Result of Iowa: They Didn’t Want Mitt in 2008;They Don’t Want Him Now

The results of the Iowa Caucuses are in.  To the extent that you can draw conclusions from the votes of 123,000 individuals, here are some quick observations.

1) The Media will invariably focus on which conservative candidates should drop out.  They will also focus on the fact that there is nobody who has a definitive roadmap to defeat Romney.  But the larger point they will overlook is how much the Republican electorate dislikes Romney.  He spent million of dollars in 2008 and got crushed by Huckabee.  He spent millions of dollars this year, yet he failed to improve on his 2008 showing (Santorum spent just $30,000 on ads).  The punchline is that 75% of GOP voters are willing to vote for anyone anyone against Romney.

2) It appears that Romney’s base of support is limited to rich secular voters.  That’s not exactly the appeal you want to have going into this election.  There is very little overlap between Romney’s 2008 voters and his current supporters.  In other words, he is last cycle’s McCain.

3) As we head into New Hampshire and South Carolina, I have a feeling that Romney will finally incur aggressive and sustained attacks from multiple candidates.  In particular, Newt is seeking his revenge – to the extent that he wants Romney to lose more than he wants to win himself.

4) With 27% of the electorate being Independent voters, and Ron Paul garnering support of almost half those voters, can we finally end this nonsense of having non-Republicans vote in a Republican primary/caucus?

5) With the prospects of electing a conservative president becoming dimmer by the day, we really need to divert some of our attention to the congressional races.  In a presidential election year, all of the primaries are much earlier, including those for Senate and House candidates.  We need to mobilize for conservatives down the ticket.  Our Republican president will need a strong conservative Congress to prevent a rehash of the 2001-2006 era of compassionate conservatism.

6) The most important observation from Iowa?  Republicans are dramatically underwhelmed by the current field.  In a year when Republicans are fired up to defeat Obama, they barley broke the 2008 turnout record, and when the increase in Independent voters is factored in, there were probably less Republican voters this time around.  Unlike previous elections, there is a huge opportunity for a conservative candidate to enter the race and sweep the field.  Unless someone else gets in, Gingrich appears to be the only one who still has a decent level of national support to drag Romney into a protracted primary battle.

7) On a personal level, I’ve always said that I would support the anti-Romney whomever that would be (except for Paul), just as I would support any Republicans nominee against Obama in the general election.  For now, with Perry headed back to Texas and Santorum with little support outside of Iowa, it appears that Newt is the only hope for those who proudly declare: Mittens Delenda Est.  McCain’s impending endorsement of Romney will only galvanize us to kill (politically, of course) two Republican imposters with one stone.

Newt Gingrich Tells the Truth About the Palestinian Non-Entity

“The Palestinians are the global warming climate change of geopolitical conflict. They use deceptive parlance to advance their agenda.”

Newt Gingrich hit it out of the park with his succinct assessment of the “Palestinian” cause.

One of the most incorrigible fallacies pertaining to the Middle East is the notion that the Palestinians are entitled to a state of their own.  This fallacy stems from the misconception that there is a nation of ‘Palestinians’, and to the extent that such a nation exists, this name is an accurate representation of the Arabs who live in modern Israel.  This artful manipulation of the geopolitical lexicon was meant to bestow upon a group of random Arabs a false sense of geographical ties to the Holy Land.

In 1977, during an interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw, PLO Executive Committee member Zuheir Mohsen described the stratagem as this:

“The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism.”

This delusion is no trivial matter.  For years, the left wing foreign policy establishment has rapturously promoted the ‘Palestinians’ as the cause célèbre of our national security interests.  Instead of focusing on the real threats to our national security (such as those who, incidentally, fund the so-called Palestinians), the foreign policy establishment has singularly focused on creating a state for the most virulently anti-American people on the face of the planet.  Their maniacal fixation on the Palestinians has left them devoid of solutions regarding the broader turmoil in the Middle East.

The first step in undoing this foreign policy mess is for the next president to deracinate the entire myth of a ‘Palestinian people’.  Kudos to Newt Gingrich for finally telling the truth about the geopolitical cause célèbre of all the world’s imbeciles.

Haley Barbour, 2012, and the Need for a Focus on Illegal Immigration

Haley Barbour has been under fire for his stance on immigration after Time Magazine published a Justice Department filing showing that Barbour lobbied for amnesty.  The filings show that Barbour was part of a lobbying team that was commissioned by the Mexican embassy to lobby for a pathway to citizenship for illegals in 2001. 

Here are some of the details about the amnesty provisions that he was seeking.

At the time, Mexico was seeking an extension of a provision that allowed undocumented immigrants living in the United States to receive legal visas or green cards without returning to their country of origin, provided they pay an additional fine. In practice, the provision generally helped out undocumented family members of legal immigrants or undocumented immigrants who were eligible for visas based upon certain job skills. Without the provision in place, undocumented immigrants who received legal papers had to return to their country of origin, for three or 10 years, before returning to the U.S. The Congressional Research Service estimated that an extension would put benefit about 300,000 undocumented immigrants.

At first, I was hesitant to excogitate any further on this issue because it appeared to be yet another hatchet job on Haley Barbour from the liberal media.  Any conservative must always be circumspect of any liberal exposé about a conservative deviating from conservatism.  After all, they certainly have no penchant for our views.