Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Iowa Strategery

Huckabee’s surge might be good news for Romney: It diminishes the unrealistic expectations for a blowout and might allow Romney to claim coming in first as a real victory. Huck’s surge might be good news for Giuliani: If Huck evenly splits the "social conservative" vote with Mitt, Rudy might, if his new commercials catch on, be perceived as finishing a very strong third and actually pick up some unexpected momentum himself. Huck’s surge might be bad news for the new man from Hope: He might be catching Dean-disease, by peaking before anyone actually votes and creating the expectation that anything less than coming in first would be a defeat.

Discussions - 4 Comments

I don't know how you figure that Peter.

Compare the money dumped on Iowa by the Romney campaign to that of the Huckabee campaign.

Anything less than a victory for Romney is a defeat. Romney has been running ads all over the place in Iowa, and on all media, print, radio and television. Moreover, he's invested as much time as money into winning Iowa.

The fact that people are sliding away from him towards Huckabee is evidence of what many of us suspected would inevitably happen. Romney can't close the deal. He's just TOO fraudulent. Now Americans have sadly come to expect a certain amount of hucksterism in a politician, but there's something sickening in Romney's quest for high office.

Romney has got millstones around his neck anyone of which would sink him, his Mormonism and his well-earned reputation as a flip-flopper, or as his campaign flacksters prefer to describe it, his "pragmatism."

Romney's little minions have been trying to portray the race as a two-man race for months now, between him and Rudy, hoping that Republicans would prefer Romney's fraudulent conservatism to Giuliani's openness. The emergence of Huckabee, IF it is a genuine emergence, obliterates Romney's half-year strategy.

hoping that Republicans would prefer Romney's fraudulent conservatism to Giuliani's openness.

Don't you mean "to Giuliani's open liberalism"? What is he being open about, if not that?

And why should we prefer an open liberal to one who is a least willing to give lip-service to our beliefs?

Clinton and Obama have plenty of "openness". I don't see why Dan does not support them.

What was liberal about restoring NYC? What was liberal about enforcing the law, cleaning thugs and criminals off the streets? Or is a law and order Mayor now a candidate for closet liberalism?

Many subscribe to the view of Giuliani's tenure articulated by Sharpton and Rangell, id est, that his accomplishments were fraudulent.

But it doesn't wash, as anyone who wanders lower Manhattan knows.

Former Mayor Ed Koch credits Giuliani for "saving" the city. But Conservatives won't.

It's a sad commentary when Conservatives prefer being lied to by a Romney, than told the truth by a Giuliani. It's akin to a wife who knows her husband is deceiving her, but prefers to affect ignorance.

All of you KNOW, and it's not even constructive knowledge, all of you know EXACTLY where Romney is on abortion, on the border, and on a host of other issues that he's presently deceiving you about.

Or here's an idea, let's go with the candidate who is aging before our eyes, Fred Thompson, who's due for another campaign staff shake-up.

Or let's go with the "pastor," yea, that's the ticket.

Newsflash, the perfect Conservative isn't in the race, and isn't going to jump in. From this group of flawed men, we have to make the pick that WILL defeat Hillary, not "can" defeat, but WILL defeat.

And we've NO margin for error.

We could EASILY be looking at the MOST POWERFUL Democrat majority since LBJ. Complete control of the House, control of The White House, and a filibuster proof Senate.

That's what we're looking at.

And instead of facing that grim future, and taking rational precautions to ward it off, some prefer to ridicule the best hope we've got, Giuliani.

I understand more than you may think the frustration.

I've gone down to Washington REPEATEDLY about the very issues you all hold dear, our borders, our culture and our national security. I couldn't sleep if I hadn't made my views, my warnings known, to people in a position to act. And of course all of my warnings proved prescient. I saw the damage Card did LONG before it was picked up by the rest of the Party. I saw the damage The White House's communication staff was doing before the reelection campaign. I saw it all, and I saw it years ago. So I understand.

I understand being livid with a President who talks tough and does nothing. I understand being livid with a President who hadn't the manhood to say "NO, I'm not going to spend a minute of the day pushing a squalid "two-state solution." I understand being livid with a President who signs with great fanfare a bill to secure the border in an October, but within months looks to sign a new bill that EVISCERATES the security measures of the last one.

I understand being livid with a creature who tells you "the will of the Senate" will prevail. And what words could possibly do justice to your feelings when you hear the guy you put in office say that he will "See you at the signing ceremony." What words could measure the depth of your betrayal.

I understand all of that and more.

But do not allow your frustration with the GOP leadership to inure to the benefit of a woman that despises you, and despises what you hold dear.

The subtext of the next Presidential campaign is SOVEREIGNTY. It won't be openly spoken of, it won't be openly broached. But that's what the next election is going to be about. The whole question of our borders is subsumed within the larger question of sovereignty. Even our war effort is something of a joke because the guy that mocked "the global test," has governed ever since constantly looking over his shoulder to see if the Europeans approved of what he was doing. And the Mexicans dare, DARE to dictate to Americans what their immigration policy should be! That's what's going on.

And the guy you pick next had better have TESTED mettle, tested nerve, TESTED manhood.

Or God help us.

Bush, the guy who told us "he wouldn't kick the can down the road" is doing precisely that on Iranian nukes. Those Iranian nukes are the greatest life issue confronting the United States.

There are three men with the wisdom and the manhood to unleash and unload on the Iranians. One is Hunter, one is McCain, the other is Giuliani.

Thompson is too establishment. Romney's idea is to call in the lawyers, and try to find a consensus that can't be found. Huckabee doesn't have it.

You have to choose a man that can kill, that can kill thousands, ten of thousands if need be.

The job title is COMMANDER IN CHIEF, United States Armed Forces. And those Forces must be used, if we are to secure our future and our cities, and those of our close and dear friends.

I wish my Winter tidings were those of peace and good cheer. But they're not.

This war has barely begun, for our main enemy has yet to be engaged.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL:

Warning: include(/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/2007/11/iowa-strategery.php on line 495

Warning: include(): Failed opening '/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/opt/sp/php7.2/lib/php') in /srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/2007/11/iowa-strategery.php on line 495