Today is the big day. Iowa Republicans have a choice to make between Mitt Romney and unpredictable chaos for the Republican party.
Am I saying this because I support Mitt Romney? Actually no.
The problem is that this race has become so intensely divided that it’s virtually impossible to define a clear frontrunner. Romney is ahead or tied in Iowa and New Hampshire. He leads Michigan. He is competitive in various other states. But if he loses Iowa, his chances of winning the nomination could evaporate.
Now, if you think that this is simply bad news for Romney, think again. Huckabee is the main challenger to Romney in Iowa. But McCain is Romney’s main challenger in New Hampshire. A Huckabee victory in Iowa could cause McCain to win Iowa, shaking the race up even more. Romney could still win Michigan. Rudy could win Florida. Without one specific candidate leading any of the states, the race could become even more divided than it already is.
The Politico is reporting that if Thompson gets third in Iowa, which is extremely likely, there’s a chance he could drop out and endorse McCain. This could possibly lead to a McCain victory nationwide, a situation I greatly fear. I’m not sure who would be worse as our nominee: John McCain or Mike Huckabee. Both are terrible on immigration. Both received scathing reviews from Club for Growth. Both would fracture our base. Oh the havoc that would wreak.
The most realistic positive circumstance I could foresee is a Romney victory, with Thompson finishing third and still staying in the race. I hope that this kind of situation would demoralize the Huckabee camp in order to destroy his momentum nationwide.
Republicans in Iowa must see the bigger picture. If Romney loses Iowa, we are in trouble. We cannot afford to end up with a candidate that opposes the Bush tax cuts and will grant amnesty to illegal aliens. We can’t afford to have a fiscal liberal as our nominee. We must nominate Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson, because they are the only two candidates that can keep our base intact. Anyone else would spell utter chaos for the Republican party in 2008.
January 3, 2008 at 11:03 pm |
Rudy and Huck are RINOs, and McCain is only a RINO when it’s better for him.
so i see this. but perhaps you should look to a more fiscally responsible base.
The party changes over time, i wonder if you understand your generation well enough to understand that the only way for the GOP to survive in the future is to nominate or at least show a strong following for Ron Paul.
Gen Y is libertarian, they just don’t know it yet, i’ve debated with thousands of Gen Y-ers and convinced them to join the GOP, they want fiscal responsibility and fiscal conservatism, but the centrist-libertarian society we live in brings a more Libertarian tone to these new GOP voters.
The Base is here, and it’s changing, we like Romney, he’ll make a good RNC party President, but he’s not a good presidential candidate for the U.S.A.
Fred, Rudy and Huck, are Four letter words when i’m talking with young GOP-ers.
Paul will place at least third tonight.
You’d better start swimming or you’ll sink like a stone.
January 4, 2008 at 1:49 am |
You may be right about the libertarian movement in the next gen of the party, and I agree with libertarians on all but one key point: foreign policy has become too important. Libertarians like to treat other countries affairs as none of our business, which isn’t going to work in this day and age.
I’d like to see a more moderate GOP about (or even ignore) social conservative issues – less government in general, and no government in people’s private lives. Frankly, Romney’s record reflects that, even if his rhetoric doesn’t.
January 4, 2008 at 2:14 am |
Francis, I don’t think Ron Paul will get 3rd. He might get 4th though. I’m Gen Y and I am not libertarian. I believe in fighting the War on Terror. We’re not libertarians at all. How would Romney make a good RNC party president and not a good presidential candidate?
Hawkgrrrl, social issues are part of the heart of the GOP. Things like abortion, gay marriage, etc. are always going to be in the picture until things change. And I agree, Romney’s record does reflect small government principles, whether or not his critics see it.
January 4, 2008 at 3:19 am |
I don’t think you keep up with your Thoughts On Christianity blog anymore. Either that, or you for some reason have chosen not to comment on my comments. I know that this post has nothing to do with what I’m about to say in this comment, but at least I can be sure you know I’ve commented.
In your Mormons vs. Catholics post you said, “By the way, since you evidentally believe in inherited depravity, I’d like to say that unbaptized babies go to Heaven because they are innocent. Ezekiel 18:20 says that “the son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father.” Adamic inherited depravity is negated by this scripture. Matthew 18:4 and Matthew 19:14 also contradict the nature of children going anywhere but Heaven.”
My question for you if you believe that children are innocent is: At what point do they become sinners like you and me? When they first start speaking? When they furhter develop?
There is no point after birth when we suddenly are no longer “innocent”. Sin does not suddenly show up in our lives when we get to a certain age. Young children sin before they even know what sin is because they are human and are descendents of Adam and Eve-the human race. Humans sin. Maybe infants can’t lie yet, but they will, they’re human.
Obviously God doesn’t intend to punish those infants who aren’t baptized before their death. God has a plan for every soul which is good and holy, especially those who indeed had no knowledge of or exposure to him before their death.
In short, I have a hard time believing your theory on a completely sinless human- infant or not. Jesus (and we believe Mary to be sinless also) is the only human completely devoid of sin.
January 4, 2008 at 3:30 am |
Oh I think you took Ezekiel 18:20 out of context. That passage is talking about how each person is responsible for their own sins, not about how we aren’t born sinful creatures. It is confusing because it talks about the relationship between the father and the son (which you used to relate Adam to humanity.)
My biggest argument against your is logic (plus a basic Christian belief that humans are sinful always). Sin is not a learned manner. You can understand this to be true because young children lie and don’t want to share toys, naturally. They have to be taught how to counterract this natural instinct, or sin.
If you don’t believe in original sin, why should we even give a hoot about Adam and Eve? In your opininon, they might as well never have existed (which obviously calls into question our existence).
January 4, 2008 at 8:40 pm |
Anna, I replied to you on my other blog.
Oh Francis… my oh my have you been greatly deceived. Ron Paul placed 5th. FIFTH. And please don’t give me that nonsense of “well he beat Rudy Giuliani!” because Giuliani didn’t even campaign in Iowa! Paul was crushed soundly, as the polls had previously indicated.
Sure, Romney lost Iowa. And he lost by 9 points. But Ron Paul lost by 25 points. So I don’t really feel all that bad.
After New Hampshire, Ron Paul should drop out. He’s humiliating himself and his supporters by continuing.
January 5, 2008 at 1:45 am |
It will be interesting to see what role religion plays moving into New Hampshire don’t you think?
For those of you who haven’t heard, there is a great independent film coming out soon titled: “Article VI: Faith. Politics. America.” The film was directed by Bryan Hall and Jack Donaldson. It is an intense discussion of the role of faith in politics. The title is taken from Article Six of the United States Constitution: “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
If you haven’t seen the trailer, I suggest you check it out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_VI_(film)
January 5, 2008 at 1:46 am |
I apologize, here is the link to the trailer:
http://www.articlevithemovie.com/trailer.php