How are Iowa diner's supposed to stay in business without desperate candidates trudging through the state?
Iowa and New Hampshire cling to their unearned and unjustified "first-in-the-nation" status for two big reasons. One, it forces any politician with political aspirations to kow-tow to their parochial concerns. Ethanol, anyone? It also provides a significant boost to local economies. Presidential campaigns hire lots of consultants and staffers, hotel rooms get booked, diners get to feed the hordes of traveling media and campaigns, etc.
Problem is, in 2011, there is no Democratic primary. And on the GOP side, well, there isn't much of a Republican primary either. This has left Republican Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad begging his party's clown parade to start visiting his state.
Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad fired a starter’s pistol on the 2012 race Monday morning, calling on Republican presidential candidates to pick up the pace of what he called a “wide-open” Iowa caucus fight.
The governor’s appeal represents an effort to get that fight fully engaged, despite the overall sluggishness of the 2012 campaign – and growing questions about whether Iowa will be able to maintain its influence over the presidential nomination process.
But not only does the GOP field have a dearth of candidates, but none of the (relatively speaking) "serious" ones think they have a chance in a caucus system that will cater to the Tea Party set.
Several 2012 campaigns have shied away from Iowa so far, worrying that only a Mike Huckabee-like candidate who caters to hardcore social conservative activists can win.
But Branstad challenged White House hopefuls to “come here” and campaign, declaring that Iowa Republicans want a nominee who “focuses on cleaning up the financial mess that we have in Washington” and “somebody that focuses on jobs and revitalizing the private sector.”
Asked if that meant social issues would play a smaller role in the 2012 campaign, Branstad – an abortion opponent – answered: “You know where I stand on social issues.”
Um. Okay. That non-sequitur answer settles that. Social issues will never play a smaller role in any GOP presidential campaign, and definitely not in a caucus state -- a fact not lost on New Hampshire Republicans looking to dilute the influence of their early-state rival:
Former New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Fergus Cullen poured fuel on the anti-Iowa fire over the weekend in an op-ed that appeared in the Des Moines Register, arguing that Iowa Republicans “have marginalized themselves to the point where competing in Iowa has become optional.”
“Iowa Republicans didn’t set out to marginalize themselves, but it’s happened — to New Hampshire’s benefit,” Cullen crowed. “With several major candidates likely to bypass Iowa, and the odds rising that Iowa’s skewed caucus electorate could support candidates with limited general election appeal, the likelihood of New Hampshire being called upon to make a correction grow.”
But really, is New Hampshire really a better place for this motley crew of jokers to play? Romney will get home-field advantage, making the real battle the race for second place.
Next up is Nevada, with caucuses dominated by Sharrrrron Angle types. Random crank ideologue will win those. And finally ... South Carolina. This is not a calendar that will reward serious or moderate Republicans. It is one that will give us Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann.
If I'm a (relatively speaking) "serious" Republican, I look toward 2016. Just think of their potential lineup -- Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee, and so on. Sure, the primary competition will be more fierce, but they won't have to deal with an incumbent president, nor, if they're lucky, with obnoxious teabaggers.
And, if they're really lucky, nominating a guaranteed loser might provide impetus on the Right to change what is a bullshit nomination calendar. As I've written in the past:
There are several competing alternatives. You could have four or five regional contests on a rotating basis, so every region gets to lead every 16-20 years. You could have a lottery. You could start with a handful of small states and every week go to progressively bigger states, ending with the mega states of California, Texas, and New York. You could start with the most tightly contested states of the previous election, to give the swingiest states first dibs.
There are plenty of ways to create a fair calendar that isn't based on capricious demands to be first, just because.
Iowa and New Hampshire have too much vested in their "early state" statuses. But as Branstad betrays with his pathetic begging, and as New Hampshire betrays with its own whinings, their influence is waning. Now if we only had a calendar that better served our nation's nominating process.