Patterico's Pontifications

1/3/2012

Iowa Caucus Day (and beyond)

Filed under: 2012 Election — Karl @ 9:00 am



[Posted by Karl]

Long awaited. Much anticipated. Let’s get it over, already!

Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum all have a chance to win, particularly where 41 percent could still be persuaded to support another candidate.  Who in Iowa could possibly be undecided after all this?  Sasha Issenberg explains.

Under the topline, the stories are Santorum’s momentum and the undercard — stories that are interrelated, as Santorum’s surge likely affects candidates like Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry.  The traditional wisdom is that there are three tickets out of Iowa, but Santorum’s weaknesses outside Iowa and Paul’s reliance on Democrat and Independent support will likely keep Gingrich and Perry running for a while.

As with the other NotRomneys, Santorum’s current rise will bring more scrutiny to his campaign.  Philip Klein has a quick and critical primer on Santorum’s record.  Klein also argues that merely being to the right of Romney isn’t good enough, because Romney has the advantages of money, organization, establishment support and the perception of being the most electable.  Klein probabaly overstates his case. 

Although I am skeptical of new types of campaigning, one thing the Internet has changed is fundraising, so a lot of money can flow to Santorum quickly if he becomes the conservative alternative to Romney.  

Electablity is part ideology, but also a circular function of polling; if Santorum wins Iowa, he could win elsewhere and suddenly look more electable to people.  Santorum’s own electoral record is spotty, but winning and losing in a Bluish swing state like Pennsylvania may not look worse than winning and losing in Blue Massachusetts like Romney. 

As for establishment support, Santorum was a part of GOP leadership in the Senate (for better or worse, depending on point-of-view).  Romney was unable to attract a lot of the establishment until other alternatives were exhausted — they even hesitated to open their fat wallets when Gingrich was on the rise.  Thus, it’s not clear to me that the establishment would bend over backwards to fight Santorum in a protracted campaign.

Klein’s strongest point is Santorum’s general lack of organization.  In the medium term, the new money coming in and candidates dropping out would largely solve that problem.  After all, as the campaign spreads wider, it becomes more media than retail.  But Gingrich and Perry likely won’t drop out right away.  Indeed, if Perry managed to pass Gingrich in Iowa, he would likely be better equipped to fight on than Santorum (although Perry-affiliated Liz Mair notes that Newt increasingly seems like he could stay in just to attack Romney out of personal pique; see also Nate Silver).  Moreover, Santorum’s short-term mismatch of money to infrastructure could hurt him in key early states like South Carolina and Florida.

The Iowa horserace may be a photo finish, but whatever the order in Iowa — barring a surprise third-place finish by Perry or Gingrich — you know who this benefits.

–Karl

114 Responses to “Iowa Caucus Day (and beyond)”

  1. Ding!

    Karl (5a613f)

  2. Santorum can’t beat Obama. You have to be a little likable in some way.

    It’s a thing.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  3. Santorum is at the top of the list of people who will get me to vote 3rd party, followed closely by newt. Romney is third, but on the fence. I could still vote for mittens, but it would take a hell of a lot of convincing. Everyone else, I could hold my nose to get it done.

    Ghost (6f9de7)

  4. You will vote 3rd party no matter who the GOP nominates paulscum.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  5. Santorum is Young Bob Dole™ — the young man of the past, ready to lead the nation into the 20th Century.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  6. I would love to hear how Ghost favors Paul, but might vote for Bachmann. They are complete opposites on foreign policy and I cannot see Michelle legalizing any drug. Really the only similarity is their complete lack of a sense of humor.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  7. Although I must agree with ghost and happy — Santorum is repulsive and cannot win the general. This election is about economics and competence and he offers culture war. Tone deaf is putting it mildly.

    Bachmann was fighting for the same crowd, but she had more range and appeal. Which is probably why the hard-core single-issue voters chose Santorum.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  8. Ghost will vote 3rd party if anyone but Paul runs he is the enemy.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  9. One thing seems for certain. It won’t be Rick Perry.

    Colonel Haiku (5b04f4)

  10. May the best candidate with the best chance of beating Obama win the Republican nomination.

    Colonel Haiku (5b04f4)

  11. Rush Limbaugh just now pretty much endorsed Rick Santorum. Says he did it on December 21. That is, h quoted himself from Dec 21. It is person he would have no worries about. Evidently his favorite candidate.

    Sammy Finkelman (b17872)

  12. Nothing funnier than a roly-poly guy going “terminate with extreme prejudice” mode.

    Go, Newton, go!

    Colonel Haiku (5b04f4)

  13. Limbaugh also says he he wouldn’t be surprised if Rick Perry did well. Says is not over. This could go on for months.

    He seems to suspect an “Operation Chaos” effort may underway to caucus for Ron Paul.

    Sammy Finkelman (b17872)

  14. What the hell crawled up your ass today, doh?

    Kevin, economics and taxes are where I supported Bachman. No, she wouldn’t legalize drugs, and she would probably continue the neoconservative foreign policies, but she could possibly slow down the spending.

    Don’t get me wrong, it’s still be a nose holder. I like Rick perry more than bachman though. Wrong on a lot of things, but right enough that I could vote for him.

    Shit, I forgot. I’m voting 8th party for Ron Paul. Because I’m a paulscum paulite paulistinian paulbot.

    The real question is, is there anybody you could vote for without holding your nose?

    [note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

    Ghost (6f9de7)

  15. Ghost will vote 3rd party if anyone but Paul runs he is the enemy.

    Comment by Dohbiden — 1/3/2012 @ 8:53 am

    This right here is why republicans are so fractured. You and I disagree on maybe 15% of the issues, but I’m the enemy? Who pissed in your Cheerios, doh?

    Ghost (6f9de7)

  16. Bachmann has gotten much better at makeup in the past couple of weeks. Has anyone noticed that? It’s not something I usually notice, but for some reason it makes a huge difference with her.

    And that’s not meant to be sexist. I’m sure all (or most of) the men are also wearing makeup and spending stupid amounts of time worrying about their appearance.

    I am very surprised to see the heavy guns back Santorum instead of Newt or Perry, but the fact is that none of these candidates is the whole package. The one with the great record took far too long to show his politician skills (I think Perry very well could be much improved in a future race, but he made too many mistakes this round).

    Newt’s been a master politician, but he has a mixed record. Romney’s the guy all those with a stake in the current government’s enormity want, and that makes sense, but his record is the most liberal (more liberal than most democrats).

    I hear a ton of people say they are voting against X, or repulsed by X (in my case it’s Romney, from strong gun control to abortion rights and Roe V Wade cheering to (and most importantly) his Romneycare disaster being ‘conservative’. I hear very few people actually support someone affirmatively. I guess the Perry fans think they are, but I’d bet they are more motivated against liberalism than for Perry.

    I thought in 2008 we had a weak field, but for some reason this one seems much weaker even though the records of the candidates is more substantial.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  17. Hey I apologize.

    By the way I agree with you about the futility of the war on drugs.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  18. Limbaugh also says he he wouldn’t be surprised if Rick Perry did well.

    I hope he’s right. But hope is all that is.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  19. Well all the candidates have made mistakes, but the media amplifies them, like in the previous thread, and by submitting oneself to their insipid debates
    this pattern is facilitated, And then the likes ofBen Smith come along, and tell us their last 100 columns have been wrong,

    narciso (87e966)

  20. Comment by Kevin M — 1/3/2012 @ 8:40 am

    Santorum is Young Bob Dole™ — the young man of the past, ready to lead the nation into the 20th Century.

    I thought that was Newt Gingrich.

    http://dekerivers.wordpress.com/2011/12/26/the-new-yorker-cover-smirks-at-newt-gingrich/

    Sammy Finkelman (b17872)

  21. Several things: Yes, Dustin, I’ve noticed Bachmann’s makeup. To my feminine eye, however, it’s more than just makeup… with that, I will again say that HDTV is brutal to middle aged women and it’s ridiculous that it even matters – but as we saw with the brutal comments about Hillary’s tired appearance and oohs and ahs over Obama’s youthful good looks, it does indeed matter.

    And no, I don’t think the male candidates give half the time and thought to this matter as does Bachmann.

    It’s disgusting to have to play this game in the most important event of our country. But that’s the way it is.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  22. It greatly depends on what one means about Perry doing well.

    Organization might put him ahead of Newt. But is that doing well? I’ll probably open a caucus thread tonight with more on that.

    Karl (f07e38)

  23. the media amplifies them

    This is true. This is how conservatives have a very hard time. Every clever thing a conservative says is not newsworthy. Every good argument is ignored or at best played once. Every error is repeated for months. Unless you go out of your way to hear them, the actual arguments conservatives offer are barely repeated, and the emotional crap and the ‘outrage’ at insignificant gaffes are all you hear. That and, of course, what passes for liberal argumentation (be afraid of things I will have the government fix!!! be vaguely hopeful for vague change!!! I am a super cool guy!!!)

    Dustin (cb3719)

  24. And no, I don’t think the male candidates give half the time and thought to this matter as does Bachmann.

    It’s disgusting to have to play this game in the most important event of our country. But that’s the way it is.

    Comment by Dana

    It depends on the male. I guess they aren’t all John Edwards.

    And yeah, it’s disgusting this matters at all. I don’t support Bachmann or H Clinton, but it’s obvious they pay a price for signs of age, when many men would actually play that up.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  25. Was just home for the New Year’s Xmas thing. Scott Walker recall going nowhere.

    Putting his name in at brokered convention time, beats Ryan and Christie put together.

    [note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  26. Rush Limbaugh is right.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  27. 21)that’s why I’ve dubbed them ‘the Duke and Duke’ faction, they are too clever by half

    narciso (87e966)

  28. Rush believes Santorum’s values and principles are his strengths and that’s why Santorum continually focuses on them. Even when he discusses his blue-collar background and upbringing with regard to his understanding the impact of our failing economy, Santorum always goes back to those values and principles. I get it.

    During his second speech, Santorum stressed that taxes, the economy and growth are important to him and that he “talks a lot about those things,” on the trail, but quickly pivoted to a values argument. “It’s also about what is at the core of our country, the values of this country,” he said. “It’s about faith and family. You can’t have a strong economy, you can’t have limited government if the family is breaking down and we don’t live good, moral and decent lives.”

    Dana (4eca6e)

  29. LOL @Gary’s 21.

    Yes, it’s clear enough we don’t want Romney. But divide and conquer works so well.

    I hope to hell someone emerges today as the “Not Romney” and conservatives have the good sense to SETTLE for someone who doesn’t measure up yet is the best we’re going to do this year.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  30. Barack Obama is Joan of Chicago……………………Is that racist?

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  31. 30. Today Laura, suffering blonde whiplash, had some ‘tough medicine for tea partiers’ who pledge not to support Romney–you know the drill.

    Yeah, a Barium Enema, huh Laura?

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  32. Today Laura, suffering blonde whiplash, had some ‘tough medicine for tea partiers’ who pledge not to support Romney–you know the drill.

    I don’t understand this. Now is not the time for that. Now is the time to hold that against Romney. If he can’t convince people to vote for him, that’s a problem for him. Politicians and pundits don’t get to elect the voters.

    Sure, once we have a nominee, it’s time to unify, such as bringing in Romney’s supporters to support Newt or vice versa.

    But it seems like insisting we all must support romney… now… is just falling into this inevitability thing. Why not deal with the problem of many not trusting Romney with power by picking a better candidate? Isn’t there still time for that?

    Dustin (cb3719)

  33. 32. Laura had Ann on today regaling the nation on the multifoliate personality that is Mitt.

    For a cold slab of cod he really is endearing.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  34. 32. Indeed, is IA less significant than NH? It’s next door to Vermont for heaven’s sake.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  35. Wow the left want to go to war with the rich………..I love how they defend Michael Moore though.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  36. Doh, thanks. I didn’t think we were enemies.

    It’d be a little easier to get behind Romney if he had more spine than a jellyfish.

    Ghost (6f9de7)

  37. yah, lutefisking for dah Gary.

    Colonel Haiku (5b04f4)

  38. It’d be easier to get behind a democrap if they told the lefty revolutionaries to look in the mirror if they wanna see their enemy.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  39. Newt is leading or tied in national polls, so there is no way he’s going to let the farm vote decide things for him. Especially since these primaries are all proportional-delegate contests.

    There are at least 3 tickets out of Iowa, and since Ron Paul’s chances are zero no matter what, he doesn’t get one of them. Bachmann is done after Iowa (where she had to do well, and will come in last) and Huntsman will be done after New Hampshire. Perry also had to do well in Iowa, since he is aiming for this kind of voter.

    Newt did not have to do well in Iowa. Just recently he was leading so the expectations changed, but originally he wasn’t expected to be in the top tier. His test comes in South Carolina and Florida, where he needs to win at least one and place in the other.

    Yes, I know that the Perry fans want it to be seen as Perry versus Newt for the last ticket out, but I’m not sure Perry has a ticket out if he doesn’t beat Santorum, while Newt only needs to get double digits.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  40. The overwrought will meet their Waterloo in Iowa.

    Colonel Haiku (5b04f4)

  41. Yes, I know that the Perry fans want it to be seen as Perry versus Newt for the last ticket out, but I’m not sure Perry has a ticket out if he doesn’t beat Santorum, while Newt only needs to get double digits.

    Yes, I agree with this.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  42. but you really don’t remember … was it something that you said? Are the voices in your head calling “Iowa”?

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  43. I thought that was Newt Gingrich.

    Newt can run a computer. Bob Dole could not (his attempt to quote a website URL at the end of one debate was perfectly terrible). Not sure Santorum can work an iPad.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  44. Newt has a sassy wife and a winning attitude

    you know who this helps

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  45. Newton battles Rick
    for the last train to Clarksville
    men or just Monkees?

    Colonel Haiku (5b04f4)

  46. Newt’s wife blinks like an alien life-form.

    You know who this helps.

    Colonel Haiku (5b04f4)

  47. It’d be a little easier to get behind Romney if he had more spine than a jellyfish.

    The weakness as a leader is a big problem if you’re a liberal (Romney’s record is consistently far left) or if you actually believe he was a secret conservative all those years, losing and bending over backwards to cater to abortion rights advocates and gun control nutjobs because he’s that spineless.

    My problem with Romney is simply that he has always wanted to use government to solve everything, and doesn’t have a clue how to turn the US economy around because this liberal mindset is a failure. His sole success story (Bain) seems to be working as well or better without him and I doubt Romney actually did anything there but bring in investors via daddy’s Rolodex (his son did the same thing).

    Romney has made a lot of decisions as a governor, and zero of them were good. Increasing education spending when his state is near the worst of debt? A jobs growth rate of 47 out of 50? Romneycare being conservative (what in the hell does Romney think is moderate, then, single payer?) The gun tax? I could go on and on all day.

    I think the spineless thing is actually just a trick. Romney chose to start his career in MA over other places because he is a liberal. He made MA more liberal and ended a streak of GOP governors there because if the GOP stands for the same stuff the democrats in MA want, there’s no reason to vote GOP.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  48. I’d vote for Romney not because he represents my Conservative values, but because has the best chance of beating Obama. I’m not so sure about the others.

    ropelight (e687bc)

  49. before was after
    last stand at the Alamo
    tacos de lengua

    Colonel Haiku (5b04f4)

  50. By George, I think you’re on to something, ropelight.

    Colonel Haiku (5b04f4)

  51. Mitt Romneys wife blinks like she can’t believe she ate teh whole thing.

    Hey you wanna use the word redneck leftys fine then.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  52. gonna get you too
    another one rides the bus
    fat-bottom girls you

    Colonel Haiku (5b04f4)

  53. I’d vote for Romney not because he represents my Conservative values, but because has the best chance of beating Obama. I’m not so sure about the others.

    I think we are always told that the left most Republicans have the best chance of beating the liberal, and then our fears are stoked to the point where we will settle for anything but the democrat candidate (in this case, that’s actually justified, I admit).

    But history shows that Mccain, Dole, Ford, Bush 41… moderates were not as electable as the more relatively conservative guys who stood their ground at least some of the time.

    I think Newt would do better against Obama than Romney. I think Perry would crush Obama on strength of record, but is hopeless in this primary.

    If the contest is Romney vs Obama, ultimately we have lost 2012 as a chance to get a white house that wants to turn around the direction we’re headed in. We have, instead, a more competent technocrat to manage this enormous mess of a government. But that was just one (smaller) part of the problem.

    I trust these electability polls as much as I trusted all those that said Mccain would beat Obama and no one else could. The truth is that if we had nominated someone with more conviction, they would have distanced themselves from Obama instead of endorsing their general (fake) moderate worldview by claiming they both are the centrist that doesn’t threaten anyone. That’s a contest the MSM can decide.

    If we give the country a real choice… a distinct two ideologies, the MSM has less ability to settle the matter.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  54. I think Newt would do better against Obama than Romney. I think Perry would crush Obama on strength of record

    I do not think this likely and there’s the rub… the great disconnect… between reality and fantasy.

    If wishes were horses, this cat would be Buckaroo Bonzai.

    Colonel Haiku (5b04f4)

  55. Wake me when this Pander-Party concludes…
    on second thought, don’t bother, it’ll just get worse in NH.

    AD-RtR/OS! (bfa239)

  56. I particularly find amusing how Romneycare is supposedly great apart from how the democrats took over.

    But Romney didn’t even run for re-election. That’s how much he cared about the matter.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  57. If TEAs can’t make a stand against the weakest Democrat they will see in their lives then its time to move ’em to Australia and make them eat wallaby tripe on 40 year’s walkabout.

    Empty scrota flying in the breeze otherwise.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  58. I could definitely vote for Perry more easily than Romney as far as that all goes. For all his flaws he’s infinitely more trustworthy.

    He would govern as a conservative.

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  59. Have no fear, AD. You’ll always have Ron Paul.

    Colonel Haiku (5b04f4)

  60. Comment by Kevin M — 1/3/2012 @ 10:21 am

    Newt can run a computer. Bob Dole could not (his attempt to quote a website URL at the end of one debate was perfectly terrible). Not sure Santorum can work an iPad.

    George W. Bush was using e-mail, but had to stop when he became President. Barack Obama used a Blackberry but had to reconfigure it when he became president to limit what it did.

    http://news.cnet.com/obamas-new-blackberry-the-nsas-secure-pda/

    The reason had something with legal requirements to keep presidential records (as interpreted by some lawyers) and security concerns, both data and maybe personal.

    So far the two presidents in the 21st century haven’t been allowed by their minders to personally participate in any form of communications post 1980 maybe.

    Sammy Finkelman (b17872)

  61. Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 1/3/2012 @ 9:33 am

    You must not have been old enough to listen to Newt in the 90’s speaking of “The Information Age” or you would not make, or agree to, such a remark as that he is ready to “lead us into the 20th-Century”.
    At least at the time he became Speaker, he was probably one of the more technologically aware, and capable, elected politicians in DC; and perhaps he still is.

    AD-RtR/OS! (bfa239)

  62. So far the two presidents in the 21st century haven’t been allowed by their minders to personally participate in any form of communications post 1980 maybe.

    Interesting.

    I do hear that Obama reads blogs, including Andrew Sullivan. Something tells me he doesn’t have the spine to read those who don’t think much of him, so it probably is very helpful that he can have minders give him the old school news binder every morning, with clippings from whatever media Obama’s staff think he wants to read.

    He can then chew on that while enjoying some ESPN as the country goes to hell in a handbasket.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  63. I agree with AD about Newt. I think he’s more than just TV-Smart. I think he is genuinely very intelligent and understands technology and the big picture in a way many other folks do not.

    Newt got newt.org as his url ages ago.

    Where does Newt stand on the Stop Online Privacy Act? It’s time for the GOP to realize these Hollywood guys are not their friends, and these laws and bills are contrary to freedom anyway.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  64. If he was reading here, or over at Insty (not even mentioning the really critical blogs), they would have to keep him on permanent medication – which might help that thing he calls a “golf swing” (my gate to the back-yard swings more smoothly than that).

    AD-RtR/OS! (bfa239)

  65. Conservative Islam is an oxymoron.

    Paulturds and common sense are an oxymoron.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  66. So the rich not paying their fair share got us into this depression?

    I agree Michael Moore is to blame.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  67. Jihad is not noble and never has been.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  68. Someone called the Rush Limbaugh show and said Obama is not going to take Iowa in the general election. Very logical. All this campaigning matters.

    As a result of the intensive campaigning the year before people in Iowa and New Hampshire are different from people across the United States – and they are both swing states.

    There were only 3 states that changed between 2000 and 2004: Iowa, New Hampshire, and New Mexico..

    Partly it worked out that way because, on the one hand, Ralph Nader didn’t run in 2004 but, on the other, maybe 3% of the people switched from Gore to Bush. Florida wasn’t close in 2004.

    In the year 2000, George W. Bush carried New Hampshire with its 4 Electoral votes, and with it, the Presidency. He lost every other place in the Northeast and the Gore people had taken it for granted. It was probably the primary. The Gore people kicked themselves after it was over – why didn’t they make an effort in New Hampshire? Campaigning there before the primary did this.

    On he other hand, Gore carried Iowa, although it’s a normally a more Republican state. I can’t figure out an explanation. All the explanations I can think of logically mean it should have been the other way.

    George W. Bush won the Republican caucuses with just under 41% while Al Gore collected about 63% among the Democrats but polls had shown Bradley only 2% or 3% or maybe 10% behind. I know the democrats reported effective delegates which diminish the loser’s total. The Wikipedia article says there was low turnout.

    Whatever, Gore carried the state, but in 2004, Bush did. Kerry had been in the lead in the caucuses.

    The difference between 2000 and 2004 was that reapportionment gave the Republicans a net gain of 7 Electoral votes, and New Mexico (5) and Iowa )5) gave him 12 minus New Hampshire (4) leaves 8 and 271+7+8 = 286.

    In 2008, Obama carried the following states Kerry did not: Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Nevada, Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina and the city of Omaha (1 electoral vote in Nebraska)

    Reapportionment would cost Obama a net 6 Electoral votes from his 365 total. Demographics are said to give him an extra 2% of the popular vote. I suppose, all other things being equal, it
    would flip Missouri (11 Electoral votes) and help him retain Nevada Colorado, New Mexico, North Carolina and Virginia, but all other things are not equal. The Obama campaign is using the 2004 election as its template, where Kerry got 251 Electoral votes and would have even less now.

    Sammy Finkelman (b17872)

  69. SF: So far the two presidents in the 21st century haven’t been allowed by their minders to personally participate in any form of communications post 1980 maybe.

    Dustin: Interesting.

    Actually Obama does have some kind of a Blackberry but it has got a restricted reach. Everything he does is on a secure internal encrypted government network maybe with some family members allowed to contact him.

    I am not sure a president now would normally answer any telephones or browse the Internet.

    Sammy Finkelman (b17872)

  70. Gore – 2000:
    When your home-state electors reject you, a loss is not all that surprising – especially in a close election.

    AD-RtR/OS! (bfa239)

  71. Time for the Cornbots to engage in useless voting. What a con job. And a waste of corn.

    sickofrinos (44de53)

  72. Al Gore really is a great metric for how to democrat party shifted wildly.

    The guy used to campaign for prayer in schools. Just utter populism. Now he campaigns for a different religion (warming Gaia).

    This is one reason I prefer candidates with more time in office. You get to see more of what they are made of. Sure, they may try to talk their way around their record, or talk their way over a lack of record, but those are the guys who, twenty years down the road, appear to be completely different people.

    Politicians are a special breed, and I do not mean that kindly.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  73. Politicians are a special breed, and I do not mean that kindly.

    A good argument for quarantine…
    only let them out on supervised furloughs, and monitor all communications.

    AD-RtR/OS! (bfa239)

  74. Swift Boat vet slams Gingrich:

    Incensed by the negative ads that have spoiled his campaign, Newt Gingrich recently complained he’d been “Romneyboated,” an allusion to the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, whose ads helped derail Sen. John Kerry’s presidential campaign in 2004.

    John O’Neill, the swift-boat captain who led the anti-Kerry movement, is none too pleased with the comparison. “To me, it reflects Gingrich’s very cynical hypocrisy, which he shares with Kerry,” O’Neill tells National Review Online. That hypocrisy “is the reason why he can appear with [Nancy] Pelosi in climate-change ads and why he can take money from Freddie Mac: If you’re part of the political class, [you believe] you’re free from any public scrutiny of what you’ve done.”

    O’Neill has been disappointed with Gingrich “ever since the debacle in the late 1990s, when he came close to squandering a Republican majority in the House and engaged personally in conduct that really hurt the Republican party.” The ex-speaker’s recent behavior hasn’t been much better. “I was shocked by his labeling [Paul] Ryan’s plan ‘right-wing social engineering,’” O’Neill says. “It’s deeply cynical conduct and hypocrisy. He has much more in common with Kerry than with any of the other Republican candidates — maybe not in ideology, but in other things that count.”

    Indeed, O’Neill sees many similarities between the old pols. “Kerry is an extremely cynical guy whose policies change like a kaleidoscope, and Newt Gingrich is just the same. He’s a constantly changing kaleidoscope with one policy idea after another.” To Republicans, O’Neill advises, “You select a president based on the entire person, because the truth is, the policy issues are very likely to be different in a year than they seem to be right now.”

    O’Neill concludes, “I would be really proud to win or lose with any of the other Republican candidates. But I would be ashamed if Gingrich were the candidate.”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/287024/swift-boat-vet-slams-gingrich-brian-bolduc

    General Malaise (5b04f4)

  75. Rupert Murdoch is happy about Rick Santorum on his newly started Twitter account:

    http://twitter.com/rupertmurdoch

    rupertmurdoch Rupert Murdoch
    Good to see santorum surging in Iowa. Regardless of policies, all debates showed principles, consistency and humility like no other.
    1 Jan

    He earlier also said:

    rupertmurdoch Rupert Murdoch
    Great oped inWSJ today on Ron Paul. Huge appeal of libertarian message.
    31 Dec

    Is he thinking about this? http://online.wsj.com/article/wonder_land.html

    Rupert Murdoch hasn’t learned anything yet about abbreviating and including URLs.

    Also:

    rupertmurdoch Rupert Murdoch
    @Plaid_Page Maybe soon, but I’m getting killed for fooling around here and friends frightened what I may really say!
    1 Jan

    His last tweet was 18 hours ago. Now 19.

    Sammy Finkelman (b17872)

  76. There was nothing wrong with what the Swift Boat veterans said!

    This is the kind of thing I mean when I said Newt Gingrich’s knowledge was superficial.

    I know it’s been used for some years to mean a massive political assault, but using it that way is succumbing to propaganda.

    Sammy Finkelman (b17872)

  77. Is General Malaise also Colonel Haiku?

    That was my recollection.

    Anyway, anyone preferring Mitt over Newt because they hate flip floppers is probably not well informed.

    Does O’Neill even know Newt?

    Shame on Romney for the incredible negativity that he has brought to the GOP primary, and thanks Newt for being the most presidential candidate in tenor.

    Shame on O’Neill for bringing hysterical negativity as well with his “I’d be ashamed!!!!” crap.

    We already know much of the stuff people claim Newt did in the 1990s was a fabrication anyway. Let’s stick to the issues. Newt is not perfect, but he’s a lot better than Romney when it comes to having a conservative record or competence as a leader not being run over by liberals (or working with them).

    Dustin (cb3719)

  78. There was nothing wrong with what the Swift Boat veterans said!

    This is the kind of thing I mean when I said Newt Gingrich’s knowledge was superficial.

    I don’t think you understand what Newt is saying. He’s not saying Romney’s negativity is all lies. He’s noting, truthfully, that Newt has conducted himself with a focus on the issues instead of personal character attacks.

    The swift boaters were right, of course, but they were a personal attack on Kerry. Yes, they were justified, but that doesn’t mean Newt’s point is wrong.

    Anyway, how does this show Newt’s knowledge is superficial? At worst, he’s assuming people will understand his metaphor more accurately than some will manage.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  79. Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 1/3/2012 @ 11:40 am

    Gore – 2000:
    When your home-state electors reject you, a loss is not all that surprising – especially in a close election.

    The point is, he carried Iowa! in a 50-50 election.

    Sammy Finkelman (b17872)

  80. It was George W. Bush who didn’t carry Iowa in 2000. It was one of two states that flipped to him in 1004 (the other was the extremely close New Mexico)

    New Hampshire flipped the other way: Bush to Kerry.

    Sammy Finkelman (b17872)

  81. And it’s just slang anyway.

    If folks can’t handle adding the word “boat” into something to indicate personal attack, then they need some thicker skin.

    Newt never criticized the swift boaters, and O’Neill’s personal attacks on Newt are hysterical and not helpful… and now they prove Newt right, since, after all, O’Neill is engaged in nothing more than personal attacks on Newt.

    Seriously, he’d be “ashamed” if we nominated Newt, because we shouldn’t pick flip floppers, but it’s cool if we pick Romney?

    Makes no sense.

    If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  82. Prediction for Iowa:

    1) Romney
    2) Santorum
    3) Paul

    Colonel Haiku (5b04f4)

  83. followed by Gingrich, Bachmann, Huntsman, Perry.

    Colonel Haiku (5b04f4)

  84. A shame when great commenters are pushed away basically for spammers who often offer nothing more than copypasta.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  85. Newt is intelligent, but his ego prevents him from saying things like, “I’ll have to look into that and get back to you” when he doesn’t know the answer. He looks you square in the eye and bs’s his way through it. Paul ryan’s plan is a perfect example. Another was when he was on the daily show talking about civilian trials for apprehended terrorists, and he said with all the confidence in the world that Bush was right to charge the shoe bomber in a civilian court, because he was an American. He wasn’t an American though.

    He’s irrationally self confident. Kinda like Barack “4th greatest president” Obama.

    Ghost (6f9de7)

  86. All politicians are ego maniacs. I mean, you have to be daffy just to think all the hell your family will go through is worth it.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  87. he rides a donkey
    as he tilts towards windmills
    and Dustinea

    Colonel Haiku (5b04f4)

  88. Victor Davis Hanson’s take on Newt Gingrich’s strategy:

    “… So if he had contradictions in his past, then it was critical to erase memory of them by not spouting off and confining himself to just a few themes: the economy, foreign policy, and the dismal Obama record. Instead, he went off on tangential topics that played into his critics’ hands. They charged that the old Gingrich was pompous and fancied himself some sort of pop-new-waver; the new Gingrich could have countered that with humble and self-effacing admissions that we are all human and then gone on to explain the current issues in creative ways many of his rivals could not.

    He also should have avoided the question of who is the more conservative — his own readjustments were as plentiful as Romney’s — and instead made the case that he is now more an electable conservative than Romney is supposed to be.

    Right now, the debate is over whether Romney’s persistence is proof that he still cannot capture a majority of Republican voters, due to their grave doubts about his principles and beliefs, or that his continual front-runner status, even if only in the high 20s or low 30s, is proof that voters keep coming back to someone steady who they think can (perhaps alone can) be good enough to beat Obama, and whose presidency, while not Reaganesque, would be far preferable.

    Gingrich is now understandably furious at Romney, but he does not seem to recognize that he was winning against all odds when he more or less copied Romney’s strategy of being above the fray, outsourcing negative attacks to others, focusing on Obama, and by steady comportment and careful, disciplined speech reassuring voters that he could win in November.

    Except for one unnecessarily abrasive interview, Romney has quite wisely stuck with what was working for him, and Gingrich hasn’t.”

    Read more: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/287074/gingrich-paradox-victor-davis-hanson

    Colonel Haiku (5b04f4)

  89. If this doesn’t sober folks up about the need to rid ourselves of big spenders like Obama, not much will:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/us-closes-2011-record-1522-trillion-debt-officially-1003-debtgdp

    Colonel Haiku (5b04f4)

  90. Remind me again, who was for the TARP and the Stimulus again.

    narciso (87e966)

  91. 83. 40% are undecided, i.e., will decide at caucus.

    One of the conservatives will cream Romney.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  92. Haiku she said the right thing.

    Bachmann is just in it for ego and instant gratification.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  93. Isn’t it amazing, on balance, knowing how horrible life in politics, especially presidential politics can be, that Romney devoted most of a decade to this one thing. He didn’t lead on issues, he simply ‘played the game’ to use Romney fan Meghan Mccain’s term for his own campaign.

    The guy wants it too much.

    If they had a gameshow where all the candidates jumped out of a plane, and the last one to pull the ripchord gets to be president (nice idea, right?) Mitt Romney would win every time.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  94. 94. I find guys who go to their grave thinking they can read chicks minds amusing.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  95. I think Rupert Murdoch maybe meant another article – Why Ron Paul Matters

    Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb)

  96. “Those of you that will be 21 by November the 12th, I ask for your support and your vote. Those of you who won’t be, work hard.”

    – Two stupid things said by Rick Perry in one sentence on 11/29/11

    He somehow forgot that the legal voting age is 18, and not 21, and that the date of the 2012 general election is November 6th.

    Colonel Haiku (5b04f4)

  97. Let’s play Jeopardy…

    Q: who is the current governor of a state where he polls in the low 40’s and had absolutely no business entering the campaign to be the Republican nominee for the highest office in the land?

    A: Who is Rick Perry.

    Colonel Haiku (5b04f4)

  98. Here’s the latest in a string of idiotic statements from Rick Perry…

    http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/01/03/perry_compares_beating_obama_to_defeating_the_nazis.html

    Colonel Haiku (5b04f4)

  99. Perry is stupid. Romney is electable. Same shlt, different day. At least the children of the corn will slink off into irrelevance again, after today.

    JD (318f81)

  100. Personally, I have settled into thinking Newt is the most conservative guy who can win, and I think that’s quite unfortunate and frustrating.

    But anybody but Romney. We need at least some chance of turning this country around.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  101. Latest Townhall Straw Poll:

    Newt:…….39.2% (-12.8%);
    Ron Paul:…24.6% (+12.7%);
    Mitt:…….10.7% (+5.9%);
    Michelle….7.5% (+5.3%);
    Perry…….5.6% (+1.8%);
    Santorum….5.5% (+4.3%);
    ???………4.5% (+2.9%);
    Huntsman….2.4% (+1.4%).

    AD-RtR/OS! (bfa239)

  102. that ox is gored thing seems very selective…

    Colonel Haiku (5b04f4)

  103. Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 1/3/2012 @ 12:04 pm

    That just means that IA voters are less discerning, or more gullible than are the voters of TN.

    AD-RtR/OS! (bfa239)

  104. Gore had a lot of trouble in Tennessee – and also in West Virginia – which used to be a heavily Democratic state – because of the gun control issue.

    West Virginia has now gone Republican since the 2000 Presidential election. And it used to be like Rhode Island and Hawaii.

    What’s unique in Iowa (and to some degree in Minnesota) is the abortion issue. But again that should have hurt Gore.

    I checked back and… Dukakis carried Iowa in 1988!

    I always thought of Iowa as a Republican state. Nixon carried it in 1960 and 1968.

    In 1948 Harry S Truman carried it, while losing New York and Pennsylvania. That’s becuse he carried a lot of the farm states.

    Ford did carry it in 1976 – not deviating from the Republican pattern – but his margin was small. I guess that’s the caucus effect – Jimmy Carter did an awful lot of campaigning in that state in 1975. Maybe that also explains Dukakis’ win in 1988. That wasn’t even a close election. That year Dukakis had come in third in the caucuses but he may have been higher in the raw vote. It was considered a breakthrough for him.

    Sammy Finkelman (b17872)

  105. I enjoy reading all the dribble about “liberal” Romney from people that don’t live in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and have no clue what that guy did to save our state. One guy says he “ran as a Republican in Massachusetts… because he’s a liberal”. Pure genius! He ran as a Republican because he couldn’t in good conscience run as a liberal Democrat in order to reverse course in the state. Does anyone realize that having an “R” next to your name is like a scarlet letter in Massachusetts? Staunch conservatives in Massachusetts love the guy. We appreciate what he was up against and what he accomplished. This “feeding frenzy” against Romney (propelled by the Left by creating the term “anti-Romney” prior to the primaries) is getting out of hand and ridiculous. There IS no “anti-Romney” candidate in real life.

    “Anti-Romney” means that our candidate isn’t Christian, isn’t pro-life, doesn’t support our allies, Israel, small government, tax reduction, repeal of Obamacare, E-verify, and support gas, oil, and other resource expansion. The “anti-Romney” candidate supports gay marriage, a “hands off” policy for Iran, and wants to reduce the military instead of strengthening it. Tell me! Who the “F” is that?

    Dave B (982f20)

  106. 107-You are delirious. This guy did nothing to build the republican party in the commonwealth. Every conservative decision he made was carefully orchestrated not to piss off the dems in ma. People who vote for mitt and paul should be sent to a school where common sense is a priority.

    sickofrinos (44de53)

  107. Romney ran as a Republican in Massachusetts for the same reason Michael Bloomberg ran as a Republican for Mayor of New York in 2001: He’d have much limited competition for the nonination.

    Romney had earlier registered as an independent and, I heard this claim now, even enrolled as a Democrat in 1992 in order to vote for Paul Tsongas for President in the Democratic primary.

    That seems right:

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2007/02/romney_explains/

    By Florian Heinhold Feb 16, 2007 5:07pm

    Romney explains ’92 vote for Tsongas

    ABC News’ Jonathan Greenberger Reports:

    Republican presidential candididate Mitt Romney offered a new explanation today for why he supported a Democrat in 1992.

    That year, Romney, then a registered independent, voted for former Sen. Paul Tsongas in the 1992 Democratic presidential primary. He told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, in an interview that will air Sunday on “This Week,” that his vote was meant as a tactical maneuver aimed at finding the weakest opponent for incumbent President George H.W. Bush.

    “In Massachusetts, if you register as an independent, you can vote in either the Republican or Democratic primary,” said Romney, who until he made an unsuccessful run for Senate in 1994 had spent his adult life as a registered independent. “When there was no real contest in the Republican primary, I’d vote in the Democrat primary, vote for the person who I thought would be the weakest opponent for the Republican.”

    But 12 years ago, the Boston Globe reported that Romney was giving a different explanation for his vote for Tsongas.

    “Romney confirmed he voted for former U.S. Sen. Paul Tsongas in the state’s 1992 Democratic presidential primary, saying he did so both because Tsongas was from Massachusetts and because he favored his ideas over those of Bill Clinton,” the Boston Globe’s Scot Lehigh and Frank Phillips wrote on Feb. 3, 1994. “He added he had been sure the G.O.P. would renominate George Bush, for whom he voted in the fall election.”

    Romney’s contention that his vote for Tsongas was a vote for the weakest opponent for Bush – a phenomenon that political scientists refer to as “raiding” – surprised Professor William Mayer of Northeastern University in Boston.

    “That would have been a strange election to have done that in, in the sense that Paul Tsongas was obviously going to carry his home state” of Massachusetts, said Mayer. Tsongas won the Massachusetts primary with 66 percent of the vote.

    While statistical evidence of “raiding” is hard to come by, Mayer said most political scientists believe it is rare, since typically only 3 to 4 percent of voters in a Republican primary are actually Democrats, and vice versa. It is rarer still, he said, for an independent, as Romney was, to “raid”: “If you’re so determined to help George Bush in 92 that you’re willing to vote for Paul Tsongas, it probably means you weren’t an independent.”

    Romney has previously come under fire for donating to a series of Democratic candidates in the 1992 election, including then-Congressmen Dick Swett, D-N.H., and John LaFalce, D-N.Y.

    Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb)

  108. Romney wouldn’t even try running for office in Utah, where he’d move to for a while. he moved back to Massachusetts.

    Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb)

  109. Post #107… you don’t understand, Dave B, it’s Romney vs. all of the Not-Romneys and the fact that you live in Massachusetts doesn’t give you any special dispensation on Teh Facts.

    Let the bloviators do what they do best.

    Colonel Haiku (db8df3)

  110. I enjoy reading all the dribble about “liberal” Romney f

    He called himself a progressive and told the hard left they needed him in DC after decades of support for Abortion Rights and a remarkable expansion of MA’s power over its citizen’s economic choices.

    LIBERAL. Deal with it. At least you won’t be disappointed.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  111. Case. In. Point.

    Colonel Haiku (db8df3)

  112. “Every conservative decision he made was carefully orchestrated not to piss off the dems in ma.”

    sickofrinos – You seriously know less than zero.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1139 secs.