As the BP oil spill unfolds in the Gulf and in our living rooms through our television screens, the coverage has focused on two major problems that it has created. One is the flat-out brutal images of oil soaked pelicans; the other is the crisis of the Gulf fishermen who have been forced out of work. One thing is clear, if you had to choose between being a pelican or a fish your choice is an easy one. At the same time everyone is rightfully heartbroken about the pelicans, we can’t wait for the fishermen to get back in the water and cast their nets to catch and kill as many fish as possible. While I am not by any stretch a PETA guy and I grant the fact that this is largely because we don’t eat pelicans, the point it makes is that we constantly draw large subliminal differences between things. In this case, though both are “wildlife,†we subconsciously dismiss the plight of the fish while granting a level of sympathy to the pelicans that compels some of us to set about capturing them and hand rubbing them with Dawn dish detergent. The same point could be made by asking the questions: Why do we eat turkeys and chickens but not pelicans; why cows and not horses? Why are mice disgusting but gerbils and hamsters cute? In large part the answer is: that’s just the way it is.
I suppose you might be asking yourself a question right about now—how does this relate to politics? While I’m quite certain that indeed everything relates to politics, the specific answer is the power of the mentally presumed. The United States is now and has always been a relatively conservative country. Our Constitution, laws, and values, as well as every poll ever taken on the subject, prove this. The problem for Liberals is that well . . . they are not. This presents a huge political task for them. In order to get the Country they envision, Liberals have to change a large number of long entrenched status quos, and over time they have developed a strategy and the tools to potentially get the job done.
In politics success in the long-view can be defined as a fight for the subconscious. Winning this fight takes time and, what I consider to be Liberal’s most effective tool, patience. Sacrificing in the short term for future benefit is counter to human nature, but seems to be an ability they have developed in spades. Having entered into every professional sphere for over 50 years, they have been undertaking the unscrupulous duty of chipping away at religion, the courts, the military, our school system, and our moral standards. They have a big task, big ideas, and an even bigger amount of gall in the way that they have gone about this business.
Your message entering the mainstream is not just the Holy Grail for marketers, but for obvious reasons, is also priceless if you happen to be a political movement attempting to transform a society. It is for this reason that the vast majority of lawyers, teachers, and reporters lean hard to the left. They have correctly determined that this is the surest way to achieve the political equivalent of a tissue being referred to as a Kleenex, a bandage being called a Band-Aid, or gelatin being Jell-O. In advertising lingo, achieving this is called an eponym; in politics I guess you would just call it “shrewdâ€â€”disingenuous but shrewd.
There is no need to win the legislative argument if you can turn a carefully crafted and well directed lawsuit into law. There is no need to win the moral argument on social issues such as gay marriage if you can impart it as the norm to a generation in Sex-Ed classes starting at the age of seven. There is no need to win the philosophical argument of the role on government if you can marginalize the Constitution in a college lecture hall and then have the issues pitched to the people by the media as questions of “empathy.â€Â This level of subversion and the distance it creates from the substantive political debates that we should be having, debates that make this Country better, is infuriating and flat out scary.
Interestingly, this battle for the subconscious is one that Liberals have been fighting with no active resistance, and the reason for this is simple. The status quo has been held and assumed by conservative leanings for years. Past generations of Democrats, while certainly having political differences with Republicans, were at least in part buoyed by similar values and constraints as their political opposition. Not since 1933 has the Right been opposed by such a widespread and transformative-minded group as today’s Liberal Democratic leadership. Republicans have in essence been playing with the lead, and the scoreboard is starting to reflect it. Though alarming the question that this begs for some is, might it be time for the Conservative movement to counter by beginning to engage in these types of fronts?
For my part the answer is no. While I think it is important to be aware that this effort is afoot, publicly expose it and defend traditional realities and values, there is far too much relativism being employed by both political parties as it is. Any actions based on this are indefensible, as what is at stake is the moral high ground. Joining Progressive Liberals by wading into the oily waters of politically-motivated education, biased journalism, and judicial activism is not only unnatural but is dirty, dirty business. Come to think of it—it’s about as dirty as an oil-soaked pelican.
So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss.
—Sun Tzu, The Art of War
The two major forms of Republicanism each have a doctrine that is tied to actual documents. Religious social conservatives have The Bible, while fiscal and Constitutional conservatives have the Constitution. It is safe to say that the vast majority of Republicans have their political tenants supplied by one, if not both, of these documents. This type of textual anchor is a positive philosophically and morally but in a strictly political sense can be a liability. The resulting positives are what tend to be deep, time-tested convictions, stability, certainty and, when used, an effective measuring stick for candidates in primaries. However, in our current event driven and largely politically uninformed society the negative is that this rigidness makes it nearly impossible to adapt positions to individual situations and use current events for maximum political gain.
This is a problem that the modern day liberal Democrat will not have anytime soon. They indeed stand in the starkest of contrast. Having left the Constitution behind decades ago, they move forward with no defined doctrine. No set of black and white documents that create, inform, or guide their ideology (and don’t even try to give me the party platform). This creates a situation in which changing party leadership sets an evolving standard as to what defines a Democrat. This not only allows them to easily tailor their political message to what they perceive to be popular at the moment, but grants them the option of playing the role of “lifeguard†and coming to the citizenry’s rescue with politically crafted legislation.
This, in tandem with the current perception that this is indeed the role of government, is extremely effective but thankfully also comes with disadvantages. First, the party can more easily be driven to the fringes as their lack of rigid philosophical boundaries allows a handful in the leadership of a given generation to rather rapidly change their party’s principles. A quick look at their current leadership and the top three finishers in the last two Presidential primaries reveal not a single, even remotely, moderate candidate and safely proves this point. Second, though both unfortunate and ironic, their biggest roadblock is that given our current level of debt the Government simply can not sustain an ever increasing financial role. As long as our citizens are concerned with the debt, and according to the most recent polling all but 24% are, their “lifeguard†advantage will be minimized. Though these points make it likely that due to their intensely progressive ideology they will drive themselves off a cliff, in the short term this chameleon like flexibility to adapt to changing realities is a net advantage and one that must be tactically dealt with. What has been created here is the political equivalent of a moving target and the challenge facing Republicans is developing a sound defensive strategy. Sounds strange to say, but the question is: how does one turn the political disadvantage of having and following defined ideological principles and a narrow view of the Federal government’s role into an advantage?
What should be done from a focus standpoint, and what is currently working, is a continued, exhaustive fixation on deficit spending and our National debt. What should be added is further concentration on the ineffectiveness of the Stimulus Package, especially considering the Democrats just quietly tried to procure another $50 billion in borrowed money to funnel to the States. The Recovery Act is not only recent, relatively uncomplicated, and directly tied to the current Liberal leadership, but proves rather blatantly that even with a trillion dollars the Federal Government is not capable, nor was it designed to, “fix†these types of problems. Simply put Republicans can not afford such an expensive and unnecessary tragedy to occur without it being politically fatal to the Democrats.
Legislatively two things come to mind. First, the already passed PayGo legislation needs to be hammered on and strictly followed by Republicans no matter the circumstance. In many ways this was a gift given by the Democrats, as it fits the Republican message, while almost certainly being a check written for political reasons to the American people that Liberalism will not allow them to cash. Along with this is what should be a unified, party-wide push for an Enumerated Powers Amendment. In my view this is the Republicans single best chance to not only start reigning Government back in, but also to maintain the energy of the Tea Party movement by proving that motion in their direction is both possible and something besides lip service. While the actual passage of such an amendment is an impossibility given the Republican’s current minority status, and I concede likely a long shot even with complete control of the Legislative branch, forcing the Democrats to vote down or ignore this concept would pay huge dividends now and in the future.
While any marksmen will tell you the only way to hit a moving target is to aim in front, in this case the surest place to aim is behind, and more specifically about 234 years behind. While it is certainly frustrating to watch the opposition bend and mold their positions to gain short term political support, and though it may be true in this day and age that strictly adhering to principles of limited government may at times seem like a burden, we must as Republicans resist the convenience of straying. We must be strengthened by the knowledge that in the long run, being principled and following the Constitution’s principles is always the correct answer. In those times that the temptation to deviate presents itself we can remember the Italians’ have an old saying for just such a quandary, “A burden that is chosen is not felt.â€
The news events of the last few months have certainly put the Obama Administration in a peculiar position. The Gulf crisis notwithstanding, most of these events have been created by this president and his staff.
Team Obama went the the G20 Summit in Toronto this weekend to chide the other 19 nations to continue to stimulate their economy through Keynsian economic principles. “Not so fast”, said the other countries. “We have to make choices, and right now, we choose fiscal solvency and prudence”. What a concept!
Passage of the Financial Institutions Reform package was always tenuous, at best, but the death of Senator Robert Byrd over the weekend makes passage more difficult. One less Democratic vote means that it’s more likely that Republicans can filibuster this package, and this is a good thing. Here’s why: Any bill that increases regulation, drives up costs to the consumer, and squeezes financial services companies’ margins will negatively affect the economy. The costs of increased regulation always get passed along to the consumer in some way, shape or form. Limiting profits also limit tax revenues to the US Treasury in the form of corporate taxes, as well as limiting the taxes paid on dividends. Finally, no company will hire if they have to choose between new employees and profitability. Profits first, then job growth.
Of course, this Administration believes that more government, and more regulation is better than the alternative. Which brings us back to the oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico. Government could not solve this problem. President Obama’s unwillingnes to recognize this fact, rather, to pin it on the previous Administration, has convinced me that less Washington is the answer, not more. Incidentally, government could not solve the Katrina problem either. It was private philanthropy, including church-based organizations, that had the greatest impact during the Katrina aftermath.
It would seem that if anything, this Administration, and especially the President, is deliberately trying to keep people from focusing their attention on the economy, jobs and the fact that companies continue to shed them. This is preferable to actually implementing policies that will create jobs, stimulate the economy, and generate revenues back to federal, state and local treasuries.
On Friday, the Labor Department will release the non-farm employment numbers for June. Consensus estimates suggest that the economy shed 145,000 jobs this month, and if so, that the unemployment rate will rise to 9.8% from 9.7%. Look for President Obama to do some if not all of the following:
Create a diversion
Blame it on the financial crisis and the previous administration
Express a need for additional stimulus
Do not expect him to take responsibility, or offer any potential solutions other than those expressed above. This will prove to solidify Republican gains in both houses of Congress in November. The country wants solutions and for a responsible President. It will have to wait another two and a half years.
Paul McKinley is the Iowa Senate Republican Leader
Iowans received more sobering news on the economy late last week. Unemployment ticked up to 6.9 percent with 116,800 Iowans out of work – an increase of 2,600 from the month before.
This news comes as Governor Culver is traveling the state touting his $1.7 billion dollar I-JOBS program that he promised would create 30,000 jobs and spur an economic revitalization of Iowa’s economy. But since unveiling his I-JOBS idea during the Condition of the State address in January 2009, Iowa has actually lost over 30,000 jobs while nearly $1.7 billion has been added to the state’s credit card.
Based on employment numbers from Iowa Workforce Development, the graph below illustrates the month by month unemployment numbers since Governor Culver announced his temporary work program.
Clearly, Culver’s expensive program has failed. Government cannot create jobs – it’s the private sector and small business that is the engine of job growth.
That’s why we need a new direction for Iowa – one that actually puts the focus on private sector job creation and puts Iowans back into good paying jobs in every county and community in this state.
Instead of empowering government bureaucrats to pick winners as is the direction taken by Governor Culver and legislative Democrats, Senate Republicans believe we must give entrepreneurs, employers and small business owners the tools they need to not only succeed today – but into the future as well.
Our detailed three point plan involves providing an immediate jolt of adrenaline to Iowa’s economy by offering aggressive tax incentives for hiring more Iowans while also cultivating good ideas and encouraging entrepreneurs to come forward to develop or expand their venture right here in Iowa.
In addition, our plan includes putting together an extensive volunteer commission of business leaders and entrepreneurs from around that state that will be tasked with identifying the onerous barriers and regulations that are holding back growth, development, expansion and job creation in Iowa. The Legislature and governor will need to act on these citizen suggestions.
When Governor Culver took office and legislative Democrats took over both chambers of the Legislature in January of 2007, Iowa’s unemployment was at 3.6 percent. Today it is on the verge of 7 percent.
Last year, Iowa lost 222 factories and two-thirds of Iowa’s counties lost population because of a lack of jobs. Today we remain 49th in the nation in friendliness to job creators according to US News & World Report and 41st according to the very reputable Small Business Survival Index.
We have now seen four years of sky high property taxes, irresponsible spending and generational debt. Year after year, Democrats have discussed and in some instances passed damaging anti-jobs legislation like gutting Iowa’s Right to Work status, decimating our worker’s compensation system, fundamentally altering our collective bargaining methods and implementing a property tax increasing prevailing wage.
We can and must do better. The status quo in Iowa cannot continue.
Senate Republicans know we can experience a 99 county resurgence. Iowa is filled with promise because we have wonderful people in welcoming communities who have a burning passion to build a better Iowa for their families, friends and neighbors.
We must begin to change direction, reignite the entrepreneurial spirit of the private sector and welcome the new economy of tomorrow. Let us again put our faith in the people to move Iowa forward instead of allowing government to hold us back.
As always, I welcome hearing from you and can be reached by phone at 515-281-3560 or by e-mail at [email protected]
[Update: some of the text of the proposed rule change included struck out content – It’s corrected now. – Ed.]
Matt Strawn met with bloggers today to provide a report on the meetings he has attended at the RNC recently. One of the items he brought back was the recommendation from the Temporary Delegate Selection Committee (TDSC), tasked with looking at how to modify the rules around Primaries and Caucuses in the 2012 Presidential Nominating process.
The proposal by the committee, which will be taken up at the Summer RNC meeting in August, establishes a starting point on March 6, 2012 for primaries and caucuses. Iowa is one of 4 states exempted from the date, so we will be able to hold the Republican Iowa Caucuses earlier in the year. Matt indicated that he expected an early February date for the caucus.
Along with Iowa, the states of New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada will also be exempted.
The new rules recommendation also constrains states that hold their primaries and caucuses prior to April 1 to provide proportional representation to the Republican National Convention in 2012. This is being doing to prevent a large state from holding their primary early in March and taking away the perceived impact of the exempted states. According to Matt, this rule does not apply to Iowa, although that is not clear in the wording. One way to read it, I think, is that it address the meeting to select delegates, which actually occurs at the Republican State Convention here in Iowa. It will be interesting to watch this question.
The recommendation can be amended and then voted up or down. If it is rejected, I’m not sure what happens next. Likely a new committee is formed.
Matt commended Former RPI Chairman Brian Kennedy, who served on the temporary committee, for working hard at ensuring that Iowa maintained their exemption.
Matt also mentioned that he testified before the committee in 2009.
Below is the relevant proposal:
Proposed Rule No. 15(b) Amendment with Adopted Ryder Language
(Current language adopted by the TDSC)
(b) Timing.
(1) “No primary, caucus, or convention to election, select, allocate, or bind delegates to the national convention shall occur prior to the first Tuesday in March in the year in which a national convention is held. Except New Hampshire, South Carolina, Iowa and Nevada may begin their processes at any time on or after February 1 in the year in which a national convention is held.â€
(2) “Any presidential primary, caucus, convention, or other meeting held for the purpose of selecting delegates to the national convention which occurs prior to the first day of April in the year in which the national convention is held, shall provide for the allocation of the delegates selected on a proportional basis.â€
When Senator Levin says “Goldman made a lot of money by betting against the mortgage market†what do we think he might have meant? Knowing some of the political philosophy of the esteemed senator from Michigan, it is obvious that his inference was that Goldman was acting in a fashion that was either illegal or immoral. How could any American institution bet against motherhood, apple pie or the American dream of universal home ownership? And certainly the notion of â€making a lot of money†is of dubious quality on its face. The Senator is literally screaming “These people are the enemy of the state, and they need to be leashed, or chained, or imprisoned, or tortured…all for the good of the system of the people.â€
It is always amusing when a single statement contains such a large number of fallacies. Let us count the ways.
First, Goldman was acting in their role as an investment broker. Everything they do is essentially either a bet for or against something…or the facilitating of someone else doing the same thing. More technically, they are simply acting as brokers, and not as agents. Agents represent a buyer or seller. Brokers facilitate the transaction. This is the “market mechanism†and it is what guides the whole system of the effective allocation of resources. It is fundamental to our material progress. As significantly, if people would have actually listened to Goldman, the whole mortgage disaster might have been avoided. Starting in 2004 Goldman was very publicly saying that the US housing market was overpriced and that we were headed for real trouble. Unfortunately, too few actually listened to them, including Senator Levin. In the case of the SEC-driven synthetic CDO case, Goldman was actually not making a bet against the mortgage market…an investor was. But even if they were, it was completely their right to do so.
“But the disclosure wasn’t adequate…†Please. If you hear anyone say this just say “stop,†and remember that these things were bought (not sold) by some of the most sophisticated investors the world has ever seen. These buyers were high-powered investors looking for levels of interest unavailable in our low-interest world, and they got torched. Anyone who uses the word “disclosure†in this argument is either very poorly educated, or more likely concealing a very ugly hidden agenda. Funny, have you heard anything from the actual investors who lost all the money? Most of the money that was lost in the mortgage meltdown was not even held by the banks. Unlike the power-mongering Senator Levin however, they all know and accept the penalty for the sin of their ill-fated and over-reaching greed.
Secondly, and contrary to Mr. Levin’s fear of profit, the world has proven over and over again that without the opportunity for “profit†the world tends towards universal impoverishment. We should very quickly notice that profit is not a word to be used exclusively with respect to corporations; it is a universally human word. All of us require “profits†as a source of motivation. Mr. Levin demonizes corporate profits, but fails to recognize the evil of “government profits,†which are the desired fruits of his labors. In the case of government, the profits take the form of the shifting of funds from individuals and corporations into the pockets of government. Profits, thus defined, always flow out of a system where productivity is advancing. It has to. The only question is who gets them. Mr. Levin has decided that they should flow to him and his kind, as opposed to those with the brains and drive to actually create something of real value. Profit is virtuous. The conscription of profits by the government is the true evil. This is particularly evident in the case where the “disclosure†of the intentions of the government (think Mr. Levin) is what is so entirely deceptive and completely lacking.
Lastly, Mr. Levin effectively is saying “And what we need is a really, really, really big solution to this really, really, really big problem.†What we have in the case of the mortgage crisis is actually a really limited problem with a very large set of consequences. The failure that we experienced was a classic simultaneous failure of the banking and insurance systems resulting from too little capital required to support the levels of risks being taken. This is hardly a new problem. The current financial services bill, like the health care bill, is just an opportunistic ruse that only tangentially relates to the real problems that we face. All we need to fix the problems with mortgage-backed securities and their “derivatives†are a set of rules around the capital needed to support both their issuance and their holding. End of story. Mr. Levin actually knows this. And that is the real problem…and a crying shame.
Sophisticated systems like ours create “sophisticated solutions†to create take-overs by the government that are accepted by “We the people.†The financial services bill is sophisticated only its complexity, and has nothing to do with the problems we really face. And herein we see the real evil. Goldman is not our problem. Levin is.
The Civil Rights Movement that culminated in the 1960’s was an important movement towards the advancement of equality for all Americans. While artificial and fundamental hatreds will likely always exist between disparate people groups, the relative harmony that has been experienced in this country over the last forty years is likely unprecedented in the history of the world. To create equality of opportunity for all of a society’s individuals and to simultaneously provide an environment free of the expression of abusive power of one group of people over another is a seldom seen accomplishment. America has been a place where these goals are thought by many to actually be within reach.
Last week, the former President, Bill Clinton, made comments linking the Tea Party Movement to the worst act of domestic terror that has ever been experienced in our country’s history. The Oklahoma City bombing was a tragedy of massive proportion. Apparently, Mr. Clinton believes that the same ideological forces that motivated the bombers of the Federal Building are those that now motivate those that gather under the Tea Party banner. To consider this comment reckless and irresponsible is to understate its vitriolic intent. It is almost impossible to adequately underscore the complete disconnect between the former President’s “I feel your pain†tone with his real message. Farcical messages delivered with a level of alleged caring are amongst the most dangerous. It is reminiscent of the initial tempting of mankind in the Garden of Eden.
The reason the Civil Rights Movement emerged was that a people group was being treated unfairly and were being oppressed by a system that stood for a higher principle than was being observed. And there were those who at the time “stood up†and said that what was happening was both immoral and evil. Most people of conscious knew that this situation needed to be fixed, with the only differences of opinion coming in terms of the appropriate means to that agreed-upon end. We humans are endowed with a sense of justice that transcends both our group distinctions and our distorted modern media coverage. We know injustice when we see it. The only question is whether we “stand up†and voice our disaffection. Mr. Clinton must certainly understand this attribute of a liberal democracy such as ours, as he was a societal product of the 1960s.
The only difference between the Tea Party Movement and the Civil Rights Movement is the nature of the oppressor.  The driving force behind each of the movements is the same. In both cases a minority group is passionately expressing a very heartfelt concern that their individual liberties are being violated and that their freedoms are being abused by a tyrannical oppressor. In the 1960s the oppressor was a racial group. In 2010 the oppressor is the Federal Government and the Obama Administration. Both movements were asking for something quite simple: just treat us with fairness. To believe that one of the movements was racial and the other ideological, and that they are therefore different, is to miss the obvious common factor. It is a distinction without a difference.
Can the evils of an oppressive system cause certain rogue individuals to take actions that are legally inappropriate and even reprehensible? The answer is obviously yes. But that is not the point, and the former President knows it. The Civil Rights Movement created some very ugly scenes. For purposes of this discussion, let’s remember the situation in Detroit in the summer of 1967. Would Mr. Clinton ever think to link Civil Rights and Detroit? No. He does not cast himself in the role of oppressor in either situation. He rather sees himself as a liberator. And in his self-analysis is his error. Until the liberal left comes to see themselves as the real oppressors, we will continue to hear the same insulting and condescending rhetoric. Funny thing: Vladimir Lenin didn’t see himself as an oppressor either…he saw himself as a liberator.
Overall, this was probably the most entertaining political event that I have attended yet this year. Â Hats off to Iowans For Tax Relief (ITR) for putting on a great program!
The afternoon consisted of a speech by Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (who is currently considered a likely candidate for President in 2012, but is being shy about the idea), and 8 minute speeches by each of the candidates for Governor (except for the Democrat) intended to be focused on the Iowans for Tax Relief Candidate Questionnaire. The actual answers provided by the candidates to the questionnaire will be at ITR’s web site on Monday. Dave Stanley, Chairman and Founder of ITR and Ed Failor, Jr, President of ITR, spoke at the beginning of the event (I don’t think the video below includes Dave’s remarks). Kathy Obradovich from the Des Moines Register was the MC during the Candidates portion of the program.
Governor Pawlenty gave a solid speech addressing some of the key problems with our government from a tax and spending standpoint, which was very appreciated by the crowd. Highlights included:
“Progressives are proposing solutions from Eastern Europe from a century ago.”
“Our leader’s are too small to do anything about our problems.”
“Wall Street gets a bailout, the poor (understandably) get a handout, and those of us in the middle get our wallets out.”
“Our rights are given to us by our creator, not by our congressmen/women.”
“We should have an economic bill of rights which includes: Balanced Budget … Line item veto … Super majority to raise increases or the debt ceiling limit in this country.”
“People spend money differently when at least some of it is their money.”
“For the United States of America to be safe, needs to be strong.”
“If freedom was easy, everybody in the world would be free. If prosperity was easy, everybody would be prosperous. If security was easy, everybody would be secure.”
After his speech, Pawlenty took questions.  This is a link to the audio for the Q&A. I apologize for the noise at the beginning. Mike Glover from Associated Press asks the first couple of questions, followed by Craig Robinson from The Iowa Republican, then myself, and then one or two others.
Candidates for Governor
All of the Republican candidates for Governor gave their typical positions on taxes and spending, and did a great job.  Since I continue to stay neutral regarding the Primary, I will not address that further. But the video above covers it, and each speech being 8 minutes it’s not very long to watch. All of the Republican candidates were very positively received.
Also speaking was the Independent Candidate, Jonathan Narcisse. I have interviewed Jonathan a couple of times and he has a very dramatic plan for Iowa. I’m convinced that Jonathan is more conservative than he realizes, and his determination to reduce the role of government to its bare minimum. I have challenged him in the past regarding a few details that seem like yet too much government in controlling even voluntarily financed programs, but he did not really get into that on Saturday. Jonathan speaks to even property tax reforms to limit tax assessments to purchase price on property, and dropping the state sales tax to 3% over 4 years. He continued with a number of others ideas, all of which culminated in a dream of a highly prosperous Iowa.
We also got to hear from the Libertarian candidate, Eric Cooper. He has no illusions about becoming governor, but is focused on raising enough votes to cause people to pay attention to what the party has to say, establishing an effective dialogue. His message, and dramatically and humorously presented, was that government should be doing nothing but those tasks that require the force of government. Security from external enemies, crime, infrastructure. He highlighted the fact that people came to Iowa and America was because we did excessively tax people, and let people do what they wanted as long as it didn’t limit the freedoms of others. He used the Iowa state motto, “Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain”, as an effective reminder of the importance of importance we have always placed in our freedoms.
Both Jonathan and Eric probably experienced the greatest opportunity for conservative activists to hear their message and discover how well those candidates’ positions align with theirs. I was very disappointed with WHO-TV for ignoring the non-Republican candidates, and with KCCI-TV for ignoring the candidates for governor altogether on their broadcasts that evening.
The crowd was a veritable who’s who of Iowa Conservatives, and we were told that there were 558 people, possibly more by the time we got done. I was very impressed overall with the event preparation, and the quality of the event. Not only was the access to the candidates for Governor valuable, but the well focused oratory from a group of very thoughtful conservative minds was engaging and highly useful for the activists in the room who are not just deciding who to vote for, but how to better articulate their own positions on these issues. Katie Koberg, Vice-President of ITR, made a huge effort to communicate effectively both before and during the event, and the whole staff kept everything running smoothly.
One more thing. Ed Failor Jr took a swipe at Governor Culver because he did not respond to the invitation. It was justified to an extent, although I cannot imagine there being anything that the Governor could say that would be received well or believed by this crowd. But I think it shows a real lack of leadership that he is unable to come before a group like this and make his case for the current state of affairs.
I’ll be tweeting from the Iowan’s For Tax Relief (ITR) “2010 Iowa Taxpayers’ Day” event at the Northwest Holiday Inn in Des Moines. All of the candidates for Governor (except for Governor Culver) will be grilled here today, and we’ve already got a number of press and bloggers present.
Even Steve Deace is here, standing 3 feet away explaining that he tries to get to these kind of events ONCE in a while so people don’t think he’s just a disembodied voice like the namesake of “Charlie’s Angels”.
Just had a nice chat with Dawn Pettengill (Republican State Representative from District 39, Benton County), who in 2007 switched from Democrat to Republican. I asked her how it’s been being a Republican, and she said that she’s found that being a Republican aligns so much more closely to her positions and that of her constituents. I also asked her if she has been pressed to vote against her own position, and she said she has never been asked to vote a certain way. It seems like being a Republican, at least in the Iowa House, is a team effort. I’ve heard from other Republicans there that the past few sessions the Republican caucus has really been very strongly aligned on most issues.
Other people here include Linda Upmeyer, Kraig Paulsen, Craig Robinson, O. Kay Henderson, Kevin Hall, Tim Albrecht, Erik Helland, and a full room and many others I haven’t identified yet.
As the BP oil spill unfolds in the Gulf and in our living rooms through our television screens, the coverage has focused on two major problems that it has created. One is the flat-out brutal images of oil soaked pelicans; the other is the crisis of the Gulf fishermen who have been forced out of work. One thing is clear, if you had to choose between being a pelican or a fish your choice is an easy one. At the same time everyone is rightfully heartbroken about the pelicans, we can’t wait for the fishermen to get back in the water and cast their nets to catch and kill as many fish as possible. While I am not by any stretch a PETA guy and I grant the fact that this is largely because we don’t eat pelicans, the point it makes is that we constantly draw large subliminal differences between things. In this case, though both are “wildlife,†we subconsciously dismiss the plight of the fish while granting a level of sympathy to the pelicans that compels some of us to set about capturing them and hand rubbing them with Dawn dish detergent. The same point could be made by asking the questions: Why do we eat turkeys and chickens but not pelicans; why cows and not horses? Why are mice disgusting but gerbils and hamsters cute? In large part the answer is: that’s just the way it is.
