ABC’s Republican Debate and 1776

Crooks and Liars has some video of the ABC Republican debate with the candidates talking about Iraq and the “War on Terrorism” generally.  The question, specifically, was about the so-called Bush doctrine: the exclusive right of the United States to wage preemptive wars.

Ron Paul shows why he is an asset to have in the campaign.  He tries to make people understand what is happening on the other end of American foreign policy and how they view our actions.  Romney claimed that by doing so Paul was buying into the enemy propaganda.  To Romney, any attempt to understand the rationale of why people are opposing us in Iraq, in Afghanistan, or why we were attacked beyond they hate us for our freedom and want to establish a caliphate that will rule the entire planet is buying into enemy propaganda.  I think it is fairly easy to tell which one is the propaganda and which one is not.

Dr. Paul was also on Bill Moyers Journal.  I thought it was a good interview.  Even if I don’t agree with Paul on every domestic issue, I do believe it is important to have a right-wing libertarian in the wings questioning power.  I do believe some forms of central planning are necessary in order for the human race to survive the next millennium.  However, even the most well intentioned people can impose tyranny.  All power must be questioned.  It is also most effectively criticized by those who do don’t share the same base assumptions.

This brings me to “1776” by David McCullough.  I’m approximately half-way through, but one thing that has impressed me is McCullough’s portrayal of British leadership.  The British had some sizable advantages and a few faults, not the least of which was a basic lack of intellectual curiosity about their enemy.  Our own history teaches us about the failures that spring from not properly understanding a foe despite having a superior force.

Iowa Caucus Results

Politico has good coverage of the Iowa caucus results. The Republican side isn’t too hard to understand, since it is a basic straw poll. The Democratic side is a little confusing so here is a picture that explains the process. As the picture shows, only two candidates won the Iowa caucus and went on to win the presidency (Jimmy Carter, and George W. Bush).

The Republican results were (at 96% precincts reporting):

Huckabee	34%
Romney	25%
Thompson	13%
McCain	13%
Paul	10%
Giuliani	3%
Hunter	0%

For the Democrats (at 100%):

Obama	38%
Edwards	30%
Clinton	29%
Richardson	2%
Biden	1%
Dodd	0%
Gravel	0%
Kucinich	0%

The Democratic turnout was reported to be around 220,000-plus and the Republican turnout was around 114,000. So, we can put an imperfect list together ranking all the candidates weighted by turnout.

Obama	25%
Edwards	20%
Clinton	19%
Huckabee	12%
Romney	9%
Thompson	4%
McCain	4%
Paul	3%

I don’t want to get into the whole horse race aspect of this, but there are a few conclusions we can draw.

1. Giuliani is out.  Yes, I realize this is Iowa and Giuliani didn’t really try hard, but even given that, he still should have done better than he did.
2. Obama is the heir apparent to get the Democratic nod.  However, Edwards and Clinton are both within striking distance.
3. Democrats are trouncing Republicans in terms of numbers.  I attribute this more to White House scandals and war dissatisfaction than Republicans cynically trying to plant a Democratic candidate they know they can beat.
4. Paul supporters have nothing to be ashamed of.  No, Ron Paul didn’t do as well as his supporters would have hoped.  However, he trounced Giuliani and is competitive with McCain and Thompson in Iowa of all places.
5. Huckabee is strong now, but I expect as other candidates such as McCain, Thompson and Giuliani drop out, Romney will start leading.  I think the Paul faction just disappears or goes Democratic.