Posted on 01/04/2008 5:47:15 AM PST by shortstop
I love Iowa.
I just wish it would go away.
For the life of me, I can't figure out why anybody gives a darn who the various corn farmers and college professors of Iowa want for president.
Today's caucuses in Iowa are the largest exercise in unwarranted self-importance in the history of our Republic. Every four years our nation's presidential aspirants spend months and millions kissing every Hawkeye fanny they can find, and I think we've just about had enough.
It is ridiculous to subject the selection of the most powerful person in the world to the peculiarities and arrogances of any one state, particularly a square state. And, yes, that is both a geographic and sociological reference. But shape notwithstanding, we are a union of 50 states, with the people of each state enjoying in equal proportion power and influence in the selection of our chief executive.
At least that's how the Founding Fathers envisioned it. Unfortunately, they were all dead in 1972 when the egomaniacs in Iowa insisted on being at the front of the line. That was the year Iowa decided it would, no matter what, have first bite of the apple. Unfortunately, Jimmy Carter siezed on that development four years later to win the heart of Iowa and the hand of the country. He theorized correctly that if he won Iowa, that would give him a prominence on the evening newscast that would help him in subsequent primaries.
That same game has been played every four years since.
Only it hasn't been the politicians doing the playing, it has been the Iowans. Somehow, being an undecided voter has turned into a vocation for half the people in that state and they have developed an entitlement attitude about the national political process that is rivaled only in New Hampshire. Every numbskull pundit wannabe rakes this senator and that governor over the coals. Suddenly, waitresses in Iowa are the most politically relevent people in the country. Folks who -- some of them -- don't have two brain cells to rub together are driving the national debate.
It is insane.
It is also humiliating.
Because the next president of the United States should not have to sell his or her soul to a bunch of country bumpkins. This "first in the nation" thing has so effected Iowans that many of them have their noses in the air. They know the candidates need their votes and they make the candidates act like beggars to get them. There is honestly a very debasing aspect to the Iowa and New Hampshire process. Where as a candidate can speak his or her mind if they're speaking to the entire nation, when they are talking to a very small and very important constituency -- the hobnobbers of Iowa -- they have to be currying favor from beginning to end.
Some people think that is a good idea.
They shouldn't.
Because, unless you live in Iowa or New Hampshire, this process doesn't serve you or your nation. Instead, it makes extremely important the perspectives, priorities and peculiarities of a tiny fraction of the American electorate. It makes candidates kowtow to people who, though wonderful Americans, are not representative Americans. Iowa is not a thin slice of America, it is a thin slice of Iowa. Answering the questions of New Hampshire does not answer the questions of America.
And it is preposterous and insulting to think that cautious Iowans perform a national service by vetting candidates the rest of America can only see on TV commercials. The argument is put forward that Iowans have learned how to divine the hearts of the candidates, to look in their eyes and take their measure. That's ridiculous.
Each American has the ability and -- with today's computer and satellite news -- the opportunity to take their own measure of the candidates. Sitting in an Iowa diner does not give you any particular insight into the issues of the United States, in fact it may warp your perception of issues of great importance to others.
Neither Iowa nor New Hampshire has any geographic or cultural ties to the nation's population centers. Things that are important to Iowa -- like the insanity of using food corn to make fuel ethanol -- come out ahead. Things that are important to America -- like not wasting our tax money and inflating our food bills by using food corn to make fuel enthaol -- get left behind in Iowa. The issues of big city America -- which are especially important to Democrat candidates -- are of no significance in Iowa and New Hampshire.
And more broadbased issues, like illegal immigration and welfare reform, don't hit these two states as much as they hit most of the other 48.
If nothing else, we should take turns. Let a different state go first every four years. That would be better than this.
The tyranny of the "Des Moines Register" must end. I'm sick of these snooty, ignorant, dimwitted rubes taking it upon themselves to play such a role in selecting our leader.
We live in a "one-man, one-vote" country, where all Americans are created equal, even if they live in any of the states that aren't Iowa or New Hampshire. On behalf of the rest of the country, I'm tired of being slighted. I'm tired of 48 states being ignored by presidential candidates so that favor can be curried in two of our smallest states.
It's simply not right.
I love Iowa.
I just wish it would go away.
I'm not sure who's going to win in Iowa, but I do know who's going to lose.
We all are.
Exactly.
The idea of Iowa starting the presidential process is just silly. What it does is allow the MSM to “interpret” the results; and guess what? John McCain is the “winner”.
The Huckster can’t win the nomination, Thompson is frozen out by the big networks who are openly pushing McCain.
Now the push for McCain really begins. He’s the media party’s real candidate.
Keep dreaming. Each time one state moves its primary to before New Hampshire or Iowa, both of these states just move their primaries further back. In the end, we will end up starting the primary season for the next president the day after the current president is elected.
“Because the next president of the United States should not have to sell his or her soul to a bunch of country bumpkins.”
Feel the love.
Thompson is just “frozen”, and I know that you are right about McCain and the media.
What state should be the first?
Oh shoot. Did Lonsberry fail to mention he share the same religion as Romney?
Just wondered.
Iowa is like a one night stand. They are waking up this morning and they are hearing the crickets chirping.
Everyone is moving on and all the politicians and MSM couldnt care less about Iowa. They are just a bunch of hicks in their eyes.
I don’t think any state should be first. I think the best measure of the frontrunners would be primaries or caucuses in four or five states, representing different parts of the nation—say Iowa and New Hampshire, if need by, but also Florida, Arizona, Washington and Colorado. The other events could be a week or two later. I realize that dissipates the resources and time of the candidates but this process is kind of ridiculous where millions are spent wooing Iowa or New Hampshire during the holiday season and no one gets a true look at the candidates since they are only trying to brownnose special interests in those two states.
I like the way he writes “I Love Iowa” then proceeds to insult every Iowan. Spit.
I really dislike the smell of whining in the morning.
Hey Bob Loonberry ...Americans get the government (elected officials) they deserve.
When Socialism is inevitable, just lay back & enjoy it.
You earned it.
Ohio or Michigan would be much better choices. Both are diverse with large numbers of minorities and huge problems with a fleeing manufacturing base.
Iowa makes no sense at all.
It’s all in being first, like do we want that woman to be the bench mark of female presidents. Oh, all that money spent could have gone to a worthy charity.
Should just start with the four most populist states California, New York, Texas and Florida. Because lets face it whatever Republican wins Texas and Florida will more than likely win the South and Midwest. Whatever Democrat wins California and New York will more than likely win New England, California and King County. Otherwise the caucus elections should be on the same day for all 50 states. If we did the latter than we could greatly shorten the whole election time frame. Stump for nomination votes for six months, vote. Then stump for presidential election for three months and do the finally vote.
I think that 'honor' should be rotated among states that are at least somewhat representative of the entire population. PA, OH and FL for instance. All three have a good mix of rural and urban areas and I think are more reflective of the country as a whole.
Savage did a good show on this yesterday. The caucus is irrelevent it is not a primary. I think he said the only one that won the caucus and the presidency was W. nice track record they have.
That's a pretty broad brush. We live in Missouri, and there are plenty of people here who don't fit that description. Of course, there's a few who do.
Carolyn
The Conservatives in Iowa are TOTALLY different than the Conservatives in real America.
Huckabee has the Iowa Consvervatives “BULL SH-tted”
Iowa’s ‘influence’ isn’t ‘wrong’ its fleeting, at best.
What should worry everybody on this board is Huckabee can’t beat Obama head to head in a General election.
Its not a square state in Lonsberry’s geographic reference. Des Moines Democrat Tom Whitney, when he was running for governor in the 70s, made note that “if you gave Iowa an enema, it would go in in Clinton.”
With the internet, T.V. debates, etc. the candidates and their stance are known or should be known. Why can’t caucases and primaries be held on the same day for every state?
Lonsberry has shown support for Fred Thompson in the past. I don’t know who he supports now.
Do them all on the same day. It will never happen though.
Let everyone stay in the race until the primaries.
mark
Isn't that when the campaigning started this time? Actually, I think it started around November 2000 or before.
Don’t blame Iowa.. blame the lazy and ignorant MSM for playing this crap up like its from gods ear to their evening news reports.
I mean you’d think by the way the press reports on IOWA that it was the kingmaker... and its not. I don’t mind reporting the results, but the run up for weeks and months is just silly.
Iowa caucasues are interesting, but they sure don’t mean diddly to me.
I don't think that's true. I think both of them have significant strengths and weaknesses and the campaign itself will reveal a lot to voters. Plus, the candidates themselves will mature. Should Huckabee and Obama become their party's nominees, I think that we will see a lot more mature and polished candidates in early November than we see today. I think it's too early to predict November's results. Our sniping at our own candidates is not a good indicator for our success in the general election.
I also don't like to see the whining about Iowa. It has traditionally been the first state to start this process and it has worked. I believe that we should carefully tread anywhere where political tradition is overturned in this country. I am far more concerned about how liberals would change voting results in this country. Unless we are careful, the results of voting are going to be determined by courts and people who "feel" "disenfranchised" who want to take to the streets, emboldened by the "courage" of voters in countries like Mexico and Kenya.
I think it’s more than bragging rights for Iowa, it’s about the $$$ pumped into the state. It’s a form of political tourism every 4 years.
The machines like Iowa because it's small and controllable. The parties can come in and focus their efforts at swaying what they see as the feeble minds of country bumpkins.
Then, with the help of their friends in the MSM, they can spin the results as some sort of "national" mandate.
This is why you'll never see the parties agreeing to a national "Super Tuesday" and is why the parties are slapping sanctions on renegade states like Florida.
I think it's a crock that states like Iowa and New Hampshire can choose who I, in Florida, am allowed to vote for because by the time they get to us some good ones have dropped out.
‘I don’t think that’s true. I think both of them have significant strengths and weaknesses and the campaign itself will reveal a lot to voters. Plus, the candidates themselves will mature. Should Huckabee and Obama become their party’s nominees, I think that we will see a lot more mature and polished candidates in early November than we see today. I think it’s too early to predict November’s results. Our sniping at our own candidates is not a good indicator for our success in the general election.’
The last time Evangelicals picked a candidate, we got Jimmy
Carter.
Think about it, then note Huckabee’s insanity about illegals, just for starters.
A mass movement to let the media know that we deliberately will not be watching the outcome? That will never work either.
FR slowed to a crawl last night over a media manufactured popularity contest held by farmers and leftists and “middle America”.
I live in middle America and I’m disgusted!
It is ridiculous to subject the selection of the most powerful person in the world to the peculiarities and arrogances of any one state, particularly a square state. And, yes, that is both a geographic and sociological reference. But shape notwithstanding, we are a union of 50 states, with the people of each state enjoying in equal proportion power and influence in the selection of our chief executive.
Amen! Iowa Cowcai is a creation of the MSM! Forget this bs and go to some real states. NH is another bs creation.
The best summary of this excellent article: "The tyranny of the "Des Moines Register" must end. I'm sick of these snooty, ignorant, dimwitted rubes taking it upon themselves to play such a role in selecting our leader~"
A mass movement to let the media know that we deliberately will not be watching the outcome? That will never work either.
FR slowed to a crawl last night over a media manufactured popularity contest held by farmers and leftists and “middle America”.
I live in middle America and I’m disgusted!
It's time to move on.
Neither Huckabee or Obama will be their party's nominee. You can take that to the bank.
An early contest like Iowa is actually quite important in this type of race, especially when there is no clear, consistent front-runner. Now, I can certainly agree that it need not be Iowa every time, but there are certain demographics that come into play that Iowa meets quite well.
On the whole, it's not the actual vote count that matters so much as it is the ability to show a decent result. Of course, winning is always better than losing, and finishing high enough to pick up delegates is always a good thing as well. That aside, the whole point of an early contest like this is to show that a candidate is capable of competing with the rest of the field. A smaller, but not tiny, state like Iowa allows a lesser-funded candidate a chance while still providing a significant enough organizational challenge to be meaningful.
So, who are the winners and losers from last night? It requires looking beyond the vote totals:
GOP
Democrats
SS,
I posted a vanity a few minutes ago that proposes a solution to your lament. One that we share.
“short circuiting the MSM”
Best. Eddie01
What a BS story. Bill Clinton got 3% in 1992. Clearly, Iowa is NOT that influential! It’s merely the media hype surrounding the first caucus that irks some.
None. It should all be done in the super Tuesday primaries.
“Should just start with the four most populist states California, New York, Texas and Florida.”
I specifically left out most of the most populous states because it renders all the other states irrelevant. Primaries of 46 other states would not count towards much. I think it should be a cross-section of the nation without being so heavily weighted that all the decisions are made that first week. How the candidates now respond to their wins and losses will tell me a lot about a candidate and help determine how I vote in my state’s primary (California, by the way, where the primary is the only place a Republican vote for President counts). The Founding Fathers feared a nation where a few populous states would control the whole nation and that is partly why we have the electoral college system. I may live in a big state now but I was reared in fly-over country and I know how that feels.
This isn’t true-—”But shape notwithstanding, we are a union of 50 states, with the people of each state enjoying in equal proportion power and influence in the selection of our chief executive”.
small population states like wyoming and alaska and the district of columbia have more voting power per capita than larger states. Wyoming has one rep for 550,000 people, while some states have one rep per 660,000 people
Although I agree with the guy, his rant sounds a bit like a temper tantrum because his candidate didn’t win. The time to write this column was before the caucus, now it looks like Clinton spin.
Iowa can be the anti-caucus - weeds out the flashes in the pan. The ones to watch for are the ones who did better than expected.
Huckabee is not the person I want to see get the nomination and yes, I got burned on Carter and have never forgotten it. It’s one reason why I haven’t gravitated toward Huckabee. But I would far and away rather see Huckabee than either Obama or Hillary as president. If Huckabee should get the nomination, I think he should ask Michael Steele to be his VP. Steele is presidential material himself and it would get him in the limelight, plus he would do a fantastic job, from what I know of him. I’m not sure how old he is, but I would like, I think, to see him get a national political position.
I couldn’t disagree more. I want to see the candidates and I like to see how they handle these victories and defeats. It reveals and matures them. I don’t want that opportunity taken away from the voters just so that everyone can be first. It would damage the country in the long run.
I was nowhere near a TV, Radio or Internet last night... could have cared less.... No I don’t expect the MSM to change their ways, and I sure don’t expect the rubes who spend every night glued to the bread and circuses boxes too.
I spent the evening with my family and then playing volleyball and basketball with friends and then went to the bar for a beer and some discussion. At about 11:30 at the bar last night someone mentioned the winners of IA... Interesting, but regardless of who’s the next president, I’ll still be doing the same thing on Thursday nights.
I have watched the race as a whole, and getting piece of info here or there is nice, but IOWA is not a kingmaker, nor is NH.... It makes decent theater I guess.. but I’m not losing sleep over it.
IMHO the real winner in IA last night on the R side was McCain.. I know some folks here are going to bash me, but he’s the one who’s gained the most here. I don’t think Huckabee will even wind up a blip on the radar in other states.
The current two party system is crap as is anyway.
What do you see as a better system?
Iowa shouldn’t weed out anyone. Eight years ago, Sen. Hatch dropped out because he didn’t do well in Iowa. Last night, Biden and Dodd dropped out because they didn’t do well in Iowa. Only one state voted, and they don’t know the opinions of the other 49 states. The majority of the other 49 states might support Biden and Dodd more than Iowa did, but we’ll never know because they gave up too soon. All of the remaining candidates should continue campaigning until the conventions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.