There is no doubt that much of the session’s oxygen will be sucked up by the major issues that failed to produce any legislation following last year’s battles. These issues include reforming the tax code, mental health services, and education, as well as another round of sparring over Iowa setting up a health insurance exchange to work in conjunction with Obama Care.

While these will grab a majority of the headlines, and a good share of our attention here at The Conservative Reader: Iowa, there have already been a number of very interesting bills introduced that we will also be following.

As of now the bills and issues outside “the big 4” that we have flagged to watch closely are as follows: Term limits, random drug testing for recipients 84th of certain state benefits, banning red light and speed cameras, and the fate of nuclear power in Iowa.

After being deluged for so many months with candidates and their ever changing poll numbers, it is easy to forget that in many ways the caucus season is an imperfect method for measuring Iowa’s current ideological perspective. Removing the factors attached to individual candidates such as “likeability” and “electability”, and instead gauging the debate and the public reaction of Iowans to more hyper-local issues is a far more telling indicator of where we stand. Ironically these debates and their results likely will tip our hand as to which Presidential candidate will be awarded our 6 electoral votes in November.

In the following weeks stay tuned for investigations, updates, analysis, and opinions on the major issues being debated at the State House. As mentioned earlier, while we will not ignore the most publicized topics of debate this session, a number of bills that will exist in the shadows of the major priorities are just as important.

Though we will be closely watching with an appropriate level of skepticism, we wish all those involved with the 84th General Assembly well in their efforts to make improvements for all Iowans. When we feel they have achieved improvement—we will trumpet it. When we feel they have caused damage to our way of life—they will be called to account.

On with Democracy…

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.

“After carefully considering the whole situation, I stand with my back to the wall. And walking is better, than running away…and crawling ain’t no good at all”

Willie Nelson—Lyrics to “Walking” (1974)

While not known for his astute political analysis, with these lyrics Willie Nelson has managed to perfectly describe the conundrum myself and millions of other voters face in selecting a candidate to support for president amongst the Republican field.

For months now GOPers have been carefully considering the whole situation, and have yet to settle on anyone. With the voting only two weeks away a majority of those undecided now officially are standing with their backs against the wall.

In this regard I am no different—laid here are the reasons I am currently walking, and not running, toward Newt Gingrich. Like any well thought out decision there are three main factors at play—the mind, the gut, and the legitimate reservations. The following is an honest, pull-no-punches account of my thought process for each.

The Mind

The reason why the polls have been a roller coaster in this cycle is fairly simple—you have a massive pool of Conservative voters and not one single, unquestionably consistent Conservative, who could certainly beat President Obama. My sense is that the field does have strong Conservatives, namely Bachmann and Santorum, but neither have been able to garner the support necessary to win the White House—and Ron Paul will have to be addressed in full at some other time. As the polls suggest, the two with the best chance at unseating Obama are Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.

This being the case, the exercise has come down to a question of who I feel is more Conservative between the two and who has the better chance of successfully vocalizing Conservative philosophy to the general electorate. On both counts my answer is Newt Gingrich. As we have seen in the Republican primary, the debates between President Obama and the Republican nominee are going to be viewed by a record amount of people and will largely be the deciding factor for Independents.

Perhaps no figure in modern political history has more of a gift for the debate stage than Newt Gingrich. Making this an even larger advantage is the mythic narrative that President Obama is some legendary debater. While last cycle he may have gotten the better of Hillary Clinton and John McCain overall, he never blew either off the stage (and managed to lose to both on multiple occasions).

Along with his debate prowess, there are two other things that make me comfortable with the idea of Newt as the nominee and as President. First is his deep understanding and respect for history. Whether it be American or world history, his decision making process would be solidly grounded in the actions and outcomes of past situations. I happen to think that had the filter of history been applied to many of the decisions made by our last two presidents, many of the undesirable results we have seen could have been avoided.

Second is the structure and proven results of the concept of a “Contract with America”. The 1994 contract saw roughly 70% of its content become law—and that was with a Democrat in the White House. Any Republican taking a serious look at his “21st Century Contract with America” would likely agree that achieving even 50% of its content would result in our Country standing on immensely more solid ground than it is currently. Clearly there is no time now to go through the platform item by item, however, you can review it in detail or read a brief highlight of it here. It is only fair that serious Republicans inspect this document before discounting Mr. Gingrich.

The Gut

The biggest source of apprehension I have toward Mitt Romney is his striking similarity to our 43rd president. George W. Bush’s eight year application of a watered down “compassionate Conservatism” did a great deal of damage to the viability of the philosophy. I can’t help but shake the feeling that when inevitably faced with unpredicted situations, a President Romney would not be guided through these times of crisis by Constitutional Conservatism. Instead I see him falling back on the identical political pragmatism that Mr. Bush turned to when the pressure was on.

While certainly not without its own risks, I also prefer Gingrich’s personality to Romney’s in the area of foreign policy. My view is that in general, and especially with the Iranian nuclear situation, many of America’s national security interests can be forwarded through an aggressive posture. Though it is a fine line to walk, putting a reasonable fear into rogue nations could—as proven by Reagan—actually help us avoid potential conflicts. A Romney-foreign-policy approach would likely be strictly by the book (i.e. painfully cautious and deferential), and result in a more-of-the-same outcome. Though I see positives in both approaches, I feel our enemies would have a greater fear of (and hence a greater respect for) a President Gingrich.

At a time when a dramatic move toward the Right is a legitimate possibility, on nearly every issue Mitt Romney is far too timid for my taste. One perfect example is in the area of Federal income tax policy. The enthusiasm throughout the country for major tax reform has never been greater, yet in this climate the proposal offered from Romney is to keep the top rate at 35% and largely leave the current structure intact. Though it could use some tweaking, the Gingrich proposal is for an optional 15% flat tax, where each taxpayer could choose to use the old system or opt for the flat rate. This is emblematic of the level of change the former Speaker is willing to push for—and the type of transformation Mitt Romney will never champion.

The Reservations

The fact that a voter would have reservations about their candidate is only natural. Having said that, the lengthy nature of his list points to why I am walking, and not running, toward Mr. Gingrich.

According to my television and mailbox, and no doubt yours too, not only should Gingrich be checked off our short list—he should be arrested and checked in to Guantanamo Bay. These attacks are largely overblown rubbish, but there are three main factors I view as legitimate reasons for apprehension. Like Romney, Newt’s career includes multiple examples of unsettling “political flexibility”, his past personal life has often been a mess, and a rather large number of his former Republican colleagues have been outspoken against him (noteworthy on this list for me is Tom Coburn, whom I respect greatly).

Quite honestly these things have made the decision a far more anguished one than it has been in the past—or that it ought to be I might add. If I insisted on taking solace it would be found in the fact that while both candidates I view as being able to win the nomination and defeat President Obama have strong negatives—both would be an upgrade for the Country.

The Conclusion

I personally want the Republican Party, and the Country, to move significantly to the Right. I want the 10th Amendment to be respected, the enumerated powers to be followed, and for personal responsibility to once again be required and not optional. I do not see Mitt Romney doing this to the extent I want. In my eyes Newt Gingrich is, as George Will says, the most Conservative candidate who can win.

Like it will for many voters, my decision largely came down to a risk vs. reward ratio—and there is no doubt in my mind that Mitt Romney would be the safer choice. Given the circumstances, what America needs right now is a real and powerful constraint on Federal power. Of the nationally viable candidates, Gingrich—and the 21st Century Contract—comes the closest to my vision of a positive American future…For this reason I am willing to roll the dice.

Photo courtesy of Dave Davidson, whose outstanding work can be seen at Prezography.com

“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom…..And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.”
- Barry Goldwater, Conscience of a Conservative

Perhaps more than any other politician of the twentieth century, Barry Goldwater captured the essence of the American spirit – ferocious independence. This spirit depends upon the Constitution for its life and energy. Without our Constitution, our nation is nothing more than another geographic location; nothing but more real estate.

The Goldwater wing of the Republican Party has been asleep for decades, as the economists espousing Keynesian and Chicago School theories on the benefits of inflation became trendy and the American political aristocracy banished the Constitution to the wilderness, to be replaced with a holy mission to spread democracy with armed drones and replace civil liberties with state-managed dependency – what Barack Obama once referred to as “positive rights.”

Our nation is bankrupt; the unemployment rate is falling, not because people are finding work but because people are giving up and staying at home. While we still import millions of barrels of oil every day, we now export refined gasoline. As the Federal Reserve printed money to inflate the tech bubble, the housing bubble, five military conflicts, the bailout, the wealth conflagration referred to as the Stimulus, and the Treasury bonds sold to raise the money to pay the interest on the bonds sold to pay the interest on the bonds that were sold by Lyndon Johnson. The M2 supply (the number of dollars floating around out there) has more than doubled in the last ten years; as a result each individual dollar is now worth less. By doing nothing more than holding Canadian currency, the Canadian people now have the purchasing power to essentially outbid us for our own gasoline. This is what inflation looks like.

Prior to 1964 no American politician had ever referenced inflation in a political advertisement, and then Barry Goldwater did it. As Lyndon Johnson proposed to pay for a war in Vietnam and the Great Society programs of increased social spending, Barry Goldwater condemned the entire charade as a swindle, a hoax, and a fraudulent promise of perfect prosperity – if we print enough money, we will all be rich.

As the 1960’s gave way to the 1970’s, the bills began to fall due, and the government realized that its promises exceeded it’s abilities. With little more than a speech, Richard Nixon took us off of the gold standard. As it turned out, William McChesney Martin (then the Federal Reserve Chairman) had printed so much money to pay for Johnson’s war on poverty that the gold reserves were no longer adequate to back it up. Bye-bye gold standard.

Hello fiat currency. Since 2001, the Fed has expanded our money supply by upwards of $6 trillion dollars. They distributed it to the government – to pay for social programs that are necessary, not perhaps for our national strength, but for the reelection of our politicians, as well as to banks so that they could write mortgages to people who couldn’t pay them back. Nobody cared if the mortgages went bad; the banks had sold them to Fannie Mae, created by the government in 1939 specifically to buy mortgages from banks. Then, in 2008, the Federal Reserve printed the money needed to buy to bonds the Treasury needed to sell in order to fund the bailout of Fannie Mae and the banks.

In his pamphlet “Conscience of a Conservative,” Goldwater blasted what he called delusional dreams of the “Jacobins and leftists.” We in the conservative movement are not supposed to be allowed the luxury of idle utopian dreams, be they making the world safe for democracy, or making our domestic economy so wealthy (through housing and stimulus) that we simply wouldn’t need to save money, manufacture things, or export anything other that Treasury bonds. These goals are fantasies; they have led us to quagmires of humiliation, poverty, and degradation.

Will anyone dare to ask Barack Obama why, when the United States was consistently running trade deficits in excess of $40 billion per month, he believed our problem was a lack of demand? Will anyone ask why he simply assumed that if we paid people to buy new (foreign-made) cars, then our economy would improve? A trade deficit, by simple, logical definition, is the consumption of goods in excess of your ability to produce. Stimulus accomplished nothing more than the further impoverishment of the nation. Who will challenge Barack Obama on this issue?

Enter our Republican candidates, most of whom seem to think that we desperately need to print money to pay for a war with Iran. Is this really the best we can do? A choice between inflationary games to pay for socialism, and inflationary games to pay for a war that we cannot otherwise afford and could easily be prevented? Only one candidate warned of the inflationary bubble in housing as early as 2001. Only one candidate understands the fundamental problem of our economy – too much debt; too little production. Too much urgent government initiative; too little freedom.

“Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” Barry Goldwater was roundly condemned as an extremist for these sentiments. We live in an age of bankruptcy, fear, and disappointment. Candidates of firm conviction, shrewd talents, or competent judgment are frequently passed over in favor of the candidates with the darkest nightmares, the most delusional promises, or the most artificial of Cheshire Cat grins, with their insistence that spending borrowed money will make us rich and powerful, and if you disagree then you are clearly a cynical malcontent, playing politics at a time when action is required; that is American politics in the 21st Century.

The Goldwater wing of the Republican Party – fanatical adherents to the Constitution, ferocious nationalists, resolute defenders of liberty and individual rights- has been asleep for decades. Without our Constitution, the United States of America is nothing more than real estate. The Goldwater wing of the Republican Party is awake now; and they demand to be taken into account. So far, only one candidate has.

Photo Courtesy of Dave Davidson, his fabulous work can be viewed at http://prezography.blogspot.com/

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

Reason #1 – A Sketchy, Schizophrenic History

While nearly all the data on editorial board endorsements show that they have a miniscule impact, if any at all, well over 70% of newspapers insist on letting readers in on their intense, well researched, and agenda free vetting. Though a nightmare for the hard journalism side of the paper, the hubris of editors and the short term buzz created by endorsements proves, cycle after cycle, too intoxicating to deny. Clearly I have no problem with public expressions of political opinion. If a newspaper wants to engage in it in spite of the fact it is counter-intuitive to their charter, then they have every right. However, one does have to wonder if it’s too much to expect for them to undertake the process with a minimal amount of intellectual honesty. Consider the following examples, all from the Des Moines Register’s editorial board since the year 2000.

• When contrasted against a Democrat, they have not deemed any Republican candidate fit for the White House in the last three cycles—opting for Al Gore in 2000, John Kerry in 2004, and Barack Obama in 2008.

• Of the Republican primary field in 2000 they chose, believe it or not, George W. Bush. Beyond the massive irony, what’s interesting is that they chose Bush over fellow competitor John McCain, describing McCain as “having a tendency toward petulance when the cameras were off, and a lone-wolf style of action that has left him without the support of colleagues who should be his biggest admirers”. Never mind that eight years later he was chosen by the editorial board as the best choice amongst Republicans in 2008—though of course he ultimately fell short of recommending.

• In 2004 The Register had sized up John Edwards and concluded that he would make the finest president amongst the group, giving him the nod over all other Democrats running. Somehow over the next four years, he had regressed so far in his ability to lead the Country that when he came back in 2008 they couldn’t recommend him. Not only did they bump him from their top spot they slid him behind both Hillary Clinton and Obama, saying they “too seldom saw the ‘positive, optimistic’ campaign we found so appealing in 2004. His harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change.” Something tells me the editorial board doesn’t have quite the same problem with the “harsh anti-corporate rhetoric” being screamed by the Occupy Wall Street crowd today.

• Also in 2004, in what would prove to be perfect foreshadowing for their future love affair with Barack Obama, the paper, as mentioned above, endorsed John Edwards over the rest of the field. In doing so they wrote that after initially discounting Edwards because of his lack of experience, they changed their minds after hearing him eloquently speak about the needs of ordinary Americans—you can’t make this stuff up! Clearly their weakness/hunger for the fool proof combination of inspired speech giving and inexperience had not been quenched by the time 2008 rolled around. This leads us to the biggest piece of evidence that all the Register is accomplishing is insulting our intelligence…

Reason #2-  The 2008 Debacle

While the preceding examples were shady, The Register’s editorial board performance in 2008 showed beyond a reasonable doubt not only where their allegiance lay, but that the whole point of their endorsements are to further an agenda. They ended up of course endorsing Barack Obama in the general election, but it’s the way they got there that is so telling.

First, they chose Hillary over Obama on the Democrat side, while endorsing McCain over the rest of the field on the Republican side. I don’t doubt that the selection of McCain was largely due to him being the most moderate Republican in the field (though strangely he was a disturbing ‘petulant, lone-wolf actor’ eight years earlier), but he also would have been a “safe” choice at the time because he was polling in single digits and in 5th place. Picking a Republican that would not go on to win the nomination, like McCain appeared to be at the time, would have kept them out of the undesirable situation they eventually found themselves in—having to endorse their second Democratic pick over their first Republican choice (Obama over McCain).

Embarrassed and knowing they had to explain it away somehow, they managed to make themselves look even worse. They acknowledged the situation and explained their reasoning by claiming they had endorsed McCain because they felt he was a man of honor—but as the campaign wore on he became opportunistic and less dignified. What they cited as the biggest reason of why McCain was out for them was his selection of Sarah Palin. They did this, I kid you not, on the grounds of her inexperience! So to recap…The inexperience of a VP candidate turned them off enough that they instead chose to support, for the actual presidency, a man who had served less than four years in the Senate.

A great way to sum up the whole disingenuous circus is that while selecting McCain in the primary they said, “none can offer the tested leadership, in matters foreign and domestic, of Sen. John McCain of Arizona. McCain is most ready to lead America in a complex and dangerous world and to rebuild trust at home and abroad by inspiring confidence in his leadership.” Contrast that with this insight as to why Hilary Clinton was a wiser choice than Obama, “When Obama speaks before a crowd he can be more inspirational than Clinton. Yet, with his relative inexperience, it’s hard to feel as confident he could accomplish the daunting agenda that lies ahead.”…You have to give them credit there–that was some impressive foresight.

Conclusion

Former Des Moines Register opinion editor Richard Doak, who authored the 2004 Edwards endorsement, summed it up best in a later interview. Sharing his thoughts on the process he said, “The primary purpose of editorials are to stimulate discussion in the community… and it’s a vehicle through which the newspaper expresses its values.”

Trust me Richard, Iowa Republicans are plenty aware of the Des Moines Register’s “values”. Perhaps if they used any manner of consistency in the endorsement process, beyond of course the consistency of their Liberalism, maybe more Iowans would “value” the paper enough to start buying it again.

Health Insurance Exchange

The debate raging on a national level regarding Obama Care has produced 50 separate state level clashes on this unpopular legislation’s viability, practicality, and future. Currently 27 states are suing the Federal government on the grounds the law is unconstitutional, while last week a referendum in Ohio resulted in 66% of voters expressing their wishes to be excluded.

In Iowa the form this debate has taken largely centers on the state level requirement to set up a health insurance exchange to work in accordance with Obama Care. Democrats tried last session to construct this exchange but the measure failed and set the scene for an all-out slug fest in 2012.

The roll-call from this Democratic attempt, in which 12 Senate Republicans voted in favor of the exchange, was a major factor Ms. Rogers cites in spurring her decision to run for this House seat, “It was something that some of these Republicans campaigned against and then went in and voted for, and that was a real thorn in my side.”

Besides viewing it as flatly unconstitutional, she would have voted no on the exchange for two main reasons. The first is due to differing interpretations on what failure to set up the exchanges would result in. Though the Republicans who voted in favor did so on the grounds that failing to do so would trigger authorization of the Federal government to do it for us, Ms. Rogers believes that not having the exchanges would result in Iowa receiving a waiver from the Executive branch:

“We have to fight the full implementation of Obama Care every way we can. The Supreme Court could announce as early as tomorrow whether they will hear the Obama Care challenges. Why would we volunteer to set up a new state bureaucracy before the Supreme Court has ruled? We shouldn’t. Why would we set up a state exchange and volunteer to pay for that unconstitutional debacle? We shouldn’t. Obama has stated publicly that he feels he will be forced to grant waivers to states that haven’t passed the exchanges because there is no way to administer Obama Care without them. That means that by refusing to implement the health insurance exchanges, Iowans effectively have the ability to opt out of a major portion of Obama Care.”

The second reason is funding, and more specifically the long and destructive history the states and the federal government have in jointly paying for programs, “State governments, including Iowa, so often get duped on the promise of free federal money. The issue with these exchanges is that they come in partially funded, and sure there is that promise of federal money there but the other part has to come from the state—and that means from the taxpayer. It’s not just a tax hike up front with the federal government, that we can’t control, but it is going to be a tax hike up front for the portion that our state has to pay.”

Issues Going Forward

Education Reform

Having spoken to many Republicans, and interviewing multiple candidates and elected officials, you don’t need to be a political expert to see that Governor Branstad’s outline for reforming Iowa’s educational system is in real trouble. Although constructed as a proposal big enough to build a legacy on, when you get equal blow-back from Conservatives and the teachers’ union the chances of breaking ground, let alone building anything, are slim.

Having worked her way through college teaching private pre-school and kindergarten this is an area that Ms. Rogers has a special interest in:

 “I don’t think its rocket science to figure out why people aren’t rushing to support a plan that takes the best teachers out of the classroom at a time when we are trying to find ways to better reach children. The major problem I have with it is that the good teachers are going to be teaching 50% less, and how on earth are you going to help children when you are taking their teachers away? What the plan does is it increases bureaucracy and decreases the number of good teachers we have in the classroom.”

Beyond disliking it for those reasons, she fears, and was told by a Department of Education employee in the Branstad administration, that one of the effects of the reform would be to divert good teachers from Ankeny to Des Moines. If true, this would not only threaten losing quality teachers in the classroom but possibly losing them to a school district outside of HD 37.

In place of the current system, and the Governor’s proposed reform, the changes she would push to implement would have a different focus:

 “Educational choice is one of my number one issues. I love open enrollment because it does introduce an element of choice into the public school system. I would also go further and allow more freedom for home-schoolers, more freedom for charter schools, and more freedom for private schools. If vouchers are a part of that, even better, because they are a tool that introduces a market element into the system that lowers the cost and increases the amount of learning that is going on.”

Illegal Immigration

Though failure to take control of the Iowa Senate last week severely reduced its likelihood, a widespread willingness of Iowa Republicans to address illegal immigration is beginning to form. Ms. Rogers indicated that she would favor potentially passing legislation to hamper Iowa’s influx of illegal aliens and when asked specifically about Arizona’s recent attempt had this to say, “I don’t see anything wrong with what Arizona has done, because when they joined the Union they basically said that we are going to give you (the federal government) the responsibility to protect us and that this is no longer just our state’s border but it’s now a Federal border. All the Arizona law does is re-enforce the fact that it is still a state border. If the Federal government is going to back out of their responsibility to protect it as our nation’s border I think that Arizona has every right to protect it as a state border.”

Varnum

Although the list of Republican legislative priorities is long and getting longer, it’s safe to say that passing a Constitutional Amendment barring gay marriage in Iowa has a home in the top three. In one of the most cowardly and inexcusable political maneuvers in our state’s history, Mike Gronstal (D-Council Bluffs) has managed to save rural Democrats by robbing all Iowans of the opportunity to have their voices heard.

As one would suspect, being an attorney and a Conservative, Ms. Rogers has a strong opinion on the Varnum decision. From a legal perspective the two problems she has with the Supreme Court’s ruling was that they considered some issues that were not part of the legal briefs filed and “they applied a heightened level of scrutiny to a new class, and created this class based on a behavior and not a real and immutable characteristic.” Noting that she was not surprised by the unanimous nature of the decision she added, “I think it was a political decision from beginning to end and that they had the result in mind before they ever read the briefs.”

Analysis of the Race

Three factors that are likely to come into play for her candidacy are how the district views the Tea Party, how she navigates through a crowded field, and how voters react to her relative youth. Far from shying away from any of them, she actually views all three as positives—and makes some very convincing arguments in the process.

For any Tea Party politician, whether running or governing, an issue always in play is the political peril inherent in cutting government and removing services that people have become accustomed to. While its effect will be softened by the fact that this is a Republican primary, and that applying Tea party principals at the state level as opposed to the federal level is a far different animal, it still will remain an issue. An example of this is that next session will gavel in with the Governor seeking legislative approval to cut Medicaid. This is a reality that Ms. Rogers recognizes and will seek to deal with in the following way, “You have to educate people and make them realize that some of these things are not theirs and that government can’t give them anything that they don’t first take away from somebody else. And if you wouldn’t reach into your neighbors pocket and take it then you shouldn’t be living your life in a way that you are willing to take it through the government.”

The fact that there will be many other contenders vying for the seat does not intimidate her in the slightest and is something she sees as a net positive for the district, “I’m not afraid to run in a primary against five or six other people, and really I’m excited for the district because they will have an opportunity to vote for someone who is as Conservative as this district is and that shares their principles. Even being a lot younger than the other candidates, I still probably have a longer track record of political activism and fighting for these principles.”

As she mentioned, at 25 she will be both the youngest person in this race and one of the younger candidates in recent memory to run for the Iowa House. While I could be wrong, my sense is that this won’t play a big role in the race. I say this, first, because it would have to be brought up by another candidate and it’s unlikely that this contest will devolve into that type of an unseemly affair. Second, as she notes, she has the background and the experience to offset and eliminate it as a viable factor, “I think that youth and inexperience can go together, but I’ve been in this long enough that inexperience isn’t a word that applies to me. The two things that are really important are your motivation and your principals, and I have both in spades.”

After spending a few hours with her, this is a claim that is hard to doubt. She has a keen sense of tactical politics and one could easily see her going toe-to-toe with both the fellow Republicans in this primary and opposing Democrats should she be selected.

The results of the recent Ankeny City Council election, in which the most Conservative candidates running all won, indicates that voters will certainly give her a chance to win them over. She will likely make the most of it—and in doing so make this race very, very interesting.

Photo courtesy of Dave Davidson, whose work can be found at prezography.com

This is the second installment of a two-part interview, to read part one click here.

Education

Governor Branstad’s legacy-minded education reform proposal has struggled to draw support since its release on October 3rd, and you can count Mr. Landon as one of those lacking in enthusiasm.

A core tenet of Landon’s philosophy is local control. The benefit he sees in applying this principle to education is that the parents of each child, and the teachers in the actual class room, will have their voices better heard and their concerns more directly dealt with,

“My first reaction (to the governor’s plan) is that it drives us towards more state control and more mandates on levels of performance. I think that we are going to have to reform the system, but I think that instead of less local control we need to focus on more local control. I think we need to make sure that the families, the school teachers, and the administrators all have their say on how this should be done. I really believe that parents and school teachers, the people who are in that sector, know the best for their kids”.

Health Care

The Democrats failure last session to construct Iowa’s insurance exchange program in accordance with Obama Care means that a nasty, brutal fight awaits next year. By all accounts this will be one of the three most high-profile issues debated by the Iowa Legislature in 2012, and one that ultimately drew fellow candidate Stacey Rogers (R-Ankeny) into the race. Landon, for one, would have voted no last year on SF 404 and sounds ready to engage in the fight,

“What would guide me is local control. The rights of District 37 residents and the rights of Iowans have to come first. Anything that’s done has to be for their benefit and their economic interests. And frankly, I view Obama Care as unconstitutional from the get-go. I am not in favor of taking care of this through the government because they (the people) will not be taken care of the way they should be.”

On Illegal Immigration

“I am a proponent of legal immigration. It is probably not that big of an issue in this particular district, but there are areas in Iowa where it is. As a state issue I would say that the Federal government, like in so many other things, has failed. I am against the taxpayer having to pay for the upkeep of people who have come here illegally.”

Barring an unexpected Federal resolution to this problem Landon indicated a willingness to possibly engage at the state level, “If the Federal government won’t do it and they are going to continue to let the border be porous, from the standpoint of public safety and who is going to protect the taxpayer, there has to be a process that protects you the citizen.”

On Varnum (Gay Marriage)

“That should have been decided by the voters. That is a monumental shift in society and voters need to have their say. If a constitutional amendment is the only way for voters to get their voice heard on it, then we need to do it.”

On The Tea Party

In response to a question seeking his thoughts on the Tea Party and if he would consider himself a “Tea Party-ish” candidate, he answered, “I haven’t found anything in their platform that offends me or that I take issue with. I am for individual rights. I think people can make their own decisions and government would be well advised to pay attention to that. Having said that, I am part of the process and a consensus builder, I just don’t think you can go out there as a maverick and get a whole lot done. What I want is for Lincoln and Douglas townships to flourish and for Ankeny to flourish. The only way I can do that is by being an effective voice, and the only way to be an effective voice is to be a part of the process.”

Race Analysis and Summary

The contest for the Republican nomination in House District 37 will be of elevated importance as the probability is high that the nominee will ultimately be the Representative. Due to the fact that the district has a 2,400 advantage in registered Republicans over registered Democrats in what is already shaping up to be a Republican wave year, it is likely that the nominee may run un-opposed. Even more likely is that if the Democrats do choose to field a candidate they will not bother to recruit a top-notch challenger or commit substantial resources to the effort.

In what could end up being a crowded field of Republicans, John Landon is a serious contender who will be in it for the long haul. He appears both fired up for the race and ready to put in the time and work that will be required to win the seat. The major pillars that his candidacy will be built on are: less intrusive government, more local control, simplicity in legislative solutions, sensitivity to Iowa’s taxpayers, and a vehement opposition to unfunded mandates.

In particular, emphasizing that the failure to make budget cuts leads to higher taxes and a crusade against unfunded mandates could garner wide-spread appeal in District 37.

As his background suggests he is clearly positioned in the race as the “business candidate.” While often times the “business candidate” moniker is attached to folks who have had professional success, it’s worth noting that the business-like way Mr. Landon breaks down large issues as he thinks through them suggests that he would translate these skills to governance should he be elected.

Though we are early in the process, as Republicans begin to look at the field they will find much to like about John Landon as a person and as a candidate.