Iowa Politics Exposed

Sen. Grassley gives us a life lesson in the Twitter-verse

2012-01-24T18:50:00.002-06:00

It's embarrassing.

Having someone figure out your Twitter password and then take over your account and spew tweets out to the world.

Just how embarassing? Ask Sen. Chuck Grassley. He has over 34,000 followers and Monday morning they were "treated" to about a half hour's worth of messages scolding the GOP senator from Iowa for his sponsorship of legislation that's not too friendly to internet privacy.

If we are to believe the tweets, the senator's password was "chuck123". That is the easiest password to crack because (1) it has his name/personal information in it and (2) it has sequential numbers. In my past life in tech support, I was treated to readings of individuals who try firstnames and numerical sequences starting with 1.

And there are programs out there where budding hackers can plug in the parameters and the software will keep trying permutations of them until it meets with success (known as "brute force hacking"). Using something like that wouldn't have taken even a high school student much time to hack.

In the senator's defense, he probably didn't even set up the password-it was probably done by a young staffer who thought it would be easy to remember. (And that staffer's password is probably just as easily hackable-he or she just doesn't have 34,000 followers to worry about)

So our life lesson is:

1. NEVER set up a password containing your name, initials or your birthdate. All are easy to find.

2. CHANGE your password often. Most business-grade software requires a password change every 90 days.

3. NEVER use the same password on multiple sites. (If you have problems remembering passwords, programs like LastPass can encrypt them and remember them for you)

These are the basic rules to remember. What to set as a password then? It should be something you'll remember, of course, but not too easy. Try favorite websites, restaurants, movies...and mix up upper and lower case. Those are harder to figure out.

One thing about apps like LastPass is they also have the ability to generate random passwords, store them and automatically fill them in for you. That way you don't have Post-It notes or other slips of paper laying around with all your login information.

So thank you, Senator Grassley, you've probably made the Twitter-verse more secure. At least on Capitol Hill!

George Stephanopoulos tries/fails to give birth to new Democratic campaign issue

2012-01-07T23:26:00.000-06:00

Apparently, contraception trumps foreign policy, jobs, taxes and the economy in George Stephanopoulos' mind. He asked Mitt Romney if the US Supreme Court decision Griswold v. Connecticut should be overturned. Was this an attempt to give the Obama re-election campaign a soundbite for future TV ads?

George knew...but 3/4 of the free world didn't/didn't care that the Griswold case was decided back in 1965 when the court said that the state of Connecticut couldn't ban contraceptives. Even Stephanopoulos' question was prefaced with a statement that Rick Santorum believed that states have the rights to ban contraceptives(while being forced by Santorum to state that Santorum never said he believed states should ban it). Mitt Romney rightfully poo-pooed the question, and the audience booed Stephanopoulos when he tried to push the issue.

Some say this was just a bad question on Stephanopoulos' part in a pretty bad debate overall. But I think there's more to it. George wouldn't say it, but pro-abortion groups are using the "they want to ban contraceptives" argument in their attempts to defeat "personhood" laws that are being debated in several states.

They claim--without foundation--that defining a human life as being at conception would bar the use of contraceptives. It's a false claim. No bill would outlaw the use of contraceptives to prevent conception. Some talk about life beginning at fertilization, but again there's nothing that says putting a roadblock in the way of a sperm fertilizing an egg would be illegal.

But by getting Romney to talk about it will get the blogosphere going. I should know. Immediately after I questioned the legitimacy of the contraception topic, I was attacked on Twitter. I didn't know birth control...I couldn't understand the issue. Unlike my accusers, though, I've read the bills and know that Romney was right. There's no effort by any state to ban contraceptives. And no organized effort to get the US Supreme Court to reverse the Griswold decision from 1965.

Stephanopoulos knows full well, though, that by bringing the question up, the Obama re-election campaign will be able to put in its ads "Romney wants states to ban contraceptives" using clips from the debate.

It's not an issue that most Americans, save a few in the pro-abortion fringe, care about. Yet he tried repeatedly to get an answer from Romney on the issue. Was he trying to hand the Obama campaign an issue to beat over Romney's head later? Did they ask him to include the question? Given the audience's reaction, why did he continue to press such a non-pressing issue?

He was Bill Clinton's message man in the past. Makes you wonder.

Could Iowa GOP decision end Iowa's presidential election status?

2011-10-18T13:10:00.000-05:00

Iowa's decision to be firm on January 3rd as the date for the precinct caucuses moves Iowa from being a state which protects its first-in-the-nation status to one that is willing to move down to the level of states that are jumping ahead in the calendar in a high-stakes game of "presidential choice chicken"...each waiting for the other to move.

Iowa GOP officials say they're working in concert with New Hampshire, and that Iowa's move puts the impetus on Nevada to move its caucuses back later than January 14th.

It looks like the scenario given to the Iowa GOP central committee was,"It's okay to set the caucuses Jan. 3rd. That'll force Nevada to move its caucuses later and New Hampshire will be OK with it and set their primary date to January 10th."

And today Gov. Branstad and Iowa GOP chair Matt Strawn appeared together to talk about the caucus date, with Strawn saying "The ball to some degree is in Nevada's court" and Branstad saying it wasn't "too much to ask" for Nevada to move its caucuses so New Hampshire could have January 10th for its primaries.

But I see no incentive for Nevada to erase January 14th from its calendar and put in January 21st instead. That is unless the Republican National Committee and RNC Chair Reince Priebus can do something about it. And we've already seen that the RNC is a toothless tiger and unable to negotiate with Florida over its primary, which most agree set in motion the events that prompted Nevada to push ahead.

The threat of unseated delegates is just that...a threat. It would be decided at the convention at a time when the party will be desperate to show unity to oppose Barack Obama. And both Florida and Nevada know this.

Now, let's talk about New Hampshire. Their primary date is set by the secretary of state, Bill Gardner. He's a Democrat-turned-Independent. Why would he care about Iowa Republicans? His statement last week spelled it out: His decision will be to protect New Hampshire alone. Iowa doesn't really matter.

And he's not invested in the calendar controversy since the "other party" that he once belonged to has its candidate. I see that as saying he'll try to get Nevada to move, but he's not waiting long. Candidates in New Hampshire have already had to file for office and it takes more time to put together a primary election than Iowa or Nevada require for their caucuses.

Put all of this together and the result is simple: Next week, with no sign of action by Nevada, Bill Gardner will set New Hampshire's primary date as December 13th. In one simple chess move he's taken out Nevada for jumping ahead and removed Iowa's status as "first in the nation." And he's set in motion an inevitable fight that could mean Iowa is never first...and thus never important in the presidential selection process again.

He can run for re-election saying he not only protected New Hampshire, but he increased its importance, having bumped Iowa.

High stakes poker. For the Iowa GOP, I hope their bet pays off. But there's a lot riding on this bet. And, short of giving up January 3rd to New Hampshire, not much of a "plan B".

Iowa Senate caucus is much ado about Linn County

2011-09-28T02:20:00.000-05:00

To hear some supporters of Senate Republican Leader Paul McKinley, it was downright mutiny.

It's the "Caucus Controversy" that has Republicans in the Iowa Senate seeing red while the Democrats look amused.

From what I've been able to piece together, the whole dust-up is very complicated. But if it was mutiny, then McKinley may have been the Captain Bligh to Dix's Mister Christian.

It started when last week's Linn County Republican convention picked their own co-chair Cindy Golding to run against Liz Mathis in the special election in November to fill the vacancy created when Sen. Swati Dandekar resigned from the Senate to take a new appointment by Governor Terry Branstad to the Iowa Utilities Board.

Bill Dix was at the county convention, as were a couple of other GOP senators. McKinley was not.

After the vote for Cindy Golding, McKinley put out a news release saying that Golding was "absolutely the best candidate" for the job. But then nothing happened.

To many Senate Republicans the Senate District 18 special election is a BIG DARNED DEAL. Several of the GOP senators starting talking, saying that their leader should be calling a caucus to get all 24 Republicans in the Iowa Senate out on a coordinated campaign to do the most good in the short period of time they have.

On Friday, McKinley ignited the flames by sending a notice to the GOP Senate caucus, setting their next caucus in Des Moines as November 10th. The special election is November 4th. No time to prepare for the District 18 fight.

Then came Monday. And more talk among Senate Republicans that something needed to be done.

Now Senator Bill Dix has made no bones about the fact that he wants to be the Senate GOP Leader. He's been talking up a lot of the caucus trying to get enough votes to oust McKinley. Many said it was inevitable that in 2012 Dix would likely defeat McKinley for the leadership post.

Some said that McKinley didn't do well enough in the 2010 election, even though the GOP picked up seats. Others said that he was too weak and not willing to take on the Democrats.

So Tuesday, Dix emailed the GOP senators. He invited them to his own caucus Thursday at the state capitol, promising them that they would devote most of the time to setting out strategy for the District 18 election. But near the end of the email, he also said he was going to call for a leadership election, and he was a candidate to replace Paul McKinley.

The volley came back-not from McKinley, but from his GOP Senate Whip, Steve Kettering. Kettering said that (1) McKinley was overseas on a trip with his wife celebrating their anniversary, (2) reminding them that McKinley set the official caucus date in November, and (3) saying the senators wouldn't get reimbursed for mileage for attending the "unofficial" caucus.

In returning serve (to continue the volleyball references), Dix replied he tried to contact McKinley and his calls weren't returned. And he told the senators that their mileage would indeed be paid for.

My sources hint strongly that even though there may not be a leadership vote Thursday, McKinley has a lot of work to build confidence of his caucus. His absence at a crucial time has some of their best organizers screaming for action. They take the silence as an unwillingness to commit resources to the election.

However, Dix does not come out smelling all that great either. Had he left the caucus as being a strategy session for the GOP Senators to deal with the Senate District 18 race, Dix would have been declared the champion.

But his zeal to oust McKinley taints the caucus...and the party...as his efforts to be king appear to be a "wait til he's gone and unable to defend himself, then take over" campaign.

And as to Dix's claim that Senators would be reimbursed for mileage...do YOU, Senator Dix, want to answer media questions on why it's ethical for you to get paid by taxpayers to work on partisan party strategy? Reminded of that possibility, several lawmakers have said they won't ask for money for participating.

It will be an interesting day Thursday. First to see how many people turn up and if they take a leadership vote. We'll be looking for the smoke signals from the statehouse to see what happens. Oh, wait, smoking's banned in the capitol. So maybe Dix should fire the cannon outside if he wins?

TV newscaster Liz Mathis now a news story

2011-09-21T10:29:00.002-05:00

Unless she commits a major faux pas, I believe GOP thoughts of retaking the Iowa Senate seat vacated by Swati Dandekar are probably wishful thinking.

First, full disclosure: I've known and worked with Liz Mathis, who just announced today that she's running as a Democrat for Dandekar's old seat. Liz and I worked together at KCRG (me at radio, Liz the co-anchor on KCRG-TV9). We didn't cross paths that much, but we have many friends in common.

That said, it looks like if she's the nominee Wednesday night, the Democrats have a political powerhouse.

She has HIGH name recognition in the area, having been a news anchor at both KWWL-TV and KCRG-TV over the past 30 years. She's still stayed in the "newslight" over the past couple of years due to the projects she's worked with. When we worked together, I know that her "Q", the measure of likeability used in the TV news anchor world, was extremely high in all demographics.

Plus, she's a PR person who's comfortable talking with people AND her husband runs a PR firm. Liz works for an agency that deals with juvenile justice and at-risk kids, so she can articulate that view easily.

None of the announced candidates have any prior government experience, so there's no incumbency advantage. And some are well-known in eastern Iowa GOP circles. But I don't think any of them will score better than Mathis in popularity in the district.

Turnout is key--maybe that's why Democrats are quietly building an absentee ballot brigade to win the election. That's too bad that something that's so fraught with controversy is about to be unleashed in this election, because I think Mathis has a good shot at the election without any shenanigans.

Ron Paul too extreme for Iowa?

2011-09-06T10:48:00.000-05:00

Ron Paul came within centimeters of winning the Iowa Straw Poll but he's not going to win the Iowa caucuses.

Rewind back to the days prior to the Ames straw poll. I had several friends who told me that Ron Paul could win the straw poll and then the caucuses in Iowa. A couple were worried that it would trash both the Ames fundraiser and finally give the political parties the excuse to remove Iowa's first-in-the-nation status for its precinct caucuses.

These same people appeared relieved when Paul didn't win...but were at the same time worried that his supporters might find a way to infiltrate the caucuses and pull off a Huckabee-like victory next February (or January or December, whichever month it ends up being to be first).

While the scenario above still theoretically could happen, it's not likely. Extremely not likely.

Why? Ron Paul's "extreme" rating.

Rasmussen Reports took a poll August 31 and asked if each of the GOP presidential candidates views were "mainstream" or "extreme". And 52 percent said Ron Paul's views were "extreme". And of self-identified Republicans, 55 percent said Paul was "extreme."

That means that Ron Paul can get lots of libertarian-minded people and college students to events. And he can win online polls. But Iowans don't think his views match theirs-especially Iowa Republicans.

Remember, the precinct caucuses are essentially another straw poll in Iowa-with one exception: You have to be (1) a registered Republican and (2) reside in the precinct whose caucus you're attending. True, in the GOP caucuses you just fill out a paper ballot like the Ames event, but there's a big difference.

You can't bus people in to vote in the caucuses as one could at the Ames straw poll. It's a neighborly gathering and outsiders are quickly spotted. Plus you have to get a ton of support all over the state of Iowa to win. Getting people to Waterloo, Des Moines, and all the small communities in between is essential. And the other campaigns will be watching to see if Paul's supporters try anything-and will call him out on it.

So it's not likely the Ron Paul revolution will overtake our presidential selection event.

CANDIDATE LIKELY VOTERS REPUBLICANS

MITT ROMNEY

MAINSTREAM? 64% 68%

EXTREME? 16% 14%

DON'T KNOW 20% 19%

MICHELE BACHMANN

MAINSTREAM? 50% 58%

EXTREME? 34% 27%

DON'T KNOW 15% 15%

RICK PERRY

MAINSTREAM? 50% 58%

EXTREME? 27% 22%

DON'T KNOW 23% 20%

HERMAN CAIN

MAINSTREAM? 48% 54%

EXTREME? 19% 17%

DON'T KNOW 33% 29%

RON PAUL

MAINSTREAM? 29% 26%

EXTREME? 52% 55%

DON'T KNOW 20% 18%

RICK SANTORUM

MAINSTREAM? 40% 47%

EXTREME? 25% 20%

DON'T KNOW 35% 33%

NEWT GINGRICH

MAINSTREAM? 50% 57%

EXTREME? 29% 23%

DON'T KNOW 21% 20%

JON HUNTSMAN

MAINSTREAM? 27% 27%

EXTREME? 27% 28%

DON'T KNOW 47% 46%

THAD MC COTTER

MAINSTREAM? 15% 18%

EXTREME? 21% 21%

DON'T KNOW 63% 61%

New Poll: Perry's the Iowa GOP frontrunner now

2011-09-04T17:47:00.000-05:00

Sorry, Palin supporters-the latest Rasmussen Reports poll done last week shows that Rick Perry is the clear frontrunner in the GOP presidential race in Iowa.

Pollster Scott Rasmussen revealed on his radio show today (on WLS-AM, Chicago) that Perry commands 29 percent GOP support in Iowa.

Perry's lead over the other candidates is quite commanding. Michele Bachmann is second, but with only 18 percent, Mitt Romney virtually tied with her at 17 percent and Ron Paul with 14 percent.

And Rasmussen says that none of the other contenders like Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Jon Huntsman, Newt Gingrich or Thad McCotter got even 5 percent support each.

So the field has tightened.

Gov. Perry did all the right things the last few months. He had a "shadow organization" drumming up support for him among Republicans. He raised money.

And after he did announce his candidacy, he spent a lot of time in retail politics...speaking at events, booking radio talk shows in Iowa to curry favor.

And he says the right things for the Iowa electorate. He answers questions with "yes, ma'am" or "yes, sir" in a quiet polite style. But he also failed to cower from reporters, chastising them quietly when they misquoted his book "Fed Up" in the context of this election.

Rep. Bachmann does well when she gives well-publicized speeches...and those have been few and far between lately. She spoke at the national Tea Party Express bus event at Waterworks Park in Des Moines on Wednesday, but it got very little news coverage. Normally, I get emails advising me that the Tea Party Express is streaming live video of candidate speeches at each stop, and I didn't get that Thursday.

Plus, she's been spending time trying to drum up votes in New Hampshire and South Carolina, so Iowans haven't seen her much. I haven't seen South Carolina polling, but she was down 14 points over Romney in New Hampshire as of mid-August-meaning she had a lot of catch up to do there to avoid getting thrown to the third place spot.

As soon as Labor Day is over, it's on...and Bachmann's camp needs to start closing the gap and convincing voters she's the better pick to defeat Obama over Rick Perry.

Des Moines council moving to hire only union contractors?

2011-08-30T01:15:00.000-05:00

Des Moines City Councilwoman Christine Hensley was in the minority last night. But she didn't cower.

Her colleague, Councilman Skip Moore, wanted the Council last night to rush through legislation that city staff has warned would require added city staff and could make the city vulnerable to a lawsuit.

Moore called it "Taxpayer Quality Assurance". In reality it's a way for the pro-union majority on the council to identify and elevate union contractors over non-union in a bidding situation.

Hensley said anyone trying to "ram this through" would be crazy to demand that city staff put it together and have it ready for a council vote in two weeks.

During last night's council meeting, Moore said that Polk County had been using the "Quality Assurance" questionnaire and "it's been working." That's only one side of the story.

What he calls "Quality Assurance" is just a new name for the "Contractor Qualification Questionnaire" that Polk County uses. It's a form with a lot of questions that the county can require a contractor to fill out.

Besides asking the usual questions about certification, staffing levels and bonding, there's also a "trick question" in the questionnaire. It asks if the applicant has a "Department of Labor-approved apprenticeship program". Answer yes, you're a union shop. Answer no...you're not.

Moore's statement that Polk County uses the questionnaires and they work isn't exactly true. Polk County, according to Des Moines city staff, only uses the "Contractor Qualification Questionnaire" on its largest projects. Maybe that's because the county was sued over the use of those questionnaires.

Back in 2009, a non-union contractor, Pinnacle Construction, sued the county. Pinnacle was the lowest bidder on a project to remodel the building that now's the county's emergency operations center. They bid $2,693,000. A bid by the Hansen Cos, Inc for $2,833,000 was approved on a 3-2 vote by the Democratic supervisors, Angela Connolly, Tom Hockensmith and John Mauro.

Pinnacle won other government contracts for work-including work on DART's regional transit center. The only difference? The questionnaire and that innocent-looking question.

Strangely enough, Polk County quit using the questionnaires on most projects about the same time the Pinnacle lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice (meaning the plaintiff could re-file it later).

Fast forward to May 23, 2010. Des Moines city staff prepared a PowerPoint presentation. It tells the city council members that the city already has methods to determine the qualifications of bidding contractors. And it says that if the questionnaire is used, it could lead to litigation. Plus, grading the questionnaires would require a lot more staffers at City Hall. And if the project's paid for by the federal government or the state, the questionnaire could conflict with state or federal guidelines. No action was taken by the council to implement the questionnaires.

April 25, 2011: Skip Moore and the other council members get a briefing again from city staff. They're told in a "Preliminary Report on Contractor Qualification Questionnaire" that implementing such a policy

Could discourage some contractors who are qualified to bid, making the bid pool smaller, which would inflate the bids.
Could result in qualification standards not directly related to construction
May result in a boost in city administration costs
Could discourage disadvantaged and minority businesses from bidding.
Could result in lawsuits.

Moore and the others on the council were reminded that December 18, 2000 the city council approved a policy that required contractors and subcontractors to "qualify". Three contracting associations sued and the court waited for the regulations behind the qualification policy to be approved. City staff presented the council with a draft, but it was never approved.

Hensley did what Moore apparently didn't want to do-she actually read all of the warnings that city staff was sending out. She told the council last night that adopting the questionnaire would make Des Moines a less hospitable environment for business and could spike city construction costs.

To their credit, nothing was approved last night. Instead, Moore and Hensley agreed to be on a committee with councilmen Halley Griess and Bob Mahaffey. They're supposed to meet with city legal staff and "iron it all out."

Stay tuned for the next chapter!

Has Michele Bachmann been Rick-rolled?

2011-08-28T23:37:00.000-05:00

Her campaign's getting criticized for not being social in Waterloo. Rick Perry's doing better in the polls than she is. The Bachmann campaign staff has a reputation of playing favorites and using physical force to deny credentialed reporters access to events.

All signs of a campaign that's circling the wagons and blaming the media for its troubles. And why not? Newt Gingrich gave her and all the GOP candidates cover by refusing Fox News' Chris Wallace's legitimate question about his campaign organization and calling it a "gotcha" question.

(BTW, Asking a GOP candidate whether or not he or she has the organization to both win the nomination and the presidency is a valid question. Shouldn't voters know about that as well as what they think about the Federal Reserve? Do Republicans not care if their pick can win?)

But now Bachmann's staff is moving in trying to control access, and avoid any mistakes. The trouble is, many of the gaffes in recent times that have some in the party shaking their head didn't come from media "gotcha" questions...they came when Bachmann's speeches were analysed by reporters and others. Remember Bachmann's "Happy Birthday Elvis" statement on the anniversary of his death?

And part of the retrenchment has to come from frustration with the media coverage surrounding Texas Gov. Rick Perry. He blew into Iowa and almost commandeered Bachmann's hometown a week after the straw poll, and has been riding a solid wave in the polls. In a few, he's judged to be the frontrunner now.

So Rep. Bachmann is no longer the "anti-Romney" candidate. The guy with the Texas accent and swagger who says "yes sir" and "yes ma'am" is getting the media attention. Noone is talking about her as the inevitable candidate.

What can Michele Bachmann do to recover from all this? One, take a page from Barack Obama and John McCain: Make nice with reporters. Don't shove them around. Give them full access. Anytime they shoot video of Rep. Bachmann it's an opportunity for a free TV ad. Use it!

Second, time to vet all the statements she's making on the trail and discard anything that is even remotely questionable. The Bachmann campaign needs an effective research team to give the candidate the right things to read and talk about.

...And for those of you who don't know what it means to be Rick-rolled, there's a full explanation here.

Ron Paul's supporters love him in Iowa

2011-08-07T15:34:00.000-05:00

The Ames straw poll could be a fistfight between Michele Bachmann's camp and the Ron Paul Revolution.

Pollster Scott Rasmussen today released new polling numbers of Iowa Republican voters. It shows Bachman's in a statistical tie with Mitt Romney-Bachmann at 22% and Romney at 21%. But Romney's not participating in the Ames straw poll, making the number three spot Bachmann's big challenge-and that's Ron Paul, who gets 16 percent.

The problem the Ron Paul crowd's had in the past is getting enough people with Iowa drivers licenses or ID's to show up in Ames. The last straw poll they had a lot of people there...but not enough who could vote and make the difference.

But this year, the Iowa GOP is allowing any college student with an Iowa college ID to vote as well...meaning that Paul may just get the youth vote and have it put him over the top. Given this poll and the Iowa GOP rules, is it any wonder the Bachmann camp has been flooding the airwaves with "Meet me in Ames" television and radio ads? I even saw one on a page of the Daily Kos!

Rasmussen announced the poll results on his radio talk show on WMAL in Baltimore, MD and WLS in Chicago this afternoon. He says they also polled to see who was on top among those Republicans in Iowa who were certain they were going to vote in the Iowa caucuses in February and had definitely made up their mind about a candidate, and Congressman Paul was on top. Meaning: the supporters he has are solid, but other candidates including Michele Bachmann are somewhat squishy.

That means the Ames straw poll is Bachmann's to lose and Paul's to beat expectations. He's showing loyal support but needs to show that support is rooted in Iowa and available to vote next year. If he can, he could be the perceived victor in the straw poll.

And Bachmann knows that she's the self-identified "native Iowan" who, if she can't command an impressive lead, will be deemed to lack the organizational and motivational skill to win in February and, ultimately, in Nobember.

Failure of both to win the expectation game will have an immediate toll. Those who contribute in great amounts to presidential campaigns haven't really opened their checkbooks to anyone yet-and Bachmann and Paul need them to win in November.

Oh, there's another wild card in all of this. Yet-to-officially-announce Rick Perry gets 14 percent in Rasmussen's poll of Iowans.

Perry was denied a spot on the Ames straw poll ballot. So if he gets a significant number of write-in votes from evangelical voters, the headline next Sunday morning could be "Iowans love Rick Perry" instead of declaring victory for Bachmann or Paul.

East Coast media-types could easily stop talking to Bachmann and Paul and start chatting up Rick Perry. And I'm hearing rumors there are a number of buses coming to the Iowa Tea Party event in Waukee on Labor Day for Sarah Palin's speech. Could that speech also be the lead-in to a formal announcement by a certain Texas governor?

This is the stuff that politics is made of!

Obama Walks Out...and why GOP needs to speak out NOW

2011-07-14T08:10:00.002-05:00

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's staff and others were trying desperately to quash talk that President Obama stormed out of the debt ceiling negotiations Wednesday, shouting "Don't call my bluff!" to House Republican Whip Eric Cantor. It didn't work.

All the morning news shows on network TV were plastered with the "Obama Walks Out" or "Obama Storms Out" phrase on the lower third of their screens. And we learned that the President threatened to "go public" if the GOP didn't meet his demands.

This coming the day after President Obama told CBS that if the debt ceiling isn't raised, he might not have enough money to pay Social Security benefits to recipients.

Republicans need to "go public" first. It's time for a national address by Republicans in prime time BEFORE Obama gets a chance to frame the debate. If they truly believe that the tax increases Obama and Democrats want are job-killers, then go on national TV and say so. Show the public that you are firm and that the President is the one playing politics. Show the Tea Party that you are focused on the deficit.

If that doesn't happen, the Tea Party and all the rest of us will just have to assume that it's still political posturing.

Oh, and one should ask the question of why Pelosi and other Democrats were sooo worried about the statement that the President stormed out? Because they know that he's already threatened the millions of elderly Americans who actually do vote, unlike much of their so-called base and that it makes him appear like a petulant child.

So the GOP should call his bluff. Demand a prime time address or news conference to frame the debate. We'll be watching.

Last minute negotiations were about the wrong abortion bill

2011-07-01T01:30:00.000-05:00

The wrong abortion language was debated in the halls of the statehouse Thursday.

Much ado was made by Bob Vanderplaats and others, who wailed on Wednesday that negotiators were planning on putting back in language to allow Medicaid funding of some abortions that the Iowa House took out. To hear Vanderplaats, it was a big leadership faux pas on the part of Republicans in the legislature not to fight for that.

And we learn that the language that was agreed to, while not a ban on Medicaid funding of certain abortions (which would likely not pass a court challenge) was more restrictive than the laws on the books for 20 years.

Vanderplaats should instead have been demanding that the Iowa Senate take up the late-term abortion bill that House Republicans sent back to the Senate.

Remember that debate? Council Bluffs will when Dr. Leroy Carhart moves from Bellevue, NE to their town, now that there's nothing to stop him. Don't believe me? Check out his own website-HE'S SOLICITING DONATIONS TO SPEED UP THE PROCESS.

And the Senate could have dealt with it...but Sen. Joe Bolkcom apparently didn't realize that his "let's make it look like we're solving the problem with zoning laws" bill was taken by the House, amended to put back the original late-term abortion language the House originally passed and sent back to the House.

Sen. Mark Chelgren tried to remind Sen. Bolkcom of that fact Thursday afternoon after Bolkcom tried to say on the Senate floor that "it's too bad the House didn't pass that bill." Truth is, it's too bad the Senate didn't deal with the issue. Because Bolkcom's attempt to "fix" the problem will likely just mean that Sen. Mike Gronstal gets defeated in the next election, if residents are as riled up as they've appeared to be on the issue.

But at what cost?

Do you know who Dr. Leroy Carhart is? He's an abortion doctor who was good friends with Dr. George Tiller, the abortion doctor killed while attending his church. Carhart used to perform abortions at Tiller's Kansas clinic over the weekends.

When Tiller died, Carhart became radicalized. He started the work to open up non-profit abortion clinics around the country in Tiller's honor, including one on the doorsteps of Washington, DC.

In 2007, he tried to get the US Supreme Court to overturn the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which President George W. Bush signed into law. He failed. So he turned his focus to increasing the number of late-term abortions.

Then Nebraska's legislature banned late-term abortions. So Carhart began soliciting donations to move his practice to Council Bluffs.

Now, about the only thing that could stop Carhart from doing that is an act of God. I don't know if the site Carhart picked is inundated with Missouri River flood water or ever will be, and I don't wish ill to anyone. Yet that may be the only thing that rescues the unborn who will die in his clinic.

Surprise! None of the above beats Mitt and Michelle

2011-06-27T11:14:00.000-05:00

Memo to the national media: When it comes to the weekend Iowa poll, don't count the bodies yet. Some candidates may not be dead...they just have fainted.

The Des Moines Register Iowa Poll released its first numbers of the GOP presidential race Sunday. And the whole political world was a-Twitter that Michelle Bachmann was statistically tied with GOP front-runner Mitt Romney in Iowa.

But buried in the final paragraphs of the poll is the statistic that only 14 percent of those polled have locked in their answers. In this "Who Wants To Be A Candidate" game, the rest aren't sure.

34 percent weren't named by the Register in its article--either candidates were omitted or that was the "none of the above" vote. And when that number exceeds any candidate's polling numbers, it's all up for grabs.

At least that's the story Tim Pawlenty's camp is likely telling the big money donors right now. And they are getting surrogates to tell the press that the poll came just prior to a "big media buy" in Iowa.

My best guess it that Pawlenty's people did that "big media buy" in Iowa because their own internal polling mirrored what Selzer & Co. came up with in the Iowa Poll. Ergo, the ad buy was cover to hide behind-and it kinda worked.

What should be frightening to Pawlenty is that Herman Cain's beating him by 4 points WITHOUT the "big media buy". All of the candidates had a chance to incite the politically active in the Iowa GOP during the New Hampshire debate on CNN. Bachmann did...as did Cain. Pawlenty was attacked for his attack on Mitt Romney-and his failure to stick with his story when facing Romney in the debate. Could it be that Iowans wrote Pawlenty off then? Romney...was Romney.

Well, now Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman all have targets on their backs in Ames. They need to show well. Gingrich needs to somehow convince people to support him even though his "non-traditional campaign" is melting all around him and he's not got a lot of money in the bank. Ron Paul will need to prove that he's got the numbers in supporters that he did in 1999. Pawlenty needs to show some fire in the belly and prove to Iowans that he's not just another wonkish politician who can't move audiences (or Congress should the need arise).

So...it's time for YOU to respond. We've put together our own poll to see what you think. It's available at this link

Bolkcom admitting his bill doesn't stop Dr. Carhart after all?

2011-05-17T07:34:00.002-05:00

Rewind back to last week, when Sen. Joe Bolkcom (D-Iowa City) was telling reporters he had a way to STOP Dr. Leroy Carhart from moving his late-term abortion practice to Council Bluffs. Bolkcom said he could do it without restricting a woman's right to choose.

The Iowa Senate took up that bill yesterday. It uses zoning tactics to stand in the way of a late-term abortion clinic. Under the rules in Bolkcom's legislation, a new late-term abortion clinic would have to (1) be located in "proximity" to a hospital that offers neo-natal care, and (2) be granted a Certificate of Need by the State Health Facilities Coordinating Council
.
Carhart's clinic, Bolkcom claimed, could not survive both tests in Council Bluffs
.
However, Senate Republicans did some homework on the language in the bill and found out that Dr. Carhart could, instead, set up shop in Des Moines, Davenport, Iowa City or Cedar Rapids at the four hospitals with neo-natal care facilities and avoid all of the rules in the bill. Sen. Roby Smith (R-Davenport) called Bolkcom's bill "a roadmap" for setting up a clinic in his home community.

Their claims about the ineffectiveness of the legislation fell on deaf ears on the Democratic side of the aisle, and the bill passed on a party-line vote, 26 Democrats voting for the bill and 23 Republicans saying "no."

But the telling thing came in the press releases that came afterward. Senate Democrats put out a press release with a statement from Bolkcom. The talk of the bill actually stopping Carhart from Bolkcom was gone.

Instead, it appeared that the Iowa City Democrat may have come to the realization that his bill does little to stop the Omaha abortion doctor from moving to Council Bluffs:

"Today every Republican Senator in the chamber voted against making it harder for late-term abortion clinics to open in Iowa. Fortunately, the legislation passed without their help. I hope the House will pass this legislation and send it to Governor Branstad for his signature."

That's the quote from Bolkcom in Monday night's press release following the passage of SF 534.

Republicans need only look to that statement from Sen. Bolkcom to prove their point that SF 534 was an insincere attempt to provide political cover for Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal (D-Council Bluffs).

Now Bolkcom says only that the bill only makes it "harder" for Carhart to come to Council Bluffs. Not stop him. Words that demand further explanation.

Enough Wikileaks and someone will plug 'em

2011-01-03T09:08:00.000-06:00

This isn't Iowa-centric, but it's something that's on my mind...

You can't go to a journalistic website or media column without reading someone waxing eloquent about the Wikileaks website. It's pretty much guaranteed you'll find someone quoted as saying that Wikileaks is "the new journalism" or something to that effect. If you believe them, government will become totally transparent because Wikileaks will just release all their secrets.

I have a different prediction for 2011: First of all, Wikileaks has become less a pathway to open government than a pathway to fame for Julian Assange. His face now adorns the website. So do ads seeking donations. The mission seems lost in an attempt to make money. Already, people who worked on the original iteration of Wikileaks are forming their own sites that are less interested in publicity and more dedicated to releasing information.

Part of the promise of Wikileaks was their promise to protect those who disclose information. It's widely believed that the stuff that Wikileaks has been leaking has all come from a data dump done by one man...22-year-old Bradley Manning, a US Army intelligence analyst who took advantage of flaws in an intelligence-sharing computer's security and downloaded hundreds of thousands of communications.

Manning himself is an anomaly. He's more a Brit than a US citizen, having been born in the US but spending the latter part of his life in Wales in the hometown of his mother, who divorced his military dad. He was a gay man working in the "don't ask don't tell" world of the military. But he was one man getting one batch of information only. Once the last cable, the last document from his escapade is released, that's it. And will Wikileaks spend any money defending Manning as they promised "leakers" they would do?

You can bet that ever since the first Wikileaks release took place, the military and the rest of the intelligence community has been working tirelessly to revise the security of their information-sharing system. That means that it'll be virtually impossible for a repeat performance. It also means that Wikileaks won't have any of the "good stuff" to release from the US. And if they try to release government documents from any other country, Julian Assange won't be tried for rape...he'll be locked up for good. There a lot of countries that just won't fool around.

So without juicy stuff to release, Wikileaks will dry up. Julian Assange will become a footnote in 2010 history. Wikileaks will provide Assange the brief fame to pay for his legal defense. But when they leave Manning out to dry and he is sent to prison for espionage, will there be many who want to take Manning's place? I doubt it.

Saying goodbye to the Doc

2011-01-01T22:45:00.000-06:00

His name was Richard, but we all new him as "Doc" Wooters. For years, he was the Polk County Medical Examiner.

He was medical examiner before CSI. SO before CSI that he often would do his autopsies in the garage at Dunn's Funeral Home. You see, Polk County didn't have an autopsy lab.

What Doc lacked in scientific equipment he made up for in his countenance. He was the compassionate person who broke news of death to thousands. He always was the shoulder to cry on, there to make tragedy more bearable.

Any reporter who's been in Des Moines for any period probably has a "Doc Wooters story." My most memorable came when I was a reporter for KRNT radio. I had heard that the body of a man who had been missing for a couple of days had been recovered in the river near the police station.

I arrived at the location about the same time that Doc pulled up in his car. And moments later, the police boat team arrived and brought the body ashore,laid the man on the ground near us, then left. I learned then what a body looks like after it's been in the water for awhile, and Doc was more than eager to explain the effects of the water.

Then he went to the trunk of his car and got a body bag and came back to where I was standing. And very calmly he asked me to help him put the body into the body bag. I was not going to refuse Doc because he had been so kind to me in the past and always assisted me when I needed to follow up on a story or may have missed his on-scene interviews. So I put the image of the bloated body out of my mind and walked toward it, eager to assist.

At that moment, there was divine intervention. Four firefighters showed up and immediately began lifting the body and putting it in the bag and carrying it off in a gurney to the waiting ambulance. And a young KRNT reporter scurried off to the news car and sped off for the station, grateful he hadn't eaten an early lunch because it probably would have escaped in those moments.

In case those who are now employed at the forensic laboratory located at DMACC don't realize it, they owe their jobs and that facility to Doc Wooters. He lobbied hard with county, state and federal officials to find the funding to hire a forensic pathologist and build a county morgue and laboratory to replace his makeshift facilities in the funeral home.

Wooters knew the county needed them to solve crimes. And my last interview with him was an appeal for the lab to be built. I'm grateful he got to see it constructed and his vision complete.

Maybe someday Hollywood will tire of the cold science of the CSI franchise and come to Iowa and want to do the story of a real medical examiner...Doctor R. C. Wooters' story.

Vote in the Top 20 Iowa Stories of 2010 poll

2010-12-17T11:17:00.000-06:00

As part of my duties at WHO Radio, I'm putting together a year-end show of the Top 20 Iowa Stories of 2010...and instead of imposing my will, I want to find out what YOU think were the top stories.

Please fill out the form below...it's all confidential and just the results are tabulated.

We'll air the program on New Years' Day on WHO Radio.

<p>Loading...</p>

I now know what it's like to be hacked by the Wikileaks supporters...

2010-12-12T14:38:00.000-06:00

At WHO Radio, we are affiliates of Fox News Radio. The network has a special websites setup for its affiliates to provide information, stories and reports from their correspondents. Right before 2pm Sunday afternoon, I tried to access that site. And instead of the Fox News Radio page, I got this...

Nothing fancy. Just a plain white page with the message at the top. And I checked-none of the other Fox News websites were affected. I called the Fox technical department and their newsroom and informed them of the attack. Engineers had the regular page back up in a couple minutes.

So the crude message purports the action is for "AnonOPS". What is that? Well, according to a YouTube "press release" it's a loosely-knit group of "internet citizens" upset about the treatment of Julian Assange. In the video below you'll see they are stating they are trying simply to get attention by hacking corporate websites and not damaging internal files. But if they have enough sophistication to compromise the MasterCard website and the somewhat hidden Fox News Radio site, could they escalate their actions?

Personally, I was ambivalent about Julian Assange until I read that one of the former founders of WikiLeaks left because the others were less concerned about making governments be more open than they were about making boatloads of money from sponsors and even from selling some of the secrets. John Young has told several interviewers in the last two months that Assange and the others at WikiLeaks have sold some of the secrets and view WikiLeaks as a money-making business.

So the AnonOps group (they prefer to just be called "Anonymous") could just be cover for Assange's employees. Meaning if they saw profit in hacking, they could do great damage.

Or "Anonymous" could just be idealogues who don't realize they're being taken for a ride by Assange.

Here's the video:

This video is just a dramatization of the text in the "Anonymous" press release. But it drives the point home quite well.

What do you think?

More ammo against the Ames school district Grinch...

2010-12-09T12:00:00.002-06:00

There's a new Rasmussen Reports survey out today that shows how Tim Taylor's decision to pull a Christmas tree from Ames High is just out of place with society.

An Update

The poll shows that 92 percent of Americans they polled across the country will be celebrating Christmas this year. So only 8 percent of the population would be offended at the display of a Christmas tree, right? Not necessarily.

The poll also asks those who don't celebrate Christmas: "Suppose You Run Into Casual Acquaintance and They Wish You a Merry Christmas. Does That Offend You?" The answer?
84 percent of those polled who don't celebrate Christmas would NOT be offended.

-And remember, having someone come up to you and say "Merry Christmas" is a lot more personal than a Christmas tree, which is really just a background decoration. If those who don't celebrate Christmas aren't offended by in-your-face speech, how could they possibly be offended by a tree? (Unless, perhaps, the "two or three" phone calls Superintendent Taylor allegedly received were from non-parents positing their own agenda?)

Of course, there are a few fewer Democrats that celebrate Christmas-only 85 percent compared with 95 percent of Republicans. And Mr. Taylor will find his peers, other government workers, who celebrate Christmas in fewer number than the rest of the classes of employment-93 percent of government workers vs. 99 percent of people working for private industry.

But this shows overwhelmingly that Superintendent Taylor was creating a problem where none existed when he unilaterally decided to remove a Christmas tree from the high school. All it does is anger Christians and keep alive the feeling among Christians that they are to be discrimated against in the public sector. Diversity and non-discrimination trainiing doesn't include them.

The next time a bond issue in the Ames district fails, maybe the school board should look at how inclusive the administration is in its policy-making. This may seem like just a small issue but it continues to erode what little trust many people have in their public schools.

Media fury over Vander Plaats and judges Tuesday is old news

2010-12-07T22:48:00.001-06:00

To hear the TV stations talk, it's big news that Bob Vander Plaats is asking the remaining Iowa Supreme Court justices that didn't get thrown out by a retention vote to resign in "an orderly fashion"-probably because they weren't listening to WHO Radio or checking out what bloggers have been saying.

But all the TV stations and the Associated Press apparently have regressed back to the days where TV stations just parroted what was on the AP wire or in the Register that morning. The old adage used to be "it ain't news unless we cover it." So stale news was the rule.

And so it goes with Vander Plaats. Had the weekday producers at the TV stations talked to their weekend reporters, they'd have learned that two weeks ago last Sunday, Vander Plaats made the exact same statements that sent the TV types into hyperdrive. It happened during the news conference that Vander Plaats took part in prior to the FAMiLY MATTERS/Iowa Family Policy Center's annual fundraiser dinner, where Mike Huckabee was the keynote speaker.

Actually, Vander Plaats said essentially the same thing on election night in a telephone interview with WHO Radio's Jim Boyd. It's old news. But of course the others didn't report that, so it really wasn't news.

In their rush to all do the same old story at the same time, the television reporters missed the real story in the news conference that Bob Vander Plaats gave Tuesday afternoon: the fact that for the first time since the primary election, Vander Plaats actually praised Terry Branstad.

Yup, as we reported on WHO Radio Tuesday, Vander Plaats said Branstad was "a leader" in his comments Monday to a group of reporters criticizing the Senate's Majority Leader, Mike Gronstal (D-Council Bluffs) for saying he won't allow debate on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Vander Plaats had high praise for Branstad taking a stand on the issue that is so vital to the group of social conservatives that Vander Plaats had as his base of support in the primary.

And they also missed the fact that Branstad took another step Tuesday to mend the fences between Vander Plaats and himself. The Governor-elect announced the appointment of Jodi Tymeson as the incoming director of the state veterans affairs department. Tymeson was the chairman of Vander Plaats' primary campaign, so her selection was in part a fig leaf to the social conservatives and Vander Plaats himself.

What they missed is something I haven't seen since...well, since Terry Branstad was last in office. He has the uncanny ability to take the political steps necessary to effect his agenda. Long before there were laser beams in the common vernacular, Branstad's administration was focused like one.

Oh, by the way, I got the opportunity to do a one-on-one interview with Vander Plaats about the gay marriage amendment. And there's another story all the big TV stations missed. Tune in Sunday to WHO Radio News for the details!

The Grinch hits Ames High School

2010-12-04T13:26:00.001-06:00

A Christmas tree is the latest victim to political correctness gone awry in our public schools-at Ames High School.

Because two or three people complained to the school about the tree (adults, we're told, not students), school officials took down a pine tree decorated with cardinal and gold ornaments that had been donated by local businesses.

The tree apparently went up last Monday and was taken down by the middle of the week. Ames school superintendent Tim Taylor was the one donning the Grinch costume, and, with the help of his minions, stole away the holiday decoration because, he told the Ames Tribune: "We are in the business of educating students, he said. "I didn't want this to become a distraction that would take away from the precious time that we have to do that. So we decided it would be best to take down the tree."

Memo to Ames School Board: On your next performance review for Superintendent Taylor, please grade him down severely for his analytical skills and his customer service. The only "distraction" that apparently occurred was when the tree was removed. If only two or three people out of the hundreds of students at the school complained, why all the fuss? Could it be that Superintendent Taylor was the only one complaining? A school superintendent is supposed to serve the community, not impose his will upon it.

"It's just a tree..."
No doubt Taylor is telling school board members that it's "just a tree" and that the controversy will blow over. But it is this kind of stupidity in school administration that is stripping any enjoyment out of schools. No wonder that districts all over the state are seeing dropout rates as high as they are. There's no room for fun or celebration unless it's a pep rally for a sports team.

Tim Taylor took away a symbol of the excitement and enjoyment that comes with the holiday season. The tree had no Christian symbols on it. It was not placed there to force students of non-Christian faiths to view it anymore than the trees that are decorated at Target and in every mall are there to proselytize.

In fact, that tree is really a pagan symbol anyway. If a nativity scene were erected in the school, perhaps there'd be cause for concern by those of Jewish and Muslim faith. But a tree? One that school officials even neutered by calling it a "winter tree"?

The citizens of Ames should answer the superintendent's Grinch-like actions by putting up a Christmas tree--fully lit with an angel on top--on the front lawn of every house surrounding the school and in every business nearby. Show the superintendent what a REAL Christmas tree looks like. Put out nativity scenes in full view.

Let's bring real diversity to the schools and give them something to talk about. Let them see Christmas and talk about it in the context of their lives and their own religion. THAT is education!

If Wikileaks dealt with Iowa politics instead of intellgence secrets...

2010-11-28T22:10:00.000-06:00

WikiLeakd

Below are emails taken from the Iowa state government and the campaign servers in the state of Iowa:

Things political junkies in Iowa can be thankful for...

2010-11-26T17:27:00.001-06:00

THINGS TO BE THANKFUL FOR THIS YEAR

1. BROADCASTERS, NEWSPAPERS, PRINTERS AND THE POSTAL SERVICE: They're extremely thankful for the close elections in Iowa this season. If they weren't, candidates, the committees that backed them and the political parties wouldn't have dumped bazillions of dollars in the state for TV ads, radio commercials, full-page newspaper tomes to answer all of the mud that was slung by their opponents through the US Postal Service.

2. POLITICAL REPORTERS: Off-year elections are either hot or cold. This year they were hot. It gave the Mike Glovers et al something to do after the legislature was over for the year. Come to think of it, thanks to the GOP primary race it gave them something to do while the legislature was in session.

3. TAXPAYERS: Although the campaign rhetoric might not have indicated it, taxpayers do have some small thanks to give. Thanks to media attention, the great black hole of seeming endless state tax credits for the film industry was stopped this year. Had the hemorhagging of money not been halted when it was, Democrats likely would have had to raise taxes. And the furor over the Iowa State Education Association helped stop another attempt to misuse your tax dollars for executive pay raises.

4. CAMPAIGN STAFFERS: Because this year's races for governor, attorney general and some of the congressional and legislative races were "down to the wire," campaigns had to keep paid staffers on in large numbers right up to election day. So resumes didn't get sent out too early in October this year (except in the Culver administration).

5. STATE DEPARTMENT HEADS APPOINTED BY CULVER: You might not think they have a lot to be thankful for this year. After all, their guy lost in the general election, and-from all indications-his campaign hit them all up for contributions to the Big Lug's campaign multiple times this year. So a lot of money lost. But at least Governor-elect Branstad let most of them know-directly or indirectly-that they were out the door early enough that so they could get resumes and calls to the Obama administration out before January. (Of course, there will be a lot of competition with other ousted officials in other states where the GOP took the governor's seat) I expect that USDA chief Tom Vilsack probably will have a much larger staff in January, 2011.

6. BLOGGERS: Probably the most important thing I feel is that political bloggers not directly run by news media outlets like yours truly became the go-to place for breaking political news and real political analysis this year. The newspapers and other media outlets were regularly checking TheIowaRepublican.com, CaffeinatedThoughts, and left-leaning blogs for information and tips. They were so important and so much the topic of political watercooler conversation that a radio talk host kicked a blogger off of his show because that blogger allowed anonymous attacks against him (the talk host) and his guests. The implication there: Blogs and podcasts are supplanting talk radio as a way for people to share ideas and opinions.

So there you have it...my belated Thanksgiving list to mull over this weekend as you enjoy that turkey sandwich, turkey casserole or (my favorite re-creation) scalloped turkey.

I am also thankful for your taking the time to skim, read, complain or just comment on what I put on this blog. Good or bad, your comments, ideas and criticisms are what sustain me and help me to grow!

Chet flips the bird at Branstad...and the state of Iowa

2010-11-21T06:54:00.001-06:00

Thanks to our outgoing governor, any chance of solving Iowa's job crisis and moving the state out of our economic morass is now zero next year.

Voters sent Iowa politicians a clear message in November that even Sen. Majority Leader Mike Gronstal could understand: "It's time to work on getting people back to work." When Gronstal and the Iowa Senate leadership emerged from their caucus last week, he committed to working with the new GOP-controlled Iowa legislature on programs to get Iowans working and help small business.

But Gronstal and legislative Democrats have a big debt to repay to AFSCME, the union that represents the largest number of state employees. AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) spent over $250,000 in the last cycle of the November election alone-mostly on legislative races.

They didn't spend anything on Culver directly (but did give several large checks to the Iowa Democratic Party which spent money on anti-Branstad ads). So when it came down to the negotiations for a new contract, Culver could have left it up to Branstad to negotiate. After all, he didn't owe the unions anything, right?

Apparently not. In what Rod Boshart of the Cedar Rapids Gazette describes as a "bargaining session that spanned less than five minutes", Culver approved the first offer of the union for a new contract, without discussion, argument or apparently review. A contract agreement was signed that commits over $100 million dollars a year of YOUR TAX DOLLARS to salary increases for state employees.

Rightfully, Gov. Branstad's transition team was in an uproar. They had asked to be part of the negotiations. Now they are forced to deal with the aftermath. Incoming House Speaker Kraig Paulsen called it "unfortunate" that Culver would approve a $100 million a year plan at a time when the legislature next year has to fill a $600 million budget hole that will happen when state programs Culver funded with one-time federal stimulus money don't have the "Obama money" anymore.

Thanks, Chet

So what this means is that any chance of any meaningful action by the legislature in 2011 to increase employment, and bring more business to the state is gone. First, there's not going to be any money for any new programs since Culver's giving it all to state workers and second, the legislature will be beset with so many infights that it will be a miracle if anything's accomplished.

Democrats in the legislature have a debt to repay to AFSCME-a quid pro quo for their support in unprecedented amounts of legislative races in the final days so that they could hold onto their seats. The only way to repay that debt is approve what AFSCME Council 61 president Danny Homan calls a "historic" agreement.

Republicans have a responsibility to trim the budget-that's what voters kept telling them to do. Spend less.

So Culver killed job creation and a lot more:

State employees need to take a close look at your co-workers that are higher up the seniority ladder than you. See them laughing at you? If you ratify the agreement, you're signing your own pink slip, as inevitably there will be layoffs to pay for this contract. And it'll be you that goes-not them.
Teachers-do you see pink paper suddenly being delivered to the superintendent's office in your district? That's because YOUR pink slips are being prepared again. And this time there's no "Obama money" to save you.
If you run a small business, don't expect a lot of help. Culver signed away any of that money to the union.
And for taxpayers hoping Democrats would push thru the tax break that Culver campaigned on: Forget it. That money's gone anyway.

So we'll have a legislature already destined to be tied up with battles over social issues further deadlocked over the budget and the budget hole Culver created.

Now, for those people who told me that Chet Culver "wouldn't dare" get the Judicial Nominating Commission to rush through a re-nomination of the ousted Iowa Supreme Court justices so he could approve them before Branstad takes office: Do you still think I'm way out in left field there?

Culver doesn't care about Iowa anymore-he's just trying to please people who'll hire him in the future. He needs a job and will do what it takes to get one. Meaning I'm still betting Marsha Ternus will get to continue using her stationery for awhile.

Iowa Poll says justices could be booted by voters...but could Chet bring them back?

2010-10-31T10:25:00.000-05:00

According to the figures from the latest Des Moines Register Iowa Poll, 37 percent of likely voters say they're looking at voting "no" on at least some of the three Iowa Supreme Court justices up for retention votes on Tuesday's general election ballot.

I've been doing some investigation and would love for someone to prove me wrong: But I see a scenario where, if Chet Culver is defeated on Tuesday as the Iowa Poll says he will be, and the results for the Iowa Supreme Court are what the Iowa Poll foretells, the justices given the boot by voters could be welcomed back to the court by Culver.

In reading through the amendment to the Iowa constitution and the rules governing the Iowa Judicial Nominating Commission, I see nothing that would prevent a justice who "lost" in the retention election from being re-nominated by the Commission and re-appointed by Culver. There is nothing written in Iowa law or the Iowa constitution which would prevent this from taking place.

I've posited this scenario to a couple of people and the reaction is generally shock and a "that wouldn't happen!" But why not? Iowa's attorneys have shown their disdain for the "Vote No" campaign run by Bob Vander Plaats from the beginning so they could have the last laugh by certifying Ternus, Streit and Baker again.

And since Culver would be heading out the door in January in this scenario, he could give the ultimate one-finger salute to Vander Plaats and the Republicans by putting the court back the way it was. He could say that the Supreme Court has been the victim of politics and he was restoring the process to sanity by reappointing them all.

Would some people be upset? Probably. What could be done? The legislature has impeachment power but must come up with a valid reason for removal. "Going against the will of the people" doesn't fit.

That's what makes politics interesting...all the possibilities. It's been driving mathematicians-who like to reduce everything to equations and game theory and percentages-crazy.