James Antle of the Daily Caller takes aim at those who treat the Iowa caucuses with disdain.
Good government types of all political affiliations complain every four years about how small, demographically unrepresentative states like Iowa and New Hampshire wield disproportionate influence over the selection of the president.
There’s merit to many of these complaints. The Ames straw poll in particular is an embarrassing shakedown. But allow me to put in a good word for the good people of Iowa.
If you think the candidates Iowa advances are fringe-y or uncompetitive nationally, especially on the Republican side, whose fault is that? George H.W. Bush may have finished third there behind Bob Dole and Pat Robertson (a fact that obviously didn’t doom his 1988 presidential campaign). But a lot of times, big-name Republicans bypass the caucuses when they don’t think they can win.
That was true of John McCain twice, Rudy Giuliani in 2008, even Jon Huntsman in 2012. When the “serious” candidates have actually spent time in Iowa, they have frequently competed (Mitt Romney in 2008 and 2012) or won (Bob Dole in 1996, George W. Bush in 2000).
Chris Christie’s appearance at the Iowa Freedom Summit suggests he has learned from others’ mistakes.
No, Iowa hasn’t been kind to well-organized, big-money conservatives who could have more easily competed against the establishment frontrunners. But in most cases, that’s because the big-money conservatives blew it.
Phil Gramm didn’t play well on the stump. He gambled that he could challenge Iowa’s first-in-the nation status by competing in the Louisiana caucuses beforehand and lost. As in lost both the Louisiana and Iowa caucuses, finishing fifth in the latter, just two points ahead of Alan Keyes.
Fred Thompson and Rick Perry were similarly out-hustled by underfunded social conservatives. Thompson didn’t look like he wanted it. Perry didn’t look like he could count to three. Iowans are supposed to vote for them anyway?
