Republicans' Iowa Straw Poll

August 15, 2011, 5:30 p.m.

Winning's Not "The Only Thing" In Politics or Golf
There were two major contests within the last 72 hours. Both resulted in someone being proclaimed "the winner."

First was the Iowa Republicans' "straw poll" Saturday [August 13] afternoon.

The headline proclaimed, ""Michele Bachmann wins Iowa Straw Poll." Jennifer Jacobs, "Michele Bachmann wins Iowa Straw Poll," Des Moines Register, August 14, 2011. (Other quotes from the story: "Michele Bachmann, the first woman to win the Iowa straw poll, is now the official front-runner in Iowa . . .. With 16,892 Iowans casting ballots, Bachmann won with 4,823 votes. . . . Bachmann’s win . . ..) [Photo credit: Charles Dharapak, Associated Press.]

What does "win" mean in this context?

Even if one candidate got 50% or more of the vote, they still wouldn't have won enough to buy deep fat fried butter on a stick at the Iowa State Fair.

Moreover, on this occasion (a) Bachmann only got 28% of the vote, and (b) Ron Paul virtually tied her with 27%. They were separated by only 152 votes out of 16,891. Does it make any sense to proclaim one a "winner" and the other a "loser," given those numbers out of 55 million registered Republicans?

Here is Jon Stewart's take on the mainstream media's virtual total dismissal of second place finisher Ron Paul:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Indecision 2012 - Corn Polled Edition - Ron Paul & the Top Tier
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

"Indecision 2012 - Corn Polled Edition - Ron Paul & the Top Tier," August 15, 2011.

I have a lot more problems with that straw poll.

For starters, two of the Party's frontrunners -- Mitt Romney and Rick Perry -- weren't even on the ballot. Jon Huntsman was, but made no effort to garner votes. What does it mean to "win" a vote in which the two leaders haven't participated?

The straw poll is about as far as one can get from scientific polling. It's a fund raiser; it's a poll tax on steroids. It's Chicago politics with no holds barred.

To vote you first have to pay the $30 poll tax -- except that "you" don't have to pay, because the candidate will pay you to vote. Moreover, candidates can bus in voters from anywhere -- and do. Last time Romney paid $10 million to bus in and turn out straw poll voters. (This time he wisely chose to save the money.) [Thanks to "baune" for Aug. 17 blog correction/comment, below, "Not that it matters that much, but Mitt Romney's name was on the ballot for the straw poll." Thus, the first sentence, two paragraphs above, should have read: "For starters, two of the Party's frontrunners -- Mitt Romney and Rick Perry -- weren't even campaigning for votes."]

Maybe the vote is a measure of how much money candidates were able to raise, and willing to spend, on staff, organization, buses and poll tax tickets, but it's not much indication of Republican voters' preferences at this point.

Indeed, there is a suspicion that some voters "refused to stay bought." They went to the tent of the candidate with the best food and entertainment, accepted their $30 ticket, and then voted for whomever they pleased.

Finally, there's the matter of Republicans' judgment, to the extent the results were a measure of their genuine choice. Not that there aren't Democrats equally capable of snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory, mind you, but it does say something about Iowa Republicans that less than 1/2 of 1% of them are willing to support the one candidate actually capable of attracting enough independents and even Democrats to defeat Obama in a head-to-head general election once it is heavily covered by the media. That candidate? Jon Huntsman.
_____
The other contest finished up on Sunday, August 14. It was the 2011 PGA Championship at the Atlanta Athletic Club in Johns Creek, Georgia.

Golf has always been more honorable than politics. Players' actual, and reported, numbers of strokes are far less likely to have been manipulated or distorted than a straw poll's number of votes.

And so it is that we know Keegan Bradley took one less stroke to finish a three-hole playoff than Jason Dufner required.[Photo credit: Kohjiro Kinno, Sports Illustrated.]

Thus, the headline proclaims that Bradley "wins PGA Championship." Gary Van Sickle, "First time's a charm for Bradley as he wins PGA Championship in a playoff," Sports Illustrated, August 15, 2011.

He deserved to win. He played spectacular golf throughout. I tend to agree with SI that "Bradley just might be that new golf star America so badly needs" -- though I may not be as confident as SI that America "badly needs" a golf star, as much as, say, to bring some of our wars to a close, create a few million jobs, and get our economy back on a growth curve.

How any human is capable of hitting a little golf ball with a stick some 200 to 300 yards and have it land within 15 feet of a flag is beyond me -- especially when most of that distance is over a lake. In fact, the only thing Bradley's game had in common with mine was his triple bogey on the 15th (where he did leave one in the lake).

The difference in ultimate outcome was that he was able to recover and Dufner was not, which is what sent them into a three-hole playoff which Bradley managed to finish with one stroke less than Dufner.

I understand about winning in sports. A baseball team can have better hitting and batting than their opponent for eight innings and still lose the game in the bottom of the ninth. A 1/100th of a second can make the difference between the gold and silver medals in swimming or downhill skiing. And some of the world's best golfers may be separated by no more than one to three strokes at the end of a tournament.

But after a sporting contest between the world's finest is over, it often seems to me that more needs to be said about the accomplishments of all the participants, not just the final score, or "winner's" time. I know that's not what some of the participants think. They want to "win." But it's what I think, as I review in my mind the unbelievable catch in the football game, the golfer's 30-foot putt, or approach shot that comes within a half inch of a hole in one.

Bradley and Dufner were no Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, of whom it was said, he was great, but she did everything he did, backwards and in high heels.

Neither Keegan Bradley nor Jason Dufner were were wearing high heels or walking backwards; both were playing on the same golf course.

But before the playoff, don't forget that out of all the championship golfers who made the cut for this tournament, it was only Jason Dufner who was able to tie the tournament score of America's new young golfing superstar -- who won the first major championship in which he played -- "that new golf star America so badly needs."

In my book Dufner's accomplishment is worthy of a little more recognition and respect than the characterization of Bradley as the "winner" and Dufner the "loser" of that championship. Clearly, Dufner is also a "golf star America needs."

And I'd say the same for Ron Paul's accomplishment in the straw poll -- brought about, I suspect, more from the wild enthusiasm from his Libertarian supporters than with busloads of strangers and lots of money.
# # #
Here's how the 16,892 straw poll votes ended up:

1st Michele Bachmann 4823 28.551977%
2nd Ron Paul 4671 27.652143%
3rd Tim Pawlenty 2293
4th Rick Santorum, 1657
5th Herman Cin 1456
6th Newt Gingrich 385
7th Jon Huntsman 69
8th Thaddeus McCotter 35

Can We Trust Our Bankers?

October 29, 2008, 9:00, 10:15 a.m.

Looking for "The Economics of Conservation," October 28, 2008? Click here.

"If You Can't Trust Your Banker . . ."


[Credit: "Shady Deal at Sunny Acres," Maverick, 2nd Season, 1958. The popular early television series, Maverick, "starring James Garner and Jack Kelly, remains the most famous and widely discussed episode of the Western comedy television series Maverick. Written by Roy Huggins and Douglas Heyes and directed by Leslie H. Martinson, this 1958 second season episode depicts gambler Bret Maverick (James Garner) being swindled by a crooked banker (John Dehner) after depositing the proceeds from a late-night poker game, then recruiting his brother Bart Maverick (Jack Kelly) to mount an elaborate sting operation to recover the money." It's also the source of two oft-quoted lines: "If you can't trust your banker, whom can you trust?" and "I'm working on it." See, "Shady Deal at Sunny Acres," wikipedia.org.]

At the outset, let me make clear that I don't mean to be questioning the trustworthiness of our local bankers (notwithstanding the physical similarity between one of them and John Dehner). The "bankers" I'm talking about are those in Washington, represented by the President, his Secretary of the Treasury, those "to get along go along" campaign-contribution-receiving members of the House and Senate, and their Wall Street collaborators.

Given that they have fallen for the same "Chicken Little, 'the sky is falling, the sky is falling'" rhetoric from Bush on the economy that he used for the Iraq War,


[Credit: Jon Stewart, "The Daily Show," September 25, 2008.]

apparently what this country needs is a Washington invasion of chiropractors to strengthen their spines.

Europe is still providing examples of how to go about this bailout responsibly.

For example, in a story of some local interest we learn that the Dutch government is bailing out the corporate parent of Cedar Rapids' AEGON USA. Associated Press, "Netherlands Gives Aegon a $3.7 Billion Bailout," New York Times, October 28, 2008 (in this morning's Gazette as, "AEGON Gets $3.7 Billion Government Investment," The Gazette, October 29, 2008, p. B7 -- apparently Europe's "bailout" is America's "investment").

Note that the European AEGON parent has canceled dividends and executive bonuses for the rest of the year.

Note also that the government has given "Dutch Uncle treatment" a whole new meaning by simply nationalizing the biggest Dutch financial institutions, ABN Amro and Fortis.

Nor has it simply given AEGON $3.7 billion. It has acquired 750 million shares of a new class of non-voting AEGON stock which, if converted to common stock would be nearly a 50% stake in the company. It will name two members of the board. The stock will pay a minimum of 8.5% annually. And if the company ever chooses to buy them back it will cost them $5.6 billion, not $3.7 billion.

Meanwhile, here in the good old U.S. of A. it looks like Secretary Paulson is weakening on his commitment to obtain taxpayer equity in exchange for the $700 billion bailout. Meanwhile, apparently the banks are taking the money -- designed to ease the credit crisis -- and instead of using it to make loans have decided they might better enrich themselves by using it to buy up other banks at a bargain, thereby creating even larger financial institutions that "we just can't afford to let fail."

And the auto companies, having already been given $25 billion (I believe), are now back in line for whatever they can get from wherever they can get it -- a part of the $700 billion "financial institutions" bailout, the additional $25 billion auto "just for the hell of it" fund, and some $5 billion from the Department of Energy for retooling to (hopefully) begin building cars that Americans would actually like to buy.

The roughly $10 billion in government funds to support a merger would be in addition to whatever funds would be allocated under an already-approved $25 billion program to provide low-interest loans to the auto industry for retooling to make more fuel-efficient cars. . . .

Moody's Investors Service cut its GM rating on Monday deeper into junk territory on the view that GM's liquidity would continue to erode into 2009. The ratings agency also cut Chrysler for similar reasons . . ..

GM has a market capitalization of just over $3 billion based on Monday's close and roughly $10 billion of outstanding debt. Chrysler's privately held auto operations were valued at zero last week by Daimler AG (DAIGn.DE) . . ..

GM's shares have slumped nearly 80 percent this year and its market value has dropped below what it was in 1929.

Jui Chakravorty Das and Kevin Krolicki, "GM seeks $10 billion in aid for merger: sources," Reuters, October 28, 2008, 12:06 p.m. ET.

Far be it from me to yield to the persuasive forces of cynicism and conspiracy, but doesn't it kind of remind you of two things:

(1) Civil disorder and riots, whether in Baghdad after our invasion or American cities 40 years ago, with store windows broken and looters running down the streets with anything that was not locked down that they can carry. Even the foxes have stopped guarding the chicken coops and opened the door to any and all to come take as many as they can carry. This Administration and their friends in Congress realize that change is most likely coming. If they intend to keep on getting they best get while the getting is good. Since when they opened the vaults at Fort Knox they discovered they were bare, and they don't want the wealthy to have to pay taxes, they've simply run up debt for our great grandchildren to pay, and then started paying this borrowed money to themselves as fast as they can between now and January 20 (Inauguration Day). Maybe not, but that's sure as hell what it looks like to me.

(2) An almost equally valuable byproduct -- certainly politically -- of this unrestrained theft from taxpayers involves one of the most effective strategies of those who would like to do away with government entirely -- except for making war (while enriching the weapons merchants). By running up astronomical levels of debt they can totally eliminate any and all "discretionary spending" by the president and Congress. Remember Bush's adviser, Grover Norquist? "To Norquist, who loves being called a revolutionary, hardly an agency of government is not worth abolishing, from the Internal Revenue Service and the Food and Drug Administration to the Education Department and the National Endowment for the Arts. 'My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years,' he says, 'to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.'" Robert Dreyfuss, "Grover Norquist: 'Field Marshall' of the Bush Plan," The Nation, May 14, 2001 (online April 26, 2001).

It's a two-fer for them: riches beyond their wildest dreams of avarice, and a political body blow to any Obama Administration. After all, what will Obama's options be? ("You can't always get what you want; but you can get what you need"? Not if "Change We Need" is "Change We Can't Afford.")

1. He can capitulate to the neocons' strategy; fail to put any of his proposals in place, and cut back even more on the few social programs that still exist, further extending the gap between rich and poor and driving America ever closer to third-world demographics.

2. He can, irresponsibly, increase the national debt beyond the $10 trillion or more that Bush is leaving for him -- and the $55 trillion of unfunded future obligations -- and just hope that the Chinese, and other peoples with greater inclination to save than Americans, will continue to loan us money.

3. He can (a) pray for an economic recovery sufficient to radically increase federal tax revenues (without increasing tax rates), using the money to both pay down debt and provide at least pilot project-level funding for new programs, or (b) increase tax rates notwithstanding the lack of economic recovery.

There may be other options, but those are the only ones that immediately occur to me.

Of course, I may be too cynical. After all, "If you can't trust your banker, whom can you trust?"

# # #

Governor Sarah Palin

September 4, 2008, 9:40 a.m., 12:30, 6:15 p.m.

Currently Most Popular Blog Entries
"Random Thoughts on Law School Rankings," April 29, 2008.
"Tell Me a Story," August 30, 2008.
"City's Moral Compass is Spinning," August 27, 2008.
"Abolish Bar Exams?" August 22, 2008.

"UI Sexual Assault Update" is now embodied in, and being updated as, a Web page, "University of Iowa Sexual Assault Controversy -- 2007-08," July 19-present; although the original blog entry (July 19-August 9) has not been removed,"UI Sexual Assault Update," July 19-August 9. Both remain among "most popular."

"Police Accidental Shootings -- Of Themselves," May 9, 2008.
"Ted, TED, Michelle and City Owned Hotels," August 26, 2008.
"Solving Illegal Behavior Problems by Making It Legal," August 20, 2008.
"Reactions to Obama's Telecom Immunity Vote," July 9, 2008.
"Jails: 'Overcrowding' Not the Issue," August 21, 2008.

And see, Database Index of 500-plus blog entries

Palin by Comparison
I like Sarah Palin.

No, I don't mean what I now understand to be her positions regarding tax cuts and federal deficits, energy policy, abortion (valuing the life of a fetus over the life of a mother), teaching creationism in the schools, utilization of earmarks, guns, global warming, gay marriage and civil unions, relying on abstinence as a birth control method in reducing teen pregnancy -- among others. I suspect were we to spend an evening "vetting" each others' positions on issues we'd find relatively little we agree on. (I've said the same, and more, about Governor Mike Huckabee. Nicholas Johnson, Are We There Yet? (2008), Part II. Candidates/Governor Mike Huckabee. I really like Mike Huckabee, and his opening last evening was another demonstration of one of the reasons why.)

Nor do I mean that I liked "her" speech.

Don't get me wrong. It was a great speech (though I'm not fond of substituting snide attacks on one's opponent for a discussion of the issues). I mean it probably served well the Republican campaign. Matthew Scully, who wrote it, is a master wordsmith. After all he wrote President George W. Bush's first four State of the Union messages, among other political writing over the years. Who better to write the speeches and talking points for "Bush's third term"? I just mean it wasn't "her speech." (For a kind of "truth squad" evaluation of some of the charges see, Jim Kuhnhenn, "Attacks, praise stretch truth at GOP convention," Associated Press/Yahoo! News, September 3, 2008, 11:48 p.m. ET.)

That's certainly not a criticism of Governor Palin. Senator Obama is not unfamiliar with the teleprompter. And Senator McCain's constant looking down at notes only draws attention to the fact he's uttering someone else's words as well as significantly impairing his effectiveness as a speaker. Public officials, especially during a campaign sometimes requiring ten appearances a day, can be excused for relying on speech writers. And she, Senator McCain -- indeed the entire Republican Party -- had an enormous amount riding on it being a good performance.

Which it was. Being able to deliver a speech not entirely one's own to a very large crowd -- persuasively, emotionally, and with humor -- is an ability not unrelated to one's effectiveness as president. I thought she really "sold the lines," as we say, and did everything she was called upon to do.

Things had, after all, moved rather rapidly -- for her, the media, and the rest of the nation. Elisabeth Bumiller, "Palin Disclosures Raise Questions On Vetting," New York Times, September 1, 2008 ("Aides to Mr. McCain said they had a team on the ground in Alaska now to look more thoroughly into Ms. Palin’s background. A Republican with ties to the campaign said the team assigned to vet Ms. Palin in Alaska had not arrived there until Thursday, a day before Mr. McCain stunned the political world with his vice-presidential choice. The campaign was still calling Republican operatives as late as Sunday night asking them to go to Alaska to deal with the unexpected candidacy of Ms. Palin."). (I have a memory of having read, or heard, somewhere that the Times, challenged by the McCain campaign on this story, is standing by it.)

One of the most knowledgeable and insightful persons to comment about her qualifications is a member of the Alaska legislature -- who also likes her. Mike Doogan, "She's Nice -- but Not Ready," Washington Post, September 3, 2008, p. A15 ("Palin brings some pluses to the campaign. She's a woman. She's young. She's from outside the Beltway. The Christian right likes her. She's comfortable on TV -- she has a degree in journalism -- and is adept at connecting with people on a personal level. And she is very, very competitive. . . . [H]er role in killing the ballyhooed 'Bridge to Nowhere'? Turns out that she was for it before she was against it, and that, well, she kept the money anyway. . . . [T]he state government isn't running all that well: commissioners and key staffers jumping or being pushed. The operating budget growing 10 percent a year. . . . The governor and her aides being investigated by the legislature. You can see why it's not clear she's a competent governor of Alaska, let alone qualified to take over the reins of the national government."). And see, Brian Ross, Joseph Rhee and Len Tepper, "Fired Alaskan Official Says Palin Hasn't Been Truthful; Monegan Says He Was Fired For His Refusal to Fire Governor's Former Brother-In-Law," ABC News, September 4, 2008; Brian Ross and Joseph Rhee, "Another Controversy for Sarah Palin; Former Police Chief Says He Was Fired for Challenging Palin's Campaign Contributors," ABC News, September 3, 2008; Justin Rood, "Palin Fought Polar Bear Protections; Governor Discounted the Findings of Nine Recent USGS Studies," ABC News, August 31, 2008.

So she was coached on the delivery. I suspect that wasn't the first time that has occurred either.

Anticipating the importance of Palin's debut before a national audience, McCain speechwriter Matthew Scully spent days working on the speech, and she rehearsed it repeatedly as McCain aides offered coaching. Before she delivered it, they began an all-out effort to defend her and take the offensive against her critics, mobilizing surrogates to tell her story and accusing journalists of creating a "faux media scandal designed to destroy the first female Republican nominee."

Here's the link to that Post page-one story, Michael D. Shear, "Palin Comes Out Fighting; GOP Nominates McCain After Running Mate Attacks Obama on Experience," Washington Post, September 4, 2008, p. A1.

And here's the Times' take: "The speech was the first public emergence for Ms. Palin since arriving here Sunday, two days after Mr. McCain named her as his running mate. Ms. Palin has spent her time in a hotel suite with her husband, Todd, and their five children preparing for her speech and the questions on foreign policy, national security and family matters that she will face from the news media when the McCain campaign makes her available to reporters. . . ." Elisabeth Bumiller and Michael Cooper, "Palin Assails Critics and Electrifies Party," New York Times, September 4, 2008.

I used to like Bill Clinton, and stopped as a result of his campaign tactics against Senator Obama. The same thing could happen with my reactions to Governor Palin if she keeps up the ad hominum attacks on Obama and continues to avoid issues. Understand, I'd never vote for her, and frankly the thought of her having to walk into the oval office alone scares me a little. But I still like her. She's got spunk. She's articulate (especially when permitted to speak without scripts and coaches). She's attractive. And she's going to be appealing to a lot of voters, I think.

Aside from partisanship, and aside from the chattering classes and policy wonks, the reactions to her are going to turn on folks comfort zone -- as they did for me in my congressional primary race. I always felt those who voted for me, and those who preferred someone else (numbers that, by my count, differed by only six), both saw me accurately. Those who voted for me liked the idea of someone who (at that time only) had a modest measure of celebrity, contacts in Hollywood (some of whom came to the district to help with the campaign), Washington and the financial community in New York that could be drawn upon to help the District (my memory -- often faulty -- is that the Wall Street Journal reported at one point that I had more up front money from contributors, including Republicans, than any other newcomer running for Congress that year). They thought someone like that was just what the district needed. Young professionals, including even some Republicans, were attracted to that. On the other hand, there were slightly more who found that discomforting, something they found it hard to relate to. They preferred someone more like their neighbor down the road. Not incidentally, after the primaries were over, and the general election was held, the person they ended up choosing was a former state legislator, and now our own Iowa Senator, Chuck Grassley.

I think the choice between Palin and Obama is going to be like that. Both will be perceived relatively accurately by voters. Many -- whether it turns out to be "most" will decide who ends up in the White House -- will feel much more comfortable with what they see in Governor Palin. They'll like what I like about her -- and either also like her ideology and policy positions, or be unaware of what they are. Others will be more comfortable with what they see in Obama, what he represents (in every sense), and their attraction to Michelle as well.

The "Experience" Debate is Getting Silly
Senator McCain "told ABC News in an interview on Wednesday that 'Sarah Palin has 24,000 employees in the state government' and was 'responsible for 20 percent of the nation’s energy supply.'” Elisabeth Bumiller and Michael Cooper, "Palin Assails Critics and Electrifies Party," New York Times, September 4, 2008.

Last evening on Jon Stewart's "Daily Show," former Speaker Newt Gingrich was the guest. Stewart noted that some Republicans are arguing that Palin has foreign policy credentials because Alaska is close to Russia. Gingrich responded that when comparing the executive experience of Palin to that of Obama and Biden "You can't find a single executive decision that either has made in their entire career." To which Stewart responded that the same would have to be said about McCain -- to which Gingrich candidly acknowledged, "That's exactly right." (The exchange occurs at roughly 3:30-4:00 minutes into the interview.)

Similarly, Fred Thompson acknowledged last evening during his speech at the Convention, "Now, being a POW certainly doesn't qualify anyone to be president." (He went on to say, "but it does reveal character.") It's something the McCain campaign needs to consider.

Senator Joe Biden once said of Mayor Rudy Giuliani, "Rudy Giuliani, probably the most under-qualified man since George Bush to seek the presidency . . . I mean, think about it! Rudy Giuliani. There's only three things he mentions in a sentence -- a noun, a verb, and 9/11. There's nothing else!"

The McCain campaign risks a similar attack when it brings every question back to McCain's POW status. ("How many homes does he have? Seven? You forgot to count the 'Hanoi Hilton.'") Military service should be honored; and it's certainly not irrelevant to a president's understanding of war and defense budgets. But it's not even the equivalent of having served as Secretary of Defense, let alone president. Fred Thompson's right; it doesn't qualify someone to be "commander-in-chief," or to deal with the other responsibilities of the U.S. president. In fact, McCain's military service is demeaned by making more of it than is credible.

(For a Palin-favorable to neutral explanation of the job of the Alaska governor, and how the state differs from others, see Kirk Johnson, "The Unusual Challenges Palin Faced in Alaska," New York Times, September 3, 2008.)

I've written at some length about the relevance of "experience" to the responsibilities of a president, what we should mean by "experience" in that context, and how, why and when it can appropriately be used, and with what weight, in comparing the qualifications of candidates for office prior to selecting the one you want to support. Nicholas Johnson, Are We There Yet? (2008), Part III. Experience. So I'm not going to repeat all of that here beyond this summary.

I do not think that "experience," however defined, is necessarily the most important quality to weigh in picking a candidate. I think raw intelligence, a liberal arts education from a good, though not necessarily most prestigious and expensive school (that is, at least a smattering of knowledge about a wide range of subjects), world travel (if observant and open to new experiences), the capacity of "a quick study" (that is, while knowing one's limitations, the ability to quickly pick up enough understanding of a new subject to ask the most appropriate questions of those who are more knowledgeable), a judicious mind (that is, the ability to base decisions on data and science rather than ideology, and to hold judgments in abeyance without knee-jerk conclusions until having heard all sides), a genuine liking for people and the capacity for empathy and understanding of their lives and challenges, and at least a dollop of "common sense-wisdom-judgment." Of course a basic honesty, commitment to transparency in government, ethical and moral sense -- and since the president is, above all else, the nation's personnel director, an ability to judge people, and to choose those who will make the president look good because they are better than the president, rather than because, by comparison, the president is clearly better than them.

So I can imagine someone with virtually no "experience" in the sense we talk about it nonetheless not only being "qualified" to be president, but being more qualified than someone with superior "experience." Vice President Dick Cheney may be one of the best examples from among many. After all he had an understanding of White House operations as a result of having served as President Ford's White House Chief of Staff, he had the legislative experience, and knowledge of the Congress, from six terms in the House and his service as minority Whip, his experience with the federal executive branch included having served as President George H.W. Bush's Secretary of Defense (which also provided him some understanding and "experience" with regard to national defense), and his experience at administration/management of large institutions included, in addition to Secretary of Defense, having served as CEO of Halliburton. Notwithstanding all of that "experience," I suspect that there are some Republicans, as well as the Democrats, who would find him lacking on the other qualities just enumerated.

If one is to consider the "experience to be president," "passing the commander-in-chief" test, ability to handle that "3:00 a.m. phone call," what's most relevant, in my view, is a breadth of experience. What city, county and state government are like -- especially in their relations with the federal. The various branches of federal government -- cabinet departments, independent administrative agencies, the judiciary, the Senate and House, and the White House. Foreign relations experience (as distinguished from foreign policy experience, as Secretary of State (or other high position in the Department), UN ambassador, work with the World Bank or other international organization, or ambassador to any country, work on negotiating treaties, and so forth. An understanding of the military that comes, not just from service (which is also of value), but from having been National Security Adviser, Secretary of Defense (or other high position in the Department), Director of the CIA, and so forth. Finally (or perhaps first), is managerial/administrative experience. Not the experience of overseeing a senator's office staff, or McCain's time as a squadron commander, or any other administrative position that's pretty "hands-on," where you know and work directly with those you are supervising. But the experience of leading, of administering, an institution with thousands of employees, and tens of thousands of other stakeholders, where you simply out of necessity must use means other than personal contact with everyone (such as CEO of a major corporation, one of our nation's largest universities, or hospitals, governor of a state, mayor of a big city -- as well as federal cabinet, or even sub-cabinet, positions).

Measured by these standards none of the senators prominent in this year's primaries, and ultimately selected -- Senators McCain, Obama, Biden and Clinton -- can offer any "experience" other than legislative, and that, for three of them, limited to the U.S. Senate. (Ironically, Senator Obama can claim the most, by these standards, because he has gained some insight into state-federal relations by having served in a state legislature as well as the Senate.) All of which raises the question (the question, not the irrefutable answer) of the extent to which even this very limited (in terms of breadth) "stovepipe" experience is an example of the difference between "twenty-five years' experience, and one year's experience twenty-five times."

And I might add, by these standards, Governor Palin trumps them all -- including, as Speaker Gingrich conceded last evening -- her own presidential running mate, John McCain. However small the town, however few people live in Alaska, however short the time she's served as mayor and governor, she does have "experience" that none of the four senators do.

Does that mean I think she's the most qualified to be president? Absolutely not. The notion of her having to move into the oval office sometime in 2009 frightens me. I would feel much more comfortable with Senator Biden having to assume that role -- notwithstanding the fact he's never been a mayor or a governor.

So who else might McCain have picked? Until yesterday the thought never crossed my mind (I'm embarrassed to confess, since I should have thought of it), but I'm suddenly encountering more and more people who are now asking me, "Don't you think Dr. Condoleezza Rice would have been a more sensible choice?" The only downside I see to that idea would be her ties to the Bush Administration. Aside from that I think she'd be dynamite. Can you imagine the contrast between her and Governor Palin going toe-to-toe with Biden over foreign policy?

Well, we're off and running. Exactly two months from today we'll find out what this multi-billion-dollar campaign has produced.

# # #

Holding Obama's Feet to the Fireside Chat

June 24, 2008, 7:45 a.m.

More on Believing in Change
Yesterday I commented about some problems I thought Senator Barack Obama was creating for himself. Nicholas Johnson, "Change We Can No Longer Believe In," June 22, 2008 (a play on his campaign slogan, "Change We Can Believe In").

It produced a number of comments. [And you might also want to take a look at State29, "What Are Headed Towards 'Divorce, Default, and Defeat?'" June 22, 2008 (pointing out -- with videos in Obama's own words -- his shifts with regard to the Iraq War); and State29, "Why I Hate Barack Obama," June 21, 2008 (charging Obama -- unfairly I believe -- with "race bating").]

Today I'm going to respond to one of the comments following yesterday's blog entry as a way of trying to clarify what I thought I was, and was not, saying.

Yes, I know, this is very unusual for me. I run an open blog. I receive, and leave posted, critical comments -- as a practical application of my theoretical beliefs about the First Amendment, the Fairness Doctrine, and what I have called "the separation of content and conduit." The only ones I remove are those that attempt an inappropriate use of this blog as a billboard to advertise a product or service. Nor do I normally carry on the discussion, or otherwise respond to comments, in the comments section. I figure I've had my say, and the comments deserve to speak for themselves.

So my response this morning is not an effort to engage in a she-said-he-said, 'tis-'t'aint ongoing exchange to prove that I'm "right" and someone else is "wrong." It's simply an introductory way into a little more commentary by me about yesterday's blog entry.

The comment reads as follows:

These are the right-wing talking points. I can't believe you're falling for them! Obama is going to do everything he can to make sure we do not have a third Bush administration. This is worth a few necessary sacrifices. Personally, I am thrilled to finally have a candidate who is committed to winning, knows how to do it, and who doesn't foolishly hand the country over to the evil Republicans at his first opportunity. Please don't do the Republicans' work for them. Why not beat up on McSame? That would serve the country better.

Supportive-Constructive vs. Partisan-Mean-Spirited Criticism. During Senator Hillary Clinton's campaign I pointed out that she was not doing her campaign a favor by emphasizing her superior "35 years of experience," and having passed the "commander-in-chief test," including "traveling to 80 countries" and risking her life to sniper fire.

Why? Well, because there was no meaningful distinction between the amount of presidentially-qualifying life experience she'd had since law school and that of Senators Obama and McCain (all of whom were devoid of the range of experience one would hope for in a president -- such as that of Governor Bill Richardson or the first President Bush), when both of whom had more years of legislative experience than she did, there was nothing in 11,000 pages of White House records to indicate her significant involvement in decisions, and there was videotape documenting the absence of sniper fire.

I believe there is some evidence that my judgment was right, and that what was perceived by voters to be "politics as usual," her attempting to claim something that could not withstand analysis, did in fact do her much more harm than good during the primary elections and caucuses.

It was in a similar spirit -- I thought -- that I was pointing out what I believed to be a self-defeating move by the Obama campaign. I noted that when a candidate chooses to raise the electorate's expectations to incredible heights with promises of "change" in Washington, and getting rid of "the old politics" of corporate control, resulting in Independents and young people flocking to his or her side by the millions, they have created a much higher platform from which to fall from grace.

What he has created is a very precious and fragile asset that can very quickly disappear when and if supporters get a sense that the "change" he has promised is no longer a change they can "believe in."

These are not "yellow dog Democrats" (voters who are so loyal to the Democratic Party they would vote for an old yellow dog if it was in the Democrats' column on the ballot). Many of his supporters are Independents in fact as well as name, and young, first-time voters who have no "party loyalty" whatsoever at this stage of their political life.

On the one hand it is unfair to hold Senator Obama to a higher standard than other candidates; on the other hand, it is a standard he has created and chosen to run on -- like Senator Clinton claiming that we should vote for her because of her "superior experience."

So why, you might fairly ask, do I choose to offer the Obama campaign this advice by way of a blog entry rather than a private communication? Because this is the most effective means available to me, however feeble it may be, to get a message to the campaign. (So far as I know, the Obama Web site, http://www.barackobama.com/index.php offers no way for supporters to interact with the campaign staff -- unless they want to send money.)

Was I Right? Last evening alone -- just based on what I read and saw in the media -- I was far from the only person expressing these concerns. Senator Obama's flips on public financing of campaigns and other issues was a topic, or the subject of comments, from a number of sources one would assume lean in favor of Obama: Keith Olbermann, KOS, MoveOn.org, and Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show" (which led with ridicule of him in this "Indecision 2008 - Finance Reform" video). (See from minute 1:43-2:57 in the video below.)



These are just what I happened upon; I haven't researched to see how much more there is.

So I scarcely think that, had I refrained from yesterday's blog entry, Senator Obama would have been spared this criticism -- not to mention what he got for his, now withdrawn, premature presidential seal.

John Nichols gives Obama the following advice in the current (July 7, 2008) issue of The Nation regarding one of the "change we can no longer believe in" topics I mentioned yesterday: his moves toward a more favorable view of NAFTA.

Obama also told Fortune that he no longer believes in unilaterally reopening NAFTA and earned praise from the magazine for "toning down his populist rhetoric." If he keeps this up, Obama will also receive a thank-you note from John McCain, a militant supporter of free trade, a position that ought to hurt him in states like Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, where surveys show widespread anti-free trade sentiments. Only if Obama goes soft on trade issues will McCain have a serious chance to win over these disgruntled working-class voters. Unfortunately, Obama seems to be doing just that. It's a mistake Democrats like Al Gore and John Kerry have made in the past.

Note that neither Nichols nor I are talking about the merits of free trade or NAFTA. We are talking about both how to win elections and how and why Democrats continue to lose them -- by promising to represent the interests of the working class, and then switching positions to please the interests of corporations and the richest 1/10th of 1% of campaign donors.

"Right Wing Talking Points." I don't really believe these are "right wing talking points" -- "not that there's anything wrong with that" (to quote a Seinfeld line). If the right wing is attacking Obama in ways that are cutting into his support it would seem to me that pointing that out to the Obama campaign is doing the campaign a favor, rather than doing it a harm for which the messenger should be shot.

But who is it, truly, John Nichols and I or Senator Obama who "do the Republicans' work for them"?

It is Obama who is moving toward the Republicans' position on NAFTA. It is Obama who says he supports the Bush Administration's position on FISA and immunity for the telephone companies that illegally spied on Americans. Isn't that doing "the Republicans work for them"?

And how do our comments echo "right wing talking points"? Are Republicans complaining about Obama's shifts to more right wing positions on free trade and civil rights violations? I don't think so.

"Why not beat up on McSame" and "the evil Reublicans"? In fact, while I try to keep this blog relatively balanced (I've done a very favorable piece about Governor Mike Huckabee), as a result of doing so probably more of the entries would be said to "favor Obama" than any of the other candidates -- simply because he has, so far, offered less of which I was critical and much I found inspirational.

Governor Huckabee, asked if he really considered himself a "conservative," replied something along these lines: "Of course I'm a conservative; I'm just not angry about it." (That attitude is a part of what I find attractive about him -- notwithstanding the fact we probably disagree on every issue he's spoken to, including evolution.)

Well, I'm not "angry about it" either. I've never (so far as I now recall) referred to the Republicans as "evil." I have friends I enjoy talking politics with who are Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Green Party members, Naderites, and the old Kucinich gang -- and lots of Independents who are disgusted with both the national Democratic and Republican Parties -- all of whom have something to offer to the national dialog (and my own thinking). During the 2007-2008 Iowa primary I had some personal interaction with, and tried to be helpful in one way or another to, virtually all of the Democratic candidates.

So I'm not really very interested in "beating up on" much of anybody -- including those "evil Republicans."

On the other hand, I am certainly not a McCain supporter, and while I would not consider the things I've written about him as "beating up on" him I rather imagine he might.

At one point both Clinton and Obama supporters were saying that if their candidate did not receive the nomination they were going to vote for McCain. Among my responses was Nicholas Johnson, "Before You Actually Vote for McCain," April 30, 2008. In it I noted how the media were holding Obama and McCain to different standards. I discussed, and linked to, stories regarding his "anger problem." I included excerpts from MoveOn.org's well documented "10 Things You Should Know About John McCain but Probably Don't." And I had excerpts from Harold Meyerson's hilarious but scary "McCain on the Red Phone."

I can't know if the author of the comment would find that an adequate response to "Why not beat up on McSame? That would serve the country better." But it comes about as close as anything I'm likely to write.

"A few necessary sacrifices." Notwithstanding Senator Obama being labeled "one of" -- if not "the" -- most "liberal" U.S. senators, the fact is that his positions are far indeed from those of a Senator Russ Feingold, Congressman Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader. He has failed to vote on some potentially presidential-campaign-impeding issues. He has shown a willingness to switch positions from "liberal" to "Republican."

All presidents respond to pressure. The most public spirited actually seek out and encourage the public and media pressure that will make it possible for them to get Congress to do the right thing.

In my forthcoming book, Are We There Yet?, I relate the following:

The anecdote is told of President Franklin Roosevelt telling advocates of progressive ideas, in effect, “I agree with you. Now you go out there and make me do it” – at least with Frances Perkins (Social Security) and A. Philip Randolph (civil rights legislation), and probably many more. His point, of course, was a variant of the old adage, “When the people will lead their leaders will follow.” It’s very difficult to pass legislation over the opposition of the special interests without overwhelming popular awareness, involvement and support.

I have been, and remain, hopeful that Senator Obama, as president, will follow President Roosevelt's example. I base this on a conversation I had with Obama, his experience as a community organizer, his 50-state-strategy in the primary and now the general election campaign, his rejection of PAC and corporate money, and creation of roughly 1.5 million small contributors (and presumably the email addresses of even more supporters).

But that strategy, his strategy (if such it be), requires much from us. And so I say, "Ask not what a President Obama can do for you; ask what you can do for a President Obama."

And we best start now.

After he's elected it's too late. It is not enough, to quote from the comment, that he "is committed to winning [and] knows how to do it." Winning is not, to respectfully disagree with football coach Vince Lombardi and yesterday's author of the comment, "the only thing." "There are," as Senator Joe Biden said on one occasion in Iowa City, "some things worth losing an election for."

If a President Obama is to truly follow President Roosevelt's example it is not enough that we support his policies when he asks; he must also support our positions and policies when we ask. And the earlier we get about it the better -- for us, for him, and for our country.

Aside from giving him some advice yesterday on how to best win this election, that was all I was about.

# # #

UI Hostages Free At Last -- Habemus Mamam!

June 22, 2007, 5:00, 7:00, 8:30, 10:15 a.m.

Habemus Mamam!


Turning the page.

After "UI Held Hostage Day 516" it only took three minutes to select our University's president. (Here are my own photos of the event.)

Before the meeting Michael Gartner exhibited an uncanny ability to tie his bow tie without a mirror. As Jon Stewart has said in another context, "Those things are not easy to tie." Very impressive -- as were the Regents interviews last week, and their 24-hour deliberation before selecting Mason.

Regents President Michael Gartner called the meeting to order at 3:03:30. Five Regents were present: Michael Gartner, David Miles, Bob Downer, Jack Evans, and Craig Lang. He polled those participating by phone as they reported in: Bonnie Campell, Jenny Connolly, Ruth Harkin and Rose Vasquez. At 3:05 Bonnie Campbell made a motion, essentially that they appoint Sally Mason at $450,000-plus-plus-plus (at least a 50% pay hike, details below), and by 3:05:42 it was unanimous -- to cheers. Gartner disbanded Search Committee II, and at 3:06:30 the meeting was adjourned.

Governor Chet Culver made the trip to Iowa City -- an important symbolic presence -- spoke well in support of education in general, the University of Iowa and Sally Mason in particular. He was accompanied by his Press Secretary Courtney Greene.

Michael Gartner spoke of Mason as a scholar and a leader. He was impressed with her "sparkle" and her "passion" for education, and now especially education at Iowa, when he spoke with her. He thanked the Governor, noting that "the Board got everything it needed and everything it asked for."

All expressed thanks to the Search Committee (Gartner said they "couldn't have come up with better candidates") and Interim President Gary Fethke. (All that was overlooked was a little recognition of Provost Mike Hogan's continued quality service and class while being rebuffed.)

And then it was Sally Mason's turn. She entered the Richey Ballroom to a standing ovation, the "Iowa Fight Song" (there was no mention of the Iowa Lottery in the lyrics as a result of a coming to sanity -- and a threatened copyright suit), and all smiles.

She is already showing her ability to stand up to Michael Gartner. He had suggested she enter in a Herky costume and she refused -- noting she already had an adequate black and gold wardrobe. Both are good signs.

Her "Go Hawks!" was well delivered, though she does need a little work on the pumping right arm.

Saying Iowa was "a university of hope, a writing university," she spoke of the "Iowa Promise" (think, question, research and change; our leadership role; off-campus impact for the economy and the people; diversity as a source of strength; Iowa's relationship with the world, and the world's with Iowa). With alums, the private sector, state and university, she said she'd be doing a lot of meeting and listening, and traveling throughout the state, recognizing that she does have "a steep learning curve, but has never been afraid of heights." She quoted Goddard's line from 1907, "It is difficult to say what is impossible." It was a speech of inspiration and challenge: Iowa is a great university but -- using President Kennedy's line without the Boston accent and lilt -- "We can do better." She even demonstrated a bit of Reagan's ability to tell a moving personal story. As the child of immigrants, and the first generation to attend college, her "understanding of the power of education is very personal; education changed my life." It was all appropriate to the occasion, well delivered -- and well received.

From there it was on to a news conference with husband Ken, which they both handled well (as you'll see in some of the news stories linked below), and then the reception.

All told, it was an afternoon of relief, joy -- and hopeful anticipation of what's to come -- with a new Governor, half of a Board of Regents, and finally, President of the University of Iowa.

And it was followed by an equally enjoyable and inspiring evening, with Jim Autry and his wife, former Lt. Governor Sally Pedersen, at Prairie Lights Bookstore with "Live From Prairie Lights" host Julie Englander. (Here are sample pictures from that event.) Jim, who never was your standard Enron-type CEO, has been writing up a storm in recent years, and advising executives how to -- for want of a better expression -- be better people (in ways that also enable them to make more profit). His latest book, from which he read, is Looking Around for God: The Oddly Reverent Observations of an Unconventional Christian. If you missed the broadcast, give it a listen from WSUI's archives (it's not there yet, but should be in a few days.) Believe me, you'll be glad you did.

By this morning the lightning had flashed, the thunder had rolled, and the skies emptied of about as much water as anyone ever put in a cloud. I don't know whether it was a result of Jim finding what he was looking around for, or just an omen of the amount of changes Sally Mason and the heavenly hosts have in store for us.

In either case, I think "the times, they are a changing."

Note that the former, 100-plus-page blog entry about the final two weeks of the presidential search remains available on this blog (along with its 150-plus comments), as do all the blog entries from last November through June that track the saga and link to the news stories and other source material.

Today's stories:

Erin Jordan and Danny Valentine, "New U of I president: Big challenges don't scare me; Sally Mason, who will become the 20th president of the University of Iowa, says she can handle the learning curve," Des Moines Register, June 22, 2007 (with important "New President's To-Do List" as sidebar)

Editorial, "Diversity emphasis a plus for U of I, Iowa; New president must confront funding issues, insist on openness," Des Moines Register, June 22, 2007

Diane Heldt, "'We can aim higher;' New UI President Shares Her Vision, Receives Warm Welcome; Regents Praise Mason's Passion and Leadership," The Gazette, June 22, 2007, p. A1; Gregg Hennigan, "Purdue Praises Departing Provost," The Gazette, June 22, 2007, p. A7; plus "Mason's Salary to be $450,000," p. A1, and "Iowa Reaction" and "Sally Mason Bio," The Gazette, June 22, 2007, p. A7 (all available from The Gazette's main Web page; use drop down menus to locate "6/22/2007" and pages "A1" and "A7")

Ashton Shurson, "A Passion for Education; Sally Mason Selected As Next UI President," The Daily Iowan, June 22, 2007 (a lengthy piece for the DI, along with a nice photo gallery)

Brian Morelli, "Regents unanimously approve Mason; New UI president set to take charge Aug. 1," Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 22, 2007

Brian Morelli, "Mason To Earn $560 K As President," Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 22, 2007 (with sidebar, "President Salaries in the Big 10," revealing that Iowa's former president, Mary Sue Coleman, now at Michigan, is number one at $742,000, and that Sally Mason will be number three at $560,000)

Kathryn Fiegen, "Ken Mason focuses on teaching, will accept UI position; He has researched genetics of amphibian pigmentation," Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 22, 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.]

# # #

UI Held Hostage Day 500 - "Whaaa?"

June 5, 2007, 6:50, 7:45, 8:15, and 11:40 a.m.

Deeply Disappointed But Not Stunned
Folks, this is Day 500.

Ever since writing Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search: Campus Details," in "UI Held Hostage Day 497 - Search Schedule," June 2, 2007, a controversy has swirled around why Search Committee II would choose to keep candidates' names secret until the evening before they day they were to arrive for campus visits. There are, as of this morning, some 15 comments from readers attached to that blog entry -- some predicting exactly what's happened, and others speculating as to why. None are expressing much happiness about it all. (Comments are now coming into this blog entry as well, and don't miss State29, "Day 500," June 5, 2007.)

I, too, am deeply disappointed by what is going on but, given past performance, I cannot honestly claim to be stunned. It would, however, require someone with a much better imagination than mine to have predicted what's happened.

What might have been. It has been 500 days since the Iowa Board of Regents has known that those who desired the departure of one of America's preeminent university presidents had achieved their wish. Much beloved, multi-talented superstar David Skorton, who once said he was at Iowa for life, and thought a $300,000-a-year salary was "very generous" in a state where the average family income was in the $40,000 range, announced 500 days ago that he was going to become president at Cornell University. He left in a characteristically classy fashion, with no public criticism of the Regents. Cornell held him in a little higher esteem than did our Regents, and paid him a package roughly three times what our Regents thought he was worth.

Could we have had a smooth transition a full year ago, putting a new UI president in place the day Skorton left, at the end of the 2006 spring semester? Absolutely. Search Committee II, which first met in January of this year, and has scheduled on-campus interviews with finalists next week, has just demonstrated that one spring semester is enough to conduct and conclude a search.

At the end of Search Committee I's work, four finalists emerged. Among them was UI Provost Mike Hogan. Hogan is another educational administrator who has demonstrated his abilities locally -- and attracted quite a local following of admirers in the process (including me) -- and is highly regarded nationally and considered for university presidencies elsewhere. Indeed, as Brian Morelli reports this morning, following Search Committee I's work "Hogan was one of four finalists -- and by some accounts the favorite . . .." Brian Morelli, Hogan Not a Finalist for UI Post," Press-Citizen, June 5, 2007, p. 1A. [Morelli adds, "Hogan has been popular on campus. During the initial search, many on campus rallied around his presidential bid, including the students who created a Facebook group called Hogan's Heroes."]

Had he been selected one full year ago not only would we have avoided the national and international embarrassment of the past 500 days, we would have had a very smooth transition indeed from June 30 to July 1 of 2006.

"What were they thinking?" So what has Search Committee II decided to do? In spite of its number one priority on secrecy, the papers have been able to report that its final five include two sitting presidents and three sitting provosts.

Roughly six months ago, at the end of an extensive nationwide search of all available top flight educational administrators in the United States, Mike Hogan was deemed to be one of the four most highly qualified potential UI presidents in America. Think about that.

Now, a mere six months later, Search Committee II includes three provosts among its final five (not four), and Hogan -- one of four finalists last time, "and by some accounts the favorite" -- is not among them? To paraphrase the TV public service announcement, "What were they thinking?"

An understanding of the logic of including Hogan in the mix is not something limited to me and the UI students calling themselves "Hogan's Heros."

Morilli quotes Professor Steve Collins, a member of the Committee on the Selection of Central Academic Officials, as saying in response to the news that Hogan was excluded, "I am terribly disappointed to hear that. I think (Hogan) would have made a terrific president . . .."

Morelli continues, "State Sen. Robert Dvorsky, D-Coralville, said it seemed unusual that Hogan wasn't a finalist, particularly because the slate includes three provosts and two sitting presidents.

"'I hope people who were involved in the first process aren't being penalized in the second,' Dvorsky said. 'How much involvement did regents have in the process that wasn't public ? There were all the questions in the first search, now questions in the second. Is there regent involvement we are unaware of?'

"Rep. Dave Jacoby, D-Coralville, said he found it surprising that Hogan is not a finalist . . .. 'I think Mike is a very viable candidate. I would expect someone with his background would make the finalists," Jacoby said. "After the process is over, I would be really curious as to what the criteria were for him not to be a finalist. Mr. Hogan is a very capable administrator."

And see Ashton Shurson, "Panel Passes on Hogan," The Daily Iowan, June 5, 2007 ("UI Faculty Senate President Victoria Sharp said . . . 'I think he would have made a fine president. He's a wonderful man'").

Here come the Regents. Meanwhile, as if this brutal rejection of Hogan was not enough, the Regents, having bungled Search I at the eleventh hour, is about to do the same with Search II.

They have decided they are going to arrive in Iowa City on the second day of a week-long Search Committee-arranged set of on-campus visits and interviews by five finalists. Brian Morelli, "Regents to Interview Finalists Next Week; Change in Plans Shifts Meeting to Iowa City," Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 5, 2007, p. 1A. They are, apparently, planning on conducting their interviews simultaneously along with the on-campus interviews. They may very well conclude their selection before those interviews are even over and Search Committee II presents them its report. This process will, at a minimum, significantly curtail (if not eliminate) the opportunity for any meaningful public input.

Here are some excerpts from what The Gazette reports this morning,

The regents will wait to select the president until the on-campus interviews are complete and the search committee, which is led by UI faculty and staff, submits its report to the regents, the source said. [NJ: This is a correction to what I hinted earler might happen.]

. . .

[T]he regents interview schedule might bring one more controversy. The dual interview process apparently would be a first in UI's history.

``It raises questions of who's setting the agenda for the interviews,'' said Steve McGuire, a professor of curriculum and instruction and secretary of the Faculty Senate.

The regents were criticized by many on campus after an initial regent-led UI presidential search last year was shrouded in secrecy and failed to choose a president.

``Given what happened in Phase 1 of the search, ... I think most of us are hoping we'll have a normal process in this stage,'' said Michael O'Hara, a professor of psychology and vice president of the Faculty Senate.

Also, the search committee had planned to release the name of each finalist the day before their visit. The regents' plan would mean at least two of those names would be made public earlier.

. . .

David Johnsen, chairman of the search committee and dean of the College of Dentistry, said he was not sure of the final schedule for the regents interviews. He would not say whether he thought public interviews with the regents during the same time frame as the on-campus visits would give some finalists second thoughts about the job.

``There's so many details that have to be worked out ... that I think it might be a little premature to speculate on this might happen or that might happen,'' he said.

Gregg Hennigan, "Regents, On-Campus Interviews Set Next Week," Gazette Online, June 4, 2007, 10:55 p.m.

[The matter of candidates' "second thoughts," to which Dean Johnsen refers, is serious from both sides. What kind of a person, already a sitting president or provost of a university, would want to leave where they are and take a job at which they would be governed by this Board of Regents? And from the perspective of the University community, why on earth would we want someone as president who either (a) is so unable, or disinclined, to do basic Internet research that they are unaware of what they are walking into, or (b) does know, but is so desperate that they are willing to take the job anyway?]

I hope the Regents don't try to tell us (as one has hinted) that this unprecedented simutaneous interview process is because of a scheduling problem. They've had 500 days to set up this meeting. They ought to have been able to arrange it by now.

No, I suspect something else is going on, but who will know before they decide to send the little puff of white smoke out the Old Capitol dome?
Even as originally proposed by Search Committee II it was weird enough: the University and Iowa City communities were for some inexplicable reason to be kept in the dark as to the identity of the candidates until the night before the day of their visit (with one candidate per day for five days).

Look, legally the Regents are empowered by the Code of Iowa to do damn near anything they want in any way they want -- as they demonstrate from time to time. (The only exception is their inability to brazenly violate other provisions of the Code of Iowa, such as the open meetings and public records requirements, now in litigation.) This is not about the common law, it's about common sense.

They are not legally required to use a search committee process. They would be foolish not to, but mere foolishness does not seem to be for them a concern of decisional significance. The point is, if they are going to use a search committee, to intervene and truncate its efforts during the final week of its six-month process is not only substantively serious, it makes them look really silly.

Hopefully, Jon Stewart won't get wind of all this or he'd be tempted to lead Comedy Central's "Daily Show" with the kind of publicity Iowa doesn't need.

Both Search Committee II and the Board of Regents have a lot of explaining to do. Whether they will show the public the decent respect of doing so between now and Monday remains to be seen.

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

UI Held Hostage Day 461 - Valenti, Moyers Journal, Earthpark,

April 27, 2007, 8:10 a.m., 12:30 p.m.

There's a lot to comment about today, so this blog entry may expand from time to time throughout the day beyond what are, for now, entries about Jack Valenti, and the start of one about the Pella rain forest. Now (12:30 p.m.) with an entry on the return of "Bill Moyers Journal," opening with Jon Stewart -- a must see for fans of either or both!

Jack Valenti: September 5, 1921-April 26, 2007
Jack Valenti died yesterday. If you're unfamiliar with this extraordinary man, one of the more thorough morning-after obits is Adam Bernstein, "A Hollywood Promoter on Both Coasts," Washington Post, April 27, 2007, p. A1.

I first met Jack Valenti in February of 1964.

Following my Supreme Court clerkship with Justice Black I accepted a professorship at the University of California Law School in Berkeley, "Boalt Hall," where my teaching and legal writing was focused on "administrative law" -- encouraged by Ken Davis, Walter Gellhorn, Frank Newman and others in the field. The Washington law firm, Covington & Burling, had long felt I should be practicing law instead, and repeatedly gave me the opportunity to do so. Feeling that a little experience with administrative agency practice might be a worthy compromise -- if I could limit it to a two-year leave of absence -- the firm agreed to those terms and the family headed to Washington.

One day I received a call from the White House advising me that Bill Moyers wanted to see me. Although there are newspaper accounts from the time asserting that Bill and I were roommates at the University of Texas, they were not true. We were both married at the time, lived with our wives rather than each other, in fact never even met in Austin, and -- as you'll soon see -- never met that day in February either.

So I was totally mystified as to why he would want to see me. Not only did I not know Bill Moyers, I didn't know any other member of President Johnson's staff, either, and I had never met the President. I didn't know any senators or members of congress or party campaign contributors. I was working on a sort of "administrative procedure act" for anti-dumping procedures and involved with some airline matters before what was then the Civil Aeronautics Board, but I couldn't imagine that anyone in the White House would even know, let alone care, about that.

I had only been at the White House once before as a high school student for a rose garden event with President Harry Truman, and was looking forward to seeing the West Wing for the first time. So I went over, and waited -- and waited, and waited. It was about 45 minutes past the time for what I had been told was my appointment with Bill Moyers when a fellow tapped me on the shoulder and told me to follow him. We went down a corridor, he opened a door, pointed to the chair where I was to sit, and left.

It was only later I would discover that my White House tour guide had been Jack Valenti -- though I more quickly figured out that the room where he'd told me to wait was the Oval Office. (The rest of that story is that the only other occupant of the room was President Johnson, who eventually engaged me in conversation about something called the Maritime Administration and all the reasons why my country needed me to be Maritime Administrator. I made the mistake of telling the President all the reasons why I didn't think that was a good idea, and why I wanted to return to Covington and then to Berkeley. Why a mistake? Because he wisely realized that anyone who would want to be Maritime Administrator was probably unqualified to hold the office -- and as it turned out I was the only name on his list who didn't want the job.)

(Although Bill Moyers and I later did meet and become friends, I found it a little ironic in later years to discover that Bill, at age 29 and one of the principal advisors to the President of the United States, was alone among Johnson's staff in thinking that I -- also 29 years old -- was "too young" for the responsibilities of the Maritime Administrator. The Senate Commerce Committee members, by contrast, thought my prior shipping experience -- which I candidly explained to them was limited to the rather unsuccessful operation of a canoe on the Iowa River -- fully qualified me for the position.)

Jack Valenti and I stayed in contact over his Johnson years and subsequently during his tour as President of the Motion Picture Association of America. With his skills as a speaker and publicist, his contacts in Hollywood and Washington, he rapidly became, and remained, the most effective lobbyist in Washington.

One of his numerous advantages was that he had a lavish private dining room and theater where he could invite Washington's powerful to sit down with Hollywood's beautiful to watch the best of his industry's movies. Those were evenings that I, and any other guest, long remembered. (He was also the supplier of films to the occupants of the White House, for showings at Camp David or "at home.")

During the 1970s, when I was enjoying my own "15 minutes of fame" as a young single man in Washington, I developed a friendship with Kathleen Nolan, the national president of the Screen Actors Guild who had recently been appointed to the board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Watching her function in Washington and Los Angeles during those bi-coastal years with her gave me new insight into Jack Valenti's lobbying advantage.

She could pick up the phone and call the Speaker of the House, the Secretary of Labor -- or even the President -- and suddenly they would have nothing better to do that afternoon than to invite her to come see them.

Jack Valenti had the same kind of access. Partly it was those dinners. Partly it's just that people with power like to associate with other people with power. And power can come from celebrity as well as from wealth, corporate or political and governmental power. Jack, of course, had all five.

Kathleen was -- and remains -- a skilled actor with hundreds of credits, charming, attractive, energized and fun. But, like Jack, she was probably also seen by politicians as a possible way of getting to other Hollywood celebrities who, if one could get them to attend one's Los Angeles fundraisers, might be helpful in raising campaign contributions.

A part of Jack's effectiveness was his strategic sense. There was a time when, as chair of the National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting, I was involved in what I believe may have been the only successful effort to reduce levels of violence in television programming. (We tied it to the advertisers on the most violent programs.) Years earlier, following official inquiries into the causes of civil disorders in the late 1960s, the movie industry was also taking heat -- as now once again -- for the impact of media and movie violence on real life violence.

Other industries' lobbyists didn't even bother to put a velvet glove over their steel fist; they just came out slugging, threatening members of congress, bullying, attacking their "enemies" -- the sort of approach that earned Tom DeLay his nickname: "The Hammer."

Jack, seeing what was coming in the form of potentially heavy handed government regulation, decided to seize, rather than seethe, the day. Rather than attack the industry's critics, he expressed compassion for those concerned about movies' content, suggested they were entitled to protection, and proposed the movie "ratings" system that is still with us today. It was a brilliant stroke, and preserved the movie industry's artistic freedom for decades.

[In response to "Anonymous'" 8:22 a.m. Comment added to this blog entry ("Wasn't Jack Valenti the same guy who wanted the VCR made illegal in the early 1980s?") I don't mean to leave the impression that Valenti's every lobbying effort took "the public interest" into full consideration, or that he was a paragon of virtue in all respects of life. Only that he was very skillful as a lobbyist.]

His campaigns on behalf of his industry's copyright rights helped impress upon me that, while there has been corporate abuse of copyright, extending its terms and protections well beyond what many of us believe was intended by those who wrote it into the Constitution, one can understand the concern of someone who has put $80 million into a feature film only to find it available in DVD format on the streets of Beijing, Moscow and Singapore before it even reaches theaters in the U.S.

I won't go on with Jack Valenti stories. Read the Washington Post piece. It also refers to a number of his books. His was a life worth knowing about, one I am pleased to have intersected in the few ways I did -- starting with that day in February 1964 when I was supposed to meet with Bill Moyers.

_______________
Bill Moyers Journal Returns Tonight: Jon Stewart

Speaking of Bill Moyers, his "Bill Moyers Journal" returns to public television tonight, Friday, April 27, and his first guest is Jon Stewart. You won't want to miss that one!

And if you missed it, check out his "Buying the War: How Did the Mainstream Press Get it So Wrong?" It is a 90-minute "special" that aired Wednesday, April 25, but is available in video, and as a transcript, at the site linked just above. I watched at a house party in Iowa City organized by Free Press -- a media reform organization very much worth checking out. (As I've been saying for 40 years: "Whatever is your first public policy reform priority, media reform has to be your second priority. With it you have a prayer; without it you don't.") Prior to the broadcast Free Press provided a telphone hookup to livingrooms all across America for an exchange between Moyers and media activisits. The Huffington Post report of that half-hour (Timothy Karr, "Moyers' Three Factors in the Media's Iraq Failure," April 26, 2007, with a link to the audio of the conversation) has been made available by Free Press.

As the title suggests the program deals with the Iraq War, and necessarily therefore the Bush Administration's handling of it. But it is much more in terms of its analysis of how the media, especially the Washington press corps, deals with government, corporations and advertisers generally. It's really a kind of "must see" for teachers and students of communications studies, First Amendment law, journalism, and political science.
_______________

Two Old Rain Forests
There are two old rain forests kicking around these days. One, apparently misplaced some 300 million years ago, was recently found in Illinois. (As my mother used to say when I'd lost something, "Oh, don't worry about it. It will show up.") Sara Goudarzi, "Giant Fossil Rain Forest Discovered in Illinois," National Geographic News, April 24, 2007.

The other seems like it's been around that long, but it's really only been 10 or 11 years. Variously called over the years "The Iowa Child Project of the Iowa Child Foundation," the "Iowa Environmental/Education Project," the "Iowa Environmental Project" (and occasionally just "The Environmental Project"), it has recently been renamed "Earthpark."


Joe Sharpnack, http://www.sharptoons.com, who holds the copyright on this editorial cartoon, captured the significance of the constantly changing names on this failing project with his usual sharp wit and insight. The cartoon appeared in the Iowa City Press-Citizen on May 11, 2006. Standing next to the dead horse that is Earthpark CEO David Oman is saying, "Maybe if I change the name again & hit it some more . . .."

Now he's beating that poor old dead horse once again. Even the Des Moines Register, The Gazette, and Iowa City Press-Citizen -- having supported the projecdt over the years -- are now coming to their senses. And State29 is all over it.

The Press-Citizen's editorial put it most succinctly: "Earthpark's lack of private funding, its constantly shifting timetable and its leaders' near pathological inability to provide a straight answer to the most straightforward of questions has led us to discourage any further public support for this project." Editorial, "State lawmakers should just say no to Earthpark," Iowa City Press-Citizen, April 26, 2007.


# # #
_____________
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
_______________
Nicholas Johnson's Main Web Site http://www.nicholasjohnson.org/
Nicholas Johnson's Iowa Rain Forest ("Earthpark") Web Site
Nicholas Johnson's Blog, FromDC2Iowa
Nicholas Johnson's Blog Index
_______________