First Preseason Game: August 11
Of all the preseason games in the run-up to the GOP nomination, none is more crucial than the Iowa Straw Poll.
As usual, it will be held in Ames, on Saturday, August 11.
Analysts have downgraded its importance since McCain and Rudy dropped out. They are mistaken. The McCain-Giuliani forfeiture of the straw poll already testifies to its importance—and to their weaknesses.
Rudy dropped out first. Why? His front-runner image would have been shattered had he been routed at Ames. Rather than risk a beating, Rudy quit. By dropping out, he concedes that, today, he lacks the troops or organization to contest the caucuses in January. And if he doesn't have them now, when and where does he find them?
Within hours of Rudy's forfeit, McCain threw in his hand.
With Rudy gone, McCain was not going to be able to beat the mayor, and he faced defeat by Gov. Romney, the Iowa front-runner, and even possible defeat by a second-tier candidate. Since McCain dropped out, the weakness of his candidacy has been exposed, and Giuliani, still the front-runner, has been slowly sinking in national polls.
With Rudy and McCain out, the pressure is on Romney, who must win. But significance now attaches to who runs second in the straw poll. For this is the last, best chance a second-tier candidate—Govs. Mike Huckabee and Tommy Thompson, Sen. Sam Brownback, and Reps. Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul—has to show broad support.
It has been fairly said there are only three tickets out of Iowa: first-class, coach and Greyhound. Gov. Jim Gilmore of Virginia, who had no organization in Iowa, has quit the race. The candidates who do not show strength at Ames will likely be packing it in, awaiting only their matching funds in January to pay off campaign debts. Only Ron Paul among the six has more than a million dollars in cash on hand.
The contest for No. 2 in the straw poll is thus the one to watch.
About Gov. Romney. His strategy has been set by his situation. A Massachusetts governor who had taken liberal stands on abortion, gay rights and guns, he needs to persuade the nominating wing of the party, first, that he is a conservative, second, that he is a winner. As a twice-defeated Richard Nixon said in 1968, the only way to prove he is not a loser is to go "into the fires of the primaries."
Romney has to win neighboring New Hampshire to have a chance in South Carolina—and to win New Hampshire, he must win Iowa. Hence, Romney has used up much of his early cash to secure both bastions. His success may be seen in the fact that he has run Rudy and McCain out of the straw poll, and is polling first in both states.
If Romney wins big at Ames, he will be heavily favored in the January caucuses. If he wins in January, he will have the "Big Mo" going into New Hampshire. A victory in Iowa is worth $50 million in free publicity eight days before New Hampshire, and a win in New Hampshire is worth even more heading for South Carolina and Florida.
The question that faces Rudi and McCain is this: Do they risk a defeat by Romney in Iowa, perhaps a humiliating third-place finish that dims their luster in New Hampshire? Or do they cede Iowa to Romney, write it off and wait for him in New Hampshire, as McCain waited for George W. Bush in 2000 and beat him?
Both McCain, who has less cash on hand than Ron Paul, and Rudy were back in Iowa last week. This suggests they are keeping their options open and have yet to decide to abandon Iowa altogether.
This is a difficult decision for both. How do they rally their troops, after having let them down by ducking the fight in Ames?
Up to now, Rudy seemed to have decided not to bet heavily on Iowa or New Hampshire, but save his chips—he is the best-funded man in the race—for Florida and Feb. 5, when New York, California and 18 states hold primaries. The problem with a wait-and-see strategy is that Romney may have unstoppable momentum, if he wins the first two big ones.
Fred Thompson, too, has a decision to make. Does he try belatedly to organize Iowa when Romney has had a year's head start and half a dozen other candidates have locked up the party activists? Or does he wait in New Hampshire to meet Romney head-on?
Thompson, who has put off any announcement before Labor Day, seems to have taken a pass on the straw poll, and his late entry in the national race gives him a compelling reason not to compete in Iowa. But that would mean that he, McCain and Rudy might all three be spectators on Jan. 14, when the caucuses are held and Romney collects a week's worth of favorable publicity before the three meet him in New Hampshire on Jan. 22.
Thus, the Iowa Straw Poll at Ames has already played a major role in the politics of 2008, even before it has been held.
COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
27 Responses »
Trackbacks
- Volunteer Voters » Getting Out Of Iowa Alive
- Indiana Political Review » Interesting Analysis
- Conservative Heritage Times » Buchanan Breaks Down the Ames Iowa Straw Poll
Entries(RSS)
Sadly, despite the fact that Buchanan correctly identified fifteen years ago the new cutting-edge issues for post-Cold War conservatism, the "mainstream" movement has not yet coalesced around these issues. The dangers identified were: (1) a reckless, hegemonist US foreign policy; (2) an abandonment of any semblance of border control; and (3) a purposeful dilution of the strength of the traditional middle class, through manipulation of trade policy and other means (including #2 above).
When added alongside two pre-existing threats to the healthy survival of the West - the array of issues highlighted through the advance of "multiculturalism", and the peril our economic structures face due to massive financial indebtedness - we have a geopolitical worldview which should have broad popular appeal, but has not been adopted by sufficient numbers of grass-roots activists. It seems the new "Security State" paradigm has distorted the judgment of most self-described conservatives (I'm not referring here to those "neocon" pretenders).
None of the GOP presidential candidates, and none of its major office-holders, demonstrates a full understanding of our civilizational threats. Of the candidates, Tom Tancredo perhaps comes closest: definitely a "social conservative" and arguably an advocate of small and limited central government, he has made his reputation as the foremost spokesman of border security, and had belatedly even realized the peril of remaining mired in the Middle East. He seems oblivious, however, to any need for defending our national sovereignty and our industial base against multinational "trade" and monetary schemes.
Duncan Hunter is fairly solid on normative tradition (including the integrity of our military), on immigration, and on several aspects of our trade dilemma, but is weak on aggregate spending and has drunk the full container of kool-aid on Middle East interventionism. The latter is unfortunate, given (1) Hunter's roots as a no-nonsense Realist, providing during the eighties the most coherent defense from any notable politician - no "global democracy/human rights" crusade from him - of Reagan's strategic posture toward the sandinistas, and (2) his current insight into China's scheme to beef up their military force with technology provided gratis by the US.
As for Ron Paul, this paleolibertarian congressman finds a way to arrive at technically correct and/or marginally acceptable answers to virtually every "checklist" concern a paleoconservative can pen onto paper. However, cultural conservatives realize libertarianism as an ideology is a vacuous thing at best, unable to provide meaningful and lasting answers for its own survival in the long term, and nonviable in a world consisting of nation-states. Lew Rockwell's website has a banner at the top declaring "Anti-State". We are close enough to societal balkanization without an added ideological push into the abyss.
The other second-tier candidates are good for providing an occasional soundbite on some pet issue, and for little else. We all know what the first-tier candidates are.
During his post-presidential candidacy years, I hope Buchanan can find ways to draw significant numbers who do not yet appreciate the paleoconservative worldview, toward a better understanding of the important post-Cold War imperatives he emphasizes. Until these ideas get competitive, at an Everyman level of appreciation, with the watered-down shibboleths of Limbaugh and Hannity, "conservatism" will not be able to come to the aid of our declining society.
Very well stated, nicholasville conservative: clear, cogent, and to the point! Thanks...
That was a cogent summary, nicholasville.
While Paul is ideologically libertarian, he is running for a head-of-state jobs. Perhaps the realities of the presidency would force him into a more paleo position?
At this juncture immigration and foreign interventionism seem to be the two greatest imperatives, and he is the only Republican right on both counts.
Don't know 'bout y'all, but I'm gittin' right tired and mighty irritated that Iowa and New Hampshire are choosin' our presidents.
On 'libertarian' sites, one expects the shill musing, "is Ron Paul really a libertarian"? But why take the time on a paleocon site if from the other side? Tancredo's peeps had no problem calling League of the South types racists and Duncan Hunter is as paleo as B-1 Bob Dornan 10 years earlier which is to say, not at all, and he has no interest whatsoever in being associated institutionally with our thing.
I'm with Taki, we'd be better off with Chuck Hagel.
As to the column itself, tactically speaking, Buchanan possibly has hopes for Romney, Mr.Business Man conservatism himself. My guess here is that Buchanan has shown that his heart is with Paul, but his head is with Romney being the only opportunist who might listen to paleo concerns.
Mr.Cundiff, South Carolina chooses our Presidents, and she always does what she is told to do. If only New Hampshire chose our Presidents...
I was in SC for the Ron Paul rallies in Greenville and Spartanburg. Perhaps this time SC will not do what she is told.
All are right that Paul is philosophically a classical liberal (of the paleolibertarian variety), but it is not accidental that he arrives at the "technically correct" answers. We all share a belief that the Constitution means something and should be abided by, and we all agree that decentralization is a large part of the solution.
Ron Paul is changing the debate and changing the dynamic, esp. on the War.
How Hagel could be better for paleos than Paul is beyond me, unless paleo also implies political realism. (Perhaps it does.)
Hagel is not a non-interventionist. He is a foreign policy realist of the Baker variety. He is a globalist and voted for amnesty. He is certainly no "Constitutionalist."
Admittedly, I did judge Paul in my comments by a different standard than the ones used for Tancredo/Hunter. I would be very pleased if Ron Paul ever could become president, but it won't happen until the dawn of a radically new age. Rather than discuss his merits/demerits, I took the opportunity to open the topic with my fellow paleoconservatives, of whether and to what degree we should welcome full-blown philosophical libertarianism. I believe the question is a very difficult one to cleanly resolve. (Not that any of us view paleo-ism as monolithic; Chronicles has always been about the priority of culture over politics.) But again, in our practical world I'll take Ron Paul any day over the hordes of Republocrats promoting their Welfare State/Warfare State fusionism.
One of the good things about Paul is that he's the only congressman I can think of who actually proposes that the Congress use its court-stripping powers to send the abortion issue back to the states, whereas, all the other supposedly pro-life congressman would rather sit there and do nothing so they can continue to use the issue as a political football.
Red;
While I could have been clearer, I haven't hid my Ron Paul Partisanship, and my allude to Hagel was within the context of a Hagel vs Hunter vs Tancredo.
And let me advance the point another yard, Hunter and Tancredo are closer to the Likudnicks than the Trilats which Hagel most certainly represents (in that less than epic battle amongst the elite.) Even suggesting Tancredo is "reconsidering" his Middle East position is absurd as he has had more than a couple of vote to appeal to the anti-war (Likudnick skeptical) Right. I am happy to foregive Tancredo as simply not ready for prime time, some how, not a serious national politician, but Hunter has STALKING HORSE (Alan Keyes 1996 anyone? where it the tactical thinking?) written all over is Militiary Industrial Complex jump jet boondoggle hide.
NC, CB,
I admit I wince a little when Ron Paul talks about God given natural rights and states that the purpose of government is to ensure/maximize freedom. That sort of stuff. But the question is not, IMO, whether paelocons can admit paleolibs into the fraternity. The question is can paleocons and paleolibs work together as part of a broader rightist/anti-establishment/anti-status quo coalition. I believe we can, should, and must.
All the political language these days is liberal or couched in liberal terms with a few exceptions. Freedom/liberty is an easy sell and not for entirely bad reasons. Who doesn't want more freedom? On the other hand, debunking Lockean contract theory or whatever is hard philosophical work.
I guess there is a risk of the coalition being seduced by purist libertarianism, but I think there is a greater risk in not actively challenging the status quo even if the vehicle is somewhat imperfect.
The Ron Paul coalition is not just libertarians. It has many different elements. I think Paul realizes this and so he is careful how he expresses certain issues. Which is how he is keeping all those elements happy.
Pat Buchanan is one of the most astute political observers still living. This article is about Ron Paul finishing second in Iowa or all bets are off for conservatives . Always before it has been the conservatives who have split the base vote early in Iowa -- Keyes, Buchanan, etc. This time, Ron Paul is the only conservative in the hunt. If he gets second, it will be scary for the duopoly. Especially New Hampshire where their three or four picks will be shooting at each other, leaving Paul another opportunity for an offstage upset.
"The contest for No. 2 in the straw poll is thus the one to watch." writes Buchanan
Now of course it goes without saying that after Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina the fun is all over for Ron Paul in even the best of circumstances. If he were to actually win one or show strength in two, the duopolists would then, in the words of Bob Dole in 96, "do it the hard way" which means all out and whatever it takes, " put an end to William Wallace and his gang." Pat is just wanting to relive the days of old through Ron Paul and the happy memory he no doubt harbors when what was left of America in 1996 started "riding to the sound of the guns" and the fax machines and e-mails in the beltway started malfunctioning from the overload and astonishmnet at those scoundrels of the Buchanan Brigades breaking loose and nearing the protective wire for a moment in time against the gathering storm and dark days of duoploy cannoneers considering " nukes if necessary."
Power is always such an ugly thing when divorced from chivalry, and there you had the proper juxtaposition of the two for all who had eyes to see.
I intend to vote against the evil of two lessers, meaning that I will not vote for anyone currently on the Democratic ticket and for anyone currently on the Republican ticket, save for Ron Paul were he, out the outside, to get the nomination.
I view both political parties as the hissing heads of the two-headed leviathan which has devoured the Republic. I hold that the Democrats, as that party has evolved from Wilson, are fabian or "democratic" socialists and that the Republicans are national socialist - at least facistoid if not fascist. Both embrace and enhance the welfare/warfare state.
Ron Paul has moved to a more paleolibertarian positioning (which is why Lew Rockwell.com is Ron Paul Central these days) but with Paul's candidiacy there is an opportunity, however slight, of fashioning a new political coaltion that spands many different groups and culd trasnform the Republican Party. A good sized group of paleocons like myself are supporting him. He has support from regular libertarians, goldbugs, maybe a supply sider or two and could get support from those on the antiwar and libertarian left fed up with the song and dance routine of the Democrats. Maybe we aren't all loving and hugging each other, but at least we have one person we can all support. That's not true with other candidates and it certainly wouldn't be true if Buchanan were running (no libertarian support of any kind.)
Plus Paul, unlike Buchanan, does not come across as a scary figure. That will be a big advantage when the missles are incoming.
I must admit I'm once putting a trust in a prince but Ron Paul is perhaps the most unpretentious prince I've ever seen. In any case, I'm still young enough not to be completly cyncial. Perhaps a few more of these camapaigns will wisen me up as I grow older. As for I indulge my foolish tendencies while I still can.
Sean Scallon said: "Maybe we aren’t all loving and hugging each other, but at least we have one person we can all support. That’s not true with other candidates and it certainly wouldn’t be true if Buchanan were running (no libertarian support of any kind.)
Plus Paul, unlike Buchanan, does not come across as a scary figure. That will be a big advantage when the missles are incoming."
The only reason libertarians can't stand Buchanan is because of just one, single issue - trade. He is in agreement with the Lew Rockwell crowd on every other issue.
Such is their dogmatic support for knee-jerk, Gladstonian free trade that libertarians marginalize the man. As if giving American consumers unlimited choices of gew-gaws at Wal-Mart is so imperative to our nation's wellbeing.
Thats the sort of thing that leads me to believe libertarians are hopeless political flakes.
Mr. Miller;
Mr. Buchanan wrecked (I say this lovingly but we are still picking up the pieces) 50+ years of rightwing support that focused the trade issue where it should be, on monetary policy, Hard Money. That position alone, would have delivered him "libertarians" particularly libs with money.
Besides being theoretically correct, it was a means of putting away open "conservative" hostility towards trade unionism while pleasing the sympathetic forces of capitalism outside the NY-DC axis. Hard Money is both honest and provides for hierarchal systems while being populist in so far as it's a check on inflation stealth taxes.
We can fight over the tariff levels on broom handles later.
Since 90% of paleocons know this but tolerate myths about how protecitve tarriffs work and made America Strong, let alone the political history of tariff policy, and the oddity of having Southern Heritage folks making up a key piece of the paleocon puzzle, the nationalist wing of the paleocon thing are as close as your libertarian label as anyone.
Let me conclude as I have before, I fully support abolishing the income tax (Buchanan favored a two level flat tax if I recall) and running the DC-regime off import tariffs and excise collections.
"Let me conclude as I have before, I fully support abolishing the income tax (Buchanan favored a two level flat tax if I recall) and running the DC-regime off import tariffs and excise collections."
Well, I appreciate your proposal for dealing with this issue, Mr. Bowen. I think my friends at http://www.tradealert.us could get behind that idea too. And let me just say that I would be as thrilled as anyone else at this site to see a Ron Paul presidency. He at least has spoken critically of our nation's industrial decline, and the "financialization" of our economy (which is both a cause and an effect of our de-industrialization). But then I think of Congressman Paul as more of a Constitutionalist than a Libertarian anyway. Most libertarians are Cato Institute - types who believe totally unimpeded commerce between nations is paramount, and support the elimination of borders to that end. That certainly doesn't describe Ron Paul's position.
Mr. Bowen, wasn't Hard Money dealt a death blow in the public square long before Buchahan began questioning the sanity of unchecked free trade? I've never heard of Buchanan working against re-institution of sound money. In fact, his American Cause website linked earlier this year to an insightful article, on Lew Rockwell.com, re: the interrelationship of trade and monetary policy.
I think Mr. Miller is on to something by differentiating Congressman Paul's version of constitutionalism from a dry, doctrinaire libertarianism many of us find only partially helpful at best.
Gentlemen,
Trade and monetary policy were not the reasons for Mr. Buchanan's political rise and fall. He gained popularity as a no nonsense politico and an old time conservative who lived without fear and said what he meant. He spoke up and defended traditional conservative principles of limited government, state's rights, lower taxes, christian culture, local customs and neighborhoods, and agrarian type attachments to blood, soil and geography which resonated with middle class America. He denounced the empire, the globalist and world police.
He was labeled by his detractors as a hater, a bigot, a racist and fascist.
Their images won , the ideas lost. If Ron Paul becomes noticable, the same will happen to him. Ideas still have consequences and the ideas of Keyes, Buchanan, Dornan, Paul, Fleming, Francis, Cundiff, Wilson, Check, Popes, Paleos, or even Buckley --- from Bob Knight to Star Light --- are all anathema. It is not that they lack truth or goodness for those who know or recognize them, they lack an audience. They have no public. It is not permitted these days that they should. How many experiments do we need to perform in order to confirm the results of the reaction ? Where, as described by G.K. Chesterton :
" Doubtless doctors punch and prod,
And prick, the corpse thought dead.
And when there's not a kick,
Left in the corpse, no twitch,
Or faint contraction. Doctors say,
"See ? There is no reaction !"
Our work is to understand, sometimes enjoy, and at all cost, keep the conversation alive until the prodigal son returns to his Father's home, after years of eating husks that the swine did eat. IMO
NC;
Let me qualify that Buchanan's various e-sites, (I think her name is 'Linda'), is doing a great job finally addressing a consensus position and educating the Brigades on the central issue. My points are specifically to the 1990-96 time period when the Old Right traditions fell to Rothbard's cadre and Chronicles Magazine.
Speaking strictly politics in the early 90s and the various institutions who supported Reagan but were 'betrayed'...it wasn't just (real) conservatives who were shut out of government institutions and "libertarians" whose rhetoric but not policies had been co-opted, but Hard Money men like James Dale Davidson, who founded the National Taxpayers Union, and 'new' capitalists like Mike Milken, let alone the Randians who were embarrassed by Greenspan. ETc Etc Etc.
And while periphery to the issue, George Gilder, who I think penned some Chronicles articles-- though it was before my time-- still speaks at Hard Money Conferences, (the NTU seems to have gone almost entirely supply-side), so institutionally, while most have given up on politics, I see Bill Bonner is donating to Paul and his e-mail list is probably pretty impressive.
Buchanan's confused policy remedy is no worse (and overall, better) than the wasted efforts of the Fair Tax people, but neither help build a consensus position (eliminate the income tax, replace it with nothing, sound money.)
While I have come to expect 'nomenclature' arguments (is Paul really a libertarian?) from the abyss of "libertarian" blogs, I don't follow the nit-picking here. Paleocons might be better suited noting that Paul has never been divorced; his wife writes cook books, not Western lesbian novels; he served in the military; he is closer to Sam Francis on how to handle the abortion issue in a manner that might actually save lives and so on.
I think Buchanan's heart is with Paul, and Linda has specifically endorsed Paul. But Bay is working for Tancredo, and both Buchanans I believe were actively encouraging Tancredo to run before Paul jumped in and sucked up all the right-wing enthusiasm.
I don't think PJB can/will openly endorse Paul with his sister working for Tancredo.
I too agree that protectionist tariffs per se are problematic, but an across the board revenue tariff (or border adjusted tax to make Mr. Hartman happy) are supportable. Attacking supra-national trade agreements, which Paul does, is a good common ground where libertarians and paleos can agree.
Red;
Agreed on Pat Buchanan, but in turn, the unique Buchanan-Tancredo relationship will make it difficult for Tancredo to 'fall in line' and 'endorse' whatever huckster gets pushed, i.e. Fred Thompson. Mr. Buchanan, while not quite a king-maker, is more useful to Paul where he is right now, and the Establishment may yet rue the day they didn't make a separate peace with Rep. Tancredo....
Murray Rothbard's death was the event that shattered paleoism in the mid-1990s because while Murray may have disagreed with Buchanan on trade, he agreed with him on everything else and supported him and that's what kept the Von Miesians on board. But he died in 1996 and in that same year at the JRC conference, Hans Herman Von Hoppe, the UNLV economist, unleashed a nasty attack on Buchanism on the issue of trade and that was the end of that partnership. The Von Miesians and TRI went their seperate ways.
I written an article looking back on the Buchanan movement I think one of the fundemental contradictions was Pat's background as a blue-collar Catholic made him sympathize with his fellow co-religionists who worked in the factories of the industrial northwest and Midwest. It was these votes Buchanan sought for Nixon and Reagan. Also in a new industrialized South which also suffered the affects of free trade. That's why South Carolina textile tycoon Roger Miliken was a strong Buchanan supporter and fundraiser. That's what turned Pat against free trade and made him more sympathetic to unions. Well, this was made him anethma to the Von Miesians. Reducing government was not something that interested Pat all that much because the "nationalist state" which Pat wished to construct would rely heavily on government intervention in industry to protect it. There was no way to build a lasting coalition around such divergent interests and when Rothbard died that when the coalition dissolved.
I've seen trade help a region's economy like the Mesabi Iron Range in Minnesota (Chinese construction firms buying up the region's taconite) and kill a region (Rockford, Illinois). I think Ron Paul has the best position on trade from a unifying standpoint of our different factions. Yes to trade but no to government-coporate managed trad through agreements like NAFTA, GATT, WTO or CAFTA. that only benefits the few and the well-connected. Trade should be dencentralized to benefit the regional benefitted by it. State by state and region by region.
Murray died in January 1995, and his Austrian mentor's name was Ludwig von Mises, not to be confused Mies van der Rohe, a German architect).