Harkin Institute

**Pille1895** · 02-05-2013, 08:58 PM

Why does Iowa State (a great research university) want to allow them to do "research" to serve their agenda and not work with the other people on campus? Research at a public university should not be attached to a public official that is still in office.

**uthaman** · 02-05-2013, 08:58 PM

Originally Posted by DistrictCyclone

I'm sorry, but this seems like a rather dubious claim given that he didn't run for president until the 1992 election.

Was it 1992? Damn, the years are blurring together. Happens when you get to be my age. That is right because he was running against Bill Clinton. Point still stands. The man is a jackwagon.

**DistrictCyclone** · 02-05-2013, 08:58 PM

Ignoring the silly "should it bear his name" debate, Iowa State (and the State of Iowa) could benefit from having an established public policy school. Nobody else has one in the state, and there are few in the Midwest overall. Iowa State has an excellent economics department, and sociology and political science are pretty big, so I imagine they'd be able to find some quality faculty members to sit in such a school.

**chuckd4735** · 02-05-2013, 08:58 PM

Originally Posted by Trice

So sham research that advances the interests of major corporations is okay, but sham research that advances the interest of a politician you don't like is not? That's essentially what you're arguing here.

Welcome to today's politics!

**DistrictCyclone** · 02-05-2013, 08:59 PM

Originally Posted by chuckd4735

Because nobody starts campaigning for president 4 years before the election...

Harkin did not. Campaigns in general have change a lot in the last 20 years, too.

**chuckd4735** · 02-05-2013, 09:01 PM

Originally Posted by DistrictCyclone

Harkin did not. Campaigns in general have change a lot in the last 20 years, too.

I'm assuming there was work being done for his presidential campaign run in the 1992 election being done in the late 1980's.

**DistrictCyclone** · 02-05-2013, 09:02 PM

Originally Posted by chuckd4735

I'm assuming there was work being done for his presidential campaign run in the 1992 election being done in the late 1980's.

No, there was not.

**chuckd4735** · 02-05-2013, 09:03 PM

Originally Posted by DistrictCyclone

No, there was not.

Well, I have no factual information on the subject, I was just making an assumption.

**Trice** · 02-05-2013, 09:04 PM

Originally Posted by Pille1895

You got it exactly right! Why does Iowa State a great research university want to allow them to do "research" to serve their agenda and not work with the other people on campus. Research at a public university should not be attached to a public official that is still in office.

Right! We must protect the purity of the university and not allow it to be soiled by outside interests!

Oh wait. Farm Bureau and Bruce Rastetter happened.

**uthaman** · 02-05-2013, 09:11 PM

Originally Posted by Trice

Right! We must protect the purity of the university and not allow it to be soiled by outside interests!

Oh wait. Farm Bureau and Bruce Rastetter happened.

Any chance in your mind Tom Harkin is in the wrong here? Nope? Didn't think so. Guess we will just have to disagree on this one... Senate only works two days this week, so I am sure Harkin is back in Iowa dealing personally with an issue like this that is SO important to him. Or, is he down at his home in the Bahamas?

**Pille1895** · 02-05-2013, 09:15 PM

Originally Posted by Trice

Right! We must protect the purity of the university and not allow it to be soiled by outside interests!

Oh wait. Farm Bureau and Bruce Rastetter happened.

If they refuse to collaborate with the rest of the university then you are correct. At this point I have no reason to believe that is true.

**DistrictCyclone** · 02-05-2013, 09:15 PM

Originally Posted by chuckd4735

Well, I have no factual information on the subject, I was just making an assumption.

It's a safe assumption to make nowadays, for sure, but the era of "perpetual campaigning" is a pretty recent phenomenon. Even in 2004, most of the challengers to Bush didn't announce their runs until within a year before the first primary, and had only formed exploratory committees a few months earlier. Unfortunately, I think the constant campaigning garbage is here to stay for a while.

I know a few people pretty well who have worked with Harkin for years, and from what we've talked about, it sounds like even Harkin knew his '92 run was a long-shot. The strategy was basically to win Iowa (first in the nation caucus), which would capture all of the media attention, and then use it as a springboard to do well in other states. It pretty much backfired when a lot of other candidates pulled out of campaigning in Iowa and conceded it to Harkin as a "native son", so the media didn't even give it much coverage.

**Trice** · 02-05-2013, 09:17 PM

Originally Posted by uthaman

Any chance in your mind Tom Harkin is in the wrong here? Nope? Didn't think so. Guess we will just have to disagree on this one... Senate only works two days this week, so I am sure Harkin is back in Iowa dealing personally with an issue like this that is SO important to him. Or, is he down at his home in the Bahamas?

Please enlighten me with your unbiased thinking.

I have no idea if Tom Harkin is in the wrong, and that wasn't the crux of my question. I asked why it's such a bad thing to have an institute like this named after a sitting senator. And I haven't gotten one response that stands up to even the slightest logical challenge. So I guess my original hunch, that the opposition to this is not because it's a sitting senator but because it's a Democrat, is probably on the mark.

**clone136** · 02-05-2013, 09:19 PM

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.

**aauummm** · 02-05-2013, 09:20 PM

Originally Posted by DistrictCyclone

It's a safe assumption to make nowadays, for sure, but the era of "perpetual campaigning" is a pretty recent phenomenon. Even in 2004, most of the challengers to Bush didn't announce their runs until within a year before the first primary, and had only formed exploratory committees a few months earlier. Unfortunately, I think the constant campaigning garbage is here to stay for a while.

I know a few people pretty well who have worked with Harkin for years, and from what we've talked about, it sounds like even Harkin knew his '92 run was a long-shot. The strategy was basically to win Iowa (first in the nation caucus), which would capture all of the media attention, and then use it as a springboard to do well in other states. It pretty much backfired when a lot of other candidates pulled out of campaigning in Iowa and conceded it to Harkin as a "native son", so the media didn't even give it much coverage.

So, exactly what day did Harkin start running for the 1992 election? Just curious.