dagblog - Comments for "No Love in Iowa, No Hope in Iowa"

FYI - Could Typo Rewrite

Aunt Sam — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 03:54:14 +0000

In reply to No Love in Iowa, No Hope in Iowa

FYI -

Could Typo Rewrite Caucus History?

Caucus Vote Counter Says Romney Mistakenly Given 20 Votes

DES MOINES, Iowa -- Caucus night was chaotic in many places, with hundreds of voters, candidates showing up and the throngs of media who followed. The world's eyes were on Iowa. But in the quiet town of Moulton, Appanoose County, a caucus of 50 people may just blow up the results.

Edward True, 28, of Moulton, said he helped count the votes and jotted the results down on a piece of paper to post to his Facebook page. He said when he checked to make sure the Republican Party of Iowa got the count right, he said he was shocked to find they hadn't. "When Mitt Romney won Iowa by eight votes and I've got a 20-vote discrepancy here, that right there says Rick Santorum won Iowa," True said. "Not Mitt Romney." True said at his 53-person caucus at the Garrett Memorial Library, Romney received two votes. According to the Iowa Republican Party's website, True's precinct cast 22 votes for Romney. "This is huge," True said. "It essentially changes who won." A spokeswoman with the Iowa Republican Party said True is not a precinct captain and he's not a county chairperson so he has no business talking about election results. She also said the party would not be giving interviews about possible discrepancies until the caucus vote is certified. KCCI political analyst Dennis Goldford said even if the caucus results are wrong, it's not the end of the world. This will make Iowa look a little foolish in the eyes of the rest of the country, which already questions the seriousness of the caucuses," Goldford said.

But in terms of Santorum's results here, the Caucuses have made him a player in presidential politics and if he should nudge ahead of Gov. Romney for the final certified result that's really not going to make any significant difference at this point." True -- who said he's a Ron Paul supporter -- hopes it was a simple mistake. "I imagine it's a good possibility that somebody instead of hitting 2 might have hit 22 by accident," True said. "I hope so." But he said he won't stop talking about it until the state -- by his count -- gets the numbers right. "Numbers that I personally witnessed being counted and assisted in counting and am certain are right," he said.

Read more: http://www.kcci.com/news/30144582/detail

Well, according to the

Ethanator — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 18:03:41 +0000

In reply to Speaking of Bill Clinton,

Well, according to the firebagging left, it was gay activists who repealed DADT. Obama had nothing to do with it.

Speaking of Bill Clinton,

Verified Atheist — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 17:57:42 +0000

In reply to Cute. But you also got $800

Speaking of Bill Clinton, Obama also (finally) repealed the DADT policy. I actually don't fault Clinton for that policy, as I think it was the best he could do at the time, and it got abused by the military when they ignored the "don't ask" proviso.

Cute. But you also got $800

Ethanator — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 17:53:58 +0000

In reply to They told me if I voted for

Cute. But you also got $800 billion in stimulus spending, the groundwork laid for universal healthcare, the first meaningful regulation of the financial industry in decades (attempting to undo the damage your hero, Bill Clinton, played a direct role in causing through evisceration of the regulations then in place, BTW) and the end of the War in Iraq.

Not to mention that everything you condemn Obama for is related to measures taken to clean up the historically catastrophic mess left by his predecessor, which was my point to begin with. No president other than Obama has inherited a worse situation in modern times except for FDR.

Again, I know you're just trying to be glib here, because you have an irrational animus towards this president. But if you truly think the government's actions on any of the issues you claim to have voted on would have been more to your liking under a President McCain, you are delusional.

Sullivan quotes one of his

Donal — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 14:51:34 +0000

In reply to No Love in Iowa, No Hope in Iowa

Sullivan quotes one of his Dish readers, reacting to Iowa results:

... Could the GOP be any more divided into three clear camps?

You have your hardcore Christianists, who think of every issues in the prism of Jesus and the Bible, who are incensed at gay marriage and abortion and general secularism. That's your Santorum third. Then you have your old-school wealthier Republicans, who like a foreign policy with a big dick and want to make some damn money, regardless of the state of the economy, and who could really care less about what a candidate really believes as long as he says the right words ... boom, Romney. And then you have your purists, your libertarians, who probably have no beef with gays or blacks per se, but don't mind a candidate who certainly makes no effort to pander to those minority groups. so long as the big bad awful government just goes away. Paul.

I dont see how these three groups - and all three are alive and well in the modern GOP - can come together under one candidate ... The nominee will be a well-funded Romney (a Romney battered by months of hostility from Santorum and Gingrich), and I just cannot see the Republican base rallying around this guy.

Yeah, sure, and also Clinton

Gutboy — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 14:47:16 +0000

In reply to Are you talking about Bush or

Yeah, sure, and also Clinton and Bush I. And Reagan and Carter. Hmm...the last time we had a good paranoid delusional freak in the White House was Nixon, and in retrospect he doesn't seem so bad these days, except for the whole "it's not illegal if the president does it" thing. Which people were mad about at the time, but seems to have become the operating principle in the White House.

Are you talking about Bush or

Donal — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 13:47:42 +0000

In reply to So in November we'll have a

Are you talking about Bush or Gore? :-)

They told me if I voted for

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 09:45:16 +0000

In reply to I was terrified of

They told me if I voted for McCain I'd get more war in Afghanistan, handouts for Wall Street and an increased surveillance state. I ignored them and voted for McCain, and that's what I got.

I was terrified of

Ethanator — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 04:27:29 +0000

In reply to Another possible

I was terrified of Republicans long before Tea Party became a household name. But, unlike the Paultards, PUMAs and Firebaggers, I actually remember the presidency of George W. Bush.

So in November we'll have a

Gutboy — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 03:51:28 +0000

In reply to No Love in Iowa, No Hope in Iowa

So in November we'll have a choice between the candidates that will work to preserve corporate power, policies that promote further erosion of of basic industries, dependence on unsustainable energy sources, maintenance of the our global military empire, expansion of the security state apparatus and erosion of civil rights. The main difference being one of them is going to pretend that's not what he really wants to do.

It almost makes you want to vote for the delusional creationist goldbug.