Mitt returns to Iowa with a chance to win it

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • FDRfan safety dictates, ID
    Nov. 18, 2011 9:56 a.m.

    Rasmussen's new survey of 700 likely Republican caucus participants was conducted entirely after last Saturday night's South Carolina GOP debate on foreign policy. It finds Gingrich leading the field with 32% and Romney in second with 19%. Cain follows with 13% (down from 28% last month), then Paul at 10%.
    New Hampshire -Romney clings to a small two point lead in the new survey, coming in at the top with 29 percent of the Republican electorate. Gingrich is second with 27 percent, making it a statistical tie for the lead,

    It is easy to see through what the Murdoch-Forbes-Koch Brother coalition is trying to do via the tea party and extreme right. They are trying to force Mitt Romney to their camp. They know that Gingrich, Perry, Cain nor Bachmann have no chance of defeating Obama. If Romney will hold steady and not cave in he could be the next President.

  • JJL Eugene, OR
    Nov. 18, 2011 12:22 a.m.

    Romney is the only adult in the field. I guess I agree with a lot of Ron Paul's political views, but he comes off as a crank. It's ok to have a Congress full of cranky old libertarians (in fact it would be great) but not as Commander-in-Chief and leader of the free world.

    All anyone has on Romney is "flip flop." If that's the strongest argument against Romney, then I'd say he's doing just fine. Well what person doesn't changes some views. People forget that Reagan was a Democrat before he was Republican.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 17, 2011 9:20 p.m.


    My impression of Paul as a liberal myself is that a lot of conservatives like some of the things he says for domestic policy, but don't like his foreign policy at all. A lot of liberals like some of the things he says on foreign policy and on the very libertarian issues that just aren't held by mainstream conservatives, but strongly dislike a lot of his domestic policy. I absolutely loved some of Paul's answers in debates, especially that one where he was listing the reasons why Al Qaida attacked us on 9-11 (it's like he's the only one who understands what's going on except maybe Huntsman) and then he was booed during that answer because reality didn't gel with the narrative many on the right want to believe (that whole "they hate us because of our freedoms" nonsense). Then he talks about eliminating departments and other things that completely turn me off of his candidacy. I basically love half his platform and loathe the other half, and I think that's a very common sentiment since he doesn't really fit into the standard left-right spectrum.

  • Eugene2 Bear Lake, ID
    Nov. 17, 2011 7:54 p.m.

    Once Republicans finally accept that Romney has been the only candidate to occasionaly beat Obama in the national head-to-head polls, the answer should be clear. No other Republican has EVER beat Obama in the polls, only Mitt since he can bring the independent vote.

    Voting for anyone other than Romney ensures a 2nd term for Obama and a final term for the United States of America as we know it!

  • teleste Provo, UT
    Nov. 17, 2011 6:05 p.m.


    Yes or no? And why?

    Hawkeye79's question is a good one.

    Slamming Romney is as easy as pasting a headline...back it up now.

  • bluejean Farmington, UT
    Nov. 17, 2011 5:31 p.m.

    I'm looking forward to someone in the White House who can cut our bloated government and excessive bureaucracy and restore some fiscal sanity in Washington. Romney's Bain Capital experience is a plus!

  • Hawkeye79 Iowa City, IA
    Nov. 17, 2011 5:22 p.m.

    Hi Pagan,

    It stinks when you get caught making nonsensical arguments, huh? I find it amusing that you don't think someone is "addressing your criticism" of a candidate when they point out the logical and factual shortcomings of said criticisms. How is this not addressing your criticism?

    Just as providing information is a contribution to a conversation, verifying the credibility of that information is just as much of a contribution. I doubt anyone would consider the following to be non-contributions to a political dialogue:

    -Calling someone out when they provide misinformation and allowing them a chance to clarify (see your continuous FALSE claims about how the unemployment rate and national debt were doubled from 2001-2006).

    -Pointing out when someone makes arguments that contradict the very evidence they present (see your comments on this article) and allowing them a chance to clarify.

    You claim to be guided by principle and not blind partisanship. I look forward to you demonstrating this in the future. Imagine what one can learn if they focus on finding substantive truth instead of simply scanning headlines for information that confirms their current point of view!

  • Vince the boonies, mexico
    Nov. 17, 2011 5:21 p.m.

    I don't know about the rest of you but I'm sick to death of these daily rants about who's leading, who said what and the rest of the garbage were getting daily from the media. And to think we have more than another year of this is unbearable. Several daily polls from everywhere and quite frankly they mean "NOTHING"! Lay off media enough is enough. Let us know at a max once a week or better yet once a month for the next few months.All but two of these candidates are outright liars, theives and are unqualified!

  • JeffE Grantsville, UT
    Nov. 17, 2011 4:51 p.m.

    Here is a little context to the position that Romney's Bain Capital job cutting activities means he doesn't know how to create jobs. I work in the finance department for a very large corporation. When our division hit a downturn, I had to work with management to develop layoff plans for a large portion of our employees. It was very difficult to do as I was constantly thinking of the impact this would have on those families. But, when you take a step back, what these actions actually do is preserve the remaining jobs. It's either let some of the people go, or let things continue to run into the ground until everyone loses their jobs.

    What Bain did was acquire businesses that were running into the ground. Bain (Romney) restructured things, including the staffing so the business had a chance to continue on to make a profit to be sure, but created a sustainable business that could continue to employ people. I'm sure those who were let go weren't happy, but the majority of the employee base that was retained were very grateful for Bain's intervention. Othewise, they would all have ended up out in the cold.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 17, 2011 4:47 p.m.

    'A simple yes or no will suffice, but you are certainly welcome to explain why you feel a certain way. Surely you are guided by some principle and not simply partisan politics, right?' - Hawkeye79 | 2:07 p.m. Nov. 17, 2011

    Of course.

    Just as I'm sure you are.

    However, your entire post has been questions. And, by this logic, if I answered EVERY question you asked me, I would not be adding to the conversation.

    Your hypotheical 'why' would be my ONLY response. And there are things I would like to do.

    RATHER, than address my criticism of, Romney, you would rather ask me questions.

    As if, I am the subject of the story.

    Instead of supporting why you would support/not support Romney and a war with Iran based on ANOTHER claim of 'Nuclear Weapons'...

    you are, instead wasting your time and my own, with questions about myself.

    You are free to ask them.

    I am under zero obligation to answer them.

    Good day to you.

  • DougB Spanish Fork, UT
    Nov. 17, 2011 4:05 p.m.

    atl134, I guess we'll see if your prediction is true. My experience is that Paul appeals to voters that are the most informed. Paul has at least had an opportunity in Iowa to explain his views -- nationwide that isn't yet the case. Out here in the Mountain West where I live that's certainly not the case. My parents in Arizona didn't even know that he'd delivered babies for 30 years. They knew nothing about him other than mostly incorrect aspersions they'd gained from media pundits who've written him off.

    I hope and pray that Paul does as well as he is polling now in Iowa and New Hampshire. It would certainly improve the quality of our debates and discourse. The recent "Foreign Policy Debate" was the silliest thing I'd ever seen. 89 seconds in an hour to the man who has spent a lifetime studying foreign policy; 7 other mostly indistinguishable viewpoints that represent the already un-workable status quo.

    Ron Paul asks the right questions and has many of the right answers. I think the category of voter he appeals to could grow exponentially if people had a chance to actually hear those answers.

  • VocalLocal Salt Lake, UT
    Nov. 17, 2011 3:28 p.m.

    I think it's funny how this article posits New Hampshire as being full of contrarians who will refuse to vote for a candidate that wins in Iowa just to spite Iowa.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 17, 2011 2:45 p.m.

    Paul isn't winning Iowa, or New Hampshire. Sorry but his appeal is to a very specific category of voter.

    Cain is coming apart at the seams so I really like Gingrich's odds in Iowa now. Perry is a wild card, I don't think he'll win but he has a large warchest and he's primarily been launching ads against Romney so it'll be interesting to see if he goes after Gingrich too.


    "The Iowa winner rarely wins the nomination. Why should we care? I would think the Romney camp would want to show respectably, but avoid the #1 spot in Iowa like the plague. Better to win NH, as that winner has often been the party nominee. "

    I agree that Iowa is like 50/50 in predicting winners but the biggest issue for Romney is if someone is able to ride that thin line between establishment and tea-party and Gingrich might pull that off. New Hampshire is good at predicting winners, but so is South Carolina and if Romney/Gingrich are able to clear the field I see Bachmann, Cain, and Perry endorsing Gingrich, so South Carolina will be the key. If Romney takes that, it's over.

  • Hawkeye79 Iowa City, IA
    Nov. 17, 2011 2:07 p.m.

    Hi Pagan,

    So, I'm still awaiting your answer to the simple question:

    Do you support corporate bailouts, or not?

    A simple yes or no will suffice, but you are certainly welcome to explain why you feel a certain way. Surely you are guided by some principle and not simply partisan politics, right?

    Additionally, could you explain why you think that opposing a taxpayer bailout of a corporation equates to "putting Corporate Profit before the well-being of the American people." I'm failing to see how allowing a company to face the consequences of its financial decisions is in any way advancing the cause of "Corporate Profit."

    Oh, and you might want to double check the meaning of the word "Nirvana." You aren't using it correctly.

  • The_Kaiser Holladay, UT
    Nov. 17, 2011 1:51 p.m.

    Deal breakers with Romney:

    Pro-torture and enhanced interrogation techniques. I find it very surprising that so many LDS members teach loving your enemy and doing good to them that hate you, yet turn a blind eye to the horrendous things we do to people. Torture was never a Christian value, nor was it ever anything the Constitution allows or founding fathers condoned.

    If you are pro-torture, I must ask you why.

    Ron Paul is against torture, and believes it is against our better nature to do so. How can we spread "democracy" when we don't practice moral principles ourselves?

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 17, 2011 1:36 p.m.

    Hawkeye79 | 11:52 a.m. Nov. 17, 2011,

    1) You claim that Romney is 'disagreeing' with Washington politicians. I guess he is.

    Because he is putting Corporate Profit before the well-being of the American people.

    As supported by Phyllis Detro, 68, who lost her job.

    2) Your first mistake was lumping me with 'most liberals'.

    You cannot claim you want my opinion, and then first, generalize my response, before I even make it.

    The bailouts are like Nervana from the Gods to Democrats.

    Because, on the ONE hand: Conservatives are against 'goverment spending'...
    and on the OTHER the bail outs of Wall Street AND the Auto-bail outs were signed into law by Republican President, George W. Bush.

    *Bush signs $700 billion bailout bill AP Published by Denver Post By Tom Raum 10/03/08

    WASHINGTON President Bush quickly signed into law a far-reaching $700 billion bill to bail out the nation's tottering financial industry, calling it "essential to helping America's economy" weather the storm.

    It's perfect! It 1) Contradicts the claims of Republicans 'against' government spending because under their leadership, the national debt, DOUBLED...

    & 2) Only puts money in the hands of big business. :)

  • Hawkeye79 Iowa City, IA
    Nov. 17, 2011 11:52 a.m.

    Hi Pagan,

    You bring up the "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" headline as evidence that Romney "epitomizes how [Washington] works." I have two questions about this:

    1) How does disagreeing with what Washington politicians did suggest that someone epitomizes how Washington works? This appears contradictory.

    2) Do you support corporate bailouts or not? My understanding is that most liberals oppose corporate bailouts, but you appear to be dissatisfied with someone because they opposed them. A little clarification here would help others to understand what principles you are guided by.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 17, 2011 10:24 a.m.

    'I thought America was sick of how it works in Washington. Newt Gingrich epitomizes how it works and the type of people that are making it work.' - FDRfan | 9:32 a.m. Nov. 17, 2011

    Not just Newt...

    *'Mitt Romney raises $18.25 million, but Republicans worry it might not be enough' - By Jamshid Ghazi Askar - DSNews - 07/07/11

    *Firm dissolves after giving pro-Romney PAC $1 million' - By Ken Thomas - AP - Published by DSNews - 08/04/11

    *Mitt Romneys wealth raises new questions By Jamshid Ghazi Askar DSNews 08/15/11
    'Romney owns between $250,000 and $500,000 in horses.'


    *'Mitt Romney as job creator clashes with Bain record of job cuts' - By Lisa Lerer, Bloomberg News - Published by DSNews - 07/20/11
    'Employees who lost jobs at Bain-controlled companies more than a decade ago say they still hold Romney responsible.
    "I would not vote for him for anything," said Phyllis Detro, 68, who lost her job...'

    *'Let Detroit Go Bankrupt' - By Mitt Romney - NY Times - 11/18/08


    *Mitt Romney: Corporations are friend - By Phillip Elliot - AP - Published by DSNews 08/11/11

  • HighlandsHome Highland, Utah
    Nov. 17, 2011 10:02 a.m.

    So Geraghty is saying that New Hampshire voters would cast their votes just to spite Iowa? I can't believe that people would really be that ridiculous. Does he have some exit poll interviews where people have said, "Ha! Voted fah the othah guy! Take that Iowah!" Not likely.

  • J-TX Allen, TX
    Nov. 17, 2011 9:36 a.m.

    The Iowa winner rarely wins the nomination. Why should we care? I would think the Romney camp would want to show respectably, but avoid the #1 spot in Iowa like the plague. Better to win NH, as that winner has often been the party nominee.

  • FDRfan safety dictates, ID
    Nov. 17, 2011 9:32 a.m.

    Nov. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Newt Gingrich defended payments of at least $1.6 million he received from mortgage company Freddie Mac, saying he provided "strategic advice over a long period of time" and that his work would remind voters of his knowledge of how Washington works.

    I thought America was sick of how it works in Washington. Newt Gingrich epitomizes how it works and the type of people that are making it work. Yet he could win in Iowa. Makes me wonder what they are doing with their corn. Some of my ancestors from the Appalachian hills migrated there and maybe they took some of their recipes with them.

  • DougB Spanish Fork, UT
    Nov. 17, 2011 9:14 a.m.

    Thank you David King for mentioning some context.

    I understand why the Deseret News is so over-the-top with their "all-Romney, all-the-time" coverage and even why they so often skip the rest of the field and jump right to Huntsman so often, but the lack of context this creates is becoming increasingly absurd and unhelpful for readers genuinely interested in the candidates actual views, policies, and platforms.

    We're not electing a 'Prom King' or European-style figurehead whose job it is to smile handsomely, look Presidential in pictures, and shake hands. The person we're going to elect has incredible power to affect our national economy, world politics, and our daily lives. I think it's a travesty the way the Deseret News has oversimplified the Republican Presidential race.

    I look to newspapers for *more* context and details than the TV network news "sound-bite" updates. We've been getting *less* in this newspaper than the TV and radio sound-bites even.

    In my opinion, Deseret News readers are not well served by a political news staff pretending they are nothing more than "People magazine especially for Mormons". That's my concern anyways.

  • Mc West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 17, 2011 9:00 a.m.

    I hate to think that New Hampshire voters are really so shallow that they would not vote for a candidate just because Iowa voters did vote for him. Really?

  • Doug10 Roosevelt, UT
    Nov. 17, 2011 6:26 a.m.

    2% points separate him from Cain and how many separate him from Newt who is leading in GOP polls

  • David King Layton, UT
    Nov. 17, 2011 12:10 a.m.

    This article forgets to mention a candidate who could win in Iowa. A recent Bloomberg poll has Dr. Paul polling in a statistical dead heat with Gingrich, Romney, and Cain. Ron Paul has strong organization in Iowa, finished second in the Ames Straw Poll, and the Caucus style favors very enthusiastic supporters, which he has. 60% of likely Iowa Caucus goers said they could still change their mind, but of those who say they will not change their mind, Ron Paul leads with 32%

    It's also a little bit of a stretch to say a Romney win in Iowa would lead to a Huntsman victory in New Hampshire, because it neglects the fact that Huntsman is not second, or third in Iowa. He's fourth or fifth in most polls. Who's second in New Hampshire? Ron Paul.

    If you would just mention him in your articles, I wouldn't have to write all this, and the added benefit is you wouldn't have to all act surprised when Ron Paul wins in Iowa and takes second in New Hampshire.