By Emily Geiger

Of course, the big headlines today are about U.S. Rep. Steve King winning his lawsuit in District Court against former Sec. of State (oh yeah, and now Governor) Chet Culver and current Sec. of State Mike Mauro over Iowa’s English only law. The court ruled that the foreign language voter registration forms the state had been making available were illegal,  stating that English is Iowa’s official language, and all official conduct must be conducted in English.

Mauro has quotes in the Register talking about how he was just trying to make things more “convenient” for people and how he wanted to encourage “participation.”

Last time I checked, you actually had to be a citizen to vote. And to become a citizen (if you not born as one), you have to pass certain tests IN ENGLISH to even become a citizen. So, theoretically, shouldn’t even naturalized citizens be able to speak English? The only thing I can think of that could come of encouraging non-English speaking people to register to vote is voter fraud (i.e. non-citizens voting).

Plus, aren’t all ballots themselves in English? Does it make sense to allow people to register to vote in one language, and then require them to cast a ballot they can’t read?

This was really a no-brainer. But, apparently not everyone feels that way. I read a comment a Register blog in which some stupid liberal tried to argue that since conservatives don’t like judicial activism, they shouldn’t like this ruling because this was a judge legislating from the bench. Obviously, said commenter was too stupid to realize that here, the judge was actually upholding the law which our legislature had passed rather than striking down a law (see the marriage definition statute according to Judge Robert Hansen) and making new rules completely opposite to those the legislature approved.

Just remember folks, this isn’t over. This favorable decision will likely be appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court… you know, the same court that most of us think will probably strike down that aforementioned marriage definition statute. I’m not going to hold my breath that they’ll do the right thing here either.

By Emily Geiger

Can’t we all just get along? Apparently not if you are a Democrat this year. If you need any evidence of this fact, look no further than the Democratic primary race in Iowa’s third congressional district. Things are already getting, shall we say, tense, between incumbent Leonard Boswell and his challenger, former state legislator and gubernatorial candidate Ed Fallon.

First, there was the re-emergence of rumors that Fallon had contemplated a third-party bid for governor after he lost the primary to Chet Culver in 2006. These rumors were picked up in the Register. To the Democratic base, this makes Fallon a traitor.

Then you’ve also got Boswell talking about how Fallon was supportive of Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader. For those of you who have been living under a rock for several years, Nader is often blamed by the Democratic base for Bush being in the White House. The theory is that Nader pulled liberal votes that otherwise would have gone for Gore/Kerry, and likely would have pushed the Democratic candidate over the top. So, Fallon supporting Nader is also viewed by many Democrats as an act of heresy and disloyalty.

You’ve also got Boswell questioning Fallon’s ethics on several levels. First, Boswell was questioning whether Fallon had used his advocacy group, “I’m for Iowa,” to promote his political campaign. I find it pretty ironic that Boswell is claiming to be concerned that Fallon might have some advantage here when Fallon refuses to take PAC money, and Boswell is the king of PAC money.

More recently, we’ve had some of Boswell’s buddies in the statehouse drawing attention to the fact that Fallon paid himself the $13,750 he had left in his campaign account after his run for governor was over. The Campaign Ethics and Disclosure Board has stated that this violated no rules or laws, but Dem. State Rep. Rick Olson has splashed his name all over the papers this week publicizing his newly proposed legislation which would ban these types of payments to candidates.

Should what Fallon did be illegal? I don’t know. I don’t really have strong feelings on it one way or the other, but what I find so interesting about this is the timing.

If this was such a travesty of justice, why not introduce legislation banning this practice earlier in the legislative session (or perhaps even last year, given that this conduct occurred in the 2006 election cycle)? Why wait until after the second funnel deadline to introduce new legislation? Because of the late date of introduction, this proposed ban will have to be sponsored by Democratic Legislative leadership.

All this tells us a few things. 1) Boswell is getting desperate, 2) this little plot is obviously a political ploy or else this issue would have been raised a long time ago, and 3) Boswell is not the kindly old grandfather figure he makes himself out to be in his campaign ads. He can sling mud with the best of them.

It will be interesting to see if Supreme Iowa Democrat Gronstal & Co. is in on this little scheme given that their blessing is needed for this to have any success. I could see Gronstal appreciating Fallon’s unabashed liberalness. But Boswell is a Democratic institution in the state. Gronstal is going to have to choose between political idealism and political pragmatism.

Marc Ambinder has some interesting scoop regarding Mitt Romney’s Iowa campaign manager, Gentry Collins joining the McCain campaign. The roll that Collins would play is not clear.

Gentry Collins, a well-respected Republican political strategist who served as Mitt Romney's Iowa state director, is on tap to be one of the McCain campaign's regional campaign managers, three Republicans with knowledge of the situation said today.

Collins was offered the job; it is not clear if he has formally accepted it. He was not able to be reached for comment.

The addition of Collins to the McCain team has implications both practical and symbolic. Collins is one of the party's best nuts-and-bolts campaigners, having experience in Iowa as the party's executive director and as a campaign manager there, and nationally, as political director at the Republican Governors Association.

Symbolically, McCain's campaign has signaled a willingness to reached into the core of his rivals' operation and entrust them with critical state operations. Concern that McCain would staff his campaign with only loyalists is likely to diminish with news that Collins is expected to come on board.

Ambinder also wrote recently that Marlys Popma has been tabbed to be a Regional Director for the McCain campaign.

With these announcements it sure looks like McCain will be playing hard in Iowa, which is a good thing for Iowa Republicans.

By Emily Geiger

I was listening to Steve Deace last night, and he had an interesting email from a self-described liberal who called Deace out on an apparent double standard on his positions on the smoking ban (he’s against it) and on the Pizza Hut driver who shot his robber and may lose his job over it (he supports the driver).

The liberal listener pointed out that Deace has been arguing that service industry employees, such as bartenders and waitresses, who don’t like smoke should not choose to work in smoky bars and restaurants if they don’t like smoke.

The liberal listener then went on to point out that, if the Pizza Hut driver in question wanted a safe job during which he could carry his (duly licensed) concealed weapon, perhaps he shouldn’t have chosen to work in a dangerous occupation for a company that specifically prohibits its employee from carrying weapons.

It’s an excellent point, and one which neither Deace nor his listeners could refute. So, it seems that, to be logically consistent, you either need to be against the smoking ban and against the Pizza Hut driver, or for the smoking ban and for the Pizza Hut driver’s right to carry his weapon and defend himself.

Of course, a lot of the conservative listeners who were supportive of the Pizza Hut driver were also against the smoking ban. I still don’t get why so many conservatives are so against the smoking ban.

I know conservatives are generally against government interference, but consider this analogy. Despite being against government interference in one’s personal life, true conservatives believe the government should be able to interfere in a pregnant woman’s life to prevent her from having an abortion. Why? Because conservatives realize that the choice of abortion affects another person: the unborn child. Because of this, conservatives understand that the moral position is to defend innocent life.

The same is true of the smoking ban. Generally, we don’t like government interference, but when someone’s personal choice affects the lives and health of innocent others (i.e. little ol’ me who might like to have some pancakes at Village Inn or perhaps even a fruity adult beverage without an asthmatic coughing spell kicking in), that is morally wrong. I always hear people talking about second-hand smoke, which is a concern, but with the prevalence of allergies and asthma, those are probably of greater concern for your average restaurant/bar patron. The moral choice here is to protect innocent life and health.

Here’s another thing I don’t understand. Only about 20% of the adult population smokes, and many of those are only “social” smokers. So why does this relatively small minority get to dictate the environment which the rest of us must endure? Conservatives already get a bad rap for trampling on minority rights, so why not do it now when it is actually justified?

And another thing… smoking is not a natural state; it’s not the status quo. It’s not like we come out of our mothers’ wombs toting a pack of Marlboros and a Zippo. Smoking is an unnatural behavior which damages one’s body… not unlike the behavioral choice made by people who, as Deace likes to say, can’t look between their legs and tell what gender they are. So why should a smoker’s “right” to take part in this unnatural behavior take precedence over my right to breathe good, clean, natural air as God intended?

So, how does all this apply to the Pizza Hut situation? Well, I think, once again, it all goes back to what is moral. Protecting innocent life, in this case, the delivery driver protecting himself, is the winning side of the argument.

However, I do have to say that I kind of sympathize with Pizza Hut… as Deace pointed out, they are truly between a rock and a hard place. No matter what their policy on drivers carrying weapons, or who gets shot, they are going to get sued.

I should also say that I am definitely a very pro-gun female. A gun is one of the few things that can essentially make me physically equal with a man and allow me to protect myself.

But, I do have to wonder about the logic of the listeners advocating that all Pizza Hut drivers be encouraged to carry weapons and display stickers on their cars advertising this fact. Many believe this would deter robberies of delivery drivers.

I think this may be true in regard to your average, run-of-the-mill teenaged hooligan who might want to steal a few extra bucks. But, I worry that the hard-core, meth-head may use this knowledge to justify (in his own warped mind) using deadly force against the driver before the driver even has a chance to defend himself. In other words, there may be fewer robberies overall, but the robberies that do occur are more likely to be deadly for the innocent driver.

Just a hypothesis, but probably not out of the realm of possibility.

Iowa needs more elected officials like State Senator Brad Zaun. If you ever wanted an elected official who will tell you what’s on his mind its Zaun. This is from today’s Des Moines Register

A state senator said he would stop buying Pizza Hut products if the pizza chain fires a Des Moines delivery man who shot a teen who tried to rob him at gunpoint.

"I think what he did was the right thing," Zaun told fellow senators today. "If was in a situation to protect my family, protect myself, to continue being a father, I would’ve done the same thing."

Thank God someone stands up for common sense.

I just wonder is Zaun has been to Pizza Hut lately. When I was a kid I can remember nothing more special than going to Pizza hut after a basketball game. Now the quality of their pizza sucks. I guess if you want a good pie you have to go to your local Casey’s.