This year’s Republican presidential nominating process is probably no more or less quirky than in past election cycles. And it’s probably no more odd than past Democratic primary seasons. But consider how so much turns on so little:
Though he didn’t spend a lot of time in the state that hosts the nation’s first contest, the Iowa caucuses, Mitt Romney’s win there — by a scant eight votes — seemed to cement his status as the front-runner. Except maybe he didn’t win. As the final votes are tallied, it seems that Rick Santorum may have prevailed (and maybe by fewer than 100 votes). If former Sen. Santorum had been declared the winner the day after the caucus, would the rest of the primary process have been different?
Mr. Romney won big in New Hampshire, but that victory was discounted by the facts that he has a home there and that the Granite State is a neighbor to Massachusetts, where Mr. Romney had been governor. That bit of geographical luck will help him in Saturday’s South Carolina primary.
Other factors remake the political landscape like a Tilt-a-Whirl. New Gingrich’s ex-wife tells a reporter her then-hubby wanted an “open marriage” so he could cavort with the now-wife No. 3 and still stay hitched to No. 2. Had this news broken six months ago or a month from now, its effect might be less profound then it will have in South Carolina, a state where evangelical Christians make up a large bloc of GOP primary voters.
And so it goes.
Running effectively for president certainly requires a Herculean organization effort and lots and lots of money. But getting into the top tier of candidates can hinge on appealing to a very few voters in a few small states.
Some states allow voters not enrolled in any party to vote in a partisan primary. This is a healthy strategy in that it gauges candidates’ appeal to a voter bloc that often swings elections.
Another way to broaden the process is through third-party candidacies. Ross Perot in 1992 brought many new voters into the process, though his candidacy probably doomed George H.W. Bush’s chances at winning re-election. No third-party candidate of the modern era has been anything but a spoiler, and that includes a popular former president, Theodore Roosevelt, who ran unsuccessfully as the Bull Moose Party nominee 100 years ago.
Yet another force is stirring in the electorate that has the potential to introduce the voices of millions of more voters into the process. Americans Elect is working to win ballot access for a centrist third-party candidate. The party hopes to hold an “Internet convention” to select its nominee.
“Our goal is to open up what has been an anti-competitive process to people in the middle who are unsatisfied with the choices of the two parties,” the group’s CEO Kahlil Byrd told New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. But it’s more than a third party. It’s a very different, Web-based way to select a candidate for the ballot. It doesn’t turn away Republicans, Democrats or unenrolled voters, but instead seeks their views. Candidates can be drafted or supported by registered users at the site.
In April, the field will be narrowed to six candidates through three rounds of Web voting. The finalists must pick a running mate from another party; a Democrat must pick a Republican, and vice-versa. The online convention in June selects the final nominee.
Mr. Friedman predicts Americans Elect will do to elections what the iPod did to music. Time will tell. But the process is worth watching. It’s certainly more substantive than learning about a candidate’s sexual predilections.
Ron Paul will run as a third party when the Repubs don’t back him. Talk about a candidate with broad appeal. And the only honert politition on the stage.
Ron Paul 2012
Because Paul’s son, Senator Rand Paul, is a prominent Republican political figure, Rep. Ron Paul may not want to hurt his son’s standing in the Republican Party by running against the Republican nominee in the general election. So I’m guessing that he will stay out of the general election — but who knows for sure?
No way, Jose.
Romney didn’t get the most votes in Iowa… Santorum did and it was known election night but the Republican Masters didn’t allow a timely formal recount. So much for these jokers with their so called assurance of voting integrity.
Iowa isn’t winner take all, is it? So a narrow, few vote “victory” isn’t really a victory after all, is it, merely window dressing. Vince Lombaridism and “winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing”, shouldn’t apply.
With corporations taking over the election process, we can expect more candidates with country club nicknames like “Mitt”.
In 2016 the field of candidates could be guys named Biff, Binky, Stifler, Gus, Stinky, Doobie, Bo, Woody, Snoozer…..
You mean like how the labor unions put up their money in support of the DNC candidates? Money they took from people like me and gave it to the criminal dimocrats?? Why werent you worried about the effect of union money all these years, but suddenly corporate contritutions are the problem? Why does the union/DNC corruption not worry you? Maybe your on the payroll hun?
If you have a problem w/a portion of your union dues going to a Pac, why don’t you just quit and take a job at McDonald’s? Sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it, too.
LOL… You left out Jeb.
as well as Larry, Curly, and Moe.
There are many reasons to criticize about Gov. Romney, but his middle name, “Mitt,” is not one of them. He was named for his father’s best friend, Milton. (As for being a country club name, in my working-class family I have a cousin Milton. People call him “Milt,” which is no better or worse than “Mitt.”)
Gov. Romney’s full name, as far as I know, is Willard Mitt Romney — and what kid wants to be called Willard? So he has always gone by Mitt. Big deal.
I knew an intelligent and dependable woman everyone called “Scooty.” President James Carter has always gone by “Jimmy.” So what? I’m no fan of Mitt Romney, but let’s talk about more substantial things than his name.
Why not bring the name Barack into the conversation? Thats not an American name now is it? I dont think its even Kenyan. I think Oblamer is from another planet. Anyone who would vote for him sure the heck is.
“Barack Obama” is Swahili for Jimmy Carter.
Wrong. It means “intelligent and unafraid.”
Any name an American has is an American name. I was saying we should not judge people by their names. Whether someone is named Mitt or Barack or Newt is not the issue. Can’t we get beyond this silliness?
Perhaps part of the problem is our completely biased hack media? When they will attack Gingrich for things they praised Bill Clinton for it should be obvious that the media plays a very large role in this “narrowing” of our elections. I didnt pick this name for no reason. The BDN wouldnt report on Oblamer in the manner they do any of the GOP candidates, and they have the nerve to post crap like this blaming the problem on things being “quirky”. Id bet this years salary that BDN never posted anything about Clinton’s “open marriage” (one he didnt even have the nuts to ask Hillary for) or criticized him for being a cad, yet they suddenly become the marriage police when its comes to the GOP. I thought the rule was that the sex lives are off limits and none of our business, but I guess to the leftist hacks at BDN that “rule” expired on Jan 20th, 2001. The funny thing is that these hacks are bending over backwards to dig into the personal lives of GOP members while still giving Oblamer a free pass. The stink of hypocrisy coming from the BDN building overwhelms even the mill smell from up in Veazie.
How soon we forget. It was Newt that went after Clinton and demanded his impeachment for not being true to his wife. Talk about hypocrisy!
Your name calling (Oblama) only tells me how childish you are and that your views will not be considered by me or other thinking people. We have a very sad bunch of candidates to choose from, so why defend them?
Its not my fault the GOP made me write it. No wait, a job killing ATM did it…no..maybe a kiosk then?? Or wait, it was the weather, China, “headwinds”, Haiti….if you cant figure out yet why I call him Oblamer you are even more clueless than he is. And you probably swallowed his excuses hook, line and sinker. I would suggest that since I wrote about the MEDIA bias and not Gingrichs, you need some work on reading comprehension. Good luck with that. Im sure YOU would never use a lame excuse to explain your inability to grasp the concept of media bias right genius?
At least we have no question what your bias is! Ad hominems and conspiracy theories do little to convince anyone.
What conspiracy theory do you see hidden in my post? I used the excuses of Oblamer himself, thats all. Maybe this is a clue knocking on your door. Are you going to answer?? Maybe THIS POST will wake you up to the truth about King Barry Oblamer? When an ATM is the reason for our economic woes (according to Oblamer) I would hope any rational person would be alarmed. Instead you call it a conspiracy theory?? I think this says more about you than me pal. You want to see bias? Look in the job-killing mirror in your job-killing bathroom.
Yawn.
If you stopped sleeping in your cardboard box in the park you might not be so tired. Its just a good thing you dont have a job to show up to or anything.
Double yawn.
Talk about irrational thinking! Obama did not blame ATM’s for our economic woes and anyone with half a brain knows it. He was talking about how, among other reasons, technology has played a role in reducing the number of jobs we have in this country. ATMs replacing bank tellers was an EXAMPLE he used, not a reason.
One would have to be a fool not to understand the change technology has made in our workforce needs. Sadly, the President needs to continue to point that out to some like yourself.
How true-he needs to repeat it daily. Maybe eventually, it’ll sink in to these sponge-minded tea partiers, who half-read and draw their conclusions on half-facts.
The Clinton impeachment was about PERJURY and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. The hack media made it into a sex story because that was the easiest way to sell more newspapers.
And what did he lie about that lead to the perjury and obstruction charges? He lied about his sexual relationship with Lewinsky which somehow became part of an investigation of Whitewater. The sex story came BEFORE the charges, not after.
Clinton was not impeached because of infidelity. He was impeached because he lied under oath.
Correct. President Clinton lied under oath, and that was a grave offense, especially because the president, of all people, should set an example. The president must not regard himself above the law. President Clinton was clearly wrong.
That said, Clinton’s lie was about an extramarital relationship — and Speaker Gingrich made many speeches about the sanctity of marriage, and Clinton’s infidelity, while Gingrich himself was running around on his wife.
Gingrich has repeatedly held himself up as a supporter of “traditional” marriage — one who would protect marriage from people who want to get married. Yet he dumped his first wife, after her cancer diagnosis, for a younger woman. And he dumped his second wife, after her diagnosis with MS, for a younger woman. All the while he has been telling us how much he believes in the sanctity of marriage. Moreover, Gingrich, who has been divorced twice and married three times, belongs to a church that prohibits marriage after divorce.
Newt’s credibility, morality, truthfulness, and dependability are legitimate issues. Gingrich told the debate moderator that it was “despicable” that he was asked about his faithfulness, but wasn’t Newt’s own behavior what was truly despicable?
Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath, and subsequently lost his law license in Arkansas for committing perjury.
OK, going with your version of events, do you feel Clinton was properly not removed from office for cheating on his wife? If so, why would you feel that Gingrich’s infidelities disqualify him from the presidency? Surely you aren’t suggesting that hypocrisy is a rare and fatal flaw in a politician!
Conservative victimhood. They just love blaming someone else for their own shortcomings.
Well said!
Shortcomings? You mean like not passing a budget for over 1000 days when that is specificially one of the jobs they were elected for?? Oh wait, thats the democrats. Maybe you mean shortcomings like trying to blame a do-nothing congress for the fact the Oblamer has spend more time on his golf game than he has sitting down with the GOP to work out some compromises? No I guess you dont mean that shortcoming either. How about this one, maybe the shortcomings revealed themselves while the GOP ruled this State for 30 straight years and drove it right into the ground? Oh wait…democrats again. Sounds to me like you support a whole party of “shortcomings” and your only remedy is to point fingers. I think YOU have a few shortcomings of your own to worry about pal, but maybe its the fault of an ATM or kiosk someplace right?
Not relevant to anything I said. Conservative victimhood is conservatives constantly blaming others for their own problems. Newt had an affair and wanted an open marriage? So what! The liberal media is to blame!
Yes! Newt Gingrich is playing the victim — being asked a legitimate question by the press makes him the victim, when he is actually the perpetrator.
Newt thought it was despicable that he was asked about his behavior, but he won’t admit that his behavior was despicable. When his first wife got cancer he dumped her for a younger woman; when his second wife got MS and wouldn’t grant him an “open marriage,” he dumped her for a still younger woman (after a nine-year affair). Then he sets himself up as a defender of traditional marriage — his tradition in marriage is that powerful men can do whatever they want.
So what about fidelity, loyalty, dependability, morality? Where are his ethics? Voters have a right to know, and so the question from the debate moderator was legitimate. But Newt baffled the crowd with bluster and something else that starts with “b”. Gingrich is a perpetrator who plays the victim — he blames the press because he was asked about his behavior. Poor victim Newt!
All part and parcel of today’s republican hypocritical mindset.
You are trying to change the subject rather than deal with the issue — conservatives like Newt Gingrich say they are the victims because they get asked questions about their misbehavior. Newt pretends that his lack of dependability, his disloyalty, his infidelity is the fault of the press. Poor Newt! He shouldn’t be asked a question about his honesty or his commitment to the people he claims to be closest to. He sets himself up as a defender of “traditional marriage” and then trashes his wives. And he plays the victim because someone dares to ask him about his despicable behavior.
It’s like when Sarah Palin was asked a simple straightforward question about what she reads — and claimed the reason she couldn’t answer was because it was a “gotcha” question. Or rich powerful fundamentalist Christian groups complaining that they don’t always get their own way on everything. That’s what’s called “conservative victimhood.”
Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich are both men who appear to be disrespectful of many of the women they have close relationships with. Both men appear to have publicly lied about those relationships (this category apparently includes a lot of politicians in both parties). The voters may wish to consider a politician’s truthfulness and the way he treats other people when they go into the voting booth.
That said, I hope Gingrich wins the South Carolina primary.
I wouldn’t vote for him, but if his winning the SC primary increases his chances for the nomination, great. Then I could not vote for him for real (and Obama would win by an even larger margin).
Yes, that’s why I hope Newt wins in South Carolina. He is a despicable man, and in a general election I believe the majority of voters will see through his baloney.
At least the voters will actually get to see his “baloney” while King Barry is still the mystery man.
We already know you are biased.
I’m just wondering, if a woman has an affair on her husband, is that because she has no respect for men?
Gingrich has admitted infidelity, which is not illegal, and, according to most of the liberal cadre, should be off limits and irrelevant to a person’s political hopes.
In case many of you have forgotten, Clinton paid out over $800,000 to settle the sexual harassment case of Paula Jones, in which he committed perjury. Clinton has at least three credible charges of rape/attempted rape levied at him, which his allies in the Democratic party and the press have kept squashed.
As you can tell by reading what I said, I do not defend Bill Clinton’s behavior toward women — to the contrary, I condemn it. I think Bill Clinton’s behavior was despicable, and if he was currently running for office we would want to take that behavior into account when we went into the voting booth.
Plenty of people have a double standard. Republicans defend Republicans who misbehave sexually, and Democrats just as often defend Democrats who misbehave sexually. MSNBC goes easy on Democrats, and Fox News goes easy on Republicans. I think Democrats should be held responsible for what they do, and Republicans should also be held responsible for what they do.
After his first wife was diagnosed with cancer, Newt Gingrich dumped her for a younger woman. And after his second wife was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis, Newt dumped her for a still younger woman, a woman he had a nine-year affair with while he was still married. He betrayed his marriage vows when his wives got older and sick. And all the while he was making speeches about the sanctity of marriage.
So, what does this say about his loyalty and dependability? What does it say about his honesty? When he poses as a defender of “traditional marriage,” is he being hypocritical? Does he behave morally, speak truthfully, and act dependably? These are legitimate questions for voters to ask.
Im not accusing you of defending Clinton. Im accusing you of defending the biased media who defended him for the very same things they now attack Gingrich for. Newt isnt by any means my favorite person in the world, but when he is attacked for things the leftist media gave Clinton a complete pass on Im going to say something about it.
Defended him? Seriously, now…he got raked over the coals by the Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones scandals long before anyone knew of Monica Lewinsky.
But Newt? Heck, Vanity Fair published an article about him in 1995, detailing an affair he had with a certain Anne Manning with her blessing and quotes. The mainstream press ignored that story. He got caught again in 1999 while spearheading the impeachment of Clinton but how many people remembered that until this campaign?
You have a very selective memory when it comes to Clinton. It was the American people and their favorable ratings of him that gave him the pass, not the press. The press will bring down anyone for a good story. Just ask Anthony Weiner.
The press went after Bill Clinton — you have a short memory and a big bias.
Americans Elect: Obama’s Third-Party Tar Pit
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/americans_elect_obamas_third-party_tar_pit.html
Americans Elect is a Democrat operation.
Quirky proposal, but it could work, at least better than the current system. So far, the only candidate with any possibility of going 3rd party is Ron Paul, but he’ll probably lay low, accumulate engough support, and steam into the Convention demanding platforms based on his 19th Century politics.
Yes, Americans Elect is a new nominating process, not a party, the beginning of more democratic approach to choosing a Presidential ticket. In fact, it could represent the first evolutionary step in the direction of direct democracy where the views of the American electorate are translated into a choice of candidate, policy, or piece of legislation. Imagine, countless citizens collaborating online to reach consensus rather than being bypassed by corporate lobbyists and special interest groups. The broader and deeper the participation the more the result will reflect the will of the majority of the American people. Goodbye gridlock, backroom dealmaking, and partisan bickering. E pluribus unum at our fingertips, at last!
It’s an Obama operation designed to drain off some disaffected members of the Republican base and uninformed, unaffiliated independents.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/americans_elect_obamas_third-party_tar_pit.html
“After qualifying for the ballot in all 50 states, Americans Elect will seek a candidate who will be tasked with grabbing a large portion of the independent, unaffiliated American middle and soft center-right, thereby tossing an otherwise lost cause to Obama.
It is that simple.
For at least the last century, third-party candidates in American presidential politics have always hurt the right more than the left, because a larger percentage of the left’s voters are joined at the hip with titanium screws to the Democratic Party.”
So this article states that Newt’s past will haunt him in South Carolina because, “their a state where evangelical Christians make up a large bloc of GOP primary voters.” Yet all other articles state he’s gaining serious momentum and on the verge of winning South Carolina. Hmmm
Either way he loses though. Newt is a bad guy for his behavior and his character regardless of whether he wins or loses in SC. SC Republicans are hypocrites if they vote for this guy.
You guys keep on fighting about who is the most wrong. About whick candidates or past presidents were the most crooked. Congress and the rest of the leadership in Washington DC are like WWE wrestlers in some ways. They have the good and bad guys in their theatre. They fight and get the audience (voters) to argue with each other, then afterwards they go have a few beers and talk about the people that they have just fleeced.
We are doomed as a country are doomed, much like the frog in the pot of water. We don’t realize what is happening and eventually ,Bo0m! we’re cooked.
Super PACs have completely changed the political landscape in this country…and not for the better. I fear that they represent the final spike into the coffin of the dysfunctional and corrupt American political process.