Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri Primary Feb. 7th ...

[Selene]

Here are my picks and percentages:

Minnesota [caucus]

Santorum 36%

Romney 24%

Gingrich 21%

Dr. Paul 19%

Colorado [caucus]

Romney 39%

Santorum 29%

Gingrich 18%

Dr. Paul 14%

Missouri [Primary, but no delegates will be awarded - it is a "beauty contest which costs the taxpayers of Missouri $7,000,000]

Santorum 48%

Romney 35%

Dr. Paul 17%

Gingrich is not on the ballot.

Adam

[Peter]

We need fundamental change, and for that we need someone who’s word is their bond. We need resolve. We need elect-ability. Who will give us that? Gingrich says he is the only one with that resolve. Santorum says he is, and Romney can’t debate Obama on Obamacare. Romney says his word is his bond and he will stop Obamacare. Ron Paul says he is the dangerous one - dangerous to the Washington establishment and the status quo. Who can we trust? The voters will decide, and then we will support that person.

Obama now has his first super pac and is ready to propagandize America. For his campaign, he recently lowered his minimum donation to three dollars which is a good sign that his personal campaign with a maximum of 2500 dollars per donation per person is floundering but the super pac will hold a billion dollars, much of it given to it by people like George Soros, Barbara Streisand, and Steven Spielberg in big chunks of hundreds and perhaps millions of dollars.

I gave Romney’s super pack Restore Our Future, twenty five bucks. I linked to it from Yahoo which warned me it might be a scam. I told the folks at Restore Our Future that Yahoo was trying to scam them.

Peter

[Selene]

Tim Tebow and Tom Brady vote in Minnesota primary!

Shocking undercover video from James O’Keefe’s

Project Veritas

shows how easy it is to register NFL stars Tim Tebow, Tom Brady and practically anybody else to vote in that state. No identification of any sort is needed, just a name! In fact, you can take 20 application forms home, fill them in, check the “no ID” slot and batch register people in absentia. Even local election officials are dismayed with the complete lack of authentication of any sort. On the video, they admit “We’re not the police

.”

http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=174&load=6599

[Peter]

Robert Tracinski wrote in TIA Daily • February 6, 2012:

Pandering to an audience on Florida's "Space Coast"—the area around Cape Canaveral, which has been hit hard by the withering of America's space program—Newt vowed that by the end of his second term he would establish a permanent US base on the Moon. This by itself was bad enough, showing his inability to stick to the essential issues—the debt and the stifling, out-of-control growth of the welfare state—and his tendency to be distracted by his own flights of fancy and the resulting grandiose government spending projects. But that's not the crazy part. Newt went on to say that "When we have 13,000 Americans living on the moon, they can petition to become a state." So how would that work, exactly? Would the blue field on the new American flag have 50 stars—and one moon? What would we call this new lunar state—Newtopia?

The scientific, technological, and economic aspects of this proposal do not bear much examination, and I have no doubt that Gingrich hasn't given them much examination. For our purposes, I will simply point out that, unlike every state in union, such a massive moon base would have no independent economic base whatsoever. What could be mined or manufactured there that could not be done far more cheaply on Earth? Nor would it have any remotely plausible strategic or military rationale. Such a base and all of the people in it would have to be maintained by massive government spending purely as a vanity project. Yet this is what a supposed advocate of small government proposes as the basis for a new state in the union? There would be greater justification for making General Motors into the 51st state.

I don't mean to suggest that Newt has actually thought out these implications, and that's the point. Or rather, the point is this: he has thought out the implications that he's really concerned with. In his speech about his moon colony, Newt several times referred to himself as a "visionary," and that's what this is really all about. A friend of mine who is a science type likes to make the differentiation between the scientist's approach to the world and the "humanities major's" view of the world. The scientist thinks in terms of definite, provable facts and actually measured quantities, while the "hum major"—I believe he pronounces it "hum," as in "humbug"—thinks in terms of narratives he constructs in his own head. They are, he contemptuously concludes, just a bunch of "storytellers." There is a lot of truth to this, and boy does Newt Gingrich fit the profile. He is a story-teller with a fanciful narrative—which always features himself as the hero. He would spend hundreds of billions of dollars to establish a lunar base, just to support his inflated self-image as a great "visionary" leader.

Newt Gingrich carries statist, monument-building, bureaucratic vanity to the level of parody. So don't mourn Gingrich's fade in this race. But Romney's victory is nothing to celebrate, either. We are left with no good options this year . . . . So I'll return back to where I was before the latest rise and fall of Newt Gingrich. I do think that Romney would be a better president than Gingrich, if only by being less grandiose and self-aggrandizing. But there is nothing to be enthusiastic about on the presidential level. That's why I suggest focusing our hopes and our attention onto the vice-presidential nomination, where the smart thing for Romney to do would be to choose a young candidate with good Tea Party credentials. That will give us the hope that someone with firmer principles and stronger small-government sympathies is being prepared for the next decade's round of elections.—RWT

[Selene]

LIVE MISSOURI GOP PRIMARY ELECTION RESULTS

14.9% Precincts Reporting

1. Rick Santorum – 51%
   
2. Mitt Romney – 27%
   
3. Ron Paul – 11%
   
4. NOTE: GINGRICH NOT ON BALLOT
   

PROJECTED MISSOURI PRIMARY WINNER - TOO EARLY

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Sounds like Tracinski would have bashed JFK for announcing the idea of sending a man to the moon and bringing him back. Maybe something to the effect that JFK carried "statist, monument-building, bureaucratic vanity to the level of parody"?

Would Tracinski have pointed out that the "scientific, technological, and economic aspects of this proposal do not bear much examination," and have had no doubt that JFK "hasn't given them much examination"?

Would he have wondered how that would work, anyway? And what benefit would it bring to the economy of the USA?

And, returning to the present, would he finally conclude that if JFK hadn't been so laughably foolish, Ayn Rand could have been saved the trouble of writing and presenting Apollo and Dionysus?

Michael

[Selene]

LIVE MISSOURI GOP PRIMARY ELECTION RESULTS

27% Precincts Reporting

1. Rick Santorum – 53%
   
2. Mitt Romney – 26%
   
3. Ron Paul – 12%
   
4. NOTE: GINGRICH NOT ON BALLOT
   

PROJECTED MISSOURI PRIMARY WINNER - TOO EARLY

[Selene]

LIVE MINNESOTA GOP PRIMARY ELECTION RESULTS

35% Precincts Reporting

1. Rick Santorum – 45% PROJECTED WINNER
   
2. Ron Paul – 26%
   
3. Mitt Romney – 16%
   
4. Newt Gingrich – 11%
   

PROJECTED MINNESOTA PRIMARY WINNER - RICK SANTORUM PROJECTED WINNER

—————————————

LIVE MISSOURI GOP PRIMARY ELECTION RESULTS

86% Precincts Reporting

1. Rick Santorum – 55% PROJECTED WINNER
   
2. Mitt Romney – 25%
   
3. Ron Paul – 12%
   
4. NOTE: GINGRICH NOT ON BALLOT
   

PROJECTED MISSOURI PRIMARY WINNER - RICK SANTORUM PROJECTED WINNER

LIVE COLORADO GOP PRIMARY ELECTION RESULTS

6.6% Precincts Reporting

1. Rick Santorum – 49%
   
2. Newt Gingrich – 21%
   
3. Mitt Romney – 19%
   
4. Ron Paul – 9%
   

PROJECTED COLORADO PRIMARY WINNER - TOO EARLY

Looks like a real ass kicking of the Underwear Man!

[Peter]

Adam wrote:

Looks like a real ass kicking of the Underwear Man!

end quote

Astonishing, Adam. Talk about momentum. Santorum wins Minnysota and Mizorry.

Msk wrote:

And, returning to the present, would he finally conclude that if JFK hadn't been so laughably foolish, Ayn Rand could have been saved the trouble of writing and presenting Apollo and Dionysus?

end quote

Thanks for the link to the most beautiful mind of the Twentieth Century. That is a beautiful polemic. But it is the context of our times with trillion dollar deficits, Michael, that diminishes what Newt whimsically said. I do not want us to put all of our eggs (the human race) in one basket but the moon is too close and vulnerable to any threat to earth. A Mars colony is a better choice. This must be only the third time I have disagreed with you.

We had our granddaughter over tonight so my daughter and son in law could go bowling. She is 27 months old exactly and she is finally starting to get me. We played around on the computer tonight. She likes to see the mouse move an arrow on the screen, with her in control.

And so to bed. Your friend Peter.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

But it is the context of our times with trillion dollar deficits, Michael, that diminishes what Newt whimsically said.

Peter,

I feel safe in presuming that you have heard from Newt's critics on this and not Newt himself. You are not the kind to smear with false statements presented as facts. I'm not talking about not liking a candidate or disagreeing with him. I'm talking about an outright smear.

Newt himself has said the moon project would cost the government LESS than it now spends because he wants to practically dismantle NASA (which he considers a gigantic bureaucracy that doesn't really do space travel anymore) and turn it all over to private enterprise. He wants to privatize the industry. He wants free competition and imagines if the government would get out of the way of space travel, there would be several rocket launches daily before too long.

Part of the government money he does want to spend on it is for prizes, like what happened with Lindbergh crossing the Atlantic ocean for a $25,000 prize. A competition. Contests. in other words, he wants to government to prompt the entry of entrepreneurs into space travel like it did with air travel, which later became a full-blown private industry, not have the government run the show and pay the bills.

He has said all this various times with the clarity I gave here, many of those times on national TV, but his critics keep saying he wants the government to irresponsibly spend gazillions on a lunar space colony when there is a huge debt in the USA. And that's proof that [insert your favorite Newt bash].

That's just wrong. In your face smear kind of wrong.

There's plenty to not like about Newt without doing that kind of stuff.

The fact that Tracinski would stoop to doing this shows that his wish to spin his agenda speaks louder to his integrity than his commitment to facts, which apparently he now believes can be twisted for a "good cause." I think that's a damn shame because I like Tracinski and used to think he was different than the mainstream.

Oh, well. Seems like when the price is right, they all have their price.

Michael

[Peter]

Michael wrote:

He wants to privatize the industry. He wants free competition and imagines if the government would get out of the way of space travel, there would be several rocket launches daily before too long. Part of the government money he does want to spend on it is for prizes, like what happened with Lindbergh crossing the Atlantic ocean for a $25,000 prize. A competition. Contests. in other words, he wants to government to prompt the entry of entrepreneurs into space travel like it did with air travel, which later became a full-blown private industry, not have the government run the show and pay the bills.

end quote

I have not seriously listened to Newt since that debate, and that Newtonian moment. I have been muting the TV, which I also do after a boring minute or two of Ron Paul after a second or third place finish. Your explanation is better than what he said in the debate and then began back peddling on, when his opponents rebutted his grandiose scheme.

He should have begun with the Prize explanation, not the Kennedy-isk, “I will put a colony on the moon by 2016.” Show me the money, Newt. It is just the wrong time to talk about spending us deeper into debt. I would be for prizes and free enterprise, and for keeping military research funded. Iran just claimed that they put a satellite in orbit, and China does want to call the moon, Little Beijing.

Newt did horribly in the Caucuses Tuesday night, worse than Romney, who still has over double Newt’s delegate count. Santorum gets to be the Not-Mitt now. Obama’s numbers are higher than all the Republicans’. Tracinski is right about the Veep position. Paul Ryan, or Marco Rubio. Mitch Daniels is of an older demographic but would be good for Mitt or Rick, but maybe not so good for Newt.

What you say about Tracinski smearing Newt is what I have been hearing about Mitt from the right. But the Primaries is the right time to be saying it. He did not help himself when he said he would vote for cost of living hikes in the minimum wage, but I think Mitt is honest and has evolved in a conservative direction.

Peter Taylor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Peter,

I don't think Romney is honest. If he gets power, I suspect he will be more like Richard Nixon than any other administrative style.

He has a long history of competing by spinning stuff to way past the dishonest point just so he can reach the "nasty enough" level for his target demographic.

That kind of behavior does not come with the promise that it will go away once power is achieved. The USA power structure is set so that we have checks and balances. If Romney gets power and gets checked on something he wants, I fully expect him to make use of what has worked for him in the past--i.e. dirty tricks against his opponents.

But I'm not so concerned about him. It's his banking masters behind the scenes that bother me. George Soros was right in that there is no fundamental difference between him and Obama. They are both faithful servants of the same mega-bankers. Essentially, that means saying no more war in public while getting the USA into more wars.

Wars are great business for mega-bankers. They always have been and it doesn't matter who wins.

Michael

[Selene]

Correct.

Not only correct about the puppet masters behind this empty suit, but he is basically not likable.

[Selene]

Ron Paul attendees at the Denver Colorado GOP meeting allegedly, "push" the meeting "...into madness...":

Really, with Points of Order? They are always in order. Seems like the Republican Party Romneyites are going to steamroll this nomination.

http://www.theblaze....g-into-madness/

Maher told The Denver Post that Ron Paul delegates were trying to shout down Denver County GOP Chairman Danny Stroud, Treasurer Alex Hornaday and Secretary Brett Moore. Maher explained the melee to the Post:

“The Ron Paul people showed up with an alternate set of rules and calendar for the day. (One woman) was standing at the mic and kept demanding to be recognized. She kept calling point of order and that was the first yelling. Once the rules were adopted the Ron Paul people demanded they be read aloud so Danny called up Brett to read them, which made everyone flip out again because he did it in his fast reader voice (he used to be the reader for the state House.)”

The nerve of these citizens demanding that the meeting be run by the rules that the meeting has adopted!!!!

Adam

[9thdoctor]

Ron Paul attendees at the Denver Colorado GOP meeting allegedly, "push" the meeting "...into madness...":

Yeah, well he's just got the endorsement of a real shit-stain:

Alright, not really...