bobbyw24
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2007
- Messages
- 14,097
Jan 4th, 2012 by Chris Slavens
Santorum’s momentum won’t carry him through primaries
Mitt Romney (R-MA), the liberal flip-flopper whose one-word campaign slogan could be “same” — same expanding government, same deficit spending, same eroding constitutional liberties, same foreign policy, same socialized healthcare, different party affiliation and skin color and little else — won the Iowa caucuses last night with 24.6% of the vote, a mere eight votes ahead of last-minute surger Rick Santorum (R-PA). That’s a margin of less than one-tenth of a percent.
With no recount, it’s fair, if technically inaccurate, to say that the two men tied.
Far more important is Ron Paul’s (R-TX) impressive third-place finish. With 21%, he came incredibly close to winning the first contest of the 2012 presidential race; much closer than anyone would have expected a month ago. Unlike Romney, who has been regarded as a flawed frontrunner throughout most of the race, Paul is — was — a long-shot underdog who was never supposed to break 10% in any caucus or primary election, much less outperform so-called “top tier” rivals Newt Gingrich (R-VA) and Rick Perry (R-TX).
Ironically, Romney’s supporters within the Republican establishment had been downplaying the relevance of Iowa for weeks in anticipation of a Paul victory; by their own logic, Romney just won – barely won — a meaningless event that says nothing about the winner’s electability. Of course, political observers know that to be nonsense. If the Iowa caucuses were irrelevant, candidates wouldn’t pour their time and resources into the rural state (before abruptly packing up on January 4 and descending upon New Hampshire like a flock of ravenous vultures).
MORE
http://www.delawarepolitics.net/ron-paul-the-anti-romney/
Santorum’s momentum won’t carry him through primaries
Mitt Romney (R-MA), the liberal flip-flopper whose one-word campaign slogan could be “same” — same expanding government, same deficit spending, same eroding constitutional liberties, same foreign policy, same socialized healthcare, different party affiliation and skin color and little else — won the Iowa caucuses last night with 24.6% of the vote, a mere eight votes ahead of last-minute surger Rick Santorum (R-PA). That’s a margin of less than one-tenth of a percent.
With no recount, it’s fair, if technically inaccurate, to say that the two men tied.
Far more important is Ron Paul’s (R-TX) impressive third-place finish. With 21%, he came incredibly close to winning the first contest of the 2012 presidential race; much closer than anyone would have expected a month ago. Unlike Romney, who has been regarded as a flawed frontrunner throughout most of the race, Paul is — was — a long-shot underdog who was never supposed to break 10% in any caucus or primary election, much less outperform so-called “top tier” rivals Newt Gingrich (R-VA) and Rick Perry (R-TX).
Ironically, Romney’s supporters within the Republican establishment had been downplaying the relevance of Iowa for weeks in anticipation of a Paul victory; by their own logic, Romney just won – barely won — a meaningless event that says nothing about the winner’s electability. Of course, political observers know that to be nonsense. If the Iowa caucuses were irrelevant, candidates wouldn’t pour their time and resources into the rural state (before abruptly packing up on January 4 and descending upon New Hampshire like a flock of ravenous vultures).
MORE
http://www.delawarepolitics.net/ron-paul-the-anti-romney/
