The first “shot over the bow” has been taken in the 2012 presidential campaign. Mitt Romney scored a landslide victory over Rick Santorum to win the caucus. Well, landslide is a little strong, but 8 votes are 8 votes and nothing to sneeze at.
Ron Paul finished third, living up (or down) to my prediction. Newt Gingrich finished a distant fourth, due in part to the attack ads against him in the final weeks. Gingrich also had the best concession speech as he took the opportunity to attack the attack ads.
Bringing up the rear were Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, and Jon Huntsman. Perry was so disheartened by his 10% that he decided to go to Texas and re-evaluate his campaign. (More on him later) After finishing in the mid-single digits, Bachmann’s concession speech was exceptionally Bachmannesque, all over the place and leaving logic at the door. (More on her later) Finally Huntsman, by his choice, didn’t contest Iowa.
What will New Hampshire and the rest of America have to say about the Republicans? I don’t really care and this will probably be my last post specifically about them, however, I do want to know a little about the candidate they end up with.
Mitt Romney- A failure in 2008, that came back to be the establishment choice in 2012. Romney never really stopped running for president after 2008. During this three year period he attempted to juice his resume with right wing politics and policies with questionable results. Among the teabaggers he is considered a moderate and will continue to be haunted by his actions as governor of Massachusetts. He has flip-flopped on just about all of their deal breaking issues.
Because his positions seem to be constantly “evolving”, it’s hard to know where his presidency would take America. Most of his actions give every indication that he would be a slightly more intelligent George Dubbya, willing to go along to get along, and rubber stamping whatever off the wall proposal the establishment puts in front of him.
If the teabaggers unify behind one candidate, Romney could be in danger of losing the nomination despite the support of the establishment. However, if teabaggers divide their support between Santorum and Perry, with Paul and Gingrich stealing a few establishment conservatives, the wing-nuts may actually help Romney.
Rick Santorum- He became the “flavor of the month” at just the right time. It really doesn’t matter what the teabaggers and ultra conservatives think about Santorum, without destroying any chance of beating Romney, his opponents on the right must avoid tearing him down.
Santorum’s politics reflect the most disgusting policies of the teabaggers who support him. Deregulation of business and finance, cutting environmental protections, the ultimate end to Social Security and Medicare as we know it, blind support of Israel at the expense of the Palestinians, and the desire to use military might to enforce his vision of world affairs.
Even Santorum’s “humanitarian” issues have ulterior motives. For instance, He supports the US expenditure of billions to help with health and education in Africa. What is generally not known is that he supports this aid to prevent China and Islamic Republics from gaining a foothold in the region.
In the end, Santorum’s only chance for the nomination is a united tea party to get behind him. This is unlikely, and may not be enough anyway due to the GOP establishments divide and conquer strategy. Even teabagger favorite, Gov. Nikki Haley (SC) has endorsed the “moderate” Romney.
Ron Paul- Paul finished in third which is not really surprising in this race. Aside from Huntsman the others behind Paul share Santorum’s extreme positions. This left Paul as the only viable candidate in Iowa that was not from the establishment or supported by the teabaggers.
Paul’s economic policies are bizarre. He is a firm believer in the “Austrian School” of economics. Basically it breaks down to “free markets” left totally alone, would solve all economic problems. Also, statistics, trends, models, and history are nearly irrelevant. Paul (and the Austrians) believes that “human nature” would dictate wise economic decisions. When he takes off his rose tinted glasses he might see that corporate CEO ’s get paid well to do one thing, maximize profit in any legal way possible, often leaving logic at the door.
His non-economic issues are what “ronpaulians” or “PaulBots” use as the reason Democrats and others on the left should support him. Although there are several issues the left can agree with him on, anti-war, drug policy, repeal of the Patriot Act, etc… most of Paul’s domestic agenda is to return to the first half of the 20th century and “states rights”. This of course would lead to an end of progressive laws, and an increase in “morality laws”, in many conservative states. A Democrat or other member of the left with a functioning brain cell should see the stupidity of supporting Ron Paul.
Paul has no chance of winning the nomination, as establishment Republicans marginalize him, and teabaggers don’t support his non-economic policies. His “travelling” band of volunteers gives the illusion of unstoppable power, but it is just that, an illusion. Also, on just about any blog or other internet media or networking site, you find his supporters, but it lacks credibility in a room of 50 for there to be one ronpaulian claiming he is going to win the White House. Paul does have a chance at third, but it will depend on how the teabaggers break down.
Newt Gingrich- A 4th place finish with about 13% of the vote was a bit of a letdown after floating near the top of the group a month ago. His public and personal life gave ample fodder for negative ads his opponents could use, and they did.
His policies are typical Republican mumbo-jumbo, with a twist, as he is painting himself as the true conservative in the field. He began his campaign seeming more intent on selling books than becoming president, and at times still falls into “marketing speak”.
Newt has no chance of the nomination as many establishment republicans don’t like him, and many teabaggers don’t trust him. He will probably drop out after the first big week of multiple primaries.
Rick Perry- A 5th place finish with 10% of the vote left Perry at the end of the night sounding ready to withdraw. Quite a drop from the beginning of his campaign that saw him start as the front runner, and has seen him go into a steadily decline.
Perry’s agenda is typical right-wing rhetoric, and he is enough of a wing-nut to attract the teabaggers. One positive in his campaign is the comedic relief he has brought to the debates. It is fun watching for his next “oops” moment, and he never failed to provide one.
When the Iowa results came in Perry announced he was returning to Texas to re-evaluate his campaign, and the following day announced he was staying in the hunt. What should be questioned is not should he have stayed in the race, but rather, why he is staying in the race.
With Perry still in the running, he is sure to gain some traction in the south among the ultra-conservatives and teabaggers. This will come at the expense of Santorum and to a lesser degree Gingrich. A splintering of these votes will all but guarantee Romney the nomination. The questions that should be asked are, did Romney or establishment Republicans “offer” future considerations if he stayed in the race? One example is that Perry would help Romney as a VP choice in the south and with the teabaggers. If Romney wins the nomination and/or presidency, time will tell how these questions are answered.
Michele Bachmann- Bachmann had her “time in the sun” early on as a teabagger favorite and winner of an Iowa straw poll in August. Then, she opened her mouth. Bachmann is the one candidate in the field that makes Rick Perry sound like an intellectual titan.
Her policy proposals are far-right, bizarre, and if enacted would lead the US into a theocracy. The best (or worst) example of her decision making ability is her support of the “pray the gay away” method of “curing” homosexuality.
After seeing her results, 5% in the state of her birth, she quit. Enough said.
Jon Huntsman- He finished Iowa in 7th place with 1% of the vote, but it could have just as easily been 0%, as he didn’t seriously challenge in the state.
Huntsman has been called a moderate by most Republicans, and as laughable that is, in this field it is fairly accurate. He does go against the GOP grain on a few key issues, but at the same time supports hard right proposals on many social issues. He is also the only candidate to fully support the “Ryan Plan” for our economy. This plan guts or eliminates just about every social safety net in the US.
He has zero chance of the nomination, and his participation in the primaries does little but draw a few votes away from Romney. His support of the “Ryan Plan” proves he is not qualified to be president, and that he should stick to living in Asia as ambassador to some developing country until he retires and starts drawing SSI. A program he would like to eliminate as it is known today.
There are other candidates that will appear on primary ballots around the country. Some are active, and others have withdrawn, but they are non-factors and there is no need to mention them.
Iowa is done, and it appears there are six candidates going forward with a legitimate chance of the Republican nomination. While another candidate could enter, it is unlikely, and in some states impossible at this late date. So, what now? We still have 49 states, 5 colonies, and 1 occupied area (DC) yet to vote, so anything can happen!
No comments:
Post a Comment