I could give you another detailed account of the Republican Party of Iowa’s Leadership for Iowa event at the Iowa State Fairgrounds from last night. But you can check that out at The Iowa Republican; Caffeinated Thoughts; and Questions, Comments, and Insults. All have good descriptions of the event. Instead I will just discuss the good, the bad, and the ugly from last night.
It has been said that some of the events held by RPI prior to the current leadership were a tad bit on the boring side. This is the second event that I have had the opportunity to attend that has been put together by Matt Strawn and his team at RPI. The event was launched by rock music designed to get the crowd pumped up. And judging by the reactions of the crowd it worked. The lineup of speakers was pretty good in my opinion, although I would have opted to have Auditor Vaudt speak in person rather than via recording. I can understand why Steve King and Tom Latham were unable to attend the event as they were stuck in Washington defending American against the Pelosi healthcare takeover bill.
Strawn himself gave a good speech during his introduction of Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. During the speech he took a jab at the Democrat Bruce Braley for his involvement in the Cash for Clunkers program that the government recently attempted. I really like the line that Strawn gave saying that it is time to trade in the 1st District’s clunker. He reiterated the message that in order for the GOP to win it must stand on the principles that make a Republican a Republican. He then held up Virginia and New Jersey as evidence that Republican principles can still win elections. And of course it was inevitable that he would take some swings at Chet Culver criticizing Culver’s policies and actions. Strawn said that Iowa needs a leader and Chet Culver is not a leader.
Tim Pawlenty, affectionately known nationwide as T-Paw, was a great speaker in my honest opinion. He wasn’t here to talk policy, he was here to provide a pep talk to Iowa Republicans. He was here to fire the grassroots up. And most importantly he was here to raise funds for the Republican Party of Iowa. While I don’t know if he was successful on the last part, I do know that he was successful on the first two. Just like Strawn he pointed out that Virginia and NJ were the starting points for the Republican comeback. Throughout the speech Pawlenty pounded away at President Obama, his administration, and the Democrat controlled legislature. He reiterated that President Obama’s policies are bad for America and that his foreign policy of appeasement is a danger not just to the United States but to the world. He called for the government to live within its means just like average citizens. And he got huge laughs when he said that the only thing growing faster than the national debt was Chris Matthews man crush on Obama. He advocated for lower taxes, lower spending, more appreciation of freedoms, etc…
Now we move onto the speeches by the gubernatorial candidates. Each candidate was to be allowed 10 minutes to speak, but I don’t think it was enforced.
Jerry Behn
I wasn’t overly impressed with Mr. Behn’s speaking abilities. However I do believe that he was solid on the issues. When it comes to economic development he asserts that Governor Culver’s policies and agenda place barriers around the state that would inhibit economic growth in the state. I like that he attacked the unelected board that oversees Iowa’s energy industry for denying the construction of a new efficient coal fired power plant and that this denial cost the state $1.75 billion in business. He also touched on the need for real education reform in Iowa and the notion that anyone but Culver would be an improvement in state leadership.
Terry Branstad
I had high hopes for Branstad’s coming out party. I expected Branstad to be an eloquent and powerful speaker, but that did not materialize. Sure, he had some high points in his speech such as his pride at the growth of Des Moines University. However there were far too many awkward pauses in his speech where it became evident that he was reading from a prepared script. I don’t know if he expected to get by on the fact that he is Terry Branstad, but he will have to work harder than that to win over a majority of Republicans. When it came to the issues he talked a good game. He said that he wants to focus on bringing jobs back to Iowa. He leveled criticism at the Democrats, but it left me scratching my head because some of the criticisms were things that he himself attempted during his time in Terrace Hill. I think that he was attempting to use this event to get the other nominees to not attack his record because he stated that he will not speak ill of other Republicans. I think he needed a better showing than what he provided. As of right now the only thing keeping him in the game is his name.
Bob Vander Plaats
If you want a speaker that can fire up a crowd, you can usually count on Vander Plaats to do that. Even though this speech wasn’t his A game, it was still among the better of the night. Among the many points that he made on the night was the idea that this year’s primary may be for the future of the GOP. Will the GOP swing to the left and become more moderate or will it swing to the right and remain conservative. Naturally he reiterated that on the first day of his governorship he would issue an executive order placing a stay on gay marriage in Iowa until the legislature addressed the issue with a constitutional amendment allowing the population to vote on the issue.
Rob Roberts
Next in line was the winner or the Allamakee County straw poll. After that feat Roberts had some expectations to live up to. And he succeeded. Roberts was extremely well spoken and articulate. He communicated the issues intelligently and essentially demonstrated why he won Allamakee County’s Straw Poll. He affirmed his beliefs in limited government, personal responsibility, and free enterprise. One thing that he really stressed was that Iowa needs to invest in energy and the need to defend Iowa’s right to work law. Overall I think that this was a good night for Roberts. I think that it will benefit his campaign as people may give him a second look in the primary.
Christian Fong
This was my first opportunity to hear Mr. Fong speak. I found him to be very well spoken and articulate. He discussed the issues very clearly. One interesting thing that I noted from Fong’s speech is an idea to help curb illegal immigration. He stated that to fight illegal immigration we must celebrate legal immigration. One of his stated goals is to return Iowa to prominence and bring jobs back. One idea that Fong has is to eliminate the state income tax. All in all this was a good night for Christian Fong, however it wasn’t the breakout night that he needed to catch up with the front runners.
Christopher Rants
I would have to say it that Christopher Rants was the one candidate that had a stellar night. He gets it. The Republican Party didn’t lose elections because it was too far to the right, it lost those elections because it failed to stand on its principles. He pointed out that those attending the Tea Parties are the voters that the GOP lost. Furthermore he stated that Republican elected officials should not be afraid to talk about what they would like to cut from the budget.
Overall the night was a success in my opinion. Those in attendance were fired up by the variety of different speakers that were on hand. And everyone in attendance has now been able to hear the candidates themselves so they can make a decision on their own. I would like to take a moment to thank Matt Strawn and the leadership at RPI for making candidates available to the state’s conservative blogs. And I hope that we can do this again in the future.
Filed under: Abregar, Politics | Tagged: Bob Vander Plaats, Charles Grassley, Christian Fong, Christopher Rants, Christopher Reed, Dave Vaudt, GOP, Iowa Republicans, Jerry Behn, Leadership For Iowa, Matt Schultz, Matt Strawn, Pat Bertroche, Republican Party of Iowa, Rod Roberts, Steve King, Terry Branstad, Tim Pawlenty, Tom Latham | 5 Comments »
by Pat Bertroche, D.O.
Yesterday morning former US Senate candidate Christopher Reed announced his candidacy for the United States House of Representatives in Iowa’s 2nd Congressional District. While his bid to unseat US Senator Tom Harking fell short, his experience from that campaign will most definitely benefit him in this new race. Wednesday afternoon I had an opportunity to discuss some of the issues that his campaign will focus on.
What is the Value of a Woman’s Life? by Pat Bertroche
What is the Value of a Woman’s Life?
By J. Patrick Bertroche , D.O.
When the US Preventive Services Task Force, released the new breast screening recommendations yesterday, it ignited a firestorm of debate within the medical community and the nation. To recap what the recommendations are, I will briefly go through them. No mammograms for those over 74, no routine screening for women under 50 years of age, don’t do regular breast self exams, and pushes back recommended screenings from every year, to every two years. The USPSTF cited a lack of evidence as the reasons for the new recommendations. Keep in mind that this very same government organization found sufficient evidence for the recommendations it now does not recommend a short seven years ago.
As a side note, just not a week ago, the government agencies responsible for tracking and warning about H1N1 admitted they “may have inflated” the numbers for H1N1 in the “interest of national health”.
What’s left out of the debate, is the role of government, and how that will change with Obamacare. Right now, the different groups involved with breast cancer, such as doctors, the American Cancer Society, and the American College of Radiology, are all discussing the merits, or demerits, of the latest government guidelines. Does it strike anyone else funny that the USPSTF is REVERSING itself in the midst of the worst economic meltdowns in recent history? If they issue guidelines that ration care, which is what they are doing, then it saves money on Medicare costs. Conspiracy? The USPSTF is funded from Oregon.
But the scariest thing about the guidelines is that it points out the glaring problems with a “best practices panel”, which both the House and Senate bills contain. 7 years ago, there was sufficient evidence for breast self exams, annual mammograms for EVERYONE, and routine yearly screenings starting at 40. What happened in the meantime? Did they have studies that showed these procedures weren’t helpful? Or did they have studies that showed there was something better?
Nope. The authors of the guidelines admit that there aren’t any studies that support the new guidelines, and in fact says there aren’t enough studies for the recommendations, and call for studies to study the recommendations. Sheesh. So if there aren’t adequate studies, upon what are they basing their recommendations? Britain. Just like I’ve said before. Pres. Obama is setting up a system exactly like the British. How has that worked for Britain? Breast cancer survival rate is 69%. In the US, it is 84%. Why is there a difference? According to a study in the 2008 Lancet Oncologist, it is due to Britain’s “best practices panel” recommendations that mirror almost exactly the latest USPSTF recommendations. And those recommendations boil down to delays in diagnosis, delays in treatment, and limited access to quality treatments.
If the Government has a “best practices panel”, they would have to change the way women receive breast care. And the USPSTF study isn’t even proven. It’s just a recommendation. Medical recommendations change rapidly. Can you imagine the chaos surrounding this subject if the Government had to decide what to do now? Well, I know. They would ration care, because that’s what they do. Why do you think we have four (4) Medicare supplemental programs? Is it because the Government isn’t rationing care? Or because they are?
And, more importantly, who should decide what a woman’s life is worth? Who should decide how often you need to be screened for breast cancer? You and your doctor? Or a panel of government bureaucrats and their lackeys?
And for the best part. As we speak, James Sokolove and his ilk are firing up the copiers to file suit against every doctor, x-ray manufacturer, and hospital who ever did mammograms. Pres. Obama has plenty of reform for doctors and hospitals, who actually try to help people, but no reform for lawyers, who only want to line their pockets with other people’s grief and greed, driving up everyone’s cost for health care.
I’ve had enough. Haven’t you?
Pat Bertroche, D.O.
YOUR Congressional Candidate
Filed under: Guest Commentary, Politics | Tagged: Breast Cancer Screenings, Mammograms, Pat Bertroche, US Preventative Services Task Force | 1 Comment »