My wife had read my editorial of a couple of weeks ago suggesting Congressman Dave Loebsack shutter his offices and end his term now as U.S. Congressman from our district if he didn’t do anything to get legislation like the USMC trade pact moving.
Catching up on her Facebook stuff this week, she showed me a somewhat like-minded effort criticizing Loebsack for his lack of meaningful legislation and then demanding he vote “no” on the impeachment. Asking that of Loebsack when he is A. a Democrat and B. represents Iowa City and the Quad Cities is a serious waste of time. Not gonna happen.
Besides, the impeachment of Donald Trump is dead in the water because the U.S. Senate is held by the Republican Party and they appear to be united against Adam Schiff and his gang.
But it was quite a Facebook dust up with over 600 comments, about two-thirds against Loebsack in one way or another.
What interested me most, however, were the people who were demanding their own sort of Quid Pro Quo, writing that if he didn’t vote no on impeachment, they weren’t going to vote for him again. See, that’s where I remain committed not to follow Facebook. If you’re wanting to join in a current political argument and don’t know that Dave Loebsack is not running for re-election, you need to stay off Facebook. In fact, you probably ought not vote at all.
If you’re going to pound on a politician, at least know some basic facts regarding his election status.
One Facebook comment was telling. A guy posted a letter he got back from Loebsack regarding a specific problem he was having. It was a form letter that basically said, “Dear Sir/or Madam: Thank you for your concern. Dave Loebsack cares about what you think, but not enough to give you a personal response.”
I can’t vouch for this being a regular way Congressman Loebsack does business, because on the few occasions I’ve contacted his office, I got a fairly swift and direct reply, but it appears to have happened once, which is likely once too many, unless it was a threat not to vote for him in the next election.
As a career journalist, I receive the “Columbia Journalism Review,” published by the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism. It is a quarterly magazine that is (at least was) highly regarded in journalistic circles. The fall issue is called “The Disinformation Issue…True Lies…What happens to journalism when facts aren’t enough.”
I started reading it, but had to stop after reading the story entitled “Interference…Disinformation coming from the inside of the country.” It’s essentially an eight-page story on disinformation being spread by Republicans and conservatives. There is not a single reference to disinformation being spread by Democrats, liberals or progressives.
And this is the problem. The Columbia Journalism Review is written and edited by east coast liberals who are unable to see anything except violations on the right. By their very bias they are purveyors of disinformation.
An interesting story in the Des Moines Register this week described former Governor and U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack earning just under a million dollars a year for a dairy check-off supported U.S. Dairy Export Council. He is one of four executives earning at or near a million bucks a year.
Generally, I’d yawn at this. Executives making a million dollars in salary in the private industry is really nobody’s business except the stockholders and board of directors.
But this is different. The U.S. Dairy Export Council is funded by the U.S. dairy checkoff, money American dairy farmers are forced to pay in exchange for their ag subsidies. Anybody hear Quid Pro Quo here?
And if dairy farmers were raking in the bucks, I wouldn’t care. But they’re not. Dairy farmers are losing their butts and dairy farmers are going broke at an alarming rate, all the while Vilsack is plundering the dairy checkoff system with a million dollar salary.
By the way, is Tom Vilsack the Hunter Biden of the dairy industry? A small town lawyer who never milked a cow in his life becomes a million dollar a year executive for the nation’s top dairy marketing firm after leaving his $200,000 a year job as Obama’s ag secretary. Vilsack was not hired for his knowledge of butter fat.
This is the weirdest political story of the week. It’s actually no big deal that Kamala Harris, California senator and apparently Wicked Witch of the East in terms of dealing with campaign staffers, dropped out of the Democrat race for president. What is bizarre, however, is how MSNBC, CNN and east coast liberal newspapers are framing her failure.
They are basically saying she is a victim of racism (Kamala is half black and half India Indian) and sexism (she is a woman). MSNBC talking heads said numerous times after her departure that the debate stage for Democrats was largely white men and that she was a victim of institutional racism. Are you listening Iowa Democrats? The liberal national media is charging you, the Iowa primary Democrat voter, with being sexist and racist. Here I thought only Republican, Christian, white men were sexist and racist in the eyes of the progressive movement.
I’m making room for you on my couch.
The other weird thing is that the fruitcakes posing as journalists on MSNBC and CNN seem oblivious to the fact that three women and one African-American male still stand in the running. Granted, one is a white woman (Amy Klobichar), but one is a self-appointed Native American (the blond-haired Elizabeth Warren) and the other is authentically Asian-Pacific (Tulsi Gabbord).
I think I know enough liberal Iowa Democrats to know they don’t hate people of color and women. But the fabric of Democrat politics is identity politics (it’s not what you think, but the color of your skin and your sex organs).
You live on that hill, you die on that hill. Iowa Democrat primary voters, welcome to the world of being marginalized by your own liberal media.