I've documented numerous times about the considerable math skills of the Big Lug Nut and the Lug-ettes (Mathletes).
The number he gave, during Tuesday night's debate, for new job creation in Iowa since December -16,000 - called those skills into question for me again.
I can't help but wonder why Culver can create 16,000 jobs in a matter of months, but it will take two more years for that total to possibly top 23,000.
Why has it taken three years for the state Economic Development Board and the Iowa Department of Economic Development (IDED) to create nearly 21,000 jobs in Iowa?
Why will it take Terry Branstad five years to create nearly 13,000 jobs?
I thought I'd ask the experts, so I e-mailed Iowa Workforce Development (IWD) for more information about the 16,000 new jobs.
IWD responded that they are only able to track new jobs after they are created and individuals have begun working.
But, these 16,000 jobs have been created since December.
They also referred me to the Governor's Office as they have a tracking mechanism for the jobs created through I-JOBS.
I haven't done that because, Culver never claimed them to be I-JOBS and his office doesn't have the best history in responding to people.
We'll have a new Governor before they'd get back to me, which would make the query moot, as I believe Culver makes up numbers to try and make himself look good.
I contacted IDED and was told my request was forwarded to two other people and I have yet to hear back from either of them.
On the exact day it was announced, "Governor Culver to Roll Out Plan to Create 21st Century Jobs in Iowa in his Second Term", it continues to look like the 16,000 new jobs figure (created since December) that the Big Lug Nut gave during the first gubernatorial debate were made up.
I received another e-mail from Iowa Work Force Development, one of two state agencies I originally queried about the 16,000 figure, with links to two websites where I could "possibly obtain that information".
The first link was to a press release Governor Culver's office issued August 19, announcing more than 260 new jobs.
The second link was to the I-JOBS website that showed the cumulative allocations of $871,669,048.
There was no Brain Suck moment for Culver, but it was odd during the Arizona immigration law question, that Culver claimed "Illegal is Illegal" and then criticized Branstad for wanting to fill up the jails with detained illegals.
Branstad scored when he said only 34% of flood money that has been allocated has reached businesses.
Culver tried to claim that it took Branstad 12 years to close the books on the 1993 flood.
Twelve years would be 2005 and almost to the end of the second term of The Pickle, Governor Vilsack.
Culver became annoying by wanting to go back several times to answer previous questions, on unemployment and preschool, when the debate had moved on to the next question.
At one point the crowd turned on him when he tried to go back to Terry Branstad not rebutting the preschool question.
Numerous times Culver tried to circumvent the format by wanting rebuttal time after he'd had a rebuttal.
I'm not sure why he just didn't use time from the next question to revisit the previous question, like he'd been doing.
I thought Terry Branstad scored when he highlighted how free preschool for all had actually hurt K-12 and College education, especially in lieu of Culver's 10% budget cuts.
Branstad hit a home run here when he said -- “Now we now know what I-JOBS is, It’s Illinois jobs”.
Branstad further drilled the point home when he mentioned the people from Illinois that marched with Culver at the University of Iowa Homecoming parade.
Culver lamely turned it into having support from all over including his sister here from New York.
Must be here to help him pack up Terrace Hill.
Is part of Culver bringing IBM, Google and Microsoft to Iowa include constant name dropping?
They must have required numerous free plugs.
Culver has also increased the total number of jobs created by 5,000 in one month, from the first debate figure of 16,000, to 21,000.
Culver continues to be no mathlete when he criticized Indiana as having unemployment at 50% above the U.S. average.
Indiana's August rate was 10.2%, during the same time period the U.S. rate was 9.6%.
I loved Branstad's shot at Staci Appel-sauce for brains and her Supreme Court sitting husband, Brent, when Branstad mentioned how partisan the judicial nominating process has become.
In his closing remarks, it sounded like Culver was claiming Branstad was Governor in the 1920s and I know during the debate I heard Culver call his opponent Blanstad.
Lastly, I felt sorry for the people that had to shake the hand Culver used to mop the flop sweat after the debate was over.
I've never been a fan of the Bill Clinton thumbs up
Culver seems to have got it down pat.
Branstad should have been more clear on the debate format, wanting response time, especially after the moderators had just gone over it with the viewers.
Culver stumbled over Sioux City seeming to call it Sewer Water City.
I love how Branstad shot down Culver's AAA bond rating by noting how Enron and Lehman Brothers both received the same rating from Moody's.
Culver used a majority of his time regarding the judicial selection process to go back to a previous question about bonding.
Culver seemed to be bragging about the 30,000 Iowans collecting extended unemployment benefits, but because Culver did not seek a change in the state's unemployment law roughly 18,000 Iowans have missed out on an 13 weeks of benefits paid for by the federal government.
When questioned by Branstad, Culver could not name one (let alone the three asked for) of his biggest mistakes, yet said he takes full responsibility for his mistakes.
That lends credence to the belief that the mistakes he's admitting to making are just an insincere campaign ploy.
When Culver was given a chance to question Branstad he just talked and talked before finally asking him to admit I-JOBS was being funded with gaming revenue.
Those revenues continue to fall and I-JOBS could end up being paid back from the state's general fund.
Branstad scored with the 300,000 jobs he created as Governor versus the 50,000 jobs Culver has lost.
Education came up and Culver brought up his two "amazing" children.
Those kids have made a commercial for him, Clare seems to take after her dad and John after his mom, Mari.
Culver also claims preschool could be the defining issue in the campaign, which makes me wonder what happened to embryonic stem cell research?
Just last week it was to be a key to Culver winning re-election.
Branstad pointed out that preschool should not be an entitlement, funded by taxpayers for everyone, but should be paid for on the basis of need.
Congratulations to Culver on not breaking out Sweaty Chetty until roughly half way through the debate.
When questioned about what he would have done different about the floods of 2008, Culver started off his response about the tornado that hit the Little Sioux Scout Ranch and then mentioned being to Cedar Rapids 100 times.
When asked again what he would have done different, his response was nothing.
I loved how Branstad tied Jack DeCoster to the Dymmycrats with his $10,000 campaign contribution to Attorney General Tom Miller and to Culver via a $400,000 donation to the Democratic Governors ASSociation, which has funded Culver's campaign.
Thankfully nobody called Decoster a bad egg or a rotten egg.
I'm not sure what to make of Culver's claim that the "facts are getting in the way of the truth".
On the topic of economic development, Culver's plan to end brain drain in Iowa is with BRAIN SUCK.
As my lovely and talented wife pointed out to me, brain gain would have been more appropriate.
In his closing statement, Culver claimed Terry Branstad is against civil rights?
Larry is one of the nicest people you'll ever meet and when you say that about someone in broadcasting it is quite a statement.
Larry and I worked for the same company when he was in news at WHO TV and I was at KLYF Radio.
Larry organized the company basketball team and just a couple years ago organized a successful (and fun) reunion of onetime WHO TV/Radio and KLYF employees, where I reminded him that my grandmother (98 this month) was the house mother at his Iowa State fraternity and Larry shared nice memories of that experience.
Two years ago, this month, the Liter posted about the reopening of the renovated Franklin Avenue Library in Des Moines because it included Plug-ins for electric cars.
I wondered then how much the taxpayers got zapped for this green feature.
I'm also waiting for the two Iowa Department of Economic Development (IDED) employess to get back to me on the 16,000 new jobs, that Culver claimed in the first debate, have been created since December.
In preparation for the debate, Culver this week announced flood recovery as the defining issue of the campaign.
John Kerry disgraced himself yet again...when he launched a salvo against the Bush administration at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
...Kerry's latest folly.
...“When we walk away from global warming, Kyoto, when we are irresponsibly slow in moving toward AIDS in Africa, when we don’t advance and live up to our own rhetoric and standards, we set a terrible message of duplicity and hypocrisy,” Kerry said.
Speaking of duplicity and hypocrisy...Kerry himself has actually had the opportunity to vote on the Kyoto carbon emissions treaty.
...this says it all…
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 105th Congress - 1st Session
Vote Date: July 25, 1997, 11:37 AM
Question: On the Resolution (s.res.98 )
Declares that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997 or thereafter which would: (1) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex 1 Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period; or (2) result in serious harm to the U.S. economy.
YEAs 95 NAYs 0 Not Voting 5
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Duplicitous and hypocritical: that pretty well sums up John Kerry.
What Makes A Protest Newsworthy?
This point is closely related to the "Grim Milestones" post immediately below. Earlier today, "tens of thousands" of demonstrators gathered on the Mall in Washington, D.C. to protest the Iraq war. The cast of speakers was less than impressive: Dennis Kucinich, Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn, Jane Fonda.
...Organizers said the biggest challenge facing the anti-war movement today is how to hold together a loose coalition of groups with divergent agendas using celebrities who peaked in popularity 10 to 30 years ago.
“The speaker roster reminds me of the old Hollywood Squares game show,” said one unnamed staffer of Vegan Lesbians for Racial and Nuclear Justice, whose dozens of members will cross the continent to join the rally today. “I mean Fonda, Sarandon, Glover and Jackson might as well be Charo, Joan Rivers, George Gobel and Paul Lynde. How am I going get my group excited about geopolitical and military strategy with these has beens leading the way?”
It's hard to say how many people attended the demonstration; the Washington police no longer issue estimates of crowd sizes. Organizers said they were hoping for 100,000, and news accounts say there were "tens of thousands." I haven't seen a photo that shows the entire crowd; this one comes closest:
You can't judge from a single picture, but I haven't seen anything that makes me think the demonstration was anything special in terms of turnout.
Contrast this with a demonstration that occurred in the same place, just a few days ago, when"tens of thousands" of demonstrators gathered to protest the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade:
I don't know which protest was bigger, but I'm pretty sure I can predict which one will get more press coverage. My home-town paper, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, didn't cover the abortion protest at all. Again, whether and how a demonstration is covered has a lot more to do with the political agenda of reporters and editors than with the number or enthusiasm of the demonstrators. And I think we all know what narrative the liberal media are now pushing. It's the "will to lose" that John O'Sullivan identified at the National Review summit last night.
Grim Milestones
...people are talking about a statistic that has been kicking around for a while: illegal aliens murder approximately 12 Americans a day. Is this accurate? I'm not sure; this isn't a statistic that is officially kept, so estimates are based on more informal surveys. The number seems to have been popularized by Congressman Steve King.
While I'm not sure that it's right, the 12 per day figure is plausible. There are 16,000+ murders a year in the U.S., so, if my math is correct, that number implies that, if there are around ten million illegal aliens, they commit about ten times their pro rata share of murders.
Twelve per day works out to 4,380 a year, or around 16,600 during the time that has elapsed since we have been engaged in Iraq. This is more than five times the number of military deaths in Iraq.
My point here is not to argue for the accuracy of Representative King's numbers, but rather to note how discretionary the concept of a "grim milestone" is. If the mainstream media kept a "grim milestone" count on murders of Americans by illegal aliens, imagine how it would re-frame the debate over illegal immigration. But the media have no interest in that particular set of "milestones." What constitutes a "milestone" depends not on the actual magnitude of the issue, but rather on the political agenda of the mainstream media.
