-
Agents of Influence
June 6, 2013 | 51 comments
-
Is This Teen Lesbian the Next Rosa Parks?
May 30, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Sanford Resurrected in Carolina
April 3, 2013 | 140 comments
-
Bostic and Sanford Battle in Charleston
March 29, 2013 | 16 comments
-
South Carolina Showdown
March 26, 2013 | 39 comments
Campaign Crawlers
Iowa’s Final Flavor of the Month?
Another poll indicates Santorum surging in the Hawkeye State.
CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa — Rick Santorum took time to shake the hands of everyone who attended his “Faith, Family & Freedom Rally” here Wednesday night, and stayed nearly an hour after the scheduled end of the event to answer questions from the Republican audience. Only then did he take time to talk to the press.
“People are trying to determine right now, ‘Who can we really trust?’” the former Pennsylvania senator told a small group of reporters at a brief impromptu press conference after the event. “I think it’s going to build. I feel very good that we’re not going to stop there and, hopefully, keep moving up the ladder.”
The Republican presidential candidate was responding to the latest Iowa poll by CNN and Time magazine that shows him now in third place in the Hawkeye State, moving ahead of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Texas Gov. Rick Perry. The poll confirmed the widespread impression of many Iowa-watchers that Santorum’s low-budget campaign is surging in the final days leading up to next Tuesday’s precinct caucuses. According to the CNN/Time poll, Santorum’s support has increased from 5 percent to 16 percent in the past three weeks, while Gingrich’s support has collapsed from 33 percent to 14 percent.
Santorum refused to speculate on how far “up the ladder” he might climb by the time votes are counted Jan. 3. “No, I’m not going to pick a number and no, I’m not going to tell you what place I’m going to finish,” he told reporters.
No candidate has spent more time in Iowa this year than Santorum and, for many months, it seemed that his old-fashioned approach to campaigning — Wednesday night’s event was his 357th such meeting with Iowa Republicans — might never pay off. His poll numbers were mired in the single digits, and moderators in televised debates always seemed more interested in whatever “Flavor of the Month” candidate seemed to be emerging as the leading conservative rival to the GOP campaign’s persistent front-runner, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
In September, the flavor of the month was Perry, who was undone by his disastrous debate performances. In October, Atlanta businessman Herman Cain surged to the top of the polls, only to be taken down by a series of sexual allegations. In November, Gingrich soared ahead, but saw his Iowa numbers plummet when he was hit by a barrage of negative TV ads sponsored by Romney, Texas Rep. Ron Paul, and Perry. But while Santorum never had any of that front-runner glory, he kept campaigning steadily in the Hawkeye State and this month secured a number of key Iowa endorsements, as well as praise from national figures like former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and talk-radio host Mark Levin. Now, as the moment of final decision nears for Iowa’s first-in-nation caucuses — when more than 40 percent of Republicans here tell pollsters they might still change their minds between now and Tuesday — Santorum’s investment in old-fashioned campaigning appears to be paying off.
Is Santorum now enjoying his own “boomlet” Shushannah Walshe of ABC News asked the candidate Wednesday. “One poll does not make a boomlet,” he answered. “A lot of hard work — I think I can safely say, the work we’ve put in, meetings like this are getting bigger and bigger because all the work we did and talked about the issues, talked about our plans, talked about our record, talked about character, talked about issues that are ‘kitchen table’ issues.” He attributed his success to “folks in Iowa who care about this process and care to make sure that Iowa gets it right and lifts up the right person to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney and to be the right alternative to Barack Obama.”
Not everyone was pleased by evidence that those “folks in Iowa” may be shifting Santorum’s way. Erick Erickson of Red State pronounced the apparent Santorum surge “another factor ensuring Mitt Romney wins the nomination.” Erickson, who is also a CNN commentator, added: “I have to throw up a bit in my mouth that Iowa conservatives are seriously considering Rick Santorum, which will only help Mitt Romney.”
Erickson was among the earliest boosters of the Perry campaign, hosting the Texan’s campaign announcement at a Red State conference in South Carolina Aug. 13, the same day as the Iowa GOP Straw Poll in Ames. Perry’s perceived “diss” of Iowa in August might not have come back to haunt him if he had been able to consolidate the “Anybody But Romney” vote. But once his poll numbers collapsed, a strong showing here in the Hawkeye State became an imperative if Perry was to maintain his campaign’s viability. He has reportedly spent nearly $3 million on TV ads in Iowa and yet remains in the so-called “second tier” of candidates, virtually tied with Santorum and former Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann in the RealClearPolitics average of Iowa polls.
If Santorum is now emerging from that “second-tier,” it may be because social conservatives here, who have long been undecided between him and Bachmann, are finally making their decisions. The perception that Santorum’s campaign is now the stronger of the two was given surprising emphasis Wednesday when Bachmann’s Iowa campaign chairman, state Sen. Kent Sorensen, announced that he was endorsing Ron Paul.
Santorum had no comment on that shocking news Wednesday, and said he was concentrating on his own campaign — the same old-fashioned campaign he has pursued all year. “I’m just going to keep working hard,” he said, “and believe in the people of Iowa, that they’re going to make the right choice.”
About the Author
Robert Stacy McCain is co-author (with Lynn Vincent) of Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party (Nelson Current). He blogs at The Other McCain.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (118) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Robert Stacy McCain
More Articles From Campaign Crawlers
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/12/29/iowas-final-flavor-of-the-mont
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Jack in Wi.| 12.29.11 @ 7:14AM
Sanctimonius Santorum is just another guy put out to keep the conservaties divided. When the chips are down Rick will go for war any day over Life. His real passion is to bomb and kill not protect the unborn. At least McCain with all his mad bomber ideas had served his country. Santoum is just another chicken hawk sellout to the Israeli Lobby. When he had a chance to back a pro-life guy against the Lobby's rabid, pro abortion, Snarlin Arlen Spector, he went with Spector.
Rick: You can't be for bombing and killing babies in war and still call your self pro-life.
richard ryan| 12.29.11 @ 8:22AM
"Bombing and killing babies.."? That's your response to Santorum's record? Our military is the best in the world at preventing civilian casualties, particularly post WWII and VietNam. If "killing babies" is your beef I submit the children killed indicriminantly in Israel by the islamists. And how about Saddam Hussein gassing half a million people in his own little version of ethnic cleansing? We are the guys in the white hats here. You can make a reasonable argument against invading Iraq and Afghanistan, but this baby killing crap is nonsense.
Jack in Wi.| 12.29.11 @ 10:10AM
Baloney: At least 1 million babies in Iraq were either staved to death by sanctions or killed in war. The lunatics like Santorum want to bomb Iran which could well bring on WW3. He has been a bought and paid for shill of the Israeli Lobby his whole life. Let me say it again. You can't call yourself pro-life and be for endless and senseless war.
Seek| 12.29.11 @ 11:03AM
That statistic is pure baloney, culled from a discredited article in the British medical journal, the Lancet.
richard ryan| 12.29.11 @ 11:09AM
exactly. Our SOLDIERS cared more about the Iraqi children than the GD Iraqis did. I have listened to first hand accounts of Iraqi villagers using children as shields so they could gun down our Marines and soldiers.
According to that fat piece of garbage Rosie O'Donnel we killed more civilians in Iraq than in WWII. Its nonsense, and the statistics are not correct.
Jack in Wi.| 12.29.11 @ 12:03PM
Madolyn Albright agreed that the sanctions caused the deaths of at least one half million Iraqi children and old people. That was in the 90's. The Lancet a British Medical Journal stated that the Iraq war caused at least 640,000, deaths mostly civilian. Then we have the millions displaced and disabled for life. Some mission. Some accomplishment. It was done for a pack of lies.
There were no weapons of Mass destruction. Iraq had no nuclear program and had not had any for at least a decade, probably 2 decades. The country had been under boycott for a decade. There was on ground inspection and had been oveflown thousands of times by sattillites, and spy planes and eveyone knew these were lies to suck the gullibal into backing this illegal and immoral war.
This was no cake walk. The Iraqi people hate us and it will only get worse unless get the hell out of their lives and leave them alone. We have left 17000 contractors and some training troops in Iraq. They will only become a trigger point to get us back in.
Well that won't happen. The people are fed up with these wars and warmongers like Gingrich and Santorum, and even blow with the wind Romney. No pro war neocon can ever get elected on the Republican ticket again. Obama will be running as the guy who got Bin Laden and is bringing the troops home. The people are sick of these wars and the Republicans who pushed them. I remember when the Republicans campaigned against the Democrats by calling them the party of war. Eisenhower won a landslide on the promise to end the Korean war. Nixon won in 1968 by having a secret plan to end the Vietnam war. G. W. Bush ran on having a more humble foreign policy in 2000. Obama ran on a peace platform.
Obama is just another stooge of the warmongers of the Israeli Lobby. But compared to the 3 chicken hawks Gingrich, Santorum, and Romney he looks like Mahatma Ghandi. End the wars. Close up the bases over seas. Defend these borders and shores. The world can pay for it's own defenses. Japan, Israel, Europe and Korea are rich countries. We are broke and our troops are broken. That is the reason Ron Paul gets many times more financial support for his candidicy, from the active military, then the chicken hawks who want endless and senseless war.
Quartermaster| 12.29.11 @ 2:15PM
Iraq had both WMD, that we uncovered (nerve agents are WMD, in case you have never been informed), and Saddam did have a nuke program. We found 22 tons of yellow cake and shipped it to Canada last year. The equipment for said nuke program was quickly shipped to Syria when we entered from Kuwait. It was then set up in Syria and the Israelis destroyed the equipment in 2007.
I am sympathetic to Paul as far as his domestic priorities are concerned, but denying reality is not a good campaign technique.
Occam's Tool| 12.29.11 @ 4:54PM
QM,
so you actually agree with me on Paul's disastrous foreign policy approach? Good. Allow me to take back my biting criticisms earlier and apologize.
Al Adab| 12.29.11 @ 6:39PM
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
No war in history could have been more easily avoided than WWII- had England (and France)only had the spine to confront Germany with force when Hitler reoccupied the Rhineland. Churchill knew it and warned his nation time and again.
So why is it then that we refuse to listen like Baldwin and Chamberlin refused and brought the horrors of war upon their citizens. A stitch in time saves nine. America should have acted years ago against Iran, but we were busy, wrongly, nation building in Iraq. Why stand we here idle?
richard ryan| 12.29.11 @ 3:16PM
yes, you can make a reasonable argument against the invasions, as I mentioned before. But you can also make a reasonable argument FOR invasion. To assert that Hussein did not have WMDs is naive. I would ship them out if I were him too. He sure as hell had plenty of time. He gassed hundreds of thousands of people. The Nazis gassed millions. Is your argument one of scale? Because if you were a Kurd who lost his family, you might believe Saddam was just as worthy of removal as Hitler was.
Joel | 1.2.12 @ 4:08AM
Jack, it's rereshing to read your comments. Personally, I can't stand to converse with brainwashed fools but you do it calmly and politely...good for you.
Nick| 12.29.11 @ 11:12AM
Jack-boot in Wi.,
That's a lie. Where'd you get that bogus statisitic? From Amnesty International, 'Hanoi' Jane Fonda, Michael Moore, or the CP-USA?
I'm 100% Pro-Life, and I support both Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. You can't call yourself Pro-Life and defend terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezzbollah.
You can't defend Hitler, either.
Jack in Wi.| 12.29.11 @ 12:14PM
Your no prolifer Nick or Catholic either. The Iraq war was condemned by the last 2 Popes as in complete violation of Catholic Just War Doctrine. Jesus said. " Blessed are the peacemakers. Those who live by the sword will die by the sword. What you do the least of my brothers you do unto me. " Christians cannot back such immoral and senseless wars as the pre-emtive attacks on Libya, Iraq and Iran.They are against every Christian tradition and also against International Law. Lots of Germans were hung for doing what Bush, Blair, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, The Clintons, and all the neocons did. They lied us into an agressive war and should be tried for their many crimes against humanity.
ThePaganTemple | 12.29.11 @ 12:28PM
Here we go again with more lies from the left. And what is your source? Madeline Albright! One millions babies killed, in Iraq? You are insane! Most leftist traitors like you limit the amount of civilian casualties in total to about a million, and even that is a gross exaggeration. And now you come out with a million babies. You must be either a Code Pinko, a World Can't Wait Marxist POS or a Booger-Eating Paultard. Either way, no one should waste their time arguing with you, and I feel orders of magnitude dumber than your average box of rocks just for taking the time to do so.
Nick| 12.29.11 @ 12:56PM
Jack-boot in Wi.,
Everything in your 12:14PM comment is, also, a lie.
But, what should I expect from someone who defends Hitler?
Margie| 12.29.11 @ 8:58PM
Much like yourself, Nick.
A liar who defends murderous Popes and their Apostate teachings.
A man (you) who calls the Martyrs killed by them, heretics.
A man (you) who still calls Bible believing Christians the same, and is in league with other liars here to try and trash them whenever they speak according to the Scriptures.
A man (you) who denies the murderous history of the Papacy and calls all the history written about them, false.
Like the Holocaust deniers, but WORSE is a man (you).
Nick| 12.29.11 @ 11:42PM
Margie,
Where's the answers to my three very simple questions?
Jack in Wi.| 12.30.11 @ 10:32PM
So blessed is are the peacemakers is a lie Nick? Those who live by the sword will die by the sword is lie as well? The fact that 2 Popes condemned and tried to stop the Iraq war is lie? Nick you wouldn't know the truth if it punched you right in the face.
Occam's Tool| 12.29.11 @ 4:55PM
It's not preemptive on Iran. They have been at war with us since 1979. 32 years is a pretty long fuse.
Jack in Wi.| 12.29.11 @ 12:19PM
More nonsense. I never defended terrorism whether it is by the worst terrorist regime in the world Israel or Hamas and Hizballah which were encouraged by the Mossad as a counter balance to the secular PLO and FATAH. As for Hitler I have never ever defended his crimes. That's all you neocons can do is yell Nazi, Nazi everytime someone tell the historical truth around here.
ThePaganTemple | 12.29.11 @ 12:32PM
Wait a minute here, was it "neocons" who spent almost the entire eight years of the Bush Administration calling Bush Hitler, waving pictures of him with a little Hitler stache in demonstrations, calling him a Nazi war criminal? No, it was the leftist traitors such as yourself who did so. You don't get to spend eight years calling somebody Hitler and then get to bitch when somebody else does it. And don't bother telling me two wrongs don't make a right, that self-serving shit doesn't impress me in the least.
Nick| 12.29.11 @ 1:08PM
Jack-boot in Wi.,
You constantly defend Hamas and Hezzbollah.
And, as far as defending Hitler goes, did you forget calling Adolph a "Zionist"?
Jack in Wi.| 8.26.11 @ 5:40PM
"Nonsense: Hitler wanted to harrass the Jews to make them leave Germany. That was his policy until 1942. It is much similar to your plan to force the Palisitinians out. Hitler was a Zionist. He believed the Jews should have their own country. He was allied with the German Zionists in their efforts to bring the Jews to Palistine. Those are the only Jews he would talk to and negotiate with. They signed the Transfer Agreement. That was an agreement that if a Jew wanted to leave Germany with any money he had to go to Palistine. Read the book the Transfer Agreement by Edwin Black. That is the ADL aproved version. For a differnet view check out the sites of the AntiZionist Jews. Hitler later wanted to put all the Jews in Madagascar. He was a horrible person, but that is historical fact."
Yeah, Hitler "was a horrible person," but, he was also a friend of the Jews, according to Jack-boot's Aryan history of the world.
Jack in Wi.| 12.29.11 @ 4:09PM
I did not defend Hitler or his racist policies. I simply stated the truth that his policy until 1942 was to push the Jews out of his empire by harrassment, that got worse and worse as the years went by. It is very similar to the Israeli policy of harrasment and terror against the Palistinians, to force them out. We have all seen people like Occam calling for genocide against the Palistinians and Iranians. That is where Hitlers racism ended up with the Jews. Where Israel is headed is far worse. It has 300 to 600 atomic weapons and it is always threatening to use them.
Hitlers Policy until the American entry into the war was to try to make peace on the Western Front. He knew he never could do that if he murdered all those Jews. His policy was to push the Jews out in a peace settlement. Before the war he, being a committed Zionist, pushed for the Jews to go to Palistine. I suggest you read the about the Transfer Agreement between Hitler and Zionists which forced Jews to go to Palistine if they wanted to take any money from Germany.
This policy of pushing the Jews into Palistine was objected to by the Arabs and Hitler changed his policy. He insisted that the Jews leave his empire, but now refused to let them go to Palistine. The British empire offered to take 500,000 Jews, but the Zionists would have none of it. It was Palistine or nothing.
Well after the USA entered the war Hitler went after the Jews with a vengence. The Holocaust started with the Wansee Confernce of early 1942, when the final solution was laid out. Hitler decided if he was going down he wanted to take as many Jews as possible with him. I firmly believe that most Jews under Hitler's control could have been saved if their had been better leadership in both the Jewish community and among their gentile friends like FDR, and Churchill. It would have ment negotiating with Hitler and getting these people out.
Happy New Year to all and Shalom to all my Jewish pals here
Occam's Tool| 12.29.11 @ 4:56PM
When you can tell me how to beat Islam without using bombs., I'll be happy to listen.
It is the palestinians calling for genocide. I just want them to stop cuting the heads off of 14 month old babies, and stop raping their own children.
Occam's Tool| 12.29.11 @ 5:12PM
Negotiating with Hitler had worked so many times before...
I think Auschwitz should have been bombed and a message sent on the BBC that those responsible would be charged with War Crimes after they lost. Wouldn't have worked in 1942, but by 43 and 44, would have.
Doorgunner| 12.29.11 @ 9:06PM
Better more bullets than pals like you.
Nick| 12.30.11 @ 12:23AM
Jack-boot in Wi.,
"I simply stated the truth that his policy until 1942 was to push the Jews out of his empire by harrassment [sic] [...]."
Yes, if by harassment you mean harassing them with lead poisoning, i.e., bullets in their brains; then yes, Hitler was just harassing the Jews until 1942. Geez, what a moron.
"His policy was to push the Jews out in a peace settlement."
What a bunch of neo-nazi garbage. I'd suggest that you read Mein Kampf, again. You probably have it memorized, don't you? Refresh your memory on this message of peace:
"If at the beginning of the war and during the war 12,000 or 15,000 of these Hebrew corrupters of the people had been held under poison gas, as happened to hundreds of thousands of our best German workers in the field, the sacrifices of millions at the front would not have been in vain. On the contrary: 12,000 scoundrels eliminated in time might have saved the lives of a million real Germans, valuable for the future."
Try reading about the Einsatzgruppen, who killed tens of thousands of Jews in Poland starting in 1939, and in the Soviet Union starting in June of 1941. All of these killings were well before January, 1942.
The Einsatzgruppen were responsible for the murders of more than one million people. Both Jews and Gentiles.
"Well after the USA entered the war Hitler went after the Jews with a vengence [sic]."
So, now, the Holocaust was our fault? You're crazier than Rosie O'Donnell at a two-for-one sale at Baskin-Robbins!
You are nothing but a pathetic, disgusting Hitler apologist, Jack-boot. You make me sick.
Jack in Wi.| 12.30.11 @ 10:15PM
Nicky read a little history. Hitler until 1938 treated the Jews FAR better then you zionists have treated the Palistinains in the last 11 years. The worst pogrom in prewar Nazi Germany was Kristylnacht of 1938. about 100 Jews were killed and many were beaten up. Israel has killed and beaten many, many more then that just in the last ten years. Before that Hitler's policy was to harrass the Jews out of Germany. He had a deal with the Zionists to push them toward Palistine. Read about the Transfer Agreement. Well over 100,000 German Jews went to Palistine under the ageement. There were also trade deals and agreements for Jews to take some money out of the country. Now after 1938 with with each year going by Hitler's treatment of the Jews got worse and worse, but the Holocaust was not put forth until the Wansee conference of 1942. So Hitler was awful and so are the Israeli's. They haven't gone to full genocide yet, but Occam and many others here keeps calling for it. Shalom to rightous Jews here and go the hell to the miserable ones like Nicky and Occam.
Nick| 1.1.12 @ 1:29PM
"Hitler until 1938 treated the Jews FAR better then you zionists have treated the Palistinains in the last 11 years."
So, first it was 1942, now, it's 1938, Hitler-lover? You should try reading real history, not Aryan history. Try learning about the Nuremburg Laws, moron.
To compare Israel, in any way, to nazi-Germany is sick and disgusting. The Holocaust began with the war, brainiac. The way you tell your distorted history, you act as though Hitler and the nazis didn't do anything wrong. Until, 1938, that is. Or, was it 1942?
Now, go to your neo-nazi meeting, I'm sure they miss you.
Occam's Tool| 12.29.11 @ 5:13PM
You defend terrorism all the time, Jack. You defend Hamas and Hezbollah currently. You love Iran.
Jack in Wi.| 12.30.11 @ 10:27PM
I have never defended terrorism Occam and you know it. The Israeli's are by far the worst terrorist regime in the world and Hamas and Hizballah were given helping hands by the Mossad in the constant Israeli effort to divide and conquor. How did that work out? I believe in the words of Jesus Christ. Blessed are the Peacemakers and those who live by the sword will die by the sword. You and the other posters from Israel call for genocide and mass murder on a regular basis. Shame, shame, shame. Calling for agressive war and mass murder is a crime against humanity and international law. Germans were hung for less.
Anthony| 12.29.11 @ 6:26PM
Well Jack, for months now I have been reading your posts, and those of your kindred spirit, Clint.
I have concluded you Paulbots are not only insane isolationists, but are rabid anti-semites to boot.
Can't wait to see what Clint will say about me, some b.s. about being a RINO something.
Yes, the Tea party is here, but where exactly are you Jack, and Clint?
Who knew America would be reduced to this????
Jack in Wi.| 12.30.11 @ 10:46PM
Anthony, by the way my son is named Anthony, I am glad you read my posts. But there has never been anything anti semitic in them. They are full of historical truth and wisdom. I think I can speak for Clint, in that we are American patriots and Catholic Christians who wish Israel the best in peace. But cannot abide the fact that the USA is losing it's soul to warmongers and criminal banksters, and those who destroy the Constitution, and our civil rights. End the Wars. Bring the troops home. Close the bases. Let Israel, the Arabs, Europe, Japan and Korea pay for their own defenses. We are broke and they are rich. Some of you want to throw granny off dialysis before you would cut one penny from the many hundreds of billions we have dumped in Israel. How long are we supposed to carry Israel on our backs?
Jack in Wi.| 12.30.11 @ 10:51PM
By the way Anthony., the active military is the biggest contributor, by occupation, to Ron Paul's campaign. They must all be anti semites too. Perhaps they don't want to fight for 100 more years just so Israel can keep killing and stealing from it's Arab neighbors. Shalom and take your anti semite nonsense with you.
Doorgunner| 12.29.11 @ 9:42AM
I am so looking forward to laughing at you rontards.
Clint| 12.29.11 @ 11:07AM
We're Already Laughin' At You And The Mainstream Media Smear Bund Callin' Us Names.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
ThePaganTemple | 12.29.11 @ 12:35PM
Then you'd better run, Paultard.
loulou| 12.29.11 @ 12:51PM
Aren't you late for your early shift? They're going to dock your pay.
Bob Grant| 12.29.11 @ 8:38PM
'chickenhawk' is the most overused word in the socialist dictionary.
A meaningless word as well.
Kade| 12.29.11 @ 7:17AM
I wish some wise poster would check thoroughly Rick’s record under his Bush years. As I recall he was nearly in lock step with most of Bush’s liberal policies, including Bush / Kennedy’s No-Child Left-Behind and Medicare part D.
I also do not remember him pressuring Bush about stopping North Korea and Iran’s nukes, as W. was all bluster and no action.
As far as I can remember Rick was on board as Bush tried to push his comprehensive amnesty border plan and also sat back when the two border agents, Ramos & ??, were jailed for years for defending the border. Suddenly at his 2006 primary against Casey he became a border enforcement hawk.
Finally, Santorum campaigned relentlessly for ultra pro-abortionist Specter over pro-life Pat Toomey, which shows for Rick its politics over moral principle, that is except at primary times.
Why then should we trust Santorum because he now says he is the consistent conservative before the Iowa primary?
ThePaganTemple | 12.29.11 @ 1:11PM
You shouldn't. Vote for Bachmann, well if she's still in the race when it comes to your state.
George| 12.29.11 @ 7:54AM
This "reporter" is effectively a Rick Santorum campaign operative. Here's a recent sample of his pro-Santorum electioneering from his personal blog:
"By the way, we got three contributions last night via our Rick Santorum “No Surrender” Money Bomb link, for a total of $80 — that’s 20% of our $400 goal for this three-day event that continues through Friday....The money all goes straight to the Santorum campaign, and here’s a neutral objective fact: They need every dollar you can spare."
Nice mocking of the concept of objective journalism.
ThePaganTemple | 12.29.11 @ 12:38PM
I'm for Bachmann and I'm always giving McCain grief picking on him over Santorum, but let's face it, he's got as much right to endorse his favored candidate as you or I. There's no law that says a journalist has to be objective. How many "objective" journalists do you think there really are? The only difference is guys like McCain don't try to hide who they are for.
George| 12.29.11 @ 5:47PM
In the context of this article, McCain and his editor at American Spectator *did* hide who he's for. If I hadn't pointed it out, casual readers of the AS blog would have no clue that the guy who wrote this puff piece on Santorum is actually a Santorum fundraiser. Don't try to tell me that the absence of any disclaimer on this article actually represents some kind of integrity.
martin j smith| 12.29.11 @ 8:00AM
I think it is time to do away with all cauci and all these Socialist Sponsored debates that is if you are a Conservative and not an Establishment Republican or Socialist.
And Iowa as even Cave men know do not represent the general population and on top of that certain candidates like Ron Paul for instance tend to inflate their support.
What should be done in the future is to set up fair standards for nomination contenders to get on ballots and fair standards to allow a real debate on key issues affecting the nation that are not skewed to the Socialist or establishment republican agenda. socialists do not have real debates and same for the Republican establishment. They are the same thing..
What happens in Iowa stays right there. The primaries in each state should be set in a fair way so that basically each state should have an impact on the choice not permitting a few large states to make a decision for the entire nation.
Finally I do not give a damn about what happens in Iowa. What I care about is that the nominee should represent Freedom ( as in free Market Capitalism ) and small d democracy that this nation supports at home and abroad. That means we do not applaud the likes if Kim Il Jong or that Achmadinidjad or Iran but we do applaud people who want freedom and by applaud I have no interest in our being militarily involved in other nations affairs. And --this is for Ron Paul supporters--I do believe there needs to be vigorous debate about what constitutes our "national interest". Finally the "Blame America,Isolationist,America surrender crowd need not apply.
loulou| 12.29.11 @ 12:54PM
Iowa is just one election. Or caucus. It's important only because the media and elites say it is.
I want to cast my vote and it's not going to be for Romney the Vacant, Ron Paul or Newt.
Mimi| 12.29.11 @ 8:02AM
So continues the front-runner trashing ! I'm sick of this....all the best candidates are being shot at! Just WHO is doing this?....Obama ? Paul? or is the main culprit the trim and proper Mitt Romney with all that MONEY ! The 25%-er!
Cain was done in the dirtiest....are Rebublicans this ruthless?
Here we go again....Rick Santorum the most up-standing, no affairs, nothing in his closet....Watch them destroy....The entity who is behind all this should be OUTED!! A fair and decent election should win out.
Al Adab| 12.29.11 @ 11:35AM
Mimi:
Historically, one of the things the GOP and Conservatives do best is kill their wounded. In the instant case we are dooing a great job performing on behalf of the DNC. Instead of making Wasserman-Schultz speak out every day on issues, we spend time and fortune destroying our own talent pool.
That said, the reason for our constant flavor of the week is the critical search for an alternative to the anointed Mitt Romney. Each time an alternative emerges, that one is "Cained" by both ourselves and the national press. How this is instigated is indeed a proper question. We spend our energy and fortune damaging each member of this talent pool to our own, and ultimately to the nations, detriment. Unless we focus on the issue at hand all we will do is make the re-election of the current president more likely.
Margie| 12.29.11 @ 9:03PM
"Cain was done in the dirtiest....are Rebublicans this ruthless?"
The TRUTH causes division.
Between the liars, who are willing to DESTROY anyone because the ends justify the means~~ and the HONEST conservatives.
The honest conservative will run on his own merit, while the dishonest destroyer will LIE about and seek to DESTROY his opponent without the SLIGHTEST pang of conscience.
And GOD will Judge them all.
donserge| 12.29.11 @ 8:03AM
When Neil Boortz stated that Santorum would be a disaster I realized Santorum deserved a serious look from me. Limbaugh also intervied Santorum; I was impressed, as was Limbaugh. I hope Santorum finishes high in Iowa and stays in the race.
Kade| 12.29.11 @ 8:29AM
Why was Rush impressed with Santorum? Was it his liberal record under Bush or his conservative primary rhetoric now? Rush seems to have amnesias when it comes to Republicans with liberal voting records.
Also if I recall Rush had ultra-lefty Spector on his show weeks before the Toomey primary, which gave pro-abort Arlene a platform and he won by a measly 2%.
donserge| 12.29.11 @ 8:43AM
Kade...if you'll read my post it references the interview, nothing else.
The Smerc| 12.29.11 @ 9:29AM
Senator Spector visited my program on WPHL 1210 the Big Talker, he would not be caught dead allowing Rush Limbaugh to interview him.
Kade| 12.29.11 @ 9:41AM
I thought Spector may have been hawking a book on Rush’s show but my memory could be wrong and if so my apologies.
Dick Nome| 12.29.11 @ 7:32PM
See below, he was discussing his battle with Lymphoma. Profits from the book went to the Leukemis and Lymphoma Society which Rush also supports generously. No politics involved.
Clint| 12.29.11 @ 11:14AM
We Ran Your Girlfriend Arlo Sphincter Outta The Republican Party & Got Our Tea Party Senator Pat Toomey Elected Our Senator, SmercyMan.
Pat, The Pirate Lives.
ThePaganTemple | 12.29.11 @ 12:41PM
Yeah, right, Snasrlin' Arlen, the RINO POS wouldn't possibly demean himself by appearing on a radio show with the giant audience of a Rush Limbaugh, but he'll gladly appear on the show of some jackass simpleton nobody's ever heard of.
loulou| 12.29.11 @ 12:56PM
Rush would never have Snarlin' on--no ratings. No one would listen to the neither-here-nor-there wh*re.
W| 12.29.11 @ 4:30PM
Snarling Arlen's cross examination of Anita Hill showed her as not credible, and led directly to Justice Thomas' confirmation. Specter was assigned by Strom Thurmond the job of questioning Anita Hill. He did it well.
The Senate debate on Thomas showed Arlen at his Snarlen best. When Teddy Kennedy was bloviating about sexual harassment, Specter put Teddy down by saying "If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you." Everyone knows the meaning of a sentence with Teddy and bridge. Teddy stammered and sat down,.
Specter was also instrumental in the confirmation of Roberts and Alito.
Specter was also instrumental in the defeat of HillaryCare when he produced the chart showing all the agencies and approvals necessary for health care.
Specter was not a conservative but he was elected five terms in Pa as a Senator, and was useful on a number of conservative issues.
Dick Nome| 12.29.11 @ 7:27PM
You people are so full of crap. Rick Santorum has never been accused of being a Liberal. You might want to explain that.
Yes, Snarlin' Arlen was on Rush. It was to discuss his book about his battle with Lymphoma. Rush is a supporter of the Leukemia&Lymphoma; Society. That's what they discussed. They did not talk politics. Sometimes the comments by the ignorant just show what H.A.'s some of you are.
Timothy L. Pennell| 12.29.11 @ 8:11AM
Let's take a look at the field. Who have we got?
We've got a guy who will do anything to be President, EXCEPT, admit that he was wrong. He has spent MILLION$ on Advertisements, attacking a Republican. Most people believe that he was behind the Herman Cain debacle. He's the "Conservative" with the Single Payer Government Insurance Plan that, incidentally, is killing Massachusetts. He's the "Conservative" who nominates Liberals to the Bench, because it's just easier that way. He seems to believe in "By any means necessary". We have that, already
Then there's the Ex-Speaker of the House. "But, he has a lot of baggage!" Yes he does. But, are any of us qualified to "Throw the first stone"?
He's on his 3rd Wife? (That never happens) Does he keep a Bimbo Eruption Squad on retainer? Has he pulled his pants down in front of any women that he's just met 5 minutes earlier? Has anyone accused him of RAPE? Of MOLESTING them? Has he had any Phone Sex with an Intern? Has he used any Girls as a Humidor for his Cigars? Has left any DNA lying around on any Dresses? Is he confused by the words "IS" and "ALONE"? Have any MEN, at the Harvard Newspaper, ever accused him of SEXUAL HARASSMENT, like they have the Current White House Occupant?
There's a guy from Texas, who's got more JOBS in his State than everyone else COMBINED. He seems like an honest guy. Doesn't seem to have any Family Problems. No Skeletons. Nice enough fellow, who's served longer than any other Governor in the State's history. But, there's the problem of that ROCK. A Rock with a Bad Word on it, that his Father covered over with paint. He didn't sit in a Racist/Anti-Semitic/America Hating 'Church' for 20 Years, or start his Political Career in the living room of two Unrepentant Domestic Terrorists, who Killed Cops, Blew Up recruiting Stations, and Bombed the Pentagon. Nope. None of that stuff. Just the rock.
There's a Representative from Texas/Physician/Publisher of a Newsletter that will show you how to Kill Blacks, and Hide the Body, running for President. A squirely looking fellow, who wants to make Heroin, Coke, PCP, and Methamphetamines, legal. He defends Bradley Manning, for passing along SECRET/Classified State Department Cables, to another Freak/Molester/Rapist - Julianne Assange, of Wiki-Leaks. He thinks that we "Got what we deserved" on 911.
We've got a guy who SERVED in the Obama Administration, who believes that Harry Reid, and that other 1%er - Nancy Pelosi - of NON UNION Restaurant and Vineyard Fame - can be worked with. We just need to meet MARXISM half way. We need to Compromise with Evil.
So. What are we left with? A Conservative former Senator from a must win State, with no apparent baggage, who's clean and well spoken, with no negro dialect. He's Pro Life, Pro Military, Pro 2nd Amendment, a believer in the Founding Fathers, and our Founding Documents and Principles. I believe he's still on his Original Marriage. He doesn't have any girlfriends sitting in Gloria Allred's waiting room. And the Church he goes to, says God BLESS America, as opposed to the 'Pastor' for 20 Years, of the Boy raised a Muslim, in Indonesia for 11 Years, in the Muslim Schools, and Mosques, and on his Prayer Rug.
And, last, but not least, we have a Woman Representative from another State we need, who is Honest, Smart, Conservative, Pro Life, Pro Military, Loves her Husband, and has raised 23 Foster Children (girls) over the years. How many people can say that?
Personally, I like the last two. I believe that a Santorum/Bachmann ticket, is the one to beat Hamas' Deliverer. They are the ANTI Obama/Biden. And they can deliver us two States, that we will need, if we are gonna beat the Great Divider of this Nation.
Obama/Biden is DIRTY. They're CROOKED, and they have only CONTEMPT for the Hard Working Americans who pay all the Bills.
This experiment in another Marxist Control Economy needs to End. NOW.
We will not survive 4 more years.
You all have you assignments.
JackassinWi will self destruct in 5 seconds.
DRed| 12.29.11 @ 9:29AM
Nobody at Harvard accused Obama of sexual harassment, good sir.
Timothy L. Pennell| 12.29.11 @ 10:34AM
Somebody hasn't done his homework.
Look it up, Dumb*ss.
Ya see. Because Sh*thead says something isn't so? Well then, It must not be so. See how he has vanquished what I've written, with his Treasure Trove of Evidence. Now he'll run out and write another nothing, proclaiming how he has "REFUTED" everything that has been said, and that nobody has any facts, and he will come back with one of his Patented: "No he didn'ts", followed bye: "Oh yeah?", and maybe a coupla: "You're a Bigotted Racist" for good measure.
Why don't you run along to SALON, or the Nation, or to Arianna Huffington's land of make believe. Then, you write all of your Fantastical Fairy Tales, where Obama is up on the Cross, America has never been better, and only you - The Great Dumb*ss - has any facts on anything.
Typical liberal Waste of Flesh.
DRed| 12.29.11 @ 10:57AM
The origin of the Obama was accused of sexual harassment meme is a post on a blog called the Kansas Citian. Here it is:
http://thekansascitian.blogspo.....en-of.html
It's a satirical piece that's intended to show the weakness of the sexual harassment claims against Herman Cain. That's what I found out when I looked it up.
Respectfully yours,
DRed
Clint| 12.29.11 @ 11:44AM
You're An Argument Against Yourself, Peanut Assface
Dondero-Rittberg Ran His Mouth About The Newletter In The First Place & The Mainstream Media Smead Bund Broad Didn't Do Her Homework Like You, Israel Firster Ass Face.
The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On The Peanut Assface.
ThePaganTemple | 12.29.11 @ 12:46PM
You've got to be able to get a hard-on for a woman before one can accuse you of sexual harassment, just as a general reminder. Of course, the men you might get it up for might be a different story, but there's ways to deal with that too, it's spelled M-U-R-D-E-R!
loulou| 12.29.11 @ 12:58PM
Good point, TPT!
Where is that guy? Has he disappeared off the face of the earth? Is he still alive? Where there other guys?
ThePaganTemple | 12.29.11 @ 1:07PM
There were two or three others that ended up dying under mysterious circumstances.
Occam's Tool| 12.29.11 @ 5:10PM
TPT: actually, no you don't. I have seen severe harassment on a sexual basis without any real libido involved.
Occam's Tool| 12.29.11 @ 5:02PM
DRed: did you look up Obama and Sexual Harassment at Harvard? I hadn't until TLP mentioned it, but he is correct, sir.
From the Kansas Citian:
"Thursday, November 3, 2011
5diggsdiggBarack Obama accused by two men of inappropriate behavior
During Barack Obama’s tenure as the president of the Harvard Law Review in the late 1980s, at least two male student editors complained to colleagues and senior university officials about inappropriate behavior by Obama, ultimately leaving their positions at the journal, multiple sources confirm to THE KANSAS CITIAN.
The men complained of sexually suggestive behavior by Obama that made them angry and uncomfortable, the sources said, and they signed agreements with the university that gave them financial payouts to leave the journal. The agreements also included language that bars the men from talking about their departures.
In a series of comments over the past 10 days, Obama and his administration repeatedly declined to respond directly about whether he ever faced allegations of sexual harassment at the journal. They have also declined to address questions about specific reporting confirming that there were financial settlements in two cases in which men leveled complaints.
THE KANSAS CITIAN has confirmed the identities of the two male journal editors who complained about Obama but, for privacy concerns, is not publishing their names.
White House spokesman Jay Carney told THE KANSAS CITIAN the president indicated to White House staff that he was “vaguely familiar” with the charges and that the university’s general counsel had resolved the matter.
Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review from late-1988 to mid-1989. THE KANSAS CITIAN learned of the allegations against him, and over the course of several weeks, has put together accounts of what happened by talking to a lengthy roster of former university officials, current and past students and others familiar with the workings of the journal at the time Obama was there.
In one case, THE KANSAS CITIAN has seen documentation describing the allegations and showing that the university formally resolved the matter. Both men received separation packages that were in the five-figure range.
On the details of Obama’s allegedly inappropriate behavior with the two men, THE KANSAS CITIAN has a half-dozen sources shedding light on different aspects of the complaints.
The sources — including the recollections of close associates and other documentation — describe episodes that left the men upset and offended. These incidents include conversations allegedly filled with innuendo or personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature, taking place at hotels during conferences, at other officially sanctioned journal events and at the journal’s offices. There were also descriptions of physical gestures that were not overtly sexual but that made men who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable and that they regarded as improper in a professional relationship.
UPDATE: Third man comes forward to AP.
The AP:
A third former editor says he considered filing a workplace complaint over what he considered aggressive and unwanted behavior by Barack Obama when he worked under the president in the 1991 at the University of Chicago. He says the behavior included a private invitation to his apartment.
He worked for the University of Chicago when he was a Visiting Law and Government Fellow. He told The Associated Press that Obama made sexually suggestive remarks or gestures about the same time that the two editors of the Harvard Law Review had settled separate harassment complaints against him. The employee described situations in which he said Obama told him he had confided to colleagues how attractive he was and invited him to his apartment outside work. He spoke on condition of anonymity, saying he feared retaliation. The White House declined to comment."
A small correction, TLP---Ron Paul looks like a Squirrel, not a Squire, Magnificent Polemicist. Happiest of Happy New Years, good sir.
Occam's Tool| 12.29.11 @ 5:06PM
DRed, you appear to be right: very poor satire, though. Not funny. Obama has enough serious things on his plate---palling around with a PLO terrorist, having a deranged pastor that he knew was deranged, starting his political career in Bill Ayers' home, etc.
I don't think this was funny at all.
Timothy L. Pennell| 12.29.11 @ 5:44PM
Which is it?
Peppermint Tea| 12.29.11 @ 10:17AM
Tim, Amen!
I too would support Santorum/Bachman over any of their GOP rivals, but it doesn't matter who I support. I won't vote in the primaries until May. Please Iowans, do the right thing!
DRed| 12.29.11 @ 10:25AM
And pray tell, my good fellow, how is Mr. Santorum's lack of a negro dialect a benefit?
Timothy L. Pennell| 12.29.11 @ 10:40AM
In the same way that anything you do, has any benefit.
Obviously, you're too STUPID to know that, that was a play on words of how your Boy's vaunted VP - Joe (3 letter word: J-O-B-S) Biden - described the Muslim.
See? I told you he was a Dumb*ss.
DRed| 12.29.11 @ 11:00AM
Which muslim was that? I thought he was Communist atheist. Or was it a Nazi African? Black nationalist christian? I get so confused. I don't think you appreciate how difficult it is to keep up with all your fantasies.
ThePaganTemple | 12.29.11 @ 12:50PM
Oh, I know, that would probably be the Muslim named Obama that said the Muslim Call To Prayer in the morning was one of the most beautiful sounds he'd ever heard.
Drunken Sailor| 12.29.11 @ 2:01PM
I guess the choir in Rev. Wrights church is short on talent.
martin j smith| 12.29.11 @ 8:14AM
Mimi you can than the Republican Leadershit in collusion with the Socialists for what we have. My belief is this for 2012 ONLY I will vote for the Republican nominee EXCEPT if it is Ron Paul or John Huntsman --giving extremely tepid support for Romney. After that there needs to be an examination of the Republican Party as a viable opposition party.
loulou| 12.29.11 @ 12:59PM
I'm not voting for Romney. Period.
Mimi| 12.29.11 @ 9:34AM
We need to take our 70% Conservative primary voters and say a LOUD NO..NO..NO! They have no idea of how BITTER & ENRAGED we are.
They alwaays insist on DEALING with the DEVIL! When will they learn you can't appease the un-american SOB'S...who think the Constitution is " OUT of DATE" and can slowly and surely be tweaked! Tim...you are nailing it again! Right on the MONEY! Martin ....you are correct the REBUBLICAN establishment know it all's need to be examined...they forgot WHO votes! And what it would be like if they just DIDN'T!!!!!
Anthony| 12.29.11 @ 9:41AM
The R circular firing squad continues unabated.
Meanwhile, back at the DNC mosque, it's the Muslim Marxist and the Welsley radical 1%er teaming up to finish off America.
Now, where were we, oh yes, Bachman has too much.......
Roscoe| 12.29.11 @ 9:44AM
Mr. McCain:
"...former Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann ..."?
Correction needed.
ThePaganTemple | 12.29.11 @ 12:52PM
Stacy was subconsciously looking into the future, when Michelle will be a "former" Minnesota Rep. after she's elected President.
Kade| 12.29.11 @ 9:58AM
If Santorum somehow was our nominee I would reluctantly vote for him but I doubt he could ever beat Obama and he would hurt the down ticket. The Dems would run TV reruns linking him and W. and thus nationalize the election against Bush as they did in 2006 and 2008 and it will work.
Drunken Sailor| 12.29.11 @ 10:28AM
No it won't. Other than the far left most people are sick and tired of hearing the same old "It's all Bush's fault" bullshit and that is all a campaign linking Santorum and Bush would be. Besides a simply strategy to combat that would be run adds linking Obama to Solyandra, Corzine, Wright, Ayers, Etc. Etc.
loulou| 12.29.11 @ 1:02PM
Of course the Dems are going to run ads.
The problem is that Republicans tend not to have ballz a la John McCain and don't counter the ads or better yet, go on the offensive!
Can we have a candidate with ballz, please? That means not Romney or Gingrich.
BackToBasics| 12.29.11 @ 10:11PM
Agreed. They will run negative ads no matter who gets the Republican nomination.
bill| 12.29.11 @ 11:03AM
Rick Perry will stun America and win IA Caucus.
Paws up!
Al Adab| 12.29.11 @ 11:45AM
The "winner" in Iowa, whomever that may be, is irrelevant to the ultimate GOP nominee. Iowa is not a state that is a bastion of Conservative, let alone republican, strength. The states we need to visit and whos' electoral votes are critical are Ohio, FL and VA. Who is strong in those states and can maintain the GOP base elsewhere? That person should be the nominee. It is totally unimportant who might be "competitive" in blue states.That is the path to defeat.
Al Adab| 12.29.11 @ 11:45AM
The "winner" in Iowa, whomever that may be, is irrelevant to the ultimate GOP nominee. Iowa is not a state that is a bastion of Conservative, let alone republican, strength. The states we need to visit and whos' electoral votes are critical are Ohio, FL and VA. Who is strong in those states and can maintain the GOP base elsewhere? That person should be the nominee. It is totally unimportant who might be "competitive" in blue states.That is the path to defeat.
Al Adab| 12.29.11 @ 11:47AM
Apologies for the repeat. Sitting at coffee shop with new laptop.
Drunken Sailor| 12.29.11 @ 12:19PM
Al,
Stop drinking Irish Coffee. :)
Happy New Year my friend.
Moe Blotz| 12.29.11 @ 12:31PM
Maybe just an OD of Arabica. (_!_)
Al Adab| 12.29.11 @ 12:37PM
Good advice there gentlemen. I shall try to do better.
Happy New Year. May it deliver a rebirth of freedom and much opportunity for all.
W| 12.29.11 @ 4:32PM
Al Adab
Try some sambucca romanno in your coffee. Better for you in the long run than the vote of those yokels in Iowa.
loulou| 12.29.11 @ 1:03PM
Right, why let a "progressive" state decide anything? Let them decide the Democrat nominee but not ours!
ThePaganTemple | 12.29.11 @ 12:55PM
Well, if that happened we'd damn sure all be stunned speechless, which would be appropriate, wouldn't it?
Oldefarte| 12.29.11 @ 11:38AM
'..... Only One Candidate Is Right On The Two Most Important Issues by Ann Coulter (more by this author)Posted 12/28/2011 ETUpdated 12/28/2011 ETIn the upcoming presidential election, two issues are more important than any others: repealing Obamacare and halting illegal immigration. If we fail at either one, the country will be changed permanently.Taxes can be raised and lowered. Regulations can be removed (though they rarely are). Attorneys general and Cabinet members can be fired. Laws can be repealed. Even Supreme Court justices eventually die.But capitulate on illegal immigration, and the entire country will have the electorate of California. There will be no turning back.Similarly, if Obamacare isn't repealed in the next few years, it never will be.America will begin its ineluctable descent into becoming a worthless Western European country, with rotten health care, no money for defense and ever-increasing federal taxes to support the nanny state.So let's consider which of the Republican candidates are most likely to succeed at these objectives.In order to allow Democrats to indignantly denounce Republicans who said Obamacare would add to the deficit, the bill was structured so that no goodies get paid out immediately. That way, when the Congressional Budget Office was asked to determine if Obamacare was "revenue neutral" over its first 10 years, government accountants were looking at a bill that collected taxes for 10 years, but only distributed treats in the later years.Starting at year 11, those accountants will be in for a big surprise when the government starts paying out Obamacare benefits without interruption.Because of this accounting fraud, Obamacare can still be repealed. But as soon as all Americans have been thrown off their employer-provided insurance plans and are forced to start depending on the government for health care, Republicans will never be able to repeal it.The vast complex of unionized government workers managing our health care from Washington will fight to keep their jobs (for more on this topic, see the Department of Education), voters will want their "free" government treats (for more on this topic, see Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security) -- and even if they don't, there won't be a private insurance market for them to go back to (for more on this topic, see IRS rules favoring employer-provided health care).The only way to stop Obamacare is to beat Obama in 2012, and repeal it before the health care Leviathan is born.Otherwise, starting in 2016, Republicans will run for office promising only to improve Obamacare. Newt Gingrich will be calling plans to reform it "right-wing social engineering."All current Republican presidential candidates say they will overturn Obamacare. The question for Republican primary voters should be: Who is most likely to win?2012 is not a year for a wild card. It's not a year for any candidate who will end up being the issue, instead of making Obama the issue. It's not a year for one wing of the Republican Party to be making a point with another wing. (And there are no Rockefeller Republicans left, anyway.) It's not a year to be gambling that America will vote for its first woman president, or that the country is ready for a nut-bar libertarian.Running against an incumbent president in a make-or-break election, Republicans need a candidate with a track record of winning elections with voters similar to the entire American electorate.Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich have never had to win votes beyond small, majority-Republican congressional districts.Jon Huntsman, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum have won statewide elections, but Huntsman and Perry ran in extremely red states that don't resemble the American electorate.Only Romney and Santorum have won a statewide election in a blue state, making them our surest-bets in a general election.But if Santorum wins, we lose on the second most important issue -- illegal immigration -- and he'll be the last Republican ever to win a general election in America.Just as Americans ought to be able to learn the perils of a welfare state by looking at Greece, we ought to be able to learn the perils of illegal immigration by looking at California.Massive legal and illegal immigration has already so changed the California electorate that no Republican can be elected statewide anymore. Not so long ago, this was a state that produced great Republican governors and senators like Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, S.I. Hayakawa and Pete Wilson.If even Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman, two bright, attractive, successful female business executives -- one pro-life and one pro-choice -- can't win a statewide election in California spending millions of their own dollars in the middle of the 2010 Republican sweep, it's buenas noches, muchachos.And yet, almost all Republican presidential candidates support some form of amnesty for illegals in order to appeal to the business lobby.Among the most effective measures against illegal immigration is E-Verify, the Homeland Security program that gives employers the ability to instantly confirm that their employees' Social Security numbers are legitimate. It is more than 99 percent accurate, and no employee is denied a job without an opportunity to challenge the records.Although wildly popular with Americans -- including Hispanic Americans -- the business lobby hates E-Verify. Employers like hiring non-Americans because they can pay illegal aliens less and ignore state and federal employment laws.Any candidate who opposes E-Verify is not serious about illegal immigration. If anything, E-Verify ought to be made mandatory to get a job, to get welfare and to vote.Kowtowing to business (while pretending to kowtow to Hispanics), Paul, Perry and Santorum oppose E-Verify. As a senator, Rick Santorum voted against even the voluntary use of E-Verify.Jon Huntsman claims to support E-Verify, but also wants to give illegals amnesty as soon as the border is sealed -- as determined by someone other than us. Also, he gave driver's identification cards to illegal aliens in Utah. (You'd think a guy no one has ever heard of would be more careful about ID cards.)Following his latest guru, Helen Krieble, Newt Gingrich is for amnesty, combined with second-class status for illegals. Instead of giving illegal aliens green cards, Newt proposes giving them "red cards" so they can stay, take American jobs, have children, receive welfare benefits, attend public schools -- and eventually be granted amnesty. The Republican primaries will be over before most voters realize what Newt's "red card" scheme entails.Only Michele Bachmann and Mitt Romney aren't trying to sneak through amnesty for illegal aliens. Both support E-Verify.Numbers USA, one of the leading groups opposed to our current insane immigration policies, gives Republican presidential candidates the following grades on immigration: Paul, F; Gingrich, D-minus; Huntsman, D-minus; Santorum, D-minus; Perry, D; Romney, C-minus; and Bachmann, B-minus.And that was before Romney said last week that Obama's drunk-driving, illegal alien uncle should be deported!That leaves us with Romney and Bachmann as the candidates with the strongest, most conservative positions on illegal immigration. As wonderful as Michele Bachmann is, 2012 isn't the year to be trying to make a congresswoman the first woman president.Two Little Indians sitting in the sun; one was just a congresswoman and then there was one.....'
ThePaganTemple | 12.29.11 @ 1:03PM
If Michelle's only good position was illegal immigration I might be inclined to agree, unfortunately she's on average better on every important position than Mitt the RINO. Plus, she's more knowledgeable than Mitt on current issues. She's been in the loop on the Intelligence Committee and is knowledgeable in all relevant areas. I'll take that over a seat in a Wall Street boardroom any day.
Occam's Tool| 12.29.11 @ 5:08PM
TPT: Again, correct. I hate how that magnificent woman has been betrayed...
loulou| 12.29.11 @ 1:04PM
Sorry, but Ann has made herself irrelevant. She's just a Kathleen Parker with brains.
No one cares what Ann says anymore and no one will buy her next book.
Occam's Tool| 12.29.11 @ 5:08PM
Oldefarte:
Magnificent pundit, please paragraph....
BackToBasics| 12.29.11 @ 12:09PM
Oh yeah, on the eve of the Iowa caucus, Romney "unexpectedly" is 6 points ahead of Obam. Iowa voters, don't let The Republican Establishment sway your votes away from more conservative candidates.
ThePaganTemple | 12.29.11 @ 1:05PM
Relax its just a USA Today Gallup Poll, about as reliable as, well, a CNN Time Poll
BackToBasics| 12.29.11 @ 2:30PM
I think you are a Romney supporter or a Democrat who wants a weathervane like Romney to get the nomination, hoping he will turn into a progressive if he wins.
Al Adab| 12.29.11 @ 4:44PM
Follow the link, it will tell you what you want to know.
BackToBasics| 12.29.11 @ 10:06PM
I'll pass. I already know.
ThePaganTemple | 12.29.11 @ 11:28PM
Oh yeah? Well I think you are a fucking idiot. I'm a Bachmann supporter, cocksucker. Anything else you want to say?
TommyFrisco| 12.29.11 @ 2:14PM
Yeah, and they think we can't tell what they're doing. After New Hampshire, they'll be telling us the race is essentially over and we can all go home.
I think I'll stick around and see what happens in South Carolina and Florida.
BackToBasics| 12.29.11 @ 10:03PM
The same for me. If the left and establishment didn't think such polls were effective they wouldn't do them.
martin j smith| 12.29.11 @ 3:20PM
Stick around indeed because Iowa is not representative of the nation and there are infiltrators which will influence the caucus votes to the extent that it will be invalid. That is my very strong hunch.
TommyFrisco| 12.29.11 @ 4:06PM
Infiltrators? Like maybe there will be Libs voting for the Libertarian?
SCPOret| 12.29.11 @ 4:16PM
No matter the subject of a column, if it doesn't praise Ron Paul, the PAULBOTS come out to rave about how wonderful he is being an antiwar candidate. Don't get me wrong. I am against war. Having served for 28 years in the military I can tell you that the military is antiwar in 99% of the cases. We feel that way because we have witnessed first hand it's horrors.
Also do not make the mistake to think that I am against Ron Paul as a congressman. I have lived/voted in his district all my life. He has fine domestic policies whole heartedly, but his foriegn policies suck!!
Failing to recogonize that there are people who want to do us harm when we have not done them harm is isolationist.
If them wanting to attack us is because of our "aggression", how does Paul explain Tripoli and the Barbary Pirates of the early 1800's.
Why does he think it's OK for Iran to become a nuke power whe they have stated emphatically if the get it they will use it.
Ron Paul - nice congressman but not a good president.
I await "The attack of the PAULBOTS. (That would make a nice horror movie title.)
Naturalborn Texicanette| 12.29.11 @ 10:38PM
Rick Perry is my man. And I wouldn't count him out just yet.
A year is a long time in politics.....I just pray that people will learn enough about him and his accomplishments to see that he is the top choice as far as experience, ability, and the desire to undo all the damage the Obozo admin has inflicted on the U.S.
I am encouraged that he is finally getting his message out, and I hope people will listen.
By the way, does anyone get frustrated when articles with lots of posts are often copied on top of each other and then rendered unreadable???
ThePaganTemple | 12.30.11 @ 8:55AM
It would be a lot easier to learn about him if he could tell us about himself out of his own mouth without stumbling over his words. If he could just do that, learn to talk in a clear concise manner and not come off like some hayseed that just fell off the turnip truck I might even prefer him over Bachmann, though with some reservations. But I'm sorry, the guy is just a hot mess.
POST American| 12.29.11 @ 10:45PM
-----AS Globalist media is, in so any words,
announcing the advent of world government,
and the end of 'troublesome democracy'
---------AS the same media is basically declaring
radiation 'safe', even beneficial, as the FUKISHIMA
fallout crisis is ignored
--------------AS the Globalist-RED China
world TREASON and EUGENICS OP finishes
us off
------------------------ENJOY the CAMP--PAIN!
Steve| 1.2.12 @ 10:05AM
It's a long shot, I admit, but I hope he gets the nomination. I think he would run an excellent and powerful campaign by sticking to the issues and holding Barack Hussein Obama's feet to the fire. The others in the GOP lineup typically pull their punches. Santorum goes for the jugular.