It’s been a few weeks since Bleeding Heartland posted a thread for discussing the Iowa caucuses. Any thoughts about presidential candidates in either party are welcome here.
As usual, the latest national polling shows no real competition for Hillary Clinton on the Democratic side. Contrary to what you may have read in some strange post-election analysis, Clinton seems set to cruise in the Iowa caucuses too. Republicans appear to be trying out a new talking point against the Democratic front-runner: she allegedly makes “rock star demands” before speaking engagements. Peter Holley posted a funny comparison of Clinton’s demands to those of “actual rock stars.”
Everyone on the Iowa GOP’s State Central Committee has signed a pledge not to publicly endorse any candidate during the next Iowa caucus campaign. The goal is to convince all candidates and the media that the game is not rigged, and everyone can compete here on a level playing field.
So far I haven’t seen any indication that any Republican contender might skip the caucuses. Iowans have had tons of opportunities to see potential presidential candidates these last few months. The latest conservative sensation, Dr. Ben Carson, was just in Des Moines for the FAMiLY Leader’s big fall fundraiser.
The more “moderate” or “establishment” contenders seem eager to compete in Iowa too. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie came to the state twice shortly before the election, and pulled off a truly epic pander on “Black Friday” by vetoing a bill that would have banned gestation crates for pigs. Never mind that more than 90 percent of New Jersey residents back the bill, which passed both chambers of the legislature with huge majorities. Governor Terry Branstad was pleased, as were the Iowa Pork Producers and the Iowa Farm Bureau. In an editorial I’ve excerpted after the jump, one local newspaper concluded that “New Jersey is already in Christie’s rearview mirror.” I think other aspects of Christie’s record will be a deal-breaker for Iowa conservatives, but maybe if the field is fractured he could sneak into the top three here.
Meanwhile, U.S. Senator Rand Paul confirmed through a spokesman this week that he will run for re-election to the Senate in 2016. The staffer insisted that Paul could still run for president if he chooses to do so. Not under current Kentucky law, he can’t. And since Democrats held their majority in the lower chamber of that state’s legislature, the law is unlikely to be changed for Paul’s convenience. Going to court to challenge the law is probably a dead end, since most states prohibit candidates from appearing on the ballot for two offices at once. Local journalist Sam Youngman goes through some possible scenarios here.
Excerpts from unsigned editorial in the Daily Record, Christie’s message to NJ: You don’t matter.
The ban would have little practical impact on New Jersey, where the crates are not currently in use and where the number of pigs only total about 9,000. But as more states and businesses discourage gestation crates, the more pig farmers elsewhere would be pressured to stop using them, and that matters in Iowa, home to about 20 million pigs. Farmers want to keep the gestation crates primarily because they offer a cheaper, easier means of housing the pigs until they are slaughtered.
Branstad on Monday praised Christie for listening to the expertise of Iowans, which apparently means New Jerseyans are too ignorant to understand inhumane treatment of animals. Branstad said he talked to Christie, and that Christie understood how the ban could affect consumers because more baby pigs would be crushed without the crates.
Branstad, however, is intentionally blending together several issues because New Jersey rubes won’t get it anyway. Pregnant pigs spend most of their time in gestation crates. When they are about to deliver a litter, they are moved to farrowing crates, which provide additional space to protect the piglets. If New Jersey’s ban doesn’t properly reflect that difference, and if there’s an argument to be made for the use of farrowing crates – but not gestation crates – the legislation could even be amended.
But that’s not what Branstad wants. He wants to squelch any ban, so Christie simply denounced the entire movement in New Jersey as a “solution in search of a problem” and blamed it all on partisan politics. He’s undoubtedly right about some partisan influence, but that’s entirely of his own making. If Democrats see that Christie has something to lose here, it’s because Christie doesn’t have the courage to act in New Jersey’s best interests.
Christie’s veto was so shameless that he even made it a point to release it on Black Friday, a classic example of a news dump designed to minimize attention.
Get ready for more of this. New Jersey is already in Christie’s rearview mirror.
Incidentally, the bill Christie vetoed applied to gestation crates only–not farrowing crates.