Buy at Amazon

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Senator Chuck Grassley Predicts Romney Win in Iowa

Thomas Alan was the first to pick this one up over at ElectRomneyIn2008 . . . but our very own Senator Chuck Grassley is officially not going to endorse anyone, and he predicts the Iowa Caucus result to be:

1) Mitt
2) Huckabee
3) Rudy

I hate these expectations to stay so high, but I do think that's what most people would guess now anyways.

For some interesting "Iowans for Romney" history regarding Chuck Grassley check here and here.


Anonymous said...

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

NEWSFLASH---Mike Huckabee Supported Bill to Give Driver's Licenses for Illegal Aliens

Vleeptron Dude said...

Yo Jeff Fuller --

Yo Jeff --

Thanks, sincerely, very much, for dropping by my blog VleeptronZ with your comment about the nasty push-polling in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Whoever's responsible -- candidate and push-pollers -- I hope they all wind up with felony convictions and prison sentences. (I know a lovely federal prison without fences or armed guards where the prisoners take care of wildlife in the forest.)

I am as admittedly a lefty (please don't confuse that as being a Democrat) as you and your blogs are admittedly pro-Romney, and I was particularly unhappy with Romney's campaign for and performance as Massachusetts (my state) governor. I believe no one in public office or politics today is as Hair and Teeth, and as lacking in substance, commitment or vision, as Mitt Romney.

Well, that's okay, the woods are filled with Hair and Teeth politicians from both major parties.

But I'm an Army veteran of the Vietnam war era, and his remarks about why his sons are doing more valuable work for America by assisting his campaign than serving and risking in the military during two major wars in Asia -- I found them personally insulting, and an elitist pissing on the young Americans who have found themselves pushed into the military because of rather hopeless economic civilian circumstances.

I wish just one of his boys -- like the Kennedy boys in World War Two, and Nixon's and Johnson's sons-in-laws, and like the wealthy young Al Gore during Vietnam -- had the brains and guts to say, "Dad, I'm joining up to serve." Leaders and their kids need to share the risk, particularly those leaders who think these ghastly new wars are necessary for America.

(I don't, I'll be voting for Paul or Kucinich at every opportunity.)

The notion of a Commander-in-Chief who never even served a short draftee stint in uniform -- well, it was as objectionable in Bill Clinton as it would be if Romney were elected. A president who is a vet *knows* things on a profoundly deep level, and sympathizes with young women and men in uniform in a way a non-vet never has and never will. Truman could fire MacArthur because Truman had commanded a Missouri National Guard artillery battery in WWI France, and *knew* what a commander's job was and what the military's relation to the civilian government was. Lincoln could show a special kind of mercy to his troops -- he refused to sign death warrants for deserters -- because he had fought in the Black Hawk War as a young man. There's just no substitute for military service in our top leadership.

I'm a Jew, and kicking off his campaign at the Henry Ford Museum -- it wasn't anti-semitic. It was worse. It was proof that he's collected a staff, led by himself, who knows nothing about the rather public and infamous history of Henry Ford and American Jews. That Romney comes from a Detroit automobile family himself makes his cluelessness positively incredible and dangerous -- what cave in his Dad's mansion could he have been hiding in? I just don't want someone that stupid and ignorant in the White House.

Haven't meant to piss you off, and I truly appreciate your contribution to Vleeptron's coverage of this miserable, nasty, almost hopeless Hair and Teeth campaign. Please do it again.

Also thanks for being an opthalmologist, try to stay out of the Lasik racket. America's eyeballs just don't need that kind of greedy, medically useless and dangerous crap.

Anonymous said...

What do you make of's reporting that Romney is ahead only in the group of Republicans who have never voted in a caucus before and Huckabee ahead or tied everywhere else?

Just MSM hype because they have a vested interest in seeing Romney lose? I hope so. But you know Iowa better than I.

Jeff Fuller said...

Vleeptron Dude,

Thanks for coming to our blog and commenting!

You said: "and his remarks about why his sons are doing more valuable work for America by assisting his campaign than serving and risking in the military during two major wars in Asia . . ."

You are incorrect. He never said it was "more valuable" nor did he say it was "as valuable". He said, half chuckling if you heard/saw the event "One way my sons are serving America . . ." The media jumped on this as him "EQUATING" that service to military service. Within hours he stated that was not what he meant to imply at all and went a step further offering an apology to any military who may have been offended by the misinterpretation. I think people just need to "move on" on that whole episode.

The last time I checked we do have a VOLUNTEER military. I deeply appreciate the service that you and others provide(d) but disagree that military service is a pre-requisite to national leadership. Romney's sons made up their own minds. (but wouldn't the "calculating" Mitt have forced at least one of his sons into the military for his own political gain?) This "chicken hawk" argument won't fly here or elsewhere.

PS. I've never done LASIK and don't have plans to. I have seen it drastically help lots of people (and harm a few). It's a two edged sword, like so many things. But I'm a retinal specialist and steer clear of corneal surgery.

Vleeptron Dude said...

Yo Dr. Jeff --

Thanks! The micromanipulation of infinitessimal political nuances is ... uhhh ... sort of interesting ... in some sort of Alternative Universe ... uhhh ... I guess ... maybe.

I saw the video of Romney's statement. If it was widely misinterpreted ... if people completely missed his obvious tongue-in-cheek humor ... then Romney needs immediately to get out of the Humor Business forever. I remain profoundly offended by his comment if that's what he meant, or if he was "just making a joke."

I think people just need to "move on" on that whole episode.

Well, yeah, if I'd stuck my foot in my mouth that bad and insulted everybody who ever served in an American uniform so profoundly, I would also very much like to "move on." "Move on" is politicese for "Please get me out of this mess quickly, I don't want to talk about it anymore."

I would have appreciated your commenting on the Henry Ford Museum kickoff, too. Mitt seems to be just collecting "Let's move on now ..." moments.

Two presidencies and nearly two full cabinets have now been trying to educate the American voter on why it is no longer important whether a candidate for president ever served in the US military.

Never mind that I think it's crap. Every American who ever served or ever had a father or uncle or grandfather who served sniffs that line and smells self-serving draft-evading crap. It's about sacrifice of a few years of your life for something bigger than you, your career, your fortune. It's about a little (statistical -- most servicemen don't get killed or maimed) risk for something bigger than yourself. And Americans who DID serve or have family members who DID serve -- well, this "Let's move on, it's an All-Volunteer Military Now" stuff -- the voters will smell that for the 5-day sushi that it is.

The sad part is that Mitt understood the notion of sacrifice in his years of missionary work.

But while hundreds of thousands of others sacrificed some of their life and risked for the USA in uniform ...

On this issue, Romney's recycling the Clinton campaign's public re-education campaign. It's GREAT that he never served! It's All-American that he never served! Voters will be better served by a president who never served!

When all Americans truly believe that -- that risk and sacrifice are for losers and poor people, not for "special" people and their kids -- then we've really lost the heart of what America was worth caring about in the first place. We're a nation of contracting out to let other peoples' kids do the risking, sacrificing, maiming and dying.

Mitt doesn't get this issue SO profoundly, I don't want him ANYWHERE near my White House.