US election 2012: Mitt Romney dealt double blow before South Carolina

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...#disqus_thread
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...=feeds-newsxml

The End: Texas Gov. Rick Perry announced he is quitting the race to become the Republican candidate

Just when you thought the race for the Republican nomination for U.S. President could not get any more volatile, something happens. There is now a shadow of doubt in the minds of Americans that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's march to the Republican nomination is a done deal. Texas Governor Rick Perry quit the race today. A former Newt Gingrich ex-wife is ready to tell all in an effort to hurt the former Speaker of the House's chances before the Saturday South Carolina primary. Also, Americans woke up today to the news that former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum actually won the Iowa Caucus.

All this going on while there is continuing evidence presented that President Obama's prospects for a second term are in doubt. Get ready for a fascinating few days for Republicans and a preview of the political war expected before the November vote for President of the United States. Rick Perry is out. This is not a game changer, but it may impact this race in the margins. He has decided to drop out of the race for the Republican nomination just before the Saturday South Carolina vote leaving Romney, Texas Representative Ron Paul, Santorum and Gingrich as the remaining choices for Republican voters.

Perry entered the campaign like a lion with big poll numbers and will leave like a lamb with another expected dismal performance in South Carolina. He was polling at about 5% (Rasmussen) in South Carolina. Newt Gingrich is expected to get a small bump from the Perry withdrawal. Yesterday, news broke that Marianne Gingrich, Newt's second wife, is airing some dirty laundry from their 18 year marriage. ABC News is reporting that she is going to discuss the reasons why the marriage dissolved. This information may have little impact on the race, but it will make for fascinating headlines leading into Saturday. This news is a complete wild card, because nobody knows the exact details of the revelations about Gingrich, nor is there any way to know if this news will have a big or small impact on Newt's chances going forward.

Ron Paul is not going anywhere and a shadow of doubt is growing in the minds of Americans that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's march to the Republican nomination is a done deal

Early this morning, news broke that Rick Santorum won the Iowa Caucus. The Des Moines Register reports that Santorum has won by 34 votes. This after Romney was declared the winner by the media by 8 votes late into the evening after the Caucus votes were cast. This does not change much, but it does remove the aura of inevitability that Romney will win all the caucuses and primaries for the Republican nomination. Ron Paul is not going anywhere. Paul pulled a third place finish (a tie if you only count the amount of delegates awarded) in Iowa and placed second in New Hampshire. Paul will fight past South Carolina and he may be one of three candidates left in the race in the important Florida primary in 12 days.

Can Paul start picking up support from the pools of Perry and Huntsman supporters? And will he continue to gather up support as others drop out? Paul needs to pick up support quick to make a credible run for the nomination.

Rick Perry dropping out and endorsing Newt Gingrich, Newt Gingrichs wife due to air the dirty laundry which could turn into a Herman Cain type fiasco and Rick Santorum dropping away to fourth place in South Carolina.

Thoughts?

[jam666]

I've been following this very closely . I've always liked Gingrich but put my eggs in the 9-9-9 basket . Unfortunately that was over sooner than expected so I'm sticking with newt as it seems to me he is the best candidate for the job, quite a few (not all) of his ideas seem sensible and based on a reagan style philosophy which is what I believe America needs at the moment as anyone including my pet dog could do a better job than the incumbent in the white house.

Romney is a moderate and whilst I dont feel as though he would be a disasterous candidate, I struggle to visualise him as president because he appears to flip-flop on most issues and if you watch him in the debates, does not answer the questions as direct and decisive as someone like Gingrich.

I generally like Paul, however one sticking point for me is his foreign policy. I don't want to go around waging war but there is something suspicious of Paul's foreign policy that I cant quite put my finger on.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Talking to nations, trading with nations, not threatening them and treating them as we like to be treated is suspicious?

[jam666]

Talking to nations, trading with nations, not threatening them and treating them as we like to be treated is suspicious?

I think I didn't explain myself properly. I've said that I quite like Ron Paul, but not some aspects of his foreign policy. By that I believe most of it is very well thought out and I agree with him and his reasoning as to why the Iranians want a nuclear weapon. However what causes me concern isn't his thoughts on this issue, it's his actions of which seem to indicate he would not try and stop Iran getting a nuclear weapon. I don't want military action in Iran which is the same as Ron Paul, but I think stealth tactics which includes everything apart from a full scale invasion such as Iraq or Afghanistan should be used which is where I differ from him.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I think I didn't explain myself properly. I've said that I quite like Ron Paul, but not some aspects of his foreign policy. By that I believe most of it is very well thought out and I agree with him and his reasoning as to why the Iranians want a nuclear weapon. However what causes me concern isn't his thoughts on this issue, it's his actions of which seem to indicate he would not try and stop Iran getting a nuclear weapon. I don't want military action in Iran which is the same as Ron Paul, but I think stealth tactics which includes everything apart from a full scale invasion such as Iraq or Afghanistan should be used which is where I differ from him.

Surely using stealth tactics and constantly undermining Iran cause them to want a nuclear weapon? besides, Iran is a sovereign state and is entitled to a nuclear weapon should it want one unless we outright declare it a colony this very moment - the United Kingdom did not have to apply to the USSR when it wanted a nuclear weapon, why does Iran have to apply to the United States?

But for arguments sake, lets say that if Iran does acquire a nuclear weapon, what is the fear? the Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear weapons pointing at us and capable of reaching us yet we are sitting here fretting about a nation which might and might not have a nuclear weapon, a nation which cannot even refine enough gas and oil for itself.