Iowa Caucuses: Santorum! Romney! Paul!

The latest from CNN on the Iowa caucuses with 88 percent reporting:

  • Santorum 25 percent
  • Romney 25 percent
  • Paul 21 percent
  • Gingrich 13 percent
  • Perry 10 percent
  • Bachmann 5 percent
  • Huntsman 1 percent

Find your match with Reason's candidate quiz. Or just cut to the chase and check out Reason's massive Ron Paul archive.

1:30 A.M. UPDATE: With 99% reporting, it's Santorum over Romney by 18 measley votes. All of the percentages are the same you see above. Romney has virtually the exact same vote total and percentage as he did in 2008; Paul has more than doubled his. Rick Perry is reassessing; Bachmann may drop out.

Exit polls are fascinating–among voters for whom abortion was the single biggest issue, 58 percent chose Santorum (Perry came in second, with just 11%). Those who cared most about the budget deficit preferred Paul, but not by as much as I'd expect: 28% to Romney's 21%, then Santorum (19), Gingrich (15), Perry (11). Paul did the worst among the top 5 among those who made their decision most recently, suggesting that two weeks of media and competitor negativity took a toll (one that Santorum was able to avoid by sneaking up on everyone).

Paul and Romney are really matter and anti-matter in these exit polls. Those elevating electability above all preferred Mitt 48%-9% over Dr. No. Those who wanted a "true conservative" chose Paul 37%-1% (Santorum finished at 36). Paul did the best with the poor, Romney did the best with the rich. Paul dominated among self-identified non-Republicans (43% to Romney's 2nd place 19%); Romney won among those who had attended a GOP Iowa caucus in the past, and so on.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Bok Sux||

  • mr simple||

    You mean a skins team? That sounds painful for women. Also, Leah Goldman, in sports it's a tryout, not an audition.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    This is kinda on the borderline.

  • mr simple||

    Casting couch?

  • protefeed||

    Exactly. 30 minutes of videotaping later, she leaves, think she's maybe got the job, when there never was a job to begin with, just her giving away free sex to a slick talking stranger ...

  • El Commentariosa||

    Does the cameraman ever get any?

  • ||

    Seriously -- do you people need to mar these threads with this sort of shit every time? Go find a Facebook or Reddit page to go do your whimsical/ironic/topical-pop-culture shit on.

    Go ahead: Fee; free to call me out for the stick that's up my ass. Maybe you can quote some Adult Swim dialogue. Or how about descending into some mindless back-and-forth with "Nutra Sweet" or whatever other fucking internecine bullshit strikes your fancy. Do your whole Hit & Run "community" thing.

    I will absolutely regret this post in the morning, no doubt, and probably even avoid clicking on it, so I can avoid wincing at it. But at this moment, I'm pissed about these Iowa results, and I'm happy to take out my anger on somebody starting a thread with some irrelevant bullshit. Honest to god, fuck .. just enough already. Reason is the top libertarian site. But the best comment threads are at all the obscure libertarian blogs.

    Yeah, OK, screw me, and good night.

  • ||

    Calm down. Everything is going to be OK.

  • thirtyandseven||

    LOUD NOISES!!

  • ||

    Calm down. Everything is going to be OK.

    Oh, I'm calm. Just annoyed as all fuck-out.

  • yonemoto||

    why? Because Ron didn't win? He's really awesome at not winning primaries. However, he's great at winning online straw polls. I'm holding out for "Americans Elect".

  • ']['{[]}{[]}[[_||

    Stay Calm.

  • ||

    At 1 O'clock in the morning, Tom?

    Fuck that. We've got jobs to go to in the morning.

  • ||

    Meh. Sorry about the outburst. I was drunk by that point.

  • Serious Libertarian||

    But you were right. No need to apologize.

  • ||

    An angry drunk. I like it.

  • ||

    I'm of Irish stock.

  • mr simple||

    Santorum's winning? Oh well, Iowa is meaningless anyway. People who vote for Santorum deserve santorum.

  • Paul ||

    And santorum they shall get.

  • Devil's Advocate||

    People who vote for Santorum deserve to be the first ones sent in during the next war that he can't wait to start.

  • ']['{[]}{[]}[[_||

    I need to watch things die
    From a good safe distance
    Vicariously I
    live while the whole world dies
    Much better you than I

  • Juice||

    When people go to the polls they should be asked what their number one issue is. If they say abortion, they don't get to vote. Go home, you're too stupid to vote. Get now, ya hear!

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Good news for iowans-their caucuse are still meaningful.

  • Maxxx||

    Fuck Willard (magic undies)Romney.

  • chris||

    What is that ad on the side? Al Gore was not robbed in Florida.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I bet you're the sort of person who doesn't care that Rutherford Hayes stole the presidency from Tilden in 1877. Down with Rutherfraud Hayes!!!!!

  • Clevelandite||

    Tilden or blood!

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    LOL FUCK TILDEN.

    No, really, RB Hayes be representin' the great city of Fremont, OH...home of Heinz ketchup and the most darling trailer parks this side of the Sandusky River.

  • chris||

    If Tilden couldn't keep the presidency, then he didn't deserve the presidency.

    Check out the side ads, some Gore greifers have put up a petition sign up.

  • Clevelandite||

    Samuel J. would have been an awesome president. Don't hate.

  • chris||

    not hatin', just sayin'.

  • Clevelandite||

    And unlike Rutherfraud, he would've been in fully legitimate possession of the office.

  • chris||

    Oh, come on now. Hayes' civil service reform is as legitimate an achievement as any president was able to muster in a single term.

  • Clevelandite||

    His Fraudulency's civil service reforms were relatively modest compared to later ones. Although, to his credit he did reestablish the gold standard. That aside, legitimacy has nothing to do with accomplishments. He wasn't really legally elected. He lost the popular vote, and he would have lost the electoral vote were it not rigged for partisan advantage.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    He wasn't really legally elected. He lost the popular vote, and he would have lost the electoral vote were it not rigged for partisan advantage.

    The fact that partisanship was involved does not make the election illegal.

  • chris||

    Thanks for the help there, clergyman of the delicious beer. Clevelandite is hell bent on destroying the good name of R F Hayes. Can he prove that Tilden's fight was an honest one? Did his people not provide voters with whiskey and rye as was common practice?

  • Clevelandite||

    My bias is on display in my handle, chris. My sympathy lies with the classically liberal Bourbon Democrat, Tilden. Was Hayes the worst president ever? Not by a long shot. Did he acquire the office dishonestly? Without question. As Rev. Blue Moon points out, perhaps this dishonesty was legal. I'd have to redo some research to give a definitive answer. But even granting that possibility, being legal doesn't make right.

    Now I'm going to bed. Feel free to bring this up fir further discussion next time I break my lurker habit and start posting.

  • yonemoto||

    relax. Tilden got a particularly beautiful street in NW DC named after him; Hayes' namesake is in Arlington and quite ugly.

  • Tom||

    Just like all the others, Santorum's sudden surge means nothing...it just happened to be timed a little more beneficially for him. Paul has had a steady increase in Iowa (and elsewhere) over a span of months, without ever showing a significant decrease in his numbers. This has been a two-man race for months, but the media refuses to recognize it.

  • protefeed||

    Santorum seems to be this weeks' PerryCainGingrich flash in the pan notRomneynotPaul candidate.

  • Paul ||

    I hate to invoke shrike, but the christ fag is winning.

  • Alan||

    Yes, Santorum is unelectable in the general. Too divisive, and too many independents hate him.

    Besides asking what sort of idiots voted for Santorum, I'm wondering how that 23-23-23 split shown through most of the evening changed to 25-25-21? Something smells.

  • ||

    Santorum is unelectable in the general.

    I don't expect him to break 10% in New Hampshire.

    -jcr

  • Santorum||

    I told those old ladies in Iowa that Jesus and I are going to commando jump over Tehran and free our hostages.

  • Bok Sux||

    We can all savor the Salty Ham Tears that much more when they come.

  • Dello||

    When Obama gets another 4 years, it will be fun ragging on my liberal friends about how disappointing he's been.

  • Paul ||

    No it won't, because they'll contort their way into believing that obama's failures were the result of that one republican who lived in a cabin with no phone or electricity. If only obama could get eight more years so we could experience his true legacy...

  • Paul ||

    And they'll be too busy talking up president biden, anyway.

  • ||

    Lessee:

    Romney gets the GOP nomination this time, but loses to Obama.

    2016 shapes up as Biden vx. Obama.

    I'm beginning to hope the Mayans were right.

  • ||

    OOPS.

    It's late. That was supposed to read:

    2016 shapes up as Biden vs. Santorum.

  • tas||

    Yea, if Biden doesn't get his azz dropped like a cheap date after prom. They've already got him bound and gagged in a basement utility closet. Think about it, what's the last you even heard about him?

    The guy usually won't eat his dinner without being spoon fed to incoming plane noises, let alone run a presidential campaign.

  • ||

    No way. One kinda sorta salutary effect of the Obama administration is that it has made the Republican electorate a lot more receptive to libertarian arguments. In 2008, Paul pulled in 10% of the Iowa vote. This time it was 21%. While they are the stupid party, one would expect that they would have the good sense to at least try to sound kinda sorta libertarian in 2016.

  • Hmmmm........||

  • np||

    lovely coincidence there

    to have the feed break off right when the active duty soldier w/ 10-years of service starts to explain the rationale of RP foreign policy, in response to her question about how some republicans thinks he's "dangerous"

    then Blitzer's excusing that as a glitch and skipping over to Romney...

    She may not have been aware of any agenda. But that doesn't mean someone in the control room doesn't have one

    Does anyone remember the leaked CBS memo conspiring to snub Michelle Bachmann early on?


    To: Horn, Caroline
    Re: Bachmann guest for webshow

    Ok let's keep it loose since she's not going to get many questions and she's nearly off the charts in the hopes that we can get someone else.

    John Dickerson
    Slate political correspondent
    CBS News political analyst

    When shit like that is revealed, even when it happens to your opponents, it's hard not to get a little suspicious.

    Why rig votes when you can rig minds?

  • Alan||

    Yes, I noticed that convenient "glitch" too - and I can bet that thousands of others noticed it too.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Wonder if that soldier is going to get called into an office for a "chat" about his opinions...

  • RoboCain||

    Did reason.com crash?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Yes

  • RoboCain||

    OK, seemed odd that reason crashed right when they announced Paul came in third.

  • ||

    Santorum? WTF is wrong with people.

  • RoboCain||

    I would rather see Santorum win than Romney, because Santorum is easier to expose as a sham.

  • mr simple||

    Better that Santorum is the Mike Huckabee of this race: wins Iowa and then is largely irrelevant. The best he can hope for is his own talk show.

  • ||

    Santorum. Un-fucking-believable. A bunch of church pew country bumpkins voting for one of their own. Where is H.L. Mencken when you need him?

  • Devil's Advocate||

    "Won't you take me to . . . fundie-town!"

  • Bok Sux||

    One reference to BotumTranny and the server squirrels mark you as spam.

  • Bok Sux||

    I want to hear more about the three way result w/ Santorum.

  • Barney Frank||

    Three-way with the what, now?

  • Snowbee||

    Santorum prematurely ejaculated, the hooker still demanded to be paid, and the altar boy just cried the whole time.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Dammit I wish Hunstman would do better. He should hang in there if the past is any indication the 'swing' will come to him.

  • Gannicus||

    So are the Iowa caucuses meaningless or meaningful now that Paul did not win and Santorum did? I'm confused.

  • Paul ||

    Yes.

  • Robert||

    They're going to come out with about th same number of delegates.

  • AuH20||

    Iowa...

    I R DISAPPOINT!

  • Joe M||

    Well the good news is that Paul will still come in second in New Hampshire while Santorum gets ~5% there.

  • Coeus||

    Santorum? tha fuck?

  • tas||

    Google it.

    Admittedly, it was a cum from behind victory for him.

  • cavalier973||

    LOL!!!

  • robc||

    According to some 1-2 weeks ago, this is good news for Paul (yeah, yeah, I dont really see it either) because he cant win a 2 way race with Romney, but a 3-way with Santorum (chuckle) is different.

    Last I saw, Santorum isnt even showing up noticeably in NH, so this could be interesting.

    Paul needs to convince the south carolinians and floridians to vote for the baptist over the catholic.

    If Paul can run as successful of anti-Santorum ads as he did anti-Newt ads, then Tom up above could be right.

  • RoboCain||

    And Gingrich is going negative against Romney.

  • Joe M||

    Yeah, I don't know how much money Gingrich has, but I hope he goes Newcular Titties on Romney in New Hampshire for the next week.

  • robc||

    How soon is Gingrich entirely irrelevent?

    Who is he going for? Is he fighting Romney over the liberal wing of the GOP?

  • veemee sashimi||

    A three way with Santorum was always going to be messy. Everyone's going to have to get dirty, there's going to be leaks everywhere, and none of us really knows what's going to come out of all of it in the end. This is exactly the sort of thing I was afraid of when I heard there was a Santorum surge.

  • ||

    Sorry, but the last thing I want to hear about is messy three-ways with Rick Santorum.

  • ||

    If Paul can run as successful of anti-Santorum ads as he did anti-Newt ads

    I'm sure he can. Santorum is corrupt as hell.

    -jcr

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Better Santorum than Romney.

  • robc||

    Ive said Im voting for Johnson if Paul doesnt win the GOP nomination, but I have to agree.

  • Joe M||

    What? At least Romney's not a social conservative. Santorum is a socon and a big-spending phony fiscal conservative.

  • robc||

    Paul is a social conservative too. Your point is?

  • Joe M||

    Paul isn't a big spending phony fiscal conservative.

  • Joe M||

    The point being, Santorum is the worst of both worlds. Paul at least doesn't want the federal government legislating social issues.

  • ||

    Technically atheists who want to legislate social issues have been far worse then their social issue pushing christian counterparts.

    Just saying.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Technically atheists who want to legislate social issues have been far worse then their social issue pushing christian counterparts.

    Just saying.

    Are you high?

  • ||

    Pick three christian baddies from the last 200 years.

    I choose Hitler, Stalin and Mao as the three atheist baddies.

  • affenkopf||

    Hitler wasn't atheist.

  • robc||

    I agree, which is why I prefer him.

    But both Romney and Santorum are unlike Paul in fiscal conservatism and Santorum is closer to Paul in social conservatism.

    I mean, its not even remotely close.

    If Paul is, say, a 90 on a 100 point scale, then Romeny is like a 12 and Santorum is like a 15.

    I wont vote for a 15, not when an 85 like Johnson is gonna be on the ballot. But 15 > 12.

  • robc||

    Of course, this might just mean that I know more about Romeny than Santorum.

  • Granny Iowa||

    CNN told me to vote Romney, I said, 'heck no, main stream media.' CNN said, 'fine, vote Santorum then.' I said, 'you bet I will.'

  • Joe M||

    Oh, but I prefer someone that isn't a social conservative. Romney seems to not be that. All the noises he's made on those issues is just pandering.

  • robc||

    You were responding to MY POST, your preferences dont matter when you are questioning my rankings.

  • protefeed||

    Santorum is perhaps a bit more odious than Romney. I am starting to think Johnson going LP might have been the smart play -- there will be another U.S. Senate seat in NM open soon enough, and in the meantime maybe the LP can get some serious protest votes for once.

  • protefeed||

    Santorum makes my skin crawl every time I've heard him speak, while Romney occasionally says something I agree with -- not that Romney means it, he's just flip-flopping, and will flip-flop back if the political winds change, but that's better than being wrong every single fucking time.

  • Devil's Advocate||

    Santorum makes me want to punch him in his weaselly face.*

    *Figuratively speaking, Ms. Napolitano. Please don't detain me.

  • SIV||

    I don't want the LP associated with the fucking "Fair Tax" BS.I guess they are out to "reclaim Neal Boortz" or something, while he shills for Romney.

  • Gannicus||

    Better for Paul? Or better in that you would rather Santorum be the nominee than Romney? Or something else?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Santorum believes what he says, he has the right enemies, he never claimed to be proabortion - Paul is much better, but Romney is worse. I am glad not-Romney won the caucus.

  • Fluffy||

    Gotta disagree there.

    I've actually lived under Romney's governance and with the exception of Romneycare (a big exception, I know) he's kind of inoffensive. In the Poppy Bush mold.

    Anybody who advocates a compulsory Americorps draft for everyone, as Santorum does, really can't be better than anybody on the ballot but the Green candidate.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Romney wants to force bay staters to buy health insurance, and isn't that conscription? I hadn't heard about that americorps thing, but it sucks. Romney proclaimed himself a fan of abortion, and killing kids is worse than drafting them.

  • Fluffy||

    If Romney became President and suddenly cackled with glee and said, "Suckers! Tricked ya! I was still pro-choice ALL ALONG!" I would be delighted.

    So that's kind of a Romney feature for me and not a bug.

  • chris||

    ^this. It would be worth putting up with Romney for four years. Especially if he gets picks on the court. Though that later is bound to be fraught with negatives. Will he pick executive branch supremacist?

  • ||

    I think his point was that winning a plurality in a competitive three-way race is better for Paul than Romney vs. Paul straight up.

    Which I don't buy. Think of it this way: when Gingrich, Perry and Bachmann drop out, it seems logical they'd prefer Santorum over Romney considering the bridges burned. I could see Cain and Huntsman maybe endorsing Romney, but Cain could go Santorum too. Santorum will prove himself unelectable in the general, helping Romney. Either way, Romney and Santorum's vote totals grow and Paul's likely won't as the other candidates drop out. He might get a few more percent but won't get the plurality necessary.

    With Rand hinting strongly Paul won't (or shouldn't) go third party, Johnson may end up setting a record for LP vote totals (assuming the LP aren't full of dumbasses who nominate the likes of Ruwart and Knapp.)

    And by the way, I will always believe that Paul's newsletter flap cost him Iowa, deservedly. Paul's chances rely solely on crossover and independent voters, and the newsletters are enough to discourage quite a few anti-war Democrats from wasting their time and energy. But of course "they aren't a big deal" according to many who live in fantasy land, despite every single newspaper and TV station in the country running hit pieces on Paul, starting with the newsletters as proof of crypto-racism and then continuing down every dark conspiracy-laden path that can be extrapolated from them.

  • Fluffy||

    Paul lost Iowa by launching a sneak attack on the Bachmann campaign and stealing her Iowa campaign manager with less than ten days to go.

    That signaled to Iowa voters that Bachmann was all done, and the average Bachmann voter had nowhere to go but to Santorum.

    That gave Santorum his phantom poll bounce, and let the MSM run "Santorum is surging with frothy momentum!" stories for a week.

    Take one third of Santorum's votes and give them to Bachmann and it's a different story tonight.

    I don't know what they thought getting Sorenson to come over was going to do for them. I hope it was worth it.

  • ||

    I was at my parents' home for about 10 days over Christmas -- where I was stuck watching FOX FUCKING NEWS CHANNEL DAY AFTER DAY AFTER DAY -- and I think you're off on the timeline here.

    The Santorum bounce was already well under way when that Bachmann/campaign manager stuff happened. You're probably right that this pushed some of Bachmann's remaining supporters into the Santorum camp. But it wasn't the start or main driver of his resurgence. It was incidental stuff at that point.

  • jester||

    I disagree. Most of America, Democrat or Republican is more bigoted than Paul's newsletter opinions. Those opinions matter none; it is his other ideas, the one's he truly espouses that hurt him at election time.

    Face it, your neighbor next door holds some really douchey contradictions in his/her head and your neighbors outnumber you.

  • ||

    Why? Romney is a standard-issue establishment putz. Santorum actively opposes libertarian principles across the board.

  • RoboCain||

    Michelle Bachman looks great.

  • Robert||

    Less filling.

  • Think Blue, Count Two||

    Obama/Clinton 2012!

  • ||

    So it's between RomneyCare in the Magic Underwear or the NeoCon Jesus Freak from Pennsylvania?

    Vote for either one of them?!

    I'd rather eat mud.

  • Clevelandite||

    I honestly think I'd prefer another Obama term to Santorum. Mr. Frothy is that bad. And Romney is a robot.

  • Joe M||

    Santorum would declare a new Crusade.

  • Santorum||

    Only if the Israelites approve.

  • Clevelandite||

    And round up gays into concentration camps. And that's only a slight exaggeration.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Then what would a large exaggeration look like?

  • Clevelandite||

    Hyperbole is a rhetorical device that can sometimes be put to humorous uses.

  • ||

    Then what would a large exaggeration look like?

    Guantanamo?

    I guess it's hard to call that an exaggeration, though, since he defended the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

    "He also defended the treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. Santorum said people who had sought to kill Americans are treated "with more civility than any, most prisoners are treated in the United States, or anywhere in the world. I think it says a lot for us as a country."

    Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg.....z1iSoC28wT

  • jimmy hat||

    a large exaggeration would look about the same, except everyone would also self report the size of their own dicks

  • protefeed||

    I want the Rs to belatedly realize that they absolutely needed the Paul voters to win the general election. If Johnson picks most of them up, that would send a huge message to the Rs that libertarians aren't their bitch.

  • Clevelandite||

    Obama 45%
    Santorum 38%
    Johnson 17%

    And the Republicans would deserve it.

  • ||

    Santorum will never get the nomination.

    it is either Paul or Romney now...with Paul having a slimming chance.

    The world would be a better place if the republican party was a suicide cult...sadly it is not. Santorum will not make it out of New Hampshire.

  • Clevelandite||

    I meant to put Santorum/Romney, but I currently have a particularly low opinion of Santorum, which impaired my judgement in that regard. Apologies.

  • protefeed||

    Nope, less than half the voters in Iowa are for either Romney or Paul.

    The notRomneynotPaul coalition will likely unite around someone who is neither of those two, and possibly win.

  • SIV||

    As long as it isn't Newt Gingrich.

  • ||

    Of all the analysis that is contrary to mine yours seems the most plausible....and that makes me very sad.

  • Robert||

    Think it'll be one of the candidates now running?

  • protefeed||

    I haven't the slightest fucking idea who the notRomneynotPaul candidate will be. I just look at the math and think * someone * will pick up all those protest votes as candidates drop out -- I doubt many will go to Romney or Paul.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Half-right, Joshua... you need to add "and the democrat party" to the suicide cult wish.

  • ||

    Okay, fine. Revise Clevelandite's figures to:

    Obama 45%
    Romney 43%
    Johnson 12%

    And the Republicans would still deserve it.

  • cynical||

    Shit, if the Republicans are so out of touch as to nominate that corrupt, communitarian shitstain of a bible-thumper, I might be tempted to vote Obama. Obama's a terrible president, but Santorum just strikes me as capable of true history-making evil. Death camps, nuclear war, who the fuck knows. Something about him just says "wrong" to me on an instinctive level.

  • ||

    Me too. I'd vote GOP for Congress and GJ for President so even if GJ is a GOP "spoiler", the resulting balance of power will be the least bad option.

  • ||

    Note that Obama has been relatively harmless all year since the GOP won Congress. He still sucks, but at least he's ineffective.

  • predius||

    Harmless in the "not building any more institutions that destroy people's lives but running the status quo and destroying lifes the normal way quite alright".

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Which raises the question of why should any of us prefer a moderate republican to Obama? I mean, Romney is not going to repeal Obamacare. Hell, he probably won't even talk about it. He will probably continue the drone war type of tactics, still not give a fuck about civil liberties, and double down on Afghanistan in case Bin Laden's ghost rises out of the Indian Ocean or some horseshit. He could possibly ramp up hostilities against Iran, but Obama's doing that regardless so it's difficult for me to see the benefit of one over the other. I suppose Romney might promote the Bush tax "cuts" which is almost laudable except 1)Why the fuck should we believe his Massachusetts bullshit and 2) Tax cuts don't mean fuck without spending cuts. In the end, we should still vote for Paul/Johnson/Murray Rothbard's corpse because it's not really about Republicans v. Democrats, it's about murdering thieving sociopaths vs. peaceful rational voluntaryists and that's what it's always been about despite the spin. It's too bad most people like to murder and steal shit while having difficulty reading books that don't have pictures.

  • robc||

    NeoCon Jesus Freak

    Wait, isnt neocon code for jewish and jesus freak code for evangelical protestant?

    Santorum is neither of those.

  • RoboCain||

    No?

  • ||

    Santorum is the pick of the religious right. He's the one they were showing up for.

    In 2001, Santorum sought to amend the No Child Left Behind bill to include a provision affecting the teaching of evolution.[55][56] According to Santorum, his goal was that students studying evolution should hear "competing scientific interpretations of evidence," including "such alternative theories as intelligent design."[57] The provision came to be known as the "Santorum Amendment" and was written with the assistance of the Discovery Institute.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.....nservatism

    NeoCon being Jewish? I don't know about that. Never heard of that!

    I believe we are at war with Islamic fascists and I singled out Iran and Syria as examples of Islamic fascist regimes. Many Muslims say the same thing, and the editors should, too, for it is undeniable. [...] I have said time and time again across Pennsylvania these past weeks that the fight against Islamic fascism is the great test of our generation. Leaders are obliged to articulate this threat and to propose what is necessary to defeat it. That is my purpose, and our national calling. The American people have always rallied to the cause of freedom once they understood what was at stake. I have no doubt that they will again.

    ---—Rick Santorum

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.....ign_policy

    Jesus Freak?

    Check.

    NeoCon?

    Check.

    NeoCon Jesus Freak.

  • robc||

    NeoCon being Jewish? I don't know about that. Never heard of that!

    Ummm...really? Where the fuck have you been?

    Leo Strauss, Irving Kristol, Bill Kristol, would do they all have in common?

  • ||

    Anybody who thinks neocon is code word for Jewish--needs to stop reading whatever news outlet they're reading.

    NeoCon is a foreign policy advocated and enacted by people with the names Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice.

    What do those names all have in common?

    The correct answer is "nothing".

  • ||

    you dick!

    Beat me by 1 min.

    =P

  • chris||

    Irving Kristol was the real godfather of neoconservativism, but his emphasis wasn't on foreign policy. He and others like Danial Patrick Moynihan were liberals pained by the problems welfare created felt a responsibility to mend it. Kristol founded Public Policy a journal dedicated to reversing the problem. Like much else, it morphed in later generations.

  • robc||

    neoconservatism is a form of trotskyism.

    Which makes it neither new nor conservative.

  • chris||

    The real Trotskyites were James Burnham, Whittaker Chambers, that group of conservatives propped up by the CIA. There were some in the neocons, but Podhoretz, Kristol and Joseph Epstein were just straight up liberal democrats.

  • ||

    Yeah, I know.

    Jean Kirkpatrick was a neocon of sorts in foreign policy, too, and yet she's mostly associated with pragmatism becasue of what she advocated cozying up to authoritarians (rather than totalitarians) especially in South America...

    Still, when most people say "neocon" now, they're not talking about Irving Krisol's domestic policy. They're talking about the foreign policy a la the Cheney Administration.

    No need to make things more confusing. When you tell the general public that Rick Santorum is a neocon, they're not about to assume you're talking about Irving Kristol's views on domestic policy--are they?

  • chris||

    True, but I thought it worth mentioning in the context of smart peers.

  • robc||

    When you tell the general public that Rick Santorum is a neocon, they're not about to assume you're talking about Irving Kristol's views on domestic policy--are they?

    That **is** what I assume.

    Actually, I assume they dont know what the hell they are talking about. I spent the early 2000s arguing with people who kept calling Ashcroft a neocon. No neocon is pro-legal-crypto.

    I always thought Ashcroft got a bad rap.

    Here is what I mean by the word (taken from Paul's speech "Neoconned"):

    1. They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.
    2. They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.
    3. They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
    4. They accept the notion that the ends justify the means–that hard-ball politics is a moral necessity.
    5. They express no opposition to the welfare state.
    6. They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.
    7. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
    8. They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.
    9. They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and
    withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.
    10. They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised.
    11. They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.
    12. They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.
    13. Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should
    not be limited to the defense of our country.
    14. 9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.
    15. They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)
    16. They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.
    17. They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Dude, I live in Missouri. I'm ashamed Ashcroft does, too.

  • MJ||

    "They're talking about the foreign policy a la the Cheney Administration."

    Which they are listening to the voices in their heads rather then using the term properly.

  • robc||

    Im guessing the jewish thing was too subtle a joke, what with its essence of truth to it.

  • chris||

    BTW, the Birchers were not ostracized for the reasons popularly given, Antisemitism, obsessive anti-communism. Robert Walsh, its leader, wrote a book about WFB's boss Allen Dulles that was critical of the internationalist agenda that was being institutionalized as official policy by Dulles and like minded travelers.

  • SIV||

    The Birchers were supposedly kicked out for advocating hyperbolic conspiracy theory. My only quibble with them is they lost so much political significance. Too bad the Commies took out Senator Larry McDonald.

  • ||

    Leo Strauss, Irving Kristol, Bill Kristol, would do they all have in common?

    Cheney, Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld...

    All JEWS!!!!!!

  • ||

    Great minds think alike, Corning!

  • mr simple||

    Santorum is only a Jesus freak if Jesus (or at least his popular depiction) advocated forcing everyone to your will and killing those who disagree. Just because some people in Iowa are idiots doesn't make Santorum a Jesus freak.

  • ||

    Santorum is a Jesus Freak if Jesus Freaks vote for him because he's a Jesus Freak.

  • ||

    I think Nick said it first. Who would Jesus bomb?

  • robc||

    Is Santorum even allowed to travel to South Carolina or have they got rid of their "No catholics allowed" law?

  • chris||

    Anti-Catholicism in the colonies was born of the fact that the eighteenth century Catholic church was a hellish, authoritarian institution that undermined freedom at every opportunity.

  • robc||

    So, umm, Santorum would fit right in?

  • ||

    Whereas colonial protestantism only burned suspected witches, massacred Native Americans, and enslaved Africans.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Whereas colonial protestantism only burned suspected witches, massacred Native Americans, and enslaved Africans.

    Yes, Quakers really are terrible, terrible people, aren't they?

  • ||

    Most protestants weren't Quakers.

    Most Catholics weren't inquisitors.

  • ||

    How were the wonderful British Protestants treating Irish people at that time, chris?

    I suppose the micks got what they deserved for being hellish and authoritarian.

  • Fluffy||

    Actually, the Brits didn't really give a damn what the Irish did as long as they paid their rents.

    The Irish could have put bones through their noses and started worshipping coconuts carved to look like the devil and no English Protestant would have given the first shit if the rent on their Irish properties was still paid on time.

  • ||

    You mean the Irish properties that had been confiscated from Irish Catholics who refused to convert?

  • Cytotoxic||

    You blew his dog whistle.

    However bad the British Protestant was, the Spanish Catholic was worse.

  • chris||

    As a non practicing Catholic of Spanish decent, I agree with you. I know why my ancestors were sent to the states in 1755 to found the colony of New Iberia, it was to put you protestants in check!

  • Julián Juderías ||

    Bullshit. The Black Legend at work again.

  • cynical||

    Is Santorum a neocon or a theocon?

  • jester||

    C'mon Ken, you do better than that almost every other day. Romney isn't creepy because of his underwear nor is Santorum freaky because of his trinity. Both the candidates suck because they believe in projecting ideals they can't even identify on the rest of us and hypocritically claim to know what they profess only God could know. This sort of hand-wringing is premature. Our brothers and sisters, colleagues, and fellow citizens have (surprise, surprise) articulated in the tried and tripe tradition of choosing inept douchebag demogogues (triple redundancy score). So what's the big deal. Who says either will be around when you decide to vote and not voting is a vote too.

  • Eitan||

    Disa-goddam-ppointing

  • Mr. Chartreuse||

    It is if you look at just from the perspective of RP not winning, as he could have, but he more than doubled his support from '08 and that is a major bonus.

  • ||

    What information do Intrade(rs) have that they have Mr. Romney at (11:37) still at 56% chance of winning the caucus?

    (although in the time that it took me to write that sentence he had dropped from 59%)

    At one point around 11:00 he was up to a 75% chance of taking the trade.

    (Checks- he is now back up to 60%)

    Just how thin _is_ this Market?

  • protefeed||

    According to the link, with 96% of the vote in, Romney is less than 100 votes behind Santorum, so being around 50% on Intrade isn't unreasonable.

  • protefeed||

    According to the link, with 97% of the vote in, Romney is only 37 votes behind Santorum. And yet, whichever of those two barely wins will trumpet that the voters have spoken.

  • A Serious Man||

    Logically, this result isn't bad for Paul. It looks like Romney won't win, and Santorum is non-existant in other states and will fold under media scrutiny.

    And from his speech it looks like Newt is going to go nuclear on Romney in New Hampshire. Paul can fly in under the radar and finish a strong second while expanding into Florida and SC. By then it will be a two man race between him and Romney.

  • Lewis H||

    Is that a cold sore on Marcus Bachmann's lip?

  • RoboCain||

    23 foster children?

  • ||

    It's not like the Gingrich, Bachman and Perry supporters are about to break for Paul either.

    My guess is that the Perry and Bachman supporters will probably break for Santorum, and the Gingrich supporters, once they get back from Bingo, will probably break for Romney.

  • ||

    I LOL'd at "once they get back from Bingo"

  • robc||

    Im still expecting sometime soon that the socons realize that Paul is more "one of them" than Santorum and things change. But I might be irrational expecing rationality in that way.

  • Amerifuntimes||

    Tonight has been a harsh reminder that the majority of people are still, and will likely always be, utter morons.

  • Granny Iowa||

    Santorum sounds like his name should end in a vowel, but it doesn't. I don't really get that, but he talks about Jesus, and not letting down our boys over there, so he gets my vote even though he is an Eye-tile-yun.

  • Fluffy||

    You can't really be a first-class socon unless you hate the infidel followers of Mahomet.

  • Robert||

    And if that happens, then won't the Rothbard-Rockwellian strategy of inserting a few subtle hints in the Ron Paul Letter have turned out to be a winner?

  • jester||

    SoCons hate minorities for receiving checks. Their checks are different. They earned them.

  • ||

    Apparently large numbers of Americans will vote for a mixture of frothy shit and lube over a human being. Interesting times.

  • Lewis H||

    Admit it, you'd prefer Mitt to Santorum.

  • chris||

    I'd prefer Mitt to Santo, 'cause for a robotic politician, I don't find him particularly unlikeable, but I'd prefer a kick in the nuts over either.

  • predius||

    Democracy by kick in the nuts:

    If you can find a majority (or plurality) of people who would accept being kicked in the nuts over the candidate then that candidate is barred from running.

  • DK||

    Euphemistically, yes.

  • DK||

  • ||

    I prefer Santorum because I find a flaw in Murdock's strategy...

    It could just as easily backfire and leave Paul on top of the heap rather then Romney as he planned.

  • Ron Burgandy||

    Go fuck yourself Iowa.

  • Jerry||

    Santorum will not do well in NH, so that's great news for RP. But Gingrich will attack him and Romney in the upcoming debates, he better be prepared.

  • ||

    Romney does not attack anyone openly in debates and Newt will be gunning for Romney.

    Paul has a nice opening here.

  • ||

    From someone who has read the exit polling, was a large number of non-Republicans who came into the Caucus and voted today?

    I believe that I might have seen on the Times that 2% of the caucus voters were Democrats. Somehow I would have imagined given that it would be pretty much a "free vote" for them that many civil libertarian minded liberals would make a "protest" vote for Rep. Paul.

  • ||

    The newsletters likely killed any motivation for most progressives willing to get past the "yuck I'm registered Republican" factor to spend time and energy caucusing for Paul.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Well these so-called progressives are the same people that would rather receive free shit than stop the wars they profess to hate. Fuck them, and everything they fucking believe in.

  • SIV||

    There are a few people who identify left who actually give a damn about civil liberties. That 2% may be a good metric.The rest think "if only the right people are in charge".

  • ||

    Over at Fox News, they are using the color of most santorum to represent Santorum.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....ucus-jan-3

  • El Commentariosa||

    foxnews.com? I'd rather click on rectal's blog

  • ||

    I should be pissed by the confused look on Paul's face in the image that Fox used of him.

    but it is hard to deny that it is pretty much how he always looks all the time.

  • ||

    Also it appears Iowa in regards to water sheds just did not give a fuck on the day they divided up the counties.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    OT:

    Who the fuck outside of Jihadistan, randomly fires shots in the air during a celebration?

  • insensitive monster||

    Happens every year in LA. Some people just don't get that they're not on the ranch anymore.

  • ||

    Mexican bandits in Hollywood movies....

  • chris||

    Badges? What? Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!

  • Robert||

    Dee boolets!

  • Fluffy||

    As many have pointed out, Paul never had a chance at the overall nomination anyway.

    It would have been a lot of fun - A LOT of fun - to see him win in IA, mainly because of the suffering that would have caused the professional GOP pundit class. So I'm disappointed that I didn't get to see the suffering I was expecting to see, because I was looking forward to basking in it and maybe wallowing in it a little.

    But other than that I'm trying to remind myself not to be disappointed.

    There's still a lot of room here for scorched earth. And my appetite for scorched earth in the GOP primary season is essentially bottomless.

    Jesse Benton was already on TV calling Santorum corrupt this afternoon. I'd like to see that angle explored this week. RAGE ON, gentlemen. Thanks in advance.

  • robc||

    The problem is I can see Paul remaining competitive and causing a brokered convention, but I dont see how he wins that.

    Winning enough delegates in the primaries to have a majority of the total delegates (with all the undeclared delegates) was going to be a tough feat anyway.

    I still think he is in position to broker the convention.

  • Fluffy||

    I don't think it can get quite that far - Paul needed to win tonight outright to get it to go that far - but that's kind of what I'm saying: that this will still drag out for a long time yet anyway, and will produce maximum pain.

    It's a tough thing to not really be able to look forward to any positive outcome, and to only be able to look forward to the satisfactions of maximum pain. But I'll try to muddle through.

  • Paul ||

    Npr actually talked about paul tonight. I was pleasantly surprised.

  • robc||

    I thought McCain was dead after Iowa last time around, but we shall see. I do think Romney has the same problem as Paul in that there might be a maximum around 30% that he can get in most states.

    Romney will do better in New England and Utah. Paul will do better in the rest of the west (ignoring the coast). Elsewhere it is going to be interesting. Plus, with proportional delegate splits thru March, things will be interesting.

  • ||

    McCain had Fred Thompson to defang his competitors and then drop out and endorse him. Also, for obvious reasons McCain's natural strong states were elderly Florida and pro-military SC. So he was able to recover.

  • Paul ||

    This echoes my sentiments exactly. Scorched earth is too kind for the gop. Scorched earth + 1 on them.

  • ||

    "Santorum makes big splash in Iowa."

    "Santroum squeezes out a win in Iowa between Paul and Romney."

  • Paul ||

    "santorum ties with romney in ia, gingrich suffers disappointing loss"

    Santorum with surprising surge leaving bachmann and huntsman in rear view mirror.

    Negative ads work against gingrich in ia, santorum and romney lead.

  • insensitive monster||

    Ron Paul in a close third with both parties and the media against him, I will take that any day.

  • Mr. Chartreuse||

    Another positive from tonight, is that according to the entrance polling Ron Paul had 48% support from 17-29 age group and 36% of the 30-39 age group. So, some possible hope for a future candidate in the mold of Paul.

  • ||

    If Paul were to be the nominee would he receive more than 36-37% of the vote of that 18-29 age group?

    In a close election those extra 6-7% could make a difference of course.

  • nj||

    Rand Paul must like those results for 2016

  • AuH20||

    Goodbye, Perry!

  • Sudden||

    Hey iowa, fuck you

  • ||

    What did you expect? "Welcome, libertarian"? "Make yourself at home"? "Marry my daughter"? You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new Midwest. You know... morons.

  • Paul ||

    No, what we got is, "get them mescans, keep your high falutin ideas away from my daughter, and MUSLIMS!"

  • MJ||

    Tulpa, your bigotry is showing.

  • ||

    Or my taste in Mel Brooks movies, either way.

  • ||

    Now that's just mean.

    Ron Paul's campaign caused some mischief via Twitter this evening, tweeting at Jon Huntsman's official account around 8:45 ET, "we found your one Iowa voter, he's in Linn precinct 5 you might want to call him and say thanks."

    The tweet instantly began bouncing around the political twittersphere, but someone in the Paul campaign must have pulled the plug; the cheeky tweet was gone within 11 minutes. Then, as if suddenly realizing that Twitter is not a medium that forgets (or forgives) deletion, the tweet was reposted shortly after 9:00 p.m.

    Jon Huntsman's Twitter account has not updated since Jan. 1.
  • ||

    If last Spring you had been told with utter certainty that Representative Paul would place a close third in the Iowa caucus, doubling the vote of the sitting governor of Texas, nearly doubling the vote of a past Speaker of the US House of Representatives; would you not have been thrilled (or incredulous)?

    Isn't the point of the Paul campaign to spread his ideas of Liberty to the body politic?

  • ||

    According to him it's not. He's in it to win it.

    And I don't think all the volunteers who worked on GOTV for RP are going to be happy if y'all try to spin the vote as not mattering.

  • ||

    I am not trying to spin, only trying to be positive (ok positive spin, you got me)

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Isn't the point of the Paul campaign to spread his ideas of Liberty to the body politic?

    No, the point of any political campaign is to win. Unfortunately, it seems the body politic of Iowa views fetuses and gays as the most pressing issues facing this Republic of these United States.

  • robc||

    Im trying to figure out how Santorum is more anti-abortion than Paul.

    Isnt that the reason many libertarians dont really like Paul?

  • Fluffy||

    Many right-to-lifers don't like the fact that Paul wants abortion banned at the state level.

    They are quite explicit about the fact that they want abortion stopped by any means necessary and they don't care about any constitutional or procedural obstacles to doing that directly by federal law.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Im trying to figure out how Santorum is more anti-abortion than Paul.

    He's not. Paul, however, bases his pro-life stance on reasoned arguments, based on his medical knowledge. Santorum, on the other hand, bases his pro-life stance on mysticism and emotion.

  • johnl||

    Paul bases his argument on personal experience and emotion. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Paul is all about the babies, too - he calls abortion an evil thing. The difference is he doesn't want to bill the unborn for today's spending orgies. The Iowa voters' problem isn't that they oppose abortion but that they support the welfare-warfare state.

  • robc||

    See the cnn entrance poll. Santorum got something like 57% of the vote from people whose primary issue is abortion.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Then Paul has some persuading to do. His approach will save babies - let the proliferation states ban abortion without federal court interference. Would Santorum do anything which is nearly as useful in the short term?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Prolife. Not proliferation

  • robc||

    Nope.

    Someone mentioned earlier today that Paul's problem is he doesnt pound on this issue. But its because:

    1. He knows it isnt the most important right now. He would do something about it, but the economy is more important.

    2. He has lots of stuff to talk about.

    3. He sucks at sound bites.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The Ron Paul difference is he recognizes the welfare warfare state is wrecking the country. Other repubs don't recognize this but they do recognize the importance of Prolife. Not a point of difference. Paul has basically said if abortion is OK then human rights and the declaration of independence is meaningless.

  • Joe M||

    Okay, let's look at the positives of these vote totals:

    In 2008, the social conservative placeholder (Huckabee) got 34% of the vote. This time, that placeholder (Santorum) only got 25%.

    In both 2008 and 2012, Romney got 25%.

    In 2008, Paul got only 10%. This time, he's more than doubled it to 21%.

    Paul is going to more than double his total in New Hampshire too. It was only 8% in 2008. He'll probably top 20% there.

    So looking at the long term trend, liberty is on the upswing. If this is all groundwork for Rand in 2016, it's not so bad.

    And Paul will still be able to linger and collect delegates throughout the entire primary season. Depending on who drops out when, Paul could end up getting good sized chunks of the anti-Romney vote.

  • ||

    If this is groundwork for Rand in 2016, that means we have four more years of BO.

    And that, my friends, ain't a good thing.

  • Fluffy||

    I have to reiterate that 4 more years of BO is actually the best available outcome among our shitty set of outcomes now.

    The current GOP is only reliable as the opposition. They proved that under Bush.

    This GOP Congress with a President (Motherfucker are you kidding me?) Santorum would be a much, much worse situation than this GOP Congress with a lame duck President Obama.

  • ||

    So, you're coming out against the Second Amendment and political speech in the weeks before an election?

    BO's been a lame duck since June 2009. Hasn't stopped him from fucking things up royally by executive order and such, with no help from Congress.

    ...and that was when he was worried about having to stand for election again. If anything he'll be a mad duck in the second term.

  • Fluffy||

    You make a compelling argument, but then I remember to compare the 2002 GOP Congress to the 2010 GOP Congress.

    In 2013 if Obama is President again the GOP Congress will fight him every step of the way.

    In 2013 if Rick Santorum is President the GOP Congress will give him whatever he wants. And if that ends up being some absurd "Americorps Slavery for All!" plan then those will just be the breaks.

  • ||

    Problems with this strategy:

    1. The president has the ability to do much damage even with opposition from Congress.

    2. There is NO. FLERKING. WAY. that Obama nominates a SCOTUS justice who will uphold Heller and Citizens United. I don't care how many times the Senate rejects his nominees. And Scalia and Kennedy are getting up there in years.

    3. What happens to your master strategery if, in 2014, fed up with "obstructionism", the voters hand Congress back to the Dems? Oops.

  • ||

    Why would you assume a GOP Congress in a 2012 win for the President?

    By the logic of a bitterly divided GOP leading to a weak nominee and a potential for a electoral blowout in the Presidential race, the Democrats could hold the Senate and take the House.

  • ||

    The Dems have to defend a lot of vulnerable red-state seats in the Senate that were won in the wave of anti-Bush fever in 2006. Barring a total GOP meltdown or radical improvement in the economy, they're losing the Senate.

    The House I'm not so sure about.

  • asdf||

    Fluffy is right.

  • ||

    And the Bush administration, bad as it was, was a cornucopia of liberty compared to the past three years under BO.

  • robc||

    Now that Obama has expanded the imperial presidency, do you expect Santorum or Romney to shrink it back to Bush levels?

    Yeah, me neither.

  • ||

    So? We're not talking about comparison to what Ron Paul would do, we're talking about comparison to what BO would do.

  • robc||

    Reading comprehension problem much?

    You were comparing Obama to Bush. That is a false comparison because Romney wont take us back to Bush levels, he will keep all the powers Obama expanded.

  • ||

    Did you read Fluffy's comment that I was responding to?

    The current GOP is only reliable as the opposition. They proved that under Bush.

    What they proved, if anything, under Bush was that unified GOP govt is better than BO in the White House and GOP congress.

  • robc||

    You responded to me. I didnt bring up Paul.

  • ||

    I responded to your response to my response to Fluffy.

  • robc||

    ignoring my response entirely.

  • Fluffy||

    I remember a different Bush administration than you do, Tulpy.

    If Barack Obama was President in 2002, would the GOP in Congress have passed Mccain-Feingold? Nope. No Child Left Behind? Nope. The Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit? Nope.

    They would have danced around in war paint shouting "Socialism!" and "Free speech!" and everything else they completely don't care about when a Republican is in the Oval Office.

    Let's keep the war paint on them for a while longer.

  • ||

    If Barack Obama was president in 2011, would the GOP in Congress have given him indefinite detention powers? Would it have empowered his DOJ to shut down websites on a whim?

    Oh wait... those aren't hypotheticals.

  • ||

    Now that Obama has expanded the imperial presidency, do you expect Santorum or Romney to shrink it back to Bush levels?

    Please note that the latest expansion of the imperial presidency, the codification of indefinite detention without trial for US citizens, was overwhelmingly supported by GOP Congresspersons allegedly in "opposition".

  • robc||

    Im not unaware. Im hoping that everyone who voted for it gets sent to gitmo without a trial.

    This is why I shouldnt be elected president, because that would be my first act.

    McCain dying in a prison camp has a certain irony to it.

  • robc||

    So when Romney gets in, will the GOP congress get rid of that power?

    Nope.

    So the GOP president isnt gonna roll back the imperial presidency.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I have to reiterate that 4 more years of BO is actually the best available outcome among our shitty set of outcomes now.

    I have to reiterate this. No Tulpa, we're not buying, not with the GOP dominated House in the way.

  • ||

    LOL. That GOP dominated House has sure been effective at stopping BO so far, hasn't it?

    And of course, there's always the possibility the Dems take back Congress in 2014, in which case having BO in the WH is a very very very very very bad thing.

  • Cytotoxic||

    More effective than they will be with a guy from their team at the top who isn't significantly different from Obama.

  • robc||

    Rand cant do a primary challenge vs [GOP president]?

    I still have no clue who its going to be. I dont think Romney can get enough support and I think Santorum is the placeholder.

  • ||

    Rand cant do a primary challenge vs [GOP president]?

    I don't think that anybody's successfully primaried an incumbent president in the last century or so. The closest was the Democrats in 1968, when LBJ decided not to run for another term because he was concerned about whether he could win the primary, but that's a rather unique case.

  • Joe M||

    The best possible outcome will be four more years of Obama and a GOP congress.

    Barring a Libertarian miracle via Johnson, of course.

  • ||

    Lots of people against gun rights and political freedom of speech here.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Oh fuck off. You're not going to sell that here today or tomorrow.

  • ||

    That's quite an argument.

    Since when do you speak for the H&R populace? Are you the spokesperson when you advocate invading harmless countries and killing innocent civilians?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Just stating the obvious: that HnR doesn't really eat up the 'he's scarier than my guy!' argument.

  • ||

    Or is there a "marxist" or dialectical variant of libertarianism that necessitates the _worst_ political and social outcome, ere the Revolution come?

  • ||

    Obama + GOP we have a deficit payed military that can kick everyone's ass 999,999 times over

    All GOP (not paul) we have a deficit payed military that can kick everyone's ass 1 million times over

    eh...there is a difference I guess.

  • ||

    that means we have four more years of BO.

    Mitt is the most likely candidate and he will beat Obama...Paul is the second most likely candidate and he would also beat Obama.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Joe M makes a really good point. I like Rand more than Ron so this might be my 'optimum scenario'.

  • ||

    If this is all groundwork for Rand in 2016,

    I don't think the collapse of the dollar will take four more years to arrive. If BHO is the president when the shit hits the fan, the recovery could take two decades or more, as desperate people look to the cause pretending to be the solution.

    -jcr

  • Atanarjuat||

    Santorum's victory speech is on. Jeez what a smug, punchable asswipe.

  • Joe M||

    NOOOOOOoooooooo.......

    This is like the inverse of salty ham tears!

  • ||

    Actually it is better...

    Watching Santorum, who will lose, think he is top fuck on shit mountain is all foreplay to the coming new salty tear conclusion.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    New Hampshire, along with Vermont, have the highest percent of non-believers/atheists/agnostics in the country. The salty tears will be coming soon.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Don't forget the Free State Project contingent...

  • protefeed||

    He's also fucking bad at clicking on links and checking his facts. He's behind Romney by about 40 votes with 98% of the precincts in.

    Does he know something about that remaining 2% that we don't?

  • ||

    That close coming out of nowhere (everyone thought this a was a Paul/Romney race) he has a right to claim victory...and it will make his salty tears all the more sweet in the coming month.

  • ||

    He was the next non-Mormon non-Moooooslim-lover in line. He didn't actually do anything to win this, he was just present.

  • ||

    It didn't come out of nowhere - you had 3 social conservative religious types - Bachmann, Perry, and Sanctorum. Perry kept making a fool of himself, and some minister in Iowa cut the rug from under Bachmann, saying she should quit (Perry, too). So he gained support from those two.

  • robc||

    So, has anyone seen how to project vote totals into at least an approximate delegate count for Iowa?

    For all of the horse race coverage by the media, they seem to be ignoring the actual scoreboard.

  • ||

    I've heard the vote has no effect on the delegates.

  • ||

    well the winning horse gets to choose which monkey they send to the show...one assumes the people Santorum sends will vote for him...or how he tells them to vote.

  • robc||

    I thought the vote selected the delegates to the county convention, from which delegates to the state convention where chosen, from which delegates to the national convention were chosen.

    I guess Im confused about whether this vote chooses the county delegates or if that is some random RPS at the caucus.

  • Robert||

    The vote that's reported for presidential candidates is known in presidential race lingo (although I haven't heard it lately) as a "beauty contest". However, the same people who vote in that also at that same meeting elect delegates to the county convention. Of course there may be other issues important to the party at the county level, but you would expect presidential preference to figure in there, wouldn't you? So someone somewhere (probably each candidate's organiz'n) has some figures not being reported as to how many delegates to the nat'l convention they're expecting to garner from tonight's caucuses. Lots of leeway there, because nobody has to commit to a candidate at any stage of that delegate selection, but I'm sure they have some estimates.

  • robc||

    The actual rule:

    There is no formal system applied in the Precinct Caucuses to relate the presidential preference of the Caucus participants to the choice of the precinct's delegates to the Republican Convention of the County in which the precinct is located. The participants at each Precinct Caucus alone determine if presidential preference is to be a factor in such choice and, if so, how it is to be applied.

  • Atanarjuat||

    Well, all the people who desperately wanted to talk about anything but Ron Paul are now doing so.

  • Atanarjuat||

    Some douchebag on Cavuto just said if Ron Paul had won Iowa, the state's primary would never again matter and could safely be skipped by all the mainstream candidates next time around.

    "Dang it, we told you hicks he's not serious!"

  • MJ||

    I am amazed that someone in the media would cop to that strategy out loud. It discredits the media as trying to actively influence the result rather than reporting on it.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Romney has just inched to 1st place by 41 votes.

  • robc||

    Santorum back ahead by 19.

  • barfman||

    *baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarf*

  • El Commentariosa||

    Anyone know if Sandi has ever been to Iowa?

  • Max||

    The racist bag of shit is the third choice in Iowa--that's good news.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    There aren't any racist shitbags on the roster, Max. Take your meds and shut the fuck up.

  • ||

    I could have sworn I left the gate open. Damn it Max, I WANT you to run away.

  • Ted S.||

    Obama finished third in Iowa? That is good news.

  • robc||

    cnn has a delegate count now:

    Santorum 6
    Romney 6
    Paul 4
    Gingrich 1
    Perry 1

    That doesnt add up to 25, but its something.

  • robc||

    Updated approximate delegate numbers, from thegreenpapers.com:

    Santorum 6
    Romney 6
    Paul 6
    Gingrich 3
    Perry 3
    Bachmann 1

    That has the advantage of adding up to 25, and they are labeled "Soft Unpledged", which I think basically means that things can change thru the county and state conventions, but is probably a good estimate for now.

  • asdf||

    Well that's good news.

  • Robert||

    "Soft Unpledged" must be a catchall category the national media have come up with to categorize the least solid of delegate presidential preferences in trying to come up with a few categories given the whole country's Republican parties. None of the preferences stated by the county, CD, or national convention delegates from Iowa will be binding according to county, state, or national party rules.

    When I heard the approximate vote totals a few hrs. ago, I assumed that Romney, Paul, and Santorum would all come out with the same number of votes from Iowa at the 1st round of the national convention, give or take about 1. The idea at this point of declaring a "winner" from this caucus is sheer symbolism and puffery.

  • Robert||

    Some of those candidates may have dropped out by the time of the state convention in June, so other than Romney and Paul, it's not clear any of them will actually come out with national delegates in their pocket.

  • beezle||

    arlen specter... arlen specter.. .arlen specter ... there just wasn't time to club insanatorium like the middle aged seal that he is.

  • rho||

    This is the best news ever. Santorum news for AT LEAST a solid week!

    ROLL, RICK, ROLL!

  • asdf||

    If 6 months ago someone would have told me Ron Paul would get 21% in Iowa I would have said bullshit. It feels weird to be disappointed with 21%, but I am.

  • Satan||

    Santorum 6
    Romney 6
    Paul 6

    LOL

  • Sal Paradise||

    Not going to read all the comments.

    I caucused for Dr. Paul tonight. And if he doesn't get it, I'm fine with another 4 years of Obama.

    All these old fart GOP cocksuckers talked about was Jesus, abortion, and being a war-mongering asshole. Fuck them.

  • asdf||

    Hear Hear

  • ||

    I second this shit

  • Jumbie||

    48% for Paul in the under-30's. As my best friend says, sometimes change is a matter of waiting for the old fuks to die.

  • shamalamadingdong||

    The trouble with that reasoning is that the "under-30s" will soon be old fucks.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    Exit polls are fascinating–among voters for whom abortion was the single biggest issue, 58 percent chose Santorum (Perry came in second, with just 11%). Those who cared most about the budget deficit preferred Paul, but not by as much as I'd expect: 28% to Romney's 21%, then Santorum (19), Gingrich (15), Perry (11).

    You've got to be kidding. Abortion decided this caucus?

    I suppose I'm agnostic on the subject of abortion, but the fact is we've lived with legal abortion for 40-odd years. Our current economic condition presents a genuine immediate existential threat to the country, but these people decided their votes on the issue of abortion!?

    If that's representative of the reasoning of the rest of the country, we are so fucked.....

  • ||

    Yeah, but come on, this is Iowa we're talking about here. People only give a shit about that state once in four years so they make the most of it.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    The HuffPo brings the stoopid:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....82524.html

  • Paulie Krugnuts||

    I liked it.

  • Tony||

    I creamed my SpongeBob undies after reading this.

  • Oathkeeper James||

    I understand that the overseas military vote went overwhelmingly to Ron Paul but the statists at the “Republican” Party are sitting on it so that Romney can win New Hampshire!

    The truth will out! We’ll know my theory (more like fact!) is true if Romney wins New Hampshire by a large amount

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Romney wins by eight votes over Santorum.

    Well, it's finally over. No more debates, no more campaigning, no more speeches. At last, Americans can move on from politics as once again this great republic shows the world how it transfers power peacefully, with President Barack Obama welcoming President Mitt Romney, the electorate rest assured four years from now the tree of liberty will be refreshed once again. Good night, America.

  • ||

    mother fucker

  • A Serious Man||

    Of course you could look at it differntly and make a case that Paul has demonstrated just how powerful the liberty movement is becoming, but of course the media won't.

  • shamalamadingdong||

    Santorum wins the straw poll in Iowa? It's early on the west coast, so this is what I wake up to?

    Fuck! More of the same in DC, but with more delightful moral finger-wagging and scolding. Canada is looking better all the time.

  • ||

    Now there is a dude that is jsut totally rocking all of the time. WOw.

    www.privacy-tips.tk

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement