Iowa Defense Alliance

An alliance of Iowans determined to defend traditional Iowa values.

The Sound of Madness

Madness. According to The American Heritage Dictionary the definition of the word madness is

  1. The quality or condition of being insane.
  2. Great folly.
  3. Fury; rage.
  4. Enthusiasm; excitement.

And according to the Collins English Dictionary the definition is:

  1. Insanity; lunacy.
  2. Extreme anger, excitement, or foolishness.
  3. A nontechnical word for rabies.

Madness is a disorder that can afflict any individual without regard to their background, without regard to their education. Madness discriminates against no one. Even our elected officials can suffer from madness as has been clearly demonstrated by a certain Linn County Supervisor. On January 7th Republican Brent Oleson clearly lost his mind. For on this day Oleson not only launches into a tirade, he blatantly lies in an attempt to discredit a fellow Republican.

As most of you are no doubt aware State Representative Kent Sorenson publically endorsed Bob Vander Plaats for Governor. In the process of endorsing Vander Plaats Sorenson very publically vowed that he would not support Terry Branstad should he win the nomination. The problem arose with Oleson when he posted his comments on his blog, The Marion Contrarian. In his comments Oleson stated that Sorenson would not support any of the Republican nominees other than Branstad. This was clearly not the case and at first I assumed that it was simply an honest mistake on his part. However after presenting evidence to the contrary I quickly came to the realization that the misrepresentation was intentional. As interacted with Oleson it became quite clear the man was mad.

Then on January 18th Oleson presented the Linn County Republican a draft of a resolution that would ask Gubernatorial candidates to place their intelligence on hold in order to receive the support of the county party apparatus. Astoundingly the members of the Linn County Republican Central Committee fell in line and approved the resolution. This resolution is dangerous in many ways, but most importantly it asks the other candidates to support their opponent even if they do not agree with their positions. This would have the unintended consequence of making liars out of some of our candidates.

Personally I could understand a litmus test at the local level if it asked the candidates to pledge to support the platform as set forth by base of the party at the caucuses and conventions. However that is not what these people want. Instead it seems that these people want to encourage the blind faith that having an R behind a candidate’s name is all that truly matters. It is extremely disconcerting the rhetoric coming from Linn County because it is truly the sound of madness.

January 21, 2010 - Posted by Al Bregar | Abregar, Politics | , , , , , ,

24 Comments »

  1. Al, this is positively brillant. You were kind when you used the term “madness.”

    I would say this resolution is quite a liberal move on Oleson’s part. Trying to restrict ones beliefs and values. And to think we only had Culver and the Democrats to worry about when it came to taking away our freedoms!!!!! Obviously, Oleson has no convictions of his own or he wouldn’t be so hell bent on silencing people and not seeing the implications of that and the precedent it sets.

    Unbelievable.

    Comment by Iowans Rock | January 21, 2010 | Reply

  2. Shouldn’t this get me on the Wall of Shame too? I would be honored if you could do that please. Put me right next to Chuck Grassley.

    Comment by Brent Oleson | January 22, 2010 | Reply

    • Don’t worry Brent, I intend to include you on the Wall of Shame UNLESS you publsh a retraction on your accusation that Sorenson would not support Rants or Roberts should they win the nomination. He has only stated that he could not and would not support or vote for Branstad for Governor. Like I said in the article at first I thought your comments were simply a mistake. I have since come to believe that you intentionally misrepresented Kent’s comments. This leads me to further believe that you lack honesty and integrity. Both of which are needed if you want to take part in any level of government.

      Comment by Al Bregar | January 22, 2010 | Reply

  3. As much as I want to be on your Wall of Shame, I don’t want to be on it for a lack of integrity. After some thought, your point is well taken and a correction has been added to the blog.

    You can put me on it for being an evil moderate…just so long as it is noted that I am one with integrity.

    Comment by Brent Oleson | January 22, 2010 | Reply

  4. You guys are welcome to form a third party. You can complain all you want, but if Terry Branstad gets elected it’s by the will of the people, not some secret insidious conspiracy by some hidden cabal. All you have to do is convince the majority of the people that your candidate is best one and you win. It’s not complicated.

    Using the GOP organization and it’s people, resources, structure, and efforts for when it’s convenient to you, then bolting when you don’t get the result is a little disingenuous. If you don’t like us or support what we do, run as an independent or with your own party and stick with it to the end. It’s called integrity.

    I get frustrated with the GOP too, but mostly what I hear is people complaining about it and not coming together to do anything about it, and no plan of action if they do. At some point you need to look at yourselves and what your own motivations and flaws may be as to why you aren’t making headway with the voters.

    Comment by Matt Green | January 25, 2010 | Reply

    • Since you and Brent are both throwing the integrity word around I thought I would give you the definition that comes up first for the word: Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code.

      I’m not sure that pledging our support to a party and “sticking with it to the end” really fits the definition of integrity. That is called gutless kool-aid drinking. Those of us who are demanding the party and its candidates to stick to the party platform of lower taxes, less government, 2nd Amendment rights, sanctity of life, and traditional marriage are the ones with integrity. The ones who demand people support the party at all costs are the sell-outs who have no idea how to advance an agenda because they stand for nothing.

      Comment by Iowans Rock | January 25, 2010 | Reply

    • Matt,
      It is not about Terry Branstad or Bob Vander Plaats for me and a lot of other concerned citizens. Our problem is that this resolution passed by Linn County would have us support whoever the candidate without regard as to whether that candidate would advance a Republican agenda. That is the problem. Think of it this way, if the candidate will not support the party’s agenda or platform what good does electing that candidate do.

      Comment by Al Bregar | January 25, 2010 | Reply

      • Hate to tell you this guys, but there’s another concept in our founding principles that also applies here. It’s called the Will Of The People. Candidates that become the nominee aren’t appointed, their elected. That particularly ironic because it’s not like there’s 100% Republican turnout in the primary. Usually it’s more like 20%. It not like you don’t have room to get more votes.

        You may be frustrated, but to run off when you lose fair and square is not a reflection of integrity. I get very frustrated at times with the winners of primaries, but I don’t go shooting my mouth off, or form an Independent faction after the primaries because I didn’t get my way. Part of integrity is a consistent set of actions, keeping your word as your word, and not being a hypocrite. I guarantee you if a significant faction of the party undermined your candidate, you’d be projectile vomiting scorn the other direction. It’s not right to use someone’s apparatus then throw it away when it isn’t useful anymore. Is that what the GOP establishment did for years to the religious right?

        Sorry, but the problem is you guys don’t know how to play ball. You have no patience and no sense of strategy, timing, or opportunity. It’s always pound the pitchfork, screech at the top of your lungs, and run headlong in a disorganized frontal assault. You don’t realize just how much you are in the drivers seat in the governor’s election if you just knew how to capitalize on the opportunity, but frankly you’ll never figure it out.

        And by the way Iowans Rock, my governing code for politics is the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America. You all are not the keepers of that code, and I don’t buy into your dogma points just because you have declared yourselves the righteous ones and hurl invective to all that disagree with you. Just because you think it’s morally right doesn’t make it constitutional.

        Comment by Matt Green | January 25, 2010 | Reply

        • So here’s a hypothetical question for you Matt. If Chet Culver were to switch parties to run as a Republican and win the primary because independents and Democrats jumped ship to vote in the Republican primary, would you vote for him because he is the nominee?

          Comment by Al Bregar | January 25, 2010 | Reply

          • Nope, I wouldn’t. But I’d keep quiet and direct my energies to other candidates. It’s my decision and mine alone, I wouldn’t go public though or try and drag others into my camp. That’s exactly what I did the last time Leach ran.

            The time to speak is in the primary. After that it’s time to shut up. If you don’t like the resutls, leave and go join some other group or support some other candidate. The will of the people spoke and you lost. Get over it.

            Comment by Matt Green | January 26, 2010 | Reply

            • I guess I have a different philosophy than you then. My belief is that in order to be a Republican you have to have more than just an R behind your name. You have to actually believe and advance the principles of the party as set forth by the grassroots members of the party. And apparently I am not the only one that feels that way as I witnessed no less than 4 proposed planks at my caucus that would require a Republican candidate to pledge to support and advance the party platform before receiving any party support. These proposals were greeted by great enthusiasm from the assembled caucus goers.

              Comment by Al Bregar | January 26, 2010 | Reply

              • That platform changes every two years. It’s not a consistent document. The process can be easily manipulated by groups ramming their delegates thru the convention. There’s not guarantee that any of the planks will be remotely constitutional.

                Most of us see thru the christian coalition efforts to tack on their extra set of dogma points tacked on to our founding documents. What I don’t understand is that they are more than willing to follow the principle of majority rule and will of the people in that process when it benefits them, but ignore it in the primary. They expect elected officials to support the platform, but they as elected Republican committee people and officers refuse to support the results of the primary election.

                That’s what I’m talking about when I talk about integrity.

                Comment by Matt Green | January 26, 2010 | Reply

                • I realize that the platform is not a static document. However, as you are saying that we should just shut up and be good R’s and vote for whoever the nominee is, then shouldn’t that nominee shut up and advance the platform that the base drafted. You see Matt that is a two way street, and until I see more consistency in supporting our Republican ideals I will pick and choose what candidates to vote for in both the primary and the general. After all in my opinion voting for an R that acts like a D is more damaging than voting for a D.

                  Comment by Al Bregar | January 26, 2010 | Reply

                  • And conversely, if you have any hope of the candidate supporting the platform, it might be wise not to support some other candidate in the general. You can always hold their feet to the fire during their term and primary them the next time.

                    Comment by Matt Green | January 26, 2010 | Reply

                    • Have Republicans failed to learn the lesson of voting for people like Arlen Spector. They take the party’s money to run as a Republican, but when it matters most they vote with the Democrats. They refuse to uphold the principles of the Republican Party. When is the constant betrayal going to get through that sometimes you have to lose to win.

                      Comment by Al Bregar | January 26, 2010

                • This eruption has been a long time in coming Matt. In the last four years we have had R’s vote with D’s on a number of things that I would consider unconstitutional such as the smoking ban. Then there was the core curriculum that did nothing more than expand government control over our schools. And then there was the Supreme Courts ruling on marriage. That ruling in and of itself became unconstitutional when the Supreme Court ordered the counties to begin allowing same sex marriage. And yet not one of our elected Republican leaders has had the courage to stand up to this run away court. Now tell me again why we should vote for every R that appears on the ballot.

                  Comment by Al Bregar | January 26, 2010 | Reply

                  • Yes, but you have no clue as to how to take advantage of it. The christian coalition types seem more interested in looking righteous and pure than they are actually accomplishing a victory. Sad, because they don’t know just how much leverage they have in the process.

                    Comment by Matt Green | January 26, 2010 | Reply

                    • Your constant use of the term “christian coalition types” is wearing a bit thin. There are a great number of solid conservatives that have abandoned the party because so called Republican elected officials refuse to govern by Republican/Conservative principles. This is what has given rise to the Tea Party movement. This is what has given rise to the massive number of registered independents. They have felt the sting of betrayal far too many times, so they abandoned the party that abandoned them. And yet the party still seems to be going the business as usual route.

                      Comment by Al Bregar | January 26, 2010

        • Matt, are you stupid? I was giving you the definition of the word “integrity” which you and Brent were flinging around like it was going out of style without obviously knowing what it means. But just like anyone else who doesn’t know what they are talking about you use it to turn it into some argument that makes no sense and is off topic.

          Show me where in my comment to you about integrity that I have some code or how it trumps the Constitution or where I was saying something was morally right or where I declared myself righteous, and so on and so on and so on………

          And I’m so glad you don’t go around “shooting your mouth off” because I swear that is what you are doing on here.

          Comment by Iowans Rock | January 25, 2010 | Reply

          • Is part of that moral code using somebody’s organization for your purposes then dumping them when you don’t win?

            I mean seriously, get some guts and form a third party already.

            Comment by Matt Green | January 26, 2010 | Reply

  5. Well said, Iowans Rock! There is a growing number of Iowa voters who WILL NOT vote for someone just because they say they are Republicans.

    I must see that a candidate will actually stick to the party platform. Won’t vote for a fake Republican!

    Comment by Pied Piper | January 25, 2010 | Reply

  6. Hate to break the news to some of you posting comments here but some of us are in fact clued in to how things need to be in the Republican Party. Purity – what a novel idea! And the sweet truth is there are a lot more of us wanting elected ones to pay attention to the party platform, to care about the social issues and not be RINO’s.

    Comment by right winged | January 26, 2010 | Reply

  7. I’m going to post this here Albert to keep this more readable as we’re getting squeezed on the right margin.

    The tea party types have never had any pretense whatsoever of being part of the Republican party. Never. They say what they mean and they mean what they say. They don’t come in, use the party apparatus, then go run as an independent candidate who then spends their whole time attacking the Republican. I just wish the Christian Alliance types were so forthcoming.

    And again, my platform is the Declaration of Independence, U.S Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Iowa Constitution. The Republican party platform is a long confusing and often contradictory mess of resolutions passed without any legal or constitutional scrutiny. It is a changing document ratified by a very small minority of people and subject to a process that can be highly manipulated.

    On top of that, each level of the party has their own platform adding to the existing tangle. How could anyone expect to hold their representative to it with any kind of serious face? The whole sacredness of the platform concept has been the push of, again, a small number of Christian alliance types to tack on their extra-constitutional legalistic requirements on Republican representatives in order to wield control over them. Nobody is being fooled here.

    Until we get a more sound result out of our platform process, I am going to continue to reject that. I am going to continue to reject the Christian alliance types that use the Party to their convenience then bolt when their candidates lose fair and square to the Will of the People, which they refuse to honor, while expecting a candidate or official to honor a very flawed platform produced by system that requires a much smaller and selective majority vote of people at the conventions.

    The idea of platform purity and purity in general that is being pushed by the CA crowd is a very devious and disingenuous concept being put forth on the Republican party. Alot of that ‘purity’ wouldn’t pass constitutional muster, and a fair amount of it is flat out religious socialism. I tend to find the CA types are more than willing to use govt to advance their agenda to get what they want. I’m simply not buying it.

    Comment by Matt Green | January 27, 2010 | Reply

  8. I went to the tea party of Democrats and Republicans im upset with both of them and want them to know if they continue to do what they are doing that they better look for another job. As for TB im not thrilled at all to see TB again retreaded and pushed back out there with faded paint. When Al made the comparisions of his career as gov. compared to Culver there wasn’t alot of difference between the 2. So i would want a candidate to read the party platfor and sign a agreement to push it forward. Branstad had his 16 yrs in the sun i was freshman in highschool when he got first elected and i have been out of school for 26 yrs. I want a new direction back to conservatism control spending to be less than what state brings in would be nice. Not expanding govt while revenues shrink.

    Comment by iowanforabetteriowa | January 28, 2010 | Reply


Leave a comment

« Previous | Next »