Tag Archives: Surge

News

Evangelicals in Iowa rally to Rick Santorum, pushing him into 3rd place

1 Comment

The leftist Washington Post reports.

Excerpt:

The CNN/Opinion Research poll released this week showed Santorum moving into third place in Iowa at 16 percent.

[…]The poll showed Santorum taking 22 percent of born-again Christians, moving him into first place among that group. And if he can make other born-agains believe that he’s the one viable alternative to Romney and Paul, then maybe he can create enough of a rallying effect to unite evangelicals behind his campaign.

“That bandwagon effect at the end can be very powerful in moving numbers dramatically in the last five days,” said former Iowa Republican Party chairman Steve Grubbs, pointing to Huckabee’s win.

There’s also the fact that many voters are receptive to Santorum; other polling has suggested he is a popular second-choice pick.

That suggests voters want to vote for Santorum, but perhaps didn’t see him as someone who could actually win. But if they now see him as a viable option, maybe they move into his camp.

“So it means he still has upside — beyond evangelicals but certainly including them,” said Nick Ryan, the founder of the pro-Santorum super PAC that is current running a quarter-million dollars worth of ads in the Hawkeye State.

The problem, though, is that Santorum is running against two other lower-tier candidates — Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann — who have significant appeal to evangelicals as well. And they aren’t so far behind Santorum (they take 11 percent and 9 percent, respectively) that they wouldn’t also appear to be viable options.

[…]For either Perry or Bachmann, finishing behind Santorum in Iowa likely means the end of their campaign, and that means that Santorum is going to have to work at stealing their supporters.

But at least for now, it appears that he has a genuine opportunity to steal votes from a large pool of voters that doesn’t like either of the two frontrunners.

And given the topsy-turvy nature of the race in Iowa, it isn’t out of the question to think he he could pick up enough votes to win.

Let’s confirm Santorum’s surging poll numbers with this Fox News article.

Excerpt:

After a poll Wednesday showed Santorum suddenly moving into third position in Iowa, a Rasmussen Reports survey released Thursday showed the same line-up. The poll showed Mitt Romney and Ron Paul in a dead heat, with 23 and 22 percent respectively, and Santorum in third with 16 percent.

In a troubling sign for Newt Gingrich, the same survey showed the ex-House speaker tied for fourth with Rick Perry.

The polls nationally and in Iowa have been notoriously fickle this season, and the shape of the race just five days out is no guarantee of any particular outcome on caucus day. Also, national polling continues to show Santorum in the low single digits, leading only former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman.

Just to be clear, if you are a pure social conservative, there here is the candidate ranking for you:

  1. Rick Santorum (Persuasive, Good positions, legislative record, voting record)
  2. Michele Bachmann (Good positions, legislative record, voting record)
  3. Newt Gingrich (Good positions, voting record)
  4. Rick Perry (Good positions, legislative record)
  5. John Huntsman  (Pro-life, pro-gay-rights)
  6. Ron Paul (effectively pro-abortion, effectively pro-gay-marriage)
  7. Mitt Romney (Record is pro-abortion, pro-gay-rights)

Santorum gets the edge over Bachmann because he is more persuasive on abortion and marriage – he actually tries to convince people who don’t agree with him. They both take the right positions and have good records of activism, but Santorum is a social conservative apologist. Social conservatives should not vote for anyone other than Bachmann or Santorum. Perry would be the lowest I would go when everything is factored in.

News

In 2007 Obama preferred genocide in Iraq to victory in Iraq

3 Comments

Here’s the interview from USA Today. (H/T Gateway Pundit)

Excerpt:

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

[…]Obama, a first-term senator from Illinois, said it’s likely there would be increased bloodshed if U.S. forces left Iraq.

“Nobody is proposing we leave precipitously. There are still going to be U.S. forces in the region that could intercede, with an international force, on an emergency basis,” Obama said between stops on the first of two days scheduled on the New Hampshire campaign trail. “There’s no doubt there are risks of increased bloodshed in Iraq without a continuing U.S. presence there.”

The greater risk is staying in Iraq, Obama said.

“It is my assessment that those risks are even greater if we continue to occupy Iraq and serve as a magnet for not only terrorist activity but also irresponsible behavior by Iraqi factions,” he said.

The senator has been a fierce critic of the war in Iraq, speaking out against it even before he was elected to his post in 2004. He was among the senators who tried unsuccessfully earlier this week to force President Bush’s hand and begin to limit the role of U.S. forces there.

“We have not lost a military battle in Iraq. So when people say if we leave, we will lose, they’re asking the wrong question,” he said. “We cannot achieve a stable Iraq with a military. We could be fighting there for the next decade.”

Gateway Pundit adds:

Tonight, when Barack Obama takes credit for the success in Iraq, for a surge that he opposed and for a withdrawal that was agreed upon before he came into office, don’t forget that this president also suggested that genocide would be a better option than victory.

Bush is for victory and liberating Iraqis from a dictator, Obama is for retreat and increased bloodshed. His own words. You don’t learn about war by being a community organizer, teaching people in ACORN how to shake down banks. (ACORN is now being tried for voter fraud, as well). You learn about war by being in the Navy and by listening to generals on the battlefield.

But wasn’t the war in Iraq expensive?

Eight years of war in Iraq cost less than Obama’s job-killing stimulus bill.

Look:

Democrats controlled the House and Senate in January 2007
Democrats controlled the House and Senate in January 2007

And read:

As President Obama prepares to tie a bow on U.S. combat operations in Iraq, Congressional Budget Office numbers show that the total cost of the eight-year war was less than the stimulus bill passed by the Democratic-led Congress in 2009.

According to CBO numbers in its Budget and Economic Outlook published this month, the cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom was $709 billion for military and related activities, including training of Iraqi forces and diplomatic operations.

The projected cost of the stimulus, which passed in February 2009, and is expected to have a shelf life of two years, was $862 billion.

And don’t forget that the Democrats blamed Bush for not regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when videos show them blocking Bush from regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I think that a 5% unemployment rate under Bush is better than a 10% unemployment rate under Obama. It doesn’t matter which of them sounds nicer in speeches – the only thing that matters is facts and results. When government spends too much money, they either have to increase inflation by printing money, or raise taxes. Both take purchasing power away from businesses and investors. Taking money from businesses and investors means fewer jobs. Period.