Anyone Shocked By the Iowa Vote?

[pammy10s]

I saw the Obama thing comming, but Hucakbee? By that much? Ouch! And Hillary comming in third was a shock. Can't wait to see what New Hampshire has to say.

[Courtenay]

I think what put Huckabee out in front is the same thing which is fueling Obama. He represents a "non-politician". I don't like him, but I see where the appeal came from. Eventhough Hilary is a woman, I think she represents everything about the "old guard" that this country is ready to say good-bye to. Slick politicians who speak out of both sides of their mouths trying to tell the people what they *think* they want to hear is going to be a thing of the past. Modern America isn't going for it anymore.

[pammy10s]

Good points all.

[kamy]

I don't like Huckabee's stand on social issues. He's too conservative for me. I'm still hoping McCain or Rudy get the GOP nomination. They're more moderate.

I agree about Hillary. My issues with her have nothing to do with her sex -or lack there of - but I've always viewed her as a socialist in wolf, err, designer clothing. Plus, I know someone who worked on her NY listening campaign and am even less impressed with her non-political demeanor.

I like Obama, except I haven't heard anything of any real substance from him yet. I'm hoping he'll start detailing his platform as the campaign moves forward.

Edwards shouldn't quit his day job; modeling for Just For Men hair products.

Listening to the talking-heads on TV, they've been saying that Iowa would be extreme voting. It's a way for people to make a stand. It's definitely something the candidates should take into account; but all-in-all it really doesn't mean much. Ronald Reagan did poorly in Iowa back in '80.

I'd really hoped this year would NOT be another year of voting the lesser of the two evils, but unfortunately, no one on either side is doing it for me. :( But since I've never missed an election, I will vote. If we become complacent about our elections, then we can kiss everything good-bye.

[kamy]

I think what put Huckabee out in front is the same thing which is fueling Obama. He represents a "non-politician". I don't like him, but I see where the appeal came from. Eventhough Hilary is a woman, I think she represents everything about the "old guard" that this country is ready to say good-bye to. Slick politicians who speak out of both sides of their mouths trying to tell the people what they *think* they want to hear is going to be a thing of the past. Modern America isn't going for it anymore.

Agreed. Plus, I can't see the voters doing the Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton thing. Just more of the same.

[Courtenay]

Well Kamy, I can pretty much assure you that you will not like Obama's views much. I think he has amazing appeal, and represents change and a new type of politician, but he is so far left he is in the Pacific ocean. Seriously.

[SeaSpectre]

I guess I'm the only one who likes Romney.

[acanelausa]

Who's for huckabee? :D

[Courtenay]

I guess I'm the only one who likes Romney.

For me, as unfair as it may be, I cannot get past the Mormon thing.

[pammy10s]

I think the Mormon thing bothers me more because of the illogical/fantastical element of that religion, than anything else (not that all religions don't have some of that). I mean, the whole secret passwords to get into heaven and women only getting to heaven through their husbands, and the special undergraments. . . . It's hard for me to see a man of reason buying all of that. I don't trust anyone who puts religious belief on par with science. Those things should be kept separate, and I think you can be a person of faith but not turn a blind-eye to scientific evidence. It may be that Romney is reasonable and can keep the issues separate, but at this stage of the campaign, he's too busy proving he's a man of "Christian" faith to establish that he's also a man of reason.

That's why Huckabee is an absolute non-starter for me. He thinks creationism is science. We just can't afford to have that kind of illogical leadership ANYMORE! We've had more than enough of a man who keep look facts in the face and deny that they are there.

I would also like a candidate who is not as polarizing as what we've had for the past eight years. I think this administration has kept the attention of this country focused on the issues that divide us, such as abortion and gay marriage, rather than on the issues that could unite us, such envornmental protection and education. I am sick to death to focusing on these red-herrings and tangents when we've got real economic problems to face, now and in the future.

I like Obama, but like I've said before, he's too left for me (and according to SeaSpecter, I'm a "screaming liberal."). Obama supports unions in ways that make no sense for the economy and no sense for the country. He's also going to raise taxes right out the box. Both big problems for me.

I don't like Rudy as person. He's too bombastic. But I agree with his stance on a lot of the issues. In fact, I tend to agree with him more than anyone else.

I have nothing against Hillary, but I do think we need a breath of fresh political air. I don't see anyone else as being a viable candidate.

[Courtenay]

Nice post Pammy. I agree with you on everything except Hillary.

Breath of fresh air? Hillary? What have you been breathing darlin'?

[kamy]

Nice post Pammy. I agree with you on everything except Hillary.

Breath of fresh air? Hillary? What have you been breathing darlin'?

I think Pammy meant Hillary is okay but she would like a breath of fresh air and Hillary is the old guard.

I like Rudy's no tolerance for crime and terrorism. I'd love to see a McCain/Rudy ticket. Apparently women don't like Rudy and that's his biggest obstacle. The divorce issue is big with them. Although, how is that different from a man who's repeatedly cheated on his wife, as with Bill Clinton? So I don't get that rule of thought.

No one seems to be outlining their platforms. I don't know what any of them really stand for. I also don't know what kind of "change" people want...with the exception of seeing the House and Senate actually DO something to earn their keep.

Security issues are first and foremost on my mind. I want smaller government with regard to a person's rights, and I'd love to see a line-item veto to keep the spending down. Other than that, leave your religion out of it and start detailing your issues.

[scskowron]

I'm all for Ron Paul 08!
He's the only candidate that supports limited government just like what ruled our country for its first 150 years. There are tons of other reasons too why I'm a diehard Dr. Paul fan...

[Courtenay]

It's great to like Ron Paul and be a "fan", but you have to be realistic about who's actually IN the game.

No one has really "spoken" to me yet. I get so tired of all of the political posturing involved in the caucuses. It's all about being liked and not representative of a candidates' stance and views on the issues at hand. For me it is a bunch of babble right now.

Hopefully after the first of the year there will be some meat on the bone.

[Courtenay]

Immigration, security, economic stability, and foreign policy are my main concerns.

[pammy10s]

I think Pammy meant Hillary is okay but she would like a breath of fresh air and Hillary is the old guard.


Right you are, Kamy. That was my point.

As for Ron Paul . . . while I understand the appeal of smaller government for some folks, the reality is that such just AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN! Not with 300 million people living and competing in this marketplace and brining often opposing interests into the mix. I think it's less a question of government size, and more a question of government purpose and rationality. If we're going to have a FEMA, which I kind of think we should, we should have one that actually works! If we're going to have an EPA, it's not crazy to expect it to actually protect the environment. Most Americans fail to realize how well our government does work. If you spend any significant amount of time in any other country, you'd agree that, as a generla rule, America works remarkably well comparitively speaking.

I am not a fan of nationalized medicine. IMHO, even if it is a good idea, which is debatable, we can't afford it NOW. Right now, we are HEAVILY in the red. Let's balance our books before we go off on some huge protacted expenditure. I also think we need to shore up our military and make sure we can face the national security challenges that we will face in the future. I would rather leave education to the states, but at least let's get more direction from the marketplace as to what kind of education our kids really need to succeed in the future. As for the environment, let's stop playing ostrich and stop sucking off the teat of big oil. It's time we got reasonable emissions and mileage requirements. EVERYONE should drive fuel efficient cars or pay dearly for the right to drive a guzzler. If it hurts auto manufacturing in Detroit, so what? Either make a more fuel efficient car or get the hell out the market. We need to make big changes up and down the line to ensure our kids have a clean world to inherit. My .2 cents.

[Aram]

I guess I'm the only one who likes Romney.

Not at all.

[kamy]

Right you are, Kamy. That was my point.

As for Ron Paul . . . while I understand the appeal of smaller government for some folks, the reality is that such just AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN! Not with 300 million people living and competing in this marketplace and brining often opposing interests into the mix. I think it's less a question of government size, and more a question of government purpose and rationality. If we're going to have a FEMA, which I kind of think we should, we should have one that actually works! If we're going to have an EPA, it's not crazy to expect it to actually protect the environment. Most Americans fail to realize how well our government does work. If you spend any significant amount of time in any other country, you'd agree that, as a generla rule, America works remarkably well comparitively speaking.

I am not a fan of nationalized medicine. IMHO, even if it is a good idea, which is debatable, we can't afford it NOW. Right now, we are HEAVILY in the red. Let's balance our books before we go off on some huge protacted expenditure. I also think we need to shore up our military and make sure we can face the national security challenges that we will face in the future. I would rather leave education to the states, but at least let's get more direction from the marketplace as to what kind of education our kids really need to succeed in the future. As for the environment, let's stop playing ostrich and stop sucking off the teat of big oil. It's time we got reasonable emissions and mileage requirements. EVERYONE should drive fuel efficient cars or pay dearly for the right to drive a guzzler. If it hurts auto manufacturing in Detroit, so what? Either make a more fuel efficient car or get the hell out the market. We need to make big changes up and down the line to ensure our kids have a clean world to inherit. My .2 cents.

Not to continue the love fest here, but I ABSOLUTELY agree with all of the above....especially about spending. The problem is, we're viewing this with logic and reason, and that isn't a factor anymore in today's political world, or government. It's going to need a complete overhaul, and I don't think this current mentality of Americans have that kind of patience or selflessness. Our parents and grandparents; yes.

[pammy10s]

Hey Kamy, I need all the love I can get. There are definitely plenty of hate elements out there.

[kamy]

Hey Kamy, I need all the love I can get. There are definitely plenty of hate elements out there.

LOL...I think I just heard Hillary say the same thing!

[pammy10s]

LOL...I think I just heard Hillary say the same thing!

Apparently, she got that love! I guess the question is "Now what?" I don't know what to make of her victory last night. The polls were showing Obama ahead by 9 points. They were obviously dead wrong, so I guess that tells us not to put too much stock in polls.

As for McCain, he was leading in the polls, so I guess that wasn't much of a surprise. But whither Rudy Giuliani?? What kind of strategy is "remain completely irrelevant and absent from the discussion until February?" I'm hoping his guys know something we don't, 'cause I will be mighty disappointed if I'm not offered the choice of a moderate Republican in the final race.

[Courtenay]

You don't consider McCain a moderate Republican?

NH didn't surprise me whatsoever. I knew Hilary would take it dispite what the early polls were showing.

[kamy]

'cause I will be mighty disappointed if I'm not offered the choice of a moderate Republican in the final race.

Ditto. I'd like at least two moderates on each side of the aisle to run. The extremes - on both sides - do not adequately reflect the majority of Americans. Most of us are just a little right or left of center.

[pammy10s]

You don't consider McCain a moderate Republican?

NH didn't surprise me whatsoever. I knew Hilary would take it dispite what the early polls were showing.

I can't consider McCain a moderate when he's been spending the last few months assuring the religious right that he has consistently adhered to their principals and that he is the "true conservative" in the race. Plus his stance on Iraq does nothing for me.

You're better than I am, Court. Admittedly, I never saw the Hillary thing coming. I'm not disappointed or anything. Both Hillary and Barak give me pause. But if the Republicans don't get it together, I may have no choice. WHERE THE SAM HILL ARE YOU, RUDY?!

[Courtenay]

I like McCain on most issues actually. I am not part of the ultra-religious right by any means, but his "adherence" to the rights religious base doesn't bother me.

Rudy to me seems too bland. As if he has no real stance on anything. It's easy to stand smack dab in the middle. You don't offend anyone. But you can't excite anyone that way either. That's why he isn't even on the map right now.

Oh, I saw Hilary's "softer-side" video. I was sure that New Hampshire voters did too. That is why I think the vote went in her favor. But, that will only work once.....

[pammy10s]

I'm not sure I'd call Rudy bland. His personal life is too colorful for that. I would say that he is the only candidate for those of us who are socially liberal and fiscally conservative, which is certainly a large percentage of the educated professionals group. Right-wing conservatives are always screaming that colleges and universities are bastions of liberalism, and while I think 99% of what they spew is nonsense, I think there is some truth to that. The more educated a person is (i.e. time spent in these bastions of liberalism), the more open-minded and consequently more liberal he or she will likely be. Again, not a hard and fast rule, just a trend IMHO. But it also stands to reason that those with a lot of education get good jobs that pay well, and are not fans of being taxed to the n-th degree. I think Rudy is the best option for those folks.

In my view, we should run, not walk, the other way when a candidate says he aligns himself with the religious right. I, personally, could never vote for someone who can look me in the face and argue for smaller government, and in the same breath tell me that government has the right to tell me what to do with my body, or who I can marry (assuming cosenting adults). That whole Terri Schiavo thing was a debacle of the highest order, and showed that people who ostensibly believe that government should stay out of such things, are willing to completely cross the line and pass an ex post fato law aimed at one person, to get what they want. That is just totally illogical to me. When McCain says he espouses the same values as the religious right, he basically closes off the entire discussion for me. The religious right believes that their religion should dictate the entire national agenda. That has already proven to be DISASTROUS. I have nothing against people of faith, but I firmly believe that sound reason should be the basis for all national decisions, NOT religious teachings.

In truth, I'm not entirely certain that McCain believes everything he claims to believe at this point. He may just be politicking to get votes. But that doesn't give me any greater comfort with him. So far, the buzz on him is that he stands firm behind his beliefs, which while admirable, doesn't work for me if his beliefs align with the religious right. Just my view. At least he's not totally out there like Huckabee. Have you seen Huckabee's tax plan???

[Courtenay]

In Thomas Jeffersons new year's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 he warned about the importance of keeping religion out of affairs of state (hence the "separation of church and state") and here we are all these years later and still cannot seem to heed that warning.

Worse, not only can our candidates not separate religion from their politics, they are EXPECTED to follow the "Christian" line to even be considered.

We never learn.

[pammy10s]

Right you are, Court. We never learn.

[Aram]

I was intrigued by Huckabee's plan to amend the Birthright citizenship. How do you think that will affect voters in the southern half of the country? Oklahoma will be one of those states voting on Feb 5th 'Super Tuesday', and with the harshest Immigration reform in the Union it's looking interesting.

[Jen_MV]

WHERE THE SAM HILL ARE YOU, RUDY?!

I'm wondering the same thing, pammy, . . . I have to agree with Court, he is too bland for a Republican. It may be his downfall. Some of his stance on issues are too liberal for my own personal taste (don't want to go in details :D ).

I can't believe Hillary is still in the running! :rolleyes:

[Courtenay]

I was intrigued by Huckabee's plan to amend the Birthright citizenship. How do you think that will affect voters in the southern half of the country? Oklahoma will be one of those states voting on Feb 5th 'Super Tuesday', and with the harshest Immigration reform in the Union it's looking interesting.

Huckabee isn't alone on that one. This has been in the works for awhile. However, he is the only presidential candidate bringing it up. I think it is an EXCELLENT idea personally. Our immigration headache, especially from Mexico and South America is way up on my list of concerns!

[9007112]

Ron Paul had something to say about it too.

"Of course many American citizens also use or abuse the welfare system. But we cannot afford to open our pocketbooks to the rest of the world. We must end the perverse incentives that encourage immigrants to come here illegally, including the anchor baby incentive.

Our founders knew that unforeseen problems with our system of government would arise, and that’s precisely why they gave us a method for amending the Constitution. It’s time to rethink birthright citizenship by amending the 14th amendment."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul346.html

[Shar36]

Oh, I saw Hilary's "softer-side" video. I was sure that New Hampshire voters did too. That is why I think the vote went in her favor. But, that will only work once.....

She could cry me a river, an ocean and a sea. She'll never get my vote. I don't want her fugly arse or her husband and his oh so generous johnson back in the White House. Just thinking they could end up back there again....

:mad:

[pammy10s]

I don't have a particularly strong view one way or the other on the birthright thing (I can see both sides of this one), but I will say that getting a Constitutional amendment passed nowadays is damned near to impossible (not to mention EXTREMELY costly). That's why the last one was repeal of prohibition, decades ago. I'd be warry of the election rhetoric, because it's certainly not something a US President could get done on his own.

I just read an article about Michael Bloomberg running for president. Apparently, he's got the money to do it on his own without fundraising (more than 1 billion in personal assets), and is already vetting VP candidates (Sam Nunn and Chuck Hagle (my favorite Republican) have been interviewed). Do any of you know anything about this guy? I have no idea where he stands on the issues.

[Aram]

I have a Pol Sci prof that's pretty big on Clinton. Granted, I know he did so much for the economy, but the lack of a foreign policy, (what I remember of it) really turns me off to any one named clinton taking the white house.

As for amending the Birthright citizenship, I definitely support that. But I also agree that getting anything amended will be nigh unto impossible. He also said that he plans to pardon the Border Patrol officers currently in prison for shooting a fleeing illegal border crosser. Interesting, no? I honestly think this will almost insure him the border states, but I might be predicting too widely. What is the general opinion on that?

[pammy10s]

Aram: I don't really have my finger on the pulse of the border states. I know there are a lot of folks up in arms on this issue, but I can't really say what percentage that is. I will say that in the long term, I think it will hurt the Republican party to be too strident on this issue. Like it or not, even the immigrants that are here legally reproduce at higher rates than whites (not trying to be racist, but there are census numbers on this). Eventally, all of those babies are going to be voters, and they are unlikely to favor a group that so badly does not want them here. Maybe that's what the Republicans are trying to avoid, but in my view, that ship has already left the harbor.

[Courtenay]

Ron Paul had something to say about it too.

"Of course many American citizens also use or abuse the welfare system. But we cannot afford to open our pocketbooks to the rest of the world. We must end the perverse incentives that encourage immigrants to come here illegally, including the anchor baby incentive.

Our founders knew that unforeseen problems with our system of government would arise, and that’s precisely why they gave us a method for amending the Constitution. It’s time to rethink birthright citizenship by amending the 14th amendment."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul346.html

Of course Ron Paul would have something to say. I bet if "anchor babies" were blonde haired blue eyed and spoke English he'd feel differently. (I just cannot stand him)

But yes, something needs to change in that particular aspect of the immigration system. Taking away the birthright would be far too difficult. But, making it so a US citizen must be an adult to sponsor other family members, including the mother for legal status. So, either the child returns to the parents' home country, with the right, of course, to return to the US since he/she would be a citizen, or the family turns the baby over for American adoption. It's a bit harsh, but fair in my opinion.

[pammy10s]

Of course Ron Paul would have something to say. I bet if "anchor babies" were blonde haired blue eyed and spoke English he'd feel differently. (I just cannot stand him)

But yes, something needs to change in that particular aspect of the immigration system. Taking away the birthright would be far too difficult. But, making it so a US citizen must be an adult to sponsor other family members, including the mother for legal status. So, either the child returns to the parents' home country, with the right, of course, to return to the US since he/she would be a citizen, or the family turns the baby over for American adoption. It's a bit harsh, but fair in my opinion.

I agree Court, Ron Paul doesn't seem to have much credibilty on anything, so I have no problems wholly discounting what he has to say. It's a shame that he's one of the most visible libertarians. It doesn't do much for that movement.

As for the birthright thing, I just can't get with you, Court. Your suggestion is harsh, and it's just kind of . . . well . . . unAmerican. We've never done anything like that before. Could you even imagine what kind of country we would have now if the children of the Irish, Italians, Chinese, Swedes, Scotts etc . . . who immigrated here in waves in the past were denied citizenship? I can't. There are countries that don't allow citizenship for those who have immigrated there, no matter what. Saudi Arabia and the UAE come immediately to mind, but I know there are more. In those countries, citizenship is a function of blood lines and DNA. Needless to say, I'm not a fan. I think it bespeaks a serious social poverty and jingoism that runs counter to what we stand for. Most Americans are mongrels, so to speak, and I think that's a wonderful thing. I don't deny that we have a real immigration problem that needs some creative solutions, but the solution you suggest doesn't sit well with me at all.

Put another way, if Ron Paul is for it, I'm against it.

[jerseyguy57]

This is not really all that surprising. Obama reprsents a real change. He hasn't been in politics all that long and he draws the youth vote. He speaks well and is very intelligent although his views are as far left as the Pacific as one person said.

I can only hope the McCain, Rudy or Thompson come around and get the nomination. Rudy will have a hard time with conservatives on his abortion stance. That leaves McCain or Thompson.

[Courtenay]

Well, the problem with the "anchor babies" is that illegal immigrants come here, illegally, then give birth to a child here. That child then makes the parents and siblings eligible for permanent residency. It has become a way to assure your family's ability to live here without ever having gone through any legal immigration procedures. I have a friend, from Colombia who did exactly that. She and her son came here as visitors and never went home. It finally caught up with them after having been here 10 years and both got deported. She left her son with her mom in Colombia, and got back here (not sure how) got pregnant, had a baby. The birth by the way, was never paid for she had no insurance or other means to pay for it. The child then was able to sponsor her mom, her brother and her grandmother for residency.

Where does this differ from the past immigrants? They arrived here legally. They weren't able to sneak here and then have a baby to assure their ability to stay here.

Yeah, I am being harsh, but I am from California, one of the states that has been drastically affected by illegal immigration. There has to be some immediate and harsh measures put into effect or our economic structure is in serious danger. As one writer put it, "Those cheap tomatoes cost our country a fortune." and it is TRUE.

[Aram]

I think the biggest issue with the birthright citizenship is exactly that. Who pays for the baby's birth and the added expenses of the families? In a 'perfect' world they would qualify for a months worth of temporary aid. Which might average out to about what, maybe 500-600 dollars? Multiply that times ... oh a couple of million and it becomes a substantial amount out of the taxpayers pockets.