A Conservative's look at the Iowa Caucus

Huckabee and Obama clearly come out as the winners of the Iowa Caucus.  As a conservative, I don't much care for any of the democrats running, but we'll talk about them in a moment.  First, the Republicans.

Huckabee comes out on top.  Ron Paul got much more support than he normally does, though there was a big push by white supremacy groups like Stormfront to have ALL of their iowa members go out and vote for Ron Paul.  He doesn't distance himself from them or their support, which is not a good sign as to where he might stand (and makes one wonder about him, given his stances on abandoning Iraq, Afghanistan and the rest of the middle east, as well as abandoning our friend, Israel)  Even so, he did not get much support.

Interestingly, he got more support than Rudy.  Rudy chose not to campaign in Iowa.  This is a move that, I personally think, was unwise.  It shows that he is either too cocky, assuming that he had it 'in the bag,' or it was a declaration that the 'flyover country' folks are just not important enough to the former mayor of new york city.  The rest of us get to vote too, Rudy.  (Once you leave the New England area, Rudy's support drastically drops... You'd never know it, as the mainstream media are all located or pander to nyc.)

Huckabee won it.  I'm not a big fan of Huckabee.... some of his actions as governor of Arkansas were a touch too liberal for me, but he is more conservative than Romney or Rudy, so I guess I'll take what I can get.

Saddly, MY choice, Hunter, got diddly in terms of votes in Iowa.  I see this for 2 reasons.  First, the MSM.  Mainstream Media.  They wholly ignore Duncan Hunter.  Rudy and Romney and Huckabee... even McCain... get free press coverage every time they urinate.  You can't buy that kind of nationwide free publicity.  Duncan Hunter knows... he can't get any of it.  Even when General Petraeus was testifying before the House committee, no one knew that Duncan Hunter was not only there, but asking questions!

I only knew because I watched the whole event on CSpan.  I looked at the covereage that night on ALL of the news networks.  All of them discussed the General, and even briefly what was said.  Not ONE (Not even Fox News, which the Left likes to berate as the 'right wing news channel' . . . which it is not.  It is moderate.  The other news channels are just that far to the Left) had any mention of Duncan Hunter, and he was actively running for President!  Not even a mention that he was there.

The other reason I see for Hunter, the only real conservative left running, to not do well in Iowa is that it is Iowa.  They're very liberal.  Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin are almost always voting blue (Even when Reagan won every state but one, that one state was Minnesota).  Those three states are large union and farmers states, both of which are pandered to greatly by the Democrats (The Unions can count on the Democrats to allow their monopoly, the farmers can count on the Democrats for more subsidies)

Here, however, is the interesting part:  Hillary Clinton.  She did very poorly in the Iowa caucus.  Obama won, and Hillary had a poor showing.  Why is this interesting?  Because the news wasn't discussing it last night.  NONE of the news networks discussed Hillary doing poorly (except Fox).  They talked about Huckabee.  Huckabee Huckabee Huckabee...  no Hillary.  They didn't seem to want to discuss her poor showing in Iowa.  This morning, the usual talking heads had gotten together for their spin scripts.  "Well, Iowa isn't really representative of voters as a whole..." Alan Greenspan's wife said this morning on MSNBC's "Morning with Joe" program.  Funny, just a few days ago they were discussing how important Iowa was.

One more interesting point is the racist reporting.  Multiple sources are shocked (Shocked I say!) that obama did well in Iowa.  Fox News' program "Fox and Friends" had Jackson on, discussing how all those 'white people' in iowa voted for a black man.  Jackson was pleased, suggesting that the United States was finally 'growing up' and 'maturing' . . .  (I guess his loss was because Americans were too racist to vote for him, not because he is a one trick pony who has nothing of value to add, just is able to scream 'racist!")  Multiple news articles show an amazement that a 'largely white' state would vote for a black man. 

All of these articles, and (once again) Jackson show clear anti-white racism.  What they are inferring is that white people are far too racist to actually vote for a minority.  Utter rubbish.  In my Conservative Southern state of Oklahoma, where we elect Congressmen like Inhofe and Coburn, we elected a black man by the name of JC Watts.  We also have a history of electing American Indian politicians, like our Rep Tom Cole (I believe him to be the ONLY American Indian serving in Congress right now, but don't quote me on that)

All of the talk about the shocker of Huckabee winning (even though there were clear signs of it coming, as he gained support as you left the New England polling areas) and Obama winning in a 'white state' really are little more than an attempt to avoid having to deal with Hillary NOT being as popular as the MSM is telling you that she is.

Share this post on:

 •    •    •    •    •