Romney wins New Hampshire; Paul is 2nd

M. Romney 39.4%

R. Paul 22.8%

J. Huntsman 16.9%

N. Gingrich 9.4%

R. Santorum 9.3%

R. Perry 0.7%

B. Roemer 0.4%

M. Bachmann 0.1%

G. Johnson 0.1%

H. Cain 0.1%

via Politics, Political News – POLITICO.com.

You be the analyst.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • SKPeterson

    Huntsman may limp into South Carolina, but he’s largely spent. I can see Romney picking up some of his support, and Paul also getting a large share. However, outside of New Hampshire, how much Huntsman support is there to be concerned with?

    Perry says he’s going to South Carolina, no matter what. That will be his last hurrah. For Santorum it’s hard to say; he got the NH evangelical vote, but it doesn’t amount to much. In SC it might, but he may also be a dime short and a dollar late to capitalize on it. Gingrich is listing badly; for all his attempts to be the anti-Romney, he doesn’t appear to be making any headway. South Carolina will break him barring a clear and convincing win.

    Romney got quite close to the magic 40%, but Paul also got well over 20% indicating that Romney may get the nomination, but that the Rep. Establishment is now going to do one of two things (or likely both at the same time): 1) ratchet up the demonization of Ron Paul and the “libertarian” wing of the party, and 2) pull a Fox and studiously ignore him.

    Just as an interesting historical side note: In 1992 the presumptive winner of the Democrat nomination was going to be one Paul Tsongas, a politician from the state of Massachusetts who had a lot of name recognition in NH. He got about 40% of the vote. Who got second with about 25% and was declared “the real winner”? Some southern guy named Bill Clinton.

  • SKPeterson

    Huntsman may limp into South Carolina, but he’s largely spent. I can see Romney picking up some of his support, and Paul also getting a large share. However, outside of New Hampshire, how much Huntsman support is there to be concerned with?

    Perry says he’s going to South Carolina, no matter what. That will be his last hurrah. For Santorum it’s hard to say; he got the NH evangelical vote, but it doesn’t amount to much. In SC it might, but he may also be a dime short and a dollar late to capitalize on it. Gingrich is listing badly; for all his attempts to be the anti-Romney, he doesn’t appear to be making any headway. South Carolina will break him barring a clear and convincing win.

    Romney got quite close to the magic 40%, but Paul also got well over 20% indicating that Romney may get the nomination, but that the Rep. Establishment is now going to do one of two things (or likely both at the same time): 1) ratchet up the demonization of Ron Paul and the “libertarian” wing of the party, and 2) pull a Fox and studiously ignore him.

    Just as an interesting historical side note: In 1992 the presumptive winner of the Democrat nomination was going to be one Paul Tsongas, a politician from the state of Massachusetts who had a lot of name recognition in NH. He got about 40% of the vote. Who got second with about 25% and was declared “the real winner”? Some southern guy named Bill Clinton.

  • Kirk

    There are people in NH dumb enough to vote for Herman Cain despite the fact that he is Herman Cain. Also, he’s not running anymore.

  • Kirk

    There are people in NH dumb enough to vote for Herman Cain despite the fact that he is Herman Cain. Also, he’s not running anymore.

  • Tom Hering

    I was relieved to see that Paul’s percentage was a lot closer to Huntsman’s third place than it was to Romney’s first place.

  • Tom Hering

    I was relieved to see that Paul’s percentage was a lot closer to Huntsman’s third place than it was to Romney’s first place.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    It seems that if I ever have to move to the US, I’ll do a lot better in the NE, than in the Midwest, judging by the results so far. I’ll see as the campaign progress, if that changes at all. BTW, I’m referring to more than just the winner here, definitely….

    Make of that what you will. :)

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    It seems that if I ever have to move to the US, I’ll do a lot better in the NE, than in the Midwest, judging by the results so far. I’ll see as the campaign progress, if that changes at all. BTW, I’m referring to more than just the winner here, definitely….

    Make of that what you will. :)

  • Tom Hering

    Klasie, you’d prefer the state with the lowest rate of church attendance in the nation? And the second lowest “religiosity”? (Not sure how researchers defined and measured that.) You old-earthers are all alike. :-D

  • Tom Hering

    Klasie, you’d prefer the state with the lowest rate of church attendance in the nation? And the second lowest “religiosity”? (Not sure how researchers defined and measured that.) You old-earthers are all alike. :-D

  • SKPeterson

    KK – Saskatoon is very much like a prairie version of Bozeman or Missoula, Montana. You’d probably be just fine there. Or Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. Awesome little town; rabidly Republican but in a friendly live-and-let-live sort of way, though the People’s Republic of Moscow is about an hour and a half south if you’re so inclined.

  • SKPeterson

    KK – Saskatoon is very much like a prairie version of Bozeman or Missoula, Montana. You’d probably be just fine there. Or Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. Awesome little town; rabidly Republican but in a friendly live-and-let-live sort of way, though the People’s Republic of Moscow is about an hour and a half south if you’re so inclined.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    SKP, TH – I’ll see when those results come poring in…. I’m just taking the primary results here as a sort of barometer, and comparing them to the results of all those online quizzes that predicts your candidate (the top 3 in NH are almost always the top 3 in my quiz predictions – although those are very often difficult to fill in, because I tend to not like any of the options :( ). Very inaccurate, I know, but fun. But others, who know me, have told me I will do well in the Pacific NW too.

    SKP – Moscow, ID is also the hometown of Douglas Wilson. No thanks.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    SKP, TH – I’ll see when those results come poring in…. I’m just taking the primary results here as a sort of barometer, and comparing them to the results of all those online quizzes that predicts your candidate (the top 3 in NH are almost always the top 3 in my quiz predictions – although those are very often difficult to fill in, because I tend to not like any of the options :( ). Very inaccurate, I know, but fun. But others, who know me, have told me I will do well in the Pacific NW too.

    SKP – Moscow, ID is also the hometown of Douglas Wilson. No thanks.

  • norman teigen

    Jimmy Kimmel said that it was time for the Republicans to Mitt or get off of the pot.

  • norman teigen

    Jimmy Kimmel said that it was time for the Republicans to Mitt or get off of the pot.

  • CRB

    I can’t get it out of my head that Ron Paul could possibly be the only one to defeat Pres. Obama–simply because he, in some ways, is closer to the POTUS position on some issues that evoke a decidedly liberal position, but on the other hand appeals to many folks who are fed up with “business as usual” in Washington, D.C.

  • CRB

    I can’t get it out of my head that Ron Paul could possibly be the only one to defeat Pres. Obama–simply because he, in some ways, is closer to the POTUS position on some issues that evoke a decidedly liberal position, but on the other hand appeals to many folks who are fed up with “business as usual” in Washington, D.C.

  • Tom Hering

    CRB, seriously? Obama’s debating skills versus Paul droning on and on in his lecture style? Seriously?

  • Tom Hering

    CRB, seriously? Obama’s debating skills versus Paul droning on and on in his lecture style? Seriously?

  • Jon

    Why aren’t we referring to Mitt by his real first name?

  • Jon

    Why aren’t we referring to Mitt by his real first name?

  • CRB

    Tom,
    I am serious. If it was only about a debate with Obama, then the best one for that would be Newt. But I’m not talking about debates, for they are not what it’s about, rather it’s about WHO would the most people vote for to defeat Obama in the election?

  • CRB

    Tom,
    I am serious. If it was only about a debate with Obama, then the best one for that would be Newt. But I’m not talking about debates, for they are not what it’s about, rather it’s about WHO would the most people vote for to defeat Obama in the election?

  • Kirk

    @ John

    Because he calls himself Mitt.

  • Kirk

    @ John

    Because he calls himself Mitt.

  • Jon

    @13. Right. And Obama said he was born in the US.

  • Jon

    @13. Right. And Obama said he was born in the US.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Jon@14 – ah, your responses in the old earth debate makes a lot more sense now.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Jon@14 – ah, your responses in the old earth debate makes a lot more sense now.

  • Kirk

    @Jon

    And John Stamos said that he’s a big fan of John Wells .

    My non sequitur > your non sequitur.

  • Kirk

    @Jon

    And John Stamos said that he’s a big fan of John Wells .

    My non sequitur > your non sequitur.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    And his given names are Willard Mitt Romney. He chose, or maybe his parents did, who cares, to use his second name.

    Why the devil is that an issue? Grow up, will you?

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    And his given names are Willard Mitt Romney. He chose, or maybe his parents did, who cares, to use his second name.

    Why the devil is that an issue? Grow up, will you?

  • Kirk

    @17

    Mitt’s real name is Brigham Moroni Joseph-Smith Romney. He’s clearing leading our country to it’s doom at the hands of the Mormon Pope or whatever it is they have and he’s trying to hide it from us!! Where’s the birth certificate?

  • Kirk

    @17

    Mitt’s real name is Brigham Moroni Joseph-Smith Romney. He’s clearing leading our country to it’s doom at the hands of the Mormon Pope or whatever it is they have and he’s trying to hide it from us!! Where’s the birth certificate?

  • Kirk

    *clearly

  • Kirk

    *clearly

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Kirk – :)

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Kirk – :)

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Kirk – you left out the “whahaha!” at the end of your second sentence @ # 18.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Kirk – you left out the “whahaha!” at the end of your second sentence @ # 18.

  • Jon

    My point about Obama @14 was that he was born in the US, but Republicans (many) refuse to concede that fact and keep up the birther nonsense. But “Mitt” refuses to go by his real (birth certificate authenticated) first name and Republicans (all) concede him that choice. My point was, if we allow the candidate to describe himself, let’s be consistent.

  • Jon

    My point about Obama @14 was that he was born in the US, but Republicans (many) refuse to concede that fact and keep up the birther nonsense. But “Mitt” refuses to go by his real (birth certificate authenticated) first name and Republicans (all) concede him that choice. My point was, if we allow the candidate to describe himself, let’s be consistent.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Jon, your point is so lame, it needs a stretcher…..

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Jon, your point is so lame, it needs a stretcher…..

  • DonS

    Huntsman poured everything he had into New Hampshire — it is clearly his highwater mark, especially since many of his votes were crossover Democrats, according to exit polls. Romney met or exceeded expectations, and will do well in South Carolina. Rick Perry — 0.7%? Really? That’s embarrassing. He’s committed to stay in through South Carolina, but he’ll exit after that. Romney should have this sewn up in just a few more weeks.

  • DonS

    Huntsman poured everything he had into New Hampshire — it is clearly his highwater mark, especially since many of his votes were crossover Democrats, according to exit polls. Romney met or exceeded expectations, and will do well in South Carolina. Rick Perry — 0.7%? Really? That’s embarrassing. He’s committed to stay in through South Carolina, but he’ll exit after that. Romney should have this sewn up in just a few more weeks.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Sheerly for interest’s sake, something interesting better happen quick, preferably in South Carolina. Because Romney vs. Obama is going to be a complete and thorough snoozefest, with the only significance in voting being which party you happen to like better.

    I’m glad to see Paul’s strong showing, though of course this is one of the states he should do the best in. I’m willing to bet Huntsman’s third place goes absolutely nowhere in the coming primaries.

    But what else can one say except that the famed “big tent” of the GOP is deeply fractured between (1) actual fiscal conservatives/liberatarians, (2) social conservatives/Evangelicals, and (3) the Republican establishment (i.e. the “let’s just beat Obama, even if it’s with a Republican Obama” crowd). Romney’s likely to cobble together enough of the other groups to win the nomination, but it will be a tepid nomination.

    The real question is what Paul does with his appreciable support. Does he bolt and mount an independent candidacy? Does he merely attempt to influence the convention?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Sheerly for interest’s sake, something interesting better happen quick, preferably in South Carolina. Because Romney vs. Obama is going to be a complete and thorough snoozefest, with the only significance in voting being which party you happen to like better.

    I’m glad to see Paul’s strong showing, though of course this is one of the states he should do the best in. I’m willing to bet Huntsman’s third place goes absolutely nowhere in the coming primaries.

    But what else can one say except that the famed “big tent” of the GOP is deeply fractured between (1) actual fiscal conservatives/liberatarians, (2) social conservatives/Evangelicals, and (3) the Republican establishment (i.e. the “let’s just beat Obama, even if it’s with a Republican Obama” crowd). Romney’s likely to cobble together enough of the other groups to win the nomination, but it will be a tepid nomination.

    The real question is what Paul does with his appreciable support. Does he bolt and mount an independent candidacy? Does he merely attempt to influence the convention?

  • SKPeterson

    Well, NPR is trumpeting Huntsman, so he’s clearly toast.

  • SKPeterson

    Well, NPR is trumpeting Huntsman, so he’s clearly toast.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Actually Todd, you make an important point in your second paragraph: Bar something in the Dakota’s maybe, or some place like that, can Paul really count on any more support than in NH? Doesn’t this really mean that he is a good 2nd/3d place guy, but never more?

    Also, The Atlantic had an interesting analysis on Gingrich and NH: Apparently, his latest anti-Bain tactics are beginning to backfire, with the old establishment GOP turning against him, since he sounds almost socialist (even Limbaugh turned pro-Romney because of that, even if briefly). For Gingrich it is about personal revenge, not the party or the White House, it seems….

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Actually Todd, you make an important point in your second paragraph: Bar something in the Dakota’s maybe, or some place like that, can Paul really count on any more support than in NH? Doesn’t this really mean that he is a good 2nd/3d place guy, but never more?

    Also, The Atlantic had an interesting analysis on Gingrich and NH: Apparently, his latest anti-Bain tactics are beginning to backfire, with the old establishment GOP turning against him, since he sounds almost socialist (even Limbaugh turned pro-Romney because of that, even if briefly). For Gingrich it is about personal revenge, not the party or the White House, it seems….

  • Jon

    Klasie at 23. Fair enough. :)
    But it’s Willard, darn it.

  • Jon

    Klasie at 23. Fair enough. :)
    But it’s Willard, darn it.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Klasie (@27), I don’t think anyone expected Paul to do better than 2nd place. Frankly, I’m a bit surprised he’s done as well as he has, so far. The question is if he can keep it up.

    The difference between his results in NH and IA wasn’t statistically significant, so it’s not like NH was some sort of outlier. But then, Iowa’s weird, too. And I wouldn’t expect Paul to come in 1st or 2nd in SC (where Santorum’s Evangelical pull would seem to make him the not-Romney candidate of choice). But if Paul did manage to become the go-to non-Mitt for several elections in a row …

    But then, I’m likely fooling myself, because I think that’s the only interesting outcome.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Klasie (@27), I don’t think anyone expected Paul to do better than 2nd place. Frankly, I’m a bit surprised he’s done as well as he has, so far. The question is if he can keep it up.

    The difference between his results in NH and IA wasn’t statistically significant, so it’s not like NH was some sort of outlier. But then, Iowa’s weird, too. And I wouldn’t expect Paul to come in 1st or 2nd in SC (where Santorum’s Evangelical pull would seem to make him the not-Romney candidate of choice). But if Paul did manage to become the go-to non-Mitt for several elections in a row …

    But then, I’m likely fooling myself, because I think that’s the only interesting outcome.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Also, if Romney wins the nomination, then the Republican Party will have officially disassociated itself from the formerly vaunted Tea Party surge it once tried to claim as its own, and Tea Partiers will be forced to either continue supporting Paul (or a similar candidate) in some capacity, or will merely sit out the election.

    Either way, the marriage of the Tea Party and the GOP was Kardashianesque. But they’ll always have 2010!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Also, if Romney wins the nomination, then the Republican Party will have officially disassociated itself from the formerly vaunted Tea Party surge it once tried to claim as its own, and Tea Partiers will be forced to either continue supporting Paul (or a similar candidate) in some capacity, or will merely sit out the election.

    Either way, the marriage of the Tea Party and the GOP was Kardashianesque. But they’ll always have 2010!

  • Jon

    “Kardashianesque.”

    A word for the ages.

  • Jon

    “Kardashianesque.”

    A word for the ages.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 30, why is that so? And why does this kind of thinking only seem to apply to the Republican party? Both parties include members having various particular interests and philosophies, who are members of their chosen party because its overall platform aligns more closely with their beliefs than the platform of the other party. The primary process sorts out the eventual nominee for that particular election cycle, not for all time. The candidates who made themselves available for this cycle weren’t as closely aligned with important tea party values, as those sympathetic to that movement would like, but that’s life. You support the candidate you got, by the process, and work hard to ensure that you have better options next cycle. That’s how politics works. Environmentalists don’t quit the Democratic party because their preferred candidate didn’t win. Nor do unionists. Nor do minority rights advocates, or peace activists, or education advocates. They work harder to try to get a more palatable candidate the next time, in the Democratic party. The same thing is true for Republicans.

    There are plenty of attractive candidates on the horizon — Paul Ryan, Bobby Jindal, Mario Rubio — they are all young, and they all chose to wait before running. You work hard at the lower levels to ensure that the bench is full of good candidates, and work hard to move the party in the direction you desire.

    The idea that most of those sympathetic to tea party values support Ron Paul is not true, mostly because his foreign policy goals don’t align that closely with those of more mainstream conservatives. 95% of tea party sympathizers will support Romney, knowing that the U.S. will be seriously damaged by four more years of the radicalism that Obama represents. The remainder, like Patrick, apparently, will vote third party or sit it out, as is true in every election on both sides of the aisle.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 30, why is that so? And why does this kind of thinking only seem to apply to the Republican party? Both parties include members having various particular interests and philosophies, who are members of their chosen party because its overall platform aligns more closely with their beliefs than the platform of the other party. The primary process sorts out the eventual nominee for that particular election cycle, not for all time. The candidates who made themselves available for this cycle weren’t as closely aligned with important tea party values, as those sympathetic to that movement would like, but that’s life. You support the candidate you got, by the process, and work hard to ensure that you have better options next cycle. That’s how politics works. Environmentalists don’t quit the Democratic party because their preferred candidate didn’t win. Nor do unionists. Nor do minority rights advocates, or peace activists, or education advocates. They work harder to try to get a more palatable candidate the next time, in the Democratic party. The same thing is true for Republicans.

    There are plenty of attractive candidates on the horizon — Paul Ryan, Bobby Jindal, Mario Rubio — they are all young, and they all chose to wait before running. You work hard at the lower levels to ensure that the bench is full of good candidates, and work hard to move the party in the direction you desire.

    The idea that most of those sympathetic to tea party values support Ron Paul is not true, mostly because his foreign policy goals don’t align that closely with those of more mainstream conservatives. 95% of tea party sympathizers will support Romney, knowing that the U.S. will be seriously damaged by four more years of the radicalism that Obama represents. The remainder, like Patrick, apparently, will vote third party or sit it out, as is true in every election on both sides of the aisle.

  • Jon

    WRT the name thing, what do you think Romney will have in his inauguration oath of office, Willard or Mitt?

  • Jon

    WRT the name thing, what do you think Romney will have in his inauguration oath of office, Willard or Mitt?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@32), my point was more that, in selecting Romney, the GOP has shown that it never really cared much about the Tea Party. It just tried to co-opt its fervor. Which it sort of did in 2010. But that was then, this is now; the GOP has moved on and wants to see other people.

    And why does this kind of thinking only seem to apply to the Republican party?

    I dunno, because you enjoy feeling persecuted? And maybe because there’s no viable splinter candidate running against Obama except “write-in”?

    The idea that most of those sympathetic to tea party values support Ron Paul is not true, mostly because his foreign policy goals don’t align that closely with those of more mainstream conservatives.

    That’s some pretty fancy footwork, there, Don! But if “Tea party values” aligned “closely with those of more mainstream conservatives”, then what reason was there for the Tea Party to exist in the first place? They were protesting mainstream ‘conservatives’!

    95% of tea party sympathizers will support Romney…

    If so, then the Tea Party was a fraud as a movement, and it sold out quickly.

    …the U.S. will be seriously damaged by four more years of the radicalism that Obama represents

    As it will by four years of Romney. He’s not as different as you’ve apparently convinced yourself he is. Just like Obama wasn’t all that different from Bush, it turns out.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@32), my point was more that, in selecting Romney, the GOP has shown that it never really cared much about the Tea Party. It just tried to co-opt its fervor. Which it sort of did in 2010. But that was then, this is now; the GOP has moved on and wants to see other people.

    And why does this kind of thinking only seem to apply to the Republican party?

    I dunno, because you enjoy feeling persecuted? And maybe because there’s no viable splinter candidate running against Obama except “write-in”?

    The idea that most of those sympathetic to tea party values support Ron Paul is not true, mostly because his foreign policy goals don’t align that closely with those of more mainstream conservatives.

    That’s some pretty fancy footwork, there, Don! But if “Tea party values” aligned “closely with those of more mainstream conservatives”, then what reason was there for the Tea Party to exist in the first place? They were protesting mainstream ‘conservatives’!

    95% of tea party sympathizers will support Romney…

    If so, then the Tea Party was a fraud as a movement, and it sold out quickly.

    …the U.S. will be seriously damaged by four more years of the radicalism that Obama represents

    As it will by four years of Romney. He’s not as different as you’ve apparently convinced yourself he is. Just like Obama wasn’t all that different from Bush, it turns out.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 34:

    my point was more that, in selecting Romney, the GOP has shown that it never really cared much about the Tea Party. It just tried to co-opt its fervor. Which it sort of did in 2010. But that was then, this is now; the GOP has moved on and wants to see other people.

    — and my point is that I disagree. You can only select from among the candidates who run. I think the next open cycle (no sitting Republican president) will offer much better candidates — the bench is getting stronger, and that is where tea party proponents are working the hardest.

    That’s some pretty fancy footwork, there, Don! But if “Tea party values” aligned “closely with those of more mainstream conservatives”, then what reason was there for the Tea Party to exist in the first place?

    — tea partiers want more fiscal responsibility and a smaller federal government. But they also want the federal government to fulfill its constitutional responsibility to defend the nation’s interests internationally. Paul is great on the domestic issues, but his rhetoric, at least, is far too radical on the international issues for most tea partiers. Rand Paul, on the other hand, may be a different story if he gets serious about running in the future. Supporting the selected Republican candidate this cycle against Obama is not “selling out” tea party values — it is a pragmatic move to preserve as much of the concept of limited federal government as possible until we get another shot in the future. The idea that voting for the best available candidate in the general election is somehow a “fraud” is ridiculous. The political system works by having us vote for our preferred candidate in the primary, and then support the eventual party nominee in the general election. If you want to work within one of the existing political parties to change it, that’s how you do it. Otherwise, you just move off into the corner and pout, losing all influence for change in the process.

    As it will by four years of Romney. He’s not as different as you’ve apparently convinced yourself he is. Just like Obama wasn’t all that different from Bush, it turns out.

    Uh huh. Well, you’ve convinced yourself that Obama is not that different from Bush or Romney. I disagree. Obama has a radically different view of America, and what its ideals should be, than I do. He has consistently put very radical people into positions of power — people like Eric Holder, and the assistant solicitor general who argued, in the Hosanna-Tabor case, that the Constitution doesn’t provide any more protections to religious institutions than to secular ones. And yet, while his administration cannot seem to read the actual plain writing in the First Amendment protecting religious liberties, he goes so far as to refuse to execute his duties in defending existing law, because he has read imaginary rights into that very same constitution. He’s filling the courts with these kinds of radical judges. He also slammed a radical health care law through Congress, despite the clear and continued opposition of 2/3 of the American people.

    There is a palpable and important difference between Obama and both Bush and Romney. No question about it.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 34:

    my point was more that, in selecting Romney, the GOP has shown that it never really cared much about the Tea Party. It just tried to co-opt its fervor. Which it sort of did in 2010. But that was then, this is now; the GOP has moved on and wants to see other people.

    — and my point is that I disagree. You can only select from among the candidates who run. I think the next open cycle (no sitting Republican president) will offer much better candidates — the bench is getting stronger, and that is where tea party proponents are working the hardest.

    That’s some pretty fancy footwork, there, Don! But if “Tea party values” aligned “closely with those of more mainstream conservatives”, then what reason was there for the Tea Party to exist in the first place?

    — tea partiers want more fiscal responsibility and a smaller federal government. But they also want the federal government to fulfill its constitutional responsibility to defend the nation’s interests internationally. Paul is great on the domestic issues, but his rhetoric, at least, is far too radical on the international issues for most tea partiers. Rand Paul, on the other hand, may be a different story if he gets serious about running in the future. Supporting the selected Republican candidate this cycle against Obama is not “selling out” tea party values — it is a pragmatic move to preserve as much of the concept of limited federal government as possible until we get another shot in the future. The idea that voting for the best available candidate in the general election is somehow a “fraud” is ridiculous. The political system works by having us vote for our preferred candidate in the primary, and then support the eventual party nominee in the general election. If you want to work within one of the existing political parties to change it, that’s how you do it. Otherwise, you just move off into the corner and pout, losing all influence for change in the process.

    As it will by four years of Romney. He’s not as different as you’ve apparently convinced yourself he is. Just like Obama wasn’t all that different from Bush, it turns out.

    Uh huh. Well, you’ve convinced yourself that Obama is not that different from Bush or Romney. I disagree. Obama has a radically different view of America, and what its ideals should be, than I do. He has consistently put very radical people into positions of power — people like Eric Holder, and the assistant solicitor general who argued, in the Hosanna-Tabor case, that the Constitution doesn’t provide any more protections to religious institutions than to secular ones. And yet, while his administration cannot seem to read the actual plain writing in the First Amendment protecting religious liberties, he goes so far as to refuse to execute his duties in defending existing law, because he has read imaginary rights into that very same constitution. He’s filling the courts with these kinds of radical judges. He also slammed a radical health care law through Congress, despite the clear and continued opposition of 2/3 of the American people.

    There is a palpable and important difference between Obama and both Bush and Romney. No question about it.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@35):

    Tea partiers want more fiscal responsibility and a smaller federal government. But they also want the federal government to fulfill its constitutional responsibility to defend the nation’s interests internationally.

    Oh good grief. Et tu, DonS! Yet another “conservative” who’s arguing that Paul won’t defend our country? Of course, what you mean by “defend” is “needlessly entangle us in any number of protracted, pre-emptive wars of choice”, right? Because you’re worried Paul might not invade Iran on time?

    Paul is great on the domestic issues, but his rhetoric, at least, is far too radical on the international issues for most tea partiers.

    Which implies that the Tea Party had an overt, cohesive position on international issues, in spite of their obvious focus on spending and taxes. Question: Are you merely projecting your own ideas onto those of the Tea Partiers? Sort of like how the GOP did back in 2010?

    Supporting the selected Republican candidate this cycle against Obama is not “selling out” tea party values — it is a pragmatic move…

    Oh, that’s too rich, Don! You’re actually defending against the charge of “selling out” with cries of “pragmatism”? “I haven’t given up my ideals, but really, you’re all much too idealistic!”

    …to preserve as much of the concept of limited federal government as possible until we get another shot in the future.

    Right. Why, let’s just think back to all the limited federal government we got under the last Republican! Creation of a new federal bureaucracy! Expansion of the entitlement system! The Patriot Act! Massive deficit spending! Why not elect another Republican so you can continue to enjoy such fine features?

    The political system works by having us vote for our preferred candidate in the primary, and then support the eventual party nominee in the general election.

    Maybe you missed the memo, but you’re actually allowed to vote for your preferred candidate in the general election, too. Unfortunately, what you describe here is merely how the two-party political system “works”. And it “works” by asking you not to consider any other candidate than one of the two it offers you. No write-ins. No third parties.

    And while I was quite primed to cast a vote for the Republican candidate a few months ago, the GOP in its apparent wisdom will almost certainly be asking me to vote for some other candidate come November.

    Otherwise, you just move off into the corner and pout, losing all influence for change in the process.

    Criminy, you sound like a 2008 Obama poster. Yes, vote for Romney for “influence for change”! Sure. Why not? Because, you know, he’s a Republican?

    …people like Eric Holder, and the assistant solicitor general who argued, in the Hosanna-Tabor case, that the Constitution doesn’t provide any more protections to religious institutions than to secular ones.

    Indeed. Why not return to the party who gave us Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who said:

    The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas … there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution.

    “Very radical people into positions of power”, indeed! Oh, but that was Bush, who was a Republican (like Romney is), so never mind.

    …he goes so far as to refuse to execute his duties in defending existing law…

    Just like Bush did … and like Romney would do?

    He also slammed a radical health care law through Congress.

    Oh, well, then, by all means, let’s vote for someone who would never do anything like that … like former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney!

    There is a palpable and important difference between Obama and both Bush and Romney. No question about it.

    Indeed. Romney is a Republican candidate in 2012 — something that neither Bush nor Obama can claim!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@35):

    Tea partiers want more fiscal responsibility and a smaller federal government. But they also want the federal government to fulfill its constitutional responsibility to defend the nation’s interests internationally.

    Oh good grief. Et tu, DonS! Yet another “conservative” who’s arguing that Paul won’t defend our country? Of course, what you mean by “defend” is “needlessly entangle us in any number of protracted, pre-emptive wars of choice”, right? Because you’re worried Paul might not invade Iran on time?

    Paul is great on the domestic issues, but his rhetoric, at least, is far too radical on the international issues for most tea partiers.

    Which implies that the Tea Party had an overt, cohesive position on international issues, in spite of their obvious focus on spending and taxes. Question: Are you merely projecting your own ideas onto those of the Tea Partiers? Sort of like how the GOP did back in 2010?

    Supporting the selected Republican candidate this cycle against Obama is not “selling out” tea party values — it is a pragmatic move…

    Oh, that’s too rich, Don! You’re actually defending against the charge of “selling out” with cries of “pragmatism”? “I haven’t given up my ideals, but really, you’re all much too idealistic!”

    …to preserve as much of the concept of limited federal government as possible until we get another shot in the future.

    Right. Why, let’s just think back to all the limited federal government we got under the last Republican! Creation of a new federal bureaucracy! Expansion of the entitlement system! The Patriot Act! Massive deficit spending! Why not elect another Republican so you can continue to enjoy such fine features?

    The political system works by having us vote for our preferred candidate in the primary, and then support the eventual party nominee in the general election.

    Maybe you missed the memo, but you’re actually allowed to vote for your preferred candidate in the general election, too. Unfortunately, what you describe here is merely how the two-party political system “works”. And it “works” by asking you not to consider any other candidate than one of the two it offers you. No write-ins. No third parties.

    And while I was quite primed to cast a vote for the Republican candidate a few months ago, the GOP in its apparent wisdom will almost certainly be asking me to vote for some other candidate come November.

    Otherwise, you just move off into the corner and pout, losing all influence for change in the process.

    Criminy, you sound like a 2008 Obama poster. Yes, vote for Romney for “influence for change”! Sure. Why not? Because, you know, he’s a Republican?

    …people like Eric Holder, and the assistant solicitor general who argued, in the Hosanna-Tabor case, that the Constitution doesn’t provide any more protections to religious institutions than to secular ones.

    Indeed. Why not return to the party who gave us Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who said:

    The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas … there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution.

    “Very radical people into positions of power”, indeed! Oh, but that was Bush, who was a Republican (like Romney is), so never mind.

    …he goes so far as to refuse to execute his duties in defending existing law…

    Just like Bush did … and like Romney would do?

    He also slammed a radical health care law through Congress.

    Oh, well, then, by all means, let’s vote for someone who would never do anything like that … like former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney!

    There is a palpable and important difference between Obama and both Bush and Romney. No question about it.

    Indeed. Romney is a Republican candidate in 2012 — something that neither Bush nor Obama can claim!

  • DonS

    tODD @ 36:

    Oh good grief. Et tu, DonS! Yet another “conservative” who’s arguing that Paul won’t defend our country? Of course, what you mean by “defend” is “needlessly entangle us in any number of protracted, pre-emptive wars of choice”, right? Because you’re worried Paul might not invade Iran on time?

    tODD, I don’t consider myself to be a tea partier, though I have sympathies with the movement. I’m just trying to explain what I understand to be the general sentiments of people who believe we need to return to our constitutional roots. I have stated my views on foreign policy on this blog many times. We have a contitutional right and obligation to defend genuine U.S. interests overseas. Intervening in situations where no reasonable U.S. interests are served is an unnecessary entanglement of our military in places it does not belong. We should disengage from Europe, except to the extent that it serves our direct defensive interests to be there, and the same in the far and middle east. Most tea partiers I know disagree with Ron Paul when he says that we were the instigation for the World Trade Center attacks — that such a dastardly unprovoked act was somehow our fault. And they disagree with him that we had no right to invade Afghanistan. Iraq is a closer call, where reasonable people can disagree.

    Which implies that the Tea Party had an overt, cohesive position on international issues, in spite of their obvious focus on spending and taxes. Question: Are you merely projecting your own ideas onto those of the Tea Partiers?

    Apples and oranges, tODD. The tea party movement concentrates on domestic issues, I agree, but those sympathetic to the movement vote for candidates based on their overall philosophies, not on a single issue. We’re all projecting to a certain extent — who is a tea partier, tODD? There’s no membership roll, that I know of.

    The rest of your rant just reflects your obvious disagreement with the two-party system. Which is, of course, your right. I choose to vote pragmatically, as some 95% of other voters do, during the general election. 5% or so of voters cast protest votes for third party candidates, and let the other 95% choose their president for them. It’s a choice we all make.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 36:

    Oh good grief. Et tu, DonS! Yet another “conservative” who’s arguing that Paul won’t defend our country? Of course, what you mean by “defend” is “needlessly entangle us in any number of protracted, pre-emptive wars of choice”, right? Because you’re worried Paul might not invade Iran on time?

    tODD, I don’t consider myself to be a tea partier, though I have sympathies with the movement. I’m just trying to explain what I understand to be the general sentiments of people who believe we need to return to our constitutional roots. I have stated my views on foreign policy on this blog many times. We have a contitutional right and obligation to defend genuine U.S. interests overseas. Intervening in situations where no reasonable U.S. interests are served is an unnecessary entanglement of our military in places it does not belong. We should disengage from Europe, except to the extent that it serves our direct defensive interests to be there, and the same in the far and middle east. Most tea partiers I know disagree with Ron Paul when he says that we were the instigation for the World Trade Center attacks — that such a dastardly unprovoked act was somehow our fault. And they disagree with him that we had no right to invade Afghanistan. Iraq is a closer call, where reasonable people can disagree.

    Which implies that the Tea Party had an overt, cohesive position on international issues, in spite of their obvious focus on spending and taxes. Question: Are you merely projecting your own ideas onto those of the Tea Partiers?

    Apples and oranges, tODD. The tea party movement concentrates on domestic issues, I agree, but those sympathetic to the movement vote for candidates based on their overall philosophies, not on a single issue. We’re all projecting to a certain extent — who is a tea partier, tODD? There’s no membership roll, that I know of.

    The rest of your rant just reflects your obvious disagreement with the two-party system. Which is, of course, your right. I choose to vote pragmatically, as some 95% of other voters do, during the general election. 5% or so of voters cast protest votes for third party candidates, and let the other 95% choose their president for them. It’s a choice we all make.

  • JunkerGeorg

    @Todd, #30,

    “Tea Partiers will be forced to either continue supporting Paul (or a similar candidate) in some capacity, or will merely sit out the election.”
    —————————-
    I’m not so sure Tea Partiers within the last couple of years have supported Ron Paul. At very least, the Tea Party seems to me to be split between the arguably “original” Tea Partiers (spearheaded by Ron Paul) who were more libertarian leaning, and those who’ve been “Neo-Conned” by the Palin/Bachmann’s over time who infiltrated the movement.

  • JunkerGeorg

    @Todd, #30,

    “Tea Partiers will be forced to either continue supporting Paul (or a similar candidate) in some capacity, or will merely sit out the election.”
    —————————-
    I’m not so sure Tea Partiers within the last couple of years have supported Ron Paul. At very least, the Tea Party seems to me to be split between the arguably “original” Tea Partiers (spearheaded by Ron Paul) who were more libertarian leaning, and those who’ve been “Neo-Conned” by the Palin/Bachmann’s over time who infiltrated the movement.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X