The Primary Season: Iowa and Beyond the Infinite

[Tiassa]

Iowa and Beyond the Infinite

Tuesday, January 3, 2012 will open the Republican primary season with ... the Iowa Caucuses.

I know, I know. If my international neighbors would be so kind as to bear with me. Primary ... caucus ... yes, we know, we know. But it's all part of the same process.

Additionally, I've probably confused people by noting previously that the Iowa Caucuses coincide with the college football national championship game; that was erroneous. The regular, annual Sugar Bowl game is January 3. But it is also the Sugar Bowl's turn to host the national championship game, so they're doing that on Monday, January 9. Too bad the metaphor didn't work out; it would have been a nice coincidence.

Nonetheless, a certain question hovers over both events. With the national championship a repeat of a game already played this year; #1 LSU topped #2 Alabama 9-6 in November. The only notable thing about the game was the low score and overtime period. In that sense, it might end up being a good game to watch, but it is essentially meaningless to everyone else.

Which is, in its own way, kind of like the Iowa Caucuses. While the drama is shaping up nicely, with Ron Paul poised to seize the "Anybody But Mitt" crown, and Rick Santorum riding the evangelical Christian vote into striking range, one reasonably wonders whether an Iowa victory will make that much difference in New Hampshire, since Ron Paul has twenty points to pick up before that state's primary.

Additionally, as questions persist about whether or not the Iowa Caucuses are anything more than an activism contest and party fundraiser, what significance would a Paul victory have in the long run?

The underlying hint murmuring about is whether or not the Iowa Caucuses are relevant to the general election. While Iowans might point out that the Caucuses have identified the last two presidents (Bush Jr., 2000; Obama, 2008) the caucuses are hit and miss, with Poppy Bush topping Ronald Reagan in 1980, Bob Dole and Pat Robertson surpassing Bush in 1988, and three candidates exceeding John McCain in 2008. Many would suggest that, while New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida are all early contests directly in front of voters, the Iowa Caucuses are more about activism and organization. Some among those would even suggest that this is why Rep. Ron Paul is poised to take the Iowa Caucuses away from Mitt Romney while averaging a 28.3 point deficit in South Carolina.

As Dan K. Thomasson explains:

With the quadrennial exercise that gives Iowa national political significance by officially kicking off the presidential nominating process only one thing seems clear. Its relevance seems more in doubt than ever ....

.... The first few actual votes for a nominee are likely to set the tone for the rest of the later ones. Momentum and money follow a victory in only one or two. Because these small early states—Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina—hardly represent the national consensus, the current system is a very poor way to choose a president. A far better way would be to hold regional primaries, using the various time zones or delineating them on a north-south, east-west pattern somehow.

The problem is that Iowa and New Hampshire and an increasing number of other states don't want to give up their prominence in the process, nor the money the contests generate. Already, some states have tried to usurp New Hampshire's role as the first actual primary, but there seems no movement for Iowa to give up its position.

Both political parties have fought to stop incursions in the voting timetable, but it is becoming increasingly difficult. It seems inevitable that in the not-too-distant future, the official primary voting will take place December of the year preceding the general election, if not earlier. In fact that nearly happened this year.

Whatever the answer, it is difficult to become excited about what happens in Iowa where there seems to be a good chance that a candidate with the utterly impractical beliefs that Paul professes has a chance of winning.

Perhaps the problem is one of function versus expectations. I am not against the caucusing process. But the fundamental differences 'twixt primaries and caucuses is functional. Where the primary is a vote before voters, the caucus is a more restricted convention, much like the difference between (and note the lower-case letters) democratic and republican voting processes.

In a caucus, activist enthusiasm plays a much more direct role; one who moves the greatest number of activists to participate in an oft-excruciating convention process (and ninety-nine times over) wins, as opposed to one who simply goes before the people and receives the greatest number of votes at large.

Thus, does it follow that one who musters the greatest activist participation in Iowa should receive a boost in New Hampshire? The question of should is an abstraction; inevitably, that boost comes to the Iowa winner, but there remains a question of how enduring that increase actually is. To consider the Ron Paul question: If Paul wins Iowa, can he ride that momentum through New Hampshire? And if he wins or places in New Hampshire, what does that mean for South Carolina?

By the time of the January 21 primary in the Palmetto State, we will know better.

There is, of course, the possibility that Iowa caucusers will fall in behind Mitt Romney, recognizing Paul's problem appealing to the swing bloc and potential crossover Democrats. In this case, Iowa would certainly preserve its credentials as the first contest, and reassert its presumptive bellwether status.

And over the long run, that well could be the more important drama to attend.

2012 Republican Primary Schedule

• Jan. 3: Iowa (c)
• Jan. 10: New Hampshire (p)
• Jan. 21: South Carolina (p)
• Jan. 31: Florida (p)
• Feb. 4-11: Maine (c)
• Feb. 7: Colorado (p); Minnesota (p); Missouri (p—non-binding)
• Feb. 28: Arizona (p); Michigan (p)
• Mar. 3: Washington (c)
• Mar. 6: Alaska (c); Georgia (p); Idaho (c); Massachusetts (p); North Dakota (c); Ohio (p); Oklahoma (p); Tennessee (p); Vermont (p); Virginia (p)
• Mar. 6-10: Wyoming (c)
• Mar. 10: Kansas (c); US Virgin Islands (c)
• Mar. 13: Alabama (p); Hawaii (c); Mississippi (p)
• Mar. 17: Missouri (c—binding)
• Mar. 20: Illinois (p)
• Mar. 24: Louisiana (p)
• Apr. 3: District of Columbia (p); Maryland (p); Wisconsin (p); Texas (p)
• Apr. 24: Connecticut (p); Delaware (p); New York (p); Pennsylvania (p); Rhode Island (p)
• May 8: Indiana (p); North Carolina (p); West Virginia (p)
• May 15: Nebraska (p); Oregon (p)
• May 22: Arkansas (p); Kentucky (p)
• Jun. 5: California (p); Montana (p); New Jersey (p); New Mexico (p); South Dakota (p)
• Jun. 26: Utah (p)

The grueling six-month season gets underway in two days. With twenty-seven states choosing a GOP candidate before the end of March, it is possible that Romney, Paul, or even some surprise candidate, could emerge as the nominee by the end of the third month. If not, the stretch between April and the end of June could become downright nasty.

But the first test is in Iowa, and while drama hangs thick in the farmland morning mist, one wonders if, like the BCS National Championship, the Iowa Caucuses might end up being a good game to watch that is essentially meaningless to everyone else.
____________________

Notes:

Thomasson, Dan K. "More doubt than ever in relevance of Iowa caucuses". Scripps Howard News Service. January 1, 2012. ScrippsNews.com. January 1, 2012. http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/66435

See Also:

2012 Election Central. "2012 Primary Schedule". November 15, 2011. 2012PresidentialElectionNews.com. January 1, 2012. http://www.2012presidentialelectionn...mary-schedule/

[The Esotericist]

Thus, does it follow that one who musters the greatest activist participation in Iowa should receive a boost in New Hampshire? The question of should is an abstraction; inevitably, that boost comes to the Iowa winner, but there remains a question of how enduring that increase actually is. To consider the Ron Paul question: If Paul wins Iowa, can he ride that momentum through New Hampshire? And if he wins or places in New Hampshire, what does that mean for South Carolina?

By the time of the January 21 primary in the Palmetto State, we will know better.

There is, of course, the possibility that Iowa caucusers will fall in behind Mitt Romney, recognizing Paul's problem appealing to the swing bloc and potential crossover Democrats. In this case, Iowa would certainly preserve its credentials as the first contest, and reassert its presumptive bellwether status.

Word salad. It will probably in all likelihood be irrelevant. Though, I am sure the Paul campaign will try to keep some of the 1000 volunteers needed at all of the caucus sites. . .

As noted, the Republican machine has already ostensibly agreed with the FED, the Zionists, and the liberal establishment, for "anybody but Paul," well then, there you have it. The fix is in, elections and democracy don't have a whole lot to do with things. Corruption, dirty media, and rigged elections do.

So much for democracy in America, and so much for your waxing politically intelligent. Nothing but hot air and word salad. It's all bullshit and doesn't amount to of hill of beans. Iranian candidates offered to their people meant as much in their elections. Get over yourself.

Stolen Election

We can only hope that Paul supporters have enough involvement and monitoring of the election to find the final announcement of the outcome to be credible. . . or there may be some real boiling over of anger. 25% might seem like a vocal minority, but when they make good on threats to start firing off their guns, (and some of these "nutters" are the sorts to use them if they feel they are being screwed), that vocal minority might get a bit more than vocal about this corruption. Frankly, I'm not too enthused about having THE WHOLE DAMNED NATION PLUNGED INTO MARTIAL LAW because corrupt establishment Republican machine politicians just couldn't handle letting people have control over the party. Frankly, I don't vote anymore, and even though I support a lot of what Paul does. . . I've had it with the whole system, I don't give a shit. It certainly isn't worth civil war. That looks to be what they want to force. . . .

[wlminex]

To quote the Esotericist: " . . . I've had it with the whole system . . ."

My take? . . . "CLEAN THE HOUSE!" . . . . "and the Senate" . . . "and the White House!!!" . . in 2012.

. . . even Esotericist or Tiassa could do a better job!

[The Esotericist]

To quote the Esotericist: " . . . I've had it with the whole system . . ."

My take? . . . "CLEAN THE HOUSE!" . . . . "and the Senate" . . . "and the White House!!!" . . in 2012.

. . . even Esotericist or Tiassa could do a better job!

WRONG.

The house, and the Senate, and the White House are ALL too corrupt.

The only thing that will save the country is to GET RID OF THEM ALL. We should divest all power back to the states. It is the only way back now. Tear the federal system down and start over. Get rid of the international monetary system, the federal reserve note, and the international banking system and the war machines/system that is supporting it. NOW.

That is all.

[wlminex]

WRONG.

The house, and the Senate, and the White House are ALL too corrupt.

The only thing that will save the country is to GET RID OF THEM ALL. We should divest all power back to the states. It is the only way back now. Tear the federal system down and start over. Get rid of the international monetary system, the federal reserve note, and the international banking system and the war machines/system that is supporting it. NOW.

That is all.

. . . . h-m-m-m- . . . aren't we 'kind of' in agreement here? . . . .GET RID OF THEM ALL?

[superstring01]

I sort of still wish it were Huntsman (someone with real experience both nationally and internationally), but I'll accept a Romney nomination as not being a total disaster.

I stand by my assertion that I can't vote for someone who wants to treat me as a second-class citizen and therefore won't vote for Romney. That said, a Romney Administration will at least have a non-insane Republican and one with some experience who isn't a racist, sexist, homophobic hatemonger leading the team.

More importantly, I think that Romney will probably win the popular vote (which, IMHO is one of two [along with Huntsman] candidates that can actually capture swing and moderate voters and--perhaps--a few Dems).

Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann, Santorum or Paul are all very desirable candidates for Obama to run against since all are fringie enough (though Gingrich, for obvious reasons, being the least fringie of them).

So, I guess, I'm thinking that unless there's a strong turn-around in the economy in the next 10 months, we're probably going to see a Romney administration.

I'm really torn, because I think that Obama is a bungling idiot in international affairs. If it weren't for Clinton and Panetta, the white house would be adrift and under water. On the other hand, I believe in what he's stood for--for the most part--in his domestic agenda. The flip side is that I cannot stand any Republican's domestic agenda, dislike most of their stances on torture and worry that a trade-off for an ability to manage foreign affairs will also come with a price of having a warmonger in the White House.

In the end, I'll end up voting for the lesser of two evils: Obama. I'll just pray that he drops Biden and puts Clinton in the Veep spot. Can't stand Biden.

~String

[Tiassa]

NPR Live-Blogging Caucuses ... Sort Of

Well, you know, it's not the best live-blog I've seen, but the merits of live-blogging are still up in the air, so, you know, whatever.

Meanwhile, Mark Memmott is leading the NPR effort to cover the caucuses. Some randomly-selected entries:

• History lesson: As NPR's Political Junkie, Ken Rudin, points out, the winner of the Iowa caucuses doesn't always go on to be the Republican presidential nominee. (6.42 pm)

• When the speeches are over, everyone at the GOP caucuses will get a piece of paper. They each write down the name of the candidate they support. Votes are counted. And the meetings conclude. (6.26 pm)

• After the pledge, each GOP caucus will elect a chairman and a secretary. Then, "candidate representatives" from each campaign (and in a few places, the candidates themselves) will have a few minutes to speak. (6.24 pm)

• The first order of business at the GOP caucuses: Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. (6.23 pm)

• Reminder: The caucuses begin at 7 p.m. local time (8 p.m. ET). If all goes as planned, most will take about an hour. (6.22 pm)

Yeah, I know. It's akin to watching slugs read the newspaper. Still, if you're really a junkie, there's your fix.

You know, like, trivia: According to John Stineman, a marketing consultant, the closest Iowa Caucus finish was 1980, when Poppy Bush edged Ronald Reagan by 2.06%; next closest was Dole edging Buchanan in 1996, a 2.97% margin.

Oh, and there are, apparently, 1,774 precincts voting in the Iowa Caucuses.
____________________

Notes:

Memmott, Mark. "Live-Blog: Iowa's 2012 Republican Caucuses". It's All Politics. January 3, 2012. NPR.org. January 3, 2012. http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...lican-caucuses

[spidergoat]

I sort of still wish it were Huntsman (someone with real experience both nationally and internationally), but I'll accept a Romney nomination as not being a total disaster.

I stand by my assertion that I can't vote for someone who wants to treat me as a second-class citizen and therefore won't vote for Romney. That said, a Romney Administration will at least have a non-insane Republican and one with some experience who isn't a racist, sexist, homophobic hatemonger leading the team.

More importantly, I think that Romney will probably win the popular vote (which, IMHO is one of two [along with Huntsman] candidates that can actually capture swing and moderate voters and--perhaps--a few Dems).

Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann, Santorum or Paul are all very desirable candidates for Obama to run against since all are fringie enough (though Gingrich, for obvious reasons, being the least fringie of them).

So, I guess, I'm thinking that unless there's a strong turn-around in the economy in the next 10 months, we're probably going to see a Romney administration.

I'm really torn, because I think that Obama is a bungling idiot in international affairs. If it weren't for Clinton and Panetta, the white house would be adrift and under water. On the other hand, I believe in what he's stood for--for the most part--in his domestic agenda. The flip side is that I cannot stand any Republican's domestic agenda, dislike most of their stances on torture and worry that a trade-off for an ability to manage foreign affairs will also come with a price of having a warmonger in the White House.

In the end, I'll end up voting for the lesser of two evils: Obama. I'll just pray that he drops Biden and puts Clinton in the Veep spot. Can't stand Biden.

~String

What did Obama bungle internationally?
-killed pirates
-Killed Bin Laden
-regime change in Libya without a single US soldier killed
-pulled out of Iraq
-nuke agreements with Russia

[Tiassa]

I cannot speak for Superstring, but—

What did Obama bungle internationally?
-killed pirates
-Killed Bin Laden
-regime change in Libya without a single US soldier killed
-pulled out of Iraq
-nuke agreements with Russia

—from a liberal standpoint, there remain with all but, perhaps, the Russian treaty, a number of things to be cynical about.

Killing pirates is one thing, but we are no closer to a solution for the issues that raise piracy.

There were enough murmurings about the unverifiable killing of Osama bin Laden that we shouldn't have to rehash all the conspiracy theories. Even granting the administration proper credit for good faith, the death of Osama bin Laden will do little to reduce any threats we might perceive from Pakistanis caught up in our war against religious extremism. Maybe Al Qaeda and the Taliban are bad guys, but if Americans drop a bomb on some random house, the innocent survivors are going to be thinking, "Screw the Americans." In the larger picture, the entire Pakistani adventure is a clusterdiddle, and the bin Laden cherry on top does not hide the fact that the rest of the dish is absolutely poisonous.

Now that we have accomplished regime change in Libya without a single US soldier killed, can we please settle a thing or two about executive war powers? I mean, the administration didn't even put up much for an argument.

Acknowledging, of course that the end of our Iraqi Bush Adventure was preordained, I do suppose we can at least credit Obama with recognizing the untenability of leaving our troops in a difficult theatre without even the pretense of wartime exemption from rule of law. To the other, is that really anything to crow about?

I would even go so far as to suggest that Obama is still in the cleanup phase of his presidency insofar as yes, he accomplished those things you listed, but that he can stand with his head above water and feet firmly planted on the ocean floor does not mean he is swimming.

I might disagree with the degree of bungling idiocy our neighbor perceives, but I can at least see where he's coming from. "It could have been worse," is not a phrase without its merits in assessing Obama's pooper-scooping, but neither is it a clarion endorsement. What the president has going for him in general are sincerity, to the one, and the fact that he's not one of the Republican field, to the other. Even though our national affairs are a mess at home and abroad, people can tell approximately where he's trying to go, and understand to a certain degree how he's trying to get there. Even the best of the Republican field, Romney and Huntsman, can only say that their platforms are merely mildly worse than Obama's performance so far.

The president has been too slow on domestic social issues, too centrist in foreign policy, and too accommodating toward conservative opposition.

It's like that sarcastic question: "How's that hopey-changey thing goin' for ya?"

—Well, you know. Not too good. One can only get so much hopey-changey through Congress when it's not even allowed into the building.

[Tiassa]

Survey Says!

Watching the numbers come in, I'm struck by what I'm seeing.

The Mormon factor is in full effect.

Presently, I'm seeing 21% returns in, with a three-way tie at the top: Paul, Santorum, and Romney each have 23% of the vote so far.

White evangelicals, who made up 60% of the 2008 GOP Iowa Caucus, are about 57% of the participants this year; they're picking Gingrich, even, before Romney. Presently, though, they are firmly behind Santorum, with Paul in second among evangelicals.

[superstring01]

I would like for Obama to have been a true liberal and had a liberal foreign policy. Does this mean I don't recognize that it's not a good thing that we are out of that cesspool Iraq or that his administration gets to take credit for (and deserves to take credit for) OBL's death? No.

It's just that it's a well known fact that our President dislikes foreign stuff. I'm happy he leaves it for Hill-doll, but I don't quite get what his stand is.

• Libya: Not a success story. I want a president who acts according to how he speaks and the action in that nation was unnecessary (sorry, I don't think that the USA should be championing democracy in every country, nor is it healthy to). Congress was bypassed, as Tiassa pointed out. I don't give a shit about Libya or Africa or wherever. We don't get oil from them and we had no business interfering. The only reason we DID go in is because the British and French came begging--hat in hand--because their mission was crashing and burning.
• Our Allies: Believe it or not, he's unpredictable in his stance on any number of issues. Britain and Australia have quietly expressed frustration. While they disliked the Bush Admin's general policies, they at least knew for certain what they were. With Obama, we're never sure whether he's channeling Kissinger, Christopher or Albright. Pick one and stick with it.
• China: We are LITERALLY sending billions overseas every year to the Chinese. Our entire embassy there exists to negotiate the hand-over of American jobs to China. We can look to TWO favorable models of how to deal with China, look good and keep the jobs: Germany and Australia. But still, he's caving to the big corporations who want to make as much money as possible while fucking over each and every one of us.
• Cuba: We're still starving a nation needlessly who is NO threat to this country.
• NAFTA: The one area where I'm a fucking bleeding-heart-lefty is that I want the treaty scrapped and flushed down the toilet. I've yet to understand what the USA got out of that thing, and before people chime in and talk about how HP and GM and IBM and Johnson & Johnson (American companies) have built factories there and made gazillions, I will remind you that those factories replaced American ones and the only Americans who got filthy rich out of those schemes were the blue chip stock holders, not the American people.
• No real energy policy, nor push for energy independence. His first two years he had a Democratic controlled congress. While I know that the Republicans are a bunch of obstructionist assholes, the Dems nonetheless pussy-footed around this issue and caved to big business.

And those are the issues off the top of my head.

~String

[The Esotericist]

Survey Says!

Watching the numbers come in, I'm struck by what I'm seeing.

The Mormon factor is in full effect.

Presently, I'm seeing 21% returns in, with a three-way tie at the top: Paul, Santorum, and Romney each have 23% of the vote so far.

White evangelicals, who made up 60% of the 2008 GOP Iowa Caucus, are about 57% of the participants this year; they're picking Gingrich, even, before Romney. Presently, though, they are firmly behind Santorum, with Paul in second among evangelicals.

You are so clueless. . . . Like my small 10 yr. old. It's cute. Like watching him watch a magic show and believing it's real. Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Entertained are we?

[Tiassa]

Fuh-rothy!

There is still time, and one last precinct to report, as I hear it. Mitt Romney could still pull out Iowa.

Meanwhile, according to cable news reports, all of four votes separate first and second place in Iowa. That is, Mitt Romney needs four votes to tie ... Rick Santorum.

It's true: I never would have guessed this would be the pillow nail-biter in the Iowa GOP contest.

• • •

You are so clueless. . . . Like my small 10 yr. old. It's cute. Like watching him watch a magic show and believing it's real. Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Entertained are we?

Do you feel better for that?

And, yes, it's very entertaining. No, really. I mean, think of the whole blithering conspiracy theory by which the GOP will secretly usurp the only legitimate winner—Ron Paul—and plunge the whole damned nation into martial law.

See, truth is stranger than fiction. This is important to remember because if there was some conspiracy theory afoot, we would not be witnessing a razor-thin margin 'twixt Mitt Romney and the completely unelectable Rick Santorum.

This kind of frothy mix, combined with the wailing laments of the New Pauline Evangelism, is about the best Iowa could possibly give me.

Entertaining? As entertaining as such grave matters can get.

[adoucette]

Esotericist is so in love with his BS conspiracy theories that as he said: Frankly, I don't vote anymore, which considering he apparently gets most of his news from YouTube, is I suppose a good thing.

[Tiassa]

Source: BBC
Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16452415
Title: "Republican presidential race turns sour"
Date: January 7, 2012

Say what you will about media, but to read the story from across the Pond, one might think Americans have officially gone insane.

The effect of the whole article at the BBC website is very nearly depressing. It's not a matter of what to quote, but, rather, what to leave out.

Gingrich blasting Romney; Ron Paul and the "China Jon" advert; Gingrich's flirtation with racism; Santorum's flirtation with racism. One can certainly knock the BBC for choosing those issues to cover in a single article, but at the same time, one can knock the Republican candidates for giving them such a selection.

[Tiassa]

New Hampshire: The War of Words

Gail Russell Chaddock compares Jon Huntsman's response to Mitt Romney to a defining moment in Ronald Reagan's ascendancy:

During a famous 1980 debate in Nashua, N.H., candidate Ronald Reagan barked at a moderator who was attempting to shut off the sound, "I'm paying for this microphone, Mr. Green!"

The audience roared and George Bush, the front-runner, never recovered from that moment, which came to define the challenger as the stronger of the two.

Now, thanks to a rare flare-up with front-runner Mitt Romney in Sunday morning's NBC presidential debate, New Hampshire residents are abuzz about a Huntsman outburst. During a Huntsman campaign stop outside Marie's Bakery in Henniker, N.H., Monday morning, patrons chanted his words: "Country first! Country first!"

While polling suggests Romney's lead might well be insurmountable, Huntsman is hoping for a surprise. The former American ambassador to China has invested a tremendous strategic stake in his New Hampshire performance, having worked his way through Republican frontrunner disasters to a thirteen percent share in the rolling averages, good enough for third place behind Romney and Texas Rep. Ron Paul.

Huntsman's "my country first" moment began in Saturday night's debate, when Mr. Romney attacked him for serving as US ambassador to China under President Obama.

"You were, the last two years, implementing the policies of this administration in China," said Romney. "The rest of us on this stage were doing our best to get Republicans elected across the country and stop the policies of this president from being put forward."

On Sunday, Huntsman returned to that exchange at his first opportunity.

"I was criticized last night by Governor Romney for putting my country first," he said. "He criticized me, while he was out raising money, for serving my country in China – yes, under a Democrat, like my two sons are doing in the United States Navy. They're not asking who ... [or] what political affiliation the president is. And I want to be very clear with the people here in New Hampshire and this country: I will always put my country first."

Romney retorted: "I just think it's most likely that the person who should represent our party running against President Obama is not someone who called him a remarkable leader and went to be his ambassador in China."

Then, the punch line: "This nation is divided, David, because of attitudes like that," Huntsman said to the moderator, to applause.

A famous Reagan maxim, of course, is that Republicans should not criticize one another; one wonders what the "Great Communicator" would think of the ongoing spectacle of the current GOP contest. Former Republican Party officer Michael Stafford explains:

Republicans are traditionally loath to criticize one another. After all, we have the famous example of Ronald Reagan's Eleventh Commandment- "thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican." And yet, Reagan's Eleventh Commandment is deployed in peculiar ways these days. It is forgotten or ignored when Tea Party zealots are on the warpath purging so-called moderates or centrists from the GOP. It is nowhere to be found when cries of "RINO" fill the talk radio airwaves at the first sign of independent, rational thinking by a Republican pundit or elected official. Today, the Eleventh Commandment is used to silence us, but never them.

As the Republican Party has moved to the right, many of us have either kept quiet, disengaged, or drifted away. Responsible voices within it are either intimidated into silence or driven out by the confrontational, school-yard bully tactics of madmen with microphones and their angry audiences. If our right-wing demagogues convey one thing to their listeners, it is a passionate sense of certainty in a simplistic vision of the world stripped clean of all complexity and devoid of subtlety and nuance. As a result, what passes for conservative thought has degenerated into a series of mere bumper sticker slogans designed to generate an emotional response. They do not form an adequate basis for governing or solving the problems facing America today.

However, those who have left the Republican Party as it has moved to the right have committed a grave error- one that has merely accelerated the process of political radicalization in this country. By fleeing or staying silent rather then fighting, they've allowed the GOP to be co-opted by radicals. And that's ironic, because it's the radical right that's propounding a vision at odds with traditional conservatism. As David Jenkins of Republicans for Environmental Protection observed in an interview with Andrew Revkin of The New York Times, the GOP has fallen into the hands of "pretend conservatives." These individuals "are the radical libertarians that dominate the right-wing talk radio and outlets like Fox News ... The policies being peddled by these folks reflect a live for today-let me do what I want mentality" that is alien to authentic conservative thought.

Romney's attack against Huntsman may well signify the depths to which the Republican Party has tumbled. Party and politics come first, according to the former Massachusetts governor, and country second. Huntsman has merely seized on the obvious, and whether or not it is appropriate for Republicans to criticize one another, it is a point that needs to be made. "We have reached a point," wrote Stafford in August, "where our continued silence is tantamount to complicity; our continued restraint, the political equivalent of a license to further radicalization." Five months later, his warning is brought to sharp relief through Romney's denunciation of Huntsman's service in the State Department. In the future, Republican politicians nominated to serve in Democratic administrations will heed the warning. While the president should compromise and nominate Republicans, such as former Rep. Ray LaHood of Illinois, who serves as Secretary of Transportation, those Republicans must contemplate whether or not they will be welcome in their own party if they accept. According to Mitt Romney, they are not.

To the other, Romney's tactic seems reasonable enough if one views the political process as a capital marketplace, and chases only short-term profits. Once upon a time, political moderation was viewed as an asset. In the current cycle, though, it is anathema in the Republican marketplace. Romney's ability to work both sides of the aisle during his tenure in Massachusetts now counts against him, and his desperate scramble to reaffirm his conservative credentials amid the ferocious cacophony of primary-season politics suggests longer-term pitfalls. Indeed, though Romney has emerged as the frontrunner, he is, more than any of his opponents, his own worst enemy. We can expect his pandering to the GOP's hardline right wing to be thrown in his face when the general election season opens. We can expect his nearly astounding string of gaffes, whether calling himself unemployed, arguing that corporations are people, the ten-thousand dollar bet, or now this, the proposition that politics come before country, to hound him through November.

While former frontrunners like Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, and Newt Gingrich, as well as rising challengers such as Rep. Ron Paul and Rick Santorum, are widely viewed as unelectable, Romney seems determined to ruin his own electability, which was broadly perceived to be the reason why he was the nominal frontrunner throughout Republican voters' flirtations with other candidates.

Whether the self-inflicted damage is great enough, or comes soon enough, for Jon Huntsman remains to be seen; indeed, it might be settled later today when New Hampshire's polls open. And while the proposition of a Huntsman victory seems improbable, one wonders how it would affect his chances in South Carolina and Florida, the next two contests in the nomination race. A strong third-place showing behind Romney and Paul will likely not be enough; Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are polling strong in the Palmetto State, and the bombastic former Speaker of the House is presently running a strong second place in Florida. Jon Huntsman trails the rest of the field in both states.

New Hampshire polls open in less than three hours. For Huntsman, it all comes down to this. For Romney, it's only a question of how badly he has hurt himself.
____________________

Notes:

Russell Chaddock, Gail. "Jon Huntsman banks on his 'Reagan moment' in New Hampshire". The Christian Science Monitor. January 9, 2012. CSMonitor.com. January 10, 2012. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Electio...ampshire-video

Stafford, Michael. "Taking the GOP Back From the Radical Right". Cagle Post. August 3, 2011. Cagle.com. January 10, 2012. http://www.cagle.com/2011/08/taking-...radical-right/

[The Esotericist]

Other than Ron Paul, the other candidate (including Obama) might as well be talking like this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFXXAuDK1Ao&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Because that is how honest they are being. They will not stick to anything they are saying after they are elected. At least this guy admits it. With Ron Paul, you know he will stick to what he says. His record proves it.

If Paul doesn't make it through the Primary season, I won't legitimize this system by voting. It's a farce.

R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]uTioN

[The Esotericist]

Esotericist is so in love with his BS conspiracy theories that as he said: Frankly, I don't vote anymore, which considering he apparently gets most of his news from YouTube, is I suppose a good thing.

You would have all independent media shut down wouldn't you? If it isn't corporate sponsored and network approved? Well, it's just plain unreliable.