I started my piece with full disclosure about the place I am coming from in my estimation of Miller-Meeks– which was my way of apologizing in advance for any offense my spin might create.

Gut responses are as important as intellectual ones but unfortunately I was unable to experience the latter as Ms. Miller Meeks would not provide me with the information I asked (POLITELY!) for.

I would have had more to think and write about than Miller-Meeks’s behavior if she had taken the time to answer my questions on the issues that are important to me. As Tim Pawlenty said recently in an interview, being clear on issue positions is the minimum any candidate running for political office is OBLIGATED to do.

And I am sorry but it seems we disagree on the importance of gender. I think gender differences are significant and run deep, but in the PC world nobody is supposed to talk about them.

Your opinion piece is not at all accurate. Your *opinion* lacks facts, resulting in misinformation. You seem to have an agenda against Miller-Meeks,

Miller-Meeks is one of the hardest working people I know, with a proven track record of achievement. She is an excellent candidate for the 2nd district who is MUCH, MUCH better than incumbent Dave Loebsack.

Is she perfect? No, no candidate is.

Your recall about the 2nd district convention scheduling change of candidate speeches is not accurate.

MIller-Meeks is approachable, as she demonstrates time and again with her house calls, various GOP central committee meetings, campaign stops, and candidate get-togethers. She goes above and beyond in the performance of her duties.

No, she’s not polished, but then again she’s not a career politician (thank goodness!). She can tell a person when a where they met. She’s genuine. Agree or disagree with some of her policy stances, but she’s not at all how you try to portray her here.

And you wrote this based on a ten minute speech at a convention and a short interview on the radio?

That’s a disservice to your readers. I wouldn’t fill out a questionaire from a virtual stranger either. Further, gender arguments are shallow.

I am sorry you don’t agree with my assumptions (I would call them my perceptions) but I think we all need to be leery of women in politics: women who are seeking power in government, business, or the like need to be vetted perhaps more rigorously than men.

This is a theory I have discovered many of us don’t want to talk about—-it certainly is not PC! But I have found when broaching the topic that women are often more receptive to the idea than are men: sometimes it takes a woman to understand a woman and often men simply don’t have a clue.

And to play devil’s advocate, if you believe women do NOT need to be more closely vetted than men when it comes to issues of power, are you really satisfied with the behavior of some of the women in our U.S. Congress? For example Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton? Catherine McKinney?

Quite frankly, I watch them on tv and I squirm with embarrassment to be a woman (and as I am sure you would agree, Mr. Larsen, I can embarrass my “gender” quite successfully on my own without another woman’s help!)

In any event, I saw Ms. Miller-Meeks at the state convention and heard her speak and alas again I found nothing of substance in what she said. I turned to a friend and asked “What did she say?” and we both replied at the same time: “NOTHING!”

Ms. Miller-Meeks was somewhat toned down in her speech this time, and referred to herself in the singular, which was a relief, but I still find myself offended by her predilection for gimmicks, like the ambulance parked in the corner of HyVee Hall (no pink stethoscopes this time, though—whew!) I guess I prefer to be spared the cutesy stuff which is somehow so often expected of women.

I’d like to add, by the way, that I think Ms. Miller-Meeks’s slogan about “healing” congress is rather silly if not dangerous. I am not in the least comforted by the New Age tone of the phrase, and I also think the last thing we need in Washington is the medical model for getting things done.

So perhaps we will have to agree to disagree. I am sure Ms. Miller-Meeks is a good friend to you and as I said I have only my observations from afar to go on. But they have led me to think hard about Miller-Meeks’s candidacy. If the election were held tomorrow I would leave my District Two line blank.

I personally know Dr. Miller-Meeks and there is nothing contrived about her, she is genuine, caring, and the second you meet her you know that she is the real deal, a genuine candidate and friend.

I just read that MMM considers herself a Progressive Republican. Well, progress isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, either.

I must agree with Iowans Rock- 2010 sounds like a better plan fto find candidates that more reflect what Iowa needs in political leadership.