Santorum Owes Michele Bachmann an Apology

I’ve have not thought it necessary to repeat the stack of references that Pennsylvania Democrats have about Santorum’s unfortunate comments about women and gays.  Some come from a media  ignorance or antagonism of theology, a few are indefensible.  Like Mitt with Bain, Obama would overwhelm Santorum with statements like this one that would hamstring him to get his message out.

"...children's lives would be harmed if the nation had a female president" Jamie Johnson, Senior Santorum Advisor

OPINION, Jan. 14, 2012 /Christian Newswire/ -- Presidential candidate Senator Rick Santorum deployed a sexist strategy in IA. His IA Evangelical surrogates promoted the idea that a female cannot be an elected official or a commander-in-chief. The same Evangelical surrogates repeatedly called upon Rep. Michele Bachmann to withdraw from the race although she led the Senator and other male candidates in the polls. Bob Vander Plaats, CEO Family Leader and Santorum endorser, also, rejected two consensus votes in favor of Rep. Bachmann polled among Evangelical pastors at a meeting hosted by an organization close to the Family Leader. Home school parents circulated a treatise written in 2004 titled, "Should Christians support a female civil magistrate."

Further, the Des Moines Register ran a story on Friday, January 13, 2011 written by Jennifer Jacobs that published excerpts from an email written by the Senator's senior advisor, Jamie Johnson. Mr. Johnson sent out an email saying that "children's lives would be harmed if the nation had a female president". He continues, "The question then comes, 'Is it God's highest desire, that is, His biblically expressed will, ... to have a woman rule the institutions of the Family, the Church, and the State?'"

If the issue were "racism" or "anti-Semitics" I believe that Senator Santorum would terminate the staffer and apologize to Michele Bachmann. Sexism and misogyny require no less of an expeditious response.

The longer that the Senator takes to step up and apologize to Michele Bachmann, the guiltier he looks.

(Peter Waldron is the former National Faith Outreach Coordinator for Bachmann for President. He is based in Florida.)

As all 29 PolitiJim readers know, I am not on any side but (hopefully) that of objective truth.  I’ve been very hard on Bachmann who has been guilty of smearing other candidates as well, but there is no excuse for this. 

I was so happy to see Gingrich actually DO what he said he would, and condemn inaccurate ads being run on his behalf. 

I think Santorum is NOT a sexist and likely a very decent Christian guy. I also expect him to do what is right and continue to show integrity by denouncing this immediately.  It won’t change the certain juggernaut by the media to paint him as an “extreme” religious nut who wants to deprive women of the ability to think.

Comrade Obama?

By Capt. Fogg


I must disagree with Bill Maher that Rick Santorum thinks of gay sex more than a dildo salesman but only because Rick Santorum doesn't actually think, unless one defines that word very loosely. He doesn't remember things too well either and I say that in all generosity since one might interpret the things he says he remembers as outright lies. They aren't even up to date lies or original lies or good lies, yet there are always enough misinformed, low intelligence dung flingers in fatuously faith based America to believe them and make this country seem like the primate house at the world's largest zoo.

Take Santorum's tired repetition of John McCain's 2001 attempt to sell the embarrassingly ridiculous notion that President Obama wants to redistribute the nation's wealth in some Socialistic way, a bit like Jed Clampett arriving at the Royal Wedding in his beat up old truck . Coming from a Republican, whose party has engineered what might be one of the largest upward redistribution of wealth, that's already laughable but Mr. Rick seems to be the last man standing who is still driving that rusty jalopy -- the idea that Our president, beset by critics calling him a corporate whore and a sell-out to Wall Street is a radical socialist and perhaps a communist to boot. What Santorum claims to remember is that Obama supported a constitutional amendment to give your money to the poor ( read black people) when what the president really said in a 2001 interview was that the

"Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution. . .”

Essential constraints -- it sounds very little like a man who is deploring those constraints. Indeed when Obama said the court had limited itself to insuring that he could eat at a lunch counter as long as he could afford to pay for his lunch, only a stupid man who thinks other people are even more stupid would interpret, or should I say twist, this as a quote from the Communist Manifesto.

"In the interview, Obama went into extensive detail to explain why the courts should not get into that business of ‘redistributing’ wealth. Obama’s point — and what he called a tragedy — was that legal victories in the civil rights led too many people to rely on the courts to change society for the better. That view is shared by conservative judges and legal scholars across the country."

said Obama spokesman Bill Burton during the 2008 campaign. Certainly no development since then has given credibility to McCain's sad attempt or justification for Santorum's calumnies.

I'm finding it difficult, even without the waves of nausea and loathing, to accept that any candidate could have got as far as Santorum has without being laughed out of town as a cheap, incompetent liar and unscrupulous scoundrel. I can only blame the media ringmasters who continue to provide this charlatan with his own ring in this sad and tawdry circus we call a campaign. Have we forgotten that the purpose of news reporting is to sort truth from rumor, slander and lies? Perhaps we have and it's certainly been a long time since the news was anything but a way for big news corporations and their sponsors to make money. Perhaps we should stop making them richer by occupying Wall Street and start occupying CNN and Fox and the rest instead.


(Cross posted from Human Voices)

Gingrich chickens out on Romney/Bain, but "Armageddon" still on the way in South Carolina

By Michael J.W. Stickings 

What is it with Newt? For all his bluster, when push comes to shove, as they say, he backs down and collapses like a house of cards. We saw this when he referred to GOP wunderkind Paul Ryan's "radical" budget plan as "right-wing social engineering" and then, humbled and humiliated, came crawling back. And we're seeing it now as he's retreating from his recent comments about Mitt Romney's job-destroying tenure at Bain Capital:

Newt Gingrich signaled Wednesday that he believes his criticism of Mitt Romney's record at Bain Capital is a mistake — and that he’s created an impression that he was echoing Democratic rhetoric.

Gingrich conceded the problem when pressed by a Rick Santorum supporter at a book signing here Wednesday.

"I'm here to implore one thing of you. I think you've missed the target on the way you're addressing Romney's weaknesses. I want to beg you to redirect and go after his obvious disingenuousness about his conservatism and lay off the corporatist versus the free market. I think it's nuanced," said Dean Glossop, an Army Reservist from Inman, S.C.

"I agree with you," Gingrich said. "It's an impossible theme to talk about with Obama in the background. Obama just makes it impossible to talk rationally in that area because he is so deeply into class warfare that automatically you get an echo effect... I agree with you entirely.

The anti-Obama comment is ridiculous, of course. Obama has proven to be a middle-of-the-road technocrat, not a class warrior, and indeed a great deal of what he's done so far has been about rescuing capitalism from itself and otherwise trying to relieve some of the excesses around the edges. As for the rest of his response, Gingrich may just have been unwilling to be as blunt as he usually is when challenged face-to-face. But his point was never about corporatism or the free market, as if those two absolutes are the only options. Rather, it was about ethical capitalism (to the extent capitalism can ever really be called ethical) or unethical "vulture" capitalism (making money at all cost with no regard for the consequences).

But it's not clear how far he's willing to do, in either direction, and Newt seems to want to have it both ways. On the one hand, he doesn't want to come across as anti-capitalist, which is how anyone who dares say a bad word about capitalism comes across to conservatives, not least because he still has a highly profitable future as a leading conservative public figure but also because going too far could lose him valuable conservative support in South Carolina and, should he stay in the race, beyond. On the other hand, he sees a huge opening and wants to bring down Romney, whom he seems to loathe for both personal and political / partisan / ideological reasons. So what to do? Well, play both ends, in the typical Newt way, and try to shift the debate away from capitalism generally, which is where it's gone, and more towards Romney personally. Hence this, from a Gingrich spokesman:

This issue at hand is neither about Bain Capital, private equity firms, nor about capitalism. It is about Mitt Romney's judgment and character. It was Governor Romney's decision to base his candidacy, in large part, on his background as a portfolio manager. Thus, it is entirely legitimate to ask questions about whether he is accurately presenting how he conducted himself during that career.

In a broad sense, it's still about Bain Capital, private equity firms, and capitalism, of course. But that won't work, because Republicans have generally recoiled in horror at Gingrich's (and Huntsman's and Perry's) populist attack on "vulture" capitalism. So it has to be about Romney, about his "judgment and character," about his specific role at Bain, about what he did there, about the consequences. No matter that all he did there was act like (and profit like) the sort of capitalist Republicans hold in high regard -- which is why Santorum, who certainly has no great love for Romney, is arguing that an attack on Romney/Bain is an attack on capitalism.

All of which is to say, Newt, who is running neck-and-neck with Romney and who has only this shot left to save his campaign, has to walk a very fine line here. And while he appears to be retreating from the Bain line of attack, he also appears to be broadening his overall line of attack on Romney with a clear message that he hopes will resonate with a Republican electorate in South Carolina that is far more conservative than the one in New Hampshire:

"This is going to be Armageddon – they are going to come in here with everything they've got, every surrogate, every ad, every negative attack," Gingrich said. "At the same time we'll be drawing a sharp contrast between a Georgia Reagan conservative and a Massachusetts moderate who's pro-gun control, pro-choice, pro-tax increase, pro-liberal judge, and the voters of South Carolina will have to look and decide."

Gingrich framed the attacks on the former Massachusetts governor as a gauntlet any candidate must face if they expect to succeed against President Barack Obama.

"The last thing you want is to nominate somebody who collapses in September because they can't answer the questions," Gingrich said. "I mean, so you better answer - you know, people want to attack me for my past, that's fine. I either will answer it and be ready to be the nominee or I won't. Romney ought to have to meet the same test."

Gingrich, who has sparred with Romney frequently at debates, said he had no personal opinion of his opponent.

"No, I have no view," Gingrich said when asked his personal judgment of Romney.

Really? No view? But I thought this was now all about Romney's "judgment and character." (Again, we see that Newt wants to have it both ways. The lesson is to question the honesty of everything Newt says. Always.) Regardless, it's finally happening. After months of the non- and anti-Romneys turning their guns on each other, Newt at least is taking the fight straight to Romney and saying, assuming he follows through on this (which may not be a safe assumption given his tendency to chicken out), what many, if not most, conservatives, and hence most Republicans, think of their current frontrunner.

Live-blogging the 2012 New Hampshire primary: Does it really mean anything at all?

By Michael J.W. Stickings, with Richard K. Barry

UPDATED FREQUENTLY.

6:42 pm - Okay, we did it with Iowa last week, now let's do it with New Hampshire. How 'bout some live-blogging, baby?! (I'll do frequent updates throughout the evening (and into the early-morning hours), reporting on the results but also breaking off into tangents about the race generally, and Richard will add some additional commentary.)

6:45 pm - BREAKING NEWS: The Reaction declares Willard "Mitt" Romney the winner of the 2012 New Hampshire Republican primary. Take that, Wolf Blitzer!

6:47 pm - The polls don't close until 8 pm, but the outcome is in absolutely zero doubt. Romney will win easily in his "backyard," neighboring Massachusetts being his "home," and that will be that. So let's move on to South Carolina, where a much more meaningful vote is scheduled for Saturday, January 21. Okay? No? No. I suppose we do need to work our way through tonight's results, to derive some sort of meaning them (or to impose meaning on them, rather). Here are the key questions: How much of the vote will Romney win (and by how much will he win)? How will the non- and anti-Romneys finish (and is there any possibility of any one of them picking up some momentum heading towards South Carolina)?

6:56 pm - Just going to have some dinner. Be back shortly. Stay tuned. And feel free to add your comments if you so desire.

7:47 pm - Alright, here we go... But first, let me tell you what I'm drinking tonight. I'm just polishing off a nice Creemore Springs pilsner from one of the best Ontario craft breweries. We'll go darker and deeper as the night goes on.

7:49 pm - The polls over the last few days show Romney with about a 20-point lead in New Hampshire. Again, there's no question he's going to win. But what will the numbers be? I tend to think that the inevitability of his win could dampen his support somewhat. He's been polling in the range of 35 to 41. Let's say he ends up with 37 percent of the vote. And then let's say Paul finishes second at 19, then Huntsman at 17, Santorum at 12, Gingrich at 10, and Perry way back at 1.

What would all that mean? Actually, I'd say that wouldn't be all that impressive for Romney, who should at this point, and with divided opposition, be able to win well over 40 percent of the vote. Paul will likely stay in the race until the very end, but even a second-place finish here wouldn't give him much of a bump. This is Huntsman's big shot at respectability, and he's put a lot of energy into New Hampshire, but the Republican Party is no place for him these days and he'll fall off badly in South Carolina. Gingrich is done. His role now is to try to knock off Romney in South Carolina. So it falls to Santorum to be the leading anti-Romney. Even a fourth-place finish here wouldn't be all that bad considering where he was just a couple of weeks ago. But he'll have his work cut out for him to build support over the next 10 days. It's possible that he'd emerge as a viable alternative to Romney were Gingrich to drop out, but there's just no way he has the staying power to mount a serious challenge over the long term. He might finish second in South Carolina but then fall off again in Florida.

But it's all about expectations, as you know, and about "narrative." And the problem for Romney tonight is that he has nothing to gain and much to lose. And if he underperforms, particularly with all the battering he's been taking over his destructive work at Bain Capital, he could emerge even from a decisive victory as a still-very-weak frontrunner, even if his ultimate victory is all but assured given his money, his organization, and his support from Republican elites.

RKB: Does anyone doubt that Huntsman is playing for the next time, that this is all about 2016? What else could he be doing? I can't imagine he really sees a path to win the nomination now. Maybe if Romney failed to meet expectations in New Hampshire there might be some room for another "electable candidate," but that's not going to happen. Romney will do well enough in New Hampshire to pretty much lock this thing up. And after he wins South Carolina, it really will be over. No surprises tonight. 

8:01 pm - Yes, CNN (and I assume everyone else) declares for Romney. Done.

8:02 pm - Exit polls, according to Wolf, show Romney at 36, Paul at 23, Huntsman at 18, Gingrich and Santorum at 10. A result closer to 35 than 40 would be even worse for Romney, obviously. Possible strong showing for Paul, though I suspect he'll fall short of the exit polls. (Results here.)

RKB:  Woo-hoo. CNN projects that Romney wins. Never saw that one coming. Carville just said that Huntsmann has implied he would drop out if he didn't do well in New Hampshire. It looks like a distant third for Hunstmann, and Paul is still hanging in. Santorum isn't going anywhere, currently at 10%. CNN exit polls has Romney at 36, Paul at 23 and Huntsman at 18. If that holds, this thing is over, and not just NH.

8:11 pm - I'm not disagreeing with Richard. The race is pretty much over. It's Romney. Conservatives find him "acceptable." Hardly a huge endorsement, but they're obviously willing to living with him. The question is whether the lack of enthusiasm on the right, and really within the new right-wing GOP mainstream (with Dear Leader Rush as one of the key spokesmen), will hurt Romney in the general election. Even if most on the right come around, hold their noses, and vote for Romney as anyone-but-Obama, that general lack of enthusiasm could translate into somewhat lower turnout among conservatives, particularly with the spotlight on Romney's relatively progressive past (at least in terms of social policy) that will come with him being the nominee.

But I think there's more going on here. Romney currently has just 35 percent of the vote (with 17 percent of precincts reporting) in a state that is perfect for him: close to home, socially liberal or libertarian, economically conservative, where he's been campaigning since before the '08 primaries, where he has an extensive ground campaign and huge name recognition, where, as a clear frontrunner, he should be able to win over 40 percent easily, if not over 50 percent. Am I overstating the expectations? Look, even with 35 percent he'll be able to declare a decisive victory and head on as the clear frontrunner to South Carolina. But I think we're still seeing just how weak he is, not to mention just how weak and divided the opposition is. Put a credible conservative in here and you'd get a much closer race and anything but a decisive victory for Romney.

RKB: Paul in second place is more than Romney could have hoped for. It effectively marginalizes the other real contenders because Paul can't win. Wow. Perfect for Mitt.

8:22 pm - Indeed. Romney certainly has luck on his side. Or a horseshoe up his ass. Or something.

CNN declares Paul second and Huntsman third. So no surprises whatsoever.

RKB: Huntsman people are now saying that Huntsman is not getting out. In fact, it appears that no one is getting out, which is good news for Romney. His opposition remains fractured.

8:25 pm - What position do you think he'd get in a Romney administration? Secretary of state?

8:26 pm - "Tonight we made history." -- Romney. Yup, he's already giving his victory speech. Let's see if this is any better than his disaster of a speech in Iowa. Oh, already attacking Obama. Surprise, surprise. It makes him appear to be the nominee already, as if he's already running against the president. "We still believe in that shining city on a hill." More meaningless bullshit. Romney is a plutocrat and a panderer to the right. And so he resorts to attacking Obama with lies and distortions.

"President Obama wants to put free enterprise on trial." And, he adds, he's been joined by some Republicans (looking at you, Newt). This, of course, is ridiculous. The president has proven to be nothing but a free enterpriser, rescuing Wall Street and industry and refusing to do anything serious about the havoc the American capitalist system is wreaking on most Americans. And I assume by defending free enterprise he's defending the right of unregulated capitalists to make millions destroying jobs and ruining lives. 

Yes, yes, Obama is a European-style socialist. Has Romney ever been to Europe? Seriously, in what world can this be taken at all seriously? Right -- in the world of Republican insanity.

"He passed Obamacare, I'll repeal it." No mention that Obamacare is based almost entirely on Romneycare.

Obama's "appeasement" strategy around the world... no need for American military superiority. Right, like how Obama refuses to use drones to take out terrorists, or how he refused to approve that mission to take out Osama bin Laden, or how he's pulled out of Afghanistan. Funny, eh? There appears to be no connection whatsoever between Romney's rhetoric and reality.

"We still believe in the America that is the land of opportunity and a beacon of freedom." There's a line with absolutely no substance to it.

What a massive pile of bullshit.

RKB: Just listening to Romney's speech. Is anyone going to believe that Romney gives a damn about middle-class Americans? What a phony bastard. He is one cringe-making politician. I almost can't wait for Romney to secure the nomination so the Dems can focus on him and hang him by his own pathetic cliches. He is so embarrassing. So full of shit. What an ass. 

9:04 pm - "President Paul!... President Paul!... President Paul!" So chant Paul's supporters, who prove once against just what utterly delusional nutjobs they are. (Okay, they're not all nutjobs. Just a lot of them.)

9:05 pm - Am I completely anti-Paul? No. I respect and for the most part agree with his views on civil liberties, American militarism and foreign wars (including the military-industrial complex), the war on drugs, etc. It's quite admirable that he's willing give voice to some harsh truths that most Americans would rather not hear, to speak out against some of the most dominant and most destructive forces in American life (and politics). But he's quite mad, raving against the Fed (and paper money), as if gold is the answer, as if somehow America could really withdraw from the global financial system. And don't be fooled. He's an extremist right-wing libertarian who would gut government and subject everyone to the forces of the unregulated market. He says he wants to protect liberty, but there's a dark side to that, is there not? What "liberty" would there really be for most people in Ron Paul's utopia? (And on capitalism and the economy, he's certainly siding with Romney.)

Fine, fine, it's good to have him in the race, good that he's doing fairly well, good that someone is talking about civil liberties and the follies of American militarism, but let's not give him a free pass just because he happens to be more sensible on these issues that pretty much every other Republican and even many (if not most) Democrats.

"We will restore freedom to this country." Yeah, good luck with that.

9:19 pm - How about an update? With 46 percent reporting, it's:

-- Romney: 34,702 (37%)

-- Paul: 21,956 (24%)

-- Huntsman: 16,124 (17%)

-- Gingrich: 9,324 (10%)

-- Santorum: 9,227 (10%)

-- Perry: 679 (1%)

Paul is doing a bit better than I expected, but he's being helped by independent / Democratic support in an open primary. A lot of his support, in other words, is non-Republican.

Santorum is doing worse than I expected. Will he be able to regain his footing, and recapture the attention he got after Iowa, when the focus shifts to South Carolina?

Gingrich is doing about as I expected. Will he carry through with his threats to go after Romney in South Carolina? Can he recover at all in a state where he's fairly strong? Will he and Santorum continue to divide the conservative vote?

Remember when Perry mattered?

9:26 pm - Romney's now up to 38 percent, with 49 percent reporting. 

9:29 pm - Now down to 37 again, with 50 reporting.

Huntsman at the podium: "Ladies and gentlemen, I think we're in the hunt." Uh, no you're not. "I say, third place is a ticket to ride, ladies and gentlemen." I just lost a ton of respect for him. Does he really believe this? He was all-in on New Hampshire, a state receptive to his old-school brand of conservatism. Of course he's done well -- by his lowly standards. If he stays in the race, he'll do well in Vermont and Maine as well. That doesn't mean he has a shot at winning the nomination, just that he's a moderate (relatively speaking) who can do well in liberal/moderate parts of the country.

Afghanistan is not America's future. Iraq is not America's future. He's talking economy, and the challenges America faces, particularly in the Pacific. Look, I can't say I agree with him on most issues, but I do respect him and his positions. I did once upon a time call him "Huntsman the Formidable." In a saner time, the GOP would hand him the nomination. But Republicans are too crazy and too stupid and too extreme to know what's good for them.

Term limits for Congress? Really, we're back to that after all these years? What is this, 1995?

End the war in Afghanistan? Wait, is Ron Paul still speaking?

His speech is a bit disjointed, all over the place, a bit like Romney's last week but without all the anti-Obama nonsense and hyper-nationalist bullshit. Though Huntsman did just pull out the "greatest nation on earth" line. Uh-huh. Sure. Whatever. This is when much of the rest of the world laughs at American arrogance even from its more thoughtful public figures.

"We have the greatest and most courageous armed forces this nation has ever seen." Um, what about those who fought in World War II? Wait... so we'll have another Greatest Generation now, helping to rebuild the country? I wouldn't bet on that.

On to South Carolina... (He's running either for a top spot on Romney's administration, assuming he doesn't destroy Romney in the process, or for 2016, when the GOP may be more receptive to him.)

9:41 pm - Did you know that CNN's election coverage tonight is being brought to us by... fossil fuels? Yes, by propaganda from the oil and gas industry, by "clean" coal, by global warming and the destruction of our world as we know it, by the mass murder of potentially hundreds of millions. Good times.

9:46 pm - I was going to follow up the pilsner with a smoked stout from Iceland, but I'm not sure I can do that. Just too heavy. Maybe some bourbon. With a toast to Obama for winning the Democratic primary. In case you were wondering.

Waiting on Newt and Rick... Just going to take a break. Be back in a bit.

10:21 pm - Quick reflections on Santorum and Gingrich: 

Santorum: Decent speech, if rather more muted than last week's in Iowa. He said what had to be said. On the one hand, he hasn't done well, battling it out for a distant fourth with Newt. On the other hand, he'd done really well, moving up to 10 percent support after being in the low single digits not so long ago. He was never going to do all that well in New Hampshire, but he actually downplayed his presence in the state. Last week he bragged about how much time he'd spent there. Tonight he treated the state like an afterthought. But he's on to South Carolina, where his social conservatism should allow him to do significantly better.

Gingrich: Give him credit, he talks ideas (even if they're unpalatable right-wing ones). His speech was sober and, from a conservative perspective, sensible. He presented himself on the one hand as a uniter of all Americans and on the other as a Republican with a record of getting things done even when faced with intractable Democratic opposition. He talked about his indebtedness to Reagan and Thatcher, and even, succumbing to his usual egomaniacal self-aggrandizement, took credit for the economic success and job creation of the Clinton years. His selling point is that he's the best candidate to debate and defeat Obama. But what of his recent attacks on Romney's unethical capitalism? In the speech, he defended capitalism as the be-all and end-all but didn't draw that distinction between "true" capitalism and the job-destroying venture capitalism of Bain Capital. And as much as he's been talking of an all-out assault on Romney in South Carolina, I just don't see it coming.

Basically, if anyone is to beat Romney, either Gingrich or Santorum has to withdraw and endorse the other, uniting the conservative vote against Romney and Paul. As of right now, with everyone's attention turning to South Carolina and with optimism still high, that doesn't look like it's going to happen. Which means that Romney's path to the nomination remains clear. How fortunate he is not to face any truly serious and credible conservative opposition.

10:33 pm - Not much new to report. With 74 percent reporting, it's Romney at 38, Paul at 23, Huntsman at 17, and Gingrich and Santorum at 10. 

12:12 am - Just watched Stewart and Colbert... Alright, let's wrap this up. Romney is now at 39 percent, with 92 percent reporting, followed by Paul at 23 and Huntsman at 17. Gingrich appears to have finished fourth, at 10, with Santorum declining to 9. All this as votes came in from the more populous, Romney-oriented parts of the state.

So what are to make of this? I still think Romney continues to be an extremely weak candidate, though there's no denying his clear victory here. There's no doubt he's the favorite to win South Carolina and that this win will help build the aura of inevitability that seems to be engulfing his campaign. The question is whether anyone will emerge to challenge him not just in South Carolina but in Florida. Everyone was talking big tonight, but at some point either Santorum or Gingrich is going to have to get out of the race is conservatives are to have a shot at taking down Romney. As it is, it looks more and more like Republicans are resigning themselves to a Romney candidacy that will have a hard time arousing much enthusiasm on the right. The overwhelming desire to beat Obama will likely bring most conservatives into the fold, but Romney is still a tough sell, and he'll have to balance securing conservative support with moving back to the left to try to win independents and the new generation of "Reagan Democrats."

12:19 am: Stay tuned for extensive coverage of the Republican race as we now turn our attention to South Carolina. Keep coming back. You'll find a lot to like, or a lot to infuriate you.

12:22 am: Good night, everyone. We'll be back at it in the morning.

All hail Mitt Romney! -- how last night's "caustic" GOP debate in New Hampshire was really all about deference and resignation

By Michael J.W. Stickings

On the one hand, last night's Republican debate in New Hampshire was "caustic," with the various anti-Romneys lining up to take their generally lame and mostly ineffectual shots at the frontrunner -- and of course continuing to show just what right-wing extremists they are, Huntsman excepted. There are occasional glimpses of nastiness in this race, but for the most part the tone is one of respect, politeness, and deference. And while the anti-Romneys have often gone after each other (e.g., Ron Paul's attacks on Gingrich and Santorum), it would appear that a certain resignation has set in. Mitt Romney will be the nominee, no one really wants to weaken him any further, and he continues to float through this whole ridiculous process largely unscathed. Last night's debate only "caustic" from the ever-so-courteous Meet the Press perspective of the Beltway.

(Speaking of MTP, this morning's debate was indeed "far livelier than its predecessor," as Steve Benen puts it, but still hardly a fireworks display. Perhaps the key takeaway is that Romney, good plutocrat/oligarch that he is, thinks that politics is for the rich. Aristotle would not be amused.)

Read what you want about the debate, but do not neglect Esquire's Charles Pierce, who penetrates through the bullshit to get to the heart of the matter:

At this moment, I am still digesting the incredible farrago of gibbering nonsense, vengeful religious rage, political chickenshit, and Mandarin Chinese that combined to make the 45,670th of 62,390 scheduled Republican presidential debates the Level 4 biohazard that it was.

*****

In brief, Saturday night may have been the most naked piece of point-shaving and game-throwing since the 1919 World Series. I've seen fixed prizefights where the issue was more in doubt. The other candidates went so far into the tank for Willard that they may not dry off until next August. In the 1950's, Frankie Carbo would have had them all killed because they made it look so damned obvious. Where was the promised Gingrich assault on the frontrunner? Where was the blood, the guts, the glory? Where was the damn slasher film we all anticipated? This was a waltz, and a clumsy one. If the people in that audience had any pride at all, they'd have attacked the ABC platform and demanded satisfaction for this massive piece of consumer fraud.

The coalescing has begun. The non-Romneys seem to be coming to grips with the fact that there's virtually no chance that Willard isn't the nominee. So, by and large, the rest of them started paying court staying away from him.

Do yourself a favor and read the whole piece. It's awesome, including his takedown of Santorum for saying there are no classes in America: "I have never heard a politician say anything that stupid before in 30 years of watching politicians talk in public."

In the end, these clowns merely embarrassed themselves still further, again excepting the generally respectable Huntsman:

At the very end, just as I was beginning to wonder if the end would ever come, they were asked what would they be doing on Saturday night if they weren't on that stage. (Ooh, ooh! Ask me! Ask me!) Gingrich started off by saying he'd be home "watching the national-championship college basketball game." He meant the football game, and he caught himself, sort of, so we'll give him a pass. Then two of his compadres — including Willard — agreed with him. Yeah, they'd be watching that national-championship game, you betcha, boy howdy.

The BCS championship game takes place Monday night. Three members of the Republican presidential field told America last night that, if they weren't in New Hampshire being dicks to themselves and the rest of the nation, they'd be home watching a football game that wouldn't be played for nearly another 48 hours. 

Morons.

Behind the Ad: Ron Paul targets "serial hypocrite" Santorum in South Carolina

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As we proceed through the primaries and then the general election campaign, not only for the presidency but for Congress and various governorships as well, we're going to be posting some of the more prominent political ads -- in our new "Behind the Ad" series -- and offering some beneath-the-surface analysis. This will complement our extensive political coverage. And, besides, who doesn't like watching political ads, especially when they're viciously negative?

The image here, as you may know, is from Lyndon Johnson's famous 1964 daisy ad, one of the most effective ads in U.S. political history -- not that LBJ was going to have much trouble with the right-wing Goldwater, but this association of the Republican with nuclear armageddon was awfully powerful. (You can watch it here.)

Okay, let's get started...

**********

Who: Ron Paul attacks Rick Santorum.

Where: South Carolina.

What's going on: Just as he attacked Gingrich as a "serial hypocrite" in Iowa, contributing to Newt's collapse in the polls (and dismal showing in the caucuses), Paul is going after the surging Santorum in South Carolina, the next battleground state after New Hampshire.

In a way, though, SC matters more than NH at this point. Romney will win NH, his backyard, in a landslide. The only question is by how much. Paul will finish second, most likely, but will struggle from then on. Why is he going after Gingrich and Santorum?

On the one hand, he may well want Romney to win -- if it's not going to be him (which it won't be). It makes sense that he would prefer the business-minded, plutocratic Romney to social conservative authoritarians like Gingrich and Santorum, whatever their allegiance to the unregulated free market. And in any event he may realize that Romney is the likely nomination.

On the other hand, he may (delusionally) think he still has a shot and is hoping to take down the anti-Romney alternatives one by one so as to be the only one left standing. There's no way the GOP would pick him over Romney, but, well, who knows what he thinks.

Whatever the case, he may just want to make sure he finishes a strong second, assuming he stays in the race for the long haul (like Pat Buchanan did in '92), so as to have a place of prominence at the convention and more generally within the party. It's not that he'll be the veep pick or have a Cabinet post in any Republican administration, but he can still be a major player, his right-wing libertarian agenda part of the party platform whether the establishmentarian elites like it or not.

At this point, it looks like Santorum is the only credible anti-Romney left. (Yes, I'm assuming that Gingrich is done. Right now he's just pathetically lashing out, once more the egomaniacal bully, at both Romney and fellow conservative Santorum. Wasn't it just a short while ago that Newt was bemoaning all the negativity when it was directed at him?) And so he's the obvious target for Paul's venom. And the place to take him down is South Carolina, where Romney has the lead but Santorum is coming on strongly (and may even be running a very close second) and, with a strong showing, could turn the race into a one-on-one affair, with Paul pushed out.

Just imagine the look on Romney's face when he first saw this ad. And imagine him rubbing his hands together gleefully. If he ends up winning the nomination, he should give Paul an expensive gift (or profusive thanks), just like a running back rewards his o-line after a great season. There would many reasons for Romney's success, starting perhaps with behind-the-scenes Romney booster Karl Rove, but it certainly helps that Paul, who has no chance of winning the nomination himself, is helping to clear the path of major obstacles.

Santorum targets South Carolina, a must-win primary

By Michael J.W. Stickings

He'll lose in New Hampshire, Romney's backyard, likely very badly, but the future for Rick Santorum is not granite but palmetto.

Yes, South Carolina is next up after New Hampshire. It will hold its open primary on Jan. 21, a long 11 days after the New Hampshire vote and a similarly long 10 days before the Florida vote.

It's on its own, then, and it will be the site of intense Republican campaigning. For Romney, a win -- and he's currently ahead in the polls -- would pretty much cement the nomination, though he could lose, win in Florida, Nevada, and Maine, and still be in good shape. For Santorum, it'll be make-or-break. Assuming he improves his sorry lot in New Hampshire, and the polls show him rising but still way behind not just Romney but Paul as well, he'll have to win South Carolina or at least come close enough to Romney to make it a one-on-one race (with Gingrich and Perry dropping out).

No wonder, then, that Santorum is taking his post-Iowa booty and plunking it right down in South Carolina:

Enjoying a wave of momentum from his near-win in the Iowa caucuses, Rick Santorum’s campaign is raising money faster than ever before. Donors have added $2 million to his campaign’s war chest in the last 48 hours alone.

And a Santorum aide tells ABC News that in the space of 10 hours — between midnight Thursday and 10 a.m. — the campaign took in $250,000 of that $2 million total. The quarter-million figure total represents online contributions only.

What's the campaign doing with that fresh infusion of cash?

For starters they are taking out a 1,000-point television ad buy in South Carolina ahead of the state's Jan. 21 primary.

The campaign is calling is a "major buy," and an adviser to the former Pennsylvania senator's presidential bid told ABC News the spot will play heavily on cable. According to a GOP source who tracks ad spending, the Santorum campaign has only spent $12,000 on the airwaves in South Carolina so far during the election cycle.

The Santorum campaign also plans a heavy mail drop in the state that begins early next week.

It may all be futile, as Romney is the likely nominee, but, then again, Santorum's whole campaign seemed futile as recently as just a couple of weeks ago. And while he faces an uphill battle in South Carolina, not least given Romney's excellent ground campaign (and Haley endorsement), it is just the sort of socially conservative state (with a Tea Party hostile to Romney), like Iowa (sort of), that suits him. If he can't do well there, he's done for good.

And make no mistake, while he may be a detestable bigot and theocrat who wants to keep women in chains, evangelize and/or eradicate Muslims, deny blacks access to government aid, and send gays to hell, I wish him all the best. I think he'd be a truly wonderful GOP nominee for president. Republicans would do well to kick Romney and his pandering faux conservatism to the curb and embrace this exemplary man, a man very much in tune with the Republican zeitgeist.

You think I'm kidding? I'm not.

(photo)

Santorum compares homosexuality to polygamy

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Nothing new here. This is Rick "man-on-dog" Santorum, after all.

But it nonetheless deserves repeating, now that he's a big-time Republican gobbling up media attention after a surge that led him to a tie (if not a win) this past Tuesday in Iowa, that this strident theocrat is an unabashed bigot opposed not just to same-sex marriage but to homsexuality generally.

He recently compared romantic same-sex love to the love he has for his mother-in-law, brother, and friends. Since those relationships aren't marriage, gay couples shouldn't be allowed to marry. (Huh? Yes, this is what passes for logic, it seems, in Santorum's mind.)

Now he's comparing same-sex marriage to polygamy:

So if you're not happy unless you're married to five other people, is that OK?" Santorum asked one student [yesterday in Concord, New Hampshire]. "Reason says that if you think it's okay for two [individuals to marry], then you have to differentiate for me why it's not okay for three," he argued later.

Perhaps an argument can be made for the marriage (or civil unions) of three or more people, but that would be separate from the issue of same-sex marriage, which isn't some "gateway" relationship that, if sanctioned, would require the legalization of polygamy or, say, human-canine marriage. 

In any event, at ThinkProgress rightly points out:

To be clear, Santorum's offensive and circuitous responses are all meant to reject the natural desire of two same-sex individuals to join in a union and enjoy the same rights as heterosexual couples.

He's not actually making an argument about human relationships broadly and about what should and should not be permitted, he's just tying same-sex relationships to illegal (and extreme) relationships so as to discredit them.

"What, you're gay? So you must like to fuck sheep." That's basically the, er, "argument" he's making.

Like I said, he's a bigot. That's abundantly clear.

**********

Oh, and he might just be taking a swipe at Romney, the Mormon with the family history of... yup, polygamy.

(photo)

Counting error means Santorum may have won Iowa caucuses

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Yes, believe it or not.

Remember how close it was the other night? At one point Romney and Santorum were separated by just a single vote (with just less than 60,000 between the two of them), and, in the end, so we thought, Romney won by eight votes, 30,015 to 30,007. Even if you think the Iowa caucuses are ridiculously overhyped, even if you think the whole thing's ridiculous, a tiny fraction of the electorate seemingly with so much influence, it was quite amazing.

It was basically a tie, and it didn't really matter that Romney won by a hair. Santorum exceeded expectations, and gained momentum, not to mention some necessary credibility, in the process.

But...

It appears that Santorum may actually have won. As Des Moines's KCCI is reporting:

Caucus night was chaotic in many places, with hundreds of voters, candidates showing up and the throngs of media who followed. The world's eyes were on Iowa. But in the quiet town of Moulton, Appanoose County, a caucus of 50 people may just blow up the results.

Edward True, 28, of Moulton, said he helped count the votes and jotted the results down on a piece of paper to post to his Facebook page. He said when he checked to make sure the Republican Party of Iowa got the count right, he said he was shocked to find they hadn't.

"When Mitt Romney won Iowa by eight votes and I've got a 20-vote discrepancy here, that right there says Rick Santorum won Iowa," True said. "Not Mitt Romney."

True said at his 53-person caucus at the Garrett Memorial Library, Romney received two votes. According to the Iowa Republican Party's website, True's precinct cast 22 votes for Romney.

"This is huge," True said. "It essentially changes who won."

Now, that's that's hardly the end of the story:

A spokeswoman with the Iowa Republican Party said True is not a precinct captain and he's not a county chairperson so he has no business talking about election results. She also said the party would not be giving interviews about possible discrepancies until the caucus vote is certified.

So, as of right now, nothing's official. We'll have to wait for the certified result. But True says he's "certain."

If there was a mistake, it was probably a simple one, a simple error. But who knows? One would hope that an investigation would be conducted.

Otherwise, would it matter? Maybe not. The candidates, the media, and our attention have moved on to New Hampshire. But it would give Santorum a small boost to be able to say he won Iowa, the surging candidate no one was taking seriously beating the frontrunner with the elites behind him, a massive ground campaign, and a ton of money. It wouldn't really affect the vote in New Hampshire, which Romney will win easily, but it could narrow the gap just enough to give Santorum some extra hope heading down to South Carolina.

If nothing else, though, this turns our attention back to Iowa, if only briefly, which is bad for Romney. And this is just the sort of thorn in his side that could make his upcoming win in New Hampshire a tad less triumphant, with the narrative shifting in Santorum's favor.

Santorum likes his women barefoot, pregnant, and at the mercy of domineering men

By Michael J.W. Stickings 

Via twitter: 

Feminists are "undermining the traditional family + convincing women that professional accomplishments are the key to happiness" -- Santorum 

-- ThinkProgress (@thinkprogress)

And of course he wants to deny women birth control, which was very much the key to their liberation from the shackles of oppressive, repressive patriarchy.

A Catholic theocrat, Santorum is very much in line with the zeitgeist of '12.

1912? No, more like 1612.

And he dares accuse President Obama of being anti-freedom?

Homophobe Rick Santorum admits to weird sexual relationship with mother-in-law, brother

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Via twitter: 

"I love my friends, my brother. Heck, I even love my mother-in-law. Should we call these relationships marriage, too?" -- Rick Santorum

-- ThinkProgress (@thinkprogress)

He may have done very well in Iowa yesterday, but make no mistake about it, Santorum's still a bigot and a moron.

Iowa Caucus - a Defense of Mediocrity

By Capt. Fogg

"Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance?"

-Roman Hruska-

_________________________

So the Iowa caucusoids can't really decide between Stepford Candidate Mitt who will say anything to ingratiate and hopes you have no memory, or Ricky Santorum, the subatomic particle with less mass than a neutrino. As of this morning there is only an 8 vote difference between the two and CNN.com is portraying Santorum's loss as a victory. If there's anything interesting at all, or any inference to be drawn from this contest, it's that relatively moderate Jon Huntsman might have been better off joining another party entirely. Rarely has any contestant gone so unnoticed, lost in the glare of idiocy, mendacity and derangement.

This race seems to have nothing to do with qualifications in terms of character, experience, education or cognitive function: it's more about seducing the stupid, the ignorant and the marginal people, enraged because they are marginal. As a non-Republican, my preference in what is essentially a tie would be Santorum -- and of course any other connoisseur of circus freak shows would look forward with gleeful anticipation to watching that raving idiot contend with his Democratic opponent's measured words.

Does the Iowa Caucus really mean anything? I think it does. It means, for one thing, that the word Conservative means no more than it did when Senator Hruska tried to sell mediocrity as a virtue to get G. Harrold Carswell appointed to the Supreme Court and get us to overlook his distaste for Women's rights and his support for segregation (and perhaps the aggressive homosexual proclivities that landed him in jail and the hospital on several occasions.)

No, Romney isn't that bad and Santorum may not be either but I have to suspect that somewhere, some wax museum is missing a dummy and some circus side show is missing a freak.


(Cross posted from Human Voices)

Live-blogging the 2012 Iowa caucuses: The greatest day in American democracy

By Michael J.W. Stickings

UPDATED FREQUENTLY.

9:06 pm - Okay, here we go. The 2012 presidential nomination season is underway. And by "underway" I mean, votes are actually being cast.

Is it a great day for democracy? Well, that's the intention. Old-school democracy. Caucuses (particularly in Iowa), unlike primaries, represent a sort of idyllic (if mostly obsolete) Jeffersonianism, the people actually coming out, talking politics, and making their choices. Unlike the atomized process of voting in a booth, in privacy, this is about community, about political engagement as something other than, more than, the mere casting of a ballot.

And by "the people," of course, I mean a tiny fraction of an otherwise alienated and disengaged electorate, the hardcore of the hardcore, extremists of partisanship, ideology, and political temperament. In this case, a tiny fraction of the electorate in a small state that, all due respect, isn't exactly representative of America. So why should it be so important? Why should it be the focus of our political obsession?

Exactly. There's really no good reason for it. If not for the fact that it's the first in the nation, a tradition that defies common sense. The nomination process is a long slog, but we do love the horse race, don't we? And any indication of who's ahead and who's behind is like a drug. For months, all we've had is polls, poll after freakin' poll. Now it's the real thing, baby. As crazy as it is, as ridiculous as the Iowa caucuses are, at least we're getting some votes. At least it all means something now.

And so here we are.

9:24 pm - Yes, it's what we thought it would be, a tight three-way race between Romney, Paul, and Santorum. With 18% reporting, here's the breakdown (via CNN):

-- Paul: 5,348 (24%)

-- Santorum: 5,283 (24%)

-- Romney: 4,988 (22%)

Yes, in a nation of 312,796,207 people, we're talking about a few thousand people launching the 2012 presidential race and holding enormous sway over where the race goes from here.

Let's just say Iowa's impact is a tad disproportionate.

All due respect.

9:31 pm - It's now even closer:

-- Romney: 6,297 (23%)

-- Santorum: 6,256 (23%)

-- Paul: 6,240 (23%)

Gingrich is back at 13%, Perry at 10%, Bachmann at 6%. Remember when each one was not least leading in Iowa but looking like the inevitable winner there?

9:45 pm - In case you missed it, the past couple of days were all about playground politics in Iowa. Which is to say, they were all about juvenile name-calling. For example:

-- Santorum: "Ron Paul is disgusting." (Oh yeah? Your mama is so fat...)

-- Paul supporters to Santorum: "nah nah nah nah, hey hey hey, goodbye." (Okay, that's pretty amusing.)

-- Gingrich: Mitt Romney's a liar. (A Romney Super-PAC has been relentlessly attacking Newt, contributing to his rapid decline, but Romney has denied any connection to it. Newt: "This is a man whose staff created the PAC, his millionaire friends fund the PAC, he pretends he has nothing to do with the PAC -- it's baloney. He's not telling the American people the truth.")

Well, he's right. Just as he's mostly right about this:

It's just like this pretense that he's a conservative. Here's a Massachusetts moderate who has tax-paid abortions in "Romneycare," puts Planned Parenthood in "Romneycare," raises hundreds of millions of dollars of taxes on businesses, appoints liberal judges to appease Democrats, and wants the rest of us to believe somehow he's magically a conservative.

I just think he ought to be honest with the American people and try to win as the real Mitt Romney, not try to invent a poll-driven, consultant-guided version that goes around with talking points, and I think he ought to be candid. I don't think he's being candid and that will be a major issue. From here on out from the rest of this campaign, the country has to decide: Do you really want a Massachusetts moderate who won't level with you to run against Barack Obama who, frankly, will just tear him apart? He will not survive against the Obama machine.

For a variety of reasons, Romney has largely escaped any sustained criticism from his rivals thus far. (See what I wrote about this earlier today.) But this conservative critique of Romney isn't going away. It just needs the right spokesperson. Maybe it's Newt. Maybe with his bad loss in Iowa he'll actually go on the offensive.

10:35 pm - Santorum now has a narrow lead over Romney, but we're only a little over halfway through this. Paul has fallen back a bit. (It's 24-24-22.)

10:37 pm - For a good look at the Iowa caucuses, and how they came to be so significant, see Ezra Klein's interview with Rutgers political scientist David Redlawsk. Key quote:

In fact, every cycle we have this question of whether somebody will try and leapfrog or jump ahead and that's how we get frontloading. The national parties try to penalize those who do that. This year, for instance, Florida is only getting half of its delegates because it violated the rules by trying to go early. So the system stays in stasis through a combination of Iowa and New Hampshire jealously guarding their privileges and the national parties penalizing anyone who tried to change the status quo. No one loves the current system, but no one has come up with something they would like better.

Even here, in this supposed democratic paradise, politics -- and power -- is about privilege.

10:46 pm - In case you were wondering, the population of the U.S. is now 312,796,488.

10:50 pm - Suddenly we're up to 88% reporting. It looks Paul has slipped to third and will end up there. It's now a two-man race between Santorum and Romney:

-- Santorum: 26,443 (25%)

-- Romney: 26,398 (25%)

-- Paul: 22,728 (21%)

Just 45 votes. Pretty amazing, really. We knew it would be close, but this is crazy.

And even though Paul is well back now, I'm sure his fanatical supporters will declare his third-place finish an historic victory heralding the Age of Ron Paul, the present and future of the Republican Party. They don't have a monopoly on delusion, to be sure, but they seem to have more than their fair share. 

10:56 pm - And Paul remains a bitter, nasty, and vindictive man. Here's what he (or one of his minions) tweeted (via) a while ago:

@JonHuntsman we found your one Iowa voter, he's in Linn precinct 5 you might want to call him and say thanks.

Nice.

Huntsman actually has 629 votes, a whopping 1% of the vote. Honestly, though, what's the point of kicking him when he's down? (Whatever the outcome, he's a bigger man than Paul will ever be.) 

11:07 pm - So we've moved up one to 89% but now Romney has the lead. What? How did this flip-flop so quickly? It's still 25-25, but he's up 27,101 to 26,976.

11:09 pm - Dan Amira at New York mag, with the funniest line of the day:

A few weeks ago, Rick Perry said he wanted to be the Tim Tebow of Iowa, and now a Michele Bachmann super-PAC ad is trying to make the same comparison. So which campaign is actually like Tebow? Both of them!: They were both wildly, inexplicably successful for a brief period of time, and now they are just embarrassing.

As a Steelers fan, I shouldn't laugh at jokes like this. I mean, what if Tebow beats them on Sunday? We're six days out, but my anxiety is already ridiculous.

11:13 pm - Did I mention that on the Democratic side Barack Obama has been awarded all delegates in Iowa? Yes, today isn't just about Republicans.

11:14 pm - At Crooks and Liars, where I do the blog round-up now and then, Rick Perlstein argues that Iowa doesn't matter, as Republicans always go with the "next in line":

Another pattern: the desperate attempts of the political press to drum up evidence of a competitive race, whatever the historical lessons that point obstinately in the opposite direction. It's not a hard argument to make: "on the ground," things always look competitive. The vaunted party "base" plain their disgust with the sell-out moderate party elites want to shove down their throats, dutifully falling in love with a series of far-right saviors in the earlier innings: President Pat Robertson, who nearly won Iowa in 1988; President Pat Buchanan, who took New Hampshire in 1992; and All Hail Huckabee the choice of Iowa caucus-goers in 2008—but not before Fred Thompson's moment in the sun later in the year, and after Rudy Giuliani dazzled conservatives who hadn't yet figured out that he was a cross-dresser with gay roommates The same thing always happens next: The insurgents fall by the wayside. The base comes around. Democrats fall in love; Republicans fall in line.

Is he right? Historically speaking, yes. And he may be right about 2012. Maybe it really will be Romney. But is that because Romney is "next in line," or because the various alternatives have been so weak? And while it's true that Republicans generally "fall in line," things may be changing in an age of social media and the decline of central-party politics. The moneyed elite, represented by Karl Rove, still wields enormous power in the GOP, as do mainstream pundits like Charles Krauthammer and George Will, but there isn't really a center anymore. Media giants like Dear Leader Rush are just as influential, if not more so, and they can reach millions (particularly grassroots primary/caucus voters, those in the base who have so much influence in these contests) without going through the party apparatus or requiring the approval of the establishment.

I agree with Perlstein that Iowa is far less important than people think -- or rather than the media tell us it is as they try to drum up drama -- but his assessment of how the GOP works may be based on a reality that has shifted over recent election cycles.

And as for Romney, I'm not sure he's "next in line." Why not, oh, Sarah Palin?

11:28 pm - 93% reporting, and Santorum has swung back into the lead, 28,201 to 28,086.

11:33 pm - Interesting results from CNN's "entrance poll":

-- 57% men, 43% women. (Doesn't sound fair, does it?)

-- By age: 17-29 (15%); 30-44 (16%); 45-64 (42%); 65+ (26%).

In other words, this whole damn thing is being decided by older white men. (Actually, that sounds pretty damn Republican.)

Also check out the results man. It's like a general election dividing the Democrat and Republican. Faux conservative Romney is winning the urban areas (like any Democrat would), notably Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, and Davenport, while social conservative Santorum is cleaning up in the rural areas (like any Republican would). Paul is doing well in the eastern part of the state, along the Illinois border. Perry has actually won a couple of counties in the southwest.

11:39 pm - 96% reporting, and it's tightened, now 28,958 to 28,879 for Santorum. Yes, fewer than 100 votes separate the two leaders. There's no reason to get too excited about any of this, unless you're a loyal follower of either one, but, again, it's pretty amazing that it's this close with almost 60,000 votes between the two of them.

11:44 pm - In case you were wondering, I'm rooting for Santorum. (Actually, I would have been rooting for Newt, until his fall. I'm still hoping he recovers and re-emerges as Romney main rival.) Because it's just so... ridiculous. And funny.

12:11 am - A CNN panel featuring Ari Fleischer and James Carville. Horrendous. I'm turning back to Family Guy or Chopped.

12:12 am - Crazy. It's even closer now. 97% reporting, and Santorum is up by just 37 votes, 29,210 to 29,173.

Whoever comes out on top, even by just a few votes, will declare victory, but I'm not sure it really matters. It's basically a tie.

It looked bleak for Romney in Iowa for a long time, but he's managed, if only because his conservative rivals are so weak, to come out with a fairly strong showing. And Santorum, of course, came out of nowhere to pull even with the supposed frontrunner, if only because Newt collapsed. Romney will go on to win New Hampshire easily. But he continues to struggle with a fairly low ceiling of support across the Republican board and needs to prove that he can win after New Hampshire, in South Carolina but even more importantly in Florida.

Meanwhile, Santorum needs to build off this result, in a state where he campaigned furiously (and where he put all his eggs), and show that he's for real. He won't be able to, because he isn't, but he might just be able to divide the anti-Romney vote long enough to guarantee Romney the nomination.

And what of Newt? Can he recover from this? Let's say he finishes a distant third in New Hampshire, behind Romney and Paul? What then? Will he have anything left? Will South Carolina be another Iowa, with the vote split and no clear winner? And can Newt, if he hasn't been thoroughly crushed by then, contend with Romney in Florida, where the polls have shown a one-on-one battle?

And what of Perry, who's now mailing his eggs to South Carolina. (Oh, he's still quite mad. He compared the 2012 election to Omaha Beach. I wonder what "The Greatest Generation" thinks of such nonsense.) Update: Scrap that. He's done.

12:17 am - Santorum on the TV. Just declared victory. (A surprise? Maybe not so much.) Before quoting that good Catholic mythologist C.S. Lewis. And thanking his wife. And then giving a public thanks to "God." And then thanking Iowans: "You... you... by not compromising... are taking the first step to taking back this country." Typical Republican BS, of course. What, take back the country from centrists like Obama? From the right-wing Republican majority in the House? From the 5-4 right-leaning Supreme Court?

Anyway, isn't today's result in Iowa the definition of not taking a stand?

12:25 am - Santorum favours cutting taxes and balancing the budget. No word on if he believe in unicorns and fairy dust. Then again, he believes in Jesus, so it's not like he lives in a rational world.

But... am I really saying this? He actually looks and sounds fairly impressive. He's certainly sincere, however delusional and extreme, and he's really come into his own, sweater vests and all, during this surge in Iowa. I still don't think he can pull this off, but maybe, if Gingrich can't recover, he'll be the guy who unites the right even at this late date. Raise your hand if you saw that coming.

12:32 am - In case you missed it, Santorum said that states have the right to ban birth control. Don't believe all his freedom talk for a second. He's a theocrat who values freedom only for plutocrats and within the confines of Christianist authoritarianism.

12:36 am - What motivates Santorum? -- "the dignity of every human life" (including "every working person"). Well, unless you're poor, or black, or whatever else he doesn't like or that in any way disturbs his God-fearin' worldview. But look, he's certainly more a man of the people than Romney...

12:38 am - ...who just emerged in front a big American flag. His wife: "we don't know who's won yet."

12:39 am - Well, Romney's being magnanimous, congratulating Santorum and Paul for a good campaign in Iowa.

12:41 am - With 99% reporting... get a lot of this: It's still 25-25, but now as close as it's been all night, 29,662 to 29,657 for Santorum. Five votes. That's it.

12:42 am - So what's Romney doing? Why, fearmongering about a "nuclear" Iran, of course, as if he wants to declare war right now, blaming Obama for not doing anything. (And what exactly should he have done?)

I can't listen anymore. It's typical Romney. Piling on Obama, saying nothing of substance, speaking too quickly, without pause, and also not connecting the way Santorum did, not telling his story the way Santorum did. He's just bullshitting. Like on energy: take advantage of oil and gas and nuclear and renewables. What does that even mean? Does he actually believe anything? Does he have any sort of concrete policy agenda? No and no, it would seem. Now he's talking about what programs he'd cut. But not really. He's just take a look at all of them. The only thing he mentions is Obamacare, which, of course, is based on Romneycare. (He neglects to mention that.) And now he's getting philosophical. This election is about the soul of America. Please. This isn't working. It's like he's just reciting lines that have been pre-approved by various focus groups. He's just ticking off the key bullets. Now he's attacking the "entitlement society." Now he's talking about the founding patriots. "Let us restore the greatness of America." He's all over the place. There's absolutely no coherence to this speech whatsoever. It's awful. And it's just Romney being Romney.

Happy, Republicans?

12:50 am: The website is ahead of Wolf Blitzer's wall. Santorum is now up by 27 votes, 29,892 to 29,865. But John King, who if nothing else can read numbers off a screen, is saying that the remaining precincts may favour Romney. We shall see.

12:52 am: Idiot Brit right-winger Piers Morgan, would-be Larry King Part Deux, just showed up. That's my cue. I'm done.

12:53 am: Stay tuned for much more 2012 election coverage here at The Reaction.

12:54 am: Good night, everyone.

**********

1:39 am: Dammit. I just can't resist. Romney has taken the lead, by a single vote -- 29,957 to 29,956. An outright win would certainly mean more to Santorum than to Romney, but, again, I'm not sure it matters all that much. It's a tie, and that's how it'll be reported.

1:41 am: Oh, now it's Santorum ahead again, but by just four votes -- 29,968 to 29,964.

1:42 am: Alright, enough. Good night.