![Violence Can’t Solve America’s Problems]()
by | Jan 9, 2011
The shooting in at a Tucson political meeting Saturday was abhorrent.  We are praying for the injured and the families of those who died.
And for the young man who thought this was somehow an answer to our nation’s problems.
Gabrielle Giffords did nothing to deserve this or any violent attack. Â I don’t know a lot about the Arizona congresswoman, but in briefly reviewing her web site, I’m struck by the fact that she has been driving a campaign for fiscal restraint, including reducing Congressional pay. Â At the moment, I see her as one of the good guys. Â But even people like Barney Frank and Charlie Rangel do not deserve to be attacked violently.
It seems that the shooter is possibly a deranged conspiracy theorist. Â Unfortunately, there are times when the lines blur between some of these folks and legitimate political advocates. Â Although I’ve heard that there are some that are already pointing fingers at conservative organizations as if they are promoting this type of violence, I’ve seen little advocacy for violent protest among those I know in the Tea Party, the Republican Party, or other aligned organizations. Â Our tendency is to try to find a problem to solve in the midst of a situation like this, but sometimes there is no problem to solve except to incarcerate the person responsible. Â Finding other scapegoats is not productive.
In a similar vein, I am hoping that this tragedy does not become a new reason for more government intervention in our lives. While this is a gut-wrenching affair, it should not be seen as justification for further attacking the 2nd Amendement. Â Sean McClanahan has some great comments at Des Moines Gun Rights Examiner.
However, for those who advocate that violence is somehow becoming the only answer to solving the problems we see in our government, it simply is not.  It has become easy to try and draw comparisons between our lives today and the lives of those who formed our country.  The comparison is sadly wanting, and cannot be used as an excuse for violent action, nor threatening statements.  The nice thing about our country and form of government is that we can work through our issues intelligently. Unless we suffer from physical subjugation, I cannot conceive of any reason for violence to achieve our agenda.  If we are incapable of making our case before the People, violence cannot be a suitable alternative.
Not now, not ever.
![Violence Can’t Solve America’s Problems]()
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.
