Friday, October 04, 2002
OUTTA HERE
You'll notice that the Daily Diatribe is up early. I'm meeting the folks and sibling in Las Vegas this weekend. I will return Tuesday with the usual. For now, it's SIN CITY BABY!
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: EXPLOITING PERSONAL TRAGEDY
Suppose a young woman was inadvertently infected with the AIDS virus by a health-care worker. Further suppose that right-wing politicians used her to promote mandatory AIDS testing for health-care workers. Wouldn’t liberal pundits denounce those politicians for demagoguery, for exploiting a tragedy for political ends?
Actually, there is no need to suppose. It was eleven years ago last month that Kimberly Bergalis, who had been infected by her dentist, “testified” before the House Health and Environment subcommittee. The whack-job of a politician, Republican Bill Dannemeyer, used her case
This snippet from the October 14, 1991 issue of The New Republic nicley encapsulated liberal opinion:
A blow against rational AIDS policy will be struck on September 26, when Kimberly Bergalis is brought to the House Subcommittee on Health and the Environment on a stretcher. Ms. Bergalis, the Florida woman who was infected by he dentist and is now dying and unable to speak, will appear with her parents at the invitation of Representative William Dannemeyer of California. The Bergalises advocate mandatory testing for health care workers. Mr. Dannemeyer hopes their appearance, which is certain to be a media circus, will overwhelm the convincing testimony of former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, who argues that such testing would be an ineffective way to combat the spread of AIDS. Ms. Bergalis, who is being used by demagogues, deserves pity. Mr. Dannemeyer, the demagogue using her, deserves scorn.
It is worth remembering this story when one contemplates the liberal response to the tragedy of Ronald and Nancy Reagan. Recently, Mrs. Reagan expressed her dismay at President Bush’s opposition to stem-cell research, research which might lead to a cure for Alzheimer’s disease. She has publicly agonized about people who will have to go through what she has in taking care of President Reagan.
This has spurred the Des Moines Register editorial page to criticize Bush’s position. In an editorial crassly titled “Tell it to Nancy,” the Register uses the Reagan tragedy to dismiss Bush’s opposition to destroying human embryos:
But what is Bush going to say to Nancy Reagan?
The former first lady expressed dismay to friends when the White House disagreed with recent legislation in California that encourages stem-cell research. The president said California Gov. Gray Davis should "respect the culture of life."
But Reagan must be wondering what President Bush means by that. She's likely not concerned with the destruction of cells smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. There are no images of embryo farms dancing in her head. Rather, Reagan is thinking about her husband, former President Ronald Reagan, a victim of Alzheimer's. After 10 years with the difficult illness, it's reported he no longer recognizes his wife. The long and painful battle has likely taken its toll on Nancy Reagan.
One might think that liberal pundits would be all over this blatant exploitation of a personal tragedy for political ends. But that appears not to be the case when it is a public health policy that liberals favor, like stem-cell research. The hypocrisy is near mind-numbing when one considers that Ronald Reagan would likely agree with Bush’s position.
The Register editorialists, of course, would like to focus attention away from the fact that stem-cell research means killing the life of the unborn. What better way to do that than highlighting a heart-breaking tragedy of Nancy Reagan’s efforts to care for her Alzheimer’s suffering husband?
The editorial ends:
In reality, the president has expressed an ideology that dismisses the hopes of real people struggling with real illnesses. Even the struggles of Ronald and Nancy Reagan.
In reality, Nancy Reagan deserves our pity. The Register editorialists deserve our scorn.
. . .
GAME, SET, AND MATCH
John Podhoretz nicely summarizes how Bush has outflanked his opponents.
. . .
SAY IT ISN'T SO, JIM
Well, Representative Jim Leach has become one of the first Republicans to oppose military action against Iraq. As much as I admire Mr. Leach, he's dead wrong on this one.
. . .
CALLING THE BLOGOSPHERE, CALLING THE BLOGOSPHERE!
Paul Krugman has a lame column in the New York Times today, despite his retraction on the Thomas White matter. His economic plan is a stinker. I hope someone out there in Bloggy-Land takes it down. Caruso, Hoy, Galt? We're counting on you.
. . .
SAVERYGATE RUN DOWN
The Register has a pretty good run down of the Saverygate scandal in this article. It is a question and answer format which should bring you up to speed if you are hazy on the details.
. . .
SOME MINORITIES MATTER MORE THAN OTHERS
In the liberal world view some minorities are more equal than others. Cuban-Americans are less equal. Look at the way the Register treats the concerns of Cuban-Americans in this editorial urging the end of the Cuban embargo:
The Cuba embargo probably would have ended years ago were it not for the strategic electoral position occupied in Florida by Cuban-Americans who despise Castro. Some argue the embargo should remain in effect until Cuba compensates those exiles whose property was nationalized, but it would seem those claims might have a better chance of being settled eventually in an environment of trade and prosperity than one of perpetual hostility.
Now, if it is Muslims facing discrimination after 9/11 that is a matter of grave concern. But if it’s Cuban-Americans, well, what concerns could they possibly have besides the fact that Castro deprived them of their property, denied them freedom, sent the economy into the crapper, and created conditions bad enough that many of them risked life and limb on rickety rafts to cross 90 miles of shark infested waters to come to America? We can just dismiss their concerns as just too much hostility toward that loveable little fuzzball, Fidel.
. . .
Thursday, October 03, 2002
AND ONE FROM THE GOOD PROFESSOR
Glenn Reynolds has an interesting piece on fraud in academia at TCS. In particular, he argues that it is too easy to overdo it when hunting down fraudulent academics. Maybe so, Glenn, but there are still a few that should be sent to the gallows.
. . .
SHE'S BACK!
The Tech Central Babe has a new article. Woo hoo!
. . .
MINOR UPDATE ON SAVERYGATE
In the Register article this morning, I also noticed this sentence:
Polk County Attorney John Sarcone said Wednesday he doesn't expect any decision before next week on whether to proceed with a full investigation.
Earlier in the week, the Quad City Times had this article which stated,
Polk County Attorney John Sarcone said Monday he expects to decide by the end of the week if he will file charges in connection with the taping of Republican Senate candidate Rep. Greg Ganske’s Sept. 3 meeting.
I emailed the author of the Register article, Thomas Beaumont, about this. He replied:
He told me that he had "hoped" to know by the end of the week, but was realizing yesterday it wasn't going to happen by Friday.
So, it looks like a decision to prosecute won't be made until next week. Stay tuned.
. . .
IMPLICATIONS OF THE NEW JERSEY RACE
There are some very funny parodies of the New Jersey Senate race. Jay Caruso thinks it could help the GOP in California. Speaking of which, Caruso has all sorts of thoughts, not to mention a tussle with Hesiod, on his site. Go there.
Meanwhile, "joebwan" thinks that the Iowa Hawkeyes should find a way to replace troubled guard Pierre Pierce. Excuse me. That's "in trouble guard Pierre Pierce."
Speaking of Pierce, I guess the Hawkeyes are set to go 8-3-5 this season, as in 8 indictments, 3 convictions, and 5 acquittals.
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: IOWA POLLS
The Des Moines Register recently releases a set of Iowa Polls, conducted by Selzer and Co., on the gubernatorial race, U.S. Senate race, and Iowa support for the war with Iraq. The results were Governor: Vilsack leads Gross 51-33%; Senate: Harkin leads Ganske 54-34%; and Support for war: 51% in favor, 32% opposed. The polls were all taken over roughly the same time period, September 21-25.
The Senate poll can likely be considered dated since Saverygate was just sinking in with Iowans while the poll was conducted. Nevertheless, I would not have been surprised to have learned that both Vilsack and Harkin had increased their leads in the few weeks leading up to the polls. Both Vilsack and Harkin had run some effective ads, both touting their accomplishments and criticizing their opponents. Thus, it seems likely they would get some movement in the polls in their direction
What is surprising is how large the leads are. Perhaps too large. This shows up most in the gubernatorial poll. The previous poll had Vilsack leading Gross 48-43%. The latest poll shows that Gross has dropped 10 points. That’s an awful long way to fall in the spate of two weeks.
My guess is there are two reasons for this. First, both polls ask the respondent to rate his or her feelings toward the candidates just before they ask the respondent who he or she intends to vote for. Supposedly asking the respondents feelings about all of the candidates should cancel out any effect it has on vote choice. But looking through my codebooks for the American National Election Studies, I noticed that the ANES polls ask the “vote” question well after they ask the “feeling” questions. They put a lot of questions in between the two, supposedly to mitigate any effect. Like I said above, I suspect that Vilsack and Harkin had gained some ground, in part by driving up the negative feelings that voters have about their opponents. Yet it seems that a “feeling” question right before a “vote” question might exaggerate the effect of those negative feelings, thereby lowering the numbers the candidates who had recently become viewed more negatively, in this case Gross and Ganske.
The second reason is what I’ll call the “fluke.” This occurred to me because of the result from the “Warm with Iraq” poll. As noted above, support in Iowa is only 51%. Gallup has found that support around the nation is at about 57-58%, while ABC has it at about 61%. Given the Iowa results seems rather low, I can’t help but wonder if the Iowa poll by some statistical fluke didn’t poll a groups of Iowans that are somewhat more liberal than the Iowa population in general.
Despite the results possibly being off, it is still likely that Gross and Ganske have slipped some in the last few weeks. They still have a lot of work ahead of them to convince Iowans to turn out the incumbents. Fortunately, there is still over a month left, just enough time to do it.
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE COMING LATE TODAY
The Daily Diatribe is delayed today. Will be up later in the afteroon.
. . .
SAVERYGATE: HOW WELL DID HARKIN KNOW CONLEY?
The Des Moines Register has this new article on the Saverygate Scandal. It appears that Conley has stuck his nose into political meetings before:
Months before he became the key figure in a taping controversy surrounding Iowa's U.S. Senate race, Brian Conley was involved in a skirmish over Republican U.S. Rep. Greg Ganske's invitation to speak to an Iowa trade association's annual meeting.
"He was concerned we were only presenting one side of an issue," said Ross Larson, executive director of Printing Industries of the Midlands, a trade association of more than 200 printing companies in Iowa, Nebraska and South Dakota. He said Conley called the group in April to demand the association also invite Ganske's Democratic rival, U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, to its annual summer meeting on July 27 at Okoboji.
Harkin has stated that he barely knew Conley. But the story casts a bit of doubt on that:
Larson said he explained to Conley that Ganske was invited to the summer meeting because Larson and a representative of a national printing group had met with Ganske in Washington to talk about patients-bill-of-rights legislation, which Ganske had sponsored.
Larson said he also told Conley they had been unable to set up a meeting with Harkin when he was in Washington.
"If you need an appointment, I can help you," Larson remembers Conley telling him in April, after word of Ganske's invitation to the conference had reached association members by mail.
Harkin has said he barely knew Conley.
Larson said he was told later by Harkin's staff that Conley had contacted the senator's Washington office about appearing at the association's meeting.
In fairness, a few things should be noted. First, since Larson in the state chairman of the Iowa GOP, his recollection should be taken with a grain of salt. But it should also be pointed out that Larson has been pretty accurate with the details he has "leaked" thus far. Larson doesn't seem like the type to make this stuff up.
Next, the statement "If you need an appointment, I can help you,’ is rather vague. Does it mean he knew Harkin well? Maybe it means that he was on good terms with a campaign staffer. Or he may have been blustering, thinking his job with Harkin in the 1970s somehow gave him influence. We should question what Conley’s statement means, but not read too much into it—unlike the way certain lefties read meaning into Ganske’s statement.
P.S. The Washington Times has an article about Saverygate. (Thanks to reader Ricky W.)
UPDATE: A reader has pointed out that the 'Larson' referred to in the story is Ross Larson, not Chuck Larson. Chuck Larson is chairman of the Iowa GOP. Ross Larson is executive director of Printing Industries of the Midlands. Thus, the 2nd to last paragraph can be disregarded. I'll try to find out more about Ross Larson later. Sorry for the mix up.
. . .
GOOD TIMES FOR IOWA DEMOCRATS?
David Yepsen thinks that recent polls are showing that Democrats Vilsack and Harkin are pulling away from their Republicans rivals. His analysis is interesting, although there is one problem. He relies on a poll about the Harkin-Ganske race that was taken before Saverygate really made an impression on Iowa voters, as I’ve noted elsewhere.
. . .
Wednesday, October 02, 2002
WHO CARES ABOUT THE 'RULE OF LAW'?
Croooow Blog has this snippet of Neal Boortz's taken on a recent New York Times editorial on the New Jersey Senate race.
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: IOWA’S SONTAG AWARD NOMINEE
The Iowa City Press-Citizen hack, Jim Walters, is at it again. He begins:
War is easy. All you have to do is clench your fist and swing, pull the trigger, or dispatch a bomber squadron. There's no need to acknowledge "the enemy" as more than those who need to die. Peace is just a bit more difficult, since it assumes we're going to continue to live together, and even reconcile our differences.
Mobilizing our troops, sending our young men and women into harms way—yep, that’s easy. Going about our daily lives and hoping that Islamic fanatics will do the same—that’s hard.
Check out this sentence:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Bush, as governor of Texas, presided over more executions than any other person in U.S. history.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but shouldn’t you fact check that before you put it in print? Guess there is no need to worry about accuracy when there is the opportunity to take a cheap shot at President Bush.
Then, like Pavlov’s dog, Walters must trot out the war as diversionary tactic line:
But the time is right to simply unmask the dancers. Why are we talking of war at all? Because our leaders simply have no idea of what else to do. No idea of how to deal with our current economic meltdown. No idea of how we can build a just society, with jobs, education, healthcare, and security, for all. No idea of how this country can become a participant in building international prosperity, rather than an exploiter that sucks underdeveloped nations dry.
It’s the economy, stupid! That’s why the U.S. is going to war. What was that little thing, let me see here, can’t quite remember….oh yeah, September 11! That wouldn’t have anything to do with the U.S. going to war, would it? And what about the fact that there is a madman who is stockpiling weapons of mass destruction and harbors terrorists? That’s a reason to go to war? You must be joking!
As for sucking "underdeveloped nation dry," that’s typical left-wing rubbish. Never mind the fact that most underdeveloped nations have governments that choke the economy. Never mind that those governments are corrupt. Never mind that much of the aid the U.S. sends to those countries winds up in Swiss bank accounts. Why acknowledge any of that when it is so much more fun to bash America?
Then Walters trots out this canard:
How close are we to a repeat of the late 1920s, when another "new economy" collapsed into deflation and millions were left jobless, homeless, and helpless? This time, will it be too difficult for those who have sold us the mantra of government as evil to reverse course and acknowledge the necessity of government action?
This has been a fantasy of many on the left since Ronald Reagan took office. Capitalism will collapse, completely discrediting free-market ideology. The U.S. will return to an era of activist government, perhaps even ushering in the socialist revolution. The lefties will save us! Oh glorious future!
Next, for many on the left, November 2000 is the election that never ends. For some, it is November 1980:
In the fall of 1980, the Reagan presidential campaign was fearful of an "October surprise" - that the U.S. citizens held hostage in Iran might be released before the November presidential election, thereby trumping their candidate's most potent issue. An accurate appraisal of the machinations that took place to make sure this did not happen remains to be written.
That last line is really slippery. Problem is, no account would be accurate in Walter’s mind unless it confirmed that an October Surprise took place. Hey Jimmy boy, Congress investigated this in the early 1990s. They didn’t find anything. Give it up!
Finally, Walters displays his respect for the American people:
Today's October surprise is war. Not much of a surprise to those who follow things closely, but it seems to be playing well in the tabloids. Whether war will trump joblessness, lack of health insurance, tuition increases, or disappearing 401k's, is anyone's guess. How gullible are you?
Yep, if the America public thinks that the war is more important than the economy right now, they’re "gullbile." Thank goodness we have folks like Walters to enlighten us.
The Iowa City Press-Citizen should stop printing Walterss’ drivel. Instead it should point him toward the circus. That is the proper place for clowns.
. . .
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MADE ME DO IT!
I love the lead paragraph in this story detailing Governor Vilsack’s decision to sue Medicare on the behalf of Iowa:
Governor to sue over Medicare rate. A federal government letter refusing to increase Iowa's payment rate leads Vilsack to take action.
Iowa’s lousy reimbursement rate has been a problem for a long time, including the first three and one-half year Vilsack has been governor. But he has only recently threatened legal action. More accurately, it is the coming election that has led Vilsack to sue Medicare.
There is also this nifty little line:
Vilsack said he was forced to take action after receiving a "rejection letter" from Tommy Thompson, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.
Yep, the Bush Administration forced Vilsack’s hand. He has no choice in the matter. And at the same time, he can appeal to both his base by taking on the Bush Administration and to seniors by suing Medicare. A cynic might suggest that Vilsack smells a political opportunity.
. . .
FIX THE BUDGET PROCESS
My word! A Register editorial I actually I agree with. Am I getting soft?
. . .
Tuesday, October 01, 2002
A LITTLE BETTER
TAPPED has corrected some of the errors in its post on Saverygate yesterday. Unfortunately, the link to the new post is not working, so click on the link in the previous sentence and then scroll up. It's the very next post. TAPPED has corrected its statement that it was Jeff Link who asked Brian Conley to make the recording. As TAPPED now correctly notes, it was Harkin staffer Rafael Ruthchild.
Still TAPPED has not corrected its assertion: "We would stress that in either case nothing illegal transpired -- the story points out that in Iowa, as in many states, any participant in a meeting is allowed to record it." The Des Moines Register article they link notes:
Iowa criminal-law experts have said that if someone has permission to be at a meeting, they can tape it and use it for any purpose as long as it is not to bring harm to anyone.
We won't know anything for certain until the Polk County Attorney makes a decision later this week. And even then, there is the possibility of a federal investigation. TAPPED jumped the gun, and should make a correction.
. . .
THANKS FOR A RECORD WEEK!
Last week was the best so far for Cornfield Commentary, 5,230 unique visits. I suppose I should send the Harkin campaign a thank you note, heh, heh. Seriously, there are numerous bloggers whom I should thank. First, Steven Green, Christopher Johnson, and Robert Musil all gave me links. Thank you gentlemen. Glenn Reynolds linked me not once, not twice, but three times. Thank you, Glenn.
And many thanks must go to Henry Hanks and Jay Caruso. They not only gave me numerous links last week, but they do so in many weeks. Their kindness has made my blogging experience much more enjoyable than it otherwise would have been. So thank you, Henry and Jay; you gents are the best!
Finally, thanks to all the people who visit this site, no matter how good a week this blog is having. I don't say that often enough.
. . .
EVEN MORE McDIMWIT AND BONEHEAD
George will knocks it out of the park with this one. (Thanks to Jason Steffans.)
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: WHY SAVERYGATE MATTERS
The other day Hesiod posted this comment on the Saverygate Scandal. What follows is my response. Hesiod begins:
I have to say that I find this whole thing laughable. If the Harkin campaign had simply said that one of their supporters was invited to a Ganske fundraiser and taped the meeting, this would have been a one day story.
That’s certainly Hesiod’s right. But there are good reasons to take it seriously, as I argue in a bit.
Next:
So what if the guy is a Harkin supporter? So what if he went to the Ganske meeting to tape it? If he was invited, he had every right to go.
First, no one is disputing that he had a right to go if he was invited. What is at issue is the tape recording (now, believed to be a CD recording.) It’s not at all clear that what Mr. Conley did was legal. According to this article in the Des Moines Register:
Iowa criminal-law experts have said that if someone has permission to be at a meeting, they can tape it and use it for any purpose as long as it is not to bring harm to anyone.
Since Conley colluded with Harkin staffer Rafael Ruthchild, as Senator Harkin has conceded, it is probably not that difficult to prove that he “intended to do harm.”
I think Hesiod also overlooks is the post-Watergate principle of “It’s not the crime so much as the cover up.” In this case, the Harkin Campaign has been acting like there is something to hide. First, the Harkin Campaign denied any knowledge of the recording, and campaign manager Jeff Link even suggested that it might be a trick by the Ganske Campaign. The next day Link admitted that the Harkin Campaign was involved. Furthermore, Brian Conley and Rafael Ruthchild are not talking to the media . That’s not proof of a cover up, but it certainly justifies suspicions about one.
This sort of thing happens in campaigns all the time. It's sort of the "cost of doing business" if you will. When you cast a wide net for campaign funds, you often "hook" people who support your opponent in your appeals.
I remember an incident in a campaign I was involved in several years ago, where we found out that several Young Republicans from a nearby college, had "volunteered" for the campaign of the Democratic candidate I was supporting.
They were just trying to gain intelligence on what we were doing. It's a common occurrence. A friend of mine, who worked for the Clinton campaign in 1992, actually went to the GOP county headquarters to attend a "debate party."
The argument here is that since such behavior is common it’s not really a big deal. Well, candidates for office probably often sound like “unscrupulous” politicians when they discuss strategy, so it must be no big deal. I doubt Hesiod would go for that. Also, it is not at all uncommon for campaigns send out misleading, pre-recorded phone calls, so it must be no big deal. I doubt Hesiod would go for that either.
The measure of whether a given behavior is moral isn’t whether or not it is widespread, but the effect that it has on other individuals and society as a whole. In this case, it adds to the cynicism that much of the American public already has about politics. As Register columnist David Yepsen put it:
It just adds another level of mistrust to politics, as if we need more. Everyone in Iowa who now goes into what they think is a private political meeting will wonder if they are being taped.
It also makes all politicians look bad. Ganske and the Republicans shouldn't take too much comfort from Harkin's problems. There is a possibility the recording was done by one of the participants in the meeting, one of Ganske's so-called "friends."
This is the sort of stuff that turns off voters to politics, which has increasingly become a bitter, lying, deceitful game. Monday night, I attended an awards ceremony at Drake University for high school leaders from around Polk County. Close to 250 young people were there, and as they walked across the stage to accept their honor, many made comments about where they were going to college or what they wanted to do with their lives. Only one said he wanted a political career. He wanted to be president, he laughed. It wasn't clear whether he was serious or joking.
Until a better ethical atmosphere develops around American politics, one that disdains dirty tricks and doesn't simply dismiss them as "everybody does it," American politics will continue to suffer.
Finally, Hesiod argues:
Bottom line, it's being hyped by Harkin's opponents because they are desperate. The real story is what was recorded on the tape: Greg Ganske's promise to run a nasty campaign against Tom Harkin.
Well...he's following through on his promise, isn't he?
I challenge anyone to show me where on the transcript Ganske makes a “promise to run a nasty campaign against Tom Harkin” in the transcript or on the recordings. All Ganske did was describe his attack strategy, not say he was going to get nasty. It is strange that Hesiod would be so cavalier with the transcript, given that he dislikes it when other bloggers distort his remarks.
Simpy put, the real story here is the Harkin campaign engaging in dirty tricks and employing potentially illegal means to do it. It isn't about anything Greg Ganske said. Hesiod is just trying to spin it that way.
. . .
DOES SAVERYGATE HAVE NATIONAL IMPLICATIONS?
John Podhoretz in the New York Post thinks so. Well worth a read.
. . .
MORE McDIMWIT....AND BONEHEAD
There were some excellent takedowns of the two members of Congress who gave Iraq a PR victory. Christopher Johnson has a sterling piece and, as always, so does Andrew Sullivan.
Plus Andrew Sullivan provides this link to a column by Robert J. Lieber in the Los Angeles Times on why deterrence won't work against Hussein.
. . .
McDIMWIT
Croooow also has this little interesting tidbit about Congressman Jim McDermott.
. . .
HOW TO WRITE NOTHING, 101
How do you write a lot and say next to nothing? Here's a good example.
. . .
SAVERYGATE FADING?
David Yepsen puts forward the case that Saverygate may be fading. Well, there goes all my site hits.
. . .
SAVERYGATE DECISION BY THE END OF THE WEEK
"Polk County Attorney John Sarcone said Monday he expects to decide by the end of the week if he will file charges in connection with the taping of Republican Senate candidate Rep. Greg Ganske’s Sept. 3 meeting." Quad City Times.
UPDATE: Here's another article in the Des Moines Register. This one has a bit of new information about Brian Conley; he was not only on Harkin's Congressional staff, he also worked for Harkin's campaign in 1974.
. . .
SAVERYGATE AT THE AMERICAN PROWLER
My article on the Iowa Senate race is up at the American Prowler. It includes some new insights about the Ganske campaign.
. . .
THE TORCH BURNING A LITTLE LESS BRIGHT
Croooow has your Bob Toricelli round up here, here, and here.
. . .
IOWA'S 1ST DISTRICT IS CRUCIAL
Thanks to John Ferugson for pointing out this article in the New York Times. The race between Jim Leach and Julie Thomas is vital to both parties' designs on the House of Representatives.
UPDATE: Iowa's 1st District may be crucial. But the 2nd District is definitely crucial, because that is the one Jim Leach and Julie Thomas are running in. I'm gonna go hide in the bathroom and wait for the embarrassment to pass.
. . .
Monday, September 30, 2002
HESIOD ALSO FALLS FOR THE 'SAVERYGATE NOT SHOWING UP IN THE POLLS' STORY
Hesiod has this post in which he claims:
While Publicans and the blogosphere make a big deal out of the routine occurrence of someone-gasp!-taping their political opponent, Tom Harkin opened up a 20 point lead in his race against Greg Ganske.
Hesiod doesn't quite say that Harkin opened up the lead during the scandal, but he comes close. He should have noted this passage in the article he linked to:
Experts say it's too soon to know whether support for Harkin will be undercut by a Republican-initiated criminal investigation of a Sept. 3 incident in which a former Harkin congressional aide made an audiotape of a Ganske campaign meeting.
(Wow, that's MWO, TAPPED, and now Hesiod! If I didn't know any better, I'd say there was a disinformation conspiracy!)
Next, Hesiod asks:
Why is Ganske upset that the meeting was taped and publicized, after all? It's because he sounded like an uncrupulous politician who intended to fling a lot of mud.
First, I assume what Hesiod is referring to is the passage in the transcript where Ganske says:
We just need to have the funds to do that, to put that information out. And it will be mindblowing. You’ve never seen a campaign where anyone will attack him like we’re going to. With a smile on our face. Not angry, not growling or scowling, just being so happy we are just going to whip back the stress from our shoulders.
The statement does not imply that Ganske is going to be unscrupulous or fling mud. Ganske is outlining his attack strategy: It's going to be upbeat, not mean-spirited in tone. Hesiod, like many others on the left, are reading way too much into the statement.
Hesiod ends by asking:
If [Gankse] had been talking about protecting Iowa farmers, do you think he would have cared?
Actually, Hesiod has already answered his own question in a previous post, where he states "Bottom line, it's being hyped by Harkin's opponents because they are desperate." Well, if Ganske is hyping the secret taping now, why doesn't Hesiod suppose that Ganske would hype it no matter what the transcript showed?
. . .
TAKING UP THE SLACK
Since I've been busy covering Saverygate, Jason Steffans has been nice enough to take down ultra-liberal Rekha Basu. Steffans does an excellent job of revealing Basu's paranoia of anyone to the right of Jesse Jackson.
. . .
MORE ON SAVERYGATE
This article at KAAL TV states that "Polk County Attorney John Sarcone says he'll make a decision quickly on whether to press charges in the taping scandal in the Senate race between incumbent Democrat Tom Harkin and his Republican rival, Congressman Greg Ganske. "
There is also plenty of Harkin-Ganske debate coverage, at KCCI TV, WHO-TV, Newsday, and the Austin American.Statesman.
Meanwhile, ABC News is falling for the "scandal hasn't affected the polls" story.
. . .
SCREWING UP ONCE WAS SO MUCH FUN, LET'S DO IT AGAIN, PART 2!
Having not responded to my email pointing out the errors in their original post on Saverygate, TAPPED has decided to screw the pooch again. This time, however, they don't even read the Des Moines Register article they link to.
According to TAPPED:
From the Register story, it seems that either Link asked Conley to tape record a meeting to which he had been invited, or Conley taped it of his own accord and, angry at some of Ganske's comments, decided to hand the tape over to the Harkin campaign.
According to the Register:
Harkin said Rafael Ruthchild, whose responsibilities for the Harkin campaign included videotaping Ganske during public appearances, asked Brian Conley to record the meeting.
According to TAPPED:
We would stress that in either case nothing illegal transpired -- the story points out that in Iowa, as in many states, any participant in a meeting is allowed to record it.
According to the Register:
Iowa criminal-law experts have said that if someone has permission to be at a meeting, they can tape it and use it for any purpose as long as it is not to bring harm to anyone.
This is getting to the point where you have to ask not only “Do they read the articles?” but also “How well can they actually read?”
. . .
SCREWING UP ONCE WAS SO MUCH FUN, LET'S DO IT AGAIN!
The life manual of the folks at MWO must have only one line in it: Spread butt cheeks and insert head.
Now they are posting this about the new Des Moines Register poll:
Harkin Opens Up 20 POINT Lead Over Greg "You've never seen a campaign where anyone will attack him like we're going to attack him" Ganske
U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin has widened his lead over Republican opponent Greg Ganske over the past three months, according to a Des Moines Register poll that was taken this week as Iowans were learning details of an unfolding campaign controversy.
The Democratic incumbent has opened a 20-percentage-point lead over Ganske, a congressman from Des Moines, in the latest Iowa Poll of likely voters. His lead in late June was 9 points.
This is the article they link to. Had they actually read the article, they might have noticed this passage:
Experts say it's too soon to know whether support for Harkin will be undercut by a Republican-initiated criminal investigation of a Sept. 3 incident in which a former Harkin congressional aide made an audiotape of a Ganske campaign meeting.
Also, if they had done some fact checking, as I did, they might have noticed that most of the serious revelations about the scandal occurred on the 26th and 27th of September. The poll ended on the 25th.
After getting so many details wrong about the Saverygate Scandal, you’d think MWO might look before it dove in head first again. Actually, after reading MWO enough, you really wouldn't think that.
. . .
ANOTHER MWO SEMI-RETRACTION
Jay also notes that Media Whores Online has posted another pathetic attempt at a retraction in the Saverygate Scandal.
. . .
GIANTS ALL THE WAY, BABY!
Jay Caruso has these predictions on the baseball playoffs. The stumbling yutz-head predicts that the Atlanta Braves will beat the San Francisco Giants in five games. Jay, here are the proper, well-informed predictions:
-Division Series, Giants in three
-National League Championship Series, Giants in four.
-World Series, Giants in four.
Seriously, I think Jay overlooks some serious Giant strengths on the pitching side, although he rightly notes Bonds previous “stinky” post-season performances. Take a look at these stats for Giants pitching. They have three solid starters in Kirk Rueter, Jason Schmidt, and Russ Ortiz. Also look at the member of the bullpen with more than 50 innings this season: Robb Nen, Tim Worrell, Jay Witasick, Chad Zerbe, and Felix Rodriguez. Their ERA’s are, respectively, 2.20, 2.25, 2.37, 3.04, and 4.17. That’s right, three outstanding ERAs, one very good one, and only one stinker. Here’s hoping the bullpen is a factor.
. . .
THE LEFT-WING WEEK IN REVIEW
Looks like Henry Hanks has a new feature. Both informative and entertaining. Check it out.
Also, he has this link to Mike Glover's piece on the Harkin-Ganske debate.
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: IOWA GOVERNMENT DOESN'T SPEND ENOUGH MONEY
Well, the Des Moines Register is whining about budget cuts again, trying to convince Iowans that the state doesn't spend enough money. Today it has two editorials about the effect cuts are having on children in the Human Services system.
The first one deals with the speeches Doug Gross and Tom Vilsack gave to the Coalition for Family and Children’s Services. Guess which speech the Register liked more?
In the Gross speech "there was a disconnect with this particular audience when he talked about 'measuring outcomes' in working with kids. 'If [a program] works, we fund it. If it doesn't, we don't.' While that makes sense on the surface, anyone who works in the field knows it's difficult to measure the 'success' of a kid." Yes, measuring a program to see if it works is a tricky business. Much too hard for government to do. Better to just throw lots of money at the programs.
The Register liked the Vilsack speech much better:
The governor went on to talk about problems with federal funding of programs for Iowa children and an Iowa Legislature that was unwilling to discuss a DHS budget "everyone knows is underfunded." He announced that when the books are closed on the last fiscal year, a significant surplus is expected. That money, Vilsack said, should be used to fund state programs.
The governor said it best with this comment, "You balance your budget, but you have to balance your values" in regard to state spending. Kids are suffering and the next governor must work to ensure that the DHS has the resources to do its job.
Ah yes, Vilsack went on a spending binge his first two years in office. So what is he going to do when new money rolls into the state? Put it away in the Rainy Day Fund just to be sure the troubled times are behind us? Nah. Much better to go out and spend it all.
The creepiest line is Vilsack’s remark that the "Iowa Legislature that was unwilling to discuss a DHS budget ‘everyone knows is underfunded.’" In Fiscal Year 2003, Iowa will spend more than $900 million on DHS, and that's excluding federal funds. Perhaps it depends on what the definition of "underfunded is."
Next, take a look at the statement that the Register loves so much: "You balance your budget, but you have to balance your values." Let’s take that statement seriously for a moment. Aren’t both "saving" and "spending" two values with regard to a budget? And if so, how much balancing of those values is reflected in Vilsack’s remarks? Seem like they are pretty much weighted in favor of spending. That’s some "balance."
The second editorial gives us a hint at what the Register's solution might be. It ends with this statement: "our most vulnerable kids are waiting for this state to help them. Budget cuts might look OK on paper, but they don't look good on children." I wonder what the Register's solution might be? It wouldn’t be raising taxes, would it? Surely not.
. . .
SAVERYGATE
That’s what the Quad City Times is calling the Harkin Scandal, in honor of the Hotel Savery, where the Ganske meeting took place. The editorial in the QC Times has some very pointed words:
If only we could attribute the tactic pulled by Sen. Tom Harkin’s campaign to youthful "shenanigans." That’s the Senator’s word, not ours.
Oh, that carefree air of youth, rushing foolishly into harm’s way. Those rascals.
And:
In Iowa, "shenanigans" might accurately describe tipping over outhouses. Maybe swiping a hubcap. But Harkin’s rebellious scamps aren’t teens. They are young men. The supporter who supplied the tape was 53.
The enitre editorial is a gem. Go read it.
. . .
I BET YOU WOULD!
I beleive it was William Safire who once said something to the effec that the languge of a political scandal is the "passive voice"—i.e., "laws were broken." This article in the Quad City Times about the Harkin-Gankse debate last night reveals Senator Harkin is using such language:
Harkin countered that he has taken full responsibility for his campaign’s actions and that Iowans want the dispute to be put to rest. “No crime has ever been committed,” he said.
And:
“Mistakes have been made. We’re not perfect; nobody is,” Harkin said.
Yes, Senator. But who the hell made them?
The first paragraph in the Des Moines Register update (no longer online, sorry) about the Harkin-Ganske debate last night is also a gem:
U.S. Rep. Greg Ganske continued to push for Sen. Tom Harkin to "come clean" tonight, but Harkin said it's time to move beyond the controversy over a taped Ganske campaign meeting during their first face-to-face meeting of the election cycle.
The story is barely a week old, we know maybe half of the details, but it’s already time to move beyond it.
The second paragraph is pretty good too:
"Tonight, I want to focus on the issues that matter to Iowans," Harkin said, naming agriculture, education, health care, and the potential for war in Iraq as more important than the controversy over the taping incident.
I’ll bet you do, Senator. I like the list of issues Harkin named as important to Iowans, as though the secret taping of a campaign meeting isn’t one of them. Ain’t "spin" grand?
P.S. More coverage of the debate here.
. . .
LILEKS BASHES CASTRO AND VENTURA
Reader Joe Kristan sent me an email encouraging me to read James Lileks' comments on Jesse Ventura’s meeting with El Jefe. I was all but certain that it was going to be outstanding before I even read it. If you write, Lileks' smooth prose is something that evokes emotions of grinding envy.
And, of course, it is outstanding. Here’s a sample:
For some, "freedom" - and they’ll always put it in scare quotes - is a lethal impediment if it doesn’t result in the necessary outcome. An unfree people given what’s good for them is sometimes better than a free people choosing what they want. Let the people choose, but only once, via revolution. Then let the pros handle the details for the rest of your life.
Here’s the link. (Scroll down.) Go read it.
. . .
Sunday, September 29, 2002
VILSACK WITH A COMMANDING LEAD?
This new Des Moines Register poll shows Vilsack with an 18 point lead over Gross. I'll comment more on this poll later in the week.
. . .
SCANDAL MAY HAVE HELPED HARKIN
That might as well be the headline for this story in the Des Moines Register. In the print edition, this story appeared on the front page, just under the story about the resignation of Harkin’s campaign. Furthermore, it had a different headline than the online edition:
POLL TAKEN AMID TAPE FLAP HAS HARKIN WITH BIG LEAD
The implication of that headline is that Harkin has maintained a big lead, perhaps even gained, during the recent scandal. The poll is a compilation of responses taken over a three-day period, sometimes called a rolling average. It shows a 20-point lead for Harkin, Harkin 54%, Ganske 34%.
Look at this slippery lead paragraph:
U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin has widened his lead over Republican opponent Greg Ganske over the past three months, according to a Des Moines Register poll that was taken this week as Iowans were learning details of an unfolding campaign controversy.
If you don’t read it carefully, you won’t realize that this poll may not account for the scandal. It’s not until the fourth paragraph that this is cleared up:
Experts say it's too soon to know whether support for Harkin will be undercut by a Republican-initiated criminal investigation of a Sept. 3 incident in which a former Harkin congressional aide made an audiotape of a Ganske campaign meeting.
Btu then the next paragraph compounds the confusion:
The poll did not find significant shifts in opinion during the five-day period that it was taken. Polling began last Saturday, as reports of the taping incident began to surface, and was completed on Wednesday, when Conley acknowledged through his lawyers that he had taped the meeting and shared the recording with the Harkin campaign.
Again, the impression that leaves is that the scandal has not had much effect. The problem is that the scandal didn’t begin to receive serious media coverage until Monday—it received a dribble over the last weekend. What is even more misleading is the suggestion that the release of Conley’s statement through his lawyer had any effect on the poll results. But Conley’s statement did not receive press coverage until the afternoon of Wednesday, September the 25th, the last day of the poll. You’ll notice that this story at the Iowa Channel was first posted at 5:38pm. Even allowing that much of the polling done that day was conducted in the evening, most of the respondents had probably heard little to nothing about the new revelation. Thus, it is unlikely that Conley’s statement had any impact on their opinions.
Finally, no where does the article mention that some of the more damaging developments occurred after the 25th. On the 26th we learned that Conley was the one who had made the recording, and that a Harkin staffer, later identified as Rafael Ruthchild, had resigned due to involvement in the taping. On the 27th we learned that that the Conley had contacted the Harkin Campaign about attending the Ganske meeting, and that Harkin’s campaign manager, Jeff Link, resigned. None of that information was reflected in the poll.
About the only accurate thing in the article is this passage:
Steffen Schmidt, a political science professor at Iowa State University, said it's unlikely the eavesdropping controversy would make much of an immediate impression on voters. What is important is the long-term impact, he said.
So why even bother releasing the poll results? Appears like a quintessential case of liberal bias in the press.
. . .
THE GENT WHO SAT NEXT TO CONLEY
Yesterday I purchased the print copy of the Des Moines Register. Tucked away in a small box on page 4A was a story by Thomas Beaumont that had this headline:
MAN NEXT TO CONLEY AT MEETING SAYS HE DIDN’T SEE A TAPE RECORDER
The story isn’t in the online version of the Register, so I’ll post some key excerpts here:
Retired Des Moines physician Ken Schultheis said Brian Conley displayed no tape recorder when he sat beside him at a U.S. Senate campaign meeting for Republican Greg Ganske on Sept. 3….
We sat elbow to elbow and I didn’t see one," said Schultheis.
Schultheis said he introduced himself to Conley, who sat alongside him near the speaker’s table at the Hotel Savery, where Ganske and his finance director sat when they addressed the two dozen financial donors in attendance.
Dr. Schultheis also had something to say about Conley's claim of "outrage" over Ganske’s attitude as the reason for handing over the recording to the Harkin Campaign:
"I certainly didn’t appreciate the claim that he was surprised or angered by the comments," Schultheis said. "He didn’t look angry to me."
Guess that casts further doubt on MWO’s claim that: "Interested especially in hearing Mehlman's remarks, the taper OPENLY recorded the meeting instead of taking notes. Nobody objected."
I’m going to start holding my breath for another retraction from MWO. Here I go. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7…..ah copping a nice little dizzy buzz!…8, 9, 15, 32, 6, 11….
. . .
|
. . .
|
