my tax money going to temporarily help people. It's when they begin living off of government support for years and having kids to get bigger welfare checks that my patience runs out.

under_the_mercy said...

Please pardon me if that was nasty, I did not mean it to be so.

But how does the amount of money involved change the morality of the action? Yes people have hard luck, but that does not entitle them to help. Yes, it would be good if poeple helped them, but who is the government to say that we HAVE to? I also have no problem with giving to the poor, but I should be allowed to say to who and to what extent I am going to give.

Charity is not part of the role of government