Will Rick Santorum's vow to bomb Iran help or hurt him in Iowa?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Rick Santorum - the latest Republican candidate to see a surge in Iowa - says he would bomb Iran if it doesn't scrap its nuclear program.
Santorum says as president he would insist Iran open its nuclear facilities to inspectors and dismantle them. Otherwise, he promises to quote "degrade those facilities through air strikes." Translation: Bomb them.
santorum vows that Iran will not get a nuclear weapon on his watch.
Apparently a little sabre rattling couldn't hurt. with all eyes on Iowa today - Santorum has jumped in the polls there. The latest poll shows him in third place, behind Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.
Santorum says Iowa is "moving" his way, and that he's very confident he will "finish well." The former Pennsylvania Senator says he has enthusiasm and momentum, both vital to the caucus process.
But how much might Santorum's tough talk against Iran have to do with his Iowa surge?
Iran has been making a lot of noise lately... as it finishes up 10 days of test firing missiles during Naval exercises in the Strait of Hormuz.
Last week Iran threatened to close down the Strait, a strategic shipping channel through which one-sixth of the world's oil passes.
Iran's threat comes on the heels of planned sanctions by the west targeting its oil industry. The sanctions are meant to force Iran to cut back its nuclear program.
But Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, and refuses to halt its production of enriched uranium.
Here’s my question to you: Will Rick Santorum's vow to bomb Iran help or hurt him in Iowa?
Tune in to the Situation Room at 4pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.
And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.
What do the Iowa caucuses really mean?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
At eight o'clock tonight, the process of electing our next president will be officially under way in Iowa.
This year it's the Republicans who have staged a political demolition derby across the sparsely populated state in the heart of the Corn Belt.
And, every four years a lot of people wonder, why Iowa? How much does it even matter what happens in Iowa? In 2008, Mike Huckabee won in Iowa while John McCain, the eventual nominee, placed fourth. The same thing could happen this year.
Even if Ron Paul, for example, were to win in Iowa, there is almost no chance he will be the Republican nominee.
Howard Kurtz writes in The Daily Beast that "Iowa is in some ways a funhouse mirror, distorting the process as everyone else suspends disbelief and plays along."
Iowa officials insist their state deserves its first-in-the nation billing because its citizens are well-informed and throw tough questions at the candidates. But Iowa is much whiter and more rural than the other 49 states and in almost no way resembles the rest of the country, except maybe North Dakota, or South Dakota. You get the point.
As for today, it's yet to be seen how much Iowa will matter, if at all. If Mitt Romney wins there - and then goes on to win in a landslide in New Hampshire - he could seal the deal pretty quickly.
Nevertheless, it does give an early indication of who has a good organization, who can raise money and who can get an audience to listen to what they have to say. Plus it gives the news media something to do until the New Hampshire primary.
Whatever the outcome of the caucuses, it's probably safe to say Michele Bachmann, Jon Huntsman and Rick Perry might soon want to think about calling it quits.
It's not a question of if those folks drop out, but when.
In the end, Iowa can serve to narrow the field and tell the rest of the country what a relatively few people in the Heartland don't want.
Here’s my question to you: What do the Iowa caucuses really mean?
Tune in to the Situation Room at 5pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.
And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.
95% white Iowa keeps backing Obama
Barack Obama spoke at a campaign event at the Mississippi Valley Fairgrounds in Davenport, Iowa.(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Seems like a long time ago. January 3, 2008. That night, in the dead of winter, the earth moved in Iowa.
In freezing temperatures, Iowans gathered all across the state for their caucuses. Nobody was looking for any big surprises. Hillary Clinton figured she'd win in a walk. She didn't even bother to campaign there much. But a political unknown had worked his tail off in the Hawkeye state. And when the votes were counted, an improbable journey began.
Barack Obama was on his way, given a huge tailwind by a state that is 95% white. In fact, that night on CNN I remarked that "the only place whiter than Iowa is the North Pole." And Iowans' love for the man from Illinois has remained as rock solid as their principles.
Once again Iowa is at the forefront in this presidential campaign. In the latest CNN/Time Magazine/ Opinion Research Corporation poll out yesterday, Obama has surged to a commanding 15 point lead over John McCain. 55% Obama to 40% for John McCain. Iowa was rated a toss-up until yesterday, and with the way the electoral map is shaping up these new numbers are huge for Obama.
On CNN's electoral map, both Iowa and Minnesota have now been changed from toss-up to leaning Obama, putting the most unlikely candidate for president in our nation's history tantalizingly close to the magic electoral 270 votes needed for election. There are still eight weeks to go, but make no mistake. If Obama goes all the way, white people in Iowa will be a big part of the reason why.
Here’s my question to you: How important is it that Iowa, which is 95% white, remains firmly behind Barack Obama?
Tune in to the Situation Room at 5pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.
And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.
Obama’s historic win?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Barack Obama's huge win in Iowa last night was characterized this way by Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal this morning: "His takedown of Mrs. Clinton was the softest demolition in the history of falling buildings."
But make no mistake. A demolition it was. What we don't know yet is whether Obama's victory was an anomaly created by the polarizing nature of Hillary Clinton combined with the widespread opposition to President Bush or whether we saw the start of something truly historic last night. I will wager you this: if he wins, students in classrooms around the country will be listening to Obama's victory speech last night 20 years from now. It was beyond brilliant.
It's not just that Obama won, it's how he did it. The huge turnout of voters and first-time caucus-goers. His overwhelming win among young people and independents. He even beat Hillary Clinton among women. This all suggests something very important may have happened last night. Americans may have made the first tiny steps on the road to taking back their country
It's a long way from over. But if Obama can come out of New Hampshire with two wins under his belt and head into South Carolina on January 26 where that state's huge black population will have its first real chance to vote for one of their own... well, watch out.
Here’s my question to you: What does Barack Obama’s huge win in the Iowa caucuses mean?
To see the Cafferty File video click here
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Surviving Iowa & New Hampshire?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The Iowa caucuses tonight could be a make-or-break event for some of the presidential hopefuls.
Even before Iowans make their choices, there are reports that Republican Fred Thompson may drop out of the race within days if he places a distant third, or worse. Sources suggest if he drops out, he will then endorse John McCain, which could shake up the race in New Hampshire. And Thompson probably won't be the only one to hang it up.
A piece in "The Politico" today asks if there really are three tickets out of Iowa. Although candidates like to talk about how winning "gold, silver, or bronze" is enough, a third-place finish in Iowa has almost always meant the end of the road for presidential wanna-bees. Sometimes, even a second place finish in Iowa isn't good enough.
Top tier candidates are likely to stay in the race if they don't do well in Iowa, but some of the others will likely vanish. The trick for candidates in the Iowa caucuses has always been to exceed media expectations, meaning if you can do better than expected, you're likely to still be a news story.
Here’s my question to you: Which candidates won't still be around after the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Does $ talk in Iowa?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Money can buy a lot of things, especially when it comes to politics... but the Iowa caucuses may not be one of them.
The Los Angeles Times reports today that although the presidential contenders have poured tens of millions of dollars into the contest there, history shows that the candidate who spends the most in Iowa doesn't always win.
We don't know exactly how much candidates have spent in Iowa this year. But we do know this: both Mike Huckabee and John Edwards are threatening to win Iowa despite being overwhelmingly outspent by their opponents. For example, Republican Mitt Romney spent about $52 million running for president through September of last year, much of it in Iowa. During that same period, Huckabee spent $1.7 million.
On the Democratic side, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have reportedly spent about $20 million each in Iowa, compared to about $4 million for Edwards.
For years ago, Howard Dean outspent both John Kerry and John Edwards before Iowa, and we all know what happened to Dean. In 1988, Pat Robertson outspent several other Republicans in the running, but failed to win Iowa.
Here’s my question to you: What does it say about the Iowa caucuses that candidates who spend the most money don’t necessarily win there?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Relevance of Iowa and New Hampshire?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Iowa and New Hampshire go along pretty much unnoticed most of the time, but every four years they get even. They are where the presidential first pitch is thrown out.
Some people argue that this is no way to pick a president, that the current system gives a few hundred thousand voters in these two early states way too much influence. At least one expert calls the system "foolish" and "outdated."
"The Columbus Dispatch" suggests Ohio would be a better starting place because it better represents the country demographically, economically and politically. Tell you what, when you fix your voting machines, we'll talk.
The McClatchy newspapers say Iowa is a foreign place to many Americans:
"Why should such a tiny state get such a big say in picking the president?... A state where the people are as white as the snow-covered landscape, devoid of the minorities who are changing the country's complexion. A place where people graduate from school in record proportion, and live long, healthy lives."
The article goes on to suggest that Iowa, which has the highest literacy rate in the nation, might be as good a place as any to start. It's small enough that candidates can meet people face-to-face. And, even though Iowa isn't representative of the rest of country, no other single state probably is either.
Here’s my question to you:
Are Iowa and New Hampshire the right places to start the presidential election process?
To see the Cafferty File video click here
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Making a Choice in Iowa
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
With just two weeks to go, a very large number of Democratic caucus goers in Iowa say they haven't decided who's going to get their vote. The debate has been largely about "experience"– which is what Senator Hillary Clinton argues she has on her side– versus "change" which is what Senator Barack Obama promises to bring to Washington. Also very much in the mix is John Edwards, who vows to do battle with the large corporations that have a stranglehold on the federal government. In fact recent polls in Iowa show Senator Edwards trailing Clinton and Obama by just a couple of percentage points, putting the three of them in a virtual dead-heat.
Iraq, health care and the economy have ranked as the top issues for Democrats in Iowa.
But with so many undecided voters this late in the race, something is clearly missing.
Here’s my question to you: In the closing days of the Iowa campaign what will cause undecided voters to finally make up their minds?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments