Thomas Lindaman writes:
Now that the dust has settled in Ames, let's take a look at the winners and losers.
And I'll point out a few things about these people.
According to Lindaman, something as simple as windsurfing is enough reason not to vote for someone. Keep this in mind.
Winners
Michele Bachmann: Although this one could have been considered a lay-up for her, the victory at the Iowa Straw Poll gives her two things she needs at this stage: momentum and credibility. Bachmann has been maligned and disregarded as a serious candidate by a lot of people (namely the Left), but it's hard for them to make that argument now she's had such a high profile victory, especially over the more established Ron Paul.
She wants to get rid of Medicare and Social Security.
She's a Teabagger.
She wants us to drill in the Everglades for oil. But there's no oil there.
She's Anti Gay Marriage.
She's an Anti-Abortionist (including cases of rape and incest).
She's a Global Warming Denier (ie: Nut)
She claims Obama is "anti-American" with nothing to support that claim.
She helped spread the "death panels" bullshit.
On the other hand, she's a benefit to GOP in that she makes Palin look smarter... not by much, though.
And speaking of Dr. Paul...
Ron Paul: For better or worse, Ron Paul has a following in Iowa. He has the same issues Bachmann has, but on a wider scale. His second place showing in Iowa shows he still
has the groundswell of support for his candidacy, which will help him stay in the race longer.
He wanted the United States to ask permission from Pakistan before going after Osama Bin Laden.
He strongly favors allowing states to criminalize with harsh penalties women who have abortions as they see fit. Including rape and incest.
He thinks evolution is junk science, as is global climate change.
He thinks that the separation of church and state is the result of activist judges.
He thinks the Constitution is "replete with references to God" (it doesn't have any at all).
He introduced a bill in Congress that would allow local governments to ban atheists from holding office.
He made racist comments in his newsletters for ages, admitted he wrote them, then later tried to blame it on an anonymous staffer.
He wants to remove all banking regulations.
He tried to pass a bill that would make every dollar and coin in US circulation instantly worthless.
Herman Cain: Cain had a pretty good showing at the Iowa Straw Poll, even in "predominantly white" Iowa, as the media loved to state in their reporting.
So stating Cain did well in a predominantly white state... is somehow a bad thing?
He may not have fared as well as he would have liked, but he's showing more than a little financial acumen with how he fared. While others spent and spent, Cain didn't, and still managed to come in a respectable fifth place with a shade under 9% of the votes tallied.
Thought Obama was "raised in Kenya".
Thinks no legislation should exceed 3 pages, because if it's longer than that it's just "too complicated." Then tried to backpedal on that.
Thinks the part about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" was in the Constitution.
Opposed the building of an Islamic community center in Tennessee, because it he thought it was "an infringement and an abuse of our freedom of religion."
Sarah Palin: Yes, she's not an official candidate, but she did wind up having an impact on the Iowa Straw Poll. The media coverage she received from merely hinting at coming to the Iowa State Fair was enough to draw attention away from some of the candidates who needed the attention (see Tim Pawlenty). She wound up being a king (or should I say queen) maker in Iowa, that's for sure!
I'll refrain from stating the tons of things she has done and said that are worse than windsurfing. You're welcome.
She opposes same sex marriage.
She is against abortion, including cases of rape or incest.
Losers
Mitt Romney: He shows up for a debate before the Iowa Straw Poll, and yet he bails on the Iowa Straw Poll itself? Granted, it's a fundraising event, but it doesn't bode well for the Romney campaign to ignore one of the early states in 2012. And as an Iowan, I know there will be a lot of Republicans with long memories. Then again, after he blew an easy question at the Iowa State Fair and got visibly upset, he might not have wanted to face people who could have handled the question better than he did.
I'll go easy on Romney, since he's the closest thing to an intelligent candidate the GOP has. That fact alone could ruin his chances.
Tim Pawlenty: With two people from Minnesota in the same race, Iowa voters were split. Typically, Iowans will throw their support behind a candidate from a neighboring state, and Pawlenty was counting on a better turnout than he received, which was a distant third behind Bachmann and Paul. Of course, anyone who followed Pawlenty's campaign honestly knew he wasn't lighting things up on the GOP side. His attacks on Michele Bachmann didn't help either because, unlike TPaw, Bachmann connects with Iowans on
fundamental levels. That was his third strike, and as of today, he's out of the race he was never really in to begin with.
The guy has no idea what he is doing, no idea how government works, and no idea how to run a campaign. He's probably the least crazy besides Romney, but that's only because he's not smart enough to be crazy. That being said, I'm not concerned about Pawlenty. His tax record and the bridge incident are enough to sink him.
Rick Perry: He's in officially, and...not many people care. Announcing his candidacy this weekend was a major stumble on Perry's part, and it could have been avoided if his campaign had given more thought to the announcement. Granted, there's good strategy in not announcing before an event where one of his rivals was presumed to walk away with it and his non-appearance at the debate prior to the Iowa Straw Poll left him safe from scrutiny for now. Having said that, to make the announcement when he did when
the media attention was elsewhere? Dumb, dumb, dumb.
NOW it's fun time! The REALLY batshit crazy one!
Come on, you know you wanna vote for him! The GOP loves people like this!
Rick Santorum: Like it or not, Santorum impressed a lot of people with his performance at the debate prior to the Iowa Straw Poll. That translated into a fourth place victory for him, edging out Herman Cain. So, why is Santorum with the losers? Because he hasn't run as solid a campaign as the frontrunners. On top of that, he's going to be going for the same voters as Michele Bachmann, but she's been out there stumping on her conservative beliefs, while Santorum hasn't. Assuming people know you isn't a good way to win over the hearts and minds of voters.
This is the idiot that tried to put Intelligent Design in public schools.
His hatred for gays is well known.
Newt Gingrich, John Huntsman, and Thaddeus McCotter:
Collectively, the three of you got less than 3% of the votes at the Iowa Straw Poll. Mitt Romney, who didn't even show up, got 3.4% of the vote. Pack it in, guys, and leave it to the real candidates, okay?
I think Romney's being low-key to avoid pissing off the moderates and likely letting his batshit insane opponents flare out. There's nothing for Romney to win in Iowa, so he's not going to waste time and resources. He gets to concentrate all his energy and money on New Hampshire and other early states (South Carolina will be a big test for him).
Even Republicans are beginning to see the writing on the wall - that a Texan governor who openly rails against Social Security, Medicare, the direct election of US senators, and threatened to secede might well win the Republican primary... but is dead meat in the general. And their fallback is Mitt Romney, the guy the base hates with an intensity of a thousand suns.
Other highlights from this debate included right-wingers cheering executions, and booing a United States soldier serving in Iraq because he's gay.
Now, for the millionth time, Lindaman... I'm going to ask you the question you keep ducking: Could you please state why a person should vote Republican?
I know that the points I brought up about these candidates above can be considered good things to the insane branch of the right, but it still doesn't directly answer the question.
You have stated you are Republican. Then when Republicans weren't popular, you claimed to be Libertarian. Now you claim to be an "Independent (tm)".
And yet, throughout all this, you have done nothing but trash Democrats over things like:
1. Windsurfing.
2. Giving a gift to the Queen of England.
3. Birth Certificates.
4. Swift Boaters.
While gleefully endorsing Republicans like Bush and McCain, and Republicans in state elections.
So let's pretend that you're going to admit to still being Republican.
Now, explain. Why should anyone vote Republican?
Now that the dust has settled in Ames, let's take a look at the winners and losers.
And I'll point out a few things about these people.
According to Lindaman, something as simple as windsurfing is enough reason not to vote for someone. Keep this in mind.
Winners
Michele Bachmann: Although this one could have been considered a lay-up for her, the victory at the Iowa Straw Poll gives her two things she needs at this stage: momentum and credibility. Bachmann has been maligned and disregarded as a serious candidate by a lot of people (namely the Left), but it's hard for them to make that argument now she's had such a high profile victory, especially over the more established Ron Paul.
She wants to get rid of Medicare and Social Security.
She's a Teabagger.
She wants us to drill in the Everglades for oil. But there's no oil there.
She's Anti Gay Marriage.
She's an Anti-Abortionist (including cases of rape and incest).
She's a Global Warming Denier (ie: Nut)
She claims Obama is "anti-American" with nothing to support that claim.
She helped spread the "death panels" bullshit.
On the other hand, she's a benefit to GOP in that she makes Palin look smarter... not by much, though.
And speaking of Dr. Paul...
Ron Paul: For better or worse, Ron Paul has a following in Iowa. He has the same issues Bachmann has, but on a wider scale. His second place showing in Iowa shows he still
has the groundswell of support for his candidacy, which will help him stay in the race longer.
He wanted the United States to ask permission from Pakistan before going after Osama Bin Laden.
He strongly favors allowing states to criminalize with harsh penalties women who have abortions as they see fit. Including rape and incest.
He thinks evolution is junk science, as is global climate change.
He thinks that the separation of church and state is the result of activist judges.
He thinks the Constitution is "replete with references to God" (it doesn't have any at all).
He introduced a bill in Congress that would allow local governments to ban atheists from holding office.
He made racist comments in his newsletters for ages, admitted he wrote them, then later tried to blame it on an anonymous staffer.
He wants to remove all banking regulations.
He tried to pass a bill that would make every dollar and coin in US circulation instantly worthless.
Herman Cain: Cain had a pretty good showing at the Iowa Straw Poll, even in "predominantly white" Iowa, as the media loved to state in their reporting.
So stating Cain did well in a predominantly white state... is somehow a bad thing?
He may not have fared as well as he would have liked, but he's showing more than a little financial acumen with how he fared. While others spent and spent, Cain didn't, and still managed to come in a respectable fifth place with a shade under 9% of the votes tallied.
Thought Obama was "raised in Kenya".
Thinks no legislation should exceed 3 pages, because if it's longer than that it's just "too complicated." Then tried to backpedal on that.
Thinks the part about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" was in the Constitution.
Opposed the building of an Islamic community center in Tennessee, because it he thought it was "an infringement and an abuse of our freedom of religion."
Sarah Palin: Yes, she's not an official candidate, but she did wind up having an impact on the Iowa Straw Poll. The media coverage she received from merely hinting at coming to the Iowa State Fair was enough to draw attention away from some of the candidates who needed the attention (see Tim Pawlenty). She wound up being a king (or should I say queen) maker in Iowa, that's for sure!
I'll refrain from stating the tons of things she has done and said that are worse than windsurfing. You're welcome.
She opposes same sex marriage.
She is against abortion, including cases of rape or incest.
Losers
Mitt Romney: He shows up for a debate before the Iowa Straw Poll, and yet he bails on the Iowa Straw Poll itself? Granted, it's a fundraising event, but it doesn't bode well for the Romney campaign to ignore one of the early states in 2012. And as an Iowan, I know there will be a lot of Republicans with long memories. Then again, after he blew an easy question at the Iowa State Fair and got visibly upset, he might not have wanted to face people who could have handled the question better than he did.
I'll go easy on Romney, since he's the closest thing to an intelligent candidate the GOP has. That fact alone could ruin his chances.
Tim Pawlenty: With two people from Minnesota in the same race, Iowa voters were split. Typically, Iowans will throw their support behind a candidate from a neighboring state, and Pawlenty was counting on a better turnout than he received, which was a distant third behind Bachmann and Paul. Of course, anyone who followed Pawlenty's campaign honestly knew he wasn't lighting things up on the GOP side. His attacks on Michele Bachmann didn't help either because, unlike TPaw, Bachmann connects with Iowans on
fundamental levels. That was his third strike, and as of today, he's out of the race he was never really in to begin with.
The guy has no idea what he is doing, no idea how government works, and no idea how to run a campaign. He's probably the least crazy besides Romney, but that's only because he's not smart enough to be crazy. That being said, I'm not concerned about Pawlenty. His tax record and the bridge incident are enough to sink him.
Rick Perry: He's in officially, and...not many people care. Announcing his candidacy this weekend was a major stumble on Perry's part, and it could have been avoided if his campaign had given more thought to the announcement. Granted, there's good strategy in not announcing before an event where one of his rivals was presumed to walk away with it and his non-appearance at the debate prior to the Iowa Straw Poll left him safe from scrutiny for now. Having said that, to make the announcement when he did when
the media attention was elsewhere? Dumb, dumb, dumb.
NOW it's fun time! The REALLY batshit crazy one!
Come on, you know you wanna vote for him! The GOP loves people like this!
Rick Santorum: Like it or not, Santorum impressed a lot of people with his performance at the debate prior to the Iowa Straw Poll. That translated into a fourth place victory for him, edging out Herman Cain. So, why is Santorum with the losers? Because he hasn't run as solid a campaign as the frontrunners. On top of that, he's going to be going for the same voters as Michele Bachmann, but she's been out there stumping on her conservative beliefs, while Santorum hasn't. Assuming people know you isn't a good way to win over the hearts and minds of voters.
This is the idiot that tried to put Intelligent Design in public schools.
His hatred for gays is well known.
Newt Gingrich, John Huntsman, and Thaddeus McCotter:
Collectively, the three of you got less than 3% of the votes at the Iowa Straw Poll. Mitt Romney, who didn't even show up, got 3.4% of the vote. Pack it in, guys, and leave it to the real candidates, okay?
I think Romney's being low-key to avoid pissing off the moderates and likely letting his batshit insane opponents flare out. There's nothing for Romney to win in Iowa, so he's not going to waste time and resources. He gets to concentrate all his energy and money on New Hampshire and other early states (South Carolina will be a big test for him).
Even Republicans are beginning to see the writing on the wall - that a Texan governor who openly rails against Social Security, Medicare, the direct election of US senators, and threatened to secede might well win the Republican primary... but is dead meat in the general. And their fallback is Mitt Romney, the guy the base hates with an intensity of a thousand suns.
Other highlights from this debate included right-wingers cheering executions, and booing a United States soldier serving in Iraq because he's gay.
Now, for the millionth time, Lindaman... I'm going to ask you the question you keep ducking: Could you please state why a person should vote Republican?
I know that the points I brought up about these candidates above can be considered good things to the insane branch of the right, but it still doesn't directly answer the question.
You have stated you are Republican. Then when Republicans weren't popular, you claimed to be Libertarian. Now you claim to be an "Independent (tm)".
And yet, throughout all this, you have done nothing but trash Democrats over things like:
1. Windsurfing.
2. Giving a gift to the Queen of England.
3. Birth Certificates.
4. Swift Boaters.
While gleefully endorsing Republicans like Bush and McCain, and Republicans in state elections.
So let's pretend that you're going to admit to still being Republican.
Now, explain. Why should anyone vote Republican?