Political commentators are making the case that today, in the Alamo state, Hilary Clinton is making her last stand. Win in Texas and she continues to fight for the Democratic nomination for president. Lose, and Obama is heading straight to the convention.
Albeit drawn out longer than in previous elections, the contests of caucuses and primaries has done what it is supposed to do -- give the electorate an opportunity to weed through the long list of senators, representatives and governors who want to be President, and dash some dreams along the way. The first campaign to fizzle out was that of former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, who ended his run many months before the caucus calendar began, due to poor fundraising (he has since backed Clinton). The last campaign to fold may be that of Clinton.
From a field of more than a dozen contenders, we are left with four. (Ron Paul would make five, but he has turned his attention to getting re-elected for his Texas congressional seat. If he can't be President, he at least wants to retain his excellent group health benefits.)
I came out on this blog with support for Mike Huckabee before it was the hip thing to do. Thanks to my vote, he won the state of Iowa and enjoyed the limelight for exactly one week. Then, John McCain rose up to win in New Hampshire, and continued to win across the country. Huckabee has won on several other occasions in southern contests, but has not caught fire on a national level. He is the most socially conservative candidate left (perhaps the only social conservative) and certainly the easiest of the candidates to listen to, but that's where his attributes have seemed to end for most.
John McCain has been waiting for eight years to become the Republican nominee for President. The wait will become reality by 9 p.m. this evening. McCain is many things -- a war veteran (many say hero), a lifelong politician, and a man often at odds with his party's talking heads. According to candid interviews I've read, he's also is a hothead that, when crossed, might loose his tongue and call anybody any name in the book. That kind of guy doesn't appeal much to me.
But McCain would have to be a far worse candidate for me to seriously consider voting Democrat. If you're feeling blue, Obama appears to be the man with the momentum. Near as I can tell, his campaign has had one single theme -- I didn't vote for the war in Iraq, and don't you forget it. To his oratory credit, he has remained consistent in speech after speech. You know Obama is the candidate of change (because that's what he's told us over and over again). But change from what to what? He's said a lot of things, but can he deliver? He is an undistinguished, short-term Senator, with no proven ability to enact and pass the kinds of legislation he speaks of.
As for Hilary Clinton (now that she's running for president and using her husband as the bullhorn, apparently she isn't using her maiden name Rodham anymore), her time seems to have come and gone. As her hopes fade, so too will the Clinton dynasty. Bill will go back to his million dollar speeches, Hilary to the Senate, where she will become Obama's most adamant supporter and legislation author. The two will cook up a universal health care plan so big and expensive it will make the war costs look like chump change. Never mind that social security and the national debt remain the two biggest fiscal challenges our country faces. Who has a plan to address those issues?
When I go to the voting booth in November, I anticipate having a choice between loose lipped, military hawk John McCain and loose wallet, military wallflower Barack Obama. Oh, it's a tantalizing decision.
Eany, meany, miny, mo,
Which way will my ballot go?
To the left or to the right,
To end the war or keep the fight?
To pay for guns and tanks, and planes,
Or pay for every one's aches and pains?
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
March 4, 2008
January 4, 2008
Hawkeye Caucus Results
Imagine my surprise Thursday night when we pulled within a quarter mile of our Republican-only caucus site last night and came to a grinding halt because traffic was overflowing. Republicans are uninterested in the race for 08? I guess not everyone got the message.
We arrived 30 minutes early to avoid traffic. Instead, cars already lined the side street to Antioch Christian Church in every direction available. We chose to park on the shoulder of a 65 MPH highway and walk quickly through the ice and wind to avoid getting locked out (must be in the caucus by 7 p.m. OR ELSE!). Once inside a sanctuary-turned-precinct site, we quickly surmised that the 500 or so seats were already 90 percent full. We found two chairs and sat, while the sanctuary filled to overflow.
An hour later we drove home listening to the radio announce that Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama were already being declared winners. Our precinct votes had yet to be counted and called in. I thought, "These two must be winning big."
Turning on Fox News, we quickly learned that they were, in fact, winning big. In the end, both Obama and Huckabee won by wider margins than the polls had predicted. Both must be pleased beyond peaches that they won the way they did.
One big story coming out of Iowa is that a record number of Democrats turned out to caucus, about 225,000. That's about the number that the pundits predicted would come out for the two parties combined. It was a record total for Dems. But lost in the shuffle was that a record number of Republicans also turned out -- about 120,000. This is 36 percent more than the previous Republican record set in the 2000 George W. Bush caucus. So, both parties set records, and of course, the 345,000 or so total voters (about 17 percent of Iowa's registered voters) was a record. In other words, Iowans from both parties were excited about their candidates and did their job well.
Though I did not and will not vote for Barack Obama, many did. It is exhaustively reported that Iowa is not representative of the country because we're neither red or blue -- we're vanilla -- 95 percent Caucasian. Yet the black-American Obama was the leading vote-getter. That shows that Iowan's do listen to the candidates and evaluate their merits beyond more superficial characterictics. If that's true of the Obama vote, it is also true of the Huckabee vote.
So, coming strong out of Iowa are a black man and a Southern Baptist preacher, who six months ago were defined exclusively in just those terms. Today they wear a new labels -- winner, and legitimate candidate. Those are terms not applicable to Chris Dodd and Joe Biden (both dropped out immediately following the vote tally) nor Bill Richardson and Duncan Hunter (both will surely fall away within the week). Another job well done by Iowans -- winnowing the candidate pool to a formidable number for future debates.
The cameras and talking heads all boarded their planes at midnight to move to New Hampshire. Not one candidate will be back in Iowa until late summer when the general election swings into gear. Even then, the visits will be few and far between. So, we take a breather until March 2011 ... the likely timeframe for the beginning of the 2012 election.
We arrived 30 minutes early to avoid traffic. Instead, cars already lined the side street to Antioch Christian Church in every direction available. We chose to park on the shoulder of a 65 MPH highway and walk quickly through the ice and wind to avoid getting locked out (must be in the caucus by 7 p.m. OR ELSE!). Once inside a sanctuary-turned-precinct site, we quickly surmised that the 500 or so seats were already 90 percent full. We found two chairs and sat, while the sanctuary filled to overflow.
An hour later we drove home listening to the radio announce that Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama were already being declared winners. Our precinct votes had yet to be counted and called in. I thought, "These two must be winning big."
Turning on Fox News, we quickly learned that they were, in fact, winning big. In the end, both Obama and Huckabee won by wider margins than the polls had predicted. Both must be pleased beyond peaches that they won the way they did.
One big story coming out of Iowa is that a record number of Democrats turned out to caucus, about 225,000. That's about the number that the pundits predicted would come out for the two parties combined. It was a record total for Dems. But lost in the shuffle was that a record number of Republicans also turned out -- about 120,000. This is 36 percent more than the previous Republican record set in the 2000 George W. Bush caucus. So, both parties set records, and of course, the 345,000 or so total voters (about 17 percent of Iowa's registered voters) was a record. In other words, Iowans from both parties were excited about their candidates and did their job well.
Though I did not and will not vote for Barack Obama, many did. It is exhaustively reported that Iowa is not representative of the country because we're neither red or blue -- we're vanilla -- 95 percent Caucasian. Yet the black-American Obama was the leading vote-getter. That shows that Iowan's do listen to the candidates and evaluate their merits beyond more superficial characterictics. If that's true of the Obama vote, it is also true of the Huckabee vote.
So, coming strong out of Iowa are a black man and a Southern Baptist preacher, who six months ago were defined exclusively in just those terms. Today they wear a new labels -- winner, and legitimate candidate. Those are terms not applicable to Chris Dodd and Joe Biden (both dropped out immediately following the vote tally) nor Bill Richardson and Duncan Hunter (both will surely fall away within the week). Another job well done by Iowans -- winnowing the candidate pool to a formidable number for future debates.
The cameras and talking heads all boarded their planes at midnight to move to New Hampshire. Not one candidate will be back in Iowa until late summer when the general election swings into gear. Even then, the visits will be few and far between. So, we take a breather until March 2011 ... the likely timeframe for the beginning of the 2012 election.
January 3, 2008
The Story of Iowa
The day has finally arrived -- caucusing in the lead state of Iowa will begin this evening at seven. No later than 8:30, the nation will know which candidates are leaving Iowa on a galloping white horse, and which are limping towards a political grave. As I have previously written, I will be caucusing for Mike Huckabee.
Much has been made in the press, both pro and con, about Iowa being the kick-off state for presidential elections. Our local Cedar Rapids Gazette reported the following statistics this morning:
Whether Iowa should be the first caucus in the nation and the nine-month focus of the political process is another topic for another day. But this much is true -- the caucuses are important to Iowa. If Iowa was one of two dozen states casting their votes on Super Tuesday February 5, few of the candidates would be here at all. Iowa would be off the map, like our Midwestern counterparts in South Dakota, Kansas, and Nebraska. Maybe a few TV adds here and there. Perhaps a media conference at the airport between stops in Illinois and Missouri. But not the untold millions that are spent now, and the countless coffee shop appearances by a dozen or more candidates.
The last time Iowa was in the news as much as it has been the last month, was in January of 2004 -- the last caucus. The last national impacting news story out of Iowa that doesn't relate to the caucuses was probably the floods of 1993, now 14 years ago. Whether or not the nation needs the Iowa caucus may be a debatable topic. But this is not up for debate -- Iowa does need to be the first-in-the-nation stop for the next President of the United States. If not for your benefit, then for ours.
P.S. It is estimated that about 250,000 Iowans may caucus tonight. If indeed upwards of $40,000,000 has been spent wooing my vote, perhaps in 2012 one of the candidate might just consider writing me a personal check. I don't want to suggest that my vote can be purchased ... obviously the candidates are already convinced that it can be.
Much has been made in the press, both pro and con, about Iowa being the kick-off state for presidential elections. Our local Cedar Rapids Gazette reported the following statistics this morning:
- Upwards of $40 million has been spent on campaign ads (the last few days, political adds have run six at a time to fill the entire commercial break of television programming). Of course, much more has been spent on travel, mailings and all the other trappings of being on the road
- Candidates have spent the equivalent of 600 days in the Hawkeye state (I'll bet that's a conservative number, as John Edwards spent much of the 2004 campaign here as well)
- 2,500 media pundits have said everything there is to say about campaign stops in such obscure places as Grundy Center and Dike
Whether Iowa should be the first caucus in the nation and the nine-month focus of the political process is another topic for another day. But this much is true -- the caucuses are important to Iowa. If Iowa was one of two dozen states casting their votes on Super Tuesday February 5, few of the candidates would be here at all. Iowa would be off the map, like our Midwestern counterparts in South Dakota, Kansas, and Nebraska. Maybe a few TV adds here and there. Perhaps a media conference at the airport between stops in Illinois and Missouri. But not the untold millions that are spent now, and the countless coffee shop appearances by a dozen or more candidates.
The last time Iowa was in the news as much as it has been the last month, was in January of 2004 -- the last caucus. The last national impacting news story out of Iowa that doesn't relate to the caucuses was probably the floods of 1993, now 14 years ago. Whether or not the nation needs the Iowa caucus may be a debatable topic. But this is not up for debate -- Iowa does need to be the first-in-the-nation stop for the next President of the United States. If not for your benefit, then for ours.
P.S. It is estimated that about 250,000 Iowans may caucus tonight. If indeed upwards of $40,000,000 has been spent wooing my vote, perhaps in 2012 one of the candidate might just consider writing me a personal check. I don't want to suggest that my vote can be purchased ... obviously the candidates are already convinced that it can be.
December 20, 2007
Soft on meth
This just in -- Mike Huckabee's opponents are attacking him for a bill he signed as governor of Arkansas that allowed convicted methamphetamine suppliers to be released from prison early for good behavior. Hence, the charge is that Huckabee is "soft on crime."
Perhaps. But also the last few weeks, Huckabee has been severely criticized by Mitt Romney and others for raising taxes in Arkansas.
I don't know if Arkansas is anything like Iowa in terms of prison populations. But if it is, then their prisons, like ours, are full. Beyond capacity. Outdated.
How do you solve that problem? Well, you build new prisons. Unfortunately, that costs hundreds of millions of dollars. Now, how do you pay for that kind of expense? Hmm .... raise taxes?
See, you can't have it both ways. Prisons, roads, schools and health care programs require money. In a small, rural state like Arkansas, economic development will bring in some funds, but taxes have to bring in the rest.
You just can't win when it comes to politics and political attacks. Admittedly, we don't like our taxes raised, and we don't like criminals to be set free without proper incarceration (and hopefully, rehabilitation). The solution to one of these issues likely comes at the price of the other.
Politicians running for office put out these sound bites and jabs, and then sit back and see what kind of damage they can do to the other candidate. That's the very reason that most American's, while caring deeply about who our President and Congressional representatives are, hate the election process.
Perhaps. But also the last few weeks, Huckabee has been severely criticized by Mitt Romney and others for raising taxes in Arkansas.
I don't know if Arkansas is anything like Iowa in terms of prison populations. But if it is, then their prisons, like ours, are full. Beyond capacity. Outdated.
How do you solve that problem? Well, you build new prisons. Unfortunately, that costs hundreds of millions of dollars. Now, how do you pay for that kind of expense? Hmm .... raise taxes?
See, you can't have it both ways. Prisons, roads, schools and health care programs require money. In a small, rural state like Arkansas, economic development will bring in some funds, but taxes have to bring in the rest.
You just can't win when it comes to politics and political attacks. Admittedly, we don't like our taxes raised, and we don't like criminals to be set free without proper incarceration (and hopefully, rehabilitation). The solution to one of these issues likely comes at the price of the other.
Politicians running for office put out these sound bites and jabs, and then sit back and see what kind of damage they can do to the other candidate. That's the very reason that most American's, while caring deeply about who our President and Congressional representatives are, hate the election process.
December 5, 2007
Huckabee and the Iowa Caucus
I posted in the fall that Mike Huckabee was becoming my candidate of choice to support in the Iowa caucus. At the time his polling support in Iowa was single digits. He trailed Giuliani, McCain, Romney and Thompson. In just three months, he has apparently lept to the top of the polls and now has a real shot of winning the vote, which is just 28 days away.
What has happened, and what is a proper perspective on this?
First off, Huckabee supporters will tell you (as will Huckabee himself) that he knows who he is, and running for president doesn't require that he begin catering to a new constituency. He is a former Southern Baptist church leader and two-time Republican governor. He has a personal record and voting record that paints a pretty good picture of who he is, and he's not trying to reinvent himself. That's good.
Second, he has played the "Sleeper Risk" card to a "T". I'm referring to the classic board game Risk. As devotees of the game know, one strategy to winning is playing slowly -- not attacking your opponents too quickly, and not positioning yourself as a risk to other players. In other words, lull your fellow players to sleep and then surprise them with your strength.
Politically, this is Huckabee. For months at a time, his opponents paid him no attention. Quietly, with very little money, he has diligently shook hands with the conservative voters that play such a big role in the Iowa caucus. Most seem to like the message and the style with which its delivered. Its only within the last month that the bog dogs have noticed that Huck is no longer polling six percent (I believe he's at 28 percent now).
The larger question is not, "Will Huckabee win Iowa?" Rather, it is, "Can Huckabee win anywhere else but Iowa and Arkansas?" Nationally, he is still a low-poller, a distant fourth. It is a similar story for Democrat John Edwards, whose campaigning in Iowa for the last five years has yielded him respectable polling numbers, but whose national numbers are light years behind Clinton and Obama.
With 28 days left until 125,000 Iowans go the polls (just four percent of the state's population), anything can happen. I do plan to caucus, and at this point, will check the box for Huckabee. I'll keep you posted.
What has happened, and what is a proper perspective on this?
First off, Huckabee supporters will tell you (as will Huckabee himself) that he knows who he is, and running for president doesn't require that he begin catering to a new constituency. He is a former Southern Baptist church leader and two-time Republican governor. He has a personal record and voting record that paints a pretty good picture of who he is, and he's not trying to reinvent himself. That's good.
Second, he has played the "Sleeper Risk" card to a "T". I'm referring to the classic board game Risk. As devotees of the game know, one strategy to winning is playing slowly -- not attacking your opponents too quickly, and not positioning yourself as a risk to other players. In other words, lull your fellow players to sleep and then surprise them with your strength.
Politically, this is Huckabee. For months at a time, his opponents paid him no attention. Quietly, with very little money, he has diligently shook hands with the conservative voters that play such a big role in the Iowa caucus. Most seem to like the message and the style with which its delivered. Its only within the last month that the bog dogs have noticed that Huck is no longer polling six percent (I believe he's at 28 percent now).
The larger question is not, "Will Huckabee win Iowa?" Rather, it is, "Can Huckabee win anywhere else but Iowa and Arkansas?" Nationally, he is still a low-poller, a distant fourth. It is a similar story for Democrat John Edwards, whose campaigning in Iowa for the last five years has yielded him respectable polling numbers, but whose national numbers are light years behind Clinton and Obama.
With 28 days left until 125,000 Iowans go the polls (just four percent of the state's population), anything can happen. I do plan to caucus, and at this point, will check the box for Huckabee. I'll keep you posted.
October 11, 2007
The Boring Rush Limbaugh
Yesterday afternoon I went home early to take some cold medicine, Advil, and a nap. It was about 1:45 p.m., 45 minutes into the three-hour Rush Limbaugh radio show.
I graduated from college in 1992, about the time the Limbaugh show was hitting the national airwaves. He was quite a phenom. His topical updates were hysterical, complete with themed music. He was creating an empire, one listener at a time, and entertaining them along the way. When Bill Clinton was elected, Rush (self-proclaimed conservative and truth-teller) really hit stride. During this period of time I was a frequent listener.
The last 10 years, my jobs and office environments have not been conducive to mid-afternoon radio listening. So, I've fallen out of touch with Rush, never catching more than a few minutes of his show at a time. Yesterday I listened for 135 minutes. What a bore.
Gone, apparently, are calls from listeners. Rush took about 3 an hour. Instead, he'd rather listen to himself speak. No homeless updates, no them music, no plugging of his necktie line (production ceased many years ago). He's still behind the "golden EIB microphone" and reading articles from his "formerly nicotine-stained hands" (never mind that Rush is a frequent cigar smoker, I guess that doesn't count as nicotine).
Rush has been through a lot the last 10 years. He has been divorced, he's had a failed television show, he lost 100 pounds, he was arrested for illegal prescription drug use, and he arguably helped elect a president.
Now, it seems he's just churning out a radio show that helps maintain his millionaire status. It was not entertaining, or amusing, or fun. It was boring. It left me with the feeling that if I go another 10 years before I tune in again, I won't miss much.
I graduated from college in 1992, about the time the Limbaugh show was hitting the national airwaves. He was quite a phenom. His topical updates were hysterical, complete with themed music. He was creating an empire, one listener at a time, and entertaining them along the way. When Bill Clinton was elected, Rush (self-proclaimed conservative and truth-teller) really hit stride. During this period of time I was a frequent listener.
The last 10 years, my jobs and office environments have not been conducive to mid-afternoon radio listening. So, I've fallen out of touch with Rush, never catching more than a few minutes of his show at a time. Yesterday I listened for 135 minutes. What a bore.
Gone, apparently, are calls from listeners. Rush took about 3 an hour. Instead, he'd rather listen to himself speak. No homeless updates, no them music, no plugging of his necktie line (production ceased many years ago). He's still behind the "golden EIB microphone" and reading articles from his "formerly nicotine-stained hands" (never mind that Rush is a frequent cigar smoker, I guess that doesn't count as nicotine).
Rush has been through a lot the last 10 years. He has been divorced, he's had a failed television show, he lost 100 pounds, he was arrested for illegal prescription drug use, and he arguably helped elect a president.
Now, it seems he's just churning out a radio show that helps maintain his millionaire status. It was not entertaining, or amusing, or fun. It was boring. It left me with the feeling that if I go another 10 years before I tune in again, I won't miss much.
October 10, 2007
Huckabee Comes Out on Top
Several weeks ago I wrote about a poll I took online that suggested Republican John Cox is the man I should throw my support behind in the '08 presidential run. Never mind that I have never heard of John Cox.
USA Today had another poll out this morning. My results were different this time, probably because the questions were different. In this poll, you are asked to respond to specific policy questions that have been posed to the candidates. For example, "Should the United States have invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein? "What should happen to illegal immigrants already in the United States?" What should the government do about same-sex couples that want to get married?""What would be the best way to improve the federal income tax system?" There are 11 total questions covering seven subject matters.
My top three matches, in order, were Mike Hukabee (R), Mitt Romney (R), and Tom Tancredo (R). They were separated from the rest of the Republican pack. My bottom three matches (from lowest to highest) were John Edwards (D), Joe Biden (D), and Barack Obama (D). My highest Dem was Hillary Clinton, but her match was below every Republican.
This poll once again affirms my Republican leanings. Huckabee and I answered seven of the 11 questions the same way. John Edwards and I agreed on none.
I have e-mailed the Huckabee campaign to see what his Eastern Iowa campaign schedule is. No reply to that question yet, but I was solicited for a campaign contribution. Go figure.
USA Today had another poll out this morning. My results were different this time, probably because the questions were different. In this poll, you are asked to respond to specific policy questions that have been posed to the candidates. For example, "Should the United States have invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein? "What should happen to illegal immigrants already in the United States?" What should the government do about same-sex couples that want to get married?""What would be the best way to improve the federal income tax system?" There are 11 total questions covering seven subject matters.
My top three matches, in order, were Mike Hukabee (R), Mitt Romney (R), and Tom Tancredo (R). They were separated from the rest of the Republican pack. My bottom three matches (from lowest to highest) were John Edwards (D), Joe Biden (D), and Barack Obama (D). My highest Dem was Hillary Clinton, but her match was below every Republican.
This poll once again affirms my Republican leanings. Huckabee and I answered seven of the 11 questions the same way. John Edwards and I agreed on none.
I have e-mailed the Huckabee campaign to see what his Eastern Iowa campaign schedule is. No reply to that question yet, but I was solicited for a campaign contribution. Go figure.
September 19, 2007
Candidate Calculator
My friend Jeff Wheeler posted a link to this presidential candidate calculator on his website. As I've previously written, I'm not yet sure who to support, and I'm always game for these kinds of polls. You might take it for yourself to see how you do.
Here's how I answered some of the questions:
Do you support...
Let me know how you score.
Here's how I answered some of the questions:
Do you support...
- Abortion rights: No
- Death penalty: Yes
- No child left behind: No
- Stem cell research: Unsure
- ANWR drilling: Yes
- Assault weapons ban: Yes
- Gun background checks: Yes
- Citizen path for illegals: No
- Border fence: Yes
- Support Iraq war: No
- Iran military action: No
- Iran sanctions: Yes
- Increase minimum wage: No
- Same sex marriage: No
- Universal healthcare: Unsure
- School vouchers: Yes
- Privatize social security: Unsure
- John Cox: 94 percent match. I don't know who John Cox is. He is easily my closest match.
- Mitt Romney, Tommy Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Tom Tancredo: These four were bunched together as a statistical group in the 80 percent range.
- Highest Democrat: Joe Biden at 56 percent match
- Three lowest matches: Bill Richardson, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards
Let me know how you score.
August 20, 2007
Finding a Needle in a Straw Poll
Iowa's Republican Party straw poll that took place nine days ago is already old news. Since then, every candidate for president from both parties has probably visited the Iowa State Fair and rubbed elbows with the populace that will decide his/her political fate in six months. Yesterday I watched a portion of a Democrat debate broadcast from Drake University in Des Moines.
Declared and not-yet declared candidates have been criss-crossing Iowa since a week after the 2004 presidential election. The activity picked up in July and will continue strong through the January caucus. Iowa, of course, is the first-in-the-nation caucus state. As such, whether rightly or wrongly, presidential candidates spend an enormous amount of time and money among our corn fields and small cities, hoping to claim the first victory toward party nomination.
I recently have had lunch with two good friends. One has likely voted Democrat for president for at least the last 20 years. The other, a staunch Republican voter. Both conversations were friendly and honest when it came to political pontification.
My Democrat friend surprisingly said that among the many candidates he has to choose from, none got him too excited. He made the point, and I agreed, that many of the Democrats have a leg up on any Republican because the current president is so unpopular. Americans voting for "change" may not care who they elect, as long as its not the current party in the White House. In the end, I think we concluded that Mrs. Clinton is the clear front-runner, but John Edwards is a "safe bet" because he is neither black nor a woman (both characteristics may prejudice certain voters). Yet, again, not one of the candidate truly stirred my friend's blood.
Lunch with my Republican friend turned to some of the usual questions among Republican voters. How do you feel about voting for a Mormon (Romney), and how "Mormon" is he? Is Giuliani conservative enough? Is McCain likable enough? Does anyone else in the field even have a chance? Our lunch was prior to the straw poll, and we both felt that if Huckabee or Brownback could make a move and place well, it might jump start his respective campaign. (As it turned out, Huckabee DID place a strong second and HAS seen a lift.) Yet the question remains, are any of these men both desirable and electable.
So, we're left trying to find a needle in the straw polls -- identifying a man or woman that seems honest, displays leadership characteristics, works well with other people, is a problem-solver, and who captures our attention to such a great height that we're willing to brave hot August gymnasiums to listen to stump speeches, and a cold January night to cast a vote.
As for me, I'm still searching.
Declared and not-yet declared candidates have been criss-crossing Iowa since a week after the 2004 presidential election. The activity picked up in July and will continue strong through the January caucus. Iowa, of course, is the first-in-the-nation caucus state. As such, whether rightly or wrongly, presidential candidates spend an enormous amount of time and money among our corn fields and small cities, hoping to claim the first victory toward party nomination.
I recently have had lunch with two good friends. One has likely voted Democrat for president for at least the last 20 years. The other, a staunch Republican voter. Both conversations were friendly and honest when it came to political pontification.
My Democrat friend surprisingly said that among the many candidates he has to choose from, none got him too excited. He made the point, and I agreed, that many of the Democrats have a leg up on any Republican because the current president is so unpopular. Americans voting for "change" may not care who they elect, as long as its not the current party in the White House. In the end, I think we concluded that Mrs. Clinton is the clear front-runner, but John Edwards is a "safe bet" because he is neither black nor a woman (both characteristics may prejudice certain voters). Yet, again, not one of the candidate truly stirred my friend's blood.
Lunch with my Republican friend turned to some of the usual questions among Republican voters. How do you feel about voting for a Mormon (Romney), and how "Mormon" is he? Is Giuliani conservative enough? Is McCain likable enough? Does anyone else in the field even have a chance? Our lunch was prior to the straw poll, and we both felt that if Huckabee or Brownback could make a move and place well, it might jump start his respective campaign. (As it turned out, Huckabee DID place a strong second and HAS seen a lift.) Yet the question remains, are any of these men both desirable and electable.
So, we're left trying to find a needle in the straw polls -- identifying a man or woman that seems honest, displays leadership characteristics, works well with other people, is a problem-solver, and who captures our attention to such a great height that we're willing to brave hot August gymnasiums to listen to stump speeches, and a cold January night to cast a vote.
As for me, I'm still searching.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
