Caucus Stuff

Perry has decided to jump to South Carolina, it would appear, but candidates who skip a state generally perform poorly in the next state because, even though they are there campaigning, they’re not really getting as many mentions on the national press. The caucuses are really a, “Flavor of the week,” sort of deal as we saw with all of the changes in who led Iowa and the final result of that caucus.

Anyway, if you’re not there at all that week, then you really can’t be one of the flavors, can you?

Bachmann is ending hers completely, and it seems there is some question as to whether or not she’s going to seek Congressional reelection as her district has been redrawn, presumably in a way making it more difficult for her to win, or it wouldn’t have been mentioned.

In the meantime, even Conservative talk radio is still beating on Newt Gingrich’s dead horse, and it was his own, “Fellow conservatives,” as well as Romney’s negative ads in Iowa, that caused him to drop so quickly after being ahead in the polls.

People are complaining that Gingrich is now, “Out for revenge,” against Mitt Romney, but yeah, who wouldn’t be? I heard Glenn Beck this morning making the complaint about Gingrich describing himself as, “Wilsonian,” and stating that Wilson, in 1917, openly supported the uprising in Russia and called it a, “Great win for Democracy.”

Glenn Beck then basically alluded to the social restrictions and millions of deaths that took place UNDER STALIN’S LEADERSHIP and said, “That’s what Wilson called a win for Democracy and Gingrich calls himself, 'Wilsonian.” Clearly, Wilson could not predict the future so Glenn Beck, basically took Wilson’s words out of historical context…which is basically to say that he used Wilson’s words as if Wilson knew what would happen concerning Stalin-led Russia and approved!

The thing is, people don’t know about the history of 20th-Century Russia, and nor do they care, they just know that Russia and the U.S.S.R. are bad and they did bad things. While Glenn Beck did not specifically invoke Stalin’s name, (or the jig might be up) he did specifically mention the U.S.S.R. which came into being FIVE YEARS after Wilson made the comment. Josef Stalin took power seven years after the comment was made by Wilson.

Anyway, Stalin and Lenin are so different that merely linking the two in terms of what happened historically is offensive enough, but then to expect Wilson to have known the future in reference to a statement made in 1917 is just presposterous. And, finally, to use that one statement, TAKEN COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT, in order to criticize Gingrich for classifying himself as, “Wilsonian,” is patently false.

But, people know the U.S.S.R. was bad, and now apparently Wilson supported the U.S.S.R., (which didn’t exist until after his Presidency) and Gingrich said himself that he is, “Wilsonian,” so now Gingrich must be a Communist. Or, whatever crazy shit that people believe when people like Glenn Beck pull crap like this.

By the way, I don’t even like or dislike Gingrich.

Anyway, Bachmann’s hasn’t endorsed anyone yet, of course, I doubt if any of them really want her to.

Ron Paul’s getting the young conservative, the Conservatives had better hope that he doesn’t just decide to run as an independent if he loses, or the election belongs to Obama, guaranteed.

It seems like it is going to be between Romney and Santorum, but Romney needs as many people to stay in the race for as long as possible because, right now, there are only three types of Conservatives.

1.) The ones who want Obama out and otherwise don’t care.

2.) The ones who think Romney is a flip-flopping closet Moderate, or even, closet Democrat…from their perspective.

3.) Supporters.

He has Number Three, by definition. He is just hoping to keep the votes that belong to people in the first or second group divided as much as possible, or he’s probably pretty screwed. There are a great many Conservatives that don’t really think Romney is at all Conservative, so they’ll vote for any Conservative that is not Romney. So, the more, “Any Conservatives,” the better for Romney.

I can’t help but like Rick Santorum even though I disagree with nearly everything that comes out of his mouth. The thing that I like about him is that he at least doesn’t sway away from his values like the others do…he puts everything out there. I mean, he acts like a man, and that’s all there is to that one. He also ran a positive campaign in Iowa. If not Obama, (though I wish there were Leftist options besides Obama!) I’d probably take Santorum because he’s the only one (other than Paul) that I truly have respect for.

I respect Paul, but the brother’s insane. I would love nothing more than to be an Isolationist country, but when China basically owns us, and we have been out and about playing World Police Department for the last 50+ years, we really aren’t in a position to just pull back and say, “Hey, sorry to bother you guys, carry on.”

Pav, are you kidding me? You like Santorum? That prejudiced, ignorant, little boy?

Who cares that he stands by his “values” when his “values” are pure dogmatic, religious bullshit?

Santorum won’t beat Obama, either - he’s too socially retarded … i mean, socially conservative. i would say Romney at least has a chance.

Yeah, I would say Romney has a chance, but unless people just really hate Obama, I don’t think Romney has a very strong chance. Anyways, the only Republican candidate I can stand is Ron Paul because he seems genuine and level-headed. The rest of them are either petty and contrived, or just completely wrong-headed, in my opinion.

I’m not going to vote for him, but I like him. I think he would be an okay leader, in a sense. Strong, unwavering, definitive. I’m really just concerned about the Economics and what’s going on abroad right now, just as long as he doesn’t try to effectuate too many of his social ideas or spend too much time on that.

We can later undo anything that he does socially, or the S.C. can do it for us. I think we have to get our Economic ducks in a row before we worry about purely social issues, and Santorum may be the best Conservative to do that.

He may stand for the wrong thing, but at least he stands.

Romney and Obama are the same leader.

Think about this, the Conservatives hate Obama, so Santorum has them. The only thing that he really has to do is get the independents, with his social stances, that’s not going to happen, but Obama’s not going to argue Social Issues either when he hasn’t effectuated anything on that end except eliminating, “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” You know, married gay couples still can’t file their Federal Income Taxes jointly, so, great job Obama. Marijuana is no closer to being legalized, good job Obama. Et cetera.

None of the candidates will make these things happen, so it really doesn’t matter. I wish we could have Clinton back, I’m writing in Clinton again, the Constitutional two-term limit is bullshit and needs to be repealed.

Paul could never beat Obama, but he could effectuate Obama’s guaranteed victory by running as an independent after he fails to get the Republican nod. By the way, many people do, “really hate Obama.”

Obama is no worse IMO than any of the other Republican candidates if Paul doesn’t get the nomination.

It would surprise me if Paul decided to run as an independent, I don’t think he wants to do that.

Really, I’m not going to vote for any of them, though I’m going to vote for Santorum in the caucus when they finally get to Ohio. We have a semi-open caucus here, and I seriously doubt there will be a Socialist ballot, so I might as well effect whatever I can effect to whatever extent I can. In Santorum v. Obama, or Romney v. Obama, I have no preference.

I agree that Obama is not worse than any of the Republican options.

That’s what I meant in the first post, though, I stated it poorly. I basically meant that if Obama has to lose to someone, I’d want it to be Santorum.

I think there’s an outside possibility that Paul runs as a Libertarian.