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
Friday, August 31, 2007
On the Recent Unpleasantness
As you've probably heard by now, District Judge Robert Hanson down in Polk County single handedly decided that Iowa would recognize gay marriage. The actual ruling is here, thanks to Stanley Kurtz at National Review Online today (see below). A stay was issued today, but not before 21 licenses were handed out, with one couple from Ames actually getting married before the stay was put in place. Jonathan Martin has a piece up on his blog at The Politico.com about this, and has a map depicting what states allow same-sex marriage, civil unions or partnerships. Notice that the highlighted states are on the coasts, except for Iowa, right in the middle.
Kudos to Mitt Romney for sending this message out fairly soon after the announcement: "The ruling in Iowa today is another example of an activist court and unelected judges trying to redefine marriage and disregard the will of the people as expressed through Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act. This once again highlights the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman."
According to Jonathan Martin at the above link, John McCain issued a press release saying that "the decision "a loss for the traditional family,' and noting that he supports 'the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman."
Chris Rants issued this release:
“Judge Hanson’s shocking action today has reversed the will of the people of Iowa, the will of the Legislature,” said Rants. “Democrats, in trying to appease special interest groups, allowed this to happen with their opposition to a marriage amendment. If Gov. Culver and Legislative Democrats proceed with a special session regarding the date of the Iowa caucus, Democrats need to step up and put this issue to rest by introducing a marriage amendment to Iowa’s Constitution.”
Rants added that House Republicans would support a Constitutional amendment which would ban gay marriage in the state of Iowa. “The over-stepping and stunning action taken by this court today proves that work on a Constitutional marriage amendment must begin immediately.”
And Governor Culver, a little surprising I might say, issued this release: “While some Iowans may disagree on this issue, I personally believe marriage is between a man and a woman.
“I also believe in the rule of law and respect for the judicial process. I have not had the opportunity to review today's opinion from the Polk County District Court. I understand this ruling is one step that is subject to appeal, up to and including the Supreme Court. I will continue to follow this matter closely as it continues through the judicial system before determining whether any additional legislative actions are appropriate or necessary."
This ruling should outrage everyone. There are several different aspects of this case that can be discussed.
The first obvious issue is gay marriage. Is marriage to remain as one man and one woman, or can/could/should the definition of marriage be changed to same sex or anything else? Stanley Kurtz at National Review Online today brought this up. He opened his post with this: I’ve only glanced at the Iowa decision, so this is nothing like a final or fully considered analysis. Still, I was struck by one particular phrase in the decision: "In addition, their [i.e. same-sex couples’] exclusion [from marriage] defeats the state’s admitted interest in the welfare of all [emphasis original] of its children, regardless of whether they are parented by different-sex couples, same-sex couples or any other family unit [p. 58, my emphasis]. Its a good post that I recommend you read, as well as the "Beyond Same Sex Marriage" manifesto he links to. He brings up an important point. Opponents of same sex marriage have argued almost from day one about the slippery slope---same sex marriage leading to polygamy, or something else. It appears that the slope is more real that some would have you believe.
Second, and I would argue more important, is what is the role of judges in our government? Are judges there to interpret law, or make law? The constitution, both federal and state, says that the legislature makes law, while the judicial interprets that law. They don't read into the law what they want, they don't make things up and say its in there with some creative wording (Justice Douglas' "specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance" in Roe v. Wade). Is Iowa going to stand by and allow law to be made from the bench, or will we, the electorate as well as our elected officials stand up and keep the right to make law only with the legislative branch?
Third is the option of constitutional amendments. It's fairly obvious that there will be a huge push for a change in the Iowa constitution. The question though is how many states will likewise see a push for constitutional amendments (currently there are twenty-six states with the amendment), and will there be a new push for a federal amendment? It will be interesting to see how this issue plays out with the presidential candidates. Mitt Romney supports a federal amendment, while John McCain and Fred Thompson have voiced their support for individual state amendments instead. I'm not sure where the other candidates stand on the issue, but I'm sure we'll find out soon enough.
Finally, this is an issue that is going to energize Republicans across the state. In Iowa, a constitutional amendment needs to be read in the legislature during two consecutive sessions before being passed onto a state wide referendum. So while an actual amendment won't be on the ballot in 2008 (unless a special session would count as one session, then the 2008 session as number two), Republicans will come out in force to vote against anyone who doesn't support an amendment. Everybody running for office this cycle, from presidential candidates all the way down to the local level, is going to be asked repeatedly what his or her stance is on this and if they will support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. Their responses need to be recorded and distributed so everyone knows. Even those not facing reelection this cycle need to be repeatedly asked about this.
The effects of Robert Hanson's actions won't only be seen here in Iowa however. It's going to be felt across the county. Before, the only states anyone saw this happening was in California, Massachusetts, and other bastions of liberalism along the coasts. Again, see the map posted in the first paragraph. Nobody expected this to happen in Iowa. Iowa was probably the last place, outside of the south, where someone might expect this. But it happened. And if it can happen in Iowa, it can happen anywhere.
-------------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Kudos to Mitt Romney for sending this message out fairly soon after the announcement: "The ruling in Iowa today is another example of an activist court and unelected judges trying to redefine marriage and disregard the will of the people as expressed through Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act. This once again highlights the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman."
According to Jonathan Martin at the above link, John McCain issued a press release saying that "the decision "a loss for the traditional family,' and noting that he supports 'the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman."
Chris Rants issued this release:
“Judge Hanson’s shocking action today has reversed the will of the people of Iowa, the will of the Legislature,” said Rants. “Democrats, in trying to appease special interest groups, allowed this to happen with their opposition to a marriage amendment. If Gov. Culver and Legislative Democrats proceed with a special session regarding the date of the Iowa caucus, Democrats need to step up and put this issue to rest by introducing a marriage amendment to Iowa’s Constitution.”
Rants added that House Republicans would support a Constitutional amendment which would ban gay marriage in the state of Iowa. “The over-stepping and stunning action taken by this court today proves that work on a Constitutional marriage amendment must begin immediately.”
And Governor Culver, a little surprising I might say, issued this release: “While some Iowans may disagree on this issue, I personally believe marriage is between a man and a woman.
“I also believe in the rule of law and respect for the judicial process. I have not had the opportunity to review today's opinion from the Polk County District Court. I understand this ruling is one step that is subject to appeal, up to and including the Supreme Court. I will continue to follow this matter closely as it continues through the judicial system before determining whether any additional legislative actions are appropriate or necessary."
This ruling should outrage everyone. There are several different aspects of this case that can be discussed.
The first obvious issue is gay marriage. Is marriage to remain as one man and one woman, or can/could/should the definition of marriage be changed to same sex or anything else? Stanley Kurtz at National Review Online today brought this up. He opened his post with this: I’ve only glanced at the Iowa decision, so this is nothing like a final or fully considered analysis. Still, I was struck by one particular phrase in the decision: "In addition, their [i.e. same-sex couples’] exclusion [from marriage] defeats the state’s admitted interest in the welfare of all [emphasis original] of its children, regardless of whether they are parented by different-sex couples, same-sex couples or any other family unit [p. 58, my emphasis]. Its a good post that I recommend you read, as well as the "Beyond Same Sex Marriage" manifesto he links to. He brings up an important point. Opponents of same sex marriage have argued almost from day one about the slippery slope---same sex marriage leading to polygamy, or something else. It appears that the slope is more real that some would have you believe.
Second, and I would argue more important, is what is the role of judges in our government? Are judges there to interpret law, or make law? The constitution, both federal and state, says that the legislature makes law, while the judicial interprets that law. They don't read into the law what they want, they don't make things up and say its in there with some creative wording (Justice Douglas' "specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance" in Roe v. Wade). Is Iowa going to stand by and allow law to be made from the bench, or will we, the electorate as well as our elected officials stand up and keep the right to make law only with the legislative branch?
Third is the option of constitutional amendments. It's fairly obvious that there will be a huge push for a change in the Iowa constitution. The question though is how many states will likewise see a push for constitutional amendments (currently there are twenty-six states with the amendment), and will there be a new push for a federal amendment? It will be interesting to see how this issue plays out with the presidential candidates. Mitt Romney supports a federal amendment, while John McCain and Fred Thompson have voiced their support for individual state amendments instead. I'm not sure where the other candidates stand on the issue, but I'm sure we'll find out soon enough.
Finally, this is an issue that is going to energize Republicans across the state. In Iowa, a constitutional amendment needs to be read in the legislature during two consecutive sessions before being passed onto a state wide referendum. So while an actual amendment won't be on the ballot in 2008 (unless a special session would count as one session, then the 2008 session as number two), Republicans will come out in force to vote against anyone who doesn't support an amendment. Everybody running for office this cycle, from presidential candidates all the way down to the local level, is going to be asked repeatedly what his or her stance is on this and if they will support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. Their responses need to be recorded and distributed so everyone knows. Even those not facing reelection this cycle need to be repeatedly asked about this.
The effects of Robert Hanson's actions won't only be seen here in Iowa however. It's going to be felt across the county. Before, the only states anyone saw this happening was in California, Massachusetts, and other bastions of liberalism along the coasts. Again, see the map posted in the first paragraph. Nobody expected this to happen in Iowa. Iowa was probably the last place, outside of the south, where someone might expect this. But it happened. And if it can happen in Iowa, it can happen anywhere.
-------------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
A Few Things After a Long Break
Sorry for such a delay in posting. I've been a little busy lately, but now it looks like I might be able to post a little bit more. For now, a few odds and ends that have come up in the past few weeks.
---The last post was about the Fair Tax rally in Fort Dodge on August 4th. The rain put a little damper on the event, but it was moved to the canopy at the library entrance, and still there was a pretty good crowd for the weather. Many of them seemed to walk away if not enthused about the Fair Tax, at least with a peaked interest. The organization gave away free hats, t-shirts, and tickets and transportation to the Iowa Straw Poll. There was also a video booth where the participant could make a short video about their tax experiences, what they hate about the IRS, etc, with the best video winning $500. I saw two or three people go in, but I'm not sure who the winner was.
---The Iowa Straw Poll, in my opinion as well as the opinion of those who went, was a success. The media was filled with stories about how the numbers were way down, it was anti-climatic as Romney, as expected, won and Giuliani, McCain and Fred Thompson did not participate; it only weeded one candidate from the the field (Tommy Thompson); yadda yadda yadda. First off, everyone was comparing this year's straw poll with the 1999 one, which itself was an anomaly. The number of attendees in 1999 vastly exceeded what was planned for, which was why there were problems with voting and such. It was a pretty hot day in Ames, which very likely kept many at home, especially those with any health problems. RPI did a very good job with planning and logistics. The event itself, except for the minor recount at the end, went off almost without a hitch. Everything was orderly, and everyone seemed to be having a good time and enjoying themselves. The size of the tents and crowds at the Brownback and Romney tent was impressive. Romney actually had two tents--a "kitchen" where you picked up your food, and a "mess hall" where you could sit down and eat-- as well as a stage with a giant video screen that aired Romney's speech live. The Fair Tax tent was also impressive. It was air conditioned which served pretty good tenderloins, and had a faris wheel and several other games outside.
---Finally, the primary schedule. To put it bluntly, this is getting ridiculous. All eyes have been on Florida lately, with it wanting to move up to January 29th, and the DNC and RNC in turn threating to take away half or all of their convention delegates if they actually did so. Today comes news that Wyoming has moved their date to JANUARY 5TH. This will push New Hampshire and Iowa into December. That means we'll be heading to caucuses in about three and a half months. That means that on that drive, we'll be listening to Christmas music on the radio, and pass Christmas lights on the way. Some might even go Christmas shopping afterwards if all goes speedy.
The dates and methods of choosing convention delegates and how electoral votes will be apportioned has always been up to the states. If you've ever read Sean Wilentz's The Rise of American Democracy, or some other work about the political history before the Civil War, you'll see examples of this, and how things changed over the years. But the days of the states deciding for themselves when they hold their caucus or primary are almost over. In the next congress, there will be some bill creating a national primary day or days, thus stripping another power away from the states. My guess is that the states will divided into 3-4 groups, with fairly even numbers of large and small states, that will rotate among set primary dates every four years. Iowa and New Hampshire will be in no place to do anything about it as their delegations are small, and it won't help Iowa's case with the likely possibility of us losing a congressional seat next redistricting. This also means that the days of retail politics, where the candidate has to greet people and pass the one-on-one test, are pretty much done as well. If the next primary cycle features a large number of states grouped on the same day, the campaigns will organize the larger, less personable events than what we are used to now. Enjoy it while it lasts folks, and you know what states you can thank.
---------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
---The last post was about the Fair Tax rally in Fort Dodge on August 4th. The rain put a little damper on the event, but it was moved to the canopy at the library entrance, and still there was a pretty good crowd for the weather. Many of them seemed to walk away if not enthused about the Fair Tax, at least with a peaked interest. The organization gave away free hats, t-shirts, and tickets and transportation to the Iowa Straw Poll. There was also a video booth where the participant could make a short video about their tax experiences, what they hate about the IRS, etc, with the best video winning $500. I saw two or three people go in, but I'm not sure who the winner was.
---The Iowa Straw Poll, in my opinion as well as the opinion of those who went, was a success. The media was filled with stories about how the numbers were way down, it was anti-climatic as Romney, as expected, won and Giuliani, McCain and Fred Thompson did not participate; it only weeded one candidate from the the field (Tommy Thompson); yadda yadda yadda. First off, everyone was comparing this year's straw poll with the 1999 one, which itself was an anomaly. The number of attendees in 1999 vastly exceeded what was planned for, which was why there were problems with voting and such. It was a pretty hot day in Ames, which very likely kept many at home, especially those with any health problems. RPI did a very good job with planning and logistics. The event itself, except for the minor recount at the end, went off almost without a hitch. Everything was orderly, and everyone seemed to be having a good time and enjoying themselves. The size of the tents and crowds at the Brownback and Romney tent was impressive. Romney actually had two tents--a "kitchen" where you picked up your food, and a "mess hall" where you could sit down and eat-- as well as a stage with a giant video screen that aired Romney's speech live. The Fair Tax tent was also impressive. It was air conditioned which served pretty good tenderloins, and had a faris wheel and several other games outside.
---Finally, the primary schedule. To put it bluntly, this is getting ridiculous. All eyes have been on Florida lately, with it wanting to move up to January 29th, and the DNC and RNC in turn threating to take away half or all of their convention delegates if they actually did so. Today comes news that Wyoming has moved their date to JANUARY 5TH. This will push New Hampshire and Iowa into December. That means we'll be heading to caucuses in about three and a half months. That means that on that drive, we'll be listening to Christmas music on the radio, and pass Christmas lights on the way. Some might even go Christmas shopping afterwards if all goes speedy.
The dates and methods of choosing convention delegates and how electoral votes will be apportioned has always been up to the states. If you've ever read Sean Wilentz's The Rise of American Democracy, or some other work about the political history before the Civil War, you'll see examples of this, and how things changed over the years. But the days of the states deciding for themselves when they hold their caucus or primary are almost over. In the next congress, there will be some bill creating a national primary day or days, thus stripping another power away from the states. My guess is that the states will divided into 3-4 groups, with fairly even numbers of large and small states, that will rotate among set primary dates every four years. Iowa and New Hampshire will be in no place to do anything about it as their delegations are small, and it won't help Iowa's case with the likely possibility of us losing a congressional seat next redistricting. This also means that the days of retail politics, where the candidate has to greet people and pass the one-on-one test, are pretty much done as well. If the next primary cycle features a large number of states grouped on the same day, the campaigns will organize the larger, less personable events than what we are used to now. Enjoy it while it lasts folks, and you know what states you can thank.
---------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Fair Tax Rally
The Fair Tax organization will have a rally in front of the Fort Dodge Rally on SATURDAY, AUGUST 4TH FROM 11:30-1:30. There will be a free catered lunch, free hats, t-shirts, Iowa Straw Poll tickets and transportation, as well as a contest where you can win $500 if you make a 30-60 second video about what you don't like about the IRS. This is part of the giant bus tour the Fair Tax organization is conduction across Iowa before the Iowa Straw Poll.
In case you don't know what Fair Tax is, it is a national sales tax that would replace the federal income tax and the IRS. Presidential candidates Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter, along with Iowa's very own Steve King are co-sponsors of the House bill; Mike Huckabee has made Fair Tax one of his main issues in his campaign; and John McCain and Tommy Thompson have said they will sign it if it comes across their desk. You can find the co-sponsors of HF25 and S1025 here, and where other US House and Senate members stand on Fair Tax here. The Fair Tax is also an official plank of the Republican Party of Iowa platform (13.6 under the "Taxes and Spending" section).
There will be a giant Fair Tax rally at the Iowa Straw Poll on August 11th that the organization would love to get everyone involved with.
So whether you are a supporter, or aren't quite sure yet, come on out and hear more about the Fair Tax on Saturday. It'll be worth your time.
---------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
In case you don't know what Fair Tax is, it is a national sales tax that would replace the federal income tax and the IRS. Presidential candidates Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter, along with Iowa's very own Steve King are co-sponsors of the House bill; Mike Huckabee has made Fair Tax one of his main issues in his campaign; and John McCain and Tommy Thompson have said they will sign it if it comes across their desk. You can find the co-sponsors of HF25 and S1025 here, and where other US House and Senate members stand on Fair Tax here. The Fair Tax is also an official plank of the Republican Party of Iowa platform (13.6 under the "Taxes and Spending" section).
There will be a giant Fair Tax rally at the Iowa Straw Poll on August 11th that the organization would love to get everyone involved with.
So whether you are a supporter, or aren't quite sure yet, come on out and hear more about the Fair Tax on Saturday. It'll be worth your time.
---------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)