We are the drain the swamp people

• The war was less the problem than communication from the top
• Trump has been doing the right thing but not explaining it well
• GOP has not been up to the task either

Rambling thoughts:

It has become conventional wisdom that the best explanation for the loss is the “war”.  Arguably that is so but obliquely. Oh sure most of the voting populace on Tuesday were dissatisfied over it and a large element in high dudgeon about anything Trump or Republican. But my view is that not “doing” the “war”  had its own inflation risks with possibly just as forceful  ~~ throw the bums out implications. Inflation is inflation.

And by the way the use of the term “war of choice” is a shibboleth in its own right.

I would like to ask the proponents of this superficial analysis of “the war” being the reasons for our political losses . . .  pray tell what would be the best explanation of radical jihadist Iranian hegemony over the middle east and beyond and its effect on fuel prices and the resultant inflation in all things had Iraq produced nuclear weapons? It would be not going to war.

Even with out the bomb Irans nut-cases in charge have demonstrated sufficient maniacal tendencies for the sentient to see that they were also intent on dominating the area with sophisticated conventional war making capabilities, especially the Hormuz.  that is thanks to their own proclivities and convenient help from China and Russia to kowtow the west to their designs.

That could have come to “fruition” in a very short time and people might rally to a cause but the conflagration would be bigger and the prices higher.  So it is rather superficial to say it was about Israel (the jihadists hate the West as much as Israel, Israel is just an outpost of the west to them.  `What happens to politics if Iran gets the bomb because Trump dithered?

What would be the best explanation of the politics of a worse situation resulting from kicking the can down the road until a much greater conflagration occurs? (Patience, I am leading somewhere with this). Timing is everything but circumstances were not necessarily going to be dictated by our midterms.

Oh I get it, we are talking tea leaves and exit polling at a point in time. The reason for the loss is whatever reason the opposition can gin up and stupid people are gullible enough to imbibe as truth.. The vote tallied yesterday was base Dems doing what they do — hate anything Trump does and always blame Republicans first. That is a given. Now add grumbling (self-absorbed) populace that still has their bellies full, has more employment than achieved in decades, is impatient with everything and has the memory of house flies it seems. Fuel prices were higher under Biden and job prospects worse. but oh well.

Arguably all wars are wars of choice because subjugation is a choice. We could have capitulated in WWII to Japanese and German designs and there would be no “necessity” of Pearl Harbor ( but then it seems the peace lover tactic of boycotts also breeds war). Similar questions could be remarked about subsequent rationing then and latter the defense spending and involvements of the 1950’s in the face of Russian and Chinese designs as regards Korea and Indochina. We could have said no wars of choice in 1990 — not our battle no dog in the hunt or something. In 2001 if only we had accommodated Islam better and not supported Israel. If we had just stopped being Great Satin’ all would be well.

So the matter depends on what degree of tolerance of hegemony a country has. In spite of our own domestic production America was in no serious position to isolate itself from the effects of world oil prices driving inflation should Iran have been allowed to proceed with its nuclear weapons development (it was near critical mass thanks to Obama and feckless others). How long do you ignore jihadists again?

Then when the crisis happens, as those jihadist maniacs were intent to foment one way or another, and prices go up, the same people or others in equivalent numbers would blame whoever is in power for inflation driven by not kinetic action but the threat of it by Iran. They won’t blame their own misplaced isolationism of course. Someone would be blamed for kicking the can down the road and failure to recognize the threat and do something about it and causing inflation.

My view is that the vicissitudes of doing what is right can be weathered with attention to arguments and explanations at a level that people can understand and with repetition to meet their short attention spans, and to counter detractors and political opportunists. On that Trump was an inarticulate failure as were the various campaign apparats of GOP federal candidates. The “explanation” was not “the war” as much as it was the failure to communicate the need for action consistently and not make promises about it or exaggerate successes. Trumps mouth is the reason more so than the explainability of the war to a sentient polity.

In other words the primary cause of the loss is stupid voters who have an obligation to be serious about issues, then evil Democrat politicians,  and then Trump and other GOP politicians and their apparat  being poor at, inconsistent at, and counterproductive at educating the populace early on and thus inoculating them from the Dems on this serious matter of the “war”. . It was compounded by Trump’s penchant for speaking in superlatives (including bad promises about “wars”, making statements that are not “operative” in peoples eyes. It was first an ignorant and largely selfish failure of the populace, and poor leadership communication. A disastrous combination.

0

0

• Stunning set back, but round eleven and twelve yet to come
• One bright spot – and this if sustained will seriously inhibit Dem designs in Iowa — Amendment requiring supermajority for income tax increases passed, just about everywhere in the state.  Combined with unpopularity of property taxes there may be some constraints on them psychologically anyway.
• More analysis in coming days 

I do not know what all went wrong. I encourage everyone to pray for faith, wisdom, perspective, resilience, contriteness and in short order good humor. Let the after action reports be insightful. I greatly appreciate Townhall and all of Salem media, the Federalist, American Thinker, Gateway Pundit, Watts Up With That and more. Keep them going as they are our sober connections. Without their sort we would be at a loss.

We must continue to use clear analysis and positive presentation and mature moral judgements which does not eliminate ridicule as approriate. People respond to it over time. I am sure there will be lots of opportunity to subtly or otherwise shame the left, those still subject to it, but also new voters and the confused that did not vote or voted on superficialities. We owe it to the founders and their warning of constant vigilance.

We had some weak candidates in key places that absorbed a lot of oxygen. Machine politics of the left explains fanatic winners. There was also the common theme in more marginal districts whereby Democrats successfully hid their radicalism and advertised themselves as moderate. All of them feined that they want border control and that all can have more goodies if only the billionaires would pay their fair share. In Iowa that was particularly the gambit and I think we were undermined by powers more concerned with protecting their own grafts and to those RINO would apply.

I am not blaming Trump as much as the utter lack of discernment from boomers, my age group, down to the youngest voting “gen”. Trump personally had serious problems projecting a message in his off the cuff remarks, any dalliance with that was undisciplined and wholly unnecessary for a president. But the chickens that came home to roost were not our policies but the widespread breed of selfishness that Trump did not create. The educational institutions and media have long been coopted by leftist thought patterns and that got traction largely through the church and its failures at weeding out the corruptions of the social justice gospel which has been coopted by Marxism. The stalwart exceptions need to be exalted and renewal encouraged.

In practical applications Republicans cannot capitulate on immigration or other key cultural defenses as doing so will guarantee that this was not just a setback. That would guarantee last night as the victory (however pyric for our country) of the left. We survived Obama and Biden, recovered and have shown the way in spite of this reckless veer the “kids” we allowed to be conditioned have taken.

0

0

But heck given Sand’s obvious affliction Turek can turn the table

There must be a medical term for pencil neck

This post was triggered by Rob Sand providing a remarkably similar, no doubt sincere in its ignorance,  Biblical exegesis of abortion similar to one James Dell Causey Talarico* offered in recent days. Sand was ably responded to with citations in a letter to the editor at The Iowa Standard by Donald W Bohlken. Not willing to let well enough alone, yours truly of course chimed in as follow — the words are mine, the graphics with captions are AI generated at my urging with the exception of the remarkably straight photo of Sand’s deformity: https://theiowastandard.com/letter-rob-sand-wants-abortion-back-in-iowa/

As DB points out Sand cannot authentically rely on the Bible to defend abortion. However Sand’s raising the matter of what the Bible supports serves to suggest another for him to try and squirm away from, assuming he continues his pretense of having any honest sense of the Bible. Accordingly, if the Bible is his guide as he wants to imply how does he biblically justify his support for homosexual activity and gay marriage or is he just personally opposed to others engaging in it, from a biblical perspective of course? Is he willing to say so in public, Bible invoker that he is?

Should Sand be in a quandary he could probably handle the simple AI search — “does the Bible consider homosexual activity an abomination?” The results would be available in about a second: “Leviticus 18:22: This verse is traditionally interpreted as prohibiting male same-sex intercourse and is often cited as labeling it an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13: Similar to the previous verse, this passage also explicitly forbids male same-sex relations and reinforces the notion of it being an abomination.
New Testament References — Romans 1: This chapter discusses various forms of sexual sin, including same-sex sexual activity, and is interpreted by many as condemning such actions.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10: In this passage, Paul lists behaviors that disqualify individuals from God’s kingdom, including those related to same-sex sexual activity.”

Getting back to the Bible as abortion guide as understood by Sand, it is inescapable that if Sand’s argument that the Bible requires “breath” to have a baby that can be protected by law (ecclesiastical or otherwise), then the Bible offers no proscription on killing the unborn at any stage because babies, excuse me, those things, get their oxygen through the umbilical chord and so the Bible is indifferent as regards the entity in the womb until the chord is cut. And so as regards those beings that became his two sons (in woke-speak “assigned males”) at birth what then were they one week prior in utero? Were they just large tumors, live but not “human”?  So by his Biblical lights only at birth, surprise, do those tumors become babies?

IMAGINING A POLITICAL TIME WARP, TO MATCH THE WARPED BIBLICAL AND POLITICAL VIEWS OF ROB SAND

And well let’s say Sand is feeling generous and qualifies that he means ~~ capable of breathing air on their own even if still in the womb~~ but he does not offer where the Bible supports that, breath is breath right (and abomination is abomination)? And so the premie who is not able to breath on their own is not a protectable commodity and reverts to being a tumor, a glob of protoplasm because “it” cannot “breath.”

Sand’s ethical logic allows for nothing else.

We should all be curious the next time Sand and Turek are on a stage together, as to their fealty to the unfettered right to abortion at any time that they share. It might be interesting to know whether Sand thinks Turek was a particularly gross tumor, from a Biblical standpoint of course, when his mother was pregnant with the tumor she eventually named Josh and assigned the term male to?

Spina bifida, which Turek has, is readily diagnosable in utero. Would not destroying such a tumor really be just another way of ridding the world of the scourge of spina bifida and entirely in keeping with the Bible by Sands lights and perhaps Turek as well? They both are on board with abortion without retriction.

As you can see here Lascelle, your fetus clearly has columna cervicis elongata which is a congenital neck length variance incompatible with anything but serving as a clothes rack. You may know it as geeky giraffe neck or “pencil neck”. Surely you do not want that for him. Its at 9 months so still at breathless tumor stage. Totally your choice but I could not bear living like that. Shall we schedule the abortion?

Ask one or the other ~~ How dare a parent bring a seriously handicapped potential baby into the world to take a breath, the hallmark of life, indeed subject them to life. Abortion IS health care after all. It is a good way to eliminate Down’s syndrome and spina bifida. We have pretty much wiped out Downs sayndrome through the thoughtfulness of parents and society using abortion, how about spina bifida when it appears in utero?

But but but some parents might love such a defective child. They are not children yet so that argument is unavailable to Sand or Turek. How do you love a tumor? Beside, just scratch that tumor and go make something more “perfect” and not subject society to such sad defectives, no one could possibly enjoy such a life , right Josh?. That is the relentless logic of pro-abortion mentality.

Crass? Indelicate? OK. Then what are they who advocate legal abortion for any reason at any time because “choice” and “breath”?

Well I am not done yet posting on the matter. The Robbie Sand similarity to Jimmy Talarico (in soooo many ways) was mentioned regarding Sand’s statements.  John Daniel Davidson writing at The Federalist responded incisively, devastatingly regarding Talarico. But again not willing to let great be unembellished, I held forth (slightly altered here):

See:  James Talarico Says He Wants To See Fewer Abortions. But Why?

Great article by JDD at The Federalist

Indeed, if the unborn have no intrinsic value abort away. The obfuscating Talarico might respond with a tut tut and say ~~ oh abortion should not be used as contraception, ~~ again as JDD asks, why not if it is the woman’s choice. Further tut tuts might be to express ~~ well it is involved and more expensive and women only choose it for deep personal reasons. But the unborn have no value so any reluctance to abort the glob of protoplasm is counter revolutionary or a hallucination as would be implied by his corrupted exegesis of the Bible.

A tut-tut from him that abortion is more involved would be an inconsistent admission. Regardless, what is controlling with Talarico is that a woman should have total freedom to do what she wants with her body as regards abortion. Other choices like refusing to pay high taxes with her body’s labors are not recognized in Talarico world.

If he is the theological thinker he pretends then having established that the unborn have no independent rights that the born must respect (much less that are enforceable) then any value he proposes has no efficacy, any discussion would clarify that there is no serious common ground as the main issue, the right to life of the unborn, he opposes at any and every stage in the womb of a woman.

When he tries to maintain that he wants to reduce the “need’ for abortion, well the argument is whether there is a need for elective abortion that trumps the right to life. So he corrupts the discussion.  He presumes something we do not agree to. When he asks ~~ don’t you want to limit the occurrence of abortion and don’t you agree that his program (code for largess at others expense) will reduce the occurrence ~~ well it won’t because at the same time he is preaching (through policy enactments) that the unborn have no value. That promoted and endemic attitude is hardly a reliable way to reduce abortions. It certainly has not now as it is relied on in “generous” blue states as birth control 

His philosophy will not allow teaching that the unborn have value even argable value otherwise he violates the concept that allows his effective position, no restrictions on abortion because the unborn have no independent value and it is woman’s right, period.  In his rubric the official and only actionable government position is that abortion must be free, unfettered at any time, and any utterance to the contrary is preaching hate and a conspiracy against rights. And there is no common ground with anyone who thinks government should pay for all abortions no matter what some think.

Sadly Melania Trump’s position, another erudite theologian pontificating on the matter, seems not far removed from Talarico’s effective position at least as far as protecting unborn life. Her’s is the same as every other “my body my choice” superficial dunderhead. See page 171 to 173 of her book Melania. Thank God she is not in control.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

• From the Talarico bio at wikipedia:  James Talarico was born in Round Rock, Texas, on May 17, 1989, to Tamara Causey, who separated from his biological father when he was seven weeks old.[4][5] A few months later Tamara married Mark Talarico, who adopted James and gave him his surname.

Wow, stressed marriage, back in the day, 16 years after Roe and Doe, seems like it might have been a good reason not to saddle mom with a baby.

0

0

A physical handicap does not make one a moral person.  You can still be a lying perfidious POS 

Same nose. Same propensity to lie.

Some may be calling the US Senate election in Iowa for Ashley Hinson.  See links below to the Seth Keshel analysis unless he says something different behind the paywall.  I am always nervous. A state polity that can have a Harkin and a Grassley and Demo governors intermixed in recent enough political history, is not reliably Republican, not yet. And the Dems are spending a ton of money in Iowa for the US Senate, the congressional seats, and the Governorship.  The usual  liberal rent-seeking organizations along with the Dem county parties are also unified in opposing the super majority requirement for raising income taxes that is on the ballot (and which we definitely support). Obviously they think their chances are good. The efforts overlap. They still have the statewide media and other intrenched institutions of influence especially the education establishment, unions and more.

https://www.captaink.us/p/2026-ten-point-forecast-ia-1-us-house

https://www.captaink.us/p/2026-ten-point-forecast-iowa-us-senate

Scott County where I reside, is particularly targeted by the Dems for statewide candidates and the ads are intended to suppress especially no-party sentiment for Rs. The Dems use scoundrel type ads accusing Republican candidates of the nefarious things they do all the time. Seriously the Dem AG candidate is accusing Iowa AG Brenna Bird of going easy on polluters — this after  the long time Democrat AG placeholder Tom Miller’s record with habitual offender Jack Decoster.  None of the offenders Bird went after were categorized as habitual offenders under the law, she went after them anyway when the offenses were made known.

I am thinking a strong common ancestral heritage. Not like Darth Vader or Dr Evil and Mini Me, more like Moloch.

Democrats have been losing in this state of late because more and more people have come to understand that they are profligate fools, liberals, and crooks.  The Dems are countering that with a “you’re another” response or to accuse the other of what they do. The accusations are typically lies but very aggressive in their mudslinging and innuendo. “Making the billionaires pay their fair share” is code for more welfare and no tax limitations.  Stopping welfare cheating is portrayed as cutting benefits. You know the drill.

Then there are the Dem ad spots that Hinson is suddenly wealthy because she is a manipulator to favor her husband’s insurance related business. The spots by her (or her champions decrying her opponent Turek’s non-attendance in the legislature, missing high profile votes, have some punch and they do list the liberal votes which Turek found time to make. Maybe the extensive superficial sentiment that all politicians are scoundrels will make people look at the big picture — are they liberal and enablers of the Democrat anti-American agenda or not, and vote accordingly.

But the punchy theme condemning Hinson as  “got wealthy while in office”  is “rich” coming from Democrats who are well represented in the matter of “family” gains while in office. Does the name Pelosi ring a bell? Essentially insider trading is one thing, helping a state industry is quite different.   The idea that a state industry got legislative support from a politician also connected to it in some way should hardly be sensational, at least among sentient voters. Or that they received support from related PACs. In such a world Democrats’ reputation ought to precede THEM and surely sentient voters do not think Democrats eschew special interest money including from industry. Then there is the matter that they live off of trade and industrial unions.  Do people really think that Democrat candidates are not promising  or will not give access  to his or her favored contributors?  It makes no sense not to.

The insurance industry  is the Dems particular bugaboo about Hinson.  But that industry is seriously important to Iowa.  Their accusation loses some sting when one does a simple online query. Although knowing the answer I happened to use: “is the insurance industry big in Iowa”.  The result was as follows (with extensive links).

Importance of the Insurance Industry in Iowa

Economic Contribution

• • The insurance industry has significantly impacted Iowa’s economy, contributing to 57% GDP growth in the sector over the past 15 years.
  • Iowa ranks first among all states in insurance industry output as a percentage of GDP.

Industry Presence

• • Iowa is home to approximately 7,000 finance and insurance companies.
  • The insurance sector employs nearly 95,000 professionals, showcasing a robust workforce dedicated to this industry.

Yes, the insurance industry is significant in Iowa, contributing to 57% GDP growth in the sector over the past 15 years and housing around 7,000 finance and insurance companies. Additionally, Iowa ranks first among the states in insurance industry output as a percentage of GDP.

 opportunityiowa.gov

dsmpartnership.com

Importance of the Insurance Industry in Iowa

Economic Contribution

• • The insurance industry has significantly impacted Iowa’s economy, contributing to 57% GDP growth in the sector over the past 15 years.
  • Iowa ranks first among all states in insurance industry output as a percentage of GDP.

Industry Presence

• • Iowa is home to approximately 7,000 finance and insurance companies.
  • The insurance sector employs nearly 95,000 professionals, showcasing a robust workforce dedicated to this industry.

Now consider an Iowa farm group that approached an incumbent Iowa politician who also happened to be a farmer — for legislation they are all convinced is beneficial to the industry (and to Iowa). Is that self-dealing on the part of the politician or constituent service?  Are politicians seriously expected to recuse themselves from voting on or constructing legislation they well understand or from giving the time of day to industry lobbyists involved in an important industry in the state or district they represent because they or their spouse are involved in the industry?

Industries support their champions.  Should farm organizations or farmers give nothing to politician farmers in Iowa?  The implications are absurd in a representative government. Certainly transparency is important especially as regards peculiar advantage but when the industry is major that seems the cheap shot.  Of course if they did not vote for the legislation or help the industry the Dems would say they are doing nothing “for the people”.

To counter Hinson’s ads and wide ranging sentiment about Democrats Turek’s messaging pretends he is a moderate and even gives a figure of how many times he voted with Republicans. Again, the Dems want to suppress leaning R voters, get some sympathy and confidence for their candidate and turn out their base — which is at this writing a little larger in size than Rs in Scott County. It does not risk their base because it is for the most part knee jerk and enough mush words, winks and nods are used to assure the liberal apparat.

Turek pretends to be a moderate  because Dems are properly associated with extreme leftist positions (it is in their water) and that does not work real well for normal people. No major nominee of the Democrat party in Iowa is a moderate, they are lying and or captured by their liberal apparat. The Democrats state and local parties have at this writing never posted their 2026 platform.  Republicans posted theirs within days of their biennial conventions.  That says the Dems are hiding their beliefs.

Then there is the claim by Turek that he  has voted hundreds of times with Republicans — of course that is  in a state legislature dominated by Republicans when liberal Democrat bills properly do not see the light of day.  It is a meaningless statement in practical politics.  Most votes in any legislature are not particularly controversial (that may or may not mean uni-party crapola).  A Republican could just as correctly say he voted hundreds of times with Democrats to gild his or her “bipartisanship” bona fides (hopefully not on Democrat initiated bills).

The Turek campaign claims: “Josh Turek is one of Iowa’s most effective and bipartisan legislators, voting with Republicans more than 700 times to lower costs, cut taxes, and keep Iowans safe,” a Turek campaign spokesperson told Newsweek on Friday’ .  Cedar Rapids radio station KCRG analyzed the gamesmanship (my term) in the figuring.  However it also repeated the assertion that Turek is  “third most bi-partisan” member of his legislature.  In an array with not much room from highest to average to lowest that is not significant.

It would not do for any politician to vote against everything on final passage.  Indeed some leftist group even lists AOC as a moderate.   What counts are key votes where there is a sharp divide and on that Turek is a leftist on immigration, on abortion, on government takeovers or protecting teacher union legislative positions and more.Turek is just another Democrat who abides by the leftist agenda.

If you are disabled and  in a wheel chair you are surely sincere and appreciative of life.  NOT

Turek ads subtly and not so subtly play up his handicap (spina bifida) to pretend it automatically gives objective insight into policy.  At least one Turek spot adds an assertion that his affliction was the result of agent orange which his father was proximate to in the military.  It is a politically useful unprovable sympathy attracting devise.

Although definitive causality is sketchy the VA agreed to classify the occurrence as eligible entirely based on coincidence. Degrees of association does not seem to matter. Agent orange negative sentiment is politically correct across party affiliation. It would not do to challenge his assertions but spina bifida has many potential causations none universally accepted. The Mayo Clinic does not bother to specify agent orange.  Turek also plays up his athletic accomplishment  in the Paralympics. No offense but most jocks are not known for devotion to more than moving a ball.  Give me a tradesman with a useful craft, including one who does so from a wheel chair.

——————————————————————————————————

To me the most egregious display of lack of character by Turek surpassing his lying and disingenuous ads (like Harkin was prone to) is his support for abortion on demand.

Do such people ever examine their own navel or the implications of what they call for?  Turek made the cut, or perhaps one should say as regards the abortionist’s curette, he missed the cut.  You see spina bifida is diagnosable in utero using prenatal tests such as ultrasound and maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) screening. These methods can identify potential neural tube defects early in pregnancy.

Josh Turek is 47 years old, born 6 years after Roe v Wade and its companion case Doe v Bolton which combined allowed for abortion at any stage of pregnancy for essentially any reason. The search and destroy mentality was in full swing by then to increase abortions.  I do not know Josh Turek’s parents but they raised a son treasonous to any concept of human worth and dignity no matter one’s physical handicap.  Like most parents I doubt they looked  at him and said geez we should have aborted him.  Would that a certain politician would honor the right to life of all.

Often parents are presented with horror stories as regards an affliction in their unborn baby. Because a handicap by pro-abortion philosophy is compelling reason to snuff an unborn baby out, it takes resilient parents not to succumb. Good for them. But one wonders what the thoughts are of less sympathetic parents upon the birth of son having missed a diagnosis. And by the logic of  the pro-choice philosophy (no inherent right to life) what of serious afflictions that might occur after birth? Does one’s existence become optional again? It is moving that way because Democrats in particular are of such a mind set.  It started with the culturally sick idea of going back to the idea of paterfamilias but substituting materfamilias and the idea of lives not worth living. We see it in several blue states , Canada and of course China.

Vote sanely, vote Republican.

——————————————————————————————————

* It is curious that this election the Dems are not relying on the abortion issue so overtly to move their needle.  In the last mid-term here in Iowa just after Dobbs that is all they used. They lost big time. People, perhaps even young women,  interpreted it as ~~ that is all they have. Abortion was central to virtually every Democrat ad and it is all many candidates mentioned in some ads.  Two years ago they used it extensively also.  It got them nowhere.

0

0

I live in a bluish purple county in Iowa. I work in a blue collar job (not a trade) with the men being largely part-time semi-retirees. The women younger.  The male-female ratio is more male but women are well represented.  Most, M and F, do not  strike me as the midterm voting kind.  The black ratio is above average in the female compliment. The sentiment I detect (purely anecdotal) in this microcosm is that those that vote midterm (mostly male voters) will trend R.  But they are few.  While these are guesses I suspect they are not far removed from current polling and its pretenses.  As to predictions from my little world it helps Repubs in Iowa that a number of the yellow dog Dems, the most talkative, live in Illinois and vote there.

Unfortunately I am not comfortable that many who I detect as lean R or who would be persuadable will vote. If the Dems whip up some absentee voting among certain of the men and women then my microcosm goes Dem and I believe the county (again).  As in many work establishments talking politics is frowned upon and any overt politicking forbidden. However if others do it jump in!  In my microcosm by the nature of the job socializing after work is not convenient so avenues of persuasion are limited. None of that is an excuse not to advocate for turnout, turnout, turnout.  Everybody reading this has an email list and perhaps social media account(s).  Use them.

At this stage of the game deep analysis is not going to do it for the marginal voter. Clear impressions of what is at risk and that challenge key accusations with effect are the order of the day. Consider passing memes around for “motivation” at a glance.  The talented can maybe have AI develop a graphic around the thought you think would be effective. You have no doubt come across others in recent weeks, perhaps more pithy, on point, humorous with a message.  Link to them or forward as available. Tag any or all you choose to forward with a link to voting information and sites.  For Iowa this link will lead to county by county information:  https://sos.iowa.gov/elections-voting.

A POPULAR ROB SAND COSTUME

0

0

Yesterday was Columbus Day and the usual suspects were in high dudgeon. There was an article on Townhall:  GOP Senator Had the Perfect Response for the Columbus Day Haters to which I added my wooden nickel’s worth:

Certain of the tribes had virtues that can properly be honored with a separate ‘Indigenous Peoples Day”, perhaps as a whole. If the tribal instinct and history prevailed however it could be that many of the tribes would object to honoring other individual tribes. They had a blood lust for one another.

And so I am not sure it is rank and file members of individual tribes that are so agitated by anything honoring an explorer or warrior. Most would simply take a pass and not participate. The agitation is from hypocritical woke ignoramuses.

Every social segment desires validation but one wonders if people with certain heritage looked at their hold cards as the saying goes (card playing does seem to be well adopted given the proliferation of casinos on the property of people with so called indigenous heritage) — do they seriously want to go back to the stone age societies they lived in prior to western culture’s presence? They did not even have the wheel.

That is not to say “they” are not just as intelligent or morally capable but western culture brought them (everyone) much. Indeed adaptation is key to success. My heritage has been well blended from previous warring “tribes” in Europe as has much of “indigenous” blood. I am the “product” of invasions, slavery, rape, pillaging, — everyone reading this has similar heritage if you go far enough back. Should we all carry chips on our shoulder, agitate for separatism, insist on blood quantum? I wouldn’t know which one to pick.

In the “Indian Nations” of present day Oklahoma tribal membership eligibly and consequent benefits offered are determined (in keeping with tribalism) by each tribe. The minimum blood quantum ranges from 1/4 degree to any degree descendent of a tribal member ( see https://thorpe.law.ou.edu/OILS/blood.html ). It gets kind of silly.

Even as a kid I never looked at a cigar store indian statue with anything worse than the idea of it as a portrayal of indomitable spirit and strength. I saw it as a general representation. The statue was not to honor whatever peculiar tribal goofiness pertains to a tribe. The same for Columbus.

And after 600 plus years of european presence on the continent (for some that is 25 or more generations) “indigenous” ought not be an overwhelming debate stopping concept. As to land rights what land rights did the various tribes honor inter-territory among themselves other than by might? The moral preening and fruitless despondency or resentment of “europeans” being my point.

What difference did it really make to a Navaho or an Osage to be “displaced” by a Comanche or a “European” traipsing over their lands coming from wherever as if they had discernible borders rather than broad vague claims they cannot defend and they may well have “stolen” from other tribes? Initially perhaps not much but ultimately quite a bit as warring tribes were not interested in sharing or being tolerant or offering reservations or providing endless welfare. It was more like pound sand.  I prefer being an American and I think most “indigenous” do as well.

Related reading: Christopher Columbus Deserves a National Holiday.

0

0

Trump’s endorsement did not help Feenstra or was insufficient

Kudos to Feenstra for quickly offering help to Lahn to keep Iowa Red

Zach Lahn is the best candidate to take on Democrat Sand

What we hope Trump will say soon

Final statewide results here.  Scott County results here. Dems had a contested US Senate race and 3 of 4 congressional districts. Total Republican votes cast statewide for their contested  Governor’s race, Senate race and 2 of 4 CD was about 212,000. Democrats cast about 192,000

As to Trump’s endorsements in the Iowa primaries, his were always more score-sheet padding but he failed on the big one in Iowa. Like so many of his picks his choices were already overwhelming advance favorites – incumbency of a sort, established name ID, the support of certain powers that be, lots of money relative to the opponent(s). Feenstra had at least twice as much as Lahn and dwarfed the others. The opponents of every Trump pick were more MAGA than Trump’s picks but were overwhelming underdogs.

Hinson and Feenstra (Trump’s loosing pick for Governor) as congressmen were weak in pursuit of voter integrity after November 2020 chicanery was evident and as regards Jan. 6. They had jaundiced statements about Trump and Jan 6, indeed I think all of our delegation did to include Grassley. Nevertheless Trump did the icky political thing and endorsed based on perceived likelihood. Trump is and always was a politician. One can argue his endorsements were cognitive as regards the federal candidates but not so much when it came to the premier race – the governor’s race — and Trump’s guy in total was repudiated and primarily by a vibrant upstart.

Trumps federal picks were over-whelming winners and Trumps influence was hardly decisive. If Trump’s influence is decisive how come Feenstra lost in a multi-candidate array? Hinson (Trump’s US Senate pick) wins roughly 3 to 1 in a head to head. Feenstra (Trump’s pick) garners only 36% and looses. Trump neither understood what was going on in Iowa nor had a good instinct about Feenstra’s comparative electability. But certain powers that be whispered in his ear.

If endorsements are useful, more so in this Republican primary was Steve King’s endorsement of Lahn and that Turning Point USA also endorsed Lahn. Who is more Iowa MAGA than Steve King! Feenstra had the endorsement of the Iowa swamp and Trump. Ironically Iowa helped propel Trump in 2016 giving him a close second to Ted Crus. But Trump did not invent MAGA, he read the room, saw the field plowed by the so-cons, the Reagan conservatives and the TEA party activists that dominated county platforms. Some of the candidates in 2016 were harder core on the border disaster than Trump. Steve King was pilloried by the Iowa swamp for being no more “controversial” than Trump on the matter. But Trump saddled up to the guy the swamp ousted King with. Ironies abound.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Local surprise was the execrable Democrat incumbent State Representative Ken Croken being wiped out in a primary. Will be interested to hear the back story on that one — insights appreciated.

0

0

So Trump has endorsed Randy Feenstra. Personally I do not get it.  I do not get his endorsement of MMM or Ashley Hinson either. It smacks of pure power broker influence, people telling Trump who is going to win the primary so get on the bandwagon and pad the old score sheet.  All of their opponents are as much or more MAGA than who Trump endorsed. As for electability, well, Donald Trump won Iowa in the general appealing to a pre-existing frustration with gooberment, culture rot and economic decline, he did not win Iowa in the 2016 caucuses because most of the candidates were already MAGA (some arguably more so than Trump especially as regards the border).

As for Trump 2024 and Feenstra they are kind of birds of a feather, sort of seeking a coronation by dissing the process and avoiding debates. That is the honest truth about both because they really are not particularly good debaters although Trump is certainly better. Feenstra’s primary campaign probably foretells how he would handle the general. Be too busy to campaign in person or go head to head with Sand. That is not the way to beat Sand. Feenstra is no Donald Trump. Trump is good on the stump.

IF ENDORSEMENTS COUNT, WHO IS MORE MAGA THAN STEVE KING?

I am more impressed that Steve King endorsed Zach Lahn as did Turning Point USA than Trump’s remote opinion. King because he knows what the Iowa swamp is like, — the power brokers — not necessarily GOP leadership, and that Turning Point USA has energy — like Zahn. And I ask you, who is more MAGA Iowa than Steve King? He was MAGA on all the issues before Trump glommed on to it having read the room in 2016. Trump has been a genuine practitioner but he sure as heck did not invent it.

We have more than one excellent candidate for governor. For me it is a close call among three of the field,  but Feenstra as a campaigner? Sheesh.  I will of course support the nominee, may the best man win and all. I am voting for Zach Lahn in the primary because he is good on the issues and an effective campaigner. Too much of Feentra’s campaign money will have to be spent giving himself a persona. He is no Donald Trump.

Roger Mall

0

0

Kudos to the Scott County Republican leadership for their recent forthbrightness (yes it is a word) in sponsoring a well-conducted gubernatorial candidate forum in January and last nights followup straw poll at the county caucuses. Those projects were on top of a stellar Reagan Dinner event in the fall. The results of the straw poll were collected and tabulated in yeoman fashion and posted ASAP.  Well done. Below is the email distributed with the results and below that my comments.

Republican Caucus Results We are happy to report that tonight’s Caucus was the largest mid-term turnout in Scott County History! Congratulations to all of the Candidates! They did a wonderful job! Scott County will be proudly supporting the winner of the June 2nd primary! Here are the Results: (Alphabetical order by last name) Eddie Andrews 2.6% 5th place 12 out of 453 Randy Feenstra 14.6% 4th place 66 out of 453 Zach Lahn 25.2% 2nd place 114 out of 453 Brad Sherman 18.3% 3rd place 83 out of 453 Adam Steen 39.1% 1st place 177 out of 453

I thought it would be a closer spread.

Almost too obvious now: If you show up and make a decent presentation, you garner support. Lahn, Sherman and Steen showed up. Andrews and Feenstra didn’t. (Andrews did participate in the forum and requited himself well, along with all who did. Sherman and Steen showed up at the two largest precinct convocations (not mine). Lahn showed up at three (including mine where I conversed afterwords with him and also his assistant).

Feenstra at least of late has not evidenced that showing up to multi-candidate political events is pretty important, . Now he has congressional duties to be sure, but there is just way too much impression of avoidance out there along with the impression that he must feel he can walk into the nomination by touting the big money support. Well it didn’t get him much last night. It was a dismal showing.

The attitude among the big donors, Feenstra’s early money the usual suspects, is that they can make him inevitable. He is not. They have put a lot of money on a weak or ailing horse.  It shows their political acumen as to the pulse of the primary voters. And their judge of horseflesh is horsefeathers. If Feenstra does not transform himself, well it looks right now that he is an also-ran and probably the guarantor of the gubernatorial nomination going to convention.

Going to convention may be the saving grace of the party if it prevents a weak candidate.

The Dems have a candidate apparent, Rob Sand,  and his war chest is building for the general. Seven million at this writing.  All that need be said is that Sand is a Democrat despite the likes of talk-radio host Simon Conway who is a good man but suffers from not seeing through camouflage when it comes to Sand. The airtime he has given him is humid from slobber. Sand will be beholding to the radical extremists that make up the movers and shakers in that party. He is a snake and we cannot have him without loosing a lot of progress.

Now Eastern Iowa isn’t everything.  There are a lot of party votes in Des Moines and western Iowa. But that Feenstra could not muster better here than he did, at least enough to BE an also-ran given the money behind him and his consultancy apparat consisting of the Scott County firm Victory Enterprises, a consultancy that could not win their own back-yard, seems a bad omen. It was a full moon last night but a bad one for Feenstra.

The out-performer was Zach Lahn although Adam Steen won a plurality and is a much more vibrant personality than Feenstra.  His handicap for suspicious conservatives will be how close he is to the Des Moines crowd.  Is he their back-up horse?

A closer examination of positions and nuances needs to be made for all the candidates. Hopefully that is being formulated by activists and we would love to reference or publish a sound analysis. Maybe they are all similar.  On matters of Republican core values they need to be.

Lahn also makes a vibrant presentation and may be able to attract alternative education advocates. Brad Sherman is a solid man and I was a bit surprised he did not do somewhat better.  But I believe he is still a contender in these parts. Eddie Andrews, also a good man did not show and that is too bad for him. Touting an Iowa State Fair straw poll just lost luster.

Research continues.

0

0

Mr. Trump you are not exhibiting full disclosure as promised and YOUR  handling of the matter (by direction or oversight) only makes it look like a cover-up of some sort.  That is just sound advise. Indeed the admonition from you to one questioner at a press conference yesterday that reporters and all Americans  move on “to more important things” instead  of matters involving Epstein is deflecting and without merit. 

You have to know we don’t care about Epstein the creep — he died by hanging — we DO care about the young victims and the perps that are going unpunished and any cover-up. It was mind-boggling for you not recognize that legitimate concern.  Way to go. Prior to your expressed irritation and failed elucidation the matter was largely a Democrat scandal and now Mr 4D chess is making it a Trump administration scandal smacking of participation in a deep-state cover-up to protect . . . whoever.

Questions remain, legitimate questions about who was involved with Epstein.  By testimony of victims he was not the only perp.  The dismissal of the whole matter which YOU have so disdainfully given, now aggravates a question that was only a darker suspicion before.  I do not believe it but way to go  in fostering the specter Mr Heart of America / pulse of the people. 

While the all too coincidental  failures in the prison security systems  are compellingly suspicious the one minute gap in the released tape, not admitted to at the time, is either damning or an indication of egregious stupidity, a PR blunder at best.  It is not about you Mr President unless you make it so and you are in the process of doing just that. What people are properly concerned about is bringing to justice the other perps especially because they are rich and powerful.  Some of your defenders have intimated, that not knowing something or not releasing the files (and their chain of custody) is for our own good.  We say if you can handle it we can handle it.  Mr. Trump your authenticity, is dripping away because of this and your disdainfulness toward so many of your own supporters.

It is not us who should shut up and move on it is you who should straighten up and fly right. Actually engendering cynicism about the powers that includes you is not a good plan. Dance with the ones that brought you Donald.

Related reading: After Being Told for Months That Justice Was Coming, We Get Nothing – The Epstein Case Is Destroying Faith in the Government.

0

0