Iowa: the selection process begins
The 2012 election has been a long—almost interminable—time coming. But the Iowa caucuses have arrived today. Your thoughts?
The New Neo
A blog about political change, among other things
The 2012 election has been a long—almost interminable—time coming. But the Iowa caucuses have arrived today. Your thoughts?
I want to see some candidates drop out so that those remaining can talk about concrete approaches to fixing our problems, instead of vying for the purist of the pure conservative. I wouldn’t mind seeing Paul loose his shirt; the Paulbots are driving me nuts on comment threads. Paul deserves to lose just for inflicting these people on the blogosphere. They can hijack a thread on Christmas cookies.
My thought? Right here.
Finally.
At least there will be something like votes deciding things from now on.
Agreed with expat’s comments above concerning Ron Paul and company.
Sergey made a comment in a different thread that the times are such that we need a candidate of Churchill’s stature. Agreed but would add Lincoln as an alternative.
We are a nation consumed with personality and party at a time we ought only consider principle and policy.
I wish there were just one of the Republican candidates that could generate some enthusiasm from me.
Election fatigue anyone?
When I was younger, and even more foolish (let us not go there further) I used to pray for particular outcomes. As time has passed, and, I hope, tiny amounts of wisdom have seeped through my incredibly thick skull, I have finally merely started praying… that I deal with whatever outcome as graciously as possible. As is, my guess is I will be doing a lot more praying. :p
Still, there are some projections/scenarios to discuss. If Santorum is in the top three, more so if he happens to hit second place, I would be extremely pleased. Perry had his chance, I think he is toast, so I actually hope he and the other more conservative candidates fade hard and fast at this point. If Romney stays under 25%, and for the most part that continues, that will please me. Ron Paul seems to be a wildcard. It is unlikely he will get the nomination, but he can act as an in-party spoiler. He has no chance but he never will quit.
If the thing ever comes down to just Romney and a single solid conservative, I think the conservative has an excellent chance. I am almost thinking Romney’s money is keeping some of the lesser conservatives in the race. I’m looking at you, Michele. If the low ranks are truly conservative, they must get out. The sooner the better.
While I agree the Paulbots are overzealous, I love Paul’s presence in the race. One of my transients pleasures is seeing the establishment get itself twisted around the axle.
I don’t think reducing the number of candidates would improve the depth of debate. That’s not how I remember it ever going. The problem is not the size of the field, but the format of the discourse. And the unwillingness of so many to put in the necessary time to do their own research. It’s as if we feel we are entitled to have each candidates views delivered in convenient packages.
I am nowhere near fatigue. The primaries are when all the significant choices are made. I can rest once each ticket is established.
What is it about Lincoln that y’all like in context of this race and today’s times? Wouldn’t reedy, wispy Lincoln be “unelectable”? And would you settle for a Truman?
I read Paul’s “End the Fed”. I found it very self-serving, very superficial, and strikingly uninformed.
As to Lincoln, yup he saved the Union, but when recently reading about the economics of the war in Military History Quarterly (a worthy read), it turns out that if Abe could have bought all the slaves at FMV (about $4000 ea.), then freed them, the cost thereof (~$4 bill) would have been a small fraction of the actual direct monetary costs of the war, to say nothing about blood, etc. Lincoln’s wartime tyrannies were legion. I’ll pass on his 2nd coming.
The results from my precinct are:
Paul – 31
Romney – 7
Newt – 6
Huntsman – 5
Santorum – 3
Bachmann – 1
Perry – 1
Its just one precinct, but where I live in eastern Iowa Paul has been at the front of the pack for the past 2+ weeks.
“And would you settle for a Truman?”
Definitely, but that strain of politician has been completely marginalized within the democrat party for a couple of decades.
“.. it turns out that if Abe could have bought all the slaves… ”
Slavery was and is a horrible institution that no one who believes in individual liberty can countenance; buying and freeing the slaves was the way to go about ending the institution, not a civil war. However, emancipation was not Lincoln’s main objective. His primary objective was asserting the authority of the federal government over the state governments.
Parker: Yes, it was. To the regret of some of us, but not yet most, the genesis of the Imperial Presidency.
I am no fan of Lincoln. It is insane to me that he is often ranked as either the best or second president ever. His place in history is grossly over-exaggerated.
My biggest qualms with him are how he trampled on individual liberty. But before I get into that, just look at how he handled the war.
The slavery issue had been a contentious issue since before the time the U.S. Constitution was even ratified. Yes the contentiousness got more intense as time progressed. But the reality is that under his watch he allowed the country to go to war with itself. His leadership failure led to 600,000 lives lost and enormous economic loss. That alone should disqualify him from consideration as being a good president, let alone one of the best presidents ever.
Next, he “suspended” the writ of habeas corpus. By executive fiat he unilaterally declared people’s rights — acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence as coming from God — and codified by the sovereign people in the U.S. Constitution, were suspended. He swore an oath to defend the Constitution, but usurped power from the people to imprison them without trial in violation of their rights. Tyrant is the only way to describe it.
I have other beefs, but the last one I will discuss is that he destroyed the concept of federalism and state’s rights. While I often rag on FDR and Wilson for their unconstitutional power grabs, Lincoln set the stage for them.
Lincoln should not be revered by anybody who believes in individual liberty.
Do the Paulistas really want Ron Paul to be the president? Do they really think he can beat Obama?
It is well to remember that the Iowa caucus is “partly-open.” Meaning that you don’t have to be a Republican to participate. Paul’s support is coming from “independents.” How do independents get to vote in the Republican caucus? Here are the rules:
“Well, the first thing is you need to be obviously an Iowa resident who is eligible to vote in the state of Iowa,” he says.
You need to show up at the proper precinct, based on your address. You can participate if you’ll be 18 years old on Election Day of November 2012. If you’re a registered Republican, your name should already be on the list. If not, you can register as a member of the party on the spot, regardless of your actual political affiliation.”
My guess is that a lot of dope smokers, anti-war hippies, gay rights activists, and “big L” libertarians are turning out in big numbers for Ron Paul. Open primaries or caucuses don’t tell much about party support for the Republican when the democrat is already set. It opens the way for the results to be skewed in certain ways. The best gauge of Republican support for a candidate comes in states where only registered Republicans can vote. Unfortunately, New Hampshire is also a partly-open primary where independents can vote if they wish. It will take professional analysts to sift the results in Iowa and New Hampshire to find out where the candidates support is coming from.
Right now it klooks like it is a sqeaker between Rick Santorum (the evangelical’s candidate), Ron Paul (the bog L libertarian), and Mitt Romney (the RINO). Not much clarity in this result. Except that maybe this will be a long campaign.
“dope smokers, anti-war hippies, gay rights activists, and “big L” libertarians are turning out in big numbers for Ron Paul”
All votes are equal. Some CNN blowhard observed that Paul drew 40% of the self-identified Independents in tonight’s game. The next best choice for I-voters was only in the teen %s. If the common wisdom about drawing the middle is accurate, then:
“Do they really think he can beat Obama?”
Yes, he can. Among his supporters and volunteers are the faction that is disappointed with Obama and wants to end the wars. You may not want to end the wars, but you must admit there are a hell of a lot of people who do. And they vote.
“Yes, he can. Among his supporters and volunteers are the faction that is disappointed with Obama and wants to end the wars You may not want to end the wars, but you must admit there are a hell of a lot of people who do. And they vote.”
You and they may not be interested in war, but the Islamists are interested in it and will not turn aside if we turn tail. In fact, it will only encourage them.
I hope RP is encouraged enough to run third party. His support seems to come mostly from disaffected libs and peaceniks – in other words from Obama’s constituency. I don’t believe he has any real support among most Republicans.
It will be interesting to see how the winnowing affects the campaign against Obama. It might be good to have Santorum pushing his own foreign policy strengths while Romney pushes the economy. This can keep the attention on Obama’s failures. Gardasil is not our biggest problem. I’m happy the such minor things are going to be out of the spotlight.
I am officially pleased.
There’s too much Lincoln-bashing going on here. I have to speak up in defense of Old Abe.
@Scott: You apparently are ignorant of the fact that the Constituion itself AUTHORIZES the suspension of habeas corpus in times of rebellion. How can Lincoln be a “tyrant” for doing something the Constitution expressly contemplates should be done?
Furthermore, how can you assert that the guy who freed the slaves “should not be revered by anybody who believes in individual liberty”?
I also fail to see your point in making the ludicrously over-simplified observation that the Civil War took place on “Lincoln’s watch.” You make it sound as the war was an accident that happened because Lincoln wasn’t keeping a sufficiently careful watch over the guns and ammunition. Clue: It wasn’t.
@ Parker: Lincoln’s “primary objective” wasn’t “asserting the authority of the federal government over the state governments.” That would imply Lincoln was somehow trying to usurp, on behalf of the federal government, powers and authorities that the Constitution allocated to the states. Like what, I would ask? Mind you, modern presidents (and Congresses) have engaged in a lot of dubious federal power-grabbing over the years (mainly under the rubric of the Commerce Clause), but I don’t recall that Lincoln ever did, let alone that this was his “primary objective” as president.
No, Lincoln’s objective was to protect the Constition against the South’s claimed right of secession, i.e., to keep the “Confederate” states and any future states from walking out the door any time they disagreed with a lawful act of the Congress or the President. This, he believed, was the duty he undertook in taking his oath of office as well as a necessary predicate to the success of the United States — or of ANY (!) future democratic republic
@ Don Carlos: I would simply note that the idea of the federal government’s expending enormous sums to purchase and free all the slaves (a) would have been considered unconstitutional; (b) would never have passed Congress; and (c) would have been completely unworkable in terms of either trying to integrate all of the newly freed blacks into Southern society or relocating them to the North. Furthermore, to suggest Lincoln should have pursued this proposal ignores the fact that most of the Southern states had already seceded by the time he became president.
@ All Lincoln bashers: Abe wasn’t perfect by any means, and he made a lot of mistakes, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t a great president.
Good work on Lincoln Conrad. His critics choose to overlook (or more likely don’t know) that the suspension of habeas corpus in time of rebellion is legal.
As for the Republican line up; I’m happy to see Santorum move up. He is the only candidate who wrote op-eds warning of the Iranian bomb and openly advocating military action. That alone made me a believer. A dream ticket would be Romney-Santorum. Let’s hope its in the works.
I noticed, too, that it was not made clear and not enough attention was paid to the fact that, if you were an Iowa resident (and for how long, and how is residency status checked, with a photo ID?) you could just waltz into a caucus, sign up–regardless of your actual political affiliation– and vote, making it very easy to skew, or even hijack the whole process.
So, bottom line if, indeed, all of those fanatical, dope-smoking, hippie, neo-Nazi, Libertarian supporters of Ron Paul infiltrated the caucuses, last night’s results don’t really reflect the actual disposition of “Republican” voters.
That a thread on the Iowa Caucuses could turn into a thread about Paul – who basically lost since he was supposed to be 1 or 2 a week ago – AND a thrashing of Lincoln, is a testimony to Paulista-ism.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Romney won and Santorum pretty much did too.
I fear PC indoctrination is too deep for a Santorum. We have to understand and plan for how skewed the electorate is by this phenomenon. It is real and we probably can’t get the best man for the job elected because of it.
Conrad: Before Lincoln presided over a war on Americans that killed around 600,000 people and ruined the lives of millions more, he supported a constitutional amendment that would have permanently institutionalized slavery.
Your hero was clearly a white supremacist as is obvious from remarks he made during one of the debates with Stephen Douglas:
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” — Abraham Lincoln, Sept. 18, 1858 (from the book, Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings, 1832-1858).
His white supremacist and racist views became clear very early in his political career when he became active in the Illinois Colonization Society – a group that advocated using Illinois state tax dollars to deport blacks out of America. As President of the United States, he established in the Department of Interior (and persuaded Congress to fund with $600,000) a “colonization” department for the purpose of deporting blacks to Liberia, Haiti, Jamaica, etc.
So, before your hero ‘freed the slaves” he both wanted a constitutional amendment to permanently enshrine the institution of slavery and he also wanted government to deport blacks out of America.
You are free, of course, to accept the fairy tale version of Lincoln if you wish. I prefer reality.
I thought one political analyst made a good point this morning, when he pointed out that Santorum–with little money to spend, but a lot of time to criss-cross the state of Iowa-spent something like $1.00 for each of the votes he received, while Romney–with tons of money to spend, but relatively little time spent in Iowa–spent more that $400 per vote, for the votes he received, and that Romney still received less votes than he did last time around in Iowa.
Bottom line, Romney is not really that popular with voters. I suspect, as well, that, were only registered Republicans allowed to vote in the Iowa caucuses last night, Ron Paul would have done dramatically worse that he did.
Scott: You are judging Lincoln by the standards of our day not his. He had to play the white supremacy card when he campaigned in southern Illinois which was settled by southerners.
This stuff about supporting an amendment supporting slavery seems a peculiar interpretation of history which I suspect would be dismissed as utter rot by legitimate historians. Indeed I’ve read a lot about Lincoln and I never gleamed that. Likewise the advocating transporting blacks to Liberia, I suspect your reference to it is so taken out of context it qualifies as nonsensical. Indeed I think sums up your entire understanding of Lincoln and his times.
Scott, your citation of a credible reference that Lincoln ever supported a Constitutional Amendment supporting slavery please?
One of our failings is to judge historical actions and actors without properly understanding the context of the times involved. To claim that Lincoln could have avoided the war by simply purchasing the slaves is an example.
Seven states had seceded before Lincoln even took the oath of office. And the south’s entire culture, economy, and self-image was based on the idea of white supremacy. They would never have agreed to sell the slaves at any price. Furthermore Lincoln did attempt to get authority to purchase a limited number of slaves from the border states. However, Congress refused to cooperate in even that limited action. And finally, what would have happened to the 4 million ex-slaves once purchased? The north certainly wouldn’t have welcomed an influx of 4 million new black neighbors.
And…as is often said, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. It grants extraordinary powers to a president in national emergencies and periods of war. A president can be limited by acts of congress or rulings of the court but is normally given a free hand to act as he thinks necessary. Where Lincoln acted or failed to act was dictated by his desire to save the Union. He was not infallible and would probably be the first to admit that he made mistakes. But he was attempting to maintain a very delicate balance between the demands of the border states; the urgings of the radical emancipationist in the north; and the democrats and copperheads in the states which were still in the Union. He demonstrated extrodinary wisdom, compassion and courage in the process.
That last sentence should read “Indeed I think that term sums up your entire understanding of Lincoln and his times.”
If there is truth to the notion that the Constitution is not a suicide pact, that, too must apply to the States which ratified it. If the FedGov adopts policy that will destroy the nation of Texas, Texas must be granted the opportunity to avoid execution at the hands of federalism.
Secession is not rebellion or insurrection. Those secessions were made by recognized governments operating with the consent of the governed, a democratic process as idealized in the Declaration. Lincoln was a great speechwriter, but not a principled hero.
@ Scott: I would agree that Lincoln believed whites were superior to blacks, although he seemed to attribute some of that assessment to the fact that, as a white person, he was biased in favor of the white race. I don’t think this means he wasn’t a great president; he just wasn’t particularly enlightened when it came to discussions of race.
As for the constitutional amendment, I think Lincoln may have put that out there to show that he wasn’t out to abolish slavery. Lincoln believed (corectly, actually) that the Constitution permitted slavery, and that, as president, he had no authority to stop it (other than through constitutional amendment or, as it turned out, as a counter-insurgency measure). I think the historical record is quite clear that Lincoln was personally opposed to slavery, and I think he was grateful that the South’s secession eventually presented an opportunity for the U.S. to do away with slavery.
Also, it is definitely true that Lincoln toyed with the idea of recolonization of the slaves for the simple reason that he couldn’t fathom how they could be integrated into white society. But the idea was unworkable for a host of practical and political reasons. So, while he was intrigued by the idea, it wasn’t something he seriously pursued as president.
@ foxmarks: I’m not sure what kind of federal policy you are imagining that would “destroy” Texas. However, to take an extreme case, if the Congress passed a law requiring the military to detonate 1,000 nuclear warheads in all states with a “t” and and “x” in them, I suppose I would agree that Texas would have the right at least under the penumbra of the Declaration of Independence to oppose that, forcibly if necessary. Beyond that, I’m not sure what your point is.
As for the idea of secession is not insurrection or rebellion, I think they are exactly the same thing (assuming the purported “secession” is accompanied by actual, armed resistence, such as we saw in 1861). The fact that seceding states were led by established state government is beside the point if those states were not in fact empowered to secede. My local town has an established government, but it doesn’t mean my town can lawfully secede from my state or the U.S.
This contest has gotten interesting! Like Doom, I am officially pleased.
I thought earlier that electorate and media were underestimating Santorum and his appeal to discerning citizens, while being otherwise enchanted by the ascents and descents of the political shooting stars (Americans love lurid spectacles.)
I don’t have even a vote to influence the matter; but I would trust Santorum in contrast to the well-oiled political weather vanes he is competing against.
So does the electorate want someone who can be trusted? Or someone who tells them what fantasies they want to hear?
Speaking of fantasists, Paul seems a handy kind of guy to absorb the walk-in votes of those disaffected youngsters who otherwise would vote for the likes of Obama.
I expect that Gingrich will vengefully reduce Romney and Perry to whimpers (hell having no fury like a politician scorned).
You may quote me on this, but only if I am correct.
Conrad:
Speculating over secession-worthy scenarios is moot. We have already had one. Under the principles in the Declaration, it is up to the people to decide.
Insurrection or rebellion aims to attack the government. Secession attempts to separate from the government. The Constitution is silent on a right to secession. Within States, smaller jurisdictions have been granted separation. The concept is within legal theory.
Violence arises when the will of the people is denied. The southern States played nice until the Federals stopped believing in democracy.
Bob from Virginia: “dismissed as utter rot by legitimate historians”? Wow, it takes alot of chutzpah for you to take a condescending tone with me about something you clearly know nothing about.
I’ve read a fair amount about Lincoln myself. The most thought provoking Lincoln scholar I know is Thomas DiLorenzo. He has spent much of his adult life researching and studying Lincoln, and that effort has resulted in a couple of unflattering books about him.
DiLorenza often picks apart the work of “conventional” Lincoln scholars who, like you, find excuses and justifications for Lincoln’s white supremacism, bigotry, and racist views.
There are also a couple of books about Lincoln’s plans to deport blacks. I haven’t read it yet, but I know DiLorenzo’s scholarship has enabled him to endorse this one, “Colonization After Emancipation: Lincoln and the Movement For Black Resettlement”
http://www.amazon.com/Colonization-After-Emancipation-Movement-Resettlement/dp/0826219098
kaba: Doris Kearns Goodwin writes about letters she reviewed written by Lincoln supporting the “slavery forever” constitutional amendment in her book, “Team of Rivals”. So too has Thomas DiLorenzo, in his book, “Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe”.
Finally, here’s a press release issued by the Associated Press in 2006 announcing the discovery of a letter written by Lincoln, found in a PA Historical Society archive, in which Lincoln urged the nation’s governors to work to ratify the pro-slavery amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/bizarre&id=4379128