Andrea Mitchell: Iowa Is "Too White, Too Evangelical, Too Rural"

Source

NBC's Andrea Mitchell gives her take on the state of Iowa while covering the upcoming caucus. Mitchell makes her feelings about the Midwestern state to the viewers, opining that "the rap" on Iowa is that it is too white.

"The rap on Iowa: It doesn't represent the rest of the country, too white, too evangelical, too rural. Still here, politics are personal," Mitchell said on Sunday's broadcast on NBC's "Nightly News.

Well this does not surprise me in the least, especially seeing as how it is coming from the mouth of Alan Greenspan’s wife. She is just another Liberal with a problem against White people who are Evangelical and do not live in the city. If only Iowa would bring in more minorities, develop larger cities, and drop that whole Evangelical Christianity thing, they could be a more hospitable place and have a better representation for the country. Everyone knows Iowa is not the ‘representative of America’ demographically or culturally.

I just wonder though, would she have said that New Mexico “does not represent the rest of America because it is too Hispanic, too Catholic, and too rural”? Or perhaps she would have that Washington, DC “does not represent the rest of America because it is too Black, too secular, and too urban”? For some reason I doubt that, but I guess it just makes me crazy.

reply to post by Misoir


She is right and that is quite the relief.
We cannot base anything on the outcome of these caucuses.

reply to post by Misoir
The utter arrogance and hatred for the midwest is mannah for those elitists in the media.

I'm sure Ms. Mitchell would find it beneath her to even speak to any of the unwashed heathens that she finds herself surrounded by.

It must take several baths in something european to cleanse herself of the stench of rural America.

The horror.
The horror.

reply to post by Misoir


Funny stuff!

She does out do herself at times!

I always wondered if she gives Mr Greenspan financial advice also??

She's right though. The state does not reflect the rest of the country's make up and its collective views.

I suppose her comments are offensive to some. Tough.

reply to post by Misoir


Funny, I'm sure that rural mid westerners utter that stuff about african, hispanic, and jewish americans regularly.

reply to post by illuminatislave


Sorry, I forgot they had their own national television news shows which should expect professional anchors. But, then again, what do us White rural religious hicks know.

I really don't understand why people are getting upset over this. She's not saying that Iowa is a horrible place - she is simply stating that it is not representative of the country as a whole. She is saying that it doesn't matter who wins this caucus, because everything could change when you start adding different groups of people to the mix.

Jeesh... you haters are now having to make up stuff to get upset about.

reply to post by Misoir


You are just upset that someone was honest by stating that white, rural, and uber evangelical Iowa is not an accurate reflection of this country as a whole.

So she said Iowa only represents Iowa and not the entire nation? And somebody has an issue with this? Its not like she is wrong nor did she say it in an insulting way. I am tired of having what Iowa thinks shoved down my throat 24/7 by the media. I don't care.

That's funny cause everytime anybody says anything about any other race or religion or the ghetto,

everybody screams racism, fearmongering, etc.

The hood doesn't represent me.

Wash. DC, doesn't represent me.

You peeps are funny

And not funny haha but funny like

somebody shoot me.

I think they should hold the caucus in Miami.
We have a really great mix of everyone down here.
Since everyone from all over the country migrates down here.
Then we have south beach for them to party after everything is done.

Originally posted by Misoir
I just wonder though, would she have said that New Mexico “does not represent the rest of America because it is too Hispanic, too Catholic, and too rural”? Or perhaps she would have that Washington, DC “does not represent the rest of America because it is too Black, too secular, and too urban”? For some reason I doubt that, but I guess it just makes me crazy.

Well, she could have said that, and been correct. There is NO one region in this country that adequately represents the country as a whole.

That is one of the best things about this country, is the diversity we enjoy. It makes us stronger, or at least does when the xenophobes aren't out in force.

reply to post by Misoir


I do not see what you seem to see as an insult. She never said there is anything wrong with being any of those things. She simply stated that it does not represent the country as a whole.

Where is she wrong?

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by illuminatislave

 

Sorry, I forgot they had their own national television news shows which should expect professional anchors. But, then again, what do us White rural religious hicks know.

Apparently how to read or understand statistics. At least so far in this thread.

What are you so insulted by? Because not everyone is like you? I do not get what any of this is about. She never said you were worthless. Just worthless as a REPRESENTATION OF THE COUNTRY AS A WHOLE.

I am sure an intelligent rural hick can understand that or at least explain to me what I missed here that should get us all riled up.

-signed rural hick.

The US is too big and too diverse. Iowa will never get agree with NY. NYC cant even agree with NY.

It needs to be broken apart. Even states are too unstable with urban and rural cultures constantly butting heads.

Living has become a constant battle for one group to retain liberty and another group to take that liberty and it's getting old.

reply to post by Misoir


Ayup, dem dere cityslickers know all about being successful so we best listen to our betters.

Just ask anyone from Pittsburgh, Cleveland and dare I say it?...Detroit. The list could go on. They will all tell you how they are doing so well.

Originally posted by Misoir
I just wonder though, would she have said that New Mexico “does not represent the rest of America because it is too Hispanic, too Catholic, and too rural”? Or perhaps she would have that Washington, DC “does not represent the rest of America because it is too Black, too secular, and too urban”?

I live in New Mexico and this is true! One state does not represent the country. And this is why it's so dangerous to have states make certain laws for the people of the state.

I guess it just makes me crazy.

I wonder why? DO you know why this upsets you? Because it's something about "white"?

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
The US is too big and too diverse. Iowa will never get agree with NY. NYC cant even agree with NY.

It needs to be broken apart. Even states are too unstable with urban and rural cultures constantly butting heads.

Living has become a constant battle for one group to retain liberty and another group to take that liberty and it's getting old.

I agree that the US is too big to all have the same OPINIONS about things, but we need to stop using our OPINIONS to make laws.

We don't need to be broken apart. We need to have the FREEDOM to live our lives and stop using our opinions to constrict the freedom of others! We should ALL retain our liberties (on a Federal level) and stop making laws to violate other people's liberties.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

We don't need to be broken apart. We need to have the FREEDOM to live our lives and stop using our opinions to constrict the freedom of others! We should ALL retain our liberties (on a Federal level) and stop making laws to violate other people's liberties.

I'm all for that in lieu of disbanding the nation. It isnt very likely to happen though which is why I push the dissolution of the country. In the end it's about the path of least resistance. People, individuals and groups, are not going to give up the ability to dictate to others how they should live their lives. So ridding them of the power to do so seems to me a more workable solution.

Too many people, most I believe, relish the idea of telling others what to do. They may pretend to be all for a "live and let live" attitude but the minute some nonsense like marriage or private property comes up without fail all the little tyrants start shouting and jumping to restrict the liberty of others in the name of some imaginary and emotional cause such as "the children" or "the greater good."

Taking away their power to strip the liberty of others could happen. All of them having an epiphany or a change of heart is not likely to happen.