This morning I have a column in the Hill newspaper on my reaction to the disgraceful conduct of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and various Democratic members at the State of the Union address last night. As I tweeted during the address, her conduct tore up more than a speech, but decades of tradition and left any semblance of civility in tatters on the House floor.
Forty-four years ago, I walked on to the floor of the House of Representatives as a new Democratic 15-year-old page from Chicago. I stood and marveled at the beehive of activity on the floor in the People’s House. I can still remember that moment because it forged a bond and reverence that has never weakened for me. As a Democratic leadership page during the speakership of Tip O’Neill, I watched some of the most passionate and important debates of the generation from the Neutron Bomb to civil rights legislation to sweeping national park bills. The country was deeply divided, but both parties maintained the tradition of civility and decorum. I was struck how members, even in the heat of furious debates, would not attack each other by name and followed rigid principles of decorum. They understood that they were the custodians of this institution and bore a duty to strengthen and pass along those traditions to the next generation.
That is why I was (and remain) so offended by this display. I believe that President Trump himself is worthy of criticism for not shaking the hand of Pelosi. I also did not approve of aspects of his speech, including bestowing the Medal of Freedom on Rush Limbaugh in the gallery like a reality show surprise scene. There was much to object to in the address, but presidents often make comments that enrage or irritate speakers.
However, none of that excuses Pelosi. At that moment, she represents the House as an institution — both Republicans and Democrats. Instead, she decided to become little more than a partisan troll from an elevated position. The protests of the Democratic members also reached a new low for the House. Pelosi did not gavel out the protest. She seemed to join it.
It was the tradition of the House that a speaker must remain in stone-faced neutrality no matter what comes off that podium. The tradition ended last night with one of the more shameful and inglorious moments of the House in its history. Rather than wait until she left the floor, she decided to demonstrate against the President as part of the State of the Union and from the Speaker’s chair. That made it a statement not of Pelosi but of the House.
For those of us who truly love the House as an institution, it was one of the lowest moments to unfold on the floor. That is why I argue in the Hill that, if Pelosi does not apologize and agree to honor the principle of neutrality and civility at the State of the Union, she should resign as speaker.
I’m sure she blamed Trump for her own poor behavior.
Perhaps she wore that pale cream suit in order to draw the public’s eye to her, as she made faces and shook her head during his speech. She made sure to stand up when she tore that speech.
She refused to even look in Rush Limbaugh’s direction when Trump praised what he’s done for America. He didn’t even mention how Limbaugh helped save the failing AM radio, which created opportunities for talk radio shows of all political persuasions to flourish.
Awarding Limbaugh the medal was not a reality show surprise scene. Rush Limbaugh recently announced he has State 4 Cancer. It was a sweet gesture. No matter what side of the political chasm you fall, Rush Limbaugh has been a force of nature for conservative politics. He’s questioned leadership, even among Republicans. And he’s been so successful at it, he’s got 30 million listeners, if I recall correctly. He’s created access to political discourse that presents the conservative view for the working classes. Those very people the elites so despise.
This was a way to thank a cancer patient for his decades of service to our country.
I saw the moment when Trump gave the folder with his speech to Pence and Pelosi, and turned away right as she was extending her hand. I cannot imagine how difficult it must be to have to touch someone who has called you mentally unstable and unfit, a racist, an anti-semite, a threat to our country, and on down the list of terrible insults and false allegations. Ugh. And you have to touch that person, only to have them sit behind you and make faces behind your back during your SOTU speech? What if he shook her hand and she pretended that he squeezed it? There is a point to be made that decorum should be preserved. Yes, he should have shaken the hand of the very person who has tried to throw him out of office based on yet another false allegation, a long line of which she’s perpetuated to overturn the lawful election of 2016. He should have shaken her hand and smiled, and then left her to her childish pique. No, choosing not to physically touch someone is not the same as physically ripping up their speech in front of everyone. Nor is it the same as making faces during his speech.
The message not shaking hands sent was that he wanted nothing to do with her. I think she’s scorched the Earth where any common ground could be found to work together and do her job. I still think he should have shaken her hand for propriety’s sake.
Karen: Trump is ” mentally unstable and unfit, a racist, an anti-semite,…and a threat to our country.”
Decorum? You expect decorum from a huckster, realty TV performer who brags about assaulting women, and appearing on reality TV is the only endeavor of his life that wasn’t a total failure? Exhibits: Trump University, Trump Steaks, Trump hotels and casinos, Trump Golf Accessories, multiple business bankruptcies. The 2016 election was NOT lawful. Read the Mueller Report. He cheated with Russia’s help, and tried to do it again by trying to leverage aid appropriated by Congress for Ukraine.
What were the “false allegations”? None of the allegations were proven false. Trump obstructed justice, he thumbs his nose at Congressional oversight, at the Mueller investigation, and he lies, lies, lies, lies constantly. BTW: America became energy independent on Obama’s watch, not his. I have listed his lies in another post on this thread. Have you any contrary evidence to the endless lying about the economy, etc, about controlling prescription drug prices, about pre-existing conditions, or any of the numerous other lies he told last night?
Trump belongs in prison, not in the White House.
Limbaugh is a parody. He never apologized for all of his attacks on Barak Obama, and never gave up insisting that Obama wasn’t born in the USA. He is not a conservative, and neither is Trump. You really don’t understand how conservatives think. They are against increasing the deficit, and favor personal responsibility and honesty, traits that neither Limbaugh or Trump have.
They are against increasing the deficit, and favor personal responsibility and honesty…
The horror! The horror!
Natacha said “He never apologized for all of his attacks on Barak Obama…” Why should he? Show me ONE partisan Democrat host who trashes Trump…and his family….and his young son who should be off limits….and apologizes? They don’t apologize! Limbaugh need never apologize for ANYTHING. Until Democrats do. Newflash: Democrats don’t apologize! And when Democrats collossally screw up, they never step down and resign in disgrace either! Why is DNC Chair Tom Perez still in that position? Because Dems screw up and lie all the time and there are NEVER any consequences for any of them. So no, Rush should not EVER apologize for anything.
PS Barack is spelled with a “c” doofus.
I find Ms. Pelosi’s actions in tearing up the President’s speech to be juvenile and unworthy of her position. I also find them neither surprising nor shocking. They are instead merely another example of the laws of political physics, the almost inevitable consequence of a wholesale assault on the institutions of government.
The formulation, discussion, adoption and implementation of public policy, which is the principal function of government, is a collaborative undertaking by design. The tone and manner in which that undertaking is pursued requires a seriousness of purpose and mutual respect among the three branches. And whether we like it or not, society looks to the President, as the chief executive officer, to provide the leadership that promotes and encourages that respect. We do not have that. What we do have is a President who demonstrates his disdain for institutional prerogatives by denigrating and ignoring institutional structures. The executive branch is filled with agency heads promoted largely on the basis of their willingness to dismantle those agencies. The staffing of the judiciary has been outsourced to the Federalist Society, whose recommendations are expected to be approved by the Senate regardless of the positions of senators in the home states of the nominees. Even specifically earmarked appropriations can now be ignored or misapplied at the whim of the President, a practice which will undoubtedly be approved in the impeachment vote this afternoon. Congress is becoming increasingly unnecessary for purposes other than ratifying the will of the President. The sycophant symphony led by Sen. McConnell is well aware that any who oppose the President will promptly be labeled as traitors and enemies of the people, an undesirable prospect for someone concerned with re-election.
Those who have posted comments here for any length of time are aware of my dislike of this President. During the 2016 campaign I argued that he is intellectually slothful, willfully ignorant and morally indifferent. I also wrongly predicted that he would lose the election. However, the three years of his presidency have confirmed in my mind at least that my opinion was correct. So no one should expect Nancy Pelosi to apologize, let alone resign. No one should expect the President’s opponents to act with any greater decorum than he has demonstrated himself. Taking the high road is not an effective strategy when opposing cultists or narcissists. With apologies to Shane the Proud, I can only add, “I owe no fealty to your [king] and I will yield him none,”
Your spandex bicycle pants are too tight. It is you who have been captured by a cult, and are convinced of your own moral and intellectual superiority. And while I do believe that you are a smart person, and even a good one, you really need to get down off that high bicycle seat and take a look around. Your hubris is holding you back.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
LOL. I don’t wear anything with spandex because I don’t have much of a butt anymore. In any event, I don’t profess to superiority of any kind, but I do make an effort to do the best that I can. By the way, I should let you know that I have decided that I will no longer respond to comments from anonymous posters. So become a real person and we can engage further.
Mike Appleton says, “So become a real person and we can engage further.”
So Mike, how can you tell someone is a ‘real person’ just because they use what sounds to you like a ‘real’ name?
Come on Mike. Why not loosen up your rigid rules of engagement and engage with anyone on here just for the fun of it. That’s the point.
Oh, and fwiw, I myself am not inclined to engage with people on here who share too much information that none of us really needs to know.
Like you sharing this with us: “I don’t wear anything with spandex because I don’t have much of a butt anymore.” TMI, Mike. TMI.
“TRUMP PRESIDENCY ON LIFE SUPPORT – ONLY A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE PRESIDENT HIMSELF PULLS THE PLUG”
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Squeeky,
Who is Mike Appleton? I mean, are we supposed to know? Is this screed psychological “denial or “cognitive dissonance?” He seems bewildered by and disoriented to the facts of the continued success of President Donald J. Trump and exhausted by his flailing attempt to associate himself with achievers and men of consequence.
As if…
_____
Mike Appleton
July 20, 2017 at 11:29 AM
“I don’t pretend to know what Mr. Comey was thinking about when he released the memo, or why Mr. Rosenstein does not perceive the need to recuse himself. Frankly, however, in an atmosphere in which the rules, customs, protocols and procedures of governing are daily being jettisoned at breakneck speed, these lapses of judgment, if they can be properly so described, appear increasingly insignificant.
“The great underlying truth is that the Trump presidency is on life support, and it is only a matter of time before the President himself pulls the plug. I will not mourn that moment.”
________________________________________
Bon appetit, Monsieur!
Looks like President Donald J. Trump is vigorously marching on, has, instead, “pulled the plug” on the entire 7th Floor and is proceeding inexorably to the broader group of coup conspirators.
To wit,
The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious scandal in American political history.
The co-conspirators are:
Bill Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann, Comey,
Christopher Wray, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic, Yates, Baker, Bruce Ohr,
Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell, Sir Richard Dearlove, Steele, Simpson,
Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Azra Turk, Kerry,
Hillary, Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power, Lynch,
Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy), Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Obama et al.
+10
Mike A:
So it’s Trumps fault Nancy was a total boor. You know better logically and theologically than that. She’s not an object reacting to forces; she’s a human with free will to act or not. If you don’t believe that you’ve done a 180 out of pure hatred.
Keep in mind, Pelosi told all of us that she prayed for the president EVERY DAY. Should we wonder exactly what she prays for?
It’s outrageous for any reporter to even ask her if she hated Trump. Then she went on to list all the ways that she did, in fact, hate Trump.
These Dems are absolutely demonic in their hatred for the president. Why would the people give them any respect when they disrespect our nation and its people with their unhinged tirades and disrespectful behavior? They are the reason Trump’s approval numbers keep climbing
Burn the bitch Pelosi at the stake.
“Burn the bitch Pelosi at the stake.”
no shortage of angry and crazy Americans — like “jack savage” and others who hang out on JT’s blog
Correction:
no shortage of angry, crazy and stupid Americans — like “jack savage” and others who hang out on JT’s blog
He do we get rid of her? She sickens me! How can she keep her position after doing something so disgraceful? She believes she can do anything and is above the law. They are after the wrong person. Get Pelosi out now!!!
If you are referring to her House seat, that’s up to the voters of her district. Unfortunately (for the rest of us, at least), she seems to be pretty representative of her district.
I live in CA, and the state is so deep blue, Democrats have a supermajority in the state legislature. Nancy might eventually be voted out because she’s too white and rich and not woke enough. But she’d only be replaced with someone worse.
Her district of San Francisco recently voted in as DA the son of domestic terrorists in the Weather Underground, who praised their actions. He’s committed to not prosecuting gang crimes and most property crimes, and, of course, to never cooperate with federal immigration law or ICE.
The far left is taking over the state, and the party.
I have suggested to you before that you’d be much happier in, say, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, or the Carolinas. California isn’t for you.
Yes to all of that, Karen S. I was born, raised, and educated in CA. I fled almost 20 years ago and haven’t regretted it for a minute yet.
Apparently the braindead bitch IS above the law! Why have we not heard anything about the govt going after her for taking bribes from El Chappo?? He admitted to giving her money!!!
Maybe it’s just because I’m young and I think decorum and tradition are vastly overrated, but it seems fine, even laudable to do what Pelosi did. It was not just an indication of her disapproval, but of her refusal to even tacitly condone the lies, the reality show antics, the vile demonizing of immigrants. Maybe it wasn’t the right time and place, but breaking with precedent and decorum in the face of the unprecedented seems entirely appropriate to me.
Yes, it is because you are young.
I am sure to a gullible clown it does seem alright, I suggest you take a trip to a social country then come back and tell us what your worthless opinion is!
correction ..make that a SOCIALIST country!
I’m not sure how my opinion is related to socialism.
I just bet you aren’t!!!!
Lies: Everyone is going to cherry pick stats to some extent to make their case, that’s how the game has always bee played, young one. That said, what lies? He spent most of his time talking about the economy, and he represented it pretty accurately.
Demonizing of immigrants: I heard none of that. He did talk about the problems we see with many ILLEGAL immigrants, particularly those who commit other crimes besides illegally entering the country. Deliberately conflating legal and illegal immigration is a tactic that seems to work to some extent, but I think you’ll find it more effective when used in other forums than this one.
Reality show antics: OK, that one is fair. Though I’ll give you 1000 to 1 odds the next democrat POTUS does it too (it was effective). Regardless, what about your stated disregard for decorum and tradition? Does that apply to people on your side of the political spectrum, with different standards for your opponents?
Let’s PRAY, there is NEVER ANOTHER DUMOCRAP PRESIDENT! imho
Don’t pray too hard you might hurt yourself
Trump will be reelected in 2020 but then at the end of his term when the economy goes into a severe crash AOC will become the next president (didn’t we see that movie before?)
Max Keiser explains:
https://youtu.be/MFMTvGHVguI?t=47
https://youtu.be/MFMTvGHVguI?t=47
I have enjoyed Max Keiser from time to time over years but his predictions are consistently wrong.
He’s about as bad as Peter Schiff, another RT favorite
AOC has got problems that will surface, eventually
I have enjoyed Max Keiser from time to time over years but his predictions are consistently wrong.
_______________________________________
His political predictions tend to be accurate, he was correct when he predicted trump would win.
His economic predictions tend to be wrong because he ( like Peter Schiff) assumes that the Fed controls the money supply. The Fed does control a small but stable portion of the money supply. The markets control a significantly larger and less stable and more volatile portion of the money supply and that is what drives the business cycles.
Agreed on the financial crash. It’s the inevitable result of supply siding. My bet is on Ayanna Pressly though.
You mean Mex Keiser gives his listenters a dose of whatever economic crankery he’s imbibed.
Lies: Rather than list all of the factual errors I’ll just refer you to https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/factchecking-the-state-of-the-union-3/ or https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/fact-check-state-of-the-union-02-04. More egregious to me, though, is the attempt to promote the narrative that this country was headed downhill until he fixed everything. Sure the economy is good but our environment is being destroyed, our foreign policy is nonexistent, and inequality is increasing.
Demonizing of immigrants: Why would he narrate the grisly crimes of illegal immigrants if he wasn’t trying to demonize them? Why not talk about crimes committed by white nationalists or men with green eyes for that matter? That fact that someone entered this country illegally has nothing to do with their likelihood of committing a violent crime, so why attempt to link the two?
By the way, that wasn’t supposed to be an exhaustive list. I was just trying to state why I feel Pelosi wasn’t wrong to protest the address in a disrespectful way, even though I understand why Turley believes that she was being inappropriate.
Lies: Everyone is going to cherry pick stats to some extent to make their case, that’s how the game has always bee played, young one. That said, what lies?
_____________________________________________
Are you trying to claim that cherry picking stats is being honest?
It’s because you’re conscientious and the maggots haven’t gotten your brain, Kevin. A rarity around here.
Kevin – have you thought about why there are rules about decorum in the first place? If there were none, what would interactions in Congress be like?
Perhaps it would devolve to a bunch of Congress people standing up, screaming, and blowing whistles to drown out any President’s SOTU speech if they disagree politically. Our country has been through deeply divided times before, even Civil War. The rules are in place to at least try for the semblance of civil discourse. Without the rules, it could quickly devolve into the same chaos an invited conservative speaker encounters at most college campuses in America.
While I agree with Trump’s probable desire not to willingly touch Nancy Pelosi, I do agree that to maintain decorum, he should have sucked it up and shaken her hand. If the rules go out the window, it will quickly devolve into total chaos. At least, that’s what I think would happen.
Karen S – personally, I think Pelosi has cooties. I would not touch her.
I heard we were lucky Pelosi chose ripping up the speech. The choice was the speech or she was going to moon Congress.
I laughed, I’ll admit it.
That comment makes me think, but two points:
First, I don’t have a good answer regarding the shouting down of conservative speakers. While the practice is repulsive to me, I can’t honestly say that it’s never justified. Would I rather have seen Hitler shouted down at his rallies? Probably. I’m not trying to say that any particular conservative (or liberal) is like Hitler, just noting that it seems strange to assume that shouting someone down is never, ever justifiable. The question is then, whether it’s justifiable in any particular instance, hence my beef with Turley on this point.
Second, I don’t consider what Pelosi did to be analogous to shouting Trump down – which I would definitely be against by the way. She ripped the pages after he was done speaking, and she did it in a non-disruptive way that didn’t at all interfere with the proceedings (other than being obviously rude). Same thing with the denied handshake.
Agreed. Pelosi took a hit by lowering herself, and quite frankly acted like a grounded 12 year old. I am a bit surprised by your very mild characterization of Trump’s speech. Sure there have been presidents that made dubious claims at the SOTU. To compare those moments to the level Trump is at is laughable. I can’t believe you haven’t also criticized Trumps’ rhetoric during the speech……it was deplorable. I was embarrassed for this country.
And she did not address/announce him with historical tradition but no one has talked about yhat😡
I think the House has gone rogue and Pelosi is the dictatorial ring leader.
The House of Resistance has set itself up as a parallel government, with Pelosi as Prime Minister.
A house divided against itself cannot stand. We’re screwed.
He should have shook her hand as the invited President to Leader of the House. He should have shook the VP’s hand. Not shaking hands with his own VP was perhaps an indication he had the speech on his mind. Pelosi not making the proper introduction of the President was certainly bad form. Her pretending to read the speech and sorting the pages throughout seemed to be a purposeful distraction. And of course her facial gestures reflected very poorly on the .
All in all, his speech was awesome. Every point he made that drew an applause moment, and especially a standing ovation, was him pounding another nail in the Democrats 2020 election coffin. By the time he was done, the only thing left for Pelosi to do was tear up her copy. She is no Leader of the entire House.
No one here realizes that that evil bitch, that communist/socialist anti american bitch is number 3 in line for the presidency?
One cannot shake Pelotsie’s hand due to risk of coronavirus.
I think it should be “crone-o virus.”
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
It is time to vote the Mormon out of office. Romney.
Stable Genius Jr said Mitt should be “expelled” from the GOP. He’s sounding like Uncle Putin everyday now.
………or, hang him like they used to do in Utah in the good ol’ days…………..
Jacksavage – respectfulness and restraint in your comments will actually the side you seem to support
Yeah, Liberty 2nd, like that’s going to happen in Utah.
Although the issue itself is trivial, Professor Turley is wrong when he says, “I believe that President Trump himself is worthy of criticism for not shaking the hand of Pelosi.” And the mainstream media also repeats the lie that the President refused to shake Pelosi’s hand. The President merely gave Vice President Pence and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi the official copies of his SOTU address. The President did not shake the Vice President’s hand and when he gave Ms. Pelosi her copy, his head and body were already turning around to face Congress. So, he did not even see Pelosi’s hand (which was not extended when the President faced her), as his line of vision was already facing the Vice President at that point. The actual digital recording is available for viewing and repeating over-and-over in slow motion if you wish to confirm that I’m correct. Unfortunately, the lie will inevitably be repeated by the President’s opposition (which includes the mainstream media) and accepted as true by many because a lie will travel half-way round the world, while the truth is still putting on its shoes.
Trump did not shake VP Pence’s hand either. He handed them both copies of the SOTU message and turned to the lecturn. If you watch the video in slow motion Trump never saw Pelosi extend her hand, so a MOOT point.
Pelosi’s action in tearing up Trump’s speech is exactly the proper reaction to the immense amount of bullsh*t contained therein. Bravo, Nancy!
My honor roll student can beat the snot out of yours, so there
Democrats lack cells and are driven by emotions 25/8.
This wont end well but as Estovir stated, at least we have our guns.
please give us the specific BS you are referencing. Generalized statements like this are very tiresome. Anyone can throw out a catchline.
Waiting patiently 🙂
Move to Venezuela..they are always looking for more good loyal communists there!!
Jonathan Turley seems to believe that the appearance of comity is more important than actual good behavior.
Trump’s speech, like all of his speeches, was full of lies. How is that not a bigger affront to House decorum than Pelosi visibly signalling the truth about Trump’s words?
Trump’s speech, like all of his speeches, was full of lies.
Whereas your remarks are merely full of incantations.
WHY IS TURLEY SINGLING-OUT PELOSI..??
Donald Trump spent much of yesterday morning stoking conspiracy theories regarding the Iowa Caucus. How presidential was that?!
I have written that the Iowa Caucus is a ridiculous institution that needs to be junked. Therefore ‘I’ am not personally bothered by the caucuses malfunction. We need to eliminate Iowa as the all-important decider of presidential nominees.
But the malfunction in Iowa was not just a blemish for the state. It was an embarrassment to America as the story played in world media. So to have America’s president reveling with delight at Iowa’s meltdown is unseemly, to say the least.
We’re at a point in time where election security is very serious issue. For that reason alone we don’t want the president celebrating an election snafu. And this from a president who, according to Republicans, did nothing wrong regarding Ukraine.
Iowa has ‘two’ Republican Senators, Charles Grassley and Joni Earnst. Both senators have been staunch defenders of Trump throughout the impeachment. So one imagines that Grassley and Earnst were greatly alarmed by the malfunction in their state. Trump’s endless tweets must have seemed like a slap in the face to them and all Iowans.
Trump’s tweets regarding Iowa illustrated once again that this president is dangerously immature. Therefore today’s expected acquittal in the impeachment trial is a sad joke to the world.
Actually, it probably didn’t seem like a slap in the face to Earnst or Grassley. It was probably funny to them. Why, you may wonder. Because it wasn’t the Republican Party who had their caucus screwed up so badly that they were still counting the results after the SOTU. It was the Democrats who pulled this boneheaded move off all by themselves. They even refused any help DHS offered to provide them in making sure their system worked. Reminds me of how Obama had the Obamacare computer system all set up and it didn’t work…and all for an estimated $2.1billion. Seems some things never change.
As of now, they’ve managed to ‘tabulate’ the results of 13% of the precincts. At this rate, they’ll finish fabricating the results Friday. #partyofscience
“to ‘tabulate’ the results of 13% of the precincts today”
D W, back in 2012, Iowa screwed up the Republican caucus. And you’re stupid if you think Grassley and Earnst were amused. The Iowa Caucus is an important ‘industry’ to the state that brings large revenues every 4 years. Its demise could be a huge loss.
D W, back in 2012, Iowa screwed up the Republican caucus.
They didn’t. You really should read something other than talking points, Peter.
Care to explain your response?
“For Iowa, a second caucus debacle in eight years”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/04/iowa-second-caucus-debacle-eight-years/
“This isn’t the first time in the past decade that the process has failed to produce a timely result, which in turn arguably affected what happened next (which, after all, is what makes Iowa important).
In 2012, it was the Republican caucus that was a mess. Back then, Mitt Romney was named the winner of the caucuses by eight votes — a narrow victory, yes, but still a victory for the favorite to be the Republican nominee.
Romney went on to win the New Hampshire primary comfortably, apparently winning the often-elusive double in the first two contests — he would have been the first Republican to ever win both Iowa and New Hampshire — and setting him on course to face incumbent President Barack Obama.
Except eight days after that New Hampshire win, we found Romney actually finished second in Iowa. The Iowa GOP announced, 16 days after the caucuses, that Rick Santorum had actually finished first — by 34 votes. But even that result was tinged by uncertainty:
Santorum’s strange, belated victory also served to embarrass the Iowa GOP — which had to admit that it had misallocated some votes, and simply lost some others, in a razor’s-edge election where every vote mattered.
It also cast an unflattering light on the old-fashioned and convoluted system that the party uses to collect and count caucus votes.
“It should be like a fine Swiss watch,” said Iowa State political science professor Steffen Schmidt. “It’s really more like a sundial.” He said the system used by Iowa Democrats was not significantly better.
Given the irregularities and problems, in fact, the party even after the recount declined to declare either Romney or Santorum the actual winner:
… Iowa Republican leaders seemed to cast doubt on their own results, saying Thursday that it was hard to declare a “winner” without knowing what happened in those eight precincts. Matthew N. Strawn, the state party chairman, simply “congratulated” Santorum and Romney “on a hard-fought effort during the closest contest in caucus history.”
Eventually, amid pressure, the party decided to just declare Santorum the winner in a statement released just before midnight on a Friday night — prime news-dump time.
“To clarify conflicting reports and to affirm the results released Jan. 18 by the Republican Party of Iowa, Chairman Matthew Strawn and the State Central Committee declared senator Rick Santorum the winner of the 2012 Iowa Caucus,” the party wrote.
We’ll never know for sure what impact the delayed result had on the campaign as it continued to unfold. Santorum’s campaign claimed a “huge upset” and tried to re-create the momentum it might have had from a victory 2½ weeks earlier. “We’ve had two early-state contests with two winners, and the narrative that Gov. Romney and the media have been touting of ‘inevitability’ has been destroyed,” said Santorum spokesman Hogan Gidley, who is now a spokesman in the White House.
Romney failed to win the next contest, in South Carolina, but he went on to win Florida and then Nevada. Santorum pulled off some upsets in a trio of less-important contests on Feb. 7, and he was able to keep the contest going into March. But Romney remained the clear favorite throughout.
Defenders of the Iowa caucuses on Monday night and Tuesday morning noted that whatever happens, we’ll still eventually know the winner. Some even argued it’s good that the winner perhaps won’t get the same kind of bump from Iowa — now that some attention has turned to New Hampshire — because it keeps the other states relevant.
Similarly, back in 2012, defenders of the caucuses noted that a 42-vote shift is hardly a big deal. The idea of a winner is simply a construct, especially in caucuses, they argued, in which what really matters is the eventual delegates won.
The Democratic Party’s process — which is more complicated than Republicans’ — has changed over the years, including in response to their own controversies in a close result in 2016. The Iowa Democratic Party this year has been encouraging emphasizing the total delegates a candidate wins over the sheer number of votes received.
Regardless of how critics feel about how significant Iowa should be, it plays a tremendously important role because it is first. How it handles that role can affect the race as it unfolds, perhaps more than any other state. Hiccups in the process can unquestionably hurt candidates and help others, as Bernie Sanders supporters are rightly arguing right now.
If an Iowa result doesn’t do as much to winnow the field or a win doesn’t do as much to bolster someone like Sanders’s chances, the state’s problems do matter. Momentum is a perception, but that perception matters in the nominating contest.
Whether Iowa should remain at the front of the line moving forward will undoubtedly be a hot topic moving forward. But it wasn’t just what happened Monday night that should inform that conversation; it’s also what happened eight years ago.”
“This is absurd x XVIII says:February 5, 2020 at 4:56 PM
D W, back in 2012, Iowa screwed up the Republican caucus.
They didn’t. You really should read something other than talking points, Peter.”
————-
Well, yes, actually they did.
“Iowa Republican Party confirms Santorum as winner of caucuses”
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/iowa-republican-party-confirms-santorum-as-winner-of-caucuses
No, they didn’t. They had a close race and it took some days to sort out who was ahead. What they did not have was a wholly unnecessary online tabulation system which did not function and whose failure provided a conduit for the Iowa Democratic Party to falsify results. You and Gainesville have no talent for analogical thinking.
TIA spins, distorts, deflects…
From the article, below — about the 2012 Iowa GOP caucus:
“The results from eight precincts went missing and were never recovered, according to the Register, and officials found paperwork irregularities in results submitted from 131 precincts.”
“Iowa GOP seeks to prevent repeat of botched 2012 caucuses”
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/262186-iowa-gop-seeks-to-prevent-repeat-of-botched-2012-caucus
There are many ways for Dems and Republicans alike to “falsify results.”