published Wednesday, January 4th, 2012

The Morning After

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

51
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
Salsa said...

As if the Democrats behaved any differently.

January 4, 2012 at 12:03 a.m.
OllieH said...

I don't think this cartoon is a statement on anyone's behavior, Salsa. I think it's just a depiction of the "love 'em and leave 'em" nature of primary elections.

January 4, 2012 at 12:15 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

Four years ago Senator Obama won Iowa, jolting Senator Clinton's campaign. This year President Obama sent a video. So why the "GOP" hat? (Does Mr Bennett report his income as a donation to the Democratic party--a corporate donation?)

January 4, 2012 at 12:31 a.m.
aidehua said...

You mean to equate the GOP with John Edwards and Bill Clinton?

January 4, 2012 at 12:40 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

ANOTHER GREAT DAY FOR AMERICA

Mitt Romney, once again, proved that spending millions of dollars in a political campaign isn't worth a spit if voters don't like you.

Same goes for Rick - Oops - Perry.

Iowa also proved that a candidate with little money - Rick Santorum - can slug it out with the big boys the old fashioned way. And somehow Newt Gingrich, the target of millions of dollars in negative TV ads, still did well enough to stay in the race and make Mitt Romney's political life a living hell.

Get your popcorn ready.

As I'm writing this the final tally has not been announced, but it doesn't matter. Regardless of the final vote count Romney lost. He needed a big win in Iowa in order to be able to enter New Hampshire with his focus solely on defeating Obama. Now he still has to still fight it out with Gingrich AND Santorum.

The President could not have scripted a more favorable republican primary.

Mitt Romney's bottom line: after campaigning in Iowa since he lost to Mike Huckabee in '08, with a well run political organization on the ground and millions to spend blanketing the airwaves, 75% of Caucus goers still wanted somebody else.

Lots of people don't respond well to Mitt Romney, and I think I know why. Mitt is not the top 1%, he's the top .001%, which is fine. He may not have more money than God, but they belong to the same country club.

That's not the problem. The problem is he tries to pass himself off as regular guy. He once quipped to a group of unemployed workers, 'I'm out of work, too!.' His blue jeans are pressed. He eats pizza with a fork.

The good news: The 2012 Presidential is officially under way. The process may not always be pretty and there's too much money spent campaigning, but Iowa showed that money doesn't always buy elections. Even though - technically - this was a caucus and not an election.

Regardless, it's another great day for America.

January 4, 2012 at 1:05 a.m.

2008I guess people don't understand timeliness. The Republican primary/caucus is relevant now. There is a reason it has gotten news coverage on a wide scale.Nothing comparable has happened on the Democrats front. Can you even Name one of the candidates to face Obama? Probably not, since they are jokes.If your ego is so fragile that you are unable to stomach the criticism of this cartoon without fretting over nothing, go read [2008 ext][1] And harken back to those bygone days of yore.

You will however have to live with far more coverage of the Republican primaries, just like the rest of us.

[1]: http://www.gocomics.com/claybennett/2008/01/16 ://

January 4, 2012 at 1:08 a.m.
onetinsoldier said...

Gideons in the drawer. Must have been left by santorum. Check the sheets.

January 4, 2012 at 1:13 a.m.
alprova said...

The big winner in Iowa, hands down, is Rick Santorum. While he will bounce into New Hampshire with a double digit rise in his numbers, he'll never begin to touch Mitt Romney. Romney is bent on buying the nomination.

Former Senator Santorum, for some inexplicable reason, blew most of what he had in his campaign chest in Iowa. Without a fresh influx of ample cash, he's going to be finished by next week.

Mike Huckabee, another right wing Conservative lost all momentum in New Hampshire after a fantastic show in Iowa. Why? New Hampshire is not known for having ultra-right wing voters and really doesn't have a Conservative base either. So Rick Santorum really has his work cut out for him.

Tonight's big loser? Newt Gingrich. His speech dripped of seething negativity toward Mitt Romney, full of angry utterances toward a fellow party candidate -- unprecedented when speaking on a primary election night in Iowa. He may have sealed his own fate. It's Newt at his finest.

Perry is out. He as much as admitted it.

Bachmann, bless her heart, took opportunity to continue to campaign after a 5% vote for her in a state she calls her own. She's out of the running, even if she continues to do so. I almost felt sorry for her. Almost.

Huntsman, now living in New Hampshire, will do better than he deserves in New Hampshire, but he's toast too.

I've been glued to the T.V. for six hours, flipping between all three of the cable networks. The commentary from the peanut gallery has been quite entertaining, to say the least.

Romney may squeak out the total win tonight, but no matter how much money he dumps into his campaign, he's still far from being in any position to claim victory. He's going to have to convince the Bible beaters that he is a viable candidate, mainly in the South.

Karl Rove just announced on Fox News that the final count is in.

Romney wins by 14 votes.

January 4, 2012 at 2:03 a.m.
News_Junkie said...

I think that the vote in Iowa has virtually guaranteed that Romney will be the nominee.

Regardless of the good showing that Santorum turned in, he doesn't have the money or the infrastructure to continue.

I think that Newt was fatally wounded by the negative ads against him. Like Santorum, he also lacks the money and infrastructure to continue.

While I believe that Romney will be the nominee, he is a flawed candidate. If he can't inspire the Republicans, how can he be expected to inspire the independents, who will ultimately make the decision as to who will win the general election?

Romney will be the nominee principally because all of his serious opponents have imploded.

That being said, I have to compliment Romney on running a very "tight" campaign. He stayed on message and avoided any serious gaffes. I think that the way that he handled his campaign in Iowa was a masterpiece.

However, I think that Romney's major flaw, which is not susceptible of correction, is that he is devoid of any charisma.

Also, the conservative base has legitimate grounds to question the sincerity of his conservative beliefs. If you view his political career in toto, you are drawn to the inescapable conclusion that he always chooses the political positions that enhance his chances of winning that particular election.

One very prominent and long-time contributor to the Republican party has publicly stated that he supported Romney when Romney was a liberal, saw him morph into a moderate, and watched him evolve into a conservative. Such variability in key political stances is an anathema to many conservatives.

However admirable Romney's campaign skills are, they pale in comparison to Obama's. On the other hand, the albatross around Obama's neck is an economy that is in the doldrums.

While I do agree with Alprova that Romney has a Herculean task to convince the conservative base of his bona fides, I don't see any other candidate having the wherewithal to seriously challenge him. Accordingly, he wins by default.

Nevertheless, Romney is quite vulnerable to attack in the general election, because his record as a job-creator is not supported by the record. When he was governor, his state was 46th or 47th (I can't recall which) in terms of job creation. Also, when he was head of Bain Capital, four of the ten largest companies that they acquired went bankrupt, and more jobs were destroyed than created while he was in control of Bain Capital.

On the other hand, it is difficult for Obama to argue that his performance at creating new jobs during his Presidency should win any awards.

Thus, I think the general election will be very interesting. I predict it will be a close race.

January 4, 2012 at 2:39 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

WHO WON?

Hey Al, I watched the Iowa Caucus coverage all night, too. I enjoyed your insight; Let me offer my take:

Huckabee didn't do well in New Hampshire because he is Southern Evangelical. Generally speaking, Yankees don't have much use for those people. Santorum is from Pennsylvania. He's Catholic. He is campaigning, in part, on a return to American manufacturing. Never mind the details, that's his political message. I think he'll do better than Huckabee in the Granite State.

If Bachman and Perry both officially drop out, and there's no reason for them to continue, their supporters will be more attracted to Santorum than Romney. Maybe Perry's financial guys kick in some cash, too. Santorum's strong showing in Iowa will bring in more money, too, along with more media coverage, more supporters, and, oh yeah, more negative advertising. (Here's a slogan: if you loved George W., you'll love Rick!)

Anyway, I'm looking forward to Gingrich savaging Romney in Saturday's debate. I think Newt knows he'll never win, but he sees himself as the guy who can stop Mitt - a guy Newt seems to really and truly loathe - to the benefit of Rick Santorum. That's must see TV.

You mentioned Newt's venomous speech: remember Obama after Hillary pulled the upset in New Hampshire? He didn't come out negatively. He didn't throw down the gauntlet. Remember what he said?

Yes we can.

Oh, here's a fun fact: Romney won 17 counties out of 99 in Iowa. Thirteen of those counties are heavy Democratic strongholds. If Romney gets the nomination, and he's only garnering 24% of republican voters, how is going beat Obama in the general election?

Way past my bedtime...

January 4, 2012 at 2:39 a.m.
alprova said...

blackwater48, good observations and fantastic points.

January 4, 2012 at 3:12 a.m.
lumpy said...

And Obama isn't hell bent on outspending everyone? Obama will spend a billion this year trying to defend his sorry-ass record.

It's amusing to watch you lefties on here pick apart the Republican field. I'm not even convinced Hillary Clinton won't challenge Obama. Nobody thought Santorum would win in Iowa. The biggest nightmare for Obama would be if a clear conservative ran againt him, not some Dem wannabe. Also, it looks like Ron Paul won't run in a third party, bad news for Obama.

January 4, 2012 at 3:51 a.m.
Reardon said...

The outcome of the Presidential race depends on Ron Paul.

Assuming he doesn't take the Republican nomination, he will probably end up on a third party run, and take a small enough portion of "true believers" like myself (which I would write-in Ron Paul for president anyway) to give Obama the win.

That's why you see Sarah Palin telling viewers to take the Ron Paul people seriously. With uninspiring potential Republican candidates versus the Messiah, a Ron Paul third party run where he takes even 5% of the vote, could have a dramatic effect on the outcome.

Bottom line -- is this race about "beating Obama at any cost" or "voting for the person representing your values -- despite the odds?"

January 4, 2012 at 6:03 a.m.
EaTn said...

The basic statement in Iowa is that the ultra-right can garner enough support to tie-up the GOP. However, since no candidate got more than 25% of the votes, the overwhelming support for one candidate to beat Obama is not there. Their best hope is to keep dragging their feet to stall any economic jobs recovery for another year.

January 4, 2012 at 6:19 a.m.
limric said...

Reality Check: A total of 122,255 people - 4% of the population of Iowa, .04% of the U.S., and less than half as many as fit in the Indianapolis Motor Speedway - took part in the Iowa GOP caucuses. Another way to look at it: the Occupy protesters arrested at various events are likely more representative than the people voting in them.

C’mon, let’s face it; this marks the beginning of a long, tightly-controlled, carefully choreographed process that is really designed to do only two things: weed out dangerous minority opinions (Ron Paul), and award power to the candidate while he goes about his primary job of energetically representing establishment interests. I.e. Mittens Romney.

Our electoral process is now essentially to create the appearance that the people have a voice. Sheldin Wolin called it 'managed democracy' (managed democracy and superpower equals inverted totalitarianism) in the book 'Democracy Inc.'. The msm is constantly reinforcing this meme (minority opinions must be marginalized, don't offend elite interests).

Case in point, last night I followed some of the Iowa returns on CNN. At one point Wolf Blitzer was speaking to the correspondent (Dana ??) covering the returns from the Ron Paul campaign headquarters. She was interviewing an active US soldier (served 2 tours in Iraq) about why he was supporting Ron Paul. The soldier, who had a large tattoo of the world trade towers falling on his neck and dressed in military fatigues explained that Ron Paul's foreign policy (bring the troops home now) was the best possible American foreign policy and that as a soldier who had only served in the military during a time of war (I don't know what he expected), he was looking forward to working in a 'peace' army. At this point something really strange happened, the soldier said - "Israel is capable of ...." and his face froze on the television screen as Wolf Blitzer said - sorry we seem to be experiencing technical difficulties. He immediately directed attention to another screen and began another interview with another correspondent somewhere in Iowa.

Interesting isn’t it? The only technical difficulties experienced in 3 hours of coverage occurred the moment one of the caucus goers mentioned something (or someone) outside of their tightly choreographed narrative. hmm must be a coincidence.

Yes the media and the actors playing on the stage are very meticulously choreographed (somebody at CNN lost their job tonight for letting that soldier within 10 feet of the mike and the reporter). The sad part is, even when the actors misread their lines or step out of the production line accidentally for a second, the American people are not allowed to see it. The public has been so transfixed by the illusion of elections (created by and for wealthy interests) and the illusion of freedom, our TV culture will accept anything - as long as the advertisements are touching, funny and mildly dramatic.

January 4, 2012 at 8:37 a.m.
News_Junkie said...

I agree with the sentiments of Reardon that if Ron Paul runs as a third party candidate, that will dramatically hurt the Republican chances of winning the White House.

January 4, 2012 at 8:38 a.m.

How does anyone say that Romney lost? He only visited 9 districts he was projected to finish 3rd or 4th and wound up winning the state. While Santorum finished a very, very close second does he count this as a win? He visited all 99 districts with over 300 appearances and still just got 25% of the votes.

January 4, 2012 at 8:48 a.m.
News_Junkie said...

Limric:

I believe the surname of the CNN correspondent last night named Dana is "Loesch." (There is also another CNN correspondent named Dana Bash.)

I think that the position of the mass media towards Ron Paul is pragmatic, not conspiratorial. It is abundantly clear that he has a totally committed base. However, because many of his policies are outside the mainstream media (his isolationist perspective on foreign affairs), it is equally clear he has an extremely limited ability to expand beyond his limited base. I second the sentiments of conservative Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson who said that, while there is a floor to the number of Ron Paul's supporters, there is also a ceiling on them.

Thus, the mass media has decided that because of Ron Paul's limited appeal to the general public, he doesn't merit a great deal of attention. While you may disagree with their judgment on this issue, I don't think that gives you grounds to impute some malice to the short shrift that they give to his campaign.

January 4, 2012 at 8:50 a.m.

Hey limric... black helicopters?

January 4, 2012 at 8:50 a.m.
News_Junkie said...

lumpy said... And Obama isn't hell bent on outspending everyone? Obama will spend a billion this year trying to defend his sorry-ass record.

Even if OBama does spend a billion dollars on his election campaign, I doubt that the Republican candidate will be dramatically outspent. I think that the Republican operatives like Karl Rove and the Koch brothers will raise enough money (via super PACs) to balance the field.

I would wager all of the money that I could raise that Hillary will not challenge Obama. In fact, I am convinced that, as she has stated, she will not continue to serve as Secretary of State after the election (assuming Obama wins).

That makes perfect sense. Her performance as Secretary of State has garnered her accolades, even from some Republicans. Thus, she has the opportunity to retire at the top of her game. Stating the obverse, she has nowhere to go but down. The Clintons reportedly earned $110 million in the past decade. I think she is burned out (as evidenced by the way she has recently aged dramatically), and wants to kick back and enjoy being a grandmother.

January 4, 2012 at 9:04 a.m.
mymy said...

One of the big problems with being a Republican politician is that the media is out to get you. You have no margin for error and if you slip up once the entire country will see it within 24 hours. No matter if it is a verbal gaffe, no matter if it was just a slip of the tongue, if you are a conservative you have to be perfect. You can’t run your mouth off about “typical white people” or sit in the pews of a church for twenty years while your pastor consistently made anti-American statements.

January 4, 2012 at 9:08 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

LET ME COUNT THE WAYS

Love it or leave it asked, How does anyone say that Romney lost?

When he ran four years ago he spent millions of dollars and received about 25% of the vote. Mike Huckabee won Iowa with about 40%. When Romney lost to McCain in New Hampshire the campaign was over.

Since then, Romney maintained his Iowa campaign organization and spent about $10 million. The result? He again received about 25% of the vote. For some reason the majority of republican voters just aren't connecting with him.

If you want to see the fractured nature of the republican party look no further than the top three finishers in the Iowa caucus. Main stream big business GOP: 25%. Evangelical conservatives: 25%. Libertarians: 21%. Supporters of Perry and Bachmann add 15% to the EC group. Gingrich's 13% might fall in with Romney supporters.

The same fracture is evident in the House of Representatives. Speaker Boehner, a main stream GOP fellow, is unable to lead the republican majority because the conservative tea baggers and libertarians have their own agendas.

There's an old political adage about how each party selects a candidate: Democrats fall in love. Republicans fall in line. Well, republicans are NOT falling in line. While Romney appears to be the preemptive favorite to win the nomination, republican voters seem eager to back any candidate, who is NOT Mitt Romney. Herman Cain. Newt Gingrich. Rick Perry. Michelle Bachmann. And now Rick Santorum.

Everyone except Ron Paul, who has left the door open to running as Libertarian.

Romney is a loser because he can't get republicans on board. He can't convince them that he can take them where they want to go. Not only can he not get republicans excited about his candidacy, he can't rise above the 25% support barrier.

He should do better in New Hampshire. He owns a summer home there and he was governor of Massachusettes. If conservatives start backing Santorum, however, and more campaign money starts flowing in, as it inevitably will, New Hampshire could turn into a dog fight. Romney should still win, but if his support doesn't start to solidify it may take him a long time to win the nomination.

How do you consider Romney a winner?

January 4, 2012 at 9:33 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

The beat goes on, the beat goes on

Drums keep pounding a rhythm to the brain

La de da de de, la de da de da

January 4, 2012 at 10:09 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

We still don't know for sure who will capture the Iowa delegates. The Wart seems to think it is over, but it appears that Ron Paul supporters have been seated in quite a few county delegate positions. The vote that really matters is yet to come.

January 4, 2012 at 10:19 a.m.

blackwater48 said... Since then, Romney maintained his Iowa campaign organization and spent about $10 million

You may want to check your facts on that. His staff 4 years ago in Iowa was 52 and this year it was 5 (yes only 5)there is also misinformation amount the money spent. He did in fact spend over 10 million 4 years ago but this year he did nearly no physical campaigning there and spent his money on press advertising.

January 4, 2012 at 10:31 a.m.
whatsnottaken said...

Glued to the TV for 6 hours?! For this? Look everybody, the sooner you admit your vote doesn't matter, that no politician is looking out for anybody but their party, the sooner you'll join me on the sidelines. At just 50 years of age, I have joined the disenfranchised who will never vote again. Boehner and Harry and their zombie colleagues have killed the America I grew up in. I'll just watch it die slowly from the sidelines.

January 4, 2012 at 10:52 a.m.
alprova said...

Francis wrote: "And Obama isn't hell bent on outspending everyone? Obama will spend a billion this year trying to defend his sorry-ass record."

Don't blame him for what people gave him to do so.

"It's amusing to watch you lefties on here pick apart the Republican field."

Lefty or not, I'm a registered Republican. I'm allowed.

"I'm not even convinced Hillary Clinton won't challenge Obama."

As if what you consider means a thing.

"Nobody thought Santorum would win in Iowa."

What does it matter? Iowa has never been known for picking nominees. Iowa is known for thinning the field.

"The biggest nightmare for Obama would be if a clear conservative ran againt him, not some Dem wannabe."

No "clear conservative" will ever be elected President, much less the Republican nominee. There aren't enough "clear conservatives" who will vote for such a candidate.

"Also, it looks like Ron Paul won't run in a third party, bad news for Obama."

Ron Paul is also not going to garner enough votes, outside of his core groupies. Most of the people in this nation know that the man harbors some rather unconventional beliefs.

January 4, 2012 at 11:05 a.m.
limric said...

News_Junkie,

I’m not saying that the position of the mass media towards Ron Paul is purely conspiratorial, but it certainly isn’t pragmatic. As you stated, “because many of his policies are outside the mainstream media - the mass media has decided he doesn't merit a great deal of attention.” I paraphrased your statement for clarity. Key words: “the mass media has decided.”
The truth is that Paul has a large numbers of supporters because he treats the complex issues in a fashion befitting them, rather than boiling everything down into sound bites, oversimplified rhetoric, or flip flopping purely for the purposes of political point scoring. His message of the government’s role and personal liberties resonates with an American public sick and tired of the corrupt Washington political establishment. Thus his continued marginalization, as he is outside of their tightly choreographed narrative.

Many of his positions I agree with; drugs, defense, foreign policy and gun rights. Some very important ones I do not; such as promoting almost total privatization. That would not rein in the empire or its corporatocracy, it would unleash it further.

The right wing solution to practically all issues in general, is less govt. To use an example: The police and courts in a city being bribed and controlled by an organized crime syndicate, would be to eliminate the police and the courts and turn everything over to the syndicate while calling that "freedom." Likewise, the solution to the problem of the US government being bribed and controlled by the corporations is to eliminate the government and turn everything over to private interests and calling that "freedom." The problem with the government is that it is in the thrall of big business. It is not creating the problem of corporate rule over us, it is insufficiently preventing it. Eliminating government won't solve that, it will make it worse. How the right wing, and Ron Paul to a certain extent, is able to convince anyone that this is a solution is a mystery.

January 4, 2012 at 11:12 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Ron Paul is currently tied with Santorum and Romney for total delegates at 7 each. Only 3 more delegates are uncommitted.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/state/ia

January 4, 2012 at 11:29 a.m.
WHS1970 said...

Someone dig up St Ronnie, we have no candidate to beat the Big O. The sky is falling!!

January 4, 2012 at 12:06 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

In light of some of the cogent points raised by blackwater48m, I feel it is incumbent on me to explain that I don't think that Romney is going to win the nomination because he is a powerful candidate. It is because all of his opponents are imploding.

Romney benefits from the fact that, viewed in the most favorable light, all the other candidates have more serious flaws than those which afflict him.

Similarly, Obama benefits from the fact that he won't have to face a strong Republican candidate in the general election. Given the dismal state of our economy, Obama would be in trouble if he had to face a formidable Republican candidate.

January 4, 2012 at 12:33 p.m.

And shame on us for whoring ourselves out to politicians, trusting them for something that only a true spouse or soul mate can provide. Politics should be an acquaintance, not a spouse - not even a close friend.

"Do not put your trust in princes." Instead, trust the one who "keeps faith forever." So advised a wise ancient songwriter.

January 4, 2012 at 1:37 p.m.

WHS1970, the real Reagan couldn't win today, he'd have a record for one thing.

On the other hand, he was an actor, and practice in pretending to be something he wasn't.

January 4, 2012 at 2:03 p.m.
LibDem said...

It's disturbing to me that Iowa has such clout in the nominating process of either party. Only a few people in an atypical state can influence the process. Why do we grant them this power?

My guess is that Santorum will be unable to raise the funds for a continuing campaign. Corporate Republicans are concerned with regulations and taxes. They have no vested interest in religion. That's just a bus to get voters to the polls. (I don't mean to suggest that we Democrats don't own a fleet of busses.)

January 4, 2012 at 3:17 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

THE PAST IS PROLOGUE

LibDem said, My guess is that Santorum will be unable to raise the funds for a continuing campaign.

We'll see shortly if conservatives decide to jump on board the Santorum bandwagon. Bachmann is out, Perry is clueless again, maybe he's in, maybe not, but if Santorum has a decent showing in New Hampshire against Romney he'll have all the financial toys at his disposal. For a price, of course, always for a price.

Corporate Republicans are concerned with regulations and taxes. They have no vested interest in religion.

Those guys might be the biggest whores in politics. Back in 1980, for example, in order to bleed away support for sunday school teacher Jimmy Carter (who got about 75% of self proclaimed 'church goers' in 1976) the Reagan campaign joined forces with Pat Robertson. Was anyone in the Reagan campaign religious? Not especially. It was convenient. Nothing wrong with politics or building coalitions, but rich republicans will climb into bed (tip of the cap to Clay's cartoon) with anyone who promises to cut THEIR taxes and deregulate THEIR businesses.

Anyone still believe the financial collapse in 2008 was caused by too much government oversight? Anyone?

Santorum will fall in line and he is a strong campaigner. He has a blue collar appeal that Romney can only dream about. If you missed his speech after the caucus go check it out. Maybe he'll be assigned a strategist who will tell him to shut up about criminalizing birth control and the 'life begins at conception' nonsense. Even conservative voters in Mississippi turned that one down.

Conventional political wisdom still suggests that Romney will get the nomination because he's the only republican who can defeat Obama. But if he faces a strong challenge from Santorum or anyone else, I don't know how long the GOP faithful will keep believing him.

As a political junkie, I'm fascinated by how some republicans are desperately trying to torpedo Mitt's campaign. Maybe they believed Ann Coulter when she said, if Chris Cristy doesn't run Romney will get the nomination and WE'LL LOSE.

January 4, 2012 at 4:49 p.m.
shifarobe said...

Convince me BO will win any of the key states he won the LAST TIME!! You can't. HE SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCKKKKKKSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!! You overconfident Democrappers have NOOOOOOOO idea how unpopular BO IS. ZERO IDEA.

January 4, 2012 at 5:20 p.m.
shifarobe said...

He' not your magic negro!! Go back to the drawing board!! LOL

January 4, 2012 at 5:24 p.m.
LibDem said...

blackwater48, your points are great but I would argue that the big money will go to the guy who can win. 30% will vote for the Republican nominee (regardless of who that may be). It's the middle 30% they need and Mr. Romney has a good shot at that market. I don't think the CEO's will gamble.

January 4, 2012 at 5:30 p.m.

LibDem, the whole primary system is a farce. Not that the conventionn system before was better. At least it isn't the worst in the country. The BCs iss worse.

January 4, 2012 at 5:55 p.m.
LibDem said...

happywithnewbulbs, When I was young, the decisions were made in smoke-filled backrooms. The good news was that I knew those old reprobates. The good old days.

January 4, 2012 at 6:23 p.m.
tipper said...

St. Ronnie? He's why we're in this mess in the first place! And we're still talking about supply-side economics and the trickle=down theory. I liked him better when he was supporting actor to Bonzo.

January 4, 2012 at 6:52 p.m.
alprova said...

shifarobe wrote: "You overconfident Democrappers have NOOOOOOOO idea how unpopular BO IS. ZERO IDEA."

Among the same people who disliked him when he was elected, I have no doubt that he is just as unpopular. Among those who put him in office, his popularity is still the same.

When the man cranks up his campaign once his opponent is sifted from the field of contenders, I have all the confidence imaginable that he will hand his opponent's head to him on a platter.

January 4, 2012 at 7:02 p.m.
fairmon said...

Why is it that a large percentage of Ron Paul's supporters are college students and young professionals. My take is they are better at math than most supporters of either party.

o They know the older folks and the boomers are creating and passing on to them a debt they could never pay.

o They are war weary and know we can't afford the current involvement in others internal affairs.

o They know any more military action, wars or events requiring troops will lead to a draft.

o They recognize that morals cannot be legislated by a bunch of immoral economic idiots.

More and more young people are looking, listening and researching candidates and reaching their own conclusions. As one being interviews said; I prefer to go to the web sites, read, watch the debates and candidate interviews and decide for myself who I think would be better for the long term viability of the country.

O,Riley, Hannity and Limbaugh really take some cheap shots at him, criticize him and when possible ignore him. That should be enough to get everyone wanting to seriously consider his views on issues. He is driving the RNC crazy since he doesn't fit any of their boxes but he doesn't fit any democrat defined slot either. I am beginning to like him and will keep vetting him for myself and possibly begin contributing to his campaign.

January 4, 2012 at 7:05 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

I read one very telling fact about Romney's chances to win in the general election. In 2008, he got 30,021 votes in the Iowa caucuses. Yesterday, he got 30,015 votes.

After four years of campaigning, he garnered less votes than last time. If Republicans like Romney less now than they did four years ago, how can they reasonably expect him to win in the general election?

Many people have not focused on the fact that the history of presidential elections (in the past few decades) amply demonstrates that one party doesn't win simply because many of their adherents vehemently dislike the incumbent president. For example, if that were true, then W. wouldn't have won re-election in 2004.

Rather, it requires that the party challenging the sitting president have a candidate that they are enthused about. Stated in a slightly different manner, people don't vote against the person in the other party, they vote in favor of the person of their party. This might seem like a nuance, but, if you look back over the past several decades, it predicts who is going to win the general election when a sitting president stands for re-election.

Applying that rule to the current situation, you should contrast the perspective of the two parties on their respective candidates. About 80% or so (depending on the particular poll) of the Republicans want somebody other than Romney. By way of comparison, there is no challenger to Obama in the Democratic party. Thus, it is demonstrably clear that the Democrats are more happy about Obama being their candidate than the Republicans are about the prospect of Romney being their candidate, and history shows that is the deciding factor when an incumbent president faces re-election.

January 4, 2012 at 8:37 p.m.
alprova said...

Harp, young people like Ron Paul for many reasons, but there are three main reasons why he is a hit with the younger generation. He is anti-war, for drug legalization, and has called for an elimination of the IRS and the income tax.

Other supporters of Ron Paul include people who home school their children, people who invest in gold, people who believe that the United States should isolate the country from the rest of the world, and people who believe that there is no longer a reason to enforce civil rights.

People support him who are on board with the elimination of Federal oversight agencies, like the EPA, the FDA, the USDA, the U.S. Department of Education.

Ron Paul will forever have trouble dumping charges that he is a racist. He's had and still has some pretty notorious supporters out there.

Willis Carto, a holocaust denier, Hitler admirer, and a white supremacist to boot, campaigned for George Wallace way back when, inspired Timothy McVeigh, and founded the Populist Party in 1984 that ran David Duke as a presidential candidate. Carto founded the American Free Press, which publishes still today, Ron Paul columns, which Paul has refused to sue to halt.

Don Black, a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, a current member of the American Nazi Party, and the owner and operator of the white supremacist site Stormfront. Black regularly organizes "money bombs" for Ron and Rand Paul, who have both refused to return donations from Black and Stormfront.

David Duke, also a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and candidate for Governor of Louisiana. Duke is also a New World Order conspiracy theorist, who also espouses the belief that "Jews" control the Federal Reserve.

Thomas DiLorenzo, whom Ron Paul invited to testify before Congress about the Federal Reserve, is close friends with Paul and works for the Ludwig Von Mises Instiute.

James Von Brunn, a white supremacist and anti-Semite who opened fired at the Holocaust museum, killing a security guard, and who died before he was sentenced, was an avid Ron Paul supporter.

Richard Poplawski, a neo-Nazi from Pittsburgh who regularly posted on the neo-Nazi website Stormfront. Polawski posted in regard to a conspiracy to take away people’s guns. He is currently in prison for killing three police officers responding to a domestic dispute call.

Jules Manson, a failed California politician, was also a big Paul supporter who would write, "I may be an athiest, but Ron Paul is my God," on Ron Paul’s website. Manson called for someone to "Assassinate that n****r and his family of monkeys," referring to President Barack Obama.

Ron Paul has endorsed white supremacy and conspiracy theories for years in newsletters. His views have driven some people to violence. He has way too many racist supporters who have endorsed him, and he in return, has endorsed them with his positions on the Civil War and Civil Rights. Ron Paul has rarely disavowed the support he gets from racists.

January 4, 2012 at 8:50 p.m.
carlB said...

Iowa was the winner. How often does a State get the opportunity to have this many presidential hopefuls coming into the State, spending their millions of dollars? Now the other states will not have as many candidates. The polite way to act toward the "customesrs" who come to the state for votes from the people is to act disappointed when they leave. It is a form of saying thank you without being arrogant for what the candidates left.

January 4, 2012 at 9:31 p.m.
fairmon said...

alprova said... Harp, young people like Ron Paul for many reasons, but there are three main reasons why he is a hit with the younger generation. He is anti-war, for drug legalization, and has called for an elimination of the IRS and the income tax.

I agree with him and them plus his plans to abolish other useless departments.

He said he had no plans to check every donor and spend the money to monitor them He also said he failed to see the logic in returning money to people who could use it to further their bad and radical behavior. He is consistent in his beliefs and policies he would support. He said he could not allow those that would use this distraction to have him spending time on those type things instead of getting his message to people. I have no doubt plenty of kooks and radical nuts support and contribute to Obama and other candidates.

I understand the long shot and how unlikely it is that he will be nominated or elected. Too many people rather be promised free ice cream and will sell their soul and vote for it. Too many prefer to ignore and justify the increasing deficits, debt and interest. Too many are willing to pass the debt and interest on to future generations to deal with. He is not a racist and one of the best examples of that is by a black man on you tube recalling how Ron Paul saved his wife's life, charged him nothing because he was poor and couldn't pay for it plus Ron Paul made sure he got no bill from the hospital.

You don't like Ron Paul and I am beginning to see him as a refreshing change. That is why we have campaigns and elections. I agree Obama is likely to win but in my view for totally different reasons then you think he will. I think he is a bumbling smooth talking fool and you think he is the messiah we need. Obviously neither of us will ever change the others view.

January 4, 2012 at 9:32 p.m.
fairmon said...

alprova responded..

supporters of Ron Paul include people who home school their children, people who invest in gold, people who believe that the United States should isolate the country from the rest of the world, and people who believe that there is no longer a reason to enforce civil rights.

Home schooling is a choice parents should have but I see nothing suggesting the majority that make that choice are Ron Paul supporters.

Most financial advisers recommend having some of your money in gold. What is wrong with owning gold?

Where do you get the isolation theory. He is a free market and trade agreements supporter. He has consistently voted for trade agreements and does not support sanctions on trade. Bringing all troops home, quit interfering in the internal affairs of other countries and build a strong defense to protect and defend the U.S. is not being an isolationist. I agree with him on this issue.

I have never seen where he suggest the civil rights laws should not be enforced. He says the constitution protects people, the law restates what is in the constitution. This is another unfounded media and opponent accusation.

Obviously you and many others like and feel good about what you have therefore not willing to make sure you understand other options such as Ron Paul and are willing to accept the media and other sources that try to marginalize him. The military industral complex and other power brokers fear him and will do whatever it takes to make sure he is not successful.

January 4, 2012 at 10:34 p.m.
alprova said...

Harp3339 wrote: "He said he had no plans to check every donor and spend the money to monitor them He also said he failed to see the logic in returning money to people who could use it to further their bad and radical behavior."

I find the above to be as laughable as his pretentious denial of his past racially inflammatory writings.

"He is consistent in his beliefs and policies he would support."

To his own detriment of course.

"He said he could not allow those that would use this distraction to have him spending time on those type things instead of getting his message to people."

Well, he can run, but he can't hide.

"I have no doubt plenty of kooks and radical nuts support and contribute to Obama and other candidates."

Perhaps, but not to any degree or percentage of those who support Ron and Rand Paul, and who are never convincingly denounced by either man.

"He is not a racist and one of the best examples of that is by a black man on you tube recalling how Ron Paul saved his wife's life, charged him nothing because he was poor and couldn't pay for it plus Ron Paul made sure he got no bill from the hospital."

You do realize that the video in question was produced and released by RevolutionPAC, the Super PAC dedicated to the election of Ron Paul for President, don't you?

The fact that there are no records of the incident to verify, such as a copy of the hospital bill, and the fact that the incident was alleged in the video to have taken place not on a specific date, but sometime in the year "1972 or 1973" according to the man identified as "James Williams," is more than a little convenient. Most people keep the dates of the death of a child near and dear to their heart for life.

I find the video lacking any credibility whatsoever.

"You don't like Ron Paul and I am beginning to see him as a refreshing change. That is why we have campaigns and elections."

To each his own.

"I agree Obama is likely to win but in my view for totally different reasons then you think he will. I think he is a bumbling smooth talking fool and you think he is the messiah we need."

I have never referred to the President as anything other than a decent man who has been working relentlessly to right the wrongs that have sent this nation off-track. I certainly do not consider him to be a Messiah of any description.

"Obviously neither of us will ever change the others view."

I'm well aware that your views are not apt to change. My presentations are for the benefit of those who may be totally unaware of certain facts surrounding candidates, who do care about knowing the truth about them, and make rational decisions accordingly.

January 4, 2012 at 11:04 p.m.
alprova said...

Harp3339 wrote: "Home schooling is a choice parents should have but I see nothing suggesting the majority that make that choice are Ron Paul supporters."

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/12/29/ron-paul-iowa-team-names-new-%E2%80%98homeschoolers-for-ron-paul%E2%80%99-members/

"Most financial advisers recommend having some of your money in gold. What is wrong with owning gold?"

There's nothing wrong with owning gold, so long as it is never viewed as an investment. The only people making any real money in gold are those who sell it.

Among those who support Ron Paul are people who believe that we need to return to the antiquated gold standard.

"Where do you get the isolation theory. He is a free market and trade agreements supporter. He has consistently voted for trade agreements and does not support sanctions on trade. Bringing all troops home, quit interfering in the internal affairs of other countries and build a strong defense to protect and defend the U.S. is not being an isolationist. I agree with him on this issue."

http://treeofmamre.wordpress.com/2011/12/30/ron-pauls-unprincipled-isolationism/

"I have never seen where he suggest the civil rights laws should not be enforced. He says the constitution protects people, the law restates what is in the constitution. This is another unfounded media and opponent accusation."

I made a mistake in using the word "enforcing" to describe his objections to civil rights. He considers civil rights legislation to have been wrong altogether.

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/civil-rights-act/

"Obviously you and many others like and feel good about what you have therefore not willing to make sure you understand other options such as Ron Paul and are willing to accept the media and other sources that try to marginalize him."

No, I dislike the man for his own words that he denies ever writing, now that he is a public figure, combined with many of his current stances that are outlandish, to say the least.

"The military industral complex and other power brokers fear him and will do whatever it takes to make sure he is not successful."

I don't think anyone fears him now. He's basically powerless. They may well fear him if he is ever in a position to do any damage to this nation.

January 4, 2012 at 11:50 p.m.

Harp3339, owing gold as part of your finacial portfolio may be reasonable. The extent to which some people put it into primacy is a bit more extreme.

This includes Ron Paul, if the analysis of his financial report I saw is correct.

The isolationist description comes from his opposition to military alliances, which he tries to define as non-intervionist, but that kinda proves the point. I can respect his opposition to many actions, but i do not find his replacement to be better.

Ron Paul also does not support many civil rights laws. He, and his son, idealistically believe in some interpretation of a society where it is not actually a problem. Based on what they claim anyway. I have my doubts, but I'll leave them aside since even if they are genuine, the reality is the world isn't free of the past. If this were the days of the American Revolution, I fear Paul would be trying to bring us into a monarchy, because wel, that old king was bad, but things have changed, and a king is reliable or something.

January 4, 2012 at 11:59 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.