by | Jun 13, 2013
I have heard from three separate sources in recent days that former SCC member Drew Ivers is leaning toward a Senate primary run. Many have speculated that an Iowa libertarian would enter the race at some point—and as the Iowa Chair of Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign Ivers certainly would fit this bill.
Whether this is true or not is unclear at the moment, but what is clear in my mind is the impact Ivers or any other legitimate Libertarian candidate would have on the race.
Besides the obvious—that the other candidate’s ability to pitch to and draw in Libertarians would be greatly diminished—there are many other ways this would shape the contest. Setting these aside for now, specifically from the Libertarian movement’s perspective there are 3 possible outcomes…and even the least desirable one would be a heck of a consolation prize. Here’s a brief look at the three things that could result should an Iowa Libertarian enter the contest:
Winning Outright
Though extremely improbable, in a large field of slightly lesser known candidates and with a solid pre-built network of passionate supporters that actually go vote…anything is conceivably possible. Iowa witnessed first-hand last cycle that Libertarian candidates can do well—this showed locally in Statehouse races and in the fact that Ron Paul finished a very close 3rd in the caucuses.
The hurdle in imagining a Liberty candidate winning outright—and why no one, including me, will ever predict it—is one of them would have to garner 35% of the statewide vote. You hate to say anything is impossible, but envisioning this is bordering on it. I will tell you this though, if someone was to make the argument, a semi-plausible case could be made with the numbers and by evoking the “Christopher Reed path†to victory—that is to say just nudging past your opponents while also rising above the 35% needed to avoid convention.
I’m prefacing this with the fact these situations aren’t analogous to 2014, but the case on the numbers could be made as follows: Two of the last major statewide Republican events in Iowa were the Iowa Caucuses and the U.S Senate primary that took place in 2008 for this same Senate seat. In the 2008 Republican Senate Primary a 3-way race yielded a total of 70,672 votes. Christopher Reed won with 24,964 votes and barley escaped a nominating convention by .32%–getting 35.32%. The 2012 Caucus set a record with 121,501 Republicans voting—Ron Paul got 26,036 of them. This means that Ron Paul received more votes in Iowa last year than the Republican Senate nominee in 2008 won by. So hypothetically if turnout is low and hovers in this 70-75,000 range and everyone who voted for Ron Paul votes for the Liberty candidate—they would win.
Of course turnout is expected to be much higher since the seat is now an open seat—gee where have we heard that before?—but even still, as an exercise let’s say the eventual turnout splits the difference between the 2012 Caucuses and 2008 primary and is 90,000. 35% of 90,000 is 31,500 votes to win, and again, if all the Ron Paul 2012 voters vote for one candidate in 2014, they would already have 26,036 of them…only 5,464 votes away from a small lead and a shade over 35%–meanwhile the others candidates split the vote (see 2008 Iowa Senate Primary).
Though most will reject this out of hand, you have to at least admit it’s interesting and mathematically a case can be made for it.
Nominating Convention
The far more probable path to victory would be via a convention—let’s not forget that Steve King won his initial primary via this route. If the field expands to 5 or 6 and both the Republican establishment and the “Conservative outsider†vote are split between multiple candidates, the chances of anyone reaching the 35% threshold are significantly reduced. Geography plays in here as well as this scenario becomes even more possible if the candidates hail from different population centers in separate parts of the state. If the race is trending this direction I’d bet that the non-Libertarian candidates would meet and attempt to consolidate the field by trying to convince one another to drop out and throw their support to whoever is further ahead in the polls, but maybe not. If this fails to happen and several candidates stay in splitting the vote, a convention is a real possibility—in which case the Libertarian candidate would have to think they have a shot.
The Consolation PrizeÂ
Even if a Libertarian candidate fails to make an impact directly in the polls or in the vote count their presence in the race would accomplish two significant things—they could work to move the field slightly to the libertarian right as the year goes on and, more importantly, they would have a large platform to spread their message while drawing more people into the network and keeping them active. The growth of their network not only means a larger impact in future Iowa legislative races— but they also know it will be needed for Rand Paul’s inevitable 2016 presidential run.
Prediction Time
Of these three, winning outright is frankly pretty hard to fathom and a convention is unlikely but technically possible—there’s no question however that this last reason creates an opportunity that would be foolish to turn down. This open Senate primary provides Iowa Libertarians something that all political movements need—publicity and relevance.
Given that expectations wouldn’t be extremely high and thus underperforming them is unlikely—strategically there is simply no downside to competing and there is plenty to be gained even in defeat. For this reason I would be shocked if we don’t see Ivers or another Liberty candidate in the fray before it’s all said and done.
Though maybe not sending earth-shattering shockwaves through the race…this would certainly have an impact on the other candidate’s strategy and math. I suspect in this climate of intense government distrust, and with the Republican base significantly fractured—the Libertarian movement in Iowa will hear opportunity knocking.
by | Mar 18, 2013
The battle between traditional Republicans and Libertarians that began in Iowa on Caucus night in 2012 has risen to a destructive level and needs to be addressed. If it weren’t so publicly obvious I would call this an opinion—but the reality is it’s a fact.  What has transpired to this point is a lot of bomb throwing from each side and very little, if any, attempts to search for the potential common ground that would result in, at the least, a truce—and perhaps even a mutually beneficial alliance.
Some Background
The feud started when, after having a relatively modest presence in 2008, Ron Paul inspired Libertarians organized and made a concerted effort to acquire as many county central committee seats as possible on caucus night. Perhaps surprising even themselves, they encountered very little resistance and were hugely successful in many precincts.
Since that night in June the hostility level has ratcheted up several notches, and I believe both sides share some responsibility in what has become a very non-productive situation. Initially I understood the reaction and the lashing out from Republicans—they were taken by surprise, infiltrated, lost a good deal of influence they had taken for granted, and their tone at first was a reasonable natural response.
On the other side, Libertarians went on to essentially take over RPI and gain a presence at the county leadership level. In the aftermath I feel there was a lack of reaching out to traditional Republicans that could have lessened the wounds, resulted in more unity, and ultimately led to more victories in November. The bottom line is they came up short on election night, and if they thought prior they didn’t need inner-Party cooperation to win House and Senate races they were clearly proven wrong.
What makes this battle so maddening is that each side could have benefited greatly by working together. This was proven by the returns from the Iowa Senate races where only a few hundred more votes would have led to Republicans winning a majority—and thus controlling the Governor’s Office and both Legislative Branches in Iowa. Had this come to pass, both factions would today be much closer to implementing their principles into legislation. At a minimum traffic cameras would be banned, taxes would be lower, and the proposals being debated on education reform would look much different.
Each Side Shares Some Blame
For what it’s worth here is how I see each side’s culpability in this conflict:
Where Traditional Republicans are to blame
• Not enough interest at a grassroots level on caucus night to even fill central committee seats.
• Rhetoric has been too harsh and focused on a small number of political operatives—by extension this has served to alienate libertarian leaning voters who may be persuaded to support the Republican candidate in their district.
• Lack of success in building the Party base and, so far as I know, doing very little youth outreach.
• Especially at the Federal level, the chance was blown to control government expansion and spending throughout the 2000’s.
• Not realizing that Conservative and Tea Party Republicans are now closer on the spectrum to Libertarians than they are to traditional Republicans.
Where Libertarians are to blame
• Not enough reaching out by new leadership after taking over RPI.
• Rhetoric has been too harsh—sending mass e-mails impugning the personal integrity of media members is not the way to conduct yourself.
• Too many rank and file Libertarians in the movement don’t care about winning elections and are uninterested in working to shape the Republican Party—if a Libertarian is not on the ballot they disappear. The all or nothing approach is irrational, and in fact is counter-productive if you hold strong convictions.
• Lack of realistic policy goals—the Federal budget isn’t going to be balanced in a year, nor will we go from marijuana being illegal to all drugs being decriminalized in a 2 year timespan.
• Complete lack of pragmatism from many rank and file in the Libertarian movement. To me the litmus test for this are Libertarians who could not bring themselves to vote for Mitt Romney, even though he was running against a president that was the proven antithesis of everything they claim to stand for. You can say what you want about Romney, and I get the criticisms, but the guy ran on the Paul Ryan budget for heaven sake—no more aggressive approach will ever be championed by a presidential candidate (prior to a total economic collapse that is).
Whether you agree with my specific assessments of blame or not doesn’t really matter. What matters is that both sides start attempting to bridge this divide well before the 2014 elections.
Moving Forward
Personally I don’t have a dog in this increasingly silly fight. What I want is for Conservative principals to be implemented and this can only happen if Democrats are defeated in elections. When it comes to primaries I subscribe to the William F. Buckley philosophy of supporting the most Conservative candidate who can win.
If Conservatives, traditional Republicans, and Libertarians all followed this mantra in both primaries and general elections all would benefit and success would be had. If segments of each faction continue being concerned about what kind of Republican is on a general election ballot (unless there is a specific and compelling reason to withhold support), then Democrats will win. As long as Democrats win society will continue to get more progressive and taxes and spending will rise—it’s just that simple.
![Are You Ready For The 2012 Caucus?]()
by | Dec 29, 2011
Caucus Locator Service
First of all, if you live in Iowa and don’t know for sure where your caucus site is located, you’ll want to click this link to find it.  If you still can’t figure it out (don’t be ashamed… it can be challenging) we want to help.  Please email us at [email protected].  Please include your name, email address and home address (I promise we will not keep this information for any reason).  We will reply as quickly as possible with your caucus location.
Candidates for President
If you haven’t yet taken a look at the candidates, there any number of resources available to do so.  I think it is a good idea, more than anything, to look at the candidates’ web sites and see what they have to say for themselves there.  Here are the links to those sites:
Michele Bachmann
Herman Cain (included because he is still listed as a candidate officially)
Newt Gingrich
Jon Huntsman
Ron Paul
Rick Perry
Buddy Roemer
Mitt Romney
Rick Santorum
Other Caucus Information
The Iowa Caucus is often looked upon, along with the New Hampshire Primary, as a bell-weather for the entire Presidential Nominating Process. Â Some very important points:
- The Iowa Caucus occurs every two years.
- The purpose of the Iowa Caucus is to discuss and decide on components of the party platform, elect convention delegates to the County Convention, elect representatives to the County Central Committees, and during the year of a Presidential Election to poll party members on their preferences for the party’s candidate for President.
- This is a party activity and only members of the party that are residents of the precinct may participate at a precinct caucus, although others may be granted opportunity to speak by the Chair.
- Any resident of the caucus precinct can register to become a party member at the caucus event.
- The caucus meeting is governed by Robert’s Rules of Order.
The following are some additional details provided by the Iowa GOP:
Below is a detailed overview of what will happen at 1,774 precincts in the state of Iowa on caucus night, January 3, 2012.
- All caucus participants arrive at their precincts where they will sign in at the door upon arrival. Caucuses will begin at 7:00PM CT.
- The caucus meetings begin with the pledge of allegiance. A caucus chair and secretary will be elected by the body to run the meeting and take notes.
- After the chair and secretary are elected, candidate representatives from each campaign are given time to speak on behalf of their candidate.
- Once the speakers have finished, sheets of paper are be passed out to every registered Iowa Republican from the precinct. Voters then write down their candidate preference.
- All votes are then collected.
- Every vote is counted. The caucus chair and secretary will count the votes in front of the caucus and a representative from each campaign is allowed to observe the counting of the votes. The results are recorded on an official form provided by the Republican Party of Iowa and are announced to the caucus.
- A caucus reporter is chosen to report the results to the Republican Party of Iowa, accompanied by campaign representatives to verify the results reported to Iowa GOP officials.
- RPI officials do not count results; they aggregate them from around the state and report them to the media. To ensure consistency in reporting, campaign representatives have the opportunity to be present with RPI officials as votes are reported to the public.
- We will be reporting the votes for Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Buddy Roemer, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, “No Preference,†and “Other.â€
- “No Preference†votes include those who vote “present,†“no preference, “uncommitted,†or “none of the above.â€
- Within fourteen days of the caucus, certified results will be released for a complete breakdown of all caucus votes that were cast by precinct.
- After the Presidential preference poll is completed the caucus will elect precinct committee representatives; delegates, alternates, and junior delegates to the county convention; and discuss and submit platform resolutions for consideration at the county convention.
For any other questions or inquiries please contact Nicole Sizemore at [email protected] or at 515-868-2507.
![Are You Ready For The 2012 Caucus?]()
by Steven Waechter | Dec 21, 2011
“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom…..And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.â€
– Barry Goldwater, Conscience of a Conservative
Perhaps more than any other politician of the twentieth century, Barry Goldwater captured the essence of the American spirit – ferocious independence. This spirit depends upon the Constitution for its life and energy. Without our Constitution, our nation is nothing more than another geographic location; nothing but more real estate.
The Goldwater wing of the Republican Party has been asleep for decades, as the economists espousing Keynesian and Chicago School theories on the benefits of inflation became trendy and the American political aristocracy banished the Constitution to the wilderness, to be replaced with a holy mission to spread democracy with armed drones and replace civil liberties with state-managed dependency – what Barack Obama once referred to as “positive rights.â€
Our nation is bankrupt; the unemployment rate is falling, not because people are finding work but because people are giving up and staying at home. While we still import millions of barrels of oil every day, we now export refined gasoline. As the Federal Reserve printed money to inflate the tech bubble, the housing bubble, five military conflicts, the bailout, the wealth conflagration referred to as the Stimulus, and the Treasury bonds sold to raise the money to pay the interest on the bonds sold to pay the interest on the bonds that were sold by Lyndon Johnson. The M2 supply (the number of dollars floating around out there) has more than doubled in the last ten years; as a result each individual dollar is now worth less. By doing nothing more than holding Canadian currency, the Canadian people now have the purchasing power to essentially outbid us for our own gasoline. This is what inflation looks like.
Prior to 1964 no American politician had ever referenced inflation in a political advertisement, and then Barry Goldwater did it. As Lyndon Johnson proposed to pay for a war in Vietnam and the Great Society programs of increased social spending, Barry Goldwater condemned the entire charade as a swindle, a hoax, and a fraudulent promise of perfect prosperity – if we print enough money, we will all be rich.
As the 1960’s gave way to the 1970’s, the bills began to fall due, and the government realized that its promises exceeded it’s abilities. With little more than a speech, Richard Nixon took us off of the gold standard. As it turned out, William McChesney Martin (then the Federal Reserve Chairman) had printed so much money to pay for Johnson’s war on poverty that the gold reserves were no longer adequate to back it up. Bye-bye gold standard.
Hello fiat currency. Since 2001, the Fed has expanded our money supply by upwards of $6 trillion dollars. They distributed it to the government – to pay for social programs that are necessary, not perhaps for our national strength, but for the reelection of our politicians, as well as to banks so that they could write mortgages to people who couldn’t pay them back. Nobody cared if the mortgages went bad; the banks had sold them to Fannie Mae, created by the government in 1939 specifically to buy mortgages from banks. Then, in 2008, the Federal Reserve printed the money needed to buy to bonds the Treasury needed to sell in order to fund the bailout of Fannie Mae and the banks.
In his pamphlet “Conscience of a Conservative,†Goldwater blasted what he called delusional dreams of the “Jacobins and leftists.†We in the conservative movement are not supposed to be allowed the luxury of idle utopian dreams, be they making the world safe for democracy, or making our domestic economy so wealthy (through housing and stimulus) that we simply wouldn’t need to save money, manufacture things, or export anything other that Treasury bonds. These goals are fantasies; they have led us to quagmires of humiliation, poverty, and degradation.
Will anyone dare to ask Barack Obama why, when the United States was consistently running trade deficits in excess of $40 billion per month, he believed our problem was a lack of demand? Will anyone ask why he simply assumed that if we paid people to buy new (foreign-made) cars, then our economy would improve? A trade deficit, by simple, logical definition, is the consumption of goods in excess of your ability to produce. Stimulus accomplished nothing more than the further impoverishment of the nation. Who will challenge Barack Obama on this issue?
Enter our Republican candidates, most of whom seem to think that we desperately need to print money to pay for a war with Iran. Is this really the best we can do? A choice between inflationary games to pay for socialism, and inflationary games to pay for a war that we cannot otherwise afford and could easily be prevented? Only one candidate warned of the inflationary bubble in housing as early as 2001. Only one candidate understands the fundamental problem of our economy – too much debt; too little production. Too much urgent government initiative; too little freedom.
“Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.†Barry Goldwater was roundly condemned as an extremist for these sentiments. We live in an age of bankruptcy, fear, and disappointment. Candidates of firm conviction, shrewd talents, or competent judgment are frequently passed over in favor of the candidates with the darkest nightmares, the most delusional promises, or the most artificial of Cheshire Cat grins, with their insistence that spending borrowed money will make us rich and powerful, and if you disagree then you are clearly a cynical malcontent, playing politics at a time when action is required; that is American politics in the 21st Century.
The Goldwater wing of the Republican Party – fanatical adherents to the Constitution, ferocious nationalists, resolute defenders of liberty and individual rights- has been asleep for decades. Without our Constitution, the United States of America is nothing more than real estate. The Goldwater wing of the Republican Party is awake now; and they demand to be taken into account. So far, only one candidate has.
Photo Courtesy of Dave Davidson, his fabulous work can be viewed at http://prezography.blogspot.com/
![Are You Ready For The 2012 Caucus?]()
by John Bloom | Aug 15, 2011
Courtesy of State Central Committee member Gopal Krishna, my wife and I had great 8th row seats for the Iowa GOP/Fox News Presidential Debate.
The debate included: Speaker Gingrich; Governors: Huntsman, Pawlenty and Romney; Senator Santorum, Representatives Bachmann and Paul; and businessman Herman Cain.
I’m writing this post on Sunday morning, August 14th. I intended to write it before the Straw Poll, but I didn’t get it done. My observations will include some thoughts about the Straw Poll, although I was not able to attend it in person. I don’t believe in titling people as “winners†or “losers†so I will define my analysis in terms of my personal expectations.
Exceeded Expectations:Â
Governor Romney – Mitt Romney spoke powerfully and articulately on every opportunity. I was particularly impressed with his handling of the “gotcha†question about the Bain Capital investments in businesses that later failed and lost jobs. His answers on Romneycare are consistent with what can be expected of a Republican governor in a liberal state. I believe the 10th Amendment has meaning, so I respect his answer.  He did not compete in the Straw Poll.
Senator Santorum – Rick Santorum sprinted from anonymity to relevance with his precise, powerful responses on his legislative achievements related to welfare reform and middle east foreign policy. For me, his clash with Ron Paul made me consider again the Congressman’s views on foreign policy. His debate performance helped him to 4th place in the Straw Poll.
Met Expectations:
Speaker Gingrich – Newt Gingrich had a great start when he criticized Chris Wallace for asking “gotcha†questions. The crowd was 100% with him. Unfortunately, he finished weakly with an oddly placed plea for citizens to contact their representatives now because we can’t wait until 2012’s election for leadership.
Representative Bachmann – Michele Bachmann had an overall good night. I thought she had the most difficult of the “gotcha†questions when she was asked if she would be submissive to her husband as President. She showed great control over her emotions. She came across as thoughtful and confident in her responses. I thought she relied too much on lines from her scripted stump speech. She is the Iowa leader coming into the debate and I thought she held her own, as confirmed by her 1st place showing in the Straw Poll.
Failed to Meet Expectations:
Representative Paul – Ron Paul should be in my wheelhouse. I have strong Libertarian leanings in my political ideology. I thought he made a mistake engaging in the cat fight with Senator Santorum. He came across as a little shrill in his efforts to defend Iran and criticize past U.S. foreign policy.  I imagine President Obama was nodding in agreement. Most of all, I don’t understand why he does not ask his ardent supporters to show respect and refrain from aggravating the many people who attended the debate to hear candidates, not activists. Of course, he nearly won the Staw Poll, but I’m skeptical that his national polling numbers will improve based on the debate.
Herman Cain – Herman Cain should also be in my wheelhouse. I believe strongly in capitalism as the engine of prosperity for America and the world. Herman’s strength is his ability to provide short understandable answers to complex questions. He has not moved quickly enough from process to solutions. I thought he performed at about the same level as the South Carolina debate, but that is not good enough at this point.
Governor Pawlenty – Tim Pawlenty looked petty in the way he engaged Representative Bachmann. I realize that some of this was driven by the questions, but he would have been well served to remember Reagan’s 11th Commandment.  Given the time and effort he has put into his Iowa effort, his % of the vote in the Straw Poll confirms that he did not meet expectations in this debate. He had the organization, but he did not have the committed voters like Bachmann and Paul.  I understand now why McCain did not pick him as his VP in 2008.
Editorial Note: My comments were finished before Governor Pawlenty dropped out.
Governor Huntsman – Jon Huntsman is a Republican. I don’t understand why Dick Morris keeps saying he should run in the Democrat Party.  I appreciate his willingness to stick with positions that he knows are unpopular with a meaningful segment of the Republican base. That takes character and integrity. I think he has those qualities. I thought his demeanor lacked sparkle and emotion. His responses were not crisp. He has not spent much time in Iowa so the Staw Poll doesn’t mean much for his candidacy.
In closing, I would like to emphasize that I would be willing to work hard and support any of these candidates, Rick Perry or Sarah Palin should they win the Republican nomination for President. Each of them would be a far better President than Barack Obama, who has turned out to be the most partisan, divisive President of my lifetime.
