Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Rekonstruction: How to build a more inclusive Party.

Talk to any Republican moderate, conservative, or libertarian in Iowa and they will all tell you that the Party needs to be more inclusive if they want to win elections. The problem is while they are all saying pretty much the same thing; it means different things to different people.

So while we could sit around a table and debate what part of our party platform we should ignore, I propose that we look at getting people involved in areas that they are passionate about, and build our party that way. There is so much that Iowa Republicans need to accomplish over the next 21 months, we need all hands on deck, everyone must help in the Reconstruction effort if we are to be successful.

The first step in building a more inclusive Party is for the State Central Committee (SCC) and its new Chair, and Co-Chair to recognize that that they need to let more people be part of the process. A strong organization is built through activity and increased participation. Let’s use a church as an example of what I’m talking about. If the members of a church only show up and talk to other members on Sunday’s that church has a hard time growing and attracting new members. Every church I’ve been to understands this, and thus put a premium on its members being part of a small group. These small groups often meet and socialize outside of the church and are formed on either a shared interest or similar set of circumstances that the members are facing.

Small groups are an easy concept that’s been right under our nose for a long, long time, but the only small groups that exist for Iowa Republicans are either County Central Committees or the State Central Committee. We have failed to use issues, events, and projects to grow our Party through small groups.

Build Small Groups via Issues

We all know there are people in our Party who are passionate about one particular issue over another. Some quick examples that come to mind are Life, Traditional Marriage, Immigration, Taxes, Economic Development, Health Care, and Renewable Energy. We should be pooling our best and brightest talent in each of these areas. A group like this could be tasked with a number of things like suggesting legislation, providing talking points to our supporters and activists, and encouraging other people who share their passion on a given issue to get involved with our Party.

Build Small Groups via Events

While I think getting more people involved in small groups will help the Party fundraise, when I say events I’m not talking about things like the Lincoln or Reagan Dinners. I’m talking about events like the Caucuses, Straw Poll, and other potential opportunities to earn media coverage when they may arise. Iowa Republicans will once again host the First in the Nation Caucuses in 2012 and probably a Straw Poll in 2011. I think it would wise to create some small groups that look for ways to make these events better and more successful. We have a wealth of political talent in this state but we don’t utilize it like we should. Additionally, issues arise where we should make sure our voices are heard. For example in a few days the Iowa Supreme Court will begin hearing the case against traditional marriage in our state. It might be wise to for Iowa Republicans to organize a rally at the judicial building. It’s an easy way to have our point of view heard and a good way to bring more people into the fold.

Build Small Groups via Projects

Let’s see, we seem to have a problem with our absentee and early voter program, not to mention same day voter registration. Instead of complaining about it, we should find people who are passionate about these issues and let them come up with a plan. No matter your opinion of Rep. Christopher Rants, he is very passionate about these issues and we need to find a way to use it to build and grow our party.

Our goal for a new Republican Party should be one that engages the activist and gives them ownership in the process. Some people get nervous when the term “Big tent” gets thrown around, but if everyone has a job, or responsibility, we are less likely to bicker over the 5% of things we disagree on. The Janet Metcalf’s and Joy Corning’s of the world feel like they don’t have a place within our party. Sadly they are correct. Now they must understand that the Party isn’t going to compromise on some core principles they might not agree with, but we desperately need their help on those things that that motivated them to get involved in politics in the first place.

The SCC and Party Leadership must change they way they operate. Currently our flock only gathers at a monthly County Central Committee or a quarterly SCC meeting. We must find a way to break that mold if we ever want to grow.

I’d like to know your constructive thoughts on this or any other ideas you may have.

51 comments:

  1. Krusty:

    Great suggestions!

    Ed Failor, Jr.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nice one Krusty.

    Dead. On.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Now your getting somewhere Hershal. Mega Props!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Excellent post. Lead on the target.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hershal, your finger is on the pulse my Krusty friend!

    Meetings are where people take minutes and waste hours. Results are where people take vision and work for hours. What's so hard about this? I've said this so many times my face is blue turning shades of green but Iowa needs to rebuild the working klass of Republican volunteers who do the heavy lifting, aka...hard work!
    If our leaders are graded by the fundraising curve then we've allowed ourselves to fail by failing to deliver expectations.
    What ever happened to a strategic plan? How about having a plan that causes us to work? I'm tired of futility and especially when we all know our "kause" is so much superior and yet we have a POTUS-elect in training and Nancy and Harry "large and in charge." Please tell me this is a bad dream!

    ReplyDelete
  6. From the Drudge report today...

    The Capitol Visitors Center, which opened this morning, may have tripled its original budget and fallen years behind schedule, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid found a silver lining for members of Congress: tourists won't offend them with their B.O. anymore.

    "My staff tells me not to say this, but I'm going to say it anyway," said Reid in his remarks. "In the summer because of the heat and high humidity, you could literally smell the tourists coming into the Capitol. It may be descriptive but it's true."
    ******************************
    I'm a Christian man, but this one makes me think in "words" I don't use and probably shouldn't know!

    What offends ME Senator, is the smell of your arrogance!

    So when do we start kissing their rings? For those of you who don't speak "Elite" Harry just told us to kiss his a**

    Let's go to work and kick his a** in the next election. I'll pay for a ticket to travel out west and work for his next opponent! Wouldn't that be a great kause? Let's bring Republicans from all 50 states and leave our foot prints in his rear shaped like an exclamation point!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Want to know the biggest problem with the party. The first 3 issues that come to Krusty's mind are abortion, gay marriage, and immigration.

    Polls of Americans show that those are not the top issues they are concerned about. So why are we forcing them down their throat? Why can't we come up with solutions for the economy, health care, environment and have new ideas about stopping terrorism.

    A majority of people under 35 support gay marriage. Hispanics are a growing population in this country. How can we win elections by shutting them out? This issue matrix is old, tired, and a recipe for more failures in the future.

    I'm not saying that our party leaders need to abandon their values but why make divisive issues that less and less people care about the focal point of our efforts.

    ARGHHHH

    ReplyDelete
  8. Additionally, I like how a post titled "how to build a more inclusive party" advocates for a rally to protest letting gays get married.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Amoryblaine,
    I did not list those issues in any order of importance so I take offense to your comments. My point is not that these are the issues that we run on, but that we should organize our party through the issues. Our candidates will determine what issues they run on, as a party we need to use every issue to reach out and get people involved.
    Now if you are they type of person who simply wants to eliminate the Life, Marriage, and Immigration issues for the party or make them taboo to talk about we will become a permanent minority party do to a philosophical civil war.

    Additionally, one of the goals of these groups should be to find the best way to communicate our ideas without turning people off. While I’m sure you despise Mike Huckabee, when he talked about the life issue he did so in a positive manner not a negative one. We need more of our candidates to be like that on a number of issues.

    As for my comment about a Traditional Marriage Rally, I’m not saying that you need to be involved, just those people who are passionate about that issue. So I would never expect to see a Janet Metcalf or Joy Corning there, and nobody should expect them to participate. It’s simply not their deal. Likewise I’m sure they wouldn’t expect the Chuck Hurley’s of the world be participate in a panel discussion about the state budget.

    Check you anger at the door and find a way to contribution to our reconstruction effort. Hating on those who are passionate about the social issues doesn’t get us anywhere, and neither does watering down what our party stands for.

    Krusty

    ReplyDelete
  10. amoryblaine:

    Just because the liberal media and power base says something doesn't make it true. They can say people don't care about gay marriage, but that doesn't make it so.

    A majority of Americans obviously oppose gay marriage.

    (Personally, I couldn't care any less if gays marry)

    R u serious? Did you pay any attention on November 4?

    California voted largely for change. They voted for President-elect Obama.

    The other change they voted for was clarifying California's gay marriage law.

    The liberal Utopians voted to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. Again, while they helped sweep President-elect Obama to victory.

    That's called empirical evidence.

    The ultimate poll, no margin for error.

    Every vote counted!

    No better polling data.

    Do you really believe all your smarty-pants polls now?

    In college statistics class I learned that the numbers are only as honest as the presenter.

    No gap between testing and reporting in California. It is what it is.

    Califorians are not the so called narrow minded christian conservatives who you think are ruining the party. They are mostly center-left.

    If they voted to defend the traditional definition of marriage, it's probably not a bad idea to discuss the topic as mid-west Republicans.

    I win!

    Me

    ReplyDelete
  11. My point was not that we should not talk about these issues but that our campaigns should FOCUS on issues that people care about which right now is the economy, health care, and national security. On all of these issues people trust DEMOCRATS more.

    Why? Because we ceded the issues. We're not coming up with solutions. We're spending our primaries talking about marriage and abortion and immigration.

    Want to talk about a permanent minority krusty? 5% of black people voted for John McCain. 31% of Hispanics voted for John McCain. 27% of self identified gays voted for John McCain. 32% of people under 30 voted for John McCain. 43% of women voted for him.

    Beyond that we have all but abandoned the West Coast and the Northeast as areas where we are competitive.

    If we don't start appealing to young people, minorities, women, and people in blue states there is no mathematical way for us to regain a national majority in Congress or the presidency. Especially when you consider the drastic increase in hispanics among the electorate.

    So in short I think your ideas about how to build a more inclusive party are more of the same and a recipe for further failure.

    Do I think we should abandon social issues or kick social conservatives out of the party. Heck no. Just like pro-gun, pro-business democrats like Mark Warner, Jon Tester, and Janet Napolitano (who all won in red states) don't think that gun-control supporters or tax hikers should be kicked out of the democratic party.

    I do think we should rebuild the party around mainstream leaders who might not toe the ICA party line on every issue and are willing to talk about solutions to the serious dinner table problems facing Americans right now in a positive and inclusive manner.

    ReplyDelete
  12. How about convincing people that we are right on the social issues, and fiscal issues for that matter?

    What ever happened to changing hearts and minds?

    Sure, a lot of young people have liberal ideas. So did the hippies in the 60's. Now those people are the new retirees who have mysteriously grown more conservative as they aged. Funny how that happens.

    People are capable of changing their minds if given a persuasive argument. We haven't had anyone lately who's been terribly good a putting forth persuasive arguments.

    But that doesn't mean we should abandon our principles as amoryblaine suggests. If we follow his/her advice, we're giving this country a one-party system and flushing the future of our nation down the toilet.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Boy, politics sure is funny.

    Amendments upholding God's law on marriage and family pass in every state they're put on the ballot, including the bluest of the blue like the People's Republic of Oregon and California.

    Yet in those states people vote for big government and higher taxes and Democrats across the board. Nevertheless, it's the social conservatives that Republican elites keep telling to hide in the basement, put a sock in it, go milk a bull, etc.

    Go figure.

    P.S...now is the time when "tough" guys at home in their mom's basement punching the sticky digits on the keyboard call me all sorts of names they would never have the cojones to say to anyone's face.

    You're doing a great service here with your blog, Krusty. Please keep it up.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Your a socialist! Why do you bother with this site?

    ReplyDelete
  15. 98.3 WOW FM

    For those non-socialist readers and listeners out there.

    ReplyDelete
  16. 98.3 on your FM dial for those of you who don't support socialism.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Marxist radio with a Christian tilt.

    Everyday after Rush, where the fairness doctrine is already in place.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I have a question. How do you get socialism out of Deace's show? Give me an example that didn’t come out of a Romney talking points memo.
    Also, have you ever stopped to think that Christian Conservatives get a little upset when you call them socialists? You may believe that it doesn’t matter if you upset them but keep in mind that they make up around 45% of the party and over 60% of Primary voters. Pissing them off and calling them socialists is probably the last thing you want to do.
    It's also interesting to note that the same people who like to refer to Christians as socialists are the same people telling us we need to be a "big tent" party ... That’s a great idea guys, build a big tent party by driving out the same people who are holding the tent up in the first place ...

    Another question, if Social Conservatives are such an over-represented minority in the GOP why is it then that Social Conservatives dominate primaries and party elections? Those are open to everyone and yet moderates cant collect the votes to win. That should tell you something.

    ReplyDelete
  19. awww...yes...that didn't take long. Like a fool and his money, Internet tough guys and their real names are soon parted.

    To the dogs returning to their own vomit, thanks for proving my point. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  20. I am reading these posts and do not see where someone called Christians socialists. Looks more like they called Deace a socialist not Christians.

    -Just an observation

    ReplyDelete
  21. Didn't Deace vote for Obama?
    That sounds a rather socialist if that is true.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Not sure? That would not suprise me if my less than steller memory serves me correctly. I believe Mr. Deace advocated against Jim Nussle on election day. Since then we have had a 20% growth in government and already had some basic rights stripped away and soon to be more.

    That sounds a lot like socialism.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I'd appreciate it if someone provided me one example of how or when I've advocated socialism.

    I opposed the bailout -- vehemently. John McCain, Chuck Grassley and Tom Tancredo voted for it.

    I oppose pork. Chuck Grassley tried to spend $50 million of money that's not his for an "earth park" nobody wanted.

    I don't want government control of healthcare. Mitt Romney instituted a mandated healthcare system that included state-paid abortions for $50.

    I don't buy the global warming scam and think it's a government power grab. John McCain campaigned on cap and trade.

    I opposed the Project Destiny tax increase. Dave Roederer, John McCain's Iowa campaign chairman, was a strong proponent and I believe was a well-paid consultant for it, too.

    Please provide me one example of anytime I have advocated socialism. I'm easy to find. :-)

    For the record, I support EVERY plank of the Iowa Republican party platform. And for that I'm the bad guy?

    Again, politics is funny.

    And please tell Sean Hannity a good groupie always brings a breath mint of handful of jellybeans along with them back stage.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Unendorsment of Nussle
    Unendorsment of McCain
    Endorsment of Obama
    Unendorsment of Grassley...FOREVER

    Real impressive conservative credentials.

    Actions speak louder than words...your actions are in support of Democrats, a party that moves more socialist each year.

    You are a Democrats best friend...sad :-(

    Your listeners are fools if they think otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I have supported every candidate that shares my convictions, without question.

    Your argument should be with your sellout candidates, not me. It's not my job to amend my convictions, which I'm accountable to God for someday, in order to suffer through voting for candidates. It's the candidates' jobs to match their principles up with mine (the voter). This is a government in which the people are supposed to have the power, remember?

    The Constitution begins with the words "We the People" not "this the system" or "this the party."

    My only loyalty as a Christian is to Christ, not to a party. I have a duty, as a Christian, to support candidates that honor the law of Christ, and a duty not to support candidates that don't.

    Eternity (forever) is a long time. I am to live, as we all are, with that in mind.

    If I have ever said anything factually untrue about where candidates stand or what they have done, please tell me. So far, no one has been able to. I noticed you made no attempt to refute a single thing I said about Republican candidates and their positions. And that's because you can't. All you can do is attack me, but I am not the cause of your problem. I am a symptom of your real problem.

    Any of you tough guys hiding behind your anonymous screen names have a standing invitation to appear on our 50,000 watt radio program any time you'd like to have this discussion before a much larger audience.

    Believe me, it would be my treat.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I love Deace!

    Truth be told. If conservatives really acted like Conservatives and did things like, NOT vote for bailouts, NOT overspend on wars without planning for an end, and NOT give so much welfare to other nations at America's expense.

    Maybe be open and honest and speak directly to the American people? Maybe stop the buck at the oval office instead of having an underling resign everytime you have messed up?

    Maybe holding the Saudi's accountable?

    Barack Obama would still be a state senator and Bill Clinton would have never won in 92.

    You guys are only pissed off because Deace will stand for what he believes in, while you will follow something so blantantly against your principles just because someone slaps a GOP label on it.

    You want to know how to rebuild the party?

    Put down the Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly, pick up William F. Buckley Jr., Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Agree with Deace or not, you anons need to get some testicular fortitude and put your names by your statements, otherwise your comments fall on deaf ears as you have zero credibility.

    WAR Eliminating anonymous posts

    ReplyDelete
  28. Mr. Deace:

    Me thinks thou protest too much. :-)

    I am about to give you unsolicited advice:

    1. Look, don't waste your energy defending yourself against people who are jealous and anonymous. You can never win.

    2. There are many good people who don't agree with you and me 100%, who have worked long and hard to advance the party.

    3. Some certainly feel they have spent many hours and much shoe leather working to advance the Republican agenda. They rightfully feel some earned ownership in the process.

    I have heard people say they have a problem with you being such a critic of the party, and a pronouncer of what the party should do without having invested volunteer hours over years and years.

    4. As a professed Christian, a little more love of Christ would be useful. A little less name calling of those who attack you, or simply disagree with you.

    Jesus was clear:

    Matthew 5:44-45

    "But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and unrighteous."

    John 15: 12

    "My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you."

    Serious directives. Take them more as primary directives and I believe you can find more loving ways to express your views.

    Not less committed to your views, just more loving in presentation.

    5. If you are a Republican, you work hard in the primary process and support the general election candidates. Particularly when there exists no better alternative.

    People have a problem with your attack of Republican candidates in the general election.

    Do you truly not believe Nussle was better than Culver?

    Was McCain not better than Obama?

    Your positions and pronouncements in general elections is puzzling to Republican activists.

    Anyway, I have gone on too long already.

    Bottom line, as a Christian, your rewards are not in this world.

    Government is of this world.

    "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's"

    God clearly did not claim government and that which it takes from the people.

    The most acceptable alternative in politics is not a compromise of your faith.

    Just the thoughts of a flawed sinner who did nothing to deserve the Love of Christ.

    We need to show that grace to others as we are able.

    Feel free to call me at the office to chat. 563-264-8080

    No fear here and I don't live in my Mom's basement. :-)

    Regards,

    Ed Failor, Jr.

    ReplyDelete
  29. How about Republicans having some meetings across the state and encourage grassroots workers to help craft a Contract with Iowa, similar to Newt's Contract with America. About time the SCC starts listening to grass roots workers who seem to do the grunt work and usually ask for no recognition!

    ReplyDelete
  30. palmofdeborah(IDA)December 2, 2008 at 9:04 PM

    One thing some of us are doing in Ames is to start a book club where we read a political/historical book and then discuss their ideas. Hopefully we will use this time to discuss further activism in local politics. Frankly, we can't wait for the Story County GOP to get their poop in a group--we are taking it into our own hands.
    We are starting by reading "Miracle at Philadelphia".

    ReplyDelete
  31. Ed,

    Thank you very much for your comments and I appreciate them. I'd be happy to give you a call and we can meet for lunch sometime if you'd like.

    In the meantime, I'd like to address a few of your points since several folks I'm guessing are reading this blog and our comments, and I think it's always healthy for the world to see men of faith reasoning together.

    I'll respond to each numbered bullet point accordingly.

    1) Having once owned a message board and a website, I wholeheartedly agree with you. In fact, I often give this advice to others. However, I made an exception here for two reasons: 1) I was bored and had some extra time at the office, 2) I feel an obligation to stick up for folks who are likeminded and are being unfairly characterized by either liberals pretending to not be in order to stir up trouble or RINOs too gutless to come out of hiding.

    2) My theology says no one is good, but that's a minor quibble. :-) Yes, I do agree that many well-intentioned people have done and are doing what you're saying. If that's your way of saying to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, that's sage advice that I should probably do a better job of taking in the future.

    3) I can understand that feeling, but frankly it's a false premise. The question isn't whether or not I'm qualified to make my points because that's immaterial since I work at WHO. I get paid to make those points, whether I'm qualified to or not. The question really is whether or not the points have merit. How someone feels about the source is immaterial, and is often used as an excuse not to address the points being raise because you don't have good answers. That said, I would agree that at times I have failed to show deference out of respect for elders when necessary, meaning not giving them a chance to explain themselves and just calling for a verdict of the hangman's jury. Such is the brashness of youth, I'm afraid. That's not an excuse, that's just a reason, and folks are welcome to hold me as accountable for it as I hold them for their actions. There are always things you would do over again if you could, and for me this is one I would do over again if I could. For the record, by the way, I was a Polk County GOP volunteer in the mid-1990s, and even worked the 1995 presidential picnic at the Izaak Walton League when Kim Schmett was president. However, the Register forced me to stop doing it out of a conflict of interest once they found out, and then I got into sports and didn't have political matters at the forefront of my priorities for several years. I still, though, participated in the 1999 and 2007 straw polls and have been to every GOP presidential caucus since I moved back here in 1994. I have also worked behind the scenes and on the air to help several candidates as of late, like Kent Sorenson for instance.

    4) I would agree with much of this criticism of me, and it is humbling and a current flaw in my character. In exchange with me acknowledging that, and asking for forgiveness, I would ask others who recognize this defect in my character to consider the following passages from Scripture for their accountability as well:

    Revelation 3:17 -- These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation. I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth."

    Matthew 10:34 -- "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

    Colossians 2:8 -- See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

    2 Corinthians 5:7 -- For we walk by faith, not sight.

    Matthew 19:26 -- Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this impossible, but with God all things are possible."

    Romans 12:21 -- Do not overcome evil with evil, but overcome evil with good.

    1 Peter 1:16 -- For it is written: "Be holy, because I am holy."

    I could quote much more, but by now I hope you get my point(s).

    As to your other points...

    The question isn't whether or not it's appropriate to criticize candidates' records at a certain time or not if you're a Christian. The question is why would you vote at all for candidates who violate God's law? Therefore, it doesn't matter so much whether I criticize a candidate in the primary or the general, as much as it matters if my criticism is true or not. If it's not, I will be held accountable before God for that. If it is, those of you that support those candidates guilty of what they're being criticized for will. Just because someone wins a primary and has a Republican name badge doesn't immune them of criticism. The word of God is a DOUBLE-edged sword, not a single-edged one we only aim at Democrats.

    The Nussle/Culver election is another thing I would do over again if I could. It's one of the things I've wrestled with privately quite a bit. But what's done is done, and I'll hopefully learn from that exeperience in the future. I had been on the air for three months when that went down, and let my emotions get the better of me. I can say now I truly hadn't considered all the consequences of what was happening at the time. That doesn't excuse Nussle for getting cute with that Project Vote Smart survey, but I am saying I'm not sure the punishment fit the crime.

    On the other hand, I'm sleeping like a Calvinist about opposing McCain and don't regret it at all. McCain was for murder (abortion and embryonic stem cell research), stealing (bailout & cap and trade), sexual immorality (openly opposed the marriage amendment), and lied (I have several examples of the straight talk express being the double-talk express). I simply, as a Christian, could not vote for someone who repeatedly violated God's law.

    Ed, if you believe that God does not claim government, why are you then as a Christian involved in it? With all due respect, that is a wholly and totally unbiblical principle. Where did you get that? Render unto Caesar was Christ's response to an attempt to trap him into making inflammatory remarks towards the government, not a statement defining the limits of His sovereignty.

    The Bible says Christ is the "ruler of all creation."

    The Bible says that "every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord," and I must've missed the part about how that exempts governments.

    The prophet Isaiah says "the government shall be on his shoulders."

    Paul says that God himself allows and ordains civil governments, and Peter says there is no authority except that which God ordains.

    Jesus tells Pilate his power to crucify him comes "from above."

    The Psalmist says God is "the governor of the nations" and "the heart of the King belongs to the Lord."

    Isaiah also says the nation "that will not serve God will perish, yes those nations will be utterly wasted."

    I could spend three hours quoting more passages along these lines, and I wouldn't even scratch the surface my brother of what God's Word says about that. For goodness sakes, one of the dominant themes of the Old Testament is the Jewish theocracy and God's relationship to civil governments.

    On this side of the New Testament, if we don't base our laws on God's law, we have no law at all for His law is the only real law there is. How would we even have His law to base ours on unless He revealed it to us? And if He revealed it to us, doesn't that say He wants us to use it, to govern with it? What you're describing is Deism, not Christianity, my friend.

    The philosophy you're espousing will never allow us to take our country back, because we have no higher authority to petition and appeal to other than getting 50.1% of the votes from a fallen, sinful people. Good luck with that. I fear many other Christians in the civic sphere think as you do, which is why they're so defeated. They should be defeated, because their philosophy is a loser right from the start. It makes no room for the sovereign authority of God at all, let alone starting with that as a premise.

    We are children of the King. We're not Doug Gross' "minority of a minority." We serve the Prince of Peace and the Lord of Lords by His grace alone, we're not some impotent church that just flails along until we're Raptured off the planet. Where is that in the Bible?

    The answer is nowhere.

    "Upon this rock I will build my church, and not even the gates to Hades will stand against it," Jesus says. That doesn't sound too defeatist to me. In addition, are we not commanded to "disciple the nations?"

    There is no limit to God's authority, for He is God and there is no other. He is the God of the living, not the dead. He is the God that rose the dead. He is the God that placed us in this nation, and didn't do it so that we wouldn't use everyting -- including the political sphere -- to testify to His faithfulness.

    He did it so that we would.

    My brother, we need to talk. :-) I will call you soon. Sorry for being so longwinded.

    I'll leave the folks here now to their regularly scheduled questions, comments, and insults.

    Since this is a Republican blog I assume no one will be offended if I end this with Merry Christmas!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Holy smokes, Deace, you had me at "hello."

    I am a social conservative who believes that all parts of the party platform are important and none of the issues should be swept under the rug or silenced. Why is that so hard to do? We know that we have the best plans for America. We just need to stick to those plans and get people to come to us and not us to them. Sound too simple?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Steve:

    To be clear, more for others than you.

    I was not suggesting I shared some of the generalized comments and feelings of otheres.

    Nor did I suggest what I think a Republican should do should in a mandatory fashion apply to you. You have a job to do.

    Now, we have fun theological discussions before us .

    I totally get where you are coming from. Our views are very similar.

    Honestly, my faith guides my views, but I put no faith in a Godless government to do God's will.

    Church's become perversions of men.

    The only pure and good thing is my God.

    I unfortunately fail Him daily.

    It is His will that will be done. Not yours or mine.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  34. So are they going to kick Kim L out or just make a bunch of noise trying to get her to resign? What does Krusty think about this situation?

    ReplyDelete
  35. nice suggestions Krusty. Suggest that to Linn County who just wants to party and not do anything. Two candidates won yet they didn't do anything for them. Schulte almost did not make it. There was no help from them. I don't blame Wagner for not even showing up at the CC meetings. You think the past chairs are bad ? Think again ...

    ReplyDelete
  36. Only I can lead us out of the wilderness.

    ReplyDelete
  37. The minute I saw Ed Failor, Jr spouting scripture to Steve Deace I knew things were going to get interesting and I wasn't disappointed.

    Would that be like Hugh Heffner (or maybe W) giving Bill Clinton suggestions on how to have fun sex?

    Just a thought !

    ReplyDelete
  38. Ed & Steve:

    Reading your posts back and forth was refreshing to say the least. It's the kind of reasoning and tone we need if we are ever to rebuild our party. Two grown-ups having a debate and willing to sign their names, what's not to love about that.

    Ed,

    I think you captured what a lot of people are feeling in regards to Deace's "approach".

    Deace - I have to agree with Ed on #4. I'm pro-life and pro-traditional marriage. I also worked for Doug Gross (twice) and with Dave. I consider both friends.

    I must say, I feel the attacks that you, Krusty and other anon's have leveled against Doug and Dave have been over the top. I question if you "really" have tried to get to know either of them.

    Doug and Dave are good people. Throughout their career they have sacrificed and given back through public service. They care about our party and it's future.

    On a personal note - I've found Doug and Dave to be two of the most loyal and thoughtful people I've ever met.

    If we could lower the tone and raise the civility in our public discourse, we all would be better off. The risk is turning off the very people we need to win elections. My humble opinion.

    Ed - I will be in Muscatine next Tuesday for work - want to grab lunch?

    Dustin Blythe

    ReplyDelete
  39. Agree with 12:07 AM. We in NW Iowa have no idea who this Steve Deace guy is and we don't care to read ad nauseum a debate between him and whomever he thinks doesn't like him. Believe it or not, bloggers, there is more to Iowa than the Des Moines metro area. It would be good to continue (begin?) a focus on rebuilding the party in these posts.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Krusty,

    Good post.

    We need to be a bit less subversive and abrasive. Calling everyone who disagrees with you a socialist is not what Republicans are about.

    For those of you too youmg too remember, that was exactly the way the Democrats were in the 80's.

    If you're afraid of the future, then get out of the way, stand aside. The people of this country are ready to move again.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Duddy,

    You need to get some sleep. 12:07 a.m.?

    I agree with your comments on Dave and Doug. Both have the Party's best interest at heart.

    We need to get off of our self-imposted litmus tests of conservatism and come together. There is a place in the Republican Party to use the gifts that all realms of Republicans can contribute. Let's not alienate them.

    Mitch Hambleton

    ReplyDelete
  42. litmus tests are a voters callDecember 3, 2008 at 10:02 AM

    Don’t all voters apply litmus tests to candidates? Seriously? Litmus tests are the driving force behind Americans two party democracy. The problem with this rebuilding process is that we use “litmus test” as some sort of idiotic buzz word used by people who can’t win a primary or cant garner support due to being out of touch with their own assumed voter base. At the end of the day we apply litmus tests to every decision we make.

    For example: Who you hire a registered sex offender? Would you do business with a person who couldn’t afford your services? Would you vote for any candidate with a “D” next to their name on a ballot? Do you encourage everyone to vote for any candidate with an “R” next to their name on a ballot? Did our House and Senate leadership get involved in races in overwhelmingly Democrat districts against entrenched incumbents? Guess what, ALL OF THOSE are litmus tests!

    Should the party as an institutional organization use a litmus test to determine who wins our support? No, that’s for the voters to decide. However it’s a little pretentious for Doug Gross or anyone else to tell voters that they should not apply a litmus test to the candidates when determining who earns THEIR support. Especially when Gross turns around and tells those same people to go ahead and apply a litmus test to the same candidates in a General election.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I don't think there are any true Republicans telling social conservatives to go hide in the closet.

    I think there are true Republicans asking for the removal of absolute litmus tests for candidates.

    1. Our constitution dictates that there be no National Religion. This country is founded on the principal of freedom of worship without persecution. That ideal does not limit itself to Christianity. To suggest that our government "bow on knee unto Jesus" is directly against the charter of this country, no matter how good an idea it may sound to Christians to be.

    2. We have some very good candidates who are being sliced and diced because they aren't hard-core on issues such as abortion or gay marriage. In relation to Freedom of religion, at what point does someone stand up and say that government should not be involved in marriage or marriage licensing; Marriage is a blessing of the church, and it is church leaders who decide who receive that blessing? Gay marriage will exist only in those churches that grant it.

    Government should not be in the discrimination business. Our tax structure supports joint taxation partnership, what difference is sexual orientation where this is concerned? If Republicans are true to the platform of small government, how is that platform espoused by doing bedroom checks?

    3. Krusty, nice post. We should consider success in the 2010 election a project and identify the right project managers to lead us in achieving that objective. Your ideas present the beginnings of doing that, IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Dud,

    Glad to see your post here. That means 14% of our graduating class is reading Krusty.

    However, I can't agree with Gross' idea of wanting to water down our platform. We will never win that way. Stand for something or fall for anything, right? People don't vote for the party who changes depending on which way the wind is blowing. They vote for consistancy.

    Class of '88
    Lori Jungling

    ReplyDelete
  45. I am amazed how many of you quote Lincoln and align yourselves with him. I do have a geneological connection with him; and find that the republican party no longer represents his strengths. The Whig party no longer represented vocal voices. Today the republican party needs to be renamed, so that it is representative of the southern christian evangelical, pentacostal movement. The republican party today is not the party of Lincoln.
    Robert E. Lee, Russ,Dease,Scheffler, Lehman, Sporer have retaken the party. Possibly we need to divide the nation into blue and red. Possibly the christian alliance may wish to move and feel more comfortable in the south. For everyone sake, the Christian extremists need to take a stand and rename the party. For moderates they need to move on like Reagan did and join the other party.Everyone will be alot happier.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Deace,

    The enemy of good is excellence!

    I have one question for you, with all of your political prowness and large listening fan base. Have you ever actually been involved in a campaign at the grassroots level whether it be knocking on doors or making cold calls off of a list or even doing voter surveys?

    If you had, maybe your eyes may be opened. With your radio show you probalby only have 5% at best name id in this state, and the issues that you pounce on are good but really only shared by 30-40% of the population of this state in the best of years. The problem republicans have is that they are obligatied to talking about Social conservative issues 24-7 because if they talk about any other issues they are attacked by people in their own group for not talking about their issues all of the time. Republicans in this state need to start trusting granted people like Doug Gross inspires no trust but nor do you. People like Deace constantly tearing down the good allow the evil side of politics to exsist.

    ReplyDelete
  47. We are participating in a divide and conquer strategy. There is no need for this.

    Most Republicans are both social and fiscal conservatives. We need to stay that way because both are right.

    We fight it out in a primary and then stay united to stop Democrats who believe in nothing any of us believe.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Lori -

    Great to hear from you. I had no idea you were a Krusty fan. My email address is
    blythedwb@yahoo.com. You and I are on the same page :)

    I'm not for "watering down" our platform, and from my perspective I don't believe Doug does either. I agree with your statement "stand for something or fall for anything."

    I would have loved it if Bush and the Republican Congress, had governed on the principles they campaigned on. Instead we grew government and increased spending in a way that would make San Fransico Democrats blush. We need to stand for something...and one state in particular did this election cycle.

    The R's in TN took over both chambers for the first time since Reconstruction. They campaigned on bread and butter issues - taxes, the economy and healthcare. They didn't water down their stance on any of the social issues - but it wasn't the singular focus...On top of that Senator Alexander received 25% of the African American vote in the year of Obama. How could this be?

    My sense is that some SO CO's on this blog, rather than celebrate the R's victory in TN would label them as "sellouts". Not because social issues were watered down, but that they were not front and center. That's just my opinion - any So Co's who disagree feel free to do so.

    I also think Doug is getting hammered for suggesting a message that sounds somewhat similar to what the TN R's rode to victory this cycle? So good enough for TN -but doesn't pass the litmus test here in Iowa? Pleeeaazzzz...

    Do we want to learn from states that had success? Or do we continue with this "litmus mania" of campaign purity and shout down folks who have a differing perspective?

    The tone and low level personal attacks bother me and distract us from the larger task at hand. I agree with Mitch and believe Doug and Dave have the Party's best interest at heart. I'm glad folks like Dave, Doug, Krusty and Deace care enough to stay involved. However, the sooner we come together the better.

    Krusty - I think your ideas on small groups are right on. Currently in two small groups at church, the shared experiences and connections you make are very rewarding.

    Other perspectives welcome.

    Am a fan of Emily, Mitch and Russ in Winterset...


    Class of '88
    Duddy

    ReplyDelete
  49. Dud,

    Man, with ideas like that you should have never been in that flunkie sociology class with Jay :) You should have been in Capstone with me.....we could have debated that raging Democrat Milligan together.

    As a socon in groups with other socons, I can honestly say that we never require that the social issues always be on the front burner if there are other topics of bigger concern. What we ask, however, is that when the social issues do arise the candidate doesn't go mushy on them for the sake of political gain. Going mushy on any of our issues never works anyway. We don't require a candidate to wear the social issues on his sleeve, but instead have the membership card in his billfold at all times.

    Does this mean we would support a candidate who is strong on the social issues but sucks on the other ones? No. But I firmly believe that if a candidate compromises on the social issues, they will become soft on the other issues when pressed. Focusing on other issues besides the social issues is not being a sell-out, but compromising on them is.

    Just my thougths.

    Good discussing with you.

    Lori
    Go Warriors

    jljungling@aol.com

    ReplyDelete
  50. I find it very interesting how much I hear about needing to attract and appeal to new voters, including "gays", women, blacks, and Hispanics. While I agree that the Republican party needs to appeal to these voters, I can hardly believe that some of you obviously intelligent *cough cough* adults advocate dropping what the Republican party stands for in order to "win". What sort of victory is it if you have to become the enemy in order to beat the enemy? If all you care about is winning, and you want to sacrifice issues that the evangelical conservative base holds as crucial, you might as well join the Democratic party. I hope there is still a platform to uphold by the time I am old enough to run for political office, but with people like Doug Gross running the party, the future looks grim.

    Jordan Linscheid

    ReplyDelete
  51. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete