The principles that rule this blog

Principles that will govern my thoughts as I express them here (from my opening statement):

  • Freedom of the individual should be as total as possible, limited only by the fact that nobody should be free to cause physical injury to another, or to deprive another person of his freedoms.
  • Government is necessary primarily to provide those services that private enterprise won't, or won't at a price that people can afford.
  • No person has a right to have his own beliefs on religious, moral, political, or other controversial issues imposed on others who do not share those beliefs.

I believe that Abraham Lincoln expressed it very well:

“The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do, at all, or cannot
so well do, for themselves — in their separate, individual capacities.”

Comments will be invited, and I will attempt to reply to any comments that are offered in a serious and non-abusive manner. However, I will not tolerate abusive or profane language (my reasoning is that this is my blog, and so I can control it; I wouldn't interfere with your using such language on your own!)

If anyone finds an opinion that I express to be contrary to my principles, they are welcome to point this out. I hope that I can make a rational case for my comments. Because, in fact, one label I'll happily accept is rationalist.

Wednesday, January 04, 2012

Iowans have spoken, but what did they say?

The Iowa caucuses were held yesterday, and the results bore out the recent polls that pointed to Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul as the leaders. Between Romney and Santorum, the results were a near-tie: Romney's margin over Santorum, according to the results I saw on the Web, was only 8 out of over 60,000 that the two candidates got. And the top three candidates together got over 70% of the total, so it is likely that some of the others will drop out soon. (It has been reported that Rick Perry, for example, is going back home to Texas to consider his options.)

The biggest winner might be said to be Santorum, who was at the bottom of the pack a few weeks ago, and yet got almost as many votes as Romney did. But this is Iowa. Four years ago, Mike Huckabee won Iowa, getting nearly half the vote. Iowa is a state with a lot of right-wing evangelical Christians, who might be even more up for this one since Iowa became the first Midwestern state to legalize gay marriage. (And who more clearly symbolizes the anti-gay position than Rick Santorum, whose position so angered Dan Savage — see my previous posting)? So Santorum might have been expected to win Iowa; the fact that he only essentially tied Romney — after campaigning harder in Iowa than any other candidate, while Romney mostly ignored Iowa until very recently — really means that Santorum did not meet expectations. But it does mean that the evangelical religious Right has settled on him as their candidate. (And if anything makes me more hostile to him than any of the other contenders.)

Ron Paul has to be happy about his third-place finish, though some polls had him winning Iowa. But in fact, most of his support came from independents, not Republicans, and he will not be able to transfer this strong Iowa showing to the nationwide party.

So I think that the result of the Iowa caucuses points to Mitt Romney being the 2012 nominee. (One anti-Romney blog I read denigrates Romney as the 2012 McCain. Perhaps he is, and that, despite that guy's comment, is a good thing. Who, after all, did the GOP nominate in 2008?) And I'm not complaining.

No comments: