Why New Hampshire Primary and Iowa Caucus Do Not Matter
The Left-wing media (who all favor Obama) have made a big issue over Mitt Romney's unimpressive wins in Iowa (where he squeaked out a very narrow win) and New Hampshire (where he failed to garner a majority of votes cast). But really, neither state's GOP contest has much meaning on the national scale.
Let's face it, neither Iowa nor New Hampshire really matter in the grand scheme of who the GOP will select as its candidate to unseat our sitting president.
Look at Iowa, where only a tiny fraction of Republicans actually participate in the caucus vote and the delegates chosen amount to about 1% of the total GOP convention delegates. Consequently, the Iowa caucus outcome cannot possibly be taken as a serious reflection of the rank-and-file Republicans' preference for their presidential candidate.
Consider New Hampshire, where the rules for voting in primaries are so lax the results simply have little meaning to the real GOP sentiment. Even in 2008, with a heated Democrat race between Obama and Clinton, a very large number of Democrats switched parties for the sole purpose of selecting the weakest GOP candidate. This has become routine for Democrats in New Hampshire and until the New Hampshire GOP puts a stop to it, the results of their primary have to be taken with a gigantic yawn.
Exit polling for this week's New Hampshire GOP primary showed the following ideological division of GOP voters: Conservative, 53%; Liberal/Moderate, 47%. That is a much more typical split of the general population than it is a reflection of real New Hampshire Republicans.
In New Hampshire, it is very easy to switch parties to vote in the primary of the "other" party to help select the weakest candidate, then switch back to your own party. Democrats have apparently made this a routine approach to New Hampshire.
Gee, what a surprise that Democrats would cheat in a primary!
Then, of course, the American Left-wing media, increasingly radicalized with their success in shaping public opinion, dutifully report the New Hampshire results as if they were reflective of national Republican trends.
It's all nonsense.
Basically, we've seen the following results emerge from the tallies thus far:
Iowa: Romney, 25%; Not Romney, 75% (Conservative: 53%-74% depending on your view of Ron Paul's politics)
NH: Romney, 39%; Not Romney, 61% (Conservative: 21%-44%, depending on your view of Ron Paul's politics)
Clearly, the impact of Democrats voting in the NH GOP primary are revealed in the disproportionately low percentage of votes for the NH conservative alternative to Mitt Romney's moderate politics. The large Huntsman vote (3rd place, 17%) is a clear indication of disproportionate liberal/moderate voting that must be traced to Democrat crossovers.
What we have learned from this is that Democrats definitely believe Romney would be either (1) the easiest GOP candidate to beat, or, (2) unhappy with Obama and realizing his doomed campaign, Democrats believe Romney is the candidate who would do the least to interfere with the progressive de-constitutionalizing of the Federal government, i.e., Romney would likely do the least to curtail unconstitutional government programs and agencies.
Our nation needs a strong candidate willing to stand up and support the twin Tea Party concerns of (1) Constitutional Governance and (2) Spending within our Means. Romney's silence on the first of those major concerns speaks volumes about either his lack of concern (suggesting a level of ignorance of the problem that should doom any candidate) or fear of how the Left-wing media would attack him if he had the enthusiastic support of Tea Parties across the nation (a trait the GOP does NOT need in its leader).
Romney's stunning silence on the issue of constitutional governance is a clear warning sign that he is simply another John McCain in a younger package.
This nation not only needs strong effective leadership, it needs a highly principled articulate leader who will educate the public on the seriousness of the nation's drift from constitutional governance of the past 100 years of "Progressive" success in derailing this nation from the rails of constitutional restraints on federal power. That drift is directly responsible for today's financial disaster, economic/real estate/employment depression, and the propagandizing of our education system to the point where many younger citizens are completely ignorant of our nations historical underpinnings and the importance of federal governance within constitutional restraints.
Of the remaining GOP candidates, apparently only Newt Gingrich has the skills and education to fulfill this roll. I only wish Romney had those same skills, but it is becoming increasingly evident by his apparent unwillingness to address the crux of our national problems that he either doesn't truly understand them or he is being guided by the kind of advisors any candidate should shun. Romney has the executive skills to be a very effective and successful chief executive. His biggest weakness is his evident lack of grasp of how this nation got to where it is by ignoring constitutional restraint.
It is very important that when November 2012 comes around the American people be given an opportunity to select a president who understands the necessity for constitutional governance and has a plan for devolving unconstitutional federal programs to the States and shuttering blatantly unconstitutional federal agencies (of which there are many) and who would enthusiastically support repeal of the 17th Amendment to restore the proper congressional balance between the people and the states.
We cannot solve our nation's problems by continuing them.
The naive view that we can just tax and spend more responsibly will only assure this nation's demise.
South Carolina, the ball is now in your court. Do something spectacular to help our constitutional republic survive.
Author of "Looking Out the Window", an evidence-based examination of the "climate change" issue, Bob Webster, is a 12th-generation descendent of both the Darte family (Connecticut, 1630s) and the Webster family (Massachusetts, 1630s). He is a descendant of Daniel Webster's father, Revolutionary War patriot Ebenezer Webster, who served with General Washington. Bob has always had a strong interest in early American history, our Constitution, U.S. politics, and law. Politically he is a constitutional republican with objectivist and libertarian roots. He has faith in the ultimate triumph of truth and reason over deception and emotion. He is a strong believer in our Constitution as written and views the abandonment of constitutional restraint by the regressive Progressive movement as a great danger to our Republic. His favorite novel is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and believes it should be required reading for all high school students so they can appreciate the cost of tolerating the growth of unconstitutional crushingly powerful central government. He strongly believes, as our Constitution enshrines, that the interests of the individual should be held superior to the interests of the state.
A lifelong interest in meteorology and climatology spurred his strong interest in science. Bob earned his degree in Mathematics at Virginia Tech, graduating in 1964.