Maybe I should have gotten that interview when I had the chance
The “unelectable” Ron Paul beat both Rudy Giuliani and John McCain at the Illinois Straw Poll at the State Fair. Note that the second-place finisher’s not even in the race officially. Romney had a surprisingly high score of 40%.
With reports of Hillary having a 30-point lead, it looks more and more like it’s going to be a Hillary-Obama ticket versus a Republican ticket with Mitt at the head and Fred Thompson as the VP.
While I would love to see Ron Paul as the Republican candidate, I think, as I said last night to Augur, that he really won’t come into his own as a candidate until the existing powers that be give us four or eight more years of Clintons.
Think about this, folks: If what I expect occurs, we will have had a period of 28 years in which the Executive Office of the United States is held by a member of one of two families. If this occurred in a Third-World country, we’d consider it an oligarchy. I just consider it the most outward sign of the evil and corruption that permeates our government at all levels.
Tom
Comment by Augur on 17 August 2007 at 1:22 pm:
I wonder if Rudy increased the size of the NY government when he was in charge. If so, Romney should take a bit of Paul’s message and talk about how Republicans should be about lowering taxes and reducing the size of government.
Good talking to you last night
Comment by tet on 17 August 2007 at 2:17 pm:
Well, everything is relative.
The size of the Federal budget increased by about 50% (not including inflation) between 1990 and 2000. I called the NYC City Hall librarian, who was just heading out for the weekend and asked her to look up the budget for NYC for ‘94 and 2001 (fiscal year) and there was an increase of only about 22% over Giuliani’s tenure as mayor.
So, he grew the NYC budget (if that’s a good representation of the size of government) at a rate that was about 60% of the growth rate of the Federal budget during the same period.
[2001 budget for NYC was 39 billion, by the way.]
I don’t think that Romney’s got much on him in that respect. Christine (the city librarian) was bound for a marvellous weekend on the Jersey beaches, or I would have asked her about relative deficits during the same period. Unfortunately, they’re an hour ahead of us, and I would never hold up an (undoubtedly hawt like all of them) librarian.
While size of government is a problem, it is also unfair to place the blame for it totally on the Executive. It’s not like the budgets are proclaimed by fiat–lots of input there.
If I was Romney, I’d stay away from this subject unless I had managed to do better with Massachusetts (unlikely with the extreme pro-government stance of Taxachusetts in general.)
Tom
Comment by JAL on 17 August 2007 at 3:51 pm:
Wow, a good post by tet.
Ron Paul – Hope for America 2008!
Comment by Augur on 17 August 2007 at 4:30 pm:
Tommy – Thanks for doing the research.
I enjoyed the post
Comment by Brian on 17 August 2007 at 7:33 pm:
Even as an Obama supporter, I grow a little weary of the “28 years of two families” argument. Yeah, sure, if this were a 3rd world country, we might call it an oligarchy. But it isn’t. It’s the oldest democracy in the modern world with a long established history of (relatively) free and fair elections and peaceful transitions of power. I’m not really worried about it, and I don’t really know a good reason why I should be in spite of all the people wringing their hands over it.
The relevant question should be, has this candidate achieved a position of power without earning it merely because of their last name? I think you could make a pretty solid argument that this was the case with the current Bush administration; I don’t think you can with Hillary, nor do I think you could if Jeb Bush had decided to run. Disagree with either or both of them all you want, but they’re the real deal: qualified, informed, etc. Disqualifying a candidate solely because of their last name is just as bad as electing a candidate solely because of their last name. I think there are reasons to think Hillary isn’t the best candidate available to us, I just don’t think the fact that she is a Clinton is one of them (on the contrary, her experience in the White House, along with the fact that it’s probably a safe bet to assume she would govern similarly to the way her husband did, are probably two of the best arguments in support of her – if, of course, you were a fan of Bill Clinton, which obviously a lot of people aren’t).
Comment by Augur on 17 August 2007 at 10:49 pm:
The relevant question is actually whether or not enough people will be moved by the bush-clinton-bush-clinton 28 years argument that if Hillary is the nominee she’ll lose to the Republican. As democrats, we may not like that some people are persuaded by the 28 year argument. It is pretty silly, but it does make her look “yesterday” and strengthen a “new direction” message whether it is coming from Obama or Edwards or eventually someone like Mitt Romney. Pragmatic partisan democrats need to consider how likely this is to keep people in swing states from voting for her in the general.
As a democrat, like our new poster the Benevolent Dictator, I think all of the dems are better than all of the republicans (Sorry Ron). Our job is to figure out which one of these candidates can win in November ‘08. Don’t take your eye off the ball.
Comment by Brian on 17 August 2007 at 11:00 pm:
Augur,
That’s a fair point. But I tend to approach any kind of “electability” argument uneasily (look where it got us in 2004), especially so this time around when it really does look like Democrats can be reasonably confident that whoever their nominee is (within reason) will get elected in the general. Strategic thinking has its place (as I’ve argued a number of times when it comes to 3rd party candidacies), but making an honest-to-god decision about who the best candidate is also has its place, especially when the strategic thinking is really just so much guesswork, which all of this “electability” talk is, even moreso when that guesswork is placed in the hands of people who are not that well educated on these strategic matters (the electorate), and even moreso when ALL the democrats look electable. Not to mention the fact that if Hillary loses, I really don’t think the bush-clinton-bush-clinton argument is going to be the one that does her in.
Comment by Augur on 17 August 2007 at 11:10 pm:
My point is that the real crux of this question is the impact this could have in a general, not whether or not it is a silly argument.
In close elections there are usually lots of ones that could have done you in. I obviously don’t think this is going to be the biggest issue of the campaign or anything, but I’ve met a LOT of people who have talked about how they don’t like the bush-clinton-bush-clinton pattern. It’s a simple message and a simple theme that masses of the electorate could tie themselves too.
In terms of predictability, the one thing Dems shouldn’t take for granted is that by the time the general rolls around dems will enjoy the margin some are now projecting. Americans love a horse race. For my money, it’s far more likely that the 08 election will be close, than it will be a blow out. A lot can happen in 14 months.
Prediction: Petraeus will dramatically exceed expectations.
Prediction if I’m wrong about the Prediction above (and maybe even if not): Republicans will start attacking Bush’s expansion of government and his fiscal policy to distance themselves while allowing GOP voters to remain ideologically consistent while piling on Dubya.
Comment by Brian on 17 August 2007 at 11:25 pm:
Well, that’s not quite the point when Tom seemed to be putting forth that argument as an honest concern about Hillary getting elected, not as a concern about Hillary’s electability.
I agree with much of the rest of what you said (not so much the predictions, but the stuff before that), but it really just further demonstrates that the principle of unpredictability carries the day, which makes it awfully hard to judge which candidate is actually the most electable in a primary. So I say, when in doubt, vote for who you think the best candidate is, so long as you’re not obviously fucking over the Democrats’ chances of winning in the general (e.g. voting for somebody like Gravel or Kucinich). I don’t think Hillary obviously fucks over the Democrats’ chances of winning in the general, so I think people should vote for her if they think she’s honestly the best Democrat available for the job. As I say, strategic thinking has its place, but there ought to be reasonable limits on that type of thinking, and when we’re talking about the intricacies of a Democratic primary, trying to determine who the most electable candidate is several months before the general election is probably an area where such limits ought to be in place.
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 18 August 2007 at 1:14 pm:
romney brought 4 bus loads full of people and ron paul people, while there are few, are incredibly loyal and I’m sure that they all showed up because they have little better to do with their lives. the illinois straw poll, like most straw polls, is completely rigged and totally unreliable. to even discuss them is a waste of time.
Comment by tet on 18 August 2007 at 4:35 pm:
There was a bit of a hoo-rah at the tent, from what I heard. One of the more enthusiastic Romney supporters grabbed a sign from a Ron Paul backer, tore the sign up and called him an “effin’ lunatic.”
No charges were filed.
Tom
Comment by John Bambenek on 18 August 2007 at 8:25 pm:
Scary thought of the day…
After 8 years of Hillary, Jeb runs and gives us 8 more years of Bush.
And you know what… I have a very easy time seeing this happen.