Map and data provided courtesy of Google and the Republican Party of Iowa.

First of all, if you live in Iowa and don’t know for sure where your caucus site is located, you’ll want to click this link to find it.  If you still can’t figure it out (don’t be ashamed… it can be challenging) we want to help.  Please email us at caucus2012@theconservativereader.com.  Please include your name, email address and home address (I promise we will not keep this information for any reason).  We will reply as quickly as possible with your caucus location.

Candidates for President

If you haven’t yet taken a look at the candidates, there any number of resources available to do so.  I think it is a good idea, more than anything, to look at the candidates’ web sites and see what they have to say for themselves there.  Here are the links to those sites:

Michele Bachmann

Herman Cain (included because he is still listed as a candidate officially)

Newt Gingrich

Jon Huntsman

Ron Paul

Rick Perry

Buddy Roemer

Mitt Romney

Rick Santorum

Other Caucus Information

The Iowa Caucus is often looked upon, along with the New Hampshire Primary, as a bell-weather for the entire Presidential Nominating Process.  Some very important points:

• The Iowa Caucus occurs every two years.
• The purpose of the Iowa Caucus is to discuss and decide on components of the party platform, elect convention delegates to the County Convention, elect representatives to the County Central Committees, and during the year of a Presidential Election to poll party members on their preferences for the party’s candidate for President.
• This is a party activity and only members of the party that are residents of the precinct may participate at a precinct caucus, although others may be granted opportunity to speak by the Chair.
• Any resident of the caucus precinct can register to become a party member at the caucus event.
• The caucus meeting is governed by Robert’s Rules of Order.

The following are some additional details provided by the Iowa GOP:

Below is a detailed overview of what will happen at 1,774 precincts in the state of Iowa on caucus night, January 3, 2012.

• All caucus participants arrive at their precincts where they will sign in at the door upon arrival.  Caucuses will begin at 7:00PM CT.
• The caucus meetings begin with the pledge of allegiance.  A caucus chair and secretary will be elected by the body to run the meeting and take notes.
• After the chair and secretary are elected, candidate representatives from each campaign are given time to speak on behalf of their candidate.
• Once the speakers have finished, sheets of paper are be passed out to every registered Iowa Republican from the precinct. Voters then write down their candidate preference.
• All votes are then collected.
• Every vote is counted.  The caucus chair and secretary will count the votes in front of the caucus and a representative from each campaign is allowed to observe the counting of the votes. The results are recorded on an official form provided by the Republican Party of Iowa and are announced to the caucus.
• A caucus reporter is chosen to report the results to the Republican Party of Iowa, accompanied by campaign representatives to verify the results reported to Iowa GOP officials.
• RPI officials do not count results; they aggregate them from around the state and report them to the media.  To ensure consistency in reporting, campaign representatives have the opportunity to be present with RPI officials as votes are reported to the public.
• We will be reporting the votes for Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Buddy Roemer, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, “No Preference,” and “Other.”
• “No Preference” votes include those who vote “present,” “no preference, “uncommitted,” or “none of the above.”
• Within fourteen days of the caucus, certified results will be released for a complete breakdown of all caucus votes that were cast by precinct.
• After the Presidential preference poll is completed the caucus will elect precinct committee representatives; delegates, alternates, and junior delegates to the county convention; and discuss and submit platform resolutions for consideration at the county convention.

For any other questions or inquiries please contact Nicole Sizemore at nsizemore@iowagop.org or at 515-868-2507.

But the whole time working up to Christmas has been downright cheery compared to this week.

Campaigns are imploding.  Others are gaining steam.  But more than anything, it seems that people are so invested in this year’s campaign that they are willing to do just about anything to see their candidate win.  I’ve even felt some of this for the candidate that I am (privately) supporting.  I visited with the campaign office and was asked to stand up for my candidate.  At first I agreed, and then as I discussed this with my wife I realized that I was making a mistake by doing this when I had committed to remaining neutral.  Obviously, the perceived need to see the outcome I desire had clouded my mind.

Sometimes God shows you why he gives you a spouse.

So, I had to tell the campaign I was not going to be able to speak for them.  They were very understanding, but I hope I get better at this!

But others this week have showed how much they cannot stick to their commitments, and it all seems to come from a desperate desire to be on the winning team.  Unfortunately, politics tends to bend your principles and many become convinced that when it comes to politics, anything goes.

The most recent and public examples are Mike George at Strong America Now, and Kent Sorenson, both men I like and respect.  I think they both have made mistakes in their recent decisions.

It may be a few months before it will make sense to ask this question of both men, but I’m wondering if after the dust has settled, they’ll be able to look back and say it was worth it.  These are both men who have made reputations for themselves based on principled leadership, and now they leave many people wondering whether they can trust anyone.  The truth is, these guys are taking shortcuts, and they’re both getting called out on it.  It may have some personal value to them in the short-run, but I expect they have both lost enough of people’s respect now to truly marginalize their influence in the future.

I hope that as voters, we don’t allow ourselves to be influenced one way or the other by the sideshows that are going on, or by poll results, but make our decisions based on our own principles, convictions, and priorities, and not simply the endorsements of others.  Everyone should set their own guidelines, but I think it is careless to rely simply upon the recommendation of friends, acquaintances, or people who seem to know what they are doing, when deciding who we support for public offices such as President.  If you are intelligent enough to read this piece, you can do the research necessary to make your own informed choice.

This may seem like an odd perspective in this day and age, especially with the current mega-rush by so many people to endorse a candidate.  For some, their endorsement has become almost a status symbol; if your endorsement makes the news, then you must be important.  And yet, some here in Iowa have become known because of their refusal to endorse, most notably the Governor (Terry Branstad) and one of the leaders in the Christian activist world, Steve Scheffler.

I don’t wish to condemn those who offer endorsements because I believe that some are very sincere in believing that they have a responsibility to act as leaders in our party and community by pointing the way.  If one is strongly engaged with a campaign, that provides even more reason to provide an endorsement.  And frankly, we do live in an imperfect world where a large portion of the electorate would prefer not to spend any time researching their choices, but rather be told who to vote for.

However, it seems that choosing a candidate based on endorsements is about as helpful as supporting the top polling candidate.  What you are doing in essence is voting for the most popular candidate… trying to be on the winning team, instead of supporting the candidate you truly believe is worth your support.  There is no shame in voting for the candidate you think is best to lead the country even if they are polling at .5% and have no endorsements.  Your vote is a reflection of you, not others.

The Conservative Reader is here to inform, to question, to promote good policy ideas and condemn bad ones.  We want to encourage our readers to gain knowledge and understanding as a process toward making sound individual decisions.

We want you, our readers, to make your own choices rather than simply taking direction from us.  We don’t know what’s best for you, only you do.  We cherish our system of government including your role in deciding who our leaders should be.

Our policy on endorsements at TCR is this: we endorse ideas, not people.  We may talk about people (and frequently do), but what we talk about what they say and do.

Some of our writers will provide their perspective here, and perhaps may even state that they have an endorsement (John Bloom recently endorsed a candidate, although has not discussed it here at TCR).  Editorially, we have no intent of keeping our writers from speaking their mind, but we also expect the writers to provide perspective on their choices.

The Conservative Reader itself, and I personally, will not be endorsing any candidates for any office.  We hope you will make your own choice thoughtfully.

Image © iQoncept – Fotolia.com

There was an extensive discussion on the topic, initiated by John Ortega, that generally included comments to effect that committee members had heard from numerous constituents in their districts expressing concern about committee member involvement on campaigns.  Mr. Ortega read a rather severe message that he had received that pressed for removal or at least reprimand against the members who were being paid to work on campaigns.

A motion was made by Jeremiah Johnson and amended by David Chung, which read as follows:

Those State Central Committee members with paid staff or consultant positions on campaigns in contested primaries or caucuses are required to disclose those relationships to the State Central Committee.

The motion was passed 10-4 with one abstention.

Although it does not go as far as I and other would like, it does establish a sense of accountability within the board membership, and clarifies that contested primaries and caucuses are specific areas of concern.  I think that is an essential message for people to hear even if the overall affect of the measure more or less a non-event.

So, quick breakdown.

One of the “no” votes was cast by a committee member who has been concerned about this issue.  That member voted against the measure simply because the measure did not go far enough.

The abstention was from Wes Enos.  Wes mentioned during discussion of the topic that he saw this as a serious concern and that he plans, while serving on Michelle Bachmann’s campaign, to abstain from any votes that impact the Caucus.  I applaud Wes for taking a strong step in acknowledging the fact of the appearance of a conflict of interest, and acting in a way that helps mitigate the issue.  That demonstrates responsibility and character.

The other three “no” votes came from the other three committee members who are working on a campaign.  I find it odd that they would take a combative position on such a non-intrusive measure.  Voting for the measure would have cost them nothing and would have given them a positive appearance.  Instead, the message it sends is that they do not see themselves as accountable to the Committee, and the impression it leaves with me is sour… it increases the appearance that their participation on the committee is geared more to their own personal agenda than it is for the sake of the party as a whole.  If that’s true, it is very disappointing.

It is worth acknowledging that several members of the committee would have probably liked to see something more drastic occur.  An amendment to the  motion offered by Bill Schickel, to require that committee members abstain from operation votes, failed.  All of the members were very considerate of each other, emphasizing the issue as one of appearance and not an actual question of integrity, and in seeking a sensible solution worked to a compromise that probably accomplished as much as could be reasonably done at this juncture.

Specific constraints against the voting rights of the members would have likely been untenable.  Such a measure, or anything more substantive, would probably need to be considered at the State Convention next year as a bylaw change.  Based on follow up conversations with committee members, it is very likely that such a measure may be presented to the convention in some manner.

I say “the same”, because even a year ago, Newt Gingrich already seemed like a man bent on the idea that we can fix the American healthcare system without creating a yet another new bureaucracy incapable of bending to the people’s will.  A year ago he was pressing substantive health care reform ideas that acknowledged the deepest problems the Federal government has with running programs like Medicare… the government is just incapable of managing the fraud and abuse that have become one of the largest tax-payer boon doggles of all time.

I say “the same”, because a year ago Newt came to Des Moines with not only an air of confidence in himself that comes from decades of experience in the public eye, but a sense of purpose in his own life beyond giving a speech to a room full of Republican activists.  He seemed a man already on a mission, perhaps already trying to find ways to do the job of president without the title.  Some would call him a “statesman”.

But let’s say he was also a different man.

On Monday, the former House Speaker seemed to have eschewed the grim demeanor he carried in 2010.  It was almost as if making the decision to run for President had taken a weight off of his shoulders instead of putting it on.  He answered questions from the press and from a very receptive audience of about 200 with ease.  He handled the big question of the day, regarding his comments on Sunday on Meet the Press, (where he confounded conservative Republicans by apparently criticizing Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan as “too big a jump” to the right), with a good explanation of his comments.  For those of you who are interested, he essentially stated he had not communicated his thoughts well and was concerned about making dramatic changes to a program that impacts every single person in America.  His emphasis seemed to be on caution and taking more of a phased approach to any changes in Medicare.  Frankly, the transcript from Sunday’s program seems to say about the same thing, so I’m struggling with why people are upset about his comments.

Perhaps if people took the time to read the transcript instead of the headlines. Just sayin’.

With the last in mind, I will say, “the same”, because he does and may for some time, struggle slightly with how he communicates a message that may have significant research, analysis, and a team of high-valued brain-power behind it, in a way that can be understood by folks who have not had time to walk through the thought-process with him.  He seems sometimes to suffer from a mild form of “Keyesitis” (for those of you who recall the enigmatic and hyper intelligent former US Ambassador and former Presidential Candidate Alan Keyes), or a predilection to speaking exactly what’s on his mind, even if the listener is unable to grasp the meaning easily.  More simply put, he can sometimes be too smart for his own good.  I don’t think he lacks the ability to explain himself, but in an age of entertainment, technology, and the 15 second sound bite, it is substantially more difficult to get these ideas across when the attention span of your listener is so severely limited, and the assumption that everything one needs to hear can be boiled down to a dozen words.

I suspect that as his campaign proceeds, he will work with his staff to formulate a message that can be more easily understood.  His biggest risk may be answering questions for which he has not prepared a clear and simple answer, unless he can get to where he can regularly think and explain himself candidly at the level of a high school student or college undergraduate.

It was good to see Newt again, and I’m looking forward to seeing other candidates as the lead up the Iowa Caucus continues!

More comments on Newt’s Des Moines event can be found at Kathie Obradovich’s blog.

If you think that Republicans aren’t ready to engage with the newest generation of voters in 2012, you might want to think again.  One of the most experienced politicians in the ranks of Republicans, with 20 years in the US House of Representatives, 4 of which were spent as Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich announced his intent today to run for President of the United States on Facebook and Twitter.

At least, it’s being seen that way… actually, kind of an interesting announcement.

Twitter:

Be sure to watch Hannity this Wednesday at 9pm ET/8pm CT. I will be on to talk about my run for President of the United States @seanhannity

Facebook:

I have been humbled by all the encouragement you have given me to run. Thank you for your support. Be sure to watch Hannity this Wednesday at 9pm ET/8pm CT. I will be on to talk about my run for President of the United States.

“… as I talk about my run …” seems like a fairly passive statement for a man like Newt.  While the news wires are treating this as a formal announcement, I think I’ll treat it as an “in case you weren’t paying attention, I’m ready to run” kind of announcement.  I’m expecting something more “formal” on Wednesday.

So, certainly watch Hannity.

But more importantly, he is expected to be in Des Moines on Monday, May 16, although a detailed schedule is not available yet.  When we know more, we’ll let you know.

For those of you looking to find out how to support Newt, you can contact Will Rogers at will@willrogers.biz, or call him at 515-669-1648.

Photo courtesy Andrew F. Kazmierski / Shutterstock.com

The President’s speech covered just about every aspect of the situation, and reflected on the history of bin Laden and his murderous mayhem on the world.  He also keyed in on an important fact: Al Queda has not been shut down.  There will likely be continued attacks along with targeted reprisals for today’s successful operation.

Although the details are still sketchy, it appears that the terror leader was killed earlier in the day, and presumably verification and notification of certain world leaders was necessary before notifying the public at large.

Although there will doubtless be days and weeks of analysis of bin Laden’s killing, the events leading up to it, the aftermath, the statement it makes to terrorists, the statement it makes to leaders like Gaddafi (who just lost his own son in a NATO attack that appears to have targeted him).  As the President said, it is important to remember that a large number of people in the military, intelligence, domestic security, foreign partners and our elected leaders have worked hard for the last 10 years to search out those responsible for 9/11 and to protect our interests, and they have done a magnificent job despite occasional problems.

The President deserves congratulations and appreciation for his role in continuing to lead our resources in apprehending bin Laden (dead or not).  Both he and President Bush have done well in working to bring Osama to justice.

So, let’s keep the partisan bickering to a minimum for just a day, can we?  This is a time to celebrate, even if there is more work to be done.  This is a landmark achievement for America at a time when some were ready to give up and throw in the towel.  It is immensely gratifying to see that our efforts have not been in vain.

Celebrate, and remember those who lost their lives in 2001, and who have given their lives since then in the effort to protect us all from the scourge of terror.

I’m not one to spend time commenting on something as innocuous as a movie, but I just finished watching something that was both compelling and surprising.

Davis Guggenheim’s documentary “Waiting For Superman” had my attention for the entire 111 minutes, and I learned some important things about the successes of some alternative charter schools, the bureaucratic nightmares that have impeded some schools from succeeding, and most importantly the devastating stranglehold that the teacher’s unions exert in ensuring that teachers are as demotivated as possible.  The story of the attempts by the District of Columbia school district to partner with the teacher’s union to create a pathway to success is scandalous, and clearly ensures that failing teachers never have to be held accountable.

I get why unions came to exist, and I get the fact that some unions may actually still create value in some situations. However, I think we are far past seeing any value in government and education unions.  Watching the president of the American Federation of Teachers extoll the priority of the children and yet support the use of tenure to protect intentionally negligent teachers from being fired is just one more example of how union bosses are more interested in money and power than the supposed goals of their organizations.

It was encouraging to follow the stories of several families across the country where the children were motivated to succeed but faced challenges in affording a better education that is available in public schools.  The stories were heartbreaking.

Although Superman is clearly not going to be the savior of our education system, the background of Geoffrey Canada and the work he is doing with Harlem Children’s Zone, along with the work of the KIPP (Knowledge Is Power Program) schools across the country.

Spending more money on public schools just doesn’t seem like the right priority to solve our diminishing education issues… and I am not convinced No Child Left Behind is helping.  Dealing head on with the unions and giving administrators the power to hold teachers accountable is our best hope for making our public schools viable again.

I heartily recommend “Waiting For Superman”.  I downloaded it on iTunes, and it should be available through most DVD outlets.  You can also get more information at www.waitingforsuperman.com.