The Modern Day Phoenix

Reports have been coming out about the unprecedented amount of absentee ballots and early voters in Iowa coming heavily from the Democratic side.  This news coincides with the final chapter of my unprecedented journey in this years election cycle.  Eight years ago I had really no idea why I was a Republican until my boss and I sat down over drinks the night of the 2000 Iowa Caucus.  Funny part of this story is that I had no idea it was caucus night, but she did……..and she lived in Nebraska.  I asked her, “What is the main difference between a Republican and Democrat?”  She replied, “It depends on if you believe you have to take care of yourself or if the government is supposed to take care of you.”  I knew right then and there that I was a Republican.

One year ago I had no idea what a socon or a ficon was, I didn’t know about the three legged stool or the Reagan Coalition, but I did know that the society and schools of today were not the same that I grew up in during the 70s and 80s and I saw a slow and steady decline into something that I did not want my children to be a part of.  A society where nobody seemed to take personal responsibility for any of their choices and a society eager for the next hand out instead of relying on hard work to get them where they want to be.  Because I believe in this so strongly I got involved with Governor Mike Huckabee’s campaign, and once he wasn’t our nominee I got involved with other like-minded people from Iowa to keep fighting for these values at the state level.  You see, it wasn’t about the man, it was about his message.  A message that resonated with many people and awoke a sleeping giant.  The message of the importance of social issues in order to have fiscal conservatism.  We are all on the same team here.

In the past year the message that resonated with so many voters was trampled on by Republican elite, Christian leaders, and conservative media.  It happened in the presidential primary campaign and it happened here in Iowa with the snubbing of candidates Christopher Reed, David Hartsuch, and Kent Sorenson by our own nominee.  In the past year I have noticed a lot of Republicans not giving voters something to vote for, but instead something to vote against.  Republicans are campaigning on the message of fear instead of on the message that we could give real hope and real change.  I witnessed the biggest Republican sellout with the bailout bill that, to me, was like a domestic September 11th.  The end of our society as we know it, and it was self inflicted by our own elected officials.  I cringe when Republicans campaign on the threat of Obama’s socialism when a lot of them signed their name to the biggest form of socialism in history to date, and our money went to the rich and not the needy.  I weep at the the sight of the stock market plummeting and Obama’s poll number’s rising because I realize what this is all leading up to.  We are going to get what we deserve.  The GOP  has strayed so much off course that we don’t even know how to fight the other side anymore.  Maybe that’s because we have become too much like them. 

I have spent the last eight months of this election cycle buried in Iowa candidate information, blogging, commenting, and occasionally knocking on some doors.  There are wonderful, solid conservative candidates who embody the traditional Republican values in Iowa this year and I and others have worked their butts off for them and I know those candidates have worked one hundred times harder.  Even though the number of registered Democrats in Iowa is daunting this year I will still fight the good fight, because these Iowa candidates are worth it and so are their futures, and so are my children’s futures.  I am not looking for a clean sweep of victory for all of our candidates on November 4th because I am realistic, but I am looking for a few battles to be won in this war.  We will rebuild piece by piece, candidate by candidate, seat by seat, caucus by caucus.  Even if things do not turn out as we hope, 2008 is just the beginning for us.  Like the legendary Phoenix we will rise from our own ashes and begin a new battle.  We are the grassroots and we are the future of the party.

Schmett and Boswell Square Off in Radio Debate

Today on Iowa Public Radio the contenders for Iowa’s US 3rd Congressional District faced off in a radio debate. The Democratic candidate Leonard Boswell has is vying for the opportunity to represent the Iowa’s 3rd Congressional District. He is facing Republican challenger Kim Schmett. This is the first time that these two challengers have had the opportunity to square off in a debate.
The first question posed to the candidates was directed at Republican challenger Kim Schmett. He had indicated that he was opposed to the recent bailout approved by Congress and signed by President Bush. The question was posed by Charlotte Eby was what Schmett would do to help the financial industry or did he believe that they did not need any assistance. In his answer Schmett asserts that the problems are related to a crisis of consumer confidence. He believes that the bailout was a rushed through without much thought given to the consequences. He stated that he believes that they could have come up with a solution that did not involve the use of government funds to relieve the problem. He specifically cites the recent takeover of Wachovia by Wells Fargo without the use of public money. He also points out that Boswell made the claim that the 750 billion dollar bailout may not be enough and that they may need to spend more tax dollars to shore up the market. Schmett gave a good answer and showed that he understood the concepts at play in Washington in regards to the economy. I think that a lot of Iowans feel this way about the bailout, that Congress should have sat down and looked at more than one option instead of rushing to pass the first one to come across their desk.
The next question was directed at Congressman Boswell and is along the same lines as the question posed to Schmett. The question asked was why he supported the bailout and why did he disagree with Schmett’s assessment? Okay here we apparently entered the twilight zone. When asked about his difference with Schmett on the bailout and the economy Boswell brings up his difference with Schmett on stem cell research. Forgive me if I am missing something here, but what does that have to do with the bailout and the economy? Is Congressman Boswell going senile on us? Finally Boswell moves off his stem cell diatribe and moves on to the economy. In his first remarks he refers to the bailout as the rescue bill. He said that doing nothing was not a good response. He stated that his line of thinking was that we had to try something, maybe even take some risks. He goes into a monologue about a conversation he had supposedly had with a worker at an airport. He claims that the worker was unhappy with him at first for supporting the bailout, but after thinking about it changed his mind. He believes that there was indeed risk in voting the way he did, but feels that there was greater risk in doing nothing. In his response to this question Boswell went over the allotted two minute time limit so they allowed Schmett to have an additional 45 seconds to rebut what Boswell had said. In this time Schmett reemphasized that the price tag of the bailout was too high and placing too high a burden on future generations of Americans. Boswell’s opening remarks in reference to this question were quite odd indeed. If I had had the opportunity to ask Boswell a question or two, I would have definitely asked him if he thought that stem cells were a part of the bailout bill. It appears that Boswell’s age and health are now affecting how he performs his job duties on Capital Hill. I do think that my fears that his mind is deteriorating are founded based on his answer to this question.
The next question was directed at Boswell and came from Dave Price of WHO TV fame. The question asked was also related to the economy and whether Boswell saw another industry that was going to be in need of a bailout and if not what the next step that the government should take to help the economy? He doesn’t directly answer this question. Instead he says that the government should stay very active. Boswell asserts that if the government stimulates the economy that transportation infrastructure should be included because it is not a job that can be outsourced and that it is something that has to be done anyway. He states that the government should be looking at what it can do for the unemployed. I understand the rationale that Boswell used to support the bailout. But I think in this case he needed to have a more sound reasoning for voting for this bailout. I don’t think that in a situation in which the government would be spending $700 billion tax payer dollars to shore up Wall Street should have been supported with the rationale that Boswell used. In his mind it was better to do something than doing nothing even if it was the wrong thing.
Price then redirects this very same question at Schmett. Schmett comes out swinging on this issue stating that a line of industries begging for handouts has already formed with the auto industry leading the way with monies already directed at them. He said that the auto industry bailout would have been a larger issue had the larger bailout bill not overshadowed it. Schmett agrees with Boswell that if stimulus is needed that it should be used on items that tax dollars would normally be spent on like infrastructure and other costs that the government would already be obligated to pay for, just accelerating the payments. Schmett calls for it to be limited to expenditures that would help create new jobs thus decreasing unemployment. Schmett provides some very good points and also has some good ideas. I like the idea that if you are going to stimulate the economy you should use that money on areas that will keep it in the US like rebuilding infrastructure.
I loved this gem directed at Boswell. Eby stated that Schmett has criticized Boswell for voting to recess Congress before an additional aid package was passed to help in recovery from the massive flooding the State of Iowa suffered this summer. She asks Mr. Boswell if this was a fair criticism. Boswell called this criticism an uninformed criticism because it was not a recess, it was a work period. Now Boswell was playing semantics. It doesn’t matter what you call it they still left Washington with key bills on the table. He then went on to defend his actions by saying that they got 2.65 billion dollars into the system. He claims that he had Pelosi’s assurance that they would pass a relief bill before adjournment after they got back from the “work period.” Boswell very clearly became upset by this line of questioning. He went into a litany of items to explain how Schmetts criticism was an uninformed criticism. However his words seemed to ring hollow and desperate. He was clearly on the defensive here and not doing a very good job at it.
Schmett comes out hammering on Boswell for his vote to leave for recess and leaving this important work on the floor. He asserts that a relief bill is fairly noncontroversial and that it wouldn’t have faced much if any resistance. He states that once they did come back from the five week recess that it took them an additional two weeks to pass the bill. During this time, Boswell began interrupting Schmett saying that he should know better. Schmett called Pelosi’s visit to Iowa to survey the flood damage a press conference. This heightened the displeasure of Boswell who interrupted Schmett once again. Schmett made some great points here. I mean they had a relief package on the floor, why decide to adjourn for recess while that bill sits there. As much as I liked this line of attack from Schmett, I think that he should have hitting him over voting to recess rather than voting on an energy policy. This is the greater issue that I think from that Congressional recess. It was at the height of high gas prices and Congress had an opportunity to do something about it. Instead they go on vacation. I would have loved to hear Kim hammer on Boswell over that.
This debate most assuredly was informative and showed the difference between the two candidates. For the most part it was a civil debate; however there were some fireworks during one portion of the debate. During this portion of the debate Boswell was very clearly irate with the direction that the debate was going. He was being criticized for a vote that made him appear to be attempting to skip out on his work.

You can listen to the debate here.

Amesvoter endorses Ryan Rhodes for state representative

Well, well, well, The Tribune of Ames, Iowa has endorsed Democrat Beth Wessel-Kroeschell to be State Representative for District 45. I certainly am not surprised given the Liberal leanings of Iowa newspapers this election cycle.

I am disappointed with The Tribue for the dismissive tone given to Ryan Rhodes with what he advocates and his ideas for the future. Ryan Rhodes has shown that he is a hardworking, dedicated young man who would represent District 45 in an outstanding way. Ryan is not interested in running with the pack and voting with how his party expects him to vote.  Ryan has convictions and the maturity to make his own decisions. When given the opportunity Rhodes will be an effective legislator.

While The Tribune article drips with praise for Wessel-Kroeschell I have a much different take on her efforts to be an effective legislator. Wessel-Kroeschell’s support of big labor, compulsory unionism and forced dues agenda is more than enough to send me to the voting booth to cast a vote for Ryan Rhodes!

It is my understanding that Wessel – Kroeschell did not even bother to complete and return the Iowans for Right to Work Committee’s 2008  Candidate Survey for House District 45. Again, no surprise!

Ryan Rhodes did complete the survey and he pledged 100% support for Iowa’s Right to Work Law.

Thank you, Ryan Rhodes, for sticking to your convictions, for your dedication to your campaign, and for your willingness to stand up for conservative voters like me. My endorsement won’t be read by the vast numbers of Liberals who live in Ames but I will take this way to make my voice heard.

Ryan Rhodes, you have my admiration, my attention, and best of all- you have my vote!

More on Second Amendment Rights

Wow- I hit the jackpot yesterday when I walked to the mail box! There were three mailings from the Iowa Republican Party about voting for Second Amendment Rights.

Being a parent who sent a child to college to study marketing I found each mailing to be powerful and to the creative point. Let me share with you what the Republican Party of Iowa put together for my enjoyment.

The Democrats and their anti-gun plans can be seen coming from miles away.

  • They make fun of gun owners… Saying we “cling” to our guns.
  • They don’t respect our proud hunting and sporting heritage… Working instead to destroy the traditions we’ve handed down among generations of outdoorsmen.
  • They criminalize law-abiding gun owners… Treating us like criminals and wanting to prosecute those who use their legally-owned firearms to protect their home and families.
  • They chip away at our gun rights… Working toward a permanent ban on certain types of guns, if not all firearms.

The title of the next mailing- “It’s enough to ruffle your feathers…”

and the next…“It will be the most important stand you make this hunting season… VOTE.”

Now, lest you think that 3 more mailings to get the point across of voting to preserve Second Amendment rights is overkill- this voter says NO!

As one mailer states: “Our 2nd Amendment is worth preserving… And our rights are worth defending.”

Father (Grassley) knows best

Prior to the vote on the Great American Sellout Bill, I contacted Senator Grassley- strongly urging (begging!) him to NOT vote for bill. It was with great disappointment that I learned that Grassley did, in fact, vote for it. Needless to say, it was a huge disappointment for me that Grassley would be so easily taken in to heap more debt on Americans.

Recently I received what I can only describe as a Father Knows Best letter from Senator Grassley. The entire front page is devoted to explaining why he voted for  the Department of Treasury’s financial rescue plan. Grassley’s name for the bill and mine are different and he got to vote. I was only allowed to voice my opposition.  A main point for Grassley supporting the “rescue plan”…”This legislation will be a major shot in the arm to the small businesses struggling to recover, meet payroll and keep their doors open and to communities working to rebuild infrastructure and go forward.”

A shot in the arm for businesses or a kick in the behind for tax payers?

A shot in the arm for the greedy and the powerful or another nail in the coffin for Americans who are already have the honor of paying taxes?

The final paragraph of Grassley’s letter is interesting:

“I hope you will read the statement I gave during consideration of the rescue package to understand how I voted. You can bet that this Senator will work to make sure that your hard earned money is not wasted or mismanaged, and that executives don’t take advantage of the help we give them. Thanks for letting me know your thoughts. Please keep in touch. Sincerely, Chuck”.

Enclosed in the letter was a four page section of the “Congressional Record-Senate”, in which Senator Grassley outlines his reasons for going against the wishes of Iowans and voting for the bail out/financial rescue plan.

So, Grassley sided with Harkin, both to vote “yes”. The vote is done, the bail out is passed. Both father figure Senators cast their votes inspite of what Iowa taxpayers had to say.

The problem now is that voters like me have very little, if any, faith that those in power in Washington, D.C. will do anything different than they did before. The power, the greed, the good ole boys system will still be in place.  Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Frank and a whole bunch of other Democrats are just drooling at the chance to give out more money and have their way with the American taxpayers. After all, it is “unAmerican” to not vote the way Pelosi and Company say to vote.

While I appreciate that in my first attempt to contact a Senator I did receive a written response, it continues to be disturbing that Republican Grassley would side with Democrat Harkin. I don’t expect much from Harkin as he fits right in with his Liberal, Democrat crowd. I did expect more from Senator Grassley. I learned a lot from the Great American Sellout Vote: Iowa “Father Grassley” and Iowa “Father Harkin” think that they know best for Iowans.

Both Harkin and Grassley have been in D.C. too long. At least this year Iowans have a great opportunity to keep one Senator home- you know, the one that lives in Cummings, Iowa. It is time to send a new and gutsy candidate to Washinton. Christopher Reed. If Reed could stand up to Harkin in a 2 against 1 debate, I am betting that Reed could stand up to the Pelosi gang!

Father Knows Best might have been a good, family TV show, but Reed takes on Washington sounds even better!

Gay Rights Activists Pour Money Into Iowa Races

As the McCain camp begins to implode and lay the blame at the feet of Sarah Palin, we here at IDA join Steve Deace and the Iowa Family Policy Council in encouraging Iowa conservatives to focus their last bit of energy and attention on local Iowa races.

Last year (March 2007) an article appeared in The Atlantic featuring Colorado gay rights activist Tim Gill and his crusade to turn state legislatures across the country to Democratic control in an effort to promote gay rights. This article details Gill’s successful effort to change control of the Iowa legislature and oust Danny Carroll, former speaker pro tempore of the Iowa House who is now running again for his old seat.

See the following excerpts from this article to see Gill’s strategy. Note that he works with both liberals AND moderate Republicans to advance his agenda:

Gill’s principal interest is gay equality. His foundations have given about $115 million to charities. His serious involvement in politics is a more recent development, though geared toward the same goal. In 2000, he gave $300,000 in political donations, which grew to $800,000 in 2002, $5 million in 2004, and a staggering $15 million last year, almost all of it to state and local campaigns.

 But several years ago, a growing number of his peers began to sense that they were playing in the wrong arena. “A lot of [gay donors] are driven, cycle to cycle, by the notion that there’s going to be an epiphany—that one day they’ll wake up and accept us,” he said. “But this group had spent millions of dollars on philanthropy, and yet woken up the morning after the election to see gay-marriage bans enacted all across the country.”

Together, Gill and Trimpa decided to eschew national races in favor of state and local ones, which could be influenced in large batches and for much less money. Most antigay measures, they discovered, originate in state legislatures. Operating at that level gave them a chance to “punish the wicked,” as Gill puts it—to snuff out rising politicians who were building their careers on antigay policies, before they could achieve national influence.

Gill’s idea was to identify vulnerable candidates like Danny Carroll and move quickly to eliminate them without the burden of first having to win the consent of some risk-averse large organization or board of directors. Another element of this strategy is stealth. Revealing targets only after an election makes it impossible for them to fight back and sends a message to other politicians that attacking gays could put them in the crosshairs.

Convinced his approach was sound, Gill decided to go big. When I visited his headquarters last fall, liberals were working alongside conservatives on a list compiled by his top consultants—one a national Democratic consultant, the other a former Karl Rove protégé—of seventy races in which a key antigay candidate was vulnerable or the outcome of a race was likely to affect control of the legislature.

In the 2006 elections, on a level where a few thousand dollars can decide a close race, Gill’s universe of donors injected more than $3 million, providing in some cases more than 20 percent of a candidate’s or organization’s budget. On Election Day, fifty of the seventy targeted candidates were defeated, Danny Carroll among them; and out of the thirteen states where Gill and his allies invested, four—Iowa, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Washington—saw control of at least one legislative chamber switch to the Democratic Party. (In Massachusetts, Travis decided to retire rather than seek reelection.)

One component of Gill’s strategy includes courting that element of the Republican Party that’s open to compromise, while at the same time making clear that gay bashing will now come at a price.

Seems like Mr. Gill has figured out to promote his agenda and that agenda starts in state and local races. While social conservatives have been more concerned with national races, Gill and his people have been pulling the rug out from underneath the people of our state. Iowans should be outraged at the amount of money being poured into Iowa races by Gill and people associated with him. In fact, the opponents of several of the candidates that we support here on IDA receive money from people associated with Gill.

To see how much money Gill and Co. have poured into Iowa races go to Let Us Vote Iowa.

Yesterday CBN ran a fabulous piece on Gill and his influence on state races. Danny Carroll and Chuck Hurley from the Iowa Family Policy Council are interviewed. You can see the clip here. As you go vote, remember what Gill says in the CBN clip

“we successfully flipped legislatures around this country from Republican control to Democratic control and the net result is always good for gay people. Always.”

Doug Smith for HD 95 and for Small Businesses

The Republican candidate for Iowa House District 95, Doug Smith, got into politics to be a civil servant.  He was inspired to run when the Iowa legislature took away the people’s right to vote on the marriage amendment.  He knows that the government is supposed to represent the people and not control the people, and he is convinced he can win on November 4th. 

Doug Smith also knows about the economy and the challenges facing Iowa’s small businesses.  He makes a living and supports his wife and eight kids by owning and operating his restaurant in Osceola.  While the opposition out there is preaching for more regulation, Mr. Smith knows that regulation will only cost his business more money and therefore will force his customers in small town Iowa to pay more money at his restaurant.  A good example of this is the raising of the minimum wage last year.  Even though all of Doug’s hourly employees received more than that wage, the regulation still took away $33,000 from his business at the beginning of the year.  This money could have been used to staff another full and part time position, but instead it forced him to raise prices.  So much for creating jobs and keeping prices down.  Doug Smith knows small business and is aware how every decision at the statehouse affects it.

Doug Smith is a real conservative.  He believes that education should be given back to local control and that schools should be focused on teaching fundamental skills and not social agendas.  He is 100% pro-life and will fight for the marriage amendment.  He is against over-taxation and out of control government spending and would like to see a fair or flat tax that would better serve the people.  And because Doug will represent a rural district, he also realizes that the family farm is also a small business and knows that we must keep government’s increasing regulations and higher taxes out in order to encourage growth.

Learn more about Doug Smith and join me in supporting him for district 95′s representative.

Harkin and his support of partial birth abortion

Iowa voters- As I have previously noted callmecrusader is now a first time grandmother. I regret to say that I was too busy loving my own children and taking interest in other children in my life that I failed to pay attention to the issue of abortion. Not now. I share the following, thinking that there are other Americans who never grasped what abortion was all about.

While I can’t go back and change the past I will do all in my power to help other Iowans understand abortion. Today I start with Tom Harkin. After you have the stomach to read what “partial-birth abortion” is, then please note that Iowas own, Tom Harkin, supports such horrific killings, all in the name of a woman’s right to choose.

There are other posts on Iowa Defense Alliance that highlight Tom Harkin’s views on abortion. With the election looming ever closer, I once again feel the urgency to bring attention to Harkin and his abortion record. Please give this post your time and consideration. Share it with others. Iowans keep rewarding Tom Harkin with another trip back to Washington, D.C. and more opportunities to work with others who also uphold the right to kill babies.

This year I implore you to use your vote for a candidate, Christopher Reed, who will stand up for life.

Tom Harkin must be stopped from continuing his despicable ways of supporting partial birth abortions.

http://www.priestsforlife.org/articles/williammay090199.html

Partial-birth abortion and Catholics

What is ‘partial-birth abortion’?

The procedure in question is properly called “partial-birth abortion” because, as even secular sources acknowledge, it requires the doctor to deliver the unborn child partially from the uterus, feet first, leaving the baby’s head inside the womb. The doctor then uses scissors and a hollow needle to empty the skull of its contents. The unborn baby’s head then collapses and the doctor removes the dead baby entirely from the mother’s body. Given the nature of the procedure, the congressmen who drafted legislation to prohibit it, the “Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 1995″, defined the procedure as follows: “an abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery”.

The doctors who perform this barbaric act and those who seek to justify it attempt to hide its nature by describing it euphemistically as “intact dilation and evacuation/extraction” or as “intrauterine cranial decompression”. The procedure is usually performed on unborn children suffering from hydrocephaly, Down’s syndrome or other anomalies whose mothers are suffering maternal depression on learning that their unborn children suffer from such problems or on unborn children whose mothers are undergoing major life crises.

The claim is sometimes made – and it was made by President Clinton in his veto of legislation to prohibit this form of abortion – that this procedure is necessary at times to protect the life and health of the mother or to preserve her fertility. But as the “Physicians Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth” (PHACT), a group of more than 300 medical specialists organized to counter the misinformation provided by the abortion industry of the United States, pointed out: “Partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect the health of a woman or to protect her future fertility; in fact, the procedure can pose grave dangers to the woman”.

The eight Catholic senators who voted to uphold Clinton’s veto and thus voted in favor of partial-birth abortion were: Thomas Daschle, Christopher Dodd, Thomas Harkin, Edward Kennedy, John Kerry, Barbara Mikulski, Carol Moseley-Braun and Patty Murray.

The issue is clear. Catholic political leaders and legislators who, like the U.S. senators who refused to override President Clinton’s veto of a bill designed to protect unborn children from a particularly heinous and barbaric form of abortion, fail to “stand up for human life” and to do what lies in their power to protect the inviolability of innocent human life act publicly in a way contrary to their Catholic faith.

Romney: ready or not, here he comes!

And so it starts and/or and so it continues… the nauseating attempt to push Willard Mittens Romney on American voters. Romney was rejected in the primaries. His money could not buy him the nomination, yet his name is coming out in force even before the 2008 election is decided.

One of the most laughable comments about Romney as written below: “his social values are equally anchored in conservatism…”.

Iowans, hold on to your conservative, family values with all you might! We are beginning to see that the Romney pushers are alive and well. Read the comments if you have a strong stomach. Having some anti-acids on hand will come in handy, as well!

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/10/27/steven-edwards-mccain-s-palin-problems-make-romney-look-better-all-the-time.aspx

Steven Edwards: McCain’s Palin problems make Romney look better all the time

Posted: October 27, 2008, 1:22 PM by Kelly McParland

As for this election, McCain’s folly at not having picked Mitt Romney as his running mate is now all too apparent as the economy dives. The Republican presidential candidate’s turn southward in the polls mirrored the mid-September shock to the world financial markets, which propelled the economy and its future to the number one concern of U.S. voters.

McCain’s campaign could have used the benefit of Romney’s business experience and acumen to reassure a public daily bombarded with predictions the sky is falling. Indeed, but for America’s insistence on mixing church and politics, the successful investment banker and consultant  — who also saved the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City from financial ruin and ran Massachusetts as governor — might even have been in McCain’s place as the party nominee.

Though there are no statistics to prove Romney didn’t win because, as a Mormon, he is a member of a controversial church, the fact he had to address the issue during his campaign underlines the level of concern it raised. How ironic that the U.S. Constitution bans mixing church and state, but religious matters thread through American politics more than they do through the politics of just about any other Western country.

The need for an economic wizard on the current ticket didn’t seem pressing when McCain was casting about for a running mate just before the financial crisis burst into the open. It appeared Palin would address other shortcomings within McCain’s campaign, like the career-long centrism that has long infuriated the party’s conservative wing, allowing him to focus on his specialty: security.

While Palin is a social conservative, Romney could have filled that void. His social values are equally anchored in conservatism, and the fact he masked them to win election in the liberal bastion of Massachusetts only attests to his astuteness in knowing how to play to all constituencies.

Des Moines Register Endorse Tom Harkin

In a move that is not at all surprising the Des Moines Register today endorsed US Senator Tom Harkin for a fifth term. It was only fitting that the left leaning Register endorsed one of the most liberal politicians to come out of Iowa. Let us explore the so-called reasons behind their decision.
The foremost reason that the Register endorsed Senator Harkin was because he is ranks within the top fifth of Senators in terms of seniority. I guess they think that with seniority comes wisdom. I think Harkin has proved otherwise on numerous occasions. Harkin is the chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, a position that he has used to craft farm bills that heavily favor the biofuel industry in Iowa. Biofuels are and should be an important part of America’s energy future, but does it have to come at a cost to the taxpayer? He ranks third in seniority on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Gee this is supposed to be a good thing. Look at the deplorable state that America’s education system is in, and this is supposed to be a Harkin strength. With the results this guy has been getting, do we really want him anywhere near these vital areas? I don’t know about you, but having Harkin anywhere near the education system is a scary prospect.
Next they go on to bashing Harkin’s opponent Christopher Reed. They claim that Harkin is a better choice because he Reed looks at the issues from the conservative standpoint and doesn’t really know the issues. Well I have news for them. Harkin knows squat about the issues himself. His idea of education reform is spend, spend, spend. Harkin’s idea of healthcare reform is universal, universal, universal. If you want to know where Harkin stands on the issues, ask Harry Reid. That is where Harkin stands on the issues. They criticize Reed for calling Harkin on his anti-American rhetoric. They bemoan the fact that Reed questioned Harkin’s patriotism. I on the other hand applaud Christopher’s courage to state the truth on Harkin’s comments and actions on the Iraq War. Harkin has continuously sounded the drum of time tables for an exit from Iraq. He has continuously advocated providing our enemies with the “playbook”. I guess the truth hurts, huh.

The Register curiously states that it is a plus that he has voted along party lines more times than not. I am not making this up, here is the line. ”Democrats have counted on him as a reliable vote for party causes.” In other words, they are praising Senator Harkin for his partisanship in the US Senate. I guess for the Register it is only partisanship if the Republicans take part in it.

Of course we should not forget Senator Harkins war with Dreamworks, the makers of the Shrek movies. Last year Senator Harking went into political combat with Dreamworks for allowing the image of Shrek to be used to promote foods that Harkin deemed unhealthy. I remember laughing for nearly a minute when I saw the comments that Harkin made in regards to seeing Shrek on a box of cereal. Evidently Dreamworks didn’t donate enough money to his campaign.

Then of course there were the comments that he had made about John McCain. I am sure most people remember Harkin’s comments that John McCain’s military upbringing was dangerous. I found these comments to be strange coming from a fellow Navy veteran, but then I remembered how Harkin had lied about his own military service. Perhaps Harkin is just jealous that McCain is a real war hero and that he is a fake war hero.

Then I also can’t forget about the doozy of a comment that Harkin made at the Democrats “sleepover.” This is when Harkin completely reinvents the history of Vietnam. If you don’t remember this you have to listen to the audio of this. You can do so here.

The Register has a long history of supporting hard left leaning candidates. This year alone they have supported both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for president. So it should come as no surprise that they would support the liberal figurehead of Iowa. As the torchbearer for Iowa liberalism they could endorse none other than The Great American Hypocrite.

For those of you that want to read the entire Register article you can do so here.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 688 other followers