Iowa Caucus Day: Will there be a winnowing — or not?

By Michelle Malkin  •  January 3, 2012 06:04 AM

Phew. Are you ready? There are an estimated 614,000 active registered Republicans in Iowa. A small fraction of them will turn out tonight to vote in the first-in-the-nation GOP presidential caucus. The anticipated top three placers are a toss-up. Sunday’s PPP poll had it 20/19/18 for Paul, Romney and Santorum. Election Projection’s Scott Elliott posts his predictions:

Rick Santorum – 24%
Mitt Romney – 23%
Ron Paul – 22%
Rick Perry – 15%
Newt Gingrich – 9%
Michele Bachmann – 6%
Jon Huntsman – 1%

Traditionally, the Iowa caucus winnows down crowded fields.

But — egad — will any of the back-benchers actually drop out after tonight?

Jon Huntsman’s anemic vanity campaign has the support of Vogue Magazine, his wife and children, his deep-pocketed father, and very, very few others. But he’s not budging yet. He skipped Iowa to concentrate on New Hampshire, which holds its primary on Jan. 10. This means he’ll get to bloviate again about the need for moooooderation and civility during two more debates this coming Saturday and Sunday in Manchester. Despite his failure to organize a competent effort to get on the ballot in Virginia, he is publicly deluding himself (but certainly not New Hampshire voters) that he can “steam” ahead to South Carolina, Florida, and beyond.

Michele Bachmann is promising a “miracle” in Iowa tonight, but her numbers look dismal and the glow of her long-ago Ames straw poll win is a distant memory buried by a series of unfortunate campaign staff debacles/defections. Whatever the outcome, she said Monday she has no intention of dropping out and will fly straight to South Carolina.

Rick Perry, who followed Bachmann’s sizzle-and-fizzle footsteps in Iowa, will also follow her to South Carolina in hopes of a defibrillator-like campaign recharge. Perry says Santorum can’t beat Obama. But this comes from a guy whose “epic failure” in Virginia exposed utter incompetence — and whose first instinct was to sue the state (along with fellow Virginia ballot botcher Newt Gingrich) instead of accepting the consequences.

As for Newt Gingrich, he’s blaming Romney, a staffer that he hired, money, and, yes, his own reasonableness for his burst bubble. Newt’s been way past his expiration date for years. He’ll cling bitterly to this presidential campaign vehicle until the next p.r. ride comes along.

And then there’s this:

Well, I think that’s possible, although we have these two debates next weekend in New Hampshire. Candidates might hold on for those. Those have been great opportunities for people to make a stand and take advantage of somebody else’s mistakes.

So it’s possible that we’ll see the candidates go on for just a little while longer. The fact is, we might see these candidates go for quite a bit longer given the changes in Republican rules this time. We haven’t really focused on this. But, you know, we’ve become accustomed to Republican races that get settled pretty quick by those Super Tuesday contests.

Mathematically, they have pushed all those — pushed some big contests back. They’re requiring proportional representation in the contests that come before April 1. And that could have the effect of pushing this contest into April and May, maybe even into those final primaries into June.

A refresher on those rule changes:

Rule change #1: Except for Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada, no state can hold a binding primary or caucus before March 6, 2012. Any state that does, loses half its delegates to the national convention.

Consequence: Florida (Jan. 31), Arizona (Feb. 28), and Michigan (Feb. 28) all decided to hold their primaries before March 6 this cycle, and all three lose half of their delegates to the national convention. Florida’s delegation – usually the third largest delegation behind California and Texas – gets knocked down from 99 to 50 delegates; Arizona goes from 58 delegates down to 29; and Michigan’s delegation gets reduced from 59 to 30. Five other states hold caucuses or primaries before March 6, but they are not penalized because none of the contests is binding.

Rule change #2: Even the four traditionally early states – Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada – are not allowed to hold a binding primary or caucus before Feb. 1. If they do, they lose half their delegates.

Consequence: After Florida jumped to January, Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina decided to hold their contests in January (before the Feb. 1 cutoff). Iowa’s caucuses are not binding (i.e. the Iowa delegates can vote for whichever candidate they want at the convention, regardless of the caucus results), so Iowa does not violate the rule. But New Hampshire’s and South Carolina’s primaries are binding: New Hampshire goes from 23 down to 12 delegates, and South Carolina goes from 50 down to 25 delegates. Nevada decided to hold its caucuses in February, so they are not penalized.

Rule change #3: Any state that goes before April 1 must allot its delegates on a proportional basis. It cannot be done in a winner-take-all format. Any state with a winner-take-all contest before April 1 loses half its delegation.

Consequence: In previous years, dozens of winner-take-all primaries took place early in the calendar, so the presumptive nominee was often clear after Super Tuesday or shortly thereafter. This cycle, most of the states holding primaries earlier than April changed their system so that delegates are split up proportionally instead of all being given to the candidate with the most votes. This could lengthen the nomination process because even if a candidate “wins” a particular state, that candidate may not strike a decisive blow in garnering delegates.

In any case, we’ll update you as things get underway tonight. The process kicks off at 8pm Eastern.

You can catch up on Iowa Caucus primers galore and more here:

Des Moines Register
CBS News
Real Clear Politics
By the numbers
Iowa’s Sound and Fury – Michael Walsh, NYPost
Stacy McCain on Santorum’s surge

Many members of the punditocracy on the left and right are lamenting the Iowa caucus process and deriding Iowa voters.

I’d have no problem with a rotating first-in-the-nation slot and other systematic tweaks. But there’s a distinct air of sore-loser-dom in some of the complaints. Undecided voters in Iowa are simply reflecting the wider discontent among grass-roots conservatives and Tea Party activists with the current Pageant of the Imperfects. I told you these would come in handy, didn’t I?


Photoshop: Reader Jimmy D.

On the other side of the aisle, this USA Today headline is snort-worthy:

Obama readying for re-election bid.”

When has the perpetual campaigner-in-chief ever not been in re-election bid mode?

~ For the latest breaking news, be sure to join Michelle's e-mail list ~

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments


  1. #201
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 4:42 pm, Truesoldier said:

    On January 3rd, 2012 at 4:30 pm, rightwingrocker said:
    The idea of closing unneeded forward bases is actually both fiscally and strategically responsible. It’s the President’s job to guard our borders, not everyone else’s.

    Except there is one flaw in this theory. FOB’s are primary for power projection. Someday it may not be as technology may allow us to get to where we need to go much faster and lighter than we currently need to do. It is not so much about protecting other countries borders (that is a side benefit for the country in which the FOB is located) as it is about giving us the ability to stike anywhere within hours with a force not to be reckoned with.

    The problem with pulling back within our own borders is more akin to being under siege. Allowing your enemies to wall you only gives them time to build up for a serious blow.

    there are some basses that should be closed and others that should be opened. I would be all for closing the basses in Germany and moving them to Poland or the Czech Republic. Both are in better striking positions of the troublespots we may have to deal with, both have offered us more favorable lease aggrements with less restrictions on training, and both are more akin to our Conservative beliefs.

  2. #202
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 4:44 pm, rightwingrocker said:

    But the Barbary pirates were driven by a lust for money. The current batch of Moslem fanatics are driven by a lust for power. Far, far more dangerous.

    These thugs were merely lying in wait for all those years. Power and money are the same thing to those who covet them. Just look at Washington, DC for proof.

    RWR
    http://www.rightwingrocker.com

  3. #203
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 4:47 pm, Hiraghm said:

    On January 3rd, 2012 at 3:57 pm, conservative hispanic said:

    Rogue Cheddar:

    BTW, you’ve proven that you’re either a liar or an imbecile. Anyboy who has read my posts knows that I’ve always wanted either Bachmann/Cain/Palin/Santorum as the GOP nominee. So which one is it, putz?

    Sorry, I’ve got to take you to task just as I have OK_Loyalist and Pasadena Phil… resist the urge to resort to ad hominems, no matter how tempting. It reflects poorly on Ms Malkin when we stoop to the language skills of your typical leftwing, OWS blogger.
    You can refute him without adding the “putz”.

  4. #204
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 4:47 pm, T-Bone said:

    His view of The United States of America (caps intentional) is that, we are responsible for every bad thing that has happened to us. That we are solely responsible for what we do, but that nobody else is responsible for what they do.
    That The United States of America must empathize and understand other peoples (even barbarians), but that other peoples are under no obligation to empathize and understand us.

    Exactamundo! It was our foreign policy that brought on 9/11 according to Ron Paul. Of course, Mr Paul neglects to note that our foreign policy is not developed in a vacumn. It is in response to past, current and expected future events. It will never be perfect as no countries will ever be perfect.

    To think that the murderers on 9/11 are justified because of our bad foreign policy is beyond the pale. It is reprehensible and reckless. I suppose black peoples policies towards whites give Ron Paul the excuse to publish racist newsletters too. He’s just giving them blowback.

    Or maybe if Iraq forcefully occupies another country, they should be attacked. Except that Kuwait was already taken. It’s a little late to fight back after you have been conquered. Paul believes that Kuwait should fight for itself and we should not be involved. Well, Saddam would take over Kuwaits oil fields and would have gone into Saudi Arabia too. The money and power he would have would be enormous and he could keep right on going. Who could stop him? Thats what will happen here if isolationist policy is adopted. Our enemies will eventually become strong enough to take us by force. then it will be our fault? Too late for that once Sharia or communism takes over. Or maybe because we are so nice, they will just leave us alone. Like the Ostrich that buries it’s head in the sand, he is not safe doing so.

  5. #205
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 4:47 pm, spaceycakes said:

    Rogue Cheddar said:
    I apologize, I guess I inferred what you didn’t imply.

    Moe: are you insinuatin’?
    Curly: no, just dancin’.

  6. #206
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 4:48 pm, DonkeyHoatie said:

    To step back from discussion of any one candidate for a moment, and address some comments regarding the purpose of armed conflict in general…

    Armed conflict is, at its core, an extension of diplomacy and politics. As much as we military folks hated to look at it that way, it’s ultimately the root and core of military action. When diplomacy and politics fail to produce the desired result, the military is called into action. Whether it be in wars of conquest (Government says, “Give me your land or I’ll take it from you”) or in wars of defense (Government says, “Get off my land or I’ll kick you off”), the military solution is the next step of escalation after the politicians get their turn.

    Likewise, the military has an adjacent purpose in overseas commerce. Countries use their military to protect the mercantile interests of their own citizens in areas outside of their borders. It was under this purpose that wars against various pirate groups were fought, as those pirate groups interfered with US overseas commerce.

    Nation-building, peacemaking, humanitarian intervention, etc, are primarily 20th century inventions, and history is still deciding how to judge and evaluate such efforts.

  7. #207
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 4:48 pm, Hiraghm said:

    Off-topic, but conservative hispanic just reminded me that I’m mad at Santa.

    I asked him to bring me my very own Michelle Malkin, and all he brought me was a stocking full of coal CFL lightbulbs :(

  8. #208
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 4:49 pm, rightwingrocker said:

    The problem with pulling back within our own borders is more akin to being under siege.

    There is a bigger problem with it: history.

    The British failed dismally with that strategy, as did the Greeks and the Romans. Are you really of the same mind of the socialists, who think their failed system will work just fine if somehow they can find the right person to run it? I didn’t peg you as being of that mindset.

    There’s a much better way to go about it. If the Germans want our military presence in their country, let them pay for it. That way, we don’t put unnecessary strain on our own economy, and they get what they want.

    Tens of thousands of bases all over the world to the point that the sun is always shining on an active duty US soldier is WAY too much.

    RWR
    http://www.rightwingrocker.com

  9. #209
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 4:52 pm, rightwingrocker said:

    Off-topic, but conservative hispanic just reminded me that I’m mad at Santa.

    I asked him to bring me my very own Michelle Malkin, and all he brought me was a stocking full of coal CFL lightbulbs :(

    LOL!

    RWR
    http://www.rightwingrocker.com

  10. #210
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 4:52 pm, Hiraghm said:

    T-Bone, I guess Ron Paul would think we’d be justified to blow up Beijing or Tokyo because of China or Japan’s policies which have hurt us economically? Just trying to apply his logic to another region of the world…

  11. #211
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 4:52 pm, rightwingrocker said:

    I’m out all!

    Have a great day!

    RWR
    http://www.rightwingrocker.com

  12. #212
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 4:54 pm, Hiraghm said:

    On January 3rd, 2012 at 4:49 pm, rightwingrocker said:

    Darn you left, but I’ll respond anyway :D

    Tens of thousands of bases all over the world to the point that the sun is always shining on an active duty US soldier is WAY too much.

    Not in my viewpoint, since I still believe that the United States was meant to rule the world after WWII… and we botched it.

  13. #213
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 4:58 pm, Truesoldier said:

    On January 3rd, 2012 at 4:49 pm, rightwingrocker said:
    There is a bigger problem with it: history.

    The British failed dismally with that strategy, as did the Greeks and the Romans. Are you really of the same mind of the socialists, who think their failed system will work just fine if somehow they can find the right person to run it? I didn’t peg you as being of that mindset.

    That is not comparing apples to apples. The Roman’s, Greek’s, and British were out to create an empire and nation build so to speak. I am not advocating that in the least bit. Having basses in countries in which we have negotiated a lease aggrement is far different than a military conquest and setting up a base.

    I am not calling for thousands of basses world wide and we certainly could cut down on the basses (especially in coutries that would rather we not be there like Japan for example). The amount of basses should be limited in scope and mission to what we would really need to project our power in a hurry. Instead of hundreds of basses all over Europe we put a few in key locations. Same goes with the Pacific theatre of operations as well.

  14. #214
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 5:12 pm, conservative hispanic said:

    Hiraghm:

    Sorry, but I could’ve called him something far worse. When a poster is lying in such a blatant way, it really pisses me off. When you try to reason with them, and they either ignore your questions, or change the subject, it shows not only lack of honesty, but also lack of intellect. When they demonstrate that their intellectual capacity is below prosimian level (as in below a mouse lemur, the smallest primate alive, 3.6 inches long, weights 30 grams), then they at least should be gracious enough to withdraw from the thread. Some of the Paulbots here are like the Borg: you can’t reason with them. But don’t worry: in the future, I’ll try to bite my keyboard.

    BTW: as for you wanting a Michelle Malkin for Christmas, may I remind you that she’s married with children? No wonder you got a stocking full of CFLs!! LOL

  15. #215
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 5:19 pm, T-Bone said:

    There should be some big blowback to Iran I think. Or is Iran justified in killing Americans and threatening our interest around the world because we supported the Shah.

    Or maybe we have to go back to any number of armed conquerors who took territory and resources from others to build the Persian empire.

    Or perhaps the American Indians have a right to fly planes into the Empire State building because of our past and possibly current Indian policies. It’s insidious, whether the chicken or the egg came first.

    America is a shining light of freedom in the world. Many people have beneifted from our foreign policies, including all those involved in World War II. We saved their butts and the world is better off because of it.

    America is NOT the problem in the World. We are not the cause of 9/11. We are not the sole inventors of slave societies, we are not the inventors or perpetuators of the barbaric religion of Islam. Heck, even the crusades were a response to Muslim hordes invading neighboring countries.

    Apparently, Obama and Ron Paul think we are the cause of all the evil in the world. I strenuously object to that line of reasoning and would have to nosehold to vote for the LOTE, Paul or Obama.

  16. #216
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 5:33 pm, conservative hispanic said:

    T-Bone:

    You make sense. The Paulbots can’t stand that. When faced with their foreign policy contradictions, they either change the subject or go crazy.

  17. #217
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 6:01 pm, T-Bone said:

    Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Hirohito, Hussein, Ayatollah Khomeini, Xerxes, Cyrus, Alexander, Ghengis Khan, and any number of barbarians, tyrants, kings, and warriors have conquered and pillaged parts of the world long before America was even born.

    If not for the brave men and women who stood in their way, the world would be a different place. The atrocities would have been a magnitude greater than the holocaust or genocides that have taken place in the world.

    You ignore this threat of inherent evil at your peril. If Ron Paul thinks we can stop it all by being nice to our neighbors in the world, he will enable evil to rise. They will come for us sooner or later.

    Ron Paul is dead wrong here. He is already old so the dead in this wrong will be our children and grandchildren. Not something I am willing to take.

    And Obama would do better than Paul in that regard? Not a good sign.

  18. #218
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 6:09 pm, StaceyOfLiberty said:

    On January 3rd, 2012 at 9:04 am, happyscrapper said:
    Personally, I am sick to death of the Presidential campaign. The press is nit-picking the candidates to DEATH, and the issues are being ignored. What the hell is wrong with us??? This is so stupid!! We have been very effectively sidetracked from the issue of saving our country from corruption, evil and communism. Kinda important, wouldn’t you say? So instead, the reporters are talking about Santorum’s sweater vests and the infighting. Are there any grown-ups in this race? I haven’t seen any!
    Also, has anyone been paying attention to the Congressional races around the country? The POTUS is one person. Congress is the place where these dumb bills are being passed. Congress gave us the light bulb ban, etc. Is anyone even paying attention?
    The press is made up of a lot of bozos and clown acts. They ask stupid questions. They goad and insult our intelligence. Why are we allowing them to get away with this? The candidates need to call them on this and tell them to ask decent questions or stfu.

    I think this is spot on, really. Even though I’m on the other side of the aisle on a lot of issues, we can agree that the discussions should be more substantive. The pettiness and triviality of the press coverage is infuriating, and it pushes the candidates’ rhetoric to be petty and trivial as well. I hate it.

  19. #219
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 6:12 pm, Virginia Patriot said:

    I’m hoping for a Santorum win, followed by Bachmann, Perry, Paul, Newt and Romney.

    Pretty much the order of my preference of the final outcome.

    I’m winning over people in VA to vote Paul instead of sitting it out.

    Anybody but Obama/Romney 2012!

  20. #220
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 6:19 pm, Virginia Patriot said:

    On January 3rd, 2012 at 9:04 am, happyscrapper said:
    Personally, I am sick to death of the Presidential campaign.

    They managed to keep digging on the one candidate that really threatened the two-headed monster until they found enough. Eventually hounded out of the race the guy who should have been President.

    But absolutely no curiousity about Barry Soetoro or whatever his name really is. And that includes the GOP.

  21. #221
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 6:24 pm, happyscrapper said:

    But absolutely no curiousity about Barry Soetoro or whatever his name really is. And that includes the GOP.

    I’m waiting for just one of these candidates to come out and say, “Let’s find out a bit more about our mysterious POTUS. College transcripts, old friends, and will someone please clear up the Social Security number issue? There is something strange there”. How hard is that to say? I just did it and I’m not even running for POTUS! Just spit it out, people!! If our candidates can’t even deal with questions of Obama’s past, what good are they?

  22. #222
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 6:30 pm, Virginia Patriot said:

    Amen, happy.

    I left Huntsman out entirely, oops, I forgot he was running like most people apparently have.

  23. #223
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 6:37 pm, Iowa Guy said:

    BIGGEST WINNER – The Iowa residents who (for the time being) can forget about the constant robo-calling, polling and campaign ads flooding our mailboxes and our t.v. sets. sheesh!

  24. #224
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 7:04 pm, happyscrapper said:

    Michelle and Doug must be really busy these days!

  25. #225
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 7:24 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    On January 3rd, 2012 at 4:44 pm, rightwingrocker said:

    But the Barbary pirates were driven by a lust for money. The current batch of Moslem fanatics are driven by a lust for power. Far, far more dangerous.

    These thugs were merely lying in wait for all those years.

    Correct. Prior to 1776, the British Navy protected our merchant ships because we were a British colony. During the Revolution, we had the French Navy as an ally. After the war, however, we had no Navy, and that is when the Barbary pirates started attacking our merchant ships.

    Washington wished for a Navy. Why?

    Would to Heaven we had a navy able to reform those enemies to mankind – or crush them into non-existence.

    - George Washington, Writings, Vol. 28, p. 521, to Marquis de Lafayette, August 15, 1786.

    Adams funded the building of a Navy.

    Jefferson used that Navy to carry Marines over there (“to the shores of Tripoli”) and kick the Barbary pirates’ arses.

  26. #226
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 7:28 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    From that same link

    In 1784, Congress authorized American diplomats John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson to negotiate with the Muslim terrorists. [18] Negotiations proceeded, and in 1786, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson candidly asked the Ambassador from Tripoli the motivation behind their unprovoked attacks against Americans. What was the response?

    The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet [Mohammed] – that it was written in their Koran that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners; that is was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners; and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise. [19]

  27. #227
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 7:39 pm, OK_Loyalist said:

    On January 3rd, 2012 at 4:47 pm, Hiraghm said:

    Bigot, you just thought you took me to task.

  28. #228
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 7:41 pm, T-Bone said:

    Are you sure it wasn’t our bad foreign policy that caused them to attack us?

    Was it a religious law and not something we did to annoy them?

    Its was based on Islam and not us talking down to them or bulding buildings too tall?

    Didn’t we support a Shah or a despot and they were just mad at us for what we did?

    Are you sure, because Ron Paul says 9/11 was our fault. Could it be that it is really Islams fault and Paul is wrong? History repeating itself.

  29. #229
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 7:44 pm, conservative hispanic said:

    ITookTheRedPill:

    Thank you so much for proving, once again, that Ron Paul and his Paulbots are full of excrement. The words of our First President condemn this cowards, and the actions of our other Founding Fathers should show them the right way to deal with our enemies. Maybe some of them will finally see the light.

  30. #230
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 7:50 pm, ChapBix said:

    #107. On January 3rd, 2012 at 2:56 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

    In that event, the RINO’s would partner with the Dims to block conservative legislation using one excuse after another for doing so. That and trying to weaken the same said legislation.

  31. #231
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 7:54 pm, Virginia Patriot said:

    Conservative hispanic,
    Relax, Ron Paul is not going to be nominated. I’m just voting for him in VA’s primary to deny Romney those delegates. Although frankly, I’d have to get less drunk to vote in the general for Paul than Newt Romney.

    I’ve already scheduled a vacation day for Nov. I’m sure drinking heavily is going to be required.

  32. #232
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 7:54 pm, hopin_society said:

    I’dLoveMyColostomyBagSqueezedOutOntoMyPlateForDinnerPlease said:

    What the Hell’s wrong with you people

    ba da da da.. da… da da ..feeling snarky

  33. #233
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 8:05 pm, conservative hispanic said:

    Virginia Patriot:

    Thanks for the idea. Heavy drinking tonight! And some more on November 6!

    Santorum/Bachmann 2012!

  34. #234
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 8:06 pm, Hiraghm said:

    On January 3rd, 2012 at 7:28 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:
    John Adams and Thomas Jefferson candidly asked the Ambassador from Tripoli the motivation behind their unprovoked attacks against Americans. What was the response?

    Uhm… they’re pirates.

    Will Turner: You cheated.
    Jack Sparrow: Pirate.

    (from the movie, Pirates of the Caribbean: Capitalists are Evil (essentially the name of all of them))

    They’re going to have some justification for their actions, even if they have to lie.
    They’re Moslems. (repeat previous paragraph).

    The motivation behind the unprovoked attacks was Sutton’s Law: that’s where the money was.

  35. #235
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 8:07 pm, Hangfire said:

    On January 3rd, 2012 at 6:37 pm, Iowa Guy said:
    BIGGEST WINNER – The Iowa residents who (for the time being) can forget about the constant robo-calling, polling and campaign ads flooding our mailboxes and our t.v. sets. sheesh!

    Iowa has T.V. sets now?

    Does yours have a turntable and 8-track too?

  36. #236
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 8:09 pm, Hiraghm said:

    On January 3rd, 2012 at 7:39 pm, OK_Loyalist said:

    On January 3rd, 2012 at 4:47 pm, Hiraghm said:

    Bigot, you just thought you took me to task.

    Do you have anything to contribute to this topic, or are you just here to vent your spleen?

  37. #237
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 8:10 pm, Hiraghm said:

    Fox news is already claiming it’s a 3 man race… which is amazing, cause between Romney, Gingrich and Paul, I don’t think you could scrape together one man

  38. #238
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 8:14 pm, Hiraghm said:

    I’m thinking of supporting Paul in the primary if Bachmann drops out. An argument has been made that, in the general election, we should support the Republican candidate because he’s not the Democrat anointed one. Therefore, in the primary, I’ll use the same logic and support Paul because he’s not the Republican anointed one. Paul will get slaughtered by Obama, anyway. But, if I can’t have a conservative on the ticket, then I can deny the people who wish to choose my candidate for me victory.

  39. #239
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 8:16 pm, OK_Loyalist said:

    On January 3rd, 2012 at 8:09 pm, Hiraghm said:

    Bigot, my contribution has been as worthy as your comment that you dragged me into this. Now go kick rocks!

  40. #240
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 8:17 pm, hopin_society said:

    i gotcha thread killuh right heeeya

    hey, maybe instead of cheap shots y’all might wanna get all intellectually curious wid it– like this guy:

    This is an attempt to raise awareness and make both subjects imminently relatable and understandable though they should be unpalatable and unconscionable to those exhibiting eternal vigilance.

    If we’re honest with ourselves, can we not admit that have we have already been subjugated by our politicians and other elected officeholders and have been living under the meHEE’a (Mexi’a) for some 15-20 years or more?

    Every legal citizen in this country has an inherent contract with the country. Its politicians are to be held responsible for their broken contract by their malfeasance and or corruption when they eventually perjure themselves having previously sworn an oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution and secure the borders from all enemies both foreign and domestic. Allowing the United Nations (Immigration Department – currently run by Muslims for the delivery and deployment of Muslims) to select and place which group of refugees are immigrated to which country, makes our politicians derelict in both regards, does it not?

    Elitist talking heads continue offering the false premise that immigration just doesn’t matter – it’s way down on their list… shut up and vote for the one that can beat Obama.

    There are millions of under-employed citizen-Americans that wish to inject a bit of plainspoken economics into the debate… it’s analogous to the recession/depression question: if your wages have been undercut by illegal aliens – you are in a depression.

    Consider the continued wealth redistribution of allowing illegal aliens to undercut wages and the subsequent sending of billions of dollars out of the country. Are these legislators either not smart enough to comprehend this or are they simply complicit?

    Is there any real honest attempt to get the newcomers to assimilate? Are they being encouraged or rewarded for NOT assimilating?

    Should we not be wary of your kindergarten and first graders’ teachers and the seditious superintendants mandating the instruction of Spanish language ‘skills?’ What about Arabic? Would that create more teaching jobs? Would it make these future voters more “understanding” of amnesty legislation?

    Is there somehow a bit of “racism” between Catholic illegal aliens and Islamic illegal aliens or illegal aliens in general?

    Let’s compare the family reunification part of the current amnesty/asylum/forever visas and see how different that might be from tolerance for four wives producing 4-8 kids per wife – work that out for ten years and then forty years.

    Also consider that for the first time in centuries of Mexican history the enormous increase in the number of beheadings of victims of thugs.

    Easily more than one trillion of America’s wealth has been redistributed over the last ten years to reward illegal aliens with free education and healthcare ($126,000,000,000 in 2010). Several hundred million also went to help rebuild mosques last year, not including all the other rebuilding efforts (much of which is repeatedly blown up and rebuilt,) (plus the, what, 50-200 billion of cash that’s been stolen from the war effort with no accountability?).

    Try this for subjugation:

    – An east coast judge mandating 6 votes for every Hispanic vote.
    – The tolerance for killing American soldiers by Muslims.
    – The tolerance for killing American citizens by illegal aliens (avg. of 27 people every day).

    – Latinos lower American flag at US Post Office and raise the Mexican flag… others trample said flag.
    – Latino high school students threaten lives of “white” citizens for wearing US flag apparel at a May 5th event.

    What could possibly be constitutional about this country’s subjugation to BOTH: the maHEE’a and Shari’a?

    It is time to stop BOTH usurpations of American exceptionalism dead in their tracks,

    Questions anyone? Because you’ll be vilified with slander that you’re a racist if you ask them.

    But is this what 1.3 million of our troops died for?

  41. #241
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 8:22 pm, StaceyOfLiberty said:

    hopin_society, what are you suggesting re: the Iowa caucus?

  42. #242
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 8:22 pm, StaceyOfLiberty said:

    hopin_society, what are you suggesting re: the Iowa caucus?

  43. #243
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 8:35 pm, hopin_society said:

    tol’ ya

    S-o-L: all the way up to november

    funny, can’t seem to get the link to post, but it’s at noisyroomdotnet/blog/ with the following title:

    Moral Fracture Lines In The National Foundation

  44. #244
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 8:45 pm, Hiraghm said:

    On January 3rd, 2012 at 8:16 pm, OK_Loyalist said:

    On January 3rd, 2012 at 8:09 pm, Hiraghm said:

    Bigot, my contribution has been as worthy as your comment that you dragged me into this. Now go kick rocks!

    I can’t kick rocks. You’ve gathered them all up to throw at the contributors to the comments section of this blog who happen to disagree with you.

    You’re quickly dropping to the level of regard reserved for ILMC.

    You first and only (as best I can see) contribution to the comments of this topic was to hurl ad-hominems.

  45. #245
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 8:49 pm, Hiraghm said:

    Fox just said that the most conservative candidate’s coming in last, and the most liberal are leading.

    Never, ever thought I’d have to count on Santorum. I don’t see him beating Obama.

    To use a catchphrase from my college days… #awasux.

  46. #246
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 9:01 pm, OK_Loyalist said:

    On January 3rd, 2012 at 8:45 pm, Hiraghm said:

    We wouldn’t be having this back and for but you insisted on dragging me into this thread, so cam it bigot!

  47. #247
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 9:11 pm, til said:

    Finally, home from work.
    For a long time I read MM’s boards, disappointed that I couldn’t add my two cents, waiting for open enrollment.
    Many posters gave me a chuckle, most gave me different viewpoints, many of which modified my take on things.
    Finally the day arrived and luckily I was online at the time and my ‘application’ was accepted.

    Now I can actually have a conversation with Happy_Scrapper, Danceswithdachshunds, txvet2, chapoutier, Rogue Cheddar, Misscheryl, zyzzyg, rightisright, and many many more; some who I agree with and some who I don’t.
    I considered it the best blog on the net: sometimes the discussion became heated, arguments erupted — mostly due to misunderstandings, but always — civility ruled, apologies were made and accepted, wounds healed, and friendships ensued — even though opinions continued (often strongly) to differ.

    Unfortunately, apparently some democrat trolls have entered the arena, no longer are differing opinions discussed on their merits.
    It’s now – agree with me and my beliefs or I’ll call you a name and never consider your arguments, no matter how many facts you have to back them up.
    123_upnorth: I want to thank you for having the stomach to discuss American politics with people who abhor your opinion — the very people who allowed the sock-puppet into our White House. I’d wager the people who put you down couldn’t name your Prime Minister.
    Happy, over time I felt you and I think very much alike, it seems we desire the same things from (and not from) our government.
    Believe it or not, I believe Dr. Paul most closely aligns with your articulations about how you think things should be.

    For example, would you have supported any of these bills; none of which passed?

    HR 6416
    Introduced 11/17/2010 American Traveler Dignity Act
    American Traveler Dignity Act of 2010
    To ensure that certain Federal employees cannot hide behind immunity. co-sponsors 2

    HR 5970
    Introduced 07/29/2010 SEC Transparency Act
    SEC Transparency Act of 2010
    To repeal the amendments made by section 929I of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act relating to the confidentiality of materials submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission. co-sponsor 1

    HR 5444
    Introduced 05/27/2010 The Private Option
    Private Option Health Care Act of 2010
    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 and to replace it with provisions reforming the health care system by putting patients back in charge of health care. co-sponsors 0

    HR 4995
    Introduced 04/13/2010 End the Mandate
    End the Mandate Act of 2010
    To restore the American people’s freedom to choose the health insurance that best meets their individual needs by repealing the mandate that all Americans obtain government-approved health insurance. co-sponsors 25

    HR 4248
    Introduced 12/09/2009 Legalize Competing Currencies
    Free Competition in Currency Act of 2009
    To repeal the legal tender laws, to prohibit taxation on certain coins and bullion, and to repeal superfluous sections related to coinage.
    co-sponsor 1

    HR 1830
    Statement Introducing Unpasteurized Milk Bill,
    May 16, 2011
    Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation that allows the shipment and distribution of unpasteurized milk and milk products for human consumption across state lines. This legislation removes an unconstitutional restraint on farmers who wish to sell or otherwise distribute, and people who wish to consume, unpasteurized milk and milk products. Hard as it is [...]

    HR 1207
    Introduced 02/26/2009 Audit the Fed
    Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009
    To amend title 31, United States Code, to reform the manner in which the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is audited by the Comptroller General of the United States and the manner in which such audits are reported, and for other purposes. co-sponsors 320

    HR 459
    Introduced 01/26/2011 Audit the Fed
    Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2011
    To require a full audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks by the Comptroller General of the United States before the end of 2012, and for other purposes. co-sponsors 196

    HR 2438
    Introduced 07/07/2011 American Traveler Dignity Act
    American Traveler Dignity Act of 2011
    To ensure that certain Federal employees cannot hide behind immunity. co-sponsors 0

    The following speaks for itself:
    66 You’re a womanizing nut job.
    71 you’re just another mesmerized Paulbot.
    72 Put down the bong
    109 you didn’t answer the post, you schmuck!
    127 Idiots. They’re so stupid, they would march straight to the gas chambers
    148 yours must be the single-wide in the trailer park here
    154 you’ve proven that you’re either a liar or an imbecile. …putz
    160 You can kiss my hispanic rear end…
    226 Ron Paul and his Paulbots are full of excrement

  48. #248
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 10:12 pm, happyscrapper said:

    On January 3rd, 2012 at 9:11 pm, til said:

    Til…I hear what you are saying. It is true we have been a bit uncivil to each other lately. Part of that is just the frustration and weariness over all the crap going on, the corruption, the incredible destruction that is happening to our country. That is no excuse for us snapping at each other, but I believe it is part of the reason. We feel comfortable enough with each other to vent. But, like in families, we need to show more respect for each other as familiarity results in loosening of the rules of civility.

    Now, as for your list of nasty remarks…they are pretty nasty. Except for the first one directed at 123UpNorth. That one is spot on. :wink:

  49. #249
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 10:25 pm, conservative hispanic said:

    Boohoo, little crybaby til can’t stand the fact that I like to smack down Paulbots with my strong opinions. Cry me a river!

    Your post speak for itself… Paulbots can’t answer direct questions, and BTW, post 66 is not mine. I believe it’s happyscrapper’s.

    And yes, Ron Paul and his Paulbots are full of excrement. And if you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the thread.

  50. #250
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 10:34 pm, til said:

    All libs resort to name calling when they lose an argument, I think it makes them appear sophomoric, your propensity to ‘smack down’ undermines your credibility.
    just sayin

  51. #251
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 10:47 pm, conservative hispanic said:

    happyscrapper:

    Sorry, but I’m not going to allow some idiot to the take my words out of context, and not be challenged. I don’t see any need to be civil and nice to people who don’t answer direct questions, refuse to enter in a give and take, resort immediately to personal attacks and who have shown an utter lack of curiosity and intellectual honesty when challenged about Ron Paul’s views, specially in the defense and national security arenas. And if they can’t do any of that, they should move to one of the lefty blogs.

  52. #252
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 10:52 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

    Who moi? :roll:

  53. #253
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 11:02 pm, conservative hispanic said:

    til:

    I asked you 3 times: “what would George Washington do about Iran?” You never answered. Fortunately, ITookTheRedPill answered for you. Unlike you, he had the intellectual curiosity and werewithal to find the answer. I was pleasantly surprised that the answer was so strong. If you bother to read it(post #222), I HOPE IT HITS YOU LIKE A 20 POUND SLEDGEHAMMER BETWEEN THE EYES. And since he’s never given me reason to doubt his honesty, I’m sure his quote is correct. That is one of the many reasons I say you Paulbots are full of bovine scatology. You pretend to be the authority on the Founding Fathers and the Constitution, and in reality, you’re ignorant of our history.

    BTW, Ron Paul is projected to finish third in Iowa. That’s soooo sweet.

  54. #254
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 11:02 pm, happyscrapper said:

    Your post speak for itself… Paulbots can’t answer direct questions, and BTW, post 66 is not mine. I believe it’s happyscrapper’s.

    Yeah, CH…I’ll take credit for that one! Most of the comments were justified. If someone acts and talks like an idiot, they deserve to be called on it.

  55. #255
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 11:03 pm, ChapBix said:

    #144. On January 3rd, 2012 at 3:48 pm, Truesoldier said:

    When you think about it, we have one big election on one day in early November that decides who sits in the WH. Since campaigns begin the year before the general election, if not sooner, one election in all fifty states on the same day early in the election year can decide who each party’s nominee will be.

  56. #256
    On January 3rd, 2012 at 11:13 pm, conservative hispanic said:

    appyscrapper:

    What the Paulbots can’t seem to understand is that we’re way past the time of niceties with the Islamo-Fascists. As good old George would say, it’s time to “crush them into non-existence”.

  57. #257
    On January 4th, 2012 at 1:58 pm, spaceycakes said:

    Now I can actually have a conversation with Happy_Scrapper, Danceswithdachshunds, txvet2, chapoutier, Rogue Cheddar, Misscheryl, zyzzyg, rightisright,

    huh. what am I? Chopped liver?

  58. #258
    On January 4th, 2012 at 2:17 pm, Misscheryl said:

    spaceycakes said: huh. what am I? Chopped liver?

    Absolutely not – that would be Chap.

    Yooooohooooo Chap – where are ya?

  59. #259
    On January 4th, 2012 at 6:22 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    On January 3rd, 2012 at 7:44 pm, conservative hispanic said:

    ITookTheRedPill:

    Thank you so much

    You are very welcome. Thank you for thanking me.

  60. #260
    On January 4th, 2012 at 10:12 pm, Virginia Patriot said:

    If you’re chopped liver, I’ll be the plate…..

  61. #261
    On January 5th, 2012 at 10:15 am, spaceycakes said:

    I love chopped liver. What’s wrong with that?

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Obama’s latest campaign angle: I’ve been saving America from wild Republican debts

May 24, 2012 04:33 PM by Doug Powers

55 Comments

Skinny-mirror accounting

Biden: Tea Party stopped us from growing the economy

May 23, 2012 01:55 PM by Doug Powers

44 Comments

“Imagine where we’d be…”

Jimmy Fallon: Obama ‘booked himself’ on my show

May 22, 2012 01:43 PM by Doug Powers

47 Comments

Invitation to offer invitation graciously accepted

Pose of the day

May 21, 2012 12:44 PM by Doug Powers

113 Comments

Hail Mary

Romney begins vetting running mate prospects

May 18, 2012 07:42 PM by Doug Powers

138 Comments

Plus a poll

Biden: Hey, I don’t blame people for voting for a convicted felon instead of my boss

May 18, 2012 01:21 PM by Doug Powers

73 Comments

Gift that keeps on giving

Elizabeth Warren touted Cherokee heritage in 1984 collection of recipes

May 17, 2012 10:26 AM by Doug Powers

124 Comments

It’s a cookbook!


Categories: 2012 Campaign,GOP,Mitt Romney,Newt Gingrich,Ron Paul

JustOneMinute

» Barack, Youthful Leader!
Follow me on Twitter Follow me on Facebook