Current Date

The Conservative Reader:
Iowa

South Carolina Republicans Embarrass GOP

South Carolina Republicans Embarrass GOP

sanford 2Last Week Steven Colbert said the results of Tuesday’s special election to fill a South Carolina House seat ‘scared him to his core’—I couldn’t agree more.

Of course he was referring to disgraced Republican Governor Mark Sanford completing his political comeback by beating Colbert’s sister Elizabeth Colbert Busch (54% to 45%) on Tuesday night.  Sanford’s victory came despite him being less than four years removed from weaving a web of lies that included cheating on his wife and leaving the country during his term as governor to be with his mistress.

What were they thinking?

The only justification for voting en mass for such a man was that palmetto Republicans didn’t at all like Ms. Colbert Bush.  I’m not saying I blame them since even though she tried to run as a moderate, she was a terrible candidate and was clearly anything but (think Christie Vilsack).  Having said that there is no way Sanford should have had the support to win this seat, and this result puts a temporary nationwide stain on Republicans.

While voting for someone who has been unfaithful to their spouse is bad enough—Louisiana Senator David Vitter comes to mind—Sanford’s situation was even worse.  Not only did he cheat on and lie to his wife, he abandoned his state entirely by actually leaving the country while on the job.  Either of these should disqualify him from being in Congress, let alone a combination of both of them at once.

Ideally this situation should have been taken care of before the general election in the 16 way Republican primary that Sanford placed first in.  At this time there was no “lesser of two evils” dynamic for Republican voters.  It’s inconceivable that another Republican in the district wasn’t more qualified to forward Republican principles than this guy. Even if Sanford was the only candidate who could win the general election, on principle Republicans in the state should have lost this House seat and been proud of doing so.  The truth is right now this seat isn’t at all crucial, and they very likely would have won it back in two years anyway.  It would have been a far more reasonable alternative to this shameful outcome.

This Trend Much End

How can the Republican Party stand on such high-minded pillars as morality, responsibility, and accountability and elect a guy like Mark Sanford?  No matter how bad the alternative—the answer is we can’t.  Beyond the general stamp of approval this victory represents, sending someone with such a proven and utter lack of self-control to make our most important decisions is insane.

I would like to believe Iowa Republicans wouldn’t allow such a thing to happen if presented with a similar candidate—and I’d be pretty stunned if they did.  The scary thing here is that, especially since Democrats are notoriously unwilling to morally judge their candidates, we now can’t be surprised should we see a John Edwards comeback.  I know right now you’re saying ‘no chance’…but nobody would have predicted this Sanford embarrassment either.

Republicans may have won a U.S. House seat last week but we lost yet another chunk of moral high ground.  Oh what a ridiculously wicked web we weave these days.

An Explanation of the Republican Party’s District Executive Committees

An Explanation of the Republican Party’s District Executive Committees

Chad Brown(The following is a guest piece from Polk County GOP Co-Chair Chad Brown)

The political season in Iowa never ends, and the county leadership of Iowa’s 3rd Congressional District is on the move to organize. The harder we work to organize the counties, both Iowa’s 3rd Congressional District and RPI will grow in strength. Some of my activist friends have wanted an explanation of the District Executive Committees, so I wrote this explanation to detail their role.

District Executive Committees have traditionally been a vital ingredient to the success of the Republican Party in Iowa. Their important role is detailed in the RPI Constitution. Traditionally, the Republican Party is built as a grass roots Party that was always strong because it had a firm foundation and was built from the ground up. Unfortunately, the District Executive Committees were deactivated within recent years and that vacuum was filled by powerful single issue groups that dominated the leadership selection process by preventing Republican County leaders from talking to each other and promoting leadership from the grass roots. We want to restore the grass roots to the Republican Party and include more people. This is why people used to refer to the G.O.P. as The Big Tent.

It’s unfortunate that these long-standing Committees were deactivated and silenced, but the new counties’ executive leadership in the 3rd Congressional District are getting back to basics!  We are here to improve and unify the Republican Party and get more people involved. The executive leadership of the county-level central committees of the Republican Party of Iowa located within the Third Federal Congressional District of the State of Iowa have called for its first official meeting to be held on May 7 to discuss and consider certain specific matters.

This is an exciting time as we begin to restore an important tradition of grass roots to the Republican Party in Iowa.

Chad Brown, Polk County GOP Co-Chair and 3rd Congressional District Executive Committee ————————————————————————————————-

Article VII, paragraph 1 of the RPI Constitution states:

Article VII District Executive Committees

1. The District Executive Committee shall consist of the Chair and Co-Chair of each County in the Congressional District plus one additional representative for every fifty thousand (50,000) population in that County based on the most recent federal census. The additional County representative sh…all be elected by the County Central Committee.

2. The District Committee shall: (1) direct and coordinate Republican activities in the district, including organizational, candidate recruitment, and finance efforts; (2) coordinate the congressional and legislative campaigns in the district for the duly selected Republican nominees; (3) perform all of the duties relating to any election to fill a district vacancy on the Republican State Central Committee; (4) advise the congressional district’s representatives on the Republican State Central Committee; and (5) do all other things which serve to promote the welfare of the Republican Party and the orderly and successful conduct of the election campaign in the congressional district.

 

Braley Sits For Interview — Makes Outlandish Claim

Braley Sits For Interview — Makes Outlandish Claim

Deeth and Braley  2 crop

 

Last week liberal blogger John Deeth scored an interview with Democrat Rep. Bruce Braley as he embarks on a bid for the U.S. Senate.  Though you may not agree with Deeth often on policy (or ever)—he is an excellent writer out of Iowa City and he knows his stuff.

Most of the interview was standard liberal fare (read here), but on the topic of immigration reform Braley made a pair of false claims, the second of which was a real whopper that could haunt him later in this campaign.

Why No Reform?

When asked generally what’s happening with immigration reform and how it will be resolved Braley said this:

“One word has kept us from having meaningful immigration reform, and that word is amnesty. That is always thrown out as an excuse for not moving forward. Where I grew up “amnesty” was where you broke the law and there were no consequences. The reform that I have supported and that many others in both the House and the Senate, Republicans and Democrats support, is something where there is accountability. If you break the law you are required to pay a fine, accept the consequences, be placed on probation, and if you satisfy the terms of your probation you get an opportunity for a pathway to citizenship.”

 

So according to him the one word preventing legislation from passing is “amnesty”, and moreover Republican confusion on the word’s true definition.  Point of correction here—there are two words that explain why no bill has passed and they are “government incompetence”.  More specifically the public’s utter lack of faith Washington will deliver on border-security promises has been this efforts downfall, not mere Republican opposition on the merits—allow me to prove the point.

• Though 51% of Republicans oppose a “path to citizenship” in theory and without conditions, when asked about eventual citizenship with the conditions of passing a background and paying back taxes (which are in the bill) a whopping 73% of Republicans said they would support this. (NBC/WSJ 4/5-8/2013) (ABC News here)

• (USA Today poll 4/18-21/2013)—“Which problem concerns you the most: the problem of preventing illegal immigration in the future or the problem of how to deal with illegal immigrants already in the U.S.?”  – 55% responded “prevent in future” to 33% “ones already here.”

• (ABC News/Wash.Post poll 3/27-30/2013)—80% support “stricter border control to reduce illegal immigration in the future”, only 17% opposed.  This reflects the findings of several other polls asking the same general question.

• And here is the cementing detail—in most polls a whopping 80% of Americans say they don’t believe the federal government will fully secure the border even if reform is passed that promises it.  Only 27% say our borders are more secure than 5 years ago, and pollster Scott Rasmussen conducted a poll in April in which only 9% said our government would succeed in sealing the border.

The Real Problem with Reform

This proves the hurdle facing pro-immigration reform efforts is a glaring lack of credibility by those offering it—Washington politicians.  This skepticism is both a hopeful sign and completely logical.  It appears Americans are not dense enough to forget the reason we are having this debate now is because true amnesty was delivered in the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli bill along with promises of border security—and of course since then at least 11 million more individuals have over-stayed visas or snuck into the country.  If Bruce Braley really wants to advocate for this bill he better start selling Americans on the specific security measures it contains, and more importantly, admit the ’86 effort was a failure and explain why this time will be different.

While it is true that a decent segment of Republicans will never support a bill that leads to citizenship (about 20-25% in most polls), the real news is that if the feds delivered a secure border going forward over 70% of Republicans would swallow hard and sign on.  What Republicans are certain on is that they want the border sealed (supporting this 93% in some polls), and they rightfully don’t envision it happening.

It’s good to know that Mr. Braley has great faith in the federal government—and with its stellar track record who wouldn’t right?—but the fact of the matter is he is way out of touch with the vast majority of Americans who have a microscopic level of faith in the federal enterprise.  When you look at the situation it’s hard not to notice the delicious bit of irony that liberal Democrats would be able to accomplish a major political goal of theirs relatively easily—if only the behemoth institution they built and believe in was a capable and trusted one.

He Said What?

Now on to the real stunner offered by Braley in the interview.  Extolling the virtues of passing a bill he said the following:

“So that says to me that reasonable people should be able to get their handle on how we bring people out of the shadows, get them paying taxes at the state and federal level, paying into Medicare and Social Security, to stabilize those programs. To me there’s a lot of huge upside benefits.”

Yes you read that correctly and yes this is fully in context.  We’ve heard some real beauties from Liberal Democrats recently—“we don’t have a spending problem”, unemployment checks “create jobs faster than any other initiative you can name” etc.—and this one ranks right up there.

You see the solvency problems we have with Social Security and Medicare can be addressed by legalizing 11-15 million illegal aliens, the vast majority of which are low-income earners.  I honestly don’t even know where to begin with this.  Let’s start with some statistics on the population we are talking about that even the most partisan wouldn’t dispute, after all illegal immigrants aren’t “doing the jobs Americans won’t” because they pay too well:

• Average median family income for non-citizen in 2010= $36,401 compared to $50,288 for native born Americans (2010 US Census)

• Per person median household income for non-citizen=$12,991 compared to $28,185 for American citizens (though this is a CIS study, an anti-amnesty group, the numbers are similar to less partisan studies)

• 24.8% of Hispanics (citizens and non-citizens) are living at the poverty level (2010 Census via government office of OMH)

• Hispanics in the U.S. are the single biggest group currently without health insurance with 30.7% uninsured (Office of OMH)

Look, there are several legitimate positive arguments for granting citizenship to this group—some cultural and some economic—but implying that 11-15 million low-income workers being legalized will help any entitlement program is absurd.  And to be clear this has nothing to do with ethnicity, it would apply to any group with similar income traits if they hailed from Canada, Australia, or Europe instead of Mexico.

The only conceivable way Braley’s statement could be parsed to have a shred of truth is if he was referring only to the small number of years after legalization was granted and before benefits were claimed.  I know politicians are accustomed to thinking one election cycle at a time, but even still this level of short-sighted deception would be off the charts.  There is no question whatsoever that the net impact of legalizing up to 15 million low-skilled, low-wage earners would be a mid and long-term disaster to the existing entitlement system.  Period.  You don’t have to be a mathematician to figure this out—especially considering that not one of these programs is even currently solvent.

Ironically, after citizenship is granted Social Security and Medicare would lose the only current benefit these two programs are receiving from illegal immigration—the taxes that go to these programs via fraudulent Social Security numbers that go unclaimed by the illegal immigrant and instead get paid out to American citizens.  Democrats are right in making the case this specific reality is unfair to the immigrant, but in a perverse way it does mathematically help the system.

Furthermore, entitlements already pay out more to citizens on average than each citizen pays in.  As it stands now a typical retired couple pays in $122,000 to Medicare and on average can expect $387, 000 in benefits, for Social Security it’s $600,000 in and $579,000 out (Ezra Klein site here).  Obviously these discrepancies would be multiplied for this illegal population for two reasons.  First the median family income for illegals is between $15-20,000 less than the median American citizen family income, and second, obviously, this population would not have been paying in their entire lives yet would receive benefits until their deaths (Politifact deals with a similar scenario here).

Final Word & A Challenge to Democrats

Braley’s claim here is totally ludicrous and false—and if he’s seriously only referring to the period before we pay any benefits out and is ignoring the eventual consequences, it is even more ridiculous and disingenuous.  I challenge any Liberal/Democrat writer or policy wonk in the state of Iowa to explain how amnesty for illegal immigrants would be a “huge upside benefit” that will “stabilize” any one of our entitlement programs, and I will even grant you the waiver that you don’t have to deal with the disaster that will become of Medicaid.  This is an open and standing challenge.  Write it, send it to the contact info on this site, and I will print it in full.

I know Bruce Braley is desperate to sell this immigration reform bill, but claiming this federal bill will “stabilize” other insolvent federal train wrecks from the past was a bridge way too far.  He will have to explain this on the campaign trail, it will come up in debates and TV spots, and it will not help his chances.  It’s a long time till November 2014 and if he continues making undisciplined remarks he can’t back up—and wouldn’t want to try even if he thought he could—then he is more vulnerable than I ever thought.

 

 

The Big Domino Falls: Steve King To Stay In U.S. House

The Big Domino Falls: Steve King To Stay In U.S. House

steve kingFrom this point forward the Republican quest to replace Tom Harkin just got more interesting.  With King removed from the picture the next batch of announcements we get will be declarations and not withdrawals.

I was never one to think Republicans needed King in the race to win the seat, and in fact have been lukewarm on his chances.  I truly believe that a relative newcomer on the scene has a better shot at shoring up the base while still pulling a majority of Independents–which in turn will bring victory.

Prediction wise, don’t be surprised if the list of candidates who decide to run is very, very short.  I would not be shocked if only 2 names of the 6 or so being thrown around run in the end…and I swear don’t rule out Bob Vander Plaats.

 

Below is Steve King’s full statement:

 

Dear Friends,

I want to thank all of my friends, family, advisors and supporters who have put so much time, thought, prayer, and effort into helping me make a decision on whether to run for the United States Senate. I sincerely thank every potential candidate, all of whom graciously gave me room to decide. Probably no one in America, considering such an opportunity, enjoys as clear a path to the nomination. It is an extraordinary opportunity that will not be repeated in millions of lifetimes.

I have said from the beginning this decision requires “the head, the gut, and the heart” to line up together. I have done due diligence and evaluated the race from a statewide, objective perspective. I have talked with hundreds of supporters…and some detractors. I sincerely thank all of you who have helped in so many ways.

My analytical part, the head, tells me the race is winnable and must be won in 2014 or a generational opportunity could be lost. I have said a race for the Senate is “a slight up hill battle”. It is, but it’s “no hill for a climber”.

The question I am answering today is, “What is my duty?” I believe my duty is to utilize the honor of serving Iowans in Congress by maximizing my effectiveness. I owe it to all Iowans and Americans to give you my best effort and best judgment.

We have in front of us in Congress a series of potent issues which will redirect the destiny of our state and nation. Among them are a farm bill, ObamaCare, debt and deficit, immigration, and tax reform. If I step away from these responsibilities while campaigning in an effort to multiply leverage in the Senate, what becomes of our nation in the mean time?

This week, I made a simple device to put toothpaste back in the tube. But a device to put the Leftist genie back in the bottle is not so simple. The best tool we have now is the majority in the U.S. House which functions mostly to keep the Leftist genie in the bottle. I cannot, in good conscience, turn my back on the destiny decisions of Congress today in order to direct all my efforts to a Senate race for next year, while hoping to gain the leverage to put the genie back in the bottle in 2015.

The most timely and conclusive piece of advice I received crystallized my decision. A friend, whose 77th birthday is today, said to me, “I will support you whatever you decide to do. If you decide to run, don’t be a reluctant candidate.” If I said, “Yes” to a Senate race, I would be a reluctant candidate because of the reasons I’ve written above.

Accordingly, I will not be a candidate for the United States Senate in 2014. It is my intention to turn my efforts and energy with great vigor to the issues at hand. I anticipate being on the ballot for reelection to the U.S. House, Fourth District of Iowa. It is a challenging and rewarding job that I enjoy. My sincerest thanks to all involved.

Bill Northey Says No To U.S Senate Race

Bill Northey Says No To U.S Senate Race

bill northey 2It appears the allure of having your name on every fuel pump in Iowa has proved to be too much for Bill Northey to give up.

Today Mr. Northey officially removed himself from the potential candidate pool.  Though many speculated, few insiders ever saw him making a run as probable.  I have seen him speak at several political events and he seems like a genuinely nice guy.  Having said that, the perceived strength of his candidacy that many shared was somewhat surprising to me.  Though Bruce Braley is certainly beatable, it is going to take a bold candidate capable of stirring up some real passion to pull it off.  I am not certain this would have been a strength for him, and I could be wrong but I am unconvinced he would have been able to switch a large number of Democrats involved in the Ag business.

The way I look at the map, a successful candidate on the Republican side is going to have to at least compete with Braley in the urban areas.  If not, the margin of victory in the rural counties would have to be massive to overcome it–and likely not possible.  Even though he has opted not to run, Mr. Northey is a class act and will be a valuable commodity on the trail for our eventual nominee.

As of right now the short list of remaining potential candidates is– Steve King, Matt Whitaker, Matt Schultz, Joni Ernst, and Rod Roberts.

Below is the Bill Northey statement released earlier today:

After talking with my family and thoughtful consideration, I have decided that I will not seek the nomination for our open U.S. Senate seat.  I am humbled to have heard so many kind words from Iowans encouraging me to run.  Our state and nation are facing great challenges and we need strong leaders in Washington, but we also need strong leaders here in Iowa.  I feel at this time I can be more effective serving Iowans as Secretary of Agriculture rather than engaging in a Senate campaign.
Congressman Steve King has been a strong conservative leader in Washington and would serve our state well in the Senate.  Should he decide to run, he would have my full support.  If he decides against running, our state is fortunate to have many qualified and exciting candidates and I look forward to working with our party’s nominee to win this important election.
    Log in