Post by admin on Feb 7, 2008 18:54:25 GMT -5
Berg, a frequent reader of this site saw this and asked me to post if for you. For some reason, that person was thinking of you when he read it. Could this be the beginnings of a Bergsteiger fan club? 
Republicans Vote for Tough Guys
A look at the polling data from NH, IA, and South Carolina show that there is a large contingent of voters that want a tough, commander-in-chief for President, and did not much care about his policies.
In Iowa, when not offered McCain or Giuliani by their active campaigning, they switched to Huckabee, not to Romney. (Look at the chart. Huckabee’s numbers go up as Giuliani’s and McCain’s go down.)
This is more dramatic in New Hampshire. As Rudy’s fortunes changed (revelations about his use of public funds, etc.) his poll numbers dropped and then dropped dramatically in the final few weeks as he did not challenge in this state. McCain pulled out all the stops with personal visits, ignoring Iowa. It paid off.
In South Carolina, the same thing happened. When Giuliani did not participate, his votes went to McCain or Huckabee.
In no case, did voters switch to Mitt Romney. He did not have a base of voters that he could count on. He was the alternative candidate for many voters who disagreed with other candidates on conservative issues (immigration, abortion, etc.,) but he never gained a contingent of voters who felt that he deserved to be commander-in-chief.
On the issue of immigration, he accepted the endorsement of Tom Tancredo, but this was reluctant. (Where are the pictures of Romney and Tancredo embracing?) He never did anything that was dramatic or would get mud on his boots. How about a visit to the border and stand there at 2am and watch the illegals come across? Did anybody really believe he would enforce the immigration laws? Hardly.
What has Romney ever done in his life that placed his life in personal danger? Flown an attack plane? Lead an infantry unit? Walked into a burning building? Nothing. Compared to McCain and Giuliani, Romney scores zero. Perhaps, he tripped over a power cord at a board meeting and mussed his hair, but that is about it.
On abortion he was seen as shifting his position and his Mass. Health Care Plan, smacked of Romney-care to many. He just was never a real conservative to conservatives. Not many could relate to Mr. Perfect.
Rescuing the Olympic Games wasn’t seen the same as the same as landing on a carrier deck. Nor was it seen as the same as the crime-buster, stalwart of 9/11 as Rudy. Romney revealed himself to be what he is, a corporate chief that feels that leading a country is the same as running an investment company. His presentations smacked of a power-point presentation at an investor conference. Republican primary voters did not buy-in.
(Of course, Giuliani’s strategy was a disaster. McCain sopped up all the hard core Republican votes in the first primaries, and Giuliani was finished. In contrast, McCain hit the nail on the head. The first obligation of a President is to protect the country, and he ran on that. Ignoring for the moment that 20 million illegals have invaded the country, his appeal was on the money.)
The idea that voters pick candidates only on their ideological positions (consevative vs. liberal) and that this was a victory or acceptance of liberalism or a rejection of conservatism seems a bit short-sighted. The majority of Americans, around 67% are against amnesty and want laws enforced against illegal employment. There are even a higher percent of Republicans that agree with this. Nevertheless, none of the candidates except Paul and Tancredo had this as a position until they were forced into it. In short, ideological or positions may have been irrelevant in the minds of a good many of Republican voters.
The Republican primary voters are choosing their candidate. Personal qualities of toughness in the face of adversity appear to be far more important than their positions on any issue.
Paul Streitz
amfirst@optonline.net
Republicans Vote for Tough Guys
A look at the polling data from NH, IA, and South Carolina show that there is a large contingent of voters that want a tough, commander-in-chief for President, and did not much care about his policies.
In Iowa, when not offered McCain or Giuliani by their active campaigning, they switched to Huckabee, not to Romney. (Look at the chart. Huckabee’s numbers go up as Giuliani’s and McCain’s go down.)
This is more dramatic in New Hampshire. As Rudy’s fortunes changed (revelations about his use of public funds, etc.) his poll numbers dropped and then dropped dramatically in the final few weeks as he did not challenge in this state. McCain pulled out all the stops with personal visits, ignoring Iowa. It paid off.
In South Carolina, the same thing happened. When Giuliani did not participate, his votes went to McCain or Huckabee.
In no case, did voters switch to Mitt Romney. He did not have a base of voters that he could count on. He was the alternative candidate for many voters who disagreed with other candidates on conservative issues (immigration, abortion, etc.,) but he never gained a contingent of voters who felt that he deserved to be commander-in-chief.
On the issue of immigration, he accepted the endorsement of Tom Tancredo, but this was reluctant. (Where are the pictures of Romney and Tancredo embracing?) He never did anything that was dramatic or would get mud on his boots. How about a visit to the border and stand there at 2am and watch the illegals come across? Did anybody really believe he would enforce the immigration laws? Hardly.
What has Romney ever done in his life that placed his life in personal danger? Flown an attack plane? Lead an infantry unit? Walked into a burning building? Nothing. Compared to McCain and Giuliani, Romney scores zero. Perhaps, he tripped over a power cord at a board meeting and mussed his hair, but that is about it.
On abortion he was seen as shifting his position and his Mass. Health Care Plan, smacked of Romney-care to many. He just was never a real conservative to conservatives. Not many could relate to Mr. Perfect.
Rescuing the Olympic Games wasn’t seen the same as the same as landing on a carrier deck. Nor was it seen as the same as the crime-buster, stalwart of 9/11 as Rudy. Romney revealed himself to be what he is, a corporate chief that feels that leading a country is the same as running an investment company. His presentations smacked of a power-point presentation at an investor conference. Republican primary voters did not buy-in.
(Of course, Giuliani’s strategy was a disaster. McCain sopped up all the hard core Republican votes in the first primaries, and Giuliani was finished. In contrast, McCain hit the nail on the head. The first obligation of a President is to protect the country, and he ran on that. Ignoring for the moment that 20 million illegals have invaded the country, his appeal was on the money.)
The idea that voters pick candidates only on their ideological positions (consevative vs. liberal) and that this was a victory or acceptance of liberalism or a rejection of conservatism seems a bit short-sighted. The majority of Americans, around 67% are against amnesty and want laws enforced against illegal employment. There are even a higher percent of Republicans that agree with this. Nevertheless, none of the candidates except Paul and Tancredo had this as a position until they were forced into it. In short, ideological or positions may have been irrelevant in the minds of a good many of Republican voters.
The Republican primary voters are choosing their candidate. Personal qualities of toughness in the face of adversity appear to be far more important than their positions on any issue.
Paul Streitz
amfirst@optonline.net