Letters to the Editor

BY DI READERS | OCTOBER 25, 2012 6:30 AM

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Vote yes for retention

Justice David Wiggins, along with the rest of Iowa’s excellent judges and justices, deserves to be retained in office in this election, and I urge you and all Iowans to flip your ballots and vote yes on retention.

Groups advocating against retention, such as the woefully misnamed “Iowans for Freedom” PAC, have engaged in a willfully dishonest campaign wearing a guise of concern for freedom as a whole but carrying little more than the fear or even hatred of same-sex marriage.

Their allegation the justices wrongfully performed outside research in coming to their decision in the Varnum case is flatly contradicted by the opinion’s full page outlining exactly why the justices appropriately performed such research.

Further, the twisting of Wiggins’s interview of Iowa College of Law Professor Angela Onwuachi-Willig in which these groups have engaged is outrageous, displaying an utter disregard for context or truthfulness: Full video of the exchange indicates Wiggins’s concern for the Constitution rather than any claimed desire to circumvent it.

A hysterical focus on “judicial activism” in Iowa’s courts cannot yield another example to which these groups can cite; Instead, reflecting on Iowa’s history reveals our state and our courts have long been ahead of the curve in their understanding of civil rights and have been vindicated by history.

Their citation to Wiggins’s rating in the judicial plebiscite is again misleading: A majority of attorneys favored retention at a margin that would leave any general-election candidate feeling secure. Regarding a difference between his plebiscite ratings and those of other justices, those other justices have not been targets of a bitter years-long campaign designed to engender ill will at the expense of understanding.

Wiggins is an able and well-qualified jurist who deserves a “yes” vote on retention.

Nick Kilburg
Elderkin & Pirnie, PLC

Romney is bipartisan

Four years ago, this nation was caught up in the perfect storm that was Barack Obama’s campaign. Out of all the political bickering and childish gimmicks, his campaign rose above them and instead of focusing on gaffes and sound bites, ran on the empowering message of “Hope.” 

As John McCain and the Republican Party constantly tried to undermine Obama by questioning his citizenship, his religion, and his associations with other people, Obama’s campaign removed itself from the petty arguments and kept its eyes on the White House and what was at stake.

He truly made the nation believe that the polarized politics were coming to an end, that he was the man to fix Washington and I, along with most of this country believed him.

Fast forward four years, and you see a new campaign. One that doesn’t seem as focused on uniting a people together as it is about tearing the other side down. Instead of grandiose speeches and rhetoric, we now see crude memes hammering home the gaffes of “women in binders” and “horses and bayonets.” We hear “Romnesia,” which refers to Romney’s flip-flopping, and Obama refers to all Republican congressmen as “Mitt Romney’s friends,” making it sound like the Democrats are only interested in working with Democrats.

While I don’t believe Romney is perfect, I don’t see the dangerous polarizing rhetoric that the Obama campaign has championed this election cycle. I hear Romney claiming he wants to work across party lines; I hear him not alienating an entire group of people he was to work with.

If we really want to fix America, polarizing politics need to go, and Obama is pushing the country to the greatest divide we’ve ever seen.

Connor Gifford

Fundamental differences

President Obama has mentioned many times over the past six months of fundamental difference between him and Romney. I will be the first to say that there is a fundamental difference between the two.

Here’s the difference: Mitt Romney wants you and I to keep our money. He believes in a smaller federal government. While Obama is continuing to raise taxes in America, and a larger federal government.

If you don’t believe me, ask the Supreme Court. Obamacare is one of the largest taxes on the middle class in history. Obama argues it was based on of Romney’s plan in Massachusetts.

It was right for the state and should be dealt with on a state-by-state basis. Romney will repeal it, lower taxes for all Americans, and give the power to the states on how to handle an issue this pervasive. The fair and right thing to do. If you like money in your pocket, free choices, and overall less government involvement in your life. I encourage you to look at each candidate’s (including the third-party ones [for those Ron Paul-ers, this means Gary Johnson]) platform, history and record and make a choice for yourself. Thank you, get informed, and go vote over the next two weeks.

Thomas Biedenfeld

In today's issue:

Privacy Policy (8/15/07) | Terms of Use (4/28/08) | Content Submission Agreement (8/23/07) | Copyright Compliance Policy (8/25/07) | RSS Terms of Use

Copyright © The Daily Iowan, All Rights Reserved.