Sunday, July 29, 2007

"Top Tier" Hiding Out & Letting Media Impose Them on GOP

I have a question. What qualifies a GOP candidate for President for the label "top tier"? Is it actual strength on the ground or is it simply a label that the establishment media applies to the candidates it prefers, regardless of what is happening on the ground? And if you think that those the establishment media calls "top tier" candidates are called that because they really are the ones who are strong on the ground, then I have a question for you: Why are they all running and hiding from the alleged "second tier" candidates?

The first serious Republican test of strength on the ground has traditionally been the "Iowa Straw Poll". Since it has been held, no one who failed to finish in the top two has ever won the nomination. Mitt Romney lavished tons of campaign cash early in Iowa. Rudy Giuliani and John McCain (back when he was still considered by the media to be a "front runner") announced that they would skip the event. Presumed candidate Fred Thompson has delayed announcing his candidacy, thus providing him cover for a poor showing in the Iowa Straw Poll. Recently, even Romney announced that he was "scaling back" his Iowa operations. Why? Why is the so-called "top tier" afraid to go head to head with the much-ignored "second tier"?

So are they "top-tier" because of their numbers on national polls? The oft-cited national polls are based on pure name-ID at this stage of the game. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The media mentions Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson one million times and then takes a poll of typical voters who are not paying much attention. And whose names come to the forefront but the very ones that the media has been pounding into the publics' ears over and over and over? Compare that to a real contest where candidates have to muster real supporters on the ground. In Iowa, the candidates have to go around and meet real people and be measured by them in the flesh. And there, the "top tier" candidates are fleeing the contest. Will the establishment media then report that there is a new "top tier" based on the results? Of course not. They will then all chatter about how "the results are meaningless" since their self-designated "top tier" candidates decided to "cut and run" from the political battlefield.

Several second tier candidates, including Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo, are going to do well in that Iowa straw poll. No GOP candidate has ever won the nomination without finishing in the top two. But with the media providing covering fire, the "top tier" have fled the contest knowing that their pals with the microphones will dismiss the results as "meaningless". Conservatives, do you want the establishment media to pick your candidates for you? If not, why are you letting them? I would suggest you take a fresh look based on the straw poll results in Iowa in about two weeks.

In the meantime, the "top tier" continues to avoid as many direct comparisons with second tier candidates as possible, even if it means disrespecting the state republican parties in other crucial states. For example, in Florida the state Republican Party wanted to cosponsor a debate with CNN/YouTube. Romney and Giuliani opted out, Fred Thompson is still teasing (my guess, he wants to wait until that Sept. report on Iraq, which will give Republicans cover to do what they would have called "cut and run" months ago. They know the continued nation-building in Iraq is a loser in 08).

Only former top-tier guy McCain, who impaled himself on illegal immigration, and Ron Paul have agreed to show up. I don't know what the other 2nd tier guys are waiting for, maybe for a top tier guy to say "yes" first. But why should Romney, Giuliani, or Thompson do that? The establishment media has shown itself all too willing to carry their water for them. They are the media-anointed "top-tier", regardless of what is happening on the ground in early primary states.


Anonymous C.B. said...

Mark, I couldn't put my opinion into words as good as you just did! It is exasperating to continually have "moderate' (read liberal) candidates shoved down our throat by the media. I can promise you they don't have our(conservatives) best interest in mind.

11:10 PM, July 29, 2007  
Anonymous c.b. said...

Although I don't share your enthusiasm for Ron Paul. While he is dead right on many social & domestic issues, I feel that he has his head in the sand on islamic terrorism, it's causes & solutions.

Some will have a knee-jerk reaction to what I'm about to say.....
We need to take a serious look at Newt Gingrich.
Please do your homework & check out what he has been doing & advocating.
In terms of ideas, no one even comes close. The man is brilliant & he is one of the last (if not the best) statesmen left.
In terms of strategy here's what I see shaping up.
I think Newt is painting them all into a corner with his American Solutions Workshop.
From the public's perspective, what Politian gives all of his opponents(GOP & Dems) his platform and says "please use this, if you will, I won't run"?
From all the other candidates perspective, who can afford to run a campaign on "hey, what Newt said!"? It makes them look like they're not their own man. It's a catch 22.

He is also setting the stage with his Lincoln-Douglas debates. He is getting some powerful Democrats & media figures on board supporting his debate proposals.
And if he is the nominee, he will CREAM any of the Democrats in that format.
My first reaction was "No democrat will ever agree to that", but they refuse at the risk of being perceived as a coward. He will be able to remind people that he was advocating them long before he "considered" running for President. Another Catch 22
Here is a quote Newt is sure to use again; "Any candidate that is unwilling to agree to a series of debates where they sit down for an hour and discuss, with no rules, no moderator, no mickey mouse, just two adults describing their vision for the country, cannot be taken seriously as someone who is ready to serve as President."

When I see what he is doing(with the Solutions Workshops & the Debates) I think it is a strategy, & I think he may outfox both the other GOP hopefuls in the primary & the Dem nominee in the general election. That is assuming that he wants to be President. I think if he wants it he could make it, that's why I don't want to count him out just yet.

11:32 PM, July 29, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Newt is every bit as polarizing as HRC. If you want to ensure a Dem victory, nominate Newt.

Additionally, Newt- like Fred Thompson- is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He's another globalist hack.

Re: Ron Paul, he's not anti-war nor is he against fighting the Islamists. You're getting your opinion from the Giuliani McRomney hacks. Paul voted FOR the war in Afghanistan. However, he knew Iraq would be a distracting waste of time which is why he voted against the impotent and symbolic cheerleading resolution encouraging the president to enforce UN resolutions in Iraq. He has since been proven correct.

His wisdom on Iraq and should alone qualify him for the presidency above all other candidates, but instead he is treated as if it's the one reason people shouldn't support him. Talk about Alice in Wonderland.

Will you also condemn Newt and Fred when they come out against the war in Iraq, or will you praise their 'wisdom' in hindsight while condemning a man who had foresight?

6:47 AM, July 30, 2007  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...


Ron Paul had amazing insights regarding the war against those who used terrorism against the United States. I should post his list of questions he wanted answered before we went in.

Iraq was a mistake. Saddam had nothing to do with 911 and he viewed Al-Quida as another threat to his regime that needed to be kept down. Now WE are having to do the killing that he was doing for us in Iraq. That includes Al-Quida in Iraq (with our occupation their biggest recruiting point) and Mookie. Saddam wiped out half of Mookie's family. Now we see why, one group of thugs wiping out the other.

7:11 AM, July 30, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You can't get good government from a bad man. Newt does not have the character to be President of the United States.

Not only in his personal life, but ask Tom Delay what it was like when Newt was speaker of the House. He said Newt G. was "impossible to follow". Some folks talk a better game than they play.

7:12 AM, July 30, 2007  
Anonymous c.b. said...

Newt is "impossible to follow"??!
What was the contract with America?
The true problems in the GOP started with Tom Delay in power after Newt left. With no one to keep the focus on ideas it became all about power.

8:48 AM, July 30, 2007  
Anonymous c.b. said...

By the way, I have no idea what the Guliani/Romney hacks say about Paul. I listen to what HE says. On fredom & domestic issues, thumbs up, but when he gets on foriegn policy it's left field.

On Iraq, I don't fall into the trap that "since it is not going well then we should never have gone in". What I disagree with is this limited conflict stuff. As long as we hamstring our troops we will never win any war.
Many lament the "terrorist magnet" we created in Irag. Is that such a bad thing. Most of these extemists from Iran etc. are making their last stand there instead of trying to get into the U.S., Israel & other allies.

Remember if Bush etal. would have planned better & fought effectively & we now had a democratic, peaceful Iraq no one would remember Ron Paul or anyone else's Doomsday predictions. He reminds me of Obama continually reminding everyone that he opposed it from the start.

9:07 AM, July 30, 2007  
Anonymous c.b. said...

Anonymous said...
"Newt is every bit as polarizing as HRC. If you want to ensure a Dem victory, nominate Newt."

Can you name one effective Republican that has been in power for any lenth of time that has not been labeled as "polarizing" by the media. They pump up the Mcain's that sell out but anyone who is effective is demonized.
Don't fall for this media ploy.

9:13 AM, July 30, 2007  
Anonymous c.b. said...

But, let's take your premise..... Hillary & Newt, both polarizing, cancel each other out.
Compare to '04......
Is Hillary MORE polarizing than Kerry? Most definitely.
Then take Newt, which has 100 times the communication skills of Bush.
Hands down Newt can beat Hillary.

9:39 AM, July 30, 2007  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...


It does not sound like you are listening to Paul. He does not say "since it is not going well then we should never have gone in". He said before this ever started that we should not go in because Iraq had not attacked us and was not behind 9/11. I wish we had listened to him.

It does not matter if we CAN kill them and take over their country. The question is SHOULD we? In Afganistan, we should have gone in and Paul voted to go in.

Paul just says you don't start wars with countries that have not attacked you, if you do start a war with a country you do it for your own national interests and not in order to "enforce U.N. resolutions", and and you don't hang around and "nation build" in countries with no history of success with self-rule. Now all of that makes a lot of sense to me, and shows Paul to be smarter than the lot of them, though Gingrich may be the second smartest.

10:21 AM, July 30, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The premise is that a beltway boy like Gingrich would be anything other than globalist neocon. He's had nothing negative to say about the decision to attack Iraq and unnecessarily bog down our forces, only that he would've bogged us down in Iraq differently-- supposedly with our hands untied.

It's more of the same nation building that the frontrunners always campaign against (eg. Bush in '99) but ignore to our peril once elected.

11:41 AM, July 30, 2007  
Anonymous c.b. said...

I don't remember anyone saying Iraq was behind 9/11 as a justification for the war, except Dems trying to say Bush SAID THAT. There is no civil war like the media portrays. We are fighting Iran & Syria by proxy in Iraq.

It's hard not to get sucked in to the continual negative reporting. I have friends & relatives over there & they tell a difffernt story.

I sincerely believe we must look at Iraq in perspective of the whole war on terror. I think if we pull it out it will be a net plus for us although we still have much to do elsewhere. We no longer have the luxury of sitting back & waiting for an attack.

Reports say we have a lot of new action in the Medditeranen sea & some think that an attack on Iran's Nuke plants are coming(maybe in the next few weeks).
Would you support that?

On Ron Paul, a major concern is his demeanor, appearance, & mannerisms that come across as kooky & extreme.
He can say something that I totally agree with but still sound kind of crazy.
I am confident that alone makes him completely un-electable.

Keep up the work here. I really enjoy your blog. Although I don't post much I check in regularly.

11:50 AM, July 30, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why are you all arguing over Newt when he will probably never announce and is polling near dead last among Republican potentials?

11:54 AM, July 30, 2007  
Anonymous c.b. said...

Anonymous said...
"The premise is that a beltway boy like Gingrich would be anything other than globalist neocon. He's had nothing negative to say about the decision to attack Iraq and unnecessarily bog down our forces, only that he would've bogged us down in Iraq differently-- supposedly with our hands untied.".....

The problem with your analysis is that you are trying to view the situation Iraq in a bubble, as if it is isolated from the whole war on terror.
We aren't listening to them. These Islamofacists, from Ahmadinejad to the lowest of the suicide bombers, they are making no bones about it. They want to KILL US.... ALL OF US.

And the argument that they are using Iraq as a recruiting tool!?
What was the RT to get pilots for 9/11?
Do you think if we left Iraq in defeat that they would use that as a RT?
They will use anything including myths & virgins to recruit. Come on.

12:01 PM, July 30, 2007  
Anonymous c.b. said...

Anonymous said...
"Why are you all arguing over Newt when he will probably never announce and is polling near dead last among Republican potentials?"

That remains to be seen. He acually came in second in the CPAC poll. That is people that are engaged.
Then a recent poll showed 25% chose "none of the above" when presented with the announced plus Thompson.
Basiclly, there is a huge void even with Thompson in & the polls right now are irrelevent.

12:08 PM, July 30, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

These Islamofacists, from Ahmadinejad to the lowest of the suicide bombers, they are making no bones about it. They want to KILL US.... ALL OF US.

They've always wanted to kill us! The reason that they're able to do so more capably today is because:
A. Bush's insane immigration policies which DIRECTLY led to 9/11.

B. The fact that we spend more time than we have to in the Middle East meddling in Arab politics, whether kissing the rings of Saudi princes for their crude oil, or nation building in a country that has but a remote connection to our national interests.

Why would you want to march the troops around the world to get their keisters shot off when we haven't taken basic steps to protect ourselves by securing our borders?

And do you believe that this perpetual conflict is worth cheap Saudi oil or "democracy" in Iraq?

12:15 PM, July 30, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

By the way, I know it was really Clinton's immigration policies that preceded 9/11, but Bush's policies have actually been worse than Clinton's, for example, in terms of our wide open borders. He's just "lucky" he wasn't in office longer before it happened, or he would be taking the full blame.

12:20 PM, July 30, 2007  
Anonymous c.b. said...

I'm with you on the borders. You might even consider me extreme if you knew my thoughts on it.
Don't take me for a Bush lackey. I wish we could replace him by Midnight tonight.

Unfortunately until we convince the public to vote for conservatives that will let us fully explore & drill for our own oil we must protect our oil interests abroad or we will see our economy devastated. we don't have a choice.

2:46 PM, July 30, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Then we're in agreement on the borders.

But I don't consider Middle Eastern oil fields to be our interests.

4:17 PM, July 30, 2007  
Anonymous c.b. said...

This economy runs on oil, period.
What is your alternative if we lose our supply.

4:34 PM, July 30, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The only way Iran, Hugo Chavez and the rest can keep oil out of our hands it to not sell it period. And that would be the end of their economy too. If they sell oil only to the Japanese and Europeans then we will get more of Mexico and Russia's. We don't have to take over another country in order to buy oil.

6:11 AM, July 31, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

cb- you believe it to be good policy to attack a nation that threatens oil fields belonging to someone else?

Is Saudi Arabia a member of NATO? Is Kuwait? Qatar? Are these oil rich nations helpless and incapable of defending themselves?

6:28 AM, July 31, 2007  
Anonymous c.b. said...

There was a time that we, as the major comsumer in the world did have that leverage, But with China & other nations emerging, that leverage is almost gone(one of the reasons the price fo oil is up).

Let me see if I get this.
So you think that if say.........Ahmadinejad gained control of most of the middle east oil supply that his desire for a good economy would override his determination & pychopathic desire to destroy us & bring about the end of the world.
And even if he did we could depend on the Russians & their ex-KGB leader to help us remain the world superpower & maybe even stop supplying weapons, oil revenues, & logisical support to almost every one of our enemies.

I guess anything is possible......

12:52 PM, July 31, 2007  
Anonymous c.b. said...

Sorry, I have a penchant for satire.

And yes I think we did the right thing in Kuwait. I am not an isolationist. If we had lived by that mentality this would be the United States of Germany.
I simply believe we sometimes must act to protect our interests.

We can sit here & let the Islamofacists slowly take over the world & work their way here or we can take it to them & make them fight our military instead of our civilian population.
Like it or not that is what is happening in Iraq.

No one in the administration would ever admit it, but I wonder if that may have been the strtegy all along.

1:02 PM, July 31, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ahhh, the "secret" strategy of the Bush administration.

First, that's not what Bush is doing. He is NOT waging a war on Islamofascists. People who claim that are being allowed by this administration to perpetuate a misconception. If we were truly fighting Islamofascists, we'd be using a whole lot of pork parts, if you catch my drift.

Furthermore, the Bush administration is also guilty of supplying weapons to terrorists such as Hamas in Gaza and the Sunnis in Iraq, and they're currently pushing to sell restricted weapons to Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Real brainy!

Second, you keep saying that we must fight to protect our interests. No one disagrees with that, only on what we consider is truly our interests.

You never answered my questions as to why WE are responsible to defend the filthy rich Arabs. Are they just utterly helpless, or are we just stupid and desperate enough to do it for them?

5:01 PM, July 31, 2007  
Anonymous c.b. said...

The AFA has a online poll that has been going for several months. I think you could say that they represent a solid block of the conservative base. This poll has some interesting results, check it out.

Copy & paste this link:

8:57 PM, July 31, 2007  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

The AFA poll: Interesting that the top two guys are not even in the race at this time, and number three is pro-abortion (Rudy).

I question how solid that support is. I think it is a measure of the discontent with the field.

7:28 AM, August 01, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A several-months-long poll at this stage of the '08 elections is practically worthless. In fact, the only interesting thing about any poll this far out is that, by comparison, they can describe a trend. We cannot even determine a trend from a poll like this.

9:20 AM, August 01, 2007  
Anonymous c.b. said...

I think we could all agree that national polls this early are based almost solely on name i.d. & press coverage.

What's telling is that in most polls of different segments of the conservative base(AFA, CPAC, Freedomworks, etc.) show the "frontrunners" lagging behind the true conservatives.

You Ron Paul suppoters will like this online poll. Feel free to Vote in it.

9:57 AM, August 01, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ha ha! Not sure what to make of that.

11:16 AM, August 01, 2007  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home