Iowa Caucus

[muggsy]

The two republican front runners to emerge from the Iowa Caucus are Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum. Romney supported Clinton's Assault Weapons ban and the ban on high capacity magazines. Rick Santorum has always been a strong supporter of our 2nd Amendment right. There is a choice to be made here.

[Dueeast]

I will support whomever wins the Repub. nomination. However, To me, Romney is more moderate (like McCain), and could cave in on gun control issues. I'd like a real conservative like Bachmann or Santorum.

[kahrseye]

I like Santorum and I think if he starts to get some momentum he could win the nomination.

[Bawanna]

I don't care at all about the nomination. I just want a new occupant in the White House. They need to pick one and everyone get behind him or we're doomed.

[wyntrout]

I would like one who doesn't cave on what types and the looks of the weapons we "are allowed to own". I really get tired of politicians who "used to go duck hunting with their dads" and talk about the "sporting" purposes of firearms. The Second Amendment is about self-defense, not hunting or target shooting.
I'm not really sure about Newt's ideas on the subject and I know that wishy-washy Romney would be for some kind of gun control and limits on types and looks of weapons.

Wynn:(

[Thunder71]

I think we're about 10-15 years past hope and change, the last couple have really rushed the progression downward however.

All we can do now is hang on for a very bumpy ride, the only difference in candidates at this point is how bumpy it will be.

[JFootin]

Well, it looks like the Iowa voters, the talking heads and even Fox News are writing the best choice off: Newt Gingrich. He is the only one, I believe, who has the right ideas, the actual experience and the will to really tackle the problems and save the country. But alas, I just don't think there is enough intelligence in the voting public to recognise this, nominate and elect him.

[KMA]

I hope Santorum wins the nomination.

[yqtszhj]

I hope Obama loses the re-election and prefer someone other than Romney.

[wyntrout]

So far, Santorum's becoming my choice, too. My wife is convinced that she wants to vote for Newt, but we'll see. We have our absentee ballots for the Republican Primary here already, but I'll wait and see if I can persuade her towards my choice... when I'm convinced.

Wynn:D

[muggsy]

Going negative on Newt won Iowa for Romney at the cost of the nomination. Watch for Newt to go negative on Romney and to support Santorum when Newt finally withdraws from the race. The endorsement of Romney by McCain was the kiss of death. Fox news reported that Romney spent $10 M in Iowa. Santorums people spent only $160,000 on TV advertising. Bachman and the tea party will support Santorum. We will have a new president elect in November.

[jocko]

sure alot of speculation there. I liked newt but if he could not take the negative sh-t now, just think what obamas billion in stash would do to him. The fact is newt had bad basggage that he just could not walk away from, or at least was baggage that was able to be used against him. santorium I like but he can't beat Obama, no way. Santorum has no money, u won';t win with no money today, just afact of life. He done well in Iowa but I just don';t think now he can maintain it. Bachman and the tea party will support whoever the nominee is, u know that, to do otherwise is cutting off theirnose in spite of their face. I think Bachman willgo the way of Sarah POalin before it is all over. "sarah who?>??"

[Bill K]

My friends I'm afraid that all a Republican in the White House will do, even with a Republican House and Senate, is slow down the decay and fall of this nation. At times part of me actually wants what I feel will come out of another four years should President Obama gets re-elected. The end comes sooner and we see what emerges on the other side.

[Bawanna]

My friends I'm afraid that all a Republican in the White House will do, even with a Republican House and Senate, is slow down the decay and fall of this nation. At times part of me actually wants what I feel will come out of another four years should President Obama gets re-elected. The end comes sooner and we see what emerges on the other side.

Lasting 4 more years is very optimistic. I hate to just give up and throw in the towel and there's no way I'm voting for another 4 years of failure but at the same time the hole is dug pretty deep. Not sure anyone can fix this change.

[KMA]

So far, Santorum's becoming my choice, too. My wife is convinced that she wants to vote for Newt, but we'll see. We have our absentee ballots for the Republican Primary here already, but I'll wait and see if I can persuade her towards my choice... when I'm convinced.

Wynn:D

I do not say that Santorum is the "dream" candidate, but IMO he is the most republican of them all. I support him.

[jocko]

he is more reublican than Romney but IMO I don't thinhk he can win it. I think it is gonna take a candidate alittle more to the midele than far left or far right, just my 2 cents. Santorium sadly has no money, lel alone a good viable organization and both are the key to winning the primary and general election IMO.

I think now from what I read Newt is on a scorch the earth tirade against republican canddates.. He has one heh of an ego, IMO.

[tv_racin_fan]

My friends I'm afraid that all a Republican in the White House will do, even with a Republican House and Senate, is slow down the decay and fall of this nation. At times part of me actually wants what I feel will come out of another four years should President Obama gets re-elected. The end comes sooner and we see what emerges on the other side.

Slow down the decay? IF only they would. One only need look back at the last Republican President that had both the house and the senate to see the truth.

I don't get it.. How is it President Reagan is thought to be such a conservative when both the scope and size of govt increased AND the debt sky rocketted? If that is CONSERVATIVE I'll eat my hat.

Seems to me that any republicans in power are far to willing to compromise with democrats to get what little things they want to see how they are screwing the nation on the overall picture.

:32:

[jocko]

my my isn't it nice to have so many opinions...

[KMA]

he is more reublican than Romney but IMO I don't thinhk he can win it. I think it is gonna take a candidate alittle more to the midele than far left or far right, just my 2 cents. Santorium sadly has no money, lel alone a good viable organization and both are the key to winning the primary and general election IMO.

I think now from what I read Newt is on a scorch the earth tirade against republican canddates.. He has one heh of an ego, IMO.


I believe you are 100% right!

[jeepster09]

I don't care at all about the nomination. I just want a new occupant in the White House. They need to pick one and everyone get behind him or we're doomed.


The primaries are usually the MOST IMPORTANT part of an election. If an idiot gets the nomination the presidency can be lost. Look at the last presidential election for prime example. We need to support the best choice in a primary and donate to help them move forward. It is also true in local elections more than ever. Otherwise special interest groups get their puppet elected because not enough people with any sense particapate in primary election. In my town people wonder why the schools get big raises every year.....guess what the school employs as many people as usually vote in the primary,,,,guess why they win and get big raises every year?

[O'Dell]

I hope Obama loses the re-election and prefer someone other than Romney.

I'm with you, but I lean toward Newt - I think he or Romney are the only one with a chance against Obama. Santorum and Paul will be gone after SC.

[KMA]

I'm with you, but I lean toward Newt - I think he or Romney are the only one with a chance against Obama. Santorium and Paul will be gone after SC.

I like Santorum, but I do not think he has a chance. For that reason, even thought I prefer Santorum, I might support Newt. Between Rommey and Newt I prefer Newt, but I do not like his illegal immigration policy. What a situation.

[muggsy]

sure alot of speculation there. I liked newt but if he could not take the negative sh-t now, just think what obamas billion in stash would do to him. The fact is newt had bad basggage that he just could not walk away from, or at least was baggage that was able to be used against him. santorium I like but he can't beat Obama, no way. Santorum has no money, u won';t win with no money today, just afact of life. He done well in Iowa but I just don';t think now he can maintain it. Bachman and the tea party will support whoever the nominee is, u know that, to do otherwise is cutting off theirnose in spite of their face. I think Bachman willgo the way of Sarah POalin before it is all over. "sarah who?>??"

So send Santorum $20, Jocko. Ya can't take it with you. :)

[muggsy]

My friends I'm afraid that all a Republican in the White House will do, even with a Republican House and Senate, is slow down the decay and fall of this nation. At times part of me actually wants what I feel will come out of another four years should President Obama gets re-elected. The end comes sooner and we see what emerges on the other side.

Now that's a positive attitude. :)

[jocko]

He's really not my choice.

If I can't take it with me, then I AIN'T GOIN!!!

[muggsy]

he is more reublican than Romney but IMO I don't thinhk he can win it. I think it is gonna take a candidate alittle more to the midele than far left or far right, just my 2 cents. Santorium sadly has no money, lel alone a good viable organization and both are the key to winning the primary and general election IMO.

I think now from what I read Newt is on a scorch the earth tirade against republican canddates.. He has one heh of an ego, IMO.

That's what they said about Reagan, Jocko.

[muggsy]

Slow down the decay? IF only they would. One only need look back at the last Republican President that had both the house and the senate to see the truth.

I don't get it.. How is it President Reagan is thought to be such a conservative when both the scope and size of govt increased AND the debt sky rocketted? If that is CONSERVATIVE I'll eat my hat.

Seems to me that any republicans in power are far to willing to compromise with democrats to get what little things they want to see how they are screwing the nation on the overall picture.

:32:

I'll take conditions under Reagan, or Dubya over the condition we have now.

[muggsy]

You can call me a cockeyed optimist, but I still believe in America.

[Bawanna]

You can call me a cockeyed optimist, but I still believe in America.

I'm with ya muggsy. Be nice to clean the slate and start over but danged if I can figure out how to get it done.

Ironic that I'm reading the Ashes series and they were in the same boat.

I just hope they can decide on one good candidate to run against the incumbent, I can't even say his name. If we dog richard around too long they'll split the vote and we got 4 more years of change.

[muggsy]

I'm with ya muggsy. Be nice to clean the slate and start over but danged if I can figure out how to get it done.

Ironic that I'm reading the Ashes series and they were in the same boat.

I just hope they can decide on one good candidate to run against the incumbent, I can't even say his name. If we dog richard around too long they'll split the vote and we got 4 more years of change.

Cleaning the slate can become down right messy. I think I'll try to work within the system awhile longer. Hell, it can't be all that bad. Our founding fathers put it together.

[KMA]

That's what they said about Reagan, Jocko.

The difference is that not even Newt, who is a much better debater than Santorum, can be compared to Reagan.

[Thunder71]

Kind of like landing a plane at this point, all it is - is a controlled crash.

[tv_racin_fan]

I'll take conditions under Reagan, or Dubya over the condition we have now.

Oh yeah so would I. Only the conditions we got now were set into motion under Both Reagan and Bush. Well and of course Carter and Clinton helped too.

However look at the debt pre Reagan and after Reagan and explain to me how he was conservative. Explain to me why the nation was better off after that debt was incurred than before.

[O'Dell]

Kind of like landing a plane at this point, all it is - is a controlled crash.

You must have been there for some of my carrier traps. :D

[O'Dell]

The difference is that not even Newt, who is a much better debater than Santorum, can be compared to Reagan.

In my lifetime, which goes back to FDR, NO ONE can be compared to President Reagan!

[Mr_D]

I don't care at all about the nomination. I just want a new occupant in the White House. They need to pick one and everyone get behind him or we're doomed.
Exactly!!!
Right now the Dems are trying to exploit "divide and conquer", if it works Obwan will be back.

[muggsy]

He's really not my choice.

If I can't take it with me, then I AIN'T GOIN!!!

I can live with that. :)

[muggsy]

The difference is that not even Newt, who is a much better debater than Santorum, can be compared to Reagan.

Reagan was my man, but men like Reagan come once in a lifetime. The best that we can do is to be men of good character and try to elect a man of good character. A man without character does not belong in office.

[muggsy]

Oh yeah so would I. Only the conditions we got now were set into motion under Both Reagan and Bush. Well and of course Carter and Clinton helped too.

However look at the debt pre Reagan and after Reagan and explain to me how he was conservative. Explain to me why the nation was better off after that debt was incurred than before.

The increase in debt when expressed as a percentage of the GNP was manageable under Reagan and Bush. The same can't be said of the current occupant of the white house. It takes little thought to be a democrat. That's why there are so many of them. :)

[KMA]

Reagan was my man, but men like Reagan come once in a lifetime. The best that we can do is to be men of good character and try to elect a man of good character. A man without character does not belong in office.

Unfortunately, no matter how much I wish you were wrong I am afraid that you might be right. I do not think we will see again other president like him.

[tv_racin_fan]

The increase in debt when expressed as a percentage of the GNP was manageable under Reagan and Bush. The same can't be said of the current occupant of the white house. It takes little thought to be a democrat. That's why there are so many of them. :)

And just how have the republicans managed that debt so far? Since the debt is now over $15 trillion I dont think either party has managed it very well.

GDP has gone up and down and the debt just keeps on increasing.

[getsome]

President Reagan did charge up the debt but he also was the primary reason the Soviet Union fell....Yes it was expensive but it was worth it in the long run....

After listening to Romney speak I keep thinking I will see Jeff Dunham behind him with his hand up Romneys back working his mouth....The Man talks a lot but says very little...

I have to admit that I haven't paid much attention to Rick Santorum thinking that he was just another also ran candidate but will have to start listening to him more....I really like Ron Paul and think he is a very smart man with good ideas but just isn't electable and his foreign policy ideas scare me and aren't realistic in todays world....

I was all for Herman Cain until he shot himself in the Richard so now its down to Newt who might be the best choice to rid the White House of Obummer but just like the last election I keep asking myself, Is THIS the best candidates the Republican Party can come up with????????...:confused:...Unfortunately we may be stuck with 4 more years of Odooma and maybe it would be better if everything just fell apart and we start over from scratch...With the economy being the way it is it's like trying to continue fixing up a worn out 20 year old car....Sometimes it's better to bite the bullet and junk it for a brand new one...

[O'Dell]

President Reagan did charge up the debt but he also was the primary reason the Soviet Union fell....Yes it was expensive but it was worth it in the long run....

...

Yes he did, but remember that he followed Carter, who had depleted our military and intelligence services to a new low. He really didn't have a choice but to spend the money to provide for our security. I know you weren't criticizing him, but I wanted to provide an explanation.

[jocko]

i think ur last paraghray states itr very nicely. Obama with his billion wold eat Newt up, no doubt about it. It is proven that negativity advertisng works. Newt has no money, the great one has tons of it and a fokking jet to fly anaywhere he wants on our dollars to...

win the senate and then hope for the best in the big election. I hate to say it but the republicans shot themselves in the ass with McCain and Pulin and it seems now they have went to a high capacity semi auto so they can continue to shoot themselves in the asses again only this time they are going to shoot themselves up really good. :banplease:

[tv_racin_fan]

Jocko I think the republicans shot themselves in the ass with President Bush and how they behaved when they had control of both houses of congress and the President. Then they made it worse with McCain and they aint doing themselves any favors with Romney et al.

And as for the fall of the Soviet Union being worth it in the long run.. you got some clue when that debt will get paid? Or we just going to keep on paying the interest on that debt forever and when will it cease to be worth the cost? 10 trillion? 20 trillion? maybe 30 trillion? Tis bad enough when you add up your mortgage payments and realize that you paid two to three times the price for that mortgage but even worse when 30 years down the road you realize that for all the money you have paid in you aint paid a red cent of principle...

[tv_racin_fan]

Should I be as happy as a clam about President Obama's size n scope of govt and debt increases as republicans seem to be about the size n scope of govt and debt increases under President Reagan? Everything supposedly gained under Reagan (strength of military etc etc) was thrown away under Presidents Bush Clinton Bush after him and it aint gotten better under President Obama.

[jocko]

we can put the blame anywhere we feel it is right to us but the bottom line is we are a-shole deep in debt. It ain't gettin better under obama either, whether the republicans can do any good, well that is ones opinion. I just feel we are totally going the wrong way, spend spend spend will not bring this economy back, government can't creat jobs that last. ain't a perfect world, either, so compromise has to be part of anything done today or we willbe where we are at now. I am 68 I can live through anything that obama throws at me, as far as my kids go, well, that is another story. It just seems like there is total aroganze on obama's part anymore, class warfare will bring this country to its knees to. No doubt the poor cannot spend more but when the wealthy, successful stop spending then we are in big sh-t. Keep pushing class warfare down their throats and it could very easily happen...

[apheod]

some more ownage of romney's character. been working 10-12 hour days 7 days a week lately, so haven't had much time for my paranoid conspiracy theories.

http://www.webcasts.com/kingofbain/

[muggsy]

some more ownage of romney's character. been working 10-12 hour days 7 days a week lately, so haven't had much time for my paranoid conspiracy theories.

http://www.webcasts.com/kingofbain/

I have no doubt that when things slow down you catch up on your paranoid conspiracy theories. :)

[muggsy]

we can put the blame anywhere we feel it is right to us but the bottom line is we are a-shole deep in debt. It ain't gettin better under obama either, whether the republicans can do any good, well that is ones opinion. I just feel we are totally going the wrong way, spend spend spend will not bring this economy back, government can't creat jobs that last. ain't a perfect world, either, so compromise has to be part of anything done today or we willbe where we are at now. I am 68 I can live through anything that obama throws at me, as far as my kids go, well, that is another story. It just seems like there is total aroganze on obama's part anymore, class warfare will bring this country to its knees to. No doubt the poor cannot spend more but when the wealthy, successful stop spending then we are in big sh-t. Keep pushing class warfare down their throats and it could very easily happen...

Jocko, I have no doubt that your children and grand children will do very well if they put their best effort into achieving success.

[tv_racin_fan]

You do know that Gingrich has asked that Super PAC to correct the errors in the film... right?

[muggsy]

Should I be as happy as a clam about President Obama's size n scope of govt and debt increases as republicans seem to be about the size n scope of govt and debt increases under President Reagan? Everything supposedly gained under Reagan (strength of military etc etc) was thrown away under Presidents Bush Clinton Bush after him and it aint gotten better under President Obama.

You have to look at the debt as a percentage of our GNP. Debt under Reagan and Bush was a manageable percentage of our GNP. The debt under Obama now exceeds the GNP. Therein lies the problem.

[muggsy]

And just how have the republicans managed that debt so far? Since the debt is now over $15 trillion I dont think either party has managed it very well.

GDP has gone up and down and the debt just keeps on increasing.

The republicans had no control over the debt for the first two years of the Obama administration. Obama spent more money in his first two years in office than the total spent by every U.S. President that preceded him.

[tv_racin_fan]

The republicans had no control over the debt for the first two years of the Obama administration. Obama spent more money in his first two years in office than the total spent by every U.S. President that preceded him.

AH but they had control of it under Bush and what did the DEBT do then?

Oh yeah I remember now... in sept of 01 the debt was 5.8 trillion... by sept of 06 the debt was 8.5 trillion. Boy them Republicans sure showed them democrats how to deal with that debt problem....

And no President Obama did not spend more in the first two years than all other presidents before him. Sept 08 the debt was 10.024 trillion in order For Mr Obama to have spent more than all others the debt would by neccessity be over 20 trillion. According to the US Treasury the current debt is some 15.24 trillion.

[tv_racin_fan]

You have to look at the debt as a percentage of our GNP. Debt under Reagan and Bush was a manageable percentage of our GNP. The debt under Obama now exceeds the GNP. Therein lies the problem.

The problem is that neither party cares to deal with the actual DEBT. Under President Clinton they used accounting tricks to show that the deficit was dealt with and the debt would go down. Only according to the US Treasury the debt increased EVERY SINGLE YEAR under President Clinton to the tune of some 1.5 trillion added under Clinton.

Then we got one of them conservative presidents and the debt increased by what 4.5 trillion? Care to explain how that was a GOOD thing for the nation? Care to explain how an increase of 4.5 trillion is managing the debt? Care to explain how this was MANAGABLE?

20% would have been a managable percentage. 60% plus is not a managable debt ratio.