Presidential Experience

Click HERE for the application to some of the top Democratic candidates of the criteria set forth in this column.

Related:
* Presidential Candidates Rankings, April 15, 2019 (with updates)
* Impeachment and the Mueller Report, April 22, 2019 (with update),
* Presidential Experience: How Your Candidate Measures Up, April 28, 2019
* Democrats Qualified for Debates: Will Your Candidate be in the Debates? April 29, 2019
* Dem Primary Candidates' Ranking - May 2, 2019: How's Your Candidate Ranked?, May 2, 2019
* May 4 Updates: Popularity; Klobuchar; Iowa 2nd District, May 4, 2019
* What Dems are up against; some insights from 2-1/2 years ago: Donald Trump’s Barrel of Squirrels: How Does the Donald Do It? Sept. 26 2016
* Attacks on our democracy and what we can do about it: Columns of Democracy available from Iowa City’s Prairie Lights and Amazon.

Democrats in 2020 Should Value Experienced Candidate
Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, April 28, 2019, p. D3
Why focus on the Democrats’ presidential primary? Because of the 13 elected presidents since 1932 (Gerald Ford was appointed) only two who wanted reelection didn’t win (Presidents Jimmy Carter and H.W. Bush). This history, plus President Donald Trump’s loyal base, suggest the 2020 election is Trump’s to lose.

Democrats want a winning candidate. They should also want a competent president.

There’s a path to becoming British Prime Minister. There’s none for our presidency: 17 presidents were former governors, 14 vice presidents, eight cabinet secretaries, three came directly from the Senate, for five it was their first election. None had to meet education or experience requirements, take training programs or read manuals.

We want character, compassion, compromise, courage and curiosity in our presidents – along with intelligence, honesty, decency and other commendable personal qualities. Competence alone isn’t enough.

No candidate will have the wide range of experience a president needs, but the more the better.

In the 2008 Democratic primary Bill Richardson won the experience challenge. He understood legislative process from 15 years in the U.S. House, state government from two terms as governor, and federal as former Secretary, Department of Energy. He had administered large organizations and had the international perspective of a former U.N. ambassador credited with successful hostage negotiations.

Richardson used this in a comedic political spot.



A man interviewing him for a job recites Richardson’s resume and then asks him, “So, what makes you think you can be president?”

George H.W. Bush had a comparable record: CIA director, House member, U.N. ambassador, chief liaison China, Republican National Committee chair, and eight years as vice president.

What’s the range of helpful experience?

Administering eight million federal, military, and contract employees requires unique skills. Having been a governor, big city mayor, or cabinet officer helps.

There are “political people” – those who have run for office, managed campaigns, served constituents, and know the norms. It helps to have been one.

Presidents impact many government institutions: school boards, mayors and city councils, county supervisors, governors, state legislatures, Congress, Cabinet departments, the judiciary and the military. Has your candidate had experience within those institutions?

Presidents needn’t be former constitutional law professors, but they need to understand and support, emotionally as well as intellectually, the Constitution’s limitations on, as well as powers of, the presidency.

Having been a U.S. Senator is not enough. But understanding the executive-legislative relationship is essential, and it helps to have been a legislator somewhere.

There are 4,000 presidential appointments. Some candidates could list 4,000 qualified appointees from memory. Others struggle to name a couple dozen. Where will your candidate look? How will they choose?

A range of life experiences and acquaintances from high school dropouts to Ph.D. professors; multiple ethnicities and religions; labor leaders and CEOs; impoverished and wealthy; urban and rural; agricultural, manufacturing and retail employees, makes for a more competent and compassionate president.

The president must be an international player and may become a global leader. Having worked with and for organizations like the United Nations, World Bank, NATO, or as an ambassador, provides insight. Failing that, previous education, multiple languages, and world travel can help a president to frame questions and understand the answers.

While we’re enjoying the excitement of evaluating our stampede of wannabe candidates let’s give at least some thought to their qualifications as wannabe presidents. Measure them against this list, and then ask them, “What makes you think you can be president?” [Photo credit: IaVote.net]

Nichholas Johnson, a native Iowan and three-time presidential appointee, maintains ColumnsOfDemocracy.com for his latest book. Comments: mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org

_______________
Application of Experience Criteria to Top Democrats
Notes:
1. What is meant by "experience"? To have been a vice president, or senator, is an experience, but is not "the experience" referenced here.

The breadth of desirable experience for a president is more like the experience, understanding and skills one would hope for a decathlon competitor. In track competition a decathlon consists of four track and six field events, a total of 10 events. Competitions include 100-meter sprint, 110-meter hurdles, 400-meter event, 1500-meter event, long jump, high jump, shot put, discus throw, javelin throw and pole vault. My high school track experience consisted of shot put and discus. Even had I possessed skill in those events decathlons would have been out of the question. Javelin perhaps, but I've never tried to pole vault, and there was good reason for the coach to keep me out of running events.

Similarly, it is not enough that a president has been a governor, or senator, or ambassador. What one would hope for, ideally, is a candidate with experience in each of the eight (and more) categories of experience detailed in the column, above, and summarily repeated, below.

2. Is lack of experience a deal-breaker? In brief, "No." It is a relevant factor in comparing candidates that is often overlooked. There are many legitimate, relevant reasons for preferring one candidate over another. Experience is but one of them. Others are mentioned in the column, above.

3. What about Trump's "experience"? In fairness to the Democratic candidates, all of whom are fairly light in the experience department (as the word is used here), it should be noted that each and every one of them far exceeds Trump -- who fails to qualify in almost all of the eight categories

Comparing the Leaders

To remind, the categories, above, are:

1. Administration and management of huge organizations.
2. "Political" savy.
3. Range of institutions exposure.
4. Constitutional knowledge.
5. Legislative experience.
6. Network of quality potential appointees.
7. Range of acquaintances and life experience.
8. International understanding.

I've chosen six candidates for comparison: Biden, Sanders, Buttigieg, Harris, Warren and O'Rourke.

1. Administrative. All are lacking administrative and management experience leading huge organizations. All have had some experience in smaller settings: Harris' role as California Attorney General; Sanders and Buttigieg as relatively small-town mayors; Biden heading various projects while reporting to President Obama. None has served as a governor or federal cabinet secretary.

2. Political. All have run for and won one or more elections.

3. Institutional range. The range of their institutional familiarity is limited. Two have served on a city council (Biden and O'Rourke). Harris served as a state's attorney general; Biden was once a public defender; Warren a professor in higher education institutions.

Buttigieg is the only one with actual military service. None has even worked in, let alone headed, the Pentagon, CIA or other intelligence agencies. Warren served on the Senate Armed Services Committee; O'Rourke on the House Armed Services and Veterans Affairs Committees.

I'm sure there's more, but in the column, above, I mention "school boards, mayors and city councils, county supervisors, governors, state legislatures, Congress, Cabinet departments, the judiciary and the military" and few have touched more than one or two of those bases.

4. Constitution. Three are lawyers (Biden, Harris and Warren), but that is not the equivalent of a mastery of constitutional law or involvement in controversies in which the constitution was an issue. Of course, constitutional and Supreme Court interest and study, with emphasis on Article II executive power, is not restricted to those with law degrees.

5. Legislative. All but Buttigieg have legislative experience in the U.S. Senate or House. There may be some with state legislative experience that research did not uncover.

6. Network. Biden probably has the edge in the number of contacts with individuals qualified to serve the federal government in some professional capacity (which is what this category is about). The others would not have reason to have a breadth of such contacts (beyond the specialties of their committees other other life work). Of course, those who have made it to the debates on the basis of number of donors have at least a political network of 200 people in 20 states: Sanders (563,359), Buttigieg (158,568), Harris (138,000), Warren (134,902), O'Rourke (>65,000). But that's not what this category is about.

7. Diversity. There's no way (at least that I know of) to find out the range of acquaintances and life experiences of the leading candidates with sufficient detail and accuracy to make meaningful judgments and comparisons. That does not detract from the significance of this category, or the possibility one might pick up bits and pieces if attuned to looking for them.

8. International. So far as my scanning of their bios revealed none has the kind of international experience described in the column: "United Nations, World Bank, NATO, or as an ambassador." Biden as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and vice president, had significant foreign travel and meetings with leaders of other countries. Buttigieg's military service included time spent in Afghanistan; he is said to know eight languages.

# # #

Gov. Richardson & "The Question"

June 27, 2007, 6:00, 8:30 a.m. [times reflect additions to the entry -- for the benefit of those few individuals who check back occasionally during the day -- as well as reflecting the fact that what is called "life" occasionally interrupts blogging]

Richardson and "The Question"

As predicted yesterday, John Deeth the blogger was at the Governor Bill Richardson event (Iowa City Public Library, June 26), and thus there's very little to add to his report.

Because he never travels without his laptop he figures it's entitled to its own bumper sticker, which says: "REBOOT AMERICA." It's one Richardson could have used as his theme yesterday.

Local papers covered the event, but -- even covering politics as horse race -- didn't think Richardson's rapid rise in the polls (from 1% to 13-18%) worth page one display. Leah Dorzweller, "Dem Presidential Hopeful Shares Executive Vision; Richardson Speaks to Packed Crowd at Public Library," Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 27, 2007, p. 3A; James Q. Lynch, "Richardson Draws I.C. Crowd," The Gazette, June 27, 2007, p. 3B; Erika Binegar, "Richardson Would Hit Ground Running," The Daily Iowan, June 27, 2007.

These days, with online newspapers, it's not enough that the paper's photographer provides one or two shots for the next day's edition. They're expected to prepare a "gallery" of pictures -- and virtually immediately. Here's the Press-Citizen's this morning. I can't compete with a professional camera and photographer with the eye of the P-C's Matthew Holst, but here is one from a selection of 13 pictures I took at that event and posted on my Picassa site.

So what is "The Question"? It's one I've put to most of the candidates for president since the early 1970s. It goes to the heart of what politics in a democratic society ought to be about. It's something we know how to do, and insist on in other countries. And yet few candidates have ever even thought about it -- let alone come up with a plan for implementation. What is the question, and how and why did I come up with it? And how did Richardson do with it?

The answers will come later this morning, after I've interrupted my blogging with a little bit of "life."

I'm back. But before addressing "The Question" I should note that, while I'm not endorsing anyone -- a lot can happen in the six months between now and the January caucus -- I thought Richardson did a great job yesterday. He was relaxed, engaging, funny, warm, and willing to stay a half hour or more beyond the 11:30 "deadline." I found his "the first six days in office" an effective way to package quite an array of what he proposes to do for us. And most of what he was proposing was very well received by the overflow and often enthusiastic crowd (as you'll see from one of my pictures -- which doesn't even show those in the hall outside Meeting Room A) -- and by me. (Much of the content of his remarks is provided in the stories and Deeth Blog linked above.)

The Question

So why was I questioning presidential candidates over 30 years ago? I had been asked to host a TV show on which they appeared, one each show. Frankly, I don't remember the details, except for what led to "The Question."

I quickly discovered that it was difficult to get anything very new or different from a candidate who had already been asked the standard questions dozens if not hundreds of times. It was as if they had little audio cassette tapes that they plugged into their brains and played back, one for each question.

What to do? I considered having someone throw them a baseball, or tip over their chair -- anything to throw them off guard a little, something that would provoke something more spontaneous than their polished performances. The producer said I couldn't do it.

So I finally came up with a question they hadn't confronted before, and I have been using variations of it ever since.

"The Question" on those early shows, and later in some Iowa living rooms, took the following form: "Senator," because it usually was a senator, "let's make two assumptions: one, you are 'right on the issues,' whatever that means to the audience; they like your platform and proposals. Two, you are elected president. Please tell us, why are the coal mine operators going to have less control over coal mine safety than they do now?" (Of course this can be, and often was, expanded with examples from many industries and agencies.)

Most candidates over the years have fallen mute. The best one could hope for was some feeble, "Well, I'm going to appoint good people to office." That was one answer clearly revealed they didn't understand the problem.

The "good people" they appoint to office (if such can be found, given industry pressure to appoint their people to the regulatory agencies they will have to deal with) will find themselves pretty isolated. It may be one of those agencies where employees come from, and return to, the industry. It may be one where they are wined and dined by industry representatives. These "good people" will be reporting to congressional committees made up of elected officials whose primary source of campaign funds is the very industry being "regulated." And the media? The mainstream media will largely ignore the agency. Media coverage will be primarily from the trade press covering -- and being funded with advertising dollars from -- the industry in question.

(Let me also note, for balance, that I have known a number of civil servants who are among the brightest and most public spirited, independent and courageous people anywhere.)

So much for "good people" heading agencies -- however much they may be an improvement over "bad people."

What is needed (as I privately explained to Governor Richardson yesterday) is the kind of citizen participation in agency process that -- when the decision goes for the industry, as it almost always will -- provides a "party," someone with "standing," to appeal the decision to the relevant U.S. Court of Appeals.

Such groups (primarily, if not exclusively, representing the interests of citizens and consumers rather than those with direct and substantial economic interests in the outcome) -- and, yes, I know they will represent far right conservative individuals as well as the lefties and libertarians -- can also use their access to the mainstream media, and the political process, to get the story out of the trade press and into the public consciousness. But their most effective leverage is through the judicial process when agencies are engaged in clear violations of law, as they sometimes are. Note that, without their participation there is simply no one who can appeal. The agency's pro-industry decision stands.

I didn't have notes yesterday, and I don't know if anyone has a recording of his presentation, so I don't know exactly how I phrased "The Question" to him. But it was somewhat along these lines:

"As you can tell from the response you've received there are a lot of folks here who seem to appreciate and support what you say you will do for us. What I'd like to know is what you propose to do to enable us to help you get those things accomplished in the face of special interest opposition? How can we better accomplish what we, as individuals and members of numerous citizens' groups, would like to accomplish in addition? Even with total public financing of campaigns we would still be up against overwhelming odds from the special interests with their well-paid thousands of lawyers, lobbyists and publicists, their advertising and public relations budgets -- and today their campaign contributions in the millions of dollars. What things do you have in mind along the line of the Legal Services Corporation, agency reimbursement of intervenors' expenses, treble-damage antitrust remedies, class action suits, private attorneys general actions, and so forth?"

Much as I like Richardson, I have to say he cast his lot with the majority of candidates who have either never thought about such things or don't think them very important. His was kind of an AmeriCorps-type response -- things the government could sponsor that would invoke the "ask what you can do for your country" response. Great ideas, but not likely to curb special interest control of the Congress and the agencies.

I've never known the details of the following story. It may be apocryphal. A citizens' group gained an appointment with President Roosevelt. After their presentation he said to them, "I agree with you absolutely. We must introduce that legislation. Now you go out there and make me do it." That is another thing we can do as citizens -- indeed, we are the only ones who can -- in addition to the litigation to keep the agencies honest. We can provide the political, grass roots support that enables elected officials who would like to do the right thing an argument to use with the special interests that oppose what they, and we, want to accomplish.

Over the years there have only been three who grasped the question, and two who understood the answers. Hubert Humphrey acknowledged it was a great question and that the next time I came to his office we should talk about it. Jesse Jackson and Ralph Nader knew how to proceed.

This year Barack Obama came closest, reminding me that he had worked as a community organizer. But he didn't carry his response beyond that.

It's not like this stuff is unknown in Washington. Even President George Bush has a rhetoric about "democracy" in other countries, though he doesn't always reflect the prerequisites to creating it. Those prerequisites involve something we call "civil (or civic) society" or "social capital." I've participated in some of these efforts abroad. This can involve everything from trade unions to Rotary Clubs to community media outlets; building citizen experience in coming together for public policy or programmatic purposes and then working to accomplish the stated goals.

We know how to do it -- and Obama's "community organizing" is a major component of the training. We just don't.

We know how to train our K-12 students to get out of the school house and into the court house, city council chambers and legislative halls to practice citizen power in a democracy. But we don't do much of that, either. (See, e.g., Center for Civic Education and National Council for the Social Studies and its "Creating Effective Citizens.")

We're not talking more "book learning" and classroom lectures here -- however important both may be -- we're talking "experiential learning" and performance -- political, policy, legal and media accomplishments.

A president could do a lot to build a "civic society" here in America -- but only after he or she begins to grasp why it is a need, and mounts the courage to take on the thousands of those in Washington who rather enjoy and find quite acceptable the rule by self-proclaimed elite that has served them so well.

# # #
[Note: If you're new to this blog, and interested in the whole UI President Search story . . .

This blog began in June 2006 and has addressed, and continues to addresses, a number of public policy, political, media, education, economic development, and other issues -- not just the UI presidential search. But that is the subject to which most attention has been focused in blog entries between November 2006 and June 2007.

The presidential search blog entries begin with Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search I," November 18, 2006. They end with Nicholas Johnson, "UI Held Hostage Day 505 - Next (Now This) Week," June 10, 2007 (100-plus pages printed; a single blog entry for the events of June 10-21 ("Day 516"), plus over 150 attached comments from readers), and Nicholas Johnson, "UI Hostages Free At Last -- Habemas Mamam!," June 22, 2007.

Wondering where the "UI Held Hostage" came from? Click here. (As of January 25 the count has run from January 21, 2006, rather than last November.)

For any given entry, links to the prior 10 will be found in the left-most column. Going directly to FromDC2Iowa.Blogspot.com will take you to the latest. Each entry related to the UI presidential search contains links to the full text of virtually all known, non-repetitive media stories and commentary, including mine, since the last blog entry. Together they represent what The Chronicle of Higher Education has called "one of the most comprehensive analyses of the controversy." The last time there was an entry containing the summary of prior entries' commentary (with the heading "This Blog's Focus on Regents' Presidential Search") is Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search XIII -- Last Week," December 11, 2006.

My early proposed solution to the conflict is provided in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VII: The Answer," November 26, 2006.

Searching: the fullest collection of basic documents related to the search is contained in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search - Dec. 21-25," December 21, 2006 (and updated thereafter), at the bottom of that blog entry under "References." A Blog Index of entries on all subjects since June 2006 is also available. And note that if you know (or can guess at) a word to search on, the "Blogger" bar near the top of your browser has a blank, followed by "SEARCH THIS BLOG," that enables you to search all entries in this Blog since June 2006.]

# # #

Conflicts, Cover-ups and Corruption

June 26, 2007, 7:40 a.m. [times reflect additions to the entry -- for the benefit of those few individuals who check back occasionally during the day -- as well as reflecting the fact that what is called "life" occasionally interrupts blogging]

I'm going to try to attend Governor Bill "What Makes You Think You Can Be President?" Richardson's event this morning (10:30, Iowa City Public Library, Meeting Room A), and if blogger John Deeth is not there to cover it (in which case he will leave nothing more to be said about it) provide you a little commentary. He stopped by the Register's editorial board yesterday and received for his efforts what I would consider a very upbeat, favorable column. See, Andie Dominick, "Richardson packs jokes, thick resumé," Des Moines Register, June 26, 2007

Meanwhile . . .

Greed, Conflicts, Cover-ups and Corruption Yesterday I used a movie line in describing the central Iowa campaign to increase the sales tax -- and use the revenue to lower the property taxes of businesses and other property owners: "Greed is good." Nicholas Johnson, "'Greed Is Good' - Poverty? 'Yes, It's Your Destiny,'" June 25, 2007. It was a commentary addressing, I guess one would have to say, the morality of the wealthy using their economic and political power to shift the cost of government services (many of which benefit them disproportionately anyway, e.g., infrastructure, TIFs, tax forgiveness and other incentives) from themselves onto the backs of those least able to pay. Note, not incidentally, that an increase in sales taxes from 6 cents to 7 cents is not a "one penny" increase; it's a nearly 17% increase -- being advocated by the very folks who are usually supporting candidates who campaign on "cutting taxes" (by cutting programs not benefiting the wealthy).

Yesterday the comments on the Register's story included those complaining that the paper had become an advocate for the tax hike and that its "news" stories ought to be on the opinion page. No one will be saying that today. [There are 12 comments as of 8:00 a.m. One of the better, earlier comments, has for some reason been removed. None supports the tax-hike-shift proposal.] See, Jeff Eckhoff, "Woman denies she touted 'Destiny'; I don't even pay property taxes, Urbandale senior asserts," Des Moines Register, June 26, 2007. The story details efforts of the tax-hike-and-shift backers to misrepresent the proposal (mentioning that it will cut property taxes without mentioning it will increase sales taxes), and in the main story in the piece, using the photo of an 82-year-old woman who has long lived in apartments and pays no property taxes, along with a "quote" she never uttered, to advance their campaign.

(Wondering what State29 thinks about all of this? I'll be you can guess. State29, "The Project Destiny Scam," June 26, 2007.)

The story illustrates another problem with greed. Once money becomes the sole coin of the realm, and the need for profits is replaced with ever-increasing pressure for ever-increasing profits, conflicts of interest become ever more difficult to resolve ethically.

Years ago magazines aimed at women said little to nothing about the fact that the number of women dying from lung cancer was increasing, ultimately surpassing the number dying from breast cancer. Editors knew the story, they knew lung cancer's relationship to increased cigarette consumption by women, they knew manufacturers were targeting women -- and doing so in significant measure with the ads the companies were running in their magazines. But they needed the advertising revenue and, well, "women probably aren't interested in reading those stories anyway."

The NCAA wants to distance itself from sports gambling, and the gambling industry generally, in every way possible. It expressly forbids association with gambling casinos at NCAA events or in its advertising. It highly recommends that NCAA schools follow the same practice. It has written the UI athletic program with regard to its partnership with the Riverside Gambling Casino. And yet our football program tries to rationalize the gambling partnership while refusing to do anything about it.

This morning's Daily Iowan reports, Ashton Shurson, "Mason, Barta Set to Work Together," The Daily Iowan, June 26, 2007, that our new president has paid proper respect to the athletics program and its director. The story quotes Interim President Fethke as saying, "You have to respect the athletics director's opinion and point of view and trust that person."

Fethke's "respect" was so substantial that he's never (so far as I know) said anything critical in public regarding the NCAA's slap in our face about our gambling partnership with the Riverside Casino. Will the leadership that Mason brings include the ethical, moral and legal issues this relationship raises -- or will she continue the deafening silence from Jessup Hall on the issue because, after all, the athletic program is increasingly responsible for raising its own money, they have to get it where they can, and a university president must show "respect" to the athletic director?

Universities are not immune from the pressures that in corporate American can produce an Enron, or the political pressures that produce a U.S. Congress that simply can't "afford" to stand up to the pharmaceutical industry. Mason has been advised that as much as one-third of her time should be spent in fund raising. Clearly it's a major part of what she has been hired to do, a major part of the "performance" that can produce an extra $50,000 a year under her contract.

As such, she -- like every other big university's president -- will be subjected to similar pressures as the editor who must decide whether s/he can "afford" to run an essential story that will cause a loss of advertising revenue, an athletic director who must weigh the advice (and standards) of the NCAA against the revenue that can come from the gambling industry, or a politician in need of campaign contributions deciding how to vote on a measure that will clearly help her constituents but cause a special interest group to cut off her funding.

How will she decide whether to accept a major contribution from a donor who wants a faculty member fired (or hired), or a program established that is antithetical to the university's mission?

We've already stopped naming colleges and buildings for scholars and started naming them for donors. Are there any limits? The CEO of Home Depot gave $200 million to the Atlanta museum. Would we, for an equivalent amount, become "The Home Depot University of Iowa"? What if Larry Flynt would offer $300 million if we'd change the name to "Flynt University"? (After all there's a "Stanford University" and a "Duke University" -- named for a guy who made his money from tobacco.) Why not a "Flynt University"? We need his money as much as Barta needs the gambling industry's money.

What about a corporation that is willing to underwrite a multi-million-dollar research program -- so long as it gets a disproportionate share of the benefits from what it produces?

How candid should she be about, or should she even acknowledge at all, a potential scandal that could deal a blow to fund raising?

The question is not whether she will confront such conflicts. Of course she will. It goes with the territory in an age in which what used to be educational institutions with public support have developed more in common with for-profit corporations. The question is how she will respond to them. These conflicts often involve shades of gray. The more profitable choice can often be rationalized in some way -- as Barta tries to do with gambling money.

How many bars are there within walking distance of the campus -- 40? They are so profitable -- and therefore so politically powerful -- that the City Council seems incapable of doing anything meaningful to curb students binge drinking. Well, who are these customers anyway? They are students. The University's students. Our students. At a time when the University is in need of every source of income it can find, when it issues lucrative monopoly contracts to Coca Cola (so it can raise its prices) notwithstanding the product's health impact on students, why just wink at the profits from binge drinking when the University could be sharing in them? With a little ingenuity I think the University could be pulling in the lion's share of that money with its own entertainment venues. Something to think about.

I imagine that even President Mason cannot now imagine the choices -- the potential conflicts, cover-ups and corruption -- she will have to confront or how she will resolve them.

This morning's Register story illustrates how "just a little harmless doctoring of the promotional literature" is not only morally wrong, but can backfire. If those putting comments on that Register story represent the majority they may be, that may just be "all she wrote" on the sales tax for the wealthy.

The University's story? That's yet to be written.

# # #
[Note: If you're new to this blog, and interested in the whole UI President Search story . . .

This blog began in June 2006 and has addressed, and continues to addresses, a number of public policy, political, media, education, economic development, and other issues -- not just the UI presidential search. But that is the subject to which most attention has been focused in blog entries between November 2006 and June 2007.

The presidential search blog entries begin with Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search I," November 18, 2006. They end with Nicholas Johnson, "UI Held Hostage Day 505 - Next (Now This) Week," June 10, 2007 (100-plus pages printed; a single blog entry for the events of June 10-21 ("Day 516"), plus over 150 attached comments from readers), and Nicholas Johnson, "UI Hostages Free At Last -- Habemas Mamam!," June 22, 2007.

Wondering where the "UI Held Hostage" came from? Click here. (As of January 25 the count has run from January 21, 2006, rather than last November.)

For any given entry, links to the prior 10 will be found in the left-most column. Going directly to FromDC2Iowa.Blogspot.com will take you to the latest. Each entry related to the UI presidential search contains links to the full text of virtually all known, non-repetitive media stories and commentary, including mine, since the last blog entry. Together they represent what The Chronicle of Higher Education has called "one of the most comprehensive analyses of the controversy." The last time there was an entry containing the summary of prior entries' commentary (with the heading "This Blog's Focus on Regents' Presidential Search") is Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search XIII -- Last Week," December 11, 2006.

My early proposed solution to the conflict is provided in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VII: The Answer," November 26, 2006.

Searching: the fullest collection of basic documents related to the search is contained in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search - Dec. 21-25," December 21, 2006 (and updated thereafter), at the bottom of that blog entry under "References." A Blog Index of entries on all subjects since June 2006 is also available. And note that if you know (or can guess at) a word to search on, the "Blogger" bar near the top of your browser has a blank, followed by "SEARCH THIS BLOG," that enables you to search all entries in this Blog since June 2006.]

# # #

UI Held Hostage Day 504 - Getting to Know You

June 9, 2007, 6:00, 8:15, 9:00, 10:00 a.m.; 12:05, 4:30, and 9:45 p.m.

What Will We Know and When Will We Know It?
Becker, Furmanski and Mason
As Senator Howard Baker famously phrased it during the Watergate hearings, speaking of President Richard Nixon, "What did he know and when did he know it?"

After this next week's carnival ends, the cleaning crews are sweeping up, and the lights dim, "What will we know and when will we know it?"

Well, we know a little more this morning than we did yesterday afternoon, thanks to a couple of features on Becker and Furmanski by the Press-Citizen's Rachel Gallegos ("Colleagues Say Becker is 'Ambitious,' 'Bright,'" Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 9, 2007, p. 7A) and Kathryn Fiegen ("Furmanski Brings Balance to UI Application," Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 9, 2007, p. 6A).

The results of my first, superficial efforts at Googling the two of them was reported in yesterday's blog entry, Nicholas Johnson, "Philip Furmanski" and "Mark P. Becker," in "UI Held Hostage Day 503 - 'Pretty Please,'" June 8, 2007.

The results of my Googling the third candidate -- whose identity has been revealed, but whose candidacy has not been confirmed, Purdue Provost Sally Mason -- is contained in, Nicholas Johnson, "UI Presidential Search: The Utility of Campus Visits -- And the Internet/Here's an Example of What's Out There on the Internet," in "UI Held Hostage Day 502 - Show Me the Web Sites," June 7, 2007.

Mark P. Becker -- "It's quiet out here; too quiet."
Who is this man?
I'm going to keep searching; there are a lot of Web sites I haven't examined yet. But at this point I'm really mystified at how a guy who spent 15 years at Minnesota and Michigan (associate dean, Michigan School of Public Health; dean, Minnesota School of Public Health) and has been Executive Vice President and Provost of the entire University of South Carolina system since 2004, could have been so successful in living his life beneath the Internet's radar.

He didn't reply to Rachael Gallegos' calls and emails. Maybe that's a part of his success; the reason why I have not (so far) come upon any feature stories about him. Maybe he refuses to talk to the press.

But it's almost like he's changed his name. Or hacked his way into Google and removed all references.

Didn't he ever run a triathlon? Hasn't he ever been arrested? Didn't his Little League team ever win a game? Wasn't he ever an officer of the local Rotary Club? What is it with this guy? Talk about a "stealth candidate"! What was the point of keeping this guy's name secret? Now that we know his name what do we know?

Of course, having served as co-director, with Dr. Richard Remington, of the University of Iowa's Institute for Health, Behavior and Environmental Policy, I am partial to anyone who has worked in public health. But I'd just like to know a little more about this fellow.

(Late morning I came across a Web site noting his membership (with Laura Voisinet) in "The Circle" (financial supporters) of "Theatre South Carolina." From Ms. Voisinet's name -- a much more productive Google search term than his -- (it turns out she's his wife) I found a link to some of the following items, including an interview in the "USC Times News and Headlines" that was apparently done shortly after his arrival (September 2004) in South Carolina. It provides a little insight into his thinking about educational administration issues at that time. It also reveals that they have a son who then planned on going to a college in the south, and a daughter who would probably now be a high school senior or recent graduate.

When at Minnesota they owned a home they sold for $600,000 at "721 West Lincoln Avenue: Built in 1909. The structure is a two story, 2681 square foot, nine room, four bedroom, two bathroom, frame house, with a detached garage. This structure is listed on the National Register of Historic Places as part of the historic Hill District. The 1930 city directory indicates that William B. Geery, a bank governor, and his wife, Mabel Geery, resided at this address. The property was last sold in 2004 with a sale price of $600,000." Lawrence A. Martin, "Thursday Night Hikes: St. Albans/Lower Crocus Hill Architecture Notes, Part 2."

The University of Iowa Foundation should be pleased to discover that they are a very generous couple. They made a contribution to the "High School capital campaign" of the Rudolf Steiner School of Ann Arbor in 2006. The University of Minnesota School of Public Health Annual Report has a statement from him about accomplishments during his time there as Dean, comments about him by his successor, and notes the "above $10,000" category gift during 2003-2004 from him and Ms. Voisinet -- an amount they also contributed to the University of Minnesota's Minnesota Medical Foundation in 2003 and 2004 (although perhaps some of these reflect the same gift). The "Partners in Health" Annual Report for 2005 lists Laura Voisinet (alone) as a "Partners Circle" member/contributor. Two months ago she contributed to the Heathwood Hall Episcopal School, (Columbia, South Carolina) Annual Auction an "All natural, cozy, one-of-a-kind baby quilt." Dr. Becker, apparently having watched "The Big Salad" episode of "Seinfeld," apparently knew enough not to take credit for the gift of the quilt.)

Add-item June 11: "Our University President, Andrew Sorensen, was in attendance, and not just for 'face time' either, he stayed for the substantive presentations as well. His Presidency has been notable for a marked increase in the number of female faculty and administrators who have been hired and/or tenured at this University, and he and Provost Mark Becker deserve a lot of credit for that" (emphasis supplied). "Women's Studies at the University of South Carolina," March 2, 2007.

Philip Furmanski by contrast is out there. As I noted yesterday, I found five out of the first 10 Google hits -- from a total of 1130 -- to be of some relevance.

As with many of us, Dr. Furmanski "married above himself" (as Lyndon Johnson used to put it). Susan Wheeler, his wife, who did part of her growing up in the Midwest, is -- among other things -- the author of four books of poetry, all well reviewed, and the latest of which won the Iowa Poetry Prize. She's also recently published her first novel.

Furmanski made himself available to the Press-Citizen's Kathyn Fiegen, and was open in providing her the information she was able to report this morning.

This afternoon, as I briefly got back into the 1130 sites -- now 1160 -- I found one that illustrates his organized, no nonsense approach to management; you might want to look at his presentation reported in the minutes of the Information Technology Strategic Planning Committee, November 29, 2004. Here's another, addressing diversity, that required locals to look beyond their noses to national trends and best practices -- and that earned him a "laurel" from The Daily Targum, February 11, 2005.

All told, he reminds me a little of the Governor Bill Richardson political commercial, with the final line from the job interviewer: "So, what makes you think you can be president?"

Thus, it should be obvious that I'm impressed, and that I don't think what I am about to say is sufficient to be of any decisional significance when comparing him with the others.

Ms. Fiegen either picked up from her own Google search, or from the one I reported yesterday, the animal rights controversy in which Furmanski was involved while at NYU. Furmanski told Fiegen that (her words) "he had to work across lines to bring people to an understanding." Actually, I think there was more to it than that.

The issue that I see is not one regarding his position on the use of animals in research. Indeed, for someone who has supervised animal research the position he expressed to Kathryn Fiegen is about as good as it gets from the perspective of animal rights activists: minimal use and minimal pain.

"The use of animals in research is a very sensitive issue," he said. Furmanski said, as a scientist, he equates responsible, regulated animal testing with advances in science. But, he said, the use should be minimal and steps should be made to reduce pain for the animal.

So that's not the issue.

The issue has to do with one's practices with regard to transparency, candor, honesty, fairness and ethics in designing strategies and public relations positions when dealing with protests and controversy. It's a set of issues that just happened to arise in the context of an animal rights controversy.

At the outset, let me make abundantly clear that I have not confirmed, and have no way of knowing, the truth of what the Web site reports. It -- like any other source of information in hard copy or from interviews or the Internet -- would need to be tested and confirmed.

But what it says is:

Last year, Philip Furmanski, Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at New York University, sent an e-mail memo to members of the Biology Department concerning "a resurgence of activity among animal rights groups focusing on NYU," and in particular on the construction of a laboratory which will conduct experiments on animals on the top floor of the Main Building at NYU.

In the memo, Furmanski said that one of the organizations, SEAL or Students for Education and Animal Liberation at NYU, was "attempting to directly recruit students and will be holding meetings and probably protests on campus from time to time." Furmanski advised fellow faculty members to "keep a low profile." For, he argued, "there is little to no awareness of the presence of animals [in laboratories] at Washington Square and we want to keep it this way. Even the construction on the roof [of Main Building] is intended to be just another 'biology laboratory'." He continued: "If any students approach you regarding this issue, the response is that we do everything that is legally and morally required to assure the health and well-being of any animals.... Above all please try to be discreet and take care to keep the profile of any animal usage as low as possible."

This memo found its way into the hands of Jonathan Weintraub, a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences at NYU, who brought it to the attention of authorities at a town hall meeting on November 20th. Weintraub vociferously demanded that the University begin an open dialogue on the subject. After a few minutes of discussion, the meeting was abruptly halted by the presiding official. A week or so later, Weintraub was charged with disrupting University proceedings and interfering with others' rights and told to appear before a University tribunal. The tribunal finally decided last month to suspend Weintraub for a semester, but not impose the punishment unless, ran the ruling, "Mr. Weintraub is found, through a University disciplinary process, to have violated a code of conduct or policy applicable to New York University students."

Martin Rowe, "What's Up with NYU?" Satya Magazine, April 1, 1998. I'm certainly not going to speculate, interpret or comment upon that story. But it is yet one more example of the subject to which we next turn our attention:

Googling and "Minutiae." A thoughtful and for the most part flattering anonymous comment entered into yesterday's blog entry characterizes what I am going through on the Internet with my Googling of these candidates as "minutiae." I will set forth the comment in full and then respond.

I very much appreciate your blog and your good sense on much of the presidential search. I must admit I am mystified, however, at your call for the search committee to reveal names of books and publications they looked at, links to websites they looked at, etc. I cannot think of one search for anything, including a major administrator at a public institution, here or elsewhere, for which that level of minutiae about a search process has been shared. I don't totally buy the "we don't have enough time argument," either. Yes, it's all a very compressed time frame. But names of candidates for almost all administrative positions at the UI, not just president, have been announced the day before arrival in the past, and no one said boo about it. Again, I'm with you on 99% of what you're saying, and certainly there have been missteps on Search II. But some of the suggestions/requests you're making seem kind of out of touch with reality, or asking for things that are far beyond anything I can recall anyone doing under other circumstances, even screwed up circumstances.

(1) It's unprecedented to ask for relevant Web sites. ("I cannot think of one search . . . for which that . . . has been shared." "[The] requests [for Web sites] are far beyond anything I can recall anyone doing . . ..") I have neither basis for nor desire to disagree with those assertions. But since I have spent much of my life, in a variety of roles, proposing we do things that have never been done before, I don't find the fact that the suggestion is unprecedented a good reason for rejecting it. (I have always, however, been quite willing to acknowledge that perhaps 90% of what results from my brainstorming should be rejected out of hand -- and regularly change my mind. The question, for me, is whether this particular proposal belongs in the 90% or the 10%.)

(2) I have been accessing information from (and posting information to) the Internet since the late 1970s. I find it an absolutely remarkable resource. Of course, the information it contains has to be evaluated -- as does the information in journals and hard copy books. Yet I remain amazed at the number of people -- including well educated academics -- who at this late date are still not making the full use of this resource that might be useful to them (including when evaluating new employees). So it may be that the reason my suggestion sounds so unprecedented is that we are still, for many, operating in the dawn of the Information Age.

(3) "Minutiae." The limitations on a candidate's curriculum vitae, interview, public presentation, and the comments of their references is that they tend to create a disproportionately positive impression.

* CVs, which have even been known to have been faked, are notorious for their lack of negative information.

* Most individuals who would even apply, let alone become a finalist, for a major university presidency have long since developed the social, public speaking, and presentation skills necessary to "put their best foot forward" -- for at least as long as an interview process is likely to last.

* A candidate's current (and potentially former) colleagues may fail to mention the candidate's negatives for any one of a variety of reasons. They may be anxious to get rid of him or her. They may fear litigation. They may feel indebted. Their loyalty may be such that they would be willing to purger themselves in court rather than tell what they know. They may still be following their grandmother's advice: "if you can't say anything real nice, it's better not to talk at all is my advice" (from the lyrics to "Please Don't Talk About Me When I'm Gone").

Now I'm not suggesting that the hiring process should be designed to savage applicants' reputations. And I'm certainly not suggesting that a single negative fact should be disqualifying -- or that rumors and gossip should be accepted as fact.

We all have things in our past that we might hope would remain out of the public eye, or that we might have handled differently at the time. But, as Willie Nelson sings, "There is nothing I can do about it now." ["I know just what I'd change/If I went back in time somehow/But there's nothing I can do about it now."] We can only hope that while our record is out there, "warts and all," that we will be judged fairly by those whose lives are also a mixed bag.

At a minimum, a Google search may find information on Web sites to flesh out one's sense of an applicant, information that is neither overwhelmingly positive or negative, but can put a human face on what are otherwise cold, conventional facts about an academic career. For example, that David Skorton had a great sense of humor, played the saxophone and flute, and hosted a radio program about jazz -- among a great many other facts about him -- were not things one would find on a CV, and yet were a part of his effectiveness as an administrator.

I enjoy learning about a person's early years, family, hometown and upbringing. Their early interests as a kid. Their later participation in community organizations' boards and activities. Their sports and hobbies. Where they have traveled. Musical or other talents. Their political experience. Their toughest challenges.

If I'm actually involved in hiring them for a position I'd like to know as much as possible about how they relate to fellow workers -- and the public. As Southwest Airlines says, "We hire for attitude and train for skills." I'm not interested in our having to train a university president. But I am very interested in "attitude" -- how they treat the cleaning people in their building, and the wait staff in restaurants (folks usually overlooked in the interview process).

But a thorough Google search may also find items that -- while they often can be explained, do need to be. One drunk driving incident is one thing; a string of convictions might call for more inquiry. Charges of sexual harassment may have been minor and dismissed -- or may be much more serious. An exclusion of public (or faculty, or student) participation may have provoked widespread protests, leading to a candidate's departure from a prior university. Or, as with the Facebook "Hogan's Heros," there may be stories about their exceptional populariy elsewhere. They may have supported -- or fought tooth and nail -- efforts to unionize graduate students or others on campus.

[While a distinguished visiting professor for a semester at University of Wisconsin, Madison, I got caught in such a crossfire. I insisted on continuing to teach, rather than either canceling classes (in support of the graduate student union organizers), or requiring students to cross picket lines (in support of the university president's union-busting strategy). As punishment, I and the others who took this approach were denied our last month's paychecks. We sued, and of course recovered. It was a stupid, vindictive move on the president's part. I suspect it never showed up on his/her resume, and may well never have been mentioned by friends of the president who served as references for the president's subsequent job applications.]

So I don't think we're talking about "minutiae" here -- whether it's Internet information that just puts a human face on a candidate, or information that is relevant to the hiring decision (even if not a "deal breaker" -- or maker).

4. Finally, as I explained yesterday, I am not suggesting that Search Committee II is legally or otherwise obliged to make public what it believes to be relevant Web sites. "All I am saying is, give us a chance." If the Committee really wants meaningful input from the University and Iowa City communities in its process -- and given the short time frame, that remains a real question (as another "comment" to yesterday's blog entry points out) -- the more information the Committee provides us about the candidates the better the reactions we can provide. If all we are going to have are the candidates' CVs, and a slick, rehearsed half-hour presentation with a few questions, our evaluations will of necessity be pretty superficial.

Again, I am not talking about private, confidential information. I am not talking about the Committee members' deliberations about the information they have found. I am not talking about why they found those sites relevant, or what portions of them they focused upon. All I am talking about is information that is a part of the public record -- information that is available to anyone from the Internet -- the URLs of the Web sites the Committee thought useful. It's just that it takes a little time to find the useful needles in that haystack. More time than we have during this next week. Search Committee II has, hopefully, done the search and found the most relevant Web sites for each candidate. To refuse to let the public know what those URLs are is a kind of shooting itself in the foot, "dog in the manger" (if I may mix metaphors and parables) approach -- IF (that's a "big if") they really want our input.

More to come . . .
# # #

UI Held Hostage Day 498 - Barbara Richardson & Friend

June 3, 2007, 8:15 a.m., 12:30 p.m.

Governor Bill Richardson and the Natural Superiority of Women
It's not the data, it's just my sense, that men have a greater propensity to arrogance than women. At least I've not often seen a lot of women getting drunk and staggering down the street shouting, "We're Number One! We're Number One!" Not only do we behave as if we are superior to all the other animals, men have for centuries deluded themselves into believing they are superior to women as well.

Both arrogant assumptions are wrong.

The natural superiority of squirrels.I purchased another bird feeder the day before yesterday. One of my favorites has once again come under squirrel attack. It sits on a pole, cannot be assaulted from below, and is located sufficiently far from any tree limbs that for a year or so it was free from attack. We've yet to figure out how a squirrel can get into it, but a new squirrel in our neighborhood has now been spotted in it a couple of times.

[Cartoon credit ("Outwit squirrels getting to bird feeders"): Wiley Miller, "Non Sequitur," May 20, 2015.]

The conclusions one must draw from the decades-long conflict between squirrels on the one hand, and those of us who like to feed wild birds on the other, are not flattering to our species. With our self-proclaimed intellectual superiority, all the resources of our scientific and engineering geniuses, our industrial and military power and might, "Yankee ingenuity," and a range of materials and tools unknown to prior generations, the results of our war on squirrels really does make our prospects for victory in Iraq look like a "slam dunk" by comparison.

Much as we may squirm to avoid admitting it, an honest evaluation of the data compels the conclusion that squirrels do, in fact, have a superior intelligence to humans. They also have more patience and determination. More willingness to work at, and stick with, problem solving. More commitment to scientific experimentation. And, not incidentally, an athletic prowess -- not to mention courage -- that puts our Olympic athletes to shame by comparison.

As the clerk put it to me with commendable candor when I asked about a squirrel-proof bird feeder, "Look, mister, there ain't no squirrel-proof bird feeders. There are just squirrel-resistant bird feeders."

So I now have a squirrel-resistant bird feeder. And at least for the first 24 hours I haven't seen any evidence that squirrels have already figured it out. But I see them looking at it, and drawing diagrams in the dirt underneath it, and I while I don't know what they're thinking I do know what they're thinking about.

The natural superiority of women. While I have always had great respect for the major contributions of the women I have known -- contributions to our society in general as well as our families -- it was only about 15 years ago that I came to an insight I've characterized as "the natural superiority of women."

Not only has this insight helped me to understand what's going on in the world around me, it has also been a profound stress reducer. No longer am I responsible for solving all the world's problems. No longer do I have to make all the big decisions. I just leave it to the women, secure in the confidence they'll probably do a better job of it than I would anyway.

So what I did at Governor Bill Richardson's reception prior to the five candidates' speeches to Iowa's Democrats in Cedar Rapids last evening will not surprise you. After visiting with the Governor briefly, and taking some of the pictures I'll link to momentarily, I left him to the crowds hanging on his every word and spent much of my time visiting with his wife, Barbara.

I commented that it has often been my experience that the wives of presidents, or presidential candidates, are individuals of great qualities and strengths which often includes a superiority to their husbands. Given the challenges of being the spouse of an office holder or candidate it requires a superior person.

In Barbara Richardson's case she's been a leader in significant accomplishments with regard to -- among a great many other things -- domestic violence projects, an immunization program that produced remarkable improvements in a state (New Mexico) that had been last in the nation, and a successful literacy program (also a challenge in New Mexico). (It's not irrelevant to note that she mentioned none of this to me; I've picked it up elsewhere.)

Barbara Flavin Richardson graduated magna cum laude from Wheaton College in Norton, Massachusetts, and married her high school classmate, Bill Richardson, in 1972. They've held that marriage together for 35 years -- itself a significant accomplishment given the lives they've both led.

In fact, her college magazine reported in 2005,

Just before Bill Richardson was sworn in as governor in 2003, a reporter asked her about media reports speculating that the governor would run for president in 2008.

"I'll tell you what I tell him," she said. "'That's another life and another wife.' Honest to God. Not my bag. It's just not something that I even want to contemplate."

Jayne M. Iafrate, "The Power of One," Wheaton Quarterly, Winter 2005.

(That was essentially what my first wife, now deceased, told me when I was asked to be a third party candidate for president, and later became a candidate in a congressional primary. But in our case, by the time of the congressional primary we were divorced and, unlike Barbara, she was not campaigning with me. Although in fairness I should note that, notwithstanding her view of the matter and the divorce, she did offer to come to Iowa to campaign for me if the divorce ever became an issue. It did not.)

No politician's wife can be expected to have enthusiasm for any campaign, let alone a presidential campaign. But, given that, Barbara Richardson has clearly decided not only to "contemplate" her husband's race, she is still married to him and participating in the campaign.

She's bright, charming, down-to-earth, relaxed, with an infectious smile and sense of humor -- a real asset to Bill Richardson, as governor, as a presidential candidate, or as America's First Lady.

(If you're interested in more, besides the Wheaton Quarterly story, linked above, you might want to look at her New Mexico First Lady Web page, her page on the Governor's presidential campaign site, or her Wikipedia entry.)

Oh, yeah, and that guy she was with is not too shabby either. I think past experience counts -- and that, while there are many senators whom I admire, the U.S. Senate doesn't provide much of a test of one's abilities as a responsible administrator of a large enterprise. Being a governor is about as close as we get. (On the other hand, one should note that George Bush senior had a resume approaching that of Bill Richardson, and George Bush junior had experience as governor of a larger state than New Mexico. So it's not a rule with no exceptions.)

Nor are Governor Richardson's resume entries -- which seemingly go on forever -- all the result of a series of short term hop-skip-and-jumps from one job to another. He served in the U.S. Congress for 14 years, and as New Mexico's governor since 2003 -- to which he was re-elected with an unprecedented 60+ percent. (I can't find the exact percentage at the moment.) There are dozens of other jobs and experiences that he's had that are relevant to the presidency. I don't have time or space to relate all of them here, nor is there a need to. If you're seriously evaluating the field of candidates you ought to read them for yourself. There's no shortage of material about him on the Internet, but you can always start with his Wikipedia entry and his campaign Web page, "Bill Richardson for President."

Governor Richardson's moving up.

More and more Iowans are coming to realize (in part, as a result of his commercials) that in terms of relevant experience he is head and shoulders above the rest of the pack.

After starting late compared to the three poll leaders (in Iowa) Edwards, Obama and Clinton, his first quarter fund raising put him at fourth (or fifth) largest nationally, and he's already moved from what he characterizes with a smile as "within the margin of error" to a solid 10% in the Iowa Poll. Jonathan Roos, "Democrats Prefer Edwards in New Poll," Des Moines Register, May 19, 2007.

His humorous, somewhat self-deprecating TV commercials have been characterized by George Stephanopoulos (and most Iowans I know) as the best so far this year (a judgment shared by those present last evening).

David Broder, dean of the political pack, has written, "The liveliest pair of candidates in the large fields of Democratic and Republican long shots, Bill Richardson and Mike Huckabee, are also -- not coincidentally -- the likeliest to break through into the top ranks of their parties if anyone ever does." David S. Broder, "Two Long Shots Liven Up a Race," The Washington Post, May 24, 2007, Page A31.

A lot can happen between June 2007 and January 2008 (when the Iowa caucuses take place) -- just ask the Republican candidates now looking at the entry of Fred Thompson. And the higher Richardson rises in the polls the greater will be the desire of the media, and his opponents, to find any scrap of scandal they can uncover.

Candidates will go up and down in the polls. Anyone can stumble with an answer to a reporter's question, or in one of the debates. No one can predict what may be dragged up from out of these candidates' pasts that may radically change their standing -- whether legitimately or not. Nor can we predict the news (such as this morning's report of the foiled plot to blow up the JFK Airport and a goodly portion of New York along with it), and how it, and the candidates' response to it, will affect them. Candidates may drop out. Others may enter.

But, for now, Barbara Richardson and her tag-along are going to be worth keeping an eye on.

Oh, and here are the pictures from last evening.

UICCU and "Optiva"
The UICCU-Optiva story is essentially behind us. There may be occasional additions "for the record," but for the most part the last major entry, with links to the prior material from October 2006 through March 2007, is "UICCU and 'Optiva'" in Nicholas Johnson, "UI Held Hostage Day 406 - March 3 - Optiva," March 3, 2007. Since then there have been two major additions: Nicholas Johnson, "Open Letter to UICCU Board" in "UI Held Hostage Day 423 - March 20 - UICCU," March 20, 2007, and "'Open Letter': Confirmation from World Council of Credit Unions" in "UI Held Hostage Day 424 - March 21 UICCU," March 21, 2007.

# # #
[Note: If you're new to this blog, and interested in the whole UI President Search story . . .

These blog entries begin with Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search I," November 18, 2006.

Wondering where the "UI Held Hostage" came from? Click here. (As of January 25 the count has run from January 21, 2006, rather than last November.)

For any given entry, links to the prior 10 will be found in the left-most column. Going directly to FromDC2Iowa.Blogspot.com will take you to the latest. Each contains links to the full text of virtually all known media stories and commentary, including mine, since the last blog entry. Together they represent what The Chronicle of Higher Education has called "one of the most comprehensive analyses of the controversy." The last time there was an entry containing the summary of prior entries' commentary (with the heading "This Blog's Focus on Regents' Presidential Search") is Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search XIII -- Last Week," December 11, 2006.

My early proposed solution to the conflict is provided in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VII: The Answer," November 26, 2006.

Searching: the fullest collection of basic documents related to the search is contained in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search - Dec. 21-25," December 21, 2006 (and updated thereafter), at the bottom of that blog entry under "References." A Blog Index of entries on all subjects since June 2006 is also available. And note that if you know (or can guess at) a word to search on, the "Blogger" bar near the top of your browser has a blank, followed by "SEARCH THIS BLOG," that enables you to search all entries in this Blog since June 2006.]

# # #
Media Stories and Commentary
See above.
_______________
Technorati tags: football, athletics, academics, high school, college, University of Iowa, education, K-12, leadership, university president, Michael Gartner, Iowa Board of Regents, UI president search, Nicholas Johnson, FromDC2Iowa