Monday, January 5, 2009

Without a Vision the Party will Perish

With the Republican Party of Iowa electing a new chairman this coming weekend, I’ve decided to postpone my prediction post. Don’t worry; it can wait a day or two. I think the selection of the leader of our party is far more important than me trying to accurately predict the future, which you all know I’m good at anyway.

I spent some time this weekend reading the reaction and commentary of the candidate forum on various blogs and newspapers. Again, kudos to the six people who participated, we need more dedicated people like them who care deeply about the future of our Party. As I’ve reminded my readers time and time again, these races are complicated and can change on a whim.

If Gopal Krishna’s absence from the forum means he is not running for chair, then there are three candidates in play, Danny Carroll, Matt Randall, and Matt Strawn. Now I know there are some who mock me for still mentioning Gopal as a serious candidate. I do so not because I’m naïve, I do so because unlike Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney who refused to kill off John McCain when he was down, I want to see my prey mounted in my trophy room, not stealing a victory.

For the most part Saturday’s forum was a healthy exercise. However I’m disappointed in the lack of vision the candidates offered. It seemed to me the debate was centered on the party platform, internal communication between the state party and county organizations/activists, and the use of new technologies. Those issues have been debated continuously in blogs, but I was disappointed that the issues debated ended there because even if executed perfectly, I doubt they make a major impact on outcome of the general election.

Missing was any substantive discussion of fundraising. Sure every candidate says it’s important and claim that they can raise significant amounts of cash, but to effectively raise money you have to give the donor a reason to give. That’s what was lacking. It’s not good enough to just say we need your money to win elections. What are we raising money for? To pay staff, the electric bill, fund an early voter program. For the new chairman to be effective in fundraising, they must be able to articulate the purpose for the party. I can’t answer that for any of the candidates right now. If forced to tell a donor what their contribution is go toward I’d say internal party communication, YouTube videos, a glossy cover on the party platform, and staff salaries. I doubt many donors will be excited about that.

It’s also important to realize that in the last election cycle the RNC gave 1.7 million to the party. Sure that money was for the McCain effort, but in 2010 Iowa Republican’s will not get a dime from the national party. So how are we going to fill that void? We will be on our own to build a statewide infrastructure to help our candidates.

Our next chairman needs to focus on cutting the Democrat’s voter registration advantage, building a voter database that is comparable or better than the Democrats, and determining what the party can provide our Republican candidates at all levels to help them be successful. While this debate is one that rightfully includes the activists of our party, the focus of the discussion needs to be about voter, more specifically how register and turn out more Republican voters.

Some scoff at the idea that the SCC can still look outside of the six candidates who participated in Saturday’s forum for our chairman, I think it is their responsibility to find the best person for the job, not give it to the person who wants it the most. Many people were not happy with our 2008 US Senate candidates, or some of the candidates who ran for Congress because we limited ourselves to those who were willing to run, choosing not to go out and encourage or ask the best and brightest people in our party to run.

The best way to unite the party is to make sure our next chairman is the absolute best person possible for the job.

Good read: Steve Deace has a good write up on the chairman forum.

58 comments:

  1. I want the guy who puts Democrats in the crosshairs and vows to use every inch of their might to advance Republicans at the expense of these crooks currently running the state of Iowa and the US.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "This is a young guy that has spent less political time in Iowa than Tom Harkin this past decade, so how can he possibly be qualified to take over such a tattered party?" - Steve Deace

    ReplyDelete
  3. Quotes for the day:

    "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake!" General Napoleon Bonaparte

    "Sir, we are surrounded by enemy on all sides!
    Excellent, then we can ATTACK IN ANY DIRECTION!"

    General Oliver P. Smith - True story, battle of the Chosin reservoir during the Korean war, upon which he did attack and lead his troops 70 miles through the enemy lines to reinforcements.

    Hershel has dusted off his copy of Sun Tzu and now that I think of it, we should probably all be reading up on a few chapters if we cant to take back our state. Nice strategy about going for the "kill" as RPI has been hiding in foxholes for years now!

    Nice analysis today, the field reminds me of high school, picking out all the girls I'd like to date, but also realizing I wouldn't marry any of them either. A point you missed was the lack of "original, hard hitting questions" from the SCC and even the audiance for that matter. Seemed like a tired worn out script was used and what we really needed was a political version of Alex Trebek to "push" the field with really tough questions, like a campaign debate!

    Now that said, I still have great respect for the SCC body, especially the new members of which I know several and have complete trust they will select the best person for the job.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Deace has a pretty good analysis, but I thought he was particularly hard on Strawn. Reed = good because he's young. Randall = good because he's young. Strawn = bad because he's young.

    It's a little double-speak, in my opinion. I can't argue with the rest of his points, as they are well put and had some thought. But that seemed a little hypocritical to me.

    ReplyDelete
  5. So Krusty what about your two promises from last week?

    "I will announce Krusty’s Breakout Candidate in January 2010, not in 2009."
    and
    "But I will have a kick ass prediction on the first Monday of the New Year."
    Many of us waited for the ultimate perfect candidate you described earlier to be your "Darkhorse" to be introduced Saturday - and if not Saturday it is getting a little late to appear.
    Are we to be entertained with a second entry today - the first Monday of the New Year with your "Kick ass prediction"?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I liked this quote:

    (From a pure qualifications standpoint, none of the chair candidates has a better-rounded resume. He’s held statewide office, he’s held a chief executive office, and his rolodex reads like a who’s who of Iowa Republican politics in the Terry Branstad era. I really like the fact he took on an incumbent liberal Republican mayor in Cedar Rapids and took her out.) - Deace

    I take exception to his critique however that Pate only talked about money, money, money. I think it seemed that way because I didn't really hear anybody with the exception of Strawn even mention it. We as republicans have the better ideas, but without the $ resources to get our message in front of the people who don't live and breath politics like we do, we are just going to keep spinning our wheels.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Krusty:

    What is to be done? You nailed one piece of that puzzle with the following:

    "we limited ourselves to those who were willing to run, choosing not to go out and encourage or ask the best and brightest people in our party to run."

    In terms of statewide offices, David Vaudt has given RPI a great template. Identify and actively recruit candidates with the professional qualifications and experiences best suited to the position. Put a package of candidates together that is second to none and combine it with an exciting new image of the RPI and then provide the resources necessary to get the job done. As it is now it is every candidate for himself/herself. This approach would permit ads touting the "team" as well as the individuals.

    At the risk of getting blown out of the blogasphere I'm going to toss out one idea for a new image.

    There is nothing wrong with Congress (or the legislature) that term limits won't go a long way in remedying. The Courts have said a state cannot set a term limit but nothing prevents a political party from setting one for its own members. We can't prevent a person from running for Congress but we can prevent them from running under the Republican label.

    Let's amend the RPI Constitution (Bylaws?) to limit any person to 12 years in the same office. Of course it could only apply to those first elected to an office after its effective date.

    I think this would be a bold and exciting move that would capture the attention of the electorate. It would also provide an incentive for a continual supply of fresh blood and ideas that would benefit the party.

    Oh well. Just a thought for a Monday morning.

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  8. Krusty,

    with all due respect, just because you don't like any of the candidates doesn't mean the 17 members of the SCC don't like them, what many fail to realize is that those 17 votes are the only ones that matter.

    We have an impression on the candidates from the outside so our information is limited, but (at least many) of the candidates have reached out to the SCC with phone calls, public meetings, private meetings, emails, etc

    Most of them have a vision for the party and the SCC has heard it many of times. they have built the relationship with the people who matter, it would be presumptuous for them to go beyond that

    fyi, Carroll and Strawn WERE recruited by SCC members (I guess you could say Randall and Krishna were too) so let's stop looking for a savior because he already came 2000 years ago

    ReplyDelete
  9. 2000 years ago? Vander Plaats isnt that old is he?

    ReplyDelete
  10. 17 SCC members to rule us all, huh?

    You deserve whatever you get, Im through wasting my time with this crap

    ReplyDelete
  11. Is someone going to finally discuss the 800 pound gorilla in the room?

    Good field, good men all, some good candidates… but the stark reality is that zero (0) bloggers in this state have the "fortitude" to report the existence of the "factions" that stand behind each of the candidates and "who" they really represent. Most specifically, the groups with a motive to seat our next Republican governor and then second, those seek to anoint our next RNC level nominee for POTUS. Any 3rd grader who watches a forensic TV show can walk up to a whiteboard and begin to draw lines from each candidate to the "back door" strategy to bring certain groups to a position of influence.

    Sure, Kim and Steve have already been called out but this story has done nothing but provide cover for everyone else who thinks they're invisible to the grass roots and yes, maybe even the SCC.

    The reason it's not reported is that most (not all) bloggers already belong to a "candidate" or group and don't want to expose the reality of how Iowa politics has been devolving over the past two decades. And you wonder why half our party sits home pouting each cycle because their horse doesn't finish first!?

    It plays out much like the old Chicago politics from a bygone era with bosses with names like BVP and Chucky sitting out of sight, trying to place their hand on the RPI steering wheel.
    (Of course, that implies the checkbook too!)

    It’s happening in the RNC race too. Please “splain” to me how Chip Saltsman, sitting on the RNC throne won’t be clearing a wide path for Pastor/Bass Player/Author/TV-Radio Host/Comedian and Superstar Governor (take 1 guess)to be our next nominee?

    Yea….”spose” I better post ANON now, so I don’t have squirrel hunters waiting for me!!

    Just know that if one of these candidates takes on the Chair responsibility and begins to sweep away the real RPI priorities to favor "their guy"....the grass roots will find our own William Wallace, paint "red" on our faces and come to Fort DM and take back our party.
    "Freeeeeeeeeeeeeedoooooooooooooooom!!!!!!"

    ReplyDelete
  12. The above anon is absolutely right. Not a single one of the current favorites has one ounce of rhetorical skills that can be used to defend and promote the platform in contrast to the extreme left wing nut bags idea of "civilization". Each of the current favoties is just the latest Ray Hoffman or Stu Iverson - simply a useful idiot for Chrissy Rants, Doug Gross or even now BVP.

    Nothing is going to change. Danny Carroll won't say Shit if he had a mouthful, Matt Strawn - still don't get his motivation at all for this - it sure doesn't sound like it's a grassroots thing.

    Who is running who represents the voters and message we want represented by our candidates? Who will fight the democrats? Who will fight in the media against the democrats? Who will articulate what republicans stand for such that we can recruit new republicans?

    The SCC is being played and they don't seem to realize it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. So what vision does the Democrat party have? The only one I see is the accumulation of power and riches by whatever means they have to use to accumulate it.

    That is working brilliantly for them while we fuss over all the intricacies of selecting just the "right" chair, as if that will make any difference.

    As long as we have a very ignorant, greedy electorate and a media that protects and advances the Democrat agenda, we have a huge uphill battle.

    Consider the fact that while Democrats are in power, they grease all the skids to enroll all the Democrat voters they can, legal or illegal, it doesn't matter.

    Dead people vote, voters vote in multiple locations, illegals vote, there is no limit to Democrat corruption in this country right now and we had better acknowledge this and stop thinking that we are all on a level playing field.

    ReplyDelete
  14. WTF is nobody asking tough questions?January 5, 2009 at 12:05 PM

    Strawn is running to pave the way for himself to run for Congress, Lamberti and/or Chuck Larson to run for Gov. Larson got him the job with McCain before he fired him and Lamberti is the real owner of the Barnstormers.

    I want to know if Strawn is going to repeat the same McCain caucus strategy as Chairman. You know, pay $10,000 a pop to key endorsements. How would that work for the party exactly?

    ReplyDelete
  15. I miss reading the Real Sporer - issues ya know. I hope Sporer reads your blog, so he could know this happened with Connie "yes, my husband Kim is really a man, really." Schmett.

    This is from Deace's blog and his reaction to Connie. For those of us who suffered much from Connie's insanity during Polk County Meetings, it's nice to know she's dependable in her insanity.

    "What was the strangest thing that happened in the meeting?

    That had to be Connie Schmett, the wife of the defeated GOP congressional candidate (whom I didn’t vote for) introducing herself to me with the words, “There’s some things I’d like to say to you but I won’t."

    ReplyDelete
  16. Bob Vander Plaays should be our chair and governor! He is that great!

    ReplyDelete
  17. 12:15: You voted for Bozwell? If so, your opinion now means nothing. Go to work for Democrats with Deace.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Who cares what Fat Deace has to say? He's a loud mouth who doesn't support our candidates. Heck, I don't always like our candidates but I always support them. As a Republican, Deace has forfitted his say. Go back and eat cheetos in your mom's basement Fatty.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Dittos on Deace. He's working against us (and himself). He's too stupid to know it.

    Rush is saying that for now, voters are voting for what they want such as health care, etc.

    If Rush is right (and I believe he is) we're spending too much time beating up on each other.

    I do not believe we lost elections because we were not conservative enough. I know that goes against the conventional grain but that is what I think.

    If we're to believe that voters rejected Republicans because they were not conservative enough, then we're going to have to accept the premise that many of these same voters voted Democrat because they would be more conservative. Poppycock.

    These voters voted in what they perceived as their own best interest.

    Remember the wack job that claimed that now Obama would be making sure her gas tank was full and he would pay her mortgage.

    These are not the sharpest and best informed people in the world and they follow the orders of the mainstream media.

    We have a PR problem more than anything. We will not make large gains until it becomes hip to vote Republican.

    First we have to make it unpopular to vote Democrat, however we do that when the Democrats have mainstream media coverage.

    ReplyDelete
  20. 1:40 - ?????? say again....??????

    You gotta be kidding me! Please tell me you're not running a county somewhere in this state!!!

    "We have a PR problem!"
    (Wrong - It's called a SPENDING PROBLEM!)

    "We will not make large gains until it becomes hip to vote Republican"
    (We won't make any gains until we start to ACT like Republicans)

    "These voters voted in what they perceived as their own best interest"

    Please return with a thoughtful reply and tell us what we have to do as a party to become "Hip?"

    In case you forgot...there was another invincible government many years ago, you may have heard of it, it was called Rome!!

    Back in 1787, bloggers used quills and ink, but here's what Alexander Tyler said and the words have a prophetic doom if we continue to vote in our own best interests!

    “A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”

    Hail Obama.......?????????????

    The future is still in our hands but if this continues for 8 more years, the next election will be fought with bullets instead of ballots!

    Own gun - $500

    Stocked up on ammo - $350

    Memorizing the constitution before it's taken out of all public places and made illegal to repeat......Priceless!!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Deace is not the one tearing down the party. As a matter of fact he has great ideas to unite the party. He does not consider himself a republican if I remember right, he is a conservative. He has invited anyone who has the goods on him that can prove anything he says as untrue to point it out. So bring out the goods instead of the name calling.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Surely you guys that call names like "fat" must be democrats or never made it out of grade school. Not all of us are pencil thin but thankfully try to be thick skinned after years of being called names- still, lay off Deace and just leave komments that relate to issues.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Russ from WintersetJanuary 5, 2009 at 2:37 PM

    I don't know why people still throw all the "fatso" smack at Deacer. Don't you know that it just "feeds" his ego (rimshot please)? Seriously, either find something in what he's saying to criticize or shut your piehole. I may not agree with the man on every issue, but I do consider him to be worth listening to. I think his criticism of SOME Republicans is counterproductive, but until he accepts a job with RPI, please stop with all the "traitor" crap.

    As far as my choice goes, since I'm not an insider who's angling for a job with one of the '12 Presidential campaigns, my opinion apparently doesn't matter. What I want to see is someone come into this job with the willingness to show "the Right Hand of God" to the rest of the party. Argue about the fringe issues all you want in the primary, but once we've chosen a candidate (just so long as he/she is "golden" on the core party issues) everyone should be "strongly encouraged" to fall in line. The last damn thing we need is more fingerpointing by people who think the "wrong" person won the primary (that goes for people who undermined Reed as much as it goes for the people who submarined 3M).

    Steve's bit about us needing a "Mosaic" leader is spot on, IMHO. Unfortunately, we're going to have trouble deciding on which leader has the right roadmap to the Promised Land.

    ReplyDelete
  24. 1:40: I agree with much of what you're saying except I do not agree that we lost because we were spending too much.

    Look, I want small government. I want less spending but I agree with Rush that that is not want voters want right now.

    They want all this spending and more. The only people screaming about spending are Republicans.

    We have a PR problem in the sense that most voters voted Democrat because they have been told to vote Democrat.

    It is the "in" thing to do. We're not talking Einsteins here. Most of them thought Republicans were in charge of congress.

    How else can you analyze it?

    These Obama voters did not vote Obama because they thought Republicans spend too much.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Albert Einstein said:

    "You can't solve any significant problem at the same level of thinking that was used when you created the problem."

    That's why the session last Saturday was a letdown, nothing new under the sun, as they say!

    Speaking of Einstein, have you watched any recent episodes of "Jay Walking" or when Hannity sends a mic down to the sidewalks of NYC?

    Some of these folks who don't have a clue are actually teachers too.

    That's why education is an issue we can't give up on....there's a socialist "jihad" occuring in our classrooms as we speak. And we wonder why our kids grow up with "mush" between their ears!!

    Once Obama legalizes happy weed, we'll never know if it was the weed or the teacher!!

    ReplyDelete
  26. If not for tearing down the GOP Deace would have nothing to say at all.

    Conservative! The guy voted for and endorsed Obama.

    If you are interested in electing Republicans do not believe what Deace espouses.

    ReplyDelete
  27. For Real conservative talk radio listen to...

    98.3 WOW FM

    The only station giving the greater metro area conservative talk radio from 4-7

    Sean Hannity is on the Radio!

    ReplyDelete
  28. 3:56. You hit the nail on the head. Occasionally, I would turn him on and play a little game and think I would let him stay on until he would start to bash Republicans.

    To this day, I have NEVER heard his whole program.

    This man is obsessed with trying to make himself look superior by pointing out what he perceives as weaknesses in Republicans.

    Why doesn't he ever pick on what should be his real enemies--Democrats?

    When I read his convoluted logic in supporting Obama, that was it. I will NEVER listen to the kook again.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Deace?? Yeah..Like I Take Him SeriouslyJanuary 5, 2009 at 5:35 PM

    You want to know why people are torqued at Deace..

    Simple..here's this guy..manages to finagle his way into getting a radio job on WHO because his buddy is the sports director there..

    And he proceeds to use his show to sit piously and tell Republicans what's so wrong with our party..

    Here's his dirty little secret....He's never been involved as an activist. He's never been a member of a Central Committee.

    The only thing Deace has EVER done to benefit anyone in the Republican Party is to give money to his ISU boy Jack Whitver...

    He's spent more time on his show tearing down Republicans than being a part of the solution.

    If he cared soooo much about his issues..then perhaps he'd be working within the party that actually gave a damn about his issues.

    So quite frankly..i really dont give a royal crap about what Deace's opinion is about our party...

    Until I see Deace busting his rear for candidates, volunteering his time..donating his money..and helping to take ownership of the problem..I'll maybe give a rip about what he thinks...

    ReplyDelete
  30. Deace is too good to lower himself to help a Republican. He's so, so superior, don't you know.

    But he'll vote for that lying, cheating, Obama. Go figure!!!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Actually, Deace gave some key air time to Bill Northey right before the election in 06, after the O'Brien dead cow allegations came to light. That free media helped Bill get his message out and helped nudge him to a very narrow victory.It wasn't the deciding factor, but it certainly helped.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Don't worry. Somewhere inside that interview Deace used it as an opportunity to take a dig at Republicans.

    If Republicans would stay off his show, they'd be taking away his opportunities to take digs at Republicans.

    Republicans that go on his show see an opportunity to get out their message but in the process, Deace uses them to insult Republicans.

    He claims he wants certain things and then works against those very people who could advance his agenda.

    With the Deace strategy, Democrats will rule forever.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Russ from WintersetJanuary 5, 2009 at 8:57 PM

    5:35 pm - Now THAT'S what I call a critique! Nary a fat joke in whole thing. Brutal, and it's gonna sting because there's some truth there.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Ah, I'm still waiting for the Dark Horse. You know, the kind that can raise money, have ideas and a vision and then bring all factions together.

    Who am I kidding, Bill Dix retired with Francisco D'Anconia. They're sitting in the valley somewhere waiting for the lights to go out in the City. Then they'll return...hopefully.

    Oh well, who is John Galt?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Atlas has been shrugging

    ReplyDelete
  36. I was at the SCC meeting in Des Moines this weekend to show my support for the party. There was one man who stood above the rest and that man was Danny Carroll. He is articulate, he has a deep love for Iowa, he has a mass of grassroots support, and he has leadership experience. I have read and kept up with other blogs from the beginning and they are all scared that we might just go back to our core values and stand for something. Danny is the voice of those who love the party platform and cling to those core values.
    Danny is a family man and believes in leaving this nation when he hangs it up in better condition than he found it in. That is honorable by anyone's interpretation of the word. Those of you who are the grassroots, now is your time to shine boldly and stand up for our values. Contact your SCC members and ask them to support Danny Carroll.

    ReplyDelete
  37. WashingtonCtyGOPerJanuary 6, 2009 at 8:18 AM

    MD.. Does it not concern you at ALL that Danny Carroll has lost not one..but TWO straight elections..mostly because he's failed to adapt to the new realities of Iowa politics.

    How can activists trust that he would not fail to adapt our entire PARTY to these new realities.

    Just because Mr. Carroll was able to bring 20 or so people to the forum on Saturday does not mean that he has a "mass" of grassroots support. In fact, I would gather than outside of his legislative district...most Republicans in this state don't have a clue of who he is.

    We need a chair who has a PROVEN track record of results of beating Democrats...of the candidates running for State Chair, there is only one who has that qualification--Paul Pate.

    What is the FIRST priority of our party? TO WIN ELECTIONS.

    If we elevate someone to lead our party who has unfortunately shown an inability to do that, I would argue that sends the wrong message to the very people we need to re-energize.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Fiscal AND Social ConservativeJanuary 6, 2009 at 8:56 AM

    The few people that attended for Danny Carroll were the Bible zealot faction of our party that don't consider the Iowa Christian Alliance to be conservative enough for them. Heck one was even praying during the meeting!

    The race breaks down to the Strawn/Gross folk who are trying to boot the social conservatives out of the party and the Gopal/Carroll factions that want to boot everyone else whithout a pro-God membership card. Both are equally wrong.

    Isnt there a consensus pick that doesn't want to kick either vital part of our party out? Would Pate be somebody that both sides can settle on? I'm asking you folks.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Does Doug Gross even know who Matt Strawn is?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Hey MD,

    You posted a poll on your Danny carroll for chair website and then took it down after the "grassroots" voted for Pate by a 3 to 1 margin over Carroll. Andy Cable even beat him by a 2 to 1 margin.

    As you say this is about the grassroots and they spoke.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Screw Galt and the whole cult that worships the Godless evil woman who created him.

    And 8:18, I might counter that the 1st priority of our party ought be leading our Republic as adults. Winning elections is more the kind of priority I'd rather attribute to a union leader. Shallow, self-centered, and process-oriented. Like children playing "office".

    ReplyDelete
  42. skanks for the memoriesJanuary 6, 2009 at 9:05 AM

    No more Skanks on blogs, you could get sued.
    http://www.nypost.com/seven/01062009/news/regionalnews/model_snared_in_ugly_web_147440.htm

    I am so screwed.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I think it is unfair to associate Gopal with Danny. As it is to associate Gross with Strawn.

    Both gents are smart enough not to do that.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Skanks,

    That is unless you are a public figure then all bets are off.

    ReplyDelete
  45. WashingtonCtyGOPerJanuary 6, 2009 at 9:20 AM

    Anon 9:01..

    One can not lead..unless we win elections.

    When we lose elections, we allow the liberals to set the agenda and dictate what the priorities will be.

    Liberals believe being bipartisan is giving in to their every wish...there is no compromise in their vocabulary.

    That's part of our problem as well..and its something that's kinda of engrained in Republicans.

    We're the happier bunch of people..we want people to like us and be happy with us.

    However..we as a Party, go too far sometimes in making sure that everyone is happy and pleased with what we do.

    In government, as in life, its impossible to make EVERYONE happy.

    Its time for Republicans to start standing up and saying what needs to be said..and if there are those who dont like it...so be it. People will respect our brand a hellva lot more if they know our word is our bond.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Democrats now have a huge advantage in registrations in Iowa. WHY?

    I allege the reasons are very superficial such as Obama is soooo good looking (barf!)

    He's going to fill my gas tank and pay my mortgage.

    Or how about Democrats care more about the "working man".

    These reasons describe the typical Democrat voter. Oh, yea, and whoever will promise to kill the most babies or make homosexuals feel good.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Anon 9:01:

    Check your premises.

    You do not have to be a cult member or atheist to understand why Rand was right. I'm tired of the looters taking our hard-earned money. Those same looters are eroding our religious freedoms as well. And we just sit here and take it.

    We are starving for leadership, whether you call it John Galt or something else.

    ReplyDelete
  48. i heard the dark horse was current chair Iverson... that he changed his mind and still wants the job...

    ReplyDelete
  49. Nope, Stew wants to get in the lobby. Good try though.

    ReplyDelete
  50. and now who does the king maker Scheffler turn to since Gopal pulled out officially today?
    Do you think SS told his buddy Gopal there was no way? And who will SS turn to with his block of votes? Chris Reed? not though enough to get elected- only logical choice is Danny. Imagine we next see Laudner back as ED? Back to two years ago - real change huh?

    ReplyDelete
  51. I don't give a shit who the chair and co-chair are at this point so long as they have a proven track record of actually defeating the democrats. I don't want to hear about touchy feely crap about unity or young people. I want to win. If you can't win, do not apply.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Geographic balance would be nice too. I don't want to see two guys from Polk any more than I would want to see two people from Woodbury.

    Alot of Republicans live in Western IA, but 60% of Iowans live East of I-380.

    ReplyDelete
  53. "Without a Vision the Party will Perish"

    Odd invocation of a Bible verse that was meant to govern the church in reference to what is a purely worldly matter ...

    ReplyDelete
  54. If you think that politics is purely a worldly matter.... well then...

    I guess Jesus WAS a liberal!

    ReplyDelete
  55. I must thаnk you for the еfforts yоu've put in writing this website. I really hope to view the same high-grade blog posts by you in the future as well. In fact, your creative writing abilities has encouraged me to get my very own blog now ;)
    Feel free to surf my web blog : Personal Loan

    ReplyDelete
  56. I muѕt thаnk you fоr the efforts yоu've put in writing this website. I really hope to view the same high-grade blog posts by you in the future as well. In fact, your creative writing abilities has encouraged me to get my very own blog now ;)
    My web site - Personal Loan

    ReplyDelete
  57. I like what уou guyѕ are uѕuаlly up too.
    Such clеver work and eхposure! Keep uр the
    terrіfic woгks guуs I've incorporated you guys to our blogroll.
    Feel free to visit my webpage : 1 month loan

    ReplyDelete
  58. Hi еveгyοne, іt's my first visit at this web page, and paragraph is genuinely fruitful for me, keep up posting such articles.

    My blog post - loans for bad credit

    ReplyDelete