Only 18% Like Iowa, New Hampshire Always Going First in Presidential Process

This headline from Rasmussen tells it all but was surprised there was any doubt by any thinking Republican on Iowa and NH being first.  Maybe it is the word 'thinking' that gets the 41%.  Would be willing to bet that Conservative Republicans are in the 39% because it is ludicrous for two blue states to lead off the primary voting when they allow independents to vote.  As we said yesterday, four out of five states in early voting went for Obama and the fifth, South Carolina, allows independents to vote.  Why are Republicans allowing independents to help choose their nominee or in some cases Democrats who registered independent to create chaos.

Only 18% Like Iowa, New Hampshire Always Going First in Presidential Process

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 18% think it’s good for the presidential nomination process that the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire Primary are first every four years. Thirty-nine percent (39%) think it’s bad for the selection process, but a sizable 43% are not sure.

On top of everything else, Twitter is alive with NH has a case of the blahs when it comes to this primary.  Cannot say as I blame them.  They are about to award their primary to Mitt Romney who loves to fire people.  Media can spin it, Romney can spin it, but at the end of the day it came out of his mouth with his normal arrogant attitude:




Looks like at least one Super PAC has decided to take on Romney's tenure at Bain Capital where Bain looted companies for their profits, sent their work overseas, and then laid off employees.  Looking forward to seeing that video.  The biggest question is if all the jobs being sent overseas by Bain were to areas where there are Mormon missions since Romney and the Mormon Church are joined at the hip.  





Bain Capital is not what most of us think of when we think of capitalism. Bain Capital reminds us more of a company that is out for pure profit and could care less about the workers. They lie that a company is near bankrupty when they take it over, pull out the profits, and leave the employees to flounder on unemployment. But then when you are paying a former head of your company millions a year, guess it should be expected. Romney received a sweetheart deal from Bain that he still is getting millions from today.

Now we are learning that Romney's major bundlers are from Wall and K Streets -- bankers and lobbyists. Would someone please tell us why Romney would make a good President when he is in the hip pocket of the same type people we accuse Obama of having as his donors?

The ruling by the Supreme Court on Citizens United has put this election in the hands of the establishment lobbyists and bankers which is wrong.  We would be better off if they threw out all of McCain/Feingold all together than what we have today for campaign finance reform.  The new system means the wealthy have all the say when it comes to what the electorate hears if the Republican primary is an example. 

We are learning just how deep Romney's ties to lobbyists go thanks to the Citizens United ruling from the New York Times:

January 8, 2012, 9:00 pmHappy Lobbyists, Unhappy CitizensBy THOMAS B. EDSALL 

Few people were more elated at 2:20 a.m. Wednesday morning when Mitt Romney was declared the winner of the Republican caucuses in Iowa than a small group of lobbyists unknown outside of the Washington Beltway. All indications suggest that the New Hampshire primary this Tuesday will bring similar joy. 

These 15 men are leaders of what might be called Romney’s K Street army. They are key players in the mobilization of Washington’s $3.5 billion lobbying industry in support of his candidacy. Romney, more than anyone else who is running, is the favorite of the capital’s influence-wielding establishment. 

All 15 are active fundraisers for Romney. Patrick J. Durkin, who lobbies for Barclays, for example, raised $254,825, according to reports filed by the Romney campaign. Robert Grand, of the lobbying firm Barnes & Thornberg, raised $110,050; William Mark Simmons and David Beightol, both of the Dutko Group, raised $69,260 and $54,200 respectively; Wayne Berman and Drew Maloney, both in the Ogilvy Government Affairs firm, raised $101,600 and $56,750, respectively. The list goes on. 

The presence of these and other prominent Washington players supporting the Romney campaign signals that the establishment, at least its Republican wing, has concluded that the former Massachusetts governor is a safe bet. 

The open participation of lobbyists in the current campaign is one more element in the collapse of campaign-finance reform. Two waves of reform — the first in the post-Watergate era of the mid-1970s and the second culminating in 2002 with the passage of the McCain-Feingold act, which sought to end the use of “soft money” in campaigns — are essentially moot. 

But these reforms have been gutted by Supreme Court decisions, especially the Jan. 21, 2010 decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and by a lax Federal Election Commission. Corporate donors, labor unions and individuals willing to write big checks are free to use their money to favor certain candidates. If they want to keep the contributions secret from public view, there are many opportunities for concealment. 

In the current election, contributions that would not have been possible before Citizens United are flowing freely. In the first six months of 2011, for example, the Super PAC operating on Romney’s behalf, Restore Our Future, reported corporate contributions of $1 million each from Eli Publishing Inc. and F8 LLC, both based in Provo, Utah; $250,000 from The Villages of Lake Sumter, Inc. in The Villages, Fla.; and $100,000 from 2GIG Technologies in Lehi, Utah. 

Members of Romney’s cadre of lobbyists contacted by The Times declined to speak on the record, but each one disavowed seeking any financial gain from Romney’s political success. Instead, they contended that they back Romney because they believe that he is the best candidate running. For lobbyists, few things are more attractive to prospective clients than having their guy in the White House. 

The interests represented by these particular Romney supporters run the gamut of national and international corporate powerhouses. 

A very abbreviated sampling includes much of the financial sector, including the Blackstone Group, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Visa, MasterCard, JPMorgan Chase, the Mortgage Bankers Association, the American Bankers Association, most of the pharmaceutical industry including Eli Lily & Co., Pfizer, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, the Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America, and companies like Verizon, AT&T, Walmart, Coca-Cola and General Motors.   

Excerpt:  Read more at The New York Times

Before anyone who reads this asks why are using the New York Times, the answer is simple.  They are more honest today then many of the so-called conservative media who are backing Romney.  Those conservative media types backing Romney had to do no vetting and I mean NONE!  It is not hard to track down the background on Romney and Bain Capital for starters or how Romney was a big proponent of gay rights when he ran for MA Governor in 2002 the same as he was pro-choice when he ran for Governor:

In disavowing the 2002 flyer, Romney's campaign has managed to open itself up to an attack by the reelection campaign of President Barack Obama, which questioned Romney's rejection of the flyers' language. 

"After Mitt Romney claimed he'd be a stronger advocate for gay rights than Senator Kennedy when he was running for office in Massachusetts, and one day after saying that gays should have 'full rights,' Romney's campaign today disavowed a flyer that simply said 'all citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference,'" emailed Ben LaBolt, the Obama campaign's press secretary. "What on that flyer does Mitt Romney disagree with? Does he not believe all Americans should have equal rights? Who is he trying to pander to now? This is why Americans will have trouble trusting Mitt Romney -- he doesn't keep his word."

Amazing how less than ten years later Romney wants us all to believe he was not for gay rights and now he is  pro-life.  Guess Romney took after Bush 41 when he was pro-choice before he became pro-life to run for President after being Vice President.  Romney will do and say anything to be the nominee.  If he thinks Republicans have torn him apart on the blogs, just wait until Obama gets done with him.  Romney is a sitting duck for all his flip flops and his lack of core values which change with the wind when he runs in the Republican primary.

As usual, the Republican establishment led by Bush 41 and the RNC have picked a real turkey this time to go with Dole in 1996.  Thought Dole was at least an honorable person with core values which got lost along the way when he endorsed Romney for the establishment.  Romney is not an honorable person and will lose big time to Obama no matter what the pollsters want you to believe.

There is more to come out on Romney and those voters in Iowa who supported him or in NH today who are going to vote for him should be ashamed for not vetting all the candidates including Romney and instead taking the word of professional pollsters and pundits on who they should support.  The old saying there is a sucker born every minute is as true today as it was when it was said.  There are a lot of Republicans who will believe everything they are told by the so-called conservative pundits.  I used to scoff at the mind numbed robot quip used by Democrats but not so sure anymore after this primary so far.  The flavor of the week for candidates has gotten very old but Fox News is still keeping it up.  This primary is undoubtedly media driven starting with Fox News.  Where are the thinking people of the Republican Party especially the conservatives?  Didn't think conservatives could be so easily swayed by the media but I may be wrong.

Romney had one ad about South Carolina that was considered false all the way around on the NLRB and Boeing.  He had his facts totally wrong but you won't hear that from the conservative pundits or their websites.

Makes you want to pull a Rip Van Winkle and sleep through the rest of the primary and general election waking up when it is over.  The election season continues to go on non-stop from year to year and frankly people are tired of all the debates thanks to the RNC and the continual comments by the talking heads on who is on first.  Time for a political breather and move all primaries back to the spring and away from January/February.  No debates before August would work out great and never any debates back to back along with no liberal moderators from the alphabet networks and cable.  Let the moderators come from Republican ranks who have been office holders or ran for office for the Republican primary and Democrats which is the media pundits for the Democrat primary.

This better be the last election where Iowa and New Hampshire go first or the RNC will have a true revolt on their hands if they don't already.  That revolt is starting to bubble up as witnessed by this Rasmussen poll, and it is going to get worse.  This choosing of our Republican nominee by media blackout, suspect polling, and an RNC who is in bed with Romney is beyond disgusting.