Iowa Shows Republicans Are Determined to Beat Obama
It's been a mixed week for Mitt Romney's campaign. On one hand, Romney won Iowa, but on the other, he was endorsed by John McCain.
Until the first actual votes were cast Tuesday night, it appeared as if some elements of the Republican Party were becoming the mirror image of a liberal mob.
The wild swings -- at least in the polls -- from one populist right-winger to another suggested that some Republicans were determined to change the meaning of "conservative" from "normal person who wants to protect what's best in mainstream America" to "perpetually indignant, restless carper against everything, obsessed with symbolic issues, determined to punish the country for its impurities."
Some Republicans, we were led to believe, would only be satisfied with angry denunciations of Obama as a Kenyan colonialist and demands for Barack Obama's birth certificate -- without ever spending five minutes of calm contemplation to see that he had already produced it.
And if there's anyplace for a zealot to shine, it's in a caucus state like Iowa.
But Romney won -- in a razor-close finish with another plausible candidate, Rick Santorum.
The reason the Iowa caucuses rarely produce the party's eventual nominee is not because Iowans are wacky white Christians, as some in the media have claimed, but because caucuses are ridiculous ways to choose a presidential candidate. It is a process that empowers the pushy and loud, much like a Manhattan co-op board meeting, but, unfortunately, not like anything envisioned by our founding fathers.
Instead of arguing for hours in public with partisans in order to cast a ballot, voters are supposed to put on their shoes, fight off the Black Panthers on the way to their precincts, vote in private and go home.
So the fact that the Iowa caucuses avoided giving the gold to Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul or some other sure-to-lose candidate shows that Republicans are dead serious about beating Obama this fall. Even in Iowa, the only Republican with a chance of doing that won.
Conservatives are naturally suspicious of any candidate deemed "electable" on the grounds that the mainstream media always anoint the most liberal Republican, preferably pro-choice, as the "electable" one. And then that guy goes on to lose.
But just because liberals misuse the word doesn't mean there is no such thing as "electable."
Michele Bachmann was not electable as president because she is only a congresswoman, which is why she has now dropped out.
Newt Gingrich is not electable for many reasons including that he, too, was only a congressman; he took $1.6 million from Freddie Mac (his latest excuse is that he got only $35,000 of that money and the rest went to "overhead" -- there's a great fiscal manager); he cut a global warming commercial with Nancy Pelosi; and because he cheated on, not one, but two wives.
Ron Paul is not electable as president for several reasons, including that he is only a congressman, is bad on illegal immigration, favors drug legalization and is off the charts on foreign policy.
(But it would serve the rest of the world right to have Paul running the show for a term or two. Then they'd find out what it's like to be entirely on their own, protecting their own sea and air lanes, digging themselves out of their own earthquakes, getting invaded and nuked by hostile powers, having their computers hacked by terrorists and buying oil from the new Islamic caliphate. After eight years of President Paul, it would be generations before we'd hear a peep of anti-American sentiment again.)
Rick Perry is not electable as president for three reasons: First, he seems too much like Bush; second, he gave illegal immigrants in-state tuition; and, third, uh, oops ... I can't remember the third reason.
As a two-time senator from a light-blue state, Rick Santorum is not as obviously unelectable as the rest. But don't leap too fast, Republicans. Remember how Rick Perry broke your heart.
Santorum is not as conservative as his social-issues credentials suggest. He is more of a Catholic than a conservative, which means he's good on 60 percent of the issues, but bad on others, such as big government social programs. He'd be Ted Kennedy if he didn't believe in God.
Santorum may not be a big spender as far as professional politicians go, but he is still a professional politician. In 2005, one of his former aides described him as "a Catholic missionary who happens to be in the Senate."
The Catholic missionary was fantastic on issues like partial-birth abortion, but more like a Catholic bishop in his support for No Child Left Behind, the Medicare drug entitlement program (now costing taxpayers more than $60 billion a year), and a highway bill with a Christmas tree of earmarks, including the famous "bridge to nowhere."
Santorum cites his father's admonition to put any extra money in the poor box at church to explain his wanting to use the federal government to help the poor.
You get only one or two big issues in a presidential campaign. But in the middle of the second Great Depression, Santorum is on the campaign trail saying, "The reason I ran is 'cause I think people know there is more than just a little narrow issue called 'jobs.'"
Actually, this year, it's pretty much just jobs.
This is going to be a tough election, and a man with the presence of Rick Lazio is not the strongest candidate to send in against Obama. Santorum is more assistant-manager type than presidential material.
So it was a relief to see that when the first votes in the Republican primary were actually cast -- even in a caucus system ideal for zealots, fanatics and mobs -- reason prevailed. Romney won.
Not a professional politician, Romney has created a lot of jobs and also knows how to fire people, something heretofore untried in the federal workforce, except briefly by Reagan.
Having spent his life turning around companies in the private sector and not sitting on some Senate committee spending money, he'll get to Washington and be as shocked as the rest of us are at how taxpayer money is wasted even by conservative senators like Santorum.
Iowa shows that Republicans are still the party of normal people -- normal people who are determined to defeat Obama.
- Ann Coulter's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
Ann has become a RINO...
Submitted by vrwc13 on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 11:24am.
...end of story. See ya.
v
The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne
I'm sick of Coulter shilling for Willard
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 11:33am.
I wonder how she feels about McAmnesty (whom she loathed last time around) campaigning for her boy?
I won't be buying any of her books, although I stopped after purchasing one of her unreadable diatribes a long time ago. She's amusing on camera, but on the written page, I can only take about seven paragraphs before I'm over it. However, if she doesn't find a new topic, other than shoving Mitt Romney down our throats, I'll change channels on her too, just like I do for Allen Colmes.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde, maybe she has an eye on one of his sons...
Submitted by vrwc13 on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 11:38am.
...I imagine they are all married by now though.
v
The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne
RINO is the C-word of
Submitted by Ken Shepherd on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 1:48pm.
RINO is the C-word of conservative politics, so I think it should be used very sparingly and for guys like Lincoln Chafee, who truly was a Republican-in-name-only.
To say Ann is an "establishment Republican" would be fairer, I would argue.
If Ann is not far enough to be a RINO then....
Submitted by vrwc13 on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 12:49pm.
...how about MR Coulter, as in Moderate Republican. Which years ago would have meant RINO.
v
The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne
Ann McCoulter
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 1:01pm.
Wonder how that fits?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I was saving this for the open thread but...
Submitted by vrwc13 on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 11:51am.
Romney got his 25% (again, repeat from 2008).
Paul did better than Romney with 20% up from 10% in 2008.
The MAJORITY 55% (65% in 2008) voted for AnyoneButRomPaul...
So Ann, watch as real conservatives decide between Santorum and Perry.
"Scenario B is potentially very bad news for Mr. Romney. It implies that party elites are not coalescing around him. In fact, it suggests that a subgroup of party elites are so dissatisfied with Mr. Romney that they are behaving strategically in an effort to maximize their chances of denying him the nomination."
Hypothetical Scenario B: Mr. Perry was prepared to drop out of the race, but his advisers saw a credible path to victory and urged otherwise. Moreover, he received a string of phone calls, text messages and e-mails from major donors, Republican elected officials and conservative activists who expressed their support and told him that he should press on. These party elites were concerned that Mr. Romney was going to waltz to the nomination, and they were either poorly disposed toward Rick Santorum or convinced that Mr. Santorum lacked the resources to seriously challenge Mr. Romney.
and this:
Why, then, do so many conservatives say that Romney represents true conservatism?
Because it's convenient.
v
The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne
Perry is done
Submitted by Free Stinker on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 12:01pm.
Calling Tea Partiers "heartless" was his end.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Free, you and other Tea Party folks need to get over it...
Submitted by vrwc13 on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 12:18pm.
...worth repeating...
Free, you and other Tea Party folks need to get over it...
Submitted by vrwc13 on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 9:18am.
"Perry called Tea Partiers heartless"
"Though Perry has since profusely apologized for calling conservatives "heartless" when the Texas Dream Act proved too complex for a soundbite..." from:
Rick Perry nabs Tea Party fave Sheriff Joe Arpaio endorsement
...what's it gonna take Free Stinker, this? "...the endorsement of Arpaio is one of the most sought after of two Tea Party endorsements -- the other being Sarah Palin."
So Free, if Sarah endorses Perry, will you?
PALIN: McCain found his person much sooner than I was able to find my person. No, I'm still in that process with probably 70 percent of Americans trying to decide.
v
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2012/01/04/open-thread-romneys-razor-thin-iowa-victory#ixzz1ibK6mfXw
The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne
With the exception of Ron
Submitted by Free Stinker on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 12:29pm.
With the exception of Ron Paul, or Huntsman, I will vote for the GOP nominee, whomever it is.
My preferences are in this order: Palin, DeMint, Pence, Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, Newt, Perry, then Romney.
and I still might have to vote for Paul if if he somehow got the nomination, since Obama is becoming lawless. See his latest nomination.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Unfortunately your top three
Submitted by Ken Shepherd on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 1:34pm.
Unfortunately your top three picks elected not to run. I'd have loved to see Mike Pence run, although I think it's a huge hill to climb for a Representative to go from that seat to the presidency, which is why I think he's opted to go for the Indiana governorship to get some executive experience and more nationwide recognition before running for POTUS.
It is indeed unfortunate.
Submitted by Free Stinker on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 1:54pm.
It is indeed unfortunate. I'm down to #6 on my list, and the last of the "Conservatives"
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
We Are
Submitted by Free Stinker on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 11:48am.
And we're going to try to do it with Santorum.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Free, Ann joins her buddies...
Submitted by vrwc13 on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 12:09pm.
...John McCain and Jimma Carter endorsing Romney.
PALIN: McCain found his person much sooner than I was able to find my person. No, I'm still in that process with probably 70 percent of Americans trying to decide.
v
The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne
Ann is part of the GOP
Submitted by Free Stinker on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 12:18pm.
Ann is part of the GOP establishment these days. :-(
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
but....
Submitted by MidAmerica on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 12:50pm.
From todays political landscape Newt, Perry and Paul have definite problems and an uphill battle. Pretty much leaves Santorum. Nice guy but here's his problem. He does not have a strong (gravitas) image on TV. He is fairly unknown to the public at large. And his past statements and positions will be exaggerated as he is Palinized by the media. Can he overcome the media onslaught destroying and distorting his character every day from now till election? That's one main advantage to Romney. He's already a known quantity so it's very difficult to create an alternative image.
And lets be real, we are becoming Santorum fans because he has become the last man standing not because we didn't realize he was running until now.
Am I happy with the results of this process? No. But we have to remember the real goal is the removal of obama.
I want Cain, but in place of
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 1:25pm.
I want Cain, but in place of that I want Newt. Perry is good as governor except for his illegal views, but he aint President material. I dont like Romney as he is a Yankee liberal.
Ann has been rolled
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 1:29pm.
Romney will ensure a second term for the Dear Ruler, and that will mean the end of America.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
interesting summary
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 1:37pm.
after reading various comments on conservative sights the consensus seems to be that anybody can beat President Obama except for the person that Republicans nominate to run against him.
Interesting!!
I was confused by her support for Christie
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 2:32pm.
but I'm not nearly so regarding Romney. I think she's looking at reality. Can Santorum win enough moderates without alienating the base to beat Obama? There's real concern about his "big-government Conservative" tag, and the light is just being shown. We'll see if he survives it.
Also, as a columnist, Ann pretty much needs to get behind someone; that's part of her role. With that in mind, taking the safe bet isn't all that foolish now that her preferred candidate has removed himself from the conversation. Can't blame her, she has a job to protect. Were she to go off the reservation and endorse someone like Cain or Bachmann, she'd lose credibility. Harsh as that may seem for those two candidates, they never stood a chance in 2012 - much of it beyond their control.
If we want the GOP in the White House, the nominee has to present the right plan. He has to be anti-Obama in virtually every way. (Sidebar: Obama's proposed slashing of the military serves two competing purposes- try to attract Paulnuts and OWS'ers, and it punches a great big hole in that vaunted foreign policy success meme generated by his supporters. Today, his foreign policy became a campaign-negative for him. The GOP nominee can now exploit that.) He has to attract a significant portion of Independents. And he has to have the right experience. I'm guessing Ann is looking at similar guidelines and believes Romney is the best path to the Oval Office. It's hard to argue on the merits with that line of thinking.
These are all issues that will help sway Indies. Right, wrong or indifferent, we must except the reality we're given if we're ever going to change it in the future.
I don't know folks; I'm not on the Romney train, but we've heard from all those running except Santorum -for the most part. It's obvious that GOP voters are studying; looking hard at whom they want to nominate. And polls reflect moment-in-time enthusiasm. If Santorum fails the test, all that's left is Romney or Paul. And Paul is a non-starter. If Santorum falters, we'll either need to get behind Romney or concede the White House.
[Edit: Interesting piece by Tina Korbe.]
bkeyser,
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 2:35pm.
Good post but this time I'm going to have to disagree with you on the point of Obama's Foreign Policy. The Media/Democrats are selling the cuts as a natural step following the victory (not success but victory) of the administration's FP - concluding we no longer need such an expensive military. They are also selling the cuts as waste reducing and trimming and that they will ultimately not reduce the strength of the military significantly.
I've already posted in the OT about signs that actions may be in motion to close Guantanamo detention center and there are several other incidents around the globe that show how the need for strengthened FP but the media would sooner cover the second coming of Reagan than to touch a story that interrupts the message of Obama's FP victory.
Agnostic
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 2:48pm.
True, but events on the ground could easily supersede media spin. For example, if Baghdad continues to spiral out of control and civil war ensues, Obama's FP victory is immediately lost. Pulling the troops out against the best advice of his generals on the ground, and the reported contemplation -or urging of his top commander to resign in protest, won't look like victory, it'll look like politics. Which, of course, we all know it to be. The media simply won't be able to beat the victory drum if the GOP nominee is talking about the blood and treasure lost to a mission terminated so close to actual victory.
Also, another uprising someplace in the middle east will make Obama's claim of focus on Asia patently absurd. Trying to make China into the enemy at the same time selling them our debt is schizophrenic. Refusal to intervene in Syria while human atrocities are being committed every day could be seen as the result of force-reductions. (it was this threat to human life that forced his hand in Libya, remember.) Sure, the reductions are scheduled for the coming decade, but bringing our troops home and out of Europe is all part of the grand plan and these could surely be seen to effect his decision-making on Syria.
I think enough people will be smart enough to read the straight news and know Obama's Progressive dream of a Peace Corps instead of a Marine Corps is foolish and dangerous. And they'll want to reverse that, media be damned.
bkeyser,
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 3:04pm.
A couple of days ago I listed 16 stories going on around the world in a thread about Stephy defending Obama's FP. None of those 16 stories have had much in the way of air time in the US and they paint a very obvious picture of how the US is at the core of collapsing influence of Western nations. They range from the US fighting energy production in Canada (would intrude on $$$ sent to hostile countries), negotiating with terrorist all the way to the final push to Sharia in Bosnia 20 years later.
You are more optimistic than I that any candidate will be able to penetrate the wall of silence. Even if they do they will be immediately asked what they would do and their plan will be ridiculed across the media dials.
I don't feel defeated but I just don't feel this is a place to attack to freely. The attacking point, IMHO, will be the media narrative and not the Obama failure. It will be necessary to put the media on defense rather than attacking Obama directly. By attacking Obama you allow the media to stay on offense and most of the public will never realize there is more to the story than a partisan attack and the media's response of : 'the warmonger has no plan and would just make things worse'.
Agnostic
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 3:19pm.
I understand your pint of view. And yeah, I'm probably cautiously optimistic at this point. What I'm counting on is the fact that once we choose our nominee, he'll monopolize the conversation from our side. It's a general election so while the media will try to tear him down, they won't be able to silence him. Nor will they be able to silence the millions of dollars of advertisement that will highlight Obama's record.
I'm counting on more focus as we winnow these candidates. It'll also create a more unified voice while right now, there's a lot of necessary (and unnecessary) infighting during the primary process.
Obama's Victory
Submitted by Agnostic on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 1:02pm.
We can hope. A lot will ride on how well the media can sell Obama's FP 'Victory' to the public. If enough people are skeptical then there will be substantial evidence to kill peoples opinion.
If Santorum fails the test,
Submitted by vrwc13 on Thu, 01/05/2012 - 4:14pm.
If Santorum fails the test, all that's left is Romney or Paul. And Paul is a non-starter. If Santorum falters, we'll either need to get behind Romney or concede the White House.
I think you are oversimplifying the answer. It should not be either Romney (20%) or Paul (10%), but someone whom the other 70% would support.
Let's not throw it all away because our perennial 20/10%'rs run every time. Let's choose a real representative, even if they are not in yet.
The process does not say we have to pick now from the top three from Iowa. Even those from Iowa would tell you that.
We still have 49 to 56 more states to hear from and a convention.
Way to early to concede (or celebrate as some would from the Iowa results). We are in round one of 12.
v
The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne
~I really hope you're right
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 4:11pm.
because I've got a baaaaaad feeling about Romney.
"a baaaaaad feeling about Romney..."
Submitted by vrwc13 on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 5:04pm.
...which may be right if this guy is correct:
Watch Gingrich expand on this in the debates. I can hear it now: "Mitt, you ran against Ted Kennedy for the Senate. Along the way to losing, you said you were better on gay rights than Ted Kennedy. You said that, like Ted Kennedy, you were fervently pro-choice. Like Ted Kennedy, you said you were never for Ronald Reagan — and added that in the Reagan years you weren't a Republican, but an independent. After you got elected governor while announcing you were a progressive, you worked with Ted Kennedy to pass RomneyCare — which then became the model for ObamaCare. And like Ted Kennedy, your health plan funded abortions." - Robert Shrum
v
The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne
~GAH
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 5:21pm.
The only difference between Obama and Romney is that Obama doesn't pretend to be a Republican.