One Last Iowa Thought . . .

I spend a lot of time complaining about the sheer inanity of the US political press.  But after the Iowa caucus results last night, I think it may have hit a new low.

Until last night, Rick Santorum was a joke candidate.  Best known for the result one pulls up on Google when running a search on his last name, this is a man who has recently declared that the government should prohibit US citizens from using any form of contraception, and that no one should be having sex unless it is for the purposes of procreation.

You get that?  His official presidential policy is:  No Americans Are Allowed to Have Sex Just For Fun.

None of that has changed.  And yet . . . I've been scanning the political punditry all day, and I've yet to see anybody claim other than that Rick "Frothy" Santorum is a credible candidate for the US presidency.

Are.  You.  Fucking.  Kidding.  Me?

Either the world's gone insane or I have, but there is just no way in hell a guy whose presidential platforms is:  The proper role of the government is to regulate your sex lives, Americans is anything other than a joke. I don't care if he did only lose the Iowa caucuses by 8 votes.

It simply boggles my mind that under the modern rules of political punditry they actually have to take this guy seriously.

Instant Iowa Analysis

UPDATED BELOW:


I’ve been biting my tongue the past few weeks while being told repeatedly not only by the TeeVee Talking Heads (who do little but spew Conventional Wisdom) but also by most of the independent political bloggers whom I respect, that Newt Gingrich’s campaign to snag the Republican nomination is over and done with.  Looking at the Iowa results, I still can’t see that.

Here’s my fast-n-loose assessment of what went down last night and yet more shameless speculation about "what it all means" going forward:

Canada: The Northernmost State

About a month ago I penned a little rant about "independent voters," arguing as I always do that "independent" is just a functional euphemism for "low-information" (i.e., "bog stupid"). The cause of that rant was a poll asking Mississippi voters for whom they would vote today if they had the choice: Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis? Lincoln was the clear winner among both Democrats and Republicans, but self-identified "Independents" were split evenly at 44% each.

I suggested that this was only further evidence that people who self-identify as "independent" are really just so damned ignorant that they don't even know who either Lincoln or Davis were. In an attempt to bolster my claim that there are Americans alive today who don't know who Abraham Lincoln was, I pointed out that "[t]hese are people who think Canada is the northernmost state."

Well . . . lest anybody think I exaggerate the depth of ignorance that exists in the simple American electorate, let's just take a gander at how the Iowa Republican caucuses are wrapping up. Here is Texas Governor Rick Perry explaining to Iowans why we should be eager to get our hands on Canada's tar sands oil:

"Every barrel of oil that comes out of those sands in Canada is a barrel of oil that we don't have to buy from a foreign source," Mr. Perry said in Clarinda, earning a round of enthusiastic applause.

Later, the audience reacted again to Mr. Perry's assertion that buying so much energy from foreign countries is "not good policy, it's not good politics and frankly it's un-American." (emphasis added)

And you thought I was exaggerating last month about how bog stupid Americans can be? What cracks me up about all this is not just that Perry just naturally considers Canada's oil to be part of the United States' domestic production, but that when he made these ridiculous statements his Republican audience burst into "enthusiastic applause." Apparently, the sheer ridiculousness of claiming Canada's oil as our own escaped them all.

Lord, Lord . . . give me the strength tomorrow night to drink enough to expunge all of 2011 from my head, and to steel me to endure the year to come.

Shameless Iowa Speculation

According to this PPP poll, Ron Paul is making a big move in Iowa at the expense of New Gingrich, who leads Paul now only by a single point:

Upon reflection, I think this actually understates the difficulty Newt is going to have in Iowa, which is a caucus state.  Newt has surged to frontrunner status in recent months almost entirely because everybody else the rabid Republican base could love has imploded.  And that would be fine if Iowa were a primary.  But the fact Iowa is a caucus state means Newt’s people actually have to get caucus goers out to vote for him, and that usually requires a good ground game.

Newt Puts Romney in a Box With the Trump Debate

One of the things in which political junkies like me too often indulge is idle speculation about how campaign events shape themselves and whether what we are watching is, in fact, ultimately some candidate’s devious plan.  It’s pointless, I know, but it’s fun, so I’m going to indulge myself.

I wonder whether Newt Gingrich and Donald Trump planned in advance what we are now seeing regarding the NewsMax debate Trump was supposed to moderate in Iowa on December 27^th.  After all, it seems to have worked out remarkably well for Gingrich.

Newt and Donald met Monday morning for an hour and then held a press conference in which Newt endorsed the idea of Trump moderating a Republican debate, calling it no more ridiculous that Ronald Reagan starring in a movie with a chimp.  (Psstt . . . Donald.  That makes you the chimp.)

The thing is, though, other candidates either already had or pretty much immediately thereafter indicated that they would not participate in the debate.  Ron Paul’s campaign – currently running 2^nd in Iowa – had issued his formal refusal two days before, and Jon Huntsman announced that same Monday that he would not participate in this “publicity stunt.”  Michele Bachmann telegraphed an obvious out by questioning on Tuesday whether Trump could be objective since “he said he’s already leaning towards a candidate.”

(Rick Perry so far has kept mum.  Only Rick Santorum has agreed to also take part.)

Of course, the only person Newt is really interested in seeing on stage with himself is Mitt Romney.  And Mitt Romney announced yesterday that he, too, is not interested in attending Trump’s debate.  Which set Newt up perfectly:

“I think if you’re afraid to debate with Donald Trump, people are going to say, ‘so you want me to believe you can debate Barack Obama, but you’re afraid to show up with Donald Trump?” Gingrich told Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren.  “And I think – it strikes me it’s kind of a very weak position.  I don’t know why people would do that.”

It didn’t help Romney that Trump spoke to MSNBC later that same day and expressed surprise at Romney’s refusal to participate:  “Frankly, I’m surprised because he really wants my endorsement.  I mean, he wants it very badly.” (emphasis added)

Ouch.  It sounds very much like Romney approached Trump hat-in-hand, but didn’t want anybody to know he was wooing the reality-show hairpiece.  That looks pretty weak too.

And now Romney is very nicely boxed in.  The debate isn’t scheduled to take place for another three weeks, so I’d be surprised if we don’t see Gingrich trying to make hay about Romney’s refusal to appear during those weeks.  If Gingrich keeps this story alive – the story about Romney being “weak” – then you just know it’ll be like catnip to Donald Trump, and is the perfect little substance-free spectacle with which our political media prefers to distract itself.

Indeed, that already appears to be happening.  In an interview scheduled to air tonight at 10:00 PM on Fox Business News, Sarah Palin is weighing in and urging Mitt Romney to change his mind and take part in the Trump debate.  And right-wing house organs like Free Republic are suggesting that – wait for it – in order to make this less of a circus Palin, too, should moderate:

You know, if I was [sic] Trump, I’d ask Sarah Palin to join him to moderate the debate.  The left in the media are talking about how Trump is just a publicity hog, and how he’s not a serious journalist who can moderate a debate, forget that, if Sarah Palin, who did go to college for journalism’s sake and knows a lot about every single issue was to join Trump, we’d have us a great debate.

[snip]

If Trump wanted to up the ante, he'd ask Palin to help. Then, we'd get a real debate, what with her knowledge of this issues and her connection with the American people. And it would infuriate the Republican establishment because Romney just said he wouldn't do it. If he won't kiss the ring of Trump, he will sail far away from getting the nod of the American people if he decides to not kiss Sarah's ring.  (emphasis added)

(I don’t make ‘em up folks, I just report what I see ‘em saying.)

So I imagine for the next few weeks we’ll be treated to Gingrich and Trump both sniping at Romney and calling him “weak” for failing to appear at the Iowa debate on the 27^th.  Sarah Palin – the sultana of self-promotion, the prima donna of PR – will continue to weigh in, and the media will speculate like wild about whether Mitt Romney will flip-flop on “the Trump debate decision.”

Either way he’s fairly screwed.  If Mitt refuses to debate then (i) he’ll be deemed weak for ditching the debate, and (ii) he’ll be deemed to have insulted Donald Trump, who – for some completely unfathomable reason – the GOP base holds near and dear to their hearts.  If Mitt agrees to debate then (i) he’ll be deemed weak for backing down, and (ii) he’ll forever have cemented in the public’s mind that there really is literally nothing about which Mitt Romney won’t “flip-flop.”

Nicely played, Newt.

Shameless GOP Primary Speculation

My track record for predicting what is going to happen next in the GOP primary contest is hardly spotless, but then this thing has been so weird for so long that no one’s predictions have proved to be reliably accurate.  Nevertheless, I’m going to give it another shot.

I think Newt Gingrich will be the nominee.

This isn’t a particularly well-reasoned decision, more just a gut reaction to circumstances as they look now.  But then again, I predicted Obama would be the nominee way back in the early days of 2007 pretty much on the same irrational basis.

Here is how I see things shaping up for Newt: