Richard Day's picture

    IOWA; THE SQUARISH STATE

    By Richard Day on Fri, 01/29/2010 - 1:20am |

    File:Samuel Jordan Kirkwood.jpg


    Samuel J. Kirkwood, founder of the Iowa Republican Party, abolitionist, and Iowa's Civil War governor. 

    Iowa is one of those squarish states. Its eastern boundary is, of course, the grand ole Mississippi. Its western boundary is determined by the Missouri and the Big Sioux Rivers.

    It had been part of the Louisiana Purchase but there were few Frenchmen present in this location at the time anyway.  We all know of course that Jefferson purchased land that was never owned by Napoleon in the first place, but that is a subject for another day.

    Prior to the advent of European immigration, the area was frequented by a number of Native American nations: Tribes which were probably descendants of the prehistoric Oneota include the Dakota, Ho-Chunk, Ioway, and Otoe. Tribes which arrived in Iowa in the late prehistoric or protohistoric periods include the Illiniwek, Meskwaki, Omaha, and Sau.

    By 1833 the first settlers arrived from places like Ohio and Pennsylvania. But by the time the Civil War, Southerners had arrived in the southern part of this state. They were, of course, proslavery and racist to the extreme.

    Nevertheless, Iowa weighed in on the correct side of the conflict.

    This is not only a small state geographically but only has three million residents. Even though the residents are much more urbanized than they were a century ago, Iowa along with southern Minnesota contain the richest farmland in the world and some 39% of all Iowans are residing on that farmland. The farm vote is all important. So who represents these squarish people anyway?

    Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley knows how to speak to these people of rural roots:

    "If something is wrong, it is like locking the barn door after the horse is stolen, ... But we are still going to pursue it. I want to know what they bought with the money."

    This type of folksy drivel can be used in any context.. It is meanlingless when you think about it.

    Apply it to government waste, it does not work. Apply it to Madoff, it does not work at all.

    I MEAN WHERE IS THE FUCKING HORSE, ANYWAY?

    But I digress. Grassley knows how to speak the populist jargon and vote another way. Take a look at this:

    You have a responsibility to help less fortunate Americans cope with the high cost of heating fuels. It's not unreasonable to expect corporations with 50, 75 or 100 percent growth in earnings this quarter to contribute a mere 10 percent of those profits to fuel fund programs

    "If you make a promise, you are responsible for your own promise, ... Unfortunately, there are a few ... bad apples who have abused loopholes ... to avoid funding pensions in a way that shows they are responsible for their own promises."

    If Americans could legally access prescription drugs outside the United States, then drug companies would be forced to re-evaluate their pricing strategy.
    mports create competition and keep domestic industry more responsive to consumers. In the     United States, we import everything consumers want; so why not pharmaceuticals? http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/c/chuck_grassley.html

    Well Chucky voted for the complete give-a-way to the pharmaceutical industry in 2003. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00459

    Now in 2004 he did introduce a bill to allow Americans to procure their drugs elsewhere--like Canada for instance where they have universal health care. But he knew this would never pass and be signed by the most fascist president we have had since Hoover.  I mean his attempts to look populist are pathetic. But what a fine job he did working with dems on the Health Care proposals:

    "Health care not only is 16% of the gross national product, but it touches the quality of life of every household as few others do," Grassley declared back in April. "I'm doing everything I can to make the reform effort in Congress a bipartisan one."

    That was then. In August, Grassley -- who is up for re-election next year -- held town halls and constituent meetings in 30 counties. While the sessions never got as raucous as they did in some other parts of the country, Grassley's constituents turned out by the thousands to tell him how little they thought of his efforts back in Washington. One sign in the small town of Adel read "Thank God Patrick Henry Did Not Compromise." Over the course of the recess, Grassley began sounding less like a potential Obama ally and more like the enemy army. When the Iowa Senator actually gave credence to the absurd notion that the House version of the legislation might allow the government to decide when, in his words, to "pull the plug on Grandma," Democrats decided he was past the point of any hope.
    Read more: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1920209,00.html#ixzz0dqcgiHU2

    So, once again, Chucky just runs for the hills as soon as the teabaggers and fascist rednecks show up at his town hall fiascos. He simply votes with the other fascist repubs every frickin time. Okay 90% of the time. But I think he is getting old and confused and forgets what the hell he is fer or agin a lot of the time. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/g000386/votes/

    The great Square of Iowa has five members in Congress. Two of them are repubs and guess how they vote?

    Well there is good ole Tom Latham of Iowa's Fourth District:

    • Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation. (Nov 2007)
    • Voted YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
    • Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
    • Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
    • Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
    • Voted YES on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)
    • Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
    • Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
    • Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
    • Rated 20% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
    • Rated 0% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
    • Rated 31% by the NAACP, indicating an anti-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)
    • Constitutionally prohibit flag desecration. (May 2009)

    http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Tom_Latham.htm


    But Steve King takes the cake; really, because he gets exposure on MSM all the time through his positions on many committees. And there is an eeriness about old Steve that calls to mind some of the characters of the writer with the same name.

    But King will take things to the extreme. You know we had Representative Donald Frazer. Frazer is god up here in Minnesota. At least I worship his memory. Our law school was named after his family. Don was the only one of three members of Congress in 1964 who voted against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

    Well Steve likes to set his own paths to hell and set his own records sometimes:

    Here's an interesting example of those famous lone "No" votes in Congress -- the contrarian who is willing to stand up alone against the overwhelming majority of his or her colleagues, and vote against something that was passing easily.

    Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted 399-1 for the Capitol Visitors Center to have a plaque acknowledging the role of slave labor in the construction of the Capitol. The resolution has information in it that even this history fanatic didn't know about -- for example, slave labor was involved in constructing the "Statue of Freedom" atop the Capitol Dome.

    The "Yes" votes spanned the ideological spectrum, from Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann on the right to Maxine Waters and Dennis Kucinich on the left. The one vote against: Rep. Steve King (R-IA).

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/gop-rep-steve-king-is-only-vote-against-recognizing-history-of-slave-labor-in-capitol.php

     

    Even Texans and South Carolinians voted for this resolution. I have witnessed King at committee hearings. He is soft and smooth and seems reasonable and then he starts is fascist strutting. He has no more positive aspects in his personality than Tom DeLay.

    But he issued a rationale for all this, you know that included this gem:

    "This is just the latest example of a several year effort by liberals in Congress to scrub references to America's Christian heritage from our nation's Capitol. Liberals want to amend our country's history to eradicate the role of Christianity in America and chisel references to God or faith from our historical buildings.

    In short, Representative King is one of those sterling examples of everything wrong with this country.

    And of course these two repubs voted against all stimulus packages. Just like the other fascists who belong in the repub party.  But now that the monies are beginning to be spent, how do these two pricks respond?

     

    Remember when I asked Bleeding Heartland readers to let me know if Representatives Tom Latham or Steve King tried to take credit for infrastructure projects funded by the stimulus bill they opposed?

    The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee noticed that Latham has been sending out press releases touting earmarks in the 2009 omnibus spending bill that he and nearly every other House Republican voted against. That's right, Latham has been bragging about earmarks he inserted in a bill he didn't support on the House floor. This is from the DCCC's press release of March 12:

    In a striking example of hypocrisy, after voting against the recently enacted FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations, Congressman Tom Latham is taking credit for millions of dollars included in the legislation that will help local community colleges, health care clinics, and renewable energy producers in  Iowa 's 4th Congressional District.

    "Congressman Latham keeps telling people he 'secured' millions of dollars in funding for Iowa, but the truth is he voted against these investments," said Gabby Adler, the Midwestern Regional Press Secretary for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.  "Congressman Latham can't hide from his voting record, no matter how hard he tries.  Counter to what Congressman Latham would have you believe, these millions of dollars aren't coming to Iowa because of his hard work, these investments are being made in spite of Congressman Latham's efforts to defeat this bill and the funding for Iowa."

    In every single press release sent out by Congressman Latham announcing investments for Iowa included in the FY 2009 Appropriations, he not only hid the fact he voted against the legislation but he led people to believe he championed its passage.  One release read Congressman Latham "once again this past week demonstrated his commitment to community colleges," another one discussed his role as a "long-time supporter" of new health care technologies.  In a third release, Congressman Latham even referred to his support of Iowa's renewable energy industry as "steadfast" despite his vote against $1.4 million for a cutting edge wind energy project in Iowa. http://www.bleedingheartland.com/diary/2568/

     

    Look, in the end a repub is a repub is a repub. 

    I must point out here that one of the greatest Senators who ever sat in the Senior House of Congress comes from Iowa. Senator Tom Harkin not only talks the talk, but walks the walk.

    And Iowa's three other Representatives are the best of the best.



    Latest Comments