Iowa's Misinformed Public

The news that members of the Iowa House of Representatives are pursuing impeachment of Iowa’s four remaining Supreme Court justices is stunning.  That Leader Paulson said he would not stand in the way of the effort is breathtaking. 

These people need some basic civics lessons. What the Supreme Court decided in April 2009 regarding same sex marriage was that the law prohibiting same sex marriage violated the Iowa constitution. The fact that a majority of Iowa voters voted against the three justices who were scheduled for retention in this year’s election shows how widespread is the misunderstanding of basic constitutional democracy, and it reflects badly on the whole state that so few of us understand that the court’s job is to interpret and preserve the constitution, especially when, in the judgment of the court, the other branches of government stray off course as the legislature and governor had done.  That is the court’s responsibility, its job, its reason for being.

It seems impossible that we have elected law makers who are so ignorant of the constitution. But we can hope that it may be one of those situations in which David Letterman might say “No, Wait. They’re not that ignorant.  They’re just exploiting the fact that most Iowa voters are that ignorant.”

Sen. Grassley's Abandonment of Integrity

I applaud the Des Moines Register’s editorial of November 9 criticizing Sen. Charles Grassley for his hypocrisy last week.  It’s too bad the Register didn’t notice this before the general election.   On November 4 Grassley responded to an Associated Press story about AARP’s health coverage for employees by criticizing AARP’s support of the recent partisan health care legislation because it “cut Medicare by almost $500 billion…Despite their employer’s support, AARP employees are learning that the health care law is not going to address the top priority of making health care coverage less expensive.”   

The Register rightly observed that, before the health reform act was passed, Grassley had applauded the concept of taxing high-cost health plans because their “Cadillac” coverage encourages people to overuse health services, driving up total health spending.  Now that health insurance reform is the law of the land and Grassley and Company are sworn to make Mr. Obama a one-term president, Grassley has completely reversed course in order to find grounds upon which to criticize the law. 

Sen. Grassley’s lack of integrity was just as blatant during the debate over the new law when he professed to pursuing bi-partisan cooperation with Sen. Max Baucus, all the while speaking out of the other side of his mouth with such antics as repeatedly telling crowds of Iowans that he opposed “pulling the plug on Grandma.”   For weeks he conveniently (for him) omitted noting that no such a provision had ever been proposed.

Following the general election of 2008, Sen. Grassley abandoned the integrity for which he had become famous over several decades, and that is why I did not vote for him this year.  I wish the Register had paid closer attention before it endorsed his reelection.  It was a mistake.

VOTE or Do Not Complain

Kathy Obradovich said it well in The Des Moines Register this morning.  One must vote in order to earn the right to complain after the election.

See:  http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20101102/OPINION01/11020357/1036/OPINION/Obradovich-Earn-the-right-to-complain-Vote-today

Anyone but Grassley

I disagree with the Des Moines Register’s endorsement of Senator Grassley because he has abandoned the integrity which has persuaded me to vote for him in the past regardless of where he and I have stood on issues.  During the 2010 debates on health care, he claimed to be earnestly pursuing compromise with his more liberal colleagues with whom he disagreed, but he later admitted that he had merely been slowing things down in an attempt to kill the proposed legislation entirely.  During this time, he repeatedly and unashamedly voiced his opposition to “pulling the plug on Grandma,” feeding a common misunderstanding among less informed voters that the legislation being considered would do just that.  This reminded one of the notorious “Weapons of Mass Destruction” or “WMDs” of the GW Bush years:  if you say anything often enough, some people will come to believe it.

Grassley has defended his recent pattern of voting against nominees to judicial positions merely because they were nominated by our Democratic president by saying he believes Democrats were guilty of doing the same.  This is the pot calling the kettle black!  If he decries what he truly believes to be despicable behavior by his opponents, why would he imitate them?  Not because he believes it is the right thing to do!

Grassley’s abandonment of integrity in these matters reminds one of former New York Governor Elliot Spitzer, whose rise to that office was largely accomplished by his effective prosecution of dishonest securities dealings while serving as Attorney General of New York.  Having established himself as a person of impeccable integrity, he was utterly disgraced by revelations of his patronizing high-priced prostitutes while claiming to be a faithful husband.  Spitzer’s indiscretions were considered exceedingly egregious precisely because of his reputation for great integrity, just as Grassley’s misguided partisanship during the last two years contrasts so sharply with his prior reputation for being a politician of extraordinary integrity.

Given the change in Grassley’s devotion to his constituents, my vote is going to Conlon.  Not only is she bright and competent, she is not Charles Grassley.  

Vander Platts' Complaint

Bob Vander Platts with no timidity

scorns the court which with unanimity

says Iowa’s constitution protects

the rights of us all in certain respects

including those of Tom, Dick and Harry

to choose whomever they want to marry.

It’s true that most marriages work like this:

A woman and man enjoy wedded bliss.

That works well for Bob so he wants to say

that everyone else must do it his way.

But that’s where the constitution comes in

prohibiting laws that make it a sin

for some to have different priorities

than those of Bob’s vocal majorities.

Still VanderPlatts  says that he’ll take a pass

on this ruling by the bad ruling class.

Fact is, regardless of how it irks Bob,

the judges were only doing their job.