by | Jun 10, 2013
After several weeks of hinting he may join the U.S. Senate primary race, later today Sioux City based professor and radio host Sam Clovis will hold a press conference.
Though he was coy regarding the specifics, and refused to say it is even in regards to the Senate race, he told the Sioux City Journal, “I’ll be making an announcement that affects my future, and certainly my future on the radio, and it is a commitment for something down the road.â€Â Saying the announcement will affect his radio talk show job certainly suggests he is running—as once he has legally filed the FCC political broadcasting rules come into play and the station would be forced to give equal air-time to his opponents should they request it. As a reaction to this most stations require a radio personality-turned-candidate to temporarily step down.
He also went on to tell the Sioux City Journal, “I’ve been a natural leader my whole life and I think those are, again, skills that are very lacking in Washington. Because we don’t have people who are willing to stand up and tell people the truth and then stick to their principles to make sure that happens. Everything seems to be about self-interest, nothing seems to be about the people of the country…I’ve been an executive; I’ve been in business, non-profit, for-profit, education, military service second to none, a very distinguished career there. So I have all of the credentials that one would need to be a person that one would look to lead and do the things that are necessary to lead this country, particularly if one pursued public office in the United States Senate.â€
What This Means
While it’s standard to not give away the headline and tell the media what the press conference is specifically for, the language “a commitment for something down the road†strikes me as a little strange if this were going to be a straight announcement. It would be unorthodox, but perhaps it will be a commitment to run if he sees the other candidates as not succeeding or not being sufficiently Conservative for him. If he is not running I’m guessing he will at a minimum be seeking an audience with the currently declared candidates to talk issues.
Should he be announcing a decision to run in a few hours, we will have more information on his background (which is pretty extensive) and analysis on how the race would be impacted in the coming days.
Since he has already said publicly that he would be a “red-meat Conservativeâ€â€”it’s pretty obvious where he’d want to move the discourse.
by | Mar 18, 2013
The battle between traditional Republicans and Libertarians that began in Iowa on Caucus night in 2012 has risen to a destructive level and needs to be addressed. If it weren’t so publicly obvious I would call this an opinion—but the reality is it’s a fact.  What has transpired to this point is a lot of bomb throwing from each side and very little, if any, attempts to search for the potential common ground that would result in, at the least, a truce—and perhaps even a mutually beneficial alliance.
Some Background
The feud started when, after having a relatively modest presence in 2008, Ron Paul inspired Libertarians organized and made a concerted effort to acquire as many county central committee seats as possible on caucus night. Perhaps surprising even themselves, they encountered very little resistance and were hugely successful in many precincts.
Since that night in June the hostility level has ratcheted up several notches, and I believe both sides share some responsibility in what has become a very non-productive situation. Initially I understood the reaction and the lashing out from Republicans—they were taken by surprise, infiltrated, lost a good deal of influence they had taken for granted, and their tone at first was a reasonable natural response.
On the other side, Libertarians went on to essentially take over RPI and gain a presence at the county leadership level. In the aftermath I feel there was a lack of reaching out to traditional Republicans that could have lessened the wounds, resulted in more unity, and ultimately led to more victories in November. The bottom line is they came up short on election night, and if they thought prior they didn’t need inner-Party cooperation to win House and Senate races they were clearly proven wrong.
What makes this battle so maddening is that each side could have benefited greatly by working together. This was proven by the returns from the Iowa Senate races where only a few hundred more votes would have led to Republicans winning a majority—and thus controlling the Governor’s Office and both Legislative Branches in Iowa. Had this come to pass, both factions would today be much closer to implementing their principles into legislation. At a minimum traffic cameras would be banned, taxes would be lower, and the proposals being debated on education reform would look much different.
Each Side Shares Some Blame
For what it’s worth here is how I see each side’s culpability in this conflict:
Where Traditional Republicans are to blame
• Not enough interest at a grassroots level on caucus night to even fill central committee seats.
• Rhetoric has been too harsh and focused on a small number of political operatives—by extension this has served to alienate libertarian leaning voters who may be persuaded to support the Republican candidate in their district.
• Lack of success in building the Party base and, so far as I know, doing very little youth outreach.
• Especially at the Federal level, the chance was blown to control government expansion and spending throughout the 2000’s.
• Not realizing that Conservative and Tea Party Republicans are now closer on the spectrum to Libertarians than they are to traditional Republicans.
Where Libertarians are to blame
• Not enough reaching out by new leadership after taking over RPI.
• Rhetoric has been too harsh—sending mass e-mails impugning the personal integrity of media members is not the way to conduct yourself.
• Too many rank and file Libertarians in the movement don’t care about winning elections and are uninterested in working to shape the Republican Party—if a Libertarian is not on the ballot they disappear. The all or nothing approach is irrational, and in fact is counter-productive if you hold strong convictions.
• Lack of realistic policy goals—the Federal budget isn’t going to be balanced in a year, nor will we go from marijuana being illegal to all drugs being decriminalized in a 2 year timespan.
• Complete lack of pragmatism from many rank and file in the Libertarian movement. To me the litmus test for this are Libertarians who could not bring themselves to vote for Mitt Romney, even though he was running against a president that was the proven antithesis of everything they claim to stand for. You can say what you want about Romney, and I get the criticisms, but the guy ran on the Paul Ryan budget for heaven sake—no more aggressive approach will ever be championed by a presidential candidate (prior to a total economic collapse that is).
Whether you agree with my specific assessments of blame or not doesn’t really matter. What matters is that both sides start attempting to bridge this divide well before the 2014 elections.
Moving Forward
Personally I don’t have a dog in this increasingly silly fight. What I want is for Conservative principals to be implemented and this can only happen if Democrats are defeated in elections. When it comes to primaries I subscribe to the William F. Buckley philosophy of supporting the most Conservative candidate who can win.
If Conservatives, traditional Republicans, and Libertarians all followed this mantra in both primaries and general elections all would benefit and success would be had. If segments of each faction continue being concerned about what kind of Republican is on a general election ballot (unless there is a specific and compelling reason to withhold support), then Democrats will win. As long as Democrats win society will continue to get more progressive and taxes and spending will rise—it’s just that simple.
by | Oct 31, 2012
While not big news that Iowa Republicans don’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, let’s take a look back at the Register’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 Iowa—instead of trying to alter it.
Reason #1 – 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 it’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 Register’s editorial board since the year 2000.
• 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 cycles—opting for Al Gore in 2000, John Kerry in 2004, and Barack Obama in 2008.
• Of the Republican primary field in 2000 they chose, believe it or not, George W. Bush. Beyond the massive irony, what’s interesting is that they chose Bush over fellow competitor John McCain, describing McCain as “having 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 2008—though of course he ultimately fell short of recommending.
• 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 couldn’t recommend him. Not only did they bump him from their top spot they slid him behind both Hillary Clinton and Obama, saying they “too seldom saw the ‘positive, optimistic’ 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.†Something tells me the editorial board doesn’t have quite the same problem with the “harsh anti-corporate rhetoric†being screamed by the Occupy Wall Street crowd today.
• 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 Americans—you can’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 intelligence…
Reason #2-Â The 2008 Debacle
While the preceding examples were shady, The Register’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 it’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 don’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 ‘petulant, lone-wolf actor’ eight years earlier), but he also would have been a “safe†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 in—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 honor—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 recap…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, “none 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.†Contrast that with this insight as to why Hilary Clinton was a wiser choice than Obama, “When Obama speaks before a crowd he can be more inspirational than Clinton. Yet, with his relative inexperience, it’s hard to feel as confident he could accomplish the daunting agenda that lies ahead.â€â€¦You have to give them credit there–that was some impressive foresight.
Conclusion
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, “The primary purpose of editorials are to stimulate discussion in the community… and it’s a vehicle through which the newspaper expresses its values.â€
Trust me Richard, Iowa Republicans are plenty aware of the Des Moines Register’s “valuesâ€. Perhaps if they used any manner of consistency in the endorsement process, beyond of course the consistency of their Liberalism, maybe more Iowans would “value†the paper enough to start buying it again.
by | Oct 28, 2012
For those who haven’t paid attention to The Des Moines Register’s recent editorial board history, there is no question their endorsement of Mitt Romney is a big story. This history includes a 40 year gap in backing a Republican for President, spanning all the cycles between Richard Nixon’s second run and Mitt Romney’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 dismals—including claims this was payback for Obama disrespecting them last week. Our readers clearly know we generally don’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. 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? 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. 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. 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. If Romney was up 7-10 points here in Iowa you could make the case they simply were backing a sure winner—the reality is that this is a very tight race and The Register’s abandoning of Obama could actually have a small impact, especially on those somehow still wavering voters.
The other reason Republicans shouldn’t cheapen this nod to Romney lay in the actual substance of the endorsement itself.
Before reading it I was expecting heavy equivocation ( ‘though we like Romney on X, we fear he doesn’t understand and will be damaging to Y and Z’ )—this however was largely not the case.
Though sure to say America needs to be even more hospitable to illegal aliens and that losing “progress†on gay and transgendered issues is unacceptable—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,
My View
The text reveals this was an “endorsement-endorsement†and not just lip service. 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. 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 shake—than Republicans should be willing to return the favor.
by | Oct 5, 2012
With Part 1 of this story covering the entire forum minus the last five minutes, lets dig right into the controversy that marked the conclusion of Monday’s forum and went on to engulf the local media in the following days.
What Was Said
For those who have not heard or read it yet, here is the transcript of the most controversial remarks from Sheriff McCarthy’s closing statement:
“…Then the other day I opened his website and he’s got a reference on there to the Oath Keepers. The Oath Keepers! It’s a group that affiliated with this (holds up book), but they are the big boys.  These are people on a Patriots list from the National Poverty Law Center, a watch list for extreme radicalism. (Timothy) McVeigh died going to his grave saying that he was that kind of patriot. This guy that runs the Oath Keepers movement, who says he’s a Constitutionalist, has now come out on his website and said it’s time to arm because we think Obama might win. It’s time to arm, and it’s also time to store food for the war that’s coming (crowd starts booing). This is the kind of garbage you’re going to get if he (points to Charleston) is elected. It’s really about as radical as it gets.â€
Contributing Factors
Though utterly indefensible and unjustified, there are two factors that should at least be understood when thinking about McCarthy’s attitude and conduct on this night.
I believe it fair to realize that for the last year or so Sheriff McCarthy has been listening to and watching Dan Charleston run for his job by basically saying that his department is a poorly run outfit plagued by low morale that needs whole-sale changes to better serve and protect the people of Polk County. I am not for a moment saying that these things are untrue, but I am saying that very few of us, if any, have experienced this situation—and clearly it would be extremely tough and frustrating. To continually hear on the radio strong criticism that you are failing in a job you are personally invested in and passionate about is no small thing, and certainly would wear on anybody. Secondly, and unknown to me until after the fact, apparently Sheriff McCarthy’s own brother was killed in the Oklahoma City Bombing carried out by Timothy McVeigh.
The Bottom Line
The above information is presented solely to give some context to an allegation and line of logic that is nothing short of disgraceful and bizarre—there is just no getting around that. While the whole closing statement was overboard, the last sentence elevated the charge to a different level.
It’s one thing to raise questions about a quote on Dan Charleston’s website from some group who you view to be extremist in order to cast doubt about where your opponent is coming from—some may even define this as “hard ball†politics (I would use the word “dirtyâ€). It is yet another step-up to imply that all this groups’ beliefs and actions can be attributed to Charleston. Rather unfortunately Sheriff McCarthy didn’t even stop here.
Though it was hard to hear in the auditorium at the time due to the crowds audible gasp and objections, the last sentence that McCarthy uttered that night was, “And this is the kind of garbage you are going to get if he is elected, it’s really about as radical as you can get.â€Â Beyond being baseless, irrational, and reckless—this is legal slander that demands, in the least, a public apology.
Impact On This Race
In my view this stands as the second most bizarre episode in Iowa politics this year—bested only by Republican Senate candidate Randi Shannon’s break from reality—and will certainly hurt his chances in the November election. Besides being a huge public relations misstep, McCarthy’s conduct and slander was a head-scratcher politically, as it runs counter to the broader-themed case he has been making against Charleston from the beginning.
Besides saying that Charleston is wrong on the issues, McCarthy’s general assertion to voters is that he is more professional and well-mannered while Charleston’s temperament and straight-talking boldness are the wrong traits to have heading the Sheriff’s Department. It is beyond ironic that the man making this case, even saying himself during the forum that you can’t “bare your soul on every social issueâ€, would himself make a reckless and bizarre allegation by publically “baring†his own outlandish and paranoid beliefs about Dan Charleston. It is truly as unbelievable and nonsensical as it is hypocritical.
The fact that these two candidates have opposite beliefs on nearly every issue already presented a clear choice for the citizens of Polk County.  Sheriff McCarthy’s outlandish display in the waning moments of Monday’s forum have made this picture’s contrast even sharper…and made the prospect of him keeping his job far less likely.
