A physical handicap does not make one a moral person. You can still be a lying perfidious POS
Same nose. Same propensity to lie.
Some may be calling the US Senate election in Iowa for Ashley Hinson. See links below to the Seth Keshel analysis unless he says something different behind the paywall. I am always nervous. A state polity that can have a Harkin and a Grassley and Demo governors intermixed in recent enough political history, is not reliably Republican, not yet. And the Dems are spending a ton of money in Iowa for the US Senate, the congressional seats, and the Governorship. The usual liberal rent-seeking organizations along with the Dem county parties are also unified in opposing the super majority requirement for raising income taxes that is on the ballot (and which we definitely support). Obviously they think their chances are good. The efforts overlap. They still have the statewide media and other intrenched institutions of influence especially the education establishment, unions and more.
https://www.captaink.us/p/2026-ten-point-forecast-ia-1-us-house
https://www.captaink.us/p/2026-ten-point-forecast-iowa-us-senate
Scott County where I reside, is particularly targeted by the Dems for statewide candidates and the ads are intended to suppress especially no-party sentiment for Rs. The Dems use scoundrel type ads accusing Republican candidates of the nefarious things they do all the time. Seriously the Dem AG candidate is accusing Iowa AG Brenna Bird of going easy on polluters — this after the long time Democrat AG placeholder Tom Miller’s record with habitual offender Jack Decoster. None of the offenders Bird went after were categorized as habitual offenders under the law, she went after them anyway when the offenses were made known.
I am thinking a strong common ancestral heritage. Not like Darth Vader or Dr Evil and Mini Me, more like Moloch.
Democrats have been losing in this state of late because more and more people have come to understand that they are profligate fools, liberals, and crooks. The Dems are countering that with a “you’re another” response or to accuse the other of what they do. The accusations are typically lies but very aggressive in their mudslinging and innuendo. “Making the billionaires pay their fair share” is code for more welfare and no tax limitations. Stopping welfare cheating is portrayed as cutting benefits. You know the drill.
Then there are the Dem ad spots that Hinson is suddenly wealthy because she is a manipulator to favor her husband’s insurance related business. The spots by her (or her champions decrying her opponent Turek’s non-attendance in the legislature, missing high profile votes, have some punch and they do list the liberal votes which Turek found time to make. Maybe the extensive superficial sentiment that all politicians are scoundrels will make people look at the big picture — are they liberal and enablers of the Democrat anti-American agenda or not, and vote accordingly.
But the punchy theme condemning Hinson as “got wealthy while in office” is “rich” coming from Democrats who are well represented in the matter of “family” gains while in office. Does the name Pelosi ring a bell? Essentially insider trading is one thing, helping a state industry is quite different. The idea that a state industry got legislative support from a politician also connected to it in some way should hardly be sensational, at least among sentient voters. Or that they received support from related PACs. In such a world Democrats’ reputation ought to precede THEM and surely sentient voters do not think Democrats eschew special interest money including from industry. Then there is the matter that they live off of trade and industrial unions. Do people really think that Democrat candidates are not promising or will not give access to his or her favored contributors? It makes no sense not to.
The insurance industry is the Dems particular bugaboo about Hinson. But that industry is seriously important to Iowa. Their accusation loses some sting when one does a simple online query. Although knowing the answer I happened to use: “is the insurance industry big in Iowa”. The result was as follows (with extensive links).
Importance of the Insurance Industry in Iowa
Economic Contribution
-
- The insurance industry has significantly impacted Iowa’s economy, contributing to 57% GDP growth in the sector over the past 15 years.
- Iowa ranks first among all states in insurance industry output as a percentage of GDP.
Industry Presence
-
- Iowa is home to approximately 7,000 finance and insurance companies.
- The insurance sector employs nearly 95,000 professionals, showcasing a robust workforce dedicated to this industry.
Yes, the insurance industry is significant in Iowa, contributing to 57% GDP growth in the sector over the past 15 years and housing around 7,000 finance and insurance companies. Additionally, Iowa ranks first among the states in insurance industry output as a percentage of GDP.
Importance of the Insurance Industry in Iowa
Economic Contribution
-
- The insurance industry has significantly impacted Iowa’s economy, contributing to 57% GDP growth in the sector over the past 15 years.
- Iowa ranks first among all states in insurance industry output as a percentage of GDP.
Industry Presence
-
- Iowa is home to approximately 7,000 finance and insurance companies.
- The insurance sector employs nearly 95,000 professionals, showcasing a robust workforce dedicated to this industry.
Now consider an Iowa farm group that approached an incumbent Iowa politician who also happened to be a farmer — for legislation they are all convinced is beneficial to the industry (and to Iowa). Is that self-dealing on the part of the politician or constituent service? Are politicians seriously expected to recuse themselves from voting on or constructing legislation they well understand or from giving the time of day to industry lobbyists involved in an important industry in the state or district they represent because they or their spouse are involved in the industry?
Industries support their champions. Should farm organizations or farmers give nothing to politician farmers in Iowa? The implications are absurd in a representative government. Certainly transparency is important especially as regards peculiar advantage but when the industry is major that seems the cheap shot. Of course if they did not vote for the legislation or help the industry the Dems would say they are doing nothing “for the people”.
To counter Hinson’s ads and wide ranging sentiment about Democrats Turek’s messaging pretends he is a moderate and even gives a figure of how many times he voted with Republicans. Again, the Dems want to suppress leaning R voters, get some sympathy and confidence for their candidate and turn out their base — which is at this writing a little larger in size than Rs in Scott County. It does not risk their base because it is for the most part knee jerk and enough mush words, winks and nods are used to assure the liberal apparat.
Turek pretends to be a moderate because Dems are properly associated with extreme leftist positions (it is in their water) and that does not work real well for normal people. No major nominee of the Democrat party in Iowa is a moderate, they are lying and or captured by their liberal apparat. The Democrats state and local parties have at this writing never posted their 2026 platform. Republicans posted theirs within days of their biennial conventions. That says the Dems are hiding their beliefs.
Then there is the claim by Turek that he has voted hundreds of times with Republicans — of course that is in a state legislature dominated by Republicans when liberal Democrat bills properly do not see the light of day. It is a meaningless statement in practical politics. Most votes in any legislature are not particularly controversial (that may or may not mean uni-party crapola). A Republican could just as correctly say he voted hundreds of times with Democrats to gild his or her “bipartisanship” bona fides (hopefully not on Democrat initiated bills).
The Turek campaign claims: “Josh Turek is one of Iowa’s most effective and bipartisan legislators, voting with Republicans more than 700 times to lower costs, cut taxes, and keep Iowans safe,” a Turek campaign spokesperson told Newsweek on Friday’ . Cedar Rapids radio station KCRG analyzed the gamesmanship (my term) in the figuring. However it also repeated the assertion that Turek is “third most bi-partisan” member of his legislature. In an array with not much room from highest to average to lowest that is not significant.
It would not do for any politician to vote against everything on final passage. Indeed some leftist group even lists AOC as a moderate. What counts are key votes where there is a sharp divide and on that Turek is a leftist on immigration, on abortion, on government takeovers or protecting teacher union legislative positions and more.Turek is just another Democrat who abides by the leftist agenda.
If you are disabled and in a wheel chair you are surely sincere and appreciative of life. NOT
Turek ads subtly and not so subtly play up his handicap (spina bifida) to pretend it automatically gives objective insight into policy. At least one Turek spot adds an assertion that his affliction was the result of agent orange which his father was proximate to in the military. It is a politically useful unprovable sympathy attracting devise.
Although definitive causality is sketchy the VA agreed to classify the occurrence as eligible entirely based on coincidence. Degrees of association does not seem to matter. Agent orange negative sentiment is politically correct across party affiliation. It would not do to challenge his assertions but spina bifida has many potential causations none universally accepted. The Mayo Clinic does not bother to specify agent orange. Turek also plays up his athletic accomplishment in the Paralympics. No offense but most jocks are not known for devotion to more than moving a ball. Give me a tradesman with a useful craft, including one who does so from a wheel chair.
——————————————————————————————————
To me the most egregious display of lack of character by Turek surpassing his lying and disingenuous ads (like Harkin was prone to) is his support for abortion on demand.
Do such people ever examine their own navel or the implications of what they call for? Turek made the cut, or perhaps one should say as regards the abortionist’s curette, he missed the cut. You see spina bifida is diagnosable in utero using prenatal tests such as ultrasound and maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) screening. These methods can identify potential neural tube defects early in pregnancy.
Josh Turek is 47 years old, born 6 years after Roe v Wade and its companion case Doe v Bolton which combined allowed for abortion at any stage of pregnancy for essentially any reason. The search and destroy mentality was in full swing by then to increase abortions. I do not know Josh Turek’s parents but they raised a son treasonous to any concept of human worth and dignity no matter one’s physical handicap. Like most parents I doubt they looked at him and said geez we should have aborted him. Would that a certain politician would honor the right to life of all.
Often parents are presented with horror stories as regards an affliction in their unborn baby. Because a handicap by pro-abortion philosophy is compelling reason to snuff an unborn baby out, it takes resilient parents not to succumb. Good for them. But one wonders what the thoughts are of less sympathetic parents upon the birth of son having missed a diagnosis. And by the logic of the pro-choice philosophy (no inherent right to life) what of serious afflictions that might occur after birth? Does one’s existence become optional again? It is moving that way because Democrats in particular are of such a mind set. It started with the culturally sick idea of going back to the idea of paterfamilias but substituting materfamilias and the idea of lives not worth living. We see it in several blue states , Canada and of course China.
Vote sanely, vote Republican.
——————————————————————————————————
* It is curious that this election the Dems are not relying on the abortion issue so overtly to move their needle. In the last mid-term here in Iowa just after Dobbs that is all they used. They lost big time. People, perhaps even young women, interpreted it as ~~ that is all they have. Abortion was central to virtually every Democrat ad and it is all many candidates mentioned in some ads. Two years ago they used it extensively also. It got them nowhere.
