Posted on 01/02/2012 1:14:28 PM PST by rickmichaels
Conventional wisdom is that whoever wins the Iowa caucus has an encouraging boost to get the Republican nomination for president in November’s vote.
Never mind that Mike Huckabee crushed Mitt Romney in the 2008 Iowa caucus, and neither went anywhere; in the 2000 caucus George W. Bush easily beat Steve Forbes and went on to win his party’s nomination; or that in 2000 Robert Dole edged Pat Buchanan and both fell by the wayside.
So while winning in Iowa is a morale booster it doesn’t mean much, and will quickly be forgotten after New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida.
This year, the Iowa results may mean even less than usual, since it’s not a winner-take-all situation, but split among contenders according to their percentage of the vote.
So doing comparatively well is important.
By Tuesday evening we should know the winner. At this writing, polls show Romney, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum roughly share the lead. Newt Gingrich’s appeal has been falling, ever since he’s turned nasty on rivals. Smart money is on Romney.
It’s true that Ron Paul has worked long and hard in Iowa and led the polls, easing ahead of Gingrich, until a recent surge by Romney moved him into favored status.
In Iowa, the polls may not mean much. For Republicans whose main concern is to have Barack Obama bounced from the presidency, there’s almost a feeling of necessity to ensure that Romney gets the nod.
Iowans may lean towards the libertarian views of Ron Paul, but it’s also a given that Paul hasn’t a snowball’s chance of getting the nomination. Rival candidates snipe at Paul, clearly uneasy at his continuing appeal. Romney perhaps pin-pointed what even pro-Paul fans worry about — Paul’s casual concern about Iran developing nuclear weapons, and Romney’s gentle response that Paul may not be concerned, but most Americans don’t trust the idea of ayatollahs controlling nuclear weapons.
Hear, hear.
No one doubts that the Republican candidate Barack Obama and the Democrats would like to win — and who would be the easiest for them to defeat — is Gingrich. Apart from all the baggage Gingrich carries, he’s almost a resurrection of the past: An old, outdated reminder of things left behind in this era of change and progress.
The saddest of the Republican candidates is Michele Bachmann, who in interviews insists the tide is turning in her direction — as she drifts farther and farther from popular appeal.
She won’t even acknowledge that she’ll support whoever wins the nomination, which makes her kind of pathetic, and an embarrassment to watch. She keeps pretending that she’ll be the candidate and of course she’ll support herself. If she believes that, she’s not the person needed to lead America.
Self-delusion is not uncommon in politicians at any level.
But Romney seems the one with most self-control, unflappable, even-tempered, unexciting, competent, decent, and has the most potential to appeal to independents and moderate Democrats. He doesn’t get the blood churning, but he may be what America needs in tough economic times.
Trustworthiness is something many of Romney’s rivals haven’t earned, and something that many Americans are uneasy about in Obama, who radiates likeability but does not inspire confidence.
Romney looks a shoo-in for New Hampshire, which will make South Carolina easier. The race may soon be Romney’s to lose – and this year he’s not prone to stumbling.
“Even when we win we lose...”
As intended. As McCain pointed out, we are the hobbits. The machine is people like Wormtongue and Saruman the White. An unusual moment of candor from the Manchurian Palooka.
Well, I shot from the hip. Sorry about that.
Mitt’s father was born in Mexico but Mitt was born in Detroit.
What is not clear is whether or not Mitt’s father was a US citizen. Supposedly he got it from his parents.
It was being investigated during George Romneys white house run but when Nixon got the nomination it was dropped.
His son George, Mitt’s father, would grow up poor in the United States, taunted as “Mexican!” by other kids at school. But he went on to become a legendary auto executive, two-term Michigan governor (Willard Mitt Romney was born in Detroit in 1947), and one-time presidential candidate, losing the 1968 Republican nomination to Richard M. Nixon.
At the time, George Romney’s eligibility for president was more of an issue than his Mormonism, news archives show. But the potential legal dispute over his Mexican birth was superseded by Nixon’s primary victories, and Romney dropped his campaign before the matter could be settled.
Constitutional law experts say George Romney’s eligibility probably would be upheld today, because his parents retained their U.S. citizenship. “Otherwise, fortuity of birth circumstances might deprive the electorate of the best available candidate,” said Peter Spiro, a citizenship expert at Temple University. “But no doubt some folks would raise the question in the same way it was raised in 1968.”
Yeah, because the least reliable, least conservative, ‘it is my turn’ weasel, John McCain, worked out for the GOP last time.
He is the most sensible candidate for the Dems or the American Socialist Party .....either one would work.
Why did you post this, please? (Not an attack; I’d really like to know.)
As you say, Romney is simply the "it's my turn" establishment inside the beltway elitist Republican candidate, who brought you Romneycare and the blueprint for Obamacare.
Whatta guy!
John McCain was "the sensible candidate"
Mitt Romney is "the sensible candidate"
What is it with these worthless establishment RINOs> They are losers, and I think they secretly want Obama reelected so it doesn't upset the Washington apple cart.
You post this crap and then run?
IBTZ
Romney’s problem is universal, or at least national, in that his support flatlines without achieving enough Republican support to put him over the top in the primaries. He only wins when conservative candidates split enough votes between themselves.
Dear Mr. Worthington....NO...on Romney!
I’ve been here longer than you have. Why do you think I agree with the author? Go zot yourself.
I know as much about Canadian politics as this typist knows about US politics.
The difference is, I don't write nonsensical articles about Canadian politics.
You could ask that question about any article posted on FR. I don’t necessarily agree with Worthington, but he has an opinion. If you don’t want to read it, then don’t. FR the perfect place to post such stuff and people like you get to air their grievances about it. What’s wrong with that?
No wonder they call him “MYTH”... Romney...
Yup. Bigtime mistake. I noticed it as well.
same with Perry
Michigan State 33
Georgia 30
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.