Though the U.S. Senate race in Iowa is only in the pre-natal stage the Des Moines Register hasn’t wasted any time in displaying the partisan favoritism it has become infamous for—an impressive feat given the race is only a few months old and has only a combined three candidates declared.
The Evidence
In the last month they have run two stories solely based on Democratic talking points, a practice they have failed to reciprocate for the other side, and flat-out offered no coverage of a significant Republican event.
The first instance occurred almost a month ago when, days after candidate Matt Whitaker announced on The Simon Conway Show, the Register’s Jennifer Jacobs published verbatim a full press-release from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee attacking Whitaker for comments he made on the program (http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2013/05/08/democrats-criticize-whitaker-for-pledging-to-vote-with-extremist-senators/article). In theory this practice is fine by me—provided of course that as a “reputable†statewide news organization they follow suit when the releases come from the other side of the aisle…I haven’t seen this yet.
What makes this so damaging is that there is no shortage of releases from the DSCC’s counterpart in Washington—the National Republican Senatorial Committee—but they seem unable to merit the same ink. I routinely get these releases from the NRSC and if they are well sourced and fact based I occasionally run them. An example would be the following from yesterday:
June 5, 2013
Lawyer Speak: Braley Misleads Iowa Students…Says Student Loan Rates Must be Kept from Doubling, But Votes Against Legislation to Extend Lower Rates for Iowa Students
Bruce Braley isn’t fooling anyone. The slick former head of the trial lawyers association and liberal loyalist to Nancy Pelosi – in true trial lawyer fashion – is trying to fool Iowa voters yet again, this time about the rising cost of student loans.
Less than two weeks ago, Bruce Braley voted AGAINST a bill on the House floor that would have extended a lower rate for Iowa students’ loans. Bruce Braley might be able to fool a jury, but he can’t fool Iowans.
SHOT: @TeamBraley – Help @BruceBraley’s effort to keep college affordable by adding your name here…. #DontDoubleMyRate #IAProblemSolver
CHASER: Bruce Braley Voted Against A Bill To Extend A Lower Rate For Student Loans. “Passage of the bill that would tie student loan interest rates to the 10-year Treasury note rate. Interest rates on all federal student loans (except Perkins loans) issued on or after July 1, 2013 would be set each year at the 10-year Treasury note plus 2.5 percent. Rates for graduate and parent PLUS loans would be set at the 10-year note plus 4.5 percent. Overall interest rates would be capped at 8.5 percent and 10.5 percent, respectively.†(H.R. 1911, CQ Vote #183: Passed 221-198: R 217-8; D 4-190, 5/23/13, Braley Voted Nay)
If Bruce Braley was actually worried about student loan rates, why did he oppose a bill to prevent the rates from doubling for Iowa students in less than a month? Why is he hiding from his vote?
“Preventing student loan rates from crushing Iowa students who are already struggling should be an issue of bipartisan agreement in Washington, but Bruce Braley would rather politicize the issue than actually help the struggling middle class. Braley’s misleading trial lawyer speak is just the latest example of his slick attempt to fool the jury – Iowa voters. Iowans are too smart for that.”said NRSC Press Secretary Brook Hougesen.
The second example of this behavior—also from the aforementioned Jennifer Jacobs—came just yesterday via a story on a “snarky†website just launched by the Iowa Democratic Party. The website makes a pretty juvenile attempt at poking fun of newly declared Republican candidate David Young. You can check it out here if you wish (http://welcometoia.com/), but I’m not going to give it any more play. The point here is the story published by the Register gave this Democratic effort everything it wanted—publicity and exposure.
What’s Not News?
A further slap in the face to Republican candidate David Young was the paper not even covering his official campaign announcement last Saturday at a restaurant in Van Meter—this is inconceivable. So to recap here—the Register can’t find the time or personnel to cover the announcement of a serious Republican candidate for the United States Senate…but they have the time and space to promote a Democrat website created to mock him. It’s just ridiculous.
This is merely a continuation of blatant bias—my all-time favorite was the Republican presidential endorsement debacle from 2008, which if you haven’t seen you need to click the link. The Register’s economic struggles of late have been well documented. Though I concede much of this is due to the struggle of integrating a web-based model, it’s hard not to assume a portion of the problem is their distinct and continuing partisan slant.
What kind of business model rejects and insults the sensibilities of what amounts to nearly half of their potential customer base? Answer: A struggling one that will continue to be further marginalized unless they change course and offer some balance.
Two days after Chuck Grassley’s chief-of-staff David Young filed his paperwork, Ankeny native Matt Whitaker has officially joined the Republican U.S. Senate primary.
With around 50 supporters and media members in attendance at Accumold—an Ankeny plastics manufacturer—Whitaker took to the podium to spell out why he is campaigning to replace Democrat Tom Harkin as one of Iowa’s two voices in the Senate.
The speech
After introducing his wife Marci, he spoke of his days growing up in Ankeny and playing football at The University of Iowa—then he turned to the concerning direction he views our country heading in. When looking at the current happenings in Washington D.C. he sees a “government that is stealing from our futureâ€. He then made the point personal by adding, “I’m not sure I can look my kids in the eye and honestly say there will be better days. We have promised our children that they will have the American Dream, but the only thing we seem to be handing them now is $50,000 in debt for every man, woman, and child.â€
Whitaker described his vision of the American spirit as, “having the conviction to take advantage of the opportunities this great country offers and to pass it on to the next generationâ€. He wasted no time in linking the man who would be his opponent should he win the primary—Rep. Bruce Braley—to President Obama, “There is no doubt in my mind that Bruce Braley and Barack Obama will not make America strongâ€. He went on to say his candidacy will be an effort to counter-act this reality and ended by stating, “I’m going to take a stand to take our country back—and that stand starts today.â€
The highlight of the speech was the following excerpt:
“Bruce Braley and Barack Obama are making our country weak and they are taking away our future—not on my watch. They want a Senate that thinks entitlements are better than liberty, they think subsidies are better than opportunity, they think it’s OK for the government to require you to buy a product from a private business, and even worse they don’t even read the bills they pass. Washington needs every person that goes there to have the stomach to face the problems, the brains to understand them, and the heart to rally Iowans to solve these significant problems.â€
The issues
Following the speech Whitaker took questions from a gaggle of reporters. For some reason many of the questions were trivial and odd in nature, however, there were two significant exchanges and they went as follows:
Question:Â Where would you want to cut Federal spending?
Answer: “I think you need to look at the whole Federal budget. I think right now the first place I’d look would be foreign aid—I think we are sending too much money to people who don’t like us. I think we also need to look at our support of the U.N. and how much we’re giving when they keep passing resolutions not friendly to the United Statesâ€.
Question: What’s your take on the immigration reform law going through Congress right now?
Answer: “I don’t support amnesty. As a former prosecutor I enforced immigration laws and I understand they’re broken. I’ve been to the borders in Canada and Mexico and I see the significant challenges we face. With the current bill, again, I don’t support amnesty or a path to citizenship, but I do think we need to fix the problem and secure the borderâ€
Going Forward
The next phase in the primary process for all Iowa Republicans to watch is who else will join the field—as there is very little chance that this will be a two-way contest between David Young and Matt Whitaker. In the next few weeks the slate of candidates will become much clearer. The following four Republicans are mulling it over and all have publicly expressed interest in the primary: State Senator Joni Ernst (who has said she will make her decision known soon), former gubernatorial candidate Rod Roberts, businessman Mark Jacobs, and former state central committee member Drew Ivers.
The Washington D.C. based organization tasked with electing Republicans to the United States Senate–the National Republican Senatorial Committee–is taking a new and proactive approach in achieving their mission this cycle. Part of this strategy has included reaching out early to various political writers and thinkers in Senatorial battleground states–and you guessed it we qualify–to form relationships based on our shared cause.
Another element of this strategy is being visible early and often with what has become a hallmark of modern political messaging–the web ad. Below is an exclusive first look at what I’m being told will be a continuing series of web ads making the case for Republican principles. It is very well put together and offers some insight into what kinds of narratives we will see from Republicans not only here in Iowa next year–but in all the battleground states in 2014.
The young Republicans you will see do not appear by chance. The Party has an incredible wealth of young talented leaders at the moment and these are the folks who are presently both framing the debate and effectively communicating the Conservative ideology nationwide.  Undoubtedly this younger generation will exclusively be responsible for the Republican brand over the next 15-20 years–and the RNSC is smart to start highlighting them early.
One of my favorite self-coined terms is “legi-saurs”. As you may guess it refers to politicians at all levels of government who get elected–and then never go away.
Like many on the right I am convinced this semi-permanent presence in the halls of power is a destructive one in politics. These careers start innocently enough. The member actually has a job in the private sector, lives as a normal citizen, and regardless of ideology brings fresh ideas and solutions to the table.  But in most cases, over time, they eventually detach from the economy by not working  outside the Capitol, they develop grudges against their colleages, their ideas and thinking become stale, and they learn to play the legislative process like a game.
Here in Iowa
This happens at all levels in both Parties and unsurprisingly Iowa is not immune. Our current six Federal representatives have an average of 19 1/2 years in office, with both our Senators having 39 years each. While on average the Iowa Legislature isn’t as bad, looking through our current Senate reveals several examples of a certain timeless creature…legi-saurs. For whatever reason this phenomenon in Iowa is more popular among Democrats, with the longest serving Republicans being elected in 1993 (Hubert Houser and Sandy Greiner). This doesn’t hold a candle to the imperial reign of the 5 longest serving Iowa Democrats–one of which who has been serving for 40 years. Here’s the list:
Bob Dvorsky – since 1987
Jack Hatch – since 1985 (out of office 93′ to 01′)
Mike Gronstal – since 1983
Dennis Black – since 1983
Wally Horn – since 1973!
I’m not going to go through all the arguments and counter-arguments for term limits here– I think we all know them (for=incumbency offers name ID, party infrastructure, media coverage, a donor base, special interest money etc. and against=”we have term limits…they are called elections”). I will say however that the best question to ask someone who opposes term limits is, “So you support removing them for Presidency I assume?”–I’ve yet to hear anybody ever answer “yes”.
A Proposal
Below is a proposal released last week and co-written by both a current Republican and a Democrat serving in the U.S. House. It is meant to be applied at the Federal level, but it would essentially work the same here in Iowa. It is superbly well thought out, simple in nature, plainly written, makes the case for why term limits are needed, and offers a realistic way to make it happen.
I vote Yes!
—————————————————————————————————————
Finally, A Bi-Partisan Solution on Term Limits
Congressman Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) written with Congressman Beto O’Roarke (D-TX)
Many in our country and in the districts we represent feel that Congress is out of touch and that members are more focused on re-election than on providing real solutions to our nation’s biggest challenges. We hear from constituents all the time that there is a lack of urgency and focus when it comes to solving our country’s toughest issues like tackling the deficit and putting policies in place that will lead to economic growth.
The two of us, freshman members from different parties with divergent views on many issues, have come together because we believe a healthy debate is warranted on how we best serve the American people and whether, in a time of enormous powers of incumbency and multi-million dollar campaigns for Congress, we can be better public servants and curb the corrupting influence of money and power by limiting a member’s term in office.
Public opinion in favor of term limits for members of Congress is unquestionable. A Gallup poll released this past January reflects the same trend seen year after year from countless reputable research firms. Overall, 75 percent of American adults responding to the survey were in favor of implementing term limits and the support is unanimous across party lines.
That support stands in stark contrast to the overall approval rating of Congress, which hovers somewhere around 15 percent. Despite the unpopularity of Congress as a whole, sitting members still win re-election about 90 percent of the time due to the overwhelming benefits of incumbency. A system that rewards poor performance with job security is clearly in need of a shake-up. Congressional term limits could be the change needed to steer the institution back in the right direction.
Our proposal is a simple constitutional amendment. It does not prescribe the number of terms a member can serve; rather, it gives Congress the constitutional authority to pass and implement term limits. The reason for this structure is that by taking away the details from the amendment process, the likelihood of passage increases. We believe that even members who are philosophically opposed to term limits would support a constitutional amendment providing the legislative branch with the ability to debate and vote on the issue.
Despite widespread popularity, congressional term limits are incredibly difficult to implement because doing so requires a constitutional amendment with two-thirds of both chambers as well as ratification by three-fourths of America’s state legislatures. Having super majorities agree on the details of term limits, including the exact number of terms, is nearly impossible. Since 1995, there have been several attempts to move specific term limits amendments, but all have ended right where they began by being voted down in the House.
Previous term limit efforts have also failed because the only people who can begin the process to impose term limits are those who will be most affected – incumbent members of Congress. By voting in favor of, or even publicly supporting a term limits amendment, a member of Congress can be exposed to charges of hypocrisy or disingenuousness if they don’t also voluntarily limit their term of service. This has a chilling effect on those who would otherwise support term limit efforts.
Congress owes the American people action on term limits, including a new approach that actually stands a chance of becoming law. Our approach provides the flexibility needed to enact term limit laws by a simple majority and to allow future generations to decide the term limit law that works best for them through the regular legislative process.
For far too long, Congress has failed to give the people what they clearly want. We should pass this amendment and finally put that power in their hands.
Jim Bridenstine represents the First District of Oklahoma
Last Week Steven Colbert said the results of Tuesday’s special election to fill a South Carolina House seat ‘scared him to his core’—I couldn’t agree more.
Of course he was referring to disgraced Republican Governor Mark Sanford completing his political comeback by beating Colbert’s sister Elizabeth Colbert Busch (54% to 45%) on Tuesday night. Sanford’s victory came despite him being less than four years removed from weaving a web of lies that included cheating on his wife and leaving the country during his term as governor to be with his mistress.
What were they thinking?
The only justification for voting en mass for such a man was that palmetto Republicans didn’t at all like Ms. Colbert Bush. I’m not saying I blame them since even though she tried to run as a moderate, she was a terrible candidate and was clearly anything but (think Christie Vilsack). Having said that there is no way Sanford should have had the support to win this seat, and this result puts a temporary nationwide stain on Republicans.
While voting for someone who has been unfaithful to their spouse is bad enough—Louisiana Senator David Vitter comes to mind—Sanford’s situation was even worse. Not only did he cheat on and lie to his wife, he abandoned his state entirely by actually leaving the country while on the job. Either of these should disqualify him from being in Congress, let alone a combination of both of them at once.
Ideally this situation should have been taken care of before the general election in the 16 way Republican primary that Sanford placed first in. At this time there was no “lesser of two evils†dynamic for Republican voters. It’s inconceivable that another Republican in the district wasn’t more qualified to forward Republican principles than this guy. Even if Sanford was the only candidate who could win the general election, on principle Republicans in the state should have lost this House seat and been proud of doing so. The truth is right now this seat isn’t at all crucial, and they very likely would have won it back in two years anyway. It would have been a far more reasonable alternative to this shameful outcome.
This Trend Much End
How can the Republican Party stand on such high-minded pillars as morality, responsibility, and accountability and elect a guy like Mark Sanford? No matter how bad the alternative—the answer is we can’t. Beyond the general stamp of approval this victory represents, sending someone with such a proven and utter lack of self-control to make our most important decisions is insane.
I would like to believe Iowa Republicans wouldn’t allow such a thing to happen if presented with a similar candidate—and I’d be pretty stunned if they did. The scary thing here is that, especially since Democrats are notoriously unwilling to morally judge their candidates, we now can’t be surprised should we see a John Edwards comeback. I know right now you’re saying ‘no chance’…but nobody would have predicted this Sanford embarrassment either.
Republicans may have won a U.S. House seat last week but we lost yet another chunk of moral high ground. Oh what a ridiculously wicked web we weave these days.
Though the U.S. Senate race in Iowa is only in the pre-natal stage the Des Moines Register hasn’t wasted any time in displaying the partisan favoritism it has become infamous for—an impressive feat given the race is only a few months old and has only a combined three candidates declared.
