God, Politics, and Rock 'n' Roll

Scandals Are Now About Us, Rather Than The Government

2013-05-21T11:08:00.000-05:00

The greatest challenge faced by our American society today is not partisanship--it's teamism. That's the belief that something is okay when done by your political party, but bad when the other political party does it. It's the ultimate "ends justify the means" philosophy.

The latest Obama Administration scandals are a test of teamism. And so far, teamism is prevailing. Nate Silver reports that President Obama's approval rating is holding steady despite the scandals.

Silver attributes that to an improving economy. I attribute it to teamism.

There was a time when we, as an American people, each possessed a certain ideology. As citizens, though, we understood that our government was meant to serve us, not to rule us, and we all viewed politicians and political power with a healthy sense of skepticism.

But now we train all our fire on the opposing political party. So, if it's your "team" that's committing the transgression (say, like, violating the first amendment), well, it's not so bad if you disagree with the ideology being targeted. Just yesterday, in the midst of the AP and IRS scandals, some of my Democratic friends were calling for a radio host to be jailed for expressing reprehensible views. You know, like that guy who created the video that DIDN'T inspire the Benghazi attack.

When I was growing up, bipartisan married couples joked about their differing ideologies--they'd often say, "we cancel each other out." Now folks wonder how Tara and I can continue to be happily married. That's says something about the toxic environment in which we express our political views these days.

As citizens, we should be true to our principles, be they conservative or liberal, and hold government accountable for operating within those principles. Deciding that we are only concerned when our principles are being violated by the OTHER party is a threat to the continued preservation of our freedom.

Who Wants To Be Nominated For The Death Panel?

2013-04-26T09:52:00.000-05:00

We like to label and demonize our ideological opponents in the bloodsport known as "politics." Political activists seem especially predisposed to use the "dumb" label against a specific candidate or political figure.

So when "dumb" Sarah Palin talked about death panels, there was a monumental effort to label such talk as...yes...dumb...or even dumb AND crazy.

Except a death panel does exist. It's called the Independent Payment Advisory Board and President Obama is yet to nominate anyone to it. The board is to determine which cost-effective treatments will be covered by the government. In other words: if you're old, no transplant for you!

I'm guessing that the delay is occurring because the administration can't figure out how to prevent the nomination process from inspiring a national conversation about death panels. But don't worry, the head of Health And Human Services can make these determinations alone if there are no nominees. And we all trust Kathleen Sebelius to make our medical decisions for us, don't we?

Angry Young Men + Radical Islam = Danger

2013-04-24T10:31:00.000-05:00

I understand the frustration of my Muslim friends who have to endure the suspicious stares of strangers following violence perpetrated by evil, crazy men in the name of Islam.

But telling us to not talk about Islam in light of recent events is like asking us to talk about flooding without mentioning water.

The world has always been full of angry young men. They vent their anger in various ways. Unfortunately, some angry, isolated men are being persuaded by radical imams to become warriors and inflict damage against a society that the men believe has wronged them.

There are questions that need answers so that we can prevent such future incidents. Peggy Noonan raises one: where did the brothers get their money?

Folks like Chris Matthews are uncomfortable with this conversation because their emotional focus is always on the problems of America. They actually don't want to admit that there is a radical faction of people who hate freedom and want to do harm to our country. And there's no "self-improvement" that we can undertake to prevent that nor any president or political leader that can be elected to mitigate the hate.

We need to investigate the truth of this matter rather than engage of the usual "it's-a-teachable-moment-for-America" rhetoric.

Gun Control And The "Evil Other"

2013-04-19T15:40:00.000-05:00

I remember the first amendment that I brought up for a vote during my freshman year in the Iowa Senate. I think it garnered 11 out of 50 possible votes.

That's when I learned one of the more valuable lessons in the Senate: you must learn how to lose.

It's not an easy thing to learn. But a legislator must learn it. Because for each victory, a legislator is going to suffer a number of defeats. It's part of the process. If you don't learn it, you can't remain a legislator for any extended period of time.

Advocates of more gun control measures have suffered a loss. And they are mad. Many of my Democratic friends are blaming the National Rifle Association.

But the fact is that the American people are skeptical of the impact of any new gun control laws. Legislators won't support new gun restrictions because they are afraid of getting voted out of office.

That's hard for gun control supporters to take--that most of their friends and neighbors don't support more restrictions on guns. So an "evil other" must be identified. I've blogged numerous times about the "evil other." It's easier for activists to blame a faceless entity with vague, nebulous powers to stop legislation than to admit that their friends and neighbors just aren't with them. In this debate, the NRA fills that role.

But what intrigues me the most about the last couple of years of political debates is the libertarian movement among the populace.

This movement causes heartburn among the bases of BOTH parties. Those who oppose same-gender marriage are frustrated. Those that support gun control are frustrated. Even folks like me who oppose abortion can't get much traction due to this rising tide of libertarian-leaning voters.

Combine court rulings and popular sentiment toward limited government and demographic trends which indicate that younger voters oppose government involvement and I don't see a return to an activist government movement such as was popular in the 1960s. Maybe Bill Clinton was just ahead of his time: NOW, the era of big government is over.

Why Compromise Isn't Possible On Immigration

2013-04-18T15:34:00.001-05:00

Americans don't want an immigration law that is enforced with the same intensity as Iowa's fireworks law. We've got security concerns and also are aware of the drugs being moved across the border.

Legislating means compromise, which appears, at first glance, to mandate that any immigration bill feature measures that secure the border while also providing a path to citizenship for illegals already in the country.

But I don't think compromise legislation will ever win the support of the American people. After passage of such a bill, many of us suspect that the "pathway" will be implemented while the security measures will be delayed as our government officials talk about the difficulty of actually securing the border.

The American people have made clear that they want enforcement first before talking about citizenship. That's why any bill dealing with immigration will need to deal ONLY with border security and its implementation.

After voters are assured that security is being implemented, THEN a citizenship pathway bill can be passed.

Securing the border can be achieved: here's three big ideas. And here's the NPR story on the triple-fence referenced in the first link.

The Good People Outnumber The Bad People

2013-04-16T09:45:00.001-05:00

The Internet has become a big repository of venom from people who live angry lives full of hurt. After the tragedy in Boston on Monday, I cleared my Facebook news feed of people who were posting angry, political statements following the destruction.

It is a paradox that it takes tragedy to remind us that the good people outnumber the bad people and that each day is filled with people performing constant, consistent acts of kindness away from the national spotlight.

I had just returned to my office from a lunch celebrating the work of the John Paul II Medical Research Institute, which continues to make advances in the fights against cancer and Alzheimer's and in the treatment of conditions that were previously fatal.

A friend posted on Facebook about the explosions in Boston even before the television news began to report it. I turned on the TV news just as they cut to Boston--and my first impression was a feeling of gratitude for the many people who were reacting instantly at the scene to help others.

There are many heroic stories emerging from Boston.

People used social networking not to point fingers, but to uplift and encourage. Many worried about the reaction of children to the news--as parents, we work hard to maintain our children's senses of optimism and safety in the world. Many folks turned to a quote from a pamphlet featuring Mister Rogers called "Helping Children Deal With Tragic Events In The News."

Fred Rogers often told this story about when he was a boy and would see scary things on the news: “My mother would say to me,’Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping.’ To thisday, especially in times of ‘disaster,’ I remember my mother’s words, and I am always comforted by realizing that there are still so many helpers—so many caring people in this world.”

A surprising source, comedian Patton Oswalt, expressed sentiments that were shared over 200,000 times on Facebook.

But here's what I DO know. If it's one person or a HUNDRED people, that number is not even a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population on this planet. You watch the videos of the carnage and there are people running TOWARDS the destruction to help out."

"So when you spot violence, or bigotry, or intolerance or fear or just garden-variety misogyny, hatred or ignorance, just look it in the eye and think, 'The good outnumber you, and we always will.

A friend of mine, former legislator Steve Falck, had finished the race 20-minutes ahead of the explosion and was reported safe. He posted a picture of himself today on Facebook in full race gear--which I read as a defiant act of triumph over the perpetrator(s).

This 78-year-old man, who many of us clearly viewed falling over as the explosion occurred, got up and finished the race.

"I ended up second in my division," he said. "After you've run 26 miles you're not going to stop there." His timing chip marked his finish at 4 hours, 3 minutes, 47 seconds.

Good people will not be stopped.

Speak To Me As You, I'll Understand

2013-04-11T11:57:00.001-05:00

This NPR article about white people who attempt to "sound black" in order to establish empathy with a listener struck a chord with me on two levels.

I attended a high school that was racially mixed. Everyone got along well. One rule: a white person should not "try" to sound black. That was patronizing. It doesn't mean that the white kids didn't pick up some verbiage--your home became your "crib" and there was always the phrase, "why you wanna do me like that?"--but this was similar to a Midwestern moving to the South and picking up some inflection. Trying too hard brought a roll of the eyes.

After high school, I attended a broadcast school in order to launch my radio career. One of the classes dealt with erasing our Midwestern pronunciations: "worsh" became "wash" and "y'all" is unacceptable. Much like the BBC, however, the broadcast industry is not so strident anymore about accents.

I think broadcasters and our culture in general are learning this lesson:

I can understand you just fine if you speak to me as you. If you speak to me as if you're me, we'll both end up confused.

Roger Ebert Experiences Recurrence Of Cancer

2013-04-04T13:10:00.000-05:00

Roger Ebert and I don't agree politically. But if I refused to enjoy the work of writers/entertainers who disagree with me, I wouldn't have many options.

Ebert has announced that he'll be cutting back on writing because he has experienced a recurrence of cancer. It's ironic that his announcement comes in the same week that I've been praising Paul Harvey, as there aren't a lot of people whose writing causes me to experience bouts of joy.

Ebert is definitely my favorite movie critic, for two reasons:

1) He truly understands and expresses beautifully what makes a movie great; and
2) He doesn't judge whether each movie is an award-winning experience--he judges a movie on whether it delivers a great experience for its intended audience, i.e. an action movie that has great action, a sexy movie that is truly sexy...etc.

In a culture full of snarky writing, it seems that most critics write to impress other critics. Ebert writes for movie lovers.

Update: A family friend reports that Ebert has died.

Need Publicity? Rant It Left-Wing Style!

2013-04-03T14:16:00.000-05:00

Let's say you are a Hollywood actor and your career is in rapid decline. You desperately need some publicity in advance of a last-chance movie or television role that will make or break your career. What do you do? WHAT DO YOU DO?

Rant! Left-wing style! Ain't that right, Jim Carrey? Worked for Ellen Barkin, didn't it?

The New Debate Over Climate Change

2013-04-03T11:23:00.002-05:00

The debate over climate change was formerly so simple: science versus climate change deniers.

However, the media is beginning to reveal a new aspect of this debate given the information that air temperatures on the Earth's surface have remained flat over the past 15 years while greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise.

The new debate is over the impact of carbon emissions on climate change. Have we identified the wrong culprit?

Those that defend science-based political policies should welcome this debate. We don't need to divide people along ideological lines to talk about climate change; what we need are policies that actually address the issue.

As this post points out, we must always understand the motivation of politicians in any debate: to increase their own power. Carbon taxes and limitations are attempts to seize power over private property.

And it doesn't do any good to go back over 1300 years of data to try to make the data work; we've been told that climate change is an imminent danger requiring immediate drastic solutions.

Selling apocalypse isn't going to work in the future; science-based discussion is what is needed.

President Obama Is Sexy; The News Shouldn't Be

2013-04-03T09:17:00.000-05:00

I think we spend way too much time in this country talking about politics.

I KNOW that it is weird that an activist like me would make that statement.

But doesn't it seem like politics infects every single discussion? We divide up along traditional party lines when talking about everything these days and we produce a legislative solution for every problem under the sun. We also seek the opinion of politicians on everything from American Idol to March Madness.

I was always a big fan of legendary broadcaster Paul Harvey, who rarely led his newscasts with politics--or mentioned the activities of politicians at all. He often led with a scientific discovery and followed up with news that he felt had a real impact on everyday life.

These thoughts are prompted by an article detailed how the Obama Administration is exercising amazing control over what information is disseminated by the media. I was especially struck by this sentence:

...It's getting harder for cash-strapped news outlets to resist using photos, video and other content supplied by the White House.

My theory as to WHY the national news is overladen with political stories is that the budgets of news organizations have steadily been declining over the past few decades parallel to a continuous drop in advertising revenues.

It's cheaper to send a reporter to Washington to cover pre-packaged news events than to hire a cadre of writers to go out into the world and present stories that have real impact on our lives.

The problem with this approach is that we, as news consumers, are getting a steady diet of spin, not fact. Political communication is about controlling public perception. Many national stories now simply parrot the talking points being presented by individuals and organizations that directly benefit from shading public perception.

National reporters should be standing outside this process and reporting political communication with a wary eye. Even better, they should be largely ignoring a great deal of the white noise emanating from prepackaged news events and gathering details independently.

Meanwhile, the Obamas have learned that granting access to the celebrity press is a great way to influence public perception of the administration. I don't say this as a negative--it's a lesson all candidates should take to heart. But when the objective press begins asking the same type of questions as the celebrity press, the accountability sought by our predecessors in crafting the First Amendment simply disappears.

There Must Be Justice

2013-03-29T09:26:00.000-05:00

Tara and I attended an event on Thursday that was focused on "Equal Justice For The Poor." I found it appropriate that we were talking about justice on the evening before Good Friday.

When Jesus died on the cross, God was speaking to His creation. He was saying that justice is not a concept agreed upon by people, but an irrefutable law of the universe.

When wrong has been done, it must be set right. People, given the gift of free will, allowed evil into the world and began to perpetrate that evil on each other. Justice had to be administered. People were doomed to a permanent death and separation from God.

Jesus came into the world and being blameless, accepted punishment and death on behalf of all people. Justice had to be served. He then rose from the dead to declare a permanent triumph over death. Reconciliation with God and eternal life were achieved after He accepted punishment on behalf of His creation.

A Facebook friend called this weekend, "my favorite time of year in the church." It is a time of victory, optimism of the things to come, and an amazement at the undeserved gift of grace achieved following the administration of justice on the cross.

Why People Are Loving "The Bible"

2013-03-28T12:31:00.000-05:00

"The Bible" on History Channel has become quite the phenomenon...42 percent of US adults have watched at least one episode.

While we shouldn't be surprised that the world's best selling book drew audience interest, I've been somewhat amused as pundits who have very little religious activity in their lives attempt to explain its success.

I love studying the Bible and reading books in which authors share how particular passages and stories have impacted them.

This love for the Good Book was instilled in me by my grade school and high school teachers, as well as those wonderful Sunday School teachers that used the felt figures on the felt boards held up by a wooden tripod. My parents blessed my life by sending me to Lutheran schools.

Biblical teachers begin using the stories of the Bible to teach simple lessons at an early age. Forget, for a moment, the "moral of the story": what wonderful stories! Daniel in the lion's den. David and Goliath. Three men in the fiery furnace ("Veggie Tales" fans know them as "Rack, Shack, and Benny").

A friend of mine describes the new mini-series as "The Greatest Hits Of The Bible," and she's right. As we grow older, the lessons taught by the Bible become more complex...and that leads to division on just how to interpret each passage, event, and story.

And the media is filled with divisive talk over what The Bible means...everyone has their own "right" answer and is passionate about proclaiming that those that don't agree don't possess "the truth." This kind of talk divides churches and is prevalent these days in our political and cultural discussion.

All this negative threatens to steal the joy we initially experienced when reading The Bible. I think the success of the series is due to the fact that it takes us back...back to the wonder of the animals being loaded two-by-two onto the ark...the walls of Jericho tumbling as the trumpets blast...Jesus catching fish with a skeptical Peter.

For two hours on Sunday nights, the theological, political, and cultural debate ceases and the wonder of The Bible recaptures our attention.

The Constitution Is The Great Equalizer

2013-03-27T11:02:00.000-05:00

As I've written in the past, I avoid doing many posts on the issue of same-gender marriage because I head up a group in support of the issue and don't want to belabor the point. But it's impossible not to say SOMETHING due to the arguments taking place before the Supreme Court.

Many Americans choose not to be part of a particular political party and brandish a healthy skepticism of politicians in general. Independent voters believe that the only difference between Republicans and Democrats is that the two parties want to spend their money and regulate their lives in different ways.

That's why a majority of Americans are cutting through the constant chatter spewing forth from the political class and media and getting back to a single question: what does the Constitution say?

The Constitution contains a set of immutable principles which Americans agree provide the framework for how this country operates. People also know that a true adherence to the guidelines of the Constitution (and the ideals articulated in the Declaration Of Independence) require people to tolerate activities by other people or groups with which they might not agree.

An individual is free to pursue happiness without interference from the government unless that individual injures another person or that person's property.

The American electorate is becoming more pro-gay, pro-gun, and pro-life. That's an ideology that doesn't fit comfortable within the confines of either major party.

Pro-gay: Americans understand the difference between marriage in a courthouse and marriage in a church. Government recognition of two adults as married can't be applied unequally in the eyes of the law.

Pro-gun: Law-abiding citizens can possess guns without exception. I follow the rules. I refuse to be treated equally with someone who doesn't follow the rules.

Pro-life: A baby is a person, not property, subject to the protections of equal protection under the law.

Notice the word that keeps appearing in the above sentences. The founders were pretty intelligent, weren't they?

It's natural for people to default to "...their oughta be a law" mode when faced with something with which they disagree. We want validation for our lives. We want to be part of a group that tells us, "we're right, they are wrong." But those desires often run counter to the principles of a nation in which an individual is allowed to live free and pursue happiness.

It's The Candidate, Not The Committee

2013-03-21T10:31:00.000-05:00

Following the 2012 election, I ran into two key operatives with the Iowa Obama campaign on two different occasions. The Republican in me was disappointed with the outcome of the presidential election; the operative in me couldn't help but admire the Obama turnout effort.

I complemented both people on the political apparatus of the Obama campaign. Though it was two separate conversations, both people responded in exactly the same way: "We had a great candidate."

With all the hubbub this week over the Republican National Committee's report on improving the electoral chances of Republicans, it's important to remember: political organizations provide the apparatus for winning elections; candidates provide the messaging and the issues.

I thought of those conversations today when reading two separate articles in Politico that both happen to mention the same candidates as the party leaders of the future: Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, and Ted Cruz.

That doesn't mean that the apparatus can't be fixed--fewer debates: yes, please! More outreach? Much needed.

But it's current office holders and future candidates that will provide the national branding for the party. Why? Because they've been successful. Success influences the direction of a political party, not committee meetings.

Where Republicans And Democrats Can Agree On "Fairness"

2013-03-19T12:19:00.000-05:00

My wife and I have a frequent discussion at our house. I will say that anything is possible in this country if a person will work hard enough. Tara will say that some people face obstacles that will not be overcome simply by hard work.

Is there common ground in this discussion between the right (me) and the left (Tara)?

Scott Rasmussen argues that when the American people talk about "fairness," they are talking about a specific belief:

For most Americans, the context is very important. If a CEO gets a huge paycheck after his company received a government bailout, that’s a problem. People who get rich through corporate welfare schemes are seen as suspect. On the other hand, 86 percent believe it’s fair for people who create very successful companies to get very rich.

In other words, it’s not just the income; it’s whether the reward matched the effort. People don’t think it’s a problem that Steve Jobs got rich. After all, he created Apple Computer and the iPad generation. But there was massive outrage about the bonuses paid to AIG executives after that company was propped up by the federal government.

This definition won't sit well with some Republicans and some Democrats. Republicans hear "fairness" and think "government redistribution." Democrats think "income inequality" and think "higher taxes." One Democratic friend on Facebook recently promoted a petition that demands that the government cap CEO salaries.

There's much talk these days of a Republican "rebranding." What a shock it would be to the public to hear a Republican speak against corporate welfare and in opposition to legislation meant to protect the comfortable while providing obstacles to the success of those that work hard and play by the rules.

Yes, The Budget CAN Be Balanced

2013-03-18T10:42:00.001-05:00

I was the Iowa Senate Appropriations Chair in the early 2000s when the nation was experiencing another economic slowdown. The state budget is based on revenue projections, and it became apparent during the legislative session that revenues were not going to meet projections and cuts would need to be made.

The Governor at the time was Tom Vilsack (now US Secretary Of Agriculture). Although I viewed Governor Vilsack as left-of-center, he was also a pragmatist and he knew that he'd have to sign cuts into law.

The greatest challenges for lawmakers in reducing spending are:

1) The fear of being portrayed as heartless in a future election;
2) Government agencies who promise in a public way to make the cuts as painful as possible (then Senate President Mary Kramer called this the "firemen first" approach). The agencies don't want to admit that there are efficiencies to be achieved. They fear that politicians will accuse them of engaging in wasteful spending all along and refuse to increase to approve hearty increases in their future budgets.
3) "Teamism" by legislators: an attitude that any compromise is failure and victory must be total.

Nancy Pelosi is dealing with "teamism" in her own House currently.

Yet, it is possible to achieve compromise and balance the federal budget. Even a conservative economist like Larry Kudlow is voicing some optimism.

As a general rule, progressives don't want to slow entitlement spending and conservatives don't want to raise taxes. A compromise requires both sides to hold their noses and accept some of each.

I had the chance to hear a speech by Alice Rivlin from the Simpson-Bowles commission recently. Her recommendations are right here.

Rivlin clearly acknowledges that every idea contained in her presentation is going to pass. But the former Appropriations chair in me can't help but be pragmatic; you use the commission recommendations as a starting point, assign each portion of the budget to the appropriate subcommittee, and hammer out a "grand bargain."

It can be done.

Rob Portman, Gay Marriage, And Gun Control

2013-03-15T13:48:00.000-05:00

How's THAT for attention-grabbing blog titles?

Many readers know that I lead a group called "Iowa Republicans For Freedom," which advocates that conservatives support the freedom to marry for same-gender couples. I don't blog about it much because, frankly, I don't want people to believe that I use this blog to advocate for ONE issue that is important to me.

But, with Ohio Senator Rob Portman's announcement that he has changed his mind and now supports gay marriage, I wanted to link to this intriguing column and chart by Chris Cillizza in which he correctly says that gay marriage has become for Republicans what gun control has become for Democrats.

I've been to many a meeting where an activist will warn about "abandoning the base." But many of these meetings contain people who know how elections are won or lost. And when your party base is demanding that you lead with an issue opposed by large numbers of independents, persuadable Democrats, and young people--you are losing the battle AND the war.

The Veronica Mars Kickstarter: This Changes Everything...Maybe

2013-03-15T11:02:00.000-05:00

When I was a kid, I remember catching "Son Of Kong," the 1933 sequel to "King Kong" on television. Specifically, I remember being infuriated at the ending. Spoiler alert: Little Kong dies. Why, I angrily questioned in my kid brain, did the big monkey have to DIE at the end of each movie?

I swore that when I grew up I'd remake "Son Of Kong." Little Kong will live and everyone will be happy!

Turns out that dream isn't so far-fetched anymore.

Fans of the cancelled television show "Veronica Mars" contributed over $2 million to a Kickstarter effort to persuade Warner Brothers to greenlight a "Veronica Mars" movie. Kickstarter is a for-profit company that raises funds for creative projects by promising rewards (such as autographs) to people who decide to contribute to a specific project.

Fans of movies now can not only buy a ticket to their favorite movie, they can fund their favorite movie.

So this changes everything, right? Well...maybe. As this article points out, $2 million won't a movie make--even "low-budget" films cost around $20 million these days. And Warner Brothers now must judge whether a fervent fan base translates into a profitable movie (I'm a "Firefly" fanatic and that...didn't quite work out).

I do think that many a Hollywood type will try this funding method in the future. Sure, its for the craft...but, let's face it, the crew of Veronica Mars now has the opportunity to grab another paycheck.

It's these type of news stories that allow us to take a moment to contemplate just how fast technology is changing our world. My three-year-old daughter referred to Facebook in a conversation recently. I realized that she will grow up in a world in which Facebook, tablet computers, and smartphones will have ALWAYS existed.

200 years ago today

2013-01-28T12:19:00.000-06:00

Today is the 200th anniversary of the publication of one of my favorite books, Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. Letters of Note celebrates with a few of Jane's own letters.

You can test your P&P knowledge here.

No "XMYA55" in Iowa

2013-01-28T12:14:00.001-06:00

Via Boing Boing, Government Attic has some fun for you: various states' lists of banned license plates, along with information about requests for appeal. Iowa's are here.

Some wiseguy actually appealed the denial of the request in my headline, above. What a PERVRT (also banned).

A Tip Of The Cap To Democrats

2013-01-25T10:56:00.000-06:00

I am a huge baseball fan. There are a lot of life lessons that can be learned within the game.

For example, when a team loses, a player or manager will often "tip their cap" to the other team. It is a simple acknowledgment of a simple fact: the opponent simply outplayed your team.

This has been a hard fact for Republicans to swallow following the last election. I've posted before that the Democratic assumptions about the race were entirely accurate and many of the themes and techniques that brought mockery from the GOP were successful for the Democrats.

I recall a pundit once saying, "every election has a lesson. The key is to learn the right one."

I thought about that today when reading comments from Bobby Jindal and Ari Fleischer. The quotes, combined, offer some pretty good wisdom: Jindal says the GOP needs to stop being obsessed with "government bookkeeping" while Fleischer says Democrats are better when it comes to "talking about people."

It seems that Mitt Romney is not the only person who has had trouble relating to the working class.

Need...time...to...blog....

2013-01-22T12:33:00.000-06:00

New responsibilities at work have me completely buried these days, but I have made the time on Sunday evenings to keep up with Downton Abbey (which I am beginning to think is pointless, and sadly taking itself too seriously to just embrace and revel in its pointlessness). According to some, while I toil away at work and take a mental break for an hour or two on Sundays, I am being reprogrammed as a right-winger.

Here's A Fictional Internet Guy We Can All Love

2013-01-22T10:14:00.001-06:00

So I've learned a new, hip term in the past few days. "Catfishing." Basically, it's people creating a false persona online and luring someone (or multiple people) to fall in love with the online (i.e., fake) version of the person posting online.

My daughter showed me a weekly show on MTV in which people conducting an online romance agree to meet on camera. You can guess the weekly outcome: one person is going to have their heart crushed. In the episode I watched, a young man thought he had fallen in love with a cute, blonde girl in a town near his own home. Turns out the cute girl was a gay man. If you are entertained by human misery, this (and other) MTV shows are just for you!

Of course, we're all learning this new term due to the controversy surrounding the fictional girlfriend of Notre Dame linebacker Manti Te'o.

Now here's a fictional Internet guy we can all love: Eric Harbaugh, lesser known brother of Jim and John Harbaugh, the real brothers who will make history on February 3rd by coaching against each other in the Super Bowl. Talk about family pressure!

Bipartisanship? Not Gonna Happen

2013-01-21T08:48:00.001-06:00

I was talking to a long-time Democratic insider over the weekend about what he expected from the Iowa Legislature this year.

We discussed, specifically, the education debate. Republican Governor Terry Branstad says he won't talk education funding until reforms are enacted. Democratic legislators will push for money first to give schools needed budget stability before talking reforms.

In the end, they'll meet in the middle.

Voters instinctively understand that this is NOT how Washington operates and they are right. The goal in Washington is total victory over the other party.

A top Obama aide says the President will spend the next year attempting to split the Republican party in order to win the House in 2014.

If that's the approach, Charles Krauthammer argues that the Republican House should pass bills and make demands meant to give the GOP the advantage in 2014.

The political activist in me likes this approach for the Republicans: if Democrats want to campaign on higher taxes and gun control next year, be my guest.

But citizen-me wishes they'd do something about the economy.