A letter written to my Congressman Bruce Braley. Iowa 1st Congressional District.
Dear Congressman Braley,
I am writing with concerns over the US military action occurring in Syria.
Let me start off by stating that I do believe that the terrorist group called ISIS or ISIL is a regional threat that contains the capacity to attack us on US soil. That they have clearly stated their intentions and identified themselves as an enemy of the United States and our allies. This threat must be confronted.
However, I strongly disapprove of President Obama's liberal interpretation of the War Powers Act and prior authorizations of similar uses of military might as a means for his actions against this threat.
I am lead to believe you feel the same way.
Last September, you wrote to me and other Iowans asking our opinion for taking military action against Syria for the threat they posed as a result of their use of Chemical Weapons. The results were greatly opposed to taking action in Syria without international and congressional support and approval.
Prior to that, in August of 2013, you signed a letter with other members of congress addressed to President Obama stating, among other items; "Congress should be a part of deciding the proper use of American force"
I understand that authorization for resource assistance to vetted forces in Syria was approved last week, though I generally oppose attaching controversial items that involves the topic of war on to something essential like a continuing resolution, I believe this vote granted the President to take that action in Syria. I also believe we have an obligation to assist Iraq as an ally nation. I do, however, condemn the President for taking further military action against a country in which we have not declared war against, and am asking you to join me and many other of your constituents in Iowa in condemning the President for this over reach of his authority.
I would support congress in authorizing these actions, but I more passionately support the need for due process and a voice of the American people, through congress, to be heard before we take actions that will kill human beings in our name. I hope you feel the same way, thank you.
1. I have very little of an idea what he stands for.
I do a fair amount of Braley following, since he is my local representative in the IA-1 district. He supported the Amash amendment, good. He opposed taking military action against Syria, good (all though it would have been nice if we hadn't basically said we would and then didn't). In general, it's hard to be opposed to a person 100% of the time.
We currently have a that congress appears to be doing nothing but sitting on it's hands while the world is figuratively flying off the handle bars, so it would be nice to know what we would be sending someone to Washington for. And it's a little disheartening when you go to a candidates web site and the first thing you see is this;
The very first eye full when trying to learn more about a candidate is an essential message flyer about the other guy, errr.. gal. Read along on the home page for BruceBraley.com and you'll see several links to other articles, many of which are about... Joni Ernst.
It's one thing to flaunt some dirty laundry about your opponent, but most of these attacks keep centering around Joni not supporting the minimum wage increase called for by the President. Something she is very forward and upfront about is her belief that things like setting a minimum wage is a state issue. A stance that is a wedge issue at best because it's probably a more popularly held stance then the Braley camp is giving it credit for.
In the end, you have to watch a lot of Braley ads and read pretty far into his own online content before you start finding anything terribly substantive about what he would actually do while in Washington. This approach to politicking is a turn off.
2. Iowa Values vs. Iowa Values
As mentions, dirty laundry is expected in a political arena, but Braley's approach here appears to be the metaphorical sock-off challenge in which both candidates are to take off their shoes and compare the stench of their foot odor, and Bruce appears to have much smellier feet.
This has more to do with his choice of a campaign strategy than the strength of his or her convictions His counter punch effort against Joni Ernst's Iowa Values mantra is his own Iowa Values message in the form of fliers that I have to pull out of my door in the morning. In effect he is claiming the same slogan, common as it is, that Joni has been touting since the near legendary castration commercial.
Had Braley raced against a true unknown this approach could have worked. Had he not made a statement that could easily be construed as an insult to the intelligence of farmers, it may have worked. Had he not sued his neighbor over a couple of chickens, this might have worked.
His character is taking a front and center position in this race, and for some reason he decided that stealing a line from his opponent that forces these issues was the best approach.
3. If you're going to insult someone, do it in your home state
A factor if the aforementioned insult to farmers that did not get a lot of playtime was the fact that the clip came from a campaign fundraising event... in Texas. At least if he had been talking to a group of lawyers and attorneys in Iowa he could have claimed that it was a concern of some of his constituents that he was addressing. As is, he continues to paint him self as an outsider.
4. Seriously, what would you do in Washington?
According to govtracks.us, which is the attendance sheet for members of Congress, Braley has missed almost twice as many votes as an average member of congress does (95.1% attendance compared to 97.5% congressional average), contrast that to Sen. Chuck Grassley who hasn't missed a vote in about 20 years serving in the Senate. Also, consider the latest attack ad from Concerned Veterans for America that (somewhat misleadingly) states that he missed 79% of the hearings concerning the VA in 2011 and 2012. In some instances he was needed elsewhere, but it brings into question his ability to prioritize his time.
In all fairness, Joni has come under some scrutiny for her unwillingness to prioritize senate obligations over campaign obligations since deciding to run for the U.S. Senate. However, prior to 2014, she voted in 98.3% of roll call votes compared to the Iowa Senate average of 97.5%
5. Braley is part of the problem.
As I opened with, there are a few things that I've agreed with Bruce on over the years. In the end, however, the singular item that I point to as a root of a lot of the problems that arise from a wealthy, developed, ahead of the pack country is central planning. At the root of Braley's positions in the belief that we can make day to day things better through the actions of people thousands of miles away and nearly completely disconnected from my
day to day life. Be it that these people believe that all 50 states should have the same minimum wage or should teach our kids the same way, there is no one size fits all approach in this country. And the greater and larger we grow the more and more true that is going to ring. If I can extract anything from Braley's campaign, it's that he believes the exact opposite.
If you want to refer to this is simply breaking the mold of the typical politician you have my blessing. Iowa has never elected a woman in a state wide election (save for Lt. Governor as part of a gubernatorial ticket) or as a member of the U.S. congress. There are also few woman in politics with military service experience. She's an Iowa State Alumni. She's young for a politician at the age of 44, and her first campaign ad garnered national attention because, frankly, it was hilarious.
2. She doesn't use hyperbole
That is to say that she states her position almost always with a preceding "I think that..." or "I believe in...". I've listened to several of her stumps and read many of her articles. She never talks about the things being so desperate that it's a matter of life and death. Never implying that the other guy will destroy your way of life or stating that their plan would be a disaster. Agree with her or disagree with her, she's quite cordial.
3. What it means to be a career Nation Guard Officer
When looking over the resume of Joni Ernst, it's obvious she puts a lot of emphasis on her 20+ years working in the Army Reserve and the Iowa National Guard, but what does a career in the Iowa National Guard look like? Frequently, it's a call to service in the time of a disaster. When people are in truly dire need and organization and prioritization are essential to the success and failure of a mission. The Iowa National Guard has an impeccable reputation of being one of the first respondents in an emergency. Joni, being a Lt. Colonial, undeniably has seen and accomplished much in these pressure situations that would be a great resource for what the real 'boots on the ground' response team would need in the event of a crisis. Think of Katrina or Irene and the lack of capacity for a proper response from Washington. It would be nice to have a member of congress be able to say "When I was called to respond to a flood/tornado/disaster, the big thing I needed from the government was <blank>. Most members of congress are veterans long removed from service while Joni was in uniform serving just last month.
4. Keeping things positive
Well before Joni was tapped as the Republican nominee, attack ads had already started rolling against Bruce Braley. And, not so different from ads now being ran against Joni from out of state PAC's, there are still ads being ran against Braley. These are, for the time being, not originating from the Ernst campaign.
The difference starts when you see the Braley camp start their own set of ads against Ernst, Joni has not followed suit (again, yet). Joni is attempting to take a path not followed often during a close race, the stay positive and on message road. Touting her military career and life in Iowa above all else.
5. The fundamental belief of the role of Government
In much the same way that I and Bruce Braley have a fundamental difference of opinion on the role of government, I feel that Joni Ernst and I share the same core belief that the government, especially the federal government, is not a catch all tool and solution that is to be used often and applied to every situation like duct tape or WD-40, but rather a specialty tool for particular situations that gets thrown back in the drawer when you are done with it.
To take this line of thought a few more steps, people have started to take their belief in central planning to the point of redundancy. Take a popular topic in the ads being played out in commercials where Joni talks about getting rid of the Department of Education. If someone automatically assumes that someone is against education as a result of the department's closure, it reveals their way of thinking about such things as highly central planning, well...., centric.
Why are we spending billions in administrative costs to administer programs that exist at the state level. Just give the money to the state equivalents and trust them to use it wisely. For example, Iowa has a low income grant program that requires the exact same paperwork as the federal grant program to be filled out and submitted. In other words, a prospective student has to submit the same application to two different entities to get grant money for the same, singular, thing. Pell grants would not go away, it would simply reduce the multi-billion dollar bureaucracy that administers it.
I hope as this campaign develops and becomes more substantive that I can continue feeling that Joni is a good candidate rather then simple Bruce is a bad one. Perhaps this relative unknown is still just so shiny and new that I'm blinded until it is revealed that she eats babies or prefers Coke over Pepsi or some other game changer like that. Until such a time, I am a Joni Ernst supporter, and I approve this message.
In the waning hours of the day, with my wife calling me to bed, I pounded out a letter to my local congressman, Bruce Braley, to give him a piece of my mind about the current federal shut down. You may notice a bit of rosy-ness and cordial that I use when addressing a member of congress, but can you pick up on the pseudo trick question in reference the No Budget, No Pay Act of 2013.
I know the bill was a sham, despite it's name and its promise to hold congresses feet to the fire when it comes to passing a budget that would have avoiding this whole shutdown debacle, the act has no teeth. The net effect of it is that their pay is held in escrow until such a time as a resolution is passed that funds the government for 2014. With no real stipulation that it needs to be a complete budget, so they could even claim that the resolution allow active military to get paid will suffice. My attempt was to get an explanation in the fullest from Rep. Braley's office on how they can pass a bill with such a misleading name and how he can justify voting for it. The explanation to which I will gladly share once it comes in.
On open letter to Congressman Bruce Braley (D-IA)
Greetings,
I would first like to start off by thanking you, your vote on H.J Resolution 73 for continuing authorization for the National Institute of Health was a bold move for you by not allowing these political games to get in the way of what is right for the country. It took some courage for you to break ranks of 85 the percent of the Democratic caucus that voted against this bill and I wanted to let you know that I appreciate it.
My question for you today, however, is one concerning the enforcement of a current law that is on the books, specifically, the 'No Budget, No Pay Act of 2013'. Signed into law on February 4th of this year. As I'm sure you are aware, this act was intended to put Congress on notice to pass a budget for fiscal year 2014, which began last week, or suffer the self imposed consequence of going without pay.
Did I miss an aspect of this bill? Did congress somehow fulfill it's end of this bill's deal to pass a budget for fiscal year 2014 without actually passing a budget? All I hear in the news today is how congress is one of the few entities that is truly exempt from furloughs and cuts during the federal shutdown. Or is there an aspect of this law that renders is toothless and a congressional gimmick that was never really intended to hold congress accountable for failing to keep the government moving along?
On the topic of keeping the government operating, any further insight that you can offer me, as a constituent, as to the current climate in the House of Representatives and what your plan is to help bring this current locking of horns in congress to an end.
For my part, I feel that too many debt deals and temporary. Solutions have been used to kick the can of our fiscal spending down the road. With the understanding that any form of a grand bargain is not practical both from a time constraint point of view and an ability to enforce any agreement long term, I personally feel that there are too many dangerous 'land mines' in our current system that need to be addressed to avoid a long term dilemma. I will not spend the time going down the list of arguments against the American Care Act as I'm sure you have heard them all before, but suffice to say that I feel that program will not be soluble long term and major steps need to be taken to correct some of the obvious errors that where written into it. To this end, I would ask of you, as my representative, to vote against any legislation and forces the enforcement of this law on to any unwilling citizen for at least the duration of one year, and to use that time to debate in honesty a plan to correct the many issues with this legislation.
I appreciate your fair representation you have given us to date, and pray that a fair resolution to the current embattlement can be reached. I also thank you and your staff for your service and would appreciate an email response to my concerns above, thank you.
The following is the response received from my congressman in the U.S. House of Representatives Bruce Braley a few days after taking a survey about my thoughts on Syria (along with 19,999 others), I filled out the survey consistent with my thoughts from my blog post, simplistically saying that we need to uphold the standard that there is no tolerance for the use of chemical weapons, but that we are building up support for military action in completely wrong manner. Using the overwhelming response that we had nothing to gain from an assault on Syria to justify a position against the use of force against the Assad government.
Christopher,
Over 20,000 people participated in my survey on whether the United States military should intervene in Syria -- and over 75 percent of you are opposed to American military action.
It's clear to me that Iowans are extremely reluctant to get involved in another conflict in the Middle East and are concerned that initiating military action against Syria could further inflame tensions in the region.
After carefully reviewing the case for military action, I’ve come to the same conclusion.
I'm unconvinced that a limited US military strike is the appropriate response to the atrocities committed in Syria, and I don't think unilateral American intervention in Syria serves our national security interests. This week, I spoke to KCCI about my position on Syria. Take a look:
The international community needs to be more directly involved in holding Syria's dictator accountable. I'm closely monitoring a developing international effort to bring Syria's dictator to justice and rid the country of chemical weapons. Feel free to contact me if you have any further opinions.
Sincerely,
Bruce
This means that the Democratic Representative has now voted against extending the Patriot Act, for the Amash amendment to de-fund the NSA record gathering, and also believes we are making a mistake with unilateral strikes against Syria. I try not to be a litmus voter It's pretty bad when I'm actually considering voting for a Democrat to fill in a vacant Senate seat that Bruce is running for.
I want to share a video that I saw thanks to my following of the Cedar Rapids Activist Blog. First, allow me to give you a little back story for those of you that may not be from the immediate Eastern Iowa area. We are now in Iowa's 1st congressional district where two years ago, Ben Lange lost to incumbent Bruce Braley by a margin of less then 2%. This time the newly rezoned 1st district is a tightly contested race between, you guessed it, Bruce Braley and Ben Lange.
Hughes best publicity comes directly from Hughes
Some people have already observed the absurdity of being left with the same choice that they had two years ago. That somehow you are unhappy with the decision that you made and instead want to go back to the decision that you decided against last time. It makes my head hurt a bit.
To the point, a pair of third party candidates have stepped up to offer a true alternative, including Greg Hughes. The issue is that it has been frustratingly difficult for this candidate to get any attention from the prominent local newspaper, the Cedar Rapids Gazette. Who also owns one of the networked local stations KCRG (ABC). So Mr. Hughes grabbed his amateur camera crew and went to go get some answers as to why. The response they got was that the Hughes ticket has not picked up the support of a strong polling data, which a quick check og Gallop, RCP, and even The Gazette itself did a very winded article last week on the race where they failed to give any instance on how close or far ahead any one candidate is.
Without any Further ado, I present to you Greg Hughes attempt to confront an Editor at the Cedar Rapids Gazette for their lack of interest in what amounts to allowing for a new choice from the same election two years ago;
You can argue the distraction of having a third party candidate at the presidential debates or the amount of time that someone should be alotted when they don't have a realistic chance to win, but this appears to be that arguement at it's worst. The media is not seeking an alternative to the choices made two years ago, they are not supporting there decision to not consider him viable with any polling data, then they give him the runaround, avoiding invites to cover his rallies and promising to call but failing to come through. It seems a simple and basic function of the press to at least present the basic arguments of an alternative being available before you simply dismiss them.
I have already printed off a copy of the ballot for this election and intend to vet all the candidates before making my decisions (which will be revealing in an upcoming post), and I challenge all of you to do the same. At the very least, third party canidates are wonderful for exposing topics that may not otherwise be given the attention they deserve, such as Hughes' attention on Judges who have disgraced their position.
