Muscatine

ron paul wins illinois straw poll

Posted in: Muscatine
  • Avatar
  • mobaydave
  • Respected Neighbor
  • muskateen
  • 3907 Posts
  • Respect-O-Meter: Respected Neighbor

Ron Paul takes game to next level, emerges as serious contender for GOP nomination

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/11285846-ron-paul-takes-his-game-to-the-next-level-emerges-as-serious-contender-for-gop-nomination

 

people vs. mitt romney- http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1389864594001/

 

Reason Magazine Editor-in-Chief Matt Welch appeared on Fox Business Channel's Cavuto to discuss whether libertarian and other small government conservatives would support Mitt Romney if he got the Republican nomination. Matt thinks we still have alternatives to the big government conservative, who he thinks can't and wont really cut any spending.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUkSrE-vudE&feature=uploademail

paul rebellion-http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1387266489001/

 

Laura Ingraham And Sen. Jim DeMint Warn Conservatives Not To Ignore Ron Paul And His Policies

http://www.mediaite.com/online/laura-ingraham-and-sen-jim-demint-warn-conservatives-not-to-ignore-ron-paul-and-his-policies/

 

An Electable Ron Paul Triumphs In New Hampshire

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/01/12/an-electable-ron-paul-triumphs-in-new-hampshire/

 

Has any mainstream media story about Santorum, Gingrich, Bachmann, Perry, etc. ever announced that, of course, he or she cannot win the nomination, let alone the election? Yet, thanks to the memo that apparently went out, every single MSM broadside makes that ridiculous assertion about Ron Paul.

 

What if Democrats and Republicans were two wings of the same bird of prey?

What if elections were actually useful tools of social control? What if they just provided the populace with meaningless participation in a process that validates an establishment that never meaningfully changes? What if that establishment doesn't want and doesn't have the consent of the governed? What if the two-party system was actually a mechanism used to limit so-called public opinion? What if there were more than two sides to every issue, but the two parties wanted to box you in to one of their corners?

What if there's no such thing as public opinion, because every thinking person has opinions that are uniquely his own? What if public opinion was just a manufactured narrative that makes it easier to convince people that if their views are different, there's something wrong with that -- or something wrong with them?

What if the whole purpose of the Democratic and Republican parties was not to expand voters' choices, but to limit them? What if the widely perceived differences between the two parties was just an illusion? What if the heart of government policy remains the same, no matter who's in the White House? What if the heart of government policy remains the same, no matter what the people want?

What if those vaunted differences between Democrat and Republican were actually just minor disagreements? What if both parties just want power and are willing to have young people fight meaningless wars in order to enhance that power? What if both parties continue to fight the war on drugs just to give bureaucrats and cops bigger budgets and more jobs?

 

What if government policies didn't change when government's leaders did? What if no matter who won an election, government stayed the same? What if government was really a revolving door of political hacks, bent on exploiting the people while they're in charge?

What if both parties supported welfare, war, debt, bailouts and big government? What if the rhetoric that candidates displayed on the campaign trail was dumped after electoral victory? What if Barack Obama campaigned as an antiwar, pro-civil liberties candidate, then waged senseless wars while assaulting your rights that the Constitution is supposed to protect? What if George W. Bush campaigned on a platform of nonintervention and small government, then waged a foreign policy of muscular military intervention and a domestic policy of vast government borrowing and growth?

What if Bill Clinton declared the era of big government to be over, but actually just convinced Republicans like Newt Gingrich that they can get what they want out of big government, too? What if the Republicans went along with it?

 

What if Ronald Reagan spent six years running for president promising to shrink government, but then the government grew while he was in office? What if, notwithstanding Reagan's ideas and cheerfulness and libertarian rhetoric, there really was no Reagan Revolution?

What if all this is happening again? What if Rick Santorum is being embraced by voters who want small government even though he voted for the Patriot Act, for an expansion of Medicare and for raising the debt ceiling by trillions of dollars? What if Mitt Romney is being embraced by voters who want anyone but Obama, but don't realize that Romney might as well be Obama on everything from warfare to welfare?

What if Ron Paul is being ignored by the media not because theyclaim he's unappealing or unelectable, but because he doesn't fit into the pre-manufactured public opinion mold used by the establishment to pigeonhole the electorate and create the so-called narrative that drives media coverage of elections?

What if the biggest difference between most candidates was not substance but style? What if those stylistic differences were packaged as substantive ones to re-enforce the illusion of a difference between Democrats and Republicans? What if Romney wins and ends up continuing most of the same policies that Obama promoted? What if Obama's policies, too, are merely extensions of Bush's?

What if a government that manipulated us could be fired? What if a government that lacked the true and knowing consent of the governed could be dismissed? What if it were possible to have a game-changer? What if we need a Ron Paul to preserve and protect our freedoms from assault by the government?

What if we could make elections matter again? What if we could do something about this?

Reprinted with the author's permission.

January 13, 2012

Andrew P. Napolitano [send him mail], a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at the Fox News Channel, and the host of “FreedomWatch” on the Fox Business Network. His latest book is It is Dangerous to be Right When the Government is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom.

Copyright © 2012 Andrew P. Napolitano

 

when mitt romney came to town

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLWnB9FGmWE

Who triumphed in Iowa and South Carolina, mobman????  he he he....Ron who?

  • Avatar
  • mobaydave
  • Respected Neighbor
  • muskateen
  • 3907 Posts
  • Respect-O-Meter: Respected Neighbor

With 8 precincts missing, Santorum's victory comes with an asterisk

DES MOINES - Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum will be listed in Republican Party of Iowa records as the winner of the party's 2012 precinct caucuses, but his 34-vote victory over GOP presidential rival Mitt Romney will be accompanied by an asterisk.

That's because party officials said Thursday that certified results from eight of the 1,774 precincts were missing when they conducted the vote certification process, meaning they likely will never know what the final tallies were for the candidates who competed in the Jan. 3 balloting.

The certified results of 1,766 precincts made public Thursday showed Santorum with 29,839 votes, followed by Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, with 29,805. Texas Rep. Ron Paul was third with 26,036 votes, followed by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich with 16,163, Texas Gov. Rick Perry with 12,557 and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann with 6,046. Bachmann quit the race one day after Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucuses. Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman had 739 votes. Party officials said 121,503 votes were certified.

While still incomplete, the party's certified results flip the top two finishers from the order announced in the early-morning hours of Jan. 4 when Iowa GOP Chairman Matt Strawn said the unofficial count showed Romney with an eight-vote lead over Santorum.

"Just as I did in the early morning hours on January 4, I congratulate Sen. Santorum and Gov. Romney on a hard-fought effort during the closest contest in caucus history," Strawn said in a statement. "Our goal throughout the certification process was to most accurately reflect and report how Iowans voted the evening of Jan. 3. We understand the importance to the candidates involved, but as Iowans, we understand the responsibility we have as temporary caretakers of the Iowa caucuses."

The dead-heat finish essentially became a battle for bragging rights because Santorum's unexpected surge in the closing days made him the candidate who carried the most momentum out of Iowa in a hotly contested nomination process that will see the next test for delegate support come on Saturday in South Carolina.

Santorum's campaign reacted to the announcement this morning by declaring victory. With just two days before the South Carolina primary, a spokesman said Republican voters don't have to settle for Romney.

"We've had two early state contests with two winners - and the narrative that Governor Romney and the media have been touting of ‘inevitability' has been destroyed," said Hogan Gidley, a campaign spokesman. "This latest defeat of Governor Romney in Iowa is just the beginning, and Rick Santorum is committed to continuing the fight as the clear, consistent conservative voice in this race."

Meanwhile, Santorum's state director in Iowa, Cody Brown, said the result was clear. He said none of the campaigns is questioning the unofficial results from the eight precincts, which favored Santorum.

That, he said, leaves no inconclusiveness.

"How can the RPI declare a winner using unofficial results and not declare a winner using official results?" Brown asked.

Romney, who left Iowa two weeks ago thinking he had outpolled Santorum with a tally of 30,015 votes to the ex-senator's 30,007, issued a statement Thursday calling the party's canvass results "a virtual tie."

"I would like to thank the Iowa Republican Party for their careful attention to the caucus process, and we once again recognize Rick Santorum for his strong performance in the state," Romney said in his statement. "The Iowa caucuses, with record turnout, were a great start to defeating President Obama in Iowa and elsewhere in the general election."

While still a record, the certified turnout of 121,503 with eight precincts unrecovered was down from the 122,255 unofficial total announced on Jan. 4. The previous high turnout in a GOP presidential caucus was 118,253 votes cast in 2008.

Thursday's release of certified precinct-by-precinct results came after a two-week period in which party officials in each of Iowa's 99 counties were required to submit a form documenting the count from all of their precincts by 5 p.m. Wednesday.

 

http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/news/state-and-regional/iowa/with-precincts-missing-santorum-s-victory-comes-with-an-asterisk/article_5d3e6a80-5747-54fd-b2d2-01c7ed54a8f4.html

 

Iowa GOP moving vote-count to 'undisclosed location'

Threats to disrupt the Iowa Republican caucuses next week have prompted state GOP officials to move the vote tabulation to an "undisclosed location," POLITICO has learned. 

The state party has not yet told the campaigns exactly where the returns will be added up, only that it will be off-site from the Iowa GOP's Des Moines headquarters.  The 2008 caucus results were tabulated at the state party offices, which sit just a few blocks from the state capitol.

Activist groups including the Occupy movement have indicated that they'll attempt to interrupt rallies in the closing days before next Tuesday's caucuses.

The AP reported today that Occupy is making plans to even attend some caucuses and vote "no preference," but not disturb the voting process.

But Iowa Republicans are also bracing for other threats, sources say, including hacking.

Iowa GOP Chair Matt Strawn wouldn't comment on the plan to move the vote-counting except to say they're increasing security measures.

"The Iowa GOP is taking additional safeguards to ensure the Caucus results are tabulated and reported to the public in an accurate and timely manner," Strawn said. "We are not commenting on specific security procedures."

read the comment on this site!

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2011/12/iowa-gop-moving-votecount-to-undisclosed-location-108812.html

 

 

Again; Ron who?

Advertise Here!

Promote Your Business or Product for $10/mo

istockphoto_12477899-big-head.jpg

For just $10/mo you can promote your business or product directly to nearby residents. Buy 12 months and save 50%!

Buynow