The American Spectator : The Show Me State's No Show Primary

Text Size

Campaign Crawlers

The Show Me State’s No Show Primary

They called a Missouri election for last Tuesday — and no one came. (No offense intended, Sen. Santorum.)

ST. LOUIS — Missouri lawmakers are feeling embarrassed. And well they should be. The representatives of the Show-Me State were shown up as knaves (worthy of foolscaps) when they called a statewide election and nobody came.

Or very few did. The state’s 454 polling places were empty for hours at a time as less than eight percent of the state’s registered voters showed up to vote in the state’s presidential primary elections on Tuesday, Feb. 7.

In this case, the fault lies not with the voters — for failing to exercise their civic duty — but with the legislators, for refusing to call off a meaningless election.

In going ahead with a “non-binding” election that was empty of any real purpose, Missouri lawmakers on both sides of the aisle knowingly and shamelessly put taxpayers money to waste — treating the $7 million cost as a mere trifle.

“In the 10 years I’ve been here, this is the dumbest thing I’ve seen the legislature do,” Missouri Senator Kevin Engler (Rep., district 3) told me. “We spent $7 million — or just about $25 a vote — in an election in which not even one out every 12 people voted. This is an election that did absolutely nothing — while we as a state are firing hundreds of people in trying to cut a half a billion dollar budget deficit.”

This is how it happened.

Last year, the state Republican Party hoped to steal a march on other states in moving the state’s presidential primary to an early date. It hoped thereby to command greater national attention. But the national party foiled the plan. It passed new rules to punish states trying to hold early primary elections — refusing to recognize the results in seating delegates to the national convention August 27-30 in Tampa Bay, Florida.

Recognizing the problem, the Republican-controlled Legislature approved a measure last spring that would have reset the primary to a later date and made it binding. On unrelated grounds, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed the larger legislation that contained the new primary date. Another effort to reset the primary date failed in a special session of the legislature in September and October.

However, even after the state Republican Party decided to hold a March 17 caucus to determine the state’s delegates to the national convention, some Republicans in the Senate continued to trumpet the peoples “right to vote” in the now devalued primary, even though the practical effect of the vote would be slim-to-zero.

Sen. Engler described the money and effort wasted on the primary as “a bi-partisan failure” which could have been avoided if elected officials of both parties had been less cavalier about wasting taxpayers’ money. He noted that all eight of the Democrats in the Missouri Senate joined Republicans in voting to continue to have the primary election in February.

On a personal note, I did vote on Feb. 7 — but only out of curiosity. I went to my polling place in St. Louis’s Central West End at 5 p.m. There were eight other people there at the time — all of them polling workers. I was the only voter.

But even if he didn’t win a single delegate, what of the fact that Rick Santorum won what might seem to be a smashing victory in the Missouri primary — winning 55 percent of the vote? The online Wall Street Journal was sufficiently impressed to write a headline declaring: “Santorum GOP Stunner in Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado.”

No doubt Santorum did get a little push out of the Missouri election. But 55 percent of little less than eight percent (of registered voters) is just four percent. Moreover, Santorum was the only one of the Republican candidates who bothered to campaign in Missouri. Mitt Romney didn’t even pay a visit and Newt Gingrich wasn’t on the ballot. According to political analysts at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the anyone-but-Romney Republican candidate who is most likely to come up strong in the Missouri caucus on March 17 is Ron Paul — owing to the greater energy and support that he will receive from a core group of dedicated supporters in the more intimate (i.e. closed) setting of a caucus campaign.

This much is certain: An overwhelming majority of Missourians voted with their feet in paying no heed to a meaningless election. And if there is any further lesson to be drawn, it may be this: If the Political Class is so careless in spending millions of dollars of your money, can you trust them in spending billions, or even trillions?

About the Author

Andrew B. Wilson, a frequent contributor to The American Spectator, writes from St. Louis.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (67) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.10.12 @ 6:30AM

The political class can't and shouldn't be trusted with even a penny.

aware| 2.10.12 @ 6:50AM

The most successful criminal gang in history.

Jack in Wi.| 2.10.12 @ 8:04AM

The Republican primaries are getting a pathetic vote turnout. It is a bad sign for the November elections.

Fred Farkel| 2.12.12 @ 8:41AM

Democrat turnout is even worse, JO

Dave | 2.10.12 @ 10:13AM

Putting Missouri's voter turn out aside, there's still a very long row to hoe, and it seems to be getting near time to begin directing attentions on the November prize. Or in this case ... the primary objective.

As a card carrying adult of many years, my hope, especially for this weekend's CPAC convention in D.C., is that the focus of why they're gathering will be directed at the fall target, Barack Obama, and not on each other in what, lately, has developed the appearance of a circular firing squad. Or maybe the back seat of an SUV. The only question I'd really like answered from each of the candidate's supporters is - "What exactly does your guy bring to the table that can put a flat tire in Barack Obama's re-election bus?" And to the candidate(s) themselves: "Why do YOU deserve my vote? Over the last several weeks, the individual campaigns have taken on the sound and image of back seat full of five year olds, all whining the same excuses five year olds ALL tend to shout:

- MITT DID IT!

- I did NOT. It was NEWT!

- Nuh, uhh! It was RICK!

- MOM, Pauly's LOOKIN' at me ... MAKE 'EM STOP IT!

To be honest, there're times along the highway when I'm tempted to slam the car to a halt, and dump 'em all out on the side of the road. Of course I wouldn't actually do that. More likely I'd end up whirling around with a pointed finger and yell - "DON'T MAKE ME COME BACK THERE! Unfortunately, Mitt, Newt, Rick and Ronnie aren't actually in my back seat. But I hope they get the message.

This isn't rocket science, kids. And it certainly shouldn't be the ongoing sniveling match its developed into. So to the Romney's, Santorum's, Newt's and Paul's: Start directing your aim at Barack Obama. As it is now, you're standing on your last unwounded foot.

Mike Hawk.| 2.10.12 @ 6:45AM

The turnout was not unique in a primary. Unfortunately it is all too normal evidenced by your going to vote out of curiousity and not as your civic duty and responsibility. BTW try to find another way to poo-poo the result. It is obvious you don't much like Rick Santorum.

GOP Follies| 2.10.12 @ 2:45PM

Also, I would loudly opine: How many people have soured to the whole process due to stories like Herman Cain, Rick Perry, and Michelle Bachmann? Even Tim Pawlenty.

All candidates that bailed out long before we ever got to any voting.

My take: People are incredibly SOUR on the whole process because we were down to just these last 4 candidates before South Carolina voted. I mean, Rick Perry and John Huntsman do a live, televised to the nation South Carolina Saturday night debate in Myrtle Beach and then "pooof!" Huntsman is gone the NEXT day, Perry is gone 72 hours later.

That smacks of FRAUD.

That leaves everyone scratching their heads.

And it cannot be overstated: The Cain factor. He damaged this process and the party in a very, very big way. People got behind him, people wanted to listen to him, people wanted to cheer for him and learn more. People were excited to be able to show real excitement for a man of color that would put to end the false allegations of GOP biases. And what did the people get for their troubles?

Do any of these candidates who bail out mail back the donation money checks they received? This would alienate me in a heartbeat. Donate money because the candidate makes a big appeal, okay, send it in, OOOoopps! two weeks later he's back on the block as just a mister like everybody else.

Also this: People see that Sarah Palin has time to be the CPAC headline speaker, do this engagement, be on Fox at least twice per week, and probably do other media, event, speaking engagment things that I don't know about. Yet she wouldn't run.

People are tired of noncommittal, uncommitted, and, yes, uninspiring (due to character, forget the good looks a la Romney) would-be candidates.

So of course voter turnout will be LOW in Missouri and EVERYWHERE else. It matches the confidence that people have in this zany process and their confidence in the tin men still in the race.

Get it? The people are telling the nation that we think this primary process BUNK.

calvin | 2.10.12 @ 7:39AM

An opportunity to voice one's opinion peacefully is a thing of beauty and a joy forever.
People who don't vote have no right to complain.

donserge| 2.10.12 @ 8:10AM

This article smacks of sour grapes from the Romney camp which was supposed to win in Missouri. The same attitude showed itself when , after he lost Iowa, Romney said that state didn't matter much either.

Dai Alanye | 2.10.12 @ 10:51AM

Almost a quarter-million Republicans showed up for an election that "didn't count." Sounds like a powerful protest at the very least, and it "counted" plenty for Rick Santorum, who took the trouble to respect Missouri voters, and was thereby rewarded with a stunning win.

Yes, it was "only a popularity contest," but so is a presidential election to some extent. Santorum's opponents realize this and are therefore doing their best to downplay the results.

Von Mises Jr.| 2.10.12 @ 8:13AM

MS, MN and CO all had very low turnout. The significance is that the GOP and RNC cannot muster a lick of support for Romney outside the Beltway or Wall Street. But the protest vote was there!
And I pray that it will be there big time in November, regardless of who the nominee is. The great Tony Blankley once commented to me in an email exchange something that is applicable to the GOP: They couldn't get lucky in a brothel.

JJ| 2.11.12 @ 9:31PM

If Santorum got 4 percent, what did Romney get 2 percent. How desperate these guys are to try to tell us that Romney is still the front-runner. They even have 50 delegates in the Romney camp from Florida. We know that it will be 25 since it must be pro-rated.

POST American| 2.10.12 @ 9:17AM

---Nice '90's Show' sideshow.

Meanwhile, just now, we learn Missouri
is also 'quietly' hosting a sprawling FEMA
training facility in which MPs are being
trained by foreigners (---from guess where?)
to man and operate MASS internment camps.

Elsewhere, just days after sitting justice
Ginzburg committed HIGH TREASON
by dissing the US Constitution while
visiting the capstone Mecca itself
----'E--jipped' ------scarcely a PEEP
from our Rockefeller staffed/Bill Gates --OWNED-- media.

"Adams and Washington got wise to
the ILLUMINATI. They were kicked out
by 1800 ---but snuck back in through the
China opium family funded Yale secret
societies by 1832."
-ALEX JONES

AGAIN, we're dealing with TROJAN HORSE
TREASON of the absolutely HIGHEST ORDER.

"The Globalists KNOW what they're doing,
and what they've done is criminal ----AND
they know the 'ITs' are getting wise.
Hence, they're pre-emptively criminalizing
the people themselves ---here ---everywhere."

--AS we consider latest reports FAA funding
63 BILLION dollars of US taxpayer money
to set some 30,000 surveillance drones in
our skies over the next decade --there can be no mistake--

----------THE REPUBLIC HAS FALLEN-----------

"When your time comes
---------WHAT WILL YOU DO?"
-'IKIRU'
(Kurosawa's 1952 movie)

1952, the year we saved ---some--- of little
Korea from the MAOIST Halocaust.

A very good year for movies and other things.

NOW -------------------OUR TIME HAS COME

Mike Hawk| 2.10.12 @ 9:28AM

Full moon this week folks, can you tell??

Petronius| 2.10.12 @ 9:23AM

The Republican Party Chair's declaration making the presidential primary nonbinding was nothing but a display of contempt for Conservative voters in Missouri. Our votes are our declaration that We are not going away.

Moe Blotz| 2.10.12 @ 9:23AM

Did Christopher Orlet return in time from his knob tour to vote?

rnd| 2.10.12 @ 2:26PM

No, he's still using his Stanley tools to repair the jacuzzi in the second room. He's also still waiting on that pool temperature to be adjusted.

Bill| 2.10.12 @ 10:20AM

Gingricg VS Santorum:
Gingrich's advantage:
1. southern heritage
2. great debater who is passionate and wise
3. leadership
4. SC
5. bold plan on monetary policy
weakness:
1. marriage life
2. flawed "southern strategy"
3. terrible campaigner
Santorum's advantage:
1. much better alternative than Gingrich to the non-Romney voters
2. great campaigner
3. born in PA, a swing state
4. social conservative
5. IA, MO, MN, CO.........................
6. posing a "present and clear threat" to Romney
weakness:
1. angry and substantive debater
2. no tax plan, no regulatory reform plan
3. lost his senate bid by 18 points in 2006
Santorum was benefited for the fact that Gingrich was not on the ballot in MO, and also the mud-wrestling between Gingrich and Romney, no punches were thrown to Santorum until his triumph in MO, CO, and MN. Gingrich managed to win SC, but had no clue to the barrage of negative ads aired against him by Romney, and lost FL. Now, this is a 3-way match.
Gingrich will prevail because he is invincible.
Santorum is a pro-union guy, and Romneycare is killing Romney.

Dai Alanye | 2.10.12 @ 1:16PM

1. So Santorum is a "substantive debater," eh? True, dat. He debates policies rather than personalities.
2. Santorum has a tax plan consisting of (among other things) a moderate reduction in personal income taxes, a major reduction in corporate income taxes, and the elimination of corporate income taxes for manufacturers.
3. After winning four uphill contests in Pennsy, Santorum lost in 2006 by 18 points. In 2012, on the other hand, he has won four states, and leads the polls in Pennsylvania.

I don't know whether to move to Michigan to vote for him, or to wait and add to his victory in Ohio.

Bill| 2.10.12 @ 2:15PM

Between Romney and Santorum, I pick Santorum.
Between Gingrich and Santorum, I pick Gingrich.
Between Romney and Gingrich, I pick Gingrich.

aware| 2.11.12 @ 7:43AM

Crap can be arraigned any way you want but it still is crap.

JJ| 2.11.12 @ 9:35PM

We have had to deal with crap for 3 years now. We will clean the crap out of DC.

ronlsb | 2.10.12 @ 11:34AM

Another Romney supporter trying to explain how his man could get stomped so badly and have it mean nothing. Romney wins Nevada with about 25,000 votes and its a big deal. Santorum wins Missourt with about 135,000 votes and it is meaningless. It's amazing how these guys try to spin the news to denigrate the opponents of their boy Mitt. Some of us, fortunately, are paying attention and it is obvious conservatives don't like Romney and will not tolerate him as our nominee!!

GOP Follies| 2.10.12 @ 2:24PM

This is why this whole process is buffoonery and leaves everyone scratching one's head trying to figure out what matters and what does not.

Here I was -- up until 12 minutes ago -- thinking that the Missouri result was a real big boost for Rick Santorum. Sure, it's a win and still a win by a sizable margin....but ....

LET'S NOT FORGET HOWEVER:
When Gallop and Rassummussen and the Michigan St. University types do their allegedly Super-duper-Unquestionable polling, they only poll (at most) 1,500 people ---- AND then pronounce to the world who the next U.S. President will be -- with a 96.8% certainty.

So, in light of that, the Missouri result is still significant.

We really need to revamp the whole system.

This is stupid. Open primaries, closed primaries, caucuses, non-binding ___________, states like Florida where only half the delegates will be allowed as they "cheated" by bumping themselves up on the calendar.......

It is a circus of a way to choose the Leader of the Free World. It is BANANAS. And a dumbed down media failing to share the details on these vote dates informing a dumbed-down populace ensures we'll get a, yes, you know it dumbed-down candidate/president (e.g. the current occupier of the White House).

Bill| 2.10.12 @ 2:51PM

GOP WINNING TEAM:
President: Rick Santorum/ Newt Gingrich
VP: Mitch Daniel
AG: Rudy Giuliani
Treasury: Paul Ryan
Secretary of State: Michelle Bachmann
DHS: Joe Arpaio
Defense: Aleen West
quite invincible!

Roger| 2.10.12 @ 3:02PM

Does anyone really think Rick Santorum is going to be the GOP nominee? Or Newt? They aren't even on the ballot in numerous states.
Besides,what will people think of Santorum when they find out he wasn't even a resident of PA when he was a senator? Or that he was defrauding the taxpayers of PA while his rich family were homeschooling his kids? Or that he was a lawyer for the WWF arguing for steroid use?

Mike Hawk| 2.10.12 @ 3:34PM

He was a PA resident. If you were a PA voter you would know better, so STFU. Where are you from Massachussetts? Teddy the Hut was a McClean VA resident, but represented MA.

Bill| 2.10.12 @ 4:04PM

Obama was born in Indonesia, and became POTUS!

Bill| 2.10.12 @ 3:34PM

My picks:
1. Gingrich
2. Santorum
3. Romney

David| 2.10.12 @ 4:05PM

Roger, you are a flippin' moron. Get your facts straight idiot.

David| 2.10.12 @ 4:08PM

It seems to me that when anyone other than Romney wins a state, it is not important/significant. A bunch of uneducated voted for Newt in SC, so that didn't matter. Iowa didn't matter because Santorum won, and now, after winning 3 more states, those don't matter either.

All the pundits and media types seem to be in the tank for Romney.

HH| 2.10.12 @ 5:29PM

David and Elle, I agree. If Romney does less than expected or even worse, out come the EXCUSES that range from what a 6th Grader would offer to cries of low voter turnout.

Did this same author write about the abysmally low voter turnout in Nevada? Can anyone find that article from Mr. Wilson? (I'm not just picking on Mr. Wilson. He's in good company with our left-leaning media, writers, and assembled punditry that always knows better than you or me.)

Elle| 2.10.12 @ 5:05PM

David- In just a few words you got it exactly right!

Roger| 2.10.12 @ 5:38PM

I'm no Romney defender. He is terrible. Just saying Santorum is no good either. Unless you really liked his intrusion into a private,personal matter,ie Terry Schiavo. Or are obsessed with gays and abortion. He is also a panderer to unions and an earmarker. But that's ok cause he worships the virgin Mary.

David| 2.10.12 @ 7:25PM

Santorum will provide the greatest contrast with Bam Bam.

Roger, I am no Catholic; Santorum is, but I can look past that. Many of the most conversative people we all like are or were (in the case of Bill Buckley) Catholic.

Remember, Newt, Mitt, and Barack all hold the following positions.

They believe in man-caused global warming baloney, and the regulations and restrictions that have resulted from such thinking. Santorum does not.

They supported the Wall Street bailouts. Santorum did not.

They support and/or supported individual mandates for health insurance. Santorum never has.

They all criticized Paul Ryan's plan to get our fiscal house in order. Santorum embraced it.

Santorum is of the opinion that ILLEGAL immigrants have not broken ONE law (by crossing the border) as many claim, but that they have continually been breaking America's laws by working here, driving here, etc., and should NOT be rewarded for doing so.

Santorum cannot be accused of being a flip-flopper.

Santorum cannot be accused of telling people what they want to hear.

Santorum cannot be accused of stating his positions based on the particular audience in front of him at the time.

It is clear that Santorum has been the adult in this race. His criticisms have been on the other candidates' records and he does not distort or misrepresent their records as they do to one another.

It is also clear that he has been the true, principled, consistent conservative his entire politcal career.

Roger| 2.10.12 @ 7:55PM

Santorum wasn't in congress when the wall street bailouts happened. Easy to say he would have voted against them. If he were in the senate,I bet he would have voted for them though,as was in the leadership when he was ousted.

Bill| 2.10.12 @ 8:22PM

Santorum's problems:
voted for
1. raising debt ceiling 8 times
2. Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage
voted against
3. Right-to-Work law
When Santorum talks, he looks like he's doing the SNL opening monologue, has no bold ideas-many borrowed ones. I'll take Gingrich.

David| 2.10.12 @ 8:48PM

Helloooooo Roger, neither were Mitt and Newt in congress when the bailouts were voted on, but THEY ALL took very public positions on the issue. Mitt and Newt supported the bailouts and Santorum was against them.

You really do argue like a child to say that Santorum "wasn't in Congress at the time". Do you mean to tell us that you didn't know Mitt and Newt weren't in Congress? Did you think they were?

Fair enough, we can't know for certain that had he been in Congress he would have done what he said. What we do know is that Mitt and Newt supported the bailouts. Further, I happen to put much more stock in what Santorum tells us than what Mitt and Newt say. For the childlike mind, that means I trust Santorum and do not trust Mitt and Newt.

Clint| 2.10.12 @ 8:58PM

Big Government Ricky Santorum's Record On Voting For Earmarks, Even The Bridge To Nowhere, His Support For The Lobbyist "K-Street Project" , His Tariff Votes, Medicare Prescription Drugs, No Child Left Behind, Etc. Will Sink Him With Tea Party Patriots.

However, He's A Useful Dupe For Keeping Delegates Away From The Other RINO-CINO Frontman, Mittens Romney.

The Tea Party Heads To A Brokered Convention.

Fred Farkel| 2.11.12 @ 2:44PM

Romney/ Paul, that's the winning ticket! Moderate / Libertarian, we don't need no flipping Conservatives. Mush you dogs!

JJ| 2.11.12 @ 9:32PM

So you are saying Paul has no integrity and would support Romney?

Fred Farkel| 2.12.12 @ 8:44AM

They are good buds, haven't you been reading the 'news'?? Drives the Paulbots nuts.

David| 2.10.12 @ 8:52PM

Helloooo Bill, how many times did Newt vote to increase the debt ceiling when in Congress? I'll bet it will be at least as many times as Santorum. In fact, voting for its increase NEVER became and issue until this most recent time.

How old are you anyway? Did you just get involved with politics a short time ago? You sure don't say things like you know many historical facts - even RECENT historical facts.

Clint| 2.10.12 @ 8:54PM

" As a Senator, Rick Santorum supported the Medicare Prescription Drug benefit known as Medicare Part D. He voted for the plan and ran television commercials noting that support."

" Santorum collected fat board payments fom Universal, the King of Prussia mental-health and community hospital chain which makes most of its money from taxpayers via Medicare and Medicaid, even as he claims to oppose more taxpayer subsidies for healthcare."

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

Fred Farkel| 2.11.12 @ 2:45PM

Romney/ Paul, that's the winning ticket! Moderate / Libertarian, we don't need no flipping Conservatives. Mush you dogs!

David| 2.10.12 @ 8:59PM

In June of 1997, the House passed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. This legislation included an increase in the debt ceiling to $5.95 trillion and a line item veto for the President which was later ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The measure initially passed the House in roll call 241, and it's final passage was in roll call 345 346-85. Newt Gingrich voted in favor of this legislation, which included an increase in the debt ceiling to $5.95 trillion.

Newt Gingrich voted in favor of this legislation, which included an increase in the debt ceiling to $5.95 trillion.
TO PROVIDE FOR A TEMPORARY INCREASE IN THE PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT

On August 3, 1990, the House voted to temporarily raise the debt limit to $3,195,000,000,000. The measure succeeded 247-172. Newt Gingrich voted in favor of increasing the debt limit.

Newt Gingrich voted in favor of increasing the debt limit.

Bill| 2.10.12 @ 10:16PM

Santorum voted for raising debt ceiling 8 times.

Clint| 2.10.12 @ 9:02PM

We're The Pennsylvania Gun & Bible Clutchin' Conservatives, Who Helped Throw Little Ricky's Ass Out Of The Senate, After He Stepped In The Last Weeks And Propped Up The RINO-CINO Poster Boy,Arlen Specter Against Our Republican Primary Guy, Pat Toomey.

Now, Little Ricky And Specter Have Been Chased Away And Our Tea Party Senator, Pat Toomey Is In.

If Little Ricky Comes Back To Pennsylvania,We'll Throw His Big Government Israel Firster Ass Out Again,

Make Our Day Little Ricky.

Dick Nome| 2.11.12 @ 8:31AM

So Clod, who is your candidate this year in the Senate primary. There is one you know. You like Welsh?? There are no crackpots running or are there??

Clint| 2.12.12 @ 11:08AM

Do Your Homework.

We Tea Party Patriots Are Vetting Candidates And Placing Delegates.

Tim Burns
David Christian
Sam Rohrer
Marc Scaringi
Steve Welch
Robert Allen Mansfield
Tom Smith
John Kensinger (R)

The Tea Party Heads To A Brokered Convention.

Mike Hawk| 2.12.12 @ 8:47AM

Thanks you Jerkoff. I guess you prefer Bob (with one o) Casey, who has been MIA for 5 years. Your hatred for Rick Santorum is pathologic.

Clint| 2.12.12 @ 11:01AM

Your Hatred Of Dr. Ron Paul Is Sociopathic Psychotic, Little Micky.

Can Ya Say Dave Christian ?

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

David| 2.10.12 @ 9:29PM

We will see, Clint.

I know you support Paul. I wonder how you and his other supporters feel about his claim that he never voted for an earmark for his district?

Do you know that he proposes as many earmarks for his district as any other congress person? Do you know that when those proposals come up for a vote, he votes against (KNOWING THEY WILL PASS) them so he can stand before an UNINFORMED electorate and say that he never voted for an earmark for his district?

Yes sir, that is the kind of honorable, straight-shooter that we need as president - huh?

Clint| 2.12.12 @ 11:12AM

Dr.Ron Paul,
" I have never voted for an earmark. I voted against all appropriation bills, except for Veterans. So, this whole thing about earmarks is totally misunderstood.
Earmarks is the responsibility of the Congress.
If you cut off all the earmarks, it would be 1 percent of the budget. But, if you vote against all the earmarks, you don't cut one penny. That is what you have to listen to. We're talking about who has the responsibility, the Congress or the executive branch?

I'm saying, get it out of the hands of the executive branch. Just listen again about what I have said about the TARP funds. We needed to earmark every penny. Now we gave them $350 billion, no earmarks, and nobody knows..."

Dr.Ron Paul Gets It About Earmarks & Congress Having It's Responsibility Usurped By The Executive Branch.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To a Brokered Convention.

POST American| 2.10.12 @ 9:57PM

---------------------FINAL WORD-----------------------

-9 decades of CAPSTONE subversion

---Deliberate cultural DEGRADATION

----RED China handover and sellout

-------TREASON

----------GLOBALISM

-----------FINAL EUGENICS

"--Did you just hear me?
-------THIS IS TREASON."
-ALEX JONES

IT IS

----------------OUR TIME HAS COME-----------------

Roger| 2.11.12 @ 9:57AM

David-Just saying it is very easy for St.Rick to say he would have voted against them when he wasn't in congress. Given his record of doing whatever Bush wanted I doubt he would have opposed him.Plus he was in the leadership under the legendary Bill Frist when he was retired.
LEt me also say for the record that all three of these individuals are awful. Romney is terrible,I do not have to count the ways. Newt is a disgrace and a huckster. Santorum is a fraud. He cheated the taxpayers of his state. He is a scold. St.Rick also supports a Personhood amendment,something so odd it couldn't even pass in Mississippi. His actions during Terri Schiavo were a disgrace.Not to mention his opposition to right to work,free trade,his earmarks,prescription drugs. I could go on.
Ron Paul isn't great,but he looks good compared to these trainwrecks.

David| 2.11.12 @ 10:30AM

Come on, Schaivo was a unique case. The f_cking husband wanted her dead and we had no idea how she came to be in a coma in the first place. You ever heard of getting rid of the witness.

Now, would you suggest that we starve to death a death row inmate rather then put them to sleep? Wouldn't that be cruel and unusual punishment? But it's okay for an innocent woman - huh?

Wow!!!

Roger| 2.11.12 @ 11:30AM

David-The government had no business involving themselves in this. Little wonder in his book he totally trashes Goldwater and "leave us alone"conservatism.

David| 2.11.12 @ 1:46PM

Roger, I asked a couple of questions regarding death row inmates that you failed to answer.

Roger| 2.11.12 @ 2:39PM

Terri Schiavo was a vegetable. Her husband was the one who had the right/responsibility to make the decision.
As for death row inmates,I could care less. But no I wouldn't starve them. I'd feed them gruel and saltwater.

JJ| 2.11.12 @ 9:33PM

She was not a vegetable, she was a person. A person who was starved to death.

xman12stlouis| 2.11.12 @ 3:37PM

i too experienced the writer's sense of abandonment at my polling place, not far west of his, just a zip code over...however, for what it was worth, i never miss an election of any sort and haven't for the past 40 years since i turned 21...thinking of those pitchforked farmers takinng on great britain's redcoats; gasified doughboys lying on top of one another in french trenches; burning sailors in the bowels of the uss arizona; and starved pow's at the hands of the n vietnamese has a way of helping me trudge all the way up the block, to flash a driver's license, and pull a lever or 2 without much complaint...not vote?...are you crazy?...100 people will probably die on the streets in syria this weekend, most of whom only want to upset the status quo of a brutal dictatorship...

Garfield| 2.11.12 @ 3:48PM

I'm going to point out that Gingrich could probably beat Obama.

Remember Barack H. Obama has baggage too, and attacking Gingrich on his consulting work for example, would probably backfire in a spectacular fashion.

Remember Obama used his position as a US Senator to protect Fannae Mae and Freddie Mac.

So this issue would hurt Obama more than what Gingrich did as a private citizen.

Roger| 2.12.12 @ 12:12PM

None of these assclowns can beat Obama.
Romney excites no one who isn't LDS. His Romneycare leaves him with no credibility against Obamacare.
Gingrich is damaged goods. Women hate him,big. Besides,he WAS a conservative. He did just as much RINO garbage as Romney after he was ousted as speaker(pushing amnesty,cap and trade,fannie and freddie,Dede Scozzafava).
Santorum? No way. People will be scared off by his extreme social views,supporting the Personhood amendment,vowing to reinstate don't ask don't tell,hate to keep bringing it up,Terri Schiavo.). Plus he was a union stooge,voting against right to work,striker replacement and opposing free trade. Oh,and he wants to continue all of Bush's wars and fight Iran.

Mike Hawk| 2.12.12 @ 8:26PM

Another Paulbot who can't handle anyone beating their Old crackpot senior candidate . Too bad, he isn't going anywhere. You couldn't even bus in 200 extras to trounce Ronmey in Maine. BTW, Mr Andrew, total turnout for the astounding Romney sweep was less than 6000. Big Deal.

Mr. Granite State| 2.12.12 @ 2:16PM

I dont understand the new position of the American Spector, I thought we all wanted a conservative to win the GOP nomination, and then the White House. Now it seems AS is supporting the theory that a conservative can't win otherwise why an article diminishing Senator Santorum's win, on a day when he won three out of three.

Floyd Looney| 2.12.12 @ 9:01PM

Compare it to Mane where less than 6,000 bothered to show up.

Latest Headlines

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn|99 comments

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple|118 comments

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg|59 comments

Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report

Mark Tooley|104 comments

Treasure State Treasury

Bill Croke|3 comments

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy|60 comments

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman|16 comments

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

Peter Hannaford|19 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Elijah Harper, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 5.18.13

If Only the Tsar Knew!

F.H. Buckley | 5.18.13

Low-Level IRS Staffer: No, We Didn’t Mastermind This Entire Thing

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

UPDATED: IRS Acting Chief Apologizes, But Defends His Actions

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Voter Fraud Affected Election Results in Missouri