Mariannettepower in 2nd Congressional District

May 30, 2008 by 10 Comments

Okay, so at the cost of revealing I’m not as brave as I would like to be, I have to admit I am a person who has fears, and one of them right now is Mariannette Miller-Meeks.
The bottom line is I believe it’s necessary to investigate thoroughly the character of any woman who seeks a position of power in any arena, be it business, teaching, the medical profession, politics, you name it. Full disclosure: the uneasiness I suffer at the prospect of any woman in power stems initially from the seventeen years I spent in an all-female grade school, prep school, and college, both in this country and abroad, not to mention many years in jobs with female (as well as male) bosses. So I speak from the point of view of one who has had countless opportunities to observe how women operate and I have come to the conclusion that it takes an unusual man to remain uncorrupted by power but it takes an even more unusual woman to do so. As we look at women who have been drawn to the political scene over the years, we find some who rise above the predilection of their sex but we can also find just as many, perhaps more, who do not. There is a joke (from I’ll bet the sixties) that whatever women do, they must do twice as well as men. This I believe is true. But I strongly disagree with the punch line that says, “Fortunately that’s not difficult.”
I have no proof that Mariannette Miller-Meeks lets power go to her head, but there are a few instances of behavior on her part which give me pause.
I e-mailed Mariannette Miller-Meeks some time ago and asked if I could send her some questions to answer. After a bit of back and forth correspondence with her campaign manager, I finally received an e-mail from Ms. Miller-Meeks impressing on me the fact she had just returned from Washington and stating she would not answer any questions in black and white (nor did she offer her phone number,) because she prefers to speak to people in person, face to face as it were, so that they may see her sincerity, or words to that effect. She suggested I attend a venue where she would be available. There was, by the way, no sensitivity on her part to the possibility I might be an older “shut-in” or unable to drive.
So I proceeded to find out what I could about Ms. Miller-Meeks from her website, where I discovered she wants to cut federal spending and reform taxes and fix health care (she’ll get no argument from me on these initiatives although it’s unclear from the website how she plans to accomplish them.) Interestingly enough, the information at her site steers clear of certain social/family values issues on whose bandwagon so many candidates seem to be heedlessly jumping (and that was almost a relief– that she did not feel the same obligation!) I also found out how she left home as a teenager and made her way in the world and joined the military and eventually attended medical school…..these are all very admirable accomplishments and I am convinced Ms. Miller-Meeks has a high IQ and lots of ability and is ambitious and successful.
All well and good, but still I found myself troubled, as if something I needed to know was missing, and I felt somewhat mystified… I started to put the pieces of my puzzlement together when I heard Ms. Miller-Meeks speak at The District Two Convention in April.
First of all, Ms. Miller-Meeks and the other District Two candidates for Us Representative were scheduled to speak in the afternoon. Peter Teahen and Lee Harder were present earlier in the morning, talking to constituents and circulating, and not long after Ms. Miller-Meeks arrived, the time frame for speeches was changed to accommodate her schedule (she had just rushed to convention from a medical meeting and had to rush back.)
After some confusion as to which candidate should speak first, Ms. Miller-Meeks spent her allotted minutes in a list of comparisons to Loebsack, cheering herself on with praise about her success in getting ahead, in being in the military, in being a doctor, in being a wife of twenty-five years with two children. It was a speech based on the topic, “Who is better? I am!” Except for the embarrassment of her poor grammar in referring to herself repeatedly as “They,” it was a very effective pep talk and I noticed many women in the audience egging her on. She said very little about how she planned to cut federal spending, or lower taxes and the cost of health care while making the latter more available to us all.
I came away from the convention not knowing much more about Ms. Miller-Meeks than I did before…. except that I discovered she is very energetic and speaks well and fast and likes cute ideas like the white coats and pink (yes! PINK!) stethoscopes around the necks of supporters at her booth (so much for those of us with white coat phobia)…. and forgive me, I couldn’t help remembering the fitting quote from Mark Twain that the only people who should be allowed to employ the “royal we” are “kings, editors, and people with tapeworms. “
The next opportunity I had to glimpse what makes Ms. Miller-Meeks tick was her interview on Steave Deace’s show. Here again, Ms. Miller-Meeks showed remarkable verbal skills, in fact she herself emphasized how good they are, something about some family “dynamic” involving children and husband… My problem is not with her skills but in the way she seemed to be using them in the interview. Instead of answering Deace’s questions, Ms. Miller-Meeks jumped through hoops with words to do everything BUT answer his questions. She stumbled badly on the abortion issue–don’t worry about how we might react to your answer, Mariannette, just tell us how you feel! –so that it must have been evident to all but the least perceptive listener that she was just plain avoiding the question.
She showed overall a great reluctance to answer many of Deace’s questions. Instead it seemed she used her verbal skills to restate his questions and twist them slightly (or more so) into the questions she would have liked him to be asking her. She did this nearly effortlessly and pleasantly and without appearing to be aggressive, but still she did it, and that is fact. Afterwards, when I thought about the interview in its entirety, I realized it was really not as much an interview as it was a monologue. Ms. Miller-Meeks used her enviable verbal skills to make herself unreachable, in fact almost invulnerable, and I wondered if the reason no listeners’ phone calls were accepted was that she had used up so much time talking. At any rate, it was an amazing feat and I would think Ms. Miller-Meeks would be much sought after as a participant in a filibuster.
However, a US Representative has more to do, we hope, than filibuster. A US Representative is in Washington to serve us. If Ms. Miller-Meeks is going to be an effective representative she is going to have to listen to somebody besides herself and talk about something besides herself. She is going to have to answer people’s questions in whatever form the questions take, and she is going to have to learn to accommodate herself to other people and to situations where she is not in control. Part of a doctor’s job is telling people what to do (er… making recommendations,) and I am not certain that is necessarily appropriate training for the people’s representative, much of whose job often involves listening to what your constituents would like to have you do.
Frankly, I find Mariannette Miller-Meeks intelligent, competent, aggressive, and self centered. I have yet to see any indication that she has as big a heart as she does a head, particularly since I remained wholly unconvinced by her display of emotion (as in: sorry, I may get a little emotional about this) when she was talking about the plight of underprivileged children. Well aware that her audience would not have been able to see tears in a radio interview, Ms. Miller-Meeks was considerate enough to warn us and imply that she might be about to shed them.
And so Ms. Miller-Meeks has left me to ponder the Power of Tears, not to mention the ramifications of Tears AND Power.
Hold those thoughts, everybody, when you go to the polls to vote.

Filed under Politics Tagged with , , , , , ,

Convictions

May 29, 2008 by 5 Comments

Recently myself and my fellow conservative cyber-soldiers have been accused of wanting purity in a candidate. I wanted to take the time to dispel that myth. We do not want something that we know is impossible to achieve. What we want is someone that shares our core convictions. We don’t want purity, we want priorities. Now just what might those core convictions be you must be asking yourself. It is simple, our core convictions are life, family, and education.

Life. For those that do not share our convictions they may think that we simply oppose abortion. Well that is just the tip of the ice berg so to speak. It goes without saying that our core convictions would include the abomination known as abortion. How anyone could think of taking life of an unborn child is beyond me. I don’t understand the need for such a grotesque misuse of the knowledge and skills that God gave mankind. These skills were granted to mankind for the express purpose of saving lives, instead there are some depraved individuals that use those skills to reach into the womb of a woman with the sole intention of killing a baby. This is the most disgusting form of barbarism that mankind has ever visited upon each other. As I stated the placing of value on life also includes that of the elderly and the terminally ill. All individuals serve some purpose in the grand scheme of things and to end a life prematurely is wrong. Proponents of euthanasia promote it as humane for the ill and elderly, however they fail to see that assisted suicide is still suicide. It is the act of taking a valuable human life and ending it for no other reason than selfishness.

Family. The American family is an endangered species in today’s world. The divorce rate in the US is skyrocketing. The institution of marriage is under attack by homosexual activists that feel men should be able to marry men and women should marry women. This sick and twisted worldview is being forced on the public by the Gay Elite through our education centers and through the Democratic Party. Recently the Democrat controlled Iowa Statehouse refused to debate a Defense of Marriage Amendment. This is a travesty of the highest order. Consider this, most Iowans would favor a ban on the depravity known as gay marriage. And yet the Democrats are in the back pocket of the Gay Elite and the rest of their mafia. They refuse to do the will of the people of Iowa. The gay lifestyle is being forced on us without our consent, so we must look for candidates that will help protect Iowa from this lunacy.

Education. With all that is wrong with our education system it would could take up a post all on its own. The problems here are multitude. We have our schools becoming indoctrination centers with theory being presented as fact. Iowa’s children are being taught that it is okay to gay and that it is normal. To be quite blunt this is bullshit. The purpose of our schools is to teach the children the necessary skills to excel in life and possibly college. This purpose has been abandoned, instead they have become indoctrination centers that teach little Jimmy that it is normal to have two mommies. They teach that humans evolved from apes and that we are no better than animals even though there is considerable evidence to the opposite. They preach moral relativity, that people have no right to judge the actions of others. That if it feels good just do it. To be perfectly honest, I do not know if our current education system can be saved, it is quite possible that it will need to be rebuilt from the ground up.

These three topics are the convictions that we are looking for in our candidates. Unfortunately they are few and far between. We are also meeting some resistance from those that want to continue with the status quo in politics. Maybe we can open their eyes to show them that we need to send a message to these candidates that we are serious and we are pissed. The lesser of two evils no more.

Filed under Politics Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Candidates Worth Your Vote

May 28, 2008 by 5 Comments

After doing some research on the candidates who are in the primaries, I found some that stood out when it comes to having convictions in life, family, and education.  Don’t get me wrong, these three issues are not the only things that make a promising candidate.  These three core values, however, give the candidate a firm foundation on how they will tackle the other issues.  By the way, if you are one of those Republicans who pride yourself in the label “fiscal conservative” I have news for you.  Without maintaining the three issues of life, family, and education, you might as well kiss lesser and cheaper government good-bye.  Without these three core values, our society will implode and we will need the government to step in more and more, which is definitely not cheap.  That is why I am promoting candidates who share a similar vision in life, family, and education.

The first candidate is John Bridges who is running for Iowa House of Representatives District 94.  His Republican challenger in the June 3rd primary is Howard Hubbard.  I do not know what type of candidate Mr. Hubbard is since he has ignored all three of my emails inquiring about his stances.  I have exchanged emails with John and have talked to him on the phone.  He did have some skeletons in his closet that he got out in the open on his website, which I admire him for.  He also was very willing to take the time to explain those skeletons to me in detail.  If you have any reservations about anything from his past, shoot him an email jobridges@mchsi.com and he will respond almost immediately to you.  I believe that John Bridges has the core convictions of life, family, and education.

http://iowabrigade.wordpress.com/category/john-bridges/

The other candidate that I believe will be a strong voice for these three issues is Adam Vandall.  Adam is runnning for Republican Iowa House of Representatives District 41.  His challenger in the primary is Susan Schmidt.  Once again, Susan is candidate who must never check her emails since all thee I sent to her inquiring about her stances were never responded to.  Adam took the time to respond to some of my emails.  I believe he also will be a strong supporter of life, family, and education.

 http://iowabrigade.wordpress.com/category/adam-vandall/

The Iowa legislature needs candidates like these two.  Candidates that will not forget the foundations of the Republican party.  Because without these foundations, the Republican party has no strength to tackle the new issues that will pop up in 2008 and beyond.  Those who say we must forget those values in order to modernize our party just to be able to compete with the Democrats must have never tried to build a new house without first laying down a firm foundation.  John and Adam need your vote on June 3rd and then they will need your help going up against the incumbent Democrats in those two districts.

 

Filed under Politics Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Erik Helland For House District 69

May 28, 2008 by 5 Comments

I’m a voter desperately seeking a candidate I really want to vote for!

It’s ironic that one of the few people I can be enthusiastic about is not running in my district, but I’m going to write about him anyway, because I am hard put to find much good to say about many of the rest in the Republican field this primary season.

Erik Helland of Grimes is running in District 69 for the seat currently occupied by Republican Walter Tomenga, who is retiring after four years. This is a district where the state of Iowa could use a strong conservative. In that regard Tomenga himself has not been the sharpest pencil in the box and in the spirit of camaraderie he has endorsed Helland’s challenger Al Lorenzen from Granger. There is no Democrat running in November so the winner of this primary will be the new District 69 Representative. You lucky voters who will be able to vote for Helland will have to decide June 3, that’s the bottom line.

Erik Helland is a farmer whose family has been farming for 174 years. He has strong family and community roots and a respect for human life which he believes begins at conception. He has made himself readily available to voters by knocking on more than 7,000 doors (at last week’s count) and unlike his opponent has not avoided questions posed by people via e-mail and telephone. As a farmer Helland is clearly a capable businessman but one with strong down to earth values and a matter- of-fact attitude. He believes in the wisdom of a free market to adjust itself ; on the related topic of taxes, he believes Iowans bear too great a burden. Helland has family and friends serving in our military and believes in a strong national defense. For this reason he has supported John McCain. Although he is far more conservative than McCain on social values, he is hopeful most of these issues can be better addressed on a state rather than a federal level.

Helland was interviewed by Steve Deace on WHO radio and I was immediately impressed by his ability to express his views without worrying about whether or not everybody was going to agree with him. “Common sense” comes to mind, and also “Forthright,” words that sadly we can longer take for granted in describing our legislators.

If you are tired of politicians’ pandering and getting the runaround from them I suggest voting for Erik. We don’t need politicians representing us, we need regular people with insight and ability who can breathe new life into the stale situation in The Assembly. We also need somebody with optimism and a talent for reaching people and communicating. I believe Erik Helland is that person.

Erik has been endorsed by The Iowa Farm Bureau and The Tax Relief Pac. He also has the endorsement of The Iowa Right to Life, who are adamant that he should be elected to District 69, particularly as they feel their efforts were sabotaged by Tomenga and fear there will only be more of the same should Lorenzen win the seat.

So those of you who have the opportunity, make the best of your good luck and vote for Erik Helland June 3. I wish I could be in your shoes.

Filed under Politics Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

The Three Musketeers

May 27, 2008 by 4 Comments

The June 3rd primaries are almost upon us so I have decided that I shall share my thoughts on the GOP candidates that are vying for the privilege of challenging Tom Harkin in November. There are three Republican candidates that are vying for this nomination; they include former State Representative George Eichhorn, political newcomer Christopher Reed, and political newcomer Steve Rathje. Whichever candidate wins they will have to challenge Democratic incumbent Tom Harkin. I will warn you now, this is going to be my impression of these three candidates based on the information that the Iowa Brigade has gathered from them and online sources.

The first candidate that I am going to rant about is Steve Rathje. Rathje is a businessman that had the vision to see a need and he filled. He has been very successful in business and now feels like he should apply those same business principles to the government. A noble cause indeed, but we just recently had a presidential candidate that espoused those same feelings handily defeated in the Iowa Caucus. Iowans want a candidate that truly shares their moral and social viewpoint. That is something that Mr. Rathje has failed to articulate to the voters around the state. I have had the opportunity to hear Rathje speak on one occasion and I was not impressed. To me he seemed like a living breathing Ken doll, a plastic man so to speak. I have heard reports that he uses the exact same speech at a variety of campaign events. This leads me to believe that unless he has a speech written before him, he could not deliver one. Mr. Rathje does make the claim to the title of social conservatism and we must take him at his word due to the lack of previous political experience. He does not have a voting record that we can go back to research to determine his true goals and values. One thing that troubles me about Steve, that is the fact that the Iowa Brigade sent Mr. Rathje questions that he replied by saying those were answered on his website. Mr. Rathje, could you not remember the positions that you have taken, could you not openly state them via an email? This scares me in that it could mean the positions that he has taken may not truly be his positions. They could simply be a way for him to pay lip service to the legion of real conservatives that inhabit Iowa. Could I vote for Mr. Rathje? Yes I could. Would I make him my first pick; will I choose him on June 3rd? You will just have to wait and see.

http://iowabrigade.wordpress.com/category/steve-rathje/

http://steverathje.com/index.htm

George Eichhorn is the next candidate that I am going to lay bare for all to see. Mr Eichhorn is the one true verifiable conservative in the race. He has a voting record that belies the fact that he has consistently voted in favor each and every conservative issue that came through the statehouse. What bothers me about Eichhorn is that he failed to launch a campaign website until a few weeks ago. Why did he wait so long to do this? How committed is he to winning this battle? He has come out of the corner swinging so to speak and he has done it in convincing fashion by attacking Harkin instead of his opponents. I like that. Another thing that I have noticed is that his supporters are a rabid bunch. I have noticed that there has been a lot of support for Mr. Eichhorn on the internet. You can see this in the amount of pro-Eichhorn posts on the various Iowa blogs. Can I vote for Mr. Eichhorn? Yes. Am I going to vote for him in the June 3rd primary? If I told you now would you want to read the rest of my post?

http://iowabrigade.wordpress.com/category/george-eichhorn/

http://www.george2008.com/

Christopher Reed. He is another newcomer to the political arena. Mr. Reed is a veteran of the Navy having served during the dark days of the Clinton administration in the personnel office. When Mr. Reed left the Navy he took the skills that he learned there and applied them to the private sector launching his own business in Cedar Rapids. Mr. Reed has also laid claim to the conservative mantle. He answered Iowa Brigade questions in a way that put him firmly in the strong conservative camp. The Iowa Brigade also had an individual at the second district convention; she was very impressed with the way that Mr. Reed spoke. We have had personal email correspondence with Mr. Reed on several occasions and found him to be extremely responsive to our questions and comments. Mr. Reed is another strong candidate for the nomination to challenge the overly liberal Tom Harkin. Could I vote for Mr. Reed in the General Election? That would be an emphatic yes. Will I vote for him in the June 3rd primary? Read on to find the answer to that question.

http://iowabrigade.wordpress.com/category/christopher-reed/

http://www.christopherreed2008.com/

There you have it. These are the three candidates that are vying for the honor of challenging Harkin in the general election in November. All three have strong points to recommend them. I do not think that I can vote for Rathje in the primary. To me his conservatism seems to be a window dressing. He seems to be the type of candidate that whose beliefs will go whatever direction the wind is blowing. I don’t know that this would happen; this is just my take on Mr. Rathje. At first Mr. Eichhorn forced me to believe that his campaign wasn’t serious about winning the election. His almost daily email updates has begun to change my mind, however there are still doubts lingering in the back of mind as to whether he is serious about his campaign. Mr. Reed has been very responsive to our questions and concerns and he seems to be a very dedicated and young individual. I feel that his youthfulness is something that is lacking in our government right now.  He seems to be dedicated to the conservative cause and he has already shown that he is willing to work hard. For this reason I have to declare that at this point in time that I will throw my support behind Republican United States Senate Candidate Christopher Reed. I will be voting for Mr. Reed in the June 3rd primary. I would like to caution my readers at this time that my mind may be subject to change depending Mr. Reed’s actions and any revelations that we may discover between now and then. But for now vote for Christopher Reed for Senate.

Filed under Politics Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Let’s Go Hunting

May 22, 2008 by 8 Comments

Recently Common Iowan posted a blog article that compared three of the US House of Representative candidates for District 2. I looked at each individuals comments and records when available. He came to a determination that all three were not the person that Iowa conservatives needed in office. This is what we call RINO hunting. During this hunting expedition he successfully found two RINO’s and subsequently proceeded to inform you, our loyal reader about these individuals. In fact we have placed these candidates on our Wall of Shame page for the whole world to see.

Our hunting expedition has not ended with the these two RINO’s. Quite the contrary actually, we will not rest until we have tracked down each and every RINO in the State of Iowa. It is our goal to make the Iowa RINO a thing of the past, as a piece of embarrassing Iowa history.

If you are tired of the false conservatives that cave in and promote anti-conservative agendas then let us know who they are. When you find a RINO place that persons name in the comment section on the Wall of Shame page and we will research that person. It is going to take a concerted and organized effort to rid Iowa of RINO’s. Now it is time for me to get back to the hunt. Thank you and happy hunting.

Filed under Politics Tagged with , , ,

Reflections of an Iowa Caucus Night

May 21, 2008 by 3 Comments

In reflection, what a Caucus Night it was!!!! The media hype, the phone calls (day and night), the glossy looking mailers that filled my mail box…. wondering what the weather would be like. And finally, time to leave for the caucus site. I arrived at 6:30 and found there was not a legal place to park. Not to worry- I found a spot that would do.

After entering the school building to much chaos and confusion (it was the democrat line), I followed the signs to my room. Crammed into a math classroom surely used by 20 students were 96 strangers, all ready to start the caucus process. But wait- more chaos…. not enough registration forms, people sitting on the floor, waiting for the door to close at 7… wait again, the door closes at 7:26, caucus begins with ballots being collected in the waste paper container. Ballots filled out by old, young, and in-between. It was an amazing experience.

I reflect upon my second ever caucus experience because there is a lot to learn from it. So much interest, build up… then over. A lot like getting ready for Christmas. So, where do we go from here? Is the Republican Party any more organized, is it reaching out to do something with the enthusiasm generated with the caucus participation? Did they want our vote and then think we will just fade into the sunset and show up in another 4 years?

I really do not know the answers to my questions but I would be interested in hearing about your caucus experience and your vision as to where the Republican Party is headed post caucus. I am only one person but I am determined to make my voice heard and my beliefs known.

I am waiting and hoping to hear more reflections and also ideas for the next wave in Iowa politics.

Filed under Politics Tagged with , , , ,

David Hartsuch for US House of Representatives District 1

May 21, 2008 by 4 Comments

At one time Iowa’s Congressional District 1 was represented by morality and values. This is when Jim Nussle represented the District in the US House of Representatives. That ended two years ago when Nussle decided to run for Iowa’s governor’s office. At this time he could not run for two offices so he stepped away from a leadership role in District 1. That left a void that needed to be filled; the one thing that no one knew who it would be that filled that void. In November of 2006 Democrat Bruce Braley managed to pull off a narrow victory over his Republican challenger Mike Whalen. We did not know it at the time, but Braley would turn out to be one of the most liberal and partisan politicians in Washington, D.C.

Just a little background information on Rep. Braley’s voting record. Braley has repeatedly voted against funding the troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq. This makes one wonder if Braley really worries about the welfare of US troops, kind of troubling isn’t it. There was also a bill that would reform some of the practices that the IRS uses. One of the issues that was covered by this bill was the notification of victims when the government believes that they have been a victim of identity theft. WHAT??? This guy actually voted against this, I think it would be a great idea to let the victims know that they have been victimized; evidently Braley doesn’t agree with me.
Oh and Iowans are traditionally people that feels abortion is wrong. Braley on the other hand is more than willing to take money from NARAL; the liberal pro-abortion terrorist group. He actually took money from this group to run for office. This is just one of the liberal contributors that Braley has received campaign funds.

Now this year Braley has some serious competition in the form of Republican David Hartsuch. Hartsuch is a current Iowa State Senate member that has four more years remaining in his current term. David is an emergency room physician in Bettendorf, IA where he makes his home. In 2006 Hartsuch challenged the moderate Republican Maggie Tinsman for the Iowa Senate seat in District 41. In this role David has demonstrated that his actions are guided by traditional Iowa Christian values. Recently David has stated that he was reluctant to leave the state Senate because he feels that he has accomplished much good in that position. However, the potential of doing the same good at the federal level combined with the fact that no one else had decided to challenge Braley for the seat convinced him that he should go ahead and run.

David has demonstrated true conservative ideals every time that he considered the bill before him. As such he not only voted for the partial birth abortion ban that came through the Iowa Senate; he cosponsored the bill. This demonstrates a strong dedication to the unborn and to the moral values that drives the majority of Iowans. Another demonstration of David’s strong moral character came through in the debate about homosexual marriages. David is very firmly planted in the reality of the immorality of homosexuality, as such he cosponsored the bill that would have amended the Iowa Constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. This shows the moral clarity that David has in social and political issues. Iowa and the country as a whole needs more people like David Hartsuch.
Recently the legislature in the State of Iowa passed a bill that repeals the local option sales tax with a statewide one cent sales tax (LOST). The problem is that the LOST was a tax that the citizens were able to vote up or down, essentially make the decision on whether they would be willing to pay a higher sales tax to fund public works projects. The new tax, known as SILO, took that ability away from the citizens. David fought hard to prevent this travesty from passing in the Senate. Unfortunately there were enough RINO’s that helped the Democrats push this legislation through.

The State of Iowa and the United States suffers from a loss of morality in our elected officials. I wholeheartedly believe that David Hartsuch will be the Republican candidate for the US House of Representatives that can bring morality back to the US Congress.

Filed under Politics Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

I am Proud to be a Termite

May 20, 2008 by 4 Comments

I was reading a blog the other day that struck me as hard core truth.  The author compared the GOP to a house with termites.  The house seemed like a solid structure that has stood the test of many years– and this year wasn’t going to be any different, except for that it had termites.  Those little but mighty creatures that seem harmless until they start combining their forces.  I wish I would have been cleaver enough to make this anology of what has been happening to the Republican party.  While the party elite think everything is fine, the base of the party is telling a different story.  They are the termites who are finding strength in numbers and soon are not going to be silenced any more.

I am proud to be one of these termites, although I never thought I would be one.  I have been a proud Republican all of my life up until this year.  It started with the 2008 presidential election when the GOP basically chose politics over their own principles.  They cashed in their conservative values to the highest bidder and they left the candidates who represented the heart and soul of the party out to dry.  Republican Presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee said it best in his book From Hope to Highter Ground when he stated that “Republicans create a firing squad by forming a circle.”

I thought the discontent with the GOP would end after the presidential primary season was over, but not so.  This experience caused me to take a look at Iowa politics under a microscope, and I did not like what I saw there either.  The same problem:  the Republican party dismissing the social conservative base as being a nuisance and not important to their success anymore.  Most Republican politicians are too busy worrying about their political agendas and their wallets to support something called VALUES.  They don’t think they need us so, therefore, they have no reason to fight for us.  They think we will just fall in line, but not this termite.  If there is not a good house cleaning in the Iowa GOP of bad candidates, I have a feeling the termites will eventually bring down this ole house.   

Filed under Politics Tagged with , , , , , ,

A Word of Caution

May 19, 2008 by 1 Comment

In Iowa in the last couple of months I’ve attended several Republican events in order to meet our 2008 federal and state candidates and hear what they have to say for themselves.
It seems almost obligatory for most candidates to declare “I am a conservative.” This statement is usually followed by a lot of a lot of clapping, cheers, optimism (and of course RELIEF!!) on the part of the audience that (ah, at last! ) we are getting back to the core beliefs of the Republican party. Afterwards, at one event, so many people put their signatures on a sign-up sheet of support that I actually felt embarrassed not to be following suit.
I am hoping people were not basing their support for this candidate on a half hour speech. I am hoping he was not as new to them as he was to me because what I heard was not enough to earn my vote. I am hoping they are not giving him their vote simply to get rid of the incumbent Democrat he is challenging. And probably most of all I am hoping they are not supporting him because he told them, “I am a conservative.”
I’m not going to mention names here: that is not the point. The issue is that we all need to be cautious and careful with our votes. There are many candidates out there who are not who they say they are. Remember even if they are not lying or at least embellishing the truth, it is hard for any of us to be objective about ourselves. Do not make the mistake of falling for what you hear from ANYbody’s lips.
I plan to do whatever research is necessary, however long it takes, to learn all I can about candidates seeking my vote. That means to get an idea about them as people and to explore their history, learn a bit about their families, education, jobs, and careers (not necessarily through the lens of their own websites!) and investigate their voting records, if any. After that, if I’m convinced I have found a truly conservative candidate of integrity and ability who will keep government out of our lives in order to restore and preserve our freedoms, our families, and our economic health, then and then ONLY will I give that candidate my vote.
And if I cannot prove a candidate to be conservative in either character or actions, then I won’t waste my time, energy, or money but save them for another candidate in the future, maybe for a person who has not yet even dreamed of running for public office.
It would be counterproductive for me to give support and ultimately power to somebody who gives no more than lip service to my convictions. There is no future in that, either for me or for The Republican Party.

Filed under Politics Tagged with , , , ,

← Older posts

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 688 other followers