Don’t blame Iowa for this mess
posted at 6:40 pm on January 3, 2012 by Karl
With the Iowa caucuses imminent, there is much anti-Iowa sentiment among political junkies at the moment, particularly on the right. Jonah Goldberg makes a reasonable case that the state should not enjoy perpetual first position. My experience with Iowa is consistent with his complaints about the entitlement mentality some — but by no means all — have there. Nor is this the first cycle in which these sorts of complaints have been aired.
However, it is probably fair to say that much of the frustration about Iowa on the right is exacerbated by an underlying frustration with the projected outcome. The underlying complaint is: How could these dopey corn and pig farmers be responsible for winnowing the GOP field to the likely troika of flip-flopping RINO Mitt Romney, unorganized compassionate religious conservative Rick Santorum, and conspiracy crank Ron Paul (the unacceptable to most Republicans libertarian who is unserious about the public debt)? Surely, there must be more than three tickets out of Iowa this year (unless Rick Perry or Newt Gingrich makes an unlikely strong showing, in which case, awesome)!
But is Iowa really to blame for the late-starting, stumbling campaign of the seemingly inarticulate (and occasionally insulting) Rick Perry? Is Iowa really to blame for the idiosyncratic, frequently unconservative, fundamentally pompous Newt Gingrich? Or for the quality of any of tonight’s also-rans? When compared to the national poll averages, only Newt is doing much better than he likely will tonight in Iowa — and the national trend is not his friend, either. Is Iowa to blame for the never-rans? As Allahpundit tweeted last night, “There’s no reason to take Daniels, Ryan, Christie or any of them seriously anymore when they talk about America’s ‘grave challenges.’ ” It is hard to imagine the Hamlets who could not be motivated to run in the current climate would have been any better than the candidates we have.
These problems are not the fault of Iowans or their caucuses. These problems are the fault of the Republican establishment. These problems are the fault of any Republican who is not actively involved in trying to reform the party. These problems are the fault of libertarians who do not demand a better standard-bearer inside or outside the GOP.
This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
8% of my town turned out.
300 voters
santorum 142
Romney 57
Paul 44
Newt 40
Perry 14
Bachman 3
Evangelicals turned out like always. pastor spoke urging evangelicals to unite behind santorum looks like they did.
I had wanted newt and think he will do better in the south.
Signed up to be delegate to county convention.
ConcealedKerry on January 3, 2012 at 9:42 PM
Lol! No matter how hard one wishes it to be true, simply saying stuff doesn’t make it so…
MTLassen on January 3, 2012 at 9:44 PM
Yeah..doing almost as good as Santorum..but Santorum didn’t have the existing basis there.
Not bad for a loon.
Mimzey on January 3, 2012 at 9:54 PM
I blame Iowa.
besser tot als rot on January 3, 2012 at 9:59 PM
I’m not sure how any reasonable person could still be a part of the “don’t blame America for anything” crowd. We’ve done good things, but we have done a hell of a lot of bad stuff, too.
In regard to just one single country — Iraq — we paved the way for Saddam to take power, funded him, armed him, backed him in his war with Iran despite the abuses against his on people. And then when he wouldn’t stay on the leash we sanctioned the country and killed tens of thousands of children.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions
“Denis Halliday was appointed United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in Baghdad, Iraq as of 1 September 1997, at the Assistant Secretary-General level. In October 1998 he resigned after a 34 year career with the UN in order to have the freedom to criticise the sanctions regime, saying “I don’t want to administer a programme that satisfies the definition of genocide”[35] The embargo wasn’t imposed because the United States and Britain wanted children to die, but the effect was the same.
“Halliday’s successor, Hans von Sponeck, subsequently also resigned in protest, calling the effects of the sanctions a “true human tragedy”.[37] Jutta Burghardt, head of the World Food Program in Iraq, followed them.
I SUPPORTED this stuff at the time! Not anymore. It pisses people off, and if it happened to us you’d damn well better believe we wouldn’t sit back and take it, either.
Look at our reaction after 3000 people died. We’ve been directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands in the Middle East over the last quarter century.
And I’d challenge any of you cruel, inhumane jackasses to prove that somehow the Iraqi psyche is such that when faced with the contradiction of a freedom loving West killing their children that they all stand up and proclaim, “We understand. Our children are still dead, but we know you weren’t trying to hurt anyone”.
Bullshit. Get real.
How I ever fell for the whole “They hate us for our freedoms” crap is a testament to the power of propaganda and my own former party allegiance and unthinking stupidity.
bmowell on January 3, 2012 at 10:01 PM
I’m still calling Ron Paul crazy, whackjob fringe libertarian attempts to suborn my party notwithstanding.
troyriser_gopftw on January 3, 2012 at 10:01 PM
It is a national event, If only we had a liberal head to tell us what to do. ( Allen toombs)
with that being said, why do we not understand how Paul is supported?
Are we so disconnected that we are doomed, a swirling vortex of dispair that Ann Coulter will advise?
Lets get it together people.
RAGIN CAJUN on January 3, 2012 at 10:18 PM
Are you asking what would have happened if Ron Paul was a Democrat and ran against Obama in the Democrat primaries? Someone like Paul can’t exist in the modern Democrat party. Even the so called “blue dogs” voted for Obamacare. Today’s Democrat party is Socialist, but they can’t admit it because it would scare away independents and even a few conservative democratic voters.
Gladtobehere on January 3, 2012 at 10:18 PM
And another thing, see ya, Newt, you lil smug bastard, talking down to us is not a winning stratetegy.
You were loyal to no one and whined that you were.
See ya you lil fat arrogant inside the belt way ear marked freak.
RAGIN CAJUN on January 3, 2012 at 10:30 PM
Cock-a-doodle keRaZy. Otherwise known as your typical mental patient paulbot, lol.
xblade on January 3, 2012 at 10:55 PM
Iowa shouldn’t get to go 1st all the time. These are the same people who voted for barry over McCain.
If they want to be totally fair, the states with the largest GOP vote percentage in the previous presidential election should get to go first. So, Oklahoma should’be been first.
lonestar1 on January 3, 2012 at 10:56 PM
@bmowell. Well said. I’m an Iraq vet and reformed neocon. There is an absolute unwillingness on the part of many in the GOP to come to grips with the fact that Iraq was a complete waste of time. Beyond that, I think that the foreign policy stuff gets focused on because it takes the focus off of the fact that Ron Paul is the only one that will actually cut spending. There is really no difference between the remaining candidates on substance and not whole lot of difference with Obama at the end of the day. Whatever his GOP detractors say about his foreign policy, they should recognize that Ron Paul’s principled stands have moved the Overton window back in the direction of LESS government. Of course, this is not happening among the GOP elites because they are big govt wolves in sheep’s clothing.
iwasbornwithit on January 3, 2012 at 11:13 PM
The more I’ve seen of this, the more disgusted I am with everybody involved, except Romney and Paul. They both built an organization and raised money. The rest counted on these ridiculous, endless debates to boost them and in the end, they didn’t help anybody. Santorum was just the last of the Not-Romneys to surge and rode in on it, but I doubt that he can get anywhere beyond this.
If this weird result was really driven by the tea party movement, I have to say it has jumped the shark. Think of the wasted millions from this campaign trying to reach a small minority of Iowa’s voters!
I don’t know whom to blame for all these stupid debates. They didn’t resolve a thing in the end. If it was the Republican “establishment” then yes, blame them. But I’m not buying this paranoia about the GOP establishment shoving bad candidates down our throats. The fault is with the bad candidates, like Perry, Gingrich and the others who couldn’t even get on the Virginia Ballot. And the fault is with a finicky, paranoid bunch of rightwingers who only care about punishing the GOP establishment while they spread falsehoods about the one really good candidate who is running.
Romney will win this nomination because he has done what it takes to win it. And he will defeat Obama and return the country to fiscal sanity, as long as conservatives don’t decide to sit on the sidelines and pout. This is so much like Sharon Angle and Christine O’Donnell I want to scream. This nation is really in danger. It’s like a big raft drifting toward the falls and all we can do is argue over who should man the tiller.
It doesn’t matter what the guy’s religion is or his positions on moral issues. First, get the raft under control and away from the threat, then haggle over who is right on the residual issues. Does anybody even comprehend the size of this debt we’re running up? $16,200,000,000,000.00 and a maybe a few hundred billions more. We have the recommendations of a lot of experienced and smart people, but they get called RINOs and ignored.
Snap out of it, people! Romney isn’t the enemy. Barack Obama is.
flataffect on January 3, 2012 at 11:24 PM
Iowa shouldn’t get to go 1st all the time. These are the same people who voted for barry over McCain.
If they want to be totally fair, the states with the largest GOP vote percentage in the previous presidential election should get to go first. So, Oklahoma should’be been first.
lonestar1 on January 3, 2012 at 10:56 PM
The BEST way to pick a state to start the presidential election process. Is with a 4 year Rolling Avg of all 50 states to select the #1 state that has the best economic growth, employment rate, fewest abortions, most insured, (the state that has its cr** together) etc. GOES FIRST! That way we can expect them to pick a candidate using logic and reasoning and not the one that panders the best!
Ron Paul 2012!!!
Capitalist75 on January 3, 2012 at 11:38 PM
Never seen Bachmann’s husband before. Watching her post-caucus speech and uh, well, that’s a happy dude. Not that there is anything wrong with that. And this is definitely not an attack on her as she was my first choice. I just kinda feel bad for her.
iwasbornwithit on January 3, 2012 at 11:46 PM
Yes, and I’m sure Dr. Ron Paul will also do all he can to remove the evil cabal of Zionist international bankers from their deeply entrenched positions of influence within the federal government, Hollywood, media, and cereal foods industries. He will also put a halt to mind control via water fluoridation, shut down FEMA breeding farms and reeducation centers, and expose those Bildersberger-sponsored DNA hybridization experiments as an obvious waste of governmental resources. I mean, those giant spider-goat hybrids, for example–the ones spotlighted in Alex Jones’ riveting documentary, Endgame. What, exactly, does a spider-goat do?
troyriser_gopftw on January 4, 2012 at 12:05 AM
Spending Troy… who do you trust to rein in federal spending? Or is that a non-issue for you?
iwasbornwithit on January 4, 2012 at 12:21 AM
Spending is a huge issue, but I don’t think Paul’s idea of essentially eliminating our entire national defense infrastructure based on the theory that if we leave the world alone then the world will leave us alone is…well, sane. A President Paul would leave us defenseless, soon dead or enslaved. That whole ‘soon dead or enslaved’ bit trumps any quibbles I might have with a more traditional candidate’s spending policies.
troyriser_gopftw on January 4, 2012 at 12:51 AM
Troy, why do we have to have troops stationed all over the world to defend ourselves? If you are worried about attacks on our own soil, wouldn’t it make more sense to station the troops here?
And this is something that I have been thinking about recently, and I will say with humility that I don’t know the answer to this question: why do we need a huge active fleet of subs? Maybe they are less active now but I doubt it. Is there any good strategic reason for this? I am not saying that there isn’t, but it is hard for me to come up with a credible answer in the post-Soviet era.
iwasbornwithit on January 4, 2012 at 1:10 AM
This is like pretending it’s the job of police to stop crimes.
Police are there to mop up 20 mins after the crime occurs. If you want actual defense you should be proactive.
BKennedy on January 4, 2012 at 2:00 AM
Amen. Why should a state that can’t even reliably vote Republican choose our nominee? Seriously.
Theophile on January 4, 2012 at 2:10 AM
Absolutely. The method is simple, sensible and easy to calculate. It cannot by manipulated. Everyone knows the order in the next Presidential election immediately following the last election.
It reduces the influence of states that will not be voting for the GOP candidate in the general election, anyway. It even creates a nice little bias in favor of smaller states going early.
It would be the smart thing to do. Too bad the GOP is the Stupid Party.
fadetogray on January 4, 2012 at 6:04 AM
Looks like Obamacare wins by an eye, nose, and throat.
percysunshine on January 4, 2012 at 7:59 AM
I don’t have a problem with Iowa going first (though many Iowans do have an entitlement mentality that isn’t all that attractive). Nevertheless, you don’t open a play on Broadway without opening out-of-town to work out the kinks. Iowa is much the same thing. Largely irrelevant in the national scheme but a chance to work on the campaign message before hitting states of more importance as far as primary politics are concerned.
As far as Newt is concerned. He is fundamentally pompus and now just comes off as having a perpetual temper tantrum because Romney brought up the fact that he did in fact support cap & trade and was on that sofa with Nancy Pelosi. Those belie the current version of Newt who denies he ever supported cap & trade and calls his cuddling with Pelosi as the stupidest thing he ever did.
Happy Nomad on January 4, 2012 at 8:28 AM
Why not just have a single-day national primary to pulse the electorate as to who they want their particular party to support. I’m tired of the system where the candidates will pander by backing farm subsidies in Iowa, socially liberal schemes in NH, only to be backing socially conservative issues when they get down to the South. When they talk about transformative leaders, it is not referring to the way candidates morph as they go from primary to primary and their fortunes rise and fall in the polling.
Likewise I think an incumbent President and his party should give a thumbs up/thumbs down vote of confidence that they want their leader to have another term. It was just assumed that nobody will challenge Obama but I’ve got to think at least a few Democrats rue the day they ever voted for this pathetic human being and worthless President.
Happy Nomad on January 4, 2012 at 8:35 AM
flataffect on January 3, 2012 at 11:24 PM
I agree! Romney is my choice. He is intelligent and would be a confidant and competent President. I hope the entire GOP will support him, if he is the nominee.
mtb on January 4, 2012 at 8:59 AM
Relax, Iowa hasn’t chosen our candidate. They haven’t even chosen their candidate. Ron Paul, the current nutjob in the race, will drop out by February to spend more time with his family or contemplate a 3rd party run which won’t materialize. Looks as if MB will take SP’s sound advice, good for her. Huntsman will be out after SC. Newt will trudge on as long as the money lasts, his ego won’t let him quit. Perry is gone, back to TX to save his image there. Santorum will remain as the last not Mitt. Mitt is our candidate and we’ll have to hold our noses again. I don’t trust the guy, but he’ll be what we’re left with. Doesn’t matter though, the elites don’t think Obama can be beat.
Kissmygrits on January 4, 2012 at 9:19 AM
One name ignored in the article -Santorum.
In how many states could someone with little financial backing have even made a showing? If California or Florida had gone first, your choices would be Romney and Paul. You’d never see the candidate who didn’t start out with big financial backing.
taznar on January 4, 2012 at 9:24 AM
My choice, Ronald Reagan, is sadly unavailable. The current crop of candidates seem more intent on bringing each other down with Newt Gingrich having totally lost it the last few days as he’s been throwing a giant temper tantrum about Romney. The GOP elite (whoever that is) needs to take Newt aside and give him a time out until he can behave.
Happy Nomad on January 4, 2012 at 9:27 AM
I live in Virginia, THOSE ARE MY CHOICES. Thanks to incompetent campaigns by Gingrich and Perry and lack of interest by the rest.
Happy Nomad on January 4, 2012 at 9:29 AM
I tell you guys what, if you aren’t ready to get behind WHOMEVER wins the primary so we can get that ass out of the Whitehouse, you had better rethink your postions.
JLPicard on January 4, 2012 at 10:00 AM
Hey, don’t forget The Other Karl.
Mr. Joe on January 4, 2012 at 12:08 PM
You don’t want to know what spider-goat do.
Mimzey on January 4, 2012 at 2:50 PM
Thats the truth, right there.
Mimzey on January 4, 2012 at 2:53 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2