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!
McCain is probably the more interesting. After Rudy pulled out, he should have looked at the situation as an opportunity to pick up some Rudy votes.
He must see the situation so dire, there's no hope. This illegal immigration mess this week may have helped push him over the edge. He's toast.
On the good side--Iowans again did their job of winnowing the field. We just didn't get to the Straw Poll. The rest of the country can thank us.
I have read that Reagan in 1967 signed abortion into law in CA because:
1. He thought he was following the wishes of the legislature and the CA population: it was they who made the decision.
2. He never expected abortion to become routine birth control for some peoples.
3. He thought abortion would be a “last resort” in the medical community.
Or, did he originally support abortion, as Nancy still does? Or did he simply once again, as with SDO in 1981, not do his homework?
Wrong, again, “Mitt” was a Democrat during 1992, when he voted in the MA primary for the popular Paul Tsongas.
Romney’s overall resume stacks up well if you believe all on it. But would he really have the heart to go after the Democrat? I noticed that Giuliani in the debate this week referred to erroneous Democrats more than anyone else did. I will vote for the most anti-GWB person still in the race at the time of the TX primary. And that may be no one.
Reagan cast his first vote at 21 in 1932 for the Roosevelt-Garner ticket. He was still voting Democrat in 1948 for HST. I think he first bolted to support Rep. Nixon for the Senate in 1950, but it may have been for Eisenhower in 1952 instead.
Only the primary? Did he switch for the general?
Still, we can all agree. Reagan can be forgiven for past mistakes. Fred can be forgiven for past mistakes and even current associations like CFR. But Mitt? No, he must be drawn, quartered and burned at the stake.
As for the charter buses, it may or may not be true, I agree. If true, while a clever move, it may not be a polite one if the goal is to make trouble for everyone else. What would be next, booking all the nice hotel rooms?
I’ll wait and see if there’s corroboration.
If one votes in a primary, he is a member of that party for two years in a state like MA that permits voting in the primary of one’s choice on election day. TX has the same setup. Mitt was back in the GOP in 1994 for his own race against EMK. I don’t know what he did wrong in that race.
Actually, Reagan campaigned for Helen Douglas against Nixon in 1950. He and Nixon were never at all close.
lol and Hillary Clinton was a Young Republican working on Goldwater’s campaign when she met Saul Alinsky!
In some ways, having Giuliani and McCain quit the straw poll could help narrow the race more quickly.
If Fred Thompson announces in July and has the chance to go to a straw poll where Mitt Romney is his only major competition, he has no excuse not to make some kind of effort at the straw poll. If he won, he'd deliver a huge blow against Mr. Romney. If he came in second with a comfortable margin over the "second-tier" candidates, he'd only be doing what was expected of him and wouldn't be hurt. He would also be helping himself by showing respect for Iowa. If he ended up coming in third behind Tommy Thompson, his campaign would be hurt badly. Even with only one month to organize, if he can't beat Tommy Thompson, the demand for a Fred Thompson candidacy isn't that strong.
If Fred Thompson delays his announcement long enough to have an excuse not to participate, then the straw poll could become a good test for the second-tier candidates. Tommy Thompson coming in second wouldn't persuade anyone that he's the strongest of the second tier, but if one of the other candidates came in second, he'd get a tremendous boost. If one of the second-tier candidates tried to make a good run in Iowa and didn't do well even with McCain and Giuliani out of the poll, he might realize that his campaign will not succeed and that he should leave the race.
Bill
Reagan knew that he opened the door for an evil and changed due to that. Romney, likewise has seen how evil legalized abortion is. Even if people here are not supporting him they should at least be charitable enough to take him at his word. He is not known to be a liar by any stretch.
so Reagan didn’t actually sign the abortion law in California? That was being for legal abortion...health of the mother is opening pandoras box of evil and he realized how bad of a law it was. So where did I lie? Reagan was for limited abortion legalization. I never said he was a pro abortion person. Can you please be a bit more rational in your debate? And why can’t you give Romney the same charity and belief in his word that he sees legal abortion as being evil?
so Reagan didn’t actually sign the abortion law in California? That was being for legal abortion...health of the mother is opening pandoras box of evil and he realized how bad of a law it was.
After it was abused. Reagan did NOT sign a law legalizing abortion on demand.
So where did I lie? Reagan was for limited abortion legalization.
The lie is right there in your sentence. All of as sudden, you start using the word "limited". The word you omitted before. And, as Orwell once noted, omission is the most powerful form of lie.
I never said he was a pro abortion person.
You said this:
Reagan was for legalized abortion too until his heart changed
So you did claim he was pro-abort.
Can you please be a bit more rational in your debate?
Can you quit lying by omission?
And why can’t you give Romney the same charity and belief in his word that he sees legal abortion as being evil?
Sorry, but that does not jibe with him trying to run to the left of Ted Kennedy on abortion in 1994, and running as pro-choice in 2002. Quite frankly, Mitt is now running for the GOP nomination and needs to be pro-life. In his last two elections, he was pro-choice (and pushing being pro-abort) when it suited that election. So he is completely unconvincing now, given that history.
Again, Rudy and McCain would not have pulled out if they thought they were going to win.
Reagan open the door to abortion, whether it was limited or not it is still killing an unborn baby. That didn’t make him a pro abort and I never said that. A pro abort is unapologetic for most all abortions. Reagan was sorry he open that evil door. What I said is true, he legalized abortion. To be more accurate I should have said limited, that is true. But for the health of the mother is not very limited and he should have known that. You are just not accurate in calling me a liar. Anyways, I forgive Reagan for that because he was a man who wasn’t perfect like all of us and admitted to his mistake. And I can see that same sincerity in Romney’s admission to being wrong. His heart changed on it well before he started his run for president. I think you are being very uncharitable and judgemental towards him.
And your method of debate by calling my points which were true, although should have been more accurate, steaming dodo, is pretty low. Don’t know how you wish to convince people of your points by insulting them. And then mincing words to try and uphold your assertions.
Wrong. I called you on your omissions. You are trying to draw moral equivalence between Reagan and Romney with such, and that is a crock. Reagan signed a very limited abortion bill that subsequently was abused. I posted Romney's explicityly pro-Roe quotes from 1994. THERE IS UTTERLY NO MORAL EQUIVALENCE BETWEEN THE TWO.
Heck, Mitt was pro-Roe in the 2002 election as well. But now he's pro-life? And we are supposed to disregard the fact that his conversion coincides with his drive for a new office?
Been there, done that, won't get fooled again. Your sense of false indignation is only trumped by your lack of any sense of shame for attempting this worn-out gambit that good conservative freepers have shot down repeatedly over the last few months.
Wrong. A pro-abort enables abortion on demand. They always have that dodge of "Well, I'm personally against abortion, BUT..." However, their support of Roe and abortion "rights" is what makes legal abortion on demand possible.
Reagan did NOT sign a bill that allowed for abortion on demand. But you said Reagan favored legalized abortion (which was a lie by omission). Mitt, however, praised Roe and said it should be defended - and Roe enabled abortion on demand. Ergo, Mitt was pro-abort, despite his "BUT..." routine.
there is some similarities...Reagan open the door to many abortions, Romney went along with keeping legal abortions law. Certainly there is some moral similarities. I never said they were equivalent but that they had both changed their minds. Reagan did become much more pro life after that. Romney is now very pro life. Very similar...maybe you don’t want to see that? You choose to project a negative onto Romney that isn’t there. And I have not been shameless and indignant. You are the one that stoops and calls me a liar and steaming dodo. Clearly I never called Reagan a pro abort. You put those words in my mouth. I think you need to be a little more objective and charitable in your arguement because you come off as a pompous person.
Ah, comparing a very limited law that got abused ... to supporting Roe ... is similar?
I never said they were equivalent but that they had both changed their minds.
You tried the moral equivalence gambit. We've seen it a hundred times with Rudy and Mitt boosters - "see, look, Reagan was pro-choice too at one point!" It is the ONLY reason for you to raise this - an attempt at moral equivalence. But there is NO equivalence to Reagan signing a VERY limited bill in 1967 and Mitt trying to run to the left of Ted Kennedy on abortion in 1994. NONE. NADA. ZIP.
Reagan did become much more pro life after that. And that did NOT coincide with his running for president a year later.
Romney is now very pro life. Very similar...maybe you don’t want to see that?
More like I'm not willing to be fooled by that.
You choose to project a negative onto Romney that isn’t there.
Silly me. Politicians NEVER flip positions when running for a new office.
And I have not been shameless and indignant.
Yeah, right. You've been trying the righteous indignation route for being called on your gambit.
You are the one that stoops and calls me a liar and steaming dodo.
Lies by omission, baby. You yourself said you left of "limited" regarding the bill Reagan signed. Lies by omission in your attempt at moral equivalence.
Clearly I never called Reagan a pro abort.
Lie by distortion. You said this:
Reagan was for legalized abortion
Which in common terms means Reagan was pro-abort. If you are in favor of legalized abortion, YOU ARE PRO-ABORT - but Reagan was NOT in favor of legalized abortion).
You put those words in my mouth. I think you need to be a little more objective and charitable in your arguement because you come off as a pompous person.
I'm not the one trying the worn-out Reagan/Romney/Rudy moral equivalence crap. And as far as being charitable - I have no good will whatsoever for weasesl who try that crap. I suggest you take the advice given on this thread by another poster and stop even trying to rationalize this now.
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.