Open thread: Iowageddon; Update: Could Perry miss South Carolina debate? Update: Bachmann not dropping out; Update: Perry to “reassess” campaign; Update: McCain to endorse Romney tomorrow; Update: Romney wins — by eight votes

posted at 7:16 pm on January 3, 2012 by Allahpundit

The big huddle begins promptly at 8 p.m. ET with results to follow by 10, hopefully. We’ll get “entrance poll” results at some point too, so don’t wander off. I’m less interested tonight in who wins the caucuses, actually, than who wins the death struggle between Perry and Gingrich to become the “electable” conservative Not Romney in South Carolina. (Why can’t Santorum be the electable conservative Not Romney again?) The loser of that arm-wrestling match is all but done, as is Bachmann. Perry should beat Newt: He’s spent way more in the state than Gingrich has and is set to make an impressive show of organizational muscle by turning out lots of precinct captains. Some of his fans have been insisting on Twitter, in fact, that he’s going to surprise Paul or Santorum and end up finishing third. (Perry himself is confident enough that he’s begun buying airtime in SC.) I’m skeptical, but if that happens, it’ll be big news tomorrow as a bona fide election-night surprise.

And really, that’s all we’re watching for tonight: Surprises. If, as expected, the top three are Romney, Paul, and Santorum then it doesn’t much matter in which order they finish. As long as Romney’s within a few points of first place, he’ll probably go on to steamroll everyone in New Hampshire. If he finishes a distant second or third, well, that’s a surprise and that’ll be the storyline for the next week. If Perry or Gingrich breaks into the top three, that’s a surprise and another major storyline ahead of South Carolina. Problem is, I don’t see how either of them does that. Santorum’s the social con who’s been surging and nothing’s happened in the past 48 hours that might change that. Paul’s taken damage from the coverage of his newsletters so he’s more likely to underperform, but it’s hard to imagine his supporters would come this far to let him down now. Figure he’s got a solid 12-15 percent who are willing to turn out for him even in a Category Five hurricane; he’s also got a terrific organization bent on turning out another 10-12 percent of disaffected Democrats, curious independents, and none-of-the-above Republican protest voters. I can’t believe he won’t crack 20 percent, and I also can’t believe that Perry will. My prediction: Santorum 27, Romney 24, Paul 21, Perry 13, Gingrich 10, Bachmann 5.

Here’s your dandy Hot Air/Townhall Twitter widget. I’ll be updating this post too with whatever tea leaves I can scrounge up on the wires, so don’t be stingy with the refresh button. To follow the results, I recommend two interactive state maps: One at the Des Moines Register and the other at Google. Confused about which counties matter and why? No worries, we’ve got cheat sheets for that too. Try the Iowa Republican and Politico. WaPo also has an interesting scorecard that attempts to set county-by-county goals for Romney based on his 2008 showing. That might be useful at a glance later to gauge whether he’s over- or underperforming.

Odds of anything happening tonight that resembles an encouraging outcome: Nearly zero. Stand by for updates, needless to say.

Update: Howard Fineman sums up Romney’s strategy this way: “Mitt showing off his savage machinery to GOPers as a reason to vote for him: Don’t vote for me, vote for the weaponry I will use on Obama.”

Update: Here’s Chris Matthews, whose candidate of choice will spend upwards of a billion dollars next year, comparing Romney’s attack ads against Gingrich to … the bombing of Dresden. Click the image to watch.

Update: Patrick Ishmael sends along the results of today’s HA reader survey. After roughly 3,000 responses: Perry 27.38% Gingrich 22.88% Romney 18.72% Santorum 17.46% Paul 6.58% Bachmann 4.94%.

Update: Ten minutes until caucus time and a friend points out that Romney’s odds on InTrade of winning Iowa have dropped to a shade above 40 percent. He was above 50 percent earlier today. Hmmmm.

Update: Bad news for Perry fans: According to the entrance poll, it is indeed a three-way race between Romney, Santorum, and Ron Paul.

Update: Food for thought: If you’re hoping for a brokered convention, what’s the optimal result tonight? Probably Santorum, Paul, and Romney in that order, no? Paul will fight on no matter what, but Santorum needs major encouragement to make it and keep it a three-way race.

Update: Take a look at what’ll be running in New Hampshire’s most influential paper tomorrow.

Update: The entrance poll has it Paul 24, Romney 24, Santorum 18, but Huckabee ended up far outperforming his entrance-poll numbers on caucus night 2008. More from the Hill:

As expected, Paul polled best with younger voters, garnering more than half of the support of voters under 29 and a plurality of those aged 30-44. Romney, meanwhile, led the field among voters over 45.

Paul also led with nearly four-in-ten voters who had never before attended a GOP caucus, while Romney earned the vote of nearly three-in-ten previous caucusgoers. The 71 percent of those surveyed who called themselves Republicans broke more for Romney than any other candidate, while almost half of self-described Independent voters went for Paul.

Santorum, meanwhile, earned more than a quarter of those who self-identified as very conservative, and led among voters who said they “strongly support” the Tea Party. Moderates and liberals were most likely to vote for Paul.

According to Zach Wolf of ABC, fully six in 10 Ron Paul supporters don’t identify as Republican. He’s apparently cleaning up among independents, as expected — and they’re turning out in higher than usual numbers.

Update: Hearing on Twitter that Fox News expects Bachmann, the Ames straw poll winner, to finish last based on the entrance poll. That’s the end of her campaign, and probably the end of Ames being taken even remotely seriously.

Update: It’s early but still interesting: As of 8:50 ET, the Google map I linked above shows Paul at 24 percent, Santorum at 24 percent, and Romney at 22 percent, all of which is in line with entrance polls. Surprisingly, though, Newt is fourth with 13 percent; Perry trails with 10. Here’s Perry’s precinct speech tonight, which was good on the merits but not good enough to push him into the top tier.

Update: According to Jake Tapper, the Paul campaign is taunting Huntsman:

@RonPaul tweeted then deleted 2 Huntsman “we found your one Iowa voter, he’s in Linn precinct 5 you might want to call him and say thanks”

Update: Says Chuck Todd, “Every model our elex team has indicates as little as .3% separates 1st and 3rd.” You know who this benefits?

Update: Come and get it: CNN has published full crosstabs for the Iowa entrance poll.

Update: If you’d rather follow statewide totals instead of county-by-county, CBS has you covered. As of this writing, with 270 precincts reporting, Paul leads Romney by roughly 120 votes.

Update: As of 9:28, with 433 precincts reporting, here’s the CBS vote count. No joke:

Rick Santorum 6,067
Mitt Romney 6,060
Ron Paul 6,018

The margin between first and third is 49 votes. Remind me again: Now that we know who the top three will be and that it’ll be very close, what does it matter what the order is? If Romney finishes third, that’ll be good enough for a tepid “is Romney underperforming?” narrative this week, but it does nothing to answer the question of who’s supposed to emerge from the field and beat him in the long slog to the convention.

Update: At 9:39 ET, with almost a third of all precincts reporting, Gingrich leads Perry by slightly more than a thousand votes. That doesn’t sound like much in the abstract, but remember that this is a small pool of voters; right now, Romney leads with a little over 7,800 votes total. Starting to look like Newt will be fourth place, which means Perry’s on life support.

Update: Nate Silver knows who this benefits — and it isn’t necessarily Romney:

In particular, Mr. Huntsman might be hoping for a highly ambiguous finish, especially an effective three-way tie as is projected by the current polling, and which would leave no candidate with demonstrable momentum. That would free up news bandwidth for him in New Hampshire, where his polling is stronger but where he will have to compete with several other candidates for attention. The less news coming out of Iowa, the more time the news media will have to speculate about whether it is finally Mr. Huntsman’s turn to surge.

Update: An actual tweet from Buddy Roemer: “Hermain Cain is currently beating me in Iowa. #seriously”

Update: Lefty Ari Melber: “THIS is the key data: It’s not a 3-way race among self-identified Republicans: 28% for Santorum, 27% for Romney, 14% for Paul & Gingrich”

Update: Someone on Twitter points out that Romney’s on pace at the moment to do slightly worse in Iowa than he did in 2008. In a way, that’s apples and oranges — he invested more time and money in the state then versus now. But still: 23 percent. The 23 percent juggernaut. Says Dan McLaughlin, “Just imagine if anyone had run negative TV ads vs him.”

Update: At 10:05 ET, things are starting to shake out. Romney and Santorum are neck and neck with just 110 or so votes separating them, but Paul has slipped to third and fallen more than a thousand votes behind. Gingrich continues to put distance between himself and Perry, too. He now leads by 1,600 votes.

Update: With almost half the precincts reporting, Newt’s lead over Perry has opened up to more than 1,700 votes. Perry’s total number of votes right now is 5,671, so realistically he’s not going to catch Gingrich. What does a fifth-place finish mean for South Carolina? Maybe this:

To participate in the CNN/Southern Republican Leadership Conference debate January 19th, two days before the South Carolina primary, a candidate must place in the top four in Iowa or New Hampshire. A candidate can also qualify for the debate by averaging seven percent support in three polls conducted nationally or in South Carolina by certain approved media and polling organizations.

Either Newt Gingrich or Rick Perry, it appears, will receive the debate invitation that comes with a fourth place finish in Iowa. With 31 percent of precincts reporting, Newt Gingrich is in fourth place (13 percent) and Perry is in fifth place with ten percent support. (Romney, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul are in a dead heat for first with approximately 23 percent support each).

Perry was right at seven percent in the last Gallup poll of South Carolina. Will he stay there in the next two polls after tonight?

Update: At shortly before 10:30 ET, Fox News says Perry will finish fifth behind Gingrich. No surprise per my last update. He spent $6 million in the state for this; one of the subplots of the coming week will be whether he should drop out and endorse Santorum or Gingrich in order to try to stop Romney.

Update: And right on cue, here’s prominent Iowa social con Bob Vander Plaats (who endorsed Santorum) calling for the rest of the field to consolidate:

Iowa conservative leader Bob Vander Plaats called on Rep. Michele Bachmann to drop out of the Republican race and for Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry to reassess their campaigns following expected lackluster performances in the Iowa Caucuses…

“The worst thing that can happen to Mitt Romney is to run head to head against Rick Santorum,” he said. “He wants to have a multiple candidate field, so I think some of these candidates — they need to reassess where they are at tonight.”

“I think Michele Bachmann has to definitely [drop out],” he added.

Update: A bit of drama towards the end of this boring, depressing horse race: Romney’s come back to take the lead from Santorum by nearly 500 votes with roughly 75 percent of precincts reporting. Paul is now 3,000 votes off the pace and will almost certainly finish third.

Update: See saw: Another batch of votes came in just as I updated. Santorum has surged back ahead with 87.5 percent reporting and now leads by … 45 votes. The spin tomorrow, I assume, will be that Santorum’s made it a race now by showing he can challenge Romney, but I don’t get that. Of course he can challenge Romney in Iowa: It’s tailor-made for him with its heavy evangelical presence and he’s spent months there doing retail politics. Like Ben Smith says, the deeper lesson is that if Santorum can’t even beat a weak frontrunner like Mitt here, where can he beat him?

Update: This’ll get lost in the shuffle tomorrow, but do note that Ron Paul felt confident enough about his position this weekend to predict a first or second place finish. Quote: “I doubt if I’ll come in third or fourth.”

Update: If you can believe it, with 1,629 of 1,774 precincts reporting, the spread between Romney and Santorum is 13 votes.

Update: Bad news for the Not Romney contingent: Bachmann says in her concession speech that she’s going to press on, inexplicably, guaranteeing that the conservative vote splits a bit further in South Carolina.

Update: The first real news of the evening: Perry says in his concession speech that he’s headed back to Texas to “reassess” whether there’s a path to the nomination for him. He was scheduled to go to South Carolina tomorrow to start campaigning, so this is a genuine change of plans. Now that he’s signaled to his donors that he’s wavering, it’s hard to believe he’ll end up pressing ahead. Sounds like it’s over.

Update: Are you ready for the game-changing Maverick endorsement?

Arizona Senator John McCain, his party’s 2008 nominee, will endorse Mitt Romney in New Hampshire tomorrow, a well-placed former McCain aide told BuzzFeed Tuesday.

Update: No foolin’: With 1,749 of 1,774 precincts reporting, Santorum leads with 29,662 votes to Romney’s 29,657. A five-vote margin.

Update: It’s 1:37 ET and we’re waiting on two precincts. I’m taking a screenshot of this for posterity:

The margin is precisely one vote.

Update: As I write this, it’s exactly 2:00 ET and Santorum has a four-vote lead with just one precinct left. But Jan Crawford of CBS has a scoop:

Romney team says he won by 14 votes. Just talked to state party officials.

Philip Klein of the Examiner said earlier on Twitter that this result is less “too close to call” than “too close to care” since the storyline for the next week about Santorum’s surge is already set regardless of who actually wins. True enough. Until we see a New Hampshire poll showing Romney still comfortably ahead, the media buzz for the next few days will be about whether Romney has a glass jaw.

Update: I missed it on Fox but apparently Karl Rove is also hearing that Romney won by 14 votes and that both his camp and Santorum’s camp agree on the numbers. Every last candidate tonight, including Herman Cain and Buddy Roemer, got more votes than the final margin, so every one of them was technically in a position to play kingmaker. If Cain had stuck around and competed in the the caucuses, even with a cloud of suspicion hanging over him due to the harassment charges, he probably would have done well enough to push Santorum back several points, possibly even past Paul.

Update: At 2:34 ET, we finally have an official result. Romney 30,015; Santorum 30,007. Out of more than 122,000 votes cast, just eight separate first and second place. So that’s Iowa; the next big moment will come late tomorrow or Thursday when we get our first post-caucus polls of New Hampshire to see if Santorum, Paul, or even Huntsman are getting some sort of bounce or whether Romney’s got things in hand and we can all start to focus on South Carolina. A report floated by on Twitter a few hours ago that Santorum’s already reached out to Rick Perry. Huntsman, who’s pals with Perry, will no doubt reach out too. He fared badly tonight, but his endorsement would still mean something to social cons in SC or to conservative voters nationwide who might otherwise be leery of giving Huntsman a second look. We’ll see.



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 30 31 32 33 34

I got the Santorum email too. Sender’s email address is TownhallMessage@townhallmail.com

hmmm

Flora Duh on January 4, 2012 at 8:10 AM

Wake up people. Four more years of Obama the Destroyer and America as we knew it is finished. Hold your nose and cast your precious ballot.

fogw on January 4, 2012 at 7:55 AM

Here we go with the hissy fit directed at conservatives who won’t vote for a “reasonable, electable” candidate like McCain…or Romney.

Does it ever enter your head that the GOP establishment and their sycophantic voters are corrupt big-government types with no principles who have more in common with Democrats than the authentic conservatives they pander to with their lip service?

They have contempt for us. That’s been obvious for awhile now. Keep rewarding them with your votes, and they’ll keep pushing Doles, McCains, and Romneys on us forever.

DRayRaven on January 4, 2012 at 8:03 AM

No, we absolutely love the establishment and all the corruption. we can’t get enough of that there corruption. And we know that the only way you will ever be able to foil our plans is to sit out elections so that left wing Marxists can win. So, now that we have been found out, by all means, if our candidate is not exactly as conservative as you want him to be, feel free to stick your hands in your pockets and let Obama appoint the next 2 SCOTUS slots, dozens of lower court judges, continue his use of the DoJ as a political weapon, crush the energy sector with the EPA, release taliban, kiss the asses of the Arab world and sign lots and lots of juicy Executive orders to circumvent Congress. That’ll show us!

Malachi45 on January 4, 2012 at 8:10 AM

Uggghhh, DWS is on with Gretchen right now and I lost the remote…
:(

OmahaConservative on January 4, 2012 at 7:30 AM

Oh no your eyes. No one should have to see the “wet poodle” this early in the morning.

gophergirl on January 4, 2012 at 8:11 AM

I just got an email from Santorum too.

I have accepted that if Perry drops out, this thing is going to Mr Inevitable. I cease to have an interest in the republican primary.

Dr Evil on January 4, 2012 at 8:11 AM

I got the Santorum email too. Sender’s email address is TownhallMessage@townhallmail.com

hmmm

Flora Duh on January 4, 2012 at 8:10 AM

It better not be coming from here.

gophergirl on January 4, 2012 at 8:12 AM

I just got an email from Santorum too.

I have accepted that if Perry drops out, this thing is going to Mr Inevitable. I cease to have an interest in the republican primary.

Dr Evil on January 4, 2012 at 8:11 AM

Yep – just tell me when we have a candidate so I can work to get Obama out.

gophergirl on January 4, 2012 at 8:12 AM

4,000 comments or bust!

Benedict Nelson on January 4, 2012 at 8:14 AM

Thanks Steve

cmsinaz on January 4, 2012 at 8:15 AM

What are your thoughts on Perry?

OmahaConservative on January 4, 2012 at 8:03 AM

To be honest – I don’t know.

He’s got such an uphill climb if he stays in. SIGH

gophergirl on January 4, 2012 at 8:15 AM

I got the Santorum email too. Sender’s email address is TownhallMessage@townhallmail.com

hmmm

Flora Duh on January 4, 2012 at 8:10 AM

It better not be coming from here.

gophergirl on January 4, 2012 at 8:12 AM

So even those of us who registered when Michelle Malkin owned the site even before TH bought it are gonna’ be spammed by TH, evern though I have only visited that site once?

OmahaConservative on January 4, 2012 at 8:15 AM

DRayRaven,

So stay home and throw away your vote. But don’t come back here later complaining about Obama if he wins re-election. No one in the Republican field is a threat to the ruination of America.

You have a right to your choice, to vote or stay home. For now.

fogw on January 4, 2012 at 8:16 AM

How exactly does losing prevent hazardous national conditions? If we nominate a “conservative” who loses does the conservative movement get some kind of consolation prize?

 
RINO in Name Only on January 4, 2012 at 8:07 AM

 
Not the current presidential race, but in context of my post. The legislative branch is supposed to be the check on the executive.

They might lose their seat while protecting the nation by standing up for unpopular positions that lead us down the wrong road. Defunding the Libyan bombing campaign after 60 days because President Obama hadn’t complied with the law (War Powers Act) comes to mind, but there are likely plenty of other good examples.
 
That they didn’t voided the law/created law outside of the legislative branch and established a new presidential war precedent, = hazardous national condition.
 
(R)s didn’t oppose it because they didn’t want to be unpopular or seen as not supporting the troops.

rogerb on January 4, 2012 at 8:16 AM

It’s just the matter of which side it’s on.

rogerb on January 4, 2012 at 8:09 AM

You have taken note of the saddest part of this election cycle yet… Yes, some will be thrilled with the ballot choices but many of us will be reluctantly voting for “the team” that we don’t even like. I’d really rather like to cast a vote for someone rather than against someone. Well, my money stays where it is, so that’s a good thing, I guess.

Fallon on January 4, 2012 at 8:17 AM

I got the Santorum email too. Sender’s email address is TownhallMessage@townhallmail.com

hmmm

Flora Duh on January 4, 2012 at 8:10 AM

I got mine via red state. I’m always getting spam from them, usually stuff that reads like a not-racist-but-just-as-crazy edition of the Ron Paul Survival Report.

I don’t know how they got my address, though I might have registered once to leave a comment on an article there. I remember thinking at the time that the commenters there were kind of boring, and that the comments section here was much more fun to read.

/brown-nose

RINO in Name Only on January 4, 2012 at 8:17 AM

I just got an email from Santorum too.

I have accepted that if Perry drops out, this thing is going to Mr Inevitable. I cease to have an interest in the republican primary.

Dr Evil on January 4, 2012 at 8:11 AM

Yup. I am officially undecided, uncommitted, indifferent and uninterested. Perry got shafted by stupid voters. So the Republican Party, rank and file as well as the voters of Iowa and all of the commenters who trashed Perry in a classless and dishonest way, can kiss my fat white former Perrykrishna ass.

Malachi45 on January 4, 2012 at 8:17 AM

GG, did you hear about Perry yet?

cmsinaz on January 4, 2012 at 8:05 AM

Nope nothing.

I’ll be sad if he drops out but can’t blame him if he does.

gophergirl on January 4, 2012 at 8:17 AM

This may not mean anything but i just did a quick look at the state polls.With the exception of New Hampshire Romney does not get over 25% in any state.To me this means 75% of the republican primary voters want no part of Romney.Could this also mean we are headed for a floor fight at the convention?

logman1 on January 4, 2012 at 8:17 AM

You know who I have “contempt” for? Commenters who blather on about the “establishment” being “corrupt”. Oh well, perhaps you could tell us specifically how Romney is “corrupt”. Or me for that matter since apparently I as a supporter represent the eeeeevil “establishment” (which is ironic since I was not for McCain who was the “establishment” guy last time around, but I digress). Anyhoo – thanks in advance….

Buy Danish on January 4, 2012 at 8:09 AM

I don’t know, guys like Mitt Romney, who supports ethanol subsidies to buy votes? Or guys who tell NARAL he’ll work behind the scenes in their interests while telling conservatives the opposite? Or guys who buy all their office PCs and have them destroyed so no one ever finds out what’s on them? Or how about guys who change their ideology to fit whichever electorate they’re playing to?

Is that enough for you, or should I get started on Congressional Republicans, too?

No, we absolutely love the establishment and all the corruption. we can’t get enough of that there corruption. And we know that the only way you will ever be able to foil our plans is to sit out elections so that left wing Marxists can win. So, now that we have been found out, by all means, if our candidate is not exactly as conservative as you want him to be, feel free to stick your hands in your pockets and let Obama appoint the next 2 SCOTUS slots, dozens of lower court judges, continue his use of the DoJ as a political weapon, crush the energy sector with the EPA, release taliban, kiss the asses of the Arab world and sign lots and lots of juicy Executive orders to circumvent Congress. That’ll show us!

Malachi45 on January 4, 2012 at 8:10 AM

That’s a nice bit of sarcasm there, but that’s not what I meant. What I meant is that you vote for candidates you know will not uphold conservative principles just because he has an (R) after his name and is supposedly less onerous than his Democrat opponent. Meanwhile, you’re deluded enough to actually believe you won’t get more of the same – big government now and forever, with our long-term problems being kicked down the road for someone else to deal with…until the inevitable collapse.

Have fun with that.
Maybe your smugness will see you through.

DRayRaven on January 4, 2012 at 8:18 AM

Not a Romney supporter at all, but you gotta marvel at the guy for coming through and winning this, 8 votes or not (for now). His new name is Teflon Rom.

RepubChica on January 4, 2012 at 8:19 AM

I got the Santorum email too. Sender’s email address is TownhallMessage@townhallmail.com
Flora Duh on January 4, 2012 at 8:10 AM

Conspiracy theories that Ed, Allah and Tina are secretly on Santorum’s team start in 3…2…1…

Buy Danish on January 4, 2012 at 8:19 AM

DRayRaven,

So stay home and throw away your vote. But don’t come back here later complaining about Obama if he wins re-election. No one in the Republican field is a threat to the ruination of America.

You have a right to your choice, to vote or stay home. For now.

fogw on January 4, 2012 at 8:16 AM

I won’t complain. That’s what I expect.
Meanwhile, I’m not willing to throw my vote away on someone who won’t fix things.

Once we’re at the bottom of the cliff, it won’t matter whether we were going 90 mph or 60 when we flew over the edge.

DRayRaven on January 4, 2012 at 8:20 AM

fogw on January 4, 2012 at 8:16 AM

I guess those threatening to stay home forget about the down ticket races. We’re going to need to retake the Senate and hold on to the House, no matter who wins the presidential race.

Flora Duh on January 4, 2012 at 8:20 AM

Flora Duh on January 4, 2012 at 8:10 AM

So funny. I didn’t open the email. If I had, yup, it’s very obvious where it came from.

Fallon Duh! :)

Fallon on January 4, 2012 at 8:21 AM

How exactly does losing prevent hazardous national conditions? If we nominate a “conservative” who loses does the conservative movement get some kind of consolation prize?

RINO in Name Only

“True conservative” purists actually want Obama to win, so that they can continue to believe in “Conservatatopia.” It’s sad.

Priscilla on January 4, 2012 at 8:22 AM

logman1 on January 4, 2012 at 8:17 AM

I can’t stand Romney or Santorum… the two biggest squishes in the fight.

If it comes to a fight at the convention, I’m hoping by that time it would be evident and somebody not in now would already be prepared to come in and rescue the party from the mediocre moderates we’ve been stuck with since 1988.

mankai on January 4, 2012 at 8:23 AM

Strike that “Bachmann not dropping out” update. Multiple sources are reporting (via Twitter only at the moment) that Bachmann has cancelled her South Carolina trip and called a 10 am CST press conference in Des Moines.

Steve Eggleston on January 4, 2012 at 8:23 AM

That would be “Conservatopia”

Priscilla on January 4, 2012 at 8:23 AM

so you are a santorum supporter. his nutty religious views aside, he is also establishment. the MSM did not have time to do its job on santorum cause he raised so fast during holiday season. just wait, he will be toast soon.

nathor on January 4, 2012 at 7:47 AM

Ummm…no I’m not.
I think your evil comment about killing kids with Down’s syndrome STINKS to high heaven.
I do not support Santorum.
I actually don’t even know all that much about him.
I think EVERYONE who knows me here will vouch for that.
You’re really an idiot.
I call you on your evil nasty hideous ideas and you attack me for being a Santorum supporter.
You’ve really got rocks in your head.

Badger40 on January 4, 2012 at 8:23 AM

3,100+ comments!

ITguy on January 4, 2012 at 8:24 AM

Conspiracy theories that Ed, Allah and Tina are secretly on Santorum’s team start in 3…2…1…

Buy Danish on January 4, 2012 at 8:19 AM

Not from me. Even if they are, eh, Ed, Allah, Tina, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin, or, John McCain, won’t influence who I vote for.

Flora Duh on January 4, 2012 at 8:24 AM

“True conservative” purists actually want Obama to win, so that they can continue to believe in “Conservatatopia.” It’s sad.

Priscilla on January 4, 2012 at 8:22 AM

As opposed to what? Paying lip service to limited government and individual liberty while perpetuating the big government machine and making our problems worse (albeit at a slightly slower rate – although after George W and Medicare prescriptions, I’m not sure that’s accurate anymore, either)?

DRayRaven on January 4, 2012 at 8:25 AM

3,100+ comments!

ITguy on January 4, 2012 at 8:24 AM

Imagine election night.

I say if it’s all in one topic, we’d easily break 10,000 posts.

Good Solid B-Plus on January 4, 2012 at 8:26 AM

“There is no GOP establishment.”

Signed,

The GOP Establishment

fossten on January 4, 2012 at 8:26 AM

Strike that “Bachmann not dropping out” update. Multiple sources are reporting (via Twitter only at the moment) that Bachmann has cancelled her South Carolina trip and called a 10 am CST press conference in Des Moines.

Steve Eggleston on January 4, 2012 at 8:23 AM

Hmmmmmm….

Sekhmet on January 4, 2012 at 8:26 AM

Strike that “Bachmann not dropping out” update. Multiple sources are reporting (via Twitter only at the moment) that Bachmann has cancelled her South Carolina trip and called a 10 am CST press conference in Des Moines.

Steve Eggleston on January 4, 2012 at 8:23 AM

Sounds like she may be calling it quits. Question is, who will she throw her support behind?

Flora Duh on January 4, 2012 at 8:26 AM

That’s a nice bit of sarcasm there, but that’s not what I meant. What I meant is that you vote for candidates you know will not uphold conservative principles just because he has an (R) after his name and is supposedly less onerous than his Democrat opponent. Meanwhile, you’re deluded enough to actually believe you won’t get more of the same – big government now and forever, with our long-term problems being kicked down the road for someone else to deal with…until the inevitable collapse.

Have fun with that.
Maybe your smugness will see you through.

DRayRaven on January 4, 2012 at 8:18 AM

No, I just see differences that you don’t see between a man like Romney and one like Obama. You are dismissing many, many differences that exist. You want to say that there is no difference between a Romney and an Obama besides the letter after their name. That’s utter nonsense. You have allowed the perfect to become the enemy of the good. You are also ignoring reality. One man will be president. It makes a huge difference to all of us based on who it is: huge. By sitting it out, you are enabling the power of the left: you know, the bad guys; the Marxists, the criminals. Don’t do that. It’s dumb. Vote for the Republican, dummy.

Malachi45 on January 4, 2012 at 8:26 AM

Not the current presidential race, but in context of my post. The legislative branch is supposed to be the check on the executive.

rogerb on January 4, 2012 at 8:16 AM

Oh ok, got it. I agree with this.

Unfortunately, a big reason why the exectutive has so much power is that he very often can take half the legislature for granted for partisan reasons. This is sort of an inevitable result of our two-party system, since the president is the most powerful member of a political party, and it can be costly to cross him.

Unfortunately, a 2 party system is more or less guaranteed by our winner-take-all election rules, so even though the framers didn’t explicitly put parties into our constitution, there is probably no way to change this without a constitutional amendment adding run-off elections or something of the sort.

RINO in Name Only on January 4, 2012 at 8:26 AM

Why are Perry’s supporters here blaming everyone but Perry? He may be the best governor in the history of governors, but he was an awful campaigner.

YYZ on January 4, 2012 at 8:27 AM

So funny. I didn’t open the email. If I had, yup, it’s very obvious where it came from.

Fallon Duh! :)

Fallon on January 4, 2012 at 8:21 AM

I just deleted mine w/o opening it…

OmahaConservative on January 4, 2012 at 8:27 AM

Interesting…

In 2008, Romney received 30,021 votes, 25% of the vote.

In 2012, Romney received 30,015 votes, 25% of the vote.

It’s like deja vu all over again.

Fallon on January 4, 2012 at 8:27 AM

Strike that “Bachmann not dropping out” update. Multiple sources are reporting (via Twitter only at the moment) that Bachmann has cancelled her South Carolina trip and called a 10 am CST press conference in Des Moines.

Steve Eggleston on January 4, 2012 at 8:23 AM

Thanks for the update.

gophergirl on January 4, 2012 at 8:27 AM

“True conservative” purists actually want Obama to win, so that they can continue to believe in “Conservatatopia.” It’s sad.

Priscilla on January 4, 2012 at 8:22 AM

Yet laying down for Bush 1, Dole, Bush 2 and McCain has gained us what? It gained us a Socialist government on the brink of economic collapse and bankruptcy.

I’m not giving up on 2012 yet… but it took someone like Goldwater to get us to Reagan… despite Goldwater getting destroyed in the 64 general.

mankai on January 4, 2012 at 8:27 AM

Sounds like she may be calling it quits. Question is, who will she throw her support behind?

Flora Duh on January 4, 2012 at 8:26 AM

Is that really a question? Clearly she’d be a Romney-backer, still praying for that veep slot.

Good Solid B-Plus on January 4, 2012 at 8:27 AM

Strike that “Bachmann not dropping out” update. Multiple sources are reporting (via Twitter only at the moment) that Bachmann has cancelled her South Carolina trip and called a 10 am CST press conference in Des Moines.

Steve Eggleston on January 4, 2012 at 8:23 AM

I hope she swtiches her focus to becomming the next Speaker of the House.

To repeal Obamacare, we are going to need strong conservatives leading the charge in the House, Senate, and Presidency.

I’m not sure that Boehner is up to that task, but I know for a fact that Bachmann is.

ITguy on January 4, 2012 at 8:27 AM

So McCain has endorsed Romney. That’s kind of like getting an endorsement from Chuck Shumer isn’t it? I wonder if Romney begged him not to…

cajunpatriot on January 4, 2012 at 8:28 AM

RINO in Name Only on January 4, 2012 at 8:26 AM

Also, everything I just said about the exectutive applies equally well to the executive:)

RINO in Name Only on January 4, 2012 at 8:28 AM

Why are Perry’s supporters here blaming everyone but Perry? He may be the best governor in the history of governors, but he was an awful campaigner.

YYZ on January 4, 2012 at 8:27 AM

I’m a Perry supporter and I don’t think I blamed anybody. It is what it is.

gophergirl on January 4, 2012 at 8:28 AM

I cease to have an interest in the republican primary.

Dr Evil on January 4, 2012 at 8:11 AM

what took so long?

t8stlikchkn on January 4, 2012 at 8:29 AM

FIRST!

Sweet.

Bishop on January 4, 2012 at 8:29 AM

Why are Perry’s supporters here blaming everyone but Perry? He may be the best governor in the history of governors, but he was an awful campaigner.

YYZ on January 4, 2012 at 8:27 AM

I don’t blame anyone but Perry himself, and hyper-sensitive GOP voters who couldn’t look past the ‘heartless’ comment.

Hey, if they prefer Santorum to Perry, that’s their business.

Good Solid B-Plus on January 4, 2012 at 8:30 AM

RINO: No, the worst possible outcome would be a blowout for Romney.

As evidenced by the 2010 elections, the GOP interprets ANY victory as a vindication of ‘business as usual’ politics.

Therefore, you either need to fundamentally change the GOP back to a conservative party, or you need to stop being their useful idiot.

If you vote for the Establishment, do not be surprised when the Establishment interprets it as a vote in favor of their policies.

Scott H on January 4, 2012 at 8:30 AM

No, I just see differences that you don’t see between a man like Romney and one like Obama. You are dismissing many, many differences that exist. You want to say that there is no difference between a Romney and an Obama besides the letter after their name. That’s utter nonsense. You have allowed the perfect to become the enemy of the good. You are also ignoring reality. One man will be president. It makes a huge difference to all of us based on who it is: huge. By sitting it out, you are enabling the power of the left: you know, the bad guys; the Marxists, the criminals. Don’t do that. It’s dumb. Vote for the Republican, dummy.

Malachi45 on January 4, 2012 at 8:26 AM

I didn’t say there were no differences. If I left that impression, maybe I didn’t express myself clearly enough. I meant to say there isn’t enough of a difference to matter. The debt will keep growing, and entitlements will crush us. I don’t hold out any hopes for serious tax code reform, either.

Besides, I won’t stay home on election day. I’ll vote for the candidate who most closely aligns with my principles. At this point, it looks like that will be Gary Johnson. I know he won’t win, but I’m not holding my nose anymore.

DRayRaven on January 4, 2012 at 8:30 AM

OmahaConservative on January 4, 2012 at 8:27 AM

I’m late as always but it’s good to see you back, OC. You were missed.

Fallon on January 4, 2012 at 8:30 AM

Hold on to something. Here’s my take.

kingsjester on January 4, 2012 at 7:59 AM

I knew that some people in hot air with personal cases would find my remark insensitive. but I think my opinion that is also the opinion of many other parents and should be voiced out. protected my anonymity I gained courage to say it here.

nathor on January 4, 2012 at 8:32 AM

Why are Perry’s supporters here blaming everyone but Perry? He may be the best governor in the history of governors, but he was an awful campaigner.

YYZ on January 4, 2012 at 8:27 AM

I’m a Perry supporter and I don’t think I blamed anybody. It is what it is.

gophergirl on January 4, 2012 at 8:28 AM

I’m blaming lots of people other than Perry, but also Perry. Perry got a raw deal and the voters are, as is usually the case, stupid. But Perry made some big mistakes on his own as well. So, all the above. Perry, the media, the conservative talk media, childish conservatives with selective outrage, Bachmann and more. Screw them all (except perry).

Malachi45 on January 4, 2012 at 8:32 AM

We need two third party candidates. One looney liberal to take votes from Obama and one real fiscal conservative to win despite taking votes from the republican.

MechanicalBill on January 4, 2012 at 8:33 AM

I don’t blame anyone but Perry himself, and hyper-sensitive GOP voters who couldn’t look past the ‘heartless’ comment.

Hey, if they prefer Santorum to Perry, that’s their business.

Good Solid B-Plus on January 4, 2012 at 8:30 AM

If Perry is dumb enough to say something so incorrect and so stupid during a nationally televised debate, he doesn’t deserve a role in national politics. What a moron. Just give libs a great soundbite for the immigration-debate showdown.

BuckeyeSam on January 4, 2012 at 8:34 AM

McCain to endorse Romney

You could have predicted this moment back on February 14, 2008.

ITguy on January 4, 2012 at 8:34 AM

I didn’t say there were no differences. If I left that impression, maybe I didn’t express myself clearly enough. I meant to say there isn’t enough of a difference to matter. The debt will keep growing, and entitlements will crush us. I don’t hold out any hopes for serious tax code reform, either.

Besides, I won’t stay home on election day. I’ll vote for the candidate who most closely aligns with my principles. At this point, it looks like that will be Gary Johnson. I know he won’t win, but I’m not holding my nose anymore.

DRayRaven on January 4, 2012 at 8:30 AM

Same thing. Negligible differences/no difference, staying home/voting third party. It’s all the same thing. It’s also incorrect, unproductive and dumb.

Malachi45 on January 4, 2012 at 8:35 AM

I’m late as always but it’s good to see you back, OC. You were missed.

Fallon on January 4, 2012 at 8:30 AM

Thanks. Sometimes I just have to back away from politics for my own good. Glad to be back…

OmahaConservative on January 4, 2012 at 8:35 AM

Yep – just tell me when we have a candidate so I can work to get Obama out.

gophergirl on January 4, 2012 at 8:12 AM

That’s all it boils down to, and I would have a plan B if Obama wins reelection – worse case scenario.

The republican’s base is being fractured, that’s going to hurt, going into the 2012 election, the republicans need to take the U.S. Senate back. (that’s not sour grapes, the republican base is being left with the non electable conservatives still running like Bachmann, Santorum and to an extent Paul) Mitt Romney Super PAC is going to keep doing the same thing it did to Gingrich in Iowa, in the other states they are campaigning in. That leaves Huntsman. Santorum is not a palatable alternative to Romney. I lose interest in the primary when it looks inevitable Romney is the nominee. That’s what I meant above – that I lose interest in the republican primary. I am an Independent when I thought a real conservative had a shot, I was interested. Once Romney is inevitable defacto nominee there is no point following the primary anymore. That’s something the republicans just ignore – voter interest.

The republicans will put someone they think will appease the conservative base on the republican ticket just like they did in 2008 with McCain. But this ploy is transparent and getting old.

Dr Evil on January 4, 2012 at 8:36 AM

I don’t know, guys like Mitt Romney, who supports ethanol subsidies to buy votes? Or guys who tell NARAL he’ll work behind the scenes in their interests while telling conservatives the opposite? Or guys who buy all their office PCs and have them destroyed so no one ever finds out what’s on them? Or how about guys who change their ideology to fit whichever electorate they’re playing to?
DRayRaven on January 4, 2012 at 8:18 AM

That’s it? Damn, I hope Debbie Wasserman Shultz (and Eric Holder!) is making a note of this. These “corruption” charges make Solyndra and Fast and Furious look like small potatoes. Oh well, you’ve got nothing on me personally as an alleged member of the “establishment”, and it’s fair to say the word “hyperbolic” may apply to your commentary.

Buy Danish on January 4, 2012 at 8:36 AM

Why are Perry’s supporters here blaming everyone but Perry? He may be the best governor in the history of governors, but he was an awful campaigner.

YYZ on January 4, 2012 at 8:27 AM

I have no idea. There are some very bitter clingers as Dear Leader would say when it comes to Perry. Now should his debates gaffes alone have been enough to torpedo his campaign as turned out to be the case? Probably not. But electability matters in this election cycle(how else do you explain Romney getting even 25% support?). And I’m sorry, but the prospect of Perry having an “oops” moment against Obama scared the crap out of me and I’m willing to wager millions of other conservatives and Republicans alike. All it would take is a single incident like that and Obama wins reelection in a walk.

Doughboy on January 4, 2012 at 8:37 AM

Not sure why, but this seems apprapo (I am terrible at spelling)

Ugly on January 4, 2012 at 8:37 AM

Well, with Santorum doing so well, this should be an interesting week or two…

Anybody but Obama; the Republic cannot withhstand another 4 years of him…

Khun Joe on January 4, 2012 at 8:37 AM

Michelle canceling Iowa trip?VIA drudge

cmsinaz on January 4, 2012 at 8:38 AM

FIRST!

Sweet.

Bishop on January 4, 2012 at 8:29 AM

Gotta share the prize. I had you beat by a few minutes, buddy. ;-)

RepubChica on January 4, 2012 at 8:39 AM

Romney won by only eight votes? The repub estab “fix” was cutting it close on that one. And now McCain is endorsing Romney?

What a comedy.

Amjean on January 4, 2012 at 8:40 AM

Not from me. Even if they are, eh, Ed, Allah, Tina, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin, or, John McCain, won’t influence who I vote for.
Flora Duh on January 4, 2012 at 8:24 AM

I didn’t mean to imply you’re a conspiracy theorist, I was referring to commenters who find a conspiracies everywhere.

Buy Danish on January 4, 2012 at 8:40 AM

Wake up people. Four more years of Obama the Destroyer and America as we knew it is finished. Hold your nose and cast your precious ballot.

fogw on January 4, 2012 at 7:55 AM

Here we go with the hissy fit directed at conservatives who won’t vote for a “reasonable, electable” candidate like McCain…or Romney.

Does it ever enter your head that the GOP establishment and their sycophantic voters are corrupt big-government types with no principles who have more in common with Democrats than the authentic conservatives they pander to with their lip service?

They have contempt for us. That’s been obvious for awhile now. Keep rewarding them with your votes, and they’ll keep pushing Doles, McCains, and Romneys on us forever.

DRayRaven on January 4, 2012 at 8:03 AM

This.

At this point I don’t care that the Mitt boosters think I’m an idiot for not planning on voting for either candidate if we’re stuck with Romney vs. Obama. If there are decent candidates running for the House and Senate, I’ll just vote for those, but I see no evidence whatever that Romney is going to undo anything that was done during Obama’s term, and at any rate we’ve been told over and over and over again that we have to nominate the guy who appeals the most to independents and moderates, even if that person turns off the conservatives. Well, congratulations, Mitt supporters, it looks like you’re getting the moderate nominee you wanted — but I’m not one of those independents and moderates that Romney is supposed to capture, so I’m not inclined to listen when I’m told that I HAVE to vote for him even if he turns my stomach because there’s ZERO evidence he’ll do what needs to be done before this country goes into the ditch.

Don’t pick somebody when conservatives TOLD you he was unacceptable to them and then act all shocked and horrified and outraged when conservatives stop lining up behind you. Stop taking our votes for granted. If it’s clear to us that the GOP has become as much a part of the problem as the Democrats, then the GOP can stop expecting our unconditional support.

Some will think this is self-defeating idiocy. I really couldn’t care less at this point.

Aitch748 on January 4, 2012 at 8:41 AM

Ugly on January 4, 2012 at 8:37 AM

Appropriate (though since this is the comments, spelling is not as vital as in a post :-)

Steve Eggleston on January 4, 2012 at 8:41 AM

Same here OC

cmsinaz on January 4, 2012 at 8:42 AM

Michelle canceling Iowa trip?VIA drudge

cmsinaz on January 4, 2012 at 8:38 AM

You mean SC, right?

OmahaConservative on January 4, 2012 at 8:42 AM

Is that really a question? Clearly she’d be a Romney-backer, still praying for that veep slot.

Good Solid B-Plus on January 4, 2012 at 8:27 AM

She does that and there goes her “Conservative Christian” creds, considering Santorum has more in common with her social conservative supporters.

I’d like to see her go back to the House and be a strong conservative voice there. But from what I’ve been reading, the people of her district are not too happy she’s “neglected” her duties as their rep since jumping into the presidential race.

Flora Duh on January 4, 2012 at 8:43 AM

Sounds like she may be calling it quits. Question is, who will she throw her support behind?

Flora Duh on January 4, 2012 at 8:26 AM

That’s the $64 question (which is about what is left in Bachmann’s campaign account, which is why I didn’t say $64,000). If she endorses, my best guess is that she would go for Santorum.

Steve Eggleston on January 4, 2012 at 8:45 AM

Buy Danish on January 4, 2012 at 8:40 AM

Thanks. But I still think there was a shooter on the grassy knoll. :-)

Flora Duh on January 4, 2012 at 8:45 AM

Same thing. Negligible differences/no difference, staying home/voting third party. It’s all the same thing. It’s also incorrect, unproductive and dumb.

Malachi45 on January 4, 2012 at 8:35 AM

The same thing could be said about nominating and voting for Romney.

DRayRaven on January 4, 2012 at 8:45 AM

I cease to have an interest in the republican primary.

Dr Evil on January 4, 2012 at 8:11 AM

what took so long?

t8stlikchkn on January 4, 2012 at 8:29 AM

It’s the truth, they have squeezed all the interest out of this turnip.

If you take the mile high point of view of what’s going on – on the ground. Looking down, it’s a question of frustration with human development. This is how far we’ve come?

Dr Evil on January 4, 2012 at 8:46 AM

Isn’t Michele being redistricted out of a seat in MN?

OmahaConservative on January 4, 2012 at 8:47 AM

She does that and there goes her “Conservative Christian” creds, considering Santorum has more in common with her social conservative supporters.

I’d like to see her go back to the House and be a strong conservative voice there. But from what I’ve been reading, the people of her district are not too happy she’s “neglected” her duties as their rep since jumping into the presidential race.

Flora Duh on January 4, 2012 at 8:43 AM

Hmm, true. Well if she’s completely given up on being Romney’s VP, I could see her backing Santorum.

Good Solid B-Plus on January 4, 2012 at 8:47 AM

Gotta share the prize. I had you beat by a few minutes, buddy. ;-)
RepubChica on January 4, 2012 at 8:39 AM

I share with no man. Or woman. Even though you’re cute.

So what’s shakin’ in your area?

Bishop on January 4, 2012 at 8:48 AM

As the Husband left for work I mentioned to him that Perry was likely dropping out and that classless liar Michelle Bachmann was staying in.
He was curious why it was Perry dropping out and not Bachmann. I agree-though Perry’s run for president is over- if he’s gone…she should be as well.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 4, 2012 at 8:49 AM

I knew that some people in hot air with personal cases would find my remark insensitive. but I think my opinion that is also the opinion of many other parents and should be voiced out. protected my anonymity I gained courage to say it here.

nathor on January 4, 2012 at 8:32 AM

So do you know anyone with Down’s syndrome?
When a person has been affected by something personally, or takes up the mantle of having a ‘personal case’ regarding something, it usually gives them a more accurate perspective of the situation, and therefore, usually gives one more information for making a more rational choice/judgement about such things.
So it is quit possible, that if you actually knew anyone with Down’s syndrome, you might not advocate actually, you know, like killing them.
Having said that, I’m not sure what you’re after here.
Kudos or something for having the courage to voice killing people?
I don’t call voicing the support of the killing of less fortunate people courage.
I can call that either you just being evil or perhaps, more kindly, outright stupidity.
I would call that

Badger40 on January 4, 2012 at 8:49 AM

Isn’t Michele being redistricted out of a seat in MN?
OmahaConservative on January 4, 2012 at 8:47 AM

Wait…what? She’s my rep, that would be news to me.

Bishop on January 4, 2012 at 8:49 AM

Gotta share the prize. I had you beat by a few minutes, buddy. ;-)
RepubChica on January 4, 2012 at 8:39 AM

I share with no man. Or woman. Even though you’re cute.

So what’s shakin’ in your area?

Bishop on January 4, 2012 at 8:48 AM

Mornin’, ‘Chica.
Bishop is neither man or woman or canine or feline or avian or insect, or fish, or arachnid…he’s a Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dweller from the Planet Zorg.
You’re welcome.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 4, 2012 at 8:51 AM

Wait…what? She’s my rep, that would be news to me.

Bishop on January 4, 2012 at 8:49 AM

That’s what the talking heads were saying this morning…

OmahaConservative on January 4, 2012 at 8:53 AM

We went last night. A few tidbits:
Our ward is rural and made up of mostly farms/acreages within 15 minutes of a pop 10,000 city. We had people speak on behalf of Romney, Paul and Bachmann. We had 53 people in our ward.

Final vote was:
Santorum: 17
Paul: 11
Romney: 8
Bachman:6
Gingrich:5
Perry: 5
Other: 1

One of the Romney supporters tried to add “civil unions” to the party platform. It was voted down. An amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman was voted up. Other planks for upholding the constitution and basic 2nd amendment rights were voted up.

My parents live in town and had 83 people in their ward. They said Romney won handily, then Santorum; with Paul finishing last. So maybe the city slickers are more pro- slick Romney and anti Paul-nuts. Us country bumpkins are apparently more conservative, but also like the nutty candidates :)

Free Indeed on January 4, 2012 at 8:53 AM

the opinion of many other parents and should be voiced out

nathor on January 4, 2012 at 8:32 AM

Lots of people think lots of things, BTW, should be ‘voiced out’.
And of course, you are fortunate enough to live in a country where you can say all the cockamaymie horrendous things you want.
But many disagree with the ‘opinion’ that it’s OK to kill a human being before it’s born simply bcs a medical test indicates they MAY have something wrong with them.
That kind of rationalization can lead to all sorts of things.
Like killing people after they’re born when they meet, let’s say, with an accident, that leaves them just as mentally deficient as a person with Down’s syndrome.
Bcs after all, they would then only be a burden to their loved ones after that.

Badger40 on January 4, 2012 at 8:53 AM

Yet laying down for Bush 1, Dole, Bush 2 and McCain has gained us what? It gained us a Socialist government on the brink of economic collapse and bankruptcy.

I’m not giving up on 2012 yet… but it took someone like Goldwater to get us to Reagan… despite Goldwater getting destroyed in the 64 general.

mankai on January 4, 2012 at 8:27 AM

Did Goldwater getting trounced actually help us to get Reagan, though?

Goldwater himself made many contributions to the conservative movement, and certainly that helped get us to the point where we could nominate Reagan.

But how did having him as a candidate help us? Attributing Reagan’s victory, even in part, to Goldwater’s actual run would seem to be a post hoc fallacy.

In any case, none of the clowns we have running, neither Romney nor his “conservative” opponents, deserve a favorable comparison with either Reagan or Goldwater.

When a true conservative gets their act together, we should certainly nominate him. Until then, there is no need to reward inadequate candidates with our support simply because they give lip-service to more conservative positions.

As much as we dislike the Bush’s, Dole, and McCain, were there actual, plausible conservative alternatives we could have picked?

Maybe we should have picked the “Conservative” in 2008 instead of McCain. Remind, me, who was that exactly? Was it Huckabee? Giuliani? Romney?

RINO in Name Only on January 4, 2012 at 8:55 AM

So we should down all those Embassy’s also.

RickB on January 4, 2012 at 1:04 AM

You are seriously trying to equate embassies with military installations? No, embassies should remain.

You don’t seem to understand the argument.

Dante on January 4, 2012 at 8:56 AM

That’s what the talking heads were saying this morning…
OmahaConservative on January 4, 2012 at 8:53 AM

Huh, I wonder which districts are supposed to be wrapped together. I have Robert Klein (R, decent) nearby and a whole slew of human trash liberals everywhere else.

We are a little island of red out here, surrounded by an ocean of blue. A polluted, stinking, festering ocean of liberal pus.

Bishop on January 4, 2012 at 8:57 AM

Actual first comment on this post:

Ron Paul versus Mitt Romney. First one to 25,000 wins.

ModerateMan on January 3, 2012 at 7:17 PM

Not exactly.

Official Results:
Romney….. 30,015
Santorum… 30,007
Paul……. 26,219

ITguy on January 4, 2012 at 8:58 AM

nathor on January 4, 2012 at 8:32 AM

As I said before- Asperger’s Syndrome runs in my family.

There is currently no way to test for autism prior to birth-but let’s say there was…and the pre-born baby was diagnosed in the womb with autism.
Would that child-in your eyes-be deserving of life-or would you decide to murder it because it would be inconvenient and a lot of work and might get picked on in school?
Does someone like me have the right to live…or is my question just ‘drivel’.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 4, 2012 at 8:58 AM

Isn’t Michele being redistricted out of a seat in MN?

OmahaConservative on January 4, 2012 at 8:47 AM

It’s in the courts. The Democrat plan would redistrict her out in favor of ‘Rat Betty McCollum, while the Republican one would keep her seat more-or-less safe.

Steve Eggleston on January 4, 2012 at 8:59 AM

Robert Klein? John Klein. JOHN.

Can’t someone around my shop make more coffee. Lazy bastarrrds.

Bishop on January 4, 2012 at 8:59 AM

Also, in regard to the low turnout:
What I saw in my ward was that most are excited to get Obama out. However there did not seem to be much conviction toward any one candidate. It’s really a field of imperfect “conservatives” and each has their major bad decisions. I think that’s why it’s been hard to really feel passionate about any of the field. I personally don’t.

And granted that we’re rural, which tends to be older folks, we only had maybe 1/4 of attendees that were under 35.

One more note: Just yesterday I heard my first anti-Santorum ad here. It was Perry backed and pointed out Santorums apparent love for earmarks and the fact that he voted for the bridge to no-where. Those are 2 drawbacks for me.

Free Indeed on January 4, 2012 at 9:02 AM

Wait….just wait.

Betty McCollum could be my congress critter? Betty McCollum? A leftist so nasty that back in 2002 she refused to show up at the state capitol for a Support the Troops rally?

Oh….jeebus.

Bishop on January 4, 2012 at 9:03 AM

We are a little island of red out here, surrounded by an ocean of blue. A polluted, stinking, festering ocean of liberal pus.

Bishop on January 4, 2012 at 8:57 AM

If the DFL has its way, the pus will be exploded on top of you. The question is will the judge that will be drawing the map after two Dayton vetoes will use the DFL map, the GOP one, or something out of thin air.

Steve Eggleston on January 4, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Steve Eggleston on January 4, 2012 at 8:59 AM

Thanks for clearing that up, Steve…

OmahaConservative on January 4, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Lots of people think lots of things, BTW, should be ‘voiced out’.
And of course, you are fortunate enough to live in a country where you can say all the cockamaymie horrendous things you want.
But many disagree with the ‘opinion’ that it’s OK to kill a human being early pregnancy fetus before it’s born simply bcs a medical test indicates they have MAYhigh probability to have something wrong severe disability with them.

fixed. fine, we disagree.

That kind of rationalization can lead to all sorts of things.
Like killing people after they’re born when they meet, let’s say, with an accident, that leaves them just as mentally deficient as a person with Down’s syndrome.
Bcs after all, they would then only be a burden to their loved ones after that.

Badger40 on January 4, 2012 at 8:53 AM

i already answered this this argument in the other thread. lets move on.

nathor on January 4, 2012 at 9:04 AM

Comment pages: 1 30 31 32 33 34