The presumptive frontrunner is Mittens Romney . The latest to surge is another flip-floppin Washington insider Republic.. if fact ,at least Romney isn't an inside the beltway establishment guy although the Republic establishment seems to prefer him for the moment .

At least with Mittens there isn't a lot of personal baggage weighing him down. Gingrich is the last person I would think a Tea Party type would support.

Besides the obvious ,that he is the consummate beltway insider ;only taking time off from elected office to profit from his associations in Washington ; he has taken public positions at least as antithesis to the TP cause as Romney has .

In his quest for lobby bucks he sold out conservative principles in lobbying for the very GSEs that we think should be privatized . His lobbying efforts led him to that infamous ad with madame Mimi Pelosi ,sitting on a couch together ,(I shudder at the thought) promoting carbon taxes and promoting the proposition that AGW is caused by humans . His lobbying efforts were directed at health care too . He may not believe in personal mandates ,but he did not mind making bucks promoting it .

He called the Ryan plan to reduce the debt “right-wing social engineering.”

What a choice ! If the TP runs a 3rd party candidate (and Ron Paul may do it anyway such is his ego) Obama will secure his 2nd term. They should be prepared to support these less than ideal candidates ,and work hard to get as many TP candidates into Congress and the Senate .
Nobody said that changing the culture of almost 100 years of statism was going to happen overnight.

Mitt Romney is the most intelligent, sensible and electable candidate, so naturally the Republican party will nominate Gingrich or some other unelectable nutbar. It's almost like they want to lose the next election. I feel sorry for smart Republicans like Romney who have to be in a party full of religious fanatics and crazy tea partiers.

Actually the best and most experienced candidate left in the field is Huntsman .
You like Mitt because there is little difference in policies between him and a Dem when he's in a moment of candor .

It looks like its all over bar the shouting

That's what Howard Dean said

That's what Howard Dean said[/QUOTE] Great line, guess Dean will never live that one down.

Palin came close to making an endorsement for Rick Santorum.
Palin predicts Santorum’s rise in Iowa - Election 2012 - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/palin-predicts-santorum-rise-in-iowa/2011/12/02/gIQA3wPpLO_blog.html)

I don't believe Newt has the organization in place to win in the Iowa caucus where one needs someone at every precinct . From what I hear Newt hasn't even attempted to build an organization since his whole staff quit in June .
Newt Gingrich advisers resign en masse - Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56631.html)

And no one in Iowa gets a tingle up their leg over Mittens.

Iowa is up for grabs . Cain's supporters will most likely go to Santorum or Bachmann ;who won the straw poll earlier this year.
Whoever emerges from Iowa will be the "anyone but Mitt" candidate.
Romney will win New Hampshire ;but after that he will have to fight for every primary state after.

This is far from over.

As a side note... I think ir's absurd that Trump will moderate a debate .I applaud Huntsman and Paul for calling it out for the charade it is.

The Trump debate, sheesh. And he 's still being his narcissistic self over this saying he still has until May next year to rescue Republicans as the party's nominee.

I'll tell you what I thought was good and that was Huckabee's forum Saturday where they had to face 3 state AGs for questioning. Dump Trump and let's do that again.

Considering that the Hump is still considering throwing his hat in the ring ,I question why any of them would subject themselve to this reality show farce.What's he going to say ? "your fired !" ? Why not just pick our President in an 'American-Idol' format ?

Tom at least if he was elected you would be led by a successful business man who knows the score. I would have thought as a died in the wool capitalist such an outcome would have been welcomed. You must learn to divorce reality from reality television. Just think of the effect though, of thousands of little enterpreneurs running about.

By the way have you noticed that other nations are coming to grips with the tax the rich and tax the corporations that you find so difficult to swallow, think of it as those who benefit the most pay the most

He's a success measured by how often he fails and survives to live another day. He is the antithesis of a capitalist.
He has relied on bankruptsy protections at least 4 times . He has financed some of his ventures with junk bonds ;and has more than once been the receipient of sweet heart partnerships with state and local municipal governments. More than once this involved the use of eminent domain to confiscate other's property. He is the very definition of a crony socialist .

he's a success measured by how often he fails and survives to live another day. He is the antithesis of a capitalist.
He has relied on bankruptsy protections at least 4 times . He has financed some of his ventures with junk bonds ;and has more than once been the receipient of sweet heart partnerships with state and local municipal governments. More than once this involved the use of eminent domain to confiscate other's property. He is the very definition of a crony socialist .

No Tom he is the very definition of an american capitalist, exploiting every opportunity to make money. This all sounds a bit Gilbert and Sullivan. He is the very model of a modern capitalist. Just think of that potential being turned loose on your economy.

Again... state master command and control of the economy ;giving favors to their favorite business partners is NOT any capitalist model . To say that is to say the Mussolini model is capitalism . To say that is to claim the cadre in Beijing have adopted capitalism .

again... state master command and control of the economy ;giving favors to their favorite business partners is NOT any capitalist model . To say that is to say the Mussolini model is capitalism . To say that is to claim the cadre in Beijing have adopted capitalism .



And your present system is different HOW?

Actually the Chinese have, but they maintain control of the economy, capitalism doesn't need democracy to flourish, it just needs a favourable environment. Your capitalist economy flourishs despite favours to favourite business partners, remember Haliburton as just one instance, or perhaps it doesn't after all.

The difference between China and the US is that China has the objective of lifting millions out of poverty as government policy. What they are going to do when their objectives are achieved, who knows, perhaps forceably populate those potemkin villages they have built. Whereas I understand the US also has a vast stock of unused housing and no plan to deal with the problem.

The difference between China and the US is that China has the objective of lifting millions out of poverty as government policy.

Lol!! The Chinese model is designed to keep the cadres in power . PERIOD

lol !!!!!!! The Chinese model is designed to keep the cadres in power . PERIOD

And the american model is designed to keep the rich in power. I really don't see the difference excepting in the frequency of elections. In both systems there are low paid wage slaves and some very wealthy people exploiting them.

Yeah you made my point... the system has devolved from capitalism to a statist elite that picks and choses cronies to benefit . Ex says it right.. Term limits would end this crony socialism .The only way Trump is a capitalist is in Orwellian language (socialism is capitalism).

yeah you made my point...the system has devolved from capitalism to a statist elite that picks and choses cronies to benefit . Ex says it right.. Term limits would end this crony socialism .The only way Trump is a capiltalist is in Orwellian language (socialism is capitalism).

Well Tom I see you are coming around to my point of veiw. It is all an illusion, a great big media event with the object of making the masses think they actually have choices, whether to perpetuate the status quo, or perpetuate the status quo. Change is allowed to happen now and again, this maintains the illusion, meanwhile you are continually in election mode selecting and rejecting candidates as a substitute for actually exercising a vote about something relevant.

Yes term limits would help as term limits on a President have helped but so also would aligning Presidential, representative and senate elections so that you don't wind up with a hung system every two years. In this age two years is just too short, no long term focus can develop.

Trump has benefited from the capitalist system, he wouldn't have been able to get away with it anywhere else, but socialism is caring about the little people because you know the rich can look after themselves not allowing the rich to exploit. You want to see an outworking of socialism, have a look at our system and the capitalists do very well.

The cause is what I dispute. I say government is the problem.. you think government is the solution.

You are also locked into this Orwellian speak that claims what Trump does is capitalism... it is not . Socialism is government command and control of the economy.. What you are seeing is years of this nation institutionalizing government control of the economy . The Trumps of the world is the natual result of such a system.

Hello tom:

Looks to me like you guys have invoked the Sharron Angle theory of how to win an election.

excon

If it were up to me I'd scrap this primary system... especially open primaries ;and go back to smoke filled rooms.

By the way... it is still up for grabs.. just remember... a month before Iowa 2008 ,Evita was the presumptive inevidible candidate... and the debates of both parties resembled a collection of the 7 dwarfs .

Ex ;have you been reading the President's strategery to get to 270 electoral votes ? It's insane! Salena Zeto ;a very credible reporter in PA. is saying the President is ready to write off the state . The Slimes is reporting that the President has completely written off the white "middle class" vote (or as the President calls them ;the bitter clingers ) and instead counting on mobilizing minority voters and egg head elite 1%'ers .

Obama writing off Pennsylvania? - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/zito/s_770153.html)

The Future of the Obama Coalition - NYTimes.com (http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/the-future-of-the-obama-coalition/)

So ;as chaotic as the Republic field appears ,the President has a fight on his hands.

Ex ;have you been reading the President's strategery to get to 270 electoral votes ? Hello again, tom:

I don't disagree. Obama has NOTHING left. He is eminently beatable. That makes what the Republicans are doing to themselves even worse.

Obama lost me. The ONLY reason to support him is the two, and possibly three, Supreme Court nominations the next president will make..

excon

The reason Newt is surging is because he stepped away from the silly circular firing squad and has kept his attacks on the President and the media gotcha questions . That has served him well.

But he is less than ideal as a national candidate ,and since it is clear that unless Santorum rises ,or that Huntsman is paid attention to... that I will not get anything close to my positions from the nominee ;then the best I can hope for is the one that can best defeat Obama .

Newt is surging because he stepped away from the silly circular firing squad and has kept his attacks on the President and the media gotcha questions . That has served him well. Hello again, tom:


It's true, he's picking on the right wings favorite targets, the media, Obama and poor people.. AND, it's serving him well in the primary states. By virtue of how they're rigged, I think he'll BE the nominee.

Then, he'll crash.

excon

I hope not... I notice the Obots are taking pot shots at him. In recent days Biden ,Axelrod and Madame Mimi Pelosi have thrown jabs .

I think it's a false flag aimed to raise Newt's cred in the Republic Party. They'd love nothing more than having him represent the GOP .

Is there a risk in that ? You betcha . There once was a 'pragmatic' ,non-ideological GOP candidate ,who had negatives up the kazooo... was ethically challenged , and had no core convictions beyond raw power politics. He reinvented himself after his fall from grace .He ran at a time where the grass root fringe was in the streets tearing the Democrat party to shreds . He won 2 terms in office and it was only his self destructive nature that destroyed his Presidency. Tricky Newt ?


Meanwhile.. Mittens reached out to Dan Qualye yesterday . AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!!

Yeah, Mimi had to backtrack in typical Democrat fashion (lie about it) after Newt called her bluff. This is what Mimi said (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/pelosi-democrats-gleeful-at-prospect-of-running-against-gingrich.php?ref=fpb):


“One of these days we’ll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich,” Pelosi said. “I know a lot about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff.”

Newt fired back:


First of all I’d like to thank Speaker Pelosi for what I regard as an early Christmas gift. If she’s suggesting she’s going to use material she developed while she was on the ethics committee, that is a fundamental violation of the rules of the House and I would hope members would immediately file charges against her the second she does it.

Mimi's backtrack (“Leader Pelosi was clearly referring to the extensive amount of information that is in the public record, including the comprehensive committee report with which the public may not be fully aware,” Hammill wrote in a statement.):


“Leader Pelosi was clearly referring to the extensive amount of information that is in the public record, including the comprehensive committee report with which the public may not be fully aware,” Hammill wrote in a statement.

Clearly. LOL, what a liar. By the way, Newt was cleared by the IRS in the case.

Clearly. LOL, what a liar. By the way, Newt was cleared by the IRS in the case.Hello Steve:

The IRS doesn't "clear" people.. It just decides not to prosecute. But, he WAS found guilty by the House Ethics Committee and paid a substantial fine. That is just so, and there were Republicans on that committee too.

Look. He's a PROVEN scumbag, on ALL fronts. The question for you is, is he the SAME scumbag, or has he changed.. After all, he HAS been happily married for 13 years... They love each other too, it's clear. She's with him everywhere...

But, in the context of their happy love life, it must be remembered that he was boffing HER at the same time that he was a married man.

excon

But, in the context of their happy love life, it must be remembered that he was boffing HER at the same time that he was a married man.

So it's OK for presidents but not candidates?

P.S. The IRS did clear (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/gingrich020499.htm) the foundation that was the subject of the ethics probe.


IRS Clears Foundation That Aided Gingrich Course

Associated Press
Thursday, February 4, 1999; Page A05

The Internal Revenue Service has cleared an organization of charges that it violated its tax-exempt status when it helped fund a college course taught by former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), the organization said yesterday.

The IRS, concluding a three-year investigation, ruled that the Progress and Freedom Foundation's donations to Gingrich were "consistent with its stated exempt purposes," and Gingrich's course and course book "were educational in content."

The foundation, which posted the IRS decision on its Web page, welcomed what it said was a "clean bill of health." An IRS spokesman said the agency is barred by law from commenting on rulings.

"No one likes being audited by the IRS," said the foundation's president, Jeff Eisenach. "In this case, though, it was important for the IRS to resolve the questions raised by the House ethics investigation."

In that investigation, special counsel James M. Cole concluded that Gingrich, in a class titled "Renewing American Civilization," which he taught at two Georgia colleges, was funded by tax-exempt charities for activities that were "substantially motivated by partisan, political goals."

Gingrich denied violating tax laws and described his college course as nonpartisan. But he agreed to pay a $300,000 penalty for his misleading statements to the ethics committee as it investigated the financing of the college course and other issues.

In its ruling, the IRS said the content of Gingrich's course "was educational and never favored or opposed a candidate for public office."

It said the foundation "did not intervene on behalf of candidates of the Republican Party merely by promoting" themes in the course.

The foundation, headquartered here, says it is dedicated to studying the digital revolution and its implications for public policy.

So it's ok for presidents but not candidates?Hello again, Steve:

When did I say I supported that lying philandering SOB?

But, even if I did, I come from the party where YOU say that sexual dithering doesn't matter... YOU, on the other hand, come from a party where you SAY sexual dithering DOES matter. So, he question is, does it matter to YOU?

excon

He was an effective House leader ;but in the contest between Newt and Clintoon ,Clintoon reduced him to an insurgent bomb thrower.

As an example ,he did the right thing by holding firm and shutting down the government . Then he does this cry baby act over his place on Air Force One and bam.. the perception is that slight is why he shut the government down... doesn't matter what role Clintoon played .

It was also silly for them to do the whole impeachment charade . The perception was that it was about sex and not the other crimes Clintoon was guilty of . He also knew he would never get the Senate to convict . So again... it looked petty and vindictive.

I am all for personal redemption and conversion... it is good for the soul . But ,the question becomes 'who do you trust ' ?
From a PR point of view there is a stark contrast between the sexploits of Newt compared to the wholesome family image the President successfully portrays . Mitt's biggest transgression as far as that goes is the rumor that he tied a dog to his car. (which get's wildly exaggerated in the press accounts... in fact he had the dog in a dog carrier on the roof and built a special windshield for the carrier... the dog was as comfortable and secure as if it was in the back of the wagon ) .

Hello tom:

I feel your pain having to make excuses for your nominees. Can you imagine what the conversation would be if Thune, Christ, Bush, Barber, Mitch Daniels or even Paul Ryan were running??

Newt wouldn't be in the conversation. How did you guys do this to yourselves?

excon

Weren't me . I came out early in support of Daniels. then after him TPaw .

I could still support Santorum or Huntsman . I'll settle for Mittens .

Why didn't the common sense, heavy hitters in the republican party throw there hat in the ring if Obama was so beatable, and unpopular?

I am not complaining though as this is the best circus I have ever been to. To be fair it is Romney's turn. That's how its always been done.

Maybe they didn't want to be Bork'd ,Thomas'd or Cain'd . Daniels was very clear on that as being his reason . The press started putting the cross hairs on his wife in May.

maybe they didn't want to be Bork'd ,Thomas'd or Cain'd . Daniels was very clear on that as being his reason . The press started putting the cross hairs on his wife in May.Hello again, tom:

So, it was the person who REPORTED his unit entered uncharted territories, NOT the person who was driving the unit... I understand... You know, if it wasn't for the media, you'd be the best guys in the world...

Uhhh, somehow I don't believe that...

excon

It's the double standard. There was no serious press coverage of John Edwards until after the election even though he was the VP nominee .

I have yet the hear any proof of the Cain allegations . Every one if the charges are suspect.

I have yet the hear any proof of the Cain allegations . Every one if the charges are suspect.Hello again, tom:

I agree. For ME, though, it's not about the charges. It's about how he HANDLED the charges. He failed. Leadership isn't about what you do when it's going well. It's about what you do when things go south. This is a good example of how he might handle a confrontation with, say Iran.

Failing here cost him the race. Failing there could cost us the world.

excon

He denied the charges... don't know what else he was supposed to do.

Back to Gingrich . Rep. Peter King served in Congress when Gingrich was speaker .
But when asked this morning if he supports the Gingrich campaign he emphatically said no.
"He's too self-centered,"...."too erratic."..."He does not have the discipline, does not have the capacity to control himself." are some of the nicer things he said . King predicted that if Newt became President , "the country and Congress would be going through one crisis after another."

This echoes comments made by Senator Tom Coburn . "There's a lot of candidates out there. I'm not inclined to be a supporter of Newt Gingrich's having served under him for four years and personally experienced his leadership,"

But Tom, who cares who the repubs run for president, righties always say ANYBODY is better so what's the big deal?

You guys CAN'T lose, right?

This is the primaries. I don't have to settle for "anybody " yet.

What a storm in a tea cup, newt or mitt or donald or... why don't you just have write in a candidate

LOL, that would be something! Mickey Mouse ends up winning the primary with a write in vote!

It's a plan!

Mickey Mouse already occupies the highest office in the land .
The Trumps debate is down to 2 candidates... Newt and Santorum.. Bachmann dropped out yesterday. Now if only Santorum would drop out then Newt could debate himself.. He has enough contradictory posititions and is so full of himself that he could easily fill the time.

I'm saying it now, Romney will be the guy. It will be over after New Hampshire. So who is going to be his running mate?

Assuming you are correct (I can't make that call yet until I see how this recent Santorum surge goes )... then there are many good choices for Veep for Romney . He will need to balance the ticket with a conservative and someone who isn't from the Northeast( sorry Christie)

Bob McDowell of Va,
Bobby Jindal of La.
Marco Rubio of Fla.
Michelle Bachman
Haley Barbour of Miss. Who faces term limits this year.
Susana Martinez of NM.
John Kaisich of Ohio .

Paul Ryan Rep Wisconsin .
Thad McCotter Rep Michigan.

My guess would be McDowell or Kaisich. Virginia and Ohio are swing states.

Wild card... I keep hearing rumors about Luis Fortuño of Puerto Rico .

There's also speculation about Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio. I could be wrong on Romney, Santorum's surge seems to be for real. I Just don't know how long he can hold out.

Hello again,

So, it's Mitt's turn, huh? I don't know WHY you do this to yourselves.. There's DOZENS of Republicans who could beat Obama. We've talked about 'em. But, Romney isn't one of them. Oh, he MIGHT win... But, how is he going to argue about Obamacare, when he's got Romneycare? And, that's the ONLY thing Republicans got.

Shades of Sharron Angle...

Let me see, two more Supreme Court appointments, and Citizens United is HISTORY!! Thank you, Republicans!

excon

I don't think I've made any predictions until now so I haven't done anything to myself. I just think it's going to be Romney. You do remember of course that Obama and Clinton went at this a long time after weeding out the other 6, so it isn't just Republicans.

It would be typical of the Repubics to pick someone like Romney . They like to select moderates that lose.

Lol, that's only because the right wing hates everybody but the right wing. All the righties are fighting each other, even the book tour candidates, the closet moderate is the frontrunner, hollering conservative, and the smartest, most experienced and accomplished republican is never mentioned, Huntsman.

I'm not willing to make a call until after Fla or even as late as Super Tues.
If the Ronulans infiltrate the Iowa caucus(s) and Paul takes Iowa then it will be wide open until the multi-state primary days.

I can see split decisions until at least Fla . Paul Iowa ;Romney NH ;maybe a tossup in SC with Gingrich and/or Santorum in play .
If Mittens takes Iowa I think his NH win will make him inevidible .

I shudder to think of the campaign with both the President and Romney staking claim as best managers of the new normal . Romney isn't change .He is a more efficient competent manager .

Yes this could come down to VEEPs . Rumors are still swirlling about Evita becoming 2nd fiddle or even Evan Bayh .
Obama needs to recapture the PUMA voters who he abandoned as "bitter clingers " .


My political prediction for 2012 (based on absolutely no inside information): Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden swap places. Biden becomes Secretary of State -- a position he's apparently coveted for years. And Hillary Clinton, Vice President.

So the Democratic ticket for 2012 is Obama-Clinton.

Why do I say this? Because Obama needs to stir the passions and enthusiasms of a Democratic base that's been disillusioned with his cave-ins to regressive Republicans. Hillary Clinton on the ticket can do that.

Moreover, the economy won't be in superb shape in the months leading up to Election Day. Indeed, if the European debt crisis grows worse and if China's economy continues to slow, there's a better than even chance we'll be back in a recession. Clinton would help deflect attention from the bad economy and put it on foreign policy, where she and Obama have shined.

The deal would also make Clinton the obvious Democratic presidential candidate in 2016 -- offering the Democrats a shot at twelve (or more) years in the White House, something the Republicans had with Ronald Reagan and the first George Bush but which the Democrats haven't had since FDR. Twelve years gives the party in power a chance to reshape the Supreme Court as well as put an indelible stamp on America.Robert Reich blogging at huffingtonpost.com


One name I did not mention on my list for Romney is General Petraeus .

Will Paul defect and run a 3rd party challenge ( I can see all the white sheets already)? Will the N0 Labels tap into Bloomy's $$$$$$ and throw a name into the ring ?

Will Paul defect and run a 3rd party challenge ( I can see all the white sheets already)? Will the N0 Labels tap into Bloomy's $$$$$$ and throw a name into the ring ?Hello tom:

Yes..

Plus, Gary Johnson is now running as a Libertarian and Buddy Rhomer might be the Elect Party candidate. The Donald will threaten to run as usual, and Jeb Bush will jump in at the convention. But, the REAL 9th party candidate will be Sarah Palin.

It's looking good for Obama.

excon

Lol, thats only because the right wing hates everybody but the right wing. All the righties are fighting each other, even the book tour candidates, the closet moderate is the frontrunner, hollering conservative, and the smartest, most experienced and accomplished republican is never mentioned, Huntsman.

Huntsman has done nothing to distinguish himself in the debates . I like him but if I went by his performance then he is...
Chicago - Mr. Cellophane - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBFVzQ_sXxU)

Palin won't run independent ;and if there is a serious draft Sarah movement... she could do to the nominee what the Swimmer did to Carter .

Question... will the Progressives run a late challenge to the President ? They isn't happy "campers" these days . They were in Iowa yesterday raising a ruckus over GITMO . If only the compliant press would cover the news... While they were freezing their hoofies in Iowa ,the Pesident played a 7 hr round of golf. Lol It's not like he has to go fish for his shanks .

No Ex, I can pretty well guarantee Republicans will get behind the eventual nominee... which is going to be Mitt. And he's currently doing much better than Obama in polling and that's before we get behind our one guy.

Going into tomorrows caucus(s) in Iowa the latest polling shows a virtual tie between Romney ,Paul and the surging Santorum .

Santorum's net favorability of 60/30 makes him easily the most popular candidate in the field. No one else's favorability exceeds 52%. He may also have more room to grow in the final 48 hours of the campaign than the other front runners: 14% of voters say he's their second choice to 11% for Romney and only 8% for Paul. Santorum's taken the lead with two key groups of Republican voters: with Tea Partiers he's at 23% to 18% for Gingrich, 16% for Paul, 15% for Bachmann, and only 12% for Romney. And with Evangelicals he's at 24% to 16% for Gingrich, and 15% for Paul and Romney.




Paul still has a very decent chance at winning on Tuesday- it just depends on whether his unusual coalition of young voters and non-Republicans really comes out to caucus. Among actual Republican voters Paul is tied for 3rd place with Gingrich at 17%, behind Romney's 21% and Santorum's 19%. But with independents and Democrats who plan to vote, which we peg at 24% of the electorate, Paul leads with 30% to just 14% each for Santorum and Romney.


Headed for a Photo Finish in Iowa - Public Policy Polling (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/01/headed-for-a-photo-finish-in-iowa.html)

When will the Republican learn to close their primaries to non-Republicans ? This infiltration and sabotage of the process is what leads to weak candidates .

Especially when the candidates are weak to begin with.

Hello again,

Ok, on the eve of the caucus, I'm calling it. Rick Santorum wins. Romney 2nd. Paul 3rd. Perry 4th. Bachmann 5th, and drops out. Gingrich 6th.

excon

Can't stay up a any longer tonight.. Santorum has taken a slight lead and if the results stand as they are now then Ex wins the trifecta .

Mittens won by a wisker. Next on to NH where he will romp. The question is if Santorum can get any support there since he spent almost all his time in Iowa.

The subject of this posting ,Gingrich got hammered and is not a happy camper . He plans on going negative on Romney . Watch his numbers in South Carolina to see if he can rebound.

BYE BYE MICHELLE B. and to bad Perry's wife won't let him quit like he wants to.

Newt is gunning for Mitt now, he wants his revenge. And he reserves the right to tell the truth!>snicker

Ya think Romney will pick Bachman as a running mate now?

No . There are other credible conservatives that would balance the ticket better ,and Bachmann is needed in the House to keep Speaker Bonehead in line .

Besides ,I am not one that says it is a given that Romney will win. I am a bit surprised he did as well as he did in Iowa. But if Santorum plays this smart ;his showing yesterday can take him a long way.
I'm also not one who thinks it urgent for the Republicans to rush to a decision.
I think the knock down battle between Evita and the President was a good thing for the President and the Dems. They kept their message in the forefront all spring of 2008 going into the conventions.

Looking forward to the next debate. The moderators will no longer be able to ignore Santorum.

Looking forward to the next debate. The moderators will no longer be able to ignore Santorum.


When Santorum's ideas become common knowledge (which they will, now), voters will desert him in droves. Last man standing in this comedy will be Romney. Dark horse - Huntsman.

(Excon pretty much nailed it last night).

On this discussion I identified Santorum as my favorite remaining candidate.
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/republicans-who-do-you-like-so-far-gop-field-618297.html

I will be glad to have a discussion on his policy positions. I imagine that he will at least initially have to fend off charges from the right that he is not conservative enough. Later the left will chime in that he is too extreme right winged.

Hello again, tom:

“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that's okay, contraception is okay. It's not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

I wonder what he really means when he said things are "counter to how things are supposed to be". Don't you?? He's certainly an adherent to Intelligent Design as opposed to evolution.. Maybe he thinks medicine should be practiced the way it was BEFORE biology.

Seems like this small government conservative wants the government IN every bedroom in the country... I'm a small government liberal.

We can't let this koo koo get his hands on the levers and buttons of government... But, he'll self destruct on his own.

excon

Wow Ex I never took you for a conservative and yet you have a more conservative position than the candidate.

Do you think that because the candidate has a position on right to life, etc that this disqualifies him from government. On the contrary being up front about his views should commend him. You know where he stands. You also know where he stands in respect of religion. Should this also disqualify him? Democracy allows him to have this opinion and yet because a President doesn't make the laws he can still be representative of the people.

Hello clete:

So, if you were a gun nut, you'd be comfortable electing a person who believes NOBODY should have guns??

Really?? Dude!

excon

I'll paraphrase your hero .

No one should vote either for him or against him because of his religious beliefs... they are irrelevant .

The latest nut will crack like all those before him, its just his turn in the barrel. Just for context though, while everyone was gathered for the repubs caucus, the prez hosted a tele conference of Iowa democrats, and drew 25,000 democrats. Just saying.

Yeah I saw it. With all the technical glitches he looked like a 21st century Max Headroom.

He looks terrible by the way... maybe he is overworked and in need of a vacation... bwaaahaaaahaaaahhaaa

NAW, prez went to OHIO, and bashed the repubs again.

Yep and that's his game plan, bash the Republicans. He made another strategic and probably unconstitutional (http://www.tnr.com/blog/timothy-noah/99229/cordrays-recess-appointment-sure-doesnt-look-constitutional-me) move yesterday by making 4 "recess" appointments - 3 of whom had been submitted to the Senate only 3 weeks ago - even though the senate isn't in recess, precisely so he can keep painting Republicans as do-nothing obstructionists. But hey, since you can't run on your record...

Hello again, Steve:

Nahhh.. Obama has got this one in the bank.

You DO know that our beloved Constitution gives the president the POWER to make recess appointments. IF the congress is REALLY in recess, and they're opening and closing sessions simply to PREVENT the president from performing a Constitutional duty, then I'd say the congress is performing a SHAM upon the American people and the courts WILL agree.

excon

Hello again,

WOULD I BE WILLING to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and America's minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason (drug war), and the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for “espionage,” and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran (fought by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support)

IN EXCHANGE FOR less severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, the preservation of the Education and Energy Departments, more stringent environmental regulations, broader health care coverage, defense of reproductive rights for women, stronger enforcement of civil rights for America's minorities, a President with no associations with racist views??

No, I would NOT. I've said before that the ONLY reason to reelect Obama is for the SCOTUS appointments he's going to make.. Now, I believe Ron Paul would appoint Supreme Court Justices that I would LOVE. That's why HE'S the best guy for the job.

excon

“I will keep the Senate in pro forma session to block the President from doing an end run around the Senate and the Constitution with his controversial nominations.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.15980, 12/19/07)

I really think it's time to change the Constitution . Either the President doesn't need advise and consent or he does.
Recess appointments had validity in the horse and buggy days. But all they are today is a means to bypass the legitimate role of the Senate.

And yes the move by Obama is unconstitutional . But no one will do anything about it . The President likes to make decisions and let the law catch up with him.

Hello again,

WOULD I BE WILLING to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and America's minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason (drug war), and the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for “espionage,” and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran (fought by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support)

IN EXCHANGE FOR less severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, the preservation of the Education and Energy Departments, more stringent environmental regulations, broader health care coverage, defense of reproductive rights for women, stronger enforcement of civil rights for America's minorities, a President with no associations with racist views???

No, I would NOT. I've said before that the ONLY reason to reelect Obama is for the SCOTUS appointments he's going to make.. Now, I believe Ron Paul would appoint Supreme Court Justices that I would LOVE. That's why HE'S the best guy for the job.

excon

Ron Paul of course has proposed $trillions in cuts that would have course have an impact on some of your sacred cows . And that is only with the things he says. What he does (in Congress at least ) is a horse of a different color. Oh he pays lip service to things like the space program being privatized. Then he signs a letter to the President asking that the Nasa Constellation 'pig in a poke 'program get reinstated

But just by what he says ;both the Energy and Education Depts would get the deep six under his plans . He would cut all the programs you love and make the country less secure with his 17th century view of international relations .

This must be the Dems' line of attack against Rick Santorum, how he dealt with his stillborn child was weird. First, Alan Colmes - who reduced Mrs. Santorum to tears (though he later apologized). Now, WaPo columnist Eugene Robinson chimes in on the weirdness (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/01/05/eugene_robinson_rick_santorums_stillborn_baby_stor y_is_very_weird.html).


"He's not a little weird, he's really weird," Robinson said of Santorum. "And some of his positions that he has taken are just so weird that I think that some Republicans are off-put. Not everybody is not going to be down, for example, with the story of how he and his wife handled the stillborn child. It was a body that they took home to kind of sleep with it, introduce it to the rest of the family. It's a very weird story."

No, it's not a weird story, people deal with the loss of a child in various ways and the Santorum's way to handle the situation was entirely understandable (http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancyloss/sbsurvivingemotionally.html). Should they have just tossed the child in the trash?

If only she had just aborted the lad instead...