Moderate In Disguise
November 1, 2009 30 Comments
As a Conservative Republican I find little that disturbs me more than a Moderate masquerading as a Conservative. By disguising their true political views these Moderates are lying to the electorate. This deception is a violation of the trust that people place in their elected officials. Moderates that hide their true worldview lack an ingredient necessary for them to succeed in politics, integrity.
Last year during the 2nd Congressional District Primary eventual winner Marianette Miller-Meeks ran as a conservative. Couple that with the fact that she faced two particularly weak candidates and you can see why she won that race. However near the end of the primary we began to receive word that all might not be as it seemed with Ms. Miller-Meeks. We began to notice her skirting questions, or blatantly avoiding questions. It began to seem like she was hiding something. Ultimately she failed in her 2008 bid to unseat David Loebsack from Congress.
This summer with little to no campaigning going on I was informed by one of my trusted sources that on her profile page Ms. Miller-Meeks had listed under political views; Moderate. The only confirmation that I was able to get of this was through 2 other online sources. Of course this turn of events confirmed the suspicions that began to grow near the end of the primary and justified the actions that we here at Iowa Defense Alliance took in the spring of 2008.
Now it would appear that Ms. Miller-Meeks is gearing up for another run at this seat. On her Facebook profile she has changed her political views from Moderate to Conservative. And at numerous Wapello County GOP meetings she has refused to end the speculation that she will indeed run again. Both are indicative of her intentions to at the very least consider another run at the seat held by Loebsack. However I don’t think that her phony conservatism will play well with the base of the party now that she has admitted to being a moderate. If she does indeed make an official campaign announcement I would like to be the first to offer up a slogan for her using her initials. Moderate, Masquerade, Mercenary.
Looks like someone may need a primary challanger………….
Oh I am fairly sure that this is going to be a messy year again for 2nd District. I believe that there will be at lest two more candidates running for this primary
oh dear, not MMM AGAIN!!!!
I am afraid all indications are pointing to yes MMM again.
MMM is a smart woman, and has a lot to offer, but she is certainly NOT a conservative. The Republicans of IA-02 should look elsewhere.
I am one of MMM fb friends and I know she was a “moderate” when I added her because I remember thinking why did she want to be friends with me. I “keep an eye” on my moderate fb friends and I could never understand why she was my friend because she does not have any “substance” in what she says. I’m a die hard Conservative.
Now her facebook page says “conservative” so she has indeed changed it. Conservatives need to get out to her events and start questioning her. She will not directly answer your questions. Her website has NO issues, what platform is she running on, my guess is “pro-abortion” and I have evidence to prove the same.
MMM is a LIBERAL.
Interesting post. First of all, Dr. Miller-Meeks was the only candidate the Republicans had that could win a such a liberal district. It is nearly +7 Democrat in PVI figures alone. How do you think Leach held onto this seat for as long as he did? What I do not understand is the logic behind the fact that the Republican Party must nominate an across-the-board-conservatives. How is this a winning strategy? (Answer: It is not. You can ‘adios’ to big tent)
There was once a time when the Republican party had conservative, moderate and liberal Republicans. Ideology of different views on a few issues should not determine whether a person is or is not in a party. Dr. Miller-Meeks is a conservative. If you do not think she is a conservative then I am afraid to ask who is a conservative in your definition. That definition of a conservative would be quite scary to me and to moderate-Republican, independent and Democratic voters who make up nearly 75-80% of the electorate in the Second District.
Having Dr. Miller-Meeks run again would be great. Sound leadership, a deep understanding of the issues, and a distinct personality that can connect with all types of voters. She is the only candidate (in 2008 2nd District Congressional Race) that could intellectually discuss any issue. A self made person who rose up through the ranks of the socio-economic status not because of government handouts, but due to hard work, a vision, and an ability to exceed any expectations. Why would we not want to have such a remarkable individual represent our district? It would be an honor.
What does a Facebook political ideology tell us? Absolutely nothing. If we can sum up all of our ideology into one word and label it on Facebook then to what has our society come? The comments in regards to the speculation of her changing a Facebook Profile feature are ridiculous. I am not acknowledging it either way, because I do not have the hard facts. The fact of the matter is that people are gossiping (not discussing) whether or not Dr. Miller-Meeks changed her Facebook Profile political ideology. Does this not sound ridiculous and a waste of time? It is Facebook, not ballot. I can think far more constructive things to discuss. Health care, the economy, government waste, education, etc. If you do not like like one of Dr. Miller-Meek’s views then intelligently write it here with some reason. I would hope people would not state something without any basis or descent reasoning.
What website is ‘SE Iowa Die hard Conservative’ talking about? There is no website. The only website Dr. Miller-Meeks has connection to is her blog. Where she intelligently expresses her views on current events, religion, and other matters. If anyone spent anytime on that site (www.millermeeks.com) one would find out that Dr. Miller-Meeks is not some scary moderate/liberal-Republican, but an intelligent, articulative conservative Republican.
Lastly, I do not understand where people are coming from when they have this hatred or abrasive comments towards Dr. Miller-Meeks. My question is to all the people discussing their dislike for Dr. Miller-Meeks’ possible candidacy for Congress in 2010, have you ever meet her? I would hope people are open-minded enough and intelligent enough to actually get to meet someone, understand their values, and then make a rational judgement on a person’s ideology before bashing a so called ‘ideology.’ As voters, we have a duty to due homework on candidates. Not read a blog, restate hear say, or discuss something with not basis.
Whether or not you agree with Dr. Miller-Meeks (and you do have that right) please do not go around bashing a persons name in for the purpose to take down an individual. You can discuss a view someone holds in a constructive manner that presents logical arguments. Bashing a person for no reason than to take down someone comes only from someone who lacks integrity.
I did a lot of research/”homework” on Miller-Meeks last time around, and I actually have met her. She did not make a particularly good impression on me so I am one type of voter with whom she did not connect.
She seems to be a very energetic individual, which is all for the good, but to me she was not particularly personable as there was no genuine warmth coming from her. She seems to me very focused on getting her message out and getting herself elected, and perhaps this for me is where she gets in her own way. I know she is a doctor who helps people but I did not get the feeling when I met her that she actually saw ME as a person but only as a potential voter who would be a stepping stone for her.
The description above was my gut response which is no more and no less than that. You can discount it or discredit it if you choose, but it is not unreasonable for gut responses to have their place in all estimations of all candidates.
I have a concern that Miller-Meeks is very careful to avoid going on record with any thought or statement that might lose her a vote. This reluctance has caused her to beat around the proverbial bush at times. The most stark example of this was her interview with Steave Deace in which she refused to give a yes or no answer to the question of whether she was pro-life. If I remember correctly, she diverted her answer into talking about children and how much she wanted to help them, but she would not commit to helping UNBORN children.
It’s my guess that Miller-Meeks’s failure to provide a simple, transparent, reliable statement on this single issue is what has done the most to inspire the “hatred” Stating the Trust (mis)perceives among those posting on this blog.
My own position is that if Miller-Meeks would just come out and be unequivocal about her stance on abortion, I could begin to garner a bit of respect for her, whatever her stance may be. If Miller-Meeks would just tell us, she could start to prove she has integrity and courage. I’m not ineerested in voting for somebody who– in the political arena so far –hasn’t necessarily proved she has either .
And lastly, as a side note, the speculation about how Miller Meeks describes herself in a facebook profile wouldn’t even be happening if people felt they could get the truth from her. Yes, haggling over a facebook feature may say something about people writing on this blog but it also says something about Miller-Meeks’s candidacy that people have to go to a facebook profile to try to figure her out!
I will visit Miller-Meeks’s blog and see if she has improved since last time around. Last time around, I believe that site was not simply a blog but also “her website” ( to which SE IA Die Hard Conservative refers) which was then in campaign mode.
Thank for your taking a reasonable stand. If you personally feel Dr. Miller-Meeks is not your candidate you have that right. But at least, unlike many who have commented, you have the integrity and understanding to not degrade someone personally. You can disagree on the substantive issues while not attacking an individual. For this, I applaud you.
Wow, a whole blog post of unsubstantiated, undocumented, nonspecific rumors and gossip. ‘Proving’ someone’s a moderate by second-hand hearsay. How about evidence? You can’t give one single documented, specific example to support your claims. I love how the IDA hypocritically parades around with it’s supposedly high-minded Christian values and uses such liberal sleazebag trial lawyer tactics. What a bunch of self-righteous Pharisees.
I see Kim Lehman continues to carry the water and spread her poison for the lying, corrupt scam artist Peter Teahen, who deservedly lost against Mariannette last time in the primary after mailing an ad with distorted and disingenuous smears about her. Smears then recycled by Kim into her hatchet job attack piece in the IDA newsletter right before the general election, which she tried to deny her involvement in and pass the buck to her assistant though Kim had complete editorial control over the released content and sent it from her email address. Integrity at it’s highest right there.
I have heard Mariannette and she makes solid and eloquent conservative arguments on issues like health care, cap and trade, taxes, budget, energy policy, gay marriage, and yes abortion. You just refuse to listen because you have no desire to be thinking and articulate, just react with a pitchfork mob mentality because the IDA handlers tell you how you should vote. Strange how the Tea Partiers and 912ers just love her, isn’t it? The blog post itself illustrates that perfectly, trying to make a scandal out of the fact she refuses to give in to gossip and speculation about her running. Last time I checked she doesn’t answer to the IDA and I don’t see the IDA’s name in the Constitution as some authority to answer to. But my question is why as Christians are you engaging in all that gossip and speculation? You might want to do some self-examination and question some of the character and integrity issues you have.
And speaking of the Constitution, I love now that the Tea Party and 912 groups have come on in strength that the IDA has changed it’s tune and is now talking about the Constitution and conservatism. Just 6 months ago the rage was all about the GOP platform, which you used as your to bludgeon the candidates with. Everyone knows what a scam that is, how the IDA likes to stack the state GOP convention with their ringers so that they can get a Platform in line with their views, irregardless whether those views align with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the beliefs of the Founders. But now that they have potential competition organizations, the IDA changes it’s tune and now is all about the Constitution and Conservatism. Guess it’s true that people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
But since you’re going to hold people to a standard, how about holding a consistent standard? There is a whole lot of speculation about the laundering of money to the ICA from Morris Hurd’s church. I wonder when the ICA is going to be forthcoming and honest and open it’s books to the world so that we can end the speculation is to exactly what is going on and how long has it been going on? What did Kim know and when did she know it? I don’t want to wait for the IRS or the FEC to investigate, I want the ICA to be proactive and show it’s integrity and honesty to the world and prove the rumors and speculation wrong. If it’s good enough for Mariannette, it’s good enough for everyone. And as an affiliate organization you should hold their feet to the fire and spend some time cleaning your own house and quit spreading smears about everyone else.
Wow so many erroneous assumptions that it is hard to know where to begin. First and foremost, Kim Lehman is in no way affiliated with Iowa Defense Alliance, in fact IDA is affiliated with no other organization. We are simply a group of committed conservatives with a desire to make a difference in our state and our country.
As for your claims that we are reporting on second hand heresay, call it what you will. I confirmed this turn of events with several credible sources. I never, ever rely on just one source. Furthermore, based on your standards then the evening news is rarely more than just rumors and speculation..
As for our concern with the constitution, we have always been concerned with the constitution of the United States and State of Iowa. It just so happens that the Republican Party platform alligns with it.
And as for your claim that the ICA is laundering money, I hadn’t heard about that claim and will look into it.
Well glad to see your integrity is no higher than the mainstream evening news Al. Thanks for making my point.
To state the that platform aligns with the Constitution is pure hubris Al and frankly disgusting. Who exactly is doing the vetting to make sure that’s true? It’s a bunch of activists voting up or down. Ridiculous.
And you claim to not be associated with Kim, but you’re spreading her poison. 6 of 1, 1/2 dozen of the other.
Here is the article:
http://www.thehawkeye.com/story/Money-funnel-102109
Actually, my integrity is much higher than the MSM. If you can prove that I am wrong I will publicly apologize. But I do not think that is going to happen. I trust my sources to be honest with me, they have never proven otherwise.
As for interpretation of the constitution, it is up to each and every individual in this country to understand and interpret the constitution to ensure that our elected officials do not violate it. Do you not think that the average Iowan is capable of understanding our constitution.
And while I do know here, Kim Lehman is in no way affiliated with Iowa Defense Alliance. What I am doing is commenting on the political scene. I am sorry if that offends you. But all indications are that MMM will run again and that she is a moderate that will masquerade as a conservative.
And thank you for the link to the article, I will look into it.
But Al you’re absolutely typical of the Iowa Christian Right mentality. It’s about I, ME, US, OUR integrity. It’s about what I say, my impressions, my subjective interpretation, my sources. It’s a tribunal perspective, not based on principle, proof, logic, or rule of law. It’s strictly authoritative. It has no standing. All you have is speculation.
The Platform has nothing to do with the Constitution. The Platform is activists debating and horse trading to get their planks on it. I doubt anyone did a review and analysis of the Constitution before submitting those planks. Yes, people are perfectly able to understand it and make interpretations, but that’s all they are – interpretations. They have no legal standing and therefore it doesn’t make the Platform constitutional by any stretch. That’s why I have a real problem when the Christian Right has tried to hold candidates to the Platform in the past rather than the Constitution. Well at least till they changed their tune after the Tea Partiers came on the scene.
I will retract that Kim’s attack on Mariannette was from the IDA. It was from the IRL. My mistake. Nonetheless, you spread her poison.
“As for your claims that we are reporting on second hand heresay, call it what you will. I confirmed this turn of events with several credible sources”
any of them bother to take a screen shot to back up their claim or are you just taking their word for it?
Well now we’re getting down to it. Constitution and Conservatism my rear end. Let’s boil it all back to what it really comes down to for the IDA, and that’s one issue: abortion.
What the IDA wants is for every candidate to fall into the trap and perfectly align with their perfect position on abortion. No 90 or 95% agreement, just all or nothing. Forget about all other issues. Do it or we cut you to ribbons.
Mafia thug mentality at it’s best.
Boy you sure know us, that is why it was never mentioned in the post. We are trying to slip one by on you. And our opposition to Branstad has nothing to do with the fact that his record as governor almost perfectly matches Culvers record. It is all because he didn’t outlaw abortion during his term.
I need to clarify that the reason I brought up the abortion issue is because it is perhaps the most glaring one on which Miller- Meeks refuses to take a clear stand.
The point I am making is that refusing to take a stand by avoiding a straight answer is almost as bad as the opinion she seems to hold!
Come to think of it, I have heard Miller-Meeks speak at length about a number of issues and when she was through I often found myself perplexed as to what she really thinks, let alone stands for.
Her fluid use of words may impress some but an impressive use of words is meant to express/convey SOMEthing. With Miller-Meeks, what that something is often eludes me.
hmm, the platform has nothing to do with the Constitution?
Let’s see. The platform is developed, starting at the precinct level, then on to county, district, and state. Each plank reflects the voice of “We the People.”
Now as I recall, the first three words of the U.S. Constitution are “We the People.”
I agree, Tom Shaw. People (voters!) will be paying attention to elected officials and those who WANT to be elected and how they follow the platform. And YES “We the people”.
The term RINO is ever more understood and candidates will face this kind of scrutiny.
I wonder if Get a clue accuses Doug Gross of using “liberal sleazebag trial lawyer tactics.” If the shoe fits……..
Anyway, when will any of you people understand that IDA is not about the Republican party winning. We are about conservative issues winning and “we the people.” And we were that way long before the tea parties, baby. (You might want to read our blog more……..not just when we mention the word “moderate.”
So, what if it is all about abortion? If you are all about the founding documents, Get a clue, then you cannot ignore we are all guaranteed LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Who is Kim Lehman?
Sorry to be of such a disappointment to some of you, but yea I am running. What I find amazing is that some candidates can relate absolute untruths, but be considered Christian. I will continue in the forthright and honest manner I have done. I have never refused to answer a question, and even in my editorial review with the Des Moines I stated that I was pro-life and gave my opinions even while I was “dismissed” for that viewpoint. If I was a RINO, why wouldn’t I just run as a democrat? I certainly could have especially given the voter disparity in the 2nd district.
I do not see where your comment hold water, and by votes I bested both the current candidates now vying for this seat. Rathje coudn’t win the primary for senate and I won more votes that Reed in his home county. So, no, I will not be backing down from my principle or values regardless of the unflattering and untruthful comments made about me. I will continue to monitor the sites, but will not comment further. We have so much tough work ahead of us, and to take this district back is a monumental undertaking. It would be easier to go back to making a good income doing what I love.
Is there a bit of sarcasm in this response (“sorry to be such a disappointment…etc.etc.”) ? Is there a bit of mild Christian bashing?
If so, this reply by Miller-Meeks is not her finest political moment .
Months ago, when Miller-Meeks began her (first ) campaign I e-mailed her and she e-mailed back REFUSING to answer my questions in writing saying that she preferred to meet me in person.
An assertion is not any proof, why not give us some examples of what the lady falls short in that you regard to be Conservative Values and examples of activity by her that you regard to be dangerously Moderate traits ot
Otherwise I feel this is more of a kind with the whispering campaign last time that she performs abortions,
Really” I did not know eye doctors did that?
Someone told you the word Moderate appeared on her website?
Did they now
It takes real guts to make reasonable arguments not, make unreasonable and personal attacks on candidates.
“My own position is that if Miller-Meeks would just come out and be unequivocal about her stance on abortion, I could begin to garner a bit of respect for her, whatever her stance may be.”
” have never refused to answer a question, and even in my editorial review with the Des Moines I stated that I was pro-life and gave my opinions even while I was “dismissed” for that viewpoint. ”
That would seem to answer your request
I would be happy to have that link to Miller Meeks’s editorial review. If you could pass it along, thank you!
Meanwhile, I beg to differ with Miller Meeks’s statement that she has never refused to answer a question. With my own ears I have heard her equivocate. If you are looking for an example of that, the Steve Deace interview offers at least one example.
I’ll preface my comments by stating I am a friend of MMM’s, I supported her in 2008, and if she has chosen to run again I support that decision as well.
With that, I’d like to take issue with your 2nd paragraph. You accuse MMM of hiding things, this paragraph appears to be hiding quite a few things itself.
“she faced two particularly weak candidates and you can see why she won that race.”.
Peter Teahen was the favorite in that primary. We could debate our definitions of weak, but MMM had to work up her name recognition and have a solid message in order to win, and she obviously succeeded.
“However near the end of the primary we began to receive word that all might not be as it seemed with Ms. Miller-Meeks. ”
Perhaps you could answer the question you begin to pose. How was not all that it seemed? In an amazing coincidence, it was near the end of the primary when Kim Lehman sent out an email in effect sabotaging MMM’s campaign with what I still consider to be baseless accusations. Yet you say Lehman is uninvolved here.
I’d rather not question another Republican’s integrity, so I simply ask you to expound, in detail, what you found amiss.
“We began to notice her skirting questions, or blatantly avoiding questions. It began to seem like she was hiding something.”
Again, I’d like an explanation; what questions? Hiding what?
You have said that your opinion is not guided upon one issue (abortion). What issues do you find MMM moderate/liberal on? If you are going to disparage a Republican candidate, accusing her of “hiding things” and “masquerading as a conservative”, I think you need to corroborate those accusations with clear examples of where her views could be defined as such.
Otherwise, your allegations are no better than an Obama White House claiming Fox News is “talk radio”, or Harry Reid calling Tea Party patriots “evil”.
I would certainly hope our party is above that.
“And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:”
Matthew 12:25
Due to the division within our own party, it is no wonder that Dave Loebsack is still in office.
I am an ultra-conservative Republican and I can see why the liberal Democrats have taken over our country. As Republicans, our political agendas have more in common with one another than with the Democrats REGARDLESS of whether we are conservative or moderate Republicans.
We need to stop spending our efforts sabotaging our candidates and spend more effort in fighting the real fight, getting the liberal Democrats out of office!
Jesus Christ has taught us that: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation.” As Christians, we need to do all we can to STOP this division. We cannot continue to allow the Adversary to use us to destroy ourselves!
WE MUST DO ALL THE GOOD WE CAN DO! WE MUST FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT! TOGETHER!!!
I have two (at the least) problems with MMM
#1: She was at a small event I attended and spoke of re-electing Grassely (after speaking of limited government). I asked “how did Grassely vote on the first Tarp bailout?” She replied “he voted against it”… Lied right to my face in front of 20 people.
#2: Had this nice discussion with her on her website. She praised Cash for Clunkers, saying it was proof that tax cuts work. Somehow I could not convince her that checks from the government to people who may or may not be paying taxes, is not a tax cut, it is welfare.
http://millermeeks.com/doctorsnotes/economy/cash-for-clunkers/
I am glad I live in her district, I can happily vote against her again this year.