I can’t recall anything I’ve read that makes the case against re-electing Grassley more intelligently, fairly and articulately than you have in this piece. Very grateful that we still have your voice out there!
Thanks for your historical perspective. Many voters, myself included, do not maintain a very accurate or comprehensive memory of past actions by elected officials.
Well done Dave. I can completely agree with your assessment of where Senator Grassley has failed in these past few years. I was with you in supporting him early in his career, but unfortunately, it seems that cynical hypocrisy is the only outcome of extended tenures in politics. Time for Grassley to go.
Thank you for this excellent review of Senator Grassley’s record. His partisan votes have made clear his loyalty to his party, and his hypocrisy in demonstrating “selective ethics” has made clear that he has been in office too long.
Much like you, I interviewed Grassley numerous times as broadcast journalist. I later dealt with him for years as a volunteer lobbyist in DC for the American Cancer Society. To say I'm disappointed in his statements and actions in recent years is an understatement.
I've followed and met Grassley's opponent, Mike Franken. He is extremely impressive and the voice of reason I miss. Franken definitely has my vote this time around.
My news coverage of Senator Chuck Grassley predates Dave Busiek's time by several years. I was a reporter and anchor for WOI-TV and Radio. I and News Director Phil Morgan broadcast gavel-to-gavel coverage of the Iowa General Assembly from 1970 to 1973 on WOI radio when Grassley was in the Iowa Legislature. My recollection of Grassley's dedication to issues of importance to Iowans in his time in Des Moines and later in the U.S. House when I was working for the Voice of America matches Dave's. He continued the legacy of Iowa's legendary H.R. Gross in his defense of budgetary restraint. But the older Grassley has erred considerably. And his shameful performance as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee by refusing to hold Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Merrick Garland is the principal reason I no longer support him. He has spent too much time in Washington and has erased the legacy of his earlier laudable service to the state.
Thank you for your reflections about the history of Grassley's run as a senator. I agree this Grassley is not the man we sent to the Senate in the beginning and he has lost his way. Fresh eyes are an asset to any table. I will be voting for the Admiral.
I recall, when I was working for Congressnan Tom Tauke, that Chuck asked Tom if he should accept the appointment to the Judiciary Committe since he wasn't an attorney. Grassley was uncomfortable and had doubts about taking the comittee seat. Tauke, who also had doubts, told Grassley to take the position as long as he brought knowledgeable lawyers on to his staff to advise him. Grassley did that. I thought he did well early on the committee and when he became Chairman. Today, it's a different story. Grassley should have stepped aside at least 6 years ago and let someone else take the reigns. I truly do not understand why he wants to continue. I also recall when Claude Pepper, a one time Senator, and then a Congressman, was serving in the House. His office was a few doors down ftom ours. He was the same age, or nearly the same age, as Grassley today. He would wait in the hall for a staffer to instruct him as to what to do, where to go. One day, as I was walkIng by, he asked me why I was taking so long to take him to his committee meeting. I explained I wasn't on his staff. He saId I was and started yelling at me. I went into his office and got one of his staffers to explain I didn't work for him. He contended I did and then fired me because I wasn't listening to him I pray Grassley's mind dosen't play tricks on him in the coming years.
Thank you, Dave. Sen. Grassley was my first guest on a local radio show about 30 years ago (KASI). He was gracious and personal. During my years in state govt., I also interacted with the Senator and his staff off and on for about 40 years. I consider some staff to be old friends. I cannot explain, nor defend the Senator's changes. I am not as bothered by the number of years of his service. I am supporting 2 long serving D's, in Fitzgerald and Miller.. What you do and how you vote and what you say are more important than age or tenure.
Thanks for sharing your perspective, Dave. Your experiences with the Senator are a good record of his transformation from a patriot to a mere stand by observer of the attempt to dismantle our democracy. I am supporting Franken not because Grassley has failed, but, because Franken brings more to the table than any other candidate for senate in my lifetime and I don't hold military service above any other kind of service.
I can’t recall anything I’ve read that makes the case against re-electing Grassley more intelligently, fairly and articulately than you have in this piece. Very grateful that we still have your voice out there!
This is spot on. Senator Grassley is a malevolent shadow of the public servant he once was.
Thanks for your historical perspective. Many voters, myself included, do not maintain a very accurate or comprehensive memory of past actions by elected officials.
Bravo!
Well done Dave. I can completely agree with your assessment of where Senator Grassley has failed in these past few years. I was with you in supporting him early in his career, but unfortunately, it seems that cynical hypocrisy is the only outcome of extended tenures in politics. Time for Grassley to go.
Thank you for this excellent review of Senator Grassley’s record. His partisan votes have made clear his loyalty to his party, and his hypocrisy in demonstrating “selective ethics” has made clear that he has been in office too long.
Well done, Dave.
Much like you, I interviewed Grassley numerous times as broadcast journalist. I later dealt with him for years as a volunteer lobbyist in DC for the American Cancer Society. To say I'm disappointed in his statements and actions in recent years is an understatement.
I've followed and met Grassley's opponent, Mike Franken. He is extremely impressive and the voice of reason I miss. Franken definitely has my vote this time around.
My news coverage of Senator Chuck Grassley predates Dave Busiek's time by several years. I was a reporter and anchor for WOI-TV and Radio. I and News Director Phil Morgan broadcast gavel-to-gavel coverage of the Iowa General Assembly from 1970 to 1973 on WOI radio when Grassley was in the Iowa Legislature. My recollection of Grassley's dedication to issues of importance to Iowans in his time in Des Moines and later in the U.S. House when I was working for the Voice of America matches Dave's. He continued the legacy of Iowa's legendary H.R. Gross in his defense of budgetary restraint. But the older Grassley has erred considerably. And his shameful performance as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee by refusing to hold Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Merrick Garland is the principal reason I no longer support him. He has spent too much time in Washington and has erased the legacy of his earlier laudable service to the state.
It is wonderful to have a historical look at Grassley's work. Thanks for this informative piece.
Dave...this is so spot on, thank you, thank you.
I totally agree. Thanks for publishing this article.
Thank you for your reflections about the history of Grassley's run as a senator. I agree this Grassley is not the man we sent to the Senate in the beginning and he has lost his way. Fresh eyes are an asset to any table. I will be voting for the Admiral.
Great piece. Nice observations.
I recall, when I was working for Congressnan Tom Tauke, that Chuck asked Tom if he should accept the appointment to the Judiciary Committe since he wasn't an attorney. Grassley was uncomfortable and had doubts about taking the comittee seat. Tauke, who also had doubts, told Grassley to take the position as long as he brought knowledgeable lawyers on to his staff to advise him. Grassley did that. I thought he did well early on the committee and when he became Chairman. Today, it's a different story. Grassley should have stepped aside at least 6 years ago and let someone else take the reigns. I truly do not understand why he wants to continue. I also recall when Claude Pepper, a one time Senator, and then a Congressman, was serving in the House. His office was a few doors down ftom ours. He was the same age, or nearly the same age, as Grassley today. He would wait in the hall for a staffer to instruct him as to what to do, where to go. One day, as I was walkIng by, he asked me why I was taking so long to take him to his committee meeting. I explained I wasn't on his staff. He saId I was and started yelling at me. I went into his office and got one of his staffers to explain I didn't work for him. He contended I did and then fired me because I wasn't listening to him I pray Grassley's mind dosen't play tricks on him in the coming years.
Thank you, Dave. Sen. Grassley was my first guest on a local radio show about 30 years ago (KASI). He was gracious and personal. During my years in state govt., I also interacted with the Senator and his staff off and on for about 40 years. I consider some staff to be old friends. I cannot explain, nor defend the Senator's changes. I am not as bothered by the number of years of his service. I am supporting 2 long serving D's, in Fitzgerald and Miller.. What you do and how you vote and what you say are more important than age or tenure.
Thanks for sharing your perspective, Dave. Your experiences with the Senator are a good record of his transformation from a patriot to a mere stand by observer of the attempt to dismantle our democracy. I am supporting Franken not because Grassley has failed, but, because Franken brings more to the table than any other candidate for senate in my lifetime and I don't hold military service above any other kind of service.