Friday, December 5, 2008

Past behavior is always the best indicator of what to expect in the future. Just say no to Gopal.

I have spent the last two days making sure that people know about Gopal Krishna’s past involvement with the Republican Party of Iowa. Some have been critical of my approach, I expected that, which is why I have waited and wrestled with posting this information.

I believe that electing a new chair at RPI is probably the most important step in the Republican Party’s rekonstruction. If they do their homework and get it right, we will find success. If they fail, we will simply waste another two years and continue to the Party that’s lost in the woods.

The one thing that surprises me the most of about the discovery of a secret slate for Chair and Co-Chair is the fact that it seems to be more of a power grab, than an effort find the right people to fix what ails the Party. Ask yourself the following questions.

As chairman would Gopal be able to be a good communicator for the Party?

He is obviously very intelligent, but to be honest he’s hard to understand which doesn’t bode well for him in TV and Radio interviews. He has chaired the3rd District Caucus a few times and people have said they can’t understand him. So will be able to motivate the base of our party?

As chairman would Gopal be able to raise the necessary funds to not only make the party operate, but to grow it?

With a poor economy fundraising is going to be difficult no matter who the next Chair is going to be. But what kind of experience does Gopal have in raising money? What kind of connections does he have with previous and potential donors? You can have the best plans in the world but if you can’t fund them they are worthless.

Speaking of plans, does Gopal have one?

I’m told that Sporer, Pate, and Carroll have been communicating their ideas for the party, but what are Gopal’s plans? We all agree that we need to do things differently, but just saying that isn’t good enough.

In my opinion it looks like a power grab if you ask me, which would be consistent with what Gopal was up to in the cycles leading up to his resignation/removal in 2000.

So let’s look back to what lead to his removal.

Gopal served as Co-Chairman for several cycles, all thorns in the side of the sitting Chairman. In 1996, Brian Kennedy helped lead us to a majority in the Iowa Senate. What did Gopal do? No help with fundraising or organization. Why then did he want to be co-chair? You would expect a co-chair to put some sweat and time into preserving and strengthening our Party. Gopal began bad mouthing the Party, its leaders and the decisions that were being made. He went to Central Committee meeting after Central Committee meeting trashing the state party. He says he would do a better job if he were chairman. An interesting tactic in building party unity.

When the time came for the next chairman’s election, Gopal promised to be good and work with the new chair. He said he wanted to build a stronger party. He was re-elected.

In 1998 during Steve Grubb’s tenure, Iowa was the only state in the union to gain seats in our legislature. The only state! Who ran the legislative races…..the state party. During the Lightfoot campaign’s self-destruction, the Party was still able to make inroads on the democrats in the statehouse and picked up seats. What did Gopal do? He continued his campaign across the state bad mouthing the party, its staff and the product it produced. Again, an interesting tactic in building party unity.

When the time came for the next chairman’s election Gopal tried to pour over the wounds of the State Central Committee and County Chairman, it wasn’t well received. A candidate to replace him was found and unfortunately, Gopal won be a narrow margin.

We all thought the final chapter in the Gopal saga would be the 2000 election cycle under Kayne Robinson. The Assistant Chief of Des Moines PD had a zero tolerance for bullshit. Robinson met with Gopal as soon as he was elected chairman and told Gopal there would be NO disruptions and NO undermining the Party or the Chairman. Robinson warned him and told him his time, as co-chairman would be over. Gopal begged Robinson to trust him and that he would never do that to him.

And so it began…Gopal’s final push to become Chairman. Gopal engaged his followers from the SCC; David Karwoski, Michael Clark, and Lisa Smith. Kirshna and his group ran across the state bad mouthing Robinson and the state party on every decision made at headquarters. It even got so bad that the Kirshna group tried to block the purchase of a digital camera and a fax machine. Small purchases to some, but he campaigned around the state saying the state party was wasting funds. Wasting funds by purchasing a digital camera and fax machine. What???? Is this building party unity? Is this being a team player?

As the votes were put together Steve Scheffler was solid behind Robinson. He was even working the coalition to oust Gopal. Scheffler, what has changed your mind since 2000? I hear that you are telling people that you are not involved in the race for chairman. The national committeeman for the state party is not involved in this race? I thought we elected you as a leader of the party back at the state convention. It would be nice to hear from John Hulsizer and Leon Mosley on this matter as well.

The above might not sound serious to some, but the best way to ruin any organization is to undermine it leadership. What would happen in any business if the VP of the company was going out to its dealers saying that the company sucks and would be better if I was the CEO. Dude would lose his job the same day. This is what Gopal’s history is. He’s not a team player, he’s a cancer.

We need a chairman who can unite our party, raise the necessary funds, and implement new ideas which will help us win election. Gopal didn’t do anything to help with our legislative successes in 96 or 98; he just caused internal problems in hopes to gain control of the party.

Is this the guy to lead us in our weakest hour? I don’t think so.

84 comments:

  1. How about we ask every member of the SCC to resign as well and lets start over...clearly...if Gopal is this close to the chairmanship - there are a lot of idiots on there.

    How many idiots? I guess we'll find out soon.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Central Iowa RepublicanDecember 5, 2008 at 1:18 PM

    Gopal is not qualified to serve as chair, and Ted’s decision to run on a “secret slate” with him should be instant disqualification from serving in any elected position.

    I agree with the previous post – any SSC member who would vote for these two isn’t capable of leading our party.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I thought I had seen it all when it came to intolerance of people who live their lives differently from the norm, or look diffently than most, or talk differently than you and I. Krusty, your post today regarding Gopal sums up our sorry state of affairs as a party.

    Gopal should be judged on his accent? Really. My great grandfathers (from Sweden and from Ireland) would be dismayed at your attempt to put a "No Irish Need Apply" sign on the RPI door (figuratively). Pure racism on your part. No doubt.

    As for the other allegations, I will leave others to kick those around. From 1994-1997 (my terms on the SCC) I did not see any of what you were talking about as it concerns disruption. Unless you are referring to the fact that Gopal always took his Board position seriously, questioned and probed the Chair, and wouldn't rubber stamp everything presented to him (all hallmarks of a good Board member in my opinion).

    Lastly, I agree with you on the point that Gopal needs to present a plan if he wishes to be Chair. All candidates should release one and let the SCC and all of us activists kick it around and evaluate it. This election is too important to not do that. I also agree that no vote should happen this weekend. Transparency should be paramount.

    It's kinda funny watching everybody get upset about a secret slate. It's been going on for years at our county, district and state conventions. Good people have been shut out because they failed the litmus test. The silence over this practice in the past has been deafening. Nice to see so many converts against that practice now (add sarcasm).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hulsizer the KlownDecember 5, 2008 at 1:28 PM

    John Hulsizer is still on the SCC, that tells you something doesn't it?

    Shows we need term limits for our SCC members to avoid the klowns like him being on for far too long.

    ReplyDelete
  5. As a SW Iowa Republican in King's district...

    This message is for:

    Bill Anderson
    Reid Houser
    Monte Shaw

    If you vote for him...I look forward to working my ass off to ensure that you are never elected to anything ever in your life again.

    Consider yourself warned.

    This I promise you.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Actually, he hasn't been on it this whole time. He just got re-elected back recently.

    But you're right, we totally DO need term limits.

    Many, MANY of them have been there too long. We need new blood, new ideas, and let new people give it a whirl.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hypocrisy, table for oneDecember 5, 2008 at 1:31 PM

    Supertramp, you used to be on the SCC. Why did you have such vitriol towards Gopal in the past and fought to oust him, but are his lapdog now? Is it because he gave you $500 for your campaign for county supervisor?

    Just curious Mr. Ethics.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Brent - I didn't write anything about his accent? I don't care where he is from, but he is hard to understand sometimes. Roy Hoffmann was hard to understand at times and it didn't help him either.

    If Gopal was the best guy for the job, I'd deal with his accent and communication problems. The fact is we can and must do better.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Not to quibble Krusty, but your analogy of the VP going out and criticizing the company or the CEO is not really accurate.

    You see, the SCC is the board of directors. They are in charge. Not the Chairman. Not the Executive Director. Not the fat cat donor. It's the SCC Board Members. In the business world, you routinely see Board of Director members lead factions for change, or push for more thorough examination of business practices, or amplify and take their fidiciuary responsibilities and obligations more intensely than other Board members. Not uncommon at all, and usually a sign of a very healthy Board. You can fire a VP for the kind of behavior you describe. But that same type of behavior by a member of the Board of Directors could be considered the zealous pursuit of one's Due Dilegence obligation.

    Minor correction for you to consider.

    ReplyDelete
  10. As a state central committee member, we are seen as a board of directors for the state party, so it should be expected that we will behave in the same way most boards are run. When boards decide that new leadership is needed, there usually is some type of strategic planning that has taken place, prior, none of us who are new on the SCC have been part of such thing.

    Generally, a job description detailing the role of said position are als0 laid out, that reflect the responsibilities the Leader is expected to fulfill, that does not exist, then Candidates are encouraged to apply, some are even recruited, and if the candidates don't match those qualifications, the search continues until someone does, that doesn't seem to be the case here.

    I and others are working to have us establish more open, honest,transparent, and collaborative process on the SCC stay tuned to see what happens

    Isaiah McGee 4th District SCC member

    ReplyDelete
  11. Isaiah

    how many of the 28 counties in your district did you get to since you were elected?

    Up here in the far north, we never saw. But hell, we never saw Matt either. Saw Bill a bit more but barely.

    I voted for you in April but you better get to all the counties in 2009 or you will not get my support again. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  12. 1:31 (my best friend)

    Get your facts straight.

    Never once did I show "vitriol" as you call it toward Gopal in the past. I simply did not support him for Co-chair in that particular election. In fact, we have been better friends since because I told him face to face that I would not support him (it's rare on the SCC to be so transparent you see). I was supporting another candidate.

    Secondly, Gopal never gave me $500 for my campaign. He gave me $1,000.00 for which I was very appreciative.

    Because you can't even get two simple facts right (and your a weak anon poster) tells me everything I need to know about how much weight I should give your opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Brent is very liberal so I am not surprised he got the support of Socialist Krishna.

    ...need any extra proof...two words...Mary Lundby

    ReplyDelete
  14. As a SW Iowa Republican in King's district...

    This message is for:

    Bill Anderson
    Reid Houser
    Monte Shaw

    If you vote for him...I look forward to working my ass off to ensure that you are never elected to anything ever in your life again.

    Consider yourself warned.

    This I promise you.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Since a formal Job description for State Chair seems to be lacking, I will point out the five areas I'm looking for in a new state chair

    1. Someone who can bring different factions of the party together, not someone who on day one has ticked off 1/2 or 1/3 of the party

    2. Someone who knows how to organize. Who has a history of putting together great teams, knows how to delagate, and get results from people

    3. Someone who knows how to Fundraise, who can not only restore our connections with old money, but alos bring in new money as well

    4.Some one who can bring the party into the 21 century. Im not voting for a chair who doesn't have a facebook page (J/k- sorta) but we have to know how to use the tools of the present, as well as communicate in a way that inspires new people to join or rejoin the party, Obama turned his young voters into disciples this way, and they ended up doing more than just voting for him 2-1, but they provided energy,helping hands, and much more

    5. Someone who can win, Winning is important, and someone who knows what it takes to win has to be a factor, Iowa is now a blue state, with lots of money from outside coming in, and people in prominent positions that can sway a race one way or another. That is the job of the party is to help win elections, and we need someone who understands how that can be done, not someone who has done it in the past, nor someone who can theoretically do this.

    These just represent the areas I'm looking for, it won't disqualify anyone, if they aren't up to par with some of these qualifications, but this will be the standard by which I measure the candidates and make my decision

    Isaiah McGee-4th district State Central committee

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hmmmm... Very well stated, that was Mr. McGee....

    A Jedi, you must be.....

    ReplyDelete
  17. Let me just start by saying I was duped once... at the state convention when the ICA and IRTL ran their slate of candidates right down our throats. We all saw the ineffectiveness of the slate on the table. I'll be there first person to say we should work for party unity but never at the expense of conservatism. However that is not what we saw in this manuever. Now once again we have a slate straight from the ICA. Beyond that I have a serious lack of trust for this man. Not one to rush to judgements I have kept this quiet however I cannot anymore. We want conservatism and I'm afraid Gopal would be a wolf in sheeps clothing.

    ReplyDelete
  18. http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/1999/09/26/export2433.txt

    ""It's grassroots people against the Christian Right again," a Republican organizer said. And that formula has not proven successful in recent years."

    Nor a decade later?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Benito Mussolini - 1940

    Gopal Krishna - 1999

    Gopal Krishna - 2008?

    An alligiance of convenience where the war does bring you what you seek.

    ReplyDelete
  20. You want conservatism or christian conservatism? Big difference and a reason why we're in the mess we're in.

    ReplyDelete
  21. What is the difference between a conservative and a Christian conservative?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Conservatism or Christian Conservatism...

    There are now more than 22,000 denominations of Christianity so who defines "Christian Conservatism"?

    This is why it won't work. The PARTY is a vehicle or team to promote your philosophy. Be part of the team and play as a team or you lose.

    The democRATS figgerd that out. When will the Republicans?

    ReplyDelete
  23. One has RINO's the other doesn't...

    ReplyDelete
  24. Deace is on the Radio today talking about the press release put out by 2nd District Republican GOP Leadership.

    Deace and Lehman are very effectively attempting to make this issue about Miller-Meeks.

    It SO is not. I have heard NO Miller-Meeks supporters indicate this issue was a death blow to the Nov 4 results.

    This issue is about trust and leadership. We can wait to attempt to vote Lehman out - but we also have a right to go to Des Moines Saturday to make sure our position is heard.

    Do we want someone in a National Leadership role that has a different agenda, other than electing republicans? I say no. What Lehman does to one candidate she can to do another if left unchecked. Our goal is to make sure she understands - NO MORE.

    David Chung has called in and is defending our position very clearly.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Kossuth County RocksDecember 5, 2008 at 4:50 PM

    Purge the Rino's at any cost!!!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Lehman should do the honorable thing and spare the party the pain of having to deal with her unethical behavior.

    If she cared about her party more than herself she would resign.

    What would be better yet is if all Republicans would stay off the Deace show. He uses Republicans to advance his self righteous agenda of making himself seem more righteous than any one else.

    Does he ever talk about Democrats?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Are these technology leaders?December 5, 2008 at 5:13 PM

    I agree with you on facebook and technology, Isaiah.

    Isaiah - do all the SCC members have Facebook pages?

    Do all the counties have websites?

    Do all the state Reps and Senators have campaign websites where they can push the message and raise money? Did all the candidates regardless if they won?

    Lets look at facebook:
    Monte Shaw? Nope
    Bill Anderson? Nope
    Reid Houser? Nope
    Matt Randall? Yep
    Bill Schickel? Yep
    Isaiah McGee? Yep
    Wes Enos? Yep
    Gopal Krishna? Nope
    Eldon Pals? Nope
    Jason Hutcheson? Yep
    David Chung? Yep
    Lisa Smith? Nope
    John Hulsizer? Yep
    Karl Gilbertson? Nope
    John Ortega? Nope
    Steve Scheffler? Nope
    Kim Lehmen? Nope

    ReplyDelete
  28. Stay off Deace? Because I am a Republican?

    No.

    I agree.... pick your battles and from what I see we have plenty of battles to yap at each other about.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I'm not shocked to hear Steve Deace defending Kim Lehman.

    What Deace clearly doesnt understand is this..

    This isn't about "reversing an election" as he mistakenly claims. This isn't about starting a "civil war".

    It doesn't matter if the candidate in question won or lost.

    This is about CREDIBILITY and TRUST. Its hard enough to find people to put themselves out there to run for office in the first place.

    So when we have people putting themselves out in the public eye as a candidate and then as a nominee of our party...the LEAST that candidate/nominee should expect is that our party's officials should NOT publically denigrate them with false and misleading statements!

    If we do not hold Kim Lehman accountable...then we send a very clear message to candidates now and in the future--

    Our party officials will no longer be expected to support our party's nominees. Republican candidates will have to not only watch out for what Democrats say about them, but also what Republican leaders in their OWN party say about them.

    THAT, Mr. Deace is a recipe for civil war.

    Mr. Deace also tried to make a point about the claims Christopher Reed made about RPI officials telling people not to support him.

    What Deace FAILED to mention was that Reed's claims were found to be completely incorrect. No such statements were made by anyone at RPI and Reed had to retract those claims.

    Deace also tried making a point about Steve Roberts making negative comments about Reed as well..

    Again Steve, your facts again are wrong. Roberts made those statements AFTER he was no longer our National Committeeman. He made those comments not as an official of the party since he WAS NOT one at the time.

    So again Steve, it comes down to you not being consistant like David Chung pointed out that you have not been.

    Mr. Deace, I'd love to hear from you why even other board members of the Iowa Right to Life board have publically stated what Ms. Lehman did was out of line.

    Roger Mall, a member of the IRTL board has publically stated that Ms. Lehman's position as National Committeewoman is unteneable with the proper functioning of her roles with IRTL.

    And that is EXACTLY what we're out here trying to say Mr. Deace. You can not serve two masters. One minute you can't be out telling people to elect Republican candidates and then next minute tear them down.

    As David Chung clearly stated, the honorable thing for Ms. Lehman to do would be to resign.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Please, all Republicans, boycott the Deace show and stop listening to it.

    This guy is obsessed with destroying the Republican party. He professes to being this great Christian and then he votes Obama and constantly tears down the Republicans while ignoring Democrats.

    Democrats make Republicans look like saints.

    Deace is a moron. He doesn't even know who his enemies and allies are.

    PLEASE BOYCOTT DEACE!!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Kossuth County RocksDecember 5, 2008 at 5:47 PM

    Deace and Lehman are in the business of purging the Rino's. Let them finish their work so the heavy lifting can begin.

    Don't like it? Too bad, deal with it.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Give up the name calling of Deace.

    Some of you are sooooo kindergarten with your whining and silly recommendations of boycotting.

    The more you guys go after Deace, the more some of us will support a man who has character and a voice that the rest of you must be jealous of.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Let me get this straight...some Internet tough guy named "Cedar Waxwing" is calling me out?

    What's next, a showdown with I.P. Freely and Harry Reems?

    When you move beyond the fourth grade, grow a set like David Chung displayed today by girding his loins like a man and calling in, and actually quit hiding in your mom's basement behind your Punky Brewster screen name, I'd be happy to answer any question that you have.

    Until then, I've got a new cream rinse to experiment with.

    ReplyDelete
  34. More Deace! Go Deace! Thanks for giving republicans of all stripes a forum to discuss, argue and persuade others to points of view.

    Code Pink Freaks from the extremist democrat party believe in boycotting and shutting down speech they don't like.

    Republicans fight for the right of free speech.

    Cedar Waxwing - former SCC member with his own personal stake in the subject - is just workin on behalf of Jeff Kaufman and Sandy Greiner.

    Credibility? Being a pitchfork bearing freak is not being credible.

    ReplyDelete
  35. The Dems have their own version: DINO's

    Democrat's in Name ONLY

    Those would be the people who are really Republicans, but they know that they cannot get elected to county level offices if they side with us; so they register Democrat and keep their views to themselves regarding issues that don't affect the office they are running for.

    Plenty of them across the state.

    Another reason why we lose, people with no guts to stand up for what they believe just so that they can win an election.

    It is not ALL about winning, it is about standing up for what we believe in.

    DINO's, dems in name only (really republicans with no guts)

    ReplyDelete
  36. What we need to concentrate on is figuring out how to operate around the central committee. Obviously they dont give a toot about us and as such we need to revolt against them. As someone once said "When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." After moderating our positions against our will, after dropping support for our candidates, after ignoring our clamoring for and proof of the need to move right, to move conservative we need to begin to ignore them. If they elect a man that has repeatedly and deliberatly attempted to sabotage and derail the true meaning behind being a Republican, one that stands for personal freedom, not government slavery; one that doesnt want to go down the path of the Soviet Union, one that wants to reduce the size of government and the debt of the government so as to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. While this may be treasonous to the short term of the Party we need to rise up for the future good of the people because 232 years ago a group of men did what wasnt good for the short term to guarantee the greater good. We need to tell the Central Committee that we are fed up with them and we dont care about them and the Steve Deaces of the party need to step forward and lead as they can.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Why doesn't every want just ignore RPI and the SSC.

    They don't have any money and the counties do all the work anyway.

    This way everybody can go about thier business and stop complaining about how they don't get any support.

    Bottomline local county CC will continue doing what they do anyway.

    The RPI and SSC weld very little if any power.

    ReplyDelete
  38. So what we're saying here is we can be the most snotty abrasive two faced S.O.B. and as long as we "say" we are 100% conservative - It's O.K.

    By the way - How would Jesus ( a Christian ) behave? When you call yourself or your group "Christian" you kinda have to act like it.

    Now if you want to call yourself a moffia member - well then I'm totally ok with how you act.

    But you do a grave dis service to the proud and honorable people you serve and the good morals they stand for.

    ReplyDelete
  39. How about this for clarity. No more Rino's! 100% conservative or get out!

    ReplyDelete
  40. Mr. Deace,

    What's funny here is that you fail to deal with a SINGLE point that I brought forth to you.

    Instead, you choose to engage in name calling..the kind of behavior you claim is of the "Internet tough guy" variety...Nice. :)

    Oh by the way Mr. Deace, I did try calling in today...but you only took one call during your segment. Thanks anyway.

    So you want to make fun of my name..fine...granted you don't have a clue of what means or what it honors.

    Never mind Steve that I have a wife, two wonderful children and have been a Republican activist and county leader busting my tail to elect Republicans in Iowa for the past 15 years.

    And hey Anon 6:09..you obviously don't know who I am. I've never served on the SCC nor do I work on behalf of Kauffman or Greiner.

    So again Mr. Deace, I'd love to hear some answers to the issues that I brought forth in my earlier post. I won't hold my breath about it..but stranger things have happened.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Kossuth County RocksDecember 5, 2008 at 9:29 PM

    Cedar Wax

    From your post to Steve Deace:

    "Never mind Steve that I have a wife, two wonderful children and have been a Republican activist and county leader busting my tail to elect Republicans in Iowa for the past 15 years"

    None of the above matters if you're out electing RINO's, not a christian conservative and only support 80-90% of the platform. Which camp are you in? It's the only thing that matters.

    Patiently waiting you're reply.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Anon 8:12 PM - Buddy, after being on these blogs for a few weeks your suggestion of defunding the RPI is starting to look good.

    It's no wonder we're getting eaten alive by the Democrats. Between the banty roosters, high priests, and the perfumed princes at the state level we're in a grand war to win the crown of being what we down here in Lee call KINGS OF NOTHING (those who live in overwhelming Dem countys know what I speak of).

    I guess all I can say to the counties and the districts is that if the SCC can't get their act together, redirect that money and manpower to something more useful.




    Seeing

    ReplyDelete
  43. Excuse the typo folks, should've held the delete key down longer....

    ReplyDelete
  44. We need more christians like Steave Deace who follow the platform 100%. No compromise no surrender. That should be the "test" of all future elected officials. Any hint of being a RINO is a non-starter and support is pulled.

    In addition, Deace is changing hearts and minds on his radio show. If used properly, it could help us rebuild the party.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Kossuth..

    So..someone who doesnt agree with every line..every single word and of the Republican Platform is a RINO..

    Wow. Well then I guess Chuck Grassley is a RINO.. I guess Tom Latham is a RINO ..and so on and so forth..because I can guarantee you that they don't agree with 100% of our platform.

    Well guess what Kossuth..good luck finding candidates to run for office, never mind winning elections with your standards.

    Kossuth..we are the party of Lincoln..and Reagan..and Eisenhower..and McCain.

    While its certainly true that these people might have different convictions and beliefs..they all could agree upon a very SIMPLE construct.

    They all agreed that the Republican Party is the political party BEST suited to lead this country.

    Having a healthy debate about the issues and beliefs members of our party support is a GOOD thing.

    However, shutting out that debate and forcing people out of our party if they don't agree with you on every single point and issue--that's a path towards self-destruction.

    Should we start giving a litmus test to every person who decides to register as a Republican? If they fail said test..do we turn them away? Tell them they're not welcome?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Mr. Deace's job is draw an audience. He puts on Sporer and goads Sporer on. Sporer barks "RINO" like a trained seal. If it draws a crowd to witness the Republican Party's staged train wreck, so what.

    If Deace can not get Sporer this time of the year, run the bumper music of dogs barking "Jingle Bells" longer and stick in more commercials.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Kossuth County RocksDecember 5, 2008 at 10:35 PM

    Cedar

    Grassley would be a RINO since he supported 50 million in pork for the indoor rainforest. Pork and deficit spending is what got us in this mess!

    Why have a platform if it's only followed 80% of the time? This election is THE defining moment for our party.

    Since we have elected people who claim to be one thing then govern another, I like your idea of having a litmus test for everyone. No RINO's, no compromise, no surrender.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Who called the secret RPI Central Committee meeting last weekend? I heard an unconfirmed report it was held at the Iowa Christian Alliance office. Have the next Chair and Co-Chair already been decided at Mt. Sinai?

    If so, sell the Republican Party of Iowa's building. It is simply duplication and a waste.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Kossuth County RocksDecember 5, 2008 at 10:48 PM

    Cedar

    Anon 6:57 said it best:

    "It is not ALL about winning, it is about standing up for what we believe in."

    Now Supertramp thinks this is all about winning, but he'd be in the minority or RINO wing..

    Going forward this is about principle. Losing election after election is fine if we stand on our principles and stay true to the party platform.

    No RINO's, No non-christian conservatives, No compromise, No surrender.

    A storm is coming and after tomorrow's vote, this party will be heading in the true direction.

    ReplyDelete
  50. History teaches us that false prophets and advocates of purity are indeed agents of evil. World War II was fought to stop the spread of Nazi purity. Thousands of Jews were loaded onto cattle cars and exterminated for a perverse campaign of cleansing. The revolutionary war was fought and won to stop the treatment of African Americans as property. The civil rights movement was waged and accomplished to end the segregation and purity campaign that sought to place African Americans as second class citizens. In more recent years radical Islam extremists carried out the attacks of September 11th to further the spread of purity. So I ask you who support a 100% pure party to step back and take note of history before you so eagerly repeat it.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I am a newly elected member of the Iowa House. I have no personal issues with any of the other people running for the state chair, but I am a firm believer that one person stands out far above the rest.

    Danny Carroll is the person that I feel is the best man for the job at the time and condition the party is in. I have been reading threads all over the web and there are people that clearly do not understand how a race is run. So they want to come out and bash Danny for losing this year. Well first of all in my district the Obama campaign hired 4 full time people beginning in June to canvass the area. There is NO WAY a State House race can afford to do that. Danny won on election day and lost with absentee ballots. So he understands that we need to address this area. Second of all there are alot of people that have said that Danny didn't fund raise enough. Well that is another area where people should get there facts straight. Danny out fund raised any other candidate that was facing an incumbent.

    I am not here to bash any other person seeking the spot. And I think that the best way to get the party moving forward is to do this in a productive matter. Danny played a very big part in my race behind the scenes. He was a great sounding board and really provided us with a lot of key advice that helped us in our victory in a district that was not even in play according to the leadership of the party.

    My district is 36% D's 34% I's and 30% R's I ran against an incumbent that was seeking his 4th term In a year that was a democrat year.An incumbent that defeated a well known State Senator that left the Senate to run against my opponent in 2006. I don't blame the party for not thinking I had a chance in fact there were very few people who did, but every time I had a discouraging moment Danny was right there encouraging me and giving me advice.

    I do believe that is exactly the type of person we want in this role. We need someone that has experienced the political arena and not compromised there core beliefs.

    There are two type of leaders there's the ones that step out because they believe they are leaders and then there ones that are called out because others feel they are leaders. Well Danny was called out because in a time when the party is so fractured we needed someone that can fill the shoes to heal the party. There are a lot of names being thrown around but if you give everyone three or four name and tell them to choose two Danny Carroll is the only one consistently in one of the two. That should speak volumes. I am going to rest my case there.

    Thanks
    Kent Sorenson

    ReplyDelete
  52. Anon 10:50

    No offense, while Kossuth is being extreme, I worry about the silent one's who agree. Solid conservatives are being attacked from the right.

    It appears if you've lost an election but a christian conservative that's a +.

    If you're conservative, but viewed as a RINO, lost an election, or were in leadership - you get no love whatsoever.

    If you have your own radio show, well that can be used to "purge" the non-comformists. You have to be the right kind of conservative.

    It's scary where this is all leading, and the silence from the right is deafining..

    ReplyDelete
  53. Kent Sorenson for State Chair!

    ReplyDelete
  54. Anon 11:17 is right Kent Sorenson!!!! Why doesn't the SCC recruit him.

    ReplyDelete
  55. I'm not Yoda, but I have his underoosDecember 6, 2008 at 5:10 AM

    Kent congratulations on your victory! Question for you though, do you know the other candidates? Or is Carroll the best candidate that you personally know?

    I think you would like Paul Pate and not just because he's infinitely more qualified.

    ReplyDelete
  56. It would be interesting to know exactly how Sorensen ran his campaign. Congratulations to him.

    His campaign is one to encourage all of us.

    We must concentrate on defeating Democrats and not each other.

    Democrats have complete control of the state of Iowa and our nation's capital.

    We are in a very scary situation. It is full speed ahead to defeat every Democrat we can.

    Democrats are the masters of voter fraud. They're trying to steal an election in MN.

    Anytime you see a close election, pay attention. This is their MO on how to steal elections. They depend on recounts to get them over the top and they usually win the close ones.

    ReplyDelete
  57. My direct line is 515-245-8836...anybody, including the oddly named Cedar Waxwing (bird fan?), is welcomed to pick up the phone and give me a call if they have questions. Or, when we're having open line time that's not about a specific subject, or the subject is politics, they're welcome to call 515-284-1040.

    There's only one requirement. You have to tell me who you are. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  58. I agree with Mr. Sorenson, Danny Carroll is the most qualified candidate to head the Republican party here in Iowa. The only reason he has lost elections is because of tens of thousands of dollars in out of state gay interest lobby money, and also Obama landsliding his district. He's got a cool head, knows how the game is played, hasn't sacrificed what he believes in order to try and get elected, and has actually read the party platform, unlike some...

    ReplyDelete
  59. I'd be interested to hear how Mr. Sorenson won his race. Were social issues front and center? The economy? Outworking his opponent? Right to work issues?

    ReplyDelete
  60. I'm interested and concerned by the sentiments coming from Kossuth County Rocks and others.

    I might agree with 80% of the platform at best, but I can tell you that I'm an incredibly active Republican who has given money, made phone calls and volunteered countless hours to Republican campaigns. I can't believe the logic of someone like Kossuth and others that would run someone like me out of the party. I certainly always felt like we are on the same team, but its clear that an extreme wing of the party doesn't feel this way.

    Ultimately, this seems to come down to what role the platform plays for some people. I do not believe it is an all or nothing litmus test. To use it as such will run like minded people from our cause.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Yes, Democrats are the enemies of all things moral. They must be stopped.

    We are in a position to concentrate on the issues and take advantage of the fact that it is time for the pendulum to swing back our way.

    We unite and scare the daylights out of them.

    Just wait until the legislature gets back into action. Iowa will lose it's right-to-work status and then we will be in a world of hurt.

    Iowa will lose jobs. It's happened in other states and it will happen here.

    Democrats have spent to the point, it is not sustainable and they knew it at the time but what the heck, they'll just raise taxes later.

    Every voter who voted for these big government types are responsible for what's coming.

    ReplyDelete
  62. I despise Democrats and I want them defeated.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I agree with Krusty. If it's hard to understand Gopal, he shouldn't be the Chair. It's hard to understand people that has accent. We have a former house candidate here in Linn County and it was hard to understand her. who knows if that was the reason why she lost ? need to learn and speak better english people !!

    ReplyDelete
  64. Please tell me that last post (1:57) is a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Please tell me that last post (1:57) is a joke.

    December 6, 2008 2:02 PM
    ------------

    Why shucks, thet there ain't no joke, that was writ by one of them true American patriots Sarah told us about.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Danny Carroll! Danny Carroll!!!! He's the guy--but the dumb Iowa GOP just look at the slick guy "next in line" instead of someone with vigor, energy, and the People behind him. Listen to the people and they will chant "Danny, Danny, Danny." Plus, Iowa's caucus winner said that Danny is "the most genuine, decent politician and guy he has ever met."---he said so in his new book "Do the Right Thing."

    -Ann in Central Iowa.

    ReplyDelete
  67. First of all, Kent Sorenson rocks.

    I have seen some comments on here wondering how he won. Please read here.

    http://iowadefense.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/kent-sorenson-a-candidate-who-will-represent-hd-74/

    If you will notice he ran on strong Republican principles but he did it in such a way that he connected to his voters' needs. He did that while being up front pro-life and pro-family. And notice that he focused on education. TAKE NOTE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

    Did he cram the social issues down peoples' throats? No, but they knew exactly where he stood unapologetically on them. He won in a Democratic district which is proof that the social issues do not drive voters away but instead demonstrate that the candidates have convictions and will not change with the wind on those issues or any of the other conservative principles.

    That is why Kent Sorenson won.

    ReplyDelete
  68. A new blog in town--check it out--http://paintiowared.wordpress.com/

    ReplyDelete
  69. Article published: Dec 7, 2008
    Cedar Rapids Gazette
    Iowa Republicans censure party leader

    DES MOINES — The Iowa GOP State Central Committee on Saturday censured one of its representatives to the Republican National Committee.

    The committee, which oversees the state party's activities, voted 8-7 to censure Kim Lehman, citing a conflict between her role in the party and as head of Iowa Right to Life.

    Although some wanted to oust her from party leadership, the Central Committee had no authority to remove a national committee member.

    Central Committee member David Chung of Cedar Rapids made the censure motion. He said he was satisfied with the result.

    "The issue is closed at this point," he said after the committee met in Des Moines. "We have work to do as a party and we need to move on. I think people are ready to move on."

    At issue was a pre-election flier distributed by Iowa Right to Life criticizing the 2nd District GOP U.S. House candidate Mariannette Miller-Meeks. The group said she should get the "Great Pretender Award" for her statements opposing abortion.

    Second District Republicans said Lehman had conflicting roles and had damaged her credibility in the party.

    Division remains, however, according to Linn County GOP Chairman Jim Conklin. County GOP leaders want to create opportunities for fiscal conservatives and libertarians to play a more active role, he said.

    The committee deferred a decision on a new party chair until January. Chairman Stewart Iverson, a former state senator, resigned.

    Several names have been mentioned as successors, including former Cedar Rapids Mayor Paul Pate, a former state senator and Iowa secretary of state, and Christopher Reed of Marion, who unsuccessfully challenged U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin in November.

    ReplyDelete
  70. I had no idea Chris Reed was considering a run for chair. Is that true?

    ReplyDelete
  71. yeah, and he spoke pretty well until he picked a fight with Leon.

    I can understand Reed's point, but Rathje was running almost 3 years before the election.

    I liked Rathje but he had a very weak message and the other two came in at the last minute... Leon's point was that you could not come in and expect to win running a race the way Reed did, which only heightened the issue...

    ReplyDelete
  72. I supported Reed in the primary and in the General election and I have never really had a problem with Leon supporting Rathje in the primary. It is his parogative to support the candidate of his choice in a primary becaue he is an individual and that is his right.

    After all, Governor Bransted served as Dole's Chairman in 1996 and Alexander's Chairman in 2000. I took issue with Leon when he mixed the two roles. He used state party money to pay for Rathje's travel and used his position as the Party's Co-Chairman to promote Rathje.

    That was wrong. People in our leadership have a right to express their views in a primary. However, they also have a responcibility to keep the 2 roles seperate and an increased responcibility to vigerously support the party's nominee after the primary is over.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Who were these 7 COWARDS who voted for Kim Lehman?

    They should resign too. Bastards.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Who in hell put you (7:13) in charge of deciding our personal preferences and consciences?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Lehman gets a scolding for pointing out that a Republican candidate claims to be pro life but votes differently by an 8-7 vote. Isn't pro life in our platform? and the deciding vote case by a pastor? No wonder our churches are in such dissarray.

    ReplyDelete
  76. People like annon 7:13 should really get over himself. News flash: Not everyone around the state agrees with you. Here in the 5th District most of the people still stand behind Kim Lehman. If you don’t like it, too damn bad! You got your way, now shut up and get back to your meager self righteous existence.

    ReplyDelete
  77. 8:07, the short bus is missing a passengerDecember 7, 2008 at 8:38 PM

    8:07,

    Exactly what "votes differently" are you referring to? I was not aware that she cast a vote in any capacity since she has never been elected to anything but rather was a newcomer to politics.

    So get your bullshit straight or shut the hell up.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Gopal isn't even a Christian. I believe he was kicked off a board for Hindu Relataions.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Wonderful lets trash real republicans like Lehman and promote RINO's like Meeks.

    Maybe we can beat democrats if we act like them?

    Cant beat em join em?

    ReplyDelete
  80. You are supposed to get paid $58,000 dollars a year for taking a job with a Republican Presidential Caucus contender while sitting on the RPI Central Committee. That makes it alright with the almighty.
    Where your Forbes 2000 tee shirt at the 2008 Republican National Convention. It pays to advertise.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Anon 8:07 and 9:09..

    You still don't get it. Miller-Meeks is not a RINO by any stretch of the imagination..

    Chuck Grassley and Steve King don't endorse or campaign for RINO's.. They did so for Miller-Meeks.

    Miller-Meeks stated time and time again that she was pro-life and that Roe v Wade should be overturned.

    But because she doesn't fill out a survey..that some how makes her "pro-choice"? Give me a break.

    And 9:09..No one "trashed" Lehman.. She was censured for her actions that were deemed to be inappropriate towards a nominated Republican candidate.

    The SCC sent a very clear message. Our State Party officials have a DUTY to support our nominees.

    ReplyDelete
  82. HawkeyeRepublican:

    Good points, but I would add to that Kim Lehman in all honestly did not attack Marianette (sp) Miller-Meeks because of her position on life. She did it because she was an avid supporter of Peter Teahen and attacked Miller-Meeks during the primary on WHO radio and then continued her assault in the general election.

    Who knows, maybe she's angling to be Mrs. Teahen #3. Hard to say.

    Time to move on. I meant move on regarding this issue not to wife #3.



    WAR funny word verifications like: "buttisms"

    ReplyDelete
  83. Hawkeye - Were you not in the room when Jim Conklin said Kim's head needed to be cut off? That sounds like an attack to me, but then I'm not from the 2nd district. I suppose that was just a little demonstration of how the 2nd district does "unity".

    ReplyDelete
  84. I'm not Yoda, but I have a big lightsaberDecember 8, 2008 at 4:21 PM

    Not all social conservatives are like Kim Lehman and not all moderates are like Jim Conklin.

    Please do not make the mistake of generalizing as such.

    ReplyDelete