Tuesday, January 03, 2012

Iowa and whatnot

Some brief thoughts on the caucus. As I said the other day, I predict Romney to win, but I’m wobbly. I forget if I said, but I expect Paul to be second and then Santorum. All I’m really saying by this is that I agree with the conventional wisdom, as most professionals are going with those three in some order, even though I usually say they don’t know what they are talking about. But, I don’t have any information myself from an unlikely source or any insight which might make me think they are wrong. Romney and Paul have the best machines there, reaching back to their last run for 2008. No one would be surprised, of course, if Paul come in first, as he has the most enthusiastic supporters and is polling right behind Romney. Caucus’s are very hard to read though as they talk and make speeches at their meetings first and try to sway each other, and nearly half who are likely to attend have said they are undecided right up to today. Polling Iowans isn’t the same thing as polling the caucuses. But, I think we will all be shocked if Perry or Bachmann or Gingrich crack the top 3.

It has been an interesting process, highlighted by the theme of “Anyone but Romney” as one after another candidate has been thrust into the spotlight briefly, only for everyone to realize that they are just not acceptable either because of scandal – Cain; snafus and deer caught in the headlights moments – Perry; just not being up to snuff – Bachmann; baggage and wobbly personality – Gingrich (he may have been ready to explode in anger today calling Romney a liar, but kept his cool). I don’t even know how to describe Trump, who, in my opinion, embarrassed himself and his party with his birther nonsense, even if some conservatives still believe it. Last, of course, Santorum is thrown forward, though no one, not even the most religious pro-life Iowan seemed to think he had any possible chance until a few days ago when Gingrich – not surprisingly in my opinion – self destructed (though the Super Pac supporting Romney is given the credit by politicos). It would be interesting as Santorum has been to South Carolina, where there isn’t a recent enough poll, more than any of the others. If he wins South Carolina, he could actually win this thing – as strange as it seems. Romney would not go quietly as this is probably his last shot and he would probably take it right to the convention. Republicans divvy up the vote, unlike the Democrats, where it is winner take all. I personally like Santorum, though I am put off by his anti-homosexual rhetoric; I don’t care about his pro-life position (no one else seems to care much either), and he is certainly as qualified as anyone in terms of knowledge and policy education.

What I don’t think he could do, though, is win a general election. In fact, I think he would get smushed. But, I really think any of them would get smushed other than Romney, and, he will of course have a tough time of it, like even the best candidate.

Romney is so interesting. I did not like him four years ago. He is probably the same person, but he now comes across as unflappable and friendly and presidential in a way none of the others do. He is the only one who might win tonight and not have the White House smile. Last time I likened him to a used car salesman. He is too smooth for that now, but he reminds me as someone who would keep driving if he ran you down, but phone 911 while he attended to his affairs.

You know what I like? Gingrich and Perry have both gotten a little choked up on the campaign trail and no one seems to mind. Having gotten choked up speaking publicly myself more than once (even on trial once – but, fortunately, it worked), I like the development. Our leaders cry, even icons for manliness like Churchill and Patton and Hillary Clinton (okay, cheap joke, but she would laugh herself at it). And the media has finally gotten used to it, unlike say, when Edmund Muskie’s career ended in 1972 when he teared up while defending his wife.

Will Iowa, which has more often than not proved itself irrelevant to the actual nomination of a candidate, continue to be important? It does play a role in winnowing the field and it is fun the way they do it there, making the candidates play the game because the media wants them there shaking hands and serving food. Even Ron Paul, no hand shaker or food server, made frequent visits and competes too. I think it will be as big in 2016.

One media point tonight before they start counting votes. I put on MSNBC, which rendered itself important to watch in the 2008 election thanks to Olbermann – now gone – and Fox, to watch the pre-caucus show. You can’t help but notice how good looking the Fox women are, even the ones in their 40s. These women are also very accomplished for the most part, but you have to wonder how many of them got where they are at least in part because of their looks, not to mention having famous or connected parents. Just concentrating on looks, I made this short list, which might be an understatement.”

Shannon Bream, Miss Virginia, 1990; Miss Florida, 1995 and competed in Miss America and Miss USA.
Gretchen Carlson, Miss America, 1990
Jenna Lee – Wikipedia – According to Wikipedia, Lee had a photo spread in Cosmo in 2009 and was ranked number 75 “on the Ask Men list of Top 99 Women of the World which came out in October 2009.”
Arthel Neville, Days of our Lives actress
Kimberly Guilfoyle, Macy’s catalogue model
Lauren Green, Miss Minnesota, 1984; Miss America, third runner up, 1985
Courtney Friel, television show hostess
and, even if they don’t have the technical creds -
Megyn Kelly and Heather Nauert are just gorgeous
Call me a male chauvinist pig, and forget politics for the moment, but given the opportunity to watch Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC or Megyn Kelly on Fox – yeah, I think I know who most men would pick. No wonder Fox runs over CNN and MSNBC on ratings every single month, every year.

Last -

Is there any Sherlock Holmes fan who is not secretly tickled that a dead body was found on a royal estate and is not hoping there is some mystery about it?

In the same vein, my American compatriots, can you admit you would not be gratified if an Iranian vessel took a shot at one of our naval ships in the Straights of Hormuz and we blew it out of the water? No? Sure, and you probably want us to believe you don’t like watching the women on Fox either.


  1. I predicted Rommney would win but he's a little wobbly, and Gingrich I hate (told you why a 100,000 times already) bur he's wobbly too, and Bachman and Perry are wobbly....
    and I'm friggin dizzy from all the wobbling. What? You fell in love with the word wobbly this morning?

  2. Okay, hate it when that happens, but I've done worse. It was really only twice though, once for me and once for Bachmann. I was aware that Weebles are wobbly too, but you notice I made no mention of that at all.


Your comments are welcome.

About Me

My photo
I started this blog in September, 2006. Mostly, it is where I can talk about things that interest me, which I otherwise don't get to do all that much, about some remarkable people who should not be forgotten, philosophy and theories (like Don Foster's on who wrote A Visit From St. Nicholas and my own on whether Santa is mostly derived from a Norse god) and analysis of issues that concern me. Often it is about books. I try to quote accurately and to say when I am paraphrasing (more and more). Sometimes I blow the first name of even very famous people, often entertainers. I'm much better at history, but once in a while I see I have written something I later learned was not true. Sometimes I fix them, sometimes not. My worst mistake was writing that Beethoven went blind, when he actually went deaf. Feel free to point out an error. I either leave in the mistake, or, if I clean it up, the comment pointing it out. From time to time I do clean up grammar in old posts as, over time I have become more conventional in my grammar, and I very often write these when I am falling asleep and just make dumb mistakes. It be nice to have an editor, but . . . .