The Real Problem With Iowa

As usual, the Iowa caucuses have been condemned for being unrepresentative because Iowa is a small, overwhelmingly white, state. Fair enough, though if the election season started in a large state, only the well-healed candidates would have any chance. Like Clinton and Obama. And Romney. O.K., polls show Clinton and Obama ahead- but with Edwards close behind. And Romney and the (relatively) ill-financed Huckabee are locked in a tight race, and the very well-financed Rudolph Giuliani respected Iowa Republicans enough to know they would overwhelmingly reject him.

The big problem- unacknowledged by a media worshipping at the alter of "bipartisanship"- is that independents and Repubs can vote in the Democratic caucus (and independents and Democrats in the Repub caucuses). This, of course, presents a major opportunity for the Great Accomodationist from Illinois to score big with independents, many of whom will vote Republican in 11/08 whomever the Democratic nominee is, and with Republicans, most of whom will vote Republican in 11/08 whomever the Democratic nominee is. Therefore, a Republican in Iowa has a better chance of effecting the choice of the Democratic Presidential standard bearer than a Democratic registrant/voter practically anywhere else in the country. This is not good- unless you happen to be a candidate who appears to believe that the Reid/Pelosi, "I don't mean to offend you," approach to bipartisanship will reverse years of Republican neglect, mismanagement, and hostility to the interests of the average American on Main Street.

With Democrats in the majority (not "in control") of Congress and the GOP in control of the White House (and the Judiciary), the GOP controls the federal government. A Democrat may be nominated with significant help from Republicans, then elected because of dissatisfaction with the nation's direction under a Republican President. But it will take more than that to enact and implement progressive policies in Washington.