Remarks And Asides On Iowa

The final results:

THE LIAR………………………. 24.6%

GOD’S CANDIDATE #1….. 24.6%

CRAZY UNCLE RON……….. 21.5%

NETTLED NEWT……………. 13.3% 

GOD’S CANDIDATE #3….. 10.3%

GOD’S CANDIDATE #2……. 5.0%

In the 2008 Iowa Caucuses, The Liar, as Nettled Newt likes to call Mitt Romney, got 30,021 votes and finished a distant second to a bass-playing Baptist preacher.  After more than five years of running for president, and millions upon millions of dollars spent, this year The Liar received six fewer votes and just barely beat a man with a Google problem (the difference: 8 votes out of 122,255 cast). That kind of efficiency is why, I suppose, we should elect him president.  Just ask him. Or ask John McCain, The Sore Loser, who is set to endorse The Liar today.

In any case, you may have noticed that God, as he is wont to do, hedged his bet in the race and had at least three entries.  If you think that is cheating, take it up with Him.  In the mean time, one of his candidates, #1, almost emerged the “winner” in a historic squeaker. And then, in his post-election speech, the God-endorsed candidate, beaming with ethereal pride, proceeded to bear false witness against the President.  I’m guessing God was in the lobby signing Bibles at the time.

Indeed, in many of the post-election speeches and true to form, the candidates told a number of whoppers about the socialist interloper in the White’s House.

And speaking of God and telling whoppers about the President, Pat Robertson has heard from God again. And guess what? What he heard fits in nicely with Robertson’s politics. God is good that way. Robertson shared this message from GOP Jesus:

Your country will be torn apart by internal stress. A house divided cannot stand. Your president holds a radical view of the direction of your country which is at odds with the majority. Expect chaos and paralysis. Your president holds a view which is at the odds with the majority — it’s a radical view of the future of this country, and so that’s why we’re having this division. This is a spiritual battle which can only be won by overwhelming prayer.  The future of the world is at stake because if America falls, there’s no longer a strong champion of freedom and a champion of the oppressed of the world. There must be an urgent call to prayer…This country is disintegrating.

Dang. I liked God much better when he was sending us “good tidings of great joy.”

But speaking of an urgent call to prayer and disintegration, I exhort you to make an appeal to the Almighty for fans of Crazy Uncle Ron, whose strong showing in Iowa last night will only intensify his followers’ delusions that this man has a future in the attic of the White’s House.

God’s candidate #3, also known as The Forgetful Texan, is going home to regroup and find out why God told him to run for president without equipping him for the job.

Speaking of being ill-equipped for the job, God’s candidate #2, who called Mr. Obama a socialist at least a gazillion times in her “concession” speech, gave no immediate indication when she will do the inevitable and give up the ghost, holy or otherwise.

The real story, though, is Nettled Newt. Speaking extemporaneously after his poor showing, which is his way of bragging about how darn smart he is, he was clearly still pissed about The Liar’s terrorist attack on his record and character. And Newt is planning a paradoxical counter-attack: telling “the truth” about The Liar.  Maybe in New Hampshire this week, as Newt carries out his strategy, some enterprising reporter will ask Newt how he can call The Liar a liar and accuse him of “buying” the election, yet still claim he would support him for president.

All in all, just another amusing day watching Republicans.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. ansonburlingame

     /  January 4, 2012


    You have been having a lot of fun with the GOP attempts to come to grips with who their eventual candidate will be in the general election. Your satire above is fine with me and I laugh when I read it.

    I think as well there was another “caucus” last night was there not. Outcome was”

    Socialism 100%

    That pretty well defines your party, satiracally as well.

    Come Nov 2012, let’s see:

    Socialism X%

    Freedom and Liberty for ALL Y%

    Care to fill in the blanks on that one?? Take religion out of the question, satirically, and I wonder who “God” would vote for???



    • Two things:

      1) If you really think Barack Obama is a socialist, you are out of your mind.

      2) God is a real socialist, since he owns all the means of production (“the cattle on a thousand hills”) and is willing to share all with all as he manages the universal economy.

      So, put that in your Fox pipe and take a big hit.



      • ansonburlingame

         /  January 4, 2012

        And if you think Romney is a LIAR then your mind is, again, up in “smoke”. See my comment to Jim about Romney’s character, below.



    • “Care to fill in the blanks on that one?? Take religion out of the question, satirically, and I wonder who “God” would vote for???

      No one, because “God” won’t be there to vote.

      “And if you think Romney is a LIAR then your mind is, again, up in “smoke”.”

      Romney isn’t liar! He just doesn’t tell the truth! Now Newt, there’s a toad who knows how to fall off the “stump.”


      • ansonburlingame

         /  January 6, 2012

        OK, HLG,

        “God will not be there to vote”. Baloney. Who do you think motivated all the Christian right votes for Santorum in Iowa?

        No, God does not vote, but His influence on people sure causes them to vote IAW with their beliefs.

        So keep on attacking such beliefs if you like but there are helluva lot of voters in America, not a majority thank goodness, but still a lot, that vote as they BELIEVE God would want them to vote.

        And guess what all you evangelical bashers, you only antagonize such voters by bashing God OR their BELIEFS in such a god.

        It seems to me that a negative campaign against God or any god is a little misguided but you can develope your own strategies in that regard and I will just watch what happens.

        But watch out as well. There are a lot of people, blacks in particular, that will only go so far to reject their religous beliefs for politics and more money.



  2. An excellent, amusing, entertaining and insightful write-up of the Iowa dust-up, Duane. Well done, in the grand tradition of political polemics.

    What this race really shows me however is how subjective is the process of democratic governance in a free and open society. Everything is subject to interpretation by a body politic that varies enormously in its ability and inclination to process the information. Some do so in depth, some only superficially and some purely on some indefinable spiritual level, and yet out of the chaos of politicking the country usually seems to get some good picks. If nothing else, the process seems to expose the innate personalities of the candidates for all to see. In the present case, I suggest, that would include:

    Romney: a rich-man persona with a strange lack of personal flaws that make me wonder about the religion that apparently powers his ambitions. And if it’s not religion that does, then what is it?
    Gingrich: lively and articulate intelligence along with in-depth political experience, but driven by volatile and self-centered emotions.
    Santorum: a seriously religious creationist and thus may be disconnected from reality in important ways. Likely unable to relate to many citizens, particularly the younger ones.
    Paul: consistent in his libertarian views, a true-believer, but unwilling to accommodate the reality of the global marketplace.
    Perry: another very religious man, but one who lacks intellectual depth and adroitness in thinking. I marvel at his success as governor of Texas, considering these shortcomings.
    Bachman: exemplifies physical attractiveness and spirituality, traits important to many voters, but lacks intellectual depth and experience.

    All in all, this is the most varied mix of pols I can ever remember in a primary race, but then I was never this involved with politics before – I never had the time.


    • Jim,

      I like your analysis of the personalities involved, especially Romney. I think a man that can be in the business he was in (via Bain Capital) that necessarily (in order to make a profit) had to strip away parts of companies and the workers that go with them is a special breed of cat. And the kind of cat I don’t want running the country.

      In any case, I appreciate the fact that you can appreciate the polemical nature of some of my stuff, which style of writing makes doing this gig much more fun. It can’t all be graphs and numbers or excursions into esoteric political philosophy. I’d go nuts.



  3. More examples of the implosion of the Republican Party.

    I am always confused by such people as Santorum, Perry, Bachmann, Cantor, Blunt, and others stating that they are deeply religious individuals. I find it difficult to believe that their negative attitudes toward the uninsured, the poor, and the middle class would be blessed by God or His Son Jesus. Didn’t Jesus say that a man is blessed by the way he/she treats the poor (Prov 22:9; Deut 15:10; Luke 14:12-14; Matthew 19;20? And God made many commands concerning the poor, some which are found in Luke 12:33, Luke 3:11, Matthew 5:42, Deut 15:7, and Deut 26:12.

    The sections of the Bible that the wealthy and their supporters (both Republican and Democrat) need to note are those that address the consequences of not serving the poor. A few of the many passages concerning this can be found in Ezek 16:49, Luke 1:52, Jer 5:28, James 5:1-6, and Luke 16:19-25, and there are many more in both the Old and New Testaments.

    The Bible also commands attitudes for believers toward the poor, which many people tend to ignore, such as Prov 29:7, 1 John 3:17, Matthew 6:24, 1 Timothy 6:10, Gal 2:9, Prov 14:31, and Prov 19:17. There are many more found in the Bible.

    And don’t to forget Matthew 19:23-24, which states the following from Jesus: “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Similar versions can also be found in Mark 10:24-25 and Luke 18:24-25. As the passage reads, it is possible for a rich person to enter heaven, but he/she will need positive attitudes and exhibit concerns and take actions for the poor. The rich person who is consumed with his/her wealth is the real sinner, according to the scriptures.

    The attitudes of many of our politicians, as well as voters, to add to the coffers of the wealthy at the expense of the poor and so-called “middle class” is not Biblical. Their attitudes and actions will not be looked on favorably at the day of Judgement when the passages noted above are brought to their attention.

    Perhaps those who engage in worshiping the wealthy, taking from the poor, calling for a return to “preexisting conditions” for insurance coverage, repealing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid need to read their Bibles before it is too late. They need to take care of the poor, and, with the large numbers today, it is not possible for churches and civic organizations to do it themselves. Who does that leave to carry out the words of God and Jesus? It is the government–the only agency big enough to fulfill the teachings of God and Jesus concerning Biblical treatment of the poor.


    • Jim,

      You made good points, from a religious perspective:

      They need to take care of the poor, and, with the large numbers today, it is not possible for churches and civic organizations to do it themselves.

      If, say, we lived in tiny agrarian communities, spread out over the country, then, yes, churches and civic groups could handle the load of caring for the poor, etc. But we don’t. We live in a complex, interconnected society and, as you say, it is not possible for charitable groups to do all the heavy lifting. If it were possible, there would have been no New Deal, including Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid.

      And, as you say, the government—we the people, acting collectively—is the only unit sufficient in size to do the big job that needs to be done, if we are to maintain our status as one nation.
      I want to say that when I was an evangelical Christian, I noticed too often that my religious beliefs were tied to my political ones, mainly my conservative political beliefs. I remember reading stuff that explicitly tried to twist Bible verses into supporting free-market capitalism and other absurd notions. In some ways, modern evangelical Christianity is so intermingled with the Republican Party and its politics, that it is hard to tell them apart. And that admixture hurts both entities.



  4. ansonburlingame

     /  January 4, 2012

    To all,

    Actually I agree with Jim’s character assessment (not assination as Duane does with all things GOP) of the GOP candidates.

    Might I as a conservative “complete the race” however and assess the President, no, not the President, the Democratic candidate this year, for the next presidency.

    Obama. A smart and articulate man with great human compassion for the downtrodden. But he lacks the depth of appreciation for all things American, as well as ALL Americans, fat cats included. He is somewhat out of touch with the basic sentiments of America today and American history as well and thus is vulnerable to arguments FOR, all things traditionally American, for a very long time. Instead he still proposes far too much “change” now that Americans understand rather clearly what he means by such.

    It will be a great race in my view and I HOPE it is one as revealed today by Reich in his Globe column. Obama/Clinton and Romny/Rubio. Now that is a choice we can all argue like heck, and in the end I will be able to live with once decided in Nov 2012.

    But Obama alone against Santorum, Gingrich, Paul, Perry, Bachmann and yes, Huntsman, maybe, I will be holding my nose.



    • Anson,

      I’d be interested to read a further explanation of why you think President Obama “lacks a depth of appreciation for all things American, as well as ALL Americans, fat cats included”. What are “ALL things American?” I believe it’s fair to say that the president represents a considerable number of Americans. And just how is he “out of touch” with American history?


      • King Beauregard

         /  January 4, 2012

        I’ve talked once or twice about how I think conservatism is a tribal phenomenon: if you’ve still got those primordial instincts to commit to a tribe and defend it at all costs, you will likely end up conservative. I think Anson is describing exactly that, but in a fashion that confuses liberals, who don’t have those same tribal instincts.

        To Anson, American-ness is a nearly tangible thing, and tracks strongly with his comfort zone. To you and me, American-ness is much more abstract, and doesn’t mean anything until we assess it on a molecular level … at which point we conclude that the exceptions outnumber the rules, and we’re not left with much beyond “a commitment to a society that tolerates people willing to coexist peacefully”.


    • Romny/Rubio? Serious??? Is one liar not enough? LOL


      • Edwino,

        Perhaps you don’t understand Republican mathematics. If you put up two folks who trade in falsehoods, they magically cancel each other out and truth emerges.

        I hope that helps.



        • Duane,

          Then for a higher reading on the truthmeter,
          Romney/Perry would be a more perfect fit.
          Romney with regard to Medicare, and Perry
          with Medicaid (“The golden teeth Medicaid scandal: crooked
          Medicaid spending on orthodontia” in clinics owned by
          hedge funds, e.g. All Smiles Dental Centers ; also the $500
          million disaster in replacing state employees by private
          contractors ACCENTURE [former consultancy arm of the now
          defunct accounting firm ARTHUR ANDERSEN], Deloitte
          Touche to run Medicaid). The more than 2000 years’ old
          saying: “Mundus vult decipi, decipiatur ergo” seems to be
          more alive than ever.



          • Edwino,

            Excellent stuff.

            Romney does have a Medicare problem, among other things. As soon as he gets things locked up on his side, he will begin to fudge on his enthusiastic support of Paul Ryan’s Medicare-killing budget plan.

            And Perry, who everyone assumed was going to Texas to lick his wounds and quit the race, is still alive, but I’m afraid Romney isn’t dumb enough to pick him as a VP. My money is on Chris Christie. Christie is obviously running for the job and he would be an obvious choice, as conservatives seem to love him for his willingness to be rude to people who disagree with him. And his bluntness and personality would balance out Romney’s blandness.

            In any case, I love that Latin phrase. My Latin is limited to the low-rent variety called Latinus Sus scrofa and here is one of my favorite phrases: Ewarebay ofway ightray-ingersway amednay Eoffgay.



    • Anson,

      You contradict yourself, which is another way of saying it is all nonsense. On the one hand, you say Obama is “somewhat out of touch with the basic sentiments of America today and American history” (whatever the hell that means), and then on the other hand you say it will be “a great race.” How can that be? Was 53% of the electorate last time out of touch with themselves?

      Perhaps, as John suggests, Obama is in touch with a lot of Americans, just not the kind you touch. Thankfully, there are more folks in the American electorate that those you break bread with at libertarian luncheons.

      Finally, please supply an answer to John’s inquiry. Just what are the “ALL things American” that Obama doesn’t appreciate?



  5. ansonburlingame

     /  January 4, 2012

    Jim, alone,

    I must address you question about the reason for Romney’s “character” or lack of “flaws”.

    I have no doubt at all that it is the result of his religion and his “upbringing” in that religion. THAT is his “core” in my view.

    I have known and worked with many Mormans, particularly in my two years working in Las Vegas. I NEVER met one professionally that did not reflect great character in terms to honesty, hard work or work ethic, etc.

    As well I NEVER met a Morman that wore his religion on his “sleeve”. They as individuals kept their faith very closely held and NEVER were evangelical or “pushy” in terms of such fatih.

    And I will bet you that Romney “prays like hell” but VERY privately and will NEVER use his own faith as a basis for governing. He will only apply it personally and there we get a glimpse of the “inner man” a man with very strong faith.

    For me there is NOTHING wrong with such faith, kept inside, so to speak. It only lends huge strength to one, personally, when the chips are down in his own life, like a wife with MS or raising his own kids, pretty good kids from what I can see.



    • @ Anson,

      Howard Hughes held Mormons in as much esteem as do you, which is why, as I have read, his body of personal aides was recruited from that faith. The source of my misgivings about it derive from the nature of the religion itself. I know of no other which holds such complete dominion over its followers, which so successfully derives material wealth from them, as in tithing, and which is in itself so secretive as to be sinister.

      If Mormons were like most other “Christians”, most of whom are Sunday Christians, I wouldn’t be as concerned, but they are not. This is serious religion on steroids, and for it to be so secretive and so very materialistically-successful at the same time makes me, like Duane, suspicious. Are rigid ideology and independent moral thinking really compatible?

      I recommend further reading:



  6. ansonburlingame

     /  January 4, 2012

    OK, John and Duane,

    I am of course going to repeat myself, but so what. What you ask is “American-ness”.

    Well might I start with FREEDOM AND LIBERTY FOR ALL. Is that simple enough for you?

    How about “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” for ALL Americans? Need I capitalize PURSUIT as well?

    What pray tell are the essential themes of Americanism down through the two plus centuries if not the two above.

    Might I also add “individualism” as a very essential American trait observed, sometimes disdained, but always recognized around the world. Look at Ben Franklin in France as just an early example. The French fell “in love” with him over his “Ameriicanism” fur hat and all which became a fashion style in France.

    The “pursuit of happiness” based on individual effort for Americans and their families is about American as it gets, in my view. But along with that comes individual American compassion as well as seen right here in Joplin about 5 minutes after the storm hit last May.

    THAT is Americanism right before us all with NOT a SINGLE SOUL in Joplin sitting on a side walk calling for GOVERNMENT to bail them out. Sure government arrived but with far more volunteers than government as well.

    Now go read my own reasons why I think Romney has good “character” as well. A deep sense of spiritual things goes along with the American Spirit as well in my view. NOT religous rants. NO way. Just a sense of “something” being on the side of “good” and a sense that we as individuals are not just in “it” by ourselves.

    We as Limbaugh recently said are not genetically any different than any others. But I say we are AMERICANS as described above far more than most. And I never hear Obama speak along such lines.



    • Anson,

      So, President Obama doesn’t believe in “FREEDOM AND LIBERTY FOR ALL”. Thanks for clearing that up. However, you failed to mention apple pie. Shame on you.


  7. ansonburlingame

     /  January 5, 2012


    You try to trivialize a VERY important point. But to answer your question directly, NO, not the the extent that he should support it.

    He wants GOVERNMENT to make the key decisions, not individuals. That is the WHOLE argument against him and his minions.

    He pulled the wool over Americans eyes three years ago with “hope and change”. Now we see for ourselves the details of such “change” and decreasing “hope” for ALL Americans.

    Do you think there is anything UNIQUE about American government over the centuries? I do and I told you why above, very concisely.

    And for Jim,

    So now you propose that we hold a national election over the “secrecy” of Mormans. And you try to compare me to Howard Hughes for Christ’s sake when I make a statement admiring strong individual faith is something beyond themselves.

    You and yours would LOVE to turn the discussion to religion instead of the economy and defense of the nation. Forget it!! I don’t know what Romney heard in church for 20 years but I bet it was not black liberation theology. Do you support THAT theoloy!!!



    • My, Anson, raising that subject sure got your shorts in a knot, didn’t it? It’s fine to throw the Jeremiah Wright thing around, but not the Mormon church thing? Truth is, it is fair game in the free-for-all polemics that constitute American politics. But in this case, let me try to clarify the difference between the two cases, since what I stated before apparently isn’t clear to you.

      In the Obama case, that brand of religion is the Sunday type that I referred to in my comment. Despite its strong rhetoric the black Baptist brand constitutes an organization more of a social nature in this country and, unlike the LDS model, lacks evidence of having substantial control over people’s behaviors. Moreover, unlike services in the LDS model, those are publicly open.

      Look, I’m not saying the LDS church is evil, I’m saying it is unique and, well, strange, and, given its demonstrated capacity for controlling behavior and material results, it is fair game for questioning.


  8. ansonburlingame

     /  January 5, 2012

    ALL religion can be challenged and frequently is by many.

    the point is should such challenges be part of a political campaign in America today.

    Remember 1960 when grave concern was express over electing a Catholic? Are we now beyond such ‘stuff” today?

    I am sure Santorum as a very devout Catholic believes in the infalliblity of the Pope. So what or do you want to make a big deal over that point as many did in 1960.

    If I thought that Romney would try to rule as directed by the Morman faith, or Santorum by the Catholic faith or Perry by the Baptist faith, I would NOT vote for them. Perry, I think just might try such a stunt and I have already said I won’t vote for HIM, just for that reason.

    Santorum for sure will do all in his power to jam a law against all abortion down our throats. I have real concerns over that single issue on his part.

    Romney has done nor said nothing or anything to show me that his personal faith im a spiritual power will have anything to do with how he will try to govern.

    But if you want to go on a witch hunt against Mormanism simply because you don’t “understand” that faith, be my guest. You only diminish yourself in doing so, in my view.



  1. Romney And Robertson Are Out To Prove God Wrong? « The Erstwhile Conservative: A Blog of Repentance
%d bloggers like this: