Caucus, schmauckus
Posted on | January 3, 2008 | No Comments
The Iowa Caucuses are tonight. Big whoop. Michael Judge said it best in the Wall Street Journal this morning: Ignore Iowa. The only one the corn belters got right in the past generation was Jimmy Malaise Carter. The process is Byzantine to say the least and touches maybe 6 percent of the Iowa population. The race in both parties is a toss-up in Iowa, and that’s probably because, as Fred Barnes points out, the campaigning has been about nothing. But as most of start to get really interested in the race now the morning of the caucuses, it’s helpful to review Gerald Seib’s great overview piece on how this race—the first in 80 years without a sitting prez or veep running—could be a game changer, the way McKinley’s, FDR’s and Reagan’s elections were. If that’s the case, then the results on the Democratic side might be really instructive. If, as some have argued, we’re about to enter a new era in American politics, then a strong performance in Iowa and New Hampshire for John Edwards might be instructive. He’s the big populist. He gets a lift if the Baby Boomers, now entering their 60s, have moved from decades of money-making, free-market, low-tax euphoria to fixed-income, health-issue “you gotta help me now†moods. Norm Solomon on Huffington Post examines his favorite lefties.Here’s one of those tug-at-yer-heartstrings commercials that really rings the populist bell:
My favorite photo today shows Chuck Norris’ biggest fan standing over a take-down of some pheasants in a field. Mitt Romney must be red with envy.
At the end of the day, the choice should come down to character issues. Not character like “I didn’t inhale.†Stuff like that is just silly. Character as in the kinds of qualities Larry Lindsey described Wednesday in a great Journal piece. As for yours truly, just about a month until we go to the polls. It will be a wonderfully entertaining time watching the greatest of all reality TV shows.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
No related posts.
Comments
No Responses to “Caucus, schmauckus”
Leave a Reply
January 3rd, 2008 @ 5:12 pm
Sadly, one of the major reasons this race continues to be about nothing is that the press continues to cover it as a horse race.
Ron Paul really may really be a lunatic, but how would anyone tell. I have yet to see a news story that let’s Paul hang himself with his own positions.
Instead, I’ve read reporters’ dispatches asserting that Paul isn’t a serious contender, talking about the money Paul’s raised, and where Paul is in the polls.
It’s the same with every other major candidate.
This election might be about something if the candidates felt compelled to say something. But they’re not.
BRSanto
January 4th, 2008 @ 9:18 am
When CNN was managing the YouTube debate, they actually rejected questions of substance in order to focus on frilly and fun personality issues. The closing question of the one college woman who asked Hillary about diamonds and pearls? Not her idea. Wolf Blitzer demanded she hold back on a waterboarding question so they could close with a “fluffy, not stuffy” piece. Candidates are trying hard to get their positions out there, and media moguls are failing them on every turn.