I’ve recently been thinking more about the Election of 2008, and our very own Tom Latham.
In 2008, Congressman Latham had a lot going against him. Here’s a few things:
1. Barack Obama was at the top of the ticket. He earned 54% of Iowa’s vote
2. Tom Harkin was next to the top of the ticket. He earned 63% of Iowa’s vote
3. The Republican Party was as unpopular as it has ever been in 2008.
4. Becky Greenwald was not a poor Democratic opponent.
5. The Cook Partisan Voting Index (PVI) of Iowa’s 4th Congressional District is R+0/D+0, which basically means that the number of Republicans and Democrats in the district is generally the same.
Even with all of these things pushing against him, Tom Latham was able to win by more than 20 points.
As such, we Republicans in Dallas County thank you all for supporting a solid conservative to represent us in the House of Representatives. Congressman Latham…we salute you for a very impressive victory.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Bad idea
Here’s how the conversation goes:
“Hey, let’s get rid of the Electoral College”
“All right. Let’s pass a constitutional amendment”
“Hmmm…that’s too difficult. So I guess we can’t get rid of it.”
“Wait a second. Maybe we don’t have to change the constitution.
“What? How are we supposed to get around the Constitution of the United States”
“Oh… I have a plan for that. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.”
The Register:
“Iowa lawmakers are considering changing the way the state's presidential votes are counted as part of a national effort to break from the Electoral College system.”
Is it December of 2000?
Democratic Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal certainly has a strong opinion on the matter. "If states that represent a majority of electoral votes in the country pass this compact, we can get a national popular vote without Congress, without a constitutional amendment, without any of those folks."
There are several serious problems with this statement.
1. I assume Gronstal believes it to be a fantastic idea. If this is such a wonderful idea, why has it not been implemented through a Constitutional Amendment during the past 220 years?
2. As of right now, the nature of our federalist system of government gives Iowa a good amount of power (proportionally) when it comes to the Electoral College. The present system benefits smaller states, like Iowa. Why would one of our leaders want to give our state less power?
3. The essence of federalism is more power for the states. For example, if the Democratic candidate won 70% of the vote in the state of Iowa, but the Republican candidate won 53% of the vote nationwide, I firmly believe that the people of Iowa want their electoral votes to go to the Democrat, and that candidate should receive them. Why let the rest of the nation usurp our electoral rights? I’ve always felt that the candidate Iowa votes for should automatically earn our votes from Iowa.
4. If I’m not mistaken, Senator Gronstal’s statement suggests that he desires to make an end run around the Constitution of the United States. Perhaps I’m an old-fashioned pro-constitution man, but frankly, I don’t think we should ever be attempting to make an end run around our Constitution. The only reason that people don’t want to do a constitutional amendment is because they wouldn’t be able to pass it.
We already know that many ideas that are coming from the Democratic side of 1007 E. Grand are not exceptional. However, this idea is particularly unfortunate because it attempts to give the rest of the nation what we alone should have: our votes.
“Hey, let’s get rid of the Electoral College”
“All right. Let’s pass a constitutional amendment”
“Hmmm…that’s too difficult. So I guess we can’t get rid of it.”
“Wait a second. Maybe we don’t have to change the constitution.
“What? How are we supposed to get around the Constitution of the United States”
“Oh… I have a plan for that. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.”
The Register:
“Iowa lawmakers are considering changing the way the state's presidential votes are counted as part of a national effort to break from the Electoral College system.”
Is it December of 2000?
Democratic Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal certainly has a strong opinion on the matter. "If states that represent a majority of electoral votes in the country pass this compact, we can get a national popular vote without Congress, without a constitutional amendment, without any of those folks."
There are several serious problems with this statement.
1. I assume Gronstal believes it to be a fantastic idea. If this is such a wonderful idea, why has it not been implemented through a Constitutional Amendment during the past 220 years?
2. As of right now, the nature of our federalist system of government gives Iowa a good amount of power (proportionally) when it comes to the Electoral College. The present system benefits smaller states, like Iowa. Why would one of our leaders want to give our state less power?
3. The essence of federalism is more power for the states. For example, if the Democratic candidate won 70% of the vote in the state of Iowa, but the Republican candidate won 53% of the vote nationwide, I firmly believe that the people of Iowa want their electoral votes to go to the Democrat, and that candidate should receive them. Why let the rest of the nation usurp our electoral rights? I’ve always felt that the candidate Iowa votes for should automatically earn our votes from Iowa.
4. If I’m not mistaken, Senator Gronstal’s statement suggests that he desires to make an end run around the Constitution of the United States. Perhaps I’m an old-fashioned pro-constitution man, but frankly, I don’t think we should ever be attempting to make an end run around our Constitution. The only reason that people don’t want to do a constitutional amendment is because they wouldn’t be able to pass it.
We already know that many ideas that are coming from the Democratic side of 1007 E. Grand are not exceptional. However, this idea is particularly unfortunate because it attempts to give the rest of the nation what we alone should have: our votes.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Stimulus Thoughts
The Stimulus:
It's been a pretty big topic these past few weeks. However, one major concern is the continual and reckless expansion of the already huge federal government.
This Op-ed link outlines a couple of concerns.
First, when they say $800 billion, we should probably double it in our minds, because the Congressional Budget Office believes that, if renewed, the cost will eventually be over $1.5 trillion over 10 years.
But will it be renewed? As the author contends, it will be difficult to dismantle programs once they are firmly embedded in the massive infrastructural monstrosity that is the United States Federal Government. Which is probably why most Republicans voted against the package. Although Republicans clearly lost this battle of the bill, Congressional Republicans, by voting no, clearly realize that expanding the federal government at this particular time is not the wise move to make.
Alas...at least the effort was there.
It's been a pretty big topic these past few weeks. However, one major concern is the continual and reckless expansion of the already huge federal government.
This Op-ed link outlines a couple of concerns.
First, when they say $800 billion, we should probably double it in our minds, because the Congressional Budget Office believes that, if renewed, the cost will eventually be over $1.5 trillion over 10 years.
But will it be renewed? As the author contends, it will be difficult to dismantle programs once they are firmly embedded in the massive infrastructural monstrosity that is the United States Federal Government. Which is probably why most Republicans voted against the package. Although Republicans clearly lost this battle of the bill, Congressional Republicans, by voting no, clearly realize that expanding the federal government at this particular time is not the wise move to make.
Alas...at least the effort was there.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Saturday Morning Musings
A Poor Defense of Illegal Immigration
From CNN
And Father John Herman, a Roman Catholic priest whose Spanish language Masses are packed with illegal immigrants, blames the fence for more risky crossings in less-populated desert areas. “We know that the way enforcement has gone has driven many people into the desert and caused more deaths. Needless deaths. If we could only get together and work for comprehensive immigration reform.”
With all due respect Father, I’m sorry. I’m sorry that the U.S. government is not being very accommodating for those trying to come into the United States without proper documentation. Let me paraphrase Father Herman’s opinion.
“How dare you put a wall in the path of those trying to break the law! You’re forcing people to go around the wall, and that’s just silly. It’s not as though these folks have a choice!”
Father Herman makes us believe that these deaths are the fault of the American government. Nothing could be further from the truth. Certainly, any death is tragic, but if I
If folks just follow my advice, Father Herman will be pleased...because there will no deaths in the desert, because people will not be walking through the desert.
From CNN
And Father John Herman, a Roman Catholic priest whose Spanish language Masses are packed with illegal immigrants, blames the fence for more risky crossings in less-populated desert areas. “We know that the way enforcement has gone has driven many people into the desert and caused more deaths. Needless deaths. If we could only get together and work for comprehensive immigration reform.”
With all due respect Father, I’m sorry. I’m sorry that the U.S. government is not being very accommodating for those trying to come into the United States without proper documentation. Let me paraphrase Father Herman’s opinion.
“How dare you put a wall in the path of those trying to break the law! You’re forcing people to go around the wall, and that’s just silly. It’s not as though these folks have a choice!”
Father Herman makes us believe that these deaths are the fault of the American government. Nothing could be further from the truth. Certainly, any death is tragic, but if I
- Drive to Nevada in August
- Take a 100 mile walk through the desert
- Perish in the process
If folks just follow my advice, Father Herman will be pleased...because there will no deaths in the desert, because people will not be walking through the desert.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
