E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSCHARLESTON, S.C. – As Rick Santorum’s supporters celebrated his strong Iowa showing, they were also making preparations for a push through South Carolina that will begin even before the New Hampshire primary vote.
Andrew Burton / Getty Images
U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum addresses a crowd in Iowa on Jan 3.
Santorum’s South Carolina fans, some of whom were gathered at his relatively well-appointed campaign headquarters to watch the caucus returns, will be able to see him in the Palmetto State on the afternoon of Sunday, Jan. 8th, when he stops in Greenville just two days before the New Hampshire vote.
His campaign also added another South Carolina staffer: political consultant Andrew Boucher, a former executive director of the New Hampshire Republican primary – a ramping-up of staff that suggests Santorum will seek to capitalize on his Iowa momentum here, a state that has picked every Republican presidential candidate since 1980.
Recommended: 11 things you might not now about Santorum
Santorum’s supporters, about 15 of whom remained at the headquarters as the final votes trickled in, were ecstatic about his neck-and-neck finish with Mitt Romney – but some of them said they weren’t surprised he did so well.
“I knew this was going to happen,” Kathy Hughes, a retired teacher from Mt. Pleasant, said. “So many people were saying, ‘why are you supporting him? Santorum can’t win!’ But I knew.”
She added that the phones at Santorum’s headquarters here had been ringing non-stop over the past few days. The phone did buzz a few times into the wee hours of Wednesday morning; the last call, Hughes said, came from a voter in Peoria, Illinois who was trying to get in touch with one of Santorum’s early-state headquarters.
Joan Peters, a member of the Charleston Tea Party board from Moncks Corner, said she supported Santorum’s decision not to skip New Hampshire and come directly to South Carolina as Michele Bachmann is doing and Rick Perry was going to do before he announced he’d first return to Austin to reassess his campaign.
“He’s probably not going to win because Mitt Romney’s got New Hampshire pretty sewn up, but he’ll do well and then he’ll come down to South Carolina and the money’s going to start coming in,” Peters said. “People now realize what we’ve always realized, which is that he’s a credible candidate and he can win.”
More on NBC Politics:
Leave a Comment:
Santorum needs to keep going hard. In order to get the nomination, Romney will have to continue to prove he is a credible conservative. To do that, he has to steer more to the right to beat Santorum. Then if he gets the nomination, he will have to prove he is a moderate, and Obama will trounce him. The longer Santorum and some others stay in the race, the tougher it will be for Romney. Of course, someone other than Romney could get the nomination, and Obama will trounce that person. I don't believe the Republicans have anyone who will appeal to moderates and disaffected Dems. Then again, this is a strange campaign season, and anything can happen.
Feisty was wrong!!!!!! As usual!!!! There was a record turnout in the Republican Iowa caucus. This shows that the Republicans are charged up about defeating Obama and will come together behind the eventual nominee.
I have a prediction. When the Republican nominee selects a woman and/or Hispanic as a VP running mate, Biden will be dropped like a hot potato. Obama has one big albatross around his neck -- his awful record -- he can't afford to have a loose cannon sinking him to the bottom LOL!!!
In the 2008 Iowa Republican Caucus, total turnout was 119,188 and the turnout in the 2012 Iowa Republican Caucus was 122,255. That is an increase of 3,067 or approximately a 2.57% increase. Please note that in 2008 Ron Paul received a total of 11,841 votes and in 2012 he received a total of 26,219. Absent Ron Paul bringing in the number of young votes that he did and the turnout would have actually been smaller than in 2008.
Just some food for thought if you really think what you said is true. There might be enthusiasm to defeat Obama, but there isn't any excitement for these candidates. Only time will tell if that will translate into voter turnout in the general election.
Apparently this is up too early for the usual LWNJ libtards to comment LMAO!!!!! They won't enter the fray unless they can dominate from the beginning. Can you say cowards??????
Ben your dreaming. The most of the American have seen the republican/tea bag party has blocked every thing the President has proposed. When the republican/tea bag leader in the Senate says "We want to make this President a one term President." really says were here to do nothing. Talk about being UNAMERICAN. When we need everyone working together to get the country out of this mess, instead of what we see now.
Feisty was wrong!!!!!! As usual!!!! There was a record turnout in the Republican Iowa caucus. This shows that the Republicans are charged up about defeating Obama and will come together behind the eventual nominee.
=======
Uncertain of the conversation you had with Feisty, but with all do respect, yesterday's turnout wasn't that much more than in the 2008 cycle. Since IA incorporates a sameday, no photo ID required to register, the enthusiam angle is a tad warped IMO.
I really couldn't disagree with you more about the perception of being charged up. The party has no focus as of yet. 25% for a trillionaire, 25% for the a hate monger, 21% for an old guy who parties with the youth vote and 13% for a self-proclaimed smartest playboy on the planet, shows a fractured party that has no idea what it wants.
@Smitty & Allen -- You make me laugh. Your analogies are right out of the playbook. A record turnout is a record turnout. Period. That shows the Republicans ARE interested in this campaign and the direction of this country. This is the nomination process and any one has a lick of sense knows that a consensus at this point is ridiculous. Obama has so many failures; he owns them so don't blame them on someone else. The leader of this country is supposed to have the ability to bring all sides together or he/she is not worth their salt. Obama is not worth one grain of salt. Bye Bye.
Ben Your having a big wet dream.
Amy from Maine, another regular leftist on here, also read from the script and predicted record low turnout in Iowa.
In the words of soon-to-be-former Presidential candidate Rick Perry: "Oops"!
Their script also reads "Obama is a rock solid sure thing to win reelection".
When they are not posting in here, the Lib crew is meeting separartly to go over their talking points. The self important blowhards somehow think it is important to dominate the comment threads on the liberal wasteland known as MSNBC ....l
Allen, I think you're spot on. And what's interesting is that Romney only recently started campaigning in Iowa - his real goal: to knock Gingrich out! Morning Joe was airing some figures on how much each candidate spent in campaigning per vote received - Perry could've had more success if he'd just passed out hundred dollar bills...
Ben, you really are something--not sure what but something. So what if the GOP turn out was higher, that's nice but it wasn't a huge number of people. There was no snow, no ice, no blizzard, no snow drifts; it wasn't below zero, it was mid-20's and by Iowa standards in January, the weather was balmy. Yet only 3,067 more voted in the GOP caucus but it makes you wonder why? If as the republicans claim, there is so much dislike of President Obama, so much anger at him why is it that the GOP could only find another 3,067 people to show up.
So Ben, to Iowa GOP caucus voters, cheers for having a record turn out in Iowa. It's good news to have more people participate in the process no matter which side of the aisle they choose.
Here's what really happened in Iowa. The turnout was at a record high because Ron Paul was able to electrify the younger crowd. Had he not been in that race, there would have been no record.
The party of "I hate just about everything" showed they can't stand Romney and opted for the flavor of the weak-minded and holier-than-thou crowd, His Weirdness Rick Santorum.
Romney, for all his money, can't shake his cult status. Cult status is fine for rock stars, it doesn't work for religion. The cults of Catholicism and Protestantism are old enough to be considered mainstream. These God-loving patriots will tell you in seriously sanctimonious tone that they are the legitimate followers of Jesus, not those johnny-come-lately Latter Day guys.
It took a while, but even the dullest of right-wingers finally realized that Gingrich is the personification of corruption in Washington, and that between Bachmann and Perry, they don't have a combined double-digit IQ.
Huntsman? Well, he's to the right, but he just doesn't ooze the hatred that right-wingers adore so much. You just can't like a guy who doesn't hate everything.
And Herman? Well, he's still suspended.
Ben,
These libbies will try to put any spin on this they can. the fact of the matter is that the turnout WAS the largest EVER! They can't refute the numbers so they try to put some goofy spin on it that says Ron Paul caused a distortion of the the numbers with young voters.
The fact of the matter is that EVERY caucus has someone like Ron Paul. So... this one was no different than 2008... other than the bigger turnout.
Your point is valid and the libs here are simply in denial about the massive opposition Pres. Yomama faces.
(show me the clown nose, fisty!)
Santorum is unelectable. His vision is that the only acceptable family is a white christian family with 2.4 children, and a picket fence. I hate to break it to him but the America I'm from is made up of all kinds of families, and the president must represent ALL of those families, not those that happen to be in sync with his ideology.
He equates homosexuals with pedophiles and bestiality. He doesn't believe in the right to privacy. Is this really the person conservatives are going to prop up as their choice for president? Has their 'purity test' gone so far down that slippery slope that Santorum is the result?
This is a person that absolutely believes that the government has the right to make decisions for you when it benefits his ideal of the 'family unit'. Yet another one of those types that spews vitriol about 'morals' believing that one must be religious to be moral.
Sickening.
Romney has been running for President for 5/6 years now, he's your inside the beltway, eventual nominee and he did no better than he did in 08 in IA. He only "won" because of the fractured Christian Conservative vote that Bachman and Perry splintered away.
That's an interesting perspective to believe that the leader of the Country is supposed to have the ability to bring all sides together. When I hear that it implies that all others fall under the 'follower' perspective. I've always viewed that talking point as mythical. We have "leaders" all throughout this Country, in and out of Government. Using your own talking point, with a splintered vote among GOP voters, who among the top 3 brought all 3 factions of the GOP together? You have a 3 way tie for the top. From my perspective, it doesn't look like your presumed winners have the ability to bring all sides togethe either.
Ben= Gingrich of the blogisphere. Running around foaming at the mouth because little Ricky caught a break that Republicans cannot get behind one candidate for a sound victory. This will continue throughout with Newt the Fruit finally running out of money and friends - Bachmann getting her big mouth shut by more mild mannered Ricky and Romney will win in the end - to be thrashed by Obama like a mongoose in the wild.
Regardless if the 2012 Iowa Republican Caucus was the largest turnout in history, it does not negate the fact that it was less then a 3% increase over 2008. So by your own logic, there must have been almost as much enthusiasm in 2008 as there is in 2012. I think everyone can agree that the Republican party lacked enthusiasm in the 2008 cycle.
Sorry...this particular libtard was up late last night following the results. I just wanted to see how long the media could continue saying "Santorum Surge" while keeping a straight face.
Couldn't one also postulate that the population has grown and people are living longer so there was an increase due to a naturally larger population of the state?
@Da Noid - Fiesty wasn't just predicting a low turnout, but a RECORD low turnout. Just shows how out of touch you libs are and the eventual defeat of Obama...
Now Santorum's skeletons will come crawling out. He is a racist, and those videos are going to haunt him. It is Romney's race to lose.
Feisty (and I) guessed wrong about the turnout ... but the really interesting thing is how many of you knuckledraggers are focused on what she said! She is clearly having an impact.
Good on ya', Feisty!!
Yep, Porter, they are all scared to death of Feisty. Always have been.
It doesn't matter how fired up the Republicans are, they're not the majority party and can't win without the moderate / independent swing vote (neither party can). But, even more important, Iowa is not a microcosm of the GOP electorate. It is much more conservatives than much of the GOP, and I doubt that Santorum, for instance, could command a rabid following by voters in the larger states which have the critical electoral votes (he lost his own senate seat in PA).
It depends on the individual selected. If they go with another Palin (who, in my opinion, really hurt McCain in 2008), Obama will be helped. The problem is, the really intelligent women in the GOP (such as Senator Snowe) are too moderate for the Tea-Taliban faction that rules the party. I'm a fourth-generation Republican, but I don't drink the party's kool-aid. I think for myself and I'm appalled by the new lows reached by the party practically every day. The childish behavior of the freshmen Congressmen illustrates why the GOP can not be allowed to control the Senate.
DJ, I agree. Their Christ was not a politician. He said "Follow me and I will make you fishers of men" I do not believe he said "Hey, Follow me and we'll start our own political party. Then we can make laws that will make all the people be like us." Their Christ was a teacher. He taught morality he didn't try to make laws and legislate morality.
We the People, as a nation, have to concentrate on the issues that affect society as a whole. Not the religious moral issues that currently dominate our politics. Love thy neighbor as you would want to be loved.
Oh let's not forget about that religious leader that lead millions of evilgilical followers here in the U.S.? He spoke out about the evils of gays and drugs also. Look what happened to him.
Ratinal One: "Fiesty wasn't just predicting a low turnout, but a RECORD low turnout. Just shows how out of touch you libs are and the eventual defeat of Obama..."
Yes, the fact that some guy on a comment board got something wrong is proof that Obama will be defeated. LOL. Now THAT's "Rational!"
David, romney's problem isn't being Mormon. Most of the Republican party learned not to let the faith be such a factor. His problem is the Tea Party. Until recently, he was giving them the cold shoulder and the stiff arm.
56 - 60% of the Republican party IS tea party.
About 25% of the party is going to vote for him as their first choice. Of the 75% that do not have him as their first choice 55% have him as their second choice. What wasn't being advertised is that what the 75% means is he is the second choice - IF there is not another candidate more conservative capable of beating Obama.
Ron Paul has a similar problem except that far majority see him as far to on the fringe in foreign policy and some social aspects. His problem is that he is not very many's second choice.
McCain was challenging Bush (W) in the primaries, only to bow out. He then ran as republican front runner in the next elections.
Romney was challenging McCain in the primaries, only to bow out. He then will run as republican front runner in the these elections.
Santorum will be challenging Romney in the primaries, only to bow out. He will then run as republican front runner in the next elections. Unless Christie gets off his ass and does it.
Its how the good ol' boy party does its business.
Ursula
Incorrect. Romney has been visiting constantly for the last 5 years.
Santorum will be challenging Romney in the primaries, only to bow out. He will then run as republican front runner in the next elections.
Historically, yes. Is this the correct application - no.
Romney is the top pick as second choice, if no other candidate is conservative enough, not flawed as severely, and could beat Obama.
Christie is not going to jump in, and once people look a little closer, they probably will say no to him.
I say NO to all the Nazi, nut-job, right-wing, fascist, jesus freaks....GO OBAMA...4 more years....
Why are Santorum, Perry and Gingrich talking about South Carolina. The first Primary is in New Hampshire. Are they afraid they will get trounced by Huntsman ?
Mitt Romney's top campaign contributors:
Goldman Sachs $235,275
Citigroup Inc $178,450
Merrill Lynch $176,125
Morgan Stanley $170,350
Lehman Brothers $154,800U
BS AG $125,150
JPMorgan Chase & Co $123,800
Bain & Co $121,475
Marriott International $121,150
Bain Capital $118,550
Kirkland & Ellis $111,700
The Villages $110,900
Credit Suisse Group $104,900
Compuware Corp $103,550
Huron Consulting $102,050
PricewaterhouseCoopers $92,250
American Financial Group $87,550
Affiliated Managers Group $82,112
Cerberus Capital Management $79,450
Sun Capital Partners $77,850
WHO DO YOU THINK THIS GUY WORKS FOR?
You are sooo right! But really; take a look at any candidate and you will see the special interest money. We all got a peek behind the curtain in 2008 / 2009 with the TARP money. This country today works on the Golden Rule. i.e. he who has the gold makes the rules. The game is rigged folks and we're all suckers. Where's my pitch fork?
I propose to you that the outcome of the race last night was so much more than random. As an example, if you flip a coin 60,000 times, as you can simulate at this website:
http://www.betweenwaters.com/probab/flip/coinmainD.html
You will come nowhere near the 8-vote separation between Romney and Santorum. The closest I have been able to get with this app has been 47. Give it a try!
When you call people Nazis for daring to disagree with you, you obviously have no rational argument to make.
Feisty -- did you take me up on the bet?????? You know the one where you predicted a low turnout in Iowa LMAO. Now that you have created "Donkey Hottie" as another moniker on here (aka Donnie Crisp), what's your next step??? Desperation sets in ROFLMAO.
Yes, I recall the conversation too. It wasn't just low turnout, but RECORD low turnout.
Proves just how out of touch libs are with our country and America's efforts to unseat this one term abomination.
How is 122,000 a large number of voters ? Heck, even the Cubs AAA baseball team can draw more than that.
Ben
It probably does not mattter if the whole " frickin" state of Iowa turned out to vote. A few farmers and bible bangers certainly do not represent how Americans really think and feel, nor do the bigots in SC, and the trailer trash in NH. Fl primary will provide a better feel for where voters are at in terms of choice and sentiment.
Emil
Rational and Ben - we'll just see who's out of touch when Scott Walker gets recalled. I guarantee you that there will be no other outcome. Then you'd be well advised to gird your loins for November.
Romney will be the nominee and will beat Obama. Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe I am. But I doubt it.
As an independent, I truly hope so. Bush may have started America's decline, but Obama has massively accelerated it's downfall and has made a mess of things. Obama SPENDS over $1 Trillion per year more than Bush did his last year in office. Even idiots know you are supposed to decrease your spending when your revenues decrease. Obama is worse than an idiot by doing the opposite.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2000_2015USr_13s1li111lcn_F0t
Congress is the one who does the spending, not the administration. And how much of the 2011 spending was on natural disaster spending, just like all of the 2010 Gulf Oil Spill? The president only presents suggested plans. Congress enacts those plans, with all of their attached pork, modifications, etc. Then the president has to decide whether to sign those expenditures with all of the pork added.
Unfortunately for Pres. Yomama... He had a large majority in both the House and the Senate until the democrats embarrassing loss in 2010...
All he had to do was provide some LEADERSHIP and (given the congressional majorities) he could have had a positive impact...
We saw how that turned out...
A.K.A. be a white republican.
It's hard to lead when every member of the opposition is calling your patriotism and birth certificate into question, not to mention when they are calling you a communist muslim sympathizer who wants to take away your guns and indoctrinate your children. Do you even remember the insanity of hate and fear that followed his election? It's hard to be a leader when you have to preside over the rowdiest bunch of obstructionists seen in Congress since the Civil War. Lack of leadership - that's the new accusation of those who don't want to follow.
His majorities were not enough to get around the GOP obstructionism and his being a black man with a funny name made him an easy target for conspiracists and hate mongers. The GOP wanted to whip up fearful foot soldiers to go to the polls because they were terrified of muslims and traitors. It has nothing to do with his leadership. Get a new line.
@RationalOne-674831
"Even idiots know you are supposed to decrease your spending when your revenues decrease. Obama is worse than an idiot by doing the opposite."
Well IRrationalOne, what, then, does your argument suggest about DUHbya & the republiCLOWNS who turned a budget SURPLUS left by President Clinton into a budget DEFICIT by DECREASING revenues through enacting the Bush Tax Cuts while at the same time INCREASING government spending by involving our country in two UNFUNDED (and unnecessary) wars and passing the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Plan, which was also UNFUNDED? If, as you suggest, "even idiots" have this basic understanding of fiscal responsibility, wouldn't you have to agree that Bush & the republiCONS have proven themselves to be virtually brain-dead?
Since we MUST continue to pay for both the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan and the cost of Medicare Part D, isn't it obvious to "even idiots" that the proper course of action would be to repeal the Bush Tax Cuts (or allow them to expire at the end of next year) and to conclude the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan? President Obama's position has been to do just that, however reTHUGlicans fought tooth and nail to EXTEND the Bush Tax Cuts through the end of 2012 and they have blasted the POTUS as a "failure" for ENDING the costly and pointless (Weapons of Mass DISTRACTION, anyone?) war in Iraq. Apparently republiCAN'Ts believe the war in Iraq should go on for...what? ANOTHER decade? FOREVER??? Please!
Following your "logic", it is quite obvious that DUHbya and the republiCONS, NOT President Obama & the democrats, are "worse than an idiot" considering THEY pushed for the Bush Tax Cuts. THEY went to war in Iraq under false pretense and THEY lost their focus on al Qaeda & bin Laden in their "WAR IN ERROR" in Afghanistan. THEY passed Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Program without funding it. And THEY continue to obstruct President Obama and, as a result, our nation's economic recovery through THEIR desire to prolong the war in Iraq and through THEIR refusal to increase revenues by ending the Bush Tax Cuts or by asking the wealthiest Americans to pay ONE CENT MORE in taxes.
That's just bull@!$%#. The President has never enjoyed a LARGE majority in both the House and Senate. If he'd had a LARGE majority, he would have been able to overcome the onslaught of non-stop filibustering by both house and senate Republicans, which blocked every attempt Democrats made to move this country forward. Your party is like the little kid who throws a temper tantrum and falls down on the floor, forcing the parents to pick you up and drag you wherever it is you're supposed to go. Bunch of goddamn babies whose only known word thusfar - just like a 2-year old - is 'no'.
Santorum's social positions are socially unacceptable. He is unelectable.
They are acceptable to me and all morally sound Americans. You are wrong.
Then Ben you need to decide how important your freedom is to you. Santorum, as with all social conservatives, will want to dictate every aspect of your life, what you think, eat, believe and do; as well as who you love, who you marry and how you raise your children. You will support him right up to the point where he tries to tell YOU to do something with which you don't agree. Then the light bulb will go off in your conservative head.
Santorum appears to have some serious emotional issues and is NOT acceptable to people who actually think. As to turn out, Bennie, you would claim a huge turnout no matter how many showed up. What happened is that you had the Evangelical Christians march out in lock step (they would, like lemmings, go right over a cliff if their cult leaders told them to ala Jonestown) and this is exactly apropos of nothing.
Cult like thinking is an anathema.
joemike...
You mean the way that Pres. Yomama and the dems have done for the past 3 years with things like HCR?
Next time please think before you post... you make this WAY TOO EASY!
(show me the clown nose, fisty!)
joemike: I agree with you right up to the point where you tell Ben "the lightbulb will go off in your conservative head."
There isn't one there.
IT MUST SUCK TO BE MITT
The "Anybody-but-Mitt" party has finally (FINALLY!) finished it's first beauty contest and the winner is.......
Nobody.
A statistical tie between Mitt Romney and the "Anti-Romney-du-jour", Rick Santorum.
Now, all the other candidates except Huntsman have had their week in the sun as the "Anti-Romney" and been found wanting and now it's Santorum's turn at bat.
Let's all give Mr. Santorum a laurel and hardy hand shake and wish him luck. Welcome to the center of the bull's eye Rick. Remember, duck and weave, duck and weave, it's the only way you'll survive until South Carolina.
Speaking of South Carolina, that will be the first real test of the Romney candidacy. Iowa is indicative of nothing. New Hampshire will go to Mitt, no big surprise. Santorum appears to be skipping New Hampshire and going straight to South Carolina and that's going to be the first real test for Romney.
As for Perry, Bachman and Huntsman. They're toast. They will drop out either before or right after New Hampshire. Gingrich will hang on in hopes he can make a comeback in the sunny old South and who knows what Paul will do. But I don't see him dropping out until after South Carolina. So, next week there will be four: Romney, Paul, Santorum and Gingrich and a big showdown in South Carolina.
The "Anybody-but-Mitt" party has run through all their candidates. If Santorum fails to win big in South Carolina and Romney can hang in there he'll be the nominee.
And that's what I've been saying for nearly a year now. Obama vs. Romney. Obama will win. But look out, the empire strikes back in 2016 when big Chris Christie will take the field.
Obama/Biden 2012
Morning, skip:
It is fascinating how the Evangelicals keep trying to find a way to avoid having Mitt as their nominee.
Good morning Dawn,
Yes, I really have to feel sorry for poor Mitt Romney. If the guy wasn't so pathologically psychopathic about becoming president I would think he would tell the GOP to stick their nomination where the moon don't shine (as Dick Cavett so memorably told Gore Vidal).
But Romney wants to be President so bad (and that's more than a little frightening) that he's willing to suffer the humiliation of always being a GOP bridesmaid but never the first choice (or second, or third..) for bride. He's willing to change his position on almost EVERYTHING he once stood for in order to pander to the Tea Party fringe of the GOP.
Romney is a moderate (self-proclaimed in 2002) he's not a "hard-core" Republican (again, self-proclaimed). Ten years ago he was pro-choice, supportive of gay rights and help to create the model for the Affordable Health Care Plan known derisively as "Obama-care".
Poor Mitt, now he's trying to outrun himself and that's gotta be tough. He's trying to repudiate everything he stood for a decade ago. Obviously the GOP isn't buying it. Yet, like the energizer bunny, he keeps on running and smiling and kissing babies and shaking hands and trying to look like a contender while the "holier-than-thou" evangelicals stand in the wings with their arms crossed and a frown on their faces because Mitt Romney is a Mormon, "not a real Christian."
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis
Obama/Biden 2012
Exactly right, skip, and I wonder how Mitty will ever break out of the mid 20 percentiles.
I will say it again, Santorium is not electable, and his holier-than-thou views are no different than Jim DeMint here in SC, another very scary person. These candidates who actually think, really THINK, they can swoop into the White House and affect all changes they claim are drinking the Kool-Aid... It all revolves around Congress. In the case of the antiabortion group, good luck touching that issue, White House or not. Santorium has a poor reputation in PA, so good luck with heading for DC....
Actually Santorum has stated his beliefs, but his voting record on those couple of social issues is Mainstream. Seems to me through about 20 years of elections, I hear independents and democrats say that is what they want. Well, he's here and all I see is you don't really mean what you say.
Rick, there is more to American than you or your friends.
Actually you just described the left, not the right. Michelle Obama wants to make restaurants, which are private businesses, serve smaller portions. They've banned certain foods in several cities. The left insists on everyone buying into its orthodoxy on even the wackiest of issues, and they want to force that orthodoxy on school children regardless of what the parents think. For that reason they also oppose homeschooling, even though studies show homeschooled kids do better both academically and in term of social skills. They want to make spanking illegal. Aren't these things a case of telling you how to raise your children? They even want to tell businesses how to run their businesses, e.g., telling bar owners they cannot allow smoking in their own bar. And of course they are always for raising taxes since they assume they know better than you how to best spend your money.
I'm sure you could find examples of conservatives who want to run everybody's life, although I think the left is far worse. The only politicians who DON'T want to run your life are called Libertarians. Too bad they can't win.
Iowa shows that Republicans are energized. WOW!!!!! A record turnout!!!!! Republicans see the task at hand -- support the eventual nominee to defeat the socialist who has failed and disgraced America while spending into oblivion. Try as you will to discredit the Republicans; call them names; under estimate them but none of that will work in the end. Obama is a failure. Period. End of story.
Ben,
Good to see your energy. Iowa Republicans making it a three way race.
Now, when does your state have a primary or caucus? Have you joined a campaign yet?
Choices, choices for you: a libertarian, a social neo con conservative, and a moderate 1% guy.
Do you think Romney will break through the 25% threshold?
Romney will only IF Santorum, Perry, and Gingrich, don't get better. The decision point is about 4 - 8 weeks down the road.
BTW just quit reviewing the past month on RCP. Santorum is moving forward Nationally, and in New Hampshire. I don't think Santorum should throw in the towel in New Hampshire, but campaign hard, yet spend a little more time on say South Carolina.
Mitt Romney..... LDS Bishop
Senator Sntorum....... had a role in the Senator Ensign scandal
Ron Paul.....his own son does not agree with him.. Just watch the ideo of dad speaking post caucus and watch where his son does not applaud.
That's your top three the rest need not be mentioned at this time.
What a group of wonders to choose from
What an embarassment to the Country
This is what it's all about for Santorum. He stays in the race even though he has less than zero chance of securing the GOP nomination because campaigning is his occupation.
He is unelectable, period. Those who support him are throwing their money down a hole.
What a shallow, weak and wrong view. Go back and play with your toys. Obama reminds me of Howdy Doody on the puppet strings LMAO!!!!!
Betcha $10,000, Ben!
Your last name wouldn't be Santorum, by any chance?
Do I have it right that Ricky's last successful campaign was 12 years ago and he lost the next round in a double digit rout? And he is the latest hottie?
In the business world a company with plummeting sales is considered a semi-corpse. In politics, it is called experience.
BTW, what's with Ricky's six figure "consulting" contracts after getting dumped by the voters.
.
Santorum is a douche. This man did set at least one record, he lost his senate reelection bid by the largest margin in senate history with only 18% of the vote. PA had more then enough of his self righteous crap and right to control your life viewpoints.
I hope he stays in the race so the independent and moderate voters will begin to understand how extreme the republican party has become. The old saying goes, you run for office from the left or right and govern from the middle. Not so with Santorum, hes very representative of the tea parties, my way or the highway viewpoint.
Well since Obama is a p**sy, then Santorum can clean him out of the oval office. Independents, moderates and Republicans alike know that any one -- ANYONE -- is better than the failed socialist leader we have today. Enough of this liar in chief. He is not worthy of the title of President.
Santorum is a cume from behind kind of guy.
A huge waste of time and money because whoever they put against Obama is going to lose. We have all heard the Teakins in the fight to bring down Obama has done everything they can to bring down the middleclass. Come election time we are not going to forget that they wanted to hold everything up to help out their rich cronies at the expense of the middle class.
Help out their rich cronies? Can you say "JON CORZINE"?
I don't know, bobby, can YOU say Newtie Gingrinch?
Its too bad that the media is so dead set against Ron Paul. They'll do anything to stop him, including saying
as little as possible about him in the various news agencies. The media treats him as almost non-existant
regardless of where he is in the polls.
Because they do not consider him a "TRUE CONSERVATIVE"......They consider him a libertarian. If he ran as such he would not even be in the debate. This is the problem... he will run out of money and we will be stuck with who is left .
Ben,
All of these present Republican candidates likely compete for the Presidential candidacy are unacceptable to the overall electorate. Everyone knows this. The only possible one is Romney and he's generally disliked as well. The more likely scenario that will come from the last ditch efforts of the big wig money of the Republican camp is when they put up Jeb Bush as a write-in. Such a write-in organization has already managed to put itself on the ballots in nearly all 50 states. Are you even aware of that?
I see all this Republican clown car stuff as a diversion from the real effort to get Jeb Bush running as the real candidate at the last minute. The only thing stopping his candidacy in the first place is the baggage of his surname and a write-in position keeps him from being probed by the media prior to the election. The present crew don't stand a chance with the broader electorate.
In a field of 'nut-jobs', Ron Paul may be the biggest 'nut' of all...
It's the lunacy of the John Birch Society revisited. Remember the "The None Dare Call It Treason" era?
Same fears of the Gnome of Zurich and the Rothschild money secretly running the world for the Zionist causes. I'm sure we can fit the Illuminati in there somewhere.
Seems to be a lot of happiness on the vine today from our right-wing friends. I'm not sure why. The vote was basically splintered, with no true leader jumping out of the pack. A lot will depend on if Newt goes negative on the other candidates. When and if that happens, he'll be aiming at Romney first in retaliation for his negative ads.
It could add a whole new dimension to the primaries.
Santorum is not a douche Major!!!!!! It is the By-Product of Anal Sex. It will eventually be wiped away in the Right Wing shower.
I'm delighted with the outcome of the Iowa caucus. Romney may be the presumptive nominee, but he's going to have to take some jabs before he gets there, and clearly Gingrich is up to the task! Gingrich knows he's not going to win but, if he has any say, he won't go gentle into that good night...
A 3-way split - gotta love it!
So its a Strong showing when 75% votes against you ? Republicans have some strange math .
25% shows strong when you have 6 candidates running. As a few drop out, that percentage will rise
irRationalOne-674831.......
Barack Obama received 37+% in the 2008 Iowa caucus. He had never before run nationally and did not, at that time, have national name recognition.
Of course, as others drop out, Romney's share of primary voters will increase. But, those voters will not be positively enthusiastic. They simply won't be voting FOR someone. They will have, in a very real sense, already lost.
So what, Ian? With Obama you had the obvious excitement of "first black president", competing with just one other serious candidate who would have been the "first woman president". You cannot compare the two elections.
OomYaaqub......
Are you aware that African Americans account for only 2.5% (two point five) of Iowa's population and that females account for 50.8% ? Your comment is without merit.
Barack Obama's 2008 Iowa caucus victory was real and impressive. It forcefully launched his competition with the well-funded heir-apparent (Clinton). Mitt Romney, on the other hand, managed only a statistical tie with a weak candidate that nearly everyone agrees can never win the nomination (much less than the general election).
Romney had better win New Hamshire by double digits. After all, it's his back yard. Anything less can rightly be considered a loss and a foreboding for South Carolina.
Why do you suppose so many of the GOPeaParty faithful here on Newsvine (and elsewhere) have taken to saying "Anyone but Obama 2012" ? Of course, it is because they fully well know their candidates are all weak and are loathe to commit to one of them only to see them self-destruct.
Also, why do you suppose the GOP's top-tier candidates (Ryan, Barbour, Jindal, Jeb Bush, etc.) have all opted not to oppose President Obama in 2012? Perhaps they are more realistic than you.
Obama 2012 !
So, you(and I suppose three of your leftist friends) have determined that Santorum is a weak candidate and you all agree that he can never win against Obama....You should listen to more people...Obama is now widely recognized as a failure and one of the biggest all time failures. Time for the far left liberals to become realistic about their socialist failure president. The media will not save Obama this time....People can see his failure without the media lies...
J.A-522495.......
Did you vote for Bush/Cheney in 2000 ? Did (do) you support their Iraq invasion? How about waterboarding?
Did you vote for Bush/Cheney in 2004 ? Did you support the Patriot Act ? Is Bush/Cheney (your party) to blame for the 2008 financial melt-down (at all)?
Are you a member of a Tea Party ? Do you admire Sarah Palin?
Ian....I know what you are getting at....and your attitude...Yes, I voted for Bush twice...and would do it again against the dem bozos that ran against him. I voted against Obama even though I was not thrilled with McCain...I was never for a long war in Iraq but was not against some heavy action against the dictator that broke every agreement after he had already lost....I feel that the long war was a waste...including Obamas part in it....I still dont see waterboarding as torture and I dont like the nutcakes in our country that think it is the same as burning at the stake....You were just trying to criminalize our leaders on your phony charges. Yes, I thought the patriot act was needed and still support the ongoing aspect of being careful of the radical crazies....It was another lie ffrom the left that every phone call was being tapped...They only were interested in those with very questionable people who wanted to kill us...No, Bush is not the cause of the financial meltdown and indeed he tried to bring attention to the crazy actions that those on your side were pushing...and now you are all lying about it....Bush could have fought the stupid stuff a little harder...but, it was your guys implementing the stupid stuff....No, I am not a party member of any party. I am primarily a conservative and support conservatives....Yes, I have some admiration for Palin and I think the medias and lefts actions against her bordered on criminal...I much more admire her than the people who constantly attacked her with name calling and hate..(are you in there?)....And, by the way, I find nothing offensive about the tea party or any of the things that came from the tea party....They still seem to be the ideal of good manners when compared with OWS or any of the slimey leftist get togethers....
Did you support the friendship of Obama and the terrorist bomber??? Did you support his lies about not knowing him or any of the radical associations that Obama had??? Are you a member of the socialist democrat party??? There really was such a thing...and Obama was connected to it...
I'm white and as a Virginaia resident at the time, I was thrilled to vote for Doug Wilder, first black governor of any state
Thanks J.A-522495.....
Just a few more please.....
Were you one of those suggesting that President Obama should provide proof of his citizenship (or birth qualification to be POTUS) ?
Do you believe that homosexuality is a choice ? If so, at what age did you "decide" to be (it is assumed) heterosexual and on what basis did you make that "choice"?
Do you accept the basic theory of evolution or do you contend that life on Earth is a result of (possibly static) intelligent (divine) design ?
Do you agree that the Earth's climate appears to be warming ? If so, do you deny that warming is (or could be) the result of human activities ?
Do you subscribe to the concept of "trickle down economics" ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding Obama's "association" with Bill Ayers: "In fact, Ayers said he didn't even know Obama when he hosted a coffee early in Obama's political career at Ayers' home in the Chicago neighborhood where the two live. Ayers added that he agreed to have the meet-the-candidate event after a state senator asked him to. 'I think he was probably in 20 homes that day as far as I know,' he (Ayers) said. 'But that was the first time I really met him.'" http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/ayers.asp .....These are not President Obama's words. They are Bill Ayers'. It is up to each of us to decide who to believe. (BTW--The "Weather Underground" is no better than (or worse than) right-wing "militias". Do you now participate or have you ever participated in such militias?)
Regarding the "socialist democratic party": Several searches indicate no such party ever existed in the United States. There was, however, a "Social Democratic Party". Apparently, it ceased to exist more than a hundred years ago. You may refer to the "Socialist Party of America" (aka Social Democrats, USA). I am a life-long DEMOCRAT and have never been a member of or supported any political party or organization which advocates socialist principles beyond those espoused by either the democrat or republican parties. Carefully regulated capitalism is probably the best economic system for the United States. Unregulated capitalism is probably one of the worst economic systems for the United States.
It should be noted that neither our founding fathers, our Declaration of Independence, nor our Constitution either prescribed or endorsed any particular ECONOMIC system (i.e. capitalism, socialism, etc.). Rather, it was our particular form of representative DEMOCRACY that was prescribed so that the people of the United States can dynamically choose whatever ECONOMIC system they (by majority rule) consider best for their time and circumstances.
Last (hypothetical) questions: If the United States (by legal election processes) chose to implement an economic system which was admittedly and outright socialist in nature, would you 1. Consider that (choice) to be unconstitutional (or otherwise illegal)? 2. View that choice as grounds for extrajudicial (violent) overthrow of our federal government?
Ian...I suggest that you do a search "DSA Obama" and read a little more about the Democrat Socialist of America that tried to be another party and the fact that Obama was closely related to that organization. He attended their meetings, spoke at their meetings and the leaders were all personal friends and associates of Obamas. It was very similar to the "New Party" and Obama had a similar relationship with them and some of the same people were involved. The New Party helped finance Obamas run for the senate and they only supported socialists, because they were made up of socialists....Obama was very close and fit in very well with these two would be radical parties...or failed parties if you prefer...
No, I dont think that people "decide" to become gay....but I dont see that as a real excuse to publicize their sexuality....I dont make a public issue with my sexual orientation and consider it a private matter....Dont wave that flag constantly in my face and we will not have a problem.....I dont have to accept every aspect of everything. I also dont think that sexual orientation warrants any special attitude or benefits from government. Just live your life and quit trying to make me react to it or pay for it. And dont do it in front of me, I dont want to be required to have it part of my life.
I dont know what started life on earth....and I dont think that anyone does. I think it is very complicated and interesting and freely admit that I dont completely understand it or can explain all the aspects of it....Those that think that they know all these answers are suspect...
Yes, the earth has warming and cooling trends...That has been proven over many years. I think it has more to do with the earths crust and moving plates and the poles effecting the temps in the oceans....including underwater volcanic activity than what people are doing.....Of course you can tell us again the liberal lie that all other than liberals are trying their best to make the world dirty. Conservation has been taught in our schools and practiced for a long long time. We all want a clean planet but we all dont want to use it as an excuse to make political attacks on all the other side..
Ian. Obama and bill Ayers were friends and associates for a long time. Obama lied to us all when he denied that. Obama had his own organization and he envited Ayers to be a member of the board of directors of that organization....Ayers also had his own organizeation and he envited Obama to be a member of the board of directors of that organization. Both of them (planned together) diverted trust money from its intentional purposes and used those funds to support radicals and radical organizations. The money that Obama diverted was meant to be for support of the arts and the money that Ayers diverted was meant to be for support of schools and school programs....That is stealing and fraud in my book...and they as good friends should be charged with stealing and fraud in their conspiracy to fund socialist and radical activity.
Ian....If and when the US makes a decision to become a socialist country, I would consider it an end to the unlimited opportunities that we have enjoyed. I would consider those who push for a socialist style government to be the enemies of all of us who want freedom and opportunity and consider their actions as unamerican....Our system has produced the greatest country in the world ever....and I just dont understand those who are trying to kill that....
J.A-522495......
You made a host of (unreferenced and unsubstantiated) claims. Please provide (at least) some evidence that these are more than rumor and hearsay. Links to right-wing (also unreferenced and unsubstantiated) articles will not be sufficient.
Nobody is trying to "kill" the greatness of this country. Rather, liberals are trying to improve it like we did with the civil and women's rights movements.
You are, of course, entitled to work for YOUR vision of what this nation should be. But, you are not entitled to (mis)interpret our national foundations (Constitution, etc.) so as to make your case for one or another ECONOMIC systems. That is particularly so when you reserve (for yourself) the sole right to decide whether any particular legislation, rule, decision, etc. is "socialism" or something else. Again, our founders prescribed representative democracy and (properly) left such other details to the voters in their time.
Thus, your problem is not with economic mechanisms. Rather, your problem is with democracy. You made that clear here:
Enemies of freedom are those who only support democracy when it produces the outcome they prefer. It seems you fall into this category.
Ian....I guess that you can question my facts and statements. But, in reality, you have no facts or basis for your pro socialism and anti free enterprise attitude except your warm fuzzy feeling for a socialist society. Your mind is made up and closed in your search for socialism. And, of course your socialist mind accepts no reality about Obama......That is your problem...
J.A-522495......
"Free" enterprise is not at issue. There is very little that is "free" left within our current corporatcracy.
Apparently, you don't see what has happened to this country over the past 4 decades: Most small businesses (other than hair salons, lawn services, and other such personal services) have been driven out of business by multi-state and multi-national corporations. Even most pharmacists now work for some remote corporate headquarters. This occurred during a period when republicans held the White House for a sizable majority (of that time). The managements of these concerns are concerned only with profit and care not one whit for the communities from which they harvest the wealth.
Capitalism is not a god. It is an economic system for goodness' sake. Get up from your knees and exert control (via regulation) over it rather than letting it control you. Automobiles are great too. But, not so much when the driver assumes the vehicle has a mind of its own. In other words, regulation (of capitalism) is not socialism. Rather, it is (necessary) stewardship.
Apparently free enterprise is an issue and it is made an issue by you and your leftist friends railing against it as being evil and greedy and unfair....Yes, I am well aware that free enterprise has been under attack by the left and big government and also big business that would like to eliminate their competition. Big all controling central government and their out of reason regulations and red tape is the enemy of free enterprise and that is what is killing free enterprise and small business....
If business and industry regulations are so onerous (as you say), why have giant mega-corporations displaced most small and medium sized businesses in various industries? If regulations are so debilitating, why are corporate profits at all time highs?
J.A-522495......You have swallowed the propaganda to include the sinker. What you defend is NOT "free enterprise". Rather, it is a work-in-progress toward modern feudalism.
You don't (and probably can't) see that. Even Dr. Paul (on your side) does. He has expressed an understanding that, for example, the American system of medical care is fundamentally the anti-thesis of "free enterprise". There are many, many more such examples. The few remaining areas of "free enterprise" are falling like dominoes.
In actual fact, it is liberals who are champions of "free" enterprise. You are, unwittingly, a pawn in the war against it. Liberals believe that the industries which pollute should clean up their waste rather than expecting others to do so or live in their garbage. Apparently, you consider that a radical idea.
Obviously you understand little and you are too hard headed to even try to understand. Your arguments just go in circles and now you want the world to believe the far left socialists(you) are for free enterprise and small business.....You will never be able to explain that to the small business people....Then you push the lie that conservatives want no regulation of business and I dont remember any of us ever saying that....We want less regulation but we want the needed regulations to have teeth and to be enforced....We dont need thousands and thousands of PC government regulations killing our freedom just because the leftist nuts want to be in charge of every detail....plus, the government people are not very effective at enforcing regulation....unless it is political....It is you(the big government nuts) that are killing free enterprise and small business....got that??? It is basic....
J.A-522495.......
Who knows (or cares) what "far left socialists" are for or against? This is about the democrat party and our support of sensible regulations on business and industry.
You stated that: "we want the needed regulations to have teeth and to be enforced". So, you admit that so-called "free enterprise" is not infallible and needs regulation. But, you reserve unto yourself the sole right to decide what regulations are proper. That is quite arrogant when (at least) 50% of the electorate disagrees with you. Well, we do not concede (that right).
Let's get (back) to this point: Do you agree that the federal government (which, after all, owns this land) has the right (perhaps the obligation) to regulate (even forbid) certain operations (e.g. mining) when those operations are deemed a threat to a national park and/or other public interests?
BTW---You may not be aware that such federal property is not purchased. Rather, it is leased from the federal government based upon a claim protocol which has existed since the mid 1800's.
Suffice it to say: You may be permissive of those who operate in such a manner as to threaten our shared resources. Many of US are NOT. We value some things over petty profit. You, apparently, do not.
NOTE: Do you appreciate being called a fascist, a racist, or some such other outlandish and extreme epithet? If not, you might reconsider using such harsh and extreme insults against others. In any case, so long as you engage in such behavior, don't feign indignation when others use similar language to describe you.
Finally: Liberals DO NOT eschew capitalism and/or (truly) free enterprise. In fact, we encourage it. But, we also realize it must be carefully controlled lest it run astray to the disadvantage of the majority. That is, after all, democracy which is far more important than some mere ECONOMIC system or another.
Ian...We conservatives are well used to the name calling from you lefties....and you still deny it while making your wild charges....
Liberals do treat capitalism as the enemy....I would like to see a poll on who would believe that they dont....
Petty profit??? You dont want petty profit??? Do you know how dificult it is for companies to make a profit??? Especially small business??? I have worked in small business all my life and I well know that some yrs there is no profit....so, I would not be calling profit by the derogatory "petty Profit".....It makes you sound as though you get paid through the government where profit is a dirty word....
Yes, living in the west, I well know that the government owns most of the land out here and regardless of how you see the great powerful central government, they are supposed to operate that land in the best interest of the citizens.....In todays local paper there is an article that the forest service is threatening to close down access to 90% of he trails used by the public because they have budget problems.....They are not worrying much about how well the manage our land for the benefit of the citizens....I would like to see a lot less federal land so that the land can be used and enjoyed....Now they are for the first time charging $10 to stop and view the elk feeding station....Dont want any of those damned private citizens looking at those elk....After all they all belong to the government...just like all the water and the air that we breath....And, sure as hell they dont want any mining or anything productive going on....It must be a lot better for the world if they continue mining in s America than here....
I guess that you havent noticed that the democrats have become the far left party....The democrats that I remember from 40yrs or more ago would have been way to conservative to be democrats today....That would include Kennedy who cut taxes to grow the economy....How evil....
You state that needs enforced regulation....Regulation has always been needed, but now regulation touches everything over and over and over.....Lately I am having dificulty reading with those half light light bulbs that the government insists that I use....You know, the ones with the mercury in them....And, my god....I think I saw a little speck of mold in the corner in my bathrooml....I killed it and cleaned it up all on my own without reporting it to the government....I expect they may come and get me at any moment.....
J.A-522495......
"Petty" in this context means "secondary in significance. That is, it is secondary in importance to: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Do you disagree?
You complain about a measly $10 use fee. Yet, you suggest you "would like to see a lot less federal land so that the land can be used and enjoyed". Good luck with that. If that land is sold off to private interests, you (& we) will be lucky to ever "enjoy" it again.
Apparently, you care not one whit for the many whose only chance to recreate in the wilderness is on PUBLIC lands. They are not so fortunate as some republicans who might own (or pay for access to) large tracts. No doubt you think these unfortunate folks are deprived because of some despicable character flaw and deserve their fate. Maybe their children should better pick their parents as well.
Arrogance, greed, and lack of empathy are also character flaws. They exact their own "user fee".
Kudos to President Obama for this action. If you folks are so fortunate as to gain the control you covet, perhaps you can auction off the Statue of Liberty to the highest bidder. Donald Trump comes to mind. He epitomizes your point of view.
Ian...It is odd then that so many roads into "government" lands have chains across the roads...and keep out signs(with threats of imprisonment and fines).....That is the example of government in charge.....
Santorum represents much of what is wrong about America...rightwing christians running around telling the rest of us how to live our lives, who to worship, who to love, who to marry, what to put in out bodies...
Anyone who claims to be about non interference in our lives and support scum like Santorum are also what is wrong with this country...
This is an issue Ive always had with social conservatives. On one hand the republicans preach less government interference in our lives. Well thats just double speak for less regulation on business and heavy industry. They are only to happy to impose restrictions on our individual lives and how we want to live them.
Exactly...and don't forget the hypocrisy of sanctimonious right wingers like Gingrich, who was cheating on his second wife while lambasting Clinton for having an affair.
Other examples: Rush Limbaugh, drug addict; William Bennet, Donald Trump and Rudy Guiliani, adulterers; Glenn Beck, racist, etc. No one is perfect but the GOP is the pot that loves to call the kettle black.
Boy, Republicans hate Ombama so much. Just like they hate the President's healthcare legislation. But, as is the case with Obamacare, when I ask the Republican's that I know why they hate Obama (or his healthcare package) so much, they really can't give a clear answer [a true and honest answer would probably be - because I can't think for myself, and that's what Sean (Hannity), or Rush (Limbaugh), or Anne (Coulter), etc., etc., tells me what to think]
Isn't that really why there were so many lead changes in the Iowa polls? Because Republican voters who, for the most part, are incapable of thinking for themselves, were waiting for direction from the aforementioned control freaks. It's so sad, but so true.
As usual, your post is wrong on every point.
Republicans have a diverse field of candidates, the lead changes obviously reflected that.
oh, and btw
obamacare sucks because, my premium went up 25%, and I don't believe that obuma should be allowed to tell me that due to the fact that I am alive, I have to buy a service from a private company.
Every one's premiums have gone up for years. The HCR didnt go far enough to help rising health care costs through pooling resources, that would be a real complaint. Not that helping other access proper medical care is raising costs, it isn't, they dont have the coverage yet, it kicks in much later! your costs are going up for greed, would you like to start a movement to oust the health care exects/capitalism that set the prices? No?
Its the Democrats who cannot think for themselves. I guess it is because 85% of them are either on welfare or don't pay taxes because they have so many dependants and make so little. Either way, they don't pay their far share of taxes to keep the country running!
Oh by the way John, learn how to spell your presidents name. You are no doubt a product of the public school system that I am fairly sure your parents did not support.
My premium DROPPED this year, for the first time ever. Up until this year, it's always gone up.
And, DesertKing, apparently they didn't cover punctuation in whatever school system you came from. It should be "It's the Democrats..." and "president's name," not "Its the Democrats" and "presidents name." Oh, and there should be a comma after "Oh" in your second paragraph. But hey, at least you can spell. Oh, wait a minute, no. There's no A in "dependents." Nice try at being a grammar nazi, but I'm afraid you don't quite cut the mustard.
SEVENTY FIVE per cent of Iowa caucus participants voted for SOMEONE OTHER THAN ROMNEY. Those others are the weakest ever fielded by the GOP. RINO Romney cannot even put together a credible coalition in his OWN party.
Romney is the epitome of an insider. He is from a dynastic political family. He is super wealthy. He is a paper pushing Wall St. denizen. He has no core convictions other than he seeks wealth and power.
Seriously GOPeaParty....Is RINO Romney the best you can do? Think back to how disgusted we all (including many of you) were with the republican party post Bush / Cheney. Now, think ahead to the political climate should Romney be elected and use his office to further destroy the American middle class and "transform" our nation to modern feudalism. Is this really what you want?
Tea Party: It is becoming increasingly certain that Romney will be the republican nominee. Thus, you have already lost. Your best bet is to support a 3rd Party Ron Paul candidacy. This will ensure victory for President Obama. BUT, it will (once and for all) demonstrate to the GOP rulers that you MUST NOT be taken for granted. Clearly, they now think you can.
Ian....I knew that you would be the typical socialist Obama observer and say your crap about any or all republicans.....The biggest mistake that the repubs can make is to accept the most liberal candidate that the media and leftists support like they did last time. Santorum is and will continue to be a viable candidate that most republicans and conservatives can support. The liberal media has treated him like he was nothing more than part of the scenery up until now, but they cannot continue to do that.....I am hoping that his popularity will grow and grow.....Of course now the media and the socialist leftists will open their hate campaign against Santorum full force like they do with every popular conservative candidate....That is their record and their method of campaigning.....But, now we all know Obama and we dont like what we know about him...
Well, let's see J.A-522495,
You were (are?) a staunch Bachmann supporter......right? No doubt you are feeling the sting of her failure. Are you throwing your support behind Santorum?
Are you (above) referring to Romney? If so, you are correct. He is a social liberal. His primary objectives (should he become president) will be to free America's super wealthy to further disadvantage America's middle class and increase his own personal power and wealth. A secondary objective would be to augment the Romney family political aristocracy. If you admire Bachmann and Santorum, Romney is not your type.
It was not necessary that "the socialist leftists will open their hate campaign against Santorum full force like they do with every popular conservative candidate". Your candidates have SELF destructed: Pawlenty has zero charisma. Cain fell victim to the truth (about his lecherous shenanigans). Perry has (in several debates and other public appearances) revealed he has a dominant doltish gene. Bachmann is alien (even frighteningly extreme) to most Americans. Gingrich has so many scandals in his skeleton closet he cannot now fully close the door. Ron Paul has integrity. But, what good is integrity (in a president) without practicality, judiciousness, and pragmatism. He would turn our nation into his own personal academic economic and social laboratory.
Who's left? Huntsman would do better as a democrat. That leaves Romney. He is a RINO and you know it. You think you (and your cause) would do better if anyone (even Romney) occupies the White House other than Barack Obama. Are you sure about that? Is the next 4 years more important than the next 25? If you elect Romney, you are putting the (corporate) fox in our economic hen house. How is that in your (party's) long term interest?
You should support Ron Paul. He's the only republican running who is both conservative and honest. He can't win. But, supporting Paul sends a message to the rulers of the republican party that cannot be ignored.
What is wrong with this is that we are still having our candidates trying to win a popularity contest. He/ she with the most campaign dollars eventually wins out. I fear that we will never actually elect another President who truly wins on their merit and/or stance on the issues. I have become totally disenchanted with the entire process. I believe that we as a Nation have lost something. The process is marred beyond repair.
I don't know if I would call a 2.5% increase 'energized'. It was a record turnout, however. If the GOP does win the WH, don't expect a mandate by any means. The usual reds will vote as well as the usual blues. Romney won't excite anyone to jump off the couch and vote out Obama.
As they are very likely to take control of the Senate as well it would be a total disaster to have a GOP President. Total!
Romney doesn't need to excite anyone, they will not be voting for him but out of hatred for Obama.
After Rantorum's showing in all the debates, where he proved he couldn't talk his way out of a paper bag, he "captures the hearts and minds" of all the know-nothing Iowa Republicans to tie Romney. No wonder this country is in such a mess, making one's mind up on who to vote for the night of the caucus with all of the news media blaring 'Romney or Rantorum' demonstrates that we deserve the miserable leadership that we get as a result. Go ahead, make Iran's day, by getting one of these war monger-know-nothings in office. Then, you'll all be wishing for the 'good old days' when Obama was President!!!
ok, so i wake up after midnight and the tv is on. i wake up to this dude who sounds like an english speaking religous nut. now add to this that he wants to blow iran out of the desert (which to me is a contradiction of beliefs- not to say they may end up going out that way but it should be because of their doing not jumping the gun on our part) i dont know about all the other stuff people are starting to say but really - this country has never wanted to be about this i dont think- i guess we will find out.
this iowa deal was a total joke. it is a clear illustration that the GOP has totally lost its direction. congess is a shambles, their potential cndidates are weak, they have lost focus and identity. they are seeing the result of the destruction from the bush era if truth be told and the sooner they (who ever "they" are) assemble and admit and re focus the better they will be. BUT , they will need to choose. they just cannot continue to try to be everything to everyone. bottom line thats their problem.
Feisty and Bev must of been up all night sucking on bottles of ripple and mad dog. Now they are hung over
Don't get too excited libs, Santorum has had his moment in the sun. The social conservatives up there in Iowa have had their say, and Romney still won.
Santorum has a snowballs chance in hell, Romney, Paul, or Gingrich, and god help us if it is Paul.
Santorum is an extreme right wing religious nut. These is a reason that we voted him out in Pennsylvania - the more you get to know him the stranger he becomes.
Agree 100%, John. He was booted from PA POLITICS (because he couldn't be booted from the Commonwealth of PA, since he had moved to the Commonwealth of Virginia!) in 2006 because he's so far to the extreme, evangelical right that we couldn't put up with his nonsense any longer. He was defeated in a LANDSLIDE by Sen. Bob Casey, Jr. I dearly hope the GOP goes crazy and puts him up as the nominee. He'll turn off so many independents in the general election that the far-right GOP will be out in the wilderness until at least 2016. Good luck, GOP!
Which is why he has a good chance in South Carolina.
Santorum is only running because he has nothing better to do. His occupation involves telling other people how to live their lives. Of course, at the same time he's promoting a smaller government that stays out of our lives...kind of hypocritical of him.
If he weren't out stumping for the GOP nomination, he'd be standing in line at a soup kitchen with his seven children.
John, Santorum's voting record suggests he is a moderate, no matter what personal opinions come out of his mouth.
Santorum's ethics and religious beliefs exist only as long as they do not interfere with his life. His wife had an abortion to save her life as an example but now the rest of the women in the US can die regardless.
Couldn't be better!
Romney spent millions to get fewer votes than he got four years ago.
Bachmann spent more millions to place dead last (except for somebody who didn't even campaign).
And the "not Romney" candidate who wants to impose his own version of Sharia law here in America almost won.
The Republicans continue in their circular firing squad because they still haven't hit anything yet.
i think it will be interesting how the media will now react to this exhibition of futility. i'm guessing all they can do now is ramp it up even more. one aspect i am enjoying somewhat is this "embeded" perspective we are getting now and then when the politicians admonish the reporter on air. kinda like swatting at flies.
Iowa caucus is interesting but I don't think it means that much in the Big Picture. Its one state only.
Santorum and Paul are not electable in the Big Picture.
The mainstream media knows that.
The mainstream media are like flies on sh__"
They feel they have to react to everything, even if the "everything" is not relevant.