Are we willing to let little Iowa determine the entire Presidential election?

I don’t like Obama, whom I consider an empty shirt, utterly devoid of experience and elevated to his lofty position only because of his skin color, something that I consider that worst kind of racial identity politics. (I just checked and it turns out that, at this particular minute, Silky Pony, the radical rich plaintiffs’ attorney is in the lead in Iowa, a change from yesterday’s news, or even this morning’s. I find him just as distasteful as Obama, especially since I think he’s a huge hypocrite, living a life few of us can imagine, while demanding that we, in the working and middle classes, turn over our money to the government for him to manage. Pfeh!)

I’m no more thrilled about the Republicans’ potential Iowa frontrunner, Mike Huckabee. Indeed, the more I learn about him, the less I like him, despite his manifest charm. He’s a nanny stater; he’s too forgiving of sin, something that’s dangerous in a political leader, whether he’s being lenient to local killers or worldwide terrorists; he’s exceptionally ill-informed about the world about him, something scary in dangerous times; and he’s a religious bigot.

As to this last point, I have no problems with Huckabee being religious, a quality all of you know I admire. I do have big problems, however, with his exceptionally nasty remarks about Mormonism. I’m perfectly willing to concede that Mormonism has some wacky ideas but, viewed objectively, so do all religions. For example, to a non-believer, the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation does not make logical sense; the Jewish belief in some sort of ancient old covenant with God, a covenant that has caused Jews until untold suffering over the centuries, is hard to fathom; and the central Christian doctrine about Jesus’ resurrection reflects a leap of faith that the non-Christian just can’t make.

What should matter in America is not doctrine, but values. You practice your faith, and I’ll practice mine (or not). However, what I will scrutinize closely is, not your faith, but the fruits of your faith as expressed in the way you live your life and, if you’re a politician, in the direction you wish to take this nation. As to this, Mitt Romney has lived an exemplary life, one of hard and successful work, family values, and fiscal and social conservatism (especially, with regard to the latter, in the last few years). Nor has he ever given any indication during his very long public and private careers that he intends to use either his wealth or political power to impose his religious beliefs, doctrines or practices on anyone. In that, he differs substantially from, say, a devoutly religious Muslim, whose faith obligates him to try to impose Sharia law against one and all, including stoning, veils, amputations, etc. Whatever Mormon doctrines are, there’s no indication that those doctrines would affect Mitt’s governance. For Huckabee to run a campaign implying otherwise is just dirty campaigning.

However, much as I may not like these guys (Obama, Edwards and Huckabee), they are still the favored candidates going into the Iowa primaries. So be it. But am I the only one who is noticing that all the punditry seems to be saying that, if they take Iowa, they’re essentially the annointed candidates for their parties in the 2008 elections? With all due respect to the wonderful citizens of Iowa, I don’t think that the outcome of a single state’s primaries — especially a state that, in terms of population, comes in 30th, behind such states as Texas, New York, California, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan — should be determinative of the entire election.

While Obama/Edwards, on the one hand, and Huckabee, on the other hand, will definitely get a boost if they take Iowa, the battle between the primary candidates will — or at least should — continue from one venue to another, and really won’t be resolved until February, when the big states have had their say. I mean, do you seriously expect all the other primary candidates just to drop out, to vanish, because these guys took Iowa? To ask the question is to expose the stupidity behind it.

I also think that, as least as to Huckabee, it’s just as likely that a Huckabee victory in Iowa will so frighten non-religious conservatives in New York, Florida, California, etc., that they’ll turn out in droves to vote for someone else during the primaries. (Of course, with Republican luck, they’ll vote for Ron Paul, won’t they?)

In any event, I refuse to fall into flat despair because of the Iowa predictions, nor will I respect American voters if they simply give up after Iowa and don’t turn out to support their candidate of choice. Iowa is a great place, I’m sure, but it shouldn’t be the alpha and omega of American presidential candidacies.

UPDATE: Noooo! Say it ain’t so, pollsters! Huck is tops nationwide, not just in Iowa? Well, so was Dean once upon a time. Americans can be fickle, and they like shiny new things.

UPDATE II:  Sorry for all the typos (including the one I corrected in the post caption).  I was pretty tired last night when I wrote this, and it shows.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. expat says

    For me, the scariest thing about Huckabee is his attitude about our arrogant foreign policy. Quite frankly, Bush has been quite mild in his attitude toward our allies. You should hear me when I get riled at the two-faced utopian European snobs. Do read Soeren Kern’s article on anti-Americanism at American Thinker.

  2. Trimegistus says

    I’m not concerned that Iowa is going to determine the fate of the world. The media are obsessing about it right now because… well, because otherwise there isn’t much going on. It’s the holiday season and they have to fill column inches to make space for the ads.

    Besides, if Iowa wasn’t first, which state would be? California? That would really end the campaign before it began. Ditto any high-population state. The candidates would completely ignore flyover country and concentrate on the big enchilada. I think it’s _great_ that two small states have managed to hang on to the opening slots in primary season — it gives the Rest Of Us a little voice which otherwise would be drowned out by the big-state big-money big-media megaphones.

  3. says

    ” covenant that has caused Jews until suffering over the centuries,” – shouldn’t that read ‘untold’? Just being a gadfly, Ma’am! LOL

    As for me I will support Fred Thompson. I don’t care what goes on in Iowa or New Hampshire, or even in the next primaries. When Florida swings into action I expect Fred to still be a very viable candidate. And I will vote for him!

    After that I’ll go with Mitt.

  4. says

    I know political history, nearly every detail of every election for 60 years. Calm down. Iowa has NEVER been important. It is only a way for minor candidates to get some attention. It has never reflected the party or election outcome.

  5. Marguerite says

    I do not like this Huckabee man. The smarmy way he gets in his digs about Romney’s religion reminds me of another slick talking duo coming out of Arkansas in the last century. And another southern Christian who said he’d never lie to us.

  6. Ellie says

    PLEASE people make sure you are eligible to vote in your state’s primary. It’s not “little Iowa” that’s going to determine our nominees — it’s the little (turnout) Primaries!!!!!!!

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply