That political oddity known as the Iowa presidential preference caucuses has labored once again and once again pushed into national prominence an unelectable presidential aspirant.
This time the unelectable presidential hopeful is former senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania who finished in a near dead heat with former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, each with a little less than 25% of the total caucus votes.
Four years ago, it was another unelectable Republican, Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, whom the Iowa caucuses pushed to temporary national prominence. (Senator John McCain virtually ignored the caucuses and won the Republican nomination.)
When will the national news media and the political science professors acknowledge that such prominence should simply not logically be given to caucuses which attract about 120,000 Iowans who (1) tend to be older than the typical voter, (2) are much farther right in their political views and are more religious-oriented than the majority of Americans and (3) constitute less than 1/10th of 1% of the nation’s registered voters? (And many million more live in states which don’t require voter registration.)
Pop quiz (I flunked it):
Who is Rick Santorum? What are his political views? What are his views on social and moral issues?
Santorum is a former United States Senator from Pennsylvania.
He is a rock-solid conservative (with obvious appeal to like rock-solid conservative, religious-oriented Republicans who dominate the Iowa caucuses).
A CNN panel discussion—a very late election-night example of the news media’s obsession with the Iowa caucuses—included a comment that Santorum, a Catholic, is opposed to abortion and at least on one occasion indicated skepticism about the morality of contraception.
His political philosophy? Santorum quotes John Adams and two far-out (my opinion) right-wing commentators, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.
In addition to lifting another unelectable far-right conservative at least temporarily into the national spotlight, the Iowa caucuses also kept alive the joke that 78-year-old Texas Rep. Ron Paul has a chance to be the Republican nominee (Paul got 21.4% of the caucus votes).
There were more positive incidental results of the overplayed caucuses. They pushed Newt Gingrich further down the political ladder. (He got 13.3% of the caucus votes.) And pushed Texas Governor Rick Perry even further down. (He got 10.3%.)
* * *
Huskers Contribute To Big 10 Bowl Debacle
But Continue Notable 9-Win Season Streak
Post-game conversation in our family room last Monday:
Andy: “There isn’t any way the Big 10 could send us back to the Big 12 Conference is there?”
Marian: “Well, look at the other Big 10 members who also lost bowl games—Iowa, Northwestern, Penn State, Wisconsin and Ohio State. And the two teams that won—Michigan and Michigan State—won in overtime.”
Then this season-summary appraisal from Marian, who has been attending Nebraska Cornhusker football games since she was three years old: “Nebraska fans should accept the fact that we had a mediocre team this year.”
Coach Bo Pelini’s post-game comments, of course, expressed disappointment that the Cornhuskers hadn’t played up to their potential and also understandably indicated some satisfaction in the 9-4 overall season record.
Credit should indeed be given to the Husker program for being one of only eight schools that won nine games each of the past four years.
But three of the Huskers’ losses which went along with the nine victories this season were embarrassing blowouts: 17-48 to Wisconsin, 17-45 to Michigan and 13-30 to South Carolina.
The fourth disappointing loss was 25-28 at home to a mediocre Northwestern team.
Considerable satisfaction, of course, in most of the nine victories, especially including the record-setting comeback win against Ohio State and the victory over Michigan State, which finished the season with only two losses and an overtime win over Georgia in the Outback Bowl.
But as I consider the Huskers’ error-dominated performance in Monday’s 14-30 loss to South Carolina, somehow one facet of the game sticks in my mind. The Huskers, thanks to a series of non-contact, self-generated penalties, faced the challenge of first and 25 yards to go for a first down—a challenge which, entirely predictably, the Huskers failed to meet.
* * *
Advice To Farm Bureau: Give The $100,000 Back;
GOP Search Continues For Alternative To Bruning
With the next general election still 10 months away, it appears that we are doomed (I thought carefully about my choice of words there) to a continuing deluge of political rhetoric and speculation and poll results which, important as national and state political issues are, sometimes has even political junkies like me crying “Enough!”.
But adding to the deluge, I offer what I think is some fresh material:
Attorney General Jon Bruning and the Nebraska Farm Bureau Federation should have the good judgment to see that the Bruning-directed $100,000 contribution of what amounts to state funds is returned by the Farm Bureau, and promptly.
Bruning deserves credit for vigorous enforcement of state environmental-protection laws which frequently result in cash settlements with offenders. The political problem arises from the fact that Bruning, as Attorney General, has sole discretion over how the funds are awarded to applicants.
In the case at hand, the Farm Bureau asked for a contribution to help finance its new “We Support Agriculture” affiliate.
The general reaction has been that the grant doesn’t pass what might be called “the smell test”—a grant by the Attorney General, who is a candidate for the Republican nomination for the United States Senate, to an affiliate of the politically active Nebraska Farm Bureau Federation.
An honest admission of a bad decision is better than to let that decision stand.
Speaking of Bruning’s campaign for the senatorial nomination:
In addition to the well-publicized effort to persuade Governor Dave Heineman to nail down for the Republican Party the Senate seat being vacated by Democratic Senator Ben Nelson, efforts are being made to find another strong candidate to challenge Bruning for the Republican nomination if Heineman declines, with the thought that a stronger candidate than Bruning could more predictably assure Republican victory in November.
* * *
Let’s Be Clear: Islam Isn’t Like Other Religions;
Time For Legislature To Abolish Death Penalty
Herewith another serving of a variety of items, with the customary expression of hope that you find something to your taste:
–Compliments and best wishes to the Omaha leaders of three religious faiths—Christian, Jewish and Muslim—for their ambitious program of building an interfaith “campus” on the site of the former Ironwood Club in southwest Omaha.
With my expression of support goes an equally sincere wish that leaders of the three faiths will address the problem that, no matter how you package it, Islam is simply not just another religion. How about a three-faith condemnation of the brutality of the Islamic practice of “Jihad” or “Holy War” against non-Muslims—and even between competing Islamic sects which hate each other.
No reason to repeat here all the multitude of examples, beyond the current spectacle of Sunnis blowing up fellow Muslim Shiites in Iraq and the close-to-home lesson in Islamic terrorism in the Sudan—terrorism which has resulted in Omaha playing host to the largest number of Sudanese refugees being welcomed to any city in the United States.
–Good news—of which I had formerly not been aware—that legislation to abolish capital punishment in Nebraska was advanced by the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee last year and will be debated on the floor sometime during the 2012 session.
I have become firmly convinced that—for arguments which I have cited in the past and will repeat as the Legislative debate goes forward—that the death sentence should be replaced with no-parole-imprisonment as the ultimate punishment for crime.
(It should be remembered that there can be no assurance that a person sentenced to life imprisonment will indeed serve a life sentence. That is because, understandably and properly, the State Board of Pardons and Paroles can “pardon” and release a person once sentence to life imprisonment if, for example, there is compelling evidence that he was wrongly convicted.)
–I understand—and share—the disappointment of Nebraska Democratic Party leaders who, in a recent World-Herald story, expressed their concern over the lack of viable Democratic candidates—people like retiring Senator Ben Nelson, Senator and Governor Jim Exon, Second District Representatives John Cavanaugh and Peter Hoagland, Governor and Senator Bob Kerrey.
(Incidentally, talk of Bob Kerrey coming home to run for the Senate seat vacated by Ben Nelson will continue to be just that, talk, I believe. An effort to return to Nebraska politics now would be a disappointing mistake, I believe.)
–When will the focus on youthful car-crash victims switch from tears and sympathy to a focus on how to prevent such tragedies?
The question occurs as I read stories about the grieving over the death of an attractive young lady, Bethany Ann Kavan, 16, who died when her vehicle was broadsided after she ignored a “yield” warning sign at an intersection and, not wearing a seatbelt, met her death.
It has become a pattern for high schools to have “grief counselors” available to comfort the friends of young accident victims. At least as appropriate, it seems to me, would be to have an all-student assembly at which law enforcement officers would warn young drivers about the too-often tragic results of reckless driving.
* * *
At Last! Responsible Reporting Of Numbers
I guess you could call this an upbeat ending to today’s column when I report that—at long last—I found an example of intelligent use of numbers by one of the news media. I’ll save that for last and start with some examples of number usage which I find absolutely indefensible. It may help you understand why I was finally so glad to see responsible number usage in the news media.
A news story on December 31 flatly asserted that 91% of holiday travelers, 83.6 million people, planned to drive, 6% planned to fly and 3% planned to travel by bus, train, boat or other accommodation.
In close-to-invisible tiny type below those figures were these words: “Source: AAA.” You were left to assume that AAA stands for American Automobile Association. There is no way the AAA estimates can honestly be reported as assertions of fact.
Then there were the Iowa-caucusgoer-candidate-preference polls (with some respondents saying they might well change their minds before voting or might not go to the caucuses if the weather is bad). These polls dominated the televised media coverage, almost always with no indication of who took the poll, how the respondents were selected or how many respondents were selected.
The print media did better, generally giving more attention to what the candidates were saying and at least occasionally quoting the source of the poll numbers. One print account even went so far as to report the margin for error (often 3 to 4% plus or minus or a range between 6 and 8%) estimated by those taking the poll. (I say “went so far,” with tongue firmly in cheek, since all poll results should be reported with this “margin-of-error” qualifier.
I’ll finish with that welcome contrast to the typical news media handling of numbers, a USA Today story which was headlined: “Voters bolt top political parties.”
The story made clear that the reported switch to independent-voter status was not based on tiny samplings but by the following process:
“A USA Today analysis of state voter registration statistics shows registered Democrats declined in 25 of the 28 states that register voters by party, Republicans dipped in 21 states, while independents increased in 8 states.”
The story said that the analysis of actual voter registration figures—not samplings of tiny percentages—“continues a decade-long trend that has seen a diminution in the power of political parties, giving rise to independents” like Ross Perot and Ralph Nader and enhancing the popularity of “libertarian” (whatever that means) Republican Ron Paul this year.
So USA Today’s interpretation of the “independent” growth gives credit to characters like Ross Perot, Ralph Nader and Ron Paul.
Neither Perot nor Nader had anything to do with my switching from registered Republican to registered independent several years ago. I would suggest my switch is more typical of voters in both parties who are not attracted by far-out candidates like Perot, Nader and Paul but are rather turned off by the extreme elements in both Republican and Democratic parties and have decided to move to the moderate middle ground where, a good many people believe, lies the best hope for a responsible future for national politics in this country.
# # #
