Category — Iowa

A campaign thought on Iowa and NH.

Forget the early bird getting the worm.

The second mouse collects the cheese!

Democratic voters look like a pretty homogeneous lot. The same nebulous themes of “hope” and “change” that elected Deval Patrick are now being bandied about on the national level by Barack Obama. And rather effectively at that given Obama’s comfortable Iowa win.

Obama has yet to impress me as a deep thinker, but his weak kneed themes make me wonder if he has the stones for the job. He voted “present” 130 times as an Illinois state senator. How many state issues can possibly be that vexing? But Obama partisans are quick to defend him:

They said Mr. Obama cast 4,000 votes in the Illinois Senate and used the present vote to protest bills that he believed had been drafted unconstitutionally or as part of a broader legislative strategy.

So the vote should have been “no” after all. He did take an oath to “defend” the constitution, not offer “protest” votes when it gets trampled on. And if merely voting to defend your beliefs is too daunting a challenge, what would a President Obama do if China invades Taiwan? You get the feeling he’d instruct our UN ambassador to vote “present” during the Security Council deliberations to maintain a Swiss like neutrality. Wouldn’t do to offend anyone after all.

This kind of rudderless indecision would be disastrous on the national and international levels. This man simply doesn’t have the experience to be president. His campaign slogan should really read—”Making change for changes sake and hoping for a plan”.

Anatomy of a political hangover

Listening to the promises made by the candidates, most overstep presidential powers and violate the Constitution. Tax law belongs to the House as does all money bills. Susurrations to the contrary, the President isn’t a King which makes the MSM anointments a futility in progress.

On Clinton–
Rush Limbaugh said last night was the worst night for Hillary since Bill’s second term. Not even close, people, for Communist Hillary, the election of Nixon crushed her ideals. Last night, this Alinsky drone’s pyloric valve seized in the open position, showing her true color.

You will never hear her expound upon her vision for the US. With Clinton, as Yoda said to Luke, “With you, it’s change, always change.” Her idea of change, abolishing the Constitution, doesn’t sound good on the hustings. Afterwards, the loud noise heard off screen was a boomer exploding.

On Edwards–
He wants to make your life better, but not quite the way he made his better. An envious man, he wishes to have more money than the collective you. To accomplish this end, everything will be free on his watch. Wait till you see what that costs. You will be verrucose in short order, waiting in line for universal medical relief. Then again, it would be kinder if he merely sued you. Under current tort laws, at least you keep your dignity.

On Obama–
Same droning sounds as from Silky. Different words used. Obama likes the word hope. We have hope. Hope we can make changes. Change is good for it gives us hope. He has no idea how the real world works. That will never prevent him from lurching into the breech. To give us hope for change, hopefully.

On Huckabee–
Having prodded GOP caucus goers with his RINO horn to get what he wanted, let us see how he dolls up the message for low denomination voters. I do not believe many NH voters place hands on the TV. Anyway, Huckabee is calling the NH primary, the Big Camp Meeting, can I get an AMEN.

On Romney–
Many questions need be asked of the Mitt. Does the U.S. deserve the type of government foisted on MA inmates? Do we need a “Big Dig” in every state? Why is the working population of MA shrinking? Why isn’t the illegal immigration population shrinking?
More to the point, which Mitt is running for office?

On McCain–
He is in the wrong party. That speaks to his good points. There isn’t room for the thought on the dark side.

On Paul–
Collaborating with the Donk moonbat Kucinich, both are investigating the appearance of illegal aliens at Groom Lake aka Area 51, instead of along the border and in meat packing plants. Art Bell is chairman of this primary of two.

On Thompson–
Not running hard while running, this makes one wonder, Wassup! If he keeps dissing the lame stream media, he may become the front-runner rather quickly. More of a Washingtonian politician (person, not place) he says it is about duty, not desire. We’ll see if this reaches fruition.

On the usual perennial weeds–
After signing up for campaign matching funds, they cash the check; spend a minimal amount on electioneering and pocket the rest. This is a common trope for most politicians, usually seen as groveling for power and re-election, and by the older politicians, sex in strange places with alien DNA types. Their attendance is for obfuscating purposes only, this heterophony helps shield the front-runners from real questions.

GOP voters in Iowa certainly aren’t!

There may not be any perfect choices among the GOP candidates, but other than Ron Paul, I think Mike Huckabee may be the worst choice of the bunch.

Thanks for nothing Iowa and don’t miss Vodka Pundit’s open letter to GOP Iowa voters:

Dear Iowa Republicans,

I’ll put this in language even your tiny little Iowa brains can understand: What the f*** is wrong with you people?

The news coming out of Des Moines (literally, French for “tell me about the rabbits, George”) tonight is distressing in the extreme. 32 years ago, your Democratic brethren took one look at Jimmy Carter — the worst 20th Century President bar Nixon, and the worst ex-President ever — and declared, “That’s our man!”

Three decades later, and along comes Mike Huckabee. Same moral pretentiousness, same gullibility on foreign affairs, only-slightly-less toothy idiot’s grin. Then you so-called Republicans took a look at Carter’s clone and said, “That’s our man, too!”

And by a pretty wide margin.

I’ll give you some credit where it’s due: you guys had sense enough to give Fred Thompson a breather, and Ron Paul a pretty solid kick in the (ahem) nuts. But Mike Huckabee? Really? We’ve seen this game before, and its name is… every other single stupid, un-winnable candidate you’ve ever picked — which is most of them.

So I repeat the question: What is wrong with you people?

All my love, you corn-sucking idiots,

VodkaPundit

PS You’re making Iowa Democrats look like Albert freakin’ Einstein. How’s that feel?

As for the Democrats, it’s always nice to see a Clinton get smacked around but honestly I’m not sure which Democrat candidate scares me most. Both would be a freaking disaster for our national security if elected.

Unfortunately, I fear that Obama will win the nomination and will then run a Deval Patrick like campaign of nothingness to win the general election.

God help us.

Hai Ya!

You better vote for me! I claim a brown belt in I Ching and a black belt 3rd dan in Feng Shui.

All is necessary to setup and run the White House.

Hey you, yeah you, right there!!

Got any more of that good blow?

Edwards shows his lawyerly form when he told this Iowa voter, that if she didn’t vote for him, he would bite off her face.

This is easier than channeling the voters to cast “correct Ballots.”

East Haddam - Stocking up on hats, horns, ticker tape and Bailey’s Irish Cream, Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd has MOVED TO IOWA to press the Iowa flesh.

Dodd, the Democratic Party’s dark horse and inevitable Presidential candidate was seen by this reporter at his home just yesterday, raising doubts about his sincerity to remain in Iowa and represent Connecticut.

It’s widely rumored that Dodd’s view of sincerity is the same as Groucho’s: “Once you can fake sincerity, you’ve got it made”.

We’ve heard so much about how the State of Iowa will shape the election of the next president of the U.S. We see the candidates doing everything but sleeping.

Since the MSM believes these voters hold the collective wisdom of the electorate, the Woodchuck wishes the reader to meet these arbiters of political worthiness.

From left to right Elma Glughe, fashion consultant; Wyvern Snokke, bowling alley manager; Irene Pinchine, elementary school teacher; Rennie “Big Toe” Shoohy, Ottumwa Mayor and Desiree swank, registered dietitian.

With the knowledge these savants are on the job voting for the next president of the U.S., you may rest easier.

 36 million drivers would flunk drivers tests

 Is it just your imagination, or do many of your fellow motorists lack even a rudimentary grasp of traffic laws?

Well, if a test administered by GMAC Insurance is any indication, one in six people cruising our highways and byways — roughly 36 million licensed drivers — would flunk their driver’s test if they had to take it today. Not only that, but based on the 2007 GMAC Insurance National Drivers Test data the state with the most road-going dummies is New York, while the most knowledgeable ones are out West to Idaho. [snip]

Also of interest from the GMAC Insurance test:

• Drivers 35 and older were more likely to pass
• Illinois, Georgia, Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Massachusetts were the least knowledgeable states overall, with average scores under 75 percent
• Fifty-five percent of the respondents didn’t know how many feet before making a left or right to signal. [snip]

The following state rankings were released for the 2007 GMAC Insurance National Drivers Test:

• 1. Idaho.
• 2. Alaska
• 21.Vermont
• 36. Maine
• 37. New Hampshire
• 40. Connecticut
• 46. Pennsylvania
• 47. Rhode Island
• 48. Massachusetts
• 48. New Jersey
• 51. New York

After analyzing the article, before glancing at the list, I thought population was the key. That would place Wyoming first and Vermont second. Not so.

Perhaps, I reflected, the political belief system of the states held a clue. That appears to work for the bottom states, but didn’t vindicate Wisconsin at 4, Washington at 6, Oregon at 9 or Iowa at 10.

Given that the 2007 failure rate doubled to 18% from 2006, a reason exists. Combining both posits advances one conclusion.

I’ll let the reader ponder the possibilities for others.

Sexual Misconduct Plagues US Schools

The young teacher hung his head, avoiding eye contact. Yes, he had touched a fifth-grader’s breast during recess. “I guess it was just lust of the flesh,” he told his boss.

That got Gary C. Lindsey fired from his first teaching job in Oelwein, Iowa. But it didn’t end his career. He taught for decades in Illinois and Iowa, fending off at least a half-dozen more abuse accusations.

When he finally surrendered his teaching license in 2004 - 40 years after that first little girl came forward - it wasn’t a principal or a state agency that ended his career. It was one persistent victim and her parents.

Lindsey’s case is just a small example of a widespread problem in American schools: sexual misconduct by the very teachers who are supposed to be nurturing the nation’s children. [snip]

An Associated Press investigation found more than 2,500 cases over five years in which educators were punished for actions from bizarre to sadistic.

There are 3 million public school teachers nationwide, most devoted to their work. Yet the number of abusive educators - nearly three for every school day - speaks to a much larger problem in a system that is stacked against victims. [snip]

Vermont has this problem just as other states do. All of the possible mixes have occurred.

According to this article, that’s slightly more than 500 a year. Called improper contact (don’t you love how correct that sounds) by “the wish to not offend” liberal structure, none of the actual deeds have reality. No molestation, sodomy, rape, or abuse takes place, just improper contact.

As one may see after reading the text, the victims’ anxiety, terror or self-deprecation is thrust aside when the professional is a well liked member of the faculty or staff.

Heather Kline was 12, a girl with a broad smile and blond hair pulled back tight. Teacher Troy Mansfield had cultivated her since she was in his third-grade class.

“Kids, like, idolized me because they thought I was, like, cool because he paid more attention to me,” says Kline, now 18, sitting at her mother’s kitchen table, sorting through a file of old poems and cards from Mansfield. “I was just like really comfortable. I could tell him anything.”

He never pushed her, just raised the stakes, bit by bit - a comment about how good she looked, a gift, a hug. She was sure she was in love.

By winter of seventh grade, he was sneaking her off in his car for an hour of sex, dropping in on her weekly baby-sitting duties, e-mailing about what clothes she should wear, about his sexual fantasies, about marriage and children.

Mansfield finally got caught by the girl’s mother, and his own words convicted him. [snip]

Victims also face consequences when teachers are punished.

In Pennsylvania, after news of teacher Troy Mansfield’s arrest hit, girls called Kline, his 12-year-old victim, a “slut” to her face. A teacher called her a “vixen.” Friends stopped talking to her. Kids no longer sat with her at lunch.
Her abuser, meanwhile, had been a popular teacher and football coach.

So, between rumors that she was pregnant or doing drugs and her own panic attacks and depression, Kline bounced between schools. At 16, she ran away to Nashville.

“I didn’t have my childhood,” says Kline, who’s back home now, working at a grocery cash register and hoping to get her GED so she can go to nursing school. “He had me so matured at so young.

Today’s parents have so much to do; there is no time to go with the kids. So drop them off at the mall, let them pal around with no one to say no. From nannies to au pairs, then the latchkey life with the computer as a companion, MySpace and Face Book giving guidance. For the parents, a social calamity is missing a nail appointment. Worse yet is missing a spinning class or being late for the Latte Club sip off.

When something untoward occurs, the powers wring hands and let us know how terrible the occurrence weighs on society. “Get them therapy” so they avoid depression, call in the grief counselors; show great liberal concern, all after the fact.

Providing a little bit of caring before the attack, may forestall the need for a youngster to look for approval in unsafe ways, from persons a child believes they can trust.

Perhaps Justice Ruth Ginsburg has the answer. She likes the answer found in Danish law; children at age twelve reach majority for all purposes except for contractual obligations.

Very liberal, it removes the criminal sanction; hey kids, no guilt and repercussions, act as you like.

This is how our justices think? Cashman up here did.

This group of “orators” will delay winter by 2½ months and may trigger a minor case of global warming.

“Obama Will Win Iowa Caucus,” says he.

Everyone says Hilary will win in NH. The poll surveyed 1,512 registered New Hampshire voters, which is ¾ of the state’s population, giving no margin of error.

Edwards says all voters love him, except for those that don’t.

Dodd says he will sweep up in the primaries as soon as he can find a broom

Kucinich says, “I can bankrupt the country faster than any other candidate!”

This chain of hotels dedicates space to these presidential cadets for twice the price in all primary states, but includes inoculations against hepatitis A, hepatitis B, tetanus, diphtheria, influenza, Dengue fever and Lockjaw, plus STD’s.

Kucinich averred, “The shots for the STD’s are most important since we’re screwing everybody.”

In the non-primary states, they will stay at the “Pile Inn.” Probably all in the same room.

One more time in the barrel.

Clinton on health care

WASHINGTON - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that a mandate requiring every American to purchase health insurance was the only way to achieve universal health care but she rejected the notion of punitive measures to force individuals into the health care system. (emphasis added)

“At this point, we don’t have anything punitive that we have proposed,” the presidential candidate said…could envision a day when “you have to show proof to your employer that you’re insured as a part of the job interview… [snip]

Clinton unveiled her health care plan Monday in Iowa, promising to bring coverage to every American by building on the current employer-based system and using tax credits to make insurance more affordable. [snip]

Clinton unveils details of plan

Clinton unveiled her plan as Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said President Bush wants to achieve universal health care before he leaves office. [snip]

“He’d like to see the larger debate begin,” Leavitt said. “The very best opportunity we have may well be in the next 15 months.” [snip]

The plan, like others, is short on details that would be worked out in Congress. For instance, Clinton does not say how she would enforce the mandate that individuals buy insurance. (emphasis added)

This is only a mandate, not government coercion. If you were a true Prog, you would know the difference.

The best part of the plan is that everyone be required to buy their own coverage,… except for those who can’t. For these individuals, the government will give tax credits to the needy, those that don’t work, those that won’t work, those on welfare, the halt, the lame and eventually every illegal thinking of hopping the fence, since above all, Socialists Progressives are compassionate if nothing else. Besides, it isn’t their money!

In order to afford the tax credits, taxing the rich at 75% rate covers that cost. The rich are classified as anyone making over $33,000 for a household of 8. (That’s too many kids anyway, since abortion is required covered under this non-compulsory healthcare)

Singles’ tax rate will be set at $10,000 except for any illegal; they get the tax credit.

Audacious Ethanol Hopes?

Have a reality check on the hype about ethanol; with Iowa coming up, it’s all you are going to hear. They’ll be much out gassing over Big Oil. Here’s a unspun look, at least as close as you’ll get from other places. Puffing up about ethanol the leading three Democratic presidential grandees bloviate about how they will solve our reliance on foreign oil and rid your lawn of crabgrass.

[snip] Is there enough ethanol for every car to run on E85? Will there ever be enough? How much does E85 cost? We look at statements made by Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as well as former Sen. John Edwards. We find their statistics to be accurate as far as they go, but we also find they don’t go very far.

Can Every Car Run on E85?

On April 3, 2006, Illinois Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama delivered a speech in Chicago titled “Energy Independence and the Safety of Our Planet.” In it he said:

Obama: Already, some cars on the road have the flexible-fuel tanks necessary for them to run on E85… it’s time for the government to cover this small cost, which currently runs at just $100 per car.

John Edwards made a similar promise in a speech on May 31, 2007, posting the following on his campaign Web site:

Edwards Campaign Web site: [John Edwards] will create new markets for ethanol by requiring all new cars to run on both gasoline and E85 ethanol [snip]

It is true that, as of November 2004, there were as many as 6 million vehicles in the U.S. capable of running on E85, compared with approximately 230 million capable of running on gasoline and diesel. Also, Obama’s estimate that it would cost $100 per car to transition them to E85-capable tanks originated with Daniel Kammen, a professor at the University of California Berkeley and director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory. We take no issue there. [snip]

E85 vs. Gasoline: Which One Is Cheaper?

Obama claims E85 is cheaper. We ask: Cheaper than what? The latest Clean Cities Alternative Fuels Price Report, which was issued in March and is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, shows the average retail price per gallon of E85 was approximately 20 cents less than that of gasoline, but ethanol was 66 cents more expensive when measured as a per-gallon gasoline equivalent. [snip]

Other renewable fuels would need to be tapped and inventions introduced to bring about significant change in the amount of gasoline imported by the U.S.

E85, Where Art Thou?

Even if every car could be equipped with flex-fuel tanks, is there enough E85 to go around? Sen. Clinton, who has gone from opposing corn-based ethanol tax incentives to supporting them over the last five years, had the following to say on May 23, 2006:

Clinton: We have an underused resource, American farmland, and rural communities across our country eager to try something new and do their part to help solve our energy problems. [snip]

It’s true that the U.S. has produced 4.5 billion gallons of ethanol, according to a July 2006 Department of Energy report. [snip]

In addition, E85 represents only 1 percent of all ethanol consumption (the other 99 percent, according to a 2006 CRS report, goes toward fuel blends consisting of up to 10 percent ethanol, also called “gasohol”). With this in mind, a 50 percent increase in biorefinery capacity is merely a drop in the bucket when it comes to replacing the overwhelming amount of gasoline we consume. The CRS report outlines some of the existing barriers to expanded ethanol use:

CRS: [B]arring a drastic realignment of U.S. field crop production patterns, corn-based ethanol’s potential as a petroleum import substitute appears to be limited by crop area constraints, among other factors. [snip]

The Department of Energy provides a map of the fueling stations currently offering E85. [snip]

So What About the Oil Companies?

In the same 2006 speech, Obama referred to the role oil companies could play in bringing about increased consumption of renewable fuels: {snip]

The CRS reported in March that a new ethanol pump could cost $100,000 to $200,000 dollars. The Senator, however, was considering three different ranges of costs for refurbishing existing pumps, as opposed to building new ones. The first figure, cited by the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition, put the cost at $5,000 per pump. The second came from the Illinois Corn Growers Association, which gave a range of $2,000 to $8,000. The final figure came from the Renewable Fuels Association: It cited a price range of $15,000 to $30,000. It should be noted, however, that each of these organizations represent groups and individuals with a vested interest in increased ethanol production.

But Obama claims oil companies are “standing in the way” of increased ethanol production. The Senator appears to be referring to oil companies’ plans last year to increase gasoline refinery capacity in the U.S. …scrapped when the president proposed significantly increasing renewable fuels production in his 2007 State of the Union address. [snip]

These developments lead many to believe that the oil companies are intentionally delaying investments in extra refining capacity to keep gas prices high, though we could find no conclusive evidence that intentional market manipulation is taking place.

Still, even if the oil companies immediately began giving 1 percent of their profits toward the installation of E85 pumps, other obstacles — like limitations on how much corn the nation can produce or the fact that many flex fuel vehicle owners aren’t even aware that their cars can run on E85 — are significant.

We do not dispute that ethanol along with other renewable fuels such as methanol and biodiesel have the potential to play a significant role in moving the U.S. away from foreign oil consumption and lessening greenhouse gas emissions. But ethanol has a long way to go before the campaign promises made by Clinton, Edwards and Obama can be fulfilled.

Congressional Research Service. Ethanol And Biofuels: Agriculture, Infrastructure, and Market Constraints Related to Expanded Production. Washington: GPO, 2007.

Congressional Research Service. Fuel Ethanol: Background and Public Policy Issues. Washington: GPO, 2006.

Romney leads in Iowa according to a Des Moines Register poll:

Romney was backed by 30 percent, ahead of Arizona Sen. John McCain with 18 percent and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani with 17 percent, according to the poll in the Des Moines Sunday Register.

But John McCain brings up an interesting point in a crass way:

Republican John McCain accused presidential rival Mitt Romney of flip-flopping on immigration Monday and said with sarcasm: “Maybe his solution will be to get out his small varmint gun and drive those Guatemalans off his lawn.”

First, nobody will accuse McCain of flip-flopping because he’s just consistently wrong. Second, does John McCain realize he’s running for President of the United States and not a slot on the Jerry Springer Show? Between his f-bombs and real bombs (Singing “Bomb, Bomb Iran” with the troops), you really have to wonder if he has the temperament to lead the free world.

But back to the larger point—how sincere is Romney’s “conversion”? It wasn’t too long ago that his political philosophy was centrist (some might say RHINO). His current positions are certainly very attractive: strong on defense, active against terrorists, against current amnesty bill, etc. However, once centrists are elected or appointed, like justices on the Supreme Court, they tend to revert to the squishy middle. Unfortunately, looking to his stint as MA governor won’t help you a lot since the legislature is in firm control of this state, ask Deval Patrick if you don’t believe me. Mitt did support what I think is a first step toward socialized medicine when he signed the mandatory health insurance bill, so that’s certainly not a good sign.

Romney is the most attractive candidate in this field, but I have real concerns about his positions. Is it positioning to get elected, or what he’ll do once elected?