Tag: Iowa

Iowa Votes

Well, after a runup that seems to start shortly after I was born, we will finally get the first votes cast today in Iowa. It will be a while before we know what happens. I will post updates as events warrant.

This election cycle defies prediction, but I’ll make one anyway. Clinton narrowly edges Sanders, something like 49-45. Trump wins Iowa but with a smaller margin than expected. Something like Trump 25, Cruz 22, Rubio 17. He will then say something outrageous so that the media will give him free campaign ads talk about it until New Hampshire.

We might see one or two candidates drop out after Iowa, but I suspect most of them will hang on until New Hampshire and possibly South Carolina.

LSM is again not reporting a huge story

Stalin was famous for saying the following:

“It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”

By that he meant that people like him believed that elections where just a means to an end, and thus, the real power came from the vote counters. The progressives have agreed with Stalin on this forever, and have actively pursued this strategy. It is not a coincidence that we have had so many instances of leftist organizations like ACORN confounding and polluting the voter registration process, with members registering “Mickey mouse” and “Donald Duck”. Neither is the fact that the left wants criminals to vote and is fighting to give them that right even in prison. They want no checks on who votes, how often, or if they even are legal citizens. Those that oppose the lefts demand that no guard rails be put in place to prevent voter fraud and that we rely simply on the vote counters to do their job? Well, they are racists & fascists – never mind that Fascism is a disease of the left – motivated not by the desire to make sure people do not abuse the right to vote, but driven by nefarious motives to deprive minorities or some such from casting votes in order to keep them oppressed! And there is a purpose for this.

Enter this eye opening story which I am certain will be buried by the LSM, because if people understood the details of what happened here, the ripples would have staggering effect on the democrat election rigging machine.

A Des Moines man has been arrested after police say he used, or tried to use, the identity of Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz in a scheme to falsely implicate Schultz in perceived unethical behavior in office.

Zachary Edwards was arrested Friday and charged with identity theft.

The Iowa Department of Public Safety issued a news release saying Schultz’s office discovered the scheme on June 24, 2011 and notified authorities.

The criminal complaint says Edwards fraudulently used or attempted to use the identity of Schultz or Schultz’s brother with the intent to obtain a benefit. No other details were given.

The real and incredible story however is in the details that are omitted from what is reported in the Des Moines Register. This is not your average case of identity theft at all. It is Machiavellian in nature and sets a frightening context. Let us start with the guy whose identity was swiped. This Mr. Schutlz or his brother that the article so casually mentions, actually are Iowa Secretary of State, Matt Schultz, or his brother Thomas. Schultz is a republican. And as the website I link you to shows, the guy in charge of counting the votes in a key state come the next election. Clearly Schultz is not one of those people that would turn a blind eye to the usual fraud democrats depend on to put them over in close elections.

So let’s look at that Zachary Edwards fellow that got arrested for this. Google searches will not produce much information on him, but that’s not because he is a nobody. It seems Mr. Edwards information was surgically cleaned out, and on purpose. But as others are showing using the WayBack machine this Mr. Edwards is none other than the Zachary Edwards that during the 2008 primaries functioned as an Obama staffer, directing the efforts around new media operations, in the primaries of 5 states. After his “success” at that – and success is now in quotes because considering what was done here one wonders what else he did – he was elevated to head the democrat machine’s New Media efforts for the State of Iowa. In short, this guy us a connected and hard core democrat operative.

So we have an Obama connected democrat star operative getting caught committing a crime that involves him doing something under the identity of a republican Secretary of state or his brother, conveniently right before the 2012 elections in a state that is certain to be key to winning, and no details from the LSM? Circle back to Stalin’s quote about the vote counters being what matters in any election, and understand that if Shultz ends up in trouble, he gets replaced by a democrat.

That picture clearing up for you yet? So an operative targets a vote counter in a sate the dems need to win. When he gets caught, the dems clean out all records of his involvement with Obama and the Iowa democrat machine. The LSM reports the story sans the important details that would give the story perspective. At a minimum we need to understand if this is part of a larger coordinated effort by democrats, maybe even outside Iowa, to screw with the coming election. Watergate was about much less! Of course, then we had a president the LSM wanted to stick it to, and now we got their unvetted and inexperienced community organizer, so I see why they do not care much for this story. Frankly I am not surprised at this turn of events. I am actually more concerned how many more cases of this are out there, but of which we know nothing. True believers will do whatever it takes to get their ways. After all, they are doing it for all our own good!

Obama’s New Best Friend?

Before I get into the meat of the post, a quick question, does anyone really think Iowa means dick? All this hand ringing going on about the cataclysmic effects if Paul wins Iowa, who cares? Santorum is surging in Iowa, who cares? Bachmann won the Iowa straw poll, who cares? Huckabee won in the last go around, now he has a show on Fox, hardly a springboard for success or a momentum builder. Iowans have the pulse of America about as much as Cambridge liberals, and offer equal insight (or lack there of) on where the country is at.

Now, on to Gary Johnson deciding to bolt the GOP and run as a third party candidate on the libertarian ticket:

Frankly, I have been deeply disappointed by the treatment I received in the Republican nomination process,” Johnson said in a statement released by his presidential campaign. He named GOP candidates Herman Cain, Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman, saying they have “no national name identification” yet are allowed to participate in debates.

He has a point in his obvious short shrifting in the debates, and counters all that nonsense I’ve been reading here of late on how Fox News is soooooooooo bias, considering that Fox was the only hosting network that included Johnson in their debate. You can’t gain traction without exposure and you can’t get exposure if you are not included in the debates, he was doomed at the outset, pity.

Personally, I am conflicted about the notion of a third party in general. I am as disaffected with out current two political parties as anyone, and taken as a whole they comport themselves pretty much birds of the same feather. Platforms aside, it is not what they say but what they do and both have been poor stewards of the people’s welfare, and which crys out even louder for term limits and the infusion of fresh blood on a regular basis. If more choices present more freedom then a third party, or even a fourth or fifth, should provide the folks a better megaphone for what they want. But reality tells us different. Yes, Ralph Nader does provide us with an example of how a third party can shape an election (I can still here the wailing and weeping from 2000) but has it ever happened before or since? Maybe Teddy with his second go around with his Bull Moose Party, costing Taft the election against Woodrow Wilson. Maybe Ross Perot, OK, maybe there are a few examples, but seriously, how bad can Johnson’s third party bid hurt the GOP?

On the flip side, if anyone here has followed elections in Israel or other nations that have multiple parties, do we really want a president who had the support of 38% of the nation? Multiple party national elections often end up this way, the guy with the highest percentage wins and most often it comes down to plurality over majority, yuck. Sometimes it can work if two or more minority parties lobby together to weld their power and influence over the plurality party, but that can’t happen here, Congress is still run by two parties.

Historically, Libertarian candidates haven’t made enough of a dent to spoil the chances of a major-party candidate, but they tend to “disproportionately hurt Republicans,” says Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics.

True, but Green, Progressive and Communist Party candidates siphon from the left. The fact of the matter is that Gary Johnson’s bid will hurt the GOP candidate, no doubt about it, to what degree though? Even the most optimistic of GOP prognosticators admit, begrudgingly, that with their best man running his best race and bringing his A game, it will be a close election, with the headwinds pointing towards which ever way the economy is going. And even with their best man, that man will have to hoist an apathetic party on his back and carry them. Most Republicans, much like with McCain last year, will hold their nose and vote GOP, if only because 4 more years of Obama is too gruesome to even entertain, But if my sentiment is reflective of many, getting me on board and wildly enthusiastic is going to be an uphill battle. It is never a good sign when your constituents are rooting for a brokered convention and many are.

Pawlenty Goes There

With Mitch Daniels out, the GOP nomination is quickly narrowing, at least in the non-crazy division. And I think Tim Pawlenty just scored some big points with a speech in Iowa:

Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty made a potentially risky move during his campaign launch speech in Iowa: he called for a phaseout of ethanol subsidies.

“The hard truth is that there are no longer any sacred programs,” said Pawlenty. “The truth about federal energy subsidies, including federal subsidies for ethanol, is that they have to be phased out. We need to do it gradually. We need to do it fairly. But we need to do it.”

Presidential candidates have been extremely loathe to criticize ethanol since Iowa is the first stop on the way to the White House. Obama bailed on them as did Gingrich. So Pawlenty deserves some credit.

However, let’s not get too excited just yet. Pawlenty has given no indication that I can find about whether he intends to end the biggest ethanol subsidy — the mandate that we have to include this polluting, engine-grinding filth in our gas. That’s the larger concern. Gingrich, for example, once said we would end direct subsidies by going for the indirect subsidy of ethanol mandates.

In the end, it will come down to Congress to have the stones to stop ethanol subsidies — direct or indirect. And I see little hope there. Even with the biggest fiscal crisis in our history and a crashed debt ceiling, they haven’t taken any steps against ethanol. I see little hope that they will do so under Obama or Pawlenty. After all, Bush said he would reform Social Security and the GOP congress punted on that too.