The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Parting Ames Thoughts

Text Size

Parting Ames Thoughts

By W. James Antle, III on 8.14.11 @ 12:39PM

There are definitely things that are unrepresentative and over the top about the straw poll in Ames. But many are belittling the process simply because the media-anointed candidates either did poorly or did not participate and because conservative candidates did so well.

The fact is, Ames is a much better barometer of grassroots enthusiasm and organziational strength than most less colorful straw polls. To compete, campaigns have to move thousands of votes in a small state and get them to spend a Saturday at a political event. Most other straw polls, even the bigger ones, don't require more than a few hundred supporters, all of whom are political activists, spread out across the country or an entire region attending an event they might have attended anyway. The turnout at Ames this year could be more than a tenth of the turnout for the Iowa caucuses, and Ames does give a glimpse of the level of commitment that is required to do well in the caucuses.

Some point out that Mitt Romney won the straw poll last time but didn't get the nomination while John McCain bypassed the event and did. This ignores a great deal of context. The big story coming out of Ames last time was Mike Huckabee's second-place showing on a low budget. Ames was the beginning of the end for Romney in Iowa and, as it turned out, in the primaries more generally. Ames helped McCain, whose campaign was not relying on Iowa at all, win the nomination.

And that's what makes Michele Bachmann's victory all the more impressive. She didn't have the organization of Mitt Romney in 2007, Tim Pawlenty this year, or probably even Ron Paul. Her campaign may have bought a lot of tickets (more, as it turned out, than actually voted for her), but the get-out-the-vote effort was organic and her win was based on genuine grassroots enthusiasm. It suggests that perhaps people should not be so quick to assume her support will evaporate immediately upon the entry of Rick Perry, or even Sarah Palin, into the race.

Ron Paul's showing is also likely to be dismissed on the grounds that he always does well in straw polls. But most of those polls require far fewer votes than Ames and have a much broader voting base. This was Paul's best performance with the voters of a single state with a large number of candidates actively competing. If 153 of the tickets they bought for people who wound up voting for other candidates had wound up in Paul supporters' hands, they'd have won the whole thing.

This brings me to the last thing the media hates about Iowa: the strength of social conservatives. That's what helped propel Bachmann to victory, what led Paul to talk more about abortion than war, and what caused Rick Santorum to finish fourth. Finishing behind Santorum has to be a disappointment for Herman Cain, however. Cain's organization in Iowa has clearly taken a hit and he has obviously receded since Bachmann entered the race. Cain was also hurt by the Fair Tax supporters' decision to scale back their involvement in the straw poll after going all out for Huckabee last time. The reception given to Cain's speech suggests things could have been different.

View all comments (62) | Leave a comment

Richard| 8.14.11 @ 1:17PM

Allow me to suggest a possible way to look at the Ron Paul candidacy. And that is that there is a significant sector of Tea Party America tired of being the chumps for the imperial overstretch of our military capability thanks to the neo-conservative claque that has been driving conservative discussion on foreign and military policy. The sons and daughters of the Wall Street Journal and Weekly Standard editorial boards tend not to sevre in uniform. The sons and daughters of Adair, Iowa and Bristol, Tennessee do. The people from these regions are patriots, and they proudly serve their nation. But they expect that their nation has a purpose worth serving, a mission that supports that purpose, and tactics and commitment to execute that mission - and that it can be explained to seventh graders. That we no longer have. Ron Paul may too often lapse into his "crazy Uncle Ernie" persona on a debate stage, but at the moment, he alone is speaking for conservatively-inclined Americans who believe that we are stumbling down the wrong road, and that endless war against ever-shifting 'enemies' in the Middle East damages our military readiness, our diplomatic posture, and results in the erosion of our liberties at home.

Margie| 8.14.11 @ 1:29PM

Hmm. You say 'enemies' in the Middle East. Like they're not really enemies or something.
Or some thing..

"..the imperial overstretch of our military."
Here we go.
Yes, that pesky American military.
Harumphhh.

C Bowen| 8.14.11 @ 4:33PM

You were the one who thought Iraq was a threat right? LOL

Margie| 8.14.11 @ 4:58PM

You were the one that thought Hitler wasn't a threat in the 30's, right?
Not so funny.

C Bowen| 8.14.11 @ 5:27PM

I wasn't alive then, but obviously, as well know now, Stalin was the bigger threat--FDR's chosen ally.

Margie| 8.14.11 @ 6:55PM

C Bowen:
"I wasn't alive then"

Could've fooled me. You act as though you were around for everything.
Stalin was the threat in the 40's, but FDR was pallin' around with him for years.
Hitler was the threat in the 30's, but we ignored him, even sending people over to Germany who were hoodwinked by him and his intentions.
People such as yourself helped the US sink deep into isolationism with the passage of various Neutrality Acts.

As far as Stalin went. we recognized him in 1933 for the purpose of furthering economic aims.
Some threat, eh?

victor| 8.14.11 @ 7:07PM

Pardonnez moi, but the above response was incorrectly attributed to my wife.
Sorry for any confusion.

C Bowen| 8.14.11 @ 7:32PM

How was Hitler a threat in the 30s to the Americans, considering the investment the Wall Street folks and 'investment bankers' like the Bushes and the Fords were providing his government and Roosevelt's government, let alone bankrolled the phony opposition in Wilkie?

Stalin was murdering in the millions by the 30s as the Hearst press tried to point out; the Establishment understood this, but for reason of geo-politics that included Anglo-American dominance of Europe, kept it quiet. George Kennan is much of a guide here--and he is Establishment Right.

And the Neutrality Acts? Are you joking? FDR's government made clear the intention to wage war against Germany and Japan fairly early on with various sanction/trade restriction regimes and special considerations (insider deals) to Great Britain, a game still played now with the crowd who calls for sanctions against any country they want to invade.

That the period is called 'isolationist' is a joke. It was hyper-interventionist to gain advantage but when one reads thee Morgenthau plan as genocide for Germany and it was stated policy of the United States, one understands the European response that was trying to keep distance from Anglo-America, and the Stalinist threat.

I take it you were public schooled, Victor? Or are you just an old school Trotskyite?

Clint| 8.14.11 @ 9:38PM

Ahhh ! The Victor-Margie Syndrome Again.

Have A Bowl Of Borscht & Call Bibi In The Morning.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 1:22AM

Which means what, Clint?

You operate under the mistaken idea that withdrawal from overseas affairs entirely will IMPROVE our security at home. This is wrong; it will ERODE it. The Calipjhate advocates want to kill us. We withdfraw, they will follow---they have the manpower to do it.

Schuerer MISSED Bin Laden. People died because of his errors. Nation building may be useless, but killing terrorists overseas and turning Af-Pak into a wasteland as opposed to Apple Valley, CA, makes sense.

Of course, Apple Valley has a lot of assholes, so may be you're right Clint. Hopefully, they'll start with Apple valley, and then move on to Wisconsin. Nothing but cheese heads there.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 2:49AM

You see, Clint, The Israelis already know that Paul won't allow them any financial/military aid, so explain how preventing spare parts for their aircraft is going to keep them from using nukes to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons?

We actually want, from our perspective, to keep some reason for the Israelis NOT to use maximum resources to protect themself. I fail to see how Paul will do this. Calling the Israeli ambassador in and telliung him that financial aid will be cut off which you have openly planned to cut off anyway makes no sense as a deterrent. Given your sdislike for Israel, I fail to see how this will get them to behave in a pro-US fashion, especially as you plan to withdraw all US military assets from the region, as well.

As for Jack, if you behave as though Israel is an enemy, why will they act in any way that you might wish?

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 1:36AM

Yup, and we had difficulty beating Hitler.

Margie| 8.14.11 @ 1:24PM

Mr. A.,

I don't understand the polls so much, but these are exciting times, aren't they?

I'm psyched by Michele's acceptance by more and more people, I think it's wonderful.

You know how I feel about your guy. He's not my guy, but there he is.

I can appreciate all of them for different reasons, but what I hope is that they all do not take these polls too serious. They're a barometer, true.
But they must just "Press on" in the face of the Lame Stream Media and poll results anyhow.
God bless them!

p.s. I did take a look over at Wiki at that Old Right write and saw that indeed, it was posted by your guys.
Raimondo, Sotchie, et al.
You guys wouldn't be trying to rewrite history now, would ya?
LOL.

Margie| 8.14.11 @ 1:25PM

s/b "write-up", above, not "write".

W. James Antle III| 8.14.11 @ 1:36PM

If you're really interested, you can find plenty of stuff written by non-paleos in the pre-Wikipedia era about the "Old Right," which was what the anti-New Deal, antiwar conservatives of that era were called by their friends, enemies, and neutral observers alike.

Margie| 8.14.11 @ 1:52PM

Hmm, I find it hard to fathom that if the "Old Right" were anti New Deal that they'd be anti-war.
But then again, the Ron Paul types are supposedly fiscally responsible and anti-war.
And that isn't conservative.
And anyhow, what is being anti-war?
Who is FOR war?
And that brings us to the entire can of worms, doesn't it?
It is too bad that the Paul types cannot be a bit more sane about how they view the world.
Conservatives (other than the Paul types) do not "believe in" or want or desire or are we "war-mongers."
We just don't have our heads in the sand.
The other sad fact about the Paul followers is that they have a "thing" for, or rather against Israel in particular, so that it seems like being a Paul follower means a place for the haters of Israel to hang out.
You do know this is true, right?
I truly wish it weren't so, James. I really do.

C Bowen| 8.14.11 @ 4:44PM

Margie;

It's nice of you to demonstrate that you know nothing about the history of the American Right, but do look up Taft and the 1952 Republican convention, when conservatives were sold out to the establishment as a starting point.

Human Events, now just a neocon mouthpiece, was founded by the Regnery family (whose heirs continue to fund much of rightwing publishing) specifically to charge FDR with purposely allowing Pearl Harbor to happen to backdoor the country into war and criticizing the New Deal.

The editor/founder of The American Spectator, Mr. Tyrell, is a major fan of H.L. Mencken, traditionally associated with the Old Right.

The New Right tended to form around Bill Buckley's National Review which was founded with the help of the CIA--this is not in dispute so just show us you can use google and research on your own... but they just kept retreating from whatever position they once took. Buckley use to be friends with George Lincoln Rockwell for example, but nobody really mentions that these days.

And yet, Buckley excommunicated the John Birch Society from 'the Right' because they were against the Vietnam war. Have to run, more lessons later...

W| 8.15.11 @ 7:40PM

Buckley did not have the authority to excommunicate anyone. With his writings and speeches he showed that the John Birch Society made up its own facts to support its beliefs, for example that Dwight Elisenhower, one of our greatest presidents, was a communist. He also showed they Society was racist, anti semitic, and anti catholic. Look it up.
Buckley was in the CIA, I am sure his friends contributed. If you have real authority that tax payer funds, through, the CIA were used, please cite it. Assuming for the sake of argument that the CIA funded the initial magazine, that may be the best investment it made to strengthen America. At the time the media was thoroughly dominated by the liberals.

C Bowen| 8.16.11 @ 10:35AM

Buckley worked CIA and Hunt was his handler. The top staff at the start were all CIA; Frank Meyer believed it was a CIA front. But as you noted, sure, it was a good investment.

Buckley called what he did to the JBS 'excommunicate' ; but the secret police in the Kennedy Administration specifically targeted rightwing organizations, leaving Buckley alone. (Look up William Casey's association with NR, and his take out of Felix Morely at Human Events.)

As Buckley himself wrote, the JBS's refusal to support Vietnam was the cause for banishment. Buckley's best man, Revilo Oliver, who fits the racist/anti-semite label by PC terms, was the top intellectual at JBS, and I have already mentioned Buckley's friendship and published defense with George Lincoln Rockwell and also General Walker, making your grounds on PC words rather thin.

As the tax authorities and the smear agents took down the Rightwing, the New Right was allowed to form, generally accepting internationalist foreign policy and the New Deal--all more or less by design.

W| 8.16.11 @ 1:56PM

The JBS claimed the Vietnam war was part of the conspiracy for one world government or the commie takeover of the US, and that was the Kennedy Johnson reason for the war. The details of this are hazy, haven't read or thought about it since your post.
Having ex-CIA guys on staff does not mean it was funded by the CIA with tax money as you implied.
How did the tax authorities take down the Rightwing? Who designed this as you state?
So having" friendships" means what, not clear.

C Bowen| 8.16.11 @ 3:52PM

W--with all due respect, the Am Spec common board is horrible to begin with, and even less suited for this sort of semi-legit back n forth.

If that is your cutesy opinion on the CIA and National Review, that is fine; it was not shared by the Rightwing at that time who hastened to mention Buckley was Skull N Bones & CIA.

This isn't a bad review though, to color your opinion: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/epstein5.html

Use of IRS as policy to destroy rightwing:

The Reuther Memorandum, Dec 1961
http://tinyurl.com/3tnkyxy

Link is provided for background and it provides a link to the actual text of the memo. Tell me if rings true or not.

I might add, scroll down a bit and I chat on Reagan for a few moments. I post over at conservativetimes.org and a few other outlets, so I forget to come back here, and you wish to continue, look me up...

Nevertheless, I'll try to check-in and respond to additional questions or points of contention.

C Bowen| 8.16.11 @ 3:56PM

And, W., it might be worth looking up Clinton and the CIA (both his time in Oxford as a spy on anti-war protestors) and late, Mena Airport.

Then I might look up what Obama did right college, who did he work for (answer: Business
International Corp) which was thought to be a front for which alphabet agency? Then start thinking about what his mother did for work...

W| 8.16.11 @ 5:45PM

CBowen,
Why don't you just tell us what you want to say,what is your point, and your authority. It will save much time. Is the JBS still in business?
Thanks

C Bowen| 8.16.11 @ 6:20PM

The JBS is still in business, barely. I believe they still have some Welsh endowment, and they made their return to CPAC over the last couple of years--I could discuss their ideological track to the present (they are now an Old Right outfit, if a bit late to jump on the Ron Paul thing almost missing the waive, having lent themselves to be a bit more Tancredo like as they thought that 'illegal immigration' was the populist issue to ride without fighting PC rules, but the old hold outs of the 60s Right are...pro-Ron Paul as anti-Establishment figure upholding the symbol of the Constitution as a cultural unifier. If you were serious to understand the American Right, you might wonder why...)

This string began when someone basically conceded they did not know anything about the history of the American Right, even going so far as to slander the Old Right which, if you didn't know, is a strange thing to do on a place like AmSpec (or Human Events for that matter.) Slandering the endowment and reputation created by the man whose sons offer some largesse yet, just wreaks of rudeness.

I think the direction of our talk was a curiosity, perhaps a suspicion on your part, that the history of National Review (for example) might be lacking in nuance and worthy of additional scrutiny.

As far as what I want to say, there is a real authentic American Rightwing Tradition that still has a remnant, in the words of Old Rightist, Albert Jay Nock, who Buckley claimed inspired him for a few years (Buckley's Pa was Old Right.) I'd be pleased to get you started on such a study of the contemporary (web addys for example with a sketch of ideology and history), but it might be worth covering the late 60s, 70s, and Reagan first. (If you can, go check the 80s Republican National Platform, and then the 2000 Bushified Platform--that could be another topic.)

AmSpec, for example, was a different 'thing' in the 90s when Taki was funding the operation--much more diverse opinion that sketched the traditions of the American Right (conspiracy, civil liberties, finance/finance shenanigans, anti-neocon national security.)

W| 8.16.11 @ 9:08PM

On this history, I read George Nash, "The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America,'
Lee Edwards, "The Conservative Revolution," Russell Kirk, "The Conservative Mind." and most of Buckley's books and books about him.
What do you suggest.
I am still not clear, who do you support for the Republican nomination, since I assume you are not for Obama.

C Bowen| 8.16.11 @ 9:16PM

Tactical support for Ron Paul on the grounds of his integrity. Tactical, Leave the door open for Bachmann in the meantime; keep the powder dry and see which way she breaks. Wonder if there might be a third party this go round.

For books, I think the best starting point I can offer (for books on line) is Rothbard's Betrayal of the American Right
http://mises.org/books/betrayal.pdf

This is not to say I agree with every word/interpretation, but it's a good place to start based on your present reading list--the American Old Right was comfortable with discussion--Rothbard, Mr Libertarian gave a memorable speech in 1992 that is a best preface I can suggest--it was given at the John Randolph Society meeting, where libertarians and conservatives attempted to fight the establishment:

read it first:
http://students.uis.edu/araut0.....right.html

C Bowen| 8.17.11 @ 3:39PM

The older Kirk once wrote a personal note that said Bush (the elder) should be hanged on the White House lawn as a Republican who started a war (Iraq.) If you give him some weight, consider his odyssey, and when the neocons (Midge Decter, wife of Irving Kristol namely) demanded he be hounded out of the Buckley circle; they went after Sobran right after.

C Bowen| 8.16.11 @ 6:30PM

"At the time the media was thoroughly dominated by the liberals."

National Review at inception was staffed by "ex" Communists (Whit Chambers, James Burnham...) I personally, have never been a Communist so I find that strange even before we get to the CIA stuff, how much weight you give the myth about NR.

W| 8.16.11 @ 9:09PM

What is the myth, be specific.

C Bowen| 8.16.11 @ 9:18PM

The myth of Buckley, through strength of intellect, in forging a coherent system of thought that manifested itself in the successful execution of the Reagan Administration.

C Bowen| 8.17.11 @ 3:46PM

W.;

For books for purchase Paul Gottfried's "Conservatism in America: Making Sense of the American Right" is useful...he is sometimes credited with making the 'paleoconservative' term with Dr. Thomas Fleming (at Chronicles Magazine). It's a recent book. At least google the reviews.

Clint| 8.14.11 @ 2:25PM

They're Taft Republicans.

Robert Alphonso Taft of the Taft political family of Cincinnati, was a Republican United States Senator and a prominent conservative statesman. As the leading opponent of the New Deal in the Senate from 1939 to 1953, he led the successful effort by the conservative coalition to curb the power of labor unions, and was a major proponent of the foreign policy of non-interventionism.
" He was the grandson of Attorney General and Secretary of War Alphonso Taft, and the son of President and Chief Justice William Howard Taft and Helen Herron Taft. His younger brother, Charles Taft, served as the Mayor of Cincinnati and was the unsuccessful Republican candidate for Governor of Ohio in 1952. As a boy he spent four years in the Philippines, where his father was governor. He was first in his class at the Taft School (run by his uncle), at Yale College (1910) and at Harvard Law School (1913), where he edited the Harvard Law Review and became a member of Skull and Bones,"

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 1:24AM

Taft was pro-Israel. Hate to tell you that Clint, but it's true.

W| 8.14.11 @ 1:35PM

Richard, well writtened and reasoned. Most people would not object to this if Ron Paul would say this. But he says it is ok for Iran to have nukes. He loses most voters with that statement. Remember Iran held Americans hostage, and supports terrorrism. Then he says Israel is as bad or the same as Iran. You cannot defend this. It is simply wrong. Iran has repeatedly stated it wants to destroy Israel, therefore Israel has a duty to defend itself.

Clint| 8.14.11 @ 2:07PM

Former CIA bin Laden Unit Chief, Michael Scheuer
On Iran,The President should:

3.) Call in Israel's ambassador to the United States and tell him that we understand that Israel believes Iran is a threat to its survival, and that we agree that Israel has every right to defend itself. If Israel believes it must go to war with Iran, then so be it. But also tell the ambassador that if Israel attacks Iran, the U.S. administration will declare U.S. neutrality in the war and immediately cut off military and financial support to all combatants in the war."

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 1:34AM

In essence, exerting authority over this by cutting off aid to the Israelis and refusing to support it militarily.

Hmm...this would mean Israelwould get no replacement parts for its airforce, so conventional attacks would be right out. I wonder what that leaves....

Schuerer missed Bin Laden. He's a CIA Civilian, not a military guy. Paul was a medical officer, not a combat guy. Tom Kratman, who was a military combat leader, and is an expert on Islamic terrorism, doesn't think much of Paul...

Just sayin.'

Richard| 8.14.11 @ 3:46PM

W, thank you for your comment. I agree, which is why I remarked about Ron Paul's "crazy Uncle Ernie" persona. I don't think the health of the Middle East or the world would be improved if Iran had nuclear weapons. And to Margie, I don't have any grudge against Israel. But I don't think that the mission of our military should be to serve as targets for fanatics in the desert, either. My head is not in the sand. But nor do I believe that assigning someone else's children to patrol on top of the sand to support some kleptocratic chieftain in Kabul amounts to 'strategy' either. I agree that in Afghanistan, we 'broke' it, so we're stuck with it for a while. But I get very nervous when people who pose as conservatives seem to be egging us on in Libya or in Syria.

Richard| 8.14.11 @ 3:49PM

And I support our military. I've attended two burial services at Arlington this year. I simply question the justice and, yes, the 'patriotism' of a nation that sends certain folks off to their fourth tour of duty while obeying our former president and making that next trip to the shopping mall.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 1:35AM

Libya makes no sense because we're not doing anything in our interest. Syrian attacks are going after the tail, not the head, of the snake. Iran never was repaid for its act of war. It deserves to be beaten to a pulp. Of course, capturing our embassy is not an act of war to Paultards.

Margie| 8.14.11 @ 1:56PM

James,

My husband tells me that the "Old Right" as you refer to it was actually the "America Firsters" in the 30's. The same anti-war types who said the same thing about Adolph Hitler in Germany that they say about Iran today~ that they were no threat, that they have no military capability, and that we should ignore them.

And they also wanted relations with Germany in the 30's~ as they do with Iran today.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

C Bowen| 8.14.11 @ 4:55PM

Margie;

Stalinist agents are the ones who floated the connection between America First and Hitlerism.

Is your husband a Red?

victor| 8.14.11 @ 7:43PM

C Bowen:
"Stalinist agents are the ones who floated the connection between America First and Hitlerism."

Care to cite something to prove that assertion?
America First was started in 1940 by the FIA (Future Isolationists of America) and fronted by Charles Lindbergh later that same year.

I was referring to American Isolationists in the 30's that were dealing with Hitler's Germany and allowing him to arm with our money.
Much the same as when we sent our scrap steel to Japan from the elevated trains so that they could manufacture armaments and munitions.

I got two separate events confused in the above post, America First in the 40's and isolationists in the 30's and you compounded the error by not correcting me, but by agreeing with me.

"Is your husband a Red?"

Funny that you ask me if I'm a Red, when you're the one who actually aligns himself with the appeasers of the Reds, both then and now.
Typical Paul-Bot projection. It never fails.
Ha Ha Ha.

C Bowen| 8.15.11 @ 7:43AM

Vic;

The Venona Transcripts, Joe McCarthy and the Un-American Activities Committee, Hoover's FBI files...this is basic stuff for rightwingers.

And try to stay on message. You have already conceded that you subscribe to conventional Trotskyite history on the period, with little understanding of the geopolitics involved.

You are the one who said Stalin was a-okay with you in the 30s.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 1:26AM

Burton K Wheeler, who did his best to oppose American rearmament and then supported a Japan First policy. "American Firster" (not really) and moron. Old Rightist.

W. James Antle III| 8.14.11 @ 9:00PM

If you're really interested in what the Old Right was and what they believed, Gregory L. Schneider's Conservatism in America America Since 1930 is a nice, neutral place to start.

There is some discussion here in the letter to the editor section of Commentary magazine:

http://www.commentarymagazine......servatism/

Many in the Old Right were America First supporters and their leaders opposed U.S. entry into World War II (though few opposed the war after the bombing of Pearl Harbor). They were also in the vanguard of opposition to the New Deal.

One need not side with them on every historical controversy to be broadly part of their tradition. John Lukacs is part of that tradition, yet he published a review disagreeing vehemently with Pat Buchanan's moderately America First revisionism:

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/jun/02/00031/

Scott McConnell, who co-founded the magazine with Buchanan, specifically wanted a critical review.

Personally, I disliked the tone of the review and felt Buchanan should have been treated more tactfully. That said, I agree with McConnell's basic point here:

"What of those of us who have spent the last five to ten years arguing that not every tinpot Balkan or Middle Eastern dictator whom The Weekly Standard decides to label 'The New Hitler' is a serious threat to America? Are we now supposed to embrace the idea the real Hitler was not a great problem either? If one wanted to concoct a recipe for making antiwar conservatives completely irrelevant to contemporary America, this would be hard to improve upon."

I think we've seen this play out on this brief thread already.

W. James Antle III| 8.14.11 @ 9:01PM

Here's the link to the full McConnell explanation of publishing a critical review, which I couldn't provide in the last post:

http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2.....s-and-tac/

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 1:27AM

I'm not sure that polite disagreement and Pat Buchanan belong in the same sentence, James.

aware| 8.15.11 @ 6:30AM

Margie, notice how the Republican "saviors" caved and agreed to borrow more money now in exchange for "cuts" in the "future"? They gave Ocommie 2.4 trillion to spend just like he wanted. I told you they would, remember? Repeal Ocommiecare? Haven't seen much on that either, huh. Will you ever understand the Republicans aren't your friend either?

The epic crapstorm about to break on us is beyond the understanding of the establishment candidates you are supporting who seem to think this is just another election cycle.
It's not Iranian nukes destroying America, it is the banking cartel. The same ones who own your candidates and the end game is just about upon you. The warning signs are blazing by with regularity as we speed down the road to destruction.

Clint| 8.14.11 @ 2:00PM

Dr.Ron Paul,
“Our military’s purpose is to defend our country, not to police the
Middle East.

“As the President prepares to send even more support to Egypt, we should
be reminded that it was our foreign aid that helped Mubarak retain power
to repress his people in the first place. Now we have to deal with the
consequences of those decisions, yet we keep repeating the same mistakes.

“I am not the only one who can see the absurdities of our foreign
policy. We give $3 billion to Israel and $12 billion to her enemies.
Most Americans know that makes no sense.

“We need to come to our senses, trade with our friends in the Middle
East (both Arab and Israeli), clean up our own economic mess so we set a
good example, and allow them to work out their own conflicts.”

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Carpe Diem.

martin j smith| 8.14.11 @ 2:34PM

Lets move on shall we--and see how things play out. Pawlenty's dropping out to me seems to confirm what I have gathered about him--a weak candidate. We do not need weak --not now. Its about the primaries but it is also about opening up some of our shy folks such as Romney. It is time for some one to do a little vetting of his particulars is it not. No one is "entitled" Time to prove your worth. I will say thes ame for all including Bachman.. Prove you are willing and able to deal with the viscious MSM and other Obama friends attacks and come out looking good.

ConservativeWanderer| 8.14.11 @ 2:43PM

It's not just Romney vs. McCain in 2008 that shows that Ames is a poor predictor...

* Pat Robertson won the straw poll in 1987. He wasn't the nominee.

* George H. W. Bush won the straw poll in 1979. Reagan was the nominee.

In short, it's somewhat hit-or-miss with nominees... and should be taken with that firmly in mind.

They Lie| 8.14.11 @ 2:43PM

I'm not convinced that the Ames straw poll is nothing more than a glorified poll in which the participants are bribed with food and drink to participate. If you look at past results, it is not a very good indicator of the eventual nominee.

Pelligrino| 8.14.11 @ 11:19PM

And since when do 16,890 people get to determine anything? That size group doesn't fill a small university's sports complex.

I bet there were many more adult Iowans working their way through various booths, attractions and concerts at the Iowa State Fair in Des Moines -- just 30 miles away. They didn't want to be bothered. They are smart enough to know that 1) yes, it is very important who will be our next US president, but 2) this Ames straw poll method is not the way to go about it.

Note how even Am. Spec. doesn't do proper journalism here. Of those voting, Democrats from Iowa could participate yesterday in Ames. That's right. Good reporting would tell us how many Democrats participated -- yet would not be able to participate in the actual Iowa REPUBLICAN Caucus in February 2012. So why allow Democrats to participate yesterday? Out of state college kids could, too. **So that accounts for A LOT of the Paul supporters.** Under 18 kids could vote -- those who will be of age by November 2012.)

This is 1) all for the media/give them something to do/a trifling that allows for them to act important; 2) a nice distraction once more from the immediate perilous needs of the nation; 3) the Iowa GOP's handy little summer fundraiser that they tinker with and change every four/eight years to garner more money.

Haven't you already heard cries that the lower finishers should just hang it up? They scored low, so there just isn't the interest in them as viable candidates.

Say what? That's cockamamie.

The Ames "winner" did not even crack 4,900 votes. Didn't your high school almost have 4,900 in the student body?

Professional journalism is dead when supposedly serious publications, sites, and TV stations want to declare firm truths based on what 16,890 people do on August 13, 2011 in Ames.

The state of Iowa has a population of over 3 million people. So do the math: Over 2 million would be eligible to vote.

This result in Iowa is not statistically relevant.

It is a farce. It serves as an Iowa GOP party coffers fundraiser and a very useful media bonanza in a sleepy August/summer/vacation slot period of the year. (It serves tremendously as a boost for the Des Moines media -- Davenport and Cedar Rapids, too -- so they'll never call this the farce that it is.)

There is no truth when there is money to be made.

Upright journalism is dead.

Oldefarte| 8.14.11 @ 3:49PM

Concerning the subject of Paul and war above, my personal feelings somewhere in the middle of the extremes. Not being totally knowledgable regarding Paul's positions, I somewhat agree with his general proposition of the human and financial costs of this country's getting involved in these wars. I also agree that war is usually necessary because of the tyranical potential threat to this country, from the dictatorial leaders of these enemy countries [Hitler, Sadaam Hussein etc would have headed toward our country if their conquering progresses had not been stopped by this country's military]. I support the warranted initiation of war against a potential threat to this country [not to other countries] by an enemy, and the culmination of that war effort to the highest degree. By this I mean not within the political correctness that recent wars have been carried out by our political leaders, but rather by use of any/all of our most powerful atomic/missle capabilities. The Viet Nam War could have been won/finished within possibly several months if this country's military leaders had been allowed to use our most powerful bombs/missles to level North Viet Nam into submission. Instead we used political correctness to send our military army personnel to fight them on their own turf and same was predictably not successful. So too with this war on terrorism. After 9/11/01, our air force bombers should have been loaded to the hilt with our most effective atomic bombs etc and same should hve been deployed with the middle east's deserts with the diplomatic warning thereafter that IF THEY EVER ALLOW THEIR CITIZEN-CONSTITUTENTS TO ATTACK/BOMB OUR INNOCENTS WITHIN OFFICE BUILDINGS ETC AGAIN, THAT THE MIDDLE EAST WILL THEREAFTER CEASE TO EXIST ON THIS EARTH!!!!!!!!!!!!

C Bowen| 8.14.11 @ 5:46PM

[Hitler, Sadaam Hussein etc would have headed toward our country if their conquering progresses had not been stopped by this country's military]

LOL. My father tells me a story that took a long time for him to appreciate. As a boy in St. Louis, he can recall black out drills, summer of '44.

The Germans had no long range bombers, and yet the populace was convinced that the Germans were going to launch some secret air plane to fly across the ocean, and half way across the continental United States, to bomb one of the most German cities in the country.

It's so ridiculous, that it took him many years to see the simple dark humor of it.

Oldef? Were you scared of Saddam?

Calvin| 8.14.11 @ 8:32PM

I am registering Republican just to vote for Ron Paul as soon as I turn 18.

- Ron Paul was endorsed for president by Reagan in 1988. Reagan made special note to Paul's commitment to a strong national defense.

- Ron Paul was the only candidate at the previous debate to have served in the military. He volunteered for Vietnam while Mitt Romney obtained a draft deferment. Interestingly, Romney was a vehement supporter of the Vietnam debacle. Look it up!

- Ron Paul refuses to receive the benefits available to him as a Congressman, including healthcare and pensions.

- Ron Paul was spot-on about the economy, and predicted the housing bubble way back in 2003. Check it out for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLm7Sw402xE

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 1:30AM

Calvin, that was Paul running for Congress in 1988, not President. Ron Paul pissed on the Reagan administration himself---no ally was he.

Paul served as a medical officer. No shots fired in anger for Ronnie.

C Bowen| 8.15.11 @ 7:38PM

Paul served during the Vietnam Era, while indeed folks like Romney and Cheney chickenhawked it.

Paul was one a few to endorse Reagan in 1976, and Reagan reciprocated in 1978 for Paul's Congressional run with promises that in a Reagan Administration, Paul could fight the fiat system which was very popular with the Christian Right in its younger, more educated form.

Reagan betrayed conservatives in 1980, when against promises, he took on George HW Bush as his running mate when he had previously promised no Council on Foreign Relations/Trilateralists would be on his ticket.

Then the assassination attempt came in March '81 (by the son of a major Bush Contributor, whose brother had dinner with Neil Bush the night before); then came the unbalanced budgets that Reagan promised he wouldn't do to the Republican freshmen; then came asking to raise the debt ceiling.

Then came, in 82 and 83 the massive tax hikes.

The Right was indeed very upset with the Reagan Administration...if anyone wants to go deeper, look up Congressman Larry McDonald.

Mike Rogers| 8.15.11 @ 6:07PM

Without doubt, congratulations to Bachmann for having a good organization a good message, and obvious charisma.
Pawlenty's problem more than anything came down to a failure to excite voters. He had a great organization, a decent message, and excellent advertising, although strangely he did not bid high for the best spot at Ames, even though the total costs for his Iowa campaign were over $1m. His problem comes down to a lack of charisma- nobody got excited.
Ron Paul has superb organization, great supporter loyalty, and has been right on many issues, but he has a raft of problems which his son does not have: he's cranky, and he sounds anti-American. Specifically, many of us can agree that the current wars make less and less sense as time goes by, but very few will agree with him that (a) it's all our fault because we had a hand installing the Shah of Persia (Iran), and therefore (b) we should just let the Iranians have their nukes because Israel and Pakistan have them. But for me, there is a bigger problem with Ron Paul, and it is his supporters. While there may be many thoughtful and well-intentioned Libertarians involved in his cause, there are also a lot of rude and crazy people who latch onto him, and he does not have the ability to inspire them to show restraint and advance his cause.
Santorum was on a shoestring budget, but he worked his butt off, and he deserved his decent showing.
Cain ran a carefully calibrated campaign to stay within budget, and got almost twice as many votes as the campaign bought tickets. Indeed, after his speech in the coliseum, which was late in the day, many new converts stopped by the Cain tent to confess that they wished they'd heard the speech before voting, buttressing the author's point that things could have been different for Cain with just small changes in things outside his control.
I'll bet the fair tax folks will be more engaged in the caucuses!

Moshe Starkman| 8.15.11 @ 8:42PM

Hi W. James, I find your criticism of Herman Cain's showing in the poll fair-minded and gracious but do want to reiterate Mike Roger's sentiments. (I was going to talk about how the campaign's ROI - return on investment - was very strong and demonstrates great energy for his campaign.) To further realize that his speech was late in the afternoon and that many votes were already cast is also something that should be considered.

I would frame the results as "While disappointing in terms of placement, Herman Cain did great when measuring support, intensity, connecting with locals, and overall performance." Herman Cain is a contender and one would be wise to keep him on their first-choice list.

Personally, Mr. Cain is absolutely my #1 choice for President of the United States and I believe that America would be hard pressed to find another candidate with more integrity and successful leadership experience.

Mike Warlick| 8.19.11 @ 12:54PM

I traveled the 2,000 miles roundtrip to Ames with my wife and our GFFT Sec. Nancie. Simple stated, to tell the candidates, the press and the people of Iowa, that FairTax means "JOBS" big time. As Dr. David Turerck told the members of the House Ways and Means Committee meeting on FairTax. These are positively real numbers, that I would be happy to go over with you. FairTax - Doubt it - Research it - then you'll Demand it. [YouTube -> FairTax] or learn at fairtax.org

Jim Bennett| 8.19.11 @ 1:21PM

Your comments about Cain are disappointing. The FairTax organization spent less money this year in Iowa but compensated with a far stronger volunteer presence. One other thing FairTax did right this time was to leave a permanent volunteer organization behind.

Studies show that candidates who go on the offense with the FairTax and who aggressively defend it fare better than do candidates who do not. The growing number of co-sponsors proves the point.

~Jim Bennett