The Iowa Caucus: A "victory" for Santorum; Bachmann ends campain.

[LSN80]

There are two major stories coming out of the Iowa Caucus from last night. Rick Santorum's surprising surge to tie Mitt Romney with 25% of the vote, and Michelle Bachmann's 6th placed finish, causing her to drop from the race.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/03/politics/iowa-caucus/index.html

In a surprising turn last night, Rick Santorum lead the Iowa Caucus in overall votes with just one county left to report. Once the county finally reported, he found himself falling to Mitt Romney by just 8 votes, the closest reported Caucus of all-time.

Why is finishing in second a victory for Santorum? Before traveling to every county in Iowa preceeding the Caucus, Santorum was looked at as an outside choice. Nice guy, but not a viable candidate. That perspective just may have changed last night, as Santorum pushed Romney to the limit. Further, with Newt Gingrich attacking Mitt Romney and heaping high praise on Santorum, the balance of power just might shift into Santorum's favor. Romney acknowledged this of sorts:

"Of course, people are going to ask us about the differences on our positions on issues and backgrounds and so forth. But, really, if we talk about what the American people want to hear, it's how we're going to be different than President Obama when it comes to getting the economy going, preserving America's security abroad and making sure we rein in the scale of the federal government. "

Here-in lies one of the biggest problems for me. Romney seems focused on Obama, and much less on his fellow GOP opponents. If I were the type who voted simply by party lines, that might work for me. But as I stand, I want to know why Romney is the better choice then Santorum, Gingrich, Perry, and Paul. Do I want to know why each of these men would be better then Obama? Sure. But I'd like to see, more importantly, who is the best choice in the here and now to represent his party.

Questions still remain regarding Santorum's viability as a candidate, and his long-term prospects. Santorum addessed as much:

"We are not just going to compete where we think we can win, we think we are the best alternative to Mitt Romney and we are willing to go right into his backyard."

Is Santorum a one hit-wonder, or does he have staying power?

The other big news coming from the Caucus is Michelle Bachmann dropping from the race:

"Last night the people of Iowa spoke with a very clear voice and so I have decided to stand aside. I will continue fighting to defeat the president's agenda of socialism."

Bachmann had won the Straw Poll coming out Iowa, and was expecting a strong showing in the Caucus. However, she finished a disappointing 6th(5%). This is considered to be a huge loss to the Tea Party, as Bachmann was front and center(often erroniously) in her criticism of President Obama. Not that Bachmann was considered a favorite going forward, but she was a strong "Anyone But Obama" candidate, and also one of the leaders in terms of the "Evangelical Vote", along with Perry and Santorum. But Bachmann's loss will be someone's gain. What remains to be seen is the who.

Who will benefit most from Michelle Bachmann withdrawing from the race?

Any other thoughts or discussion surrounding the Iowa Caucus and going forward are welcomed.

 

[Davi323]

I think Santorum's success is going to be very short lived. I think it was a message being sent to Romney than it was genuine support of Rick Santorum, and he won't be able to maintain his pace. He put most of his resources into Iowa, in the hopes that a strong showing would generate more revenue to continue his campaign. I don't think he is going to get enough of a boost in the other states to be able to maintain his support. Like Bachmann, I think that we are going to start to see more GOP candidates drop out, for simple lack of resources. I think Huntsman will be next, and then after Santorum can't maintain his Iowa success, he will be forced to bow out too...I just cannot see Rick Santorum getting enough national support to sustain it for much longer. Because of the lack of success earlier, his war chest isn't nearly as deep. Iowa or not, it takes cash to run a campaign, and I don't think he has enough of it to keep pace for long.

 

[Барбоса]

As an outsider looking in, none of the Republican candidates should get anywhere near the White House.

I knew nothing about him bar his name previous to today but the second Santorum opened his mouth to thank God for his near victory and revealed himself as yet another right-wing, religious idiot, I rolled my eyes. How those kind of people can get anywhere near the White House continues to perplex.

Being from Northern Ireland I probably should not be that perplexed given how our political system is divided almost completely down religious lines but at least the reason this country divided is at least based as much on the existence of Northern Ireland.

America has no such excuse and if there was any sanity in the USA, Obama would walk into a second term without any trouble but then there is little collective sanity across the pond.

 

[Harthan]

I am deeply, deeply saddened that a man like Rick Santorum is seriously considered by any singular person in this country as a man that should be anywhere near political office, let alone the Presidency of the United States. Rick Santorum is a disgusting bigot who publicly supports the creation of a second class of citizens by banning same sex marriage, with the only rationale behind it thinly disguised religious morals masquerading as "family values". He is a person who has an extremely poor understanding of science, as he advocates the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, a hypothesis that has absolutely no evidence behind it and which is discredited by an overwhelming majority of biological experts across the globe. He has supported censorship of both speech and the free Internet. He does not believe in a right to privacy inherent in the Constitution that is the foundation of our most basic rights. He despise the Supreme Court, and no wonder - they are the body that protects the rights he so vehemently opposes. He has been described as among America's most corrupt politicians, and has supported legislation with foreign policy goals that will lead directly to a war with Iran if allowed to continue.

Rick Santorum is a disgusting excuse for a politician who should be spit upon, reviled, and mocked. Instead, he nearly wins a poll to become a nominee for President of the United States.

I weep, and I weep the more, because I weep in vain.

 

[RockFan89]

Барбоса and Harthan's posts are perfect examples of why a seperate conservative thread was started. Their responses never address the questions posed and instead just bashed conservatives.

Anyway, on to LSN80's questions:

Is Santorum a one hit-wonder, or does he have staying power?

He's not even a wonder. First, Santorum spent all of his time, energy, and money, into Iowa, and even then he could only tie Romney.

Second, Santorum just rode his momentum at the perfect time. Whenever, Bachman, Perry, Cain, Trump, and Ron Paul began leading in the poles, the media started scrutinizing them or the other canidates started attacking them in a debate or advertisements causing those numbers to go down. Santorum just recently lead in the polls and thus there was no time for this vetting.

Santorum has no shot in winning New Hampshire, let alone the nomination, and he will become one more reason for why Iowa is so overrated and should not have so much attention.

Who will benefit most from Michelle Bachmann withdrawing from the race?

Bachman voters probably are going to Perry. Anyone who is going to support Ron Paul already does and Bachman voters are not going to jump ship to Romney or Huntsman who are not conservative enough for them. As I said, Santorum is not sustainable and will fade away in 2 weeks, but I do think Rick Perry still has a chance to make a run at this in South Carolina. The reason Perry's numbers went down was because of poor debate preformance, but he can overcome that if gets better.

 

[klunderbunker]

I don't think I'd be stretching to say that Santorum and Romney tied in Iowa. It's so close that it might as well have been one so I'll go with that.

As for these two stories and which is bigger, neither is really that huge. Santorum is the latest flavor of the month in the GOP primaries. We've seen Bachmann, Trump, Gingrich, Cain and everyone not named Romney in this spot and it's gone nowhere after about 6 weeks each. Romney is going to be the nominee and I think everyone has known that for a very long time.

As for Bachmann dropping out, again this is something we've known was coming for a very long time. Her numbers have gone through the floor and last night was the first concrete proof that she's done. There's no reason to carry on with the campaign and take away what little support she has left from someone who has a chance at winning. It was the right move and there's no shock in it.

Overall, it's probably Santorum but neither of these things are really surprising.

 

[Davi323]

I am not a Santorum supporter by any stretch of the imagination, but your post seemed like just a lot of the typical leftie talking points, full of anger without purpose.

Rick Santorum is a disgusting bigot who publicly supports the creation of a second class of citizens by banning same sex marriage, with the only rationale behind it thinly disguised religious morals masquerading as "family values".

He supports the creation of a second class? As if that second class doesn't exist already? Doesn't claiming that he wants to create it imply that it didn't exist before? When has gay marriage EVER been legal at the Federal level?

I think what you meant is that he supports the continuation of it, not creation. If you are going to spew the same tired leftist rhetoric, at least make sure you are using the correct verbage.

He is a person who has an extremely poor understanding of science, as he advocates the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, a hypothesis that has absolutely no evidence behind it and which is discredited by an overwhelming majority of biological experts across the globe.

There a few definitions of what Intelligent Design means, and I am unsure which definition Santorum uses. If he just means that evolution occurred with purpose, that it was the tool by which God shaped the world, basically just purposeful evolution, then how can that be disproven? If you discover a tree that has been cut down, and see the wood chips at it's base, you can assume that it was cut down by a chainsaw, even if the chainsaw is no longer there. However, why would you stop there? If you can deduce that the tree was cut by a chainsaw, does that not also require a lumberjack, with the intent to cut that tree down to wield that chainsaw in the first place? Science explains how things happen, God explains why.

Science can answer these questions:
What happened? The tree was cut down.
How? The tree was cut by a chainsaw.

All Intelligent Design (depending on the definition) does is ask one more question:

Why was the tree cut down? Because the person wielding the chainsaw wanted it to be.

Why do those two ideas have to be mutually exclusive? Why can't science have a purpose behind it, a Will that has guided it?

He despise the Supreme Court, and no wonder - they are the body that protects the rights he so vehemently opposes.

He has been described as among America's most corrupt politicians

Wait, I thought we were talking about Rick Santorum, not Barack Obama.

and has supported legislation with foreign policy goals that will lead directly to a war with Iran if allowed to continue.

If you are referring to the Iran Freedom and Support Act, so did a lot of others, Democrats included. In fact, 397 out of 435 House members voted for it, including 182 out of 201 Democrats (90.5%).

Rick Santorum is a disgusting excuse for a politician who should be spit upon, reviled, and mocked.

Again, you are confusing Santorum with Obama.

 

[SalvIsWin]

Science can answer these questions:
What happened? The tree was cut down.
How? The tree was cut by a chainsaw.

All Intelligent Design (depending on the definition) does is ask one more question:

Why was the tree cut down? Because the person wielding the chainsaw wanted it to be.

Why do those two ideas have to be mutually exclusive? Why can't science have a purpose behind it, a Will that has guided it?

Harthan's point is that Santorum has a poor understanding of science - do you disagree? Do you agree with Santorum that intelligent design should be taught in the science classroom? Intelligent design doesn't answer any questions that are scientifically satisfactory - it's based on faith, not on evidence.

Scientifically, there's no evidence for intelligent design, and the evidence for global warming being true is overwhelming in comparison to evidence against global warming. Rick Santorum stands directly opposed to what science would suggest.

As for your question, why can science have a purpose? It would if there reason to believe in one. Any religion is faith based, not based on evidence or reason, which is in contrast to science. One's faith has no business being anywhere near science.

 

[Harthan]

I am not a Santorum supporter by any stretch of the imagination, but your post seemed like just a lot of the typical leftie talking points, full of anger without purpose.



He supports the creation of a second class? As if that second class doesn't exist already? Doesn't claiming that he wants to create it imply that it didn't exist before? When has gay marriage EVER been legal at the Federal level?

I think what you meant is that he supports the continuation of it, not creation. If you are going to spew the same tired leftist rhetoric, at least make sure you are using the correct verbage.

He supports formally codifying it into law, which in many places it has not been, and I'm referencing the state level, not the federal.

Your quibbles over verbiage (which you've misspelled, if we're going to start having this fight) completely miss the point, of course. He supports the existence of a second class of citizens. Under what conditions is that acceptable?

There a few definitions of what Intelligent Design means, and I am unsure which definition Santorum uses. If he just means that evolution occurred with purpose, that it was the tool by which God shaped the world, basically just purposeful evolution, then how can that be disproven? If you discover a tree that has been cut down, and see the wood chips at it's base, you can assume that it was cut down by a chainsaw, even if the chainsaw is no longer there. However, why would you stop there? If you can deduce that the tree was cut by a chainsaw, does that not also require a lumberjack, with the intent to cut that tree down to wield that chainsaw in the first place? Science explains how things happen, God explains why.

You want to believe that? Good for you. Don't teach it as science, because it isn't. Don't ask me. Ask an overwhelming majority of biologists, and over 100 Nobel laureates.

Science can answer these questions:
What happened? The tree was cut down.
How? The tree was cut by a chainsaw.

All Intelligent Design (depending on the definition) does is ask one more question:

Why was the tree cut down? Because the person wielding the chainsaw wanted it to be.

Why do those two ideas have to be mutually exclusive? Why can't science have a purpose behind it, a Will that has guided it?

See above. None of this is science. None of this has scientific evidence backing it up. It's perfectly acceptable to ask the question - why did X happen. It's not okay to throw in an explanation without backing it up, which is what intelligent design does. Provide evidence for the hypothesis, and we have a different discussion.

Wait, I thought we were talking about Rick Santorum, not Barack Obama.

Have you got evidence for Barack Obama's corruption? I have evidence for Santorum's. This link provides some informative reading: Wikipedia article

If you are referring to the Iran Freedom and Support Act, so did a lot of others, Democrats included. In fact, 397 out of 435 House members voted for it, including 182 out of 201 Democrats (90.5%).

Your point? I'm no great lover of Democrats or of Obama. Their track record hardly excuses Santorum's.

Again, you are confusing Santorum with Obama.

Mmmhmm. Except I have all this evidence of terrible things Santorum has done, and you've got...what, exactly?

 

[Davi323]

What do I have? You mean besides the ties to Blagojevich, Tony Rezko, the kickbacks with the auto bailout, the green companies that he gave half a billion to that promptly went bankrupt which were also led by large campaign donors, the cover up of Operation Fast and Furious, the various Cabinet appointments of individuals with ties to terrorist groups such as Van Jones, having tax cheats run the IRS, and the multitude of other examples of cronyism? He surrounds himself with corruption. Hell, he just did something that's probably unconstitutional this morning, when he appointed a few people to positions without Congress actually being officially in recess yet, just so he could avoid having to deal with it.

Did I mention that he has been on Judicial Watch's top ten corrupt politicians list for 5 straight years now?

 

[Harthan]

What do I have? You mean besides the ties to Blagojevich, Tony Rezko, the kickbacks with the auto bailout, the green companies that he gave half a billion to that promptly went bankrupt which were also led by large campaign donors, the cover up of Operation Fast and Furious, the various Cabinet appointments of individuals with ties to terrorist groups such as Van Jones, having tax cheats run the IRS, and the multitude of other examples of cronyism? He surrounds himself with corruption. Hell, he just did something that's probably unconstitutional this morning, when he appointed a few people to positions without Congress actually being officially in recess yet, just so he could avoid having to deal with it.

Did I mention that he has been on Judicial Watch's top ten corrupt politicians list for 5 straight years now?

Judicial Watch? You're kidding me, right?

Can any of these actually be sourced to Obama as directly as the NWS fiasco and Santorum? Without you actually posting any sources, it's rather difficult.

Unless you provide sources for some of these, I'm not going to address them all, but for a few:

* How is anything Blagojevich did Obama's fault? He sold the seat under his own power. Just because it was Obama's seat doesn't make it his fault. It's like blaming a person who got car jacked for having their car available for theft.
*Van Jones...a terrorist? Come on, son. The best thing I can find is alleged ties to a Marxist group, and last I checked, communism wasn't the same as terrorism.
*You want to pin the entire Fast and Furious debacle on Obama? Yeah, sure. It was an enormous fuck up by a multitude of organizations. And gunwalking as a whole has been occurring since 2006.
*With regard to the recess appointments - he made a bold move that will be challenged in the courts and its constitutionality will be decided. This is how our government has worked since its inception, by the way. All parties struggle to get more power from the constitution. It's not corruption. It's clever politics.

I'm not going to claim Obama is perfect, but your claims of his corruption are poor, ill-defined, and weak links. Meanwhile, I can point to a bill that Santorum introduced that was clearly designed to benefit no one other than one of his prime contributors.

 

[Larry]

Is Santorum a one hit-wonder, or does he have staying power?

With his win in Iowa he has some momentum going into New Hampshire, but I think New Hampshire will give a bit more insight into that. If Santorum campaigns like he did in Iowa everywhere else I think he could have a good shot and be more than a one hit wonder and that will be what REALLY determines his staying power. On top of that you also have to take into account how he will be effected by a negative add campaign now that he is in a top spot. We saw what it did to Gingrich and Cain, showing that these add campaigns in fact do make a difference. If he can survive that, I think he has a message that resonates with a lot of what Americans want to hear and he could have a good shot. Romney is obviously the heavy favorite but assuming anyone there has a shot at staying in there with Romney, his chance is as good as anyone elses.


Who will benefit most from Michelle Bachmann withdrawing from the race?

Rick Perry is probably the one who will benefit most but I wouldn't be surprised if it's Rick Santorum who actually ends up benefiting from it the most since he is a real far right christian(or in his case Catholic) conservative. Perry is up the creek I think, and with this win in Iowa I think more of those people who were supporting Bachman might shift to Santorum who they see as having a better chance.

Барбоса and Harthan's posts are perfect examples of why a seperate conservative thread was started. Their responses never address the questions posed and instead just bashed conservatives.

Santorum has no shot in winning New Hampshire, let alone the nomination, and he will become one more reason for why Iowa is so overrated and should not have so much attention.

[YOUTUBE]iSEx1QSUy0w[/YOUTUBE]