See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #1
   On January 3rd, 2008 at 9:33 am, Brian72 said:

   But I much prefer this system to a process that would anoint a deep-pocketed frontrunner allergic to flyover country who wishes he could just phone it in.

   Hmmmm Michelle…… who might that be?

2. #2
   On January 3rd, 2008 at 9:39 am, BKennedy said:

   Hmmmm Michelle…… who might that be?

   I’d say Bloomberg but he’s not a frontrunner of anything, and Mitt is campaigning his heart out on the ground.

   Rudy?

3. #3
   On January 3rd, 2008 at 9:41 am, 30 pcs of silver said:

   The take home message then is, straighten up and fly right. The American people want someone they can trust. The state of affairs for this country are fragile, The American people want our laws enforced, build the fence, fund our troops and lower, not raise taxes. There’s plenty more to add to the list; however, one thing is certain – the candidate who gets this…and has a proven track record of being for and not against this – wins.

   I agree with your assessment, the caucuses for all their shortcomings did provide an insight we wouldn’t have otherwise had. Nothing surprising came from the missteps made by Hitlery, but for those out there who were unaware of Hillary’s socialist ideas and Huckabee’s cynical facade manufactured to win the vote of evangelicals have been placed on notice.

4. #4
   On January 3rd, 2008 at 9:46 am, Peejz said:

   There are states within the flyover portion of this country that better represent this nation than Iowa. Yes, you pointed out that true colors came out for some of the candidates, but that would have happened in another state as well. By the time the larger states, like MI in my case, get to cast their primary votes, our candidate of choice may or may not still be in the race.

   Iowa may not determine who actually gets the WH, but it does determine who stays and who goes for some.

5. #5
   On January 3rd, 2008 at 10:04 am, Rusty said:

   The Iowa caucuses are a disgrace. New Hampshire’s primaries aren’t much better. Two small states should not have such an enormous say over the presidential nomination.

   I think a national primary is the way to go. Sure, it would mean candidates skip over small states, but those states already have a larger than normal influence in November because of the Electoral College.

   Just because a state is small doesn’t mean that it needs to be protected at the expense of states with much larger populations.

6. #6
   On January 3rd, 2008 at 10:09 am, gollumclone said:

   #2 Nurse Bloomberg might spend $500 million of his own dough campaigning. Like we need another nanny. One pundit claims a Bloomberg/Nunn or Bloomberg/Hagel ticket would win a plurality of electoral votes. In comparison Guliani did much more positive as mayor of Ny. He didn’t kiss the muni unions’ butts for one think and took on the lib establishment. Gawd forbid that any of the dems, huckster, bloomberg or Paulbot reach the WH.

7. #7
   On January 3rd, 2008 at 10:19 am, TheBigOldDog said:

   “And Fred Thompson’s failure to catch fire showed that star power and Internet buzz aren’t enough to cut it, either.”

   It would help greatly if the candidate didn’t look and sound seriously ill.

8. #8
   On January 3rd, 2008 at 10:22 am, Timothy S. Carlson said:

   I would love to see Bloomberg step in and spend millions (billions?) of his own money – and then lose dramatically.

   It would send a message that principles and stands on issues – not money – make the candidate.

9. #9
   On January 3rd, 2008 at 10:34 am, Jewels said:

   I think that Thompson looks fine. It’s weird how the media seems to ignore him, except to say that he’s old, or that “if he doesn’t get third, he’s through…”

   What’s up with that?

10. #10
    On January 3rd, 2008 at 10:37 am, DesertLover said:

    I find myself agreeing with Rusty as he just supported my postings (#’s 7 & 13) in “The Democrat race in Iowa: Neck and neck…and neck” thread on 12/29 …

    According to “estimates” on the early newscasts this morning of the approximate 3 Million members of the voting population in Iowa only about 120,000 will actually participate in these “caucuses” … that means less than 5% of the voters will determine who gets the convention delegates …

    Plus the local rules are different between the parties as to how the delegate votes are distributed … The Republicans actually have a secret ballot and divide the delegates up by percentages … The Democrats have a stupid 15% minimum vote rule that eliminates a candidate from further consideration in their additional rounds of voting … so even though a candidate might carry one precinct with 30% he will lose the 10% he got in another precinct just as if no one voted for him there …

    That’s the way this works … distributed among the Republican candidates … all or nothing for the Democrat candidate …so all that BS about coming in 2nd and 3rd for the Dems is PC smokescreen …

    As for things about candidates coming to light … I think that was as much (or more) a direct result of the absurdly long primary campaign than Iowa or New Hampshire as primary states …

11. #11
    On January 3rd, 2008 at 10:39 am, bridgetown said:

    I don’t think Iowa is a problem.
    I think the media is the problem.
    Ask the candidates real, hard questions. Keep asking. Get Real answers. And leave the decisionmaking to the voters. STOP taking polls every 5 minutes. Stop suggesting scenarios. Just STOP.
    Focus on issues and give us voters a break. I have to dig around the internet to find out positions of anybody. The media in this country is Pathetic.

12. #12
    On January 3rd, 2008 at 10:42 am, Marshall Russ said:

    The talk about money here is ironic because the candidate that changed the dynamics of campaigning is John McCain. His reasoning for campaign finance reform is baffling. I believe Fred Thompson supported most of the McCain/Finegold.
    I resent the attitude that Iowa and New Hampshire have that insists that the candidates must come here to get the blessings of a few in the party. Huckabee’s surge tells me that they are not looking at the issues namely illegal immigration and taxes.
    After all I, don’t think that any of the candidates will be doing much campaigning in Wyoming or Alaska or North and South Dakota.

13. #13
    On January 3rd, 2008 at 11:00 am, Rusty said:

    I would love to see Bloomberg step in and spend millions (billions?) of his own money – and then lose dramatically.

    It would send a message that principles and stands on issues – not money – make the candidate.

    Corzine for President!

14. #14
    On January 3rd, 2008 at 11:15 am, gollumclone said:

    #10 voting population is not 3 million- that’s everyone who lives there, including minors. I look at Iowa as a means to see just who panders to special interests of Iowans, such as the kissing butts of farm interests or evangelicals..

    #13 The unions love Corzine for sure, especilly the corrupt public ones who love kickbacks and bribes and big raises and the taxes to pay for them.

15. #15
    On January 3rd, 2008 at 11:22 am, DesertLover said:

    gollumclone

    The individual I heard said 3 Million voters … so I went with that … if that is incorrect I apologize for the error on that part … but I still stand by the fact that only a very small percentage of the eligible voters take part in the “caucus” meetings … some can’t get there … others are working … and if you get there late you are not allowed to participate … all of that smacks of a non-representative section of the people making the decisions …

16. #16
    On January 3rd, 2008 at 11:41 am, Monte Hall said:

    #11 Bridgetwon –

    Totally agree about the media (meaning MSM). They see their jobs as reporting about the campaign (personalities, numbers) rather than to report about the issues. It seems the only time an issue is explored is when one of the candidates makes a gaff and the sharks start their runs. Lack of reading is going to be the demise of our Republic.

17. #17
    On January 3rd, 2008 at 11:56 am, LuxEternam said:

    Rusty Said

    The Iowa caucuses are a disgrace. New Hampshire’s primaries aren’t much better. Two small states should not have such an enormous say over the presidential nomination.

    I think a national primary is the way to go. Sure, it would mean candidates skip over small states, but those states already have a larger than normal influence in November because of the Electoral College.

    I am from Iowa, and I can tell you Rusty that Iowa is a good choice for the first Caucus. Iowa is a swing state and always has been. In 2000 it went for Gore. In 2004 for it went for Bush. Both times with vote margins of less than 10,000….fractions of percentage points. The split between Republicans and Democrats mirrors the national numbers.

    The West and Northern parts of the state are more rural and are very conservative. The Southern and Eastern parts include two major Universities and the state capitol of DesMoines and are extremely liberal. Your contention that the candidates have to kiss up to farmers and Evangelicals is exactly the media driven misinformation that intends to try to take the “Flyover States” out of the equation. Iowa is an agricultural economy, but that is waning. My wife works at the largest synthetic DNA manufacturer in the world…in Iowa. Des Moines is one of the largest insurance centers in the nation…in Iowa. The University of Iowa has one of the premier Hospitals in the world…in Iowa.

    In short, the majority of the population of Iowa has little or nothing to do with farming, and you would have to look mighty hard to find a single Evangelical in the college town I live in. Iowa is an accurate microcosm of the US. It why the race for the president begins here.

    Our nation is so centered on the idea that all culture is in NYC or LA that they can’t see the real people of this country live in between.

    Rusty’s comment that “sure we’ll skip some of the small states” shows exactly this attitude.

18. #18
    On January 3rd, 2008 at 12:03 pm, LuxEternam said:

    The difference between the Republican Caucus and the Democrat Caucus in Iowa is also a perfect reflection of the parties. The Repulicans go to the caucus, put their candidate on a paper ballot, put the ballot in a box, and that’s it.

    The Democrat Caucus is a convoluted overly dramatic, easily gamed running argument that takes hours, and does not even count you if you recieve less that 15% of the vote. Talk about disenfranchised voters!!!

    The moaning about the complicated system should be aimed at the Democrats who still cling to their silly version of it.

19. #19
    On January 3rd, 2008 at 12:13 pm, Peejz said:

    LuxEternam, farmers and Evangelicals are not the issue. The issue is the fact that Iowa is 97% white which does not represent this country. I think all of us are in agreement that NY and California don’t represent the country, but Iowa is not the answer either. Many states have been “swing states”, it just depends on who you read. Middle America needs better representation than Iowa.

20. #20
    On January 3rd, 2008 at 12:14 pm, Miss Ladybug said:

    Who participates in the caucuses? Mostly the base of both parties, I would say. Voter turn-out in the US is disgracefully low, but the percentage of eligible voters who actually participate in the caucuses? Even worse, would be my guess. Iowa if 90+% white. Not exactly representative of the nation, as a whole. I bet NH has an equally not-representative racial breakdown. And pandering to farmers? Tell that to the pols who promise things to that small group – it’s those people who seem to be the ones participating in the caucuses. I don’t like the idea of caucuses because it disenfranchises too many people – you have to be available to go to a specific place at a specific time for an extended period of time. That might have worked back in the old days, but no so in a modern world. Cops, fireman, hospital workers who happen to have to work during caucus night have no voice. Our military with Iowa as a home of record but unable to go home to caucus have no voice. The cashier at Wal-Mart or Target or whatever retail establishment who is scheduled to work during the caucuses has no voice. I much prefer the primary system where polls are open all day long. Then, military (and others who know they will be away) can vote in the primary absentee. Everyone else who wants to can get to the polls when they are able – before work, after work, on their lunch break, whatever.

21. #21
    On January 3rd, 2008 at 12:23 pm, Boomer said:

    It will be interesting to see how things hash out in today’s caucuses and how the results will begin to thin the herd. The incessant polling by the MSM along with the way they obviously support some of the candidates really needs to be banned from the process. I am sick of their manipulation of the electoral process trying to shove their flavor of the week down our throats. I am sick of the soft ball questions and the empty talk by many of the candidates and hope the people of Iowa stand-up and vote for the person who they believe will do the country the best service throwing the estimates made by the pollsters and the MSM on their ear. That would knock out almost everyone in both parties though that are pandering to everyone they can get to listen to their lies and empty promises.

22. #22
    On January 3rd, 2008 at 12:35 pm, ThackerAgency said:

    I agree double M. I personally am happy to let Iowa have this vetting process. I’m glad that my state isn’t one of the first ones because I don’t think I’d like to be bombarded for months and months with these campaign platitudes, dinner time poll phone calls, and media (call girls) everywhere.

    I think the process is good and important. I think that every state should have its own primary day so that candidates can focus on each state and the issues within each state one at a time. That way they get a feel for what the country needs. Go Iowa. Have fun tonight and vote your conscience.

23. #23
    On January 3rd, 2008 at 12:36 pm, purplepeep said:

    Rusty said:
    Two small states should not have such an enormous say over the presidential nomination.

    Actually, things are just as likely to go to Super Tuesday when the more larger states join in.

    Just because a state is small doesn’t mean that it needs to be protected at the expense of states with much larger populations.

    Not sure what that means, Rusty, but I think it does help to keep the candidates “honest”. Or as honest as politicians can be, as it were.

    I’d dump the primaries altogether and go with the smoke-filled rooms at the conventions. Got as many good candidates & presidents that way as with the current tedious and costly primary system. Great for smokin’ stogies, too.

24. #24
    On January 3rd, 2008 at 12:49 pm, Miss Ladybug said:

    Thanks, but no thanks, purplepeep. I’ll not go back to the way presidents were selected prior to the early 20th Century. The nation’s population has changed too much since then, and so has the world. You think voter turnout is low now for primaries? Just imagine how much lower it would be for local conventions to send representatives to state conventions to send representatives to a national convention. I think this would also make some sort of fraud in the process much more enticing. One eligible voter, one vote, please, in the primaries.

25. #25
    On January 3rd, 2008 at 12:50 pm, greenfairie said:

    It’s a media event more than anything else and what stinks is that the media coverage and the moneymen take their direction from how the candidates do in Iowa and NH. I hate the idea somebody is going to be “crowned” if he wins and somebody else is in “trouble” for coming in second or third long before I get a chance to vote in the primaries in my state.

26. #26
    On January 3rd, 2008 at 12:51 pm, Miss Ladybug said:

    Amen, greenfairie!

27. #27
    On January 3rd, 2008 at 12:58 pm, ThackerAgency said:

    But greenfairie, they aren’t crowned here. This is the first opportunity for people to officially determine how the candidates compare with each other. If you think you are a good candidate, you should do well here. If you don’t do well, then maybe you aren’t such a good candidate.

    If you win it doesn’t mean you are going to win. If you lose, it doesn’t mean you are going to lose. But if you win by a huge margin, that says something about your chances against the rest of the field. If you lose by a huge margin in comparison with the rest of the field, that says something about your chances too.

    This is the same candidates going against each other. If I’m the best candidate, I expect to do well even if I don’t win.

28. #28
    On January 3rd, 2008 at 1:03 pm, Peejz said:

    purplepeep- by the time that Super Tuesday rolls around, some candidates are out..we should have 1 Super Tuesaday, where all candidates are on the ballots, and let the chips fall where they may. How is this any different than the general election? If done with one primary, and one general election, all voters get a say. I would like to see a law passed where campaigning is a three month window prior to the primary and a three month window prior to the general election…Isn’t it odd that we have more technology, and instant access to the candidates in 2008 than in 1800, but for some reason we have stretched the campaign process to years rather than weeks…

29. #29
    On January 3rd, 2008 at 1:17 pm, purplepeep said:

    Miss Ladybug said:
    Thanks, but no thanks, purplepeep. I’ll not go back to the way presidents were selected prior to the early 20th Century.

    I dunno, Ladybug. Yeah, ya got your duds, but you got the Lincolns too. Pretty much the same results then/now. I’m more excited about the cigars aspect.

30. #30
    On January 3rd, 2008 at 1:25 pm, LuxEternam said:

    Peejz Said:

    LuxEternam, farmers and Evangelicals are not the issue. The issue is the fact that Iowa is 97% white which does not represent this country.

    Uhhhhh…..thanks for agreeing with my point about farmers and Evangelicals. I suggest you re-read my post which was saying EXACTLY the same thing in reponse to Rusty’s contention that the candidates have to suck up to as he stated “farmers and Evangelicals.” My point was that Iowa is far from being run by those two groups.

    My point is politically that the makeup mirrors the nation. I tend not to think in terms of race making a difference. This is a political process. Too many people try to tie race to politics, and I for one am tired of it.

    As far as Iowa being “97% white” the number is actually 92.6% and falling rapidly. (Nationally white people account for just over 75% of the population according to the 2000 census) Iowa’s demographics are changing daily. With it’s numerous meat packing facilities, Iowa is a huge magnet for illegal immigrants. That is why so many ICE raids happen here, and why immigration is one of the top discussions points. White children are now a minority in the elementary school my kids went to due to changes in Iowa’s Welfare rules that are attracting thousands of imports from the Chicago area.

    Again I still say that Iowa is a valid state in which to start the Primary/Caucus process.

    Although I am sick and tired of non-stop constant political commercials and robo calls from the candidates and will be glad when they leave!!!!!! The Paulian’s called me THREE TIMES yesterday!!! (No I am not voting for the “Crazy Uncle”!!!

31. #31
    On January 3rd, 2008 at 1:36 pm, purplepeep said:

    Peejz said:
    purplepeep- by the time that Super Tuesday rolls around, some candidates are out

    I’m figuring if a candidate drops out between now and Feb s/he doesn’t stand much chance to began with – it’s just a sad reality of politics. Sometimes the cream sinks to the bottom; actually, probably more often that not. But “some gotta win, some gotta lose, Good time Charlie’s got the blues.”

    Reagan almost pulled it off at the 1976 Convention. I find a real “nominating convention” amazing politics to behold.

    If done with one primary, and one general election, all voters get a say.

    Americans who are independent voters get the short end of the stick, though. Maybe an “all candidates” primary where everyone is on equal footing might work. Though you’d probably have to set up Euro-style run-offs. Of course, wisdom dictates avoiding anything Euro.

    Watching the primary system is watching political sausage being made. Not a pretty sight.

32. #32
    On January 3rd, 2008 at 1:46 pm, Miss Ladybug said:

    Here in Texas, I can vote in either primary when I go to the polls. Had the same situation when I lived in Arkansas. There was no required party affiliation when registering to vote. I think all states should do it that way: everyone can have a say in the primaries…

33. #33
    On January 3rd, 2008 at 1:50 pm, Peejz said:

    LuxEternam

    How does 94.6% white Iowa mirror a 80.1% white nation? It doesn’t. Even if I use your figures, Iowa is not representative of the country. You may not like race as an issue, but like it or not, 25% of this country is populated by non-white people. We need representation of the entire makeup of this nation…

34. #34
    On January 3rd, 2008 at 1:53 pm, Peejz said:

    Miss Ladybug- Here in Michigan, we can vote in either one, but we need to vote straight party ticket. The MI democrats have no other choice but Hillary, so we can expect that Democratic voters will be trying to sway the Republican vote..

35. #35
    On January 3rd, 2008 at 1:57 pm, Peejz said:

    purplepeep- here is how my plan works:

    Today is national primary day…all candidates are on the ballot. (it is also the 2nd tuesday in August) Tonight we know who got the nomination from each party..in 3 months we all vote again in the general election…No runoffs, it’s just that simple…

36. #36
    On January 3rd, 2008 at 2:00 pm, purplepeep said:

    Miss Ladybug said:
    Here in Texas, I can vote in either primary when I go to the polls.

    Same here at the northern end of I-35, Ladybug, no party registration is required as it is in places like Calif.

    But if you mean about independent Americans, their candidates obviously aren’t in either party’s primary.

37. #37
    On January 3rd, 2008 at 2:53 pm, Miss Ladybug said:

    When I think of independents, I think of people who are more in the middle of the political spectrum who don’t care to identify with either party, and will vote for the candidate of whichever affiliation they deem to be the best. I’m not thinking third party types…

38. #38
    On January 3rd, 2008 at 3:40 pm, Frank Siegler said:

    The electoral process requires $100 million per candidate. The MSM pushes the process to an earlier date each cycle. Where is that money spent? Conclusion? Duh!

39. #39
    On January 3rd, 2008 at 9:41 pm, Hannibal said:

    In #33 Peejz said:

    How does 94.6% white Iowa mirror a 80.1% white nation? It doesn’t. Even if I use your figures, Iowa is not representative of the country. You may not like race as an issue, but like it or not, 25% of this country is populated by non-white people. We need representation of the entire makeup of this nation…

    What part of the national primary system don’t you understand? Iowa does not have to represent anything but the makeup of Iowa. Iowa is important only because it is first. It doesn’t pretend to be a microcosm for the rest of the country. The same goes for N.H. and S.C. They get the chance to set the trends because they are early in the process. At the conventions Iowa will not have more power than the number of delegates they get accords them. When all the states have completed their primaries, if whites took the opportunity to vote, then they were represented and if minorities bothered to vote, then they were also represented. You want representation join the process , vote.

40. #40
    On January 4th, 2008 at 11:18 am, Peejz said:

    On January 3rd, 2008 at 9:41 pm, Hannibal said: I don’t even know where to start with that stupidity. But here goes..A state like Iowa determines too much in the beginning. By the time NH rolls around, we have already seen a few drop out..There should be one primary where we all get a chance to vote on all the candidates..it shouldn’t be that we get a choice of who is left….People like Tancredo would have had a better shot at a run..