B-Rant

- submitted by M.B.Darden on 01/03/2008

Presidential Politics--2: We Say No To Iowa & NH; They Say...Get Over Yourself?

CONTRIBUTING WRITER: M.B.DARDEN

I posted a piece a few days ago questioning the wisdom of starting the primary/caucus season in Iowa & New Hampshire -- and suggesting (tongue-in-cheek) that starting the primaries in any number of suburbs actually would be far more sensible, not to mention in any number of other states, cities, etc.

Evidently the piece struck a nerve. We were inundated with responses from unhappy or impassioned people, mostly from Iowa. Here are a few email snippets**; they kind of make my point, no? That these two states maybe shouldn't be the only states election after election that kick off the process and, despite their lack of diversity or their not being remotely representative of the country (demographically, culturally, economically), wield such disproportionate influence on the process.

• "I'm from Iowa. Born and raised here. Most of us in Iowa do enjoy the attention. The economy here especially enjoys the millions of bucks brought into the state by the candidates, volunteers, and the press. However most of us know more about politics and the political scene than the vast majority of people living in the self-centered burbs of Seattle or Miami, and we're positive we know more than those living in the non-English speaking slums of Los Angeles....Oh, and by the way, people here in Iowa can spell, unlike some of you idiot bloggers from out east and west!"

• "You people who question Iowa are no nothings. Just because you have an education doesn't mean you know sh*t about sh*t...."

• "Funny, ha ha. You make Fred Thompson seem a fool. In Law & Order he wasn't secondary as you say, he was so big....So what his speeches are boring. Most people are boring."

• "I have met 4 candidates and they're all wonderful....They spent hours talking to me and I wish I could vote for all of them...."

• "You talk about pandering...There is not pandering. The candidates ask us what we want and they tell us they want the same things. Why is that pandering?....You're jealous, that's all."

• "Of course there's pandering. I work in a restaurant and my friends and I are sure if we asked them [the candidates] to give us their cars, they would...."

• "F*** you....Spend some time on a ranch and then you'll know how to build a fence..."
  
  
• "[You] want to start in California, I suppose...You'd be happier if we started in Mexico, wouldn't you?..."

• "Joke's on you...Press acts like everybody here [in Iowa] knows all this about politics and issues. We laugh....No one I know knows anything....Most of [us] could care nothing...The cameras come, everybody smiles and pretends....We get [the] spotlight."

• "Cows in our state are smarter than most people in yours...."

And so on....

Oh, and this just in from New Hampshire (no joke -- from CNN)....NH Police fear a coming crime wave -- from residents stealing each others' snow blowers. With shortages at Home Depot, et al, and snow storms on the way, apparently New Hampshire "neighborliness" and salt of the earth values aren't so neighborly or "salty" after all. Hope they manage to vote in the primary before they steal their friends' stuff.

The thing is, I wasn't saying Iowa or New Hampshire are bad states (notwithstanding the CNN report on NH). I'm saying they shouldn't be given such power in narrowing down the field of candidates and there are plenty of alternative approaches (none perfect) that would make more sense.

Iowa. It's so out of control, it's ridiculous -- and almost funny. A miniscule fraction of the voting-eligible public will participate in the caucuses. The people who will, according to almost all reports, are in many ways the least representative of the already largely un-representative Iowa population. There are some reports that candidates are already quietly talking about trading support with each other in various ways -- gaming the process - so that they'll at least receive some (lesser but still viable) support sufficient to remain in the race. There are so few people participating, candidates can actually game the process; you almost can't make that stuff up!

Finally -- no surprise -- as the caucuses approach, candidates are simply saying/doing anything to attract attention and, maybe, desperately, hopefully, gain a handful of additional votes. Edwards -- had to announce yesterday he'll remove U.S. troops from Iraq far more quickly & decisively than he'd previously said (or at least he announced it with more specificity than ever before). Obama, Clinton, Romney -- saying, spinning almost anything to impress those couple of voters. (Clinton, tongue-in-cheek -- literally and figuratively, I hope -- recalled a rally at a "cattle-auction" arena, and said to her new crowd, essentially, if you want me to open my mouth and inspect it (like cows, hey, hey, get it?), no problem...anything for your vote. This according to the AP.)

And Thompson, most radically of all (and possibly the most disingenuous), announced that sometime soon, he's not sure when, but soon, definitely soon, he'll stop falling asleep during his own stump speeches. (OK, yes, that's a joke; he didn't say it. Obviously even the gullible voters wouldn't believe that; no one obviously -- even with the aid of advanced pharmacological stimulants -- could physiologically not fall asleep during Thompson's speeches.)

**We also got a lot of suggestions for potential suburban primaries. Towns and regions that would be "reasonable" for first primaries. My favorite? Bermuda. Not a part of the U.S.; but, hey, with all its gorgeous beaches and golf courses, no reason to think we couldn't win support for the 20th or 30th primary; the 1st, with all its attention, might be trickier. My least favorite suggestion? Disneyworld. I just don't know if its population is any more diverse or representative than Iowa or NH....read more rants