READER COMMENTS ON
"Santorum 'Wins' Iowa, Everyone Else Doesn't"
(22 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
...
Talcott
said on 1/3/2012 @ 11:48 pm PT...
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
...
john
said on 1/4/2012 @ 5:40 am PT...
It's all about foreign policy. Wasserman Schultz was in Iowa rallying the troops to vote for Santorum (and other purposes, of which Florida comes to mind) to offset the anti-war/anti bank votes of democrats and independents who would be inclined to vote for a candidate whose views seem to differ from the other candidates and was ahead in many other polls. I also would be inclined to believe that the GOP and DNC were working hand in hand to prevent a large margin of victory for that certain candidate, thus Rep. King's prediction comes true. I don't believe in divine intervention but man made intervention is highly probable in this case. The MIC, Wall Street and a certain foreign entity that keeps bleeding us of our youth, treasure and standing in this world will move heaven and earth to prevent what truly and urgently needs to be done. Both parties are equally guilty for the losses we have incurred over the last 20 or so years.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
...
Tim
said on 1/4/2012 @ 6:20 am PT...
There should now be no further discussion:
ALL elections should be hand-marked and publicly counted. This proves it can be done. All of the Diebold/ES&S crap machines should be sent to Las Vegas for repurposing as gambling machines. And the crooks who sold this bill of goods (touch screen, no paper trail) should have to answer criminal charges.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
...
Dredd
said on 1/4/2012 @ 7:59 am PT...
Other reports have Romney winning by 8 votes. Wonder how the textbooks will handle it?
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
...
plunger
said on 1/4/2012 @ 12:23 pm PT...
Uh, Brad...
"Santorum, a late comer, but one who finally surged from behind"
Just Google it?
Very clever.
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
...
plunger
said on 1/4/2012 @ 12:24 pm PT...
"By tomorrow morning Santorum will be on the lips of every American."
Just Google it!
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
...
Patti Cowgirl Holly
said on 1/4/2012 @ 2:21 pm PT...
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
...
David Lasagna
said on 1/4/2012 @ 2:28 pm PT...
TPM says Romney won by 8 votes.
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
...
David Lasagna
said on 1/4/2012 @ 2:30 pm PT...
Whoops! Cut to close up of Gilda Radner, "Never mind!"
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
...
Brad Friedman
said on 1/4/2012 @ 2:34 pm PT...
Gotta do a bunch of radio in next several hours (See "Media Apperances" box in right sidebar for details if you'd like to listen along), but in regard to "Patti Cowgirl Holly" and others who have written with concerns about last night's results, so far at least, I've been able to get logical, verifiable answers to most of them. Largely because of the transparent process employed by the GOP in Iowa last night!
I'll try to work up a full post on those concerns (and the remaining unanswered ones) later tonight if I can.
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
...
Marzi
said on 1/4/2012 @ 2:50 pm PT...
I thought a fellow named Ron Paul came in a respectable third - yet no mention here. I guess there's no interest on this site of ending the crooked Fed. With the other candidates it's the usual charlatanism.
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
...
Larry Bergan
said on 1/4/2012 @ 4:31 pm PT...
One large caucus in Des Moines was unwilling to release their results to CNN before phoning them in to the GOP.
How could that be a problem?
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
...
Brad Friedman
said on 1/4/2012 @ 9:39 pm PT...
Geez, Marzi. Do I have to mention Ron Paul's name in every single article I write at The BRAD BLOG?! In the last 3 or 4 articles I wrote on Iowa, I think he was the only candidate I mentioned by name.
Tough house!
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
...
MTDEWY
said on 1/5/2012 @ 12:11 am PT...
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
...
Patti Cowgirl Holly
said on 1/5/2012 @ 4:31 am PT...
Thanks Brad for looking into this and EVERYTHING else you do!! It is very much appreciated =)
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
...
mitch
said on 1/5/2012 @ 8:27 am PT...
Brad, please do not resurrect Bev Harris. I had thought she had disappeared into Zombieland.
You are too nice of a guy, you don't understand informationwarfare. She had been designated by the powers-that-be to be the electoral fraud "truthteller" --- i.e., she would tell enough truth to be believed and then lie her brains out when it was strategically useful. However, you and 2 or 3 others derailed that plan. Thank goodness.
And now here she is, worming her way back into good graces. Ouch.
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
...
Brad Friedman
said on 1/5/2012 @ 10:29 am PT...
Mitch -
You are too nice of a guy, you don't understand informationwarfare.
Ummm....Thanks?
She had been designated by the powers-that-be to be the electoral fraud "truthteller" --- i.e., she would tell enough truth to be believed and then lie her brains out when it was strategically useful.
And your evidence to support that incredibly serious claim is? I'll be waiting...
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
...
mitch
said on 1/5/2012 @ 11:02 am PT...
I'm sorry but I can't teach you to add 2 plus 2, to see the trees behind the leaves, to recognize oft repeated patterns in the disinfo wars, etc.
It is this same reasoning defect that leads you to accept the official government conspiracy theory on 9/11 (last I knew your position).
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
...
Brad Friedman
said on 1/5/2012 @ 11:42 am PT...
Mitch condescendingly said:
I'm sorry but I can't teach you to add 2 plus 2, to see the trees behind the leaves, to recognize oft repeated patterns in the disinfo wars, etc.
I see. So you have no evidence for your scurillous claim, then? Only the assertion that your super powers allow you to see great things that us mere mortals can't. Got it. Very impressive, Captain Marvel!
It is this same reasoning defect that leads you to accept the official government conspiracy theory on 9/11 (last I knew your position).
Ah, yes. I see you are also keenly aware of my "accept[ance] of the official government conspiracy theory on 9/11"! Curses! I'm foiled again by your super powers! Keep up the dastardly good work and you shall soon save the world! From me! From Bev Harris! And from all the other evil-doers on whom your keen powers are sharply focused, even as we're hell bent on destroying it!
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
...
David Lasagna
said on 1/5/2012 @ 3:19 pm PT...
Mitch,
Excuse me but what the fuck are you talking about? I happened to be up in New Hampshire a couple of post-elections ago and got to meet, hang out, and help Bev and Sally Castleman a bit. I was with them when they confronted(and videotaped a Mr. Gardner(I believe it was)on some chain of custody issues. She sure as hell seemed like the real deal to me. Not that she was a flawless human, but man was she, and mostly a bunch of other grandmothers it seemed to me, doing heroic work trying to rescue our democracy.
So, what exactly you got, Bub? Anything besides your own private tea leaves and a steaming plate of innuendo?
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
...
mitch
said on 1/8/2012 @ 10:13 am PT...
Brad, it's all a cloth woven from a single thread. Naivete and arrogance is a very bad combination. That combo makes you very susceptible to manipulations.
I will no longer come here when I seek the truth on voting issues. Exit Brad the truth warrior, enter Brad the useful fool.
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
...
Brad Friedman
said on 1/8/2012 @ 1:54 pm PT...
Mitch said:
Naivete and arrogance is a very bad combination.
Understood. But we'll try not to hold that against you.
I will no longer come here when I seek the truth on voting issues.
Good idea. We do journalism here when in comes to "truth in voting issues" and, as such, only report stuff for which their is actually independently verifiable evidence. Apparently your not-at-all arrogant and magical standards of "evidence" --- in which no actual evidence is actually required-- are somewhat, um, different than ours. Good luck with your "truth" seeking!