Politicians don’t win the Iowa caucus with showy, one-off events. They have to conduct the retail politicking that the declared candidates are currently conducting all across the state. That means going to small events as well as large ones, traveling through all of the small towns and shaking hands, and asking voters now to caucus for them in 2012.
Exactly: Let us stipulate that any event with Sarah Palin would be “large” by comparison with, say, the 50 or so voters who showed up for Rick Santorum’s barn party. Still, the fact remains that Iowa caucus-goers prefer to vote for candidates they’ve met face-to-face, and the winner will likely have shaken 50,000 hands by Feb. 6. As Ed says, “Palin would need to win Iowa to have a path to the nomination,” and if she’s going to win it, she’ll have to get busy pretty soon to catch up with the handshaking that’s already been done by her rivals.
A certain bog dweller certainly seems to think so. He has a few other interesting picks, as well. Conspicuously absent from Trog’s list is Da Tech Guy, whose debate question would involve some sort of dessert pastry.
During my Iowa trip, I got lots of photos and videos I wasn’t able to upload at the time due to connectivity issues and the very hectic schedule. One of the items that never made it to the blog was an incident at the Iowa State Fair where DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz got heckled offstage by an angry liberal. I was able to phone in a report to The American Spectator, but never got around to uploading video of the incident.
The video is about two minutes, and at about the 40-second mark, you see Wasserman-Schultz say, “The difference between Barack Obama and congressional Democrats and all the Republican presidential candidates is that all of them committed to end Medicare as we know it . . . and privatize Social Security.” This elicits a predictable chorus of boos from her Democratic audience, but it also inspired the angry liberal heckler – you’ll see him in a yellow T-shirt — to start yelling that the debt deal “put Medicare on the chopping block!” He also yells: “Stop caving in to Wall Street!” Watch:
As you see, at the 1:15 mark, Democrat loyalists try to shout down the heckler by chanting, “Debbie! Debbie!” But at the 1:30 mark, Yellow Shirt starts heckling again, which prompts Wasserman-Schultz to cut straight to her peroration – something about the great “victory” that awaits in 2012 – and end her speech well before her allotted 15 minutes were up.
Following her offstage in hope that she would hold a brief press conference, I then caught the denouement as other angry liberals – the first one wearing a “Catholic Worker” T-shirt – interrogated her about the same basic issue. Wasserman-Schultz evidently knew this guy, addressing him as “David.”
The exchange was interrupted periodically by the congresswoman’s entourage, but as much as was audible went like this:
WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ: “As someone who represents a district in South Florida, there’s nobody who fights harder to protect Medicare . . .”
FIRST LIBERAL: “You voted for the debt-ceiling bill . . . . Why don’t you have five minutes to sit down and talk?”
ENTOURAGE WOMAN: “Because, David, it’s not built in. Don’t act like this is — you know how . . .”
WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ: “I’m happy to talk to you . . .”
FIRST LIBERAL: “You talk the talk, but your actions don’t back up the talk.”
WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ: “Oh, you know, with all due respect . . .”
FIRST LIBERAL: “Obama was the one that put cuts to Social Security and Medicare on the table.”
WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ: “That is simply not true and you know it and that is an unacceptable …”
SECOND LIBERAL: “He said everything was on the table.”
FIRST LIBERAL: “And you voted for the debt-ceiling bill, Debbie – you voted for that bill.”
WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ: “Because we needed to come together to address our deficit …”
SECOND LIBERAL: “Why is it always Democrats compromising with other Democrats?”
It was a very enlightening glimpse at how a powerful Democrat – herself a leader of “progressives” in Congress – cannot satisfy the implacable demands of her own party’s left-wingers. Just something to keep in mind, next time someone tries to tell you that Republicans are the party beholden to fringe extremist wingnuts.
Thanks to all for their Rule 5 linkagery! To be included in next week’s roundup, please have your links in to Rule 5 Wombat no later than Saturday, August 27.
Gold prices have been on a tear lately, topping a fresh record high above $1,900 an ounce late Monday — just two weeks after rising above $1,800. . . .
Gold prices rose 2.4% during the regular trading session to settle at $1,891.90 an ounce. In after hours electronic trading, prices topped $1,900 an ounce for the first time.
That CNN story quotes analysts worried about a “bubble,” but we’ve been hearing “gold bubble” worry-wart chatter for months and yet the price still keeps going up, up, up!
Simple question: Six months from now, will gold be more likely selling at $1,900 an ounce or $2,500 an ounce? If you think the price still has room to rise, then keep buying. Most analysts don’t see an end to the gold rush any time this year, so there’s probably still a chance to profit.
An ominous cloud is hanging over the housing market: Millions of distressed properties could be put up for sale at any moment, potentially adding to the glut of unsold homes that are already on the market and depressing home prices even further.
So it’s possible that housing prices will decline further, just like it’s possible that gold prices will keep rising to $2,500. Yet we seem to be approaching that market-fulcrum point when a gold-for-housing exchange will yield maximum value.
Fifteen months ago, when gold was selling for less than $1,200 an ounce, it would have taken about eight ounces of gold to buy one of those under-$10,000 Baltimore bargains. Today the price is closer to five ounces. YSHLTGB.
Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan has decided for a final time that he will not run for president in 2012, THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned. Ryan, who began seriously considering a bid in late May after Indiana governor Mitch Daniels took himself out of the race, had consulted with top Republicans, including Karl Rove and Frank Luntz, as he contemplated his political future. . . . Ryan ultimately decided to continue his focus on debt and entitlement reform as chairman of the House Budget Committee.
“I sincerely appreciate the support from those eager to chart a brighter future for the next generation. While humbled by the encouragement, I have not changed my mind, and therefore I am not seeking our party’s nomination for President. I remain hopeful that our party will nominate a candidate committed to a pro-growth agenda of reform that restores the promise and prosperity of our exceptional nation. I remain grateful to those I serve in Southern Wisconsin for the unique opportunity to advance this effort in Congress.”
You’ll notice — or at least, I noticed — that the hyping of Ryan as a 2012 candidate (long after he had already said he wouldn’t run) got more intense after T-Paw dropped and Perry got in. That’s your clue that there are specific people who were behind this bogus bandwagon for their own particular purposes. Same deal with the endless Chris Christie chatter.
Don’t get me wrong: I love Ryan and would have liked for him to get in for 2012, but there’s a lot of factional intrigue behind some of these things. Not to mention consultants wanting contracts, speechwriters wanting jobs, vendors wanting clients, etc.
Electoral politics is a multi-million-dollar industry, and if you think it’s all about ideas and idealism, you’re waaaaay wrong.