As I think about it, the inability of the boobs who run the Iowa caucuses to declare reliably a winner until over two weeks after voting is not a small thing. Obviously, a couple of dozen votes one way or another is statistically insignificant, but then so, in Iowa, are the total votes: 121,000-and-something Iowans participated in the Republican caucuses and they have more say over the presidential nominating process than all 37 million Californians. So they could at least get it right, and in a timely manner.
The horse-race headlines matter. Just nine days ago, the bigfoot media line on primary night in the Granite State was that Mitt Romney was the first non-incumbent in the history of the planet to win both Iowa and New Hampshire. Wow! Unprecedented! One for the record books! Next question: Will the history-making and increasingly inevitable “Big Mo” Mitt make it three-in-a-row in the Palmetto State?
But this entire narrative rested on nothing more substantial than an incompetent count in a state where votes in eight precincts had gone missing. On the eve of South Carolina, it turns out that Mister Inevitable, Mister Run-The-Board, Mister Sweep-The-Nation has done no more than win one state in which he keeps a vacation home.
If I were Rick Santorum, I’d be feeling mighty irked by the two-week switcheroo. Had he been pronounced the winner of Iowa back when it mattered, who knows the difference it might have made to his fundraising, or to a meaningful surge in New Hampshire, or to the ability to buy airtime in Florida. What First World jurisdiction needs over a fortnight to count a hundred thousand votes?
Notice you call them "b**bs", I call them "operatives". These things aren't mistakes, you know. At least not in the "oops, I lost a whole box of votes" kind of mistake.
More like the "oopsie! I found a whole box of Romney votes" kind of mistake.
But you'd have to rove all over the country to find someone to admit that. And, I suspect, this comment is censored.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNever claim conspiracy where stupidity will do.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNever default to "stupidity" when conspiracy is possible. In this case, almost a dead certainty.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo, Mark, you actually need more proof that we are no longer a First World jurisdiction?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Steyn, you keep embarrassing yourself in this Primary. You are so much better than this, or so I believed. It was clear you really did not grasp the meaning of Private Equity.
And now?
You miss the obvious...
Mr. Romney may have won Iowa as well!
We will never know. You simply cannot claim Mr. Santorum was the victim, while 8 precincts are missing and the total outcome is only determined by some 34 votes. Seems as if Mr. Romney could have been unfairly treated as well.
Looks like everyone was let down, it was an incredible embarrassment for all. Especially the Iowan GOP and the current chair Mr. Strawn, whose personal interaction is suspect. He was forced to step down from a Pro-Gingrich SuperPAC for running such ugly negative attacks against Mr. Romney. He truly mishandled this mess, even described how they included numerous votes without signatures, the proper forms, etc., to be all "inclusive" as Mr. Strawn stated. But then every Caucus is an adventure. We Americans have known about the Iowa Caucus roller coaster ride forever.
But here you show a very boorish rip on Romney?
You write:
"Mister Inevitable, Mister Run-The-Board, Mister Sweep-The-Nation"
It is amusing. Being snooty with Democratic Partisans often works quite well, being they are so depraved, they deserve the sincere rebuke, even on a personal level at times. But all too often you reveal the fashionable acceptance of the juvenile - targeting the deemed social unacceptable, offering way too much personal nonsense.
It was laughable when you were on Hannity's show trying to diminish the serious win Mr. Romney held in NH. Is this what your commentary is really about?
Besides, we all know Rick would not have done so well in Iowa without Mr. Vander Plaats. This is obvious. You give us this line about Romney doing very well in his backyard, and you sound like you are retreating into the same sophistry which claimed Romney has a ceiling of 20%.
* So, Mr. Santorum doing well in a small locality with admirable Religious devotion is one thing, but winning huge in NH is not of major significance because you lived close by?
mmm...
What does this make of Rick's historic loss in PA as Senator?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe couldn't win in his back yard?
PS: You do realize Mr. Steyn, being basically tied for first in the adventure in Iowa, dominating historic NH, doing extremely well in SC, having great prospects in Florida, etc., are all healthy signs for any GOP Presidential Candidate. It means they can compete strongly throughout the USA. Romney remains impressive.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLook at Paul - he does 2nd or 3rd everywhere, and he still gets either completely ignored or dismissed as a "crank". Even though he pretty much follows the principles of the founder of this magazine closer than anyone.
Funny too, even the guy on the staff (Derbyshire) who agrees with Paul on foreign policy (the big disagreement with the rest of the field) takes shots at him
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThatz because he IS a CRANK!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney remains well-financed, well-supported by the establishment and the LSM, and a slick socialist detested by the unwashed conservatives masses. Good luck with that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI wouldn't risk blowing on the dice whilst murmuring those incantations at the craps table anytime soon.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou do realize Old Fanatic, Old Girl, that your oleaginous propagandistic love affair will only end in a messy and adulterous divorce. But then you can sell the story to ABC's Nightline.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOld,
"He couldn't win in his back yard?"
Are you talking about Romney against Kennedy in the early 1990's in Massachusetts?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseComparing Romney's loss to the corrupt long-time INCUMBENT demRAT in Mass to Santorum BEING the incumbent in HIS home state and losing is the stuff of Biden class idiocy, oh wait! That explains it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Steyn, you keep embarrassing yourself in this Primary.
YOU keep embarrassing yourself in the Corner comment section, primarily by misreading the post and then by projecting your own neuroses onto the writer. To wit:
"Mister Inevitable, Mister Run-The-Board, Mister Sweep-The-Nation"
Steyn isn't poking fun at Romney; he's mocking the ignoramuses in the media who must be the FIRST FIRST FIRST to call the race, regardless of uncertainties on the ground. But you don't know how to navigate simple heteroglossia, so you fail to recognize the barb's true target.
It is amusing. Being snooty with Democratic Partisans often works quite well, being they are so depraved, they deserve the sincere rebuke, even on a personal level at times. But all too often you reveal the fashionable acceptance of the juvenile - targeting the deemed social unacceptable, offering way too much personal nonsense.
Despite the incoherence of the bolded section, it appears that you're accusing Mr. Steyn of being juvenile.
It was laughable when you were on Hannity's show trying to diminish the serious win Mr. Romney held in NH. Is this what your commentary is really about?
Yup. Juvenile and ridiculous.
Which is how your entire comment reads. It's always pathetic when someone who pretends to erudition fails to recognize someone who's light-years ahead of him, and then presumes to rebuke the superior intellect based on motivated misprision of the original text.
Shorter Mark Steyn: The country is tipping over the precipice. We desperately need a conservative in the Oval Office (Santorum!) to start the course correction, but because of ONE MORON IN IOWA, that hope may be lost forever, and now we're well and truly [CENSORED].
Followed by bloodying his head on the wall in frustration.
But as usual you didn't get that, because you're much too invested in Showing Up Mark Steyn to interpret his words properly.
You opened your mouth and removed all doubt. Well done.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThanks for saying what I got it right away:
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Steyn isn't poking fun at Romney; he's mocking the ignoramuses in the media who must be the FIRST FIRST FIRST to call the race, regardless of uncertainties on the ground. But you don't know how to navigate simple heteroglossia, so you fail to recognize the barb's true target."
Re Old Fan: I'm happily retired but this is how academics write (unintelligibly) and speak at the faculty club. And their fellows nod agreeably when reading and listening.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm happily retired but this is how academics write (unintelligibly) and speak at the faculty club.
Academics usually sneer at a more intelligent-sounding register than Old Fan. At least with professional academics, their florid descriptions of the Emperor's invisible clothes are aesthetically pleasing on some level.
Old Fan's prose clunks along like a jalopy with a screeching fan belt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou didn't seem to mind when it was declared a win for Romney on onle 8 votes when those 8 precincts were still missing. Now that Santorums margin is over 4x that it's meaningless.
Romney didn't 'tie' Iowa. He lost, like Paul, like Perry, like Gingrich, Bachmann and Huntsman. He lost Iowa.
"What does this make of Rick's historic loss in PA as Senator?
He couldn't win in his back yard?'
And I have to ask, are you an idiot? A senatorial race is IN your backyard, ON your home turf. It has to be--otherwise you're not eligible. It's a totally different kind of race.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy sympathies exactly. I believe the initial squabbling within the RNC under Steele (no blame) undermined seriously a much needed review of the GOP early primary schedule.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"What First World jurisdiction needs over a fortnight to count a hundred thousand votes?"
Iowa, the Paraguay of the Midwest.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse