Harkin Institute

[Trice]

Because on one issue 20 years ago he disagreed with some at ISU, he clearly hates ISU.

Also, a book written by the guy who lead the opposition to the sale doesnt seem like much of an unbiased source.

You wanted evidence, I gave you evidence. He didn't "disagree" on an issue with ISU. He and Pomerantz engineered the entire thing themselves against the wishes of pretty much everyone not named Branstad and Pomerantz. Of course the author isn't unbiased, but he's got research and facts to back up his claims, and that's more than you're offering at the moment.

 

[aauummm]

Want evidence? Here's a start.

Over on Cyclone Report years ago there were some members making a big deal out of Neil Harl's book (I think you mentioned that in one of your other posts). I figured I better get me a copy and read up on it to become better informed on the WOI subject. I went and bought it from somewhere, probably on line. Got a great copy, autographed and everything, but still haven't ever read it!

 

[othercy]

You do realize that the only reason Iowa State exists is because of an Act of Congress, right?

Thank you for your condescending response - it obviously highlights your superior intellect. Please note, however, that the politicians of the day did not name the university after any sitting senators or other politicians. Especially not any who went to Washington and became wealthy in their "public service" - and who, by the way, had to retract false campaign claims of military heroism: Tom Harkin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[CyDude16]

it would be cool to burn his papers at a veishea bonfire.

Another intellectual post by MaccloNe. Are you and Mesa still having coffee dates?

 

[othercy]

I agree that being rich is a huge advantage for anyone running for office. And that is almost preferable to those that become wealthy after becoming politicians. My problem is with the people who run for office and then become EXTREMELY rich because of their "public service". Obama became a multimillionaire because he became a politician and cashed in on his fame after being selected to give a political speech in 2004 (not from non-existent book deals from the mid-90's). Al Gore was a senator's son who inherited a name and some cash (his financial disclosure reports indicated he was worth less than 2 mil. when he was a senator). His vast wealth of hundreds of millions came as a result of having been a politician who was put on the board of Google due to his political connections. An additional $100 million of his wealth came because he parlayed his Google millions into a profit when he sold his Current TV to "Big Oil". Bill and Hillary Clinton likewise have become immensely wealthy due to their participating in politics, related books deals due to being politicians, and cronyism as they landed highly paid positions on corporate boards - because they were politicians. This is obviously not just an issue with Democrats, but these particular ones mentioned here are the most egregious in terms of the VAST wealth they have (and continue to) amass due to their participation in politics. Makes one cynical.

Obama was, from the book he wrote in the mid-90s. Al Gore is the son of a US Senator. Bill Clinton became Arkansas' Attorney General shortly after he turned 30, so he never even really got the chance. Harry Reid, though...it wouldn't surprise me one bit if there's something nefarious behind that guy's "really good investing" that got him rich. Also, those 4 guys are all lawyers (3 of them with Ivy League educations)...even if they weren't in public service, chances are they'd be making more money than 99% of us.

Besides, with the exception of Obama, these are all guys who first got elected over 30 years ago. It's a different ball-game today; being rich is a huge, huge advantage in an election.

 

[DistrictCyclone]

I agree that being rich is a huge advantage for anyone running for office. And that is almost preferable to those that become wealthy after becoming politicians. My problem is with the people who run for office and then become EXTREMELY rich because of their "public service". Obama became a multimillionaire because he became a politician and cashed in on his fame after being selected to give a political speech in 2004 (not from non-existent book deals from the mid-90's). Al Gore was a senator's son who inherited a name and some cash (his financial disclosure reports indicated he was worth less than 2 mil. when he was a senator). His vast wealth of hundreds of millions came as a result of having been a politician who was put on the board of Google due to his political connections. An additional $100 million of his wealth came because he parlayed his Google millions into a profit when he sold his Current TV to "Big Oil". Bill and Hillary Clinton likewise have become immensely wealthy due to their participating in politics, related books deals due to being politicians, and cronyism as they landed highly paid positions on corporate boards - because they were politicians. This is obviously not just an issue with Democrats, but these particular ones mentioned here are the most egregious in terms of the VAST wealth they have (and continue to) amass due to their participation in politics. Makes one cynical.

You and I have no standing to criticize how someone makes a living as a private citizen after their public service has ended. If Bill Clinton's able to charge speaking fees in excess of a million dollars or if some publisher wants to cut George Bush a fat check to write a book about his time in office, good for them; it has zero bearing on their time spent in office serving the country. I'm not sure what you expect...do you want them all to be forced into becoming roofers or working on a shrimp boat once they leave office, something like that?

But the idea that most or even anything more than a small share of people who enter public service go from "rags to riches" because of it is a straw man and a red herring. The much bigger concerns, IMO, are that most Congressmen are already filthy rich by the time they get there, and that a lot of them have been suspiciously shielded from the downturn in the economy. Unfortunately, we have a campaign system that has made being rich an almost essential prerequisite to running for office, so I don't see it getting better anytime soon.

 

[othercy]

You and I have no standing to criticize how someone makes a living as a private citizen

Standing ? LOL - anyone has standing to point out when the king has no clothes. A few speeches after a former president leaves office is fine with me . . . no problem with that -but that is not what my post was about and I think you tried to dodge the point with your feigned outrage about standing and roofing jobs.

 

[DistrictCyclone]

Standing ? LOL - anyone has standing to point out when the king has no clothes. A few speeches after a former president leaves office is fine with me . . . no problem with that -but that is not what my post was about and I think you tried to dodge the point with your feigned outrage about standing and roofing jobs.

What do you do for a living?

 

[cyclone1975]

In short, it means nothing. You should not care. Five years from now, no one will know who Tom Harkin is. Can't imagine what among his "papers" would be worth studying. A very inconsequential man.

Neal Smith's papers are already at Drake. He has a national wildlife refuge named after him. Harkin does not (yet). I doubt many people know who Neal Smith was.

 

[CascadeClone]

This whole process is mind numbing. Politics aside( full disclosure I love Harkin) he is one of the most well known and established alumnus of our university. To not have his papers and policy center here is a disgrace. The university administration dropped the ball big time on this one and should be ashamed of themselves.

Despite my opinion on the junior senator (full disclosure - totally dislike Harkin) I totally agree with you it is a shame to not have his "library" at ISU.

I would theorize that Harkin's minions planned to use the institute to promote their policy agenda and leverage the well-known ISU ag background to add credibility. And Leath didn't want that, either because he is politically neutral and "pure" or because he is a conservative "knuckle dragger". I honestly don't know which.

 

[SenorCy]

Call me cynical, but any "public policy center" at a university named after a politician, particularly one who hasn't been dead for 50 years, will be used to prop up the political agenda of its founders.

 

[only4cy]

Not sure that Democrats have the market cornered on getting rich while in office ..... as some biased know-it-alls on this board suggest.

 

[dirtyninety]

"public service" Funny.
Versailles was full of Public Servants.
Haters be hate'n.