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.

The Unwashed and Whitewash – Occupy Protest and Gingrich

Many of the responses to the Occupy protests are more revealing, interesting and troubling than the protesters accusations and actions are.

I have not been moved to camp out with the protesters.  Call me Pollyanna, but I want to think change can come without having to take to the rash measures chosen by the Occupy Movement.   By and large Americans are rational people who share the ideal all people deserve an equal shot at the American dream.  Right?  Maybe…hopefully…I am beginning to wonder.  There is something insidious in how and what some say about the protest and the protesters.  It makes me question how many truly believe in that pursuit of happiness/created equal stuff.

I’m fairly certain Newt Gingrich doesn’t speak for a broad swath of Americana, but he is a national figure comfortable in maligning a group if it helps him gain favor with another.  His comments about the Occupy protesters are disturbing and echo what a few others have said.  Since he is the frontrunner-of-the moment in the Republican contest for president, I will use his remarks to demonstrate the divide.

Occupy Des Moines in Stewart Square

When asked this weekend about the Occupy protesters, Gingrich said, “They take over a public park they didn’t pay for to go nearby to use bathrooms they didn’t pay for…to obstruct those who are going to work to pay the taxes to sustain the bathrooms and sustain the park so they can self-righteously explain that they are the paragons of virtue to which we owe everything.”

Public parks are, well, public.   They are not apportioned for use on an ability to pay, Mr. Gingrich.  A free society builds and maintains parks for the collective good, not just so the well-to-do have something pretty to look at as they go about their lives.  The courts may decide in some cases that a small group’s occupation of a public space harms that greater good, but that is different than implying some lack a right to be there because others paid for the space.  Every American has a right to use public spaces whether they made millions lobbying – ahem, being a historian – or a few thousand being a baker.

Moreover, painting the protesters with a broad brush as ne’re-do-wells and freeloaders is duplicitous.  It may be easier to craft a sound bite if you discount the group as troublemakers and ignore the fact many occupiers are teachers, medical professionals, veterans and other members of the middle class you pine about supporting while on the stump, Mr. Gingrich, but you are missing the point.

Like it or not the protesters are your fellow Americans.  Many of their frustrations stem from the same fissures in our nation that spawned the Tea Party you are trying to appropriate to power your ride to election victory.

The Occupiers took to Wall Street and cities across the country including Des Moines where they are currently occupying a park across the street from Tasty Tacos to express frustration about the increasing inequity in modern America.  Unfortunately for the Occupy naysayers, many facts fall on the protesters’ side.

Study after study provides evidence the once vibrant, robust backbone of our nation known as the middle class is in decline.  The current generation of middle class children may be the first to do less well than their parents.  Meanwhile, those at the top of the income spectrum are in the midst of an unprecedented boom.  It appears the 2008 economic downturn causing pain to most Americans may have actually benefited the rich.  At a minimum, these trying times have impacted the wealthy the least.  But, don’t take this the wrong way.  The solution is not found by penalizing the successful, but leveling the field in a way to provide a fair chance for more to be successful.

I cannot decide if it is laughably ironic or plainly despicable Mr. Gingrich calls the protesters self-righteous as he directs this pomposity toward them, “We need to reassert something as simple as saying to them, ‘Go get a job right after you take a bath.’”

Someone needs to reassert to Mr. Gingrich and those quick to look down their noses at the Occupy protesters something as simple as ‘America belongs to all Americans.’

The way to economic recovery and stability begins with civil discourse and respect for those willing to stand-up for what they believe, even when we disagree.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

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

Obama and Boehner Locked in Fierce Battle for Prom Queen

Our national political climate has degenerated to the point elected officials sound similar to feuding adolescent girls trying to claw their way to the top of the most powerful clique in school.  On second thought, I offer my apologies to adolescent girls for the reference – they don’t sound quite so shrill.

This week President Obama sent a letter to the leaders of the House and Senate requesting a Joint Session of Congress to lay out a plan for jobs and the economy.  Speaker Boehner sent a response asking the speech be moved until the next night.  The Speaker’s spokesman added in a statement that the White House had ignored protocol by not first requesting a date from the speaker’s office.

Lacey Chabert, Lindsay Lohan, Rachel McAdams and Amanda Seyfried in the movie Mean Girls (2004)

OK, Buffy should have passed a note to Missy in English class asking permission to hang out after school before asking Missy in front of everybody at lunch if they could hang out after school to plan the Fall Dance.  I mean, really, duh, everybody knows this is not how things are done in Seventh Grade.  Missy didn’t want to hang out on Wednesday and now it was all, like, out there in front of, well, everybody.  How embarrassing!  (Sorry, seventh graders, for bringing you into this.)

The House has been on recess for five weeks (five weeks!) and Wednesday is their first day back.  The White House wanted to address Congress on what Republicans and Democrats alike have been screaming should be our collective top priority, jobs, for months.  The first day of class, whoops, session after summer vacation seemed like a good time to start the debate.

The little drama started because a Republican presidential debate is being held the same night.  Undoubtedly, White House staffers giggled about how they were going to step on the other kid’s party.  But, after weeks, if not months, of being pounded by the GOP for not appearing serious about the economy, one could see why the Obama Administration might want to get out in front and set a tone for the coming legislative debate.  However, I do not doubt there was some sniggering about the timing in the West Wing.

I am not an expert on the rules of protocol governing Congressional/White House interaction and I do not want to be.  It seems to me the inherent pomposity interferes with progress more than engendering it. The President did not ask the Speaker before he asked the Speaker. (Yep, it has come down to this.)  The presidential hand has been slapped and the speech has been moved until Thursday.

Fall begins with the stagnant stench of acrimony wafting over our nation’s capital. Republicans are falling over themselves to discount the plan President Obama will outline next week even before they hear it.  And Democrats are desperately trying to position Republicans as disinterested in doing anything to help the country in hopes they will pick up Republican seats in the 2012 election.

Most of us grew up and left junior high having learned along the way that name calling and game playing were best left on the playground.  Unfortunately, many who did not learn those valuable lessons got elected to office.  What we need now in Washington are adults interested in finding common ground and working through the difficult problems America faces.

Here’s hoping the President will lay out a well thought economic plan next week and the Republicans will listen to it, find areas on which they can agree and work with their Democratic colleagues to find compromise on the areas on which they do not.

Maybe they can start by all sitting together at lunch on Friday and talking about who the hottest pop star is these days.  After all, Friday brings school cafeteria pizza and tater tots!

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

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

Tim "I'm the Most Honest Guy I Know" Pawlenty Makes it Official by Preaching to Choir

Tim Pawlenty announced his campaign for President in Des Moines todayon the rooftop terrace of the State Historical Building.   The sun, wind, airplanes and traffic on the streets below cooperated, for the most part, as the domes of the Iowa Capitol gleamed in the background.   It was a good day for preaching to the choir.

Pawlenty drew a respectable crowd.  I’ll call it 150 to 175 spectators and a generous cadre of media.  His campaign gets points for staging and for making sure there were enough staff and volunteers on hand to capture the contact information of as many people in the crowd as possible.  The Iowa Caucuses are nothing if not an organization game.  It looks like the Pawlenty folks are well aware of this.

After clearly and for the record announcing his candidacy for President of the United States, the former Minnesota Governor launched into a speech written to reinforce he was not Barack Obama. ( I can’t believe many people get them confused, but they must.)

There was much talk of Obama’s failures and an equal number of references to Pawlenty’s own self identified honesty.   Apparently, Pawlenty is rather impressed with his special ability to tell the truth and he is convinced no one else in the race shares this trait.  Maybe I am alone, but whenever a person repeats how honest he is, I get a little suspicious.  But, Pawlenty was here to rally the troops and I suppose honesty polls well.

Healthcare: Pawlenty said his healthcare plan in Minnesota would be used as a model for what he would do as president and “my plan is the opposite of ‘Obamacare.’”  This, of course, begs a question. Since a main Pawlenty objection to the Obama plan is that Americans are “mandated” to buy health coverage, would the Pawlenty plan mandate Americans not be insured?  But, I digress.

Immigration: Pawlenty did not equivocate, “I am for legal immigration.” He talked about how the U.S. is based on the rule of law and that we must uphold immigration laws.  Whew.  That clears that up.

Ethanol: Pawlenty did show some courage by standing in Iowa and saying ethanol subsidies should be phased out.  He did this mostly to prove he was a man willing to say the unpopular (see speaking the truth above), but I will give him credit for saying what he meant in this case.

Education: When asked by Des Moines Roosevelt High School graduating senior Alex Patch about education, Pawlenty spent an odd few minutes summarizing the documentary film “Waiting for Superman” before concluding he was against the “government monopoly of public education” and for choice.  Parents should be “resourced” and given the choice to send their kids to the government monopoly schools (if they are silly enough to choose that), charter schools (if they want another public option), another monopoly school through open enrollment, private schools or home schools.

Pawlenty was most passionate about his education answer during the question and answer period, which made me think he might be running for the wrong position (note: I say “passion” with the caveat I may have been mistaken since passion is often hard to discern in Pawlenty without the aid of highly tuned computers).  Pawlenty had spent a major portion of his overall time today talking about how the federal government needs to scale back and stay out of Americans’ lives.  For instance, the federal government should stop administering Medicare and send the money to the states in a block grant.  This attitude seems to conflict with Pawlenty’s answer to Patch that the federal government should set policy to break up public education and teachers unions. One would think Pawlenty would want to leave such things to the people and their local and state governments.

All and all, Tim Pawlenty did not stumble, meaning his campaign can count today as a win.  Today’s sparkling May skies will eventually turn to January snow showers.  It gets harder from this point on, because the game turns on finding new supporters to add to the choir.  Pawlenty has a lot of work to do before then to inspire Iowans to trudge to their Caucus and stand up for him.  And, since he assured us many times he can be trusted to tell the truth, we know Pawlenty is in this to win.

###

(In the ‘you have to appreciate the irony of the timing’ category is this story; Former Pawlenty staffer pleads guilty to public intoxication.  I am not suggesting this young man’s problems are humorous, or that Mr. Pawlenty should be held accountable for his staffer’s drunkenness.  I just found it ironic.)

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

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

In defense of the Iowa Caucuses – New Hampshirites Wear Funny Hats, too

This weekend Fergus Cullen, a freelance columnist and former chairman of the New Hampshire Republican Party, wrote an amusing opinion piece for the Des Moines Register.   In a manner matching his colorful name, the writer compared first presidential test states Iowa and New Hampshire to high school friends who drifted apart – New Hampshire becoming the stable friend with the orderly life while Iowa dates “a string of spacey girls, and talked about religion a lot.”  He postures Iowa Republicans have lost credibility in the primary selection process saying, “It’s hard to talk about real issues when three quarters of the audience wears tinfoil hats.”  I’ll come back to the tinfoil hats later, but Cullen’s self-serving defense of his state misses the point.

Who did he say was wearing a funny hat?

First, the influence of the right-wing fringe is not limited to Iowa any more than the influence of vocal less-than-mainstream voters is restricted to the Republican Party.  The nominees of both parties have to dance with party activists before being passed on to the national stage.  It is just that, these days, the GOP appears a bit more fractured than the Democrats.  Cullen oversimplifies the sway the radical factions have in the nomination process with uninformed generalizations to argue the Iowa Caucuses are impacted by these groups more than the New Hampshire Primary is.

Cullen’s main premise is based on two conditions, all candidates must have an equal shot and the voters of these early states must be broadly representative of the party as a whole.  He is wrong.  Part of the reason the parties have a nominating process is precisely because no state reflects the national whole. Iowans have different concerns than do New Hampshirites.   New Yorkers’ perspectives differ from those of South Carolinians.  And, so on.  Iowa and New Hampshire have long held that allowing these two small states first shot at the candidates provides a balance to the advantage heavily populated states have in the process in general.  Iowa and New Hampshire don’t go first because their voters mirror Americans as a group.   They go first because the personal, hand-to-hand campaign a candidate must run in these states is different than the TV centric efforts he must run to succeed in the large states.

One shouldn’t promote the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire Primaries because these states will perfectly mimic what will happen in the other 48 states, but because they provide an important and different perspective that would be lost if the large states dominated the process.  Just as the first test the high school students Cullen used in his analogy took as freshmen could not have predicted who would be valedictorian, the results of the Iowa Caucuses and New Hampshire Primaries are not meant to predict who will be the nominee.  It is what they add to the overall process that makes them important.

As for Cullen’s assertion that early contest states must provide every candidate an equal shot at winning the most votes, that too is sophomoric.  Each candidate holds certain advantages and disadvantages in every state.  The process of having to pass a nomination test in every state vets candidates in a way that takes our inherent differences into consideration and allows American voters to examine the candidates from many different angles.  If there were to be a single national primary contest, presidential campaigns would be nothing more than an extension of the mass market oversimplified pap we see during the general election.

Cullen claims that same sex marriage is a major issue for Iowans in 2012 saying since the New Hampshire Legislature approved same-sex marriage and the issue was decided by the courts in Iowa, his state is somehow more mainstream and rational.  He also suggests there are more birthers (those who contend President Obama was not born as a US citizen even though there is a mountain of evidence proving he was) in Iowa than elsewhere.  Polls indicate Iowans are not overly focused on marriage or wild conspiracy theories any more than are Republicans elsewhere.

As a former state party chair, Cullen knows all too well that party regulars do not always reflect the broader population.  If they did, you would see far more people wearing red, white and blue elephant hats to the mall than you do, which brings me to the tinfoil chapeau.

In 2008, I attended a Ron Paul for President event and was seated amidst a group of energetic Paul supporters.  While waiting for the candidate to arrive, they had an animated discussion about the U.S. government’s plot and subsequent cover-up of the 9/11 attacks.  As Paul took the stage, one of them said he had wished he had worn his foil hat to deflect the FBI’s listening capability, but he was “so psyched” about Paul, he did not care.  As a witness to this conversation, I know for a fact some of Paul’s support came from tinfoil wearing supporters.  But, it would be a stretch for me to say that Paul was marginalized because these folks existed.  It is similarly unfair and shortsighted of Cullen to make the same broad strokes of Iowa Caucus goers without considering the role each state plays in the overall process.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

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