Hillary’s big Iowa loss is nothing short of great news. Fabulous news. It means two things:
One, there’s now a shot that she won’t get a shot at the White House next November after all. Anything that denies Hill and Bill the opportunity to run the country again is reason to cheer…and cheer…and cheer.
Secondly, the Clinton attack machine will now take the gloves off and the fangs will come out. From an entertainment point of view for conservatives, watching what the Clintonistas will now try to do to Barack and the Breck Girl will be pure blood sport. I’ll bring the popcorn.
Then again, maybe the Hillary loss was planned all along. Maybe her peeps really didn’t want her to win in Iowa. Maybe they wanted the press to declare her campaign dead. Maybe what they’ve been planning all along was to lose in Iowa and then win in New Hampshire against all the odds, making her the “New Comeback Kid.”
Maybe I ought to stop sniffing glue.
The Huckabee win proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Iowa Republicans cannot be trusted with the responsibility of weighing in first on the GOP presidential primaries. That a big-government nanny-state liberal from the same small state and town that gave us Bill Clinton - who is weak on taxes, weak on spending, weak on immigration, weak on crime, weak on limited government, and a cipher when it comes to foreign policy - can win handily on the strength of being “folksy” and wanting to “take this country back for Christ” tells us all we need to know about why this situation of Iowa going first can no longer continue.
That being said, Huckabee probably reached his high water mark with his Iowa win. It’ll be all downhill from here.
But if not - if he actually continues on and somehow snatches the GOP nomination - get ready for not only electoral Armageddon in November, but an exodus from the Republican Party heretofore unimaginable. This just might be the thing to relegate the GOP to Whig status and usher in a new, more principled conservative, limited-government party.
Whoa.
Hmmmm.
We want Huck! We want Huck! We want Huck!
FAMOUS LAST WORDS
“[T]his room was, until about five or six minutes ago, completely empty. This is a manufactured ‘celebration.’ It really felt more like a funeral as people started strolling in from upstairs where they had obviously been gathered. This is unlike anything that I’ve ever seen, a completely empty, dirge-like event.”
- MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell at Clinton’s “celebration” party in Iowa last night
Posted on January 4th, 2008 by Chuck Muth
Filed under: National
Let us hope that the Clintons’ hopes for world domination comes to end end by the end of january and let the Republic live!
I don’t know who is worse - Huckabee or Clinton. Where are the real conservatives? Is McCain really all we have left? He’ll crack under the pressure and then it’ll be president Hussein.
Somebody has to say it, and I guess it’s up to me.
From my perspective, Iowa is irrelevant!
The results there have no effect whatsoever on who I am supporting.
None, zip, zero.
Some of the candidates themselves did not find Iowa important enough to bother with any real campaign effort, so why should I be impressed with the results?
The media and it bias are also irrelevant, I am voting on the candidates qualifications as demonstrated by their past record.
This is a far more reliable indicator of future action than campaign rhetoric!
I also note that the media are not giving much coverage to our own Nevada Caucus, perhaps because we are not expected to reliably support their anointed candidates?
I am voting for the last genuine Conservative standing, which is unlikely to be any of the hypocrite RINO’s the RNC and media want to select for us.
Richard,
WHO are you voting for? Last one standing? The last one standing might not be conservative!
What kind of people live in Iowa? Do these folksie folks sit in front of the TV all day, sucking up the Huck on the conservative channels. Did anyone notice on CNN as the first GOP results came in, that their was a pie chart wedge that belonged to Ron Paul, but his name was omitted from the chart? It seems that the MSM will stop at nothing to have the uninitiated asking…Who is Ron Paul?
Ted,
I said “I am voting for the last genuine Conservative standing”,
I should still have that opportunity in the Primary election.
If there is no GENUINE CONSERVATIVE available in the general election, I will write one in!
None of the RINO’s who placed among the top three in Iowa will ever get my vote.
I refuse to be whipped into compliance by the media, or the RNC’s “Lesser of two evils” mantra.
I’ve been down that road too many times, I don’t like the result.
Free men vote their conscience, not who they are are directed to support.
It is time the RNC stopped taking our votes for granted, I’ve already heard all the snide remarks, threats, disdain, and “You are going to elect Hitlery!” chants, so please do not bother to repeat them again.
I may vote for Ron Paul, if only as a proper response to the RINO’s being forced on us, and the manner in which the RNC and MSM have tried to marginalize the only Constitutionalist candidate in the race.
Fred Thompson MAY be able to win me over, his cancer concerns me, his time as a prosecutor of unconstitutional “law’s” is not the plus his handlers want it to be.
Tell me right now, WHO is his VP choice, if his cancer returns, THEY may be be serving his term!
Duncan Hunter might get my vote, I’m leery of any Kalifornia “conservative”, they typically would be good democrats anywhere else, look at Arnold for a prime example.
Fred Thompson IS what his campaign slogan says - The Clear Conservative Choice. And BTW, it was he, not McCain who took 3rd place in Iowa. Bringing up the specter of the possible return of his cancer is exactly the kind of negative tripe we can expect of our predictable MSM should Thompson become the Republican nominee. We already know they can only call a Democrat “Darling”.
For now, the anchors and the pundits are content to virtually ignore Thompson and/or try to make us think he’s out of the race. Go to fred08.com and see what YOU think.
And PLEASE Richard, even if you do have to “write someone in”, do NOT consider Ron Paul a viable alternative! His philosophy on defense spending, his statement that we need to try to “understand” terrorists, and his veiled references to conspiracy theory with regard to 9/11 would mean absolutely disaster for this country.
It may be an ugly truth, but Fred’s cancer IS a legitimate factor to be considered.
I’ve know too many people who’s cancer was “In Remission”, until it returned.
It seems that it DOES return more often than not, and very few survive a second round.
The daily effectiveness of a person undergoing cancer treatment is not great, I expect that if Fred was undergoing cancer therapy the VP would be likely to have to step in until treatment was complete.
So again, WHO is his choice for VP, and I want to know sooner than later, preferably before our own Nevada cauc, er ah, non-binding Preference Poll.
As to Ron Paul, I have admired MANY of the bills he has introduced in congress over the years, which I cannot say for any other candidate.
RP’s bills get locked away in committee because they are too true to our constitutional ideals, they recognize that the constitution is intended as a limitation on Government, NOT the citizens.
He’s no RINO or NEO, and since NO candidate is going to be perfect in every area, RP comes closer to what I really want, a true Constitutionalist, than any other.
It might help to remember that we are voting for a President, not a dictator, CONGRESS introduces legislation, the president can only support or veto that legislation.
It’s a little early for any candidate to be choosing a running mate, though there may be some speculation. I would certainly expect Thompson to choose someone who would strongly reflect his own principles and carry through with his policies if necessary.
The problem I see with making this concern a determining factor at this stage of the campaign is that it undermines the real issues. Fred Thompson exemplifies the qualities America needs in a leader. To dismiss him because his cancer may recur is an exercise in self-defeat., which in itself may well be fatal for the future of this country
You might want to think about what happens to us if we are forced to endure another bout of “Clintonoma” or its equivalent. If we don’t fight this nation’s increasing inclination to lean left, it’s going to fall hard.
Do you truly believe that Ron Paul can rally the nation against ANY Democratic nominee? Yes, many of his principles resonate with me as well, but the man himself comes across as dangerously unrealistic. Even a large contingent of his fellow Libertarians consider him too far beyond the fringe to represent their ideals. His performance on last night’s debate made me cringe.
I’ll repeat myself here, go to fred08.com, do some reading, watch some videos and then give some serious consideration to supporting the only REAL conservative candidate with a generous contribution and positive momentum!
Fred Thompson has Non-Hodgins Lymphoma. My husband has that also. If got earyl (as both my husband and Fred’s were) it can be put into remission fairly easily. Again, both of these men did that. It is not curable but it can stay in remission for up to 20 years. People with it have to have checkups 2 or 3 times a year to make sure it is not coming back. As long as it is in remission it is fine and only checkups are needed. If it comes back, the good news is, the treatment that put it in remission the first time will work just as well the second. So I guess if you have to have cancer, it is a good one AS LONG as you catch it EARLY. So do not let the mass liberal media scare you. They cannot find any bad moves Fred made in his political career. He is a true conservative and they know he can whip the Democrats. So they make up things like he is lazy, he is old (Younger than some and not older then Hilary), he doesn’t want it bad enough, etc. Anything to discredit them. Spread the word about Fred. He came in second in Wyoming and 3 rd in Iowa and he has lots of support in the west and south. He will be a great president.
Thank for shedding some light here, S. Benn. Perhaps it will put some unfounded fears to rest once and for all.
It’s bad enough that the media tries to use this type of smokescreen to further a liberal agenda, we don’t need it to color the opinions of the intelligent, independent thinkers who might otherwise throw their support to the man we know this country needs.
Nevadans, what say you? Fred needs lots of support to take this country by storm. Help us get his old red pickup primed for the journey - even if your state is still a ways down the road.
Hmmm, interesting explanation of Fred’s cancer.
I’m not a doctor, I only know what I have observed over the years while losing friends.
I still want an assurance that his VP choice will not be some RINO, his VP pick needs to be more clearly conservative than his record shows him to be.
———————————–
Name any candidate other than Ron Paul who has publicly committed to REPEALING any laws, or even reducing the scope of any existing Fed. agency!
If EVERY “electable” candidate is promising MORE laws, more restrictions, more government, less freedom, where is the real difference between them, or their parties?
I will never get to ask any of the the candidates this, but if I did, I am sure RP is the only one who would have a sincere answer.
Our Republican party had several years of control, the presidency and both houses of congress.
Instead of keeping true to republican principles as espoused in our platform, they squandered every opportunity, and spending skyrocketed!
Several “Law’s” of very questionable constitutionality were imposed, our borders were not secured, existing law was and still is SELECTIVELY enforced, while additional redundant laws are piled on!
Klinton hold-overs still remain in too many Fed. post, we cannot select a decent U.S. Attorney General, the nominee to head the BATFE is an anti-freedom drone, we are still hostage to imported energy and natural resources, real wages are still falling, our core technologies are being lost, etc., ad nauseam!
It’s clear that no matter which party is in power the “Ratcheting Effect” continues.
As you may be able to tell, I am sick of the status quo, the Iowa results seem to indicate that I am not the only one feeling this way.
Our republican party seems to thrive on being the minority party, they appear incapable of taking the initiative when in power, but are better at defense, making congressional “Gridlock” the best we can hope for.
No, I don’t want Hitlery, or Hussein, but I certainly DO want genuine change!
Maybe Fred could make that happen, maybe Ron Paul would shake things up enough to break the damn mold by his mere election, maybe Hunter is the best man?.
I am certain that Rudy, McCain, Huckabee, and Romny are all RINO’s and Neo’s, they are nothing more than a guaranteed continuation of the current pathetic path to ruin.
End of rant.
“No, I don’t want Hitlery, or Hussein, but I certainly DO want genuine change!”
How about change to a GENUINE conservative? What is your basis for doubting Thompson’s conservative credentials? Have you taken an unbiased look at what he has to offer as the Republican nominee? He can be trusted to choose the best running mate when the time comes. (It occurs to me that perhaps Duncan Hunter would be perfect for that position)
Thompson’s platform is based on many of the same concerns you outline above and his debate performances to date highlight those very points.
Unhappily, clinging to the idea of a Ron Paul presidency in 2008 is the equivalent of voting for Ross Perot in ‘92 - a sure victory for the Democrats.
“Unhappily, clinging to the idea of a Ron Paul presidency in 2008 is the equivalent of voting for Ross Perot in ‘92 - a sure victory for the Democrats. ”
Actually, Ron Paul would take just as many votes from the Democrats but that’s neither here nor there.
As Chuck has said in the past, don’t whine about Ron Paul being a spoiler. Whine that the GOP has consistently moved so far to the left that now Thompson is the strongest conservative (EXCEPT Ron Paul!)
If Thompson gets the nomination, I can hold my nose and vote for him. If any of the other so called conservatives get the nod, I can safely say “I don’t give a rat’s ass” if the Democrat wins. The others might as well have a D behind their names anyways!
How about reading Dr Paul’s book, btw? I heard it was endorsed by Thomas Jefferson
Actually, I have read more than one of Ron Paul’s books. There was a time when I was convinced that the Libertarian Party was the wave of the (near) future. And truth be told, I have supported Libertarian candidates in local and state races, and agree with MOST of that party’s issues and platforms.
In these precarious times though, Ron Paul’s radical-sounding rants (sorry, that’s the way they sound to many) have hurt him immensely when it comes to concerns about national security. Yes, I do grasp the underlying principle, but the average voter does not and he hasn’t presented it well to them at all in my view. As one of my wise-cracking friends said recently, “Wow, that guy scares me more than Osama OR Yo-mama and that’s saying something.”
What it’s saying is significant and calling him a “spoiler” is not whining, it’s stating a fact. Do I think he’ll capture the Republican nomination? No, I don’t. But if it were to happen I believe the result would be a landslide for liberalism and a tremendous loss for America.
Perhaps Thompson can address some of this stuff:
http://www.conservativesbetrayed.com/gw3/articles-latestnews/articles.php?CMSArticleID=1827&CMSCategoryID=19
Fred Thompson’s record may appear to be “conservative,” but only by comparison with Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, or Mitt Romney, and a Less-of-a-Big Government Republican is still a Big Government Republican. And given his lack of conservative leadership as a Senator, it would be a grave mistake to expect conservative leadership from him as President.
2002 lifetime ACU rating was 86
Respectfully Martina, complete examination of the long read you posted fails to convince. I see no real documentation in it to back up the rhetoric therein. ie: what does “failed the Goldwater Test” or “failed the Reagan test” mean without an actual demonstration of facts and figures proving the claim?
Further exploration the web site reveals several inconsistencies in methodology. For example, it’s clear what the agenda is with regard to the Fred Thompson survey prominently displayed on the homepage, but I suspect Hunter, Tancredo and Brownback would take GREAT exception to being lumped in with the likes of the pandering Huck!
Thompson’s ACU rating of 86 is quite respectable among the candidates so rated and third only to Tancredo and Brownback. That fact might lead to speculation as to whether the ACU chart has become a “hit list” for those who would target the legislators demonstrating the most consistent support of conservative principles. (But that’s a whole other essay.)
If you use it as legitimate criteria for your argument however, it must be pointed out that Ron Paul - whom you seem to defend - has a lifetime rating of 82.