An eager reader suggests looking deeply into the Bloomberg/Des Moines Register poll conducted December 7–10 that shows Senator Ted Cruz pulling ahead of Donald Trump for the GOP nomination.
If like Iowa caucusgoers think through their criteria for selecting a Presidential nominee, Cruz beats Trump:
Cruz and Trump each lead in seven of these fourteen criteria. But in every criterion that Trump leads, Cruz places second. In the criteria that Cruz leads, Trump places second in only two—appropriate life experience and commander-in-chiefiness—and last in the other five, behind clueless Ben Carson and, on the GOP caucus-crucial abortion issue, behind “Not sure.”
The five issues where Trump scores at the bottom—temperament, cooperation, caring “about people like you”, right values, and abortion—are gut issues, and Presidential decisions, especially for undecided voters, are based on gut feelings.
Of course, if these Iowa GOP caucusgoers all voted on policy, we might be able to get them to switch sides and vote for Bernie Sanders. 49% said they “Support[] a single-payer health care plan instead of the current law” [link added, not provided to survey respondents]. 35% oppose.
49% of the most politically engaged Republicans in the country (we can say that about Iowa caucusgoers, right?) support a policy that their candidates usually portray as one of the most vile and deadly expressions of socialism imaginable. Their support is only slightly lower than that of Democratic caucusgoers, who said in the same survey they prefer single-payer health care 53% to 32%.
Republicans, if you need to shake off that jarring result, your only option may be to say that Iowa caucusgoers hold crazy views on most of the other policies queried in this survey (Climate change is a hoax! Ban all Syrian refugees! Send at least 20,000 troops to fight ISIS! Abolish the IRS!), so they must be crazy on health care as well.
p.s.: Hillary Clinton maintains her lead among Iowa Democratic caucusgoers, 48% to 39%. Clinton leads on nine criteria; Sanders leads on four:
iowa wingnuts voted for former KGB covercritter Ivanna Kuturnutzov and dippy,dappy,dopey,double disconnected dumbell “Cantaloupe Calves” King. Their only engagement is in La-La Land.
And over 60% of healthcare professionals (doctors and nurses) also are in favor of Universal Single Payer Healthcare, so why are we messing with this insurance company enriching and healthcare industry enriching, Affordable Health Care? Lower the cost of our healthcare 7 or 8 points from the GDP like it was 20 years ago.
Two words about Iowa Republicans: Steve King
…and Steve King backs Ted Cruz, so Curt, you’re saying Cruz will win Iowa?
Going out on a limb and saying yes Cruz will win Iowa.
Kind of makes one wonder why we send troops all over the world to try to get democracy for other folks, when we cannot have it right here at home.
“If I’m elected president,” Cruz shouted, “I will instruct the Department of Justice and the IRS and every other federal agency that the persecution of religious liberty ends today!”
Or maybe next week.
Two days later, this happened.
In a rebuke of Donald Trump’s plan to ban Muslims from entering the U.S., the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 16-4 Thursday on an amendment that confirms that the U.S. should not block people from the country because of their religion.
The four “no” votes were Sens. Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama, Thom Tillis, R-North Carolina, David Vitter, R-Louisiana and GOP presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.
To iowa wingnuts,this makes perfect sense-I think.
Cruz voted against that amendment? I wonder what the Founding Fathers, keenly aware of the history of several colonies as havens for religious outcasts, would have said. Come on, Iowa—you can do better.
Here is what our Congresswoman has to say about that:
December 14, 2015
Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts about our national refugee policy as it relates to displaced Syrians.
I’ve heard a great deal of concern from South Dakotans about Syrian refugees in recent weeks. My top priority is to protect the safety and security of our nation. In that respect, I believe we need to temporarily suspend accepting refugees from Iraq and Syria. More specifically, I believe we should put a pause on the program until the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of the FBI, and the Director of National Intelligence can certify that the individual does not represent a security threat.
The Syrian Civil War has been going on for more than four years now. Rebel groups and the Assad regime have been clashing continuously over its course and terrorist groups, like ISIL, have capitalized on the instability. It is a tragedy that so many innocent people have been caught up in the conflict.
America’s history of accepting refugees is a proud part of our national identity, but security must be a priority. Until we can say with certainty that individuals are refugees and not militants, we cannot afford to take them in.
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. Please know that I, along with my legislative team, am closely monitoring this situation. Please don’t hesitate to contact my office if you are in need of assistance.
Sincerely,
Kristi Noem
Member of Congress
Security over saving innocent lives. Fear over American principles rooted in our very identity. Noem is Trump. Disgusting.
Lanny, What a surprise – somehow I ended up with a letter with the exact same language! And here I thought my letter was written to respond to my concerns.
trump is a carnival barker, less equipped than even kristie. he is a reagan, a swchartzenager, a ventura, a george bush.
joop watched too much tv. watch “arbitrage”, the movie. trump is the same thing. a reality television bad actor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XbFN2G2PVg
arbitrage https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvkKvTCD9VU
bcb not to be surprised. That is typical pol speak as I have gotten it from every one who has represented us in the years that I have written. I still think of how I bristled, when I wrote to Tom Daschle asking him not to get the 200 B-1 bombers and 100 refueling air gas tankers approved. A couple of months later I got a letter from him bragging about how he had done just that.
I know that I am getting cynical, but I think that we just waste some staffers time, in fact they probably just have to hire extra staffers just to answer the letters which we send. I fear that it is a futile effort. I don’t know what I would do, if I ever got a letter from a politician that said, thanks that is a great idea and I will do what I can to get it done. Instead of I appreciate your opinion, but I am going to do what my party (or my handlers) tells me to do and please contact me again if there is anything I can do to help.
I asked Kristi not to call me any more. I told her I didn’t love her and that I never did. She keeps calling and leaving messages.
@cah: “Cruz voted against that amendment? I wonder what the Founding Fathers, keenly aware of the history of several colonies as havens for religious outcasts, would have said.”
The Leahy amendment was a “sense of the Senate” resolution which are essentially political histrionics having no force of law and lacking enforceability.
When invoking the Founding Fathers, it’s instructive to keep in mind that they didn’t think with one mind. While there were a few colonies that were havens of religious tolerance such as Rhode Island, founded by Roger Williams after he was expelled from Massachusetts, religious intolerance in the Colonies was the norm rather than the exception. Massachusetts forbid Quakers, Jews, and Catholics as well. Catholics were an anathema in many colonies and were not allowed to hold office or vote. Anabaptists resisted the general assessment religion taxes in Virginia.
Although the First Amendment forbid religious establishment at a national level, State establishment was not only allowed but prevalent. State laws in Massachusetts permitted only Christians in public office, while Catholics had to renounce the Pope in order to do so. New York’s constitution banned Catholics from public office while Maryland gave them full civil rights but denied them to Jews. Belief in the Trinity was required in Delaware and a majority of the States had established churches supported by preferential religion or general assessment taxes. And let’s not forget the state ordered expulsion of the Mormons from Missouri in 1838.
The fact is the American principle of religious tolerance is a storybook version, the true version being papered over in the crappy history courses taught in high schools and sadly, in colleges and universities.
So, coyote: is hemp a states’ rights issue then?
Actually, Larry, Don Coyote is simply spinning a losing issue. When an appeal to the Founding Fathers indicts his worldview, suddenly the Founding Fathers have diverse viewpoints and their principles are really figments of the bad and evil public education system and liberal colleges (wow, how many tangents can Don pack into one argument?).
The history of religious discrimination by the states does not justify Trump’s and Cruz’s attempts to nationalize religious discrimination now. The Founders would be mostly appalled, and rightly so.
Another factor for Don Coyote to consider is that Trump’s current argument for religious discrimination is not an argument for some state action, but a policy proposed by Trump as a President for federal government action – the exact entity that the founders intended to prevent from engaging in religious discrimination with the 1st amendment.
But Coyote is correct that not all “founders” were in agreement on every proposal, and that America has a long and sad xenophobic heritage.
@cah: I see. You can muse about a storybook version of some collective “Founder’s” diaphanous religious tolerance to bolster your argument but my proof that that principle never existed somehow makes my argument specious. Whatever, it’s your sandbox.
I’ve always maintained that the Founders and Framers held diverse viewpoints. When I cite a Founder/Framer viewpoint, I cite a specific individual and never the general collective. I will even differentiate between Founders and Framers. If the Founders were of one mind then there wouldn’t have been the fight between the Federalist and Anti-Federalists over the Constitution or the battle between James Madison and Patrick Henry over Virginia’s Statute of Religious Freedom.
Our Constitution protects religious freedoms for US citizens not for immigrants, refugees or asylees desiring to enter the country. The Syrian refugees have no claim on any right to migrate here. Their entry into this country is predicated upon what Congress has determined to be the terms of their eligibility. Congress has created broad powers for immigration in determining the eligibility of those who get to enter and those who do not. This is true especially during wartime.
In 1924 Congress restricted immigration from Asia, reduced the number of immigrants coming from southern and central Europe, and essentially imposed a 40-year moratorium on most immigration. These regulations were in effect during the terms of FDR, Truman and JFK. Is their failure to end these restrictions fascism as well?
As I understand Trump, he is arguing that there needs to be a pause in Muslim immigration until a broken system can be evaluated and fixed. Why not as overly broad as Trump’s suggestion, Jimmy Carter banned Iranians from immigrating here during the Iranian crisis and an appeals court upheld the ban.
“Distinctions on the basis of nationality may be drawn in the immigration field by the Congress or the executive. So long as such distinctions are not wholly irrational, they must be sustained.”
As for Cruz, he has rejected Trump’s plan and your contention that his vote against Leahy’s histrionics rises to the level of nationalizing religious discrimination is risible.
Don has overlooked the text of the 1st amendment as it pertains to religion: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . .”
There is nothing in the 1st amendment, nor elsewhere in the Constitution, that purports to allow Congress to enact laws that discriminate against non-citizens, whether from Syria or any where else, on the basis of their particular religion.
Thus, the plain language of the 1st amendment negates the proposition that: “Our Constitution protects religious freedoms for US citizens not for immigrants, refugees or asylees desiring to enter the country.” Technically, the 1st amendment identifies no particular group to be protected, rather, it restricts the power of Congress to enact laws taking away any person’s right to the free exercise of whatever religion he or she chooses and from establishing a state religion.
Why Syrians would want to seek asylum in South Dakota remains a mystery. No matter: there are far more welcoming states than the frozen tundra.
Hey, bat: can tribal nations accept refugees?
Don, to qualify certain religions is to ordain or establish others. Since some American citizens are Islamic, is not a ban on people of certain religions being allowed to enter this country the establishment of some religions over others, and in so doing, a violation of the constitutional rights and the intent of that right to guarantee freedom from discrimination (the purpose of the establishment clause) for those who may not be of the ordained or established religion(s), yet, they are American citizens too?
larry, tribal nations are sovereign in relation to a state, but subject to whatever federal laws or restrictions Congress enacts. Thus, federal immigration laws would control whether tribal governments could accept immigrants.
Don, one interesting follow up on the power of the government to enact anti-religious laws. While the federal government cannot enact such laws to restrict rights of non-citizens, a State might have that power due to the language in the 14th amendment that specifically applies due process to “citizens.”
The religious clauses of the 1st amendment did not restrict states until the 1940 SCOTUS decision in Cantwell v. Connecticut, which relied on the 14th amendment’s due process clause to incorporate these 1st amendment clauses against the individual states. Since the 14th amendment only protects citizens, a state could likely discriminate against non-citizens based on religion.
BCB, I thought immigration policy was the exclusieve purview of the federal government, no?
The thing with using what the founders meant when working with putting together the Constitution is that they had no way of knowing what the future would bring, or what their thoughts would be if they were alive now.
Thomas Jefferson believed the constitution should be rewritten every 45 years or so.
So it is good to change the most successful country in our history into an unproven testing grounds, Jeni?
Go back and look into the hard times enforced on our ancestors. Right or wrong our country has not done well in comparison to all others.
I’m all for refugees coming to America.
The Karin refugees came to our country with a free pass to everything my children are still paying for. Right or wrong, Jeni?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_people#Christianity
Why not every 45 min or so Lar. At 63, I’m a creature of instant gratification and don’t have too many of those instants left.
I wouldn’t mind a convention if it wasn’t run by those in charge now.
It is quite obvious from the discussion taking place here, that even today some folks don’t consider Native Americans as US citizens. Their religions were here before the first white man and yet they had to be Christianized or killed. The religion that they practiced scared the hell out of the white settlers, simply because it was different from the religion that the settlers practiced.
If one goes to a wacipi today, and hears the singing, chanting and drumming, it is not to hard to understand that the settlers mistook much of the religious practice of Native Americans as the NAs going on the warpath.
Yea, Lar. I’ve got a Karen friend.
Should do be has done well, Jeni. Too much coffee.
Not rewritten, updated (TJ, Constitution) every generation (about 19 years or so).
http://www.amoreperfectconstitution.com/a_more_perfect_constitution.htm
Bill, I think you are correct – immigration policy is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. Just ask Governor Jan Brewer:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/11-182
Thanks, Bill. The Iowa Caucuses are a joke, btw.
hurray for kurtz, I call it shill democracy.
Why in the world doesn’t SD move our primary up and knock out Iowa? After all we are the only state with a perspective from Mars and mifi has me convinced they are not worthy to lead our poli path.
Pretty sure that is settled regulation, Les. Wisconsin or somebody tried about twelve years ago to move ahead of Iowa, but the parties said not go we have to keep it the way it is.
http://iowadailydemocrat.com/news/2015/10/iowa-is-first-in-the-nation-for-a-reason/
Read it and puke.
Do you people realize how many millions of dollars wingnut superpacs are spending on anti-Trump ads and Trump is getting all his media attention free. Gawd that has to hurt. They can’t touch Trump and even Trump can seem to bring himself down.
Don Coyote now tries to distract by pretending to superior intellect. Even if we cast aside myth and recognize that our history is replete with religious bigotry, that does not dictate that we should countenance such bigotry any longer. Let’s be better than our history. Let’s be better than on Coyote.
But let’s at least establish the single payer system that Iowa Democrats and Republicans alike would vote for.
Lar, Thomas Jefferson is dead but his visage lives on in my wallet and on a mountain named for Rushmore. I imagine you have stopped taking breakfast there on your visits, but for the enhance security and all.