Well, it's that time again. The Iowa Caucus will "officially" start the Presidential campaign season. We know who is running on the Democratic ticket, despite the rumors that VP Biden may be shuffled out in favor of SecState Clinton, but so far, they are just that, rumors. On the GOP side, the field has been narrowed slightly, most notably by Herman Cain's departure from the race. Now, the remaining candidates fight to claim the lead in a contentious race for the GOP nomination, and the chance at unseating President Obama.
With regards to Cain, I will state my opinion and though it may sound bigoted, it is how I see things. Herman Cain was targeted early, and more so after his poll numbers placed him on top of the GOP field, because of his color. This is not to say that he would have won on his skin color alone, but his presence in the GOP field shut down much of the leftist rhetoric regarding the Tea Party and the GOP with regards to their alleged racist views.
*Disclaimer* I will not say that racism doesn't exist within the Tea Party, the GOP, or the Democratic Party. It does; in all manners and from a variety of people. What I am saying is that the Tea Party does not run on a segregationist platform, nor to they advocate a return to the era of Jim Crow.
In an October 4, 2011 interview with New York Magazine, actor Samuel L. Jackson, when asked if he agreed with Morgan Freeman's statement that the Tea Party was racist, stated, "It’s pretty obvious what they are," Jackson told us. "The division of the country is not about the government having too much power. I think everything right now is geared toward getting
that guy out of office, whatever that means," he said, echoing Freeman. "It’s not politics. It is not economics. It all boils down to pretty much to race. It is a shame." (FYI: The interview was originally about the name of Gov. Perry's family hunting camp. Link to article here:
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/10/samuel_l_jackson_niggerhead_tea_party.html)
If this is true, then how could Tea Partiers support Herman Cain? This question was asked numerous times by a variety of media outlets, but never addressed by the Democratic mouthpieces. The accusations against Cain (true or not) surfaced only AFTER he topped the GOP field in the polls. This could be coincidental, but coincidence rarely exists when discussing American politics. Regardless, the accusations lead to Cain suspending his campaign for the GOP nomination. Now, the accusations of Tea Party racism have returned. Is it possible that had Cain won the GOP nomination, the Democrat's race card would have been eliminated or at least neutralized? It is something that we, unfortunately, will never know.
Current GOP front runner, Newt Gingrich, still leads in the polls and is now facing fire from fellow hopeful Ron Paul. Paul is attacking Gingrich's military deferments during the Vietnam War, and citing his own service in the process. While I'll be the first to praise Paul for serving his country, Gingrich's education deferrals would not be a Presidential first. Former President Bill Clinton received a student deferment in 1964. In 1969, Clinton was ordered to report for induction (was drafted) but managed to secure a slot in the University of Arkansas ROTC program. This granted him a second deferment as a member of the "reserves". In October of 1969, Clinton withdrew his ROTC application, forfeiting his reservist deferment and making him eligible for the draft. However, by the time of is ROTC withdraw, Clinton's original induction notice had expired, and he was not subsequently drafted a second time. This shows that even with military deferments, one can still be elected to the office of Commander in Chief. Gingrich's current status as front runner may be directly related to the "anyone by Romney" mentality. Romney's history of "flip-flop" and political inconsistencies has placed him on the villain list. While Gingrich's policies are still being formed (debates tend to change the stance of candidates, often only slightly, based on poll numbers (the populist form of campaigning), it appears that he will hold this spot through the Iowa Caucuses.
Ron Paul is starting to show an increase in popularity, due in no small part, to a grassroots, Average American campaign that has begun picking up steam. Paul has, thus far, remained fairly reserved, not seeking the limelight as other candidates have and has silently set himself up to strike at the right time. Paul has not pulled punches nor has he sugar-coated his beliefs on all facets of domestic, foreign, and economic policies. It will be interesting to see how Paul does in the Iowa Caucuses, as he stands as the only legitimate threat to Gingrich, even though Paul is seen as a "no way" candidate by many.
Unfortunately, Perry, Huntsman, Santorum, and Bachman have fallen to the rear of the pack and show no signs of rebuilding their campaigns to become serious threats to Gingrich, Paul, and Romney.
Mitt Romney, in my opinion, is an enigma. It is hard to discern his stance on many issues as his inconsistencies have clouded and negatively impacted the public's view of him as a generalization. While he maintains his supporters, many have jumped ship in favor of consistent views and opinions, whether right or wrong.
Iowa will be the "herd-thinning" event in the GOP race and will, I believe, remove at least two candidates from the race for the GOP nomination.
