Check out some similar questions!

tomder55 · Jan 4, 2008, 05:56 AM

John Podhoretz writes this morning at Commentary Magazine :

The result in Iowa could not have been better for Giuliani tactically. Romney has been injured. Huckabee won, but did not apparently win by a huge margin, and there won’t be many other states where evangelicals make up fully three-fifths of the primary electorate. And John McCain did not, it seems, come in third with a surprising showing, but fourth with a very modest showing. If McCain beats Romney in New Hampshire, Romney will have a difficult time going on — but McCain clearly hasn’t yet turned the corner and brought conservative Republicans back in his corner. And Fred Thompson’s third-place showing wasn’t impressive enough to kick his campaign back to life. With no one especially strong on the Republican side through the first few states, the Giuliani strategy of betting it all on Florida on January 29 and the big states on February 5 is looking better than it did a week ago.

Commentary » Blog Archive » IOWA: A Very Cheerful Rudy Giuliani

George_1950 · Jan 4, 2008, 07:23 AM

I don't see how the caucus in Iowa means much of anything. It is entertaining to see how the 'winners' and 'losers' conduct themselves. Of course, it is totally refreshing to see that the Democrat voters in Iowa are not of the same mind-set as the voters in New York; how pathetic New Yorkers look, needing a political 'queen' for a senator.

tomder55 · Jan 4, 2008, 08:32 AM

Iowa doesn't mean much except for the fact that so many states pushed their primary dates forward that a candidate can use momnetum to carry themselves into the larger primary dates in February . I agree with your comment on the other posting that there is a good possibility the Republicans could go into the convention without a presumptive candidate .

I also note that Madame Defarge has not reached into her bag of tricks yet . When the going gets tough I expect attacks to fly at Obama from all directions. Her camp has already put out feelers about Obama's Muslim heritage and that he may have been a drug dealer.

George_1950 · Jan 4, 2008, 08:57 AM

tomder55 writes: "When the going gets tough I expect attacks to fly at Obama from all directions. Her camp has already put out feelers about Obama's Muslim heritage and that he may have been a drug dealer." lol You are right about that; I don't think a b****with her gall has ever been seen in American politics. The 'battlefield' on the Democratic side is going to be in the press; that group of elites must decide who it is going to get behind. It will not be Dodd, Biden, or Edwards, in my view.

speechlesstx · Jan 4, 2008, 09:43 AM

You know Hillary has to be feeling some pain after getting smacked down to third place and only winning the women 65 and up. I think Podhoretz is probably right, Romney's showing was good for Rudy. The focus groups I saw last night just didn't trust Romney and I think it's only going to get worse for him. Seems though that Obama was the big winner... although Richardson was happy that “we made it to the Final Four.” :D

tomder55 · Jan 4, 2008, 10:47 AM

Quote of the night "This feels good. It's just like I imagined it when I was talking to my kindergarten teacher."
Obama

speechlesstx · Jan 4, 2008, 11:31 AM

And this may be the pundit quote of the night, by Ezra Klein of The American Prospect...

Obama's finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform. They don't even really inspire. They elevate. They enmesh you in a grander moment, as if history has stopped flowing passively by, and, just for an instant, contracted around you, made you aware of its presence, and your role in it. He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh, over color, over despair. The other great leaders I've heard guide us towards a better politics, but Obama is, at his best, able to call us back to our highest selves, to the place where America exists as a glittering ideal, and where we, its honored inhabitants, seem capable of achieving it, and thus of sharing in its meaning and transcendence.

I guess the Second Coming has arrived and I missed it. As Andrew Stuttaford at NRO said, "expect more of this..."

tomder55 · Jan 5, 2008, 03:54 AM

Klein forgot to genuflect

Did you hear Edwards postmortum address?

We are going to bring the change that this country needs.
And you have created and started a wave of change, a tidal wave of change that will travel from here to New Hampshire to Nevada to South Carolina, all across this country.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/03/us...=1&oref=slogin

Sound familiar ?

"Not only are we going to New Hampshire .We're going to South Carolina and Oklahoma and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico, and we're going to California and Texas and New York. And we're going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan. And then we're going to Washington, D.C., to take back the White House. "Yeeeeeeeearrrrrrhhhhh!"!!

excon · Jan 5, 2008, 05:54 AM

Hello tom:

I think the postmortem number that ought to concern the right wing is the Democratic turnout. To me, it means that the Republican candidate, whomever it is, will be buried.

I could be wrong, but I'm not.

excon

tomder55 · Jan 5, 2008, 02:38 PM

You are probably correct unless Hillary is the nominee. She could do what the Republicans to date refuse to do... unite . But the process is still too early to call .All the Huckster did was move up to the top tier . All Obama did was stir a hornets nest . He isn't seen the Clintoon machine in action yet.

George_1950 · Jan 5, 2008, 02:53 PM

Turn out in Iowa, like the results in Iowa, mean nothing to anyone, except the junkies, pundits, and elites. I heard some goofball on Fox News this morning (01/05/08) gushing about Obama's speech, and he was able to point to nothing of substance that was said. And that is the problem with the lefties: they have an agenda that is hidden, and all they will do publicly is yap about how they want Americans to feel.

Dark_crow · Jan 5, 2008, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by George_1950

Turn out in Iowa, like the results in Iowa, mean nothing to anyone, except the junkies, pundits, and elites. I heard some goofball on Fox News this morning (01/05/08) gushing about Obama's speech, and he was able to point to nothing of substance that was said. And that is the problem with the lefties: they have an agenda that is hidden, and all they will do publicly is yap about how they want Americans to feel.

OMG…another conspiracy theory, I’ll bite, what is this “Hidden Agenda?”

Barack Obama drew two distinct paths to the White House: She’s tested and ready to stand her ground against Republicans while he’s prepared to reach across the isle.

Choux · Jan 5, 2008, 09:47 PM

Any postmortems written will be written for Guilliani and Thompson. The response to them is underwhelming and falling.

The Republican Party is fractured... fund raising is super down... and a couple of representatives of the lunatic fringe are looking better than the "normal" Corporate Republo types! LOL!!

Lolol...

George_1950 · Jan 5, 2008, 10:14 PM

Nah, no conspiracy theory: bigger, more intrusive government and higher taxes; all of which means less freedom for me and you. For you see my friend, Dark_crow, they will never say that stuff publicly, with the cameras running. I watched about half of the Democrat debate (pre-New Hampshire) tonight, and they had very little of substance to say. The only issues they spoke about were health care and Iraq; in the course of explaining their very similar positions there was no mention of why either issue needs to be changed; and nothing about the consequences of a Democratic 'fix'. One of the biggest problems in 'medicine' is the number of doctors; do you know that Congress agreed (years ago) to let the American Medical Association determine the number of med students in the US? With all the government funding and regulation in health care, do you think the answer to 'the problem in healthcare' is more government? Who could afford a doctor in the US today if there weren't so many foreign-trained doctors all over the country. No, Dark_crow, more government is not the answer.

Choux · Jan 5, 2008, 10:32 PM

George, You are very confused... it is *Bush* who wants the bigger more intrusive government and financing endless war... THAT IS WHAT **HE DID** DURING HIS FAILED ADMINISTRATION. Grab a chunk of reality! You have embarrassed yourself. :)

George_1950 · Jan 5, 2008, 10:40 PM

Sorry, Choux; no such thing as an "endless war". Or, perhaps you would like to point one out? You can't be serious about Bush wanting a bigger, more intrusive government. Are you suggesting we return to the Clinton position of prohibiting intelligence sharing between the FBI and CIA, so that the safety of the public is compromised as it was on 9/11? You sound like a partisan of the liberal type; that would be embarrassing for me.

Choux · Jan 5, 2008, 10:49 PM

You don't even know what moves Bush made against the Constitution. Oy!
The Oil Resource Wars beginning with Iraq... that is the Endless War[equals Endless Deficits].

Have a nice day!

Enjoy Life! :)

George_1950 · Jan 5, 2008, 10:58 PM

Originally Posted by Choux

You don't even know what moves Bush made against the Constitution. Oy!
The Oil Resource Wars beginning with Iraq....that is the Endless War[equals Endless Deficits].

Have a nice day!

Enjoy Life! :)

Oh Choux, tell me more.:)

tomder55 · Jan 6, 2008, 02:16 AM

Somewhere soon Hillary will use the line that Mondale used on Gary Hart... "where's the beef?" Obama's whole campaign will derail at that point because he can't give a single answer where he represents any real change from the Democrat play book. I read his last book and besides complaining about partisanship there was nothing new. It could've been written by any of the other Democrat candidates.

excon · Jan 6, 2008, 04:17 AM

Originally Posted by George_1950

You can't be serious about Bush wanting a bigger, more intrusive government.

Hello:

You right wingers slay me when you come up with crap like that. I guess you forgot that the POLICE function of the federal government, under THIS president, under the guise of the "Patriot Act", is bigger and more intrusive than ever.

That's just so. However, I don't expect much reality from your camp these days. But, that's why I'M here.

It IS true, that they've cut down the size of the regulators who're there to see if your kids’ toys have lead in them. Yeahhh, can't intrude on the American company making those toys in China and paying $.03/hour.

excon