My father often jokes that had I been born 5 hours earlier, he would have named me Ulysses instead of Arthur.  That is, I could have been a 4th of July baby with the initials “U.S.”.  I have been forever thankful that my mom stuck it out long enough to prevent that impediment on my life.

Sometimes I daydream about what would have happened in my life if I had been named Ulysses instead of Arthur.  I believe I would have developed a very similar personality, but I suspect (mixing my current personality with the name) that I would have found myself running for public office at some level and leveraging my “U.S.” initials as a brand of patriotism.

But today I want to consider some “what ifs” that actually matter.  Such as what if Washington’s Continental Army completely disintegrated during the march across New England?  Or was decimated at New York?  Or never made it across the Delaware?  As much as we may honor today the patriots who spent their time articulating a fantastic message of freedom from the tyranny of the British King, our standing as a nation would have been seen as a quaint colonial uprising if it had not been for the hard work and sacrifices of the soldiers who fought for our freedoms.

It is entirely likely that the British Realm would have dominated the world in greater glory in the past 235 years.  The great world wars of the 20th century may never have happened.  Freedom for slaves may have occurred on a larger scale in the earlier part of the 19th century (recall that the British Kingdom led the world in abolishing slavery, not the United States).

It is hard to deduce the path of technology over the same time period… American inovation has been a factor in developing better processes and our freedoms have been a factor in developing better education and allowing dreamers to work out their dreams.  And the urgent needs of war (though not a goal of a nation) have certainly led to some valuable inventions.  I tend to believe that we would, if still a British colony, have a world without iPods or even computers, or televisions, or many of the modern conveniences that we enjoy today.  We would probably still be populated heavily along the coasts, lacking efficient transportation, and Native Americans could still be holding much of the land in the midwest.

Spain and France could still be holders of large parts of the American continents.

Of course, the Founding Fathers could not have comprehended all that they initiated by standing up for the basic rights of man.  They were dreamers, and some were fortunate enough to see parts of their dream come to fruition, but despite everything we may think about our current state of affairs, those men who sacrificed everything would doubtless be proud to see what their work has wrought.

Generation upon generation have looked upon the Revolution and subsequent creation of a republic as the cornerstones of our incredibly open society.  The Constitution is a bulwark that has carried us through our darkest days, and provided over 200 years of bloodless changes in power.  We should be proud of our ability to work things through as a nation in peace.

We may have concerns today about how the Constitution has been misunderstood by some, abused by others, and ignored at times when it should be the guide for how we make decisions.  The frustrations grow when it becomes more apparent that our government, which was built to serve the people, appears to be served by the people.  We must guard against this at every turn.

But the Founders would be proud to see that so many do remember their words, seek faithfully to carry on a free society, and flourish in our freedom.  What we have today in the United States is more than I think they could have hoped for.  No matter what one may think about the current state of political affairs, the dream of America continues to burn brightly.  To the Founders we should be appreciative that they stuck through to the end, and that they sought the hand of Providence in what they did.  While the structure of our government may be secular, our goals are tied to the will of our Creator who is the provider of the very rights we seek to defend.

That may cause a bit of a quandary for the four, but they are evidently resolute in maintaining their positions with feet firmly planted in both roles.  But it makes sense that one would have to make this decision, since they really can’t act out one role at the event without seeming half hearted at the other.

While the Iowa Straw Poll is an important event for Iowa Republicans, for the candidates who are looking to come out in at least the top three spots in the poll, and for many across the country who see it as the first real test of the candidate field, it’s not the whole point in this issue, but is part of it.  The integrity and importance of that event can be called into question if people get the idea that the people running it are stacking the deck in favor of their candidate.

As can the Iowa Caucus itself.  Nothing can likely destroy the importance of our first-in-the-nation status as questions about the integrity of the process.

Last week, we discussed the situation of the four members of the Republican Party of Iowa Central Committee.  Recapping, out of these four members, one is currently serving on Michelle Bachmann’s campaign, and the other three are working on the Ron Paul campaign.  All of them are in some type of leadership position on their respective campaigns.

And none of them considers this a conflict of interest.

Evidently, some of them even consider it inappropriate for party leadership to sit on the sidelines during primary and caucus season.

At this past weekend’s meeting, the committee worked on plans for the Iowa Straw Poll.  There had been talk that the committee might address the question of the involvement of committee members on presidential campaigns prior to the caucus.  The meeting apparently ran long enough that the committee did not have time to properly address the question.

But before they wound up their meeting, one of the committee members (not one of the four) brought the issue up.  The group was not keen on extending the meeting since there was a physical walk-through of the event facility scheduled shortly after this.  Another member of the committee pressed the issue and the group agreed to hold another meeting on June 1st (a 10 day notification lead time is required) to discuss the matter by phone.

In talking with members of the committee, it is extremely important that Republicans contact the members of the committee that represent their district.  I’ve provided the names, districts and contact information for each of the committee members below so that you can provide input to your committee person.

According to Casey Mills, spokesman for RPI, Trump is “reassessing” his plans to appear in Iowa.

You’d think that Matt Strawn would be reassessing the situation as well, no?  How much sense does it make to keep a candidate on the schedule who garnered a large amount of initial, albeit emotional, support and then just dropped out?  Do Iowa Republicans want to spend their time listening to someone who has been all flash and no fire?  Are they coming to this event to hear the musings of one who couldn’t make it past the starting gate?  Or do they want to see someone they can vet and get behind in the Caucus?

I suspect that Donald has some good observations to make about our current business climate, and the dynamics that exist with countries like China and Brazil as the US tries to work its way out of the economic mess it’s in.  But it is hard to believe that someone who would only be in the race “half heartedly”, would truly have words of wisdom or advice to Iowans with regard to their task of looking through the resumes of those who remain.  At least not words of substance.

The good news is that our list of people to watch has dropped by two in a few days.  Hopefully we’ll be down to half a dozen by the time we get to the Iowa Straw Poll.

The bad news is that RPI needs to regroup and figure out what to do for the Lincoln Dinner.  Perhaps Ron Paul is available?

Right now I’m more interested in what’s happening in the background.

Three members of Paul’s Iowa campaign team, Drew Ivers, David Fischer, and A.J. Spiker, are all also members of the Republican Party of Iowa Central Committee.

You might ask why I care.

During Primary and Caucus season, the role of the party should be to provide the members of the party a means to select candidates and act as an impartial facilitator.  The party is responsible for establishing and managing the selection process for caucuses (the county auditors actually run the primary voting process), and the members of the party should expect that the process and campaigns for caucuses and primaries will be carried out fairly.  As I’ve had opportunity to see this process close-up with Polk County and Iowa Republicans over the past few years, I’ve been impressed by the priority given not just to being fair, but ensuring that there was never an appearance of being unfair.

Drew, David and A.J. (and let’s not forget Wes Enos who is working on Michelle Bachmann’s campaign) are all worthy of respect, and I don’t want my comments to be misunderstood to be a charge of unethical behavior… they are not.  I am convinced that these are all men of integrity.  I am also convinced that both Paul and Bachmann are candidates that I can support.

The by-laws and constitution of the party do not prohibit this level of involvement.  Technically, these gentlemen have done nothing “wrong”.

My concern lies solely in the appearance of something untoward.  As one friend put it, “It doesn’t pass the smell test.”

The Republican Party has been struggling for a number of years to shake off the “good-ole boy” image that gave the appearance that a small group of leaders were wielding enormous power and, among other things, manipulating the process to get “their guys” on the ticket.  Avoiding this image should be a continued goal of party leadership.

The appearance of a conflict of interest will undermine the confidence of party members, and draw fire from outsiders.  These committee members have the ability to influence party decisions, acquire planning information early, or to stand up for a candidate and appear to be speaking on behalf of the party.  How does it look any different than when these actions take place in reality?

The fact is, it doesn’t.

Kevin Hall at The Iowa Republican agrees.  The writer of Under The Golden Gnome agrees.  I’ve heard from three Central Committee members who agree, and I’m sure that David Chung, who went to the effort of resigning from the Central Committee while he served on Christian Fong’s campaign, also agrees.  Those who I’ve spoken with personally in various settings have generally been perplexed by what they see as, at best, a less than satisfactory situation.

Frankly, both Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann would be well served by folks that can publicly make the same choice and sacrifice that David Chung made.  Seeing people whose sense of right and wrong is so strong that they step aside to ensure there is no appearance of impropriety has the potential to generate support from folks that might otherwise be indifferent.

Not to mention the benefit to the men themselves.  To this day, I still find people who are in awe that David Chung made the decision he made.  Some have said that he showed us how it’s done.  It is hard to see how making this choice can hurt one’s appearance in the eyes of others.

I sent an email to the Central Committee on Saturday conveying my thoughts about the situation, and encouraging Drew, David and A.J. to step down from the Central Committee.  At the time, I was not aware that Wes was working on the Bachmann campaign, but I followed up when I discovered that fact and assured them my sentiments applied to Wes as well.  I’ve included the email contents at the end of this article.  This Saturday, the committee will be meeting to work on planning around the Straw Poll, and may end up discussing this topic as well.  If you are a Republican and feel strongly about this issue, you might want to contact the members of the committee this week to voice your thoughts.  Their email addresses are found at the Republican Party of Iowa’s web site (Craig Williams email address is incorrect as of this writing… the correct address for him is cwilliams@mmctsu.com).

With regard to the by-laws and constitution of the party, and the lack of prohibition of this conduct, I don’t see a need for such a prohibition.  If everything that might seem inappropriate had to be documented in the by-laws or constitution, the documents would be hundreds of pages long (and no one would read them).  Besides, it’s better to do the right thing because it’s right rather than because the rules force you to, don’t you think?

To the members of the Republican Party of Iowa Central Committee,

I hope you are all well and enjoying the beginning of another exciting Presidential Campaign!

I was disappointed to discover that three members of the state party’s Central Committee are serving in leadership on Ron Paul’s exploratory committee, and furthermore allowing press releases to be published highlighting the fact.  The message this sends to Iowa Republicans seems inappropriate, as it may appear that the party is already endorsing Paul before the caucus.

Perhaps we might believe that since Messrs. Ivers, Fischer and Spiker were already known to be supporters of Paul when they were elected to the Central Committee that there is no reason for concern.  However, I think it is unlikely that delegates, who deservedly have  a high regard for each of these committee members, thought that they would see the party’s representative leadership team portrayed so visibly promoting a particular candidate.

There is no concern in my mind about the integrity of these three individuals, as I have a great deal of respect for all of you.  I’ve worked side-by-side with David Fischer here in Polk County and we have even discussed this topic in the past.  My concern is about the appearance of favoritism by those who have some ability to influence: decisions regarding who may participate in party events,  what information is made available to campaigns at any given time, or any sense of how a good Iowa Republican should caucus in 2012.

I’ve watched this past two+ years as the party has worked hard to ensure that the primary process, and convention process, were run as fairly as possible, and am reminded of the decision made by David Chung in the last primary to step down from the Committee to ensure there was no appearance of a conflict of interest while he served on Christian Fong’s campaign.  These actions have had a factor in helping to rebuild the image of the GOP in the eyes of many, and it would be sad to lose ground in this area.

Drew, David and A.J., I encourage you to consider stepping down from the Central Committee while you are working on Paul’s campaign.

Best Regards,

Art Smith

Matt has provided very solid leadership these past two years and was no small part in the Republican election victories in 2010.  I’ve had the opportunity to work with him during this time and have found him to be extremely effective at leading his staff and he has a strong sense of what really needs to be done to ensure that Republican priorities are moved forward.  He is a valuable asset to Republicans in Iowa.

It’s also great to see that Jim Kurtenbach will continue as RPI Co-chair.  Congratulations to both Matt and Jim!

“I’m honored to be the Party’s nominee and I intend to keep the seat in the Republican column. I promise to keep promoting conservative values in the state of Iowa,” said the local business owner and law student.  Jack, his wife Rachel and their newborn daughter live in Ankeny.

Whitver will face a candidate to be selected by Democrats on Tuesday January 18th. Democrats will select a candidate on Monday of next week (January 3rd) to oppose Whitver.

Highlights from tonight’s convention in Senate District 35.

Meeting opened with full room… standing room only. Jim Kirkenbach convened as was immediately elected as the convention chair. Gopal Krishna was elected secretary.

The rules were presented.  A motion to modify the rules to allow discussion amongst the body after speeches and before voting failed. The rules were then approved as written.

The following people were nominated:

• Matthew DeVries
• Larry Voorhees
• Carol Miller
• Jim Gocke
• Kevin Koester
• Jack Whitver

A delegate asked the candidates to “…not surprise us with something from your past … tell us what you need to tonight.”

Matt DeVries gave a good speech. He covered a number of the expected conservative topics… including the comment that “abortion is an act of violence”.

Jim Gocke talked a lot about his background growing up and how it affected his mindset. Different events “sharpened my pencil”.  No clear message on positions, although he did handout information as well.  Jim is pretty well known in the community through his law practice.

Kevin Koester shared some family background. He said that his positions are well documented… jokingly shared about some family nefariousness.  He made a strong case for using his experience in the House to shepard key legislation through the Senate.  Kevin was reelected in November as the representative for Iowa House District 70, which makes up half of Iowa Senate District 35.

Carol Miller is a farm wife… agriculture is a large part of this district (District 35 is largely rural). She has a history of various roles representing the interest of agriculture and general public policy, including travelling to DC to address policy issues.

Larry Voorhees said he “doesn’t like liberalism and doesn’t like empty ballots”. In 2008 he ran for Iowa House in District 68 against Democrat Rick Olson even though the odds were against him. He “won’t roll over and play dead”. He explained his position on abortion as unwavering with no exceptions.

Jack Whitver gave a very solid speech, covering several key conservative topics, as Matt did, at one point stating that it was “wrong to mislead Iowans by telling them we have a blanced budget”.   Jack wants term-limits.  He said that “voters now see the weakness of big government” and are expecting substantive change.  Below is a video of Jack’s speech, courtesy of The Iowa Republican (Craig Robinson).

Any of these candidates seemed very likely to serve Republicans well.

Ballots were immediately provided.

First ballot:

• Devries 21.3
• Gocke 34.1
• Koester 12.7
• Miller .7
• Voorhees 0
• Whitver 28.7

Larry Voorhees withdrew.

Second bellot:

• Devries 20.5
• Gocke 36.2
• Koester 6.6
• Miller 0
• Whitver 36.7

Carol Miller is then dropped since the rules stipulate that after the second ballot, the person with the least votes in each round is dropped.

Third ballot:

• Devries 20.8
• Gocke 39.4
• Koester 3.3
• Whitver 36.4

Koester drops by rules

Fourth ballot:

• Devries 16.9
• Gocke 39.4
• Whitver 45

DeVries drops by rules

Fifth and final ballot:

• Gocke 36.4
• Whitver 63.6

Jim Gocke gave a short speech followed by an equally short acceptance speech from Jack.

Kudos to those running the meeting… very efficient.  And the crowd was very engaged but polite.  A very pleasant experience.

Craig Robinson at The Iowa Republican has a great write-up of the event as well.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I sat through the convention in the back with Craig Robinson, who runs The Iowa Republican web site.  Craig is fun to work with, and he never has his own access to the internet at events like this.  I had my recently acquired cellular hotspot with me and I was happy to share it with Craig, but it would not work properly (still not sure why… I will have to work on it tomorrow).  The wireless at the library was not strong enough to work for us, so we did all of our tweeting from our phones.

Anyhow, Craig predicted that IF the voting went to five ballots, Jack Whitver would be the winner.  Craig Robinson was Nostradamus.

A few members of the Republican Party of Iowa’s State Central Committee (SCC) decided to come out in support of one candidate.  That story, and some opinion, is well covered by Craig Robinson of The Iowa Republican.  Also, highlights of all five of the announced candidates for tonight’s convention are found here.

Some of the comments left at The Iowa Republican were from people that don’t see why the public support of a candidate by members of the SCC is a concern.

The answer is hardly black and white on its face.  I have myself worked to remain neutral during the 2010 primary while serving on Polk County’s GOP leadership team (and I am confident that those county leaders are remaining neutral as they did earlier this year) because it seemed most consistent with my own approach to fairness.

I see two principles of leadership at play here:

1. Leaders should lead, which often means providing guidance to those who are being lead when necessary.  For example, when working through or executing a plan, a leader should be able to articulate what needs to be accomplished, and perhaps how.
2. In party politics (as in public elections), leaders should allow those who hold the power to elect (in this case, the convention delegates) and those who are competing with each other for a position to do so in a fair and unfettered manner.

Overt support of a candidate by any members of the SCC is not, on its face, in contradiction with the second principle. However, there are some people who will be swayed by the endorsement and will vote without conducting their own due diligence.  This may be a fact of life, but I like to encourage people to do some research on their own when possible.

The endorsement may also give the appearance of favoritism and a sense that perhaps those leaders do not trust the delegates to make a sound decision (or the “right” decision) on their own.  If nothing else, it can “feel” fettered.

Of greatest concern to me is the impact that leadership endorsements have on other candidates, both those running against the endorsee, and those who may want to run in the future.  It is unnecessarily demoralizing to a candidate who, if they win the nomination, may not believe the party fully supports their candidacy.  And those who may consider running in the future could easily believe that they are doomed if they are not hand-picked by party leadership.  It should be clear how these results can impact the success of the party, which needs qualified candidates who are willing to step up and work hard to win.  Putting up internal barriers, whether perceived or real, will limit the party’s opportunities and long-term success in recruiting qualified candidates.

I began by identifying two principles, and have not addressed the first one.  Does the endorsement provide the kind of guidance that, as members of the SCC, is needed by the delegates?  I submit that it does not (I do not have contra-argument, simply no supporting argument comes to mind), and as such it seems the better side of integrity to avoid the appearance of impropriety and act in a way that will help the party in the long run (candidate development) by remaining neutral while the delegates work their way through this decision.

These SCC members have already hurt themselves and the party, perhaps not grossly, by endorsing a single candidate.  They should take some time and think about this before acting in a similar fashion in the future.  They should keep in mind that it’s not about them or their preferred candidate, it’s about the party as a whole.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I’d like to acknowledge an example of someone who took the opposite approach.  My friend David Chung, who runs HawkeyeGOP.com, was on the SCC when he decided to support Christian Fong for Governor.  He resigned from the SCC in order to ensure he did not create a conflict of interest, and because he felt it was important to provide public support for Christian.  David’s enthusiasm and the opportunities he had to create visibility for Christian, made this a good decision.  His integrity and care for the party make him a valuable asset to Republicans, and I’m glad that after Christian’s campaign ended he was able to be re-elected to the SCC this year.

It seems unfair to continue to let Governor Culver get up in front of TV cameras and make a fool of himself.  Why put a sitting governor through the embarrassment of having to respond to questions about state government, policy, and the future of Iowa when the only answers he has are scary predictions of what he thinks Terry Branstad will do as governor?  Even when he has what many would say is a great story to tell about early childhood development programs, he flounders and spews out that Branstad will take preschool access away from children.

But overall, Chet does not have much of a story to tell, and he is desperate.  He will continue to criticize his opponent until election day.  It seems to be the only weapon his campaign team has in their arsenal to try to snatch victory from the jaws of utter failure.

I was surprised, however, by Culver’s announcement this week of a middle-class tax cut.  It’s amazing how such a blatantly political attempt to bribe the middle-class in Iowa to vote for Culver, after a contentious two years trying to resolve our budgetary crisis, is treated as a legitimate proposal.  Where will the money to pay for this tax cut come from?  Don’t get me wrong, I support cutting taxes when it makes sense, but we must cut spending first to support it.

I suspect that most Iowans who have been watching the debates are frustrated with the fact that the overall content of the debates has not changed much (and I don’t expect any improvement tomorrow), that the animus has gotten worse on both sides, and that the sitting governor is looking more and more like an angry leader fending off attacks with little more than a pea-shooter.  It’s like being at the gruesome scene of a fatal auto accident… you just want to look away from it all.

I expect tomorrow’s debate to have one area of meaningful (but not necessarily valuable) discussion, and that will be the new tax cut proposal.  Other than that, we will just have more snipes about DeCoster, about IJOBS, about Marriage, about the Budget, about Mismanagement, and all of it will be what we’ve already heard before.

At least it will be the last Gubernatorial Debate of this election.  I don’t know if I could stomach much more.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Regardless of how I feel about the debate, I will not only be watching it live (starting at NOON), but I will be live-blogging along with several other of the Guest Political Bloggers here at the Des Moines Register’s web site as we have for both of the previous debates.  I think it’s a great chance to hear some of our comments live and to respond yourself during the debate.  I hope you’ll join us!

As Kathie tells us, there are a number of perspectives pressing on this ballot item, although many would point directly at the Varnum v. Brien decision. And as Kathie also notes, if any or all of the three judges up for retention fail to be retained, the decision will still be in place and “same-sex marriage will still be legal [emphasis mine] in Iowa…”.

Mind you, “legal” in this case really goes as far as the administrative authorities accept it to be. It is still open to debate among many (myself included) whether the government administration is obliged to enact a judicially declared “law”. What makes the court’s action “legal” is more the acceptance of those who actually are expected to follow the law created by the legislature and approved by the Governor.

Although it is safe to say that the tensions that keep our society in balance are those that recognize the rule of law and and the overall desire to maintain order. It is in our self-interest to maintain order or we would drop into chaos. But it is dangerous for us to accept idly the unlawful action of a court when it, unelected and perceived to be the ultimate authority, decides to go beyond its bounds.

Regardless of what society as a whole is determined to do about marriage, it is wrong to allow the court to own the universal remedy as it has taken to doing in this case.

It is foolish to watch as the court takes power it does not and should not have. If we stand idly by, we allow tyranny to grow. It could take years or decades, but doing nothing will fuel its growth.

What is the People’s remedy? There are several (truly more than those listed here):

The People can demand that the Administration ignore the court’s order.

The People can change the Constitution to clarify the definition and scope of marriage.

The People can demand that the Legislature change the judicial selection process.

The People can change the Constitution to provide stricter constraints on the role of the Judiciary.

And the People can refuse to retain the judges who have tried to usurp power.

Or the People can just sit back and let the courts continue to amass power until we can no longer recognize our great state.

The retention vote process is not just a rubber stamp. It is the People’s only direct role in a process that we mostly watch from a distance as others choose those who could, if allowed, rule over us. This is how we keep them in check.

What will the vote mean?

I don’t think it will be a mandate on marriage, although it might be fair to see it as one, as much is it will be a statement of who holds power in Iowa.

Let it be the People.