• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Iowa Caucuses

I offer the following observations, but I admit that I may be full of fertilizer:

First: The showing of Santorum is not really a surprise, given the showing of Pat Robertson a few decades ago. There are a substantial number of Elephant Party voters who think that they're calling a pastor rather than picking a presidential preference, and whoever says "Christ" and "Jesus" and "Bible" the most and the loudest will get their vote. Wisdom and intelligence be damned, gooble gobble, we've got to support "one of us," someone who is just as judgmental and deluded and backward and morally screwed up as we are.

Second: The dismal finish of Michele Bachmann IS a bit of a surprise, because she said "Christ" and "Jesus" and "Bible" a LOT, and loudly, too. Also, she was born in Iowa and currently resides in a State next to Iowa, and in the past, geographical proximity played a major role in GOP caucus preferences. But some Iowans are skittish of candidates who come across as shrill harpies, as they seek from the masses a mandate to wield supreme executive power.

Third: The Iowa slugfest has shown that what drives the GOP is fear. There is probably no larger, well-organized and more amply funded group of sniveling pussies and yellow-stripes on the entire planet. Virtually every message from every candidate included a warning of some sort of terrifying domestic or foreign threat. They wallowed in negative campaigns and attack ads (and following the results in Iowa, there seems to be universal agreement that these will increase). The whole point of such ads is fear: not that a citizen should vote for any particular candidate or any particular issue, but that a citizen should not vote for an enemy candidate who will cause them to lose what they've got. When someone "goes negative," he not only plays to fear and encourages voters to decide with their shaking knees rather than with their brains, that person also neither asks for nor gets any mandate from the ballot box to do anything.

Fourth: From my perspective in Canada, I am quite frankly ashamed by the way things have proceeded, in part because some of my good friends have asked me, with exceptional politeness, whether the folks in the USA are sane. President Obama is well-regarded (though not universally liked) in Canada, in part because he is educated, intelligent, articulate, and not as prone to hucksterism and hyperbole. The candidates on the GOP side, however, strike many Canadians as surreal. Are these people genuinely running for president? Is this some sort of elaborate practical joke? The rank stupidity that has gushed in waves from the pie-holes of these people, the shameless sword-rattling, the jaw-dropping hypocrisy, the absurdity of their positions, the lack of qualifications for the post ... saying to Canadians that such candidates actually stand a chance of becoming the next US president strikes them as bizarre in the extreme. They cannot imagine a person comparable to any current GOP contender rising to the top of Canadian politics. Don't get me wrong, Canada has its share of political clowns, and Canadians will be the first to say so. But Canadian political boobs and the current GOP contenders aren't even in the same league.

People from nations other than Canada also find the campaign hard to believe.

I'm reminded of the movie "The Godfather," in which Tom Hagen taunts Sonny Corleone sarcastically (and I paraphrase): "You're getting a GREAT reputation, Sonny, I hope you're ENJOYING it!!" To my friends in the GOP, I say with a touch less sarcasm, "You're getting a hell of a reputation outside the USA, I hope you think it's worth it."
 
angrysoba said:
Did it not look a bit like Michele Bachman's campaign manager for Iowa was a very camp homosexual? Not that it should matter, of course, except for the fact that much of her presidential campaign has involved pandering hard to rabid homophobes.
Click to expand...
Just looked like a spoiled rich kid to me.
 
I'm wondering if this is just another surge for a different right wing candidate and Romney remains steady. It seems a chunk of the right wing ideologues keep voting not Romney with different people.
 
seayakin said:
I'm wondering if this is just another surge for a different right wing candidate and Romney remains steady. It seems a chunk of the right wing ideologues keep voting not Romney with different people.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what is was. Santorum is the fourth "not Romney" behind Perry, Cain and Newt.
 
I just hope her poor Iowa showing will finally be able to convince batcrap crazy Bachmann to finally drop out.
 
Brown said:
...snip...

Second: The dismal finish of Michele Bachmann IS a bit of a surprise, because she said "Christ" and "Jesus" and "Bible" a LOT, and loudly, too. Also, she was born in Iowa and currently resides in a State next to Iowa, and in the past, geographical proximity played a major role in GOP caucus preferences.
...snip...
Click to expand...

Could the "she" not be the explanation? After all for many Christians (look at the RCC for an example) the idea of a female leader is an anathema?
 
Alferd_Packer said:
I guess you could say that santorum was all over Romney last night.
Click to expand...

Now that's a rimshot if ever there was one.

The Central Scrutinizer said:
Looks like Perry is dropping out: http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/04/politics/perry-candidacy/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

I imagine Bachman will be next.
Click to expand...

She was really pushing the rhetoric before last night:

"Tomorrow night we are going to see a miracle, because we know the one who gives miracles," Bachmann said Monday night at a rally outside her headquarters in Urbandale.
Click to expand...

She can't go on after that one.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Looks like Perry is dropping out: http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/04/politics/perry-candidacy/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

I imagine Bachman will be next.
Click to expand...
Actually, that is good news for the whackadoodle Bachmann. She and Santorum will split the whackadoodles for Perry and the few semi-rational people for Perry will gravitate a little more toward Paul.

A few peole with an interest in the real estate market (most specificly the flippers and slum lords) will go to Romney.

In the end, I see it mostly as a race between Santorum and Romney at this point because Santorum is the least crazy of four crazies.
 
Iowa will send 28 of the 2,286 delegates to the 2012 Republican National Convention. Does anyone else think that the importance of the Iowa caucuses has been overblown?
 
Kestrel said:
Iowa will send 28 of the 2,286 delegates to the 2012 Republican National Convention. Does anyone else think that the importance of the Iowa caucuses has been overblown?
Click to expand...

Not really. You have two candidates already dropping out due to the results.
 
DavidJames said:
That's exactly what is was. Santorum is the fourth "not Romney" behind Perry, Cain and Newt.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was my guess too. Although fifth might be more accurate after Bachman, Perry, Cain and Gingrich. Santorum peaked at a better time than the others though. Now some of the cable channels are scrambling to find out who this guy is.
 
Given how little time Romney spent in Iowa (compared to his rivals and his previous Presidential run), his showing was respectable.

Romney got 25.2% in Iowa in 2008 and 24.6% this time. Romney spent $1.11 MM in Iowa this time, and he spent $10MM four years ago.

Romney will likely win NH handily now, which gives Santorum a good two weeks to implode before South Carolina.

If the candidate was anybody but Romney I'd have said Obama was a shoe-in for reelection. Against Romney, I think the determinative factor will be how well the economy is faring come November.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom