Marc Ambinder (August 11, 2007) - AMES: Romney WIns; Huckabee In Second

Maybe you should post them in this order:

3.
4.
...
11.

That seems like it would be fairer, no?

Posted by other direction please | August 11, 2007 9:16 PM

FRAUD, predicted and executed!

Posted by FRAUD | August 11, 2007 9:17 PM

No one will believe these results, thanks to the Iowa GOP FUBARing the entire thing.

Posted by Crow | August 11, 2007 9:17 PM

This is PROOF that Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback, and Tom Tancredo are UNDOUBTEDLY REPTILIAN HUMANOIDS! HOW ELSE COULD THEY HAVE DEFEATED THE AMAZING WONDERFUL RON PAUL!

Posted by Joseph | August 11, 2007 9:18 PM

Romney's a winner, Huckabee's a winner. Unfortunately for all the rest, they are losers.

Posted by J Baustian | August 11, 2007 9:18 PM

Not bad for Ron Paul at all! Maybe he will get more talking time now..?

Posted by Ron | August 11, 2007 9:18 PM

Will Sam Brownback now go home?

And is it me or is Ron Paul Dennis Kucinich? Has anyone seen them in the same room together, hmm....

Posted by Yellow Dog | August 11, 2007 9:18 PM

Showing from Dr. Paul was about expect. They were saying 1500-3000, but that was obviously expecting a bigger crowd.

I'm betting if non-Iowans there could have voted, Ron Paul would have had a fairly good chance to win. That, of course, would have defeated the point of the poll (which is to measure popularity in Iowa).

Good showing by Huckabee. I'm a Paul supporter, but Huckabee seems like a pretty good guy compared to the "top 3" (Guiliani, Romney, McCain).

Good to see Romney have to sweat a little bit. After all the time and money he put into Iowa to have a "second tier" from Arkansas give him a run for his money...gotta be a little bit embarrassing for the Romney folks.

Posted by Matt Shelby | August 11, 2007 9:18 PM

um.. so ron paul got more votes then tommy thompson? lol time to drop out tommy.

(he also got more then mccain/thompson/giuliani combined...)

Posted by Chris from Maine | August 11, 2007 9:18 PM

Romney wants to continue to borrow money from china to fund our illegal war. He wants to borrow your children to fight it.

Posted by Frank Hortingander | August 11, 2007 9:19 PM

So, Huckabee will get the biggest boost from this, but my question is: who won't be able to go on?

Posted by Matt | August 11, 2007 9:19 PM

WOW, Huckabee! He didn't have 1 bus, and Romney had over 100 buses... very impressive showing.

Posted by Jonathan | August 11, 2007 9:19 PM

Wait, what happened? I was supposed to get 40,000 votes. just like i did the ABC.com poll. i don't understand.

I demand a recount!

Posted by Ron Paul | August 11, 2007 9:19 PM

With Diebold involved the results will always be under a cloud of suspicion. Was the fix in? We'll never know for sure, but one thing was learned tonight. Any county board that certifies Diebold machines for their elections should be run out of town on a rail.

Posted by Dan | August 11, 2007 9:20 PM

And Romney spent $4 million on this.

D'oh!

Posted by Alex2 | August 11, 2007 9:20 PM

Could you have picked a more confusing numbering system?

Anyway, those results look about right.

Posted by Bob the blob | August 11, 2007 9:20 PM

Now it is time for Tommy Thompson, Sam Brownback and Duncan Hunter to get OUT of the races and allow the pro-life/traditional Catholics to rally behind a GOP candidate that will support life, defend our borders and STOP THE NEO-CONS!

Posted by Albert Hodges | August 11, 2007 9:21 PM

Will Sam Brownback now go home?

Hell, will Giuliani and McCain?

Posted by T | August 11, 2007 9:21 PM

Huckabee seems like a decent fella--but Romney--oh boy.

But seriously, has anyone seen Paul and Kucinich in the same room? I think we have a conspiracy!!!

Posted by Yellow Dog | August 11, 2007 9:21 PM

I disagree with this:

"Good to see Romney have to sweat a little bit. After all the time and money he put into Iowa to have a "second tier" from Arkansas give him a run for his money...gotta be a little bit embarrassing for the Romney folks."

Romney got 13% more than the 2nd place candidate. That's not really sweating it out.

Posted by Stephen | August 11, 2007 9:22 PM

If there were only 14,203 ballots cast, how do the votes add up to an even 14,300?

Posted by Skeptic | August 11, 2007 9:23 PM

Thats what millions of dollars get you.

Its interesting to see how low Rudy and McCain got. If you don't participate in the poll, if you don't buy 10,000 tickets, if you don't spend millions, you don't win. RIGGED.

Ron Paul's FIRST WEEK IN IOWA! 10%

Posted by okok | August 11, 2007 9:23 PM

Much more enthusiasm among Republicans than on the Democrats side.

Democrats Say Leaving Iraq May Take Years

Posted by Derrick | August 11, 2007 9:24 PM

Romney spent around 6 million on this actually. So this is what paying ~$1,300 per vote gets you.

Posted by RomneysGhost | August 11, 2007 9:24 PM

As a diehard Paul supporter, I'm not necessarily screaming fraud. The greater issue at hand is not, "Did they?" but "Would they?". I dont think the answer could be anything but "yes." The Ron Paul message must be communicated to more and more people, and we will see the Constitution triumph in '08! Freedom! Ron Paul!!

Posted by Matthew Robinson | August 11, 2007 9:24 PM

I'm a Ron Paul guy, but I'd vote for Huckabee in a "lesser of 2 evils" scenario vs. any Democrat.

I can't say the same for Romney, McCain, or (especially) Giuliani.

Posted by Chris in NJ | August 11, 2007 9:26 PM

Nobody cares. This has as much relevance as today's odds for the next Super Bowl.

Posted by Michael Vick | August 11, 2007 9:26 PM

Well, we know which "second-tier" candidate will play with the big-boys. Congrats to Huckabee. I'm sure Tancrado & Ron Paul will stick around- but the real fight will be Giulian vs. either Romney-F.Thompsor-Huckabee survivor.

Posted by Mark | August 11, 2007 9:27 PM

So how many people went to this event and didn't vote?

Posted by Dave | August 11, 2007 9:27 PM

Paul and Kucinich are both like Don Quixote--chasing the Iowa windmills--dreaming of the big chair.

Posted by Yellow Dog | August 11, 2007 9:27 PM

Ron Paul said Mitt spent $2200 per vote and Paul spent $200 per vote.

Posted by RonPaulwillwin | August 11, 2007 9:28 PM

If Romney had a really good message, for all the money he spent on Iowa, and with three of the top four in scientific polling not there, he would have gotten 50%. He bought 31% of the vote. To me, all things considered, that's a little embarrassing.

I'd love to see a dollar/vote breakdown of each candidate. It'd have to be pretty hilarious to see how much more Romney spent compared to the more sane candidate.

Posted by Matt | August 11, 2007 9:28 PM

Regarding:

"Romney spent around 6 million on this actually. So this is what paying ~$1,300 per vote gets you."

A lot of the money he has been spending is also useful for the real caucuses in January, so this isn't really an accurate statement even if the $6 million figure is correct (which I doubt).

Posted by not romneys ghost | August 11, 2007 9:28 PM

Ron Paul is the only candidate in either party that traditional Catholics can support!

These so-called conservative Catholics who get their political ideas from Bill OReilly, Sean Hannity and Deal Hudson need to turn off their tv's and pick up St. Thomas, St. Pius X, and G.K. Chesterton!

Posted by Albert Hodges | August 11, 2007 9:28 PM

Paul did not do too badly. It's important to remember that he has not campaigned that hard in Iowa until last week. He needs to spend more time there in the next four months. And if there was a straw poll in New Hampshire right now he'd do much better, for he's more popular there. Iowa is just waking up to him.

Posted by martin johnson | August 11, 2007 9:28 PM

STFU about diebold machines you lib whiners!

YaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyMitt.

Posted by Ron Paul | August 11, 2007 9:28 PM

And now....the whining by the Ron Paul people begins.

Not sure who is more annoying, Paul himself or his supporters.

Posted by Bob | August 11, 2007 9:29 PM

That's about $8.8M Mitt spent. Can anyone confirm this?

Posted by RonPaulwillwin | August 11, 2007 9:29 PM

it goes to show that the fair tax which mr huckabee has as one of his points may become a powerful force in 2008 we need more people talking about this than the mundane same old warmed over points they try to feed us

Posted by jw | August 11, 2007 9:30 PM

Let's see if we can interpret this:

#1 - proves if you have money to hire 100 buses you can win.
#2 - shows that nice guys don't finish last, but also rarely win.
#3 - showing up to all the local parties pays off.
#4 - immigration issue has legs.
#5 - college kids will do anything to escape boredom.
#6 - if you spend enough time anywhere at least a few people will notice.
#7 - you snooze - you lose.
#8 - big city liberals go nowhere in the corn patch.
#9 - being a congressman means nothing.
#10 - when you're down, you're out.
#11 - there really is strange matter in the universe.

Posted by Grumpier | August 11, 2007 9:30 PM

14,203? That's all?

This even in 2000 managed to get 24,000 voters.

Let that be a sign of the enthusiasm of the GOP Base.

Posted by attaturk | August 11, 2007 9:31 PM

Ron Paul is the only candidate in either party that traditional Catholics can support!

Um, Sparky, Paul is "Protestant".

He also seems to be against government helping lesser off folks--sometimes called the meek. Think Jesus stood on a mountain and spoke about it a while back...

Posted by Yellow Dog | August 11, 2007 9:31 PM

I'm not sure what's more annoying, the Constitution or Ron Paul.

Posted by Whatsmore | August 11, 2007 9:31 PM

I didn't know there were that many Mormons in Iowa!

Posted by Doubting Thomas | August 11, 2007 9:32 PM

Go Romney!!! Bush got around 31% of the vote in 1999. romney will be on Fox news Sunday!! Go Romney!! I'm also glad that huckabee beat Brownback and Ron Paul didn't do well at all. Go Romney!!

Posted by Mitt in 08 | August 11, 2007 9:32 PM

I really don't think any Ron Paul supporters are whining. I'm satisfied with the results and I think other Paul supporters are.

There seems to be a lot more juvenile, immature ad hominem attacks on Ron Paul and his supporters than there is immature whining from them. You only attack someone like that when you fear them. What does that say about you Paul bashers?

Posted by Matt Shelby | August 11, 2007 9:32 PM

9.1% is very respectable. That should be enough to end the 'doesn't translate into real world support' commentary. Actually, it won't stop it, but it will provide a counter-argument.

This is purely a name-recognition contest, and given that he spent virtually nothing, Paul comes out smelling like a rose. He and Huckabee have to be the biggest winners coming out of the straw poll.

Posted by mty | August 11, 2007 9:32 PM

Dang, what the heck happened to John Cox? I was expecting him to pull the big surprise and WIN this thing!

Posted by Jessica Mydek | August 11, 2007 9:32 PM

from The Politico:

Romney's 31.5% victory is almost exactly what then-Gov. Bush picked up at Ames in 1999, but Romney's margin over his nearest competitor was higher than what Bush won with. Romney bested Mike Huckabee by 13% while Bush defeated Steve Forbes by 10%.

Huckabee's second place finish is a surprise and could offer the Arkansan a nice boost. Sam Brownback clearly spent more money on his effort -- he rented buses while Huckabee couldn't afford any -- but came up about 400 votes shy of Huckabee.

After putting in the effort he did today and in the weeks leading up to Ames, Brownback's third place finish will prompt questions about his ability to carry on in the race.

Posted by Mike | August 11, 2007 9:33 PM

"14,203? That's all?

This even in 2000 managed to get 24,000 voters.

Let that be a sign of the enthusiasm of the GOP Base."

No, it's a sign that 3 major candidates didn't show up. If they had, it would have surpassed 24k (in part because Romney would have brought more people).

Posted by Stephen | August 11, 2007 9:33 PM

I added up thevote numbers and I got 14,300 votes even. They claim 14203 ballots cast. I find that total pretty amusing. Perhaps the chap that "certified " the results can explain this??I hate funny math of any sort at any election. It reminds me of Stalins quote that it is not who votes that counts, it is who counts the votes.....All electronic voting machines should be consigned to the nearest deep body of water.

Posted by jesse bogan | August 11, 2007 9:34 PM

Matthew Robinson -

The message is more important than the man. We must make that known. If not, I don't doubt Ron Paul will be executed if he starts moving up (if they can't steal the future elections like they may have this time). We must be ready to carry the torch. The fire is spreading like crazy, too. I see Ron Paul supporters all over the place - never see one supporter of any of these other windbags.

Posted by Adrian | August 11, 2007 9:34 PM

Of course only 14,000 showed up, 3 of the other major candidates dropped out. Why would a bunch of GOP voters come out to vote for 1 major candidate and a bunch of second tier candidate? Go Romney!!!

Posted by Mitt in 08 | August 11, 2007 9:34 PM

This is actually not a bad finish for Ron Paul. As an Iowan who supports him and was there today I can tell you that he is still in good shape. Remember that Paul did not even make it to Iowa until this past week. Romney and Huckabee have been organized in this state since before most of the country even found out who Paul was. Given the large out of state contingent that was at the Paul tent in Ames I was nervous about enough Iowa voters showing up to vote for him.

Posted by Kevin | August 11, 2007 9:35 PM

Yes, Ron Paul is a Protestant. But he is against abortion more strongly than any of the top teir candidates. He is also against a war the late Pope John Paul II indicated was unjust and immoral.

Furthermore, Ron Paul acts like a good Christian. He didn't turn away the poor, he welcomed them to his medical practice and treated them for free or for discounted fees. That, my friend, is living the example Jesus set for us. He is peaceful. He defends life in all its forms. And Dr. Paul believes in charity toward those who need it.

Taxes, sadly, are not charity. They are theft and redistribution. Morally, the right thing to do is to allow people to choose to give to the less fortunate, not force them to do so facing the barrel of a gun or the gavel of a judge.

Posted by Matt Shelby | August 11, 2007 9:35 PM

There was no way Paul was going to win this thing. You need to spend a lot of money on an event like this--bus tons of people to the event like Romney did. I think the real winner of this poll is Huckabee. He got 18% without breaking a sweat. Romney worked desperately to get what he got. I think Huckabee may start to really surprise people soon.

Posted by Martin Johnson | August 11, 2007 9:35 PM

I once was at a GOP dinner party and a Republican operative derided Senator Robert Byrd as an "anachronism" for referring to the Constitution in his speeches. I almost choked on my food. It was a sobering moment and one of the first that made me reconsider my blind loyalty to the GOP. I see things haven't changed much. Go Ron Paul.

Posted by Rick | August 11, 2007 9:35 PM

RE: doubting 6 million was spent

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/09/AR2007080902379_pf.html

5 million on commercials and campaign material
~500k Direct voter expenditure (350k for 10k tickets + bus & BBQ)
200k on a consultant
AT least 100k on 60 paid "volunteers" (oxymoron?!) since April

Posted by RomneysGhost | August 11, 2007 9:36 PM

I love people throwing around numbers of how much Romney spent.

$4, 6, 8.8 million ...

let me be the first to say it was $20 million

Whatever Romney has spent was money building a base of real people that really voted for him. Something that might be useful in December / January.

Congrats Mitt!

Posted by Mitt Romney | August 11, 2007 9:36 PM

Before we get all giddy about Romney's 31%, let's not forget that the 3 top contenders weren't even present! By the by, I'm really happy that Huckabee had a good showing. He seems like a decent guy, and I like his tax plan.

Posted by Bob the Blob | August 11, 2007 9:36 PM

According to the 2000 religion census, there were just over 15,000 Mormons in Iowa (including children).

Posted by peg | August 11, 2007 9:36 PM

The importance of this vote is that it's going to force the media to consider Paul as a viable candidate, at least for a news cycle or two. At the very least, they're going to have to explain how their darling Rudy did so poorly. 183 votes? Maybe he will drop out of the race after all.

Posted by T | August 11, 2007 9:37 PM

Let's see, Ron Paul supporters are giddy because he only spent $200 a vote and got 9%.
Well I spent $0 and have just as much chance as Ron Paul of winning the nomination.

Posted by houstonmike | August 11, 2007 9:38 PM

31% against that group of losers is not very impressive for Romney. Huckabee is the news out of this thing, if he can turn his second place finish into money, which he ironically was knocking in his Ames speech. He needs Brownback to drop out, which Brownback should. Brownback tried hard, is a midwestern social conservative and could only come in third at an Iowa fair? Buh-bye.

Posted by Aloysius | August 11, 2007 9:39 PM

YOOOOOHOOOOOO!!! Go Huckabee!! Great job in Iowa.

Fred Thompson can stay out, John McCain needs to get out and Giuliani needs to figure it out. It's down to Huckabee and Romney. Period.

Hopefully with these results, Tommy Thompson and Tancredo will drop out immediately while Ron Paul and Sam Brownback (especially since he is from Kansas and threw more money into Iowa than Huckabee) will be on their heels.

Giuliani and McCain quit, so anything than this being played as a loss for them is a joke.

GO HUCKABEE!!

Posted by Bruce Gresham | August 11, 2007 9:40 PM

Check out DCbriefing.com

Posted by Dc | August 11, 2007 9:40 PM

Keep in mind, there are suggestions that the Giuliani/McCain coalesced as Huckabee as the one to be the stalking horse in Iowa.

Brownback's pro-ag policies obviously win him a swathe of support.

Paul, as the Internet phenom, didn't have enough local support to win...but no longer is a laugher candidate.

The real relevation is how popular Tancredo was. Looks like candidates hoping to fire up the GOP base know what issue will do the trick. Tommy T in 3rd place is scary stuff.

Posted by Thomas Soteros-McNamara | August 11, 2007 9:41 PM

It's funny that the only bad things people say about Ron Paul are either petty, immature insults, or else based completely on lies.

Come on. Someone say something that is true. Something bad. Something that the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, that even religious leaders or free market economists would deride as flat out wrong.

You don't have to like his stances, but simply insulting him and calling him names because he is exercising his right to run and express his political beliefs is needless. In truth, even if I disagreed with him I would still support his candidacy because I am a proponent of the free flow of new and less-known ideas. But maybe I'm "crazy" or a "loser."

Posted by Matt Shelby | August 11, 2007 9:42 PM

Does this mean we never have to listen to John Cox droning on and on and on again?

Big night for Huckabee, but equally big for Tancredo, who dusted Ron Paul and his band of half-insane, musket-wielding hyperpatriot, conspiracy theory-touting Followers.

Good dam riddance. Now drop out, Ron.

Posted by Michael | August 11, 2007 9:42 PM

CrookedInc.Com Brings you the most in-depth analysis of the Iowa Straw Poll in the country.

Posted by Gary | August 11, 2007 9:42 PM

Maybe Huckabee is the designated CFR second tier candidate. Maybe.

Posted by dogster | August 11, 2007 9:43 PM

Shelby is right. A candidate who compromises with abortionists is a fool to think he has any chance for the Pro-Life vote.

Posted by Stop the killing | August 11, 2007 9:44 PM

My analysis is that Huckabee and Brownback stay in. Tancredo stays in and rails on immigration.

More at:

http://www.eyeon08.com/2007/08/11/romney-wins-conservatives-split/

Huckabee and Brownback have to decide whether to unload on Romney or each other.

The question will be whether Ron Paul stays in. Cox, Thompson, and Hunter will get out.

Posted by Soren Dayton | August 11, 2007 9:44 PM

Michael, I'd like to thank you proving my point exactly: You didn't intelligently criticize Ron Paul's views or anything about him. You simply insulted the man and his supporters like you're a drunk at a baseball game. Congratulations. Way to really make yourself look good.

Posted by Matt Shelby | August 11, 2007 9:44 PM

Well, this shows that Ron Paul is not just a product of a couple of people in their pajamas spamming polls. Still a ways to go, but given that all the finishers above him have been blanketing the state for months, not bad at all, not bad at all.

So at least now he can't be dismissed as a non-entity.

Posted by Robatsu | August 11, 2007 9:45 PM

"9.1% is respectable." Really? Does 9% win a lot of elections?

What's really impressive is that Ron Paul got all 1305 of his nut-job supporters in Ames on the same day. There must not have been any reports of black helicopters in the area, or they would have cranked up their kerosene generators and hid in their caves.

Posted by john | August 11, 2007 9:45 PM

It's funny that the only bad things people say about Ron Paul are either petty, immature insults, or else based completely on lies. Come on. Someone say something that is true. Something bad. Something that the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, that even religious leaders or free market economists would deride as flat out wrong.

He just tried to award his district $400 million in taxpayer-funded pork to study (and promote) shrimp fishing. That bad enough for you anarchistic libertarians to wake up and smell the hypocritical coffee?

That's not in the Constitution, is it?

I could go on and on about how the Founders actually believed in Society, and that none of them believed in relying solely on radical, self-centered individualism, but this isn't the time or the place.

Posted by Michael | August 11, 2007 9:46 PM

You know...

Not all Mormons are voting for Romney. He creeps me out, for one.

Posted by ed | August 11, 2007 9:46 PM

Oh, Earth to Ron Paul supporters, Thompson, Giuliani and McCain were not participating in this thing, that's why they were not expected to do well. It is of no relevance to them. Romney's only getting 31% actually is good news for them, because they can spin that as a disappointment for Romney. And, in truth, people were expecting him to get 45% or more.

Ron Paul has about as much viability (actually less) as Alan Keyes or Gary Bauer had. They had amazingly intense and vocal, but nationally insignifcant, support as well. For him to become even the next Pat Buchanan, there would have to be large-scale GOP opposition to the war, which there is not.

Posted by Aloysius | August 11, 2007 9:47 PM

If Guiliani and McCain & Thompson were there, they would have only diluted the pro war vote. And they are supposed to be 'big fish' up there with Romney. No one would have owned more than 15% if every player had been at the polls.

Think about it, it would have diluted every other candidate except for Ron Paul.

Ron Pauls anti - war position is at least 9% popular with the republican base.

I think this straw poll would have been ALOT more interesting if the candidates not attending had turned up.

Posted by somedude | August 11, 2007 9:48 PM

Kudus to Iowa Republican voters! They looked deeper than surface appearances and picked the two candidates with the greatest integrity and the greatest chance of beating Democrats. How about a Romney-Huckabee ticket?

Posted by Christian Prophet | August 11, 2007 9:48 PM

To all the dumbasses screaming "conspiracy!!!11" because the vote counts add up to 14,302 rather than the 14,203 Marc said...

The official tally is 14,302-- Marc just accidentally transposed the last three digits. Check The Fix, or The Caucus, or any other news source for a confirmation of this.

Posted by Arlen | August 11, 2007 9:48 PM

OK, I will tell you something that shows Ron Paul is a nut. During Israel's recent war with Hamas in Lebanon, he was one of the only congressman who wouldn't support a resolution that praised Israel and called Hamas a terrorist organization.

Posted by houstonmike | August 11, 2007 9:48 PM

Ron Paul will be staying in. Remember he still has more money on hand than everyone but Romney and Guiliani. He didn't spend but a little of it in Iowa. He'll probably kick up the campaigning in Iowa now (you know, for when they have the real vote) and he is already pretty popular in New Hampshire. You'd also have to think he'll appeal to "first in the south" South Carolina as well as some other Southern states once they know who he is.

I think you'll see that once Dr. Paul starts to spend some money, his poll numbers will improve and he'll perform well in REAL votes. No point in spending so much money right now when the average American isn't paying any attention to politics. Wait until later in the year when the average voter decides to start seeing who's running.

Posted by Matt | August 11, 2007 9:49 PM

I think Mitt promised to harvest a whole bunch of corn in the next few weeks.

Posted by ernest | August 11, 2007 9:49 PM

My comments don't seem to have been posted! We'll see if these make it. Ron Paul is in 5th place. The following candidates should drop out: Fred Thompson (was he really in?), Rudy Giuliani, Hunter, and John McCain. All received lower vote totals - much lower.

Posted by Janice | August 11, 2007 9:50 PM

This was beautifully said so I'm reposting it:
---------
Yes, Ron Paul is a Protestant. But he is against abortion more strongly than any of the top teir candidates. He is also against a war the late Pope John Paul II indicated was unjust and immoral.

Furthermore, Ron Paul acts like a good Christian. He didn't turn away the poor, he welcomed them to his medical practice and treated them for free or for discounted fees. That, my friend, is living the example Jesus set for us. He is peaceful. He defends life in all its forms. And Dr. Paul believes in charity toward those who need it.

Taxes, sadly, are not charity. They are theft and redistribution. Morally, the right thing to do is to allow people to choose to give to the less fortunate, not force them to do so facing the barrel of a gun or the gavel of a judge.

Posted by Matt Shelby | August 11, 2007 9:35 PM

Posted by Alex | August 11, 2007 9:50 PM

Did Paul do as well as I would have liked? No, but he beat 2%

Romney camp bought 10,000 tickets and got 4,516 votes

Paul camp bought 500 tickets and got 1,305 votes

Couple conclusions:
Romney can't even buy support (with free tickets, rides and food)
The majority of Paul supporters liked him enough to actually pay for themselves (and make the drive over there)

Posted by RomneysGhost | August 11, 2007 9:50 PM

Robert Byrd respects the Constitution? Have you seen the judges he supports? Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, even Giuliani and the entire rest of the GOP field will install originalist judges, while all the Dems would place activists who think the job is about mandating your personal policy preferences.

I will support any GOP candidate over any Dem candidate. Not because of partisanship, but because of judges.

All the same, Go Mitt!

Posted by Gyrd | August 11, 2007 9:50 PM

Houston Mike: Why should Ron Paul praise Israel?

In fact, why in the world should Congress call Hamas a terrorists organization. I'm not saying that they are not one, it just seems like a rather pointless vote. I'm guess that combined with his desire not to praise Israel led to that vote.

Is that really the best you have? Ron Paul had a vote on a non-binding resolution that you don't understand? Come on.

Posted by Matt Shelby | August 11, 2007 9:51 PM

At the very least, Ron Paul has to be taken as a first-tier candidate at this point. McCain, Thomson and Giuliani aren't.

Posted by Crow | August 11, 2007 9:51 PM

Matt, when people actually start hearing about Dr. Paul, they will run as far away as possible, because they will know he cannot win the general election against Hellary or Obama. Period.

The last time we nominated a "pure" libertarian extremist, we got LBJ for a full term. Not gonna happen again.

Posted by Michael | August 11, 2007 9:52 PM

RE: Michael

Are you aware that he votes against the bills that contain those earmarks? Are you even aware of how earmarks work? Based on most of your comments, it seems as if you're just repeating something you heard elsewhere. Because if you had researched the issues yourself, that would mean you are purposely misrepresenting.

Posted by Andrew | August 11, 2007 9:52 PM

Mitt's kids will remain in Iowa to cut lawns for the rest of the summer.

Posted by bristol | August 11, 2007 9:53 PM

My Observation....

9.1% of the people who voted in the poll get it.

Posted by Jay | August 11, 2007 9:53 PM

Hey houstonmike. If you're from Houston, in all probability you're a lying nut also. Where is the House Resolution or other evidence that you are not full of internet b.s.?

"We're in nut country now" ---John F. Kennedy 11/22/63

Posted by Conservative Dem | August 11, 2007 9:54 PM

Michael, the last time we nominated 'a "pure" libertarian extremist,' we saw a resurgence of conservative dominance in political life up until now, and don't forgot 8 years of Ronald Reagan. Think strategically. Goldwater did not lose. He won the next 40 years for conservatives.

Posted by Crow | August 11, 2007 9:54 PM

huckabee's great showing will force romney, mccain& guiliani to start answering questions about the fair tax & not be able to bob & weave away from this important issue as there are a lot of people for the fair tax and as it gets more exposure the dems will have to answer questions to,so go mike huckabee as you are gaining momentum with this track, many americans want changes to the tax code, no matter what party they are from and this issue could be your track to the white hse

Posted by jw | August 11, 2007 9:55 PM

Ron Paul $400 Million Earmark Explanation:

Did you know he also voted against the bill that would have awarded those earmarks? The federal government, by Paul's view, steals money from HIS constituents. It is, therefore, his job to have money go back to those constituents if the federal government decides to give money back to people at all.

The actions of Congress are unconstitutional, but as long as they are giving out money, shouldn't Dr. Paul try to get a little back to his district, or should he just let his be the only district that is stolen from that gets nothing back? And, again, I emphasize, he VOTES AGAINST THE BILLS.

Posted by Matt Shelby | August 11, 2007 9:55 PM

Mitt's wives are on their way to Vermont.

Posted by bristol | August 11, 2007 9:56 PM

>>>>OK, I will tell you something that shows Ron Paul is a nut. During Israel's recent war with Hamas in Lebanon, he was one of the only congressman who wouldn't support a resolution that praised Israel and called Hamas a terrorist organization.

Posted by houstonmike | August 11, 2007 9:48 PM
-------

Awesome! Israel is always stirring up trouble and wanting us to bail them out. We largely wouldn't be targets of terrorism if we didn't waste BILLIONS of dollars every year on those welfare parasites. Jew Homeland, huh? What about separation of Church and State? Why are our tax dollars going to support a terrorist nation (look up King David Hotel, Lavon Affair, Irgun, etc....) that has ATTACKED AND KILLED Americans (USS Liberty attack)???? You are a traitor, houstonmike. Go live in Israel.

Israel constantly uses its MILITARY against CIVILIANS. I thought that was a war crime, but no one says anything. They conduct lynchings - another double standard. Just substitute Whites in for Jews. Would we be supporting a White Homeland that regularly executes non-Whites without a trial (all you have to do is mutter that they were "suspected terrorists" and it all gets swept under the rug? Would we?

Posted by Alex | August 11, 2007 9:56 PM

Houstonmike,
Ron Paul is one of the few congressmen who are not in the pocket of AIPAC and the Israeli firsters.
He doesn't have to rely on their contributions and thusly does not have to support our mythical 51st state.

Posted by David | August 11, 2007 9:57 PM

Michael: LBJ? LBJ? Ha! Ok, I'm going to stop responding to you. You have demonstrated a few things:

1) You don't really understand political philosophy, you are just parroting what your favorite "conservative" blogger tells you to.
2) You don't understand American political history. LBJ was not a libertarian. He was a power-hungry war-monger who loved to spend American's money.
3) You resort to insults and name-calling, therefore don't really deserve the attention of intelligent political observers.

Posted by Matt | August 11, 2007 9:58 PM

Alex, you're an anti-Semitic troll, and you don't belong here. Why don't you go hang out withe the psychotic Counter-Punch crowd? They seem more your type.

Posted by Crow | August 11, 2007 9:58 PM

I believe Paul bought the minimum 800. Where is the source that says Mitt bought 10,000?

Posted by Paul | August 11, 2007 9:58 PM

Andrew, thanks for trying to smear the fact that Ron Paul sought $400 million in PORK.

The fact that he voted against the entire bill afterwards is kind of Kerry-like - he voted FOR IT before he voted AGAINST IT.

Looks like he's trying to cover up his porking.

Posted by Michael | August 11, 2007 9:59 PM

>>Did Paul do as well as I would have liked? No, but he beat 2%

Romney camp bought 10,000 tickets and got 4,516 votes

Paul camp bought 500 tickets and got 1,305 votes

Couple conclusions:
Romney can't even buy support (with free tickets, rides and food)
The majority of Paul supporters liked him enough to actually pay for themselves (and make the drive over there)

Posted by RomneysGhost | August 11, 2007 9:50 PM
------------
^^F'in priceless!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Alex | August 11, 2007 9:59 PM

Didn't really expect Dr. Paul to win this or crack anywhere near the top, but he got my vote anyway.

America can either sip its arsenic (Romney/Giuliani) or it can gulp it down in one shot (Hillary/Obama/Edwards), but there's no point in denying the inevitable. Look at the Roman Empire...

Posted by kttj115 | August 11, 2007 10:00 PM

Could someone answer why and/or how the GOP of Iowa thought they would have 40,000 voting attendees for this function?

If they had control of all voting tickets, and one purchased ticket = one vote, I don't understand how the number of tickets distributed didn't provide an approximation as to the number of final votes.

AMES: Romney WIns; Huckabee In Second

TrackBack

Comments (262)