<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
	<channel>
		<title>Coulter Op-Ed: Iowa Shows Republicans Determined To Beat Obama</title>
		<link>/blogentry/62077</link>
		<atom:link href="https://www.lotterypost.com/rss/blogcomments/62077" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<description>Starr920's Blog: Coulter Op-Ed: Iowa Shows Republicans Determined To Beat Obama</description>
		<dc:language>en-us</dc:language>
		<generator>Lottery Post RSS Generator</generator>
		<item>
			<title>Original Blog Entry: Coulter Op-Ed: Iowa Shows Republicans Determined To Beat Obama</title>
			<link>/blogentry/62077</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">/blogentry/62077</guid>
			<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2012 09:57:12 GMT</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>Starr920</dc:creator>
			<description><![CDATA[<p><br /><br />Some Republicans, we were led to believe, would only be satisfied with angry denunciations of Obama as a Kenyan colonialist and demands for Barack Obama&#x27;s birth certificate -- without ever spending five minutes of calm contemplation to see that he had already produced it.<br /><br />And if there&#x27;s any place for a zealot to shine, it&#x27;s in a caucus state like Iowa.<br /><br />But Romney won -- in a razor-close finish with another plausible candidate, Rick Santorum.<br /><br />So the fact that the Iowa caucuses avoided giving the gold to Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul or some other sure-to-lose candidate shows that Republicans are dead serious about beating Obama this fall. Even in Iowa, the only Republican with a chance of doing that won.<br /><br />Conservatives are naturally suspicious of any candidate deemed electable on the grounds that the mainstream media always anoint the most liberal Republican, preferably pro-choice, as the electable one. And then that guy goes on to lose.<br /><br />But just because liberals misuse the word doesn&#x27;t mean there is no such thing as electable.<br /><br />Michele Bachmann was not electable as president because she is only a congresswoman, which is why she has now dropped out.<br /><br />Newt Gingrich is not electable for many reasons including that he, too, was only a congressman; he took $1.6 million from Freddie Mac (his latest excuse is that he got only $35,000 of that money and the rest went to overhead -- there&#x27;s a great fiscal manager); he cut a global warming commercial with Nancy Pelosi; and because he cheated on, not one, but two wives.<br /><br />Ron Paul is not electable as president for several reasons, including that he is only a congressman, is bad on illegal immigration, favors drug legalization and is off the charts on foreign policy.<br /><br />Rick Perry is not electable as president for three reasons: First, he seems too much like Bush; second, he gave illegal immigrants in-state tuition; and, third, uh, oops ... I can&#x27;t remember the third reason.<br /><br />As a two-time senator from a light-blue state, Rick Santorum is not as obviously unelectable as the rest. But don&#x27;t leap too fast, Republicans. Remember how Rick Perry broke your heart<br /><br />Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/2012-presidential-race/2012/01/04/coulter-op-ed-iowa-shows-republicans-determined-beat-obama#ixzz1iZmJdsJu<br /><br />... &#x5b;&#xa0;<a href="/blogentry/62077">More</a>&#xa0;&#x5d;</p>]]></description>
			<category>Blog Entry</category>
			<category>Starr920</category>
			<wfw:comment>https://www.lotterypost.com/blogentry/62077</wfw:comment>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

