Santorum. Iowa. Really?????

Kenzo's picture

I think Santorum is only in this to clear up his Google Search reputation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_for_%22santorum%22_neologism

On the advice of someone who probably queened-out, this signature has been deleted.

Jordan's picture

I'll pay attention if Ron Paul wins some stuff. Other than that, meh. Who cares.

A. Jordan Rushie
Attorney and Counselor at Law
2424 East York Street, Suite 316
Philadelphia, PA 19125 215.385.LAW1 (5291)
Blog: www.phillylawblog.com
Website: www.fishtownlaw.com

Kenzo's picture

On the advice of someone who probably queened-out, this signature has been deleted.

stein's picture

in '08 huckabee won the republian caucus in iowa. i'm not saying that all iowans are evangelicals, but they certainly have a fair bit of sway within the republican party. between that and him getting lucky and being 'discovered' by the anti-romney wing of the republican base at just the right time for the caucus to happen before a superPAC could start battering him with negative ads the timing was perfect. Yet he still came in second.

we are looking at peak santorum right now, in my opinion. he won't do very well in new hampshire or south carolina and by the time they are done the voters will be disillusioned with him anyways.

more interesting to me is that paul was such a close third and that no candidate got more than 24.6% of the vote.

Ken Milano (before he went and edited this comment out to avoid the consequences of having wrote it) wrote:
I don’t have much sympathy for renters, for me, they are non citizens

bonzombiekitty's picture

He was just next in line for the "not Romney" train for conservatives. The Santorum campaign was banking on his turn coming up right around caucus time.

stein's picture

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/01/04/rickrolled_three_lessons_from_iowa.html

Quote:
Lesson Three: Republicans aren't so excited about 2012. Four years ago, a depressed GOP went to the precinct caucuses, very well aware that Democrats had all the energy. The total GOP vote: 119,188. This year, Republicans should be psyched about the chance to uproot Barack Obama. There will be something above 122,000 total votes. An improvement, right? Well... in 2008, 86 percent of the people who chose the GOP caucuses were Republicans. This year, 75 percent of the electorate was Republican, with the rest of the vote coming from independents and Democrats. What the hell happened?

its looking more and more like bizarro 2004 out there.

Ken Milano (before he went and edited this comment out to avoid the consequences of having wrote it) wrote:
I don’t have much sympathy for renters, for me, they are non citizens

Kenzo's picture

I think it's back to the drawing board.

I was watching RedState.com all evening (big pro-Perry). I can see why the more-intelligent conservatives are backing Perry.

Romney - He's a RINO and a Mormon and he also appeared to have the default backing of establishment Republicans (i.e. executives with incomes > $500K). The Mormon thing is a big problem. A true Southern Baptist, the format of evangelical that is common in South Carolina, would NEVER vote for a Mormon. Catholics are way more compatible for an SBC voter any day vs. a Mormon. Southern evangelicals all have a common streak about them: Mormonism is a weird cult and their followers are absolutely heretical, despite the crisp mix of L.L. Bean and Burlington Coat Factory clothes they wear. The severe ones won't even permit a description that aligns Christianity and Mormonism in the same sentence since it's anathema.

Romney might as well be an Islamist. If Romney makes it, then it will spell doom in the General election because GOP turnout will see a LOT of evangelicals stay at home.

On top of all this, I think the Tea Party hates Romney more than they do Obama. It's better to stay with the enemy that you know vs. the devil in disguise. Romney represents the pre-1980s moderate Republicanism that's almost ancient history these days, i.e. Rockefeller Republicans. RomneyCare really has them upset and they envision that if ObamaCare somehow survives court challenge, the reform package to it if Romney is around will just slightly tweak ObamaCare, not eliminate it completely.

Every business owner that has a large number of low-wage employees is very unhappy with that government HMO and want the whole thing gone. Now. Which is why those conservatives back Perry vs. this guy.

Paul - Nobody older than 45 appears to be drifting to Paul. It's mostly Young Republicans and RINOs, the group of people the very-far right prefers to pretend doesn't exist.

Santorum - His Senate record is clearly corporatist and all the wrong corporatists were for him. He's been pro-NAFTA in the past, he's very soft on immigration to the point and he famously supported some of the Bush camp's desire to blow the caps off of white collar worker visas. That will go down badly in South Carolina where unemployment is high. Gingrich has a better angle of attack with his ads and Gingrich knows the South way better than Santorum does. The family values crap can only take you so far.

Gingrich - The 3 marriages bother the hard core evangelicals. Plus he's the typical Washington politician in many voter's eyes; and could be a return of the Rove-style GOP. Even the conservatives admit he's a far-removed 1% from the average rural Republican. On top of this Gingrich is running a chaotic campaign.

Perry - Comes across a lot better in person, but Perry didn't put that much effort on the ground in IA other than spending hordes of money on media. Perry would do better in SC. He's also got the "right mix" and tones down the culture war rhetoric at the opportune times whereas Santorum hams it up and inserts it at inappropriate moments.

Perry's calculation to appease Latino voters with talk of responsible immigration policy has clouded his chances at a comeback. He might have come off better if he did a flip-flop and started talking about machine gun turrets on the border to get the hard-liners, and once they put him up high enough to secure the SC primary, he can go back to his open-door immigration stance.

Bachman - Her ground campaign just sucked. If she can't fix her campaign style she's done by the end of next week. Her birthplace state put her dead last.

On the advice of someone who probably queened-out, this signature has been deleted.

codergrrl's picture

Won't alot of people, including Perry, be pulling out after that showing? Before they get to New Hampshire?

"Je Suis Prest"

stein's picture

I dont believe that anyone who has heard perry speak can possibly back him.

"oops"

Ken Milano (before he went and edited this comment out to avoid the consequences of having wrote it) wrote:
I don’t have much sympathy for renters, for me, they are non citizens

Kenzo's picture

Not until South Carolina. That's the final-straw state that is the barometer of everything between East Texas to the west, Kentucky to the north and the northern half of Florida to the South.

You must have the backing of the South to be relevant in the GOP. It's also more important this time around because it has very high unemployment rate for a red state, with a lot more disaffected voters. Iowa has an ethanol economy and lower unemployment. NH is also doing better than most of the red states.

SC has a far larger population and more of a mix of GOP voters and also a significant Hispanic population in it now. You should see more of the field drop out after SC.

On the advice of someone who probably queened-out, this signature has been deleted.

Kenzo's picture

stein wrote:
I dont believe that anyone who has heard perry speak can possibly back him.

"oops"

The Koch Brothers are still funneling campaign cash to him.

On the advice of someone who probably queened-out, this signature has been deleted.

stein's picture

to be fair, that means nothing to them

Ken Milano (before he went and edited this comment out to avoid the consequences of having wrote it) wrote:
I don’t have much sympathy for renters, for me, they are non citizens

JedicusMaximus's picture

I agree with Stein that almost immediately after jumping in the race it was obvious that Perry was going to struggle to be taken seriously, but at this point Perry is certainly out of the race. After finishing in an even worse position than recent polls he is now going to back to Texas to "evaluate" his canidacy.

10011101

snailgem's picture

santorum the crusader flying the holy fetus on his banner is coming to slaughter anti-christian un-american gay-loving voters with degrees from liberal univesities; with his sword he will cut the hands of contraceptive-using infidels and any head that harbors abortion thoughts will roll.

codergrrl's picture

I guess I'm screwed.

"Je Suis Prest"

steveeboy's picture

I never, EVER, want to be looking at "peak Santorum"!!!

snailgem's picture

Kenzo wrote:
I think Santorum is only in this to clear up his Google Search reputation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_for_%22santorum%22_neologism

oh, but there is so much more to clear:

-When I asked him if he viewed gay marriage as a threat to his own marriage, he answered quickly. ''Yes, absolutely,'' he said.

-He says that his faith taught him never to equate poverty or lack of achievement with character, so it is a given, to Santorum, that some people will always need help. ''We always did things for the poor,'' he said. ''I remember my dad always saying, 'If you have extra money, put it in the poor box at the back of the church.' ''

-Earlier this year, Santorum voted against a Democratic amendment to a bankruptcy bill to raise the federal minimum wage to $7.25...

-He said he did not see the difference between a Bible and ''the teachings of Aristotle -- that's a philosophy of life.'' He added: ''Here you have a book that's been pretty well tested over time. So to say, here are some passages from the Bible that may help you, I don't necessarily see that as a negative.''

-Santorum is not a reader of Scripture -- ''I've never read the Bible cover to cover; maybe I should have'' -- and has no passages he clings to when seeking spiritual guidance.

-Rick and Karen Santorum would not let the morgue take the corpse of their newborn; they slept that night in the hospital with their lifeless baby between them. The next day, they took him home. ''Your siblings could not have been more excited about you!'' Karen writes in the book, which takes the form of letters to Gabriel, mostly while he is in utero. ''Elizabeth and Johnny held you with so much love and tenderness. Elizabeth proudly announced to everyone as she cuddled you, 'This is my baby brother, Gabriel; he is an angel.' ''

-Bob Kerrey, the former senator from Nebraska ...says now: ''I've come to believe that he is sincerely and impressively a man of faith. He is driven by his personal desire to do good. But at some point, money matters. We're not even close to spending enough to solve social problems. I don't know what he can do with his own party, but maybe he'll shame the liberals into doing more.''

http://tinyurl.com/3s8nq7v

Kenzo's picture

Perish the thought that Santorum manages to make it past Super Tuesday.

There is NO WAY he will win his home state. It was suburban Philadelphians who booted his butt out of the US Senate and they haven't forgotten why they got rid of him last time around. Non-gays outside Pennsylvania have no idea why Pennsylvanians despise him so much but it will be obvious on Super Tuesday when he doesn't pick this state up.

And then you will have the MSM harping on that all the way to the General Election. Obama will probably win.

And Pennsylvania's government is now under heavy GOP influence in Harrisburg. To see a purple state that was taken thanks to Tea Party support vote for Obama a second time will be disturbing and a real killer.

Mittens should have become a "born-again" and ditched Mormonism before he decided to run. Now you have the whole field that has a rich amount of material to play with, the best of which is RomneyCare. This could turn out as nutty as the Obama/Hillary primary debacle 4 years ago.

On the advice of someone who probably queened-out, this signature has been deleted.

dan

Blah. The religious right (and particularly today's Christian right) continues to cause me great consternation.

While I understand (and support!) the choice to live by what our society has decided to label "socially conservative values", I would think that folks would be able to look at both religious and secular sources and be able to see that forcing folks to live by those values, rather than inviting them to choose to live by those values, just doesn't work.

Plus, the self-righteous anger against assisting the poor and working towards social justice runs contrary to everything from Jesus's teachings to the great prophetic traditions of the Hebrew scriptures.

Bleh.

Godwin was basically a Nazi.

Kenzo's picture

dan: This crap... (oops I mean to say, this voting pattern), didn't start to materialize until Roe v. Wade. Since the 70s I think it's been one wedge issue after another, but abortion was THE original litmus-test wedge issue.

I still can't believe it after all these years later, that abortion is still the make-or-break for so many voters. But given how Protestant evangies have folded completely within the GOP (thanks Falwaell, Buchanan for that), when a GOP candidate rises to the top that they don't like, they just don't show up at the polls.

But then at the same time you can't count on evangies to turn out a Presidential candidate that can win. Evangies turned out for McCain and look how that turned out. This is a voting bloc that should be safely ignored by the GOP. Seriously, why make Iowa first?

Colorado should be first. It's got a very diverse, younger voter base, higher college graduation rates with the right mix of Hispanics living in it. I would think Focus on the Family would love that, since they're based out of Colorado Springs [the super-conservatives there are far outnumbered by the pragmatists living in the Denver area].

I would love it if the Republicans can stop checking with Focus on the Family before they field candidates and just marginalize them to the sidelines. You should be looking at your pastor or your priest for spiritual and moral leadership, not a schmuck who only offers placations during election season and then forgets about you for the rest of his term.

On the advice of someone who probably queened-out, this signature has been deleted.

stein's picture

Iowa wasn't chosen to go first, it just kind of lucked into it and then once it realized its advantage it protected it ruthlessly.

Ken Milano (before he went and edited this comment out to avoid the consequences of having wrote it) wrote:
I don’t have much sympathy for renters, for me, they are non citizens

dan

I wish the religious right had such a noble beginning as Roe v. Wade.

The reality is that the religious right had its start in fighting government efforts to end racist policies at a small number of religious-based private schools. Abortion became the issue later through a combination of factors including everything from the writings of Francis Schaeffer to the desire of some folks simply to find an issue that would let them continue to hold political power.

Also, while the largest percentage of white Evangelicals have become political conservatives within the GOP ranks, there is a wide ethnic and political diversity to Evangelicals (particularly younger ones) that is often missed. While rules-of-thumb (that sounds nicer than "stereotypes" or even "generalizations") can be helpful, it does us no more good to look at Evangelicals as a monolith than it does to look at Muslims or Latinos or the LGBTQQ community or Democrats or Pennsylvanians as one.

one more postscript: I'd rather people look past their pastor/priest/rabbi/imam/etc. to find the source of the moral guidance.

Hope that didn't sound argumentative. I actually agree with most of what you (Kenzo) said. I just want to take the conversation yet another step deeper.

Godwin was basically a Nazi.

Kenzo's picture

Here is an actual Rick Santorum quote: “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.” And also, “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.”

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/04/rick_santorum_is_coming_for_your_birth_control/

Tell that to the hookers under the EL.

On the advice of someone who probably queened-out, this signature has been deleted.

dan

To be perfectly clear, I'm not a Santorum supporter. That said, I have never seen any evidence that he would try to outlaw or even restrict access to contraception. I am, of course, open to anything that shows otherwise.

I'm not surprised that he's opposed to it, or that he speaks out against it. People seem to have forgotten that he is Catholic. I can't believe the number of folks who think he's an Evangelical Protestant. (a symptom of the confusion of theology and politics happening in both churches and secular society) [There are, of course, some Evangelicals who also oppose contraception - the most famous example being the Duggars - but they are a tiny percentage.]

Godwin was basically a Nazi.

dan

and why, oh why, can't Republicans PLEASE take another look at Huntsman? Please!!!

Godwin was basically a Nazi.

th's picture

dan wrote:
[There are, of course, some Evangelicals who also oppose contraception - the most famous example being the Duggars - but they are a tiny percentage.]

They seem to be working hard to change that - one baby at a time.

You wanna dance? LET'S DANCE!

george's picture

dan wrote:
and why, oh why, can't Republicans PLEASE take another look at Huntsman? Please!!!

He commited the unpardonable sin of working for the Marxist/Jihadist/Kenyan Obama. That's a deal breaker right there for a large chunk of the GOP.

Plus, Huntsman is bright and even sensible at times. Two more big strikes.

snailgem's picture

dan wrote:
...I have never seen any evidence that he would try to outlaw or even restrict access to contraception. I am, of course, open to anything that shows otherwise.

i think his denunciation of griswold vs ct and similar cases shows that he would indeed support if not propose such legislation if he agreed with its language.

snailgem's picture

dan wrote:
and why, oh why, can't Republicans PLEASE take another look at Huntsman? Please!!!

he's not for now. the poison has not yet run its full course in the gop bloodstream. if he doesn't become a victim to it himself, this presidential run might give him some cred to be a reforming figure in the future.

dan

snailgem wrote:
dan wrote:
...I have never seen any evidence that he would try to outlaw or even restrict access to contraception. I am, of course, open to anything that shows otherwise.

i think his denunciation of griswold vs ct and similar cases shows that he would indeed support if not propose such legislation if he agreed with its language.

Opposition to Griswold is fairly standard among pro-lifers (at least those who know enough to be making reference to Supreme Court precedent) because it helps underpin Roe v. Wade. However, there is not unanimity among pro-lifers over contraception, and it's probably true that the majority of pro-lifers are okay with contraception. Still not convinced anti-contraception is part of Santorum's political agenda, but willing to hear more.

Godwin was basically a Nazi.

snailgem's picture

dan wrote:
snailgem wrote:
dan wrote:
...I have never seen any evidence that he would try to outlaw or even restrict access to contraception. I am, of course, open to anything that shows otherwise.

i think his denunciation of griswold vs ct and similar cases shows that he would indeed support if not propose such legislation if he agreed with its language.

Opposition to Griswold is fairly standard among pro-lifers (at least those who know enough to be making reference to Supreme Court precedent) because it helps underpin Roe v. Wade. However, there is not unanimity among pro-lifers over contraception, and it's probably true that the majority of pro-lifers are okay with contraception. Still not convinced anti-contraception is part of Santorum's political agenda, but willing to hear more.

indeed, and if you told me that another pro-lifer wants to ban contraception i would have more doubts about it. but santorum's record and narrow focus on these issues in his legislative life seems to me like that of someone who is willing to take the extra step from banning abortions to banning contraceptives:

http://www.ricksantorum.com/executive-branch-actions

(and check out the last item, re your point about people thinking he's an evangelical)

stein's picture

george wrote:
dan wrote:
and why, oh why, can't Republicans PLEASE take another look at Huntsman? Please!!!

He commited the unpardonable sin of working for the Marxist/Jihadist/Kenyan Obama. That's a deal breaker right there for a large chunk of the GOP.

Plus, Huntsman is bright and even sensible at times. Two more big strikes.

Dont forget he dropped out of high school to be in a band and likes captain beefheart.

Ken Milano (before he went and edited this comment out to avoid the consequences of having wrote it) wrote:
I don’t have much sympathy for renters, for me, they are non citizens

Kenzo's picture

"Call on Congress to abolish the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals"

Because, you know... nobody in the Pacific Northwest needs easy access to a Federal appellate court because one of the courts happens to be in... ahem... San Francisco.

On the advice of someone who probably queened-out, this signature has been deleted.