OK, here’s my take on the Iowa Caucuses…
Huntsman:
Is this dumbass still in the race? Oh yeah, he skipped Iowa and went straight to New Hampshire where Democrats are allowed to vote in the Republican primary. McCain actually used the strategy when he first ran in the primary against George W. Bush.
Perry and Bachmann:
Adios. Both were good candidates and would have been infinitely better Presidents than Obama. Bachman just doesn’t have the money to continue; and Perry is just questioning if he wants to continue wasting his.
Ron Paul:
Third’s not bad. He hoped he would do better, but hey… third.
Ron Paul is doing one of two things. He is either 1) Using the Republican primary process to garner publicity for his eventual Independent run for President OR 2) Using the Republican primary process to publicize libertarian issues and ideas.
I hope he is doing the latter, which would be acceptable and classy. The former would be like attending a party of a tolerant friend, eating his food, drinking his beer, then just before leaving pissing off half the guest and taking a dump in the middle of the floor. Not so classy…
Gingrich:
Fourth! Uggg! Not what he had hoped, especially a few weeks ago.
Of all the candidates Gingrich has the most right to be pissed. When he zoomed to the top of the polls; most of the other candidates (especially Romney, Paul, and Perry) piled on with the negative ads. Gingrich did the noble thing and didn’t retaliate. That didn’t work out too well for him.
He’s decided to move forward; we’ll see if he re-evaluates his stance.
I will say that Gingrich did sum up the election choices pretty well. He said that Romney was a competent leader who will do a good job of managing the current decline, and that he (Gingrich) was the only option if you really wanted to shake things up.
Romney:
Romney lost, but barely; it could have been much worse for him. Romney wanted to win Iowa which he technically did, but in reality he just squeaked out a tie. Romney needed to win Iowa or failing that he needed Ron Paul to win.
Why Paul? Ron Paul is not going to be the nominee. We Republicans love our libertarian brothers. In many cases they are better on the issues of the Economy and smaller government than our Republican leaders. But when it comes to social issues and foreign policy… Those are deal killers. A win for Paul would be a loss for Romney’s conservative challengers.
Santorum:
Santorum won Iowa and a ticket to move on. Yes, he came in second by about seven votes; but he came out of the contest as THE Conservative alternative to Romney with the other Conservatives bowing out of the race. Sure there’s still Gingrich, but there will be much less splitting of the conservative vote now. It will be up to Santorum to make his case and consolidate the social/fiscal conservatives.
It looks like Santorum will be my candidate now. No, I’m not happy with all his conservative credentials; but I can’t let perfect be the enemy of good enough.
Conclusion:
We now move on to New Hampshire (next week). Romney should run away with it because of its proximity to Mass., and its liberal leanings. If he doesn’t, he’s finished.
>Ron Paul… Independent run for President
I agree that that wouldn’t be a cool thing to do… however, there’s no way for an independent to win without launching from a major party’s platform, in the current system. So, I’d cut him some slack. And, I’d vote for him.
>Romney
To me, he’s the living example of the generic GOP choice. I can’t stand him, and I’m unconvinced being a rich Harvard boy who made his millions buying companies with other people’s money and selling them for parts is an example of how to grow anything, except your executive package.
And he didn’t lose; he won, according to the AP:
Results for Iowa Republican Caucus (U.S. Presidential Primary)
Jan 03, 2012 (100% of precincts reporting)
Mitt Romney 30,015 24.6%
Rick Santorum 30,007 24.5%
Ron Paul 26,219 21.4%
Newt Gingrich 16,251 13.3%
Rick Perry 12,604 10.3%
>It looks like Santorum will be my candidate now
Oh, yuck. He is such a tool. I will do a protest vote if he’s the nominee.
And he didn’t win, unless this AP report is wrong. (Though he was certainly close enough to get a ticket to the next stage of the race.) I’m just hoping Perry’s votes will go to Paul or Gingrich. Those are my top two choices, if I don’t swing left again.
>> However, there’s no way for an independent to win without launching from a major party’s platform.
Probably, but you’re being disingenuous and a weasel to do it; which I think says something about character.
>> So, I’d cut him some slack. And, I’d vote for him.
Ross Perot hated the Bush family. He hated them so much; he decided to throw the elder Bush out of office by splitting the Republican ticket and thus we got Slick Willie.
Ron Paul running equals four more years of Barack Obama… I just hope Ron doesn’t hate his country or the Republicans that much.
>> And he (Romney) didn’t lose; he won, according to the AP:
Dude, you’re taking the win/lose stuff too literally. Yes Romney got 7 more votes; and he technically “won”.
I’m saying anything other than a resounding win by Romney results in a negative for him and his campaign (thus the term loss).
I’m saying coming anywhere near Romney was a positive for Santorum and his campaign (thus the term win).
>> (Romney) living example… generic GOP choice. I can’t stand him… rich Harvard boy… buying companies… selling them for parts…
I’ll give him slack on his business dealings… though how you are describing them will definitely be the liberal/media spin. You make it sound like he was a heartless barbarian who took nice healthy companies chewed them up and spit out the parts to sell. No, he took bankrupt and nearly bankrupt companies… some he decided he could not salvage and sold for parts, some he fixed up and sent them on their way. From what I understand he probably net created 100+K jobs in the process. Compared to Obama who has destroyed a million or two jobs, I’d say Romney’s record is sterling.
>> I’m just hoping Perry’s votes will go to Paul or Gingrich. Those are my top two choices, if I don’t swing left again.
It’s looking like Perry had decided to stick it through South Carolina, which I think is the smart thing to do. He could come back, and I would support him over Romney.
Any votes going to Paul are defacto Romney votes in the GOP primary.
I could support Gingrich and think his presidency would be interesting to say the least. I’d never support Paul (in the primary); his foreign policy is just too dangerous and reckless.
>I’ll give him slack on his business dealings… though how you are describing them will definitely be the liberal/media spin. You make it sound like he was a heartless barbarian who took nice healthy companies chewed them up and spit out the parts to sell. No, he took bankrupt and nearly bankrupt companies… some he decided he could not salvage and sold for parts, some he fixed up and sent them on their way. From what I understand he probably net created 100+K jobs in the process. Compared to Obama who has destroyed a million or two jobs, I’d say Romney’s record is sterling.
The creating 100k jobs is a Romney quote on Fox and Friends, stemming from the growth in jobs from three companies that Romney helped to start or grow while at Bain Capital: Staples (a gain of 89,000 jobs), The Sports Authority (15,000 jobs), and Domino’s (7,900 jobs).
This ignores the jobs lost by companies gutted by Bain, and assumes job numbers from those companies today, not when Romney was at Bain.
So I’ll consider that the conservative/media spin.
Jabs aside, I concur that Romney would be better for business than Obama, and since I depend on business for my livelihood, I will probably hold my nose and vote for the schmuck.
But I won’t like it. His character seems weak; he seems to be a pseudo-conservative who will take any side on an issue to get elected. If character is the issue, I’d rather have an honest moderate like Huntsman or an honest mostly-conservative like Gingrich.
>> This ignores the jobs lost by companies gutted by Bain…
But you seem to be assuming that those gutted companies/jobs would still exist if not for Bain/Romney. Most of them wouldn’t. If Bain/Romney was called in, it was likely because things were un-salvageable at that point. If they managed to save even a few of the companies or divisions within companies; it’s to their credit.
>> So I’ll consider that the conservative/media spin.
Maybe… but much, much, much less spin than the “millions” of jobs “saved or created” by Obama and the liberal/media. At least it is based on a few relevant tangible facts.
I’m just once again pointing out how much cleaner my pig is.
>> I will probably hold my nose and vote for the schmuck.
I will too. ^%*&, I’d vote for Paul over Obama… but I’d rather vote for Dead Possum over any of the three.
>If Bain/Romney was called in, it was likely because things were un-salvageable at that point.
That appears not to be true. Bain often bought companies and gutted them purely for strategic purposes (ie, to make money/opportunism). So his self-promotion as an expert at job creation rings false to me.
He’s an expert at making money for an investment firm, ie, at increasing shareholder value — not at growing a traditional business that actually makes something or provides a service. We can’t grow an economy with a bunch of little Bains.
But, hell, if personal business success and job creation is the key criteria, Trump should re-enter. He’s probably helped create more jobs than any of the other guys, including Cane. (He’s also an asshole… but, desperate times…).