Source-New Hampshire Union Leader
Joseph W. McQuaid: Ron Paul is truly dangerous
Ron Paul is a dangerous man. While his domestic libertarian views are quite attractive to some voters fed up with politics as usual, it is Paul’s position on issues of our national security that are truly dangerous.
Those views have been largely overlooked by a news media more interested in the presidential “horse race” than in the candidates’ positions on issues. But we expect New Hampshire primary voters will examine the facts and act accordingly.
A Wall Street Journal columnist notes that Paul is “a leading spokesman for, and recycler of, the long and familiar litany of charges that point to the United States as a leading agent of evil and injustice, the militarist victimizer of millions who want only to live in peace.”
Perhaps this warped view is why Paul believes that al-Qaida terrorists caught in the United States ought to be treated as common criminals, not enemy combatants. He wants them read Miranda rights to which they are not entitled and he wants them tried and sentenced in civil courts rather than by military tribunals.
This is nothing short of nuts. What is needed to competently fight a war, and al-Qaida is indeed at war with us, is the ability to gather information. Telling the enemy that it has a “right to remain silent” is absurd.
Paul believes that if a U.S. citizen throws in with al-Qaida or associated groups overseas, where he plots American death and destruction, we need to somehow find him, arrest him, and bring him back to stand civil trial here rather than eliminate him, even if that is the only option.
We are in a much different kind of war than we have ever faced, but Paul doesn’t see it. He has repeatedly said that U.S. aggression is responsible for 9-11 and other attacks on America from radical jihadists.
He has repeatedly said that we should allow Iran to continue to develop a nuclear weapon. This is the same country whose leadership vows death to America, the “Satanic power,” and who wants Israel wiped from the map.
Never mind Paul being the favored candidate of the lunatic fringe (see white supremacists, anti-Semites, truthers, etc.). Never mind his refusal to disavow a third-party run (which would only help President Obama’s reelection).
His defenders say they admire Ron Paul’s “consistency.” It is true, Paul has been consistently spouting this nonsense. It is about time New Hampshire voters showed him the door.
Joseph W. McQuaid: Ron Paul is truly dangerous
Ron Paul is a dangerous man. While his domestic libertarian views are quite attractive to some voters fed up with politics as usual, it is Paul’s position on issues of our national security that are truly dangerous.
Those views have been largely overlooked by a news media more interested in the presidential “horse race” than in the candidates’ positions on issues. But we expect New Hampshire primary voters will examine the facts and act accordingly.
A Wall Street Journal columnist notes that Paul is “a leading spokesman for, and recycler of, the long and familiar litany of charges that point to the United States as a leading agent of evil and injustice, the militarist victimizer of millions who want only to live in peace.”
Perhaps this warped view is why Paul believes that al-Qaida terrorists caught in the United States ought to be treated as common criminals, not enemy combatants. He wants them read Miranda rights to which they are not entitled and he wants them tried and sentenced in civil courts rather than by military tribunals.
This is nothing short of nuts. What is needed to competently fight a war, and al-Qaida is indeed at war with us, is the ability to gather information. Telling the enemy that it has a “right to remain silent” is absurd.
Paul believes that if a U.S. citizen throws in with al-Qaida or associated groups overseas, where he plots American death and destruction, we need to somehow find him, arrest him, and bring him back to stand civil trial here rather than eliminate him, even if that is the only option.
We are in a much different kind of war than we have ever faced, but Paul doesn’t see it. He has repeatedly said that U.S. aggression is responsible for 9-11 and other attacks on America from radical jihadists.
He has repeatedly said that we should allow Iran to continue to develop a nuclear weapon. This is the same country whose leadership vows death to America, the “Satanic power,” and who wants Israel wiped from the map.
Never mind Paul being the favored candidate of the lunatic fringe (see white supremacists, anti-Semites, truthers, etc.). Never mind his refusal to disavow a third-party run (which would only help President Obama’s reelection).
His defenders say they admire Ron Paul’s “consistency.” It is true, Paul has been consistently spouting this nonsense. It is about time New Hampshire voters showed him the door.
Source-Wikipedia: The Iowa Caucuses
The Iowa caucuses are an electoral event in which residents of the U.S. state of Iowa meet in precinct caucuses in all of Iowa's 1,784 precincts and elect delegates to the corresponding county conventions. There are 99 counties in Iowa and thus 99 conventions. These county conventions then select delegates for both Iowa's Congressional District Convention and the State Convention, which eventually choose the delegates for the presidential nominating conventions (the national conventions). The 2012 Iowa Caucuses are scheduled to take place on January 3, 2012.[1]
The Iowa caucuses are noteworthy for the amount of media attention they receive during U.S. presidential election years. Since 1972, the Iowa caucuses have been the first major electoral event of the nominating process for President of the United States. Although only about one percent of the nation's delegates are chosen by the Iowa State Convention, the Iowa caucuses have served as an early indication of which candidates for president might win the nomination of their political party at that party's national convention.
THE CAUCUS PROCESS STRUCTURE
The Iowa caucuses operate very differently from the more common primary election used by most other states (see U.S. presidential primary). The caucuses are generally defined as "gatherings of neighbors." Rather than going to polls and casting ballots, Iowans gather at a set location in each of Iowa's 1,784 precincts. Typically, these meetings occur in schools, churches, public libraries and even individuals' houses. The caucuses are held every two years, but the ones that receive national attention are the presidential preference caucuses held every four years. In addition to the voting and the presidential preference choices, caucus-goers begin the process of writing their parties’ platforms by introducing resolutions.[2]
Unlike the first-in-the-nation primary in New Hampshire, the Iowa caucus does not result directly in national delegates for each candidate. Instead, caucus-goers elect delegates to county conventions, who in turn elect delegates to district and state conventions where Iowa's national convention delegates are selected. Ironically, the state conventions do not take place until the end of the primary and caucus season: Iowa is in fact one of the very last states to choose its delegates.[3][4]
The Republicans and Democrats each hold their own set of caucuses subject to their own particular rules that change from time to time. Participants in each party's caucuses must be registered with that party. Participants can change their registration at the caucus location. Additionally, 17-year-olds can participate, as long as they will be 18 years old by the date of the general election. Observers are allowed to attend, as long as they do not become actively involved in the debate and voting process. For example, members of the media and campaign staff and volunteers attend many of the precinct caucuses. Youth who will not be eligible to vote by the date of the general election may also attend as observers and may volunteer to attend the county convention as youth delegates.[5]
Republican Party process
For the Republicans, the Iowa caucuses follow (and should not be confused with) the Ames Straw Poll in August of the preceding year. Out of the five Ames Straw Poll iterations, the winner of the Ames Straw Poll failed to win the Iowa caucuses twice, in 1987 and 2007.
In the Republican caucuses, each voter officially casts his or her vote by secret ballot. Voters are presented blank sheets of paper with no candidate names on them.[6] After listening to some campaigning for each candidate by caucus participants, they write their choices down and the Republican Party of Iowa tabulates the results at each precinct and transmits them to the media.[7] In 2008, some precincts used a show of hands [8] or preprinted ballots.[9] The non-binding results are tabulated and reported to the state party, which releases the results to the media. Delegates from the precinct caucuses go on to the county conventions, which choose delegates to the district conventions, which in turn selects delegates to the Iowa State Convention. Thus, it is the Republican Iowa State Convention, not the precinct caucuses, which selects the ultimate delegates from Iowa to the Republican National Convention. All delegates are officially unbound from the results of the precinct caucus, although media organizations either estimate delegate numbers by estimating county convention results or simply divide them proportionally.
The Iowa caucuses are an electoral event in which residents of the U.S. state of Iowa meet in precinct caucuses in all of Iowa's 1,784 precincts and elect delegates to the corresponding county conventions. There are 99 counties in Iowa and thus 99 conventions. These county conventions then select delegates for both Iowa's Congressional District Convention and the State Convention, which eventually choose the delegates for the presidential nominating conventions (the national conventions). The 2012 Iowa Caucuses are scheduled to take place on January 3, 2012.[1]
The Iowa caucuses are noteworthy for the amount of media attention they receive during U.S. presidential election years. Since 1972, the Iowa caucuses have been the first major electoral event of the nominating process for President of the United States. Although only about one percent of the nation's delegates are chosen by the Iowa State Convention, the Iowa caucuses have served as an early indication of which candidates for president might win the nomination of their political party at that party's national convention.
THE CAUCUS PROCESS STRUCTURE
The Iowa caucuses operate very differently from the more common primary election used by most other states (see U.S. presidential primary). The caucuses are generally defined as "gatherings of neighbors." Rather than going to polls and casting ballots, Iowans gather at a set location in each of Iowa's 1,784 precincts. Typically, these meetings occur in schools, churches, public libraries and even individuals' houses. The caucuses are held every two years, but the ones that receive national attention are the presidential preference caucuses held every four years. In addition to the voting and the presidential preference choices, caucus-goers begin the process of writing their parties’ platforms by introducing resolutions.[2]
Unlike the first-in-the-nation primary in New Hampshire, the Iowa caucus does not result directly in national delegates for each candidate. Instead, caucus-goers elect delegates to county conventions, who in turn elect delegates to district and state conventions where Iowa's national convention delegates are selected. Ironically, the state conventions do not take place until the end of the primary and caucus season: Iowa is in fact one of the very last states to choose its delegates.[3][4]
The Republicans and Democrats each hold their own set of caucuses subject to their own particular rules that change from time to time. Participants in each party's caucuses must be registered with that party. Participants can change their registration at the caucus location. Additionally, 17-year-olds can participate, as long as they will be 18 years old by the date of the general election. Observers are allowed to attend, as long as they do not become actively involved in the debate and voting process. For example, members of the media and campaign staff and volunteers attend many of the precinct caucuses. Youth who will not be eligible to vote by the date of the general election may also attend as observers and may volunteer to attend the county convention as youth delegates.[5]
Republican Party process
For the Republicans, the Iowa caucuses follow (and should not be confused with) the Ames Straw Poll in August of the preceding year. Out of the five Ames Straw Poll iterations, the winner of the Ames Straw Poll failed to win the Iowa caucuses twice, in 1987 and 2007.
In the Republican caucuses, each voter officially casts his or her vote by secret ballot. Voters are presented blank sheets of paper with no candidate names on them.[6] After listening to some campaigning for each candidate by caucus participants, they write their choices down and the Republican Party of Iowa tabulates the results at each precinct and transmits them to the media.[7] In 2008, some precincts used a show of hands [8] or preprinted ballots.[9] The non-binding results are tabulated and reported to the state party, which releases the results to the media. Delegates from the precinct caucuses go on to the county conventions, which choose delegates to the district conventions, which in turn selects delegates to the Iowa State Convention. Thus, it is the Republican Iowa State Convention, not the precinct caucuses, which selects the ultimate delegates from Iowa to the Republican National Convention. All delegates are officially unbound from the results of the precinct caucus, although media organizations either estimate delegate numbers by estimating county convention results or simply divide them proportionally.
Source-Townhall.com: Attack dogs unleashed on Ron Paul
Attack dogs have finally been unleashed on Ron Paul. Those barking dogs caused Andrew Sullivan to Re-Think The Paul Endorsement
Time Magazine even launched a headline Paul Walks Away
No Need to Rethink Endorsement
There is no need to rethink endorsements. Here is the deal: Ron Paul did not say the things attributed to him. He denies them, disavows them, and most importantly, his voting record proves it!
Can anyone honestly tell me why things Ron Paul did NOT say over twenty years ago should be news today?
Paul Missed Best Tactic
How many times does he have to deny he wrote those things? Still, Ron Paul did not handle the CNN setup in the best possible manner.
This is what Paul said to CNN.
“Why don’t you go back and look at what I said yesterday on CNN and what I’ve said for 20 something years. 22 years ago? I didn’t write them, I disavow them."
That answer was perfectly fine, as far as it went. Then Paul walked out. It was a missed opportunity.
Proposed Follow-Up
Rather than walking out, Paul should have followed up with ...
"I'm not here to discuss imaginary topics or things I never said. Now, do you want to discuss my position on the economy, on the Fed, and on spending, or is your only point to this interview to discuss things I did not say 20 years ago and have explained to CNN countless times?"
That would have smashed the ball down CNN interviewer Gloria Borger's throat, right where it belonged.
OK. Admittedly, Ron Paul did not respond in the perfect manner. So Ron Paul is human. Who isn't?
Is a transgression 22 years ago of something Ron Paul never said, and whose track record in congress proves it, any reason to drop support of Ron Paul?
In favor of who? Flip-flopper Newt Gingrich? Mitt Romney, the man that practically wrote the Obama Health-Care legislation? The Mitt Romney who wants to starts a trade war with China? Another Republican candidate that has no chance of winning?
If case you are a misguided Mitt Romney fan please consider President Obama and Mitt Romney are Nearly One and the Same!
Anyone "rethinking" their Ron Paul endorsement based on things Paul never said is not thinking clearly.
Attack Dog Plus Side
Here's the plus side to the attack dogs: Ron Paul is now considered a serious candidate or the attack dogs would not have been unleashed on things he never said 22 years ago.
Interestingly, The State Column reports Ron Paul still holds a lead in Iowa.
Thus, a majority of voters have decided that 22-year-old never-made statements are irrelevant, even if some misguided souls can't.
Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Attack dogs have finally been unleashed on Ron Paul. Those barking dogs caused Andrew Sullivan to Re-Think The Paul Endorsement
Time Magazine even launched a headline Paul Walks Away
No Need to Rethink Endorsement
There is no need to rethink endorsements. Here is the deal: Ron Paul did not say the things attributed to him. He denies them, disavows them, and most importantly, his voting record proves it!
Can anyone honestly tell me why things Ron Paul did NOT say over twenty years ago should be news today?
Paul Missed Best Tactic
How many times does he have to deny he wrote those things? Still, Ron Paul did not handle the CNN setup in the best possible manner.
This is what Paul said to CNN.
“Why don’t you go back and look at what I said yesterday on CNN and what I’ve said for 20 something years. 22 years ago? I didn’t write them, I disavow them."
That answer was perfectly fine, as far as it went. Then Paul walked out. It was a missed opportunity.
Proposed Follow-Up
Rather than walking out, Paul should have followed up with ...
"I'm not here to discuss imaginary topics or things I never said. Now, do you want to discuss my position on the economy, on the Fed, and on spending, or is your only point to this interview to discuss things I did not say 20 years ago and have explained to CNN countless times?"
That would have smashed the ball down CNN interviewer Gloria Borger's throat, right where it belonged.
OK. Admittedly, Ron Paul did not respond in the perfect manner. So Ron Paul is human. Who isn't?
Is a transgression 22 years ago of something Ron Paul never said, and whose track record in congress proves it, any reason to drop support of Ron Paul?
In favor of who? Flip-flopper Newt Gingrich? Mitt Romney, the man that practically wrote the Obama Health-Care legislation? The Mitt Romney who wants to starts a trade war with China? Another Republican candidate that has no chance of winning?
If case you are a misguided Mitt Romney fan please consider President Obama and Mitt Romney are Nearly One and the Same!
Anyone "rethinking" their Ron Paul endorsement based on things Paul never said is not thinking clearly.
Attack Dog Plus Side
Here's the plus side to the attack dogs: Ron Paul is now considered a serious candidate or the attack dogs would not have been unleashed on things he never said 22 years ago.
Interestingly, The State Column reports Ron Paul still holds a lead in Iowa.
Thus, a majority of voters have decided that 22-year-old never-made statements are irrelevant, even if some misguided souls can't.
Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Source-Fox News: Huntsman to concentrate on New Hampshire
Source-National Review-Gingrich, Paul, Santorum new Iowa ads
Source-Reuters: Rick Perrys flip-flop on abortion issue.
Rick Perry was actually for some abortions before he was against them.
The Texas Governor and presidential candidate told an Osceola, Iowa, town hall gathering Tuesday that he changed his views on abortion after seeing a pro-life documentary hosted by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
Perry previously said he opposed abortion except in cases of rape and incest. But after seeing "The Gift of Life," a 2011 film produced by Citizens United, Perry now opposes the procedure altogether.
Last week, Perry signed a pledge saying abortion should be banned in all cases.
Created by Personhood USA, an antiabortion group, the pledge also requires that candidates who sign it promise to advance laws and amendments, on the state and federal level, to recognize human beings as persons at every stage of development.
"You're seeing a transformation," the evangelical Christian said at Tuesday's Iowa event. "That transformation was after watching the DVD [of] 'Gift of Life.'"
He added, "I really started giving some thought to the issue of rape and incest. [There are] some powerful stories in that DVD," which was written and directed by Kevin Knoblock ("Border War: The Battle Over Illegal Immigration," "Celsius 41.11").
Perry said he actually considered changing his position on abortion before seeing "The Gift of Life," after being approached by one of the activists featured in the film.
"[A] lady who was in [the movie] was looking me in the eye and said, 'You really need to think this through,'" he said. "She said, 'I am the product of a rape,' and she said, 'My life is worth [it].' It was a powerful moment for me."
Some are speculating that Perry may be shifting his stance on abortion in an attempt to position himself as the most socially conservative candidate vying for the GOP presidential ticket. On Tuesday, caucuses will be held in Iowa, which has a strong evangelical presence among its conservative contingency.
Perry is currently tied for fifth in the Iowa race, according to Public Policy Polling.
Watch Perry speaking about "The Gift of Life" in Iowa on Tuesday:
Rick Perry was actually for some abortions before he was against them.
The Texas Governor and presidential candidate told an Osceola, Iowa, town hall gathering Tuesday that he changed his views on abortion after seeing a pro-life documentary hosted by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
Perry previously said he opposed abortion except in cases of rape and incest. But after seeing "The Gift of Life," a 2011 film produced by Citizens United, Perry now opposes the procedure altogether.
Last week, Perry signed a pledge saying abortion should be banned in all cases.
Created by Personhood USA, an antiabortion group, the pledge also requires that candidates who sign it promise to advance laws and amendments, on the state and federal level, to recognize human beings as persons at every stage of development.
"You're seeing a transformation," the evangelical Christian said at Tuesday's Iowa event. "That transformation was after watching the DVD [of] 'Gift of Life.'"
He added, "I really started giving some thought to the issue of rape and incest. [There are] some powerful stories in that DVD," which was written and directed by Kevin Knoblock ("Border War: The Battle Over Illegal Immigration," "Celsius 41.11").
Perry said he actually considered changing his position on abortion before seeing "The Gift of Life," after being approached by one of the activists featured in the film.
"[A] lady who was in [the movie] was looking me in the eye and said, 'You really need to think this through,'" he said. "She said, 'I am the product of a rape,' and she said, 'My life is worth [it].' It was a powerful moment for me."
Some are speculating that Perry may be shifting his stance on abortion in an attempt to position himself as the most socially conservative candidate vying for the GOP presidential ticket. On Tuesday, caucuses will be held in Iowa, which has a strong evangelical presence among its conservative contingency.
Perry is currently tied for fifth in the Iowa race, according to Public Policy Polling.
Watch Perry speaking about "The Gift of Life" in Iowa on Tuesday:
Source-Examiner: Independent Iowans 4 Sarah
Independent group runs radio ad calling on Iowans to caucus for Sarah Palin
December 28th, 2011 by Joe Newby
Credit: johnbatchelorshow.com
Sarah Palin in Iowa.
In October, Sarah Palin said she was not running for the GOP nomination in the 2012 Presidential election.
Nevertheless, an independent organization calling itself “Sarah Palin’s Iowa Earthquake" has started running ads calling for Iowans to caucus for Sarah Palin.
“Are you unhappy with the current GOP field?" the ad asks. "Let me tell you something, you are not alone," the ad continues. "Join thousands of Iowans as we vote rogue let Iowa know we want real leadership and real reform in DC. So come on Iowa, vote Rogue on January 3!”
The 30-second spot is set to run in specific markets across Iowa over the next few days.
According to Conservatives4Congress.com, the ads will air on KCAU-TV in Sioux City and will be played as a commercial during the Broncos-Chiefs scheduled to air on WHBF-TV, covering the eastern border of Iowa.
Ed Morrissey of Hot Air observes that Iowans can caucus for Palin, since "there is no “ballot” in the legal sense at caucuses."
He adds:
Attendees can write in names on the list of candidates they receive at the caucuses, and those votes will count. Of course, without Palin on the ballot and not officially in the race, not too many caucus-goers may choose to vote for her. If enough are dissatisfied with the current choices, though, she might be a handy code for None of the Above — and might get some significant level of support if the ads prompt enough Iowa voters to consider this as an option.
Morrissey also says Gingrich will probably be hurt worse than the other top-tier candidates, but Santorum and Bachmann could also be affected:
If so, who does that hurt most? Probably not Mitt Romney, whose base of support doesn’t have a lot of overlap with Palin’s. Newt Gingrich rose in the polls mainly on Tea Party support, so he’d be likely to feel the sting a little more, especially for those who backed Gingrich because he looked like the only viable alternative to Romney or Ron Paul. Paul might lose a little of his more recent support, but he’s going to get hurt more over his old newsletters and the vetting of his foreign-policy kookiness. It may end up hurting the candidates in the second tier struggling for an Iowa miracle — Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann. That’s assuming, of course, that it has any impact at all.
A Facebook page called "Sarah Palin's Earthquake Movement" uses the governor's own words, and encourages others to write her in hopes she will reconsider running:
Governor, each time you discuss a candidate and name the attributes or qualities that our eventual nominee should have, you are describing yourself.
Your words:
"I need to find this candidate who understands the need for energy independence." - That's YOU.
...
"I want to find candidates who understand the need to reduce tax burdens and onerous regulations that are presently killing American industry..." - That's YOU.
"...and, of course candidates that have a track record of always pushing for minimization of government to strengthen our economy." - That's YOU.
"This is about Americans who are understanding that we have got to get the right people in these positions of leadership in our country to get us back on the right track." - That's YOU.
"A politician is going to let you down." - We don't think of YOU as a politician. We think of you as being "one of us," because you are.
"What we need to do, too, is make sure that we are holding both sides of the aisle accountable." - That's YOU.
"We need to call out the wrong-headedness of all of our 'leaders' when they lead us astray; when they lead us down the path towards bankruptcy, which IS going on in our country right now." - YOU can do that in a campaign.
"We have to make sure that people are hearing a fiscally conservative message that makes sense..." - YOU have that message.
We The People, humbly request that you reconsider your decision to run for President of the United States of America.
There is no other candidate that possesses your record, your quality, your character and your level of understanding of the dire situation in which our country is in. We have no other choice but to ask that you reconsider.'
Five ads have been developed so far, and can be seen here.
More on Sarah Palin at Examiner.com can be found here.
----------------------------------------------------------------
If you like this article, you can follow Joe on Twitter @jnewby1956, visit his Facebook page, or click the Subscribe button to receive email updates when a new article is published.
Independent group runs radio ad calling on Iowans to caucus for Sarah Palin
December 28th, 2011 by Joe Newby
Credit: johnbatchelorshow.com
Sarah Palin in Iowa.
In October, Sarah Palin said she was not running for the GOP nomination in the 2012 Presidential election.
Nevertheless, an independent organization calling itself “Sarah Palin’s Iowa Earthquake" has started running ads calling for Iowans to caucus for Sarah Palin.
“Are you unhappy with the current GOP field?" the ad asks. "Let me tell you something, you are not alone," the ad continues. "Join thousands of Iowans as we vote rogue let Iowa know we want real leadership and real reform in DC. So come on Iowa, vote Rogue on January 3!”
The 30-second spot is set to run in specific markets across Iowa over the next few days.
According to Conservatives4Congress.com, the ads will air on KCAU-TV in Sioux City and will be played as a commercial during the Broncos-Chiefs scheduled to air on WHBF-TV, covering the eastern border of Iowa.
Ed Morrissey of Hot Air observes that Iowans can caucus for Palin, since "there is no “ballot” in the legal sense at caucuses."
He adds:
Attendees can write in names on the list of candidates they receive at the caucuses, and those votes will count. Of course, without Palin on the ballot and not officially in the race, not too many caucus-goers may choose to vote for her. If enough are dissatisfied with the current choices, though, she might be a handy code for None of the Above — and might get some significant level of support if the ads prompt enough Iowa voters to consider this as an option.
Morrissey also says Gingrich will probably be hurt worse than the other top-tier candidates, but Santorum and Bachmann could also be affected:
If so, who does that hurt most? Probably not Mitt Romney, whose base of support doesn’t have a lot of overlap with Palin’s. Newt Gingrich rose in the polls mainly on Tea Party support, so he’d be likely to feel the sting a little more, especially for those who backed Gingrich because he looked like the only viable alternative to Romney or Ron Paul. Paul might lose a little of his more recent support, but he’s going to get hurt more over his old newsletters and the vetting of his foreign-policy kookiness. It may end up hurting the candidates in the second tier struggling for an Iowa miracle — Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann. That’s assuming, of course, that it has any impact at all.
A Facebook page called "Sarah Palin's Earthquake Movement" uses the governor's own words, and encourages others to write her in hopes she will reconsider running:
Governor, each time you discuss a candidate and name the attributes or qualities that our eventual nominee should have, you are describing yourself.
Your words:
"I need to find this candidate who understands the need for energy independence." - That's YOU.
...
"I want to find candidates who understand the need to reduce tax burdens and onerous regulations that are presently killing American industry..." - That's YOU.
"...and, of course candidates that have a track record of always pushing for minimization of government to strengthen our economy." - That's YOU.
"This is about Americans who are understanding that we have got to get the right people in these positions of leadership in our country to get us back on the right track." - That's YOU.
"A politician is going to let you down." - We don't think of YOU as a politician. We think of you as being "one of us," because you are.
"What we need to do, too, is make sure that we are holding both sides of the aisle accountable." - That's YOU.
"We need to call out the wrong-headedness of all of our 'leaders' when they lead us astray; when they lead us down the path towards bankruptcy, which IS going on in our country right now." - YOU can do that in a campaign.
"We have to make sure that people are hearing a fiscally conservative message that makes sense..." - YOU have that message.
We The People, humbly request that you reconsider your decision to run for President of the United States of America.
There is no other candidate that possesses your record, your quality, your character and your level of understanding of the dire situation in which our country is in. We have no other choice but to ask that you reconsider.'
Five ads have been developed so far, and can be seen here.
More on Sarah Palin at Examiner.com can be found here.
----------------------------------------------------------------
If you like this article, you can follow Joe on Twitter @jnewby1956, visit his Facebook page, or click the Subscribe button to receive email updates when a new article is published.
Source-Washington Post: Michelle attacks both Perry and Ron Paul
CRESTON, Iowa — Republican Michele Bachmann did the Texas two-swipe Wednesday in her push to gain ground before next week’s presidential caucuses in Iowa.
The Minnesota congresswoman, trailing in the race for her party’s presidential nomination, went after Texas Gov. Rick Perry for “27 years as a political insider” and said Texas Rep. Ron Paul would be “dangerous as president” because of his hands-off views on national security, especially toward nuclear weapons-seeking Iran.
( Evan Vucci / Associated Press )
The aggressive tone underscores Bachmann’s role as a chaser in the final week of campaigning. She has bet heavily on Iowa, where she was born.
Bachmann came hardest at Perry, who this week began a television ad lumping Bachmann with other Washington figures seeking the GOP nomination in his attempt to come off as the outsider in the race.
“Just because he’s held office outside of Washington, D.C., does not mean he is not a political insider. It’s what you do in your office that matters,” she said outside a small-town cafe. “There aren’t very many politicians who have spent more time paying off political donors than Gov. Rick Perry has.”
Perry has served Texas as a part-time legislator, agriculture commissioner, lieutenant governor and governor.
Bachmann also said Perry has engaged in “crony capitalism” by helping donors with Texas government contracts or giving them political appointments. And she called Perry a double-dipper for collecting his gubernatorial salary and state pension at the same time.
Campaigning in Indianola on Wednesday, Perry did what appeared to be a double hit of his own. Although he didn’t name his targets, he took aim at congressmen who sound off in Washington without much influence on policy — one rap sometimes attached to Bachmann and Paul.
“Some campaigns are about their voting record, on bills that never make it to the president’s desk. I’m campaigning on ideas that I’ve signed into law,” Perry said.
As for Paul, who is among the candidates leading in Iowa, Bachmann criticized him as misguided about foreign threats to U.S. interests.
“Ron Paul would be a dangerous president. He would have us ignore all of the warning signs of another brutal dictator who wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. I won’t. He would wait until one of our cities is wiped off of the map until he reacted. I won’t wait.”
On Wednesday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told CNN that he would find it personally difficult to vote for Paul if the Texas congressman were to become the party’s choice to go up against President Barack Obama next fall. Bachmann refused to go that far, dodging two direct questions about her willingness to back Paul later on. “He won’t win the nomination,” she said.
At stop after stop, Bachmann is casting herself as America’s “Iron Lady,” the nickname assigned to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Bachmann sits on the House Intelligence Committee, which she said gives her a firm grip on world affairs.
Bachmann is nearing the end of a two-week campaign sprint through Iowa’s 99 counties. She expects to hit the final three on Thursday.
___
Associated Press writer Philip Elliott contributed to this report from Indianola, Iowa.
CRESTON, Iowa — Republican Michele Bachmann did the Texas two-swipe Wednesday in her push to gain ground before next week’s presidential caucuses in Iowa.
The Minnesota congresswoman, trailing in the race for her party’s presidential nomination, went after Texas Gov. Rick Perry for “27 years as a political insider” and said Texas Rep. Ron Paul would be “dangerous as president” because of his hands-off views on national security, especially toward nuclear weapons-seeking Iran.
( Evan Vucci / Associated Press )
The aggressive tone underscores Bachmann’s role as a chaser in the final week of campaigning. She has bet heavily on Iowa, where she was born.
Bachmann came hardest at Perry, who this week began a television ad lumping Bachmann with other Washington figures seeking the GOP nomination in his attempt to come off as the outsider in the race.
“Just because he’s held office outside of Washington, D.C., does not mean he is not a political insider. It’s what you do in your office that matters,” she said outside a small-town cafe. “There aren’t very many politicians who have spent more time paying off political donors than Gov. Rick Perry has.”
Perry has served Texas as a part-time legislator, agriculture commissioner, lieutenant governor and governor.
Bachmann also said Perry has engaged in “crony capitalism” by helping donors with Texas government contracts or giving them political appointments. And she called Perry a double-dipper for collecting his gubernatorial salary and state pension at the same time.
Campaigning in Indianola on Wednesday, Perry did what appeared to be a double hit of his own. Although he didn’t name his targets, he took aim at congressmen who sound off in Washington without much influence on policy — one rap sometimes attached to Bachmann and Paul.
“Some campaigns are about their voting record, on bills that never make it to the president’s desk. I’m campaigning on ideas that I’ve signed into law,” Perry said.
As for Paul, who is among the candidates leading in Iowa, Bachmann criticized him as misguided about foreign threats to U.S. interests.
“Ron Paul would be a dangerous president. He would have us ignore all of the warning signs of another brutal dictator who wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. I won’t. He would wait until one of our cities is wiped off of the map until he reacted. I won’t wait.”
On Wednesday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told CNN that he would find it personally difficult to vote for Paul if the Texas congressman were to become the party’s choice to go up against President Barack Obama next fall. Bachmann refused to go that far, dodging two direct questions about her willingness to back Paul later on. “He won’t win the nomination,” she said.
At stop after stop, Bachmann is casting herself as America’s “Iron Lady,” the nickname assigned to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Bachmann sits on the House Intelligence Committee, which she said gives her a firm grip on world affairs.
Bachmann is nearing the end of a two-week campaign sprint through Iowa’s 99 counties. She expects to hit the final three on Thursday.
___
Associated Press writer Philip Elliott contributed to this report from Indianola, Iowa.
Source-American thinker: Romneys electability
John Ziegler
There are plenty of blatantly incorrect opinions about the Republican presidential primary floating around and some of them are perched in some rather prominent places (i.e. Nate Silver at the New York Times and Dick Morris at Fox News). But none that I have seen has been more obviously and dangerously flawed than John Hawkins' column entitled "7 Reasons Why Mitt Romney's Electability is a Myth," which was recently posted at Townhall.
To be clear, it is not that there is no merit to any of his seven points. A couple of them are actually valid. What is so astonishingly silly about his analysis is that its entire premise is completely and fundamentally flawed.
Republican primary voters are not evaluating Romney's "electability" in a vacuum. They are judging it instead in comparison to the relative electability of their other current options. And there is absolutely, positively, zero doubt that of the candidates who will be on the ballot (or in the case of Virginia, not so much), Mitt Romney has by far the best chance to beat President Obama in 2012.
So while Romney does clearly have "issues" in this department (for instance, I agree that being a Mormon will hurt more than help), to call his electability a "myth," is like playing poker and mocking a hand of three Aces when your only other option is a pair of deuces.
Yes, the Romney "hand" can be beaten, but unlike those presented by everyone else in the race, at least it has a decent chance of winning.
The poker analogy is important in another way. Many grassroots Republicans I speak to (as well as most of the commentators I see/read) don't seem to realize that a presidential general election is much more like a poker game where most of the cards have already been dealt, than like a football game where the opening kickoff has yet to happen.
We already know that, barring events almost impossible to conceive, all of the "Not-Romneys" will get beaten, perhaps badly, by Obama. The narratives have already been written, minus the minor details and the final score.
Newt can't suddenly unload his massive baggage, Paul can't change the fact that he isn't at least a bit nuts, Perry can't delete his "Oops" moment and the parallels to Bush 43, Bachmann can't get rid of her "crazy eyes" or her gender,Huntsman can't pretend he doesn't despise the base, and Santorum can't erase his statements on gays from Google or suddenly find some gravitas.
Anyone who doesn't accept the doomed reality of the "Not Romneys" is simply either ignorant of the modern realities of presidential politics or just delusional.
Romney might lose too, but at least the conclusion is not yet written in stone.
And since Mr. Hawkins gave seven reasons why Romney's electability is a myth, in the spirit of conservative cooperation I offer the seven most underrated reasons that Romney is indeed the most electable Republican presidential candidate.
The Mormon vote will help him in Nevada, which is a key state in Obama's "272" Electoral College strategy.
He has by far the best chance of winning New Hampshire, which would turn the "272" scenario into a tie (assuming a loss in Nevada) and a probable victory.
His family roots in Michigan give him by far the best opportunity to take this state which would kill almost any path for Obama to get to 270 Electoral College votes.
He is actually a great general election debater because he is smart, quick and not likely to say anything stupid that the media can use to destroy him.
Women like him and not just because of his hair and voice.
The "flip flop" charge, while true, will not be very effective against him because it will require liberals to attack him for really being a...liberal.
Americans do not tend to hold a person's wealth against them when it comes to running for high office, especially when they think that person might help them get a job.
Romney is hardly a perfect conservative candidate and it is becoming increasingly clear that no such person will ever again exist without being pulverized by the media. However, Republicans can and have done far worse than Mitt Romney as their presidential candidate. It is time to realize he is by far the best shot we have of avoiding four more years of Obama.
John Ziegler is a documentary filmmaker/commentator who is most well known for his movie "Media Malpractice...How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted."
John Ziegler
There are plenty of blatantly incorrect opinions about the Republican presidential primary floating around and some of them are perched in some rather prominent places (i.e. Nate Silver at the New York Times and Dick Morris at Fox News). But none that I have seen has been more obviously and dangerously flawed than John Hawkins' column entitled "7 Reasons Why Mitt Romney's Electability is a Myth," which was recently posted at Townhall.
To be clear, it is not that there is no merit to any of his seven points. A couple of them are actually valid. What is so astonishingly silly about his analysis is that its entire premise is completely and fundamentally flawed.
Republican primary voters are not evaluating Romney's "electability" in a vacuum. They are judging it instead in comparison to the relative electability of their other current options. And there is absolutely, positively, zero doubt that of the candidates who will be on the ballot (or in the case of Virginia, not so much), Mitt Romney has by far the best chance to beat President Obama in 2012.
So while Romney does clearly have "issues" in this department (for instance, I agree that being a Mormon will hurt more than help), to call his electability a "myth," is like playing poker and mocking a hand of three Aces when your only other option is a pair of deuces.
Yes, the Romney "hand" can be beaten, but unlike those presented by everyone else in the race, at least it has a decent chance of winning.
The poker analogy is important in another way. Many grassroots Republicans I speak to (as well as most of the commentators I see/read) don't seem to realize that a presidential general election is much more like a poker game where most of the cards have already been dealt, than like a football game where the opening kickoff has yet to happen.
We already know that, barring events almost impossible to conceive, all of the "Not-Romneys" will get beaten, perhaps badly, by Obama. The narratives have already been written, minus the minor details and the final score.
Newt can't suddenly unload his massive baggage, Paul can't change the fact that he isn't at least a bit nuts, Perry can't delete his "Oops" moment and the parallels to Bush 43, Bachmann can't get rid of her "crazy eyes" or her gender,Huntsman can't pretend he doesn't despise the base, and Santorum can't erase his statements on gays from Google or suddenly find some gravitas.
Anyone who doesn't accept the doomed reality of the "Not Romneys" is simply either ignorant of the modern realities of presidential politics or just delusional.
Romney might lose too, but at least the conclusion is not yet written in stone.
And since Mr. Hawkins gave seven reasons why Romney's electability is a myth, in the spirit of conservative cooperation I offer the seven most underrated reasons that Romney is indeed the most electable Republican presidential candidate.
The Mormon vote will help him in Nevada, which is a key state in Obama's "272" Electoral College strategy.
He has by far the best chance of winning New Hampshire, which would turn the "272" scenario into a tie (assuming a loss in Nevada) and a probable victory.
His family roots in Michigan give him by far the best opportunity to take this state which would kill almost any path for Obama to get to 270 Electoral College votes.
He is actually a great general election debater because he is smart, quick and not likely to say anything stupid that the media can use to destroy him.
Women like him and not just because of his hair and voice.
The "flip flop" charge, while true, will not be very effective against him because it will require liberals to attack him for really being a...liberal.
Americans do not tend to hold a person's wealth against them when it comes to running for high office, especially when they think that person might help them get a job.
Romney is hardly a perfect conservative candidate and it is becoming increasingly clear that no such person will ever again exist without being pulverized by the media. However, Republicans can and have done far worse than Mitt Romney as their presidential candidate. It is time to realize he is by far the best shot we have of avoiding four more years of Obama.
John Ziegler is a documentary filmmaker/commentator who is most well known for his movie "Media Malpractice...How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted."
Source-The Conservative pundit.net: Tricia Erickson
Mitt Romney Is A Devout Member Of A Historically Racist Church
Contributor/Author: Tricia Erickson, author “Can Mitt Romney Serve Two Masters?” http://rwnetwork.net/Tricia_Erickson
During Barack Obama’s 2008 Presidential Campaign, the Trinity United Church of Christ and its controversial pastor, Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, were frequent topics of discussion on the national news. Commentators from several national talk shows referred to Barack’s church doctrine and teachings as disturbing, alarming, separatist and, in some cases, cult like.
How ironic that it was reasonable to scrutinize Barack Obama’s beliefs, church membership and church doctrine, but it is now not acceptable to do the same with the possible front GOP runner for 2012. It is astonishing that the beliefs of this devout Mormon, Mitt Romney, have not come in to play now that the tables have turned.
Before I go in to just one of the scores of outrageous and alarming historical Mormon doctrines and beliefs, it is important for Americans to know that Mitt is no casual Mormon. He is a temple recommend card carrying Mormon, whose positions and activities in the church leave no doubt that he is a devout follower of Mormon doctrine.
Mitt Romney was:
- A graduate of Brigham Young University
- A former Mormon Missionary (served a 2 year mission in France in which he received almost three Vietnam War draft deferments)
- Missionary Zone leader (promotion)
- Assistant to the Mission President (promotion)
- A Bishop of the Mormon Church
- A Stake President (presided over approximately 12 Mormon wards/churches in Boston)
- Married in the secret Mormon Temple and Endowment Ceremony
- More…..
Being a member of this church testifies to the authenticity of all Mormon Doctrine because the doctrine comes from the founders and former and present prophets of the church. The Book of Mormon and the prophets are “infallible” and their words are considered to be scripture. The following are just a few of the numerous racist teachings of the Mormon Church:
The Book of Mormon, “the most correct book”, even more correct than the bible, accuses God of cursing Africans and Native Americans in the following passages of 2nd Nephi Chapter 5:
21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathesome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities. 23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.
In the (Mormon) Journal of Discourses, Mormon Prophet Brigham Young adds emphasis in the following statement:
“Classes of the human family that are black uncouth uncomely disagreeable and low in their habits wild and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind the first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings this was not to be and the lord put a mark upon him which is the flat nose and black skin trace mankind down to after the flood and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race that they should be the 11 servant of servants and they will be until that curse is removed and the abolitionists cannot help it nor in the least alter that decree how long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them that curse will remain upon them”
“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain the penalty under the law of God is death on the spot.”
Also, according Mormon Doctrine, Native American Indians were also of the class of the cursed because their skin was also a darker color. These horrible, prejudicial beliefs are reiterated again and again in the Book of Mormon, found in the books of Alma, Mormon and Nephi as quoted below, directly from their teachings:
Alma 3:6 “And the skins of the Lamanites (Native American Indians) were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men”
Mormon 5: 15 “And also that the seed of this people may more fully believe his gospel, which shall go forth unto them from the Gentiles; for this people shall be scattered, and shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been amongst us, yea, even that which hath been among the Lamanites, and this because of their unbelief and idolatry.”
Jews: Church Prophet Brigham Young said that his word was to be upheld as scripture; therefore we can see the dangers in the words of a man who clearly had a heart filled with hate.
“I would rather undertake to convert five thousand Lamanites [Native Americans], than to convert one of those poor miserable creatures [Jews] whose fathers killed the savior…. Yes, I would rather undertake to CONVERT THE DEVIL HIMSELF, if it were possible. …I would say, leave them, and come home, the lord does not require you to stay there, for they must suffer and be damned. …[l]eavethem to live and die in their sins and ignorance. …[t]hey take pleasure in their wickedness.…” (Mormon Journal of Discourses)
I have given you just a few of the many historical doctrines of racial hate that comes from this horribly flawed and false religion that, because of its effective public relations efforts, comes across to the American people as just another “Christian” Church.
In 1978, Mormon prophet Spencer W. Kimball had a prophetic “revelation” that blacks could gain entrance to the priesthood. How convenient that this revelation coincided with the building pressure of the NAACP holding an anti discrimination march on Salt Lake City, followed by the filing of a federal law suit for barring blacks from holding positions of authority within the Mormon scout troops.
I think that Mitt Romney needs to explain why he would be such a prominent and faithful member of this historically racist church. And while I am certainly not a fan of Barack Obama, I think fair play is in order here to be, as the press would say, “Fair and Balanced”.
Author-Tricia Erickson
Newt Gingrich Town Hall Meeting today....
Contributor/Author: Tricia Erickson, author “Can Mitt Romney Serve Two Masters?” http://rwnetwork.net/Tricia_Erickson
During Barack Obama’s 2008 Presidential Campaign, the Trinity United Church of Christ and its controversial pastor, Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, were frequent topics of discussion on the national news. Commentators from several national talk shows referred to Barack’s church doctrine and teachings as disturbing, alarming, separatist and, in some cases, cult like.
How ironic that it was reasonable to scrutinize Barack Obama’s beliefs, church membership and church doctrine, but it is now not acceptable to do the same with the possible front GOP runner for 2012. It is astonishing that the beliefs of this devout Mormon, Mitt Romney, have not come in to play now that the tables have turned.
Before I go in to just one of the scores of outrageous and alarming historical Mormon doctrines and beliefs, it is important for Americans to know that Mitt is no casual Mormon. He is a temple recommend card carrying Mormon, whose positions and activities in the church leave no doubt that he is a devout follower of Mormon doctrine.
Mitt Romney was:
- A graduate of Brigham Young University
- A former Mormon Missionary (served a 2 year mission in France in which he received almost three Vietnam War draft deferments)
- Missionary Zone leader (promotion)
- Assistant to the Mission President (promotion)
- A Bishop of the Mormon Church
- A Stake President (presided over approximately 12 Mormon wards/churches in Boston)
- Married in the secret Mormon Temple and Endowment Ceremony
- More…..
Being a member of this church testifies to the authenticity of all Mormon Doctrine because the doctrine comes from the founders and former and present prophets of the church. The Book of Mormon and the prophets are “infallible” and their words are considered to be scripture. The following are just a few of the numerous racist teachings of the Mormon Church:
The Book of Mormon, “the most correct book”, even more correct than the bible, accuses God of cursing Africans and Native Americans in the following passages of 2nd Nephi Chapter 5:
21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathesome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities. 23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.
In the (Mormon) Journal of Discourses, Mormon Prophet Brigham Young adds emphasis in the following statement:
“Classes of the human family that are black uncouth uncomely disagreeable and low in their habits wild and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind the first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings this was not to be and the lord put a mark upon him which is the flat nose and black skin trace mankind down to after the flood and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race that they should be the 11 servant of servants and they will be until that curse is removed and the abolitionists cannot help it nor in the least alter that decree how long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them that curse will remain upon them”
“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain the penalty under the law of God is death on the spot.”
Also, according Mormon Doctrine, Native American Indians were also of the class of the cursed because their skin was also a darker color. These horrible, prejudicial beliefs are reiterated again and again in the Book of Mormon, found in the books of Alma, Mormon and Nephi as quoted below, directly from their teachings:
Alma 3:6 “And the skins of the Lamanites (Native American Indians) were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men”
Mormon 5: 15 “And also that the seed of this people may more fully believe his gospel, which shall go forth unto them from the Gentiles; for this people shall be scattered, and shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been amongst us, yea, even that which hath been among the Lamanites, and this because of their unbelief and idolatry.”
Jews: Church Prophet Brigham Young said that his word was to be upheld as scripture; therefore we can see the dangers in the words of a man who clearly had a heart filled with hate.
“I would rather undertake to convert five thousand Lamanites [Native Americans], than to convert one of those poor miserable creatures [Jews] whose fathers killed the savior…. Yes, I would rather undertake to CONVERT THE DEVIL HIMSELF, if it were possible. …I would say, leave them, and come home, the lord does not require you to stay there, for they must suffer and be damned. …[l]eavethem to live and die in their sins and ignorance. …[t]hey take pleasure in their wickedness.…” (Mormon Journal of Discourses)
I have given you just a few of the many historical doctrines of racial hate that comes from this horribly flawed and false religion that, because of its effective public relations efforts, comes across to the American people as just another “Christian” Church.
In 1978, Mormon prophet Spencer W. Kimball had a prophetic “revelation” that blacks could gain entrance to the priesthood. How convenient that this revelation coincided with the building pressure of the NAACP holding an anti discrimination march on Salt Lake City, followed by the filing of a federal law suit for barring blacks from holding positions of authority within the Mormon scout troops.
I think that Mitt Romney needs to explain why he would be such a prominent and faithful member of this historically racist church. And while I am certainly not a fan of Barack Obama, I think fair play is in order here to be, as the press would say, “Fair and Balanced”.
Author-Tricia Erickson
Newt Gingrich Town Hall Meeting today....
Source-CSPAN.com Newt Gingrich town hall meeting Mason City Iowa(Video)
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Newt Gingrich continued his push through Iowa as that state's caucus is just days away. After a quick rise in the polls earlier this month the former House Speaker is now competing closely with Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. He stopped at the Southbridge Mall in Mason City, Iowa to speak to voters.
Mason City is about two hours north of the capital Des Moines. The Iowa Republican caucuses for President are scheduled for next Tuesday January 3rd.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Newt Gingrich continued his push through Iowa as that state's caucus is just days away. After a quick rise in the polls earlier this month the former House Speaker is now competing closely with Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. He stopped at the Southbridge Mall in Mason City, Iowa to speak to voters.
Mason City is about two hours north of the capital Des Moines. The Iowa Republican caucuses for President are scheduled for next Tuesday January 3rd.
0 comments:
Post a Comment