by | Jun 6, 2013
Though the U.S. Senate race in Iowa is only in the pre-natal stage the Des Moines Register hasn’t wasted any time in displaying the partisan favoritism it has become infamous for—an impressive feat given the race is only a few months old and has only a combined three candidates declared.
The Evidence
In the last month they have run two stories solely based on Democratic talking points, a practice they have failed to reciprocate for the other side, and flat-out offered no coverage of a significant Republican event.
The first instance occurred almost a month ago when, days after candidate Matt Whitaker announced on The Simon Conway Show, the Register’s Jennifer Jacobs published verbatim a full press-release from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee attacking Whitaker for comments he made on the program (http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2013/05/08/democrats-criticize-whitaker-for-pledging-to-vote-with-extremist-senators/article). In theory this practice is fine by me—provided of course that as a “reputable†statewide news organization they follow suit when the releases come from the other side of the aisle…I haven’t seen this yet.
What makes this so damaging is that there is no shortage of releases from the DSCC’s counterpart in Washington—the National Republican Senatorial Committee—but they seem unable to merit the same ink. I routinely get these releases from the NRSC and if they are well sourced and fact based I occasionally run them. An example would be the following from yesterday:
June 5, 2013
Lawyer Speak: Braley Misleads Iowa Students…Says Student Loan Rates Must be Kept from Doubling, But Votes Against Legislation to Extend Lower Rates for Iowa Students
Bruce Braley isn’t fooling anyone. The slick former head of the trial lawyers association and liberal loyalist to Nancy Pelosi – in true trial lawyer fashion – is trying to fool Iowa voters yet again, this time about the rising cost of student loans.
Less than two weeks ago, Bruce Braley voted AGAINST a bill on the House floor that would have extended a lower rate for Iowa students’ loans. Bruce Braley might be able to fool a jury, but he can’t fool Iowans.
SHOT: @TeamBraley – Help @BruceBraley’s effort to keep college affordable by adding your name here…. #DontDoubleMyRate #IAProblemSolver
CHASER: Bruce Braley Voted Against A Bill To Extend A Lower Rate For Student Loans. “Passage of the bill that would tie student loan interest rates to the 10-year Treasury note rate. Interest rates on all federal student loans (except Perkins loans) issued on or after July 1, 2013 would be set each year at the 10-year Treasury note plus 2.5 percent. Rates for graduate and parent PLUS loans would be set at the 10-year note plus 4.5 percent. Overall interest rates would be capped at 8.5 percent and 10.5 percent, respectively.†(H.R. 1911, CQ Vote #183: Passed 221-198: R 217-8; D 4-190, 5/23/13, Braley Voted Nay)
If Bruce Braley was actually worried about student loan rates, why did he oppose a bill to prevent the rates from doubling for Iowa students in less than a month? Why is he hiding from his vote?
“Preventing student loan rates from crushing Iowa students who are already struggling should be an issue of bipartisan agreement in Washington, but Bruce Braley would rather politicize the issue than actually help the struggling middle class. Braley’s misleading trial lawyer speak is just the latest example of his slick attempt to fool the jury – Iowa voters. Iowans are too smart for that.”said NRSC Press Secretary Brook Hougesen.
The second example of this behavior—also from the aforementioned Jennifer Jacobs—came just yesterday via a story on a “snarky†website just launched by the Iowa Democratic Party. The website makes a pretty juvenile attempt at poking fun of newly declared Republican candidate David Young. You can check it out here if you wish (http://welcometoia.com/), but I’m not going to give it any more play. The point here is the story published by the Register gave this Democratic effort everything it wanted—publicity and exposure.
What’s Not News?
A further slap in the face to Republican candidate David Young was the paper not even covering his official campaign announcement last Saturday at a restaurant in Van Meter—this is inconceivable. So to recap here—the Register can’t find the time or personnel to cover the announcement of a serious Republican candidate for the United States Senate…but they have the time and space to promote a Democrat website created to mock him. It’s just ridiculous.
This is merely a continuation of blatant bias—my all-time favorite was the Republican presidential endorsement debacle from 2008, which if you haven’t seen you need to click the link. The Register’s economic struggles of late have been well documented. Though I concede much of this is due to the struggle of integrating a web-based model, it’s hard not to assume a portion of the problem is their distinct and continuing partisan slant.
What kind of business model rejects and insults the sensibilities of what amounts to nearly half of their potential customer base? Answer: A struggling one that will continue to be further marginalized unless they change course and offer some balance.
by | Oct 31, 2012
While not big news that Iowa Republicans don’t wait with bated breath for the Des Moines Register to anoint a Republican candidate the cream of the presidential crop, in recent years their recommendations have barely risen above laughable fodder. Since we could all use some comic relief from this seemingly endless campaign season, let’s take a look back at the Register’s recent forays into Presidential advocacy. What follows are two main reasons, among many others, why they should stick to merely reporting on the political pulse of Iowa—instead of trying to alter it.
Reason #1 – A Sketchy, Schizophrenic History
While nearly all the data on editorial board endorsements show that they have a minuscule impact, if any at all, well over 70% of newspapers insist on letting readers in on their intense, well researched, and agenda free vetting. Though a nightmare for the hard journalism side of the paper, the hubris of editors and the short term buzz created by endorsements proves, cycle after cycle, too intoxicating to deny. Clearly I have no problem with public expressions of political opinion. If a newspaper wants to engage in it in spite of the fact it is counter-intuitive to their charter, then they have every right. However, one does have to wonder if it’s too much to expect for them to undertake the process with a minimal amount of intellectual honesty. Consider the following examples, all from the Des Moines Register’s editorial board since the year 2000.
• When contrasted against a Democrat, they have not deemed any Republican candidate fit for the White House in 40 years, including in the last three cycles—opting for Al Gore in 2000, John Kerry in 2004, and Barack Obama in 2008.
• Of the Republican primary field in 2000 they chose, believe it or not, George W. Bush. Beyond the massive irony, what’s interesting is that they chose Bush over fellow competitor John McCain, describing McCain as “having a tendency toward petulance when the cameras were off, and a lone-wolf style of action that has left him without the support of colleagues who should be his biggest admirersâ€. Never mind that eight years later he was chosen by the editorial board as the best choice amongst Republicans in 2008—though of course he ultimately fell short of recommending.
• In 2004 The Register had sized up John Edwards and concluded that he would make the finest president amongst the group, giving him the nod over all other Democrats running. Somehow over the next four years, he had regressed so far in his ability to lead the Country that when he came back in 2008 they couldn’t recommend him. Not only did they bump him from their top spot they slid him behind both Hillary Clinton and Obama, saying they “too seldom saw the ‘positive, optimistic’ campaign we found so appealing in 2004. His harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change.†Something tells me the editorial board doesn’t have quite the same problem with the “harsh anti-corporate rhetoric†being screamed by the Occupy Wall Street crowd today.
• Also in 2004, in what would prove to be perfect foreshadowing for their future love affair with Barack Obama, the paper, as mentioned above, endorsed John Edwards over the rest of the field. In doing so they wrote that after initially discounting Edwards because of his lack of experience, they changed their minds after hearing him eloquently speak about the needs of ordinary Americans—you can’t make this stuff up! Clearly their weakness/hunger for the fool proof combination of inspired speech giving and inexperience had not been quenched by the time 2008 rolled around. This leads us to the biggest piece of evidence that all the Register is accomplishing is insulting our intelligence…
Reason #2-Â The 2008 Debacle
While the preceding examples were shady, The Register’s editorial board performance in 2008 showed beyond a reasonable doubt not only where their allegiance lay, but that the whole point of their endorsements are to further an agenda. They ended up of course endorsing Barack Obama in the general election, but it’s the way they got there that is so telling.
First, they chose Hillary over Obama on the Democrat side, while endorsing McCain over the rest of the field on the Republican side. I don’t doubt that the selection of McCain was largely due to him being the most moderate Republican in the field (though strangely he was a disturbing ‘petulant, lone-wolf actor’ eight years earlier), but he also would have been a “safe†choice at the time because he was polling in single digits and in 5th place. Picking a Republican that would not go on to win the nomination, like McCain appeared to be at the time, would have kept them out of the undesirable situation they eventually found themselves in—having to endorse their second Democratic pick over their first Republican choice (Obama over McCain).
Embarrassed and knowing they had to explain it away somehow, they managed to make themselves look even worse. They acknowledged the situation and explained their reasoning by claiming they had endorsed McCain because they felt he was a man of honor—but as the campaign wore on he became opportunistic and less dignified. What they cited as the biggest reason of why McCain was out for them was his selection of Sarah Palin. They did this, I kid you not, on the grounds of her inexperience! So to recap…The inexperience of a VP candidate turned them off enough that they instead chose to support, for the actual presidency, a man who had served less than four years in the Senate.
A great way to sum up the whole disingenuous circus is that while selecting McCain in the primary they said, “none can offer the tested leadership, in matters foreign and domestic, of Sen. John McCain of Arizona. McCain is most ready to lead America in a complex and dangerous world and to rebuild trust at home and abroad by inspiring confidence in his leadership.†Contrast that with this insight as to why Hilary Clinton was a wiser choice than Obama, “When Obama speaks before a crowd he can be more inspirational than Clinton. Yet, with his relative inexperience, it’s hard to feel as confident he could accomplish the daunting agenda that lies ahead.â€â€¦You have to give them credit there–that was some impressive foresight.
Conclusion
Former Des Moines Register opinion editor Richard Doak, who authored the 2004 Edwards endorsement, summed it up best in a later interview. Sharing his thoughts on the process he said, “The primary purpose of editorials are to stimulate discussion in the community… and it’s a vehicle through which the newspaper expresses its values.â€
Trust me Richard, Iowa Republicans are plenty aware of the Des Moines Register’s “valuesâ€. Perhaps if they used any manner of consistency in the endorsement process, beyond of course the consistency of their Liberalism, maybe more Iowans would “value†the paper enough to start buying it again.
by | Oct 28, 2012
For those who haven’t paid attention to The Des Moines Register’s recent editorial board history, there is no question their endorsement of Mitt Romney is a big story. This history includes a 40 year gap in backing a Republican for President, spanning all the cycles between Richard Nixon’s second run and Mitt Romney’s second bid for the oval office.
Over the next week much of what you hear from both the left and the right will be various forms of skepticism, questioned motives, and outright dismals—including claims this was payback for Obama disrespecting them last week. Our readers clearly know we generally don’t have much love for The Register, and specifically we exposed the ridiculous intellectual dishonesty of their 2008 presidential endorsements.
Not only will this reversal-of-course make national headlines in the coming days, it will alienate their shrunken consumer base of hard-line Democrats. This prompts the questions: Is it possible they have turned over a new leaf, or was this retribution and/or just a disingenuous ploy for attention? Surprisingly, my sense is it’s likely the former and not the latter.
What To Make Of This?
Having noted their highly partisan past, I believe all the suspicion and skepticism surrounding this endorsement is largely unfair. The Register deserves the benefit of the doubt for two reasons.
First, Republicans have yearned for a state paper that played things close to down the middle for years. To finally see evidence this institution may be heading this direction and react by simply dismissing it out of hand is biased in and of itself.
Many will say this one action cannot undo years of daily left-slanted journalism, and they are correct, but realize as well that this endorsement is no small thing. If Romney was up 7-10 points here in Iowa you could make the case they simply were backing a sure winner—the reality is that this is a very tight race and The Register’s abandoning of Obama could actually have a small impact, especially on those somehow still wavering voters.
The other reason Republicans shouldn’t cheapen this nod to Romney lay in the actual substance of the endorsement itself.
Before reading it I was expecting heavy equivocation ( ‘though we like Romney on X, we fear he doesn’t understand and will be damaging to Y and Z’ )—this however was largely not the case.
Though sure to say America needs to be even more hospitable to illegal aliens and that losing “progress†on gay and transgendered issues is unacceptable—the remaining balance of the endorsement did not spare Obama on his poor record and laid out a strong case for why Romney would succeed in fixing turning around the economy,
My View
The text reveals this was an “endorsement-endorsement†and not just lip service. Nobody has been harder on The Des Moines Register in recent years than The Conservative Reader, but judgment must be cast on words and deeds not prior reputation. In this case The Des Moines Register was willing to put the two candidates on a scale and report how they saw the resulting measurement.
Going forward, if and when The Register is willing to give Republicans a fair shake—than Republicans should be willing to return the favor.
![Why the Des Moines Register Shouldn’t Bother Endorsing A Republican This Year]()
by | Dec 5, 2011
While not big news that Iowa Republicans don’t wait with bated breath for the Des Moines Register to anoint a Republican candidate the cream of the presidential crop, in recent years their recommendations have barely risen above laughable fodder. Since we could all use some comic relief from this seemingly endless campaign season, let’s take a look back at the Register’s recent forays into Presidential advocacy. What follows are two main reasons, among many others, why they should stick to merely reporting on the political pulse of Iowa—instead of trying to alter it.
Reason #1 – A Sketchy, Schizophrenic History
While nearly all the data on editorial board endorsements show that they have a miniscule impact, if any at all, well over 70% of newspapers insist on letting readers in on their intense, well researched, and agenda free vetting. Though a nightmare for the hard journalism side of the paper, the hubris of editors and the short term buzz created by endorsements proves, cycle after cycle, too intoxicating to deny. Clearly I have no problem with public expressions of political opinion. If a newspaper wants to engage in it in spite of the fact it is counter-intuitive to their charter, then they have every right. However, one does have to wonder if it’s too much to expect for them to undertake the process with a minimal amount of intellectual honesty. Consider the following examples, all from the Des Moines Register’s editorial board since the year 2000.
• When contrasted against a Democrat, they have not deemed any Republican candidate fit for the White House in the last three cycles—opting for Al Gore in 2000, John Kerry in 2004, and Barack Obama in 2008.
• Of the Republican primary field in 2000 they chose, believe it or not, George W. Bush. Beyond the massive irony, what’s interesting is that they chose Bush over fellow competitor John McCain, describing McCain as “having a tendency toward petulance when the cameras were off, and a lone-wolf style of action that has left him without the support of colleagues who should be his biggest admirersâ€. Never mind that eight years later he was chosen by the editorial board as the best choice amongst Republicans in 2008—though of course he ultimately fell short of recommending.
• In 2004 The Register had sized up John Edwards and concluded that he would make the finest president amongst the group, giving him the nod over all other Democrats running. Somehow over the next four years, he had regressed so far in his ability to lead the Country that when he came back in 2008 they couldn’t recommend him. Not only did they bump him from their top spot they slid him behind both Hillary Clinton and Obama, saying they “too seldom saw the ‘positive, optimistic’ campaign we found so appealing in 2004. His harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change.†Something tells me the editorial board doesn’t have quite the same problem with the “harsh anti-corporate rhetoric†being screamed by the Occupy Wall Street crowd today.
• Also in 2004, in what would prove to be perfect foreshadowing for their future love affair with Barack Obama, the paper, as mentioned above, endorsed John Edwards over the rest of the field. In doing so they wrote that after initially discounting Edwards because of his lack of experience, they changed their minds after hearing him eloquently speak about the needs of ordinary Americans—you can’t make this stuff up! Clearly their weakness/hunger for the fool proof combination of inspired speech giving and inexperience had not been quenched by the time 2008 rolled around. This leads us to the biggest piece of evidence that all the Register is accomplishing is insulting our intelligence…
Reason #2- Â The 2008 Debacle
While the preceding examples were shady, The Register’s editorial board performance in 2008 showed beyond a reasonable doubt not only where their allegiance lay, but that the whole point of their endorsements are to further an agenda. They ended up of course endorsing Barack Obama in the general election, but it’s the way they got there that is so telling.
First, they chose Hillary over Obama on the Democrat side, while endorsing McCain over the rest of the field on the Republican side. I don’t doubt that the selection of McCain was largely due to him being the most moderate Republican in the field (though strangely he was a disturbing ‘petulant, lone-wolf actor’ eight years earlier), but he also would have been a “safe†choice at the time because he was polling in single digits and in 5th place. Picking a Republican that would not go on to win the nomination, like McCain appeared to be at the time, would have kept them out of the undesirable situation they eventually found themselves in—having to endorse their second Democratic pick over their first Republican choice (Obama over McCain).
Embarrassed and knowing they had to explain it away somehow, they managed to make themselves look even worse. They acknowledged the situation and explained their reasoning by claiming they had endorsed McCain because they felt he was a man of honor—but as the campaign wore on he became opportunistic and less dignified. What they cited as the biggest reason of why McCain was out for them was his selection of Sarah Palin. They did this, I kid you not, on the grounds of her inexperience! So to recap…The inexperience of a VP candidate turned them off enough that they instead chose to support, for the actual presidency, a man who had served less than four years in the Senate.
A great way to sum up the whole disingenuous circus is that while selecting McCain in the primary they said, “none can offer the tested leadership, in matters foreign and domestic, of Sen. John McCain of Arizona. McCain is most ready to lead America in a complex and dangerous world and to rebuild trust at home and abroad by inspiring confidence in his leadership.†Contrast that with this insight as to why Hilary Clinton was a wiser choice than Obama, “When Obama speaks before a crowd he can be more inspirational than Clinton. Yet, with his relative inexperience, it’s hard to feel as confident he could accomplish the daunting agenda that lies ahead. You have to give them credit there–that was some impressive foresight.
Conclusion
Former Des Moines Register opinion editor Richard Doak, who authored the 2004 Edwards endorsement, summed it up best in a later interview. Sharing his thoughts on the process he said, “The primary purpose of editorials are to stimulate discussion in the community… and it’s a vehicle through which the newspaper expresses its values.â€
Trust me Richard, Iowa Republicans are plenty aware of the Des Moines Register’s “valuesâ€. Perhaps if they used any manner of consistency in the endorsement process, beyond of course the consistency of their Liberalism, maybe more Iowans would “value†the paper enough to start buying it again.
![Why the Des Moines Register Shouldn’t Bother Endorsing A Republican This Year]()
by | Sep 1, 2009
The following piece addresses specific thoughts about the direction of the Republican Party. While the writer is actively serving as Communications Director for the Polk County Republican Party of Iowa, the opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of Polk County Republicans, the Republican Party of Iowa, or the Republican National Committee.
If you’ve followed The Conservative Reader earlier in 2009, you would note that we discussed a need to rethink the Conservative/Republican agenda. We have not yet dug into that process deeply, although many have been voicing their opinions about what needs doing.
There has been a substantive effort on the part of some Christian Conservative Republicans to promote an agenda that honors God with a level of apparent intolerance to those who do not agree with them. “No Compromise” is their war chant. While their positions certainly fall within the same realm as my own, their approach, ability to listen, and ability to acknowledge that they will not achieve the political utopia they seek (especially not on their own power), are all sadly lacking in the true message of the very God they are trying to serve. Interestingly, some of these folks have even stated some of the clear Christian principles that come in opposition to their behavior: Love, Mercy, and the need to change hearts through the power of God’s Grace and not through human Law. Instead, one hears little more than condemnation, personal attacks, and hatred. These folks could do themselves and the world a greater service by listening more and saying less. Regardless, I hope they continue to speak out about what is right (without the personal attacks), because that is a message that the World needs to hear. But Politics is never the final playing field of Truth.
Contrast that with the efforts of Doug Gross, who in the August 30 Des Moines Sunday Register delivered an Op-ed piece recommending complete abandonment of our efforts to drive back the social diseases that have infested society and have been embraced by the courts. Gross, who has been an unsuccessful candidate for Governor, believes that the key to the Republican Party’s success in 2010 will be a complete focus on fiscal issues and minimizing of efforts to try to address social issues such as Abortion and Gay Marriage. His position seems to be as simple as this: the Republican Party will continue to falter while struggling with the “cultural and ideological wars”, so drop (or at least soften) the socials issues already so we can win. And he continues to argue with numbers of registered Republicans (which are a bit lower than Democrats and both largely lower than Independent… Iowa is mostly an Independent state) instead of looking at the very issues he decries and the overwhelming number of Iowans who continue to support Traditional Marriage and the lives of the unborn.
Doug also references research by the Iowa First Foundation. The focus of that research is party image. While I agree the image of the party is substantively tainted by public displays of in-fighting, a history of government largess, corruption and moral failure, it seems untenable to state that abrogating key party principles is really appropriate.
Keep in mind, the number one issue for Iowa Republicans is the Right To Life. The very first plank of the Iowa Republican Party Platform is:
1. A Right to Life
We believe life, from conception to natural death, is a sacred gift from the Creator and thus is an inalienable right as outlined in the Declaration of Independence. Therefore:
1.1. We affirm that every innocent person, including the unborn child, has the God-given and Constitutional right to life beginning at conception and ending at natural death
1.2. We reaffirm our support for an amendment to the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Iowa that protects innocent human life from conception to natural death.
1.3. We oppose using public revenues to fund abortions or organizations, such as Planned Parenthood, which advocate abortion.
1.4. We commend those who provide alternatives to abortion by meeting the needs of mothers and offering adoption services. We furthermore support their right to perform the services in a manner that does not violate their values.
1.5. We support a ‘Woman’s Right to Know Law’ whereby performers of abortions must provide complete factual information to the pregnant woman about the complications of abortion, the biological development of the unborn, fetal pain, and the availability of alternatives to abortion.
1.6. We support legislation requiring that upon completion of informed consent as outlined in “Woman’s Right to Know Law†there shall be a three (3) day waiting period before any abortion services can be provided.
1.7. We support legislation requiring consent by a parent and/or legal guardian before a minor child receives an abortion or any other reproductive services and products. Such law should require proof of identity of the parent in order to protect children from continued abuse by sexual predators who pretend to be the parent taking their child for an abortion.
1.8. We support the reversal of Roe vs. Wade.
1.9. We support the use of non-embryonic stem cells to advance modern medical research. We oppose somatic cell nuclear transfer (human cloning), embryonic stem cell research, human fetal-tissue research from induced abortions, and the commercial use or sale of fetal parts.
1.10. We strongly urge that the 2002 Human Cloning Ban, which was repealed in the 2007 Iowa Legislature, be reinstated.
1.11. We believe euthanasia, assisted suicide, and infanticide are murder.
1.12. We support the ban of partial birth abortion.
1.13. We oppose the removal, by order of a court or state agency, of fluids or nourishment from those who are either acutely or terminally ill. We believe the decision should be left to the family or conservator.
1.14. Whereas DNA evidence is allowed in our Judicial system as proof of identity, we believe that DNA proves that a fetus upon conception, has DNA separate, from his parents, identifying him as a separate individual, with all the rights endowed him by the Constitution of the United States, that among these are the right to life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
1.15. We believe in “conscience clause†legislation so that no physician, pharmacist or other health care provider can be penalized for refusing to prescribe, dispense or participate in the procurement of abortion or anything contrary to the conscience of the health care provider.
1.16. We support the confidential statistical reporting of abortion procedures to the State Health Department by all doctors and facilities performing abortions in Iowa.
A lot of Iowa Republicans, I would suggest that most of those that voted at the 2008 State Republican Convention, support this plank. Furthermore, I think that a large number of Independents do as well.
We have a similar story on Family Values. Much of the plank on this topic is focused on Traditional Marriage and sexuality:
6. Family Values
In keeping with the reality that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, and that our nation’s foundation and subsequent blessings flow from adherence to and respect for the Judeo-Christian ethic, we affirm the following:
6.1. Traditional, marriage-based (one male and one female) families are intrinsically procreative and thereby essential to a stable, thriving, and lasting civilization. Therefore, public policy must always be pro-family, encouraging marital and family commitment, while also supporting parental rights and responsibilities.
6.2. We support an amendment to the Iowa Constitution stating that “To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.â€
6.3. We support an amendment to the United States Constitution stating that “Only marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized in the United States, and that neither the Federal government, any state government, or the political subdivisions thereof may create or recognize a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals.â€
6.4. We encourage adoption of children by heterosexual married couples consisting of one man and one woman.
6.5. We oppose adoption by same-sex couples.
6.6. We believe access to sexually explicit material, especially on the Internet, poses a serious threat to our families and children. Therefore we must strengthen and enforce our laws to protect our families and children.
6.7. We believe in the sanctity of marriage and call upon the Iowa Legislature to rescind “no-fault divorce†laws.
6.8. We believe that parents are responsible for their children and we support the rights of parents to discipline and protect their children.
6.9. We uphold the Declaration of Independence and the Pledge of Allegiance, with references to the Creator as presently written, and believe that it is constitutional and does not violate separation of Church and State, but ensures freedom of religion and not from religion.
6.10. We oppose any law, ordinance or policy that would approve the practice of homosexuality.
6.11. We strongly oppose the UN “Convention on the Rights of the Child.”
6.12. We call for the repeal of sexual orientation in the Iowa Civil Rights Code and we oppose any other legislation or executive order granting rights, privileges, or status for persons based on sexual orientation.
6.13. We believe the father of a child, born or unborn, has the same rights and responsibilities as the mother in all matters regarding the child.
Again, this is what Republicans in Iowa believe in. There are other areas of social concern (Health and Human Service, Immigration) as well.
Do I think the platform is perfect? No, but then again I do think it is well done, and fairly well addresses the concerns of Iowa Republicans. Should we ignore or discard these sections of the Platform? That would be wrong. You may hear me suggest that in working with the opposition party, one must be prepared to listen and perhaps work out a compromise in order to achieve a path toward long-term success. However, the Party Platform provides the most substantive statement of what we think is “right” as Republicans and we must maintain steadfastly our core message.
Doug thinks that promoting our Conservative Social Agenda (read “religious”) will just continue to make Republicans irrelevant. Doug thinks that “Iowans get nervous when their politicians wear their religion on their sleeves.” The image of wearing religion on one’s sleeve is dramatically at odds with the simple fact that for many Republican politicians, Faith is one of the key drivers behind their policy positions (as it is for many Iowans), and it is a sign of integrity that they make that fact clear to voters. Although there are some who are turned off by that, I find that most folks I encounter find this honesty refreshing as long as aligning with that faith is not presented as a cultural or organizational mandate.
There is no doubt that we have a large amount of diversity within the Republican Party and that we need to be inviting even to those who don’t necessarily align perfectly with our entire platform (and I am speaking more toward party members than I am toward potential candidates). But frankly, the challenge goes both ways: those who come in should learn to understand and accept the fact that the majority has established the principles and policy positions, and the majority should be willing to take the time to not only explain but to also listen to those that hold a differing viewpoint. Regardless of the majority decisions on anything, each individual in the party has value and should be treated that way.
Doug provides some compelling and valuable ideas regarding areas where the Republican Party can make some improvements, and indeed the Party has already done so at the state level and within many county organizations. This includes working to engage our youth, leveraging newer communications technologies and strategies, and a stronger emphasis on recruitment. And, as Ted Sporer said in response yesterday,
Given the economic collapse our nation faces, and Iowa’s role as arguably the worst business climate in the nation, there really cannot be any argument that the economy is our best punch.
Agreed, the economy and the impact even the fear that Socialized Medicine brings to Iowans are areas of essential work.
But to deprive the public of both the information and opportunity to debate the critical social issues that assail us today is not only ingenuous, but weak. Despite the fact that Democrats hold sway in the Iowa General Assembly and that the Iowa Supreme Court is made of up folks that sincerely believe it is their responsibility to mold society to their value system, Iowans have and want the right to speak clearly on these issues. Our party is their only real hope of having a voice.
There were some folks in our country’s history who did some awesome things… we call them the Founding Fathers. When the Declaration of Independence was written, they debated references to slavery, and ended up dropping the language, an unfortunate decision. Further work was attempted throughout the building of our nation, but it took over 80 years for us to address this disease on our society officially, and we still suffer some of the ill effects of this decision today. But it took the forming of the Republican Party, and an unswerving commitment by the Party and its leaders, to bring slavery to an end. It wasn’t politically prudent. Lincoln almost lost his reelection bid over the war that ensued. But it was the right thing to do, and we are the better for doing what we know is right.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
There is one other aspect that needs consideration, especially if you are concerned (as Doug is) about the core value of “winning”.
I spoke with my dear wife about Doug’s position on this last night. Keep in mind that my wife is not as driven to engage in the political quagmire as I am, and typically does not express strong opinions on topics such as “What should the Republican Party do about the internal debate regarding social issues?”.
Her response to Doug’s position was simple. “That’s stupid”. And here’s her reasoning. If as a party we step away from our values, especially regarding Life and Traditional Marriage, we will instantly lose the support of those that provide the fuel for our party. These are smart folks… they read the Des Moines Register and blogs like this, they listen to talk radio, they work on their own key agendas, and they are fired up about how Republican Principles speak to their values, and I guarantee they read Doug’s piece on Sunday with angst.
Those folks might still vote Republican in an election, but their volunteer, financial and vocal support for the party will evaporate. Without this hard work and critical support, the Republican Party will no longer attract voters.
And, according to Doug, our “business is attracting voters”.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I made a passing reference to a piece that Ted Sporer published yesterday at his blog. Ted was spot on, and as usual was able to express his position much more eloquently than I. Some of my thoughts and comments were helped by having read Ted’s piece, so I want to especially acknowledge that.
I also appreciate the opportunity to talk through these thoughts on The Beanwalker Live! program this afternoon (about 25 minutes or so into the program) with Tim Albrecht. Tim is very sharp and a great sounding board for topics like this. Catch his great site The Beanwalker.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Reading Assignment:
Though the U.S. Senate race in Iowa is only in the pre-natal stage the Des Moines Register hasn’t wasted any time in displaying the partisan favoritism it has become infamous for—an impressive feat given the race is only a few months old and has only a combined three candidates declared.
