The Ames Straw Poll – Predictions

Well, if the most famous straw poll in Republican presidential politics accomplishes one thing, it may be to return me to blogging. If it accomplishes two things, it may significantly alter the current field of Republican candidates for president. This post will focus on two questions: who are the candidates, and how will the straw poll affect their candidacies?

Mitt Romney - The current frontrunner for the GOP nomination won the Ames Straw Poll in 2007, and that victory helped establish him as a credible alternative to the frontrunners for the 2008 nomination. Although he isn't officially participating this year and hasn't campaigned as much in Iowa as in other states this year, he still retains a significant following in the state. Some in the blogosphere scratch their heads at poll numbers indicating he's essentially tied with Michele Bachmann in the state, claiming that it must be mere name recognition. However, while Romney fans may not be as vocal about their support for the former Governor of Massachusetts as certain other candidates' fans, they are no less loyal.

It's my prediction that Romney will decisively beat admittedly low expectations. While he likely won't win, it's not outside the realm of possibility that he'll place in the top four. If he does, in spite of barely campaigning in the state this year, then not only would it force every candidate who places below him in the straw poll to reconsider their bids, but it would also deal a blow to the "weak frontrunner" narrative that is following his campaign.

Michele Bachmann - The Congresswoman from Minnesota is the prohibitive favorite to win the straw poll, and it is my prediction she will do so. She is, essentially, only challenged by Romney in the state, though that may change if certain other potential candidates enter the race (but we'll get to them later). What will a win in the poll do for her campaign? Well, at this point, it will only meet expectations. She would need to win by a significant margin, say more than ten percent over the second place finisher, to cause even mild surprise among pundits. Not winning the poll, of course, even if she finished second, would be a blow to her effort to distinguish herself as a credible candidate, not only in terms of rhetoric, but organization, as well. After all, that's what this straw poll truly tests about the candidates.

Tim Pawlenty - Organization is, perhaps, all the former Governor of Minnesota has going for him, in Iowa or anywhere else. Though that organization may help him in the straw poll, it cannot make up for the enthusiasm gap between him and several other candidates. His campaign has tried to lower expectations, but at this point, it's hard to say what a realistic expectation would be. I probably wouldn't predict that he'd even be in the top three if it weren't for the fact that most of his opponents have even less going for them than he has. While his campaign would desperately try to spin even a third place finish as a positive development, and while their hopes would no doubt hinge on lower place finishers dropping out after the poll, it wouldn't change the fact that he's just not that popular.

My prediction is he'll take third place (by a very small margin), he'll spin the results as best he can, and he'll hope against hope that he can think of something, anything, to justify staying in the race at least until the Iowa Caucuses next year, when he will again try to lower expectations.

Ron Paul - The political fortunes of the septuagenarian Congressman from Texas have increased over the last few years, but only in a relative sense. His ardent and vocal supporters ensure that he wins virtually every straw poll and online poll in which he is a candidate, but they may not be quite enough to propel him to victory in Iowa. Certainly, he'll do well in the straw poll, especially with the organization he's built up, but it's my prediction he won't rise above second place. It won't really matter how his campaign or his supporters choose to spin the results, as the most interesting and important part of the Iowa campaign will be how he does in the Caucuses. But I'll refrain from making that prediction, for now.

Herman Cain - He won't win. He won't even place. Of the nine declared candidates, he may, may make it to fifth place on the strength of his ideas and his business credentials, which are so desperately needed in the White House right now. However, he's not ready for prime time, as they say, and people can tell that. He won't drop out, though. Even if he loses to a write-in candidate, he's in it for as long as he can afford to be. Herman Cain's is a candidacy of ideas, and the main idea is that we need someone who is not a career politician in the race. So far, he's the only person who undisputably fits that description. I don't know how long he'll last, but he'll stay in the race after today, no matter what the outcome.

Newt Gingrich - All the former Speaker of the House of Representatives has, at this point, is ideas; and that's likely all he'll have after today, as well. People can talk all they want about how John McCain lost in Iowa and then went on to win the nomination, but Gingrich is not McCain. For one thing, Gingrich is actually competing in Iowa. For another, his staff didn't resign because of money problems; they resigned because of him. As with Cain, placing fifth in the polls may give him some cover, especially since it would mean beating extremely low expectations. However, it is my prediction that he won't even do that well, considering he doesn't have enough money to actively participate. That will also give him some cover to stay in the race (for a little longer, at least), but he'd have to do better than at least a few candidates for anyone to take him seriously after today.

Rick Santorum - The former Senator from Pennsylvania has spent an exhaustive amount of time in Iowa lately, as it is pretty much his only hope for doing well in this election. Expectations are about as low for him as they are for Gingrich and Cain; it will essentially be a three-way tie for fifth between them among the low-tier candidates. Unlike Gingrich and Cain, though, Santorum may be realistic enough to leave the race if he places too low. He has ideas, principles, and just as much to say as anyone else; but you can't run for president on ideas alone, and he'd have a better platform for those ideas at his old job on Fox News than as a struggling also-ran.

Jon Huntsman - Officially not competing in either the straw poll or Iowa itself gives him perhaps the lowest expectations of all the declared candidates on the ballot. The former Governor of Utah has no real base, organization, or strategy for Iowa, except possibly to not even try to beat his ground-level expectations. Like Romney, he'll be campaigning in New Hampshire while all other candidates work to win, or at least not lose, in Ames.

Thaddeus McCotter - Even most people who have been following the race may struggle to remember the Congressman from Michigan who entered the race just in time to get a spot on the straw poll ballot. That places him just above the other "last-tier" candidates (Fred Karger, Buddy Roemer, and Gary Johnson) who couldn't even make it onto the ballot in Ames. Because his name recognition is so low and he began his campaign so late, McCotter is the only candidate besides Huntsman who can "survive" a last-place finish among those whose names are actually on the ballot. But he won't survive for long if he can't at least find his way into a televised debate.

Sarah Palin - Ah, one can never write an article about the forthcoming Republican nomination without at least mentioning the 2008 vice presidential candidate, who has been spending a certain amount of time in Iowa lately. Though she won't "officially" make a decision for another month or so, she can't go anywhere in any state without drawing media attention, whether deliberately or inadvertantly. She's not officially on the ballot in Ames, but there is room to write in a candidate, and her following is certainly devoted, whether she runs for president or not. Look for her to do better than at least half the field today.

Rick Perry - The Governor of Texas is another potential write-in candidate, and he is announcing his candidacy for the presidency today. While many GOP operatives in Iowa may not like the idea of him "stealing the limelight" from the straw poll with his announcement, there are no doubt plenty of voters in Iowa who would love have Governor Perry as an official candidate on the ballot and will be happy to write him in. He'll beat some, or maybe all, of the lower-tiered candidates, and that may intimidate one or two of them into leaving the race. His campaign will spin any outcome as a positive for him, of course.

My prediction, though, is that many pundits will watch how he does against Romney in the poll. Neither has spent much time in Iowa, and both are considered national frontrunners. Indeed, as much as Michele Bachmann and Tim Pawlenty seem to be vying for second place in the overall nomination, the fight for first is generally considered to be between Romney and Perry. If Perry places behind Romney in the poll today, then "no one" will take it as a sign of strength or weakness on either candidates' part; but if he places ahead of Romney, then keep your eyes open for a host of pundits (and Perry staffers) to portray it as evidence that Perry is definitely the stronger of the two.

Results - I predict the order of winners to be:

Michele Bachmann
Ron Paul
Tim Pawlenty
Mitt Romney
Rick Perry
Sarah Palin
Herman Cain
Rick Santorum
Newt Gingrich
Jon Huntsman
Thaddeus McCotter

A man is dead

Osama bin Laden, the man most directly responsible for thousands of deaths on September 11, 2001 and many before and since, is now himself dead. Killed by U.S. Navy SEALs in an operation that was months in planning, that was so secret that not even our allies who normally would have been informed ahead of time knew about it until the rest of the world knew, his death will be remembered alongside Saddam Hussein's and Adolf Hitler's (whose death, coincidentally, was announced 66 years to the day earlier). Leaders and citizens of the world have expressed all sorts of reactions, from relief, gratitude, and jubilation to fear of reprisals against the men and women involved in the operation. We pray, of course, for their safety and that of their families and loved ones in the aftermath.

Should we celebrate, though? That a murderer and a terrorist can no longer plan the deaths of others, yes, we should celebrate. But let us be sure that is what we celebrate. Another man has died; another human being, another living person, another child of God has been killed. That is not something we should celebrate. Christians know this; we know that the law of the gospel is love, not hate. I'm sure every religion in the world has a similar principle. Even atheists must shake their heads a bit at the thought that any death can bring joy or glee.

I wrote an article on the nine-year anniversary of 9/11. In it, I expressed my desire that, in the midst of all the fighting we do to ensure that such a tragedy never happens again, we not lose sight of what our true motivation should be:

I had always known that growing up in the church had given me a different perspective on life, and it certainly has in this case. The scriptures remind us, in many different ways, that vengeance is God's prerogative, and that ours is forgiveness. We're told repeatedly that the law of God is love, for our enemies as well as our neighbors. In the case of the nation of Islam, they are sometimes the same thing. I've said before and still believe that the authors of terror and murder deserve whatever punishment they have coming to them; but that doesn't mean we should hate them. When a group or nation declares war on us or our way of life, it is our responsibility to defend ourselves, and even those who cannot defend themselves; but we should never do it with hate in our hearts. We were enemies with Adolf Hitler, with Mussolini, and with Hirohito, but when World War II ended, we helped Germany, Italy, and Japan rebuild, and now we're strong allies with each nation. We were enemies with Saddam Hussein, but now we have what could be a strong ally in Iraq.

Did Islam itself attack us? Even if it did, we should not hate them, anymore than we should hate each other for how we each choose to respond to the attack.

I wrote a piece last year about the Civil War and my governor's decision to issue a proclamation commemorating the sacrifices of the soldiers who fought for the South. Someone commented, "If you are going to shed a tear for soldiers that fought for something they believe in then please note the next Taliban, Nazi, or other terrorist you would mourn." I responded, "there's a difference between a Nazi and a member of Germany's armed forces circa 1940. Do you doubt that any of the troops in Hitler's army were press-ganged into service? As for al Qaeda and the Taliban, the same principle applies. The authors of terror and murder deserve whatever punishment we can give them; but when you take a child and brainwash him from infancy to hate America, who's to blame for when he grows up and wants to destroy us?"

While I don't mourn the death of Osama bin Laden, I don't celebrate it, either. We're in a world that has too much violence, too much bloodshed, too much death and devastation already. That it should even be necessary to kill someone to prevent him from killing others is a tragedy, and I will not celebrate tragedy. The War on Terror is not over, as some would like it to be; there are still terrorists and murderers out there, and we must still be vigilant and protective against them. I breathe a sigh of relief that the man behind 9/11 is in God's hands now, to punish as He sees fit; but I do not hate him, nor his companions, nor his family. You should not, either.

Reading List

As I mentioned in the last post, "Roosevelt's Purge" is on a list of books I'm reading to prepare myself for completing my Project. This reading list will be comprised of books that deal with the evolution of political parties in American history, and probably in other countries, as well. It will include biographies and memoirs of past and current presidents, as well as other prominent politicians and statesmen in our past and present; studies on the history of political parties themselves; The Federalist Papers; The Anti-federalist Papers; A People's History of the United States; A Patriot's History of the United States; and others.

When it comes to this reading list, I'm interested only in learning about how the parties, and the two-party system in particular, came to be, and how to lessen their influence in national politics. I was impressed when I read an article the other day (I can't remember where, at this point) that pointed out the Tea Party has grown to be as popular as either of the two major "official" parties in America. That's hardly relevant to what I'm trying to achieve, though. While the Tea Party has taken great strides in realigning the Republican Party, whether they intended to or not, it still doesn't change the fact that we have a political duopoly in this country. The Project is to change the system so that candidates across, from the lowliest local officer to the President of the United States, can run independent of any political party and still have an honest chance to become elected.

The reading list isn't to help me better understand any party's ideology, or even which party is "preferable" to the others; it's to help me better understand how the current system came to be so that I can suggest an actual alternative to the system. If you have any suggestions on books or articles that could help, then please suggest them in the comment section below.

That’s how FDR did it

I've been compiling a reading list of books that address the evolution of political parties in American history for the Project. My most recent find is a book by Susan Dunn called "Roosevelt's Purge", about Franklin Delano Roosevelt's efforts to influence Democratic primary elections so he would have more allies (read: liberals) in Congress, particularly the Senate. I've only read two chapters so far, and I've already seen parallels between President Roosevelt and ... the Tea Party.

First, let me say that I think Ms. Dunn may have discovered the first ever recorded negative comparison of an American politician to Adolf Hitler. After losing a vote that was particularly important to him, and the support of several conservative Democratic senators, FDR announced that he would, as leader of the Democratic Party, be directly taking part in Democratic primaries and nominating events (though he asserted his involvement had nothing to do with revenge or retaliation). He faced an immediate backlash from the press, who labeled his efforts an ideological "purge" of the party. The Chicago Tribune went so far as to write that this would leave the party with nothing but "Hitler yes-men and Stalin Communists". (It should be noted that this was before the Holocaust and World War II. Still, it's quite a reaction to a theretofore popular president from the normally admiring press.)

Ms. Dunn writes of the former president in glowing terms, characterizing his efforts as a way to appeal directly to the voters, whom he believed supported his agenda, to elect representatives who would also support it. Still, it's clear there was more than a desire to push an agenda, however well-meaning the agenda itself may have been. She even writes about one of the president's allies who suggested the aforementioned vote should be used as a "litmus test" of loyalty when deciding whom he should support in the primaries. Terms like litmus test, party loyalty, and ideological purity are used by the media today as they were used back in FDR's day: as a negative color of the actions of a leader or group inside a political party.

Whereas in the late '30's, they were applied by the press to President Roosevelt, they are applied today to the Tea Party; and it's not inaccurate. Both sought/seek to create a clear choice for voters, to force them to look beyond labels such as "Democrat" and "Republican", and examine the ideology of the candidates themselves. Though the motives of both FDR and the Tea Party can be questioned, it cannot be denied they both have the right idea. Terms like "Blue Dog Democrat" and "RINO (Republican In Name Only)" didn't exist in Roosevelt's day, but he'd have certainly recognized the meaning behind the terms, and would probably have encouraged their use.

The more books I read on the history of politics in America, the more I'm impressed by how much it resembles our current situation. Every presidential biography I've read so far gives examples (sometimes blindingly obvious ones) of party divisions, nomination fights, and the emergences of groups like the Tea Party, even if they had no official name. I was never a very attentive student of history in school, and had a vague impression that the old saying didn't hold true; that we are not, in fact, repeating history over and over again.

On the other hand, if the champion of liberalism in the first half of the 20th century can be compared to an insurgent force for conservatism in the early 21st, then maybe history is repeating itself.

Happy Thanksgiving – May We All Be Grateful At All Times

Help support a Free Exchange of Ideas

I hope you've enjoyed reading my posts and found them to be insightful and informative, as well as entertaining. While I'm working on the Project, I'd appreciate any support you can give me. Please visit my online store at Zazzle and purchase anything you find interesting. The gear may seem to be election-themed, but the sentiments are important year-round. Thank you in advance for all your support.

Create a personalized gift at Zazzle.

Goodbye (for now)

Well, the 2010 elections are over, and the speculation has already begun on a host of issues. Will the Republicans legislate responsibly, or "drive the car back into the ditch"? Will President Obama tack to the center, as President Clinton did after the '94 elections? Will the Tea Party's influence increase or decrease in the wake of mixed electoral results? And how will all of this affect the prospects of those who may or may not run for Congress and the presidency in 2012?

Frankly, I won't be talking about any of that. I had my favorites Tuesday night, as did everyone, and I have my hopes (and fears) for the future; but as much as this blog has been about freely discussing ideas and issues, someone else will have to take care of that for the next year or so. My time will be spent on two things: one, my new website Fourth-day Universe, and two, my non-fiction book project on changing the nominating processes currently used in America.

Now more than ever, I think, we should be aware of the problems inherent in our current nominating systems. If the most recent elections have shown us anything, then it's the pitfalls associated with the primary system. Sitting senators, such as Bob Bennet in Utah and Lisa Murkowski in Alaska, who have demonstrated they are still popular with large portions of their constituents, were excluded from the official ballots in their states because of the current systems. Official candidates like Alvin Greene in South Carolina and Dan Maes in Colorado proved to be damaging to their respective parties' prospects of winning elections, forcing third-party candidates to join the race and offer credible alternatives to the voters. And candidates like Christine O'Donnell, who is a personal favorite of mine for many reasons, received virtually no support from their own parties because of divisive primary battles.

It's time to take the future of our elected leadership out of the hands of political parties, especially the national ones. The current nominating systems do not sufficiently provide for all American voters a wide enough range of candidates. Voter apathy is fueled mainly by the perception that elections are merely opportunities to vote for the "lesser of evils". We need a better system, and we need it as soon as possible. The next election, after all, is for the presidency.

This blog won't be entirely inactive. I'll still offer my view on the most major events, such as the State of the Union Address and major legislative, executive, and judicial actions; and, of course, I'll provide updates on my project. In the meantime, keep the free exchange of ideas open.

No endorsement this year.

In Virginia's 2nd District (my home district) Democratic Congressman Glenn Nye and Republican Scott Rigell are within one point of each other with only one week left before the polls close. Unfortunately, for the independent challenger Kenny Golden, he's far in third place with only 5 points. Clearly, everyone needs all the help they can get in these last few days of the 2010 campaign. They can count me out, though.

Oh, I'll still vote. I wouldn't sit out an election for anything. Too many people around the world are denied the privilege of electing their own leaders for me to ever take my right for granted. However, an endorsement this year will not be forthcoming from Free Exchange.

I've endorsed candidates before, on both sides. In last year's gubernatorial race, I endorsed Bob McDonnell who eventually went on to win the election. I also endorsed his eventual opponent, Creigh Deeds, in the Democratic primary, just so I'd have the best two candidates in the general election. As long as primaries and caucuses are in place, I believe in using them to ensure we have the best roster of candidates available to us.

At this point, though, it's hard to get excited enough about any of the candidates to say "I'm standing behind him 100%." They each have their high and low marks, and they all have their good and bad ideas. I don't want to get into a list of them, partly because I've written about them before, and partly because I don't feel this is the best time to say "I'm supporting him, and this is why".

A lot of endorsements are "rolled out" in the last week before the election. It's probably because most newspapers, candidates, pundits, and other politicos don't want to appear too partisan too early on. Maybe they want to wait until they feel confident backing "the winner". Or maybe they feel that most people don't actually start paying attention until the last week or so, which makes then the best time to say "this is who you should vote for and why". That all may be true; but if it is, then waiting until now to endorse a candidate is both cynical and manipulative.

If I'm going to endorse a candidate, then I do it early. If it actually takes me this long to make up my mind, then there's no sense expecting others to make up theirs any more quickly (or on my say-so). Yes, I feel strongly about the candidates; not only in my district, but across the country as well. Yes, I feel the election is important; so important that I don't want to see any American waste their opportunity to vote. Early voting has already begun, in fact, so we could all vote today. I'm a bit of a traditionalist, so I'm waiting until the actual Election Day (also to give myself more time to reach a decision).

That's the only real reason to wait, either to vote or to endorse: because you're not sure who the best is. Often, we are, and we usually have no trouble saying so; but there's nothing wrong, especially in these uncertain times, with taking as much time as you have to weigh all the factors. Maybe nothing will change between now and next Tuesday; but if the last two years have taught us anything, it's that politics are full of surprises.

So, if you've made up your mind, then good for you. I say go out and vote right now (if you're able to, of course). Make whatever endorsements you like, for whatever reason you like, and don't hesitate to tell everyone you meet. Speech is still free, after all. As for myself ... I've still got a few days left.

No matter who "wins" next week, don’t stop the exchange

The period right after an election is the most important point at which the free exchange of ideas needs to continue. Never settle into a "we won, they lost" or vice versa attitude, and never believe that, just because one side won, it means their ideas won. After the last election, a coworker told me she believed conservatism was "dead", along with its ideas. The last year and a half has proven that neither of those is true. Just because one side "wins" is no reason to ignore what the other side has to say.

Here are a few items in my online store to remind you of a few important things: first of all, that the goal is not to promote partisanism, but activism; that it's not about politics, but issues; that the voters are the ruling class in America; and that being right without knowing why you're right is the same as being wrong. Spread the word; keep the exchange of ideas open and free. And keep your minds open.

Create personalized gifts at Zazzle.

Free speech meets the "free press"

Juan Williams was fired this week from his job at National Public Radio. He's a world class political analyst who has won many awards for journalistic excellence, including an Emmy. His writings have appeared in a wide range of publications, such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, Time, Ebony, and Atlantic Monthly. He holds several degrees, and contributes and appears regularly on many shows and stations.

Why would a man with such credentials be fired by NPR, an institution with a stated goal to "[e]xpand the reach and relevance of NPR and member stations to current and new audiences"? He was fired for expressing his personal apprehension about seeing Muslims on airplanes. He didn't do this on NPR; in fact, he said this on Fox News as part of a discussion of whether America has a "Muslim dilemma". After Mr. Williams, an African American, said that he would be nervous at the sight of a Muslim on the same airplane as he, NPR, citing their own "editorial standards and practices", announced that Mr. Williams' contract was terminated.

Though protected in the same amendment, those who exercise their right to free speech are often punished for doing so by their employers in today's free press. I shouldn't say "today's" free press, since the forerunners of today's "mainstream media" were just as prone to censuring (and censoring) reporters and news anchors. The problem is, you rarely hear about these sorts of punishments, as frequent as they are. People are fired all the time from all sorts of jobs for expressing their personal feelings about a particular issue, whether or not it has anything to do with their job. Well, that's the right of the employer, I suppose; but it seems especially inappropriate that a news agency, supposedly a guardian of both free speech and free thought, should fire one of their best analysts for exercising his freedom of speech.

Juan Williams is just the latest and most prominent example of this. In the last six months, two well-loved local anchors (perhaps more) found themselves the victims of media discrimination. I posted before about Shad Olson, the South Dakota news anchor who lost his job after speaking at a Tea Party rally in his home state. He never suggested that his appearance at the event was endorsed by his station. He didn't go there advocating or opposing any political candidate. He simply fulfilled his duty as a citizen to speak when he had something to say.

A few months later, a Virginia weather reporter named Jon Cash was fired for saying that "the Lord had called [him] to a full-time ministry", though not for another year. Not content to wait a year, the general manager of the news station promptly fired him for making comments that were "bad for business". Jon Cash is something of a local hero, as he's been the weather man for about 20 years. Within days of his firing, a Facebook page was formed under the name "Bring Back Jon Cash". It now has over 7,000 members.

Neither Mr. Olson nor Mr. Cash gave their employers any reason to doubt their dedication. Aside from the awards both men had won and their immense popularity with the local audiences, they were both so fair and objective in their reporting that none of the viewers would get even a hint of their political or evangelical leanings. And yet, within hours of statements made by the two men, neither one of them either on air or speaking in the name of their stations, they were both disciplined by their employers, and were both forced to seek new ones.

People like to talk about how the Republican Party lately has been "purging" itself of all moderates in favor of ideological purity; they also see Fox News as taking a similar tack, gathering more and more conservative commentators to themselves as time progresses. In reality, though, the mainstream media is the entity most guilty of ideological purging, as conservative commentators have steadily seen themselves fired or forced out of positions at CNN, HLN, MSNBC, and even some of the broadcast stations, which created a steady supply from which Fox News and Fox Business have drawn most of their new recruits. Though it's easy for some to say those anchors and reporters were fired because they were "kooks" and are now free to join a station of kooks, it's harder to be glib when it happens to someone you've known and watched for years.

The cases of Shad Olson and Jon Cash are microcosms of the larger issue, one that is perhaps more clear in the case of Juan Williams: you cannot expect to serve in today's mainstream media and hold opinions about politics, religion, or national security that run contrary to what the media declares to be mainstream. I recall an episode of "Boston Legal" from about five or six years ago in which a singer was barred from singing what was perceived as an antiwar song in a club whose owner was prowar. Though the judge on the show ruled in favor of the club owner, she also made it clear that she personally agreed with the lawyer's argument that private enterprise owners are exercising free speech discrimination where the government cannot. Perhaps they are. On the other hand, so is the free press.