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 15, 2012
Iowans all across the state were shocked and saddened this morning by the news that Senator Pat Ward had passed away after losing her battle with breast cancer. She had served as a Republican in the Iowa Senate since 2004 and was an extremely respected woman and legislator. The following are statements released by Governor Branstad, Lt. Governor Kim Reynolds, and Republican Party of Iowa Chairman A.J Spiker, and TCR Publisher Art Smith.
All of us at The Conservative Reader pass on our sincere condolences to the Ward family. Â She will be missed.
        **********************************************************************
Governor Branstad
“I was with shock and sadness that learned of my friend Pat Ward’s passing. She had a wonderful career in public service, and was such a caring and passionate person. As a senator, she was a champion for her district, took the time to get to know the issues, and worked in a bipartisan manner to enact meaningful legislation on behalf of her constituents. She always had a positive outlook on life, even in illness, and her smile would brighten each room she entered. The thoughts and prayers of Chris and I are extended to her large network of family, friends and constituents.â€
Lt. Governor Reynolds
“Having served with Pat in the Senate, I witnessed firsthand her dedication to the state of Iowa, and her incredible work every day on behalf of her constituents. Pat Ward was a dear friend, and the news of her passing is incredibly difficult and painful to hear. I hope all Iowans will look at her example, the way she cared for others and worked to make the world a better place, and remember her significant life and achievements. Our administration will miss her as a policy maker, and we all will personally miss her as a friend.â€
RPI Chairman A.J Spiker
“I am saddened to learn of the passing of Iowa State Senator Pat Ward. Public service and dedication to the people of Iowa were hallmarks of her career. On behalf of all Iowa Republicans, I would like to express our gratitude for Pat’s service to the people of Iowa. Our thoughts and prayers are with Pat’s friends and family during this difficult time.”
TCR Publisher Art Smith
“Pat was a kind and dedicated woman who was always interested in hearing the opinions of others, especially her constituents.  During my brief opportunities in speaking with Pat, I found her to be charming and very well informed on the issues.  As my senator, I was surprised that she not only remembered me whenever we crossed paths, but on our first acquaintance quickly connected me to a single letter I had written her in the past.  I sincerely admired her person-ability.”
by | Oct 10, 2012
(For a complete overview by TCR:Iowa of the Iowa Senate races click here)
The Candidates
Jerry Behn (R) vs. Shelly Stotts (D)
Jerry Behn is the incumbent and was elected to the Senate in 1995 after serving one year as Boone County Supervisor. He was then elected Senate Minority leader on November 10th, 2011. Shelly Stotts has been a teacher in Boone for the last 28 years, has her Masters Degree in Education, and is a past president of the Boone Educators Association.
The District
Senate District 24 sits due North of Dallas County. It’s new configuration after redistricting shaves off Dallas County and replaces it with the Southeastern portion of Webster County and the Northwestern corner of Story County. These slivers join all of Hamilton, Greene, and Boone Counties to construct SD 24. The registered voter numbers here are less favorable to Jerry Behn than his old district was, though he still holds an advantage of R+1,379. The rest of the numbers are: (R-13,465) (D-12,086) (NP-14,553), with the district total being 40,132.
The Race
Much like Senate District 38, this goes in the leaner column by just a hair and should be a victory for Behn. In addition to campaigning hard, Jerry Behn has been one of the point men rolling out the Republican legislative agenda titled “Iowa Strong“—which is a fairly specific, multi-issue priorities list for the upcoming session.
Despite being a well-liked legislator, a fantastic spokesman for the Republican Party, and a likely victor in his November re-election bid—Behn has come under fire this year from fellow Republicans for not raising the kind of funds necessary for a Republican takeover of the Senate. There is really no way to say the criticism is unjustified, as part of his job as minority leader is building a war chest that can be distributed to other Republican candidates throughout the state. As of the last filing period he was outraised by his counterpart, Democratic Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, by more than $416,000.
Democrat Shelly Stotts is attempting to transition from a long career in teaching to Senator by taking down the highest ranking Republican in the Senate. Though the registration advantage is surely able to be overcome, Mrs. Stotts will have a hard time doing so for two major reasons. First, though Behn’s cash on hand is low for a Minority Leader, he still has $83,383 in the bank to Stotts’ $1,528. Secondly, she has identified her political views on her own Facebook page as “liberalâ€. Though laudable for her honesty—this self-description combined with her money disadvantage is not a recipe for an upset.
Frankly, I am surprised that more Democrats have not stepped up to the plate with donations. You would expect this to be the case being that the newly drawn district left a Republican Senate Minority Leader with such a small voter registration advantage. Put simply it would be a shock not to see Jerry Behn back in the Senate in 2013—and the possibility of him being at the helm of a newly minted Republican majority is certainly within reach.
Further Information
Jerry Behn – Candidate Profile
Shelly Stotts – Facebook Page
(Complete TCR: Iowa overview of the races crucial to Republicans winning a majority in the Iowa Senate)
by Steven Waechter | Oct 8, 2012
First, some chemistry; iodine turns black when exposed to starch. So, a lighter ink which contains iodine will turn black when it comes into contact with starch, which is included in the manufacturing process of standard copy paper. When the ink is used on paper that doesn’t contain starch (such as most paper made with cotton fiber instead of wood pulp) the ink will maintain a sort of brownish-yellow color.
If you pay for gasoline with a fifty dollar bill, chances are the cashier will make a mark on it with a counterfeit detector pen. American currency, made of cotton fiber and not including starch, will leave the ink that lighter color. Counterfeit currency printed on regular paper will make the ink turn black.
Interestingly enough, counterfeit currency made with cotton fiber parchment paper, available at every stationary supply store in the country, will pass as genuine under the ink test. The Secret Service, which investigates counterfeiting, doesn’t include the detector pens in their list of recommendations for examining currency.
So, a counterfeit bill passes the test and is accepted by a cashier. Later, the bank where the money is deposited is able to detect that it is fake. The incident makes headlines, and every store in town attempts to take precautions – by buying counterfeit detector pens, which will give a passing grade to upscale resume stationary. A completely pointless test creates a new vulnerability and becomes utterly absurd.
It appears to me that just about everything sold as urgently necessary is, upon closer examination, completely pointless and utterly absurd.
Prairie Meadows Casino was billed as a way to revitalize the economy. It is owned by Polk County, and the revenue was supposed to fund education, roads, and economic development.
Much of the money is used to pay the interest on the tax-exempt bonds issued to build the Iowa Events Center – which, although a lovely facility, employs only a handful of people and isn’t exactly the urban goldmine that developers always claim to have in their hip pocket.
I haven’t been to a casino in years and don’t intend to go back. Gambling used to be a risqué vice; now it is nothing more than another way to feed the voracious wolves.
Speed cameras should go in this category as well because they don‘t stop speeding nor do they protect the public. I was on the interstate in Cedar Rapids a while back, and everyone around me was driving above the speed limit. Upon approaching the sign indicating a traffic camera, they all slammed on the brakes very hard. After passing the camera, they sped up again.
Furthermore, I could drive down that stretch of highway drunk, while sending a text message, and using hallucinogenic drugs- but as long as I am not speeding, the camera is useless.
Government at all levels promises to build roads and develop your economy. What actually happens is that they tax you, fine you, and monitor you – and the roads are still terrible. Infrastructure projects have become the best Trojan Horse to sneak in a tax increase- actually go and take a look at the budget of your local government. How much of your tax money goes to bond interest for infrastructure projects?
Iowa Title Guaranty, a part of the Iowa Finance Authority, was created in 2001. You see, in Iowa, when you buy a house it is traditional to have a lawyer review a title abstract and write an opinion about it. In every other state, you just buy title insurance, and when the big investment banks started jamming mortgages together into mortgage-backed securities they got used to having a standardized title insurance policy along with their mortgages.
They simply didn’t know how to deal with an attorney’s title opinion letter. Pity. It looked like Iowans might be denied the joy of subprime mortgages, and would have to make do with conforming loans.
But, not to worry! Here comes the state legislature with Iowa Title Guaranty, offering what the big investment banks were used to seeing. Oh, the joy of it; Iowans would have access after all to mortgages with bad terms, adjustable rates, and given without regard to lending standards. Being suckered into bad loans is practically a human right, after all. Title Guaranty – Completely pointless, and utterly absurd.
Even jobs can be completely pointless and utterly absurd. Anything involving the “green economy†springs to mind. Being paid by the government to build solar panels that will never be installed, for instance. Sure, a few people earned a few paychecks before Solyndra folded, but they produced absolutely nothing of value for the economy as a whole.
The Federal Reserve was billed as a way to avoid economic crises and facilitate greater wealth. In the end, it facilitated the largest fiscal and trade deficits in human history. Since 1990, we have run aggregate trade deficits in excess of eight trillion dollars, which is interesting because back in 1990 the M2 supply was only three trillion dollars. Either we ran out of currency (three times) or we were paying for imports with inflation.
When the Byzantines wanted to buy Chinese silk, they had to sell glass and other wares, or else they would have run out of gold. (They ended up stealing silk worms and producing it themselves). We can buy foreign goods by doing nothing more complicated than printing money.
Politicians offer to solve this problem with government action – either stimulus spending or trade wars – but never with stable currency policy, making any of their efforts completely pointless and utterly absurd.
I believe that our future as a nation will come down to whether or not we can successfully identify the completely pointless and utterly absurd things swirling around in our government, our economy, our businesses, and our culture. This will involve a great deal of complaining, which fortunately is the only real talent I possess. Now, to find a way to earn tons of money while doing it.
