Mitt Romney and Iowa: Forget It

You are hearing a lot of mainstream media specualtion, and some on the unfair and unbalanced network, that Rick Perry entering the 2012 race FORCES Mitt Romney to contest Iowa. Not going to happpen--except in final desperation, in which case you know Romney has lost.


Now my gut tells me this is part of the mainsteam media attempt to stop Perry at any cost, while damaging Romney in th eprocess. But they would probably take this position anywayP not, of course, as an attempt to give factual information (which Michael Crichton and I have shown you is the ast thing these people of modern "journalism" are interested in), but in an attempt to stir up a FIGHT. Michele Bachmann had it right when she said that what the mainstream media really wanted to see was a mud wrestling fight between herself and Sarah Palin. I tell you the truth. Modern "journalists" are not intrested in the truth (sort of quoting Jack Nicholson from "A Few Good Men").


Why won't Mitt Romney contest Iowa? It is because he might finish THIRD (or worse). You will remember that John McCain finisthed a distant 3rd/4th (I remember it as a close finish in those places, behind Romney and Huckabee, but it has been a while) in Iowa. However, McCain had not contested Iowa. He had placed all of his marbles on New Hampshire, and he won New Hampshire. In the end, that spelled doom for Romney. Romney can afford to lowe Iowa. He cannot afford to lose New Hampshire. If Romney contests Iowa, and loses (as is very likely, since he has ignored Iowa and couuld not win agaist a then uhnknown Huckabee), that will put him in grace danger in New Hampshiere. hat could speell the end for Romney But isn't Romney playig a dangerous game to concede the "momentum" coming out of Iowa to someone else? Of course he is. But this is much lesss dangerous than ginginto Iowa at this late date. McCain played the same dangerous game, and won (mainly because Romney lost in Iowa). With that lesson behind him, it is imossible to believe that Romney will make the mistake of contesting Iowa this time, except in desperation.


Michele Bachmann has a big jump on Romney in Iowa. More importantly, Rick Perry has a jump on Romney as well--even if not to the extent of Bachmann. Romney's best hope is that Perry and Bachmann will beat each other up in Iowa, and that the mainstream media will at least partially succceed in its propaganda campaign against Perry. If Perry loses to Bachmann in Iowa--certainly a strong possibility--then it is unlikely that Perry can beat Romney in New Hampshire. Possible, but unlikely . If Perry wins Iowa, Romney is probably in trouble, but he can't do anything about it now except to perform well himself between now and the real beginning of the race in New Hampshire (much the more important state, because it is a primary, even though smaller than Iowa.). Right now it is unclear how things will look as the race heads into New Hamphire. Perry may have virtualy won the nomination by then, or he may have flamed out. Bachmann will be there. If Perry and Romney stay petty even as they headinto Supr Tuesday and beyond, then the race may well go to the convention. Why? Because Bachmann and Ron Paul have a devoted following, and aenough money for the type of campaign that they can run to the very end. They are likely to combine for 25% of the vote or so--translating into delegates under the proportional representation scheme. Even if they are losing, I don't see Bachmann or Paul dropping out wihout getting someting ni return (a little more doubful about Bachmann than Paul, but she rates to stay in). Rick Santorum is a possible spoiler in Iowa--and Pennsylvania, if he stays in. Unlkely, but possible I still find him impressive.


Unless Perry flames out, it islikely to be between Perry and Bachmann in Iowa, with Santorum a dark horse. Ron Paul will get his votes, no matter what. What does Romney have to gain by competing in Iowa? He realy rates to finish no better than third, if that high. Good enough if you don't compete--even if you finish fifth. A disaster if you do compete.


No, Romney will not contest Iowa, and the media is not telling you the truth when they suggest he will There is MORe reason for him not to do it now that Perry is in the race. Perry and Bachmann are not going to split the vote enough to let Romney win. Even if that were possible, Romney cannot afford to take the chance. He would be betting his whole campaign on Iowa, as he ended up doing in 2008 (wihout really intending it).


Me? I am still waiting to see whether I can ever support either Romney or Prery. A lot depends on this Obama jobs program, and whether Perry and/or Romney EFFECTIVELY derail it--along with any disastrous "deal" from the "gang of 12" As stated in this bog repeatedly, I will not forgive Roney and Perry allowing principle-betraying "deals" to occur. For me, that specifically includes extending the FRAUDULENT "stimulus" of the suppsoed "pyayroll tax cut". I am better able to bear extension of unemployment benefits, although I will not like it, than this particular fraud. Any other "jobs" measures that cost money are outside of possibiility. I will probably foam at the mouth if Republicans agree to "high speed rail" or an "infrastructure bank". The whole Republican point is that the Obama approach is WONRG: that government cannot produce jobs with spending and tricks. If Repubicans betray that principle, which I am afraid they will, tkhen it is all over for the. Then there is that "set up" by which Republicans AGREED to another gun at their head (hte "automatic" cuts in defense and the health care providers in Medicare). If Republicans cry that they can't let this happpen, and "have" to agree to another bad deal (fictional "cuts" in the far future and probably tax increases), then, again, the Republican Party migt as well go awy . I know I will go away from them.


Yes, I still support Michele Bachmann for the nomination. But there are several Republicans I COULD support if Michele Bachmann loses, IF the Republican Party does not AGAIN betray principle on the gound that "something" must be done BY THE GOVERNMENT to "create jobs'. That is a betrayal I canot stand, and will not stand. I do not expect to support either Perry or Romney if that betrayal occurs--in which case it will not matter to me what happens in Iowa.


However (see how I look out for you), I thought I would tell you how this race is going to play out anyway. Of course, a lot depends ofn Perry. Romney has no deep support. Perry could put away the nomination BEFORE Iowa, or he could falme out before Iowa (which I don't reall expect). If
Bachmann stays competitive in Iowa, and Romney wins New Hampshire, then we may be in for a long haul. If it gets messy enough, THAT is when a late candidate could try to move in (Palin, Christie, Ryan or someone else). Otherwise, it will be political suicide for usch a candidate to move in now (with the POSSIBLE exception of Chris Christie, who I take at his word that he is not running).


What the media specializes in is speculation based on their own purposes. What I specialize in is tellg you how it is, regardless of my preferences. Right now, I see o path for Bachmann to the nomination, but things can change. All of this "buzz" over Perry means nothing until he actually has to participate in a debate or tow, and the intitial "honey mooon" wears off . As I have said, I have seen too much of Perry in Texas to believe him a "savior". However, I admit I have liked what he has said since becomng a cndidate more than I have ever liked him before.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight) . Yes, if I could have what I really want, it would probably be for Rick Santorum to rech a competitivve position. By no means can he be regarded as a "savior" either, but he is more than solid on almost everything.--except that certain something that takes ou to the top.