Bill from White Plains is an Iowa lawyer and political observer with a keen interest in promoting candidates with the character required by the positions they seek.
Alexander Pope mocked literary critics of his day with his comment, “For Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.” The literary references in his 1709 piece, “An essay on criticism,” are lost to time and the short attention span of most people in modern life, but that line endures.
Putting aside the hideous 1997 romantic comedy starring Matthew Perry, the line endures because stupid people are no less stupid in 2026.
Last week, State Representative Eddie Andrews stepped up to become the latest in a long line of idiots, hoping to become the leader of his party and this state. He is helping to pave the way for a brainless stiff from northwest Iowa to win the Republican party’s gubernatorial primary in June.
Andrews had no staff to speak of, almost no money, and no organization behind his campaign for governor. When he was called on it, rather than be a man, he went all-in on denying his incompetence, by attempting to undermine the campaign of Adam Steen, another on the clown car of GOP candidates for governor.
Steen’s campaign had assisted one of its donors, David Bush, in completing paperwork to challenge Andrews’ underwhelming and pathetic petitions to qualify for the June primary. (Bush’s $5,000 contribution to Steen was not even that large for a statewide campaign.)
When you see a man who wants to be Iowa’s governor running out to his car at the last minute for one more page of signatures, who did not know the necessary formatting for presentation of those signatures, bouncing around the Iowa Secretary of State’s office claiming he’s the guy to lead this state, you know that the challenge was legitimate.
For all of his schmoozing and back patting, Andrews lacked the discipline to build a real campaign operation. Competent staff could have headed off last week’s embarrassing display in front of Iowa’s State Objection Panel, consisting of Secretary of State Paul Pate, Attorney General Brenna Bird, and Secretary of Agriculture Mike Naig. (Naig was pinch-hitting for State Auditor Rob Sand, who recused himself from considering this challenge because he’s running for governor as a Democrat.)
For all of his success as a state legislative candidate living in the tony northwest Des Moines suburbs, Andrews can’t raise the money necessary to compete in the governor’s race, let alone convince the national Republican Party to finance his run. He lacks the self-awareness to recognize that there are valid reasons his candidacy is not viable.
Andrews apparently has convinced himself that people take him seriously. Yet everything about his comportment last week displayed that he either does not take himself seriously, or does not take the Iowa electorate seriously.
Ultimately, Republicans are going to be saddled with U.S. Representative Randy Feenstra, whose only talking point is that he is tall, and that he’s “fighting” for something. What he is fighting for has yet to be decided by out-of-state image makers like who molded Sarah Palin several presidential cycles ago.
We’re living in chaos as a nation. Our president is still trying to litigate the 2020 election; still going after the prosecutor who did her job in compiling evidence that resulted in some 80-plus felony convictions. He’s currently dogging her about a mortgage application. He’s nominating lawyers who refuse to acknowledge that he lost the 2020 election to be federal judges.
Meanwhile, Eddie Andrews acts like a child in the sandbox, in need of a diaper change, yelling at everyone to get out so he can try to build a sand castle, without (among other things) water.
As soon as news broke about the challenge to Andrews’ petitions, his supporters wanted to know the challenger’s identity. That was important to them. God forbid they should acknowledge that Eddie’s duct tape and chewing gum campaign lacked the sophistication to learn the legal requirements, and should have collected more than the bare minimum of signatures. It couldn’t be that the candidate is a moon worshiper on a cloudy evening. No, it had to be about somebody else.
Just like President Donald Trump with Leticia James.
Eddie Andrews is a joke. He barely made weight as a primary candidate, but within 48 hours of confirming his spot on the ballot, he was beating his chest like some sort of political George Foreman, denouncing Steen and calling for Steen to drop out. He is not a contender; he lacks the crushing Foreman punch. Eddie is a buffoon.
Steen isn’t going anywhere, anyhow. Having the endorsement of The Family Leader is like showing off a 1978 Chevy Chevette that has no engine. Just courting The Family Leader is like praying to the porcelain God after a bad night out – if you’re down there on your knees, things are not going well for you.
And for what? Immigration raids at food processing plants? Clampdowns on Black protesters leading to lawsuits that cities lose, forcing taxpayers to foot the bill? White flight from public schools leading to the destruction of the public education that was so foundational to our system of government, and to our neighborhoods – even suburban neighborhoods – and higher taxes? Corporate tax breaks that lead to higher taxes still, for everybody else? Estate tax breaks for corporations masquerading as farms, leading to yet higher taxes – not to mention carcinogenic drinking water — for the rest of us? Laws criminalizing birth control, resulting in generations of single-parent families in need of welfare, and, in turn, welfare cuts that lead to despair, crime and violence?
All “in God’s name?”
When was the last time the GOP-controlled legislature passed a socially-impactful bill that was written by lawmakers who prioritized Iowa rather than the national Republican Party’s interests? It sure wasn’t any bill that Eddie Andrews authored.
There is not an adult in the room when it comes to the Iowa GOP right now. They act like children. Eddie Andrews is the most obnoxious one at the moment, crying the loudest, stomping his feet the most violently. If the child had any sense of dignity, he would attempt to act like he was, at the very least, a teenager. Not Eddie.
Stop acting the fool, Eddie. You drop out.
Top photo of gubernatorial candidate Eddie Andrews speaking at the Polk County GOP’s Lincoln Dinner on March 26 was first published on the Eddie Andrews for Iowa Facebook page.
7 Comments
I don.t like anonymous posts
I’m no fan of Eddie Andrews for Governor but the demagoguery in this criticism is shameful. The personal attacks are unnecessary. I wonder if Bill from White Plaines would have written the same way if his or her real name was attached.
Miketram01 Tue 31 Mar 4:50 PM
disappointed
Disappointed that Bleeding Heartland would post this hateful and racist post. My shop steward said this is the type of stuff that makes registered Democrats either vote Republican or stay home on election day.
union50702 Wed 1 Apr 8:19 AM
What the...
Let’s be real. The IA GOP doesn’t need any help kneecapping Eddie Andrews. The point and need for this incite from, uh, White Plains(?) is truly mystifying.
MantenoLorax Wed 1 Apr 8:49 AM
Is it really clear that Feenstra will definitely become the nominee?
Are there even going to be any relevant polls before the Iowa primaries? I suppose that’s an outdated question.
PrairieFan Wed 1 Apr 8:24 PM
I think Feenstra is strongly favored
in this splintered field, but I don’t know how many high-quality polls we will see before the primary.
Laura Belin Thu 2 Apr 1:11 PM
Fools rushed in, again
When is the last time any of you have used the expression, “act the fool?” Perhaps a better question is, “have you ever used the expression, ‘act the fool?’” If you are honest, your answer to the first question is probably, “I have never used the expression,” and your answer to the second question is, most likely, “Never.” And your thought may be, “But I like it, and may try it out on my friends; after all, ‘You go, girl!’ went over big at this or that event!”
It is not something most White folks say.
I was not going to respond to the vitriol about my statement that Eddie Andrews is the token, “one Black friend,” that his constituents point to when they can claim that they are not racially prejudiced or discriminatory. Then, I saw a comment by union50702 expressing “disappointment” in the publication of my remark (which was deleted within about two hours of its appearing in Bleeding Heartland), calling it, “hateful and racist.”
I decided that was worth addressing.
What is, “racism?”
The dictionary before me at the moment is the Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition, as copyrighted in 2001. The distinction is important, because there is no such thing as “the dictionary definition” of anything. Every different dictionary is published by organizations comprised of individuals with a certain political perspective, and its definitions reflect that. Don’t take my word for it. Ask a lexicographer.
This dictionary defines racism as, “a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.” As for racial discrimination, Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009) refers the researcher to its definition of “discrimination,” generally, calling it, “[t]he effect of a law or established practice that confers privileges on a certain class or that denies privileges to a certain class because of race [and other characteristics].” It also defines “discrimination” as “[d]ifferential treatment, esp., a failure to treat all persons equally when no reasonable distinction can be found between those favored and those not favored.”
I give you definitions so that we can have an intelligent, adult conversation about the terms used against my remarks, sure. I write here, for a more important reason, namely, because of how quickly you would turn on Bleeding Heartland, and by extension, its publisher, for giving them space. How profane! (“(Of speech or conduct) irreverent to something held sacred.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1329 (9th ed. 2009)).
Let’s spend a moment breaking down this “disappointment.”
We begin with the assertion, my comment was “racist.” To the extent the judgment on union50702’s part uses the term properly, he or she or they must assume that I am White. Why? Because I would have to be one who is treating Eddie Andrews’ asininity differently based on his race, and his constituents’ condescending affection for him, from the lens of a White person. Additionally, I would have to be a White person who would not call out Eddie’s self-involved buffoonery, if he were White.
What makes you think I’m White? Is it the, “White,” in White Plains? Years ago, Colin Jost continued a long-running Saturday Night Live Weekend Update gag about his being a wealthy, White racist, by saying that White Plains, New York, is the the home of “his people.” It was a joke. Minorities live in White Plains. I know. I have been there. I have shopped in that town.
Is it because I read, and occasionally submit writing for, Bleeding Heartland? Do you think only White folk read this?
Maybe it is because I use words like, “asininity.” Are you under the impression that Blacks do not refer to dictionaries? Have you-all referred to a dictionary before using words like, “racist?”
My immediate reaction to hearing about the displeasure of some Bleeding Heartland readers regarding that one sentence commentary, was to ask whether any of the complaining individuals were Black. The publisher did not answer that question. The lack of an answer was the answer: No.
What then, would compel White liberals to call my remark “racist,” or “discriminatory?” Is it perhaps because you people only have one Black friend? Is it because you wish not to think too hard about your own ideas about Black or Brown or Red folks?
(Oh, and do you feel a different vibe from Yellow individuals? Americans used to call Yellow people, “Orientals;” either way, do you think that folks who “look Asian” read Bleeding Heartland? What assumptions have you, with respect to whether “they” would read this before say, Black people?)
As you think of these things – and, being White, and liberal, you can choose not to – perhaps you should consider your animosity toward me, as an individual. Miketram01 accuses me of hiding behind a pseudonym. I find that curious, because neither he (assuming this is a male, and that is his name, with or without the “01” suffix), nor anybody else, has directed resentment toward me for using this pseudonym upon reading any of my other contributions to this blog.
That was when he and the rest of you were comfortable. You say you weren’t uncomfortable by my most recent comment, but were offended? Why were you offended?
I have forced you – and you have it coming, because you brought it on yourselves with your snap judgments about me – to live in the discomfort of your own prejudices. From where I am sitting, I see the value of questioning how I know what I know, and whether I know what I think I know. Value it if you dare; hate it, if you are so-disposed; ignore it at your peril.
You attempt to make the rules about what constitutes racial prejudice. You apparently deem yourselves able to do so. You see yourselves as protectors of the Black man. What, about being a White person of privilege, gives you that authority? What do you know about anyone outside of your tribe (let alone a whole race of individuals), aside from what the handful of minorities with whom you choose to mingle, choose to show you? The term, “White Supremacy,” looks a bit different now, doesn’t it?
Here is the truth: you are not “all that.”
You have no “right” to claim a space in the discussion about what is “racist,” or “offensive,” because those terms are, to you, conceptual. With all the respect that you are actually due, you are out of your league.
Where do you go from here, intellectually? Are you really going to adopt the MAGA, “reverse racism,” ideology? Because, among other things, that would suggest that I’m not White. You are running out of hiding places, because there is no hiding from yourselves.
This “disappointment” in Bleeding Heartland for making you feel uncomfortable is to be expected, coming as it does from someone who has never had to feel (let alone, live each day with) racial discrimination; the other comments, likewise. You do not wish to challenge your privilege, or be challenged by it. These are not my problems.
They are not Bleeding Heartland’s problems, either. Blowing up the publisher’s telephone, or the blog’s spaces on social media, could potentially entice the publisher to consider canceling my thoughts. But, look back at the title of the blog: it has, “Bleeding Heart” included. What is a “Bleeding Heart” liberal? I have always thought such a person is sympathetic to minority viewpoints; a person who is open-minded; a person with the intellectual and moral rigor to challenge existing stereotypes.
That isn’t who you folks are. When you want to cancel me, or criticize a publication (the claimed thesis of which is the free exchange of good, well-developed ideas), you tell on yourselves. You hold up a billboard that says, “I’m White! I know what is acceptable, and what is not, therefore, I am exempt from feeling awkward!”
Guess, what? No, you do not, and no you are not.
You want to know who I am. Why? So that you can “dox” me? So that you can exclude me from your social circle? So you can put a face on the person holding the mirror up to you?
I am reminded of the Al Pacino character in the 1983 movie, “Scarface,” during the dinner scene after he and the Michele Pfeiffer character have a loud confrontation. Pacino’s character says, “You need people like me so that you can point your [] fingers and say, ‘That’s the bad guy.’ So, what that make you? Good? You not good. You just know how to hide. How to lie. Me? I don’t have that problem.”
Say what ever you want about me. It’s nothing I haven’t heard before. Thinking independently has its price. I pay it every day and I regret not a penny spent.
But leave Bleeding Heartland alone. You owe this publication, and this publisher, a whole lot of respect, and you betray her when you challenge her integrity with your whining. She deserves better, and every one of you knows that. Have your sanctimony. Don’t bring it here.
Bill from White Plains Sat 4 Apr 10:58 AM
Names
Discourse is typically improved when people have to use their real names.
Rod Sullivan Sat 4 Apr 8:47 PM