While not big news that Iowa Republicans donâ€™t wait with bated breath for the Des Moines Register to anoint a Republican candidate the cream of the presidential crop, in recent years their recommendations have barely risen above laughable fodder. Since we could all use some comic relief from this seemingly endless campaign season, letâ€™s take a look back at the Registerâ€™s recent forays into Presidential advocacy. What follows are two main reasons, among many others, why they should stick to merely reporting on the political pulse of Iowaâ€”instead of trying to alter it.
Reason #1 â€“ A Sketchy, Schizophrenic History
While nearly all the data on editorial board endorsements show that they have a minuscule impact, if any at all, well over 70% of newspapers insist on letting readers in on their intense, well researched, and agenda free vetting. Though a nightmare for the hard journalism side of the paper, the hubris of editors and the short term buzz created by endorsements proves, cycle after cycle, too intoxicating to deny. Clearly I have no problem with public expressions of political opinion. If a newspaper wants to engage in it in spite of the fact it is counter-intuitive to their charter, then they have every right. However, one does have to wonder if itâ€™s too much to expect for them to undertake the process with a minimal amount of intellectual honesty. Consider the following examples, all from the Des Moines Registerâ€™s editorial board since the year 2000.
â€¢ When contrasted against a Democrat, they have not deemed any Republican candidate fit for the White House in 40 years, including in the last three cyclesâ€”opting for Al Gore in 2000, John Kerry in 2004, and Barack Obama in 2008.
â€¢ Of the Republican primary field in 2000 they chose, believe it or not, George W. Bush. Beyond the massive irony, whatâ€™s interesting is that they chose Bush over fellow competitor John McCain, describing McCain as â€œhaving a tendency toward petulance when the cameras were off, and a lone-wolf style of action that has left him without the support of colleagues who should be his biggest admirersâ€. Never mind that eight years later he was chosen by the editorial board as the best choice amongst Republicans in 2008â€”though of course he ultimately fell short of recommending.
â€¢ In 2004 The Register had sized up John Edwards and concluded that he would make the finest president amongst the group, giving him the nod over all other Democrats running. Somehow over the next four years, he had regressed so far in his ability to lead the Country that when he came back in 2008 they couldnâ€™t recommend him. Not only did they bump him from their top spot they slid him behind both Hillary Clinton and Obama, saying they â€œtoo seldom saw the â€˜positive, optimisticâ€™ campaign we found so appealing in 2004. His harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change.â€ Something tells me the editorial board doesnâ€™t have quite the same problem with the â€œharsh anti-corporate rhetoricâ€ being screamed by the Occupy Wall Street crowd today.
â€¢ Also in 2004, in what would prove to be perfect foreshadowing for their future love affair with Barack Obama, the paper, as mentioned above, endorsed John Edwards over the rest of the field. In doing so they wrote that after initially discounting Edwards because of his lack of experience, they changed their minds after hearing him eloquently speak about the needs of ordinary Americansâ€”you canâ€™t make this stuff up! Clearly their weakness/hunger for the fool proof combination of inspired speech giving and inexperience had not been quenched by the time 2008 rolled around. This leads us to the biggest piece of evidence that all the Register is accomplishing is insulting our intelligenceâ€¦
Reason #2-Â The 2008 Debacle
While the preceding examples were shady, The Registerâ€™s editorial board performance in 2008 showed beyond a reasonable doubt not only where their allegiance lay, but that the whole point of their endorsements are to further an agenda. They ended up of course endorsing Barack Obama in the general election, but itâ€™s the way they got there that is so telling.
First, they chose Hillary over Obama on the Democrat side, while endorsing McCain over the rest of the field on the Republican side. I donâ€™t doubt that the selection of McCain was largely due to him being the most moderate Republican in the field (though strangely he was a disturbing â€˜petulant, lone-wolf actorâ€™ eight years earlier), but he also would have been a â€œsafeâ€ choice at the time because he was polling in single digits and in 5th place. Picking a Republican that would not go on to win the nomination, like McCain appeared to be at the time, would have kept them out of the undesirable situation they eventually found themselves inâ€”having to endorse their second Democratic pick over their first Republican choice (Obama over McCain).
Embarrassed and knowing they had to explain it away somehow, they managed to make themselves look even worse. They acknowledged the situation and explained their reasoning by claiming they had endorsed McCain because they felt he was a man of honorâ€”but as the campaign wore on he became opportunistic and less dignified. What they cited as the biggest reason of why McCain was out for them was his selection of Sarah Palin. They did this, I kid you not, on the grounds of her inexperience! So to recapâ€¦The inexperience of a VP candidate turned them off enough that they instead chose to support, for the actual presidency, a man who had served less than four years in the Senate.
A great way to sum up the whole disingenuous circus is that while selecting McCain in the primary they said, â€œnone can offer the tested leadership, in matters foreign and domestic, of Sen. John McCain of Arizona. McCain is most ready to lead America in a complex and dangerous world and to rebuild trust at home and abroad by inspiring confidence in his leadership.â€ Contrast that with this insight as to why Hilary Clinton was a wiser choice than Obama, â€œWhen Obama speaks before a crowd he can be more inspirational than Clinton. Yet, with his relative inexperience, itâ€™s hard to feel as confident he could accomplish the daunting agenda that lies ahead.â€â€¦You have to give them credit thereâ€“that was some impressive foresight.
Former Des Moines Register opinion editor Richard Doak, who authored the 2004 Edwards endorsement, summed it up best in a later interview. Sharing his thoughts on the process he said, â€œThe primary purpose of editorials are to stimulate discussion in the communityâ€¦ and itâ€™s a vehicle through which the newspaper expresses its values.â€
Trust me Richard, Iowa Republicans are plenty aware of the Des Moines Registerâ€™s â€œvaluesâ€. Perhaps if they used any manner of consistency in the endorsement process, beyond of course the consistency of their Liberalism, maybe more Iowans would â€œvalueâ€ the paper enough to start buying it again.
For those who havenâ€™t paid attention to The Des Moines Registerâ€™s recent editorial board history, there is no question their endorsement of Mitt Romney is a big story.Â This history includes a 40 year gap in backing a Republican for President, spanning all the cycles between Richard Nixonâ€™s second run and Mitt Romneyâ€™s second bid for the oval office.
Over the next week much of what you hear from both the left and the right will be various forms of skepticism, questioned motives, and outright dismalsâ€”including claims this was payback for Obama disrespecting them last week.Â Our readers clearly know we generally donâ€™t have much love for The Register, and specifically we exposed the ridiculous intellectual dishonesty of their 2008 presidential endorsements.
Not only will this reversal-of-course make national headlines in the coming days, it will alienate their shrunken consumer base of hard-line Democrats.Â This prompts the questions: Is it possible they have turned over a new leaf, or was this retribution and/or just a disingenuous ploy for attention?Â Surprisingly, my sense is it’s likely the former and not the latter.
What To Make Of This?
Having noted their highly partisan past, I believe all the suspicion and skepticism surrounding this endorsement is largely unfair.Â The Register deserves the benefit of the doubt for two reasons.
First, Republicans have yearned for a state paper that played things close to down the middle for years.Â To finally see evidence this institution may be heading this direction and react by simply dismissing it out of hand is biased in and of itself.
Many will say this one action cannot undo years of daily left-slanted journalism, and they are correct, but realize as well that this endorsement is no small thing.Â If Romney was up 7-10 points here in Iowa you could make the case they simply were backing a sure winnerâ€”the reality is that this is a very tight race and The Registerâ€™s abandoning of Obama could actually have a small impact, especially on those somehow still wavering voters.
The other reason Republicans shouldnâ€™t cheapen this nod to Romney lay in the actual substance of the endorsement itself.
Before reading it I was expecting heavy equivocation ( â€˜though we like Romney on X, we fear he doesnâ€™t understand and will be damaging to Y and Zâ€™ )â€”this however was largely not the case.
Though sure to say America needs to be even more hospitable to illegal aliens and that losing â€œprogressâ€ on gay and transgendered issues is unacceptableâ€”the remaining balance of the endorsement did not spare Obama on his poor record and laid out a strong case for why Romney would succeed in fixing turning around the economy,
The text reveals this was an â€œendorsement-endorsementâ€ and not just lip service.Â Nobody has been harder on The Des Moines Register in recent years than The Conservative Reader, but judgment must be cast on words and deeds not prior reputation.Â In this case The Des Moines Register was willing to put the two candidates on a scale and report how they saw the resulting measurement.
Going forward, if and when The Register is willing to give Republicans a fair shakeâ€”than Republicans should be willing to return the favor.
The gaveling in of the Iowa Legislatureâ€™s 84th General Assembly last week signaled an end to the 2012 Presidential Caucus season and the return of a more local political focus for Iowans.
There is no doubt that much of the session’s oxygen will be sucked up by the major issues that failed to produce any legislation following last yearâ€™s battles. These issues include reforming the tax code, mental health services, and education, as well as another round of sparring over Iowa setting up a health insurance exchange to work in conjunction with Obama Care.
While these will grab a majority of the headlines, and a good share of our attention here at The Conservative Reader: Iowa, there have already been a number of very interesting bills introduced that we will also be following.
As of now the bills and issues outside â€œthe big 4â€ that we have flagged to watch closely are as follows: Term limits, random drug testing for recipients 84th of certain state benefits, banning red light and speed cameras, and the fate of nuclear power in Iowa.
After being deluged for so many months with candidates and their ever changing poll numbers, it is easy to forget that in many ways the caucus season is an imperfect method for measuring Iowaâ€™s current ideological perspective. Removing the factors attached to individual candidates such as â€œlikeabilityâ€ and â€œelectabilityâ€, and instead gauging the debate and the public reaction of Iowans to more hyper-local issues is a far more telling indicator of where we stand. Ironically these debates and their results likely will tip our hand as to which Presidential candidate will be awarded our 6 electoral votes in November.
In the following weeks stay tuned for investigations, updates, analysis, and opinions on the major issues being debated at the State House. As mentioned earlier, while we will not ignore the most publicized topics of debate this session, a number of bills that will exist in the shadows of the major priorities are just as important.
Though we will be closely watching with an appropriate level of skepticism, we wish all those involved with the 84th General Assembly well in their efforts to make improvements for all Iowans. When we feel they have achieved improvementâ€”we will trumpet it. When we feel they have caused damage to our way of lifeâ€”they will be called to account.
On with Democracy…
An update on our friends in the Republican Party of Iowa State Central Committee. Â You may recall that we had addressed the issueÂ of some members of the committee actively working on campaigns. Â Wednesday evening the Central Committee met and considered the issue (after deferring it due to lack of time at their last regular meeting).
There was an extensive discussion on the topic, initiated by John Ortega, that generally included comments to effect that committee members had heard from numerous constituents in their districts expressing concern about committee member involvement on campaigns. Â Mr. Ortega read a rather severe message that he had received that pressed for removal or at least reprimand against the members who were being paid to work on campaigns.
A motion was made by Jeremiah Johnson and amended by David Chung, which read as follows:
Those State Central Committee members with paid staff or consultant positions on campaigns in contested primaries or caucuses are required to disclose those relationships to the State Central Committee.
The motion was passed 10-4 with one abstention.
Although it does not go as far as I and other would like, it does establish a sense of accountability within the board membership, and clarifies that contested primaries and caucuses are specific areas of concern. Â I think that is an essential message for people to hear even if the overall affect of the measure more or less a non-event.
So, quick breakdown.
One of the “no” votes was cast by a committee member who has been concerned about this issue. Â That member voted against the measure simply because the measure did not go far enough.
The abstention was from Wes Enos. Â Wes mentioned during discussion of the topic that he saw this as a serious concern and that he plans, while serving on Michelle Bachmann’s campaign, to abstain from any votes that impact the Caucus. Â I applaud Wes for taking a strong step in acknowledging the fact of the appearance of a conflict of interest, and acting in a way that helps mitigate the issue. Â That demonstrates responsibility and character.
The other three “no” votes came from the other three committee members who are working on a campaign. Â I find it odd that they would take a combative position on such a non-intrusive measure. Â Voting for the measure would have cost them nothing and would have given them a positive appearance. Â Instead, the message it sends is that they do not see themselves as accountable to the Committee, and the impression it leaves with me is sour… it increases the appearance that their participation on the committee is geared more to their own personal agenda than it is for the sake of the party as a whole. Â If that’s true, it is very disappointing.
It is worth acknowledging that several members of the committee would have probably liked to see something more drastic occur. Â An amendment to the Â motion offered by Bill Schickel, to require that committee members abstain from operation votes, failed. Â All of the members were very considerate of each other, emphasizing the issue as one of appearance and not an actual question of integrity, and in seeking a sensible solution worked to a compromise that probably accomplished as much as could be reasonably done at this juncture.
Specific constraints against the voting rights of the members would have likely been untenable. Â Such a measure, or anything more substantive, would probably need to be considered at the State Convention next year as a bylaw change. Â Based on follow up conversations with committee members, it is very likely that such a measure may be presented to the convention in some manner.
If you think that Republicans aren’t ready to engage with the newest generation of voters in 2012, you might want to think again.Â One of the most experienced politicians in the ranks of Republicans, with 20 years in the US House of Representatives, 4 of which were spent as Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich announced his intent today to run for President of the United States on Facebook and Twitter.
At least, it’s being seen that way… actually, kind of an interesting announcement.
Be sure to watch Hannity this Wednesday at 9pm ET/8pm CT. I will be on to talk about my run for President of the United States @seanhannity
I have been humbled by all the encouragement you have given me to run. Thank you for your support. Be sure to watch Hannity this Wednesday at 9pm ET/8pm CT. I will be on to talk about my run for President of the United States.
“… as I talk about my run …” seems like a fairly passive statement for a man like Newt.Â While the news wires are treating this as a formal announcement, I think I’ll treat it as an “in case you weren’t paying attention, I’m ready to run” kind of announcement.Â I’m expecting something more “formal” on Wednesday.
So, certainly watch Hannity.
But more importantly, he is expected to be in Des Moines on Monday, May 16, although a detailed schedule is not available yet.Â When we know more, we’ll let you know.
For those of you looking to find out how to support Newt, you can contact Will Rogers at [email protected], or call him at 515-669-1648.
Photo courtesy Andrew F. Kazmierski / Shutterstock.com