Real Estate Blog - Interesting...the Iowa Caucuses...

Home : Blogs : Karen Monsour,REALTOR® Broward,Palm Beach,Miami/Dade! 954-464-4194 anytime! : www.KarenMonsour.com

Interesting...the Iowa Caucuses...

The Iowa Caucuses have become very interesting. We have Obama ahead of Clinton and Clinton tied with Edwards, at 9:18 pm. And! we have Huckabee at 31% over Romney at 23%. So this has become a very interesting Iowa caucus.

Amazing the amount of money spend on the elections. If they had to give half of the money raised back to the poor, back to the homeless, and back to important aspect's related to the US, we would probably be in a much better fiscal situation.

Why are the elections allowed to spend so much money on advertising? Why are millions of dollars allowed to be spent on advertising instead of that money spent on helping out the people of the US. I mean...I personally think there should be a limit as to what each candidate can spend...there should be a cap on it...and let the best person based on a limited advertising campaign...have restrictions on what they can spend. I mean...say what you mean and mean what you say...from the beginning. Sell yourself, don't waste money on criticizing one another...Make your policies known. You should have a plan. Every one of the candidates...should be held accountable and have a BUSINESS PLAN FOR US IN THE US...not just responding to our comments!

I mean...come on...If they all had to give half back to our country...wouldn't it help us? It sickens me to watch the feuding, the criticism, the ignorant comments about the candidates...

How do you feel?

http:www.KarenMonsour.com, call 954-464-4194 for all your Real Estate needs!

UPDATE: Obama has 37% and Clinton and Edwards are at 30% (9:38 pm)...just so this is clear...I'm Republican... :-)

Second UPDATE: OBAMA 38%, EDWARDS 30%, CLINTON 29%

HUCKABEE 34%, ROMNEY 25%

SO, ahhh!

Posted by Karen Monsour,REALTOR® Broward,Palm Beach,Miami/Dade! 954-464-4194 anytime! on 01/03/2008 08:35 PM

Comments (36)

iowa caucuses, obama, clinton, huckabee, romney, karen monsour

Originally posted at: Karen@ www.KarenMonsour.com: Interesting...the Iowa Caucuses...

Post is included in group: Silent Majority

36 Comments on Interesting...the Iowa Caucuses...

JAN

2008

How about Ron Paul? I'm without TV this week, of all weeks. I'd like to know how the little guy is doing? If you have a second, I could use a friendly hit to my website, at www.yourspeedyappraiser.com Thanks!

Karen, the money candidates spend is voluntarily given by supporters. In a free society, who has the right to limit free speech? Unfettered campaigns are a vital part of a democracy. If you don't like what they're saying, don't support the candidates.

Gregg,,,He's in the dust...at least in the Iowa Caucuses...You know you can go on line and watch the races...I'm not sure how, but try www.IowaCaucuses.com.

The Caucus system is an interesting mystery to me. Do you think Caucus is superior to a straight out vote, or is one method as good as another.

Brian,

I know that...that is not my point, but thanks for your opinion.

Rosario,

I really can't say. But interesting thought...that may be a better way...the straight out vote...

It makes me sick that just b/c someone has more money than another...they have a better advertising/campaign opportunity!

Great question! Thanks for responding.

Karen:

Brian made a good point regarding limiting how much each candidate can spend. This would hinder freedom of speech.

"...wouldn't it help us?"

It wouldn't. I am afraid you are taken by a populist idea. I am coming from Russia, and that's what we heard there pretty much. It was all for the benefit of the people. It was always a bright idea for the benefit of people in the short run.

The people always suffered in the long run.

You speak about a business plan, then about limiting the money they spend, but these two notions contradict each other. IT is either American way, with money spend and entrepreneurial spirit at its height, or the socialist way, with money wisely spent on the poor, and, very unexpectedly the country having way more poor.

There have never been better slogans, than in communist countries. There have never been more death and destruction for their own people than in communist countries.

I know Bill, but why should a candidate be elected based on their fortunes? That doesn't mean they are the best candidate just b/c they have money...that's my point of limiting the $$$ not the freedom of speech...

Karen I feel your frustration. We were in the midst of a conversation today about the campaigns, and my husband thinks we should hook up all candidates to lie detectors whenever they give campaign speeches or do debates. Wouldn't that be fun!!! Sorry, I just couldn't resist.....:-)

I do agree with your point. I wish there was a way we could put a limit on a lot of spending that I don't agree with.

Karen:

Listen to Jon above from Russia. The Russian people are great. They appreciate true democracy more than most Americans. We have a tendency to take it for granted.

Jon:

Welcome to America!

Jon,

Unfortunately you are wrong...I want them to have a business plan in place before they run...give us their plan up front. Stick to it, not change their plans with the business plans of others. I think that, then they should have to restrict the amount they can all spend on advertising (this is not what I am considering freedom of speech, it should be a law in campaigning).

It can be the American way, but with campaign reform and laws to govern this process...Way too much money is wasted on what could be used for our country!

I would like it to be on equal grounds for all candidates, with a limit for all...that would make them all rethink their approach to campaigning and would make them have to come up with real quality policies and goals up front...instead of waiting to see what the others say.

Like I said, Say what you mean and mean what you say from the beginning...Have a plan...tell us what you really plan to do...instead of being fed by others...

Thanks though Jon, I enjoyed your input!

LINDA! I LOVE YOUR POST! I AGREE!

Bill,

It should be fair, the candidates should explain their views up front and be held accountable for their individual plans...this should not be about who has the most money...some of the candidates are using their own...not that of friends...

That's my point...limit the amount of spending...say what your plan is upfront, and don't change it based on what your opponent's think...

I want an individual who has a plan and who can think on HIS feet! However, I do respect Condoleeza! And the foreign governments love her! JMO!

Rudy, Is currently grasping at straws...

Karen:

There is a line. On one hand, you don't want it to be a rich man's race (which it is), but on the other, you don't want to limit speech and you want to permit free elections. As far as holding these liars accountable, we have a system in place for that. We can vote them out. Regarding Condoleeza; I will not vote for any candidate that supports affirmative action using quotas.

Bill,

Ok, I respect your opinion on Condi. However, the race should be about money, it should be about their plan for the future of the US. I'm not saying their should be limited speech, I'm saying they should have their plan for the future of the US up front...not changing it with the comments from the other candidates.

Karen:

That's the magic of politics. The liars swerve and turn and do not let their views be known. If you don't stand against anything, you garner the most votes.

Bill.

All I can so is :-)

I do not feel comfortable with two things here. Have someone to come up with a plan, and then no changes. Basically, then we can suggest people to submit the best business plan, and simply pick the guy who beat others based on business plan. I think this is a terrible idea.

We want a live person, and we want to see how he/she changes, based on the pressure on them. We learn so much from the candidates CHANGING.

The candidate has to win not only the minds, but the hearts. And it would be counterproductive to start limiting this by putting artificial limitations.

Why is that rush to impose limitations on the process that works so well, and which many countries could not replicate even when they want (same Russia, just watch the election, all the slogans are there, but other then farce, there is nothing).

If the money were the only culprit, only money guys would be winning. Clinton would have never made it even if he would have screwed a lot more women, than he had. Huckabee would not be in the game by now.

Karen, this is just a nice and possibly popular notion of giving money to the poor. But very-very dangerous. Please, please, please. I ran from Russia, I do not want to run again. Let them fight, please. Believe me, the best way to have Putin in America, is on the cover page of the Times Magazine, not in America's politics.

Jon:

Well said.

Jon,

You don't understand my point. What I want is someone to explain their plan, what their priorities are...this doesn't mean they would spend all their money up front...it means they would have say 35 million dollar limit on spending for their campaign. It means they have to come up with a basis, what their priorities are...I'm not saying they can't make reasonable changes...but I think if there is not a cap on spending and there are a few with mega monies...it will prove who will spend as a president...Jon, don't worry....we won't send you back, you're a great guy...I just wish that all this money could somehow help the poor instead of politics...I mean...I would really like to see a rule stating you can only spend 50 million dollars on your campaign to be president and the rest goes back into the United States of America! If 50 million dollars isn't enough...the system is warped...

That is still a lot of wasted money...I'm being generous. I think there are two great nominee's! Not saying who, but one of them is NOT BILLARY = AKA = HILLARY....NO FREAKIN' WAY! SO WHAT, SHE WAS MARRIED TO BILL...NO ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS, NOT REALLY MUCH CLASS, DON'T MAKE ME GO FURTHER...WHAT HAS SHE EVER MANAGED? NOTHING...NOTTA!

JUST BECAUSE YOU WERE THE FIRST LADY (UCK) DOESN'T MEAN YOU QUALIFY FOR PRESIDENT...EVEN WITH BILL BEHIND YOUR OR IN FRONT OF YOU...OBVIOUSLY, SHE HAS HER HAND WHERE IT NEED'S TO BE WITH HIM, EVEN THOUGH SHE COULD CARE LESS...IF YOU GET MY DRIFT!

Bill,

All I'm saying is that they should have individual plans up front, not making changes to win based on other's views.

At some point in time, I feel the rules should reflect a max amount of money spend on political gain...I understand the freedom of speech, but, I also feel the best person to run the US should have a chance!

Money in my opinion should not be the object, the thoughts and plans of the best candidate and the best person to run our country should be the issue! Their views, their visions, their business plan...not the money...that's what is wrong with politics! Those with the money think if they spend it all they will win...when in fact the fact that they have money, IMO, doesn't mean they will be the best President.

This is my whole point.

Karen,

I understand your point. I think I do. Now imagine you are standing in front of the most magnificent Rolls Royce. That sucker cost half million dollars. And we enjoy it, but then we say that why not saving on this car and give what we save to the poor.

So, we can put smaller and thinner tires, make it less powerful so that it is lighter, and so on and so forth, until it resembles Russian Lada. The trick is, that by doing that you destroy the industry, because why the best minds would be creating the best cars? There is no need for a genius in mediocre industry. You eventually erode the whole huge layer of the industry and society.

The best part is that if you go out there in Russia and say: "Hey, guys, I have made these 10 Ladas out of one Rolls Royce, they are not going to hug you. They hate Ladas, and they dream of Rolls Royce.

You are used to living in America. I still get up every morning, and this is the first prayer I have. I think the biggest threat to America is not from terrorists, not from Muslims, it is from inside. When we have the best system in place, and it is working, and we would think of changing it because there are poor people, ot because we want to be politically correct, or for any reason other than the strength and prosperity of this nation, we are in trouble.

You are not coming with the argument that our Presidents are not competent, or diligent, or smart, so we need to see why this happens. This is more like: "Why not change it and see if we still do not get screwed".

karen, I really do not want to offend anyone. I know that populist ideas are very tempting. These may be strong arguments, but you see the flowers and you enjoy their beauty, and I have seen the berries of these flowers. Darn poisonous berries.

Karen:

Congratulations!

This post has earned featured post status on the Silent Majority group in ActiveRain.

Karen,

You said it perfectly in your response to Bill. But how money is a problem with Romney (with money) at 25% in Iowa, and Huckabee (without the money) at 34%. The system works.

Why, because it is not about money. If it were, Bloomberg would have been a president, he has more than all of the candidates together. And, BTW, he might have been the best President, as he is a terrific mayor of New York. And you know why he is not buying the Presidency yet? Because you can't buy it.

So, why destroy what we have. You may not like Hillary (why, she is most probably would not be screwing people in the White House, so she could achieve more), but this is what you like or do not like, and it will reflect on how you vote.

We do have real candidates, and we do have the right to really vote. Let's cherish that.

Karen, how do you manage to write a blog, that would force us to write comments, that are like blogs themselves? You have this talent to find the nerve and step on it. Good for you.

Bill, Thank you!

Jon, Bloomberg considered a run at the Presidency...and I agree with you, he might have been...it's not over until the fat lady sings...so maybe in the future...You cannot buy love or the Presidency..thank heavens..that's my point, I don't want anyone to be able to BUT A POSITION THIS IMPORTANT...that is the whole point that I have been trying to make here...

Oh, I absolutely hate Hillary, Billary..et.al. come on Jon, most of our international friends hate her...not her husband...

Thanks Jon, you know, I love your passionate input!

I don't do it on purpose...I don't look for it...but I do love your comments...they are of QUALITY, AND I APPRECIATE THAT!

Have a great day tommorrow...opinions of quality, in my opinion is what makes the world go round! Stay in touch and have a great 2008, I wish you all the best! Karen

JAN

2008

Karen, Great post. The money is just stupid and we are all supposed to just believe all of this money given to the candidates is with no strings.. Yeah I have some land for you to buy at in the swamps to..lol...I still believe we are going to see some last minute changes..

Huckabee won the primary with far less monewy spent than Romney .Yet Mccain did much better this time around than he did last time when he was pushing campaign reform. With controls on money being spent that would leave the liberal media to controll the country. Dems get far more free press than the Republicans.

Hugh:

This is an excellent point regarding the liberal media. This makes it an uphill battle for Huckabee in his presidential bid.

Matt,

Thank you. I think we will be seeing changes until the end! Have a great weekend!

Hugh and Bill,

Exactly!

JAN

2008

Thats the truth Hugh, When republicans speak out, Dems say they control the media...what lies...do they really believe that stuff, with CNN and all the ABC'S, NBC'S CNBC'S..and so forth...they get the liberal message out free and clear. Just go against them and you are in for it.

What ever it takes to get conservative ideas out there I am for.

Karen - you ask a question that I could write an essay on! The US electoral process takes way too long and wastes way too much money. In times when there's a 1st term president running for re-election, the process takes the incumbent away from presidential obligations. And in regards to Iowa, I'm not sure why a small state in the middle of the country that does not represent the demographics of our country is given so much importance.

JAN

2008

Tchaka, write it... I would love to read it...why not post a blog on it...You are a good writer...you make good points...Go for it, but let me know when you do...I'm so busy, I can't keep track of myself...so email if you decide to do so...I would love to read it! Karen

This blog does not allow anonymous comments