Iowa Women Do Well

After taking a break to visit Des Moines, I caught up with the results of Iowa state contests which were very good for the women candidates of Iowa. With the exception of the Governor's race and the 4th Congressional district, Democratic women candidates were the choice in the Iowa 1st and 3rd Congressional district, the Secretary of States's race, and also many House and Senate seats.

In the Senate 16 women from Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian parties out of 18 who ran were victorious in their primaries and in the House races, 58 out of 62. The positive is that the Iowa House and Senate may be more equally represented by gender in November than ever in the history of the state. If women won all the races that they are in, they would have 12 of 25 senate seats and 59 out of 100 House seats. However, though gender equality may be achieved, the politics would still be shaped down party lines as in the Senate 6 Republicans and 10 Democrats who are women are in contention for the seats and in the House, 16 and 46 respectively and also 2 Libertarians.

While top of the ticket women remain the domain for Republicans, the Democrats have fielded quite a few future party leaders. Anyway you look at the outcome of the primaries, change will come to the Iowa Legislature, the question is will that change be decidedly more progressive or conservative?

New Ethics 101: Disgraced Republican Leader's Cash Goes to Shore Up Iowa GOP

Let's say you wanted to buy a used car and you put a down payment on it. Now let's say, the money wasn't yours to give, you bilked people out of it. Would it then be okay for the car dealer, who knew you  acted unethically, to accept that money? If you live in Iowa, the answer is yes. According to KWWL TV and the AP, former Republican Senate majority leader Bill Dix gave upwards of $522,000 to the state GOP on March 26. This was within two weeks of resigning his office when being videoed smooching a lobbyist in a Des Moines tavern while presumably, Mrs. Dix was tucking the kids in.

Under Iowa law, he could have given the money to political and charitable groups, returned it to donors or sent it to the state general fund. A fair question to ask is: did anyone bother to ask the donors if they authorized the transfer of funds to the state party? Did they ask the state if they could contribute it to the state coffers to help offset the 1.75 million settlement the state paid out for a former state employee who had been sexually harassed? Surely a home for unwanted kittens could have used the infusion?

No, but here's what the Republican party spokesperson Jesse Dougherty said "the money was raised to help elect and defend a Republican majority this fall." Good luck with that. With those type of ethics, how could things possibly go sideways. Oh, by the way, Dix's contribution amounted to nearly half the $1.2 million that the Republican Party of Iowa reported raising since Jan. 1.

I Formally Declare My Independence

For a long time, I have been using this blog as a way to promote both progressive and populist visions. Like many progressives, I have been more likely to align myself with Democrats than Republicans due to philosophy differences, although there are some issues which I and many people agree--regardless of party line. However, after the latest debacle regarding our economy and the debt ceiling, I see that being an Independent is the only recourse I or any populist has left to combat a two party system that is fundamentally broken. To declare my independence allows me the freedom to support only candidates who will uphold a progressive/populist agenda and, I hope, this includes Independents with a wider vision than either party will allow.

However, it also prevents me from caucusing in my state, which is very sad to me. Iowa does not have the ability to have an Independent caucus, and unless there is an Independent Party, there is mandated need. As long as there is a two party system, most people who care about the future of the country are left out in the cold.

And here are some reasons why:

1) Corporate interests have taken over politics. In each of the branches of government, there has ostensibly been a corporate takeover of the funding of candidates and issues. As such, neither party is immune to big monied interests who write many of the bills that Congress votes for, the Executive branch make exceptions for, and the Courts support interests of in interpreting Free Speech law. We are left with a blind taste test where it doesn't really matter much if you like Coke or Pepsi better.

2) The government has stopped working for the people who particularly need it to function well for: the poor, elderly, and the young. Most debates that have centered around the economy have, at best, place held the defense of retirement, health care, and education. By withholding funds for these groups, the social net has frayed to the point of breaking. Rather than working on ways to secure these budget lines, both parties are beginning to dismantle the system to the benefit of the wealthy and to the detriment of the rest of us.

3) We are applying 20th Century solutions to 21st Century problems. For instance:
- Whether we like it or not, the world around us has changed and is not going back to the good-old-days ever again. This means we can no longer be the bull in the China shop and throw our weight around in the world in the same way we used to. We cannot afford to police the world without causing pain to our people and innocent people elsewhere. Proof of this old world vision is Barack Obama receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. If I were the Nobel organization, I would demand it back with an apology to those who preceded him in receiving it.
- Also, if we want to bring back industry in America, companies who are here have to put aside a pure profit motive mentality and put people to work. Greed is not good and, as we've seen, corporations lack the emotions of people. Therefore, it should be criminal for companies to do business in the USA without a large percentage of their workforce being in it.
- We need to change the way we educate kids. We cannot afford for one child to fail and our education system should be changed to reflect that challenge. Our teachers are good and can be better, but the systems they work in are so dysfunctional that in many cases schools are no longer places where kids can learn. School systems that are unable to properly manage schools to help their kids to be successful and parents who don't value education enough to help their kids to succeed need to be brought to task. And we shouldn't be afraid of technology to bring our best teachers in front of students. The fact that we have teacher shortages in key areas should not stop kids from being educated. Teachers need help, make sure there are aides and tutors in the budget. Also make sure that their promotions are a result of teaching excellence, not seniority.
- We need to change the way colleges work. Every person who has the mental acuity to get one, needs a post-secondary education, whether in a trade or a specialty. Students should not be allowed to continue their educations until they have provided two years of service in either the military or in human services. When they complete their years of service and have a plan for college, their education should be paid for. Colleges should be either trade/teaching colleges or research colleges. Students with the talent to complete terminal degrees should earn the privelege and their further education funded by taxes.
- Basic human rights: we should not be arguing over who can or should be married. If the laws really worked, we all would have the same rights and the same protections under the law.
- Governments should not be in the business of deciding what we can do with our bodies, but should be able to levy taxes to offset the results of poor decisions and/or rehabilitation which the person would have to pay back, either in service or in reparations.
- Religion has a place in democracy, but it has no place in government.

4) Democracy needs defending by those who are stitting on the sidelines. Gaming the system is a capitalistic power-brokering notion--aka: counting your chicken before they have a chance to hatch. However, as democracy is not the same thing as Capitalism, the system only works when democractic principles work. Therefore, there should be a national referendum that calls for the immediate dismantling of the two-party system. That all elections would be non-partisan, that all funds would have to come from individuals, and that there would be a maximum amount of money that could be raised and spent in an election cycle. But we have to be the one's who push it.

Have I given up hope? No, but I won't support those who promise hope and can't or won't deliver. Nor will I give in to the idea that only the powerful count and their interests are paramount. This is still our America and we know we can do better. We need an Independent people's movement to bring about equitable change. We won't get there unless misguided fear is replaced with pragmatic plans that people can easily understand and support. Ready to roll up your sleeves?

Semi-Popular Progressive

Happy Belated New Year. After 4 years and a month of commenting on politics, progressive and otherwise, I am continuing my last year trend of tapering off posts in 2011. Although over 10,000 people from around the world checked in on my blog last year, a fact that astounds this guy from Iowa, I feel that if I am to offer commentary at all, it should be with the same fervor that got me started in the first place.

With that in mind, 2011 will be a year with many stories emanating from Iowa. After all, the Iowa Caucuses are around the corner and the usual media blitz will follow as surely as birds fell out of the sky in Arkansas. However, as fellow bloggers like John Deeth are much better at the day to day coverage of such events and I encourage political trainspotters to follow John's blog. He is a great blogger and I tip my virtual hat to his raspberry beret.

As for me, I am writing a novel and will likely spend limited time commenting on the here and now, mostly because my novel is political fiction and I want to use the "good stuff" in that context. I will continue to post columns as events and issues strike my fancy.

A couple of 2010 notes:

The Democratic Party got an electoral whipping (yes, even in Iowa), but it should not have been a surprise. The Obama brand rose quickly and short of him genetically being fused with Annie Sullivan, ther was no way he could continue in the media-driven role of "the miracle worker." However, the party did themselves no favors by letting the narrative of 2010 to be "you're with us or against us." Clearly most voters didn't like what they were seeing and took it out on the party in power. Um, that's politics.

That being said, the repeal of DADT and the approval of the New START treaty were good exclamation points to end the year on. The Republicans take over the House with the majority of voters thinking that it doesn't matter who runs it, but will be flying up their agenda to make the case that if only there was a Republican in the White House again, they could get things done. The national agenda will be parlayed into the electioneering game as the circus comes to Iowa in the months to come. If President does not have any competition, expect Iowa to be the place where Republican candidates try to make the case for why they will be better for the country than him.

However, the thing to watch this year are the redistricting efforts across the country. In Iowa, Republicans who have the state house and governor's mansion are trying to make sure they have the state supreme court covered too by using the recent victory to not retain three justices that ruled on the side of marriage equality as a launching pad to impeach the remaining justices. What is really at stake is the tie-breaker if the plans for redistricting are not to the clear benefit of the Republican party. In Iowa, if a redistricting plan can not be agreed upon, the state supreme court is the final word. Politics, can't live with 'em, can't rule without 'em.

Post-Primary Mini-Dissection

It was a great day to be a local incumbent in Johnson County as all of them made it through the primary either unopposed or winning by large margins. It was also a very good day for women candidates of all parties as US Senatorial candidate Roxanne Conlin, US House candidate Mariannette Miller-Meeks, and Iowa House candidate Sandra Greiner withstood multiple challengers. On the other hand, in state- and national-level politics, it was not a good day to be a staunch conservative, as more moderate candidates were successful in defeating their "I'm more conservative than you" adversaries.

Voter turnout in Johnson County was an abysmal 10%, but showed that registered Republicans were more excited about the primary than their Democrat counterparts as more party faithful on the R side voted in the primary. A look at the early voter stats showed that Republicans won over Democrats in upping their membership for the primary. So what does this mean come November? It means that both parties will be working on turning out registered voters. It means that incumbents in challenged races will have to remind people why they should keep them around. It means that even in the Republic of Johnson County, there are those who aren't thrilled with the status quo on a state and nationwide level. However, the only thing that is stronger than the winds of change are the doldrums of apathy--and that will be what both parties will be dedicating themselves to defeat.

Building a Bridge Over a Wedge Issue

It is a good time to be a progressive populist. The public, particularly independents, generally wants the type of changes that progressives have been advocating: affordable health care, diplomacy first foreign policy, home-grown economic growth through renewable technologies, reducing our impact on the environment. But before giddiness sets in, the battle issue of campaign 2008 will be between policies promoting job growth and immigration policy, as this excerpt from "The Democrats Path to Victory:
The public demand for progressive politics is growing stronger" alludes.

Democracy Corps political strategists Stan Greenberg, Al Quinlan and James Carville. “If 2008 is to bring a tidal wave, Democrats and progressives must become more fully the voice of what is wrong with these times. It is not enough to be anti-Iraq and anti-Bush.”

Democracy Corps polling supports this populist reading of the electorate. Given a list of phrases that reflect both conservative and progressive explanations, the top two choices among people who think the country is off course were “big businesses get whatever they want in Washington” (40 percent) and “leaders have forgotten the middle class” (38 percent).

But Democracy Corps also reports that the populist inclinations of Democrats and independents diverge, giving Republicans a political wedge opportunity. Democratic voters were most concerned about Iraq spending, healthcare inaction, and job loss to China and India. Independents cared most about unprotected borders, oil dependence and job loss. Thus, immigration emerges as a potential political problem for Democratic candidates, even though most Americans reject draconian crackdowns on immigrants.

Current debates about Iraq and globalization—in Congress and among the presidential candidates—show that Democrats have failed to take advantage of this progressive shift in public opinion.

What remains to be seen is how Democrats will defense against what will likely be a Republican onslaught to show how tough they will be to guard our borders and how the Democrats are soft, despite evidence to the contrary (e.g., it is the Democrats that have been the strongest advocates for port authority security). It is true that the Republicans have not been able to hone their message on this issue without seeming like they are foaming at the mouth, but you can bet that by their convention, this issue will be framed so that the middle-of-the-road voter will think this is important.

If I were the Democrats, I would be framing an immigration policy that is both tough and fair being careful not to replicate the plan that Bush has been forwarding, but to use the key pieces that both parties can agree on. Most Americans are not afraid of immigrants, but are afraid of losing their jobs. Whatever the Democrat's plan turns out to be, it had better remember the "jobs, jobs, jobs" mantra that earned the Democrats the White House.

A Way for the Republicans to Jumpstart Their 2008 Hopes?

The Polish Women's Party has released a campaign ad that shows their candidates nude (albeit strategically covered). Perhaps the party of Lincoln might try something similar to breath life into what appears to be a Bob Dole year of campaigning.

Republicans Make Romney Their Iowa Strawman

Iowa's Republicans met in Ames to conduct a large fundraiser, aka "strawpoll." To no one's surprise, Mitt Romney walked away as "the champeen." Of course if Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee would consider a civil union, they would have beat him.

In true missionary-style, Romney's crew herded "Mittens" onto buses and brought them to the strawpoll. With the sterling competition, it is easy to see why this Romney did better than his Dad, the other "George W."--George W. Romney.

Note: the Thompson Twins were six and seven, but note the order. Ron Paul-- please run as a Libertarian in November, your party needs you.

Candidate	Votes	Pct.
1. Mitt Romney	4,516	31.6%
2. Mike Huckabee	2,587	18.1%
3. Sam Brownback	2,192	15.3%
4. Tom Tancredo	1,960	13.7%
5. Ron Paul	1,305	9.1%
6. Tommy Thompson	1,039	7.3%
7. Fred Thompson	203	1.4%
8. Rudy Giuliani*	183	1.3%
9. Duncan Hunter	174	1.2%
10. John McCain*	101	0.7%
11. John Cox	41	0.3%
*Did not attend

David Yepsen, no stranger to hyperbole, indicates that the Republicans "look past Bush" to endorse change--given that Bush is wildly unpopular even within his party, change is the only thing they can embrace.

And with only 14,302 people voted in the poll, far fewer than the 23,685 who cast ballots in the last big straw poll in 1999, it may be too soon to crown anyone as "the frontrunner," particularly when the heavy hitter for the party was a.w.o.l.--no, not you John McCain.

The Circus Is Coming: Who's Cleaning Up After the Elephant?

Hey kids out there in blogland, the GOP will conduct their straw poll in Ames on August 11th. To summarize the importance of the straw poll, if you don't make it there--you ain't going anywhere--at least not as a Republican. The straw poll is a place where about 26,000 Iowans act as an oversized focus group and the candidates are the product in question.

Said differently, the Ames straw poll is like a national car show--wow the crowd and you might have the next Ford Mustang or Dodge Viper. However, let the buyer beware, the Edsel was a big hit on the auto show circuit--and we know what happened to it.

Not archaic enough, this is the Roman Coliseum (Hilton-styled)--thumbs up and you are a somebody, thumbs down and you are a difficult trivia question.

So why am I bringing this up at this early date? It seems like the Iowa Caucuses in January 2008 are just too far away for some. And, if you (yes, you-- state party leaders) don't cull the herd, it makes it darn tough to decide who to cow to.

Perhaps the Dems could take a page out of the GOP playbook and pre-chew the candidates and make them that much more digestible (cud, if you will). After all, why should people actually have to educate themselves about candidate positions, that's for the party to do, isn't it?

Your average party faithful have so much more to do than think for themselves. Straw polls make it easy on those of us who are too busy to be at every candidate event. Here, if you have $35 to spend, you can simplify things for your fellow human being by acting as his/her proxy--that is commitment to service!

Besides, its a great opportunity for the party to raise money and for candidates to shill some t-shirts, bumper stickers, and other "personal-branding" geegaws.

So, act now! Time is a wastin'. If Scott Brennan could get those national Donkey curmudgeons to test market it, I'll bet we could even get the state casinos to take on the action. Since the GOP is doing it in Ames, how about at Carver Hawkeye or, better still, Kinnick Stadium?

Fueling The Politics of Hate

Update: According to the Daily Iowan the College Republicans have cancelled the event below. This is a great example to those who would treat the issue of immigration reform lightly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Iowa City today, according to the Press-Citizen the University of Iowa College Republicans will sponsor a "capture-the-flag game pitting "illegals" against "border patrol" battling over a "U.S. border" at midfield." The local Republican party chair, William Keettel, says it is all harmless fun, "It's the nature of college students to project their causes. They have their ways of publicizing their position, and I have mine."

How does this action differ from the Nazis conducting a pride parade in Skokie or the KKK holding a rally in Selma? These actions reinforce the politics of hate and do not lead to constructive solutions to an age old problem. Pablo Casals, the gifted musician once said “The love of one's country is a splendid thing. But why should love stop at the border?”

It is childish and offensive to conduct a dialogue in this way. It is beyond political correctness, it is about moral decency. I find it sad that the party of "family values" has been lax with its young.

Elephant in the Situation Room

What a week it has been for Team Elephant's Damage Control Squad:

1) I, Scooter Takes One for the Team

2) FBI Breaking the Rules on Snooping

3) Atorney General Does an Abrupt About Face

4) New Commander says "More Soldiers Ain't Enough"

5) Newt Gingrich Admits "I Did Have Sex With That Woman"