Iowa Election Handicapping 2014

We've got an open (non-incumbent) U.S. congressperson election going on in central Iowa, as well as an open U.S. senatorial seat and a gubernatorial race.  Time to opine on the candidates.

Congress:  Staci Appel (D) vs David Young (R)
When 'friend of John Boehner' and incumbent Tom Latham (R) unexpectedly retired to open this district seat, the major political parties were obviously unprepared.  How else do you explain these two poor candidates?  Appel is an uninspiring former state senator with an image problem, and Young is a boring, no-name protege of Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley.  Good lord, is it too late for me to start a write-in campaign?  I think Young wins this, because voters will prefer a boring nobody with some national political experience over a boring nobody with no such experience.

Senate:  Bruce Braley (D) vs Joni Ernst (R)
This race reminds me a lot of eight years ago, when then-Congressman Jim Nussle ran against state politician Chet Culver for governor of Iowa.  It should have been no contest -- Culver was a buffoon.  But the anti-Republican fervor was too much that year (George W. Bush was mismanaging Iraq and Afghanistan) and Nussle didn't try hard enough.  Culver won, and proved his buffoonery by being Iowa's worst-ever governor.  Here, Braley = Nussle, Ernst = Culver, and Obama = Bush.  Braley is the better candidate, but it isn't looking so good for him right now.  He needs to hope that Ernst -- a National Guard member but also someone who clearly isn't the sharpest tool in the shed -- makes another mistake to sway independents, like reminding people that Sarah Palin endorsed her.

Governor:  Jack Hatch (D) vs Terry Branstad (R)
Multi-decade governor and certified grumpy old man Branstad will win this easily.  Make no mistake, it won't be because he's so beloved, it'll be because Iowans would rather dance with the devil they know than with the devil they don't know.  Hatch isn't well-known outside of Des Moines, and frankly, he isn't that well known inside of Des Moines if you aren't a real estate developer.  I might vote for Hatch just as a silent protest to Branstad's stance on medicinal marijuana.

A 2012 Candidate Guide

It's Election Day, circa 2011.  Not a whole lot to worry about nationally today, but a year from now - oh baby.

Now seems a good time for my independent (yes, there are still independents out there), Iowa-based analysis of the current serious (?) Republican candidates.  In no particular order:

Mitt Romney - Plasticman.  Backpedaling on his past in order to get the right-wing to nominate him.  He's probably going to get that nomination, and then start moving to the center again, while spending a bunch of time rationalizing how Romneycare is different than Obamacare.

Herman Cain - Doesn't really want to be president.  Just got in this thing for the attention and to sell his book, and didn't plan on the scrutiny. The only reason people are drawn to him is his 9-9-9 tax plan, which just proves in this economy, any idea, good or bad, is better than no idea at all.

Michele Bachmann - WOITH.  Less qualified to be president than Sarah Palin, by far, and that's no compliment.  In way over her head, but since she only talks to friendly crowds (and literally avoids those who might intellectually confront her - just Google 'bachmann grinnell college') she doesn't know it.

Ron Paul - The most independent, dare I say Liberitarian candidate, which makes him very likable.  Unfortunately, his ideas for swift and radical change would make things a lot worse before they could possible become better, and no one is going to vote for that.

Rick Santorum - Can't take his colorless form seriously, not to mention his last name.  (Google that, too.)

Rick Perry - Not ready for national prime-time politics, and maybe never will be.  Partly a victim of the Texas-governor-cowboy fatigue of the American public, and partly a victim of not understanding what is and isn't acceptable to blurt out when running a national campaign.

Jon Huntsman - Best of the bunch.  Moderate.  The only one who seems to understand the role of foreign policy in the U.S.  But his only hope is a John McCain-like, crazy come-from behind 3rd place or better in the Iowa caucuses, where he's not campaiging.  (Another reason to like him.)

Newt Gingrich - The Bill Clinton of the Republican Party.  Most intellectually ready to be president of the group, but also the most personally flawed - although Cain is giving him a run for his money.  Probably wishes he could have back some of what he said as Speaker of the House in the 90s.

Ladies and Gentlemen, your Republican candidates for president.  A year from now I suspect they will all just be part of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's very large shadow.

How To Tell If Something Is Fake

This time of the year there are an awful lot Santas out there. So how can people tell the real Santa from all of the fakers? It's simple really. The dude at the end of the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade is the real Santa. Anything else you see between then and Christmas Eve is just a faker, or as I told my kids, Santa's helper. God-given common sense should tell you the real Santa has too much to do at the North Pole!

Fake Santas may not be the best example of how to tell if something is real, but God-given common sense is. This brings me to today's actual topic: Bristol Palin's Facebook Page.

I don't use Facebook; I'm still trying to figure out how to leverage my Twitter account. However, Facebook-ers often use it to communicate crazy things that get mainstream media play. Bristol used it this week to defend herself against a fellow Dancing With The Stars contestant, Margaret Cho, who blogged that Bristol's politically famous mother, Sarah, made her do the show.

It would be perfectly fine and even righteous for Bristol to defend herself using her Facebook page - if it was really her writing the entries. If anyone reads the Cho defense entry, and compares it to the actual verbal quotes of this in-over-her-head (like her mother) kid, no one with any God-given common sense could believe that she actually wrote it.

Let's deconstruct it: She uses the word "canard". She refers to her mother's "bestselling book, Going Rogue". She even makes an analogy that includes KD Lang and the Indigo Girls! When someone who normally communicates at an 8th grade level ends up writing something that sophisticated, and with political innuendo, my 'faker' radar goes off.

So that same God-given common sense tells me this entry was written by a Sarah Palin political operative for damage control. Normally that would be fine - most 'celebrities' and executives use publicists or ghost writers to write statements or even books. But a Sarah Palin ghost writer on her own daughter's Facebook page? It sort of gives Cho's blog entry credibility - that Mama Grizzly is controlling what her kids say and do.

In a way, I feel for Bristol. She didn't sign up to be a Palin, to be under the microscope, and criticism sucks, especially through the media. But when Bristol signed up for reality TV (and the cash that came with it), she put herself on the media-watch list. (Um, that is assuming it really was her and not her mom that made her do it.)

The best path for Bristol now is to live her life with a quiet confidence, and stay out of the limelight a la Chelsea Clinton at her age. In the meantime, she can hope her mom's political ambitions don't take over her life.

Politics 1, Action 0

Now that the mid-term elections are over, and we have a presumed mandate to restrict spending in the country, you'd think we would begin to see some action on that front. But politics as usual will keep anything substantial from happening.

Already this week, Congress is debating the unfunded extension of unemployment benefits that will expire for some at the end of the month - benefits that already last up to 99 weeks. What's to debate?

Did we not all just agree by majority vote that we didn't want to do this anymore? I consider myself a social liberal, so I'm not averse to helping out the downtrodden. But I'm also a fiscal conservative, and we can't afford to keep paying people not to work. For a longer rant on that click here: http://streffblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/paying-people-to-not-work.html

So why aren't things changing? For one, it's a lame-duck session of congress, and I suppose the so the 'mandate' hasn't officially kicked in yet. But another reality is, both Republicans and Democrats feel like they can get more political mileage from doing nothing.

The Ds would use inaction to show how the Rs don't care about the unemployed, and the Rs would use inaction to get what they really want in two years, the presidency.

This week, Newt Gingrich was in town to promote his latest book. And Sarah Palin is scheduled to be in Iowa twice before the end of the year to promote her latest book, or maybe her TV show, who knows. From this, one can make three undeniable conclusions - the 2012 presidential election race has begun in Iowa, politics and political money never sleep, and we already have two unelectable people campaigning to be president. (Yes, folks, they are unelectable. Just ask Hillary Clinton if you can win as a polarizing figure.)

Just wait until we get some actual, electable people in the race - then for sure nothing will get done!

Politics And The Tyson Zone

One of my favorite sportswriters/columnists, hands down, is Bill Simmons "The Sports Guy" of ESPN. (P.S. You should follow him on Twitter @sportsguy33.) He writes entertaining, epic length columns full of pop culture references.

Over the years, Simmons has also coined a number of phrases for which he associates and ranks a group of people or things. For example, a recurring Simmons topic is the "13 Levels of Losing" where he defines and ranks the most painful ways for a sports team to lose, like the "Stomach Punch" (a game that ends with an opponent making an improbable and game-winning play).

One of Simmons' other themes is called "The Tyson Zone," and named in honor of boxer Mike Tyson. The Tyson Zone is the status an athlete or other celebrity reaches when his or her behavior becomes so outrageous that one would believe any story or anecdote about the person, no matter how shocking or bizarre.

I've been thinking about how The Tyson Zone applies to so many people now on the political landscape. There might be a waiting list at this point, given all of the strange extremist views coming from Tea Party activists (I'm looking at you, Sarah Palin) and media goofballs (I'm looking at you, everybody on Fox News). And yes, there are plenty of Democrats that belong in it, too.

But there is a special place reserved in The Tyson Zone for Iowa's own Congressman Steve King. Over the years his greatest hits include openly insensitive remarks disparaging minorities, homosexuals, immigrants, Muslims - basically anybody who doesn't look or think like him. Dude has already earned a lifetime membership in The Tyson Zone.

If Steve King is a member of The Tyson Zone, what about all of the people who keep voting to re-relect him? It doesn't say a lot for them. On the other hand, when Mike Tyson went berzerko, it didn't stop poeple from going to his fights, either. Maybe King's constituents have been hypnotized in the same way.

Regardless, I'm convinced if you peeled back Steve King's skin you'd find some primordal creature underneath. He is.....a Martian.....in The Tyson Zone.

Tea Party No, Tax Reform Yes

It's becoming more common these days to hear outrage from people who are fed up with seeing their tax money go to bailouts and pork projects. While we didn't have much choice on some of the bailout, it was full of pork pet projects. This outrage is on balance a good thing. Governments have proven to be generally poor stewards of our money. I've said it before, if it doesn't establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, or secure the blessings of liberty, we ought not be paying for it.

But all good outrage must have a kooky element, so enter the so-called Tea Party movement. This supposedly independent but factually right-leaning group is trying to gain traction as a meaningful political force. While I'm all for a viable third party, these folks are actually making me miss Ross Perot. Call me crazy, but if Dick 'Smoke 'em if you got 'em' Armey is one of your organizational leaders, you might not be independent. And if you invite Sarah 'I read all the papers' Palin to be the keynote speaker at your convention, you also might not be independent. Or even very smart.

If those misguided Tea Party souls want to direct their energy at something more independent and worthwhile, they should visit Iowa to watch Chet 'I need another cheeseburger' Culver tax and spend our state into ecomomic oblivion. Or for a more bipartisan target, how about our state board of regents raising tuition at the three public universities by 6%. 6%! Somebody please tell me what in this country, besides healthcare, is currently going up at a 6% clip? Or even half that?! Don't you think maybe, just maybe we've got too many tenured professors and administrators at these schools? Regardless, if it were a business in this economy, raising prices by 6%, it would be finished.

Ladies and gentlemen, it's time to say "No!" to the governments and their non-profit bretheren, which service the taxpayer like the boar services the sow. Our government combined with our political process is a mixture that simply does not work. We don't need a tea party to fix this, we just need to elect tax reformers that will give us a lower and preferably flat tax structure, and give government the liposuction it dearly needs.