Tag Archives: Caitlin Hainley

Why the Right hopes Biden does well in the debate

Posted on by

June 27, debate day, is the most important date in this election cycle. Second is Election Day. Third is August 9, when Democrats hold their national convention. 

Why is June 27 so important? Because it will determine the Democratic nominee for president.

“But wait!” says you. “It’s Joe Biden, Ed. We already know this.”

Nope. You can regale me with all kinds of verbal barbs if I’m wrong, but I would be shocked to learn that the Democratic Elite (i.e., the Party’s big-money donors and a handful of elected and ex-elected officials) want Biden to do well in the debate. The Elite can read the polls. They see where this is going, and they’re rightfully concerned that Biden will not beat Donald Trump.

Here’s what I think will happen on Thursday. Trump, of course, is likely to spew all manner of lies, mutter incoherently, maybe even make up a new word or two. But that won’t matter to his base or to commentators, whose expectations on Trump’s debate performance set the bar pretty low.

Pundits and commentators will, however, rate Biden’s performance somewhere between mediocre and a total bomb. Over the course of the next two months, the Party Elites will roll out Biden’s chosen successor. (Sorry, Kamala Harris, it’s not you. My prediction: Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer.) Continue Reading →

Just give Iowa to China

Posted on by

(Come meet long-time advocate for the homeless, Carla Dawson, at the annual Bishop Dingman Peace Award, March 4 at 6:00 p.m. at Holy Trinity Catholic Church, 2926 Beaver Ave in Des Moines.)

The growth-at-all-costs crowd never ceases to astound me. Take Debi Durham, director of the Iowa Economic Development Authority. Durham has proposed HSB 147, a bill that would allow foreign corporations to own up to 1,000 acres of contiguous farmland.

Iowa used to have strong provisions against foreign ownership of farmland. But the proverbial camel’s nose found its way under the tent in 2017, when foreign entities were allowed to purchase up to 320 acres of contiguous farmland for commercial purposes.

As often happens, the camel now wants to shove its entire head under the tent. Given the money and power behind this trend, is there any doubt that corporate interests will try to continue to erode limitations on who controls our farmland? Continue Reading →