King claims victory

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Steve King has been declared the winner in the U.S. House race with Christie Vilsack. King said:

"I've traveled to all 382 towns in Iowa's 4th Congressional District. I found every city and town has something unique to call its own. It may be a church, a park, a statue, a memorial, a business or even the finest bright yellow '57 Chevy in America. But as unique and different as each of our towns are, we are bound together by our common-sense Iowa values.

"Throughout this race we have run a positive, issues-based campaign that reflects our shared Iowa values and common sense. In eleven contested races, I've never run a negative advertisement, we've always sought to inform voters with the objective truth and it has always paid off in the ballot box.

"We are committed to the full, 100 percent repeal of ObamaCare and replacing it with free market solutions, which preserve doctor-patient relationships. It is immoral for us to mortgage our children's labor to force them to pay the debts we incur during our time. We need a Balanced Budget Amendment to our Constitution so we pay down, and off, our National Debt. We will harness all forms of American energy to become North American energy independent within eight years. Washington must provide stability and predictability for business to reinvest profit and grow.

"This has become more than a campaign. People knew to do what they could do and spontaneously put up signs, carved candidates' names into their fields, made calls, knocked doors and made a difference. There is no way we could have directed this organic movement. It was a groundswell from the grassroots.

"To those who supported our campaign and drove us to victory, thank you. Our message through this campaign was clear and tonight voters made it clear they agree -- it's time for conservative solutions to restore our American Dream."

Vilsack has yet to issue a statement.

View 21 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • Mental health reform starts at home...

    -- Posted by Cookster on Wed, Nov 7, 2012, at 7:43 AM
  • Well, on the bright side, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report and all comedians have 2 more years of asinine, illogical comments to make fun of.

    Spencer voters.....have you NO shame?

    -- Posted by helped_myself on Wed, Nov 7, 2012, at 8:52 AM
  • In 1946 the national debt was over 122% of GDP. It is about 100% of GDP now. By 2000, Clinton gave Bush a surplus that Bush said himself put us on the path to paying off the debt in 10 years....then he went hog wild on two wars, Medicare Part D and tax cuts.

    Part of the current debt is the wars that Bush never accounted for. That one balance sheet move is a big part of the current debt. Add to that the NEEDED, but too small, stimulus to stop a global depression.

    So in a few weeks, when King votes for the sequestration and not to raise the debt ceiling and the whole country is thrown into another fiscal man made crisis, pat yourself on the back for voting for King. But don't you ever dare complain.

    -- Posted by helped_myself on Wed, Nov 7, 2012, at 8:59 AM
  • Oh, and if you dare ask when I'm going to stop blaming Bush for the mess he left, I will, right after everyone quits blaming Hitler for the Holocaust.

    -- Posted by helped_myself on Wed, Nov 7, 2012, at 9:04 AM
  • Ah, so that's the problem, we're not spending enough?. Heck that's an easy fix, just print a million dollars for everyone and call it good. ;)

    -- Posted by clayfarmer on Wed, Nov 7, 2012, at 11:23 AM
  • You do realize that Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling when he was in the Senate??

    -- Posted by clayfarmer on Wed, Nov 7, 2012, at 1:15 PM
  • No, we're spending too much on farm subsidies, among other subsidies like to the oil companies. How about we cut them out instead of milk for poor, sick babies?

    -- Posted by helped_myself on Wed, Nov 7, 2012, at 2:02 PM
  • crack me up with your last statement lol

    -- Posted by acerdj on Wed, Nov 7, 2012, at 3:08 PM
  • I'd be willing to cut what little is left of the farm subsidies, as long as the govt. keeps all of it's fingers out of ag. But you could at least pick on a bigger slice of the budget. Because according to a 2009 pie the total dept. of ag budget, that little green slice is just .68% of the total budget.

    Looking at fiscal 2012, total Ag budget is $144 billion, 68% is for nutrition programs, $85.2 billion. So 32% of a .68% slice of the total federal budget is a small sliver. Do you want fries with that??

    -- Posted by clayfarmer on Wed, Nov 7, 2012, at 3:54 PM
  • so neither ag subsidies or milk for poor, sick babies is enough to bother with.

    Guess it's cutting our military back from 6 to only 5 times bigger than the rest of the world's military combined.

    -- Posted by helped_myself on Wed, Nov 7, 2012, at 5:19 PM
  • I guess I never realized there were so many poor, sick babies.

    -- Posted by clayfarmer on Wed, Nov 7, 2012, at 7:29 PM
  • Pls explain the "poor, sick babies" comment

    -- Posted by Leah Cauthron on Thu, Nov 8, 2012, at 9:11 AM
  • I hear plenty of comments from people of all stripes, that believe people in need get too much money too easily for no good reason and that it's a HUGE part of the gov't debt. So there must be billions of poor, sick babies taking advantage of the free $ system.

    Gov't aid to anyone in need at anytime is usually despised by people in general (not just conservatives), unless of course, it's for them. Then they're the first in line with their hands out complaining it isn't coming fast enough.

    Please tell me where I can go to get my 'free gov't $' with no questions asked? Because it seems most people believe there is such a place, no id needed, no means testing, etc.

    -- Posted by helped_myself on Thu, Nov 8, 2012, at 10:20 AM
  • Helped myself. How do you figure our military is

    6 times the size of the rest of the worlds combined? China's army alone is 2.5 million! Our combined military around 3 million. I'm not even including their air force, navy and marines. You have to account for Russia and other countries too. Our military is drawing down as well. Get it right.

    -- Posted by SSGM270 on Thu, Nov 8, 2012, at 9:18 PM
  • From what I was able to find, the US spends 43% of total world military expenditures. A tad short of 6 times the rest of the world.

    -- Posted by clayfarmer on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 7:09 AM
  • The US's military expenditures are almost 5% of GDP. That's pretty high...especially when you think of how big the US's GDP is.

    -- Posted by Sony on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 8:33 AM
  • We spend 711 billion a year on our military. China is second at 143 billion and Russia is third at 72 billion. We do spend more than China, Russia and the next 11 countries combined.

    -- Posted by Henry Blake on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 11:23 AM
  • that's because all there weapons are.....wait for it...."Made in China". It's cheaper. If they made it here they would have a bigger budget. Ha!

    -- Posted by Steelerfan100 on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 5:45 PM
  • Helped myself's statement was about the "size" meaning bodies, not about the amount of money spent. Like I said get it RIGHT!

    -- Posted by SSGM270 on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 10:20 PM
  • @SSGM - I don't think size necessarily means bodies.

    -- Posted by Sony on Sat, Nov 10, 2012, at 12:10 PM
  • Sony you make a good point. In this instance it's a wrong point though.

    -- Posted by SSGM270 on Sun, Nov 11, 2012, at 3:02 PM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: