Search Results for ‘david yepsen’
David Yepsen was singing the praises of Chet Culver today for undermining efforts to allow teachers and other public employees the same rights as private sector employees. Apparently if this happens, there’s a chance that teachers may negotiate for smaller class sizes as part of collective bargaining and why would any Iowa school want smaller class sizes? Except, of course, that there is a definitive link between class size and academic performance among students. Yepsen also brings up the scary fact that the collective bargaining bill would mean more binding arbitration which Yepsen is sure means higher costs to government. However, Ed Tibbets in an exhaustive piece for the Quad City Times shows that binding arbitration only happens rarely. In fact, it only occurs in 1% of all contract disputes in Iowa. In fact, binding arbitration may work against teachers and other public employees union. While opponents of the bills claim that in arbitration cases involving school districts, teachers prevail against management 57% of the time (although includes a mere 63 cases that occurred over the past 5 years), the Quad City Times’ review of arbitration cases in Scott County shows the contrary and management prevailing over public employees almost 60% of the time.
However, this isn’t stopping the fearmongering. Far-right organizations like Iowans for Tax Relief are claiming (without any data to back up their claims, of course) this could lead to disastrous rises in property taxes, leading Iowa to become more like such states as Maryland, Kansas and Maine and less like such states as Alabama, Arkansas and New Mexico (which incidentally not only have the lowest property taxes in the nation but rank in the bottom for household income, percentage of those living in poverty, employment and just about every other indicator of economic and social health available). So why is Chet going against fairness for teachers and other public employees (along with virtually every Democrat in the legislature) to bathe in the good graces of Iowans for Tax Relief and David Yepsen?
One assumes this is political posturing, designed to strengthen Culver’s hand in his dealings with the legislature. After all, as the Sioux City Journal notes “Culver raised no objections with the substance of the bill, just the process by which it passed. Spokesman Brad Anderson said Culver was ‘not pleased’ that he wasn’t notified earlier, and felt the public should have been included in the debate.” This isn’t politics, it’s personal pique.
As a result, Culver’s annoyance with Mike Gronstal and Pat Murphy, he’s fanned the flames of this issue in a way that has energized Republicans and hurt working people. Iowa Democrats have waited 40 years to pass progressive legislation and for Culver to show such pettiness by standing in the way is disgraceful and sullies an otherwise admirable record as Governor. As Jack Kibbie notes, one imagines that Culver will support the collective bargaining bill “because of his future. He’s running on the Democratic ticket, I presume.” But if Culver continues to stand against guaranteeing public employees the same rights as their private sector counterparts, he’ll be as good a fit on the Republican ticket as on the Democratic one.
March 30th, 2008
I know David Yepsen gets dragged through the mud an awful lot in these parts, so I figured it was only fair to give credit where credit is due. In his column today, he provides a fairly accurate analysis of Iowa’s 2008 Senate race–or lackthereof.
Yepsen notes that “No big-name Republican challengers have emerged, just some unknowns” and that even Republican Senator Charles Grassley was unable to name any potential challengers. Yepsen then recounts the standard lore of how Harkin has defeated more sitting Republican Congressmen than any Democrat in the history of the Senate (has anyone ever been to a Harkin Steak Fry and not heard Democrats crow about that?).
I had written previously about Harkin’s potential retirement, though as I made clear in that post, there was really no need to worry. With 2008 shaping up to be a Democratic year, at least in the Senate, it now seems that his race will be easier than ever.
Alas, I couldn’t sign off without one dig at Yepsen. He writes almost-correctly that “Democrats quit being serious about trying to knock off Grassley years ago” (Sorry Art Small). I say “almost” because I’ve been hearing the rumblings of a Vilsack-Grassley match up. Let’s keep our fingers crossed. It would be the best chance we’ve had in a while to take Grassley out and it would be a monster of a Senate race, something the Hawkeye State hasn’t seen in years.
April 9th, 2007
There has been quite a hullabaloo about Alberto Gonzalez and the US Justice Dept. of late. If you haven’t heard about it, check here for a good primer. Here in Iowa, we are dealing with a different scandal involving our US Attorney, but David Yepsen thinks it might be connected to the national scandal.
When (gay) Democratic State Senator Matt McCoy was indicted for allegedly using his elected position to “extort” a $2,000 consulting fee from a company he was working for, it made us look pretty bad. But Yepsen digs deeper and actually comes up with something interesting: it turns out that Matt Whitaker, the US Attorney prosecuting McCoy, is a homophobic Republican crony. Quoth Yepsen:
Whitaker is a Republican. And not just any Republican, but a socially conservative one who ran unsuccessfully for state treasurer in 2002 and could well be a candidate for office again.
He recently was in the news when he was scheduled to emcee an event for the Iowa Christian Alliance, a successor group to the Iowa Christian Coalition.
After first granting him permission to host the event, Whitaker said the Justice Department revoked it after objections from liberal groups. Instead, he just attended the meeting.
So he’s a Republican with ties to the Christian Coalition, which is basically the group that controls the Republican Party of Iowa. US Attorneys are, in a sense, political appointees, so that isn’t surprising. But Whittaker’s partisanship is unusual. Continuing:
Active involvement in ideological political action groups like that is rare for U.S. attorneys in Iowa — and even the Justice Department higher-ups seemed to think better of it. For good reason. McCoy is a Democrat. And not just any Democrat but an openly gay one.
So we now have the specter of a politically ambitious, evangelical Republican with ties to the religious right going after a gay Democrat.
Well, good. If anyone wants an example of the politically charged ‘duties’ of a US Attorney in the Bush administration, this should serve well.
March 18th, 2007
We, along with other Iowa blogs, frequently bash the Des Moines Register, particularly the often pompous David Yepsen and the always useless Jane Norman (who did a great job transcribing a Chuck Grassley news release the other day–after all, stenography is easier than reporting). However, a story yesterday about internet hunting hit the nail on the head. It would ban hunting live animals over the internet using a webcam and a remote controlled rifle. While many find the practice objectionable, the reporter, Jennifer Jacobs, astutely points out the one problem with the bill, there is no internet hunting. Although a Texas entrepreneur tried to set up such a venture several years ago, the state of Texas almost immediately shut it down. It was the first and, to date, last attempt at internet hunting.
Even the sponsor of the bill, Republican Steven Lukan, does not know of anyone participating in internet hunting. But he wants to ban it anyway. Why? Because this is the rare type of non-controversial bill that gets a lot of easy publicity. While other state representatives busy themselves with dull tasks like spurring Iowa’s economic development and balancing the state’s budget, Steven Lukan finds it easier to ban something that does not exist. It is a waste of the legislature’s time and of taxpayer money. One wonders when Lukan will amend the bill to make it clear that the ban on internet hunting applies to unicorns.
March 2nd, 2007
In his column in today’s Register, David Yepsen sees Tom Vilsack’s departure as a bad sign for the caucuses. Now the first primary is not Iowa but the invisible primary of fundraising. Now a candidate needs to raise a lot of money to compete and if they can’t, they will be forced to drop out. Yepsen sees a scenario where “by Labor Day, there may be only three or four viable candidates in each party.” This is all baseless fearmongering.
First, there’s a long precedent of candidates dropping out early because they can’t raise money. If David Yepsen wants some examples, from 2000 alone, I’m sure that Lamar Alexander and Elizabeth Dole could have told Yepsen that, if not a couple of others. But Vilsack’s the only candidate, at least on the Democratic side who won’t be able to raise money. Of the three second tier candidates remaining, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson all will have ample financial resources. Both Biden and Dodd are Senate Committee Chairs and Richardson is the former Chairman of the Democratic Governors Association. All three are national political figures to a much greater extent than Tom Vilsack and should be able to raise considerable amounts of money. They all should have more than enough money in the bank to be competitive into 2008. (Provided, of course, that they do a better job budgeting than Vilsack did.) Yepsen is falling into the common tendency among columnists to draw as grand conclusions as possible from events. Vilsack’s dropping out is not indictative in and of itself of some major new trend. He just couldn’t cover his payroll, and one should be careful drawing larger conclusions than that.
February 27th, 2007
David Yepsen totally misses the lede in his blog post about Tom Vilsack dropping out. He notes that Vilsack was spending $500,000 a month in overhead and he couldn’t continue to afford running for President after only raising one million dollars in the fourth quarter of 2006. The real story is why Tom Vilsack was spending $500,000 a month that he didn’t have. We had previously pointed out that Vilsack’s “dilemma is how he will raise enough money to remain viable for the next year. After all, it doesn’t matter if you’re rock solid if you’re flat broke.” But when your monthly overhead is higher than your reported cash on head, that’s not good budgeting at any time–especially a year before the caucuses. If Vilsack hadn’t hired so many staffers so quickly, he’d probably still be a candidate today. He took a gamble that the money would be there to pay all of the people he hired. He was wrong. It was a high-risk, high reward approach to running for President. It didn’t work out. And that’s why Tom Vilsack dropped out.
February 23rd, 2007
Last month, when Hillary Clinton came to Des Moines and had an audience of 1500-3000 people for her campaign kickoff, she attracted tons of media attention, including a softball interview with David Yepsen. When Obama attracted a crowd of nearly 5,000 in Ames, twice as many as Hillary, he got less attention from the national media (although it was day two of his campaign). In addition, Yepsen wrote a curious piece on Obama. The headline “Can a candidate be too candid?” made it seem like Obama was the second coming of Bulworth. So what sacred cows was Barack Obama slaying? David Yepsen was shocked because Obama didn’t want to immediately cut military spending when we have 200,000 troops overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then again, if Obama was in favor of cutting military spending, Yepsen would probably label him as almost as unelectable as Dennis Kucinich.
So what’s happening? Part of it is that Obama has increased expectations for drawing crowds. When you can draw 17,000 people to attend a speech on a Saturday morning when it’s nine degrees outside, the bar has been raised. Especially when it involves a relatively minor effort to build a crowd (compared to Hillary Clinton’s effort for her Des Moines event two weeks ago.) The rest is just about the day’s news cycle. Unfortunately for him and for America, Barack Obama is in direct competition for attention with Anna Nicole Smith. However, there’s only one explanation for Yepsen’s weird coverage of Obama. It’s a realization that is an important part of the civil and considerate discourse that Drew Miller is famous for.
February 12th, 2007
David Yepsen’s column today makes the argument that Democrats in the state legislature should avoid changing anything to do with Iowa’s right to work law or risk losing control in 2008. He asserts that “Polls show overwhelming support for such worker freedom.”
A few weeks ago, I started getting strange calls on my Blackberry from a number I didn’t recognize. I didn’t answer the first few times the number popped up. Finally, after it was clear that this person wanted to talk to me and would not leave a message, I answered the next call I got, and it turned out to be someone in a call center in Missouri (I think it was Missouri) taking a poll. It was clear from the first question (something to do with protections for “the right to life,” without saying what the “right to life” was) that the poll of Iowa voters was being conducted by some conservative operation.
Question three, word for word, was “Do you support Iowa’s Right To Work Law?”
All of the survey questions were slanted to create a pattern of “Yes” answers (that is, when they wanted someone to say they did not support a particular law, they would ask “Do you disagree with X?” instead of “Do you agree with X?”), and the callers seemed to have been instructed to sound happier when someone answered “Yes” rather than “No.” In a survey like that, of course the vast majority of Iowa voters are going to say “Yes.”
But if you asked them, instead, “Do you think it is important that Iowa workers are able to engage in collective bargaining with their employers?” it seems plausible that an equal number would have said “Yes.” I’m not sure what polls Yepsen has seen on the issue, but I thought at least mentioning how slanted and disingenuous the survey I got was might help get us beyond the discussion of poll numbers.
January 30th, 2007
Although we will soon be deluged with articles analyzing Barack Obama’s candidacy in racial terms, it seems worth mentioning one article out of the cresting wave, Peter Beinart’s analysis of how Obama is perceived. Beinart posits that Obama, like Colin Powell, is perceived as a “good Black” by whites because he doesn’t follow the classic stereotype of an African American politician (unlike, Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton). However, Obama is able to continue to be perceived as authentic to fellow African-Americans because his “African American wife, his connection to the black church, and his work as a community organizer give him racial credibility.”
As unique as this article might sound, it’s been written before in the same publication. Two years ago, Noam Scheiber wrote a much better version of the same article in the same magazine. In it, he gives the same analysis of how Obama is perceived as being a “good black” and somehow different from typical African Americans. This accounted for much of his political success, in the article a consultant for one of Obama’s opponents in the primary “notes that the only time suburban and exurban white voters ever responded negatively to Obama was when he was associated with more conventional black politicians. ‘We [showed voters a sound] bite from Jesse Jackson Junior,’ says Dunn, referring to a video clip of the Chicago congressman praising Obama. ‘[blue collar] voters didn’t like that.’”
However, this analysis isn’t all that original either. It all stems from a New Yorker article written by Malcolm Gladwell over ten years ago about the differences in how African-Americans and West Indian immigrants to the U.S. are perceived. Gladwell states that minorities who are perceived as somehow foreign or different, like West Indians in Brooklyn, are not only able to avoid negative stereotypes but are associated with positive stereotypes It’s far to say that the concepts expressed in this article, written before Barack Obama was even a State Senator, will drive much of the debate over Obama’s racial identity over the next year or two. Gladwell’s article, amplified by the stories in the New Republic, will be read by the journalists covering the Presidential campaign. It already seems well on its way from meme to conventional wisdom. The ideas of Gladwell, knowingly or unknowingly, will most probably inform the language and vocabulary used by David Yepsen, the New York Times, other bloggers and just about everyone else writing about Barack Obama. Whether or not Gladwell’s concepts are actually applicable to Obama is irrelevent. What matters is that it is increasingly clear that they will provide much of the framework around which Obama will be perceived by the media.
January 29th, 2007
Hillary Clinton had a wonderful first day in Iowa today but is she ready for the next stage? Estimates of her crowd at East High School in Des Moines range from 1500 to nearly 3000. She got an introduction from Leonard Boswell and has had an interview with David Yepsen that’s as close to a puff piece as Yepsen writes. So what’s next for Hillary?
Although this is a good first step, she still faces major challenges in Iowa winning the support of many caucusgoers, such as Poweshiek County Democrats Co-Chair Don Smith. Smith gives voice to two of the major concerns about Hillary among caucusgoers. Those are the belief that she can’t win a general election and that she has been what Smith describes as “weak on the war issue” or too hawkish on Iraq. Although she addressed both of those issues today, it’s too soon to tell if she’s made any headway.
Finally, Hillary, along with the rest of the Democratic contenders, faces one more new challenge. Bill Richardson has a new anti-Iraq war, celebrity supporter. It’s not Bruce Springsteen, Ben Affleck, or Alec Baldwin, it’s Toby Keith. Keith is an interesting supporter for a Democratic candidate to have, although he’ll probably be viewed as a little weak on the war issue too.
January 27th, 2007
Previous Posts
