Thank You, Iowa [Why our nation benefits from having Iowa -likes of NH, South Carolina- lead off]

CNN ^ | updated 11:19 PM EST, Tue January 3, 2012 | William Howell, Special to CNN

[fight_truth_decay]

(CNN) -- As each of the Republican candidates claims victory of one kind or another -- having beaten the others, having beaten expectations, having beaten odds or some combination of all three -- and heads eastward for another contest, some thanks are in order. To the people of Iowa.

Every four years, presidential candidates descend upon the small, unassuming state to make their case. They do so for months on end, glad-handing farmers and old folk and insurance salesmen in each of the state's 99 counties, delivering variants of the same stump speech as if its contents had just occurred to them. Over bacon breakfasts and Sunday sermons, these candidates parade their policy positions, personal histories, moral convictions and leadership styles. And then come early January, as just happened today, party activists around the state render their judgment, and thereby establish an important precedent for the primary season to follow.

Every four years, one also can count on a bevy of political observers to bemoan this state of affairs. Why should such extraordinary responsibility be vested in one small state? And particularly one that is a great deal whiter, rural and less educated than the rest of the union?...... More

[Grunthor]

Nope. Would much prefer Texas, Georgia, Alabama and Idaho lead off. Followed by Oklahoma, Utah and South Dakota a week later.

Let the blue states hold their cauci and primaries last.

[GonzoGOP]

If Texas lead off then only the best known, best funded candidates would be able to run. The first primaries need to be small states. Oklahoma fine, Texas gets to decide the general, and everyone knows that. They can afford to take the second line in the primaries. The closer rather than the lead off.

[PLD]

The Bildebergs must be really happy that their boy Romney got that last eight points..

[Lou Budvis]

I’m prepared to let MO, CO, OH, and FL decide the whole thing. Winning a deep red or blue state doesn’t tell you much and IA and NH are such niche states that they don’t represent anything.

[fight_truth_decay]

Then there is a "mock rural Iowa in front of the rest of the nation" condescending piece by University of Iowa, journalism professor -- Stephen G. Bloom, who eventually admits: "he never took up fishing".

[fight_truth_decay]

From January 03, 2012 5:25 PM, Heather Rutz of LimaOhio.com News:

“When you look at Romney, you see an individual successful in the private and public sector. That is what voters are seeking today,” Cheney said Tuesday. “The major driver with voters is that they're disgruntled with the economy and the Obama administration.”

Iowa and New Hampshire in a week, with their distinction of the first nominating contests, remain important to candidates, Cheney said.

“Virtually every candidate has had momentum, reached the mountaintop, and found a ski slope on the other side down,” Cheney said. “Iowa and New Hampshire do have important roles. If you're not hitting double digits, you have to decide whether to continue your campaign.”

Democratic Party Chairman Angel said he has been surprised by some pundits' recent comments about Iowa and New Hampshire being not as important as in recent years. You can argue about whether such a small number of voters and caucus participants should have such a large role in the process, but they continue to carry “enormous weight,” Angel said.

[allmendream]

Thank you Iowa?

More like F*CK you Iowa!

If not for their self appointed electoral primacy we as a nation would not be paying 8 billion a year to burn up 40% of our corn crop in order to water down our gasoline.

[Dryman]

If CNN is for it, I am against it.

Proof positive this primary/caucus system is pure idiocy.

[fight_truth_decay]

Iowa Caucuses Only Relevant For Their Near-Total Irrelevance

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2828526/posts

Related

[VF-51vnv]

The only thing Iowa looks at is $$$$$$$$$$, look at how much money is spent there during THEIR self imposed primary process. Screw principles, screw actual election issues and never mind the future of America... Iowa sucks and should NEVER be the first to dictate to the rest of the country THEIR views of whom should be elected.The whole RNC and their whole primary system should be abolished,reformed and improved to reflect our conservative (Reagan) values. PHUCK IOWA

[redgolum]

At the caucus I was at last night, one of the planks was to discontinue all ethanol subsides. It passed in all the precincts.

This was in a rural area, with many large corn farmers. Ethanol is not as important as you think.

[redgolum]

At the caucus I was at last night, one of the planks was to discontinue all ethanol subsides. It passed in all the precincts.

This was in a rural area, with many large corn farmers. Ethanol is not as important as you think.

[cornfedcowboy]

burn up 40% of our corn crop in order to water down our gasoline.

---

You’ve been drinking too much ethanol.

[allmendream]

Problem with the 40% number? Do you have a better estimate?

My figures are well sourced. There is an 8 billion dollar a year subsidy for ethanol, it burns up 40% of our corn crop, and the net result is watering down our gasoline.

F*CK IOWA!!!!

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43138199/Coal_Based_Ethanol_Is_Just_Down_the_Road

But the U.S.’s corn-derived ethanol fuel is relatively expensive—about $1.55 to $1.74 per gallon compared to 71 cents to 90 cents per gallon in Brazil—and so is heavily subsidized to allow gasoline producers to meet federal renewable fuel standards.

And with 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop now going to ethanol production, a four-fold increase from 2002, the competition for corn from food processors could keep those prices high.

[JSDude1]

https://transaxt.com/Donate/PTWALC/RickSantorumforPresident

[cornfedcowboy]

The crop used is about 27 to 30%. The starch is utilized to create ethanol. Starch is not food. The protein,DDG’s (protein), is put back in the food supply typically as feed. I can understand the desire not to subsidize ethanol however the charge that we are burning our food for fuel is nonsense.

[allmendream]

What source do you have for your figure. I supplied my source. If it is incorrect I would appreciate correction as it is WIDELY reported that we burn up 40% of our corn crop.

Starch IS food. What kept the Irish alive prior to the potato famine was potato STARCH. Bread is what keeps your typical Egyptian alive - most notably the STARCH in the bread.

Muscularly starch is along chain of sugars, metabolism of sugars from starch is the main source of energy.

As a byproduct, ethanol production does generate feed for livestock, but much like the energy put into ethanol - you don't get out nearly enough to justify what you put in - absent massive government hand outs to ethanol producers.

[allmendream]

Muscularly should = molecularly

[Patton@Bastogne]

.


The Liberal News-Media (now joined by their The Usual E-RINO Suspects) will suffer an "epic fail" ...

as they DESPERATELY try to force a "faux disqualification" for Newt Gingrich in the upcoming Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary.


I'm confident that Newt Gingrich will "decimate" Mitt Romney and Dr. Winkie (Ron Paul) in South Carolina and Florida ...


======================================


How many successful POTUS candidates have ever won the Iowa Caucus ?

In the last thirty-two (32) years ... only ONE Democrat (Obama in 2008) and ONE Republican (Bush-43 in 2000) have won BOTH the Iowa Caucus and the Presidential Election ...

Of course, that doesn't include "sitting" Presidents (Reagan, Clinton) who won Iowas on their way to a second term election ...

That presents odds of TWO (2) Iowa Caucus wins out of SIXTEEN (16) possible Presidential Election Candidates !

Equivalent to a Whopping twelve-point-five (12.5) percent success rate ...




How many successful POTUS candidates have ever won the New Hampshire Primary ?

In the last thirty-two (32) years ... only ONE Democrat (Carter in 1976) and TWO Republicans (Reagan-1980 and Bush-41 in 1988) have won BOTH the New Hampshire Primary and the Presidential Election ...

Of course, that doesn't include "sitting" Presidents (Reagan, Clinton) who won New Hampshire on their way to a second term election ...

That presents odds of THREE (3) New Hampshire wins out of FIFTEEN (15) possible Presidential Election Candidates !

Equivalent to a Whopping thirteen-three-three (13.33) percent success rate ...


======================================


THE IOWA CAUCUS -- Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:


Democrats:

January 3, 2008 – Barack Obama (38%)

January 19, 2004 – John Kerry (38%)

January 24, 2000 – Al Gore (63%)

February 12, 1996 – Bill Clinton (unopposed)

February 10, 1992 – Tom Harkin (76%)

February 8, 1988 – Dick Gephardt (31%)

February 20, 1984 – Walter Mondale (49%)

January 21, 1980 – Jimmy Carter (59%)

January 19, 1976 – "Uncommitted" (37%)

January 24, 1972 – "Uncommitted" (36%)



Republicans

2008 – Mike Huckabee (34%)

2004 – George W. Bush (unopposed)

2000 – George W. Bush (41%)

1996 – Bob Dole (26%)

1992 – George H. W. Bush

1988 – Bob Dole (37%)

1984 – Ronald Reagan (unopposed)

1980 – George H. W. Bush (32%)

1976 – Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan


======================================


THE NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY -- Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:


Democrats:

2008 Senator Hillary Clinton

2004 Senator John Kerry

2000 Vice President Al Gore

1996 President Bill Clinton

1992 Senator Paul Tsongas

1988 Governor Michael Dukakis

1984 Senator Gary Hart

1980 President Jimmy Carter

1976 Governor Jimmy Carter



Republicans

2008 Senator John McCain

2004 President George W. Bush

2000 Senator John McCain

1996 Pat Buchanan

1992 President George H. W. Bush

1988 Vice President George H. W. Bush

1984 President Ronald Reagan

1980 Governor Ronald Reagan

1976 President Gerald R. Ford



======================================


.