![Steve Scheffler: It’s Time To Replace Steele]()
by | Dec 31, 2010
Steve Scheffler is Iowa’s National Committeeman to the Republican National Committee and serves along with Kim Lehman, Iowa’s National Committeewoman, in representing Iowa Republicans on the National Committee.
Steve provided the following update regarding his thoughts about the upcoming RNC Chair election about a week and a half ago. I had hoped to get it posted earlier, but the holidays have been too enjoyable to focus on other things.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
As your Republican National Committeeman for Iowa, I wanted to give you an update on the race for Chairman of the Republican National Committee. The election will be held on January 14, 2011 and we will be electing a chairman for a 2-year term.
I had the privilege of attending a candidate forum on December 1st and then also a candidate interview process on December 2nd. All the announced or potential candidates for chairman appeared at the interview session except for the current chairman, Michael Steele. Each candidate was given an ample period of time to make their case to be the chairman. Each of these individual interview sessions was followed by a 30 minute Q & A time.
The candidates who made presentations were (Note: All Potential Candidates were invited, and only Michael Steele did not attend):
Gentry Collins, former Political Director of the RNC, for Executive Director of Republican Party of Iowa.
Saul Anuzis, National Committeeman (Michigan), former Michigan State Party Chairman.
Mari Cino. Maria served different stints at the RNC and was the former Executive Director of the National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee.
Mike Duncan, former RNC Chairman (who has now announced that he will not be running).
Ann Wagner, former RNC co-chair, former Missouri State Party Chairman, former ambassador to Luxemburg.
Reince Priebus, Wisconsin State Party Chairman, former Legal Counsel of the RNC.
All the candidates made good presentations and made their case as to why they believed they were best suited to be our next chairman. I took extensive notes and asked many questions of the candidates. Questions posed to the candidates by me and other RNC members in attendance focused on fundraising, strategy and voter contact, management, leadership and their personal stance on public policy issues.
I am sure that you know that since the election, I have made it clear that I will not be supporting Michael Steele on any ballot. I like Michael as a person, but the race about the next chairman is about finding the very best person who will have the ability to run a “tight ship†and put us in a competitive position to deny Barak Obama a 2nd term, retain our majority in the U.S. House, take back the U.S. Senate—and above all, put a stop to the march towards Socialism by restoring constitutional principles, and to saving our Republic!
The Steele administration, to say the least, has been an embarrassment and a disservice to the Republican Party and to conservative constitutional principles. I had hoped that Michael Steele would have learned from his early mistakes—but that was not to be. A short list of the embarrassments would have to include:
The $2,000.00 reimbursement to a donor who paid for a group trip to a lesbian bondage-themed strip club.
Steele’s reported interest in buying a private jet.
His giving speeches for pay.
Calling Afghanistan a “war of Obama’s choosing.â€
Stating that abortion is an individual choice.
The public ridicule of Rush Limbaugh.
Declaring that the District of Columbia deserved a voting member in the U.S. House of Representatives.
The fiasco over excessive spending in making preparations for the 2012 Republican National Convention.
The disgusting email sent out in Iowa downplaying the danger of the same-sex marriage ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court.
Revelation that the over-paid RNC Coalitions Director is not even a registered Republican. (In fact, voted recently in a Democrat primary)
Cancellation of the 72-hour get-out-the-vote program (lack of finances)
Above all, the RNC Chairman must be an individual who has the willingness and capability to spend endless hours making larger-type donor calls. It has come to light that many of the larger donors from the past were not even asked by Steele.
The Democrat National Committee netted substantially more finances than the RNC in this election cycle. In the political environment that we now have, it should have been the RNC that experienced record fundraising. Statistics seem to point out that as a result of the lackluster fundraising, that we probably lost at least 2 U.S. Senate seats, 20 or more U.S. House races and 3 or 4 governor races that could have been won had Mr. Steele been spending his time making those donor calls.
But now we have an opportunity to set the Republican Party leadership on the right course! Â All five announced candidates other than Steele (Cino, Wagner, Anuzis, Collins, Priebus) are all preferable over Steele. I spent many hours stacking up the qualities and strengths of each candidate. I would be more than willing to visit with you one-on-one to give you my evaluation of each candidate. If you wish to visit about this evaluation process, please feel free to call me on my cell at (515)971-7363.
I have made a personal endorsement of Reince Priebus, the current Wisconsin Republican State Party Chairman. I believe that Reince is the person who will bring a sense of order and correctness to our National Party. Reince has shown his leadership abilities! He came into a party in Wisconsin that faced Democrat control in about every aspect of state and federal political representation. Not only did Reince help eliminate a major debt problem in his state, but he also raised record amounts of money—around 14.5 million dollars in 3 ½ years under his watch.
He is a true professional in every way. He recruited solid, conservative candidates at all levels. Reince worked well with the tea party members and outside organizations. He organized one of the best ground operations in the entire country. The result was taking back the Governor’s office, defeating far-left U.S. Senator Russ Feingold with a staunch constitutional conservative Ron Johnson, taking over both branches of the Wisconsin Legislature with victories over the speaker in the House and the majority leader in the Senate and flipping two U.S. Congressional districts. No other state had such a phenomenal turn around!
And last but certainly not least, Reince is a pro-life, pro-family, limited government advocate. He will make us proud, and I am honored to serve on his Kitchen Cabinet in an effort to help get over the finish line at the Winter RNC meeting.
Again, please contact me if you have questions.
Sincerely,
Steve Scheffler
National Committeeman, Iowa
by Art Smith | Dec 31, 2010
After 5 ballots, Jack Whitver tonight won the Republican Nomination for the special election in Senate District 35 at a nominating convention held at the Kirkendall Public Library in Ankeny.
“I’m honored to be the Party’s nominee and I intend to keep the seat in the Republican column. I promise to keep promoting conservative values in the state of Iowa,†said the local business owner and law student.  Jack, his wife Rachel and their newborn daughter live in Ankeny.
Whitver will face a candidate to be selected by Democrats on Tuesday January 18th. Democrats will select a candidate on Monday of next week (January 3rd) to oppose Whitver.
Highlights from tonight’s convention in Senate District 35.
Meeting opened with full room… standing room only. Jim Kirkenbach convened as was immediately elected as the convention chair. Gopal Krishna was elected secretary.
The rules were presented. Â A motion to modify the rules to allow discussion amongst the body after speeches and before voting failed. The rules were then approved as written.
The following people were nominated:
- Matthew DeVries
- Larry Voorhees
- Carol Miller
- Jim Gocke
- Kevin Koester
- Jack Whitver
A delegate asked the candidates to “…not surprise us with something from your past … tell us what you need to tonight.”
Matt DeVries gave a good speech. He covered a number of the expected conservative topics… including the comment that “abortion is an act of violence”.
Jim Gocke talked a lot about his background growing up and how it affected his mindset. Different events “sharpened my pencil”. Â No clear message on positions, although he did handout information as well. Â Jim is pretty well known in the community through his law practice.
Kevin Koester shared some family background. He said that his positions are well documented… jokingly shared about some family nefariousness.  He made a strong case for using his experience in the House to shepard key legislation through the Senate.  Kevin was reelected in November as the representative for Iowa House District 70, which makes up half of Iowa Senate District 35.
Carol Miller is a farm wife… agriculture is a large part of this district (District 35 is largely rural). She has a history of various roles representing the interest of agriculture and general public policy, including travelling to DC to address policy issues.
Larry Voorhees said he “doesn’t like liberalism and doesn’t like empty ballots”. In 2008 he ran for Iowa House in District 68 against Democrat Rick Olson even though the odds were against him. He “won’t roll over and play dead”. He explained his position on abortion as unwavering with no exceptions.
Jack Whitver gave a very solid speech, covering several key conservative topics, as Matt did, at one point stating that it was “wrong to mislead Iowans by telling them we have a blanced budget”. Â Jack wants term-limits. Â He said that “voters now see the weakness of big government” and are expecting substantive change. Â Below is a video of Jack’s speech, courtesy of The Iowa Republican (Craig Robinson).
[wp-youtube-hd]2CUlJ9aGBDg[/wp-youtube-hd]
Any of these candidates seemed very likely to serve Republicans well.
Ballots were immediately provided.
First ballot:
- Devries 21.3
- Gocke 34.1
- Koester 12.7
- Miller .7
- Voorhees 0
- Whitver 28.7
Larry Voorhees withdrew.
Second bellot:
- Devries 20.5
- Gocke 36.2
- Koester 6.6
- Miller 0
- Whitver 36.7
Carol Miller is then dropped since the rules stipulate that after the second ballot, the person with the least votes in each round is dropped.
Third ballot:
- Devries 20.8
- Gocke 39.4
- Koester 3.3
- Whitver 36.4
Koester drops by rules
Fourth ballot:
- Devries 16.9
- Gocke 39.4
- Whitver 45
DeVries drops by rules
Fifth and final ballot:
Jim Gocke gave a short speech followed by an equally short acceptance speech from Jack.
Kudos to those running the meeting… very efficient. Â And the crowd was very engaged but polite. Â A very pleasant experience.
Craig Robinson at The Iowa Republican has a great write-up of the event as well.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I sat through the convention in the back with Craig Robinson, who runs The Iowa Republican web site. Â Craig is fun to work with, and he never has his own access to the internet at events like this. Â I had my recently acquired cellular hotspot with me and I was happy to share it with Craig, but it would not work properly (still not sure why… I will have to work on it tomorrow). Â The wireless at the library was not strong enough to work for us, so we did all of our tweeting from our phones.
Anyhow, Craig predicted that IF the voting went to five ballots, Jack Whitver would be the winner. Â Craig Robinson was Nostradamus.
by Art Smith | Dec 30, 2010
Here in Polk County we have a special election coming up to replace State Senator Larry Noble (R-35), who has been appointed to be the new commissioner of the Iowa Department of Public Safety. The special election will be held on January 18th, and Republicans will be holding a nominating convention tonight to select a candidate. Democrats will meet to select their candidate on January 3rd.
A few members of the Republican Party of Iowa’s State Central Committee (SCC) decided to come out in support of one candidate. That story, and some opinion, is well covered by Craig Robinson of The Iowa Republican. Also, highlights of all five of the announced candidates for tonight’s convention are found here.
Some of the comments left at The Iowa Republican were from people that don’t see why the public support of a candidate by members of the SCC is a concern.
The answer is hardly black and white on its face. I have myself worked to remain neutral during the 2010 primary while serving on Polk County’s GOP leadership team (and I am confident that those county leaders are remaining neutral as they did earlier this year) because it seemed most consistent with my own approach to fairness.
I see two principles of leadership at play here:
- Leaders should lead, which often means providing guidance to those who are being lead when necessary. Â For example, when working through or executing a plan, a leader should be able to articulate what needs to be accomplished, and perhaps how.
- In party politics (as in public elections), leaders should allow those who hold the power to elect (in this case, the convention delegates) and those who are competing with each other for a position to do so in a fair and unfettered manner.
Overt support of a candidate by any members of the SCC is not, on its face, in contradiction with the second principle. However, there are some people who will be swayed by the endorsement and will vote without conducting their own due diligence. This may be a fact of life, but I like to encourage people to do some research on their own when possible.
The endorsement may also give the appearance of favoritism and a sense that perhaps those leaders do not trust the delegates to make a sound decision (or the “right” decision) on their own.  If nothing else, it can “feel” fettered.
Of greatest concern to me is the impact that leadership endorsements have on other candidates, both those running against the endorsee, and those who may want to run in the future.  It is unnecessarily demoralizing to a candidate who, if they win the nomination, may not believe the party fully supports their candidacy.  And those who may consider running in the future could easily believe that they are doomed if they are not hand-picked by party leadership.  It should be clear how these results can impact the success of the party, which needs qualified candidates who are willing to step up and work hard to win. Putting up internal barriers, whether perceived or real, will limit the party’s opportunities and long-term success in recruiting qualified candidates.
I began by identifying two principles, and have not addressed the first one. Â Does the endorsement provide the kind of guidance that, as members of the SCC, is needed by the delegates? Â I submit that it does not (I do not have contra-argument, simply no supporting argument comes to mind), and as such it seems the better side of integrity to avoid the appearance of impropriety and act in a way that will help the party in the long run (candidate development) by remaining neutral while the delegates work their way through this decision.
These SCC members have already hurt themselves and the party, perhaps not grossly, by endorsing a single candidate. They should take some time and think about this before acting in a similar fashion in the future. They should keep in mind that it’s not about them or their preferred candidate, it’s about the party as a whole.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I’d like to acknowledge an example of someone who took the opposite approach. My friend David Chung, who runs HawkeyeGOP.com, was on the SCC when he decided to support Christian Fong for Governor. He resigned from the SCC in order to ensure he did not create a conflict of interest, and because he felt it was important to provide public support for Christian. David’s enthusiasm and the opportunities he had to create visibility for Christian, made this a good decision. His integrity and care for the party make him a valuable asset to Republicans, and I’m glad that after Christian’s campaign ended he was able to be re-elected to the SCC this year.
![Steve Scheffler: It’s Time To Replace Steele]()
by | Dec 20, 2010
Several weeks ago, President Obama made one of the best decisions of his Presidency.
He decided to support South Korea by after North Korea attacked the island of YeonPyeong. And he did it with the strength of our military by moving them into the area and engaging in military exercises with our friends in the South.
I was afraid at the time that he would turn his back on Seoul, but instead he did the right thing for the region and for the United States. Well done, Mister President.
This morning, South Korea followed through on its plans to conduct artillery drills on that same island, plans which had brought promises from the North that there would be further attacks due to this new “provocation”.
And the result of it all was… nothing. The drills proceeded without incident, the North kept quiet (except to say it “did not feel any need to retaliate”, and we can all go on without worrying about yet another messy war to deal with today.
Although the experts don’t seem to know why Pyongyang held back her fury, it seems pretty likely that the North was trying to leverage opportunities for improvements in economic relations, and did not really have the stomach for either an extended conflict or the potential for all out decimation. The South’s partnership with the United States is, in my opinion, no small part of the successful conclusion to today’s events. And President Obama deserves credit for that.
Today’s results should provide continued evidence that a strong US military with a demonstrated willingness to follow through on her commitments to her allies will be a keystone to ensuring general peace around the world. While we are struggling with conflicts that are sometimes hard for us to accept, walking away and disarming our forces will only embolden countries like North Korea to press further than they have a right to.
It may not be perfect, but it works and is necessary.
Please pray for our soldiers and a day when they may never need to fight again.
![Steve Scheffler: It’s Time To Replace Steele]()
by | Nov 30, 2010
The voters in the state of Oklahoma earlier this month approved a measure that prevents state courts from considering international law or Sharia (Islamic) law. The measure was mostly in reaction to the New Jersey case of a women that sought a restraining order against her abusive husband and lost (but later won on appeal) because her husband’s beliefs (supported by Sharia law) gave him the right to force himself on his wife.
The Oklahoma measure (State Question 755) was put on hold yesterday by a Federal judge who thinks the ballot issue may be unconstitutional. It seems to core question to the judge is whether the specific reference to Sharia (and defining it within the question as being tied to the Quran and the Prophet Mohammed) is improperly singling out a religion.
I can’t even begin to pretend that I understand why anyone would think that Sharia law should ever be a consideration in a United States court. I’m not saying that to diminish the position (although I oppose it), I’m simply saying I fail to understand it and I wish I did.
Clearly we have had a history of granting exceptions to those whose religious beliefs run counter to societal demands through law. Most notably is that those who can make a case that using restricted drugs for religious purposes (even during Prohibition, there were exceptions provided for “alter wine”). Religious exemptions to child abuse laws (typically related to medical treatment or corporal punishment) are another example. Some exceptions in tax law have also existed to support religious work.
Contrary to the exceptions mentioned are polygamy, virgin sacrifice, mutilation and other practices that are not accepted in the United States despite their religious support. Most of these practices are just too abhorrent to rationalize.
As should be any form of rape or unprovoked violence.
To think that our system of Justice; that any individual’s rights to life, liberty and property; may be thwarted by claims of religious freedom is just mind-numbing.
The Oklahoma ballot issue may be flawed because it so specifies Sharia. And in the minds of many (or perhaps most), it should be unnecessary to say that only the laws of the United States and the relevant geographic or military jurisdiction(s) of any case should be applied by a court. The problem, as we have discussed before, is that judges have been making their own rules in some cases and the people see the need to solve this problem.
Despite the fact that much of our system of law and the specifics of acceptable behavior derive from a largely Judeo-Christian cultural and Biblical worldview, we do not allow reprehensible behaviors or punishments that go contrary to our law to be treated as acceptable even though they may exist in the Mosaic Law in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. We do not execute adulterers or witches. We do not allow indentured servitude. We don’t allow a newly married service member to take a year off from their military obligation.
And we don’t cut of the hand of a woman that fights dirty. See Deuteronomy 25:11-12.
We wouldn’t want the courts to consider these very Biblical edicts, and the same goes for Sharia. Equally unthinkable is that the laws of another nation may have similar influence on our courts.
And this is what Oklahomans seek to protect themselves from.
We certainly need the courts, and we need courts that will make good sound decisions, sometimes looking outside the simple application of the law to make a fair ruling. But rulings like the one in New Jersey, that just don’t make sense, are making me scratch my head and think, as the folks in Oklahoma apparently do, that the courts need some kind of constraints to ensure they carry out their mission within the context of the will of the people and not the will of outsiders.
So what should we do about it? My thinking right now is that a slightly more generalized version of the Oklahoma initiative (perhaps without mentioning Sharia by name) might be more likely to pass muster.
Hopefully the situation in Oklahoma will provide us with some lessons to help us solve this issue effectively across the nation. Until then, we’re probably in for a bumpy ride. Let’s hope that the courts at least get the people’s message for now.
