Posted on 08/11/2007 5:05:03 PM PDT by WalterSkinner
Duncan Hunter's Iowa Straw Poll speech.
bump for later, thanks
You know I love you RM! Haaaaaaaa!
I’ve watched you snipe from the sidelines for a while now, and I have come to the conclusion that you just want to be on the winning side, no matter which side that is. If you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything. The attitude you’ve expressed (whether it is your real attitude, or whether you’re just playing devil’s advocate) is what has been wrong all along. It’s what has allowed RINOism to become the monster that it is. We who care about this country are fed up with politics as usual, and frustrated that others can’t see that time is just about up for these games. This ship is just about to run aground.
Hmmm.
No, you unappeasable Hunterites just need to be disciplined.
It’s the Hunterites who are sniping at everyone else around here.
Anyways, you die-harders are living in la-la land, and I just saw on Fox News about 5 minutes ago them talking about widespread speculation that Tommy Thompson and Duncan Hunter are going to drop out now.
Fox and Friends just cited Duncan Hunter by name as the big loser of the day in Iowa.
Every election since this country was founded there have been people who raise the same tired alarm bells you and your fellow Hunterites just said.
But guess what - we live in a democracy.
We have compromise. Each step of the way we choose the best available option. At least most of us do.
But not you unappeasables. If you don’t get your way you will see to it to do the most you can to sabotage everyone else, just “to teach them a lesson.”
You will rejoice if Hillary Clinton is elected all because your man Duncan can’t win the nomination.
THAT is the problem. People like YOU allow worse than RINOism. You are instrumental in the election of the worst of the worst liberal Democrats. You’re just going to sit home and pout on election day, and pray for Hillary.
You don’t believe in democratic compromise. For you its either your guy or armageddon. It’s all you Hunterites who sit on the sidelines sniping at all the guys who may actually win the nomination. For you, it’s not divide and conquer, it’s just divide, because you’re all a bunch of sore losers. You guys do to the GOP what the Democrats do to the country when they lose.
Not bashing Fred here, but he was (not sure if he still is) a member of The Council on Foreign Relations. This organization is pro-globalism and for North American integration.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/13521/#hunter
This is what the Council posted regarding Duncan Hunter. In contrast with other candidates they wrote about....they do not support Hunter because of his Pro-America First views.
Duncan Hunter
Rep. Hunter (R-CA) has long been one of the most vocal China critics in Congress. He voted against the U.S.-China Trade Relations Act of 2000, which normalized trade relations with China. In 2001, Hunter sponsored a resolution to end those normalized trade relations, though that bill did not pass. Hunter has said that China is “cheating on trade and they’re buying ships, planes, and missiles with our money, as well as taking millions of jobs.”
Hunter cosponsored the Political Freedom in China Act of 1997. He cosponsored the 2001 Taiwan Security Enhancement Act, which increased military ties between the United States and Taiwan. That bill passed.
He also cosponsored a 2005 House Resolution opposing the potential takeover of Unocal Corporation by the China National Offshore Oil Corporation.
Loved your post! It’s true.
Some Straw Poll highlights (read this post as my saying to you: “yah, sure, Iowa helps you ‘handicap’ the nomination race effectively /extreme sarc):
1987: Heading into the ‘88 nomination battle, Vice President George Bush was viewed as the front-runner. He had all the money and the key Iowa endorsements. Sen. Bob Dole, from neighboring Kansas, was hoping that his Midwest connections would help his cause. No one foresaw the victory of Pat Robertson, the televangelist. Robertson, who had already done surprisingly well in the early skirmishes in Michigan, won the straw poll with 1,293 votes, compared to 958 for Dole. Bush finished third, with 864 votes, followed by Rep. Jack Kemp of New York (520), ex-Delaware Gov. Pete du Pont (160), and former Secretary of State Alexander Haig (12). Iowa Republican officials were stunned, saying that the people who showed up for Robertson were completely new to the political process. The results clearly shook the Bush camp, though it’s not clear to what extent: At the February 1988 Iowa caucuses, Bush again finished third (Dole first, Robertson second). But Bush did go on to win the nomination and the presidency.
1979: Not much attention was paid to the straw poll that year. But George H.W. Bush outworked, out-hustled and outspent front-runner Ronald Reagan at the straw poll, winning with 35.7 percent over a field that also included former Texas Gov. John Connally, Sens. Howard Baker of Tennessee and Bob Dole of Kansas, and Illinois congressmen Phil Crane and John Anderson. Bush beat Reagan again the following year at the caucuses. Still, Reagan breezed to the nomination.
Spend $3 million, practicaly live in the state for a month, flip a few chickens, look pretty on camera and you too can convince a bunch of semi-conservatives in a corn-fed state to vote your way.
How many electoral votes does Iowa have anyway?
Fox and Friends just cited Duncan Hunter by name as the big loser of the day in Iowa.
I’ve explained this a few times, and I guess I will again.
The Iowa straw poll isn’t about who is the winner nearly as much as it is about who are the losers. If you are a struggling candidate and you need Iowa to break out and you fail, then it is pretty much over for you, because it’s your one chance to do it. If you are not already a winner, then it hurts to be a loser there. This is the point about both Tommy Thompson and Duncan Hunter. The same probably goes for Tancredo and Brownback.
It has no bearing on any of the “top tier” candidates, with the exception of Romney, who needed to prove he can build a winning organization, since he’s trailing the others. McCain is DOA and was written off a long time ago so nothing he does matters, win, lose, or otherwise. And Ron Paul is orbiting Planet Truther so he’s more like the sideshow than part of the actual circus.
THAT is how you properly handicap the Iowa straw poll.
So Pat Robertson really caught fire after he won in ‘89? Your analysis is weak. Basically, what I see from the results in the past is that the Iowa straw poll doesn’t matter at all.
ping
Ummm, no.
Your logic is extremely faulty.
The Iowa straw poll doesn’t determine who wins.
It only determines who gets to continue on, and who has to drop out.
And it does not treat all candidates equally.
The Iowa straw poll tests each candidate uniquely, based on where they are in the race.
For Pat Robertson, winning the straw poll didn’t mean he was on track to win the nomination. All it meant was he was able to survive another day. Just like not winning didn’t hurt GHW Bush, or Reagan before him. Their overall strengths carried them, and unlike the second tier candidates, they never depended on Iowa as a springboard for their campaigns. Their campaigns were already flying high.
Iowa isn’t about picking the winners. It is only about sifting out the losers.
>>>>My vote isn’t for sale.
Amen
If Iowa doesn’t predict winners successfully, why should anyone pay attention to it in predicting losers? Reagan lost in Iowa but won the nomination. Etc. It seems to me that candidates with strong religious communities supporting them do best in the poll because they have the most motivated grass roots for this sort of contest. That doesn’t tell you much, but it explains Robertson, Romney, and Huckabee.
My vote isn’t for sale.Yeah, we know.
I’ve not stayed home from an election since I wasn’t old enough to vote.
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.