Not one of the candidates in the debates tonight addressed the incompetency and/or corruption in Iowa.
GOP won't declare a winner of state caucuses (click title to entry - thank you)
By David Pace
Associated Press
January 19, 2012
...The final, certified results announced Thursday in Des Moines by Iowa Republican Chairman Matt Strawn had Rick Santorum 34 votes ahead of Mitt Romney. But Strawn said the party cannot declare a winner because the results are incomplete -- eight of the state's 1,774 precincts did not report their certified totals by Wednesday's 5 p.m. deadline....
The GOP can't competently hold their caucuses and primaries and they actually expect the country to take them seriously for a Presidential Election?
I don't think so. Not one of the candidates stated they were worried about the gross amount of "human" errors in Iowa that has a strong spell of corruption. I mean you have got to be joking. This is the election of a nominee for President of the United States of America and the nation is suppose to look the other way while they supposedly get their act together.
No, no, no!
The GOP can't competently hold their caucuses and primaries and they actually expect the country to take them seriously for a Presidential Election?
I don't think so. Not one of the candidates stated they were worried about the gross amount of "human" errors in Iowa that has a strong spell of corruption. I mean you have got to be joking. This is the election of a nominee for President of the United States of America and the nation is suppose to look the other way while they supposedly get their act together.
No, no, no!
Romney virtually ignored Iowa until very late while Santorum was there for month after month walking door to door and all of a sudden Romney is the winner? Tell me that makes sense. Nothing about the dynamics of Iowa speaks to a party prepared to do political business honestly. Who paid who? And when?
It reeks of investigation and no one at the debate even breached the fact the outcomes are suspicious? There is something very "W"rong here. Do I have to remind that the year of 2000 was a complete afront to freedom? This is not a minor issue, but, hey let's just sweep it under the carpet, okay?
