It is kind of neat that the 100th post on this blog belongs to this announcement:
FRED THOMPSON
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2ND, DOORS OPEN AT 10:50AM
WEBSTER COUNTY GOP HEADQUARTERS
900 CENTRAL AVENUE, FORT DODGE, IOWA
Contact Kristen Fuzer at kfuzer@fred08.com to RSPV (make sure to denote the Fort Dodge event).
---------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Last Nights Debate
There has been some mixed reviews of the debate last night. Some thought it was good, some thought it wasn't so good.
Some general thoughts:
1). For all of the talk from the Democrats about how Fox News is an extension of the RNC, last night proved otherwise. I haven't seen the Democrats asked as tough of questions as the Republicans were last night. Brit Hume, Chris Wallace, and Wendall Goler didn't let the candidates off lightly. There is a consensus that Romney was hammered by the tough questions, which is probably true (I didn't keep count), and Giuliani was hit hard on his family and his immigration policies while mayor of New York. McCain faced some tough ones on immigration and on the no-tax pledge. I realize that some people may complain about this, and politically softball questions make candidates look better, but I think tough questions are good things. If a candidate can't face the serious questions, and confront any concerns about his or her candidacy, then they shouldn't be running in the first place.
2) McCain had his best debate performance yet, and I agree with the consensus that McCain won. He was running on all eight cylinders, his jokes were good and didn't sound like they were forced, he provided clear answers to the questions, and took advantage of the openings he found. He was the most solid on the war and the surge, as well as on spending. He hit the question about him not signing the no-tax pledge a lot harder than many were anticipating. You could tell Romney was caught off guard when McCain hit him back on the surge that it's not apparently working, it is working. It was interesting to see how many of the candidates were complementing McCain or referring to his previous statements. If McCain can keep this up, he's going to be back in the hunt in no time.
3) Romney didn't look as good as he had in previous debates. For starters, his hair and make-up wasn't very good (but then, a lot of them had that problem). Some of his answers were a little weak, particularly on Iraq, and many of his jokes fell flat.
4) Who kept laughing at Ron Paul? Every time he was asked a question or gave an answer, there was an audible laugh from someone near a microphone. Paul provided one of the memorable moments in the debate when he and Mike Huckabee (in a position that every other candidate wanted to be in) went back and forth about the war. And the moderators didn't hold anything back when questioning Paul. Chris Wallace (or was it Brit Hume?) took a huge swipe at him by asking him about his stances on abolishing the IRS, the CIA, the FBI, etc. Wallace also had a good jab at Paul when he asked "So we should take our marching orders from Al-Qaeda?"
5) Tancredo's speaking style when he talked about immigration was much much better than it has been in the past. I was always uncomfortable because he started rushing his answer trying to get as much in as he could within the time limit, which led to a choppy speech pattern as he had to fight for breaths and to stop and think for brief moments. I found it distracting from his answer. He didn't have that problem on his immigration answer last night, but then the choppiness returned later on.
6) Fred Thompson received a lot of flak about skipping the debate in favor of appearing on Jay Leno. Even though I have noticed a little anti-Thompson feeling from Fox News (particularly from Carl Cameron) and that he did skip their debate, I was a little surprised that the moderators allowed the bash fest for the first question of the night. While I can understand why he wanted to go and announce on Leno (I'm still not sure if that is the right place to announce that you're running for President of the United States, but that's another post), I also think it was important that he be in New Hampshire for the debate. We'll find what, if anything, this will do for Thompson in his campaign.
Overall I thought it was a good debate. As I pointed out earlier, the Republican candidates faced the tough questions from what Democrats say is a friendly network. I think it says a lot about Fox News as a news organization, as well as the candidates that they stood up to the questions and, overall, did a good job in responding to them. And I think it says a lot about the Democrats who haven't faced those kinds of tough questions, even from "their network"--CNN.
----------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Some general thoughts:
1). For all of the talk from the Democrats about how Fox News is an extension of the RNC, last night proved otherwise. I haven't seen the Democrats asked as tough of questions as the Republicans were last night. Brit Hume, Chris Wallace, and Wendall Goler didn't let the candidates off lightly. There is a consensus that Romney was hammered by the tough questions, which is probably true (I didn't keep count), and Giuliani was hit hard on his family and his immigration policies while mayor of New York. McCain faced some tough ones on immigration and on the no-tax pledge. I realize that some people may complain about this, and politically softball questions make candidates look better, but I think tough questions are good things. If a candidate can't face the serious questions, and confront any concerns about his or her candidacy, then they shouldn't be running in the first place.
2) McCain had his best debate performance yet, and I agree with the consensus that McCain won. He was running on all eight cylinders, his jokes were good and didn't sound like they were forced, he provided clear answers to the questions, and took advantage of the openings he found. He was the most solid on the war and the surge, as well as on spending. He hit the question about him not signing the no-tax pledge a lot harder than many were anticipating. You could tell Romney was caught off guard when McCain hit him back on the surge that it's not apparently working, it is working. It was interesting to see how many of the candidates were complementing McCain or referring to his previous statements. If McCain can keep this up, he's going to be back in the hunt in no time.
3) Romney didn't look as good as he had in previous debates. For starters, his hair and make-up wasn't very good (but then, a lot of them had that problem). Some of his answers were a little weak, particularly on Iraq, and many of his jokes fell flat.
4) Who kept laughing at Ron Paul? Every time he was asked a question or gave an answer, there was an audible laugh from someone near a microphone. Paul provided one of the memorable moments in the debate when he and Mike Huckabee (in a position that every other candidate wanted to be in) went back and forth about the war. And the moderators didn't hold anything back when questioning Paul. Chris Wallace (or was it Brit Hume?) took a huge swipe at him by asking him about his stances on abolishing the IRS, the CIA, the FBI, etc. Wallace also had a good jab at Paul when he asked "So we should take our marching orders from Al-Qaeda?"
5) Tancredo's speaking style when he talked about immigration was much much better than it has been in the past. I was always uncomfortable because he started rushing his answer trying to get as much in as he could within the time limit, which led to a choppy speech pattern as he had to fight for breaths and to stop and think for brief moments. I found it distracting from his answer. He didn't have that problem on his immigration answer last night, but then the choppiness returned later on.
6) Fred Thompson received a lot of flak about skipping the debate in favor of appearing on Jay Leno. Even though I have noticed a little anti-Thompson feeling from Fox News (particularly from Carl Cameron) and that he did skip their debate, I was a little surprised that the moderators allowed the bash fest for the first question of the night. While I can understand why he wanted to go and announce on Leno (I'm still not sure if that is the right place to announce that you're running for President of the United States, but that's another post), I also think it was important that he be in New Hampshire for the debate. We'll find what, if anything, this will do for Thompson in his campaign.
Overall I thought it was a good debate. As I pointed out earlier, the Republican candidates faced the tough questions from what Democrats say is a friendly network. I think it says a lot about Fox News as a news organization, as well as the candidates that they stood up to the questions and, overall, did a good job in responding to them. And I think it says a lot about the Democrats who haven't faced those kinds of tough questions, even from "their network"--CNN.
----------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Should RPI Make Republican Candidates Take the Pledge?
I think the Democrats are on to something--or at least some of them anyway. Before you move onto another site, hear me out.
My last post I talked a bit about the jumping primary schedule. Both the DNC and the RNC have been trying very hard to keep states from jumping ahead, mainly by threatening to take away a state's half or full (as in the case of Florida and the DNC) convention delegates. It doesn't appear to have done much yet as Michigan appears to have jumped to Jan 15th, and Wyoming to January 5th
So why not use the candidates themselves to keep the schedule as set by the national committees? You may have heard that the chairs of the Iowa, New Hampshire,Nevada, and South Carolina Democrat Parties sent letters to the Democrat presidential candidates asking them to pledge to keep the primary schedule as set by the DNC. Pretty much all of them, including Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, have taken the pledge. Bill Richardson this weekend even proclaimed that God wanted Iowa to be first in the nation.
My question is why are Republicans not doing the same thing?
John McCain probably came the closest of any of the Republican hopefuls this weekend when he said that the traditional spot for Iowa and New Hampshire should remain the way it has been, and said he would consider skipping any state that moves to disrupt the calendar. In his stop at Jewell on Sunday night, he said that Iowa and New Hampshire were the best at determining character in candidates, and by not having us and NH up front means that candidates will not have that one-on-one vetting and political campaigns will be run almost only as advertisements on TV and the internet.
Why shouldn't Ray Hoffman and his counterparts in New Hampshire and South Carolina send out letters asking candidates to pledge to not campaign in states to move ahead in the schedule? RPI wasn't shy about expressing its feelings on McCain, Giuliani and Thompson skipping the Iowa Straw Poll. Why should it be shy now?
This would probably be the most effective way to stop the calendar shuffling, and it will mean more if all of the candidates in both parties pledge to not campaign in the jumping states. One would think that a state wouldn't choose to jump ahead if they know it won't bring any more candidate face time than they currently have. But it needs to be done ASAP, before Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm signs the bill that would move their primary up, and before any other states decide to jump ahead as well.
------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
My last post I talked a bit about the jumping primary schedule. Both the DNC and the RNC have been trying very hard to keep states from jumping ahead, mainly by threatening to take away a state's half or full (as in the case of Florida and the DNC) convention delegates. It doesn't appear to have done much yet as Michigan appears to have jumped to Jan 15th, and Wyoming to January 5th
So why not use the candidates themselves to keep the schedule as set by the national committees? You may have heard that the chairs of the Iowa, New Hampshire,Nevada, and South Carolina Democrat Parties sent letters to the Democrat presidential candidates asking them to pledge to keep the primary schedule as set by the DNC. Pretty much all of them, including Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, have taken the pledge. Bill Richardson this weekend even proclaimed that God wanted Iowa to be first in the nation.
My question is why are Republicans not doing the same thing?
John McCain probably came the closest of any of the Republican hopefuls this weekend when he said that the traditional spot for Iowa and New Hampshire should remain the way it has been, and said he would consider skipping any state that moves to disrupt the calendar. In his stop at Jewell on Sunday night, he said that Iowa and New Hampshire were the best at determining character in candidates, and by not having us and NH up front means that candidates will not have that one-on-one vetting and political campaigns will be run almost only as advertisements on TV and the internet.
Why shouldn't Ray Hoffman and his counterparts in New Hampshire and South Carolina send out letters asking candidates to pledge to not campaign in states to move ahead in the schedule? RPI wasn't shy about expressing its feelings on McCain, Giuliani and Thompson skipping the Iowa Straw Poll. Why should it be shy now?
This would probably be the most effective way to stop the calendar shuffling, and it will mean more if all of the candidates in both parties pledge to not campaign in the jumping states. One would think that a state wouldn't choose to jump ahead if they know it won't bring any more candidate face time than they currently have. But it needs to be done ASAP, before Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm signs the bill that would move their primary up, and before any other states decide to jump ahead as well.
------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Iowa's Influence in the Primary Cycle
Ross Kaminsky as an interesting piece at Real Clear Politics on the influence of Iowa and New Hampshire. Kaminsky argues that Iowa and New Hampshire is loosing it's influence in the primary schedule. Romney is leading by between 10 and 15 points in both Iowa and New Hampshire, while Giuliani is leading in a number of the February 5th states, as well as in the national polls.
Kaminsky argues that while focusing on Iowa and New Hampshire is probably the best strategy for Romney, in the end it won't help him with the nomination because the compact schedule will prevent him from gaining on any momentum in the later states (particularly the February 5th states) where Giuliani has a good hold.
While I think that Kaminsky is on to something, and indeed I pretty much agree that the nomination will come down to a question of strategy, I still wonder.
If you look at the polls and the poll averages at Real Clear Politics, you'll see that the one in the lead only has, at most, a support in the low thirties. There is also about 20% or so, maybe more or maybe less, of the respondents who didn't have an opinion. Combine this with the well known statistic that an overwhelming majority of caucus/primary goers do not choose who they vote for until the week or even the day before the voting.
So, in theory, Romney could win several of the lead off states and gain the support of those late deciders in later states. Of course this would depend greatly on how the media spins the early state results as well as how the other top candidates perform. For instance, with Giuliani's positions that are in conflict with voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, etc, he would still look strong coming in 2nd or 3rd in the early states, and maintain his positioning in the later states.
Another question is where will supporters go when their candidate drops out? It might lead the number 2 or 3 man to look more competitive in the state, but they could also pad the leader's numbers and make him look even better.
So Iowa and New Hampshire could still have some kind of influence on the later states.
In the end, it's not over yet and the big questions--how will the new calendar affect who is the nominee and how it effects Iowa's and New Hampshire's influence--has a while before it's answered.
UPDATE: Mathew Continetti at The Weekly Standard is thinking along the same lines in an article where he looks at Giuliani's chances at winning the nomination.
-------------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Kaminsky argues that while focusing on Iowa and New Hampshire is probably the best strategy for Romney, in the end it won't help him with the nomination because the compact schedule will prevent him from gaining on any momentum in the later states (particularly the February 5th states) where Giuliani has a good hold.
While I think that Kaminsky is on to something, and indeed I pretty much agree that the nomination will come down to a question of strategy, I still wonder.
If you look at the polls and the poll averages at Real Clear Politics, you'll see that the one in the lead only has, at most, a support in the low thirties. There is also about 20% or so, maybe more or maybe less, of the respondents who didn't have an opinion. Combine this with the well known statistic that an overwhelming majority of caucus/primary goers do not choose who they vote for until the week or even the day before the voting.
So, in theory, Romney could win several of the lead off states and gain the support of those late deciders in later states. Of course this would depend greatly on how the media spins the early state results as well as how the other top candidates perform. For instance, with Giuliani's positions that are in conflict with voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, etc, he would still look strong coming in 2nd or 3rd in the early states, and maintain his positioning in the later states.
Another question is where will supporters go when their candidate drops out? It might lead the number 2 or 3 man to look more competitive in the state, but they could also pad the leader's numbers and make him look even better.
So Iowa and New Hampshire could still have some kind of influence on the later states.
In the end, it's not over yet and the big questions--how will the new calendar affect who is the nominee and how it effects Iowa's and New Hampshire's influence--has a while before it's answered.
UPDATE: Mathew Continetti at The Weekly Standard is thinking along the same lines in an article where he looks at Giuliani's chances at winning the nomination.
-------------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)