Yepsen’s Obsessed (with Political Editorial Omniscience)

Although the reason may be unclear (it’s either the Democrats’ or Chet Culver’s fault), it appears David Yepsen’s political “voice” may have contracted “Political Editorial Omniscience.”

Political Editorial Omniscience refers to an intrusion by the narrator in order to evaluate a politician and/or political group/party, for a reader. This is usually done implicitly, but in some cases the narrator may be more explicit, highlighting the intrusion with (brackets), bold letters, or superfluous exclamation points!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Causes for the narrative impulse are unclear (The Democrats made me do it!!!), but most PEO specialists agree that the impulses result from a political writer’s attempt to maintain bias while harboring their true feelings, opinions, or intentions -- and fear that directly expressing these thoughts will have dire consequences (Fired or transferred to a FOX news media outlet center.). Often times, political writers fall prey to “The Yellow-Wallpaper Effect.” This is when the format itself (political column for syndicated newspaper) throttles the writer’s voice, thus preserving the illusion of fair and balanced reporting while sacrificing the true self.

While it’s obvious Yepsen has recently displayed the onset symptoms to PEO (Explicit use of brackets to highlight symptom), it’s not altogether clear as to what David’s trying to repress -- whether it be consciously or subconsciously.

This said, the question remains: What is Yepsen trying to say or unleash through his use of Political Editorial Omniscience? Now’s your chance, dear reader, to read between the brackets. The following passages have been lifted from recent Yepsen columns, and it’s up to you to interpret Yepsen’s intent. (Leave your answers and responses in the comment box). If you’re having trouble, you may use some of the following interpretations of David’s intent to help get you started:

A. (unveiling inner-Eeyore)

B. (unleashing his disdain for Chet Culver, Tom Vilsack, and/or Democrats)

C. (underestimating readers’ intelligence by highlighting the obvious)

D. (revealing contempt for teachers and/or teacher “unions”)

E. (attempting to use humor to attack subject while simultaneously distancing himself form the attack)

F. (no intent: merely a conjured manifestation of the blogger, T.M. Lindsey, who clearly needs therapy or a new obsession (Get a Life!!!))

G. (other, add your own interpretation)

1. “Yepsen: Think big when it comes to changing tax systems”

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like the Democrats now running the Statehouse are going to give us one. They're more interested in staying in power than in making someone mad by revamping tax structures.(And you thought mossbacks in the Legislature grew in only Republican ranks.)

2. “Hillary in Hawkeyeland” (blog)

2.1. Many Democrats say things like “I like Hillary Clinton, but…” They don’t want to rehash her husband’s presidency, or Whitewater or other scandals. Or they just don’t think she can win a general election. (Electability is always an issue with party activists, just like health care or the economy.)

2.2. The flip side is she doesn’t need to worry about people who dislike her. She’s still got enough fans that if she can locate them and turn them out on caucus night, she’ll do quite well.
(Only about 120,000 activist Democrats are likely to show up at their caucuses. Divided among half a dozen serious challengers, a candidate could win the thing with just 25,000 to 30,000 votes, though I might bump up my turnout targets if I were a candidate since all the frenzy around the 2008 presidential election may make for a - dare I say “surge” - of people on caucus night.)

2.3. (Vice President’s George H.W. Bush and Al Gore had this bubble problem in their caucus campaigns and had to work to overcome it.)

3. “Early signs of Democrats' Terry Branstad”

3.1. Instead, Culver is fond of telling, and re-telling, audiences that he wants Iowa to "achieve the greatness we all know is possible." (Some of us are waiting for him to achieve the great speech we all know is possible.)

3.2. To be fair, the Culver era is just starting and he's shown a capacity for growing and getting better at his work. Even Gov. Tom Vilsack, an attorney with a trial lawyer's good gift of gab, gave some rough speeches after he first took office. Practice with the teleprompter will help. (So will adding a speech writer to the staff.)

4. “Yepsen: Don't just play it safe, Culver”

4.1. Culver is also keeping many of Vilsack's top department heads so the transition will be smooth. (He is jettisoning some controversial Vilsackers, like natural resources director Jeff Vonk. Vonk couldn't have won Senate confirmation for another term so Culver wisely opted to avoid a nasty fight he would ultimately lose in favor of a clean slate.)

4.2. (If it took Nixon to go to China, it may take an educator to take on intransigent education bureaucrats to make real change to schools and universities.)

This Post was Sponsored by the P.E.O. Preservation Society