A Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper
Five authors wrote a letter printed Oct. 2, about why they’re voting for Trump despite not really liking him. They properly cite issues as the reason to vote for a candidate, but most of the important issues they cite make Kamala Harris the best candidate. Take those issues in turn.
Trump is NOT a patriot to the core. Numerous Republicans who know him well say he puts personal interests above the country. Mike Harvey said Trump was reluctant to send disaster relief to an area in California until he was told that most voters there voted for him. Harris for years has worked for all the people.
Trump didn’t take his presidential salary but used his presidency to rake in millions of dollars by charging Secret Service and foreign leaders to stay in his hotels and resorts. He asked the U.S. ambassador to the UK to request moving the British Open golf tournament to a Trump course. Harris won’t use the presidency for personal gain.
Trump is not for free speech. He attacks anyone who says anything bad about him and those people get threats to their job or even their life. Trump does nothing to discourage those threats. Trump called news outlets that print unfavorable things about him “enemies of the people.” Harris is not for censoring differing opinions but opposes provable lies.
Harris is not a threat to the 2nd Amendment. She is a gun owner. The threat is only to assault rifles that have no legitimate need for self defense, hunting, or target shooting. People don’t have an unlimited right to weapons. Should private citizens be able to own nuclear bombs?
Trump disrespected the police by allowing Jan. 6 rioters to assault and injure them. Harris worked well with police for years as a prosecutor. Harris never wanted to “defund the police,” but to fund enhancing safety by preventing crime in the first place as well as catching criminals.
Harris represented law and order for years by putting criminals behind bars. Trump is a convicted felon who incited a riot that vandalized the Capitol and he refused to stop it for hours. His company, his university, and his charity have all been found in court to have committed fraud. He was found liable for sexual assault and defamation.
Trump doesn’t take personal responsibility; he never admits a mistake, whines about being a victim, and blames others for any problems. Trump is a convicted felon who insists he should be on the streets. He has lied tens of thousands of times, including almost every day.
Yes, Supreme Court justices and other judges should respect the Constitution but those appointed by Democrats do too. The difference is what the words of 250 years ago mean for the 21st century. Trump called for “the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution” to overturn the 2020 election.
The Electoral College is from an era where people could not vote for president and is obsolete. It makes votes for president nearly meaningless in at least 40 states since one party or the other has a big advantage. No presidential candidate campaigns in Iowa during a general election.
According to Reuters, Trump’s Labor Dept. certified 2,095 petitions covering 202,151 workers who lost jobs that moved overseas. The Biden/Harris administration passed bills that will bring jobs back to produce clean energy and semiconductors. Jobs have increased more under Democratic presidents than Republicans every term since WWII.
Trump disrespects veterans. He called war dead “suckers and losers.” He ridiculed John McCain’s war record. He violated rules at Arlington National Cemetery. Harris supports veterans. Trump is a national security risk. He stole many classified documents, lied about it, and showed some to unauthorized people. He gave secret intelligence to Russian leaders. He declared NATO obsolete and threatened to refuse to honor our treaty commitments.
Both candidates fought human trafficking. Harris put many traffickers in jail.
Both support freedom of religion. Unlike Trump, Harris does not try to raise personal money by selling bibles.
Schools do teach basics, and do not “indoctrinate” children, unless “indoctrination” means teaching them to think critically and not accept lies just because an authority figure says so.
The future of our country includes a livable climate. Trump denies the existence of climate change and made the U.S. the only country to not be in the Paris Climate Accords. Biden/Harris passed the best climate bill in history. The plans of both candidates increase the national debt, but Trump’s plan increases it more.
Yes, we need to ensure the freedoms of future generations. Trump is intent on making the presidency more powerful to limit freedoms to things he likes. He said that if he wins, future elections won’t be needed. Harris will not do that.
Yes, America is the greatest country, but denying the need for change is ludicrous. We are not in the top 40 countries in the world in life expectancy and have far and away the highest health care costs. Racial justice is improving but has a long way to go. Neither candidate wants complete economic equality, but Harris thinks the inequality is far too large, and the tax code unfairly benefits the rich. Many more changes are needed that Trump will not do but Harris will.
Vote on the issues. Vote for Kamala Harris.
Jim Eliason, Storm Lake
Our attorney general’s latest untoward political foray is her leading role in a lawsuit attacking the Biden Administration's nursing home minimum staffing standards rule.
Joined by other Republican Attorneys General and the nursing home industry itself, Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird, like Gov. Kim Reynolds, puts industry interests ahead of Iowa’s seniors and disabled residents living in over 400 of our state’s nursing homes.
Perhaps Bird should, instead, use her office to assure timely collection of over $10 million in taxpayer money that homes owe to Iowans, and to assure additional homes aren’t also legally obligated to repayment. Or, Bird could investigate why Iowa taxpayers are funding the nursing home industry associations to the tune of millions, groups whose foundation is against the interests of residents, and twofold: more taxpayer money and less government oversight.
Certainly our attorney general, our chief law enforcement officer, wasn’t elected to travel to New York and attack/demean/diminish and erode confidence in the judicial system she, as an attorney, is ethically obliged to support. I could list a host of other of Bird’s official actions that have little to nothing to do with legally promoting the interests of Iowans, actions that voters didn’t ask or expect her to pursue. However, I'll leave that for another day.
Bird’s 66-page lawsuit parrots the nursing home industry’s scare tactics and ignores the largely for-profit owners’, operators’, and private equity interests that are robbing residents of care and reaping billions in taxpayer dollars. Despite Iowa’s nursing homes being among the worst in staffing violations, Iowa’s attorney general and governor are willfully ignoring avoidable harms and deaths that are known to be commonplace.
Congressional Republicans have initiated similar efforts, legislatively, to effectively eliminate any minimum staffing requirements now, and forever. All of these industry inspired efforts are occurring despite the fact that research studies from over two decades ago found that staffing levels higher than those required by the Biden rule were necessary for proper caregiving, even back then. Senators Warren, Sanders, Blumenthal and Representative Schakowsky wrote a Sept. 13, 2024, letter to CEO’s of three of the largest, publicly-owned, for-profit nursing home companies, a letter that provides insight into the shamefulness of Attorney General Bird’s lawsuit. I commend it to her, to Gov. Reynolds, and to all Iowans.
Our next election is just around the corner. “Who cares about Iowa’s nursing home residents” would be a great question to answer before casting your votes now, and in the future.
Dean Lerner, Des Moines
Representative Megan Jones is a friend to Iowa’s animals. Her leadership and pragmatism on the issue of animal protection is nearly unmatched in the Iowa House.
As chair of the legislature’s Administrative Rules Review Committee, Rep. Jones oversaw the revision and adoption of the Iowa Department of Agriculture & Land Stewardship’s animal welfare standards in 2020. These updated state regulations have undoubtedly improved the lives of dogs in puppy mills in our state, and have resulted in multiple dog breeders with yearslong history of unacceptable conditions closing their doors — some ultimately facing arrest. That same year, Rep. Jones helped pass the first upgrade to Iowa’s companion animal cruelty code in decades.
During the 2023-2024 legislative session, Rep. Jones earned a high score on Humane Society Legislative Fund’s first ever Iowa Humane Scorecard, having supported a majority of pro-animal bills considered in the House. She voted to amend Iowa’s bestiality code so that law enforcement can better investigate these heinous animal abuse crimes. She voted to protect veterinarians who assist law enforcement. And she voted to protect Iowans and our pets from overly broad and ambiguous dog breed prohibitions and restrictions.
Rep. Jones is proof that lawmakers can lead with pragmatism and compassion. I hope you’ll join me in supporting her re-election to the Iowa House, because animals only win when humane candidates like Megan Jones do.
Preston Moore, Humane Society Legislative Fund, Cedar Rapids
Amending the Constitution is a long process. Lawmakers must agree in a vote in two consecutive general assemblies (see The Gazette, Sept. 30, 2024). This November, in addition to casting votes for candidates in the General Election, Iowans will vote on two issues to amend the Iowa Constitution: Voting Age and Citizenship; and Gubernatorial Succession.
Section 1 of Article II of Iowa’s Constitution as amended in 1970, Voting Age and Citizenship, is addressed in three sentences. However, this amendment changes the wording of this section in one very important way.
“Section 1. Electors. Only a citizen of the United States of the age of eighteen years, who shall have been a resident of this state for such period of time as shall be provided by law and of the county in which the citizen claims the citizen's vote for such period of time as shall be provided by law, shall be entitled to vote at all elections which are authorized by law. However, for purposes of a primary election, a United States citizen must be at least eighteen years of age as of the next general election following the primary election. The required periods of residence shall not exceed six months in this state and sixty days in the county.”
No one questions the proposal to allow 17-year-olds who will be 18 by the General Election to vote in primary elections. 18-year-olds are already voting.
Changing the first word of the proposal, “Only” is extremely concerning. The current section of Iowa’s Constitution states “Every.” Why change a word that may lead to potential misunderstandings in the future? Is the intent to allow only U.S. citizens to vote or does the GOP-dominated legislature want to restrict or prevent Iowans who hold dual citizenship from voting?
In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down most laws forbidding dual citizenship. In 2024, Iowa is one of eight states voting on a constitutional ballot amendment to prohibit the state or local governments from allowing non-citizen voting. Other states are Idaho, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Wisconsin.
Since the first census in 1790, citizens and noncitizens have been included in the official population count of the U.S. however the census does not identify those who hold dual citizenship. The House passed HR 7109 to include a question of U.S. citizenship on the federal census, but that bill failed a Senate filibuster and did not advance.
Is it a concern that too many noncitizens are voting? It is illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal or state elections in the United States. There is no evidence that unauthorized immigrants, green-card holders, or immigrants on temporary visas are voting in significant numbers, despite some claims that “millions” of noncitizens are voting in U.S. elections. Election official audits and numerous studies reflect that voter fraud by noncitizens is extremely rare.
By 1924, all states banned noncitizens from voting in federal elections; Congress added criminal penalties in 1996: Noncitizens face up to five years in federal prison for even registering to vote and illegal voting can trigger immigration consequences, including deportation.
The second amendment proposal addresses gubernatorial succession: Section 17 of Article IV of the Constitution of the State of Iowa. If the governor dies, resigns, or is removed from office, this measure awards the office of governor to the lieutenant governor for the remainder of the term, thereby creating a vacancy in the office of lieutenant governor. If the lieutenant governor is impeached, displaced, resigns, or dies or is incapable of performing the duties, the president pro tempore of the senate will serve as governor until the vacancy is filled by an election.
The amendment seeks to ensure a line of succession. However, if the governor and lieutenant governor both vacate their positions for any reason, the role of the governor would be passed to the president pro tempore of the senate, a person who was not elected to the position but instead selected for the office by the dominant party in the senate and possibly not the party of the governor. If this occurs, it would mean the governor would not be elected by voters, a concern expressed by some Iowa legislators.
Iowans are wondering what’s taking the governor so long to appoint a lieutenant governor.
It's important to note for 20 years, between 2000 and 2020, five measures appeared on the ballot in Iowa and only two were approved.
Voters have a civic duty — voting. It is important to study the issues and candidates to determine how and who will earn their vote in November.
Linda Schreiber, Iowa City
Today my class and I watched the “Storm Lake” documentary, and I was deeply impacted by everything that I witnessed.
I was captivated by every second of the film’s portrayal of what you and your family do, and what you have achieved. As my town’s local journalist, I couldn't help but draw inspiration from everything about your career.
I’m a senior in high school, and I founded my town’s newsletter 4.5 months ago. I’m the only person working directly on this project, going through the process of conducting interviews, writing articles, collecting information, creating a format, etc. But speaking of my workload in this way is not a complaint in the slightest. It’s been such a blessing to start my career as a journalist in this way, and I'm so glad I've been given the opportunity to gain this hands-on experience and pursue what I love to do most.
However, this past week I had been having doubts about my upcoming newsletter issue; I started to get critical of my ideas for new articles. But while taking notes during the film, I found myself jotting down ideas for my next issue, and discovering a new motivation for my work. So I just wanted to say thank you. Thank you for sharing your story in this documentary. Thank you for creating a general awareness of local journalism and its impact. And I especially want to thank you for inspiring me and allowing me to unlock a whole new set of possibilities in my mind.
Evanthia (Eva) Chapman, Halifax, Mass.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here