More on Iowa

I wish that I could watch the video of his defense of the piece, but I'm at work, so this will have to do for now.

After reading through his article, I can't say that I found much of it offensive. It seemed fairly straight forward and some parts of it were even endearing to me. It was a little irritating to me that he strayed off course with the sole intent of taking a pot shot at Christianity, but other than that, it wasn't much different than what you would read in a RAGBRAI piece.

The offensive part, at least to me, is the assumption that all of these things about the state disqualify Iowans from picking a president. That is what I call the "Democrat Arrogance" in action. I'll try not to go too far down the rabbit trail, but my complaint about democrats has always been what I see as their elitist attitude. They think that Iowa farmers, or anyone from a community that has less than 500,000 people, or doesn't have a PhD, or doesn't have an Indian neighbor, is too stupid to decide who is best to lead our country. I believe that Iowa can choose a president as well as anyone can. I would love to have a follow-on argument with anyone that claims otherwise: Tell me what state IS qualified to choose the president. If it wasn't Iowa, who would it be?

There were less than 125,000 votes cast in Iowa last night (combined total). If you want to blame anyone for the power of the Iowa caucus, blame the media. Ultimately, that's what Mr. San Francisco is crying about; he doesn't understand how a state like Iowa, which he doesn't think is qualified to choose anything but a hunting dog, can have so much influence on an election. Maybe he should write home and ask the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to declare the Iowa caucus as unconstitutional.