Posted on 06/07/2007 9:37:37 AM PDT by Jeff Fuller
Much of this is being addressed here and elsewhere, but I wanted to chime in from the Iowa perspective.
"Life Support" is a modern medical marvel that can sometimes tide people through horrible acute illnesses/traumas until their own organ systems kick back into gear. Unfortunately, the VAST majority of people on "Life Support" are simply artificially and temporarily avoiding imminent death. This is the decided direction of the Rudy Giuliani and John McCain campaigns as evidenced today by their decisions to not participate in the Ames Straw Poll on August 11th. They are attempting to delay their Iowa embarrassment and continued downward slide from August until the actual caucus in Janurary.
First, a primer on the Ames Straw Poll (ASP). Further information about the poll can be found here.
"Regarding Giuliani's decision, Laudner said, 'He was in, he was out, he was in, now he's out. Who knows. Maybe he'll change his mind again. Regardless, his name will be on the Straw Poll ballot in August.'"
Rudy was planning/hoping to participate in the ASP.
We are going to take all the resources that were budgeted towards the Straw Poll and we are going to use them to win the Caucus in January.
They had a budget for it . . . they were planning on it . . .
From the Krusty Konservative Blog
Rudy is calling likely caucus goers and asking them the following questions:1. Who are you supporting for President? 2. Are you Pro-Life or Pro Choice? 3. Are you planning to attend the Iowa Straw Poll?
I think that a really weird set of questions, and I’m sure they are not going to like the results of question 2.
McCain's flip-flop is even worse:
I was personally at a McCain event a few weeks ago and one of his staffers asked me if I was planning/wanting to support McCain at the Ames Straw Poll. The Ames Straw Poll was stressed publicly to the audience by his local organizers before he arrived at the event. Everyone who signed into the event was given the opportunity to check a box saying that we would support McCain at the straw poll.
McCain has been going full-bore here in Iowa (great staff, lots of events, lots of money, etc . . . ). He definitely has the team to deliver . . . if they just had a better candidate.
Krusty ranked the Iowa Campaign Staffs of all the GOP candidates just 5 weeks ago, and guess who came out on top:
To the rankings!1. John McCain
Sen. McCain has assembled the best staff in the state. The staff konsists of three konsultants and 15 staff members. What puts McCain over the top is the experience of their konsultants. Ed Failor, Jr. and Karen Slifka have a wealth of caucus experience, which is invaluable when it comes to teaching young field staffers how to organize for a caucus. The field staff is young and hard working, which is important because I’m sure that Failor and Slifka will be demanding some krazy hours out of them.
What is McCain's excuse for not competing at Ames? ABC reports.
In 1999, McCain called the straw poll a "sham" that contributes to "the pessimism and the cynicism" Americans feel about the role of money in politics.Until Wednesday, the Arizona Senator was planning on competing in the straw poll this time around.
But hours after Giuliani's decision, McCain campaign manager Terry Nelson announced, "In light of today's news, it is clear that the Ames Straw Poll will not be a meaningful test of the leading candidates' organizational abilities, so we have decided to forgo our participation in the event."
"Straight-Talk" Translation: "Rudy opting out gives me an excuse to get out and avoid a similarly embarrassing loss to Romney." Did you notice how they announced this JUST HOURS after Rudy annouced? Is that enough time to evaluate the situation, consult the Iowa staff, consider the loss of already devoted resources, and make a wise decision? Or had the decision been made already and they jumped on the anti-Iowa bandwagon.
Also, it cannot go unnoted this completes the circuitous positions that McCain was Against the ASP, before he was For the ASP, before he was Against the ASP. Add that to the ever-growing list of McCain's Flip-Flops.
Hoffman was a "little surprised" about Giuliani's noontime decision and "very surprised" about the McCain decision which came less than five hours later.Chuck Laudner, the Iowa Republican Party's executive director, said of Romney, "I think McCain was the one guy who was going to keep pace with him."
Laudner, who says the Iowa GOP did not receive a heads up from either Giuliani or McCain, says don't believe the Giuliani and McCain camps when they claim that they are serious about winning the state's caucuses in January.
"You can't compete in the caucuses without competing in the Straw Poll," said Laudner of the contest which raises money for the state party. "It's a big part of what makes the Republican Party of Iowa tick."
The above is a WELL RESPECTED POLL. In it, Romney blows away the field for "likely Ames Straw Poll" attendees.
Romney's 34% is 3% more than Giuliani and McCain COMBINED.
Romney's 34% is equal to T. Thompson, Brownback, Huckabee, Gilmore, Paul, Tancredo, Hunter AND ALL THE "UNDECIDEDS" COMBINED.
Other polling shows things going Mitt's way here in Iowa:
The Des Moines Reg poll (above) showed him at 30% among likely caucus goers while Rudy had 17% and McCain had 18%.
The most recent Iowa poll shows Romney BLOWING AWAY the "front-runners". Romney has 31% while Rudy and John ARE BOTH IN SINGLE DIGITS (McCain 9%, Rudy 8%)
Other recent polling in Iowa show Romney leading or tied here, here, and here. (AND ALL OF THEM SHOW HIM ROCKETING UP OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS . . . even the outlier ARG poll--the firm which amazingly has McCain leading in Iowa, NH, and SC).
This over-whelming body of evidence show that Giuliani and McCain decided to drop out of the ASP as soon as their Iowa poll numbers began to drop. Instead of fighting through their dips and going toe-to-toe they've opted for the coward's option. They can't win, so they won't even play. I expected more from men who are rightly considered by most as modern American heroes.
I think they'll both lose some of their Iowa endorsements by pulling this stunt. Romney stands to pick up some of these endorsements. Both campaigns are, in effect, writing off winning the Iowa Caucus in Janurary. If they can't obtain and/or organize supporters for the ASP what is going to change to suddenly make them competitive a few months later?
That's why I was surprised to see Rudy's team say:
"I think what's important to note is that we are 100 percent committed to winning the Iowa Caucuses in January . . . I think some people may misinterpret it sort of as us not playing 100 percent in Iowa. We are 100 percent playing in Iowa. You will see the mayor there early and often and you will see us spending a great resources to make sure we win the Caucus in Iowa.
Well, they better get with it then . . . especially when Tommy Thompson got more people at his event in the same city on the same day/time that national figure and "front-runner" Giuliani:
When any two kampaigns visit the same kommunity on the same day, people are going to kompare the events, especially when the events are in Iowa’s second largest city. Tommy Thompson had 150 at his event, while the presumed frontrunner, Rudy Giuliani only had around 100. Rudy’s poor showing is a good example of the problems he is having in Iowa.
The quotes that Rudy is 100% dedicated to winning the Iowa caucus will be nice to pull out when he comes in a distant 3rd or 4th place . . . now THAT will be hard to spin.
But is Rudy's team "double-speaking" about the ASP? Jim Nussle of Rudy's Iowa team said of the ASP TODAY:
In fact, I'm going to encourage people to go to it, Giuliani supporters to go to it. Go to it and listen to the candidates. Have fun. Make a day of it. Enjoy it, you know, network with other people,
So they tell everyone to go, and when they get like 10% with no money invested they'll call it a "huge victory". Wait and see.
Chuck Laudner got it right:
Chuck Laudner, executive director of the Republican Party of Iowa, had these things to say about Rudy Giuliani and John McCain deciding to skip the party's Straw Poll in Ames on August 11th:"Laudner: “They must not have felt...that their chances were not very good to win, place or show,” Laudner said. “...This event helps us pay for Caucus Night and all those activities, plus it helps us fund our state house and senate races…It’s a kick in the shins, or a little higher, right to the Iowa Republican Party.”
. . .
Henderson: What's your message to those two fellas?
Laudner: "It's a missed opportunity. I mean over a third of the Caucus-goers are going to be at that event and you're not just speaking to those folks, you're speaking to the entire country. It's a national event and it's the largest event, Republican, ever anywhere and to skip it means that they must not have felt...that their chances were good of win, place or show."
Henderson: "But their names are still going to be on the ballot.
Laudner: "Absolutely. It's not up to the candidates to decide. We decide as Iowa Republicans who we want the next president of the United States to be."
Henderson: Congressman Nussle has been calling this a circus and saying all sort of things. Has he sort of negated any chance he might have of seeking public office in Iowa again?
Laudner: "Well, I don't think he's made any friends today. This event helps us pay for Caucus Night and all those activities, plus it helps us fund our state house and senate races. That's how this event was created years and years ago and this year, much more than that, it was going to be the showcase of the 'big tent' and it was going to be that event brings all of these people in. Every one of these candidates has a coalition that they could bring in that maybe otherwise wouldn't come
Caucus-goers are largely GOP activists/social conservatives who will not think kindly of Rudy and John's antics here. They are shooting themselves in the foot.
"Maybe the handwriting was on the wall," Iowa Republican Party Chairman Ray Hoffman tells ABC News when asked about the impact Mitt Romney's organizational strength had on the Wednesday announcements from the Giuliani and McCain campaigns that they will not invest resources in the Iowa Republican Party's Aug. 11 Straw Poll in Ames."Mitt Romney, no doubt, is probably the biggest player in the state," said Hoffman.
Also, Romney's campaign made the ROCKIN' mauneuver of reserving EVERY charter bus (~150) in the state of Iowa for the ASP. Other campaigns are now forced to pay the extra cost of bringing in charter buses from out-of-state. Sweet move, eh?!?!
In another strong move, Romney's campaign released the following today:
Boston, MA – Today, Romney for President spokesman Kevin Madden issued the following statement on the Ames Straw Poll:"Governor Romney has put in the time, built the organization and communicated his message to the voters of Iowa. It's a message focused on bringing conservative change to Washington, and it is resonating with Iowa voters because it matches his record of accomplishment as governor.
"Our plan all along has been to play in the Iowa straw poll, and that hasn't changed. Campaigns that have decided to abandon Ames are likely doing so out of a recognition that their organizations are outmatched and their message falls flat with Republican voters in Iowa.
"It looks as if we just beat those campaigns in Iowa two months earlier than we had planned on beating them."
OUCH!!!!!
To which the Republican Party of Iowa already responded in resounding support of Romney sticking to his guns and is committed to the ASP (but I thought HE was the "flip flopper!"):
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney got a thank you note tonight from the Republican Party of Iowa.Iowa GOP spokeswoman Mary Tiffany issued the following statement: "The Republican Party of Iowa appreciates the Romney for President Campaign's statement regarding the Iowa Straw Poll. Governor Mitt Romney clearly understands the importance of the Straw Poll and the role the event and its voters play in the political process. In light of today's news, we are glad to hear Romney is keeping his word to participate in the Straw Poll and that he has made the wise decision to stay in the race." [CAN YOU FEEL THE LOVE?!?!?]
. . .
Doug Gross [major Iowa Romney campaign man]: "You know, Iowans are very proud of their role in the Caucuses and it goes back to the 1970s. We've had the Straw Poll since 1979 and if you take a look at it, any of the candidates who have skipped the Straw Poll have not done well in the Caucuses, so I think what you ought to look at it the potential implication of this on those candidates for the Caucuses and at the same time I think Iowans are concerned that if some candidates are skipping the process that we've had that they're to some extent not respecting the entire Iowa process and it does, indeed, potentially hurt the party and I think that's why Chuck was concerned."
Some postulate that Rudy has the plan of Super-Tuesday/Large-State focus. That he can afford to lose the early small states. However, I worry about a move to this system. Small states allow the candidates to really get to know people and vice-versa. This so called "Retail politics" have served us well, and I worry about a cadidate with a master plan to mount a huge TV campaign in large states as a means to become president without the personal contact of retail politics.
1) What will be Fred Thompson's play. I think this opens a huge door for him and he would have a decent excuse to not win it, but he could probably get 2nd with a concerted effort. Would this be important to him or does he really want "to run a different kind of campaign"
2) What does this mean for the second-tier candidates? If Fred bows out too will the #2 and #3 finishers be emboldened? Will they be the big story?
Some pundits say that Giuliani's and McCain's move now renders the Ames Straw Poll "irrelevant." However, the truth of the matter is that Giuliani and McCain are quickly rendering themselves and their campaigns "irrelevant" by showing that they know they can't compete with Romney in Iowa.
Rudy wants Iowa, McCain needs Iowa, Iowa wants and needs Romney!
Even while he was still an ardent supporter of abortion rights according to statements he made in 2002?
Reagan was for legalized abortion too until his heart changed
Another classic lie, first spread by Rudy boosters and now by Mitt boosters. Reagan signed a bill making abortion legal only in cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother. That's hardly supporting legalized abortion.
O come on, you are exaggerating Romneys past error.
Want me to post Romney's quotes from 1994 and 2002? I really don't think you want to go there.
Presidential ================= Post-menopausal.
Hey, RM, now some Mitt boosters are telling the same Reagan-was-pro-abort lie that the Rudy boosters used to attempt.
He was proudly pro-choice when he was trying to beat Kennedy for a Senate seat.
And he profoundly regretted it, when he saw the abuses it opened up.
Promoting lies like this got many a Guilaini supporter banned, so I'd stop using this tidbit if I were you.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/05/25/romney_hints_of_a_shift_on_abortion/
When Romney was wooing Massachusetts voters in 2002, he said he supported Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, and promised not to change the state’s abortion policies. He espoused the same position during his 1994 US Senate campaign against Kennedy.
‘’I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country,” Romney said in an October 1994 debate against Kennedy. ‘’I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.”
In recent months, however, Romney has played up his personal opposition to abortion in out-of-state speeches; removed a reference to Roe before signing an annual proclamation celebrating access to birth control; tried to promote the teaching of abstinence to students; and declined to publicly back a measure expanding access to emergency contraception, even though he said he supported that goal during the 2002 campaign. He has said he will examine the proposal if it reaches his desk.
Heck, he tried to run to Ted's LEFT on abortion in 1994:
In 1994, Romney Campaign Accused Ted Kennedy Of Flip-Flopping On Abortion
In 1994, Romney Campaign Accused Ted Kennedy Of Flip-Flopping On Abortion, Saying "Mitt Has Always Been Consistent In His Pro-Choice Position." "Citing a 1971 letter written by Kennedy, [Romney campaign consultant Charles] Manning responded, `I think the reason they don't trust Ted Kennedy is that he flip-flopped on abortion. He was pro-life before Roe v. Wade and now he's changed. Mitt has always been consistent in his pro-choice position and that's why the group respects him.'" (Bruce Mohl, "Mass. Antiabortion Group Backs Romney," The Boston Globe, 9/8/94)
Thanks for the clarification.
At the time Reagan signed The Therapeutic Abortion Act---- it was the Stone Age of abortion "rights," years before the USSC unleashed Roe v Wade in 1973.
Back in 1967, the Planned Parenthood savages were telling an alarmed populace that abortions would only be performed---and very reluctantly, at that----in the direst of circumstances----rape, incest, health/life of the mother.
Reagan apparently secured those assurances before signing the Act. (Source: Right to Life history).
PP's lies about abortion persist. We now know Planned Parenthood and the NARAL crowd all along plotted:
(1) abortion on demand with the govt picking up the tab,
(2) abortion as birth control,
(3) multiple abortions for convenience,
(4) abortion when sex of the child is unwanted,
(5) abortion for every conceivable birth defect.....and last but certainly not least,
(6) late term partial birth abortions (read infanticide).
God knows what these savages will unleash should their acolyte, Rooty Giuliani, sit at the levers of government.
I heard that Reagan was a Democrat when he was a ward-leader early in his life.
As Reagan said, he did not leave the Democrat Party, the Democrat Party left him.
I never really thought of myself as a conservative. Other than moving to a pro-life point of view, I really haven't changed that much over the years. However, I woke up morning and all of a sudden I was some kind of right-wing gun nut obsessed with fetuses. Go figure.
>>>t conservatives neither want neither want, nor need, any of the three.<<<
Well, I guess you can speak for conservative. Not conservativeS.
Romney is going to be our guy. Perhaps Thompson. But it’s one or the other. And I have a feeling that both would clean Democrat clock. Romney, especially, I believe would make quick work of Obama.
When it comes down to it, putting Romney’s resume next to Obama’s is a death knell to our Madrassa-trained fluffball.
Sorry. Mitt calling anyone a flip flopper is just too rich.
Bingo!
I heard someone saying this, but it wasn’t a campaign person and may be an exagerration/myth. I can’t ammend post above to take it out, but that is not confirmable. I’m a part-time blogger, not a journalist (obviously).
He was but don’t forget the anti-Mitt rule, Reagan’s early mistakes are forgiven, Mitt’s are not.
Yet as far as I know Mitt was never a Democrat.
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.