The Iowa Caucasus - Who Won?

"Rook" has some thoughts on the Iowa Caucasus.  

Moderates: 25%

Libertarians: 21%

Conservatives: 54%

 

Two observations:

1. Even Fox News could not restrain their obvious bias for Romney. They were dumbfounded when Santorumpulled ahead, and let out a HUGE sign or relief when the news came in from that missing precinct that Romney would be ahead by EIGHT votes... Hey, a win is a win (even though the Iowa caucus is not winner-take-all, and no delegates have been allocated yet), and the absolute LAST thing they wanted to report that Santorum came in first, Whew... saved in the last minute by eight mysteriously misplaced votes.

 

2. What a tremendous contrast between Romney and Santorum, in their "victory" speeches. 

 

Romney was his usual sneering arrogant one-percenter self, clearly annoyed at his infinitesimally small lead. His speech was the same old uninspired boilerplate. He spoke like the one-percenter that he is. All good comes from the 1%. The 99% depend on the 1%'s good graces to give them jobs. Government's job is to make the 1% happy, so they, in their infinite condescension to the masses, will throw them some bones, if they feel like making some more money; not that they need it, but noblesse oblige and all that rot, you know. When this guy speaks, I can't help but picture Prince John or the Sheriff of Nottingham in some really bad Robin Hood movie, talking down to the peons and serfs. Obama will have absolutely no trouble wiping the floor with this guy's arrogant ass.

 

On the other hand, Santorum did not need prepared notes or a teleprompter to make him look compassionate and spontaneous. He clearly spoke from the heart. Of course we want more freedom and less government - lower taxes, no deficits, start reducing the debt, fewer regulations. But he also dared to confront the greatest and most stinging argument that the Democrats have against the Republicans, which is the one-percenters in particular and the Republicans in general don't care about the "little people." By speaking about his grandfather's lifelong work in the mines, about the abandoned steel mills in and around Pittsburgh, and about all those small towns in Pennsylvania, Iowa, the Midwest and the nation that have been abandoned by their manufacturing base, he was speaking in human terms, not boardroom economic terms, about the "little people," about regular peoples' lives. And by explaining why their jobs were off-shored and how to bring them back, he was speaking again in human terms, not boardroom or bureaucratese economic terms, about real solutions. There may not be any difference between Romney's and Santorum's bottom line - create jobs, let America go back to work again - but it sure as hell makes a huge difference how you present and implement the plan that gets you there. Santorum, by presenting a heartfelt argument, will have no trouble standing up to and beating Obama in any debate.

 

Comments

[freelance writers]

I won! I won! keep in touch!

[Franklin]

I think Santorum would be a good candidate, but perception rules. Perception is that he is Dan Quale reincarnated. Like it or not, Romney is going to be the candidate, so let's stop the carping and get behind the one person who stands any chance of winning against Obama. Look at the polls of Independents, which show huge support for Romney.

[Ernie]

I'll vote for whomever runs against Obama, but let's not call in the dogs just yet. McCain was way behind at this point in the '08 campaign. Lots can happen yet. Wait til the media starts pouring it on Romney and Santorum. Could be a game changer.