WaPo Denies GOP a Platform They Gave Obama
After helping Barack Obama use the Iowa caucuses to propel his 2008 campaign, The Washington Post is now dissing Republicans' efforts to use the same caucuses to launch their attempt to unseat Obama in 2012.
The Post asked on Monday, "how relevant are the preferences of 200,000 or so caucus goers in a rural state that is overwhelmingly white and significantly older than average?"
It was a far different story for the same publication when their hero 'won' the 2008 Democrat caucuses with just 38% of the vote. Back then, the Post called the turnout of about the same number of Democrats, 239,000, "a huge turnout that temporarily swamped some precincts and reflected the energy and enthusiasm among Democratic voters determined to recapture the White House in November."
The WaPo report rationalizes its dismissal of the upcoming GOP Iowa caucuses this way:
"The uncomfortable fact for Iowa Republicans is that their cherished caucuses have rarely been much of a launching pad. Since the party held its first one to pick a president in 1976, there have been only two instances in which a winner who was not an incumbent has gone on to take the GOP nomination. And only one of those, George W. Bush in 2000, won the White House."
Never mind that when the WaPo published its glowing 2008 puff piece pimping Obama's 'victory', with about a third of the vote, the only non-incumbent Democrat to win the Iowa caucuses and go on to win the White House was Jimmy Carter in 1976. Even then, Carter technically wasn't the winner. He was edged out by "Uncommitted," by a 37%-28% margin.
And, of course, Obama's 2008 showing was tainted by allegations--from the Clinton camp--of voter fraud.
-William Tate is an award-winning journalist and author
FOLLOW US ON
Recent Articles
- New York Greenlights Quarantine Camps
- Reality Check for Democrats
- A MAGA Siege of the Democrats’ Deep State
- Why Incel and 4B Culture Matter
- Defending Donald Trump: A Response to Jeffrey Goldberg and The Atlantic on the Signal Leak
- Are Judges Complicit in Lawfare?
- Deep Dive: The Signal Chat Leak
- Mark Steyn’s Reversal of Fortune
- Where We Need Musk’s Chainsaw the Most
- Trump Is Not Destroying the Constitution, but Restoring It
Blog Posts
- A Ph.D. in ‘Molecular and Cell Biology’ shows the difference between credentials and knowledge
- Nasty Venezuelan migrant who flashed taxpayer dollars and urged squatting, gets thrown out
- Watch white leftist women’s brains breaking—and repairing—in real-time
- The last, best hope ...
- In Pennsylvania, are Democrats stealing votes again?
- Knife control comes to the U.K.: Prime Minister Starmer bans Ninja swords
- This Tuesday, Wisconsonites must vote for Brad Schimel for the State Supreme Court
- Was Vietnam worth the cost?
- Democrats should get a clue from the Palestinians who are now marching against Hamas
- Trump takes on Fauxahontas's brainchild
- Consumer Sentiment Survey: This too shall pass
- If they only had knife control....
- Newsom and Walz struggle to appear normal
- Anti-Trump lawfare: yes, it's a conspiracy
- Criminal attack? You're on your own.