Many have already ceded the Republican nomination to Rudy Giuliani and are planning for Clinton v. Giuliani in '08. However, if the latest caucus and primary polls are any indication, Rudy may well not be the nominee. That honor might go to former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney.
The two most important states in determining a nominee have historically been Iowa and New Hampshire, and there's really no indication that it would be any different this year. And, as far as polling is concerned, Romney is well ahead in those two key states. The latest poll for Iowa shows Romney at 27%, followed by Mike Huckabee at 19%. Rudy comes in third with 16%. New Hampshire polling has Romney at 30%, followed by Rudy at 23%. If this trend continues and Romney wins Iowa and New Hampshire, he will replace Rudy as the frontrunner. As we saw with John Kerry in '04, the media buzz could be enough to propel Romney into South Carolina, Florida, and beyond.
The latest polling from South Carolina, however, shows that Romney may not need the media to pick up a win here. Conservatives from all over South Carolina have been endorsing Romney and Romney is on a fast rise there. The latest polling has Romney leading the pack with 29% followed by Rudy at 23%. Just one month ago, Rudy had 26% in South Carolina and Romney had a very weak 9%. But what a difference a month can make. It appears that Christian conservatives are flocking to Romney and his name recognition is growing and he is becoming more and more popular in South Carolina.
If Romney was to win Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, I see no way in which he could lose the nomination. Now, say Romney just wins just two of the three and Rudy wins the other one----then I say Rudy could still get the nomination. But with all the media buzz that would surround the Romney campaign with three huge wins, Rudy would essentially become forgotten overnight.
This demonstrates how interesting the GOP race is because of its fluidity. Rudy might be the national frontrunner but Romney has the potential to steal the spotlight in a matter of a couple of weeks. Many have already written off Romney, but I am convinced, now more than ever by his growing South Carolina support, that Romney could win the nomination.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
The Iraq War ----The Fallout Continues
The last few days we have seen the television media cover the story of State Department Diplomats facing the possibility of being ordered to serve in Iraq if enough volunteers do not step forward to serve there.
It was reported in a town hall meeting this past Wednesday that diplomats raised concerns about the "potential death sentence" of being ordered to serve in Iraq. (from Associated Press writer Matthew Lee). Condi Rice, the Secretary of State, reminded the diplomats they took an oath to serve where ever necessary regardless of the risks.
This is just one of the so many tragic fallouts of this war and occupation over WMD that did not exist. So many things have gone wrong with this war that one could write a book solely about the fallout and problems. There will be many more problems triggered by this war in the future because the Commander in Chief still has no plan to end the war deep into the fourth year. Can anyone really remember a President, other than Mr. Bush, who has harmed our country so often with their reckless behavior?
Playing the Gender Card?
Ever since Tuesday's Democrat Debate, the media has been all over Sen. Hillary Clinton. They call it her "worst week ever", or they say "she has ruined her chances at the nomination". The media has gone after Clinton nonstop; it's as if someone is paying them to do so.
Listen, I realize that Tuesday was not Hillary's best night, I said that in my review of the debate, but it is by no means something that is going to completely derail her campaign as the media is suggesting. Even the usual far left "Hillary-haters" are standing up and saying "whoa, it really wasn't that bad." Daily Kos, a common source for Hillary bashing, is among those speaking up:
"The reaction to Hillary's debate performance has been way out of whack with, well, her debate performance...But bottom line is, that at worst, she held steady. At best, she may have gained a little support. It wouldn't be the first time the media completely missed actual public sentiment."
What makes me the most irritated is that the media is, all of a sudden, jumping on Hillary for "playing the gender card". They keep quoting a statement Hillary made when visiting her alma mater, Wellesley College:
“In so many ways this all-women’s college prepared me to compete in the all-boys’ club of presidential politics.”
So, as far as I'm aware, that was the only comment Hillary made about gender since the debate. Yet, the media is hyping it as if she blamed her debate performance on her gender. The point is, that statement is not about "playing the gender card". Rather, it's called "playing the crowd". Hillary was in front of an all girl's school and she was obviously trying to excite them. Obama did the same thing yesterday in South Carolina when he was in front of an all African American crowd. He talked about how he has a chance to make history because of his skin color. And while he was speaking, he clearly took on an accent of a southern black. Do I blame Obama for that? No, it's called getting the crowd excited and into your what you're saying. It's what all great speakers do. Even more importantly, did the media blame Obama? No. So why attack Hillary for essentially the same thing?
But I can assure you that the media will continue to attack Hillary for "playing the gender card", even though she didn't. Hillary made a statement yesterday in which she said that the reason why the other candidates are going after her is because "I am the frontrunner". She also said she didn't mind being challenged on the issues and said "I can take the heat". But will the media cover that statement, in which Hillary clearly states the reason she is being attacked is because she is the frontrunner, not because she is a woman? No, sadly they won't. They'll instead keep replaying the quote from Wellesley and will keep falsely asserting that somehow, in that one statement, Hillary is acting as if she is being attacked because she is a woman.
Listen, I realize that Tuesday was not Hillary's best night, I said that in my review of the debate, but it is by no means something that is going to completely derail her campaign as the media is suggesting. Even the usual far left "Hillary-haters" are standing up and saying "whoa, it really wasn't that bad." Daily Kos, a common source for Hillary bashing, is among those speaking up:
"The reaction to Hillary's debate performance has been way out of whack with, well, her debate performance...But bottom line is, that at worst, she held steady. At best, she may have gained a little support. It wouldn't be the first time the media completely missed actual public sentiment."
What makes me the most irritated is that the media is, all of a sudden, jumping on Hillary for "playing the gender card". They keep quoting a statement Hillary made when visiting her alma mater, Wellesley College:
“In so many ways this all-women’s college prepared me to compete in the all-boys’ club of presidential politics.”
So, as far as I'm aware, that was the only comment Hillary made about gender since the debate. Yet, the media is hyping it as if she blamed her debate performance on her gender. The point is, that statement is not about "playing the gender card". Rather, it's called "playing the crowd". Hillary was in front of an all girl's school and she was obviously trying to excite them. Obama did the same thing yesterday in South Carolina when he was in front of an all African American crowd. He talked about how he has a chance to make history because of his skin color. And while he was speaking, he clearly took on an accent of a southern black. Do I blame Obama for that? No, it's called getting the crowd excited and into your what you're saying. It's what all great speakers do. Even more importantly, did the media blame Obama? No. So why attack Hillary for essentially the same thing?
But I can assure you that the media will continue to attack Hillary for "playing the gender card", even though she didn't. Hillary made a statement yesterday in which she said that the reason why the other candidates are going after her is because "I am the frontrunner". She also said she didn't mind being challenged on the issues and said "I can take the heat". But will the media cover that statement, in which Hillary clearly states the reason she is being attacked is because she is the frontrunner, not because she is a woman? No, sadly they won't. They'll instead keep replaying the quote from Wellesley and will keep falsely asserting that somehow, in that one statement, Hillary is acting as if she is being attacked because she is a woman.
The Selling of Fear
President Franklin Roosevelt addressed the nation during WWII saying "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." President John Kennedy, in his inaugural address, said "Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate." Those two great leaders of America captured the nation's courage and power to face our adversaries. Our nation was founded on principals and they would not allow our people to be intimidated or fearful.
Now we have a President, George W. Bush, who uses the fear factor to intimidate our own people concerning the terror threat to America. If Congress does not do things his way, or responsible people disagree with his policies, he uses the fear factor. America and its people will not be safe from terror attacks if we listen to the opposing view or elect a Democrat according to Mr. Bush. And now several Republican Presidential candidates are using the same fear factor in their run for the Presidency to scare Americans into voting for them.
It is really a pathetic situation for a President to be so insecure and govern by fear. Our nation and its people have faced more serious threats than terror attacks through out our history with courage and resolve. Not only have we survived the past, but we took on the future with the spirit that is America.
To make matters even worse, Mr. Bush compared the war on Terror with WWII. Not even close. And just last week Mr. Bush tried to connect Iran with WWIII. This is a President that wants our nation to live in fear and be in a never ending war. Past Presidents led by uniting our country and its people. Mr. Bush, and many Republicans, leads by division and fear.
When America goes to the polls to vote for the next President, it is imperative that we cast our vote for the candidate that represents new leadership and hope for our nation instead of fear.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)