Santorum Won Iowa, Probably

Santorum Won Iowa, Probably

There are 87 comments on the caucuses.desmoinesregister.com story from Jan 19, 2012, titled Santorum Won Iowa, Probably. In it, caucuses.desmoinesregister.com reports that:

Breaking News

The Des Moines Register confirms that Rick Santorum probably won the Iowa Caucuses, with Mitt Romney coming in second:

THE RESULTS: Santorum finished ahead by 34 votes

MISSING DATA: 8 precincts’ numbers will never be certified

PARTY VERDICT: GOP official says, "It’s a split decision"

Why should you care? Well, if Santorum had been declared Iowa's winner in the first place, he would have gotten even more of a bounce, more positive media attention, and might have more of a shot at the presidential nomination as of today.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at caucuses.desmoinesregister.com.

Cat74

United States

#68 Jan 21, 2012
No. The Speaker of the House holds the purse strings, which you would know if you were schooled in America. Gingrich sent balance budgets to the Hillbilly w*ore hopper, and he signed them. Gingrich also initiated bills that led to the creation of 8,000,000,000 jobs which you would also know if you could read, and write in the 80s. Since 1980 every winner of the S C primary has gone on to become the President. Right now Gingrich has 40% to Romney's 26%. I better order some hats for the victory party in November.

Since: Sep 08

Neon City Oh.

#69 Jan 21, 2012
You will never know what the real vote count was when you have republicans in charge.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#70 Jan 21, 2012
Cat74 wrote:
No. The Speaker of the House holds the purse strings,
The budget (the one CLINTON created) that was passed in 1993 over the objections of GingRICH set the tone for the later budgets, my dear.

And GingRICH forgets to mention that the budget did not reach "surplus" until 1998.

And GingRICH was tossed out on his ass for violating ethic rules in 1999...

Which means that even if he could claim to have some control over the budget process, it would have been for less than two years.

1998, 1999.

One... two...(and not quite two).

And that's putting aside the speaker of the house doesn't hold the purse strings, Congress (435 members) hold the purse strings.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#71 Jan 21, 2012
Cat74 wrote:
Gingrich sent balance budgets to the Hillbilly w*ore hopper,
GingRICH was having an affair the entire time he was Speaker of the House with the w*ore he came to marry.
I guess your view of morality is tied to the political party of the person having the affairs.
Cat74

United States

#72 Jan 21, 2012
You can't have it both ways. You cannot honor the the most immoral President this country ever produced, the Hillbilly Wh*re hopper from Arkansas, and then make fun of gingrich. It is what it is. America can elect the muslim again, or whatever the Republicans nominate. We don't have great choices. But one knows how to govern, and the other only knows h ow to golf.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#73 Jan 21, 2012
Cat74 wrote:
You can't have it both ways. You cannot honor the the most immoral President this country ever produced,
I don't have to have it both ways, bigot: I don't have to look at the ***MOST*** immoral politician the US has seen in our lifetime and pretend his six year affair while preaching family values is anything less than hypocritical.

And you do, bigot.

Obviously: morality doesn't factor into your choice of candidates.
Don Joe

Maple Grove, MN

#74 Jan 21, 2012
The GOP used to talk about character, it appears they don't do that any more. I guess they never really thought it was important.
Cat74

United States

#75 Jan 21, 2012
Democrats think they want to run against Romney, because then Republicans can't talk about the Obama man's healthcare debacle, but it isn't going to happen. They have to run the most corrupt chicago politician against Newt. With all his baggage he is still better then the man with the hidden past. Gingrich will talk about the constitution, liberty, freedom, and the man with the hidden past will have to answer about the Partiot act, all his terrorist friends including the man who paid for his time at Harvard. Oh it will be fun. Rezko should be out of jail by November, ya think? He can campaign for Obama. There are a lot of old Democrats soilingtheir depends tonight.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#76 Jan 21, 2012
Cat74 wrote:
Democrats think they want to run against Romney,
You problem (among many) is you a a very stupid person and have enough problems trying to remember how to put one foot in front of the other.

Between GingRICH and Romney, Democrats would most like to see GingRICH because he is the most immoral skank in politics and he is hated by members in his own party as much as by Democrats.

He won't be able to blame his six year affair on the press for three more weeks; he will not be able to hide behind Republican controlled auditoriums.

What Democrats hope and pray for is for GingRICH to hold on for another month or two- and let Romney use his millions to tear down the most immoral man in US politics, saving them money.
Cat74

United States

#77 Jan 22, 2012
You don't get it. No one cares about Gingrich's marital problems. When you are campaigning against the Corrupt Chicago Cabal you need someone tough, someone with guts. Romney can't even get his message out, assuming he has one, and he won't get down in the ditches with the mobsters. Newt will, and he will be unbattered. Americans are tired of politics of political destruction, but if Obama wants a fight, Newt will give him one. You know how disgusted you were with Bush, that's America today. Anybody but Obama.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#78 Jan 22, 2012
Cat74 wrote:
You don't get it. No one cares about Gingrich's marital problems.
Marital problems?

His marriages did not have problems.

GingRICH is an immoral skank. It wasn't his marriages that had problems, it was GingRICH being immoral that was the problem.

We can agree that you and GingRICH have the exact kind of family values.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#79 Jan 22, 2012
Cat74 wrote:
if Obama wants a fight, Newt will give him one.
GiongRICH fat little immoral legs aren't going to get through the convention. He is one for three, darling.
Cat74

United States

#80 Jan 22, 2012
No, dear, I believe in sound marriage, and I don't approve of adultry, but I know adultry exists, and probably broke up some of the marriages of the very self righteous lefties complaining about Newt. However we have to save the country. That is the only issue we h ave right now. Newt can do that. Obama will not.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#81 Jan 22, 2012
Cat74 wrote:
No, dear, I believe in sound marriage,
Obviously, you don't believe it isn't that important, Cnt74.

Any more than it has been important to GingRICH.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#82 Jan 22, 2012
Cat74 wrote:
I don't approve of adultry, but I know adultry exists,
To be sure: just look at GingRICH as the most adulterous politician in a city full of adulterous politicians.

And when you support GingRICH, you quite obvious state loud and clear such behaviors are of little or absolutely no importance to you.
Cat74

United States

#83 Jan 22, 2012
Woman for woman, I doubt Gingrich has committed adultry as often as The Hillbilly Wh*re hopper did in his day. However again it is not about adultry. It is about saving the country from the corrupt Chicago cabal running Obama for the second time.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#84 Jan 22, 2012
Cat74 wrote:
Woman for woman, I doubt Gingrich has committed adultry
You don't have the foggiest idea.

Not the foggiest.

But what all Americans can be certain of is: GingRICH had a ***SIX YEAR AFFAIR*** with the tramp he is currently married to, and **ALL THE WHILE*** GingRICH complained about Clinton not having the moral authority to lead this country.

You have made it abundantly clear, Cnt74, you lack the morality to make moral judgements.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#85 Jan 22, 2012
Cat74 wrote:
However again it is not about adultry.
You keep repeating Gingrich lack of morals aren't important to you.

You lack them yourself.

You are in a minority.
Cat74

United States

#86 Jan 22, 2012
And, 2626, when do you get your wings? Obviously you are so saintly you deserve to be an earth angel. I bet you aren't nearly as pure as you would like us to believe, but I relly don't care if you are an old street walker, or what ever you are. You need to vote for Obama. He will need all the votes he can dig up, and in Chicago they will literally dig them up!!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#87 Jan 22, 2012
Cat74 wrote:
And, 2626, when do you get your wings? Obviously you are so saintly you deserve to be an earth angel.
I don't have a problem making this call, Cnt74.

At all.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Mike Huckabee Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 8 min positronium 14,241
News O'Reilly: GOP hopefuls running on empty (May '11) Nov 17 Swedenforever 4
News Fresh Intelligence: Protesters Clash in Oregon,... (Feb '16) Nov 14 God 69
News Hispanic Evangelicals Threaten To Abandon Repub... (May '15) Nov 8 swedenforever 85
News Perry Can Win If Leadership Trumps Debates (Nov '11) Nov 7 maria denial 5
News Shock poll: 46% of Mississippi GOP would vote t... (Apr '11) Sep '17 Interracial Storm... 292
News CNBC raises the bar for upcoming GOP debate (Oct '15) Aug '17 Cordwainer Trout 13
More from around the web