All the Media Wanted For Christmas Was To Tell Iowa How To Vote
All they want for Christmas is to help you decide your vote… and no, I’m not just talking about the politicians.
Roughly a week out from the Iowa caucuses, Mike Allen of The Politico points to the observation of an unnamed political operative who contends that the January 3rd caucus is actually the second Iowa caucus, and that the first Iowa caucus took place as families came together to celebrate Christmas.
If folks were chatting about the presidential race in Oregon, where Playbook spent Christmas, you can be sure they were talking about it from Ackley, Iowa to Zearing, Iowa, and at every Eagle Grove, Mason City and Sergeant Bluff in between.
Though not an Iowan, I doubt that most normal families in that state spent an inordinate amount of time discussing politics as their families came together on Christmas. Catching up with family and friends and exchanging presents would seem to be the order of the day, not debating Mike Huckabee’s support of a 23% sales tax, or whether Hillary Clinton’s eight years as First Lady counts as political experience.
Santa Claus and Jesus Christ probably factored into the day a bit more than Mitt Romney or Barack Obama.
At the Newton, Iowa home of Chaz Allen, Newton’s politically-independent mayor, CNN”s Dana Bash reports that the Democratic and Republican hopefuls have kept up a deluge of mailers and phone calls during the holiday season, intending to influence a tight caucus race up until the very end. Like most of us, Allen ignored the politicians to focus on the holiday.
Taken together, these stories seem to indicate that the undecided voters who may determine the winners of a neck and neck Iowa caucus were beyond the reach of the campaigners, at least temporarily, over the holidays. Iowa residents seem more interested in spending time with family members, enjoying their Christmas presents and perhaps hitting stores in search of after-holiday bargains.
Pundits in the chattering classes, however, have been doing their best to shape the opinions of Iowa caucus-goers. That politics are but one facet of normal people’s lives doesn’t seem to sit well with those in media enclaves who would hope to guide our nation’s political future, perhaps by whittling down the field.
With Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in a statistical dead-heat, the New York Times spent the day after Christmas criticizing the John Edwards campaign for the candidate’s chronic lateness to campaign events. Citing a specific campaign event in Manchester, Iowa from earlier in December to which Edwards was 45 minutes late–the Julie Bosman article doesn’t state when precisely the event occurred–the article hammers home the fact that Edwards is routinely late to campaign events. This prompted at least one liberal blog to label the article “a hit piece on Edwards.” That Edwards (23.5%) is running a reasonably close third to Clinton (29.2%) and Obama (27.3%) didn’t make it into Bosman’s article.
The New York Daily News features a missive today from Helen Kennedy titled “Fred Thompson’s upbeat in Iowa.” The article itself is anything but upbeat, noting that, “Barring a dramatic rebound, Thompson will soon have all the time in the world to go fishing.” The article is the third in a week hammering Thompson, an odd target for attack considering Thompson’s current fourth place showing. Could his standing as the most conservative of the Republican nominees be at least part of the reason for the increased scrutiny?
Time is winding down before the January 3 Iowa caucus, and writers based in New York have taken it upon themselves to separate the wheat from the chaff for the simple country folk of Iowa, narrowing the field to a pair of Republican candidates (Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee) and a pair of Democratic candidates (Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama).
How very thoughtful of them.
The fact that Iowans are quite capable of making up their own minds without guidance from New York, Washington, or Los Angeles never seemed to enter their consciousness.
Bob Owens has been covering the Beauchamp Scandal for Pajamas Media and the Confederate Yankee.
As a honest person (mostly) I confess I also posted this comment elsewhere (Riehl World View). But, if you will allow me: Can you give me an example of an absurdity piled on an irrationality? I’ll start. A poll about the Iowa caucus. Your turn.
The Best Republican Presidential Candidate for 2008
Former Senator Fred Thompson is the only real conservative in the race for the Republican nomination, and the only candidate who can unite all three pillars of the Republican Party, namely, fiscal conservatives; national security and defense conservatives; and religious conservatives.
The Republican party, given that the nation is divided, cannot afford to alienate any of these pillars, or they will lose in the general election, as a sufficient number of the alienated pillar’s constituents will simply not cast a vote for president when they vote. This is not an attempt to intimidate Republican voters, but merely a recognition that there are certain conservative voters who simply will not violate their own principles and vote for someone they have fundamental disagreements with, or do not trust. For example, Governor Romney, has not provided a satisfactory answer in the minds of many religious conservatives in his efforts to explain the change from pro-choice to pro-life. They want to know the motivation, and need to be convinced that it was not political. This matter remains unresolved, and thus alienates a proportion of religious conservatives who would otherwise support him as the party’s nominee – regardless of his own religious persuasion. Mayor Guiliani also has a similar problem with religious conservatives, given his personal position on abortion; and promising to appoint strict constructionist judges will not vitiate the conflict with pro-life constituents. Religious conservatives will not vote for a pro-choice Republican nominee – even if it means electing Senator Clinton president. They will not violate a moral conviction. They will simply adopt the attitude – God’s will be done, and maintain their conviction. Governor Huckabee alienates fiscal conservatives as a result of his tax and spend policies during his tenure in Arkansas. Senator McCain, terminally severed his relationship with a proportion of national security conservatives through his aggressive support of the proposed comprehensive immigration agreement, which failed as a result of a citizens’ uprising against this legislation; his opposition to the tax cut policy of the Bush Administration; and his opposition to aggressive interrogation techniques on high value captured terrorists.
Senator Thompson has none of the foregoing problems. He is strong on defense of the nation during a time of war, and has already committed to a substantial increase in the size of our military to fight the enemy threatening our survival; will seal the border, and reverse illegal immigration through attrition; will maintain the current tax policy, and reduce taxes by instituting his proposed voluntary flat tax system with only two rates, one at 10% with no deductions; and the other 25% maximum with current deductions maintained. He will also lower the corporate tax rate to ensure US Corporations are operating at the same tax rates as foreign corporations. Moreover, Mr. Thompson is the only candidate to assemble a plan to address the impending social security system crisis – the “third rail” of American politics. The Senator is acceptable to religious conservatives as well, given his strong and long-standing pro-life position, which explains why he was endorsed by the National Right to Life organization, and many similar state organizations.
As to the “fire in the belly” complaint, which is preferable: “Fire in the belly?” or the following leadership characteristics? Personal integrity; moral conviction; courage; perseverance; boldness; humility; analytical intelligence; calm and deliberate disposition; decisiveness; understands historical context and timing; commitment; and vision. In short, the Senator will show more than adequate “fire in the belly” when he demonstrates to those attempting to destroy our beloved nation a backbone of iron and the fury of an adversary who will unleash a conflagration, if necessary, to preserve our sacred liberty. One must guard against being deceived by clich√© terms such as “fire in the belly,” in the middle of a media driven political campaign, when there are substantially more important, and higher priority characteristics needed in the President of the United States, and leader of the free world.
For Republicans to win the White House, they must be united and have a large voter turnout among all three of their voting pillars, that is fiscal conservatives; national security conservatives; and religious conservatives. Senator Thompson, is the only candidate not alienating any of these voting pillars, and thus can galvanize their support. Accordingly, he is the best hope for Republicans in the 2008 national election. Indeed Senator Thompson can win the general election, and rest assured the other party knows it for the same reasons articulated herein; to wit: he unites the Republican constituencies and assures a large conservative voter turnout in the 2008 election.
Yesterday, I just watched for the first time the PJ Media’s interview from Nov 2007 with Fred Thompson; that interview has shown me that Thompson is a far more serious and solid person than the MSM narrative wants me to believe.
That, and the fact that he didn’t immediately raise his hand to the ‘do you believe in man-made global warming’ which MSM endlessly generates in obtuse hysteria. After watching that interview I then read Thompson’s white papers; the man offers serious, well-thought ways for leading the country. Thompson is not about being President, he’s about calmly leading a nation during unstable times.
Thompson makes me feel calm while all the others (in both parties) flapping in what ever wind the media generates makes me feel nervous.
MSM has burned me too many times now for me to believe, much less listen, to what they are saying; from now on I am going directly to the horse’s mouth not what the MSM puts into the horse’s mouth.