G
Gandalf Grey
Guest
Handicapping the Iowa 'straw poll'
By Margie Burns
Created Aug 11 2007 - 9:39am
If a candidate's positions on the big issues actually mean much in the Iowa
'straw poll,' then the number of votes received by the honorable Ron Paul of
Texas ought to reflect the percentage of Iowa Republicans who have turned
against the war. Paul is the sole Republican running for the White House who
has opposed the invasion and occupation of Iraq consistently, from the
first, without wavering or obfuscation. He predicted the big problems with
the war accurately, too, along with taking the right stand on moral grounds.
He should be getting more credit from these people; he is very nearly the
only public figure who could save their political party from the moral
ignominy associated with slaughtering little girls in Iraq.
Opinion polls are currently reported as giving Ron Paul 2 percent of the
vote in Iowa.
Logically, if a candidate's positions matter much, that should mean that 98
percent of Republican Iowans favor the war. That proportion sounds a bit
high, even given the go-along-to-get-along mentality, euphemized as
'Republican activist,' that does seem to characterize many of the people who
turn out for the straw poll. In any case, this kind of calculation is
complicated by the fact that GOP fora and the other candidates have pretty
much done their level best - if that's the correct term - to shut Ron Paul
out of public view. These opinion polls, which the public seldom to never
sees in their raw-data original form, also sound highly convenient for the
pro-saber faction.
This kind of guessing game can be played with other determinants, of course.
If a candidate's 'character' and consistency really matter as much as people
sometimes claim in the opinion surveys, and if most Iowa Republicans really
support the war, then John McCain should be their man. He's the only
historic figure in the race, the young fellow in the service who refused to
leave his mates in a Vietnam prison when offered release himself.
On another hand, if relentless self-promotion and a fathomless deafness to
the promptings of shame make for a winner, then former New York mayor Rudy
Holy-Moly has the win, hands down. Only in America, as they say . . . could
someone run for higher office on grounds that he was mayor of a big city
when it was struck by terrorists who killed more than 3,000 people.
One-upping Fiorello "the little flower" LaGuardia exponentially, when
Giuliani makes a bogus claim, it's a beaut.
And if, as the media outlets seem to have concluded, big money is the key
determinant, then Mitt Romney should blow past all other candidates, present
or absent, declared or undeclared.
Romney is actually the smart pick in the 'straw poll' for a number of
reasons, only one being his having focused so much on Iowa, and poured so
much money into it, that both McCain and Giuliani saved money by
sidestepping the event. Romney is also the pod-person candidate, the type of
nicely suited android with money and a political pedigree that the
Republicans always pick when they can, except when they went out on a limb
and nominated Goldwater in 1964. Now that the GOP establishment has tossed
John McCain aside, Romney is also the default next-in-line, like Nixon and
Dole et al. All the horrid eligibilities and proprieties, as Jane Austen
would put it, running as a candidate.
A couple of candidates have their own strong factors. If the pro-life
position were actually the be-all and end-all it is touted to be, Sam
Brownback of Kansas would be a strong contender - behind, once again, Ron
Paul. Brownback's articulation of his stance always comes across as more
sincere than Romney's.
And if winning against a Democrat in the general election were the deciding
factor, Mike Huckabee should get the nod. Huckabee often sounds very good,
when he's not pettily sniping at Michael Moore. In the recent GOP
candidates'
forum moderated by George Stephanopoulos, Huckabee sounded particularly
good, because he used several of Ron Paul's positions and turned them into
deft sound bites, speaking his turn just before Paul more than once. That 46
percent of Republicans polled reportedly consider Huckabee their "most
underrated" candidate does not augur well for Romney.
Funny how the general election seems to be left out of the equation. Mitt
Romney is obviously the placeholder par excellence, an eligible candidate
for good loser like Bob Dole in 1996, for an election cycle the GOP fears it
has a good chance of losing.
Exact predictions about Iowa Republicans' choices for nominee are
impossible, because individual votes depend partly on degree of awareness,
including ethics, and degree of information. Assuming that most of the
caucus attenders are not too well informed on the candidates' actual
positions, Romney looks good for now. But I wouldn't give much for Romney's
odds on becoming the nominee, if the Democrats actually start looking dumb
enough to nominate Hillary Clinton. Experts including the unsavory Newt
Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer have indicated clearly - by boosting her -
that they consider Clinton the best Democratic nominee the Republicans could
hope for. If she ever starts looking solid for the nomination -- a
nightmarish thought -- Romney will have a fight on his hands throughout the
GOP primaries. A placeholder will no longer be wanted.
_______
Reprinted with permission of MargieBurns.com [1]
Margie Burns is a freelance journalist in the D.C. area with a blog at
MargieBurns.com [2].
margie.burns@verizon.net
About author Margie Burns is a freelance journalist in the D.C. area with a
blog at MargieBurns.com [3]. She can be reached at margie.burns@verizon.net.
Reprinted with permission of MargieBurns.com [4]
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
By Margie Burns
Created Aug 11 2007 - 9:39am
If a candidate's positions on the big issues actually mean much in the Iowa
'straw poll,' then the number of votes received by the honorable Ron Paul of
Texas ought to reflect the percentage of Iowa Republicans who have turned
against the war. Paul is the sole Republican running for the White House who
has opposed the invasion and occupation of Iraq consistently, from the
first, without wavering or obfuscation. He predicted the big problems with
the war accurately, too, along with taking the right stand on moral grounds.
He should be getting more credit from these people; he is very nearly the
only public figure who could save their political party from the moral
ignominy associated with slaughtering little girls in Iraq.
Opinion polls are currently reported as giving Ron Paul 2 percent of the
vote in Iowa.
Logically, if a candidate's positions matter much, that should mean that 98
percent of Republican Iowans favor the war. That proportion sounds a bit
high, even given the go-along-to-get-along mentality, euphemized as
'Republican activist,' that does seem to characterize many of the people who
turn out for the straw poll. In any case, this kind of calculation is
complicated by the fact that GOP fora and the other candidates have pretty
much done their level best - if that's the correct term - to shut Ron Paul
out of public view. These opinion polls, which the public seldom to never
sees in their raw-data original form, also sound highly convenient for the
pro-saber faction.
This kind of guessing game can be played with other determinants, of course.
If a candidate's 'character' and consistency really matter as much as people
sometimes claim in the opinion surveys, and if most Iowa Republicans really
support the war, then John McCain should be their man. He's the only
historic figure in the race, the young fellow in the service who refused to
leave his mates in a Vietnam prison when offered release himself.
On another hand, if relentless self-promotion and a fathomless deafness to
the promptings of shame make for a winner, then former New York mayor Rudy
Holy-Moly has the win, hands down. Only in America, as they say . . . could
someone run for higher office on grounds that he was mayor of a big city
when it was struck by terrorists who killed more than 3,000 people.
One-upping Fiorello "the little flower" LaGuardia exponentially, when
Giuliani makes a bogus claim, it's a beaut.
And if, as the media outlets seem to have concluded, big money is the key
determinant, then Mitt Romney should blow past all other candidates, present
or absent, declared or undeclared.
Romney is actually the smart pick in the 'straw poll' for a number of
reasons, only one being his having focused so much on Iowa, and poured so
much money into it, that both McCain and Giuliani saved money by
sidestepping the event. Romney is also the pod-person candidate, the type of
nicely suited android with money and a political pedigree that the
Republicans always pick when they can, except when they went out on a limb
and nominated Goldwater in 1964. Now that the GOP establishment has tossed
John McCain aside, Romney is also the default next-in-line, like Nixon and
Dole et al. All the horrid eligibilities and proprieties, as Jane Austen
would put it, running as a candidate.
A couple of candidates have their own strong factors. If the pro-life
position were actually the be-all and end-all it is touted to be, Sam
Brownback of Kansas would be a strong contender - behind, once again, Ron
Paul. Brownback's articulation of his stance always comes across as more
sincere than Romney's.
And if winning against a Democrat in the general election were the deciding
factor, Mike Huckabee should get the nod. Huckabee often sounds very good,
when he's not pettily sniping at Michael Moore. In the recent GOP
candidates'
forum moderated by George Stephanopoulos, Huckabee sounded particularly
good, because he used several of Ron Paul's positions and turned them into
deft sound bites, speaking his turn just before Paul more than once. That 46
percent of Republicans polled reportedly consider Huckabee their "most
underrated" candidate does not augur well for Romney.
Funny how the general election seems to be left out of the equation. Mitt
Romney is obviously the placeholder par excellence, an eligible candidate
for good loser like Bob Dole in 1996, for an election cycle the GOP fears it
has a good chance of losing.
Exact predictions about Iowa Republicans' choices for nominee are
impossible, because individual votes depend partly on degree of awareness,
including ethics, and degree of information. Assuming that most of the
caucus attenders are not too well informed on the candidates' actual
positions, Romney looks good for now. But I wouldn't give much for Romney's
odds on becoming the nominee, if the Democrats actually start looking dumb
enough to nominate Hillary Clinton. Experts including the unsavory Newt
Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer have indicated clearly - by boosting her -
that they consider Clinton the best Democratic nominee the Republicans could
hope for. If she ever starts looking solid for the nomination -- a
nightmarish thought -- Romney will have a fight on his hands throughout the
GOP primaries. A placeholder will no longer be wanted.
_______
Reprinted with permission of MargieBurns.com [1]
Margie Burns is a freelance journalist in the D.C. area with a blog at
MargieBurns.com [2].
margie.burns@verizon.net
About author Margie Burns is a freelance journalist in the D.C. area with a
blog at MargieBurns.com [3]. She can be reached at margie.burns@verizon.net.
Reprinted with permission of MargieBurns.com [4]
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
