Some thoughts after Iowa:
"Candidates can continue to say things that are "flatly, grossly, and shamefully untrue," as the Post's E.J. Doinne described it, without fear of retribution. Obama has traveled the world and "apologized for America," says Romney. Except that, no he hasn't. The stimulus "created zero jobs" says Rick Perry. Except it created or saved at least 3 million. Obama is going to "put free enterprise on trial," claims Romney. How does he square that with nearly 3 million private-sector jobs created under Obama policies in the past 20 months? In this media era, he doesn't have to square anything at all." Wise words written by Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor and publisher of the Nation magazine, and weekly columunist for The Post.
Can candidates say whatever they want and never be held to the truth? Why do reporters feel the obligation to balance their reporting when they reveal the Republican big lies by throwing in a Democrat to criticize to "balance" their reporting? I'm tired of this false balancing act by the media.
On to Iowa results:
Iowa is finally over. We learned that the Republicans in Iowa split three ways with Romney winning by 8 votes. Last time he ran for president in Iowa he recieved just 6 less votes than the votes he recieved last night. Thats a great deal of money spent to earn 6 less votes than the last time he campaigned in Iowa.
We are watching a very splintered Republican Party that can't seem to warm up their base to any of their current front runners. What base? Which base?
I'm worried about the 2010 Citizens United ruling that doesn't require disclosure of donors and can throw large chunks of money to support candidates. Romney's supporters flamed Newt Gingrich through their Super Pac.
There wan't any victory last night in Iowa. Iowa was more like a circular firing squad. What do you think Boehner and McConnell were thinking after the results came in?