Primary Results
June 4, 2008 12 Comments
Last night was a good night for us. We are filled with the heady combination of victory and accomplishment as the majority of the candidates that we chose to support not only won their districts, but they won them convincingly.
Take for example Erik Helland in Iowa House District 69. He defeated his challenger Al Lorenzen in a lopsided battle. The final tally for District 69 shows Helland capturing 1,187 votes or 73% of the votes in his district. By comparison Lorenzen captured only 440 votes or 27% of the votes in district 69. This was an utter blow out that left Lorenzen limping home with his tail tucked between his legs. Congrats to Erik Helland on his well fought and well earned victory in the primary. Watch for future updates on Hellands candidacy in district 69.
Another race that we have concentrated on was the Iowa Senate race in District 18 between Jod Childers and Karla Sibert. This was another case of a wide margin of defeat. Childers beat Sibert by a full 44%. The final tally in this district was Mr. Childers capturing 1,666 votes or 72%. Ms. Sibert on the other hand won just 648 votes or 28%. This loss will give Ms. Sibert the opportunity to do more of her work with animals.
Okay the most hotly debated and contested race on the Republican primary was the race for the nomination for the ability to challenge Tom Harkin in November. This was a close race with the lead changing hands numerous times. In the end it came down to a battle between George Eichhorn and newcomer Christopher Reed, this of course relegated Steve Rathje to an also ran early in the evening. In the end it was my guy Christopher Reed that came out on top with the narrow margin of just 415 votes. Still Reed managed to pull off a win with the designated 35% of the vote. Now Reed will be challenging Harkin for his US Senate seat in November.
In the US House District 2, the RINO, Marianette Miller-Meeks came out on top in another close race. She faced two other Republicans for the party’s nomination for 2nd District candidate. She narrowly beat challenger Peter Teahen, this is amazing because of all the bad press that Teahen has received as of late. The margin of victory was just 109 votes. I can honestly say that this is the smallest margin of victory I have ever seen. Miller-Meeks will now go on to challenge US Rep Loebsack in Novermber while Teahen and Harder go off to lick their wounds. Hopefully these two never show back up in Iowa politics, but I have a feeling that we will have to deal with these two bad pennies again.
The following are the actual results from the Tuesdays primary.
US Senate Race
Christopher Reed-25,150 35.3%
George Eichhorn-24,735 34.7%
Steve Rathje-21,326 29.9%
US House District 2
Mariannette Miller-Meeks-7,360 43.6
Peter Teahen-7,251 42.9%
Lee Harder-2,274 13.5%
Iowa House District 19
Carlin Hageman-481 77.6%
Marshall Shoemaker-139 22.4%
Iowa House District 41
Adam Vandall-358 68.3%
Susan Schmidt-166 31.7%
Iowa House District 55
Jason Schultz-1,207 59%
Don Fredrichsen-839 41%
Iowa House District 59
Chris Hagenow-733 57.8%
Susan Murphy-536 42.2%
Iowa House District 62
Chris Sanger-182 68.9%
Jeremy Walters-82 31.1%
Iowa House District 69
Erik Helland-1,187 73%
Al Lorenzen-440 27%
Iowa House District 70
Kevin Koester-878 73%
Jeff Wright-324 27%
Iowa House District 71
Jim Van Englehoven-1,074 72.4%
Marc Held-410 27.6%
Iowa House District 94
John Bridges-436 47.3%
Howard Hubbard-485 52.7%
Iowa Senate District 16
Dave McLaughlin-2,009 87.8%
Gary Culver-278 12.2%
Iowa Senate District 18
Joe Childers-1,666 72%
Karla Sibert-648 28%
Iowa Senate District 20
Tim Kapucian-1,206 63.1%
Richard Vander Mey-704 39.6%
Iowa Senate District 42
Shawn Hamerlinck-1,019 87.2%
Thomas Black-150 12.8%
Iowa Senate District 48
Kim Reynolds-2,482 61.7%
Jim Parker-1,538 38.3%
These results are not final, they are just the preliminary results. The official results will be out next week after the county canvass confirms the results.
Awesome news and encouraging.
Focus, focus, focus on Iowa!
Not a lot we can do on the national level.
Let’s keep our hunting trip more local!
Thanks for the update, Al!
Yes, what an embarrassingly small margin of victory for Miller-Meeks; hardly one at all, I would say. If I were she I would not be too proud to win by so few votes over Teahen, who underwent so much character bashing and inspired so many suspicions in the last week.
I agree. With the character assassination that Teahen underwent in the few weeks leading up to the primaries she should have been the obvious choice. However the citizen’s in the 2nd District saw that one was as good as the other and that they were not really that good to begin with. I feel sorry for those in that district, they did not really have a good representative in that race.
Miller-Meeks is a great candidate in this district. I keep hearing you call her a RINO, but the facts just don’t bear that out.
In fact, when asked about abortion at the Iowa Federation of College Republicans debate on March 29, she was the third to speak and the only candidate from the 2nd district to suggest that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. (link: http://iowabrigade.wordpress.com/2008/06/01/62/)
Not only that, but she has solid family values. She and her husband have raised 2 children and have been married for over 25 years.
She put herself through college, earning an undergraduate degree and later a medical degree. She has served our country for 24 years in the United States Army, and her husband has served for over 30 years.
She is an ophthalmologist and a small business owner in Ottumwa, IA.
Dr. Miller-Meeks is a woman of strong character, conviction, and values. She will represent the 2nd district well in Congress, and is the best person to beat Dave Loebsack in November.
Concept, Please keep in mind that I was rather harsh on all three candidates in this district. I was not singling Miller-Meeks out. She was joined in the honor of being called a RINO by her opponent Peter Teahen. I based my decision off the research that myself and my colleagues have undertaken. Being anti Roe v. Wade does not make one pro-life. When she was interviewed by Steve Deace she would not danced around the question of when life begins. If she was as truly pro-life as you claim then she would have had no problem answering this question.
> Being anti Roe v. Wade does not make one pro-life
I would agree with that in part. But standing up and saying that you would like to overturn the most farthest reaching pro-abortion legislation ever enacted (Roe vs Wade), does go a very long way to showing me how you would vote on similar issues in Congress.
Republicans get a bad rap and are often labeled by Dems as God, Gays, and Guns voters. I really hate that label because it unfairly simplifies what we as Republicans stand for.
I want a Republican candidate that is going to work to the benefit of small business. I want a fiscal conservative that will say no to the politicians that want to tax us to death and turn this great capitalist country into a socialist society where government provides for you from cradle to grave. Dr. Miller-Meeks has earned everything she has, and I know from what she has done in her life that she embodies these ideals.
I want a Republican candidate that will reduce the size of government, and put more control into state governments and less into the hands of the federal government. Those are the roots of Republican values…less government, more state control, tax benefits for small businesses – because small business is what drives our economy!
When we start to ignore a politician because they aren’t socially conservative “enough”, I think we lose our way. Through her statements, it is clear to me how she will vote on issues of life. However, more important to me is that I know how she will vote on issues of small business, on issues related to our military service members, and on issues of health care.
I have met Dr. Miller-Meeks and spoken with her. It is true that she is very smart, but I am hearing that presented as almost a negative. People are saying that she is so smart that she is *fooling* everyone with her command of diction. She isn’t a career politician, and she is not running for her own ego. The woman simply doesn’t have an ego.
I want to reiterate that it is very important that we understand how she stands on social issues if she is to represent us. The posts on this blog are an important part of that discussion and discovery.
However, I think she has made her positions clear on how she will vote. What I keep hearing is over-analysis of if she is socially conservative *enough*, that although she supports overturning the most farthest reaching pro-abortion legislation ever enacted (Roe vs Wade), that it isn’t good *enough* to let us know how she will vote on abortion.
To me, her stance is clear. She will vote pro-life. However, she also espouses traditional Republican ideals (and I’m talking Abraham Lincoln era Republican ideals). Smaller government, less taxation, incentives for small business, and a strong military.
Thank you for taking the time to read my post. I respect the opinions of the posters on this blog, but it is time for Republicans of the 2nd District to stand behind Mariannette Miller-Meeks because she will vote our will on social and fiscal issues.
Regards
Concept,
Overturning Roe v. Wade doesn’t go far enough. Without laws enacting a ban on abortion they will not stop. Like I stated she danced around the question of when does life begin. Her reluctance to answer this question leads me to believe that she is only paying lip service to the social issues. Personally I wish that she would have answered that question.
Another factor that played a role in my decision is that she didn’t respond to questions posed to her by us. She sent us campaign updates, but nothing of any substance showing her stance on the social issues.
She is most undeniably the smartest person in that race. And most likely the most trustworthy. It keeps coming back to her interview on the Steve Deace show. Her reluctance to answer the question of when life begins. If she does answer this question please let us know so we can reevaluate our opinion of her.I congratulate her on her win and wish her luck against Loebsack.
Concept 0399,
One thing I would like to make clear is that a candidate who has strong convictions in the social conservative area does not automatically make them a good choice. They must be strong in the other areas also. But a candidate who is strong in other areas and does not have a firm foundation in family, life, and education is not a candiate who can be trusted to stick to traditional conservatism in ANY areas. Look at all the “conservatives” who voted for the SILO tax!
Also, let me point out something that fiscal conservatives just don’t “get”. Candidates who uphold social values are also fiscal conservatives. When we uphold the sanctity of all life, defend the traditional family, and educate our kids properly, the government will not need to interfere in our lives. When those core areas break down in a society, it becomes exspensive for us because we need more government.
For example, do you know that it costs more to put someone in prison for a year than it does to send them through four years of college–and that includes books, housing, etc….? Also, if the government says its okay to eliminate a human life at a certain stage, when will they decide it is okay to do that to another human life at another stage? More government, more government, more government.
Thank you for your post, but I believe that minimizing core social values is the problem with the Republican Party today and not the solution.
>Iowans Rock:
> Also, if the government says its okay to eliminate a human life at a certain stage, when will they decide it is okay to do that to another human life at another stage?
They’ve already done that. We’ve legalized the ending of another’s life, as long as we are at war with them. Can I assume you are anti-war too? As well as against the death penalty? Because human life is human life is human life, regardless of national boundaries or acts a person has committed.
I think it is important that I point out that I am pro-military. In fact, I have already applied to the Navy (last month), and I am awaiting selection. I also believe that the killing of an enemy during wartime is morally acceptable to me, although not desirable.
>More government, more government, more government.
That’s the slippery slope argument, also known as FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt).
These posts have made me really think about the pro-life issue as related to the birth of a child. I do respect your opinion in that regard, because I believe you have really thought about the issue and your argument makes a lot of sense to me.
For me personally, I don’t think I can say I am 100% pro-life, because I am unable to reconcile issues of euthanasia, the killing of enemies during wartime, and the death penalty. The life of a child is only 1 part of the equation. Although I believe abortion should not be legal, how do I handle the rest of the life issues? I know I still have a lot to learn.
How do others commenters feel about that or how have you handled them in your thoughts? I’m honestly interested to learn what you think.
Regards
Concept,
My concept of pro-life has been radically altered from what it once was. The following is my beliefs on sanctity of life.
Yes all human life is valuable, but there are times when in order to protect the innocent. If a human being takes the life of an innocent then that person must be punished. I feel that if the violence was so grotesque and atrocious then I think that it is a necessary sacrifice to rid the world of what may be considered an evil being.
I believe that the order to go to war would be a tough call to make. War is similar to the death penalty, it is something that we don’t want to happen, but it may sometimes be necessary.
Personally I feel that euthanasia is wrong. I feel that it is a practice that we should not take part in. The killing of enemies in wartime is sometimes necessary, however it is not desirable, we should always attempt to avoid violent confrontation, but that will sometimes be unavoidable due to the actions of others.
Concept,
Yes, war and the dealth penalty are tough issues. I was listening to Michael Medved’s radio show one night when he had on an expert on who did research on the death penalty. This expert was against the death penalty, but his results showed why the death penalty is necessary if you are pro-life. The study showed that for every one life taken by carrying out the death penalty, five lives are saved. I wish I would have taken notes on who this expert was and where the study was done, but I was driving in my car. I swear I am not making this up. This helped me make up my mind on the death penalty. We are actually saving more lives by using it and that is pro-life.
I believe the same is true for war. I believe that war is a last resort, and when it is waged it should be to protect the number of lives that will outweigh the number of lives lost, which is the ultimate sacrifice for those we lose in battle.
When it comes to euthanasia, that is especially tough since some of the time the victims themselves are requesting to be relieved from their pain or their future of certain death. I believe that being pro-life also means that euthanasia should not be allowed. What life are we saving by permitting euthenasia? None. Also, if we cross the line in this one case the line becomes blurred and easier to cross again when other situations of santity of life come up. I believe I speak with experience on this situaltion because both of my parents died from a terminal illness. Even though they were suffering I believe that their situation was being used by God to enrich their lives and the lives of people surrounding them.
To sum it up, I believe that pro-life is making a decision that will save the most lives. Also, pro-life just doesn’t mean who should live and who should die. It also means respecting the elderly, the disabled, other races or any one who isn’t like “us”. We don’t have to agree with someone to respect their life.
Thank you for your decision to serve our country. I believe those who give to our country should be one of the most respected in my pro-life opinion.
> Iowans Rock
Thank you for your well thought out reply. You have given me a lot to think about, and I take your response seriously.
Regards