Decoding the Iowa Poll
The Ames poll is being touted as a great victory by Mitt Romney and his fellow pod people, but the real victors are Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. As this ingenious analysis by David Terr in USA Elections points out, both Huckabee and Paul are on the way up, while the others either crashed and burned or else showed no signs of breaking out of the pack. This is the true meaning of the Ames poll – which, as the first electoral test of the presidential hopefuls on the GOP side, measures momentum and projects future trends.
Terr’s fascinating statistical analysis eliminates votes for Newt Gingrich, Fred Thompson, John McCain, and Rudy Giuliani – who chose not to compete—and averages out the poll numbers prior to the straw poll, coming up with what he calls a “combined normalized average” (CNA) for each active candidate. Terr then compares this number to the candidates’ actual performance at the Ames poll – and the results are edifying. Avers Terr:
“Mike Huckabee more than doubled his expected CNA and is obviously the true winner at the Straw Poll. Brownback and Tancredo had similar jumps but coming in third and fourth is about as good as kissing your sister. … Ron Paul showed a 350% improvement over his CNA at the straw poll and is clearly the second winner at the event. It is easy to show such a marked up win when you are only averaging about 2-3% in the polls but his polling average has been 50% lower than Duncan Hunter yet he wiped the floor of Hunter by a factor of 8. He had a raw net gain in percentage more than Tom Tancredo.
“Ron Paul supporters should be very proud of his performance here. It may be reported as a horrendous performance because he came in fifth place but when you consider he was not even included in many polls just a few months ago and his poor polling numbers thus far have been keeping him down, 10% here is great.”
Terr goes on to cite a political science professor at Ohio State University, Herbert Asher, to the effect that what he calls “background news” – the dynamic trend of a story in motion – is “often neglected” by the mainstream media. The real Ames story, in Terr’s view, is that 1) Romney’s “win” is really a big loss: after spending over $1 million (i.e. paying over $200 per vote) and coming in at a mere 31 percent, when his CNA was in negative territory, 2) “Huckabee and Ron Paul soared above all expectations and are on the way up,” and 3) “Duncan Hunter and Tommy Thompson should drop out of the race.” (The latter has already happened, by the way, and the former is stubbornly persistent even though he lost to two candidates who failed to campaign.)
There is more, much more, to this background story, however, beyond the dynamism Ames has imparted to both the Huckabee and Paul campaigns. Aside from their simultaneous statistical ascendancy, Huckabee and Paul also represent rising GOP discontent with the neocon view of the Iraq war. Paul’s dissent, as is widely known, is a radical departure from the President’s policies: he was against the invasion from the beginning, and has been relentless in his critique not only of interventionism but of the neoconservatives who played such a leading role in dragging us into war. Huckabee, on the other hand, represents a very cautious see-you-in-September “realism” that is very far from the neoconservative bombs-away interventionism that dominates the rest of the Republican pack. Asked about the “surge” in an interview, Huckabee stopped short of endorsing it, deferring to the President and General Petraeus, without endorsing escalation of a conflict about which he clearly feels some ambivalence:
“It’s not that I’m unwilling; it’s that I don’t have the same level of information. I just have to respect that as the Commander-in-Chief he has the right to make that decision. I have respect for him in having done so knowing that it was not necessarily going to be popular. But I also understand that it had better work, because if it doesn’t then I think he adds more fuel to his critics and to those who call for a completely opposite approach.”
Huckabee also complains the military is being over-extended, and hails the recent Baghdad conference of 13 nations convened to involve our allies in the region in securing a more stable Iraq: Huckabee is clearly a Brent Scowcroft-Iraq Study Group kinda guy. As E. J. Dionne put it: “If Republicans want a conservative nominee who has never attacked Bush on Iraq but can still signal a change in direction, Huckabee could be their man.”
The neocons are clearly worried about Huckabee’s rise as the alternative to the “top tier” Rudy McRomney trio. Seth Gitell’s investigation of Huckabee’s foreign policy views reveals all sorts of horrific heresies, especially evident in his book, published shortly before the campaign was launched, From Hope to Higher Ground: 12 Stops to Restoring America’s Greatness:
“Included in the book is the foreign policy vision of Mr. Huckabee, who served as governor between 1996 and January of this year. The vision is an odd one for a national Republican candidate these days. Mr. Huckabee doesn’t venture into the neoisolationist lunacy of Ron Paul, but his choice of language surrounding America‘s role in the world is curious. Quick to personify nations while talking about international relations, at times he sounds like he is channeling a European member of the Green Party.
‘When the kid in the neighborhood with dominant power uses his superiority to demand his way, win at every contest, force others to run errands, and ridicule the weaker children, that individual may maintain his position of dominance, but he will be resented by the other kids in the neighborhood,’ he writes.”
What?! America – a bully? Why, he sounds like … Ron Paul! And that’s the true significance of the Ames poll results: the emergence of an anti-interventionist foreign policy consensus among mainstream Republicans that Iraq was a mistake. Huckabee’s carefully parsed phrasing of his remarks on Iraq, and the subtle yet clear manner in which he distances himself from the President, augurs ill for the War Party, and they know it. This accounts for the hectoring, suspicious tone of Senor Gitell’s analysis:
“While he rejects the notion that it is ‘all our fault that America is resented across the world,’ he also writes, ‘we can’t ignore our role and responsibility’ to ‘bring smiles of approval instead of curses of contempt.’ Perhaps, by that thinking, some of that resentment is our fault.”
Gee, d’yuh really think so? I mean, why-oh-why would someone resent being sanctioned, bombed, and subjected to a military occupation? Those cra-aaazy Muslims! What’ll they think of next?
Ah, but there’s worse, much worse: Huckabee actually invokes the principles of Christianity when he talks about foreign policy matters, and not the Darbyite heresy that so enthralls AIPAC and energizes the cracked-brained “Christian Zionism” of the Falwell-Robertson-snake-handling wackos, but, rather, the spirit and real message of Jesus H. Christ:
“His faith is also present in his foreign policy outlook: ‘The most powerful demonstration of leadership is not a clenched fist of brute force but an open hand of humble assistance. This is the very model of leadership and strength expressed by Jesus, who reminded us that if we really wanted to be great, we must be willing to serve rather than to be served, and that the spirit of our actions is as important as the actions themselves.’
“In one breath, Mr. Huckabee is endorsing Ronald Reagan’s policy of military strength. In the next, he is declaring, ‘with the development of strength and unprecedented power there must also be unprecedented restraint.’"
Restraint? It is impermissible, in the neoconservative view of things, to speak such words in the context of discussing foreign policy issues. When it comes to the question of projecting American power around the world, the neocon lexicon is utterly devoid of such language. Any reference to such unwarlike sentiments is, in their view, un-American, which is why the editors of the Sun headlined Gitell’s piece “European Huckabee” – the ultimate insult. Yet there is nothing especially American about the Sun’s foreign policy preoccupation, which involves, not American interests, but Huckabee’s position on Israel.
Huckabee’s real crime, uncovered by detective Gitell, is that he actually expresses sympathy for the Palestinians. Gitell cites a passage from the campaign book in which he discusses his meeting with a Palestinian during his 1984 visit to the region that must have set off alarm bells from Tel Aviv to AIPAC headquarters in Washington:
“’He told me about the day he came home from school and was met at the corner a block from the home he had known since birth. He was told that he didn’t live there anymore. He was told that he would be relocated to a Palestinian camp and that his neighborhood, street and home would be occupied by the Israelis.’ The point of this homily, according to Mr. Huckabee, is that ‘there are still human beings who deserve to be treated respectfully and thoughtfully since they personally have not done wrong and now are being forced from what has been their home.”
This is a neocon no-no: there’s no way any Palestinian, according to Gitell’s lights, deserves to be treated respectfully. And as for treating them as individuals, rather than a collectively guilty race of miscreants and Orcs – why, it’s unthinkable! After all, “It’s impossible to discern from which land this Palestinian departed or whether he was part of the group urged to leave Israel by Arab leaders in 1948 or caught up in the 1967 war.” And, besides that, who cares if that kid even has a home? The main priority is Israel, and “preserving the safety and security of its citizens.” “In the Middle East,” Gitell informs us, “details matter” – but the only detail that matters to him, his editors, and, one imagines, most of his readers, is – Is it good for Israel? If not, then screw you, buddy.
Gitell has nothing but disdain for Huckabee’s Christian orientation, and this Christophobia permeates his piece, concluding with another citation from the candidate’s book:
“Near the end of his discussion on foreign policy, Mr. Huckabee writes, ‘it’s important that as a nation we seek to be an example, not just of strength, but of servanthood.’ Let’s hope that Mr. Huckabee’s sense of ‘servanthood’ does not extend to America’s very real enemies in the world who wish to do our nation real harm.”
The clear implication here is that Huckabee is sympathetic to America’s enemies, i.e. terrorists. Aren’t all Palestinians terrorists? Oh, so you think not? That just proves how “European” you are, and as for all this Christian rhetoric about “servanthood” – if Huckabee is going to be in servitude, than it will be to the Israel lobby, like all the other candidates, or Gitell and the New York Sun want to know the reason why.
Huckabee’s reluctance to get drawn further into the Iraqi quagmire is not unqualified: he has posed the possibility of sending more troops, but poses the question in terms of “win or get out” – with both positions presented as viable options. Paul, on the other hand, is unequivocal in his stance: “Just leave,” he declared at the last formal debate, to spirited applause. As the Iraqi maelstrom blows with gale force across the American political landscape, leveling the War Party’s traditional redoubts and forcing congressional Republicans to run for cover, the distance between Huckabee and Paul will tend to shrink, and their constituencies meet and merge. Born of political necessity and the realization that the neocons have taken the GOP for a ride, what is emerging is a new Republican foreign policy consensus – a return to prudence.
Taken together, the vote totals for Huckabee and Paul at Ames, some 28 percent, are congruent with national polls that have measured discontent with the Iraq war within the GOP – a number which was up to nearly 40 percent in June, and is now closer to the 30 percent mark.
Romney, as Terr shows, is on a downward slide, even as he proclaims “victory” with a bare third of the vote in Ames. Could the realist- anti-interventionist tide overturn his boat, as the “surge” tanks, and the GOP faces massive electoral losses? Stay tuned …
Comments
Interesting and often edifying material on Mike Huckabee, Mr. Raimondo. I’ll have to hear a lot more about him, but if Ron Paul fails, perhaps I have a back-up candidate after all. But I must admit I’m sceptical of anyone advocating a humble foreign policy based on Christian principles. Emperor boy George promised that in the 2000 election campaign. I didn’t believe he meant it at the time and didn’t vote for him. Clearly I made the right decision. Huckabee needs to develop the courage to take on the war party as forcefully as Ron Paul has - unless he is simply engaging in a bit of election season opportunism.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr. Raimondo,
Does this article suggest that, after your previous diehard support for Ron Paul, you now are trying to make the least worst of the born-agains palatable for he rest of us? I didn’t like this piece from you, much as I usually enjoy the rest of them. Interesting that you have put it here rather than antiwar.com where I have just donated some of my limited funds to your fundraising drive (keep up the superb work!). Regards.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mike Huckabee would almost be an acceptable candidate (in the event Ron Paul faltered, that is), were it not for his almost Wall Street Journal-style enthusiasm for immigration & the Open Borders lunacy. He needs to forget about low-wage chicken pluckers for Tyson Foods, and put the national interest first! I’d vote for Jim Gilchrist of The Minutemen (who’s discussed a possible 3rd party run in 2008) over some Open Borders Republican corporate shill.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
To Mr. O’Keefe, what is Ron Paul’s stance on the border issue? I have not heard anything about it in the media who try to pretend that he does not exist.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
On the border, Ron Paul has said we must end birthright citizenship and end the welfare-state magnet which pulls them here. I don’t know about the fence per-se, but he has spoken about defending our borders (instead of sending the national guard to train Iraqis to defend their borders).
If you google Ron Paul, several sites should have audio and/or transcripts, or try his campaign site which has an Issues page:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/border-security-and-immigration-reform/
Click to flag this comment as abusive
There appears to be an anti Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo bias at FOX News—see Max Tower’s blog for 8/13/07:
http://tinyurl.com/2hbf9w
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Huckabee is actually to the left of most Democrats on immigration. He enthusiastically speaks at LULAC gatherings and jokes about whites becoming a minority in the US. So there is little doubt Huckabee would continue Bush’s plans to replace Americans with more compliant peasants from Latin America and the rest of the Third World.
Ron Paul isn’t great on immigration but he’s better than all the others on the issue except Tancredo and, perhaps, Hunter. RP’s certainly preferable on the issue to phonies like Rudy and Mitt.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/2006/prez08_gop2.html
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Justin, in light of David Terr’s analysis, I checked out the results of the Illinois Straw Poll held, yesterday. Out of 922 votes cast, Romney garnered 373, Fred Thompson 184, and Ron Paul 174 (third place), which is 18.87% of the vote. Mike Huckabee received only 28 votes. I don’t know if there is much value to these statistics, because there was such a small turnout. There doesn’t seem to be much Republican enthusiasm in Illinois.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Although not American myself I follow with great interest what goes on in the USA. Should the USA go down the drain, so do the rest of us too.
As far as I can see it Ron Paul is the only real American in the lot. Just like other great men in history, he’s neither greedy nor an elitist. And he’s honest. That makes him a great problem for the establishment.
What do you do with a man who can’t be bought? One who isn’t “one of the boys”?
If I were a part of the Ron Paul campaign management I’d start thinking very seriously about security now.
Ron Paul has abstained from his congressional pension and also has regularly returned the expense money he hasn’t used at the end of the year.
But one thing he should ask from the State, right away, is bodyguards and perhaps a professional security crew to protect him.
If Ron Paul doesn’t get assasinated or in some other way incapacitated, he’ll probably go straight to the top. America is still mostly populated by Americans, even though the political elite seems to come from some other planet.
The rest of the Republican line-up is just a bunch of sleazy politicos no normal person can love, or how about:
The Undertaker, who supposedly knows everything about terrorism…
Mitt Romney, as fake as a $3 bill.
The Idiot Supreme, who sings Bomb-bomb-bomb Iran. God help us all should he get elected.
On the Democratic side, The Wicked Witch Hillary and Barack Obi Wan Kenobi can nothing but offer more of the same. More Socialism, more Political Correctness, more immigration. More outsourced jobs.
Even the most detached and brainwashed cheeseburger-poisoned 500 pound overeating intellectualy degenerated twit must sooner or later realise that losing hundred of thousands more jobs and at the same time importing millions of more people is leading his country straight to Depression II.
And forget about someone helping you. Europe will be as bad as the US, Russia and China will secretly rejoice as will the muslim world.
Ron Paul is the only alternative.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr. Raimondo,
Bravo for a great analysis of Ames. I agree that this was Huckabee’s coming out party, and while I don’t trust him on foreign policy, I agree that he could be worse than he is. Ron Paul’s voting block isn’t going anywhere, and ignoring him is goinf to become progressively more and more difficult now that Ames has happened.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I love your writing Justin, but you are stretching here.
Huckabee performed well because of the fair tax people. Their presence conceals the real amount of effort/cost that camp huckabee put into the event.
He did not bus anybody in, but they did.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I really like Paul but I think Tancredo will be the one to break out of the pack and challenge Guiliani. Huckabee will go nowhere.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Ron Paul is not an isolationist. He supports free trade (though is against things like NAFTA because they add another layer of government), but he is simply a non-interventionist like you were describing Huckabee to be. Paul is not like Buchanan. Paul supports free trade.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
If Ron Paul doesn’t at least produce a strong
showing in the final popular vote, it will
most likely be the very end of any hope for
our Constitution and the rule of Law in America.
This may very well be the last trumpet. If
state corporatism cannot be contained it will no
doubt fill the earth.
The irony in all of this is that while so many
people are fixated on Israel, the last battle is
being fought here, in America.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I agree again Rin-tin-tin. I have also been wondering when one of the establishment sleazebags will get the idea to put a hit on Ron Paul. The fact that the media ignores him so thoroughly has to make you wonder what is in store for him. If he keeps getting voters turned on to him he will become a huge threat to the money interests.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I like huckabee and brownback and I’m sure there christianity is genuine, it’s just not what i’m looking for in a candidate right now.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Andrew,
Why do you think Huckabee is so liberal about immigration? I have been following him since he started his exploratory committee and he has seemed very tough on immigration.
Although, while I think we should be tough on it I don’t agree with building a wall which his website recently shows him to support:/ But I guess most would consider this ‘tougher’.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Let’s not forget the way Huckabee fawns over the FairTax.
Could it be that perhaps Huckabee’s overwhelming support for the FairTax had a little something-something to do with his success in Iowa?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Huckabee mentioned Ron Paul on Colbert Report.
http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/?lnk=v&ml_video=91746
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I look forward to giving my vote to Congressman Ron Paul.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Romney’s recent WEAK response to FairTax questioning on “This Week with Geo. Stephanopoulos ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW4fa6Z_4Po )” drew a sharp contrast between Huckabee and all other presidential front-runners who will not embrace it.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Below is the statement on “immigration.” (Sorry; the formatting did not transfer). Has any other candidate in either party made statements that are in any way more restrictionist than Paul’s?
The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:
Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
A statement that Ron Paul made shows more ideological
bent than serious reflexion. I refer to the one about
denying services to illegal inmigrants.
It is easy to say “deny them hospitals and clinics”.
Until you realize that a) the diseases they are likely
to have will be contagious ones and b) a lot of them
work in food preparation. You cannot allow contagious
diseases to go untreated or even unrecognized (that is,
under the radar for the CDC), unless you want an
epidemic further along the road. (The debate we have
about socialized medicine, or if it is right to make
you pay for your neighbors medical care can only
happen in a society where most disease is not
communicable. There are two words that will make the
most die-hard Libertarian drop his or her objections
automatically “Ebola fever").
Same with housing. We are talking with people who
without access to housing will revert to building shacks
with no plumbing and using the street as a sewer. We
have to remember that making sure that each housing
unit has a working toilet connected to the sewage
treatment system is not a nice thing we do for them, but
a nice thing they do for us.
My solution would be to have the employers pay, as fine,
the cost of the social services their employees used,
since they employ them in order to save money on wages,
but those low wages ensure that their employees, whether
legal or illegal end up using social services provided
by the rest of us.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I think Ron Paul is the only one who has a vision. the democrats want to end the war, but they don’t really know why. The republicans want to end illegtal immigration, but they don’t address why we have it. Dr Paul knows we hae to leave the middle east and we have to cut spending to stop inflation. He just has a higher understanding of the issues than any of the other candidates
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I disagree with many points of Ron Paul’s position on immigration, but it is not a deal breaker for me. It is not a life or death issue, but a quality of life issue. I have lived most of my life surrounded by immigrants and they have added a great deal to the quality of my life. Probably a majority of my friends are immigrants. I agree with Dr. Paul on the need for visa control and border control. It’s not desirable to let anyone who wants to just walk into the country without any background check or even the possibility of a background check. Apart from that, however, the US needs more immigration and we are very fortunate it is coming from Catholic countries for the most part. And birthright citizenship needs to be maintained to provide a continuous long range solution to illegal immigration as long as the country is too divided to agree to a short range solution.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Hopefully Huckabee’s foreign policy of “servanthood” does not mean increasing the foreign aid budget.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Just an addition to my previous post.
As much as the idea of the general stupidity of the general populace (which I mentioned in another post) is false and damaging, so is the speculative approach to voting.
A lot of people are attempting to foresee what candidate will stand a “real chance” of winning. Then they plan on voting on the “lesser of several evils”.
The British economist Keynes likened this flock behaviour to how judges in a beauty contest react. Each judge speaculates about what beauty candidate would be favoured by the rest of the judges. The result is that not the candidate who is considered the most beautiful by each judge wins, but the candidate which most judges THINK that the others will vote for.
That’s a good description of what the mainstream media’s main business is. To get into our heads and to make us believe that almost EVERYONE ELSE thinks in a certain way, which may, or may not, have anything to do with real world facts.
I’ve heard from Eastern Europeans that many were surprised that so many of their own people were against Communism. In fact, it turned out that the only true believers were a a hard core of a few hundred persons. In some countries much fewer than that. Then there were several thousands opportunists, who would have believed in anything as long as it was profitable to them. Further on, the huge majority which just resignated and went along with what they thought was the mainstream. On the other end of the bell curve it looked the same. Mildly disgruntleds and a very small core of anti-communist enthusiasts.
As soon as we realise that the emperor has no clothes we’ll be able to base our votes and choices on what we see and understand ourselves, and not on what som voodoo priests disguised as journalists and professors “interpret” for us.
Go to the candidate’s debates, listen to them, and ask yourself, what doeas my heart tell me? Follow your heart and don’t worry about “wasting” your vote.
It doesn’t matter if your candidate wins or loses. What matters is that you cast your vote honestly and that you sincerely did your best effort to make an informed decision.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“the democrats want to end the war”
They do?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Someone wanna bet on Rudy Giuliani winning the GOP nomination? Check out the link below first…
http://www.rudy-urbanlegend.com/
Click to flag this comment as abusive
For those of you who did not get the news on any of the major media, because it wasn’t transmitted on any of the major media, Ron Paul won two straw polls, yesterday, August 18. He won the Strafford County, New Hampshire Straw Poll with 208 votes over Romney’s 26 and Huckabee’s 20. On the same day, Dr. Paul won in Alabama. A poll sponsored by the West Alabama Republican Assembly saw him garner 216 votes to Romney’s 14. Some people are waking up. I hope it continues.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Does anyone have a logical critical analysis of the 400 million pork debacle placed upon the good Doctor?
I’m “assuming” that his campaign either didn’t see it coming, or they did and it was unstoppable. The only other explanation is it was purposeful--?
What we’re they thinking?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Adriana: Don’t expect libertarians to drop their objections to social services based on the bogeyman of the day, in this case “ebola fever.” Gov’t force is not required to identify outbreaks, help those that need it, or contain the spread of diseases. And your notion that new Hoover-villes will spring up with illegal immigrant waste washing down the street is laughable, as if without gov’t services we’d all be wallowing in our own filth. Only in a socialist system without private property would this be possible.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mike Williams: Ron Paul has addressed this. Ending congressional pork spending simply means the executive branch will be responsible for dispursing funds. That is not an improvement and it is contrary to the consitution. Dr. Paul votes against spending and tax increases, but he doesn’t go so far as to deny his consitutents getting some of their money back that’s been extracted by uncle sam. The problem is spending, not the allocation process.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give Taki's Magazine permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. Personal attacks, ethnic slurs, the riding of hobby horses and the beating of dead ones will be deleted as soon as they are detected by our small but alert staff. Repeat abusers of this policy will be barred from leaving comments. All comments reflect only the views of those posting them and not necessarily those of this website, its editors, or authors. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
Commenting is not available in this section entry.