Iowa is an irrelevant, early voting state. Newt (philanderer, ethically
challenged, Fannie money-grubber, arrogant) deserves all he gets - it ain't
negative campaigning if it's true, former Mr. Spkr. NH not much better, but at
least candidates won't have to do much kissing of evangelical posteriors.Won't start getting interesting until after S. Carolina, imo.
@lost in DCWould you also call anyone naive who didn't believe we
needed to lose thousands of men and women to prevent the Soviet Union from
having THOUSANDS of nuclear weapons? Anyone who is determined that Iran should
not get a nuclear weapon should be at the selective service right now, signing
up to fight in a preventive war of aggression. If you're only willing to send
other peoples fathers, sons, daughters, and mothers just so that no other
country in the world can get one nuclear weapon, your words ring hollow.The truth is that the threat of Iran is being greatly exaggerated by
some to achieve political ends and satisfy an appetite for war. It has little
to do with national security.
Anybody but the naive Paul (who cares if Iran has nukes?! what, me worry??) as
repub nominee and ANYBODY but BO in the general election!
Santorum, Romney, Perry, Obama, what's the difference? They're all liberals who
favor bailouts, crony capitalism, bigger government, war, etc. Ron Paul is the
only conservative in this race. If we want more innocent people dead, more debt,
more welfare, etc., then it doesn't matter who you choose. If you want
constitutional government as the Founder intended, Ron Paul is the only one who
has a clue.
And we say yada yada yada.... Santorum is surging at the right time, and may
win in Iowa, BUT that's the best he's going to get. He's irrelevant from that
point on. Besides Huntsman, all other candidates had surged and fallen. Romney
is the only consistent candidate and the ONLY ONE who can - and WILL - beat the
I predict a Santorum win in Iowa. But, as was shown with Huckabee last time
around, the evangelists are not president makers.