McCain-2008-Oppo-File-on-Romney

January 4, 2:36 am (CST):  Well, the votes have been tallied and posted …

1) Mitt Romney – 30,015 votes (24.6%)

2) Rick Santorum – 30,007 votes (24.5%)

Mitt Romney spent some money in Iowa, but Santorum ran an effective ground game. For all practical purposes, they tied for 1st place, but since we don’t like ties, the win goes to Mitt Romney by 8 votes.

3) Ron Paul – 26,219 votes (21.4%)

Ron Paul’s supporters developed a strategy of bringing in Democrats and Independents in a cross-over effort. In Iowa, caucus goer’s declare a political party as they enter the caucus. As such, his was essentially an effort to hijack the results. His campaign almost pulled it off, but in the end the best they could do was a strong 3rd place showing.

4) Newt Gingrich – 16,251 votes (13.3%)

Newt Gingrich, in spite of a recent surge in the polling, struggled to bring in a 4th place showing. Although not a strong finish which would have been preferred, he none-the-less heads to South Carolina (January 21) leading the polling and still a contender.  Mitt Romney is expected to sweep New Hampshire next week, but the 2nd place finish is the prize there. Right now, Paul has the edge in polling there, but Gingrich is a contender for 3rd.

5) Rick Perry – 12,604 votes (10.3%)

Rick Perry did not get much of a return for his dollar investment in Iowa. He is not expected to do well in New Hampshire either, so his hopes lie with Gingrich in South Carolina.  However, he is polling very poorly even there. Unless something dramatic happens over the next few weeks, Perry is no longer a contender.

6) Michele Bachmann – 6,073 votes (5%)

7) Jon Huntsman – 745 votes (0.6%)

For Bachmann and Huntsman, it is over. Time to pack up and call it day.

Update January 3, 8:52 am (CST): The Des Moines Register has a complete guide to the Caucuses and how they work.

Update 11:43(CST): And Donald Trump Has some strong feelings about Ron Paul in Iowa ….

On the eve of the Iowa Caucuses I wanted to start a post in preparation for the first ”poll” that counts in the 2012 Election cycle. It has been something of a roller-coaster ride over the past 6 months with first one candidate and then the other rising to the forefront. The only consistency has been the “anybody but Romney” mood. However, all of the polling has shown him to hold a consistent 20 – 25% of the vote and that may well be enough to give him a win in Iowa. Why? Because conservatives have failed to coalesce around a conservative alternative.

So, here are my picks for the nomination in order of personal preference along with my opinion of their chances tomorrow.

1) Rick Perry – Although Perry surged and peaked in Iowa at the end of October, his polling dropped during his dismal early debate performances to below 10%. However, he has in recent weeks shown a slight but steady rise in the polling to a statistical tie with Newt Gingrich for a 4th place finish.

2) Newt Gingrich – Gingrich peaked out the second week of December at 31%, but has since plummeted in the polls after weeks of intense negative advertising from the Romney and Ron Paul camps. Right now, it is a statistical heat between he and Santorum for 3rd place, or Perry for 5th place. He seems to be more inclined to push Santorum out of 3rd at this point if the last 3 polls are any indication.

I did entertain Santorum as my 3rd pick for awhile, but after hearing some of his remarks the past few days, I really can’t call him a preference. I can certainly support him, Bachmann or Huntsman as the nominee, but I really would rather not.

Iowa is really all about the ground game. The person with the best ground game wins, in spite of the polling. If polling is all that is considered, then either Romney or Paul (God help us) are poised to take the 1st and 2nd place wins tomorrow evening. Then it is on to New Hampshire where both Romney and Paul are positioned to take 1st and 2nd respectively. Not the most desirable outcomes, but we always have South Carolina to look forward to.

Looks like this was the season for the gift that keeps on giving ….

In the six days before Christmas, gun dealers submitted nearly half-a-million names for checks on criminal records and mental health issues, with 20% coming Dec. 23, according to news reports. That was the second-busiest gun-buying day in history, topped only by firearm purchases on Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving, The London Telegraph says.

Final tallies for the entire month haven’t been released, but December gun purchases will eclipse November. As of last week, 1,534,414 names had been sent to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, The New York Times reported in an editorial. About 1% of buyers are typically rejected, the paper said. – USA Today

Not sure why the increased interest in firearms, but definitely a growing segment of our economy.

These are large files and right-click, “save link as” will work best for you.
Northeastern United States (129 mb pdf)
Southeastern United States (111 mb pdf)

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Republican Primary voters, taken Monday night, finds Perry with 29% support. Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who ran unsuccessfully for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008, earns 18% of the vote, while Bachmann, the Minnesota congresswoman who won the high-profile Ames Straw Poll in Iowa on Saturday, picks up 13%.

Texas Congressman Ron Paul, who was a close second to Bachmann on Saturday, has the support of nine percent (9%) of Likely Primary Voters, followed by Georgia businessman Herman Cain at six percent (6%) and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich with five percent (5%). Rick Santorum, former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania, and ex-Utah Governor Jon Huntsman each get one percent (1%) support, while Michigan Congressman Thaddeus McCotter comes in statistically at zero.

via GOP Primary: Perry 29%, Romney 18%, Bachmann 13% – Rasmussen Reports™.

If any of these woefully inadequate candidates gets the Republican nomination and defeats Barack Obama, the only certainty for the subsequent four years will be more jihad, aided and abetted by shortsighted U.S. policies. – Spencer

Okay, lets examine that for a moment. Although President George Bush responded vigorously against radical Islam, he maintained a good relationship with the Muslim Community here in America. President Obama has continued the policies of President Bush and is alleged by many to be more pro-Islam than other Presidents. Yet there has been no great jihad slaughter here in the US, no loss of liberty except by the government itself in its “war on terror”.

The exact number of American casualties is difficult to calculate because of incomplete news reports regarding numbers and nationalities of those injured. The toll from the September 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center is also uncertain, but current figures place the number of dead above 3,000. The number of dead at the Pentagon and on the hijacked airliners numbered approximately 385. Since Yasser Arafat “renounced” violence in the Oslo Peace Accords on September 13, 1993, at least 53 Americans have been murdered and at least another 83 Americans have been injured by Palestinian terrorism. Excluding the September 11 attacks, approximately 700 Americans have been killed and 1,600 wounded in terrorist attacks since 1970. – Source

So around 4,000 Americans have been killed (not including war casualties) in Middle East terror-related incidents over the past 40 years. Compare that with ~325 homicide deaths in the US per DAY and any reasoned judgment would conclude that the odds of someone being killed by Islamic terrorism is very slight. When you do the math, the rate comes out to be 0.001 deaths per 100,000 per year. That compares to a rate of 6.1 deaths per 100,000 per year for homicide in the US (source CDC). The rate for car accidents, 14.6.  Darn, an American has a greater chance of dying from malnutrition (0.9) than at the hands of an Islamic terrorist!

Islam is the second largest religion in the world representing 22% of the worlds population. Christianity is the largest, representing 33%. In the US, the numbers are significantly different, with Christians accounting for 76% of the population and Muslims only 0.6%. Muslims are outnumbered 100 to 1! So why all the fear?

It most likely has to do with the fact that radical Islamic types tend to hide in the shadows and attempt to blend in. There is also an effort by many to blur the distinction between Islam and its radical cousin’s, Salafism and Wahhabism. The Al Qaeda terrorists are Muslims, but not all Muslims are Al Qaeda terrorists.

The fact is, every group and religion have had individuals who seek to exploit their subscribers beliefs in the pursuit of political power. Our founders understood that quite well and established a constitution which included a provision to protect future generations from such abuse. We call it the First Amendment. With it, there is no need for vilification of Shariah law or Islam. Our founding documents already protect us from the introduction of religious-based legal systems. One law applied equally among all citizens as adopted by representation of those same citizens.

So GOP candidates have no need to declare “opposition to Sharia”. They need to declare their loyalty to the Constitution of the United States, in particular the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

On this count, all of the candidates appear to be solid with perhaps one exception.

Herman Cain said he sides with those opposing the construction of a mosque in Tennessee because he fears the Muslims building the mosque have bad intentions and want to implement Sharia law.

“Our constitution guarantees separation of church and state,” said Cain, a contender for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. “Islam combines church and state. They are using the church part of our First Amendment to infuse their mosque in the community and people in the community don’t like it. They disagree with it. Sharia law is what they are trying to infuse.”

Herman Cain is dead wrong. The Catholic Church “combines church and state”, so should we ban Catholic Churches in America? Judaism “combines church and state”, so should we ban synagogues in America? Our constitution DOES NOT guarantee separation of church and state. It does however restrict government in “prohibiting the free exercise thereof“.

People like Herman Cain and Robert Spencer scare me more than any Al Qaeda terrorist. Why? Because my liberty as a Christian is only as secure as my neighbors liberty as a Muslim. Be careful what you wish for.

Click for larger version

Well, as it turns out, absolutely nothing. As a matter of fact, the actual article does not even mention Bachmann in its headline or story.

I’m not saying Time is biased against Bachmann, but these days many people (like me) monitor news feeds on RSS. Sounds a little like “priming the pump” for bloggers and “suggesting” an angle for people like the Daily Kos to use. But surely they would not do anything like that would they?

Click image for larger version

Now I can get excited about 2012 ….

DES MOINES — Gov. Rick Perry of Texas delivered a long-distance jolt to the Republican presidential campaign on Monday by signaling that he intends to join the race and visit South Carolina and New Hampshire on Saturday, the same day his rivals are battling for survival in the Iowa Straw Poll.

via Perry Signals Intent to Enter G.O.P. Campaign – NYTimes.com.