Video: Rick Santorum's 'Victory' Speech

Yeah, he came in second place - by eight votes - but he wasn't expected to be in the top five just two weeks ago. This was an energetic speech that started out with two words:

'GAME ON'

Via Fox News:

Santorum Shocks in Iowa: Comes in Second

The bad news for Rick Santorum supporters is... well there really isn't any but if there was, it would be that he missed winning the Iowa caucus by eight measly votes to Mitt Romney. Two weeks ago, however, Santorum was all but written off. The good news, aside from getting the majority of conservative votes in that state, might just be that he didn't win Iowa.

When it comes to winning the Presidency, Republicans who do so after winning the Iowa caucus are almost considered rare. In fact, according to Russ J. Alan at Renew America, the winner of the Iowa caucus is unlikely to win the nomination and, if he does, won't win presidency.

History since 1976 has shown us that if the candidate is not the incumbent president, unless the incumbent President is serving his second term, if the said candidate wins the Iowa Caucus for his party, he USUALLY does not win his party's nomination but NEVER becomes President of the United States. 

Since 1976, only two candidates who won the Iowa Caucus for their parties ever became the President of the United States. They were George W. Bush in 2000, and Barack Obama in 2008; however, had either of the incumbent presidents, Bill Clinton or President Bush, respectively, not been serving their second terms, neither Candidate Bush nor Barack Obama would have won their general elections for the President of the United States, history shows.

More good news for Santorum might just be that as the results came in, Rick Perry appeared to indicate that he could likely be dropping out (he said his campaign was going back to Texas to 'assess'). The majority of his votes are likely to go to the 'not-Romney' candidate, which is shaping up to be Santorum in this very fluid primary season.

Bachmann came in last place, if you don't count Jon Huntsman, who all but thumbed his nose at Iowa. Like Perry, if she drops out, most of her votes are likely to go to Santorum. Gingrich, who came in fourth place in Iowa, had very kind words for Santorum as he spoke to the crowd. He had equally angry words for Mitt Romney and seemed to indicate that the former Massachusetts governor will be Gingrich's target in New Hampshire; this will only benefit Santorum. If this race comes down to Romney, Santorum, and Paul, look for Gingrich to put his support behind the former Pennsylvania Senator.

Alan sums up why Santorum might have benefited by coming in second place.

Conclusion: 

Got a favorite in the Republican Primary that you'd like to see in the White House? Pray that she or he loses the Iowa Republican Caucus. Then she or he will have a shot at winning the general election for the President of the United States — history shows.

Check out what happens to Iowa caucus winners.

Newt Gingrich: 'I'm an Amateur Paleontologist'

At a campaign stop in Iowa, Newt Gingrich was asked a question about his position on global warming / climate change. Newt insisted he has never supported Cap and Trade and cites his testimony on Capitol Hill right after Al Gore. The confusing message he sent by sitting on a love seat with Nancy Pelosi in an ad to fight 'climate change' notwithstanding, Newt has now referred to himself as 'an amateur paleontologist.'

Uh, maybe political schizophrenic is a bit more like it.

Via MediaIte:

Catholic Online: Santorum Surprise in Iowa?

There is no question that Rick Santorum is surging in Iowa as a consequence of Newt's fall. The former is the only Tea Party-minded candidate whose tires have yet to be kicked. This race will boil down to three entities. Establishment vs. Kook vs. anti-Establishment.

Romney has the establishment vote locked up
Paul has the Kook vote locked up.
Perry, Bachmann, Gingrich, and Santorum are all fighting for that anti-Establishment vote

Perry is, as they say, all hat and no cattle. The gap between his rhetoric and how he governs is cavernous. Bachmann has already risen and fallen; she has peaked and a significant portion of her votes seem to have gone to Santorum at this point. Besides, it would be nice to see her remain a powerful force in Congress. Gingrich has a problem similar to Perry in that his liberal side isn't just glistening; it's blinding.

Catholic Online highlights Santorum's bonafides:



More at Catholic Online, h/t Free Republic

Video: Iowa Coffee Shop Owner Kicks OWS'rs Out of her Store

Here is another microcosm of the misdirected anger of the OWS crowd. When they protest 'too big to fail' and big bank bailouts, even the Tea Party agrees. However, when one of their ranks rudely invades a small business owner's coffee shop in Iowa to demonize her as being part of the one percent, it's over the line and is more than juts a little indicative of the insane nature at the group's core.

Isn't it something how this hard-working coffee shop owner is harassed while 25 celebrities worth a total of $4.1 Billion are revered by the movement?

I'm willing to bet that the gray-haired dude in the red shirt either has a government job, belongs to a union,  or is otherwise living off someone else's hard work.

Via Breitbart:

Video: Santorum Rips Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter's fervor for Mitt Romney may be getting the best of her. She recently went after Rick Santorum for voting against e-verify but what she didn't say is why he did it.

Via American Spectator:

Arguing on behalf of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in her syndicated column Wednesday, Coulter portrayed Santorum as soft on illegal immigration, citing his vote against the so-called "E-Verify" measure to provide automatic electronic verification of workers' immigration status. But Santorum said that he voted against "E-Verify" in 2006 because it was part of a measure sponsored by John McCain and Ted Kennedy that would have provided amnesty to illegals.

At an Iowa campaign stop, Santorum was asked to respond to Coulter's attack and smacked her down in about 30 seconds:

"Why would Ann Coulter criticize me for voting against the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill? I mean, Ann, should I have voted for amnesty? Should I have voted for comprehensive immigration reform? Because if that's what you're saying, then, doesn't sound like you're the real conservative here. I think when Jim DeMint and every conservative in the United States Senate voted against the McCain-Kennedy bill -- yes, we voted against E-Verify, but we voted against a pretty bad bill that I think, at least you said you were against."

Here is the video of Santorum via the Other McCain, responding to the question about Coulter's charge. You actually have to fast forward to the 4:45 mark to hear it though.

Coulter may have hurt her cause here, not by going after Santorum but by evoking this kind of haymaker from the former Pennsylvania Senator.

As they say in football, after a QB throws a bad pass that is intercepted, I'm sure she'd like to have that one back.

Video: OWS Protesters Arrested in Iowa

Again, check out the comments on my December 5th post about OWS plans to disrupt the Iowa caucus. Obviously, Occupy Iowa protesters objected to the claim, insisting that there would be no disruptions. Just as predictably obvious, however, is that they were being less than truthful.

As I've said, if these miscreants decide to alter the outcome of the January 3rd caucus with these antics, they will be perilously close to mirroring what the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) did in Philadelphia on election day, 2008.

Via Verum Serum:



Remember this? Different tactics, same objective - intimidation of voters.

CNN Poll has Santorum ahead of Gingrich in Iowa

Yeah, it's a CNN poll but Santorum has been waiting for a bone to be thrown to him for quite some time now. If Gingrich's warts continue to reveal themselves on a near daily basis, this may just be indicative of a trend we can expect. In any case, Santorum's momentum is going in the right direction less than one week before Caucus day in Iowa.

Via CNN:

A new survey of people likely to attend Iowa's Republican caucuses indicates that the former House speaker's support in the Hawkeye State is plunging. And according to a CNN/Time/ORC International Poll, one-time long shot candidate Rick Santorum has more than tripled his support since the beginning of the month.

Twenty-five percent of people questioned say if the caucuses were held today, they'd most likely back Mitt Romney, with 22% saying they'd support Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. Romney's three point margin is within the poll's sampling error.

The poll's Wednesday release comes six days before Iowa's January 3 caucuses, which kickoff the presidential primary and caucus calendar. The Iowa caucuses are followed one week later by the New Hampshire primary.

As Byron York Reports, a significant percentage of Paul's support is coming not from Republicans but from Democrats and Independents. In theory, among Republican voters - according to this poll - Santorum may be Romney's next challenger.

In Iowa, both Romney and Paul are each up five points among likely caucus goers from a CNN/Time/ORC poll conducted at the start of December. The new survey indicates that Santorum, the former senator from Pennsylvania, is at 16% support, up 11 points from the beginning of the month, with Gingrich at 14%, down from 33% in the previous poll. Since Gingrich's rise late last month and early this month in both national and early voting state surveys, he's come under attack by many of the rival campaigns. 

'Conventional' wisdom at both Hot Air and and Erick Erickson at Red State says that this news benefits Romney because Santorum has no money or real organization. Frankly, this defeatist attitude among conservatives is wearing thin. Then again, Erickson recently threw all of his chips into the 'elect Gingrich' movement so his reticence to see a path to victory for Santorum could be slightly misguided.

The fact remains, there has never been a primary season like this one. That conventional wisdom everyone would like to follow was rendered meaningless some time ago.

Santorum may be a distant memory one month from now. He may also be the frontrunner. Anyone who tells you they know which it will be, is guessing.

That said, if you're a conservative, revel in this news as long as you can because it's about to change.

More at Hot Air

OWS Planning to Disrupt Iowa Caucus Events

Back on December 5th, I posted about the plans of OWS protesters to disrupt the Iowa caucus. I encourage you to check out some of the comments. Practically every post (maybe all) accuse me of posting false information, that there are not going to be any protests or disruptions.

Uh, yeah right. It's so easy to prove liberals wrong.

From the AP via Daily Caller:

Now, to the dismay of Iowa Republicans, Occupy activists in Des Moines are vowing to expand their protests as GOP presidential hopefuls converge on the state that speaks first in the race for the party’s presidential nomination.

“The 99 percent have woken up and we’re not going to take it anymore,” Occupy activist Stephen Toothman, of Des Moines, said as an advance guard met Tuesday to decide which candidates to target in the coming week.

Hundreds of Occupy activists from at least 10 states were expected to participate in a “People’s Caucus” near the Capitol to plot activities between now and the Jan. 3 caucuses. The activists are promising to interrupt candidates at events and camp out at their Iowa campaign offices. They say they want to change the political dialogue, but critics fear their tactics could tarnish Iowa’s reputation for civil political discourse ahead of the contest. Activists say mass arrests are possible.

For those not inclined to invest much stock in what the OWS whackos say, be sure to check out Occupy Oakland protester Sean O'Brien. He seems to be calling for outright violence, saying that moral considerations should not factor into the equation. Instead, it should all be about effectiveness.

Be on the lookout for OWS disruptions in Iowa.

Then again, maybe they're just going to show up to vote for Ron Paul.

Video: Iowa Radio Host Punks Chris Matthews on Television

If your name is Chris Matthews, this went downhill very fast. After introducing WHO talk show host Simon Conway, who was in the middle of doing his own show, the MSNBC host immediately got  defensive after being greeted as a 'Democrat.' Matthews didn't like the label and attempted to get Conway to identify himself as a Republican.

As Matthews gets increasingly agitated, Conway gets a bigger smile. The best part comes at the end of this clip when Conway accuses Matthews of 'working for the reelection of Barack Obama.' It's the truth and Matthews couldn't deny it but he also doesn't admit it. The charge, though, prompted Matthews to then ask who Conway is working toward getting elected. Conway responded that he's trying to get a conservative elected.

Watch this exchange between a liberal who likes to be perceived as something he's not and a conservative, proud to declare what he is.

Via NewsBusters:

Romney Going for the Muslim Vote

It appears we may have our clearest line of distinction between Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. The former went on Jewish TV and said the Palestinians are an 'invented people.' At about the same time, Romney, a Michigan native, asserted that Islam is not inherently violent.

Via the Des Moines Register:

Mitt Romney responded today to a call for a tougher stance against Muslims by saying that most Muslims are peaceful people who deserve respect. 

The issue came up during a question-and-answer session at a campaign stop here this morning. A man rose from the audience, claimed he had many Muslim friends, but said, “I have never heard one Muslim condemn Islamic jihad or terrorism. I see Islamic jihad as one of the greatest threats to America and the western world. Are you going to continue to give Islam and Islamic jihad in this country a pass like everybody before you continues to do? The only people that call Islam a religion of peace are the Muslims, and they are the most violent religion in the world.”

Something tells me that if it comes down to Newt and Romney, Rep. Allen West will get behind Newt.

h/t Weasel Zippers

Occupy Des Moines to Occupy Iowa Caucus

The Occupy movement should be put on notice here. By planning to disrupt the Iowa Caucus, they are coming precariously close to doing there what the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) did in Philadelphia on election day in 2008; they are planning to disrupt an electoral process.

Election law experts are obviously better qualified to clarify how OWS would be in violation of election laws but with OWS telegraphing its intentions one month out, no one should be caught flat-footed.

Again, the group Obama supports through overt silence and sympathy.



h/t Hapblog

Video: Does Michele Bachmann Agree with Impeaching Obama?

It will be very interesting to see what this does to Michele Bachmann's poll numbers because if it helps her, it ups the ante for the other candidates. While meeting with voters in Iowa after a stump speech, a man she was talking with brought up the issue of impeaching Obama. Bachmann said that she agreed. Her campaign team is apparently already trying to back away from her comments. This may not be the best course of action for a few reasons.

First, she said it. She should stand by it. If members of the Tea Party who agree with the sentiment see her back away, they may become a bit disenfranchised with her as a candidate. She needs the opposite right now.

Second, with her sagging poll numbers, she needs to take a few more rhetorical chances. Perry did that early on and it helped him greatly.

Third, whether team Bachmann likes it or not, there is a significant contingent within the voting bloc whose support she seeks, that wants Obama impeached. If she goes on record as rejecting those concerns after appearing to have expressed support for them, it could lose her votes, instead of keeping her in the game.

Conversely, if she is going to stand by the comments - which she should - she needs to put forth solid, credible reasons why Obama should be impeached. If she were able to do that, she would probably take some of Cain's support away.

VIa MediaIte:

Video: Sarah Palin's Iowa Speech with the MediaIte Spin

The MediaIte website has done a good job of being a reasonable leftwing site. As far as the left goes, they do a good job over there when it comes to attempts at objectivity. However, Frances Martel's commentary about Sarah Palin's speech in Indianola, Iowa yesterday clearly showed the bias. One of the commenters predictably twisted Palin's words to paint her as a hypocrite when she said that she wasn't 'for sale,' unlike those crony capitalists. Not to worry though. Other commenters set Nacho_II straight.

Here is the pathetic line in Martel's commentary:

She (Palin) told the crowd that the President had “awakened a sleeping America,” and that while the nation was “about the lose the blessing of liberty and prosperity,” the “working people of this country… got up off the couch” (from which they were presumably working) to take back the country.

That's a ridiculous leap. Hey Francis, what do a lot of people do when they get home from work? Palin was clearly pointing out that instead of watching 'Dancing with the Stars,' people were getting involved. LAME, Frances. Lame.

Anyway, here's Palin's speech in two parts via MediaIte:

Part 1



Part 2

Video: Obama gets Earful from Tea Party Member in Iowa Audience

There was a time when Barack Obama represented the angry masses who had a problem with the establishment. While conducting a town hall in Iowa this week, he found himself to be the figurehead of the establishment, on the other end of an exchange with a man who represents an angry constituency - the Tea Party. First up, the video. As Obama was wrapping up his Q&A by seeking out the person who would ask the last question, Ryan Rhodes, a Tea Party activist stood up and shouted the same question multiple times:

"How can you bring people together when your VP called the Tea Party 'terrorists'?"

Though you can't hear the question being asked, you can hear Obama's responses as he tries to ignore Rhodes in favor of another questioner. It doesn't work. Rhodes continues to ask the question until he gets Obama to react. It carried the ring of a Saul Alinsky tactic being used against the president.

According to Alinsky, the main job of the organizer is to bait an opponent into reacting. “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.”

Rhodes got Obama to react by comparing any charge that the Tea Party might have been called 'terrorists' to charges that he (Obama) had been called a 'socialist' who wasn't born in the US.

Via Breitbart:



You'll note that Obama said he would talk with the man one on one afterward. According to Fox News, it was difficult to hear what was said between Obama and Rhodes but they did seem to capture the tenor of the discussion:

In an interview later with Fox News, Rhodes claimed that the president had insisted that Biden had not made the original comment.

“He just denied it. He said the vice president didn't make any of those assertions,” Rhodes said. “If he doesn’t want to even admit what was on TV nationally -- all over the place -- then how can you have a conversation?”

Rhodes added that Obama brushed him aside. “Then he said, ‘We can't have a conversation because you're saying I called you a terrorist,’” recalled Rhodes. “The fact is it demonstrates the deep divide that he is unwilling to negotiate without going after the other side. The whole day was about going after Republicans and talking about how unreasonable they are.”

Note that Rhodes focused on one item exclusively. There are countless problems the Tea Party has with Obama but Rhodes picked one and hammered on it until he finally got a reaction. That reaction was, in effect, one that insinuated that because the president is called names, it's ok for his administration to call people names. Uh, someone needs to tell Obama that's not presidential.

h/t Weasel Zippers