Iowa is old, with a higher proportion of residents receiving government Social Security checks than in Florida or any other state. Iowa farmers have a long history of government subsidies. This is why, in the past, Iowa Republican congressmen often voted with big-city liberal Democrats for more food stamps: welfare for the 'hood begets subsidies for Hawkeye farmers. This is why former New Jersey Senator Bill Bradley's history of criticizing the half-billion-taxpayer-dollars-per-year federal subsidy to corporate giant Archer Daniels Midland for corn-born ethanol hurt him. And with all agricrats—at least one for every ten farmers—and bureaucrats, Iowa is home to powerful government employee unions that got out the vote Monday for Vice President Al Gore. If Gore and congressional Democrats win in November, Iowa is in some ways what all of America will be like 25 years from today. Is this heaven? Or is it, to paraphrase the movie from which that question comes, a "Field of Screams?"

The Democrat caucus turnout Monday was lower than usual, and lower than had been expected before news of Bradley's erratic heartbeat dimmed his prospects, but it was a triumph of union mobilization and muscle. Union members were herded to the gatherings, then told to vote aloud (not by secret ballot as Republicans did) while their union bosses watched and took names of those failing to vote for union-anointed Gore. It's somewhat the way voting was done in England 150 years ago or in the Soviet Union decades ago, a democracy seasoned with the spice of intimidation. Even so, Bradley won roughly 34 percent of caucus votes and should, under Democrat rules, receive about 34 percent of Iowa "state delegate equivalents" to the Democratic National Convention. (Although reportedly Bradley voters were not counted for delegates in any Democrat caucus where they failed to reach a 25 percent threshold of attendees. The whole Democrat process was arcane.) One third of a pie is better than none. The common punditry is that this Wednesday night, in his last debate with Gore prior to the New Hampshire primary, Bradley must either do something dramatic to change the dynamic of this contest—such as go on the attack, or announce some shocking revelation about Gore—or expect to lose.

The winner of the Republican Iowa caucuses, by contrast, despite its non-binding straw-poll nature, winds up with all of that state's GOP convention delegates. The winner Monday, with record GOP turnout, was Texas Governor George W. Bush, with about 41 percent of votes cast. This topped the high-water mark of 37 percent previously set by any winner in a crowded GOP caucus, besting that past record by more than 10 percent. But the game in Iowa is expectations, and the national media had set the bar for Bush at 43-45 percent (and his opponents at 50 percent) so that if the Governor achieved anything less he could be called a loser.

Steve Forbes, after four years of campaigning and expenditure of many millions, came away Monday with roughly 30 percent of the vote at a cost exceeding $250 per voter—a level of spending that even Forbes' $440 million personal fortune cannot sustain in a nationwide campaign. Forbes bet the farm on doing well in Iowa and got three-quarters of the way to Bush's vote. He exceeded expectations and showed that Americans do want lower taxes. He has the money to continue his campaign, if his five daughters are willing to let him spend their inheritance.

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Social and Economic Council Alan Keyes achieved a strong third-place finish with about 14 percent of the vote on Monday. Much farther back in the pack, Gary Bauer fell short with less than 9 percent. Arizona Senator John McCain, after refusing to campaign in party-establishment-ruled Iowa, won a dismal less-than 5 percent. Utah Senator Orrin Hatch brought up the rear with about one percent, fewer than 1,000 votes supporting him for president, and prepared to depart the presidential contest.

A statistician might put the Iowa outcome this way: Alan Keyes won 68 percent more votes than his religious-right rival Gary Bauer. Steve Forbes got more than twice as many votes as Alan Keyes, and a third more votes than Keyes and Bauer combined. George W. Bush won almost 36 percent more votes than Forbes, nearly three times more votes than Keyes, and almost nine times more votes than Missing-in-Iowa John McCain.

How should we read the entrails of these results? The baloney, to mix and extrude this metaphor, can be sliced several ways to discern what Iowa Republican caucus-goers were saying.

What was the "conservative" Republican vote in a state where about 70 percent of Republicans define themselves as conservatives? Combined, Steve Forbes and Alan Keyes and Gary Bauer got roughly 53 percent.

What was the "moderate" vote? Combined, George W. Bush and John McCain and Orrin Hatch got 47 percent of caucus votes.

Ah, but what was the "New World Order" vote of Republicans who generally favor global free trade, continued trade with the Peoples Republic of China, and are friendly to multinational corporations? Combined, the votes of the anti-Populists—Forbes magazine "Capitalist Tool" publisher Steve Forbes, George W. Bush, John McCain, and Orrin Hatch—add up to a whopping 77 percent, more than three of every four Iowa Republican caucus votes. Iowans apparently believe that free and fair trade is good, knowing that agricultural products are among America's biggest exports.

What about the "religious right" and its concern for moral and social values shared by about 40 percent of Iowa Republicans? Bush, in the days prior to Monday's caucuses, toughened his stand against abortion to halt possible erosion of voters to Forbes, Keyes, and Bauer, a shift the pundits say will harm in November. Monday, Bush won 35 percent of those identifying themselves to CNN pollsters as being of the "religious right." Forbes won 27 percent and Keyes 21 percent of such voters. Bush carried the religious right vote in Iowa.

Among those polled who said they were not of the "religious right," CNN found that 48 percent cast their votes for Bush, but only eight percent supported Alan Keyes. 34 percent favored Forbes, which is 7 percent more total GOP voters than he won among those of the "religious right." Forbes' tax-reform message had more traction with voters than his anti-abortion credentials. Bush won the non-religious right GOP vote in Iowa, almost by an outright majority.

In 1996, Forbes positioned himself as a fiscal conservative and took issue with those on the religious right over abortion. But since his loss four years ago, Forbes has tried to represent both factions, campaigning as both a tax reformer and an ardent foe of abortion, and as an opponent of big government who wants to post the Ten Commandments in public-school classrooms. As a result, Forbes comes across to many as an ambiguous politician who, as one caller to my radio show put it, "wants government out of our pocket but in our bedrooms." Monday's caucus votes suggest that Forbes' refashioned image has gained him significant support but also some mild distrust among both factions. Like Bush, Forbes is striving like a chicken wishbone to have one foot on each side of this seismic fault line within the Republican Party and conservative movement.

Forbes now describes the coming New Hampshire primary as a "tight three-way contest against two moderates," Bush and McCain. In that race Forbes has the editorial support of the state's biggest newspaper, the Manchester Union-Leader. After the winnowing of Iowa, he would like Keyes and Bauer supporters to bestow the mantle of the religious right onto one unifying candidate, himself. Some Bauer supporters might transfer their loyalty, but Keyes' supporters are unlikely to abandon their passionate spokesman, who finished among the top three in Iowa. Fox News Channel's polling Monday revealed an ultimate Achilles Heel that Forbes cannot overcome: the belief by 99 percent of Iowa Republican voters than Forbes (who has never held elective office anywhere) could not win in November, but that Bush could.

The Iowa selections are called "caucuses," I have joked on the radio, because almost everybody there is Caucasian, white in color and culture. Iowa, with all its virtues, does not look like much of America. (Like John McCain, my father too was born in western Iowa. Many of my in-laws and outlaws there are by marriage McCains.) Even more white is New Hampshire, whose people may have evolved their uniform coloration like polar bears or Arctic hares as protective camouflage in a land covered with snow for much of the year.

But Iowa and New Hampshire are very different, despite the white. A large fraction of Iowans love welfare and big government; they parasitically take far more in government largesse from others than they pay in taxes. New Hampshirites hate taxes and require prisoners in their penitentiaries to stamp out car license plates with the state's revolutionary motto, "Live Free or Die." The "religious right," so powerful in Iowa, is virtually non-existent as a political force in libertarian New Hampshire.

New Hampshire allows voters to cast ballots for either Republicans or Democrats in their primary. Bradley's weak showing in Iowa, along with concerns that like onetime favorite Massachusetts Senator Paul Tsongas (who died of cancer after telling voters his health was okay), Bradley might be keeping the seriousness of his heart problem secret, might prompt maverick-loving Democrats to cross over and vote for Senator John McCain. (How odd that Bradley is reinforcing this memory by airing an ad in New Hampshire with Tsongas' widow giving him support.) Thus McCain might get a bounce out of Iowa despite his weak showing there.

But Iowa on Monday confirmed what the Democrats have long known: George W. Bush will be the Republican nominee. The Democrats and their accomplices in the national media are continuing their war of personal destruction against the Texas Governor, often with weapons and tactics aimed to conquer the weakest minds among us. (Analyses by pollsters of the Gore–Bradley race found that the less education and lower IQ a person has, the more likely he or she is to vote for Al Gore. Coincidence?)

Remember that discredited book by a convicted felon quoting unnamed sources who claim that George W. Bush used drugs? It's back, just like a bad penny, and the Clinton BS network, CBS, plans in the next few weeks to do a huge feature promoting the book on 60 Minutes. (For commentary on the bias of CBS, see my last column. For the credibility of CBS on drugs, see my column about CBS anchorman Dan Rather.) And this from the same national liberal media like Newsweek that tried to spike the Monica Lewinsky story and now has spiked eyewitness testimony documented by one of its own reporters to Vice President Al Gore's chronic use of marijuana and hashish.

Why are Democrats so frightened that Bush might carry the GOP banner? For one thing, women love the guy. Bush could erase the Democrat-leaning gender gap among women. No wonder Georgetown University linguistics Professor Deborah Tannen recently launched the first of what doubtless will be many Democrat and liberal smear attacks against Bush for daring to use words in his speeches like "children" and "heart" and "dreams" and "compassion" that appeal to women. Bush does this to manipulate women, argued Tannen, but Bill Clinton's frequent use of these same words was different because Slither Willie "always used words for emotional impact, in the case of women … to gain support for concrete proposals to improve their lives." Yeah, like when Mr. Clinton compassionately turned back to Juanita Broaddrick, left bleeding on the bed where she says he had brutally raped her, and, with Democrat-style compassion as he left said, "You'd better put some ice on that."

The Democrats are now the wholly owned subsidiary of a foreign government, the Communist one that funds them from Beijing. But to the small extent that they remain American, Democrats are merely a coalition of selfish special-interest groups—defined as women, gays, blacks, Hispanics, and the like. Bush as the GOP standard-bearer could peel off not only women from that confederacy, but also take away Hispanics, as Bush proved by winning 49 percent of the Hispanic vote in his 1998 Texas gubernatorial victory.

Scarcely reported by the national media, the latest bipartisan Battleground Poll by Republican pollster Ed Goeas and Democratic pollster Celinda Lake found that Bush leads Gore among Hispanic voters today by 51 to 38 percent. If these are the nominees, Democrats today would overwhelmingly lose the vote of America's fastest-growing minority. Hispanics have strong family and religious values and a strong work ethic—three factors that should make them vote against Democrats. Hispanics will reach parity with the black vote by 2003 and will comprise 24 percent of America's population by 2050. If Democrats lose the Hispanic vote, they can kiss their aspiration to regain national political power goodbye forever.

Bush is the Republican most likely to take the Hispanic vote away from the Democrats, and they know it. He speaks Spanish. He has earned strong support from the Hispanic community in Texas. What do Democrats have to match this appeal of the Bush family? And why have Democrats (historically the party of the slave owners and the Klan) who pretend to favor blacks and Hispanics, never given their party's presidential nomination to any black or Hispanic?

Remember these things Thursday night as you watch President Clinton, dressed as Santa Claus, delivering a State of the Union message that will break last year's record of promising 90 major new federal spending programs for special-interest groups in only 75 minutes. (And do not applaud GOP Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, who likewise vows to keep the surplus in Washington by paying off the national debt rather than returning the surplus as tax cuts to you and me.) Thursday will bring the biggest giveaway promises of all time, and Clinton will fulsomely credit Vice President Al Gore, seated prominently behind him, for all good that has ever happened to humankind.

Remember the Democrats' desperation when you hear them fomenting divide-and-conquer hate politics to conjure and exploit racial and sexual divisions, such as in Decatur, Illinois, or in the venom of Gore's racist campaign manager Donna Brazile, or in Clinton's call this week for more federal "job police" to enforce politicrat notions and whims about comparable pay for men and women.

And remember these things as Democrat allies such as CBS and CNN join in trying to character-assassinate George W. Bush before he and other Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians end the Left's reign of terror. As Bush said Monday night in Iowa, "Tonight marks the beginning of the end of the Clinton era." Let's pray he is right.