What is the Value of a Woman’s Life? by Pat Bertroche

November 29, 2009 by 2 Comments

What is the Value of a Woman’s Life?

 

By J. Patrick Bertroche , D.O.

 

When the US Preventive Services Task Force, released the new breast screening recommendations yesterday, it ignited a firestorm of debate within the medical community and the nation. To recap what the recommendations are, I will briefly go through them. No mammograms for those over 74, no routine screening for women under 50 years of age, don’t do regular breast self exams, and pushes back recommended screenings from every year, to every two years. The USPSTF cited a lack of evidence as the reasons for the new recommendations. Keep in mind that this very same government organization found sufficient evidence for the recommendations it now does not recommend a short seven years ago.

 

As a side note, just not a week ago, the government agencies responsible for tracking and warning about H1N1 admitted they “may have inflated” the numbers for H1N1 in the “interest of national health”.

 

What’s left out of the debate, is the role of government, and how that will change with Obamacare. Right now, the different groups involved with breast cancer, such as doctors, the American Cancer Society, and the American College of Radiology, are all discussing the merits, or demerits, of the latest government guidelines. Does it strike anyone else funny that the USPSTF is REVERSING itself in the midst of the worst economic meltdowns in recent history? If they issue guidelines that ration care, which is what they are doing, then it saves money on Medicare costs. Conspiracy? The USPSTF is funded from Oregon.

 

But the scariest thing about the guidelines is that it points out the glaring problems with a “best practices panel”, which both the House and Senate bills contain. 7 years ago, there was sufficient evidence for breast self exams, annual mammograms for EVERYONE, and routine yearly screenings starting at 40. What happened in the meantime? Did they have studies that showed these procedures weren’t helpful? Or did they have studies that showed there was something better?

 

Nope. The authors of the guidelines admit that there aren’t any studies that support the new guidelines, and in fact says there aren’t enough studies for the recommendations, and call for studies to study the recommendations. Sheesh. So if there aren’t adequate studies, upon what are they basing their recommendations?  Britain.  Just like I’ve said before.  Pres. Obama is setting up a system exactly like the British.  How has that worked for Britain?  Breast cancer survival rate is 69%.  In the US, it is 84%.  Why is there a difference?  According to a study in the 2008 Lancet Oncologist, it is due to Britain’s “best practices panel” recommendations that mirror almost exactly the latest USPSTF recommendations.  And those recommendations boil down to delays in diagnosis, delays in treatment, and limited access to quality treatments.

 

If the Government has a “best practices panel”, they would have to change the way women receive breast care. And the USPSTF study isn’t even proven. It’s just a recommendation. Medical recommendations change rapidly.  Can you imagine the chaos surrounding this subject if the Government had to decide what to do now? Well, I know. They would ration care, because that’s what they do. Why do you think we have four (4) Medicare supplemental programs? Is it because the Government isn’t rationing care? Or because they are?

 

And, more importantly, who should decide what a woman’s life is worth? Who should decide how often you need to be screened for breast cancer?  You and your doctor?  Or a panel of government bureaucrats and their lackeys?

 

And for the best part. As we speak, James Sokolove and his ilk are firing up the copiers to file suit against every doctor, x-ray manufacturer, and hospital who ever did mammograms. Pres. Obama has plenty of reform for doctors and hospitals, who actually try to help people, but no reform for lawyers, who only want to line their pockets with other people’s grief and greed, driving up everyone’s cost for health care.

 

I’ve had enough. Haven’t you?

Pat Bertroche, D.O.
YOUR Congressional Candidate

Filed under Guest Commentary, Politics Tagged with , , ,

My Open Letter to Jonathan Narcisse

November 27, 2009 by 9 Comments

Dear Jonathan:

I would have made this reply to the email you sent me but since everybody was hidden on that email except for the main recipient, Bob Vander Plaats, I will use this method instead because “reply all” was not an option.

I received your Open Letter to Bob Vander Plaats email with who know how many others as I gathered with family the night before Thanksgiving.  When your name came up to the sender and I saw Bob Vander Plaats as the recipient I thought I received it by mistake and perhaps I did, although I doubt it.

First of all, I have never given you my email address in any way, shape, or form.  I didn’t sign up on your website you are plugging nor have I signed up on anything that had to do with you.  There is no reason you should be sending me a direct email.  The only way I can think of that you got my address is from another email list.  I can only think of one time when both of our names was on the same email recipient list and I really hope this is not where you got it from.

Also, the subject line of the email was Open Letter to Bob Vander Plaats:  I Decline!  After reading your open letter I see that the “I decline” part came at the end when you told Bob that you would not be involved in his campaign or administration in any way.  While you have every right to express your doubts about Bob, your problems you have with his stances, and request a debate from him, do you really think this part added to your argument?  If you have ever gotten an email where someone replied something to the sender and then hit “reply all” and it had nothing to do with anyone else, you will know what I mean.  I don’t know how much more eloquently to put it except for “grow up.”

As I stated before, I have not problem with your right to express concerns but once again, I have no idea why I was on your email list.  I emailed you back requesting that you tell me but have heard no response.  I heard from another source that you went bat crazy in that meeting with Terry Branstad that was held awhile back.  I defended you.  I am now wondering if I was wrong to do that.  It seems in a mind of great ideas you are lacking the judgement on how to proceed.

P.S. Kent Sorenson DOES have my email address and I did not get attached on his open letter to Senator Grassley.  Take some pointers.

Filed under Politics Tagged with , , , ,

Thanksgiving blessings to Clarke County landowners

November 26, 2009 by 3 Comments

This morning I will travel “home” for Thanksgiving. My husband will visit the family farm where he grew up and learned on a daily basis what it is to love the land. And I will spend some time where I once played in silos and hay mows, where my brother and sister and I had great togetherness hours spent along a creek and in the timber and went sledding in the winter down an awesome hill. I will think about picking gooseberries and feeding baby Holstein calves from a bottle or bucket. Memories from happy times spent on Iowa farm land.

On the way to the home of my heart I will pass by a large Iowa city. Once again I will notice all the land development, the acres and acres of cement, and feel sad that Iowa land is being taken over in the name of progress.

And, especially today, I will think about the farmers of Clarke County. Farmers and others who face the continued threat that their land will be taken so that it can be placed under water and cement, boat docks and other recreational endeavors that will please those who covet the property of someone else for their own personal gain.

So as I grab up the dessert I made for our dinner and think to pack new pictures of my grandchildren to show the family, I wanted to take a few moments to tell those who live each day under the threat of eminent domain that I continue to care about their plight.

Thanksgiving Blessings to people I don’t know but care about their situation and the pressures they face each day.

My message especially for these farmers and others: I am thankful for your American spirit and the resiliency you must use on a daily basis.

Callmecrusader has you in my heart and prayers.

Filed under Politics Tagged with , , , ,

Senator Charles Grassley at Westside Conservative Breakfast

November 25, 2009 by 2 Comments

Two standing ovations from 100 + people was an early Thanksgiving thank you to Senator Charles Grassley when he spoke Wednesday at the Westside Conservative Breakfast in Des Moines. Grassley opened his remarks by highlighting his time over the years spent traveling and listening to constituents which he tallied up to 2,871 town hall meetings.

Senator Grassley quickly opened up his time for questions and for comments. Numerous questions and comments related to the Health Care Bill – all 2054 pages of it. Grassley shared that seven weeks were spent debating No Child Left Behind and five weeks on the energy bill with neither of these issues as sweeping as the Health Care Bill. Grassley’s opinion is that there needs to be much more time on the bill with “full and open discussion”. A comment from the audience suggested that the bill be ‘slapped down and go back to the drawing board.’ That sounded good to me!

A question was asked if those in Washington D.C. understood what was going on outside of D.C. Grassley answered that D.C. was an “island surrounded by reality.” I took it that D.C. dwellers are not about reality, with many not wanting to get out with the grassroots. Grassley said that town hall meetings, letters, and polls are “making a significant difference.”

Numerous questions and comments related to Cap and Trade which Grassley called “Cap and Tax”. Senator Grassley said that the Senate bill is worse than the House bill. He believes the bill will have a hard time passing if it does come up this year.

As a grassroots voter what I found to be an interesting question was what kind of communication Senator Grassley found most influential. He responded that he is receiving more mail than ever before and is 14,000 letters behind with his correspondence. Phone calls, personal letters or E-mails are all important to Grassley as well as names on petitions. Grassley could only speak for himself, not other Senators. As he answered the question I was recalling a friend who shared with me that she had called Grassley’s office and was asked to give her name and address but when she called Senator Harkin the person on the other end of the phone hung up on her. Seems to be a huge difference on the importance of hearing from Iowans!

Someone thanked Senator Grassley for coming to Iowa instead of going to Obama’s State Dinner. But alas, he was not invited this time. Perhaps that is where Senator Harkin was last night. I really don’t know but so far I have not read or heard about Tom Harkin showing up in the state where he says he lives.

Ending my post on a thankful note, it was my pleasure to join in the two standing ovations for Senator Grassley and to be a part of the appreciation for his efforts on behalf of Iowans.

Filed under Politics Tagged with , , , , , ,

Gubernatorial Race Update

November 15, 2009 by 1 Comment

It has been several months since I declared Sioux City businessman Bob Vander Plaats the frontrunner in the battle for the Republican gubernatorial nomination. A lot has transpired since I penned by thoughts on the race all those many months ago. We have seen Governor Culver continue to fail in leading our state back to prosperity. We have seen the state budget continue to bleed red faster than any other time in recent memory. In the race for the primary we have seen some candidates beginning to rise, while others may have declined. And we have seen a legendary political figure enter the race. With all the recent developments in this race I felt that it was time to provide my own analysis of this race.

As I mentioned above, several months ago I declared that Bob Vander Plaats was the clear frontrunner in the race for the Republican primary. And I still believe that he is the front runner, but things may be changing. Some of Vander Plaats challengers have been rising lately. In particular former House Minority Leader Christopher Rants has been pouring on the steam in his effort to secure the nomination. I would credit Rants’ rise to his efforts to actually explain to the people of Iowa where he would save money in the state budget. Over the last month or so Rants has been very clear in stating that he is going to tell the people of Iowa what they need to here even if it is not what they want to hear. And I believe that this strategy is paying off for Representative Rants.

One of the biggest news stories in recent months is the entry of former Governor Terry Branstad into the race for the Republican Gubernatorial nomination. The only reason that I would include Governor Branstad this high up on the list is due to his name recognition. His early campaign has been run poorly and only recently launched a website. To further castigate his chances at winning the primary Branstad put in a pitiful performance at the most recent RPI fundraiser in Des Moines. The performance was so bad that some of the other candidates could be heard afterward saying they felt sorry for him. The bottom line is that without the name recognition Branstad would be an “also ran”. For his sake I hope that he picks it up a few notches otherwise his legacy will be a shambles.

Also on the rise in recent weeks is Cedar Rapids businessman Christian Fong. When Fong first announced his intentions to run for office I discounted his campaign as an also ran. I have been however pleasantly surprised with his efforts at this point. There are however several points that would seem to be working against him. One of those is his political contributions to two far left Democrats from the Cedar Rapids area. The other is an apparently poor campaign management. I have been informed of several occasions where the campaign has double booked a specific time only to have to cancel one of them. I think that if he could effectively address both of these issues his campaign could be a contender in June 2010.

Essentially tied with Fong in my opinion is Rod Roberts. Roberts has surprised many people by winning a couple of county straw polls over some of the more well known candidates. He has been fighting the obscurity that comes with little to no name recognition. He is an intelligent, passionate, and well spoken individual that truly believes in his conservative principles. I just don’t know if he will be able to overcome his name recognition deficit.

As I stated earlier I believe that the race is currently closer than ever before. Anyone of these candidates could claim the top spot in a matter of days. However like I stated some of these candidates really need to work on their campaigns and their message to maximize their investment. Of all the candidates I think that Rants has the least amount of work to do. The other candidates should take a good look at his campaign and do their best to emulate it. He is attending every event that he can and working hard to get his message to the people of Iowa. This is definitely a recipe for success. The next 6 months are going to be interesting.

Filed under Politics Tagged with , , , , , ,

Governor Huckabee’s “Simple Christmas” Book Tour to Iowa

November 11, 2009 by Leave a comment

Filed under Politics Tagged with , , ,

Guest Commentary: Even Pres. Obama Knows the Government Interferes with Efficient Health Care

November 10, 2009 by 3 Comments

Pat Bertrocheby Pat Bertroche, D.O.

 

As Swine Flu, or to be PC, H1N1 influenza, sweeps across our nation, the media is filled with all kinds of contradictory information.  There are vaccine shortages, but they are not critical now.  Or there’s a problem with the vaccine, but it’s safe.  And, of course, the inevitable slew of experts giving their expert opinion that disagrees with the other experts.  However, there is one sparkling point of clarity: the US government, and even Pres. Obama, knows that government interference leads to less health care efficiency, more costs for health care, and hampers everyone trying to do their best to protect our citizens from disease and illness.

 

Here’s my proof.  Pres. Obama declared a National State of Emergency, and because he declared a National State of Emergency, “Doctors and hospitals are relieved of the usual governmental regulations and this will help more efficiently treat patients with H1N1.” (ABC news 10-24-09 morning)

 

Here’s more proof from CNN.  The lifting of regulations “gives the federal government more power to help states…by lifting bureaucratic requirements — both in treating patients and moving equipment”.  Later in the article, another great analysis about why you don’t want government in your medicine.  “Obama’s action allows Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius ”to temporarily waive or modify certain requirements” to help health care facilities enact emergency plans to deal with the pandemic.”  Here’s the link to check it out yourself.  http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/10/24/h1n1.obama/index.html

 

And what does the Washington Post say about it?  They quote Jennifer Nuzzo of the University of Pittsburgh ’s Center for Biosecurity as saying “…we can focus on the care of patients rather than focus on administrative hurdles. In disasters, you often don’t have the time or luxury to keep the paperwork in order. You want hospitals focusing on patients.”
What about when there isn’t an emergency?  It’s ok then to clog up the Health Care machine with government paperwork and bureaucracy?

 

I wonder what CBS has to say about it?  “President Obama has declared the virus a national emergency, cutting bureaucratic red tape. “  Imagine that!  The government cutting red tape, and it actually helps!  That’s not what the Loony Left and Pres. Obama say.  Here’s what else CBS said.  “With the H1N1 flu virus spreading farther and faster than expected, the emergency declaration from theWhite House means health care providers can respond to the crisis faster and bypass some federal regulations. This is a proactive move to basically get rid of the red tape so that hospitals don’t have to fight with regulators if the H1N1 epidemic gets bad later on,” said Dr.. Martin Makary of Johns Hopkins University Hospital .

 

Hmmm.  Pres. Obama declares a National State of Emergency, which reduces government interference, so doctors and hospitals can more effectively treat a serious illness..  Well, how ‘bout that?  Turns out that the government is as bad for health care efficiency and effective patient treatment as it is for mail delivery.  So can anyone explain to me why we are still having any further discussion about government run health care?

Pat Bertroche, D.O.
YOUR Congressional Candidate

Filed under Guest Commentary, Politics Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leadership on Display

November 8, 2009 by 5 Comments

I could give you another detailed account of the Republican Party of Iowa’s Leadership for Iowa event at the Iowa State Fairgrounds from last night. But you can check that out at The Iowa Republican; Caffeinated Thoughts; and Questions, Comments, and Insults. All have good descriptions of the event. Instead I will just discuss the good, the bad, and the ugly from last night.

It has been said that some of the events held by RPI prior to the current leadership were a tad bit on the boring side. This is the second event that I have had the opportunity to attend that has been put together by Matt Strawn and his team at RPI. The event was launched by rock music designed to get the crowd pumped up. And judging by the reactions of the crowd it worked. The lineup of speakers was pretty good in my opinion, although I would have opted to have Auditor Vaudt speak in person rather than via recording. I can understand why Steve King and Tom Latham were unable to attend the event as they were stuck in Washington defending American against the Pelosi healthcare takeover bill.

Strawn himself gave a good speech during his introduction of Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. During the speech he took a jab at the Democrat Bruce Braley for his involvement in the Cash for Clunkers program that the government recently attempted. I really like the line that Strawn gave saying that it is time to trade in the 1st District’s clunker. He reiterated the message that in order for the GOP to win it must stand on the principles that make a Republican a Republican. He then held up Virginia and New Jersey as evidence that Republican principles can still win elections. And of course it was inevitable that he would take some swings at Chet Culver criticizing Culver’s policies and actions. Strawn said that Iowa needs a leader and Chet Culver is not a leader.

Tim Pawlenty, affectionately known nationwide as T-Paw, was a great speaker in my honest opinion. He wasn’t here to talk policy, he was here to provide a pep talk to Iowa Republicans. He was here to fire the grassroots up. And most importantly he was here to raise funds for the Republican Party of Iowa. While I don’t know if he was successful on the last part, I do know that he was successful on the first two. Just like Strawn he pointed out that Virginia and NJ were the starting points for the Republican comeback. Throughout the speech Pawlenty pounded away at President Obama, his administration, and the Democrat controlled legislature. He reiterated that President Obama’s policies are bad for America and that his foreign policy of appeasement is a danger not just to the United States but to the world. He called for the government to live within its means just like average citizens. And he got huge laughs when he said that the only thing growing faster than the national debt was Chris Matthews man crush on Obama. He advocated for lower taxes, lower spending, more appreciation of freedoms, etc…

Now we move onto the speeches by the gubernatorial candidates. Each candidate was to be allowed 10 minutes to speak, but I don’t think it was enforced.

Jerry Behn

I wasn’t overly impressed with Mr. Behn’s speaking abilities. However I do believe that he was solid on the issues. When it comes to economic development he asserts that Governor Culver’s policies and agenda place barriers around the state that would inhibit economic growth in the state. I like that he attacked the unelected board that oversees Iowa’s energy industry for denying the construction of a new efficient coal fired power plant and that this denial cost the state $1.75 billion in business. He also touched on the need for real education reform in Iowa and the notion that anyone but Culver would be an improvement in state leadership.

Terry Branstad

I had high hopes for Branstad’s coming out party. I expected Branstad to be an eloquent and powerful speaker, but that did not materialize. Sure, he had some high points in his speech such as his pride at the growth of Des Moines University. However there were far too many awkward pauses in his speech where it became evident that he was reading from a prepared script. I don’t know if he expected to get by on the fact that he is Terry Branstad, but he will have to work harder than that to win over a majority of Republicans. When it came to the issues he talked a good game. He said that he wants to focus on bringing jobs back to Iowa. He leveled criticism at the Democrats, but it left me scratching my head because some of the criticisms were things that he himself attempted during his time in Terrace Hill. I think that he was attempting to use this event to get the other nominees to not attack his record because he stated that he will not speak ill of other Republicans. I think he needed a better showing than what he provided. As of right now the only thing keeping him in the game is his name.

Bob Vander Plaats

If you want a speaker that can fire up a crowd, you can usually count on Vander Plaats to do that. Even though this speech wasn’t his A game, it was still among the better of the night. Among the many points that he made on the night was the idea that this year’s primary may be for the future of the GOP. Will the GOP swing to the left and become more moderate or will it swing to the right and remain conservative. Naturally he reiterated that on the first day of his governorship he would issue an executive order placing a stay on gay marriage in Iowa until the legislature addressed the issue with a constitutional amendment allowing the population to vote on the issue.

Rob Roberts

Next in line was the winner or the Allamakee County straw poll. After that feat Roberts had some expectations to live up to. And he succeeded. Roberts was extremely well spoken and articulate. He communicated the issues intelligently and essentially demonstrated why he won Allamakee County’s Straw Poll. He affirmed his beliefs in limited government, personal responsibility, and free enterprise. One thing that he really stressed was that Iowa needs to invest in energy and the need to defend Iowa’s right to work law. Overall I think that this was a good night for Roberts.  I think that it will benefit his campaign as people may give him a second look in the primary.

Christian Fong

This was my first opportunity to hear Mr. Fong speak. I found him to be very well spoken and articulate. He discussed the issues very clearly. One interesting thing that I noted from Fong’s speech is an idea to help curb illegal immigration. He stated that to fight illegal immigration we must celebrate legal immigration. One of his stated goals is to return Iowa to prominence and bring jobs back. One idea that Fong has is to eliminate the state income tax. All in all this was a good night for Christian Fong, however it wasn’t the breakout night that he needed to catch up with the front runners.

Christopher Rants

I would have to say it that Christopher Rants was the one candidate that had a stellar night. He gets it. The Republican Party didn’t lose elections because it was too far to the right, it lost those elections because it failed to stand on its principles. He pointed out that those attending the Tea Parties are the voters that the GOP lost. Furthermore he stated that Republican elected officials should not be afraid to talk about what they would like to cut from the budget.

Overall the night was a success in my opinion. Those in attendance were fired up by the variety of different speakers that were on hand. And everyone in attendance has now been able to hear the candidates themselves so they can make a decision on their own. I would like to take a moment to thank Matt Strawn and the leadership at RPI for making candidates available to the state’s conservative blogs. And I hope that we can do this again in the future.

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

Interview:Christopher Reed-Candidate US House 2nd District

November 6, 2009 by 9 Comments

christopher20reedYesterday morning former US Senate candidate Christopher Reed announced his candidacy for the United States House of Representatives in Iowa’s 2nd Congressional District. While his bid to unseat US Senator Tom Harking fell short, his experience from that campaign will most definitely benefit him in this new race. Wednesday afternoon I had an opportunity to discuss some of the issues that his campaign will focus on.

The biggest difference between Reed and his Democratic opponent is the fact that Reed wants to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America whereas incumbent Democrat Dave Loebsack cares not one whit for this founding document. The evidence of Loebsacks disregard for our nations founding principles was clearly on display during the August recess when he blatantly told constituents that he was supporting a bill that he admitted would be unconstitutional.

The bill in question is the health care bill being touted by Democratic leadership in Congress. Reed takes exception to the blatant expansion of government that this bill would entail. And that expansion of government is in direct violation of the US Constitution. Reed believes that the correct way to reform health care in our nation is for the government to get out of the way and let the market do the innovating. One of the methods he proposes to do this is to eliminate the policy of forbidding cross border purchasing of health insurance. Currently consumers can only purchase insurance from providers within their own state. So if there is a health plan that is cheaper in one state, you are out of luck if you don’t live there. By eliminating this policy it would create more competition amongst the insurance industry therefore driving costs down as providers begin to compete for customers. Furthermore to create competition we must encourage the purchase of health insurance by individuals rather than tying it to a person’s place of employment.

The topic of Cap and Trade was another subject that was inevitable to be discussed. In his view this legislation is just as dangerous as and quite possibly more dangerous than the health care bill currently being shoved done our throats. He believes that passage of this bill would stifle economic growth by driving costs up for businesses and ultimately drive manufacturing from our soil. One of the primary reasons behind this belief is that other emerging industrial nations such as China and India would not follow suit making it cheaper to manufacture overseas. In his opinion the best way to solve America’s dependence on foreign oil is through a policy of inclusiveness. Essentially American should invest in a variety of energy sources to determine the most practical form for our nation. Furthermore he doesn’t believe that the various forms of energy production should be subsidized, if they are going to succeed, they need to do so on their own. Although he has stated that it would be proper for the government to help get the development of these energy forms off the ground.

He was particularly harsh on President Obama’s foreign policy. In fact when questioned about it he stated that he didn’t know Obama had one. He pointed to the escalating violence in Afghanistan as evidence of Obama’s foreign policy failures. He stated that all Obama’s apology tour did was embolden America’s enemies to step up attacks. He believes that Obama has been ignoring the recommendations of the generals on the ground demonstrates Obama’s poor leadership abilities. Essentially he is saying that Obama’s foreign policy is all style and no substance.

As I talked with Christopher for almost an hour one thing struck. Through his experiences in his campaign for the US Senate he has learned valuable lessons that can and are being applied to this campaign. He is more knowledgeable of the issues and is a more polished speaker. For those of you out there that are counting on the rookie candidate that faced Tom Harkin in 2008 I think you will be quite surprised at the amount of growth this young man has gone through. It will not be so easy to defeat this patriot this year.

Filed under Politics Tagged with , , , ,

Reason #31 Why Marriage is a Winning Issue

November 4, 2009 by 3 Comments

Maine is reason #31 why marriage is a winning issue and the thirty other reasons are the other states who have had the definition of marriage being between on man and one woman upheld by the electorate.  Traditional marriage has never lost on the ballot…………never…………not even in the liberal northeast………….not anywhere in this Obamanation.  Traditional marriage even prevailed when his name was at the top of the ticket last November.

What is interesting about the Maine vote, however, is that the voters gave the middle finger to the very people they elected to represent them.  The Maine legislature imposed a law providing gay marriage and yesterday the people spoke and rejected that law.  (Maine doesn’t know how lucky they are to actually have their elected officials make the gay marriage law instead of the courts unconstitutionally doing it or to have their elected officials actually do something about marriage-even if it was the wrong decision.  We don’t have that luxury in Iowa.)

While the rest of the country embraces the stance for traditional marriage and flocks to the polls to uphold it, the GOP continues to move away from the issue because they think they are alienating people and that people just don’t care.  The Republican party is ignoring the marriage issue nationally and also at our state level even though it has the definition in its platform.  I have yet to see one update from yesterday’s elections from either the RNC or the Iowa GOP on the win in Maine and how traditional marriage is now 31 for 31.  They wouldn’t know a winning issue if it slapped them in the face.

Remember, according to our former Governor Terry Branstad in order to win we shouldn’t “wear our conservatism on our sleeve.”  Even though traditional marriage always prevails on a ballot and 70% of Iowans want their chance to vote on that issue, it is supposedly a non-starter.  Perhaps some people choose not to wear conservatism on their sleeve because they don’t have enough of it to fill up the sleeves of a muscle shirt.

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

← Older posts

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 696 other followers