So, I’m listening to the radio this morning, and there was a little one sentence news blurb telling me than Leonard Boswell will be leaving the hospital tomorrow.

Did anyone else realize that he was even still in the hospital?

That means he has been in the hospital for TWO WEEKS.  Of course, we still don’t really know what’s going on with him because he won’t tell us anything, just that it was a “routine” procedure.

What kind of “routine” procedure requires two weeks in the hospital?

What’s the deal Boz?  Why won’t you tell us what’s going on with you?  Ted Kennedy has brain surgery, and we know so much about it, it feels like we’re on the hospital staff.  Leonard Boswell has surgery, and you have to be a member of the CIA to know what’s going on.

Boz, your constituents have a right to know the status of your health.  It is relevant to your capability to do your job.  The more you keep us in the dark, the more people are going to think something very bad is going on.

So, you can either tell us it actually is something serious, or you can keep us in the dark and have us assume it is.  Take your pick.  Neither scenario will be particularly helpful to your political career.

Iowans should demand to know what’s going on.  We let you slide once, Mr. I-had-a-20-pound-tumor-removed-and-underwent-chemotherapy-but-I-don’t-have-cancer.  Don’t expect it to happen again.

The latest news in the U of I rape case is that the Board of Regents has decided to re-open its investigation into whether or not the University handled this whole situation properly.  The Regents had previously conducted a similar “investigation” and released a report in June saying that the University had followed proper procedure, basically clearing all University officials of wrongdoing.

Now that the mother of the victim has released her letters to the media, the Regents believe that their previous conclusion needs to be reconsidered.

I have one question for the Regents.  If you “investigated” this incident previously, why did no one talk to the victim’s family as part of that “investigation”?

It is obvious that no one bothered to contact the victim’s family (which makes me question whether they even talked to the victim) or else they would have heard about the existence of these letters and been informed of the mother’s concerns with how the University handled the situation.

Well, I guess there could actually be two options here.  Either the Regents did a half-ass investigation (and then proceeded to tell the public that the University was blameless), or the Regents did know about the mother’s concerns and ignored them, and now they’re grandstanding. 

I guess I’m hoping for inept over corrupt.  But these days, who can tell?

Oh, and on a side note, how arrogant and smarmy is Gary Barta?  I saw him being interviewed last night on the news, and it made me nauseous. He was saying how sure he was that the University (i.e. him) would be cleared of any wrongdoing. 

Um, Gary, you knew about all this right away when it happened, and you failed to inform Vice President for Student Services Phillip Jones, which you were required to do under University policy.  Good luck explaining that one.

And another thing.  Dude, you make $300,417 per year.  You have the nastiest teeth I’ve seen in a long time.  Take a few grand and get those fixed. 

By Emily Geiger

When I read Beaumont’s piece in the Register yesterday, I knew it would stir the already festering pot.  And then, of course, people read Krusty and read all sorts of things into it that I’m not sure were really there.

Here’s the thing people need to remember, especially the moderates who focus on fiscal issues rather than social ones.  The election of Scheffler and Lehman as our national committee-people really isn’t that big of a deal.  Sure, it’s a moral victory for the social conservative grassroots, but there’s only so much national-committee people do.  Scheffler and Lehman are far more dangerous to these moderates in their roles as activists. 

As activists, they can cajole legislators and perhaps even change some hearts and minds.  As national committee-people, they can either maintain Iowa as first in the nation (i.e. maintain the status quo, which not many people even really notice) or blow Iowa’s first in the nation status and tick a lot of people off for decades to come.  Not exactly a win-win situation.

For a long time, the moderates (who have held the elite positions in the party) have told the SoCons that we need to focus on the issues on which we all agree (i.e. the fiscal issues), so the SoCons should just shut-up and get on board.  After all, we’re better off with moderate Republicans than with Democrats, right? 

So, the little SoCon worker bees should just keep our mouths shut and do what we do best: door-knock and make phone calls, and do it with a smile.

Now, the perception being put out there by people like Diane Crookham-Johnson is that the tables have turned.  The reality is that the moderates are still in control of things like our state chairmanship and the RNC.  But, let’s just say they have turned.  Shouldn’t the moderates just focus on the fact that we all still agree in the fiscal issues and shut-up and get on board?  After all, we’re better off with SoCon Republicans than with Democrats, right? 

So, maybe the elite moderates should just keep their mouths shut and do what they do best: write their big, fat checks, and do it with a smile.

The more we find out about reported rape incident last fall involving two University of Iowa football players, the more disturbing things get, and the worse it looks for the University. 

For a long time I heard people asking the question, if this girl was really raped in October, why did she not report it until mid-November?  That’s when a search warrant was executed by the state’s Department of Criminal Investigation at a U of I dorm where the rape took place. 

Well, it turns out that the victim did report the rape much sooner than November.  According to a letter the victim's mother sent to University official in November which was recently shared with the press, within 36 hours of the incident, the victim had reported the rape to SEVERAL U of I officials including U of I Athletic Director, Gary Barta; Associate Athletic Director Fred Mims; football coach, Kirk Ferentz; Betsy Altmaier, a UI faculty member and a representative on the Presidential Committee on Athletics that serves as a liaison to the Big Ten and NCAA; and the victim's coach (the victim is apparently a U of I athlete herself… sound familiar?).  The victim also when to the ER and had a rape kit done (i.e. evidence collection). 

So why did we not find out about all this until a month after the incident?  Why were the police not involved until a month after the incident?  According to the victim’s mother, it is because the victim was strongly pressured to let the athletic department (that’s right, not the University, but the athletic department) handle things “informally.”  The victim was assured by these people that they would take care of it.  Really, do they have an athletic department jail these guys were going to spend hard time in?

From what I can tell reading the news reports, it looks like the athletic department officials were supposed to inform other University offices (including the Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity and Vice President for Student Services Phillip Jones) of what had happened and what they knew, but they failed to do so. 

When the victim’s father contacted Jones on November 13, Jones denied any knowledge of the situation.  When the victim finally did talk to the Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity the victim’s mother said the interviewers “were aggressive and forceful in their interviewing tactics and accusatory in their stance. [The victim] told me afterwards, while crying, that they basically accused her of bringing this upon herself. She was interviewed with the intention of making her feel that she caused this.”  Not even the U of I public safety department (i.e. campus police) were told of the incident.

Can we say cover up?

The worst parts of the story for me were:

1.  The victim soon found out that one of her rapists was living three doors down from her with his girlfriend.  She had to see her attackers regularly, and they and their friends on the football team (and other sports teams) regularly called her names such as “whore” upon seeing her.  It seems it was shortly after this started that he victim realized the university wasn’t going to help her and went to the police herself.

2.2.       It seems it was determined from evidence collected in the rape kit that the victim was raped by three different men (not just the two she remembered).  The victim did not know this.  Somehow, the University found out about this within a week of the incident, but did not inform the victim.  The victim did not find out about this until she heard it from police weeks later.

I am quickly losing faith in the U of I and Kirk Ferentz.  “We’re going to handle this informally.”  What the hell does that mean?  It can’t mean that they were going to help put these guys in jail for what they had done, which is where they belong.

Hey Kirk, if one of your wife or daughter were raped, would you want it to be handled “informally,” or would you want the guy to rot in jail for life (or at least a big chunk of it)?  How would you feel if your wife or daughter were raped, and you found out that her attacker had done this before, but he wasn’t in jail because some other idiots had decided it would be best if it was handled “informally”?

It is obvious that, in the mind of these cowardly athletic department officials, getting kicked off the football team was the worst punishment these guys could/should get.  How would any “informal” action possibly protect all the other potential victims of these predators?  Even if they were quietly discharged from the University of Iowa, that might prevent other women on the U of I campus from dealing with them, but what about the rest of the world?

After getting discharged from the team, these guys went to other schools to play football.  What about the women on those campuses, or any other woman on the street they came in contact with?  How on earth did Kirk & Co. think that kicking these guys off the Iowa football team was going to protect them?

I’ve read statistics that the average rapist rapes between 8 and 16 times before being caught.  Does anyone really think that these guys have never done anything like this before, or that they aren’t likely to do it again?

The way the University handled this is shameful.  I sincerely hope that everyone will think about this before they pay for another game ticket, buy any Hawkeye gear, or contribute to another alumni fundraiser. 

Just keep in mind that, when you do, you’re funding the sexual victimization of the female population of Iowa City at the hands of the men’s football and basketball teams (no, we haven’t forgotten about Pierre Pierce). 

We used to be able to look up to those strong young men in the black and gold (and their leaders).  They were heroes to so many young (and young-at-heart) people in this state. 

Now, we are fearful of them. 

Now, that heroic image is gone, along with the innocence of a young woman who was victimized in the worst way possible, and then betrayed by the people who were supposed to protect her.

David Gregory portraying himself in a game of charades.
(i.e. loudmouth)

David Gregory portraying himself in a game of charades.
(i.e. wild-eyed crazy dude)

David Gregory portraying himself in a game of charades.
(Do I really have to explain this one?)

While there’s not much new content these days over at Chet Not Stupid, I was reminded of that blog as I was reading the Register today when I came across an article about how Chet has started a task force “to examine state employment laws.”

This task force will look into issues such as the state’s hiring of “independent contractors” rather than actual employees as a way of not having to verify that a potential employee is actually a legal citizen in this country.

Yep, that’s right, it seems that the state itself is guilty hiring illegals, and Chet wants to stop it. Sounds great, right? My first reaction to this was to think that this was Chet pandering to Independents and Republicans again, but then I got to thinking, what other constituency does this pander to?

You guessed it: unions.

Funny thing is, the Register actually even discussed this. As we’ve mentioned before, the state’s unions are pretty pissed off at the Chet-man right now. They have never gotten over Chet’s betrayal of vetoing the bill that would have granted public employee unions vastly extended power in the state.

This task force is a brilliant move. It does pander to the right by addressing a part of the illegal immigration problem, and it panders to organized labor (who doesn’t like it when Mexicans are willing to do their work at half the price) at the same time. But let’s face it, this is mostly a move to get back in the good graces of labor leaders. The illegal immigration stuff is just icing on the cake.

The Register article states that Chet specifically said that this task force was totally unrelated to the other labor issues that have caused friction between him and the unions.

Come on, Chet.  Maybe you’re not stupid, but neither are we, and we’re not buying that.

Ode to Chet Not Stupid

Oh no! Chet’s friends think Chet lost. Me not lost, me here! Why no milk in this carton?

Oh no! Chet’s friends mad at Chet?!? What Chet do now? Me know. Chet kiss friend’s butt. Now Chet has friends again, but must brush teeth and wash face. Chet happy! Party at Chet’s house for Chet’s friends!

Chet want friends to visit, but must watch out for bats. Oh, and if Chet’s friends want to smoke up with Mari, must go outside.

Thankfully, another example of stupid state spending on advertising is coming to an end. The state has stopped advertising that you can use your food stamp debit card at farmers’ markets. I used to hear these commercials constantly on the radio. Not only did I think it was a waste of money, but they were annoying commercials. They went something like this:

Cashier at a farmers’ market stand: Would you like paper or plastic?

Lady checking out at a farmers’ market stand: My food is already in a bag.

Cashier: No, I mean, do you want to pay with cash, or use your food assistance card (or a credit card).

Lady: You take food assistance cards?

Cashier: Yes. The government recently mandated that we do so. Apparently they don’t know that most people use their food stamps to buy cheetos. At least now that the government makes people needing food assistance use a debit card, people can’t trade their foodstamps for cash, which they often then used to fund their nicotine habit.

Ok, so I may have taken some liberties with the script, but you get the idea.

The state spent $300,000.00 on these stupid ads. Iowans only spent $60,000 on produce at farmers’ markets as a result of this program.

I’m glad they’ve stopped this spending, but the reason they stopped was interesting.

This new example of fiscal restraint in state government came about because of… LOBBYISTS!

That’s right, grocery store lobbyists were upset that the state was talking about taking away the 7 cent transaction fee that the state pays to grocery stores to compensate them for the costs of accepting these food stamp debit cards. Other states don’t pay grocers this fee. Of course, if the grocery stores already accepted credit cards, the added costs of dealing with the food stamp debit cards would be negligible, but I digress.

Anyways, the grocery lobbyists suggested that, if the state wants to save money on the food stamp program, they should stop paying for the farmers’ market advertising, not take away the 7 cent per transaction “reimbursement.”

Here’s a novel idea, how about we do away with both the advertising and the 7 cent reimbursements! Save $300,000 here, $1,000,000 there, and it starts to add up.

Maybe if we saved a little more and didn’t have to fudge the budget so much, our dear state Auditor Vaudt wouldn’t have so much gray hair. (We love you Dave!)

So, is this Chuck Todd doing a little self-promotion, or NBC getting his name out to the public to gauge our feelings on him before (possibly) offering him the job?

Either way, I think it’s brilliant. And I hope it works.

David Gregory portraying himself in a game of charades.

Well, the convention is over, and my sources tell me there were indeed some fireworks as anticipated.

The big news, of course, is that Steve Scheffler and Kim Lehman are the new national committee-people from Iowa. This really is no surprise to me. Scheffler is an excellent grassroots organizer who has the contacts and has put in the legwork to get the majority of delegate votes. Scheffler was also pushing hard to help get Lehman elected, which I’m sure helped her vote tally.

My sources tell me that, not only did Steve Roberts not give a very good speech, he basically admitted defeat in his speech to the delegates at the convention. If his performance on Deace last Friday was any indication of his oratory skills, I tend to believe those reports.

This is just further evidence that the grassroots of the party is upset with the moderate “establishment” leadership, the poster-boy of which is Stewart Iverson. Oh, Stuie got raked over the coals yet again on Deace last Friday. It seems that he was dumb enough to tell one version of certain events to Deace a few months ago, and then change his story on air last week, and expect Deace not to call him out on it. It makes you wonder how often Stuie must lie if he can’t even remember and keep straight exactly who he’s lied to and what he’s lied about.

Scheffler’s crowd basically got everything they wanted at the convention, with the exception of one delegate, namely Gopal Krishna. Gopal got himself into hot water a few weeks back when there were allegations of some wrongdoing on his part related to a convention organization committee he was chairing. From what I hear, there was some truth to those accusations.

While I’m happy that the Scheffler crowd is taking a stand and had a great convention, I think they have to be very careful. If you want to be viewed as the group in the right, you have to keep your nose clean, follow the rules, and do things the right way. Else you risk being seen as just as corrupt as your opponents.

That’s why I’m glad this group chose not to make a scene over Gopal not being a delegate. Given his recent history, I don’t think that’s the hill you want to die on.

Congrats to Scheffler & Co. Your hard work and organization paid off. Now you just need to keep the momentum going to facilitate real change in the party.

Good luck and God-speed.

I know Krusty has already written about this, but it was a noteworthy enough event to warrant further discussion. I was shocked last night when I tuned in to WHO’s Steve Deace and found out he had Stu Iverson (Iowa GOP Chairman), Steve Scheffler (SCC member and Iowa Christian Alliance President), Kim Lehman (major pro-life activist), and Ted Sporer (Polk Co. GOP chair and arch-nemesis of Iverson) all in studio to be interviewed about the state GOP convention that begins tonight.

My first thought upon learning this was, “What the hell is Stu thinking walking into that lion’s den?” He really didn’t have a single ally in the room. So why did he agree to do it? The only thing I can think of is, in a word: ego. Obviously, Stu thought he could handle anything these Bible-thumpers (and Ted) threw at him.

He was wrong.

Stu had to admit that the story Yepsen printed in the Register on June 12 was a total fabrication, meaning that Yepsen’s secret source lied bigtime. Stu agreed with the others present that there was no fighting and swearing in the church as had been reported. (Of course, Stu never explained why he and the other uninvited guests even came to the ICA meeting.) Here’s the interesting thing. The other uninvited guests were named, and frankly, I don’t think Yepsen would take a call from, let alone print such a story based on a tip from anyone of the uninvited guests but one. There is only one with the name recognition and the title to warrant that kind of clout, and it ain’t Bonnie Hall or John Ortega.

Stu got pummeled on numerous other issues, such as why he would not pressure legislators (when he was Senate Majority Leader) to conform to the platform on social issues. He had to admit that his position was to “let each legislator vote their conscious on social issues.” Do you really need to do that much soul searching on the pro-life license plate bill? That one should have been a no-brainer. Letting everyone do what they want and not even trying to persuade them (let alone “take them out behind the woodshed”) is not leadership. It’s taking the easy way out.

Stu said he didn’t want to have to make promises and give favors to people to get what he wanted. Hmmm… maybe if he had had the stones to recruit conservatives and primary the uncooperative mods, he wouldn’t have to worry about paying back favors later.

The highlight (or low-light, as the case may be) of the show for me was when our esteemed Chairman admitted that he had not even read the platform yet. When questioned further on this issue, Stu said that he was planning on reading it, but he just hadn’t gotten around to it yet.

Hey Stu, THE CONVENTION STARTS TODAY!!! Do you really expect us to believe that you were planning all along to read it this morning quick before the convention gets underway tonight? And if you think about it, the convention was actually supposed to take place a month ago. Shouldn’t he have read the platform, like, a month ago?

No one who took part in that interview last night is perfect. I have a few bones to pick with each of them, but the Party is in crisis right now because we have strayed from the platform, and the grassroots is highly frustrated that the issues they support so strongly, the reasons they are Republicans, are being ignored by leadership. That is a legitimate gripe that Stu & Co. refuse to address.

Stu was an embarrassment last night. If the convention is anything like that interview, it should be a very interesting and entertaining weekend.