An Apology Might Help, Congressman

I have been trying something different, silence. Well, not exactly silence, but I haven’t written about politics lately. Like many Americans, I am weary of the political banter, the finger-pointing, the name calling, the blame game. I thought some time away from the keyboard might improve my gloomy opinion of American political affairs. It didn’t, due mostly to this foolish government shutdown. But, it did allow me some time to consider my role in this mess.

First, allow me to apologize. I am sorry for those times I worried more about being seen as American than about shouldering my responsibility as one, and for those times when I raced to place blame when I should have set to help fix what was broken. There, that felt pretty good.

Don’t worry; I don’t suffer an illusion my voice has some unique and powerful effect on our country’s affairs. I am just another guy. However, my being only one of 320 million doesn’t mean I am not accountable in some small measure for where things stand. We all are. And, we can do something about it. As voters we have the capacity to change things at the polls.

Since long before the invention of the squawk box known as television, Americans have been suckers for silver-tongued politicians who promise more than can ever be delivered. We love tough guys. We reliably react to political attack ads and respond with great fervor when a candidate tells us in well-crafted, thoroughly focus-group-tested language exactly what we want to hear.

Longing for something better is part of the human spirit, but we deny the human intellect when we buy the rhetoric spewed by those more interested in getting the job than they are in doing the job.

Guilty. I have done this.

Too many of those holding elected office in this country today mistake sycophancy for patriotism. They spend their time playing to the cameras to impress party power brokers, corporate leaders, special interest groups, each other and the all too acquiescent electorate. This empowers the elected ones to spend more energy exacting revenge on political opponents than they do solving the shared problems of the people they were elected to serve.

Finding solutions and building a consensus to move forward is what leaders do. We haven’t too many of these. I could end this by saying the fault for this rests with Congress, the President or some group of “them” – that we are victims of a flawed system – but it does not and we are not.

Today’s political quagmire is our doing, yours and mine. We cannot blame some great and powerful “them,” for we are the ones who control our destiny. We elect the “them.”

Every time we recite the partisan hyperbole and poke our fingers in the direction of those of a different political stripe, we feed the monster that is destroying us.

It’s time to move this country forward again. We will do this when we muster the guts to elect people more committed to country than they are to themselves and their party.

Here is what I intend to consider before stepping into the voting booth next time:

1. Leadership over longevity – Our system is broken because entities like the House and Senate perpetuate rules that reward time in office over leadership potential. This destructive practice has placed power in the hands of an out-of-touch group of lawmakers. Term limits aren’t the answer, but voters should evaluate if the incumbent expended more effort perpetuating or ending gridlock. This year, more than ever, too few have been problem solvers.
2. My way may not be the best highway – I need to listen, really listen to what others are saying. The American system is weakened when personalities and basic ideological differences define the debate before it starts. I need to play a role in ensuring competing ideas are aired fairly and openly. And, most important, I need to keep my eye trained on the goal, which is a better tomorrow, not an election victory for my adopted team or candidate.
3. Statesmanship over gamesmanship – I want to encourage and support the candidacies of those who are interested in leading. These people will have flaws and will say things that make me uncomfortable at times. I can forgive them if they prove themselves to be committed to doing the best they can.
4. I will continue to speak up, but only if doing so is helping to move things forward.

Americans have and can do magnificent things when we come together as a people. For many, in and out of office, saying “I am sorry” may be a good place to start.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com 

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register online essay.

It is time for Eric Holder to go, Mr. President

President Obama, it is time to replace Eric Holder. I know you have a lot on your mind these days, but the country can no longer afford to give Mr. Holder the benefit of the doubt. Give him his walking papers today.

Eric Holder’s tenure as Attorney General has been marked with moments of genuine leadership. However, those under his management have too often wielded a careless and heavy-hand in discharging their duties. The mission of the Department Justice should include the protection of freedom and the steadfast defense of individual rights. General Holder has been too willing to approve thuggery in the name of the war on terror or in a misguided belief sidestepping or operating in the grey area of the Constitution provides an affordable, quick route to solving crime.

Tying the hands of Lady Liberty may produce a short-term win occasionally, but these minor victories are not worth the long-term price.

The breaking scandal regarding the Department of Justice’s improper seizure of phone records relating to the AP and its employees proves one of two things; either Mr. Holder believes the Justice Department is above the laws it is empowered to enforce, or he has lost control of the Department he is supposed to oversee. Either way the President should release Mr. Holder from service immediately.

There will be watchdogs for the President’s political legacy who will argue firing Eric Holder will be viewed as a sign a weakness – a Holder departure will be blood in the water for the sharks in search of a feeding frenzy on what is wrong in the Administration. These watchdogs are wrong.

Decisive action by the President will show he might be ready to steer our country away from the destructive course it has been taking since 9/11, a course where government overreach has been generally accepted in an age of loosely organized terrorists. Sadly, this overreach has handed unintended victories to those out to destroy us. U.S. drone strikes may have resulted in the killing of a few enemies, but the loss of innocent lives have encouraged countless others to join the cause of those killed. The cost of an army of TSA agents working at our airports, the funding of multiple war fronts and the loss of certain freedoms once enjoyed by Americans has come with an incalculable financial and human price. And, these are only two examples of how we have lost and our enemies have won.

Firing Eric Holder will make a strong statement the President is interested in restoring a government that will once again fight to protect the liberty of the people as it abides by the laws of the people. Do this, Mr. President, and you will have dealt a blow to those out to destroy us by bolstering freedom, that which makes America great. The next step will be hiring an Attorney General who understands this new direction, something Mr. Holder does not.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com 

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register online essay.

Marco Rubio Aims, Misses

Senator Marco Rubio and I are about the same age. He grew up in Miami and I in Tampa. However, it is his self-professed interest in improving his community, state, country and the world that makes me root for him. This son of Cuban immigrants and darling of the Tea Party has articulated a willingness to search for solutions to vexing issues like immigration and healthcare. He is capable of forwarding a G.O.P. vision and was the obvious choice to present the Republican response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address last night.

In the days leading up to the speech, the Republican media machine made much of the powerful voice this new leader is bringing to the debate. Care was taken to select the right Rubio family photos to grace the table in the grand window of the Speaker of the House’s conference room where Senator Rubio would speak. Rubio was poised to connect with Americans.

Instead, Senator Rubio continued a long bi-partisan tradition of making the response to the State of the Union the most awkward political moment of the year. Like many who have given the speech before, Rubio resembled an earnest member of the high school debate team trying to manufacture passion for a topic he was randomly assigned moments before taking the microphone.

Many are making much of Rubio’s inelegant reach for a poorly placed and much needed bottle of water, but that very human moment was more endearing than problematic. Lack of substance was the issue. Rubio squandered an opportunity to convince Americans the Republican Party has a plan. This was a moment to inspire. He chose to be defensive.

Marco Rubio continued to follow the same strategy Republican nominee Mitt Romney used during last year’s unsuccessful campaign. He attacked the President for failing to lead. He criticized Obama for detrimental policies and for impeding progress. Yet, Rubio failed to demonstrate he and his party have a better plan for governing.

Senator Rubio took the hackneyed route, telling listeners the President believes the government doesn’t tax enough, spend enough and control enough and the free enterprise economy is the source of America’s problems. Rubio insisted Obama wants more government and that the President attacks Republicans for trying to right-size a bloated bureaucracy

By the time Rubio got to the line “I hope the President will abandon his obsession with raising taxes,” I had nearly given up hope Rubio’s address would offer any substantive solutions.

The Senator did suggest more federal lands be opened for the exploration of coal, oil and natural gas and that the tax code should be simplified. He agreed with the President that the corporate tax rate should be lowered.

Senator Rubio sounded the pro-education trumpet by saying American schools should offer “more advanced placement courses and more vocational and career training” and that school choice should be available for parents with children of all ages. He said college student aid shouldn’t “discriminate against programs that non-traditional students rely on – like online courses, or degree programs that give you credit for work experience.” Yet, while he acknowledged many students leave college with massive debt, he only offered “We must give students more information on the costs and benefits of the student loans they’re taking out.” Rubio provided nothing about how to reduce debt by making education more affordable or any details about what Congress would do to improve schools.

The Senator said Americans were heart broken by violent gun deaths, but that we cannot undermine the Second Amendment. And, America’s position of strength in the world depends on our ability to build a strong economy. But, Rubio didn't inspire, nor did he offer a plan to bolster America. He continued using broad political brush strokes saying, in effect, the President and Democrats are wrong, we Republicans are right.

Senator Rubio had one line I believe with which all Americans agree, “At a time when one showdown after another ends in short-term deals that do little or nothing about our real problems, some are starting to believe that our government leaders just can’t or won’t make the right choices anymore.” Americans are tired of the game playing in Congress, and yet this member took his moment in the limelight to point a finger and blame instead of take responsibility and chart a new course.

Republicans can win again if they show they are capable of improving national security and helping more to realize the American dream. Doing this takes more than tearing down the other party. It takes vision and courage. Senator Rubio was unable on Tuesday to illustrate he possessed either.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com 
This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register online essay.

Speaker Boehner Should Go

The new Congress will convene today. But, look for nothing to change in the house of “no.” While the 113th Congress has a freshman class of nearly 100, these new recruits will help elect the same group that held positions of power in the dysfunctional 112th. This recycling of ineffectual leaders will likely be the 113th Congress’ first mistake.

I think John Boehner is a smart guy. In fact, two years ago I wrote this hopeful notion, “The negative personal attacks that have infested U.S. politics must come to an end. We can disagree, but to move forward as a nation, civility must return to our political debate. Speaker designee Boehner has the chance to make the first step. He does not have to compromise his beliefs and shouldn’t. Hopefully, he will see the best way to forward his agenda is to treat those who oppose him as equals and, in doing so, find a way to end the gridlock plaguing Washington, for it holds our national future hostage.”

Unfortunately, Mr. Boehner didn’t move an agenda forward, thus ensuring the hostage siege continued. He simply stood in the way of progress as our nation faced unparalleled national security and economic threats and a growing number of Americans were unable to make ends meet in a poor economy. Speaker Boehner has failed the leadership test.

Evidence as to why the Speaker should be replaced was in full display over the last few days as he was unable to secure enough Republican votes to pass his Plan B to avert the fiscal cliff. The Speaker couldn’t muster the votes to support his back-up plan and Boehner’s primary plan never materialized either. It’s not entirely Mr. Boehner’s fault. He was tasked with trying to lead a party divided. However, when a person in power can’t lead, he should be shown the door.

The loss of six Republican House seats in the 2012 election may be one sign of American’s dissatisfaction with what has been described as the least productive Congress in modern history. For the last four years, Boehner and the other GOP leaders in Congress have spent most of their time complaining about the President and very little time offering anything of substance as an alternative. If the Republicans in Congress were serious about moving the United States forward, they would dump the Boehner team and elect people interested in an agenda of substance instead of one of obstruction.

Harry Truman said “Men make history and not the other way around. In periods where there is no leadership, society stands still. Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better.”

Skillful leaders will be required if the 113th Congress wants to change things for the better. By not replacing Speaker Boehner, Congress appears poised to repeat the same dismal history witnessed over the last two years.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com 
This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register online essay.

Cedar Falls’ Bold Stand on Health Care

The City of Cedar Falls faces a tough budget challenge and, according to City Attorney Tom Meyer, Cedar Falls has to “make difficult decisions that impact our employees due to the changes in the new health care laws.” Decision one for Cedar Falls was to limit to 29 the average number of hours worked per week by approximately 59 current part-time employees in 2013 to ensure the City doesn't have to pay up to $850,000 in health insurance costs when those laws take effect in 2014. A difficult decision for city officials, indeed, but Cedar Falls can and should do more.

The folks at Cedar Falls City Hall are not doing all they can to safeguard the public purse and we should tell them we Iowans stand behind them as they take the next brave step.

First, let’s give credit where credit is due. Cedar Falls leaders deserve praise for standing up to the draconian health care law President Obama and his cronies forced down the throats of the American people. This law passed under the cover of darkness has yet to survive the appropriate legal challenges or a thorough test by the electorate. OK, so Congress passed the law after a long and open debate and that law survived numerous court cases that were affirmed in a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court last year. But, are we to think the voters were actually paying enough attention during the recent campaign to understand reelecting the President and leaving Congress virtually unchanged would ensure the law would take effect? Well, that’s beside the point.

Good for Cedar Falls for taking tough action and for squarely placing the blame for cutting worker earnings where that blame belongs, on somebody else’s doorstep.

The Cedar Falls visionaries recognize their decision has a downside. They admit reducing the number of hours some 59 city workers will work next year will mean those workers and their families will have a little less walking around money, but that is the price the City is willing to pay. The City cannot be forced to help these folks obtain the same health care coverage it provides its more deserving full-time workers. And, that’s where the answer lies.

If health insurance is too expensive for some workers, maybe it is just too expensive for all.

According to the City of Cedar Falls fiscal year 2011 budget, when fully staffed Cedar Falls has some 215 full time employees. Cedar Falls should make all of its positions part time. This would eliminate 100% of its health insurance costs. If providing health insurance coverage for 59 workers has a potential cost of $850,000 as Meyer explained, eliminating coverage for 215 employees would potentially save the City a whopping $3,097,000.

Cedar Falls could balance its budget easily and place more than blame on somebody else’s doorstep. Cedar Falls could place the entire burden of health care insurance there as well. Since he understands the issue so well, I am confident the City Attorney will be the first to step-up to volunteer to hand back his city provided health insurance.

OK, enough sarcasm. America’s health care system is failing due in large part to the fact access to health coverage is unequal. Some workers get coverage and some don’t. In the end, we all end up paying too much. The health care law was designed to begin to fix that problem and get a handle on costs.

Cedar Falls has to balance its budget, but it is shameful that in doing so, it is denying workers the ability to earn health care coverage. By limiting hours for part time workers, Cedar Falls is telling a group of workers they are not worthy of the valuable health care coverage those making the decisions already enjoy. Bold leadership doesn't exist in Cedar Falls these days.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com 
This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register online essay.

Tokenism is Strangling the GOP

Some Republicans do not understand their failure to organize and relate to voters had as much to do with the GOP’s loss as did anything their opponents did to win. It can be hard to digest the fact one’s own shortcomings are to blame while the bitter taste of defeat is still fresh, but Republicans would be wise to choke down a sizeable helping of self-evaluation before leaving this table. If they want things to change, Republicans must fix what is broken within their party.

Governor Terry Branstad isn’t looking inward, he is lashing out. In a Register interview last week, he said this, “If you really analyze this, it’s a tribute to the community organizer and campaigner-in-chief. He had a terrible record, he knew he couldn’t run on it, and they ran a very effective campaign, really. If you look at the nuts and bolts, they didn’t win this on issues. They spent the entire year in advance trying to make Mitt Romney this ogre and somebody that people wouldn’t trust.”

With a straight face, Governor Branstad says President Obama didn’t win on issues and then concludes, “If Romney had won, I think there would have been a mandate for change.”

‘If my guy wins, the electorate supports our agenda – if the other guy wins, the voters got duped’ is not intellectually honest. Believing what they wanted to believe while ignoring all evidence to the contrary led many Republicans to predict a landslide victory. Similar election results will happen again unless Republicans cease the self-comforting spin. It may be hard to swallow, but Republicans lost, in part, because voters did not agree with them.

Governor Mitt Romney proved he is unwilling to accept why he lost. He told large donors participating in a campaign wrap-up call the Obama team bestowed “gifts” on loyal Democrat constituencies to sway the election.

“In each case, they (Democrats) were very generous in what they gave to those groups,” Romney said. He went on to say while President Obama was, in effect buying votes, Mr. Romney was “talking about big issues for the whole country: military strategy, foreign policy, a strong economy, creating jobs and so forth.”

Romney refuses to admit his own message was the heart of the problem. He believes in himself and his message so completely, the only conclusion Romney draws is that voters rejected him because of some sleight of hand by the silver-tongued Obama.

By telling donors others are to blame without accepting any responsibility for his own actions, Governor Romney reminds me of the guy who tells his wife a tree fell on her truck, the truck he parked next to the tree he was about to cut down. The tree fell on the truck, but that does not make the incident the tree’s fault.

There is some hope. A few Republicans including Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal appear to be looking the right direction. In response to Romney’s comments to donors, Jindal said this, “We have got to stop dividing the American voters. We need to go after 100 percent of the votes, not 53 percent. We need to go after every single vote. … So I absolutely reject that notion, that description. I think it’s absolutely wrong. I don’t think that represents where we are as a party, where we’re going as a party. That has got to be one of the most fundamental takeaways from this election.”

Republicans need to develop a plan for leading and attracting new voters. This starts with constructing two essential components of a winning campaign, organization and message. Developing an effective organization and a motivational message requires an understanding of voters: the who, where, why and how elements of the electorate.

The Obama campaign redefined the mechanics of campaigning. Their ability to identify likely voters, to create and disseminate nearly individualized messages based on data collection and to get out the vote by making the most of today’s technology has set a new standard. They thought about how voters communicated, where they got information and what influenced their thinking. But, most important, they inspired voters to act. Inspiration is the magic ingredient of a winning campaign formula.

The Romneys and Branstads of the GOP are missing the point.

Women, Latinos, African Americans and others are not target groups to be purchased with what Romney describes as “gifts.” They are a part of a diverse electorate interested in ideas that will make the country, their communities and their families stronger.

If they wish to again connect with voters, Republicans must break free from those who think tokenism substitutes for inclusion.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com 
This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register online essay.

The Register and Romney Sittin’ in a Tree

With the exception of the political punditry, most Americans are relieved the 2012 election is over. Understandably, the talking heads and opinion writers are toughing out the cold sweat of withdrawal by analyzing voting statistics, parsing speeches and speculating about the maneuvering to come. Pointing the finger of blame at those who lost and theorizing about devious plans the winners must have employed to dupe voters are popular detox treatment methods used by many of these addicts.

As a regular contributor to these pages, I am going to purge my system in another way. Since I have already written about how this election demonstrated the great need for campaign finance reform, the changing demographics of the electorate and why candidates from both parties should talk less and listen more to voters; I am going to turn my gaze away from the politicians and toward the media covering them.

The rise of the Internet and social media has sent news organizations like the Des Moines Register scrambling to hold together and rewrite a once solid business model. Selling newspapers and the ads inside was never easy, but the business of news coverage has never been harder than it is today. More and more people expect to get their news for free, on their schedule and in the format that they choose. Waiting for news to be delivered in the paper is something unfathomable to today’s smart phone toting, digital consumer. Providing a place of value for advertisers in a world of news on the run is a daunting challenge.

Knowing some about this changing environment and as an outsider who gets an occasional look inside the Des Moines Register’s newsroom, editorial offices and business operations, I remain intrigued by the Register’s decision to endorse Governor Mitt Romney in the final days of the race. I did not agree with the argument the Register made – it seemed to me they reversed course on much of which they have supported in recent years. But, I know those who made this decision. They are principled people who take editorial writing as seriously as they do investigative journalism.

That being said, one cannot deny the Romney endorsement turned the lights of the national media toward the Register. These lights would have never shone so brightly had the paper endorsed President Obama as most had expected. The editorial created a buzz that sells.

I am not suggesting the Register’s publisher and editor let marketing drive the endorsement. They are people of integrity. Beyond that, they are savvy enough to understand such gamesmanship would, in the long run, do more harm than good to the institution they pilot.

However, the impact of the Romney endorsement has been interesting and a little fun to watch. More than a few Republicans have long insinuated the Register was a Democrat biased institution. Many would call it the Red Star and take pride in cancelling subscriptions every time they felt trod upon. The Romney piece left them gobsmacked. One Romney supporter nearly hugged a Register reporter when she came to cover an event telling the reporter she finally felt as if the Register was again Iowa’s paper. The Register has even gained subscriptions in the days following the endorsement.

Meanwhile, a group of Democrats raised $15,000 to place a full page Register ad containing another paper’s endorsement of Obama. The irony of Democrats muttering about cancelling subscriptions while raising the equivalent of 125 yearly subscriptions to pay for an ad was kind of humorous.

Here’s my take away from all of this. There is much to learn from the 2012 campaign. First, we voters have the power to change the tenor of debate. Every time we react to a negative attack ad and ignore serious policy discussions, we make campaigns the shallow things we despise. When we rush to judge a person because of the party label she wears and overlook the ideas she espouses because of her party choice, we sell ourselves short. And, as important, we have the same power to control the media who report and comment on those running for office. We need to be equally careful about rushing to accuse them of bias. If we demand more, newspapers and other media outlets will rise to the call and in the process they will be profitable and healthy businesses.

Give candidates and the media your attention and, in doing so, hold them to a standard that helps chart a better course for our communities, state and country. Sure, we can gripe about the losers and accuse the winners. We can cancel subscriptions and yell about bias in the media. But, those things can be as childish and pointless as songs about kissing in trees. It is we who determine what sells and what doesn’t. We are the ones who must act. If we do not, when things go wrong, the blame will be ours.

I want an editorial board that calls it as they see it, not as I want them to call it. Even though the Romney piece made me cringe, it looks like they upheld their part of the bargain this time. I’m fine with that.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com 
This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register online essay.

Which is Worse, Campaign 2012 or Hurricane Sandy?

The storms slamming the east coast are tragic, costly affairs that have and will continue to cause misery and suffering. With God’s grace, the communities in the wake of this storm will emerge safely from the wind, rain, floods and snow and lives will return to normal quickly. I do not want to minimize the human misery Sandy is bringing. My thoughts and prayers are with those living through it and those who have lost it all. However, Hurricane Sandy should serve as a powerful reminder. Life is fragile and, all too often, we spend too much of our mortal breathing moments focusing on the unimportant.

My Buddhist friends tell me a storm like Sandy is further evidence everything is connected – the good, the bad, today, yesterday, tomorrow, you, me, people we will never meet, animals, insects, earth, air, sea; you get the point. Standing witness to earth’s natural power does help one understand this. The Sandys force us to stop in our tracks and reflect. That is good. It is kind of a shame it takes devastation or calamity to force us to do something so simplistic and basic to life.

Campaign 2012 will be over next week. This race has been nasty and, in many ways, counterproductive to our national progress. We voters have allowed billion dollar campaign machines to divide by distracting us from that what binds the American people in the first place, a belief every person deserves freedom. We have focused on the negative, the accusations, and disagreements.

Here’s hoping when the political storm clears and media chatter returns to non-election year banter, Americans will think more about what unites, than what divides. We must replace choosing sides with working together to build something better.

Elections – this one in particular – resemble hurricanes. They destroy and devastate until they run out of energy. But, much of what causes a hurricane is beyond our control. We can construct stronger buildings and fortify our coastlines, but beyond that, the best we can do is hunker down and wait a hurricane out.

Elections are an invention of man fueled by money. We have the ability to interrupt the campaign path of destruction by demanding candidates rise above the squabble. Candidates respond to voter reaction. It is time we voters tell candidates we expect ideas and integrity, not blame and marketing gimmicks. Most of all, we must cutoff the fuel source feeding this destruction by limiting campaign funding.

The American spirit will be evident as people from across the country selflessly step forward to help those trying to regain their footing after being knocked down by the storms. It will take an even larger and longer cooperative effort to bridge the partisan divide formed during campaign 2012. I would like to think Americans are up to the task.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com 
This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register online essay.

Issue # 2 Not Heard on the Campaign Trail: Cutting the Fat (and that means you)

Last week I wrote about how candidates ignore criminal justice reform – we are creating a criminal class in this country with costly and ineffective prison-centric policies. To a point, I understand why politicians steer clear of criminal justice reform. The problem is not foremost in most Americans’ minds and the steps to correct the problem are not always clear-cut.

This week I want to address another issue. The reasons to focus on this one are crystal clear. It looms in front of us every day, costs our nation hundreds of billions of dollars and directly contributes to the killing of Americans. Yet, not one candidate talks about this national security crisis, even though it is one of the most costly and potentially deadly threats. They have opted to leave the topic to a person not on the ballot, Michelle Obama.

The fat issue, the American obesity epidemic

Before you dive into that plate of chili cheese fries with a dismissive ‘this has nothing to do with me’ wave of your napkin, indulge me.

If we put our heads together on slowing, if not solving the obesity problem, we could save hundreds of billions of dollars a year (yep, billions, with a ‘b’) and save hundreds of thousands of lives. Unlike other issues of this magnitude, we can do something about it without sending soldiers into harm’s way, raising taxes or impinging on a single person’s rights.

You’re going to want to throw your weight behind this initiative, pardon the pun.

The Data
The Trust for America’s Health issued a report this week showing that if obesity rates continue on their current trajectories, by 2030, 13 states could have adult obesity rates above 60 percent, 39 states could have rates above 50 percent, and all 50 states could have rates above 44 percent. This means the number of new cases of type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease and stroke, hypertension and arthritis could increase 10 times between 2010 and 2020—and double again by 2030.

America’s wallet will take an (g)astronomical hit because of this.

By 2030, medical costs associated with treating preventable obesity-related diseases are estimated to increase by $48 billion to $66 billion per year in the United States, and the loss in economic productivity could be between $390 billion and $580 billion annually by 2030. While the Trust admits the medical cost of adult obesity in the United States is difficult to calculate, they estimate we already spend $147 billion to nearly $210 billion per year.

Iowa should fair somewhat better than the rest of the country – Mississippians face a fat induced killing rate of genocidal proportions. The numbers are sobering. If the average Iowan’s body mass index (BMI) were lowered by just 5 percent, Iowa could save 7.1 percent in health care costs, which would equate to savings of $ 5,702,000,000 by 2030.

The number of Iowans who could be spared from developing new cases of major obesity-related diseases includes: * 77,783 people could be spared from type 2 diabetes * 67,065 from coronary heart disease and stroke * 60,940 from hypertension * 34,635 from arthritis * 5,849 from obesity-related cancer

The Solution
It starts with us.

It is time to get off the couch, exercise a little and to begin to make an effort to stop shoving the calories down our gullets. It really isn’t hard. You don’t have to join a gym, buy a pill, or begin some strict diet found in the latest best-selling diet book. Take a few small steps. Walk around the neighborhood every other day. Put down the fork. Eat less.

If we were to collectively exercise 5% more and eat 5% less we would see immediate results as a nation. That’s it.

It is a national disgrace the candidates fail to champion this cause. They could begin a national movement guaranteed to brighten our future. Fighting the fat will make us healthier, stronger and better able to face our country’s challenges. We could save an obscene amount of money that is destined to be flushed down the toilet in the form of rising health care costs. Fighting the war on fat is our patriotic duty.

Obesity should be front and center in this season’s political debate.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com 
This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register online essay.

Issue #1 Not Heard on Campaign Trail, Criminal Justice Reform

Campaign 2012 has overtaken us. We are awash in messages approved by candidates and flooded with others produced by political action committees that are not. Think about those ads for a moment. Now, consider the news reports you have heard, read and watched about the candidates. Recall the convention speeches in Tampa and Charlotte. If you subtract all of the talk about the economy, jobs, and health care, you will find education gets mentioned occasionally, as do broad-brush issues relating to energy, foreign policy and taxes. Missing is a serious discussion about many of the significant issues standing in the way of America’s future.

To make my point, let’s focus on just one painfully glaring omission from today’s political debate, criminal justice.

It’s easy to understand why campaign staffers hate the subject. Prisons and crime never make the top ten list of hot-button issues as determined by pollsters. For instance, the latest Quinnipiac University/CBS News/New York Times poll indicated the economy, health care, Medicare (how this differs from health care baffles me), the budget deficit, taxes, foreign policy and housing were the issues we the voters care about most. Campaign strategists and special interest insurgents hired to craft messages and make ads won’t touch criminal justice because the gospel according to the polls says the topic doesn’t resonate. It should.

The United States is the most incarcerated country in the world. Our failing criminal justice system is costing billions of dollars and destroying lives. And, to top it off, instead of making our communities safer, our lock ‘em up and lock ‘em out approach may be exacerbating the problem by creating a permanent criminal class of Americans.

According to the Pew Center, one in 31 American adults were in the correction system in 2009. This means just over 3% of Americans were in jail, prison, on probation or under supervision of some sort. This figure has more than doubled over the last 25 years and nearly quadrupled since 1980.

There are some 2.4 million people in jail and prison. Over the past 20 years, the fastest growing part of state budgets after healthcare is criminal justice. State spending on criminal justice has increased more than 300% during this time to an estimated $51.7 billion in 2008. Add in what the federal and local governments spend and that figure is an eye-popping $200 billion a year.

That’s real money and we aren’t getting much in return.

Let’s consider the social cost of our justice policies. Just over 9% of black adults are in the correctional system, as are about 4% of Hispanic adults, and 2% of white adults. The chasm between us grows. Moreover, our system locks offenders away and strips them of their rights while taking few steps to steer these offenders away from a life of crime. The numbers above will not improve unless we change course.

Ponder this; some estimates show it costs $29,000 per year to house an inmate and $9,000 a year to send a student to high school.

If a candidate for office were serious about making a difference, he would be talking about criminal justice reform, not because the issue polls well, but because it is an issue that almost more than any other is significantly limiting our national progress.

Campaign 2012 is full of candidates willing to feed us soundbites they have been told we want to hear. Sadly, this field of candidates is lacking leaders willing to address difficult topics that aren’t popular. If we hope to ever overcome the barriers blocking the way to a better tomorrow, we will need to put people in office more interested in solving problems than winning votes. Let’s start with criminal justice reform.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com 
This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register online essay.

We Get What We Vote For

Like any political nerd, I love election years. The drama, the excitement, the staging, the speeches, I like it all. I am a sucker for soaring words about what’s possible. Elections can be a period of renewal, reminding us for what we stand and helping set a vision about how to tackle the obstacles standing in the way to our collective greatness.

Stop snickering; a good debate over issues can be both healthy and interesting.

As the Republican Convention wound down in Tampa last week and the Democrats began to gather in Charlotte this week, I began to grow concerned the high-minded was losing to the lowbrow. The candidates were going to choose character assault over vision building. Having determined the easiest way to amass votes was to tear down their opponent, they were opting against the more arduous task of inspiring people to aim higher. Campaign 2012 was beginning to make even this nerd weary.

I have been around politics for most of my life. I accept the well-proven fact negative campaigns work – fear sells, to a point. However, 2012 began with that. Too many candidates appear to be stuck in a nonproductive cycle of blame, smear and repeat. It is time for the candidates to put the mud down.

Nerds and non-nerds alike need to hear what candidates will do should they win. Saying the other guy is miserable is rarely a strong foundation upon which to build a victory platform. Americans are looking for leaders interested and capable of doing the job.

Theodore Roosevelt said “It behooves every man to remember that the work of the critic is of altogether secondary importance, and that, in the end, progress is accomplished by the man who does things.”

I have always liked that quote both for what it says and because it includes the word ‘behooves.’

As we enter the home stretch of this political cycle, both the nerd and the patriot in me remain hopeful the candidates will spend more time talking about the future and less about how bad the other guy is.

Don’t misunderstand, it can be important to draw distinctions between what one candidate has done or will do and what the other’s record or plans are. That is the healthy and interesting debate I talked about earlier. But, that is entirely different than a candidate standing at a podium and degrading his opponent without offering an alternative.

I like what John F. Kennedy said; “I look forward to a great future for America – a future in which our country will match its military strength with our moral restraint, its wealth with our wisdom, its power with our purpose.”

We need candidates who are committed to this, who are willing to pursue and capable of constructing a vision to take us there.

In the end, the candidates rise to the expectations of the voters. It is a cop-out for me, for any voter, to accept this election year is lost – that modern campaigns are not capable of producing strong leaders. We get what we vote for. If we cast votes for those who finger-point and run on fear, we shouldn’t expect much from them when they assume office.

I do expect much and I know America is capable of even more.

The tenor of this campaign can change, but will only do so if we Americans demand something different.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com 
This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register online essay.

A Mild Chris Christie Kicks-off GOP Convention

I can’t help myself. Chris Christie has a paradoxical affable bravado that makes me like him. He strikes me is a guy who believes what he says and who seems to enjoy a messy skirmish. The Romney campaign brought out the tough talking New Jersey Governor on night one of the convention to stir up the base. Christie delivered on that, but he did little else.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie 
Republican National Convention
Tampa, Fla., Tuesday, Aug. 28, 2012. 
(AP Photo/J. Scott Applwhite) / AP

A national party convention is mostly made up of the true believers. They sit on the edges of their seats antsy and ready to jump to their feet, cheer, wave signs and look with tear soaked eyes into the cameras. A speaker needn’t have Christie charisma to get a standing ovation from this crowd. An audible “we are the USA” from the meekest of speakers can get a convention crowd chanting USA for five minutes.

That’s why I thought it odd Christie had to prod convention goers at the end of his speech with “It’s now time to stand up. Let’s stand up. Everybody, stand up!” These are not words you generally hear from a convention speaker.

Maybe my expectations were too high for Governor Christie’s speech. I was looking for red meat inspiration. What he delivered was something along the lines of we are better than they are. OK, but you need to give the throng a little more excitement and those at home something to remember.

George W. Bush must have cringed when talking about the nation’s economic woes Chris Christie not so blithely said, “It doesn’t matter how we got here. There is enough blame to go around.” Fair enough and Christie made a the point by following up with, “What matters now is what we do.”

Yeah, but “how is what is being offered different than Bush” went unanswered by Christie.

In fairness to Christie, it is tough being the first pitcher to the mound for convention baseball. The nominee’s agenda is not yours. You are not there to talk specifics. You are supposed to set the stage. Christie did not falter, but I doubt he did much to boost the Romney candidacy.

Maybe it won’t matter Christie was tamer than expected. Vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan takes the stage next. Convention goers should wear comfortable shoes tonight. There will be a lot of standing and cheering even if Ryan decides to read the phonebook. He won’t. The question is will he connect with the crowd outside of the Tampa Bay Forum.

### 

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com 
This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register online essay.

Paul Ryan’s Appearance More Circus than Fair

I read the account of Congressman Paul Ryan’s visit to the Iowa State Fair on Monday with a certain amount of dismay. The newly minted vice presidential candidate had come to stand on the Des Moines Register’s soapbox and introduce himself to Iowans. OK, maybe there are better audiences for discussing policy than a sweaty throng of corndog munching fairgoers, but I would like to believe Iowans, if not all Americans, are capable of conducting civilized debate. It is becoming harder to do so.

Paul Ryan went to the Fair and all Iowa got was mustard on its t-shirt.

The sorry display by the group of protesters who came to berate Mitt Romney’s running mate and the backlash by an angry few in the pro-Romney crowd who tried to stop them was disappointing on many fronts.

The shouting and attempts to disrupt the event by demonstrators – one woman climbed onto the stage – did nothing to facilitate the exchange of ideas or help a cause, if they even have one. The pushing, shoving and insults hurled in return only added to the pathetic spectacle. There is a time for civil disobedience and there are times when a little yelling is needed. This was not one of those times.

Campaign 2012 has been as light on ideas as it has been heavy on finger pointing and name-calling. Our nation faces daunting challenges. We aren’t going to solve them through bullying, but by finding common ground.

Like it or not, Paul Ryan has shown he is willing to talk about tough issues such as our country’s debilitating budget woes. It is easy to see why some may not agree with all Mr. Ryan has proposed, but it is refreshing he is willing to take a stand. Perhaps his running mate will soon find the courage to follow this lead.

Mark Twain once wrote “It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them.”

I find myself wishing many like those folks at the Fair would exercise such prudence. They are not helping move anything forward.

Twain was joking, of course. We are not served if those who disagree with Ryan do not challenge his proposals, just as we lose if we allow the shouters to stifle the exchange of ideas. We need to hear both sides.

The journey to common ground begins with understanding and mutual respect. The fairgoers should have held the shouting, enjoyed a corndog and then proceeded with logical debate. Instead they created a silly sideshow.

### 

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com 
This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register online essay.

Put the Healthcare Ruling Aside and Celebrate the System

It will be more difficult for some than it will be for others, but in the wake of today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling on health care, all Americans should take a moment to celebrate.

 It should not matter whether you agree or disagree with how the Court ruled. Forget about the details of the law. The process shows the brilliance of our system of government. It is this which makes our country great.

An independent judiciary was able to consider an intensely politically charged issue without feeling the pressure to satisfy a political party.

 We spend an inordinate amount of time griping about perceived corruption and petty gamesmanship in modern politics. Too many of us are consumed with the shrill rhetoric being voiced on this side of the Court’s steps. It is reassuring to know the nine people on the Court can stay above that fray and freely discharge their duty.
### 

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com 
This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register essay.

The Constitution Lives, but it’s Up to Us to Make it Work

The United States Supreme Court will soon rule on the sweeping 2010 health care law. The challenges to the law are interesting and complex. For the most part, the partisan debate about how the court will/should rule is neither. After hearing the cacophony spewing from the television squawk box, the Internet and what’s left of print media, one might think he can either be for the law in total, or rabidly against it. Translation; you are 100%, indelibly correct and the other guy is profoundly wrong.

Chances are both sides are correct and wrong. More important, here’s hoping Americans are fine with that.

In these days of 140 character tweets, Facebook posts and sound bites made for TV, we often spend more time trying to get liked by those who already agree with us than to provoke thought, or God forbid, challenge ourselves. The debate about health care demonstrates how this rush to boil the intricate down to simple is harmful to productive dialogue.

Even Mary Kramer, the former U.S. ambassador, president of the Iowa Senate, thinker, writer, advocate of civil discourse and self-described moderate Republican, fell into this trap this week. Motivated by good intentions she asked her social media friends a single multiple-choice question; Do you consider the United States Constitution to be (A) a pesky nuisance preventing government from doing what it needs to do, (B) a “living” document to be interpreted as the situation demands, or (C) the foundation that must be considered as the basis for our actions?

I doubt Kramer expected anyone to choose the pesky document option.

Placing quotation marks around “living” in (B) indicates she likely believes the term is something less than legitimate. Further, “as the situation demands” is a rather crude way to describe a belief the framers knew interpretation of the Constitution would continue to change as America evolved. “As the situation demands” fits in a sentence that begins with “it’s OK to let a child to skip his nightly bath.” It is hardly an adequate way to paraphrase a fundamental legal philosophy where members of the Court apply the Constitution’s values to modern circumstances.

It is rather easy to see why only those comfortable with selection (C) responded.

I have to admit Kramer’s informal poll for her friends made me stop and think about this issue. The two of us had a worthwhile exchange as a result. That is worth something, but we need much more than exchanges like this to bring our country together.

It is fair to expect the Supreme Court may rule that all or part of the health care law violates our Constitution. In the wake of the ruling, whatever is, Americans must decide if and how we should address the cost and sometimes devastating consequences of the U.S. health care system.

Fixing this vexing problem will not be possible if most of us choose to wrap ourselves in the warm self-knitted blanket of believing we alone are right.

The solution will come only if we are willing to challenge ourselves, test our beliefs and, most of all, commit to working together for the greater good. We need to stop worrying about who is more right, who will get the credit and what the Founders would do; and worry more about how we will build a better America on the Foundation they laid. Little of this can be done in a Facebook post, talking point, or in less than 140 characters.

### 

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com 
This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register online essay.

America Can’t Wait for this Congress to Act

Barack Obama performed a well-choreographed bit of political theater yesterday. Days before he and rival Mitt Romney are scheduled to appear before Hispanic officials in Florida, President Obama took executive action removing the fear of deportation for hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children.

The policy makes sense – many of the immigrants impacted by the action are hard-working people who are contributing and will continue to contribute to the strength of our country.

Politically, the Obama move was brilliant.

Mitt Romney whose stance on immigration has been evolving since January when he said immigrants should “return home, apply and get in line with everyone else,” now finds it difficult in the general election to oppose the merits of a plan such as the one Obama initiated. Romney and friends know winning support from Hispanic voters will dim significantly if Republicans are seen as advocates for the forcible removal of children, college students and young adults who are law-abiding members of the American community.

But, of course, the often-silly game of modern American politics makes it impossible for opponents to applaud the other, even if they agree.

Fear not, team Romney found something to indignantly huff about. They say the President’s action, which is not an executive order but a memo from the Department of Homeland Security to its agencies, is an overreach of executive authority – actions like these should be left to Congress.

Yes, they are suggesting we wait for Congress to act – a Congress so overwhelmingly dominated by out-of-touch partisans from both parties, little of what happens in the marble edifice on the hill these days rises above puerile political sniping.

When asked in 2010 to define the Republicans’ main job in Congress, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

Outrageous and destructive statements are made by Democrats, too. A disquieting chorus of “to Hell with making America better or doing something productive – we only care about winning elections” echoes through the Capitol these days.

Sorry, Mr. Romney, we can’t wait for Congress to lead. This group of self-interested political hacks is inept and disinterested in working for our country.

Today’s political campaign trail is chock full of candidates vying to score political points with tough sounding sound bites and jabs meant to weaken the opposition. Americans long for candidates who stand for something greater than election. We want leaders committed to building a better America. Sometimes, this will mean agreeing with the guy from the other party. If Congress needs to act, pressure them to do so. If the President’s actions are correct, praise him and explain how you intend to build upon his progress should you come to office. “Yeah, but…” needs to become, “Yes, I agree and I promise to do even better.”

We Americans need to think long and hard about whom we elect to Congress. The current Congress is a failure. Their inability to address the immigration issue is just the tip of the iceberg. There was a positive step taken on immigration yesterday. Let’s work together to take a few more.

### 

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com 
This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register online essay.

Drug War Strategy Harmful to U.S.

According to a report issued last week by the United States Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, 22.6 million Americans 12 and older – a sobering 8.9% of America – used illegal drugs in 2010. Caucus co-chairs Iowa’s Chuck Grassley and California’s Dianne Feinstein estimate drug abuse and addiction costs the United States a whopping $193 billion a year in preventable health care, law enforcement and addiction expenses.

If those running for office in 2012 were serious about getting government under control and providing a shot-in-the-arm to the economy, they would talk about drug use.

Talking helped in the early 1980s when Nancy Reagan told America to “just say no.” Athletes and celebrities joined the cause. Buttons, t-shirts, billboards, and television commercials with the catchphrase in Mrs. Reagan’s favorite red seemed inescapable and were ridiculed on occasion. But, something worked. Drug use dropped. Turns out when you talk to people, many respond. It may be time for another talk, but something more is needed this time.

The discourse back then exposed the link between illicit drug use and crime and violence. Drug abuse was seen to contribute to the decline of the family and as a destructive force in society. The U.S. spectacularly overreacted by spending billions of dollars militarizing an international “drug war” and underreacted impressively by not adequately implementing programs aimed at slowing demand at home. Even with those failings some progress was made.

Thirty years later, terrorism, the economy and school kids falling behind tend to dominate political debate. Missed by the politicians and media talking heads is our nation’s dirty little drug problem, the common contributing factor to each of these issues.

Profits of the drug trade fund many terrorism organizations. The loss of productivity, the cost of our bloated prison systems and the vast sums of money spent beyond and within our borders stifles economic success in jaw-dropping proportions. And, too many of our children are lost to drugs regardless of what happens in the classroom.

Prescription drugs are as much a part of this as illicit drugs. The American notion a pill can solve every problem may actually be killing us – overdose deaths from prescription painkillers now outnumber those involving heroin and cocaine combined.

Treating those with drug problems is more effective and costs less than what we spend implementing mandatory prison time for drug offenses. Equally, tough policies that produce bloodshed offshore and well away from American eyes have little impact and need to be scrapped.

When a candidate stands before the cameras and, lump in throat, voices patriotic support of capitalism he is likely thinking about shiny skyscrapers, technological advances and the rise of the once mighty middle class. He isn’t thinking of the capitalism driving the violence raging in the streets of Mexican villages and, to a lesser degree, our own hometowns. The seekers of votes ignore the evil side of capitalism. America’s seemingly insatiable appetite for drugs provides a bountiful income drug manufacturers, drug runners and purveyors of terror ruthlessly pursue.

The U.S. spends billions taking the battle to countries where drugs are grown and/or manufactured, and where transportation hubs bringing drugs to the lucrative American market are located. In Mexico’s case, this strategy has weakened it to the point where vast sections of the country wallow in lawlessness. More than 50,000 drug-related murders have occurred in Mexico in the last five years. The economy of Mexico, if not the country itself, sits precariously on the brink of collapse due in large part to our inability to deal with our problem. It’s time to rethink the United States’ military-style drug war.

There is convincing evidence decriminalizing certain substances reduces demand. Even if that data is discounted, there is little to show legalizing a substance like marijuana increases demand. Freeing law enforcement and the courts from handling minor possession infractions promises significant benefits. For other illicit and prescription drugs, we need to focus more on the behaviors of Americans and less on stopping the production and transfer in countries like Bolivia, Colombia, Mexico and Afghanistan.

The Feinstein/Grassley report contains 13 findings and corresponding recommendations. It outlines the problems and hints at a few solutions. But, our national drug addiction will not be solved with hints just as it was not with ribbons and slogans.

Those vying for election need to honestly confront the drug issue. Doing so will make many Americans uncomfortable and bring on the wrath of powerful interest groups, but every war worth winning tends to do that.

### 

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com 
This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register online essay.

Equal Rights for Gay Dove Hunters

Governor Terry Branstad took to the airwaves this week to criticize President Barack Obama for making a statement in support of equal marriage for all couples. The Governor thinks the President should be singly focused on the economy and the federal debt, and not on issues the Governor considers of less importance.

Appearing on MSNBCs Daily Rundown with Chuck Todd Governor Branstad said, “I find it tragic to see the President of the United States pandering to the Hollywood money crowd instead of focusing on the things that are important to America, which is reducing this massive federal debt.”

Sorry, Governor, just because you disagree with what the President said does not mean the issue is of so little significance he should remain silent.

Branstad’s statement is disingenuous and a little silly. Branstad may be the one pandering. As a chief executive, he is well aware people expect a leader to focus on more than one pressing issue at a time.

Governor Branstad must realize multitasking comes with the job. After all, last week he took time away from focusing his attention on Iowa’s economy, declining schools and a multitude of other clearly more pressing issues to sign an Executive Order overturning a rule imposed by a commission he appoints to – wait for it – allow hunters to use lead ammunition instead of steel when hunting doves.

Lead is a toxin that can cause brain damage and death in both people and animals. While some studies conclude the full effects of leftover shot in meat are inconclusive on humans, other studies conclude that scavengers like eagles can become ill after ingesting lead shot. The Natural Resources Commission determined lead shot wasn’t worth the risk.

Hunters and Branstad claim steel shot is more expensive than lead and doesn’t work quite as well. I went to cabelas.com this morning and discovered a box of 25 steel shot shells ranged from $12.99-21.99 and the lead shot shells ranged from $12.99-17.99. The price factor appears minimal and, I wouldn’t know for sure, but it seems to me the guys with guns already have a distinct advantage over the birds as it is. I am not sure how one type of shot can kill something more than another, but I digress.

Governor Branstad was awfully quick to wag his finger at the President for changing his mind on an issue that is important to many Americans. And remember, the President did not take any action. A few hours later, Governor Branstad reversed his earlier statements on lead shot and did act. He overruled his own commission so a small percentage of Iowans can save a few bucks killing a few birds.

Pandering or not, supporting the extension of a right to people long denied is more worthwhile than making a few people’s recreational hunting cheaper and more effective.

### 

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com 
This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register online essay.

Romney’s Bailout Bashing Rhetoric Does not Mesh with Reality

General Motors released its 2011 financial results today. As sometimes-Republican-presidential-frontrunner Mitt Romney defends his stance that GM should have been allowed to fail, I think we should consider this about the “Obama bailout of the US auto industry:”

1. 47,500 blue-collar GM workers in the U.S. will get $7,000 profit-sharing checks in March – they would not have jobs had the company “been allowed to fail,” let alone bonus checks.
2. GM turned a profit of $7.6 billion, beating its old record of $6.7 billion in 1997 during the pickup truck and SUV boom.
3. GM’s 2011 profit of $4.58 per share was 62 percent higher than a year earlier. Full-year revenue rose 11 percent to $150 billion – investors are fairly happy and appear to be interested in holding GM stock.
4. The US government still owns 26.5% of this successful company – it is waiting for the stock price to rise so the bailout is repaid in full.
5. Oh, let’s not forget the bailout started under President Bush and was completed under President Obama. They both deserve credit.

Sure, the economy is still rough and there are some rough spots in GM’s reports, but the company looks like it will survive and many people are at work making American made cars. That is a good thing.

### 

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com


This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

The Iowa Caucuses are Over

Today the quadrennial Iowa Caucuses will climax with 100,000 or so Republicans going to schools, churches, recreation centers and a few homes to stand up for a candidate. The caucus model is truly fascinating and, when it works, it can serve an important role in democracy. It is refreshing to hear average people take the floor and advocate for the person they feel is best prepared to lead. For a brief moment, gone are the TV ads, push phone calls and sound bites delivered by well rehearsed talking heads. What are left are neighbors discussing important matters of state in a civil and meaningful way.
Secret ballots are vital to the process, but at this early stage, the process is made better by the people willing to discuss politics and what it means to them in an open format. In an age when so many hide behind the anonymity of an Internet comment, something strikingly positive happens when people stand-up to be counted at something like an Iowa Caucus. I am proud to be an Iowan and proud of my state for continuing this proud tradition.

What did the 2012 Iowa Caucuses accomplish?
By and large, Iowans acquitted themselves well this go around. They took the process seriously and gave the candidates a fair hearing. The candidates and their campaigns are the ones who fell short in this first presidential campaign test of 2012.


The Iowa Caucuses provide an important balance to the TV-centric/large event/media driven campaigns that follow in more populous states. Most of the time, candidates must spend a large portion of their time here meeting with smaller groups where they have to interact and answer the questions of actual voters. Scripted speeches and choreographed photo ops still happen, but the candidates’ true personalities see the light of day during the Iowa process in a way that is impossible once the national campaign machinery gets up-to-speed.


As important, in order to compete in the Iowa Caucuses, a campaign must focus on building an organization. TV ads and direct mail won’t alone motivate voters to go to a caucus. A campaign with experience building an organization focused on communicating directly to and with voters is going to be ready to turn-out the vote in the contests that follow. Iowa forces candidates to create and manage a campaign team. When one is put together well in Iowa, it will make the campaign stronger as it goes forward.
The 2012 race did not see any candidate take a decisive lead coming into caucus day, primarily because most of the candidates failed to follow the successful caucus campaign models of the past.

Mitt Romney greets supporters on the morning of the 2012 Iowa Caucuses.

Mitt Romney largely took a pass in Iowa. He visited the state infrequently. He did not even open a headquarters here until a few weeks ago. His poll numbers have remained unchanged throughout the contest. That being said, those leading his efforts in Iowa are among the best and Romney’s gamble is going to pay off because, for the most part, the rest of the field ran lousy efforts in the Hawkeye state. The 25% of Republican voters who have stood by Romney to this point will show up tonight and the undecided caucuses goers will break for Mitt as he is seen as the safe bet and eventual nominee. He will skate by, because the rest of the field had campaigns that were more flawed.


But, let me start with Rick Santorum. He did it right. He put in the time to visit every county at least once, held some 360 town hall style meetings and built an organization of hard working believers. His efforts have him surging at the best possible moment. Unfortunately for Santorum, he is so far to the right he is limited in how many people he can attract. Few in the middle will ever stand in his corner, so he cannot sustain the momentum. He has gone as far as he can, but I must give credit where it is due. He ran an all-out effort.


The same can be said about Ron Paul. The guy is consistent and, in his quirky way, he connects with many voters. He has fervent supporters who will show up tonight and he, too, has built an organization that works. Paul, however, has a ceiling of support that will prevent him from going much farther than he has already gone.


Newt Gingrich fizzled twice. He squandered his early opportunity and his last minute surge because he never made the effort to build a campaign organization. Gingrich is adept at thinking quickly when he has a microphone in his hand. But, to win in Iowa and go on to national success, one needs to do more than come up with clever comments to please those in the room at the moment. Iowa will weed Gingrich from the field. While he likes to blame the negative ads his competitors threw his way, Gingrich has himself to blame. Upon rising to the top, Gingrich discovered he lacked the structure required to support a front runner. Gingrich lost Iowa all by himself.


Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann did the same. They showed up at debates and played the part of a candidate, but they did not do the hard work required of a winner.


The Iowa Caucuses make presidential candidates do something most other contests do not. Iowa makes candidates stare into the eyes of voters, shake their hands and interact with them. Iowa also gives voters a stake in the process culminating in their having to stand up in front of their neighbors and voice support for their candidate.


If anything went wrong in Iowa this year, it was that too many candidates - Romney, Gingrich, Perry and Bachmann – tried to take a short cut.


The day may come when Iowa’s first in the nation status is lost. If so, the presidential election process will become something less.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.