Tea Parties are HUGE Success

Yesterday was Tax Day, but it was also Tea Party Day. Across the country, hundreds of thousands of people attended a Tea Party to protest higher taxes and higher government spending. 

Several parties were held in Iowa. Iowa City had several hundred, and The Des Moines Register is reporting 3,000 people in Des Moines. 

What does this mean? Some reporters, and Obama Spokesman Robert Gibbs, didn't think much of it. But they don't get it. It means that people are sick of government spending. They are sick of the government acting as an impediment to their abillity to make money to support their family or small business. In general, it means that people are sick of government not listening to them and going on their merry way doing what they want to do. A phrase on many of the flags flown throughout the country yesterday featured a phrase used during the American Revolution--"Don't Tread on Me." 

Will the Democrats in the legislature listen? Maybe. Maybe not. While I lean towards the second option, you can take a page from Obama and always hope. Word on the street yesterday is that the Federal Deductibility bill is dead. House Speaker Pat Murpy is saying he is only one vote short, so don't believe it until every legislator is safely back in their district for the year. But Culver is still pushing his bonding proposals...you know, use the credit card because we can...even though 71% of Iowans, according to a recent DMR poll, don't support that option. It isn't over yet. 

There is a reason my postings are done under the name wideawake. Because people need to stay awake to what is happening in their local, state, and national government. There are several examples of bad legislation at all levels that have been stopped, or at least brought to light, because people were paying attention. This is your government, this is you state and your country. Get involved.

Closing Time is Near

The Legislature is hoping to adjurn this week. The Des Moines Register has a story here about what bills are done and which ones are still alive. 

Republicans have had some impressive victories this session-changes in the Electoral College, labor bills (so far), Federal Deductibility (so far), etc. It isn't over yet, folks. Culver-Gronstall-et.al claim to have a deal on Federal Deductibility, Culver is still pushing on his bonding proposal, and some of those labor bills, particularly doctor shopping and changes in bargaining, are still lurking. 

If you're not on Twitter, join today. It is a great way to keep up-to-date on what is happening, especially if you are at a computer all day. The best ones, but no means the only ones, to follow are: @ReneeSchulte, @NickAWagner, @KentSorenson, @IowaGOPer, @IowaSRC, @IowaGOP, @C_Rants, @charlotte_eby. You don't realize how much information you can get through Twitter until you try it out. 

Keep our Republican legislators in your thougts and prayers as they keep up the good fight for the citizens of Iowa. 

Couple Odds-n-Ends From the Past Few Days

WATCH YOUR WALLETS!

I'm sure a lot of you have heard the story of the "Capital Purse Snatcher". Marshall Clemons, a custodian from Cedar Rapids, was at the capitol with the SEIU lobbying for the passage of union legislation, when he was busted snatching wallets from two purses. Oops, that can't make you look good in front of all those legislators. I believe that is only one notch up from stealing candy from a baby.

Turns out that then Presidential candidate, now Vice President, Joe Biden, followed Mr. Clemons as part of a "spend a day in my shoes" program during the primaries. Iowa Republican has video for us, as well as links to other stories about written at the time. Clemons was also Vice President Biden's "special guest" at the inauguration and gave him a tour of the White House. The more days go by, the more people associated with this administration get hammered on money issues.



CULVER'S "PAY-TO-SIT" PROGRAM GETS SMACKED DOWN BY THE W.H.

Gov. Culver and the White House are going to host a health care forum in Des Moines to "hear from everyone" as they go about implementing Universal Health Care. While the forum is open to the public, attendees need a ticket to enter, which they can only get through entering a lottery. Culver's office sent out an email seeking sponsors to help pay for the event, offering them guarenteed tickets as part of the package. Well, this got out, and people rightly were concerned. The White House finally put out a press release saying that there will be no sponsorhips or fundraising. Dave Price has the info and the emails. I would think it kind of embarassing if the White House did that to me, but maybe that's just me.


2012 NEWS

Per Iowa Republican, Bob Kraus, the chair of the IDP Veteran's Caucus, is launching an exploratory committee to take on Grassley in 2012. Will anyone else step up? Guess will find out in the coming months.

Iowan Gentry Collins Named RNC Political Director

Bean Walker has the story here.

Congrats to Gentry, and congrats to Iowa.

Gentry brings a lot of experience to the RNC, with his serving in the past as ED of the state party, Political Director for the Republican Governor's Association, leading the Iowa effort for Mitt Romney's campaign and most recently as the Midwest Regional Campaign Manager for the McCain campaign. With someone like Gentry at the RNC, Iowa should feel more comfortable about retaining our First in the Nation status.

--------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

We're Back!

After a long hiatus (much longer than I thought), this blog is back! Keep checking back, we'll have more stuff up here soon.

-------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Fred Thompson Coming to Town

It is kind of neat that the 100th post on this blog belongs to this announcement:

FRED THOMPSON
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2ND, DOORS OPEN AT 10:50AM
WEBSTER COUNTY GOP HEADQUARTERS
900 CENTRAL AVENUE, FORT DODGE, IOWA

Contact Kristen Fuzer at kfuzer@fred08.com to RSPV (make sure to denote the Fort Dodge event).

---------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Last Nights Debate

There has been some mixed reviews of the debate last night. Some thought it was good, some thought it wasn't so good.

Some general thoughts:

1). For all of the talk from the Democrats about how Fox News is an extension of the RNC, last night proved otherwise. I haven't seen the Democrats asked as tough of questions as the Republicans were last night. Brit Hume, Chris Wallace, and Wendall Goler didn't let the candidates off lightly. There is a consensus that Romney was hammered by the tough questions, which is probably true (I didn't keep count), and Giuliani was hit hard on his family and his immigration policies while mayor of New York. McCain faced some tough ones on immigration and on the no-tax pledge. I realize that some people may complain about this, and politically softball questions make candidates look better, but I think tough questions are good things. If a candidate can't face the serious questions, and confront any concerns about his or her candidacy, then they shouldn't be running in the first place.

2) McCain had his best debate performance yet, and I agree with the consensus that McCain won. He was running on all eight cylinders, his jokes were good and didn't sound like they were forced, he provided clear answers to the questions, and took advantage of the openings he found. He was the most solid on the war and the surge, as well as on spending. He hit the question about him not signing the no-tax pledge a lot harder than many were anticipating. You could tell Romney was caught off guard when McCain hit him back on the surge that it's not apparently working, it is working. It was interesting to see how many of the candidates were complementing McCain or referring to his previous statements. If McCain can keep this up, he's going to be back in the hunt in no time.

3) Romney didn't look as good as he had in previous debates. For starters, his hair and make-up wasn't very good (but then, a lot of them had that problem). Some of his answers were a little weak, particularly on Iraq, and many of his jokes fell flat.

4) Who kept laughing at Ron Paul? Every time he was asked a question or gave an answer, there was an audible laugh from someone near a microphone. Paul provided one of the memorable moments in the debate when he and Mike Huckabee (in a position that every other candidate wanted to be in) went back and forth about the war. And the moderators didn't hold anything back when questioning Paul. Chris Wallace (or was it Brit Hume?) took a huge swipe at him by asking him about his stances on abolishing the IRS, the CIA, the FBI, etc. Wallace also had a good jab at Paul when he asked "So we should take our marching orders from Al-Qaeda?"

5) Tancredo's speaking style when he talked about immigration was much much better than it has been in the past. I was always uncomfortable because he started rushing his answer trying to get as much in as he could within the time limit, which led to a choppy speech pattern as he had to fight for breaths and to stop and think for brief moments. I found it distracting from his answer. He didn't have that problem on his immigration answer last night, but then the choppiness returned later on.

6) Fred Thompson received a lot of flak about skipping the debate in favor of appearing on Jay Leno. Even though I have noticed a little anti-Thompson feeling from Fox News (particularly from Carl Cameron) and that he did skip their debate, I was a little surprised that the moderators allowed the bash fest for the first question of the night. While I can understand why he wanted to go and announce on Leno (I'm still not sure if that is the right place to announce that you're running for President of the United States, but that's another post), I also think it was important that he be in New Hampshire for the debate. We'll find what, if anything, this will do for Thompson in his campaign.

Overall I thought it was a good debate. As I pointed out earlier, the Republican candidates faced the tough questions from what Democrats say is a friendly network. I think it says a lot about Fox News as a news organization, as well as the candidates that they stood up to the questions and, overall, did a good job in responding to them. And I think it says a lot about the Democrats who haven't faced those kinds of tough questions, even from "their network"--CNN.
----------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Should RPI Make Republican Candidates Take the Pledge?

I think the Democrats are on to something--or at least some of them anyway. Before you move onto another site, hear me out.

My last post I talked a bit about the jumping primary schedule. Both the DNC and the RNC have been trying very hard to keep states from jumping ahead, mainly by threatening to take away a state's half or full (as in the case of Florida and the DNC) convention delegates. It doesn't appear to have done much yet as Michigan appears to have jumped to Jan 15th, and Wyoming to January 5th

So why not use the candidates themselves to keep the schedule as set by the national committees? You may have heard that the chairs of the Iowa, New Hampshire,Nevada, and South Carolina Democrat Parties sent letters to the Democrat presidential candidates asking them to pledge to keep the primary schedule as set by the DNC. Pretty much all of them, including Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, have taken the pledge. Bill Richardson this weekend even proclaimed that God wanted Iowa to be first in the nation.

My question is why are Republicans not doing the same thing?

John McCain probably came the closest of any of the Republican hopefuls this weekend when he said that the traditional spot for Iowa and New Hampshire should remain the way it has been, and said he would consider skipping any state that moves to disrupt the calendar. In his stop at Jewell on Sunday night, he said that Iowa and New Hampshire were the best at determining character in candidates, and by not having us and NH up front means that candidates will not have that one-on-one vetting and political campaigns will be run almost only as advertisements on TV and the internet.

Why shouldn't Ray Hoffman and his counterparts in New Hampshire and South Carolina send out letters asking candidates to pledge to not campaign in states to move ahead in the schedule? RPI wasn't shy about expressing its feelings on McCain, Giuliani and Thompson skipping the Iowa Straw Poll. Why should it be shy now?

This would probably be the most effective way to stop the calendar shuffling, and it will mean more if all of the candidates in both parties pledge to not campaign in the jumping states. One would think that a state wouldn't choose to jump ahead if they know it won't bring any more candidate face time than they currently have. But it needs to be done ASAP, before Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm signs the bill that would move their primary up, and before any other states decide to jump ahead as well.

------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Iowa's Influence in the Primary Cycle

Ross Kaminsky as an interesting piece at Real Clear Politics on the influence of Iowa and New Hampshire. Kaminsky argues that Iowa and New Hampshire is loosing it's influence in the primary schedule. Romney is leading by between 10 and 15 points in both Iowa and New Hampshire, while Giuliani is leading in a number of the February 5th states, as well as in the national polls.

Kaminsky argues that while focusing on Iowa and New Hampshire is probably the best strategy for Romney, in the end it won't help him with the nomination because the compact schedule will prevent him from gaining on any momentum in the later states (particularly the February 5th states) where Giuliani has a good hold.

While I think that Kaminsky is on to something, and indeed I pretty much agree that the nomination will come down to a question of strategy, I still wonder.

If you look at the polls and the poll averages at Real Clear Politics, you'll see that the one in the lead only has, at most, a support in the low thirties. There is also about 20% or so, maybe more or maybe less, of the respondents who didn't have an opinion. Combine this with the well known statistic that an overwhelming majority of caucus/primary goers do not choose who they vote for until the week or even the day before the voting.

So, in theory, Romney could win several of the lead off states and gain the support of those late deciders in later states. Of course this would depend greatly on how the media spins the early state results as well as how the other top candidates perform. For instance, with Giuliani's positions that are in conflict with voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, etc, he would still look strong coming in 2nd or 3rd in the early states, and maintain his positioning in the later states.

Another question is where will supporters go when their candidate drops out? It might lead the number 2 or 3 man to look more competitive in the state, but they could also pad the leader's numbers and make him look even better.

So Iowa and New Hampshire could still have some kind of influence on the later states.
In the end, it's not over yet and the big questions--how will the new calendar affect who is the nominee and how it effects Iowa's and New Hampshire's influence--has a while before it's answered.

UPDATE: Mathew Continetti at The Weekly Standard is thinking along the same lines in an article where he looks at Giuliani's chances at winning the nomination.
-------------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

On the Recent Unpleasantness

As you've probably heard by now, District Judge Robert Hanson down in Polk County single handedly decided that Iowa would recognize gay marriage. The actual ruling is here, thanks to Stanley Kurtz at National Review Online today (see below). A stay was issued today, but not before 21 licenses were handed out, with one couple from Ames actually getting married before the stay was put in place. Jonathan Martin has a piece up on his blog at The Politico.com about this, and has a map depicting what states allow same-sex marriage, civil unions or partnerships. Notice that the highlighted states are on the coasts, except for Iowa, right in the middle.

Kudos to Mitt Romney for sending this message out fairly soon after the announcement: "The ruling in Iowa today is another example of an activist court and unelected judges trying to redefine marriage and disregard the will of the people as expressed through Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act. This once again highlights the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman."

According to Jonathan Martin at the above link, John McCain issued a press release saying that "the decision "a loss for the traditional family,' and noting that he supports 'the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman."

Chris Rants issued this release:
“Judge Hanson’s shocking action today has reversed the will of the people of Iowa, the will of the Legislature,” said Rants. “Democrats, in trying to appease special interest groups, allowed this to happen with their opposition to a marriage amendment. If Gov. Culver and Legislative Democrats proceed with a special session regarding the date of the Iowa caucus, Democrats need to step up and put this issue to rest by introducing a marriage amendment to Iowa’s Constitution.”

Rants added that House Republicans would support a Constitutional amendment which would ban gay marriage in the state of Iowa. “The over-stepping and stunning action taken by this court today proves that work on a Constitutional marriage amendment must begin immediately.”

And Governor Culver, a little surprising I might say, issued this release: “While some Iowans may disagree on this issue, I personally believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

“I also believe in the rule of law and respect for the judicial process. I have not had the opportunity to review today's opinion from the Polk County District Court. I understand this ruling is one step that is subject to appeal, up to and including the Supreme Court. I will continue to follow this matter closely as it continues through the judicial system before determining whether any additional legislative actions are appropriate or necessary."

This ruling should outrage everyone. There are several different aspects of this case that can be discussed.

The first obvious issue is gay marriage. Is marriage to remain as one man and one woman, or can/could/should the definition of marriage be changed to same sex or anything else? Stanley Kurtz at National Review Online today brought this up. He opened his post with this: I’ve only glanced at the Iowa decision, so this is nothing like a final or fully considered analysis. Still, I was struck by one particular phrase in the decision: "In addition, their [i.e. same-sex couples’] exclusion [from marriage] defeats the state’s admitted interest in the welfare of all [emphasis original] of its children, regardless of whether they are parented by different-sex couples, same-sex couples or any other family unit [p. 58, my emphasis]. Its a good post that I recommend you read, as well as the "Beyond Same Sex Marriage" manifesto he links to. He brings up an important point. Opponents of same sex marriage have argued almost from day one about the slippery slope---same sex marriage leading to polygamy, or something else. It appears that the slope is more real that some would have you believe.

Second, and I would argue more important, is what is the role of judges in our government? Are judges there to interpret law, or make law? The constitution, both federal and state, says that the legislature makes law, while the judicial interprets that law. They don't read into the law what they want, they don't make things up and say its in there with some creative wording (Justice Douglas' "specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance" in Roe v. Wade). Is Iowa going to stand by and allow law to be made from the bench, or will we, the electorate as well as our elected officials stand up and keep the right to make law only with the legislative branch?

Third is the option of constitutional amendments. It's fairly obvious that there will be a huge push for a change in the Iowa constitution. The question though is how many states will likewise see a push for constitutional amendments (currently there are twenty-six states with the amendment), and will there be a new push for a federal amendment? It will be interesting to see how this issue plays out with the presidential candidates. Mitt Romney supports a federal amendment, while John McCain and Fred Thompson have voiced their support for individual state amendments instead. I'm not sure where the other candidates stand on the issue, but I'm sure we'll find out soon enough.

Finally, this is an issue that is going to energize Republicans across the state. In Iowa, a constitutional amendment needs to be read in the legislature during two consecutive sessions before being passed onto a state wide referendum. So while an actual amendment won't be on the ballot in 2008 (unless a special session would count as one session, then the 2008 session as number two), Republicans will come out in force to vote against anyone who doesn't support an amendment. Everybody running for office this cycle, from presidential candidates all the way down to the local level, is going to be asked repeatedly what his or her stance is on this and if they will support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. Their responses need to be recorded and distributed so everyone knows. Even those not facing reelection this cycle need to be repeatedly asked about this.

The effects of Robert Hanson's actions won't only be seen here in Iowa however. It's going to be felt across the county. Before, the only states anyone saw this happening was in California, Massachusetts, and other bastions of liberalism along the coasts. Again, see the map posted in the first paragraph. Nobody expected this to happen in Iowa. Iowa was probably the last place, outside of the south, where someone might expect this. But it happened. And if it can happen in Iowa, it can happen anywhere.

-------------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

A Few Things After a Long Break

Sorry for such a delay in posting. I've been a little busy lately, but now it looks like I might be able to post a little bit more. For now, a few odds and ends that have come up in the past few weeks.

---The last post was about the Fair Tax rally in Fort Dodge on August 4th. The rain put a little damper on the event, but it was moved to the canopy at the library entrance, and still there was a pretty good crowd for the weather. Many of them seemed to walk away if not enthused about the Fair Tax, at least with a peaked interest. The organization gave away free hats, t-shirts, and tickets and transportation to the Iowa Straw Poll. There was also a video booth where the participant could make a short video about their tax experiences, what they hate about the IRS, etc, with the best video winning $500. I saw two or three people go in, but I'm not sure who the winner was.

---The Iowa Straw Poll, in my opinion as well as the opinion of those who went, was a success. The media was filled with stories about how the numbers were way down, it was anti-climatic as Romney, as expected, won and Giuliani, McCain and Fred Thompson did not participate; it only weeded one candidate from the the field (Tommy Thompson); yadda yadda yadda. First off, everyone was comparing this year's straw poll with the 1999 one, which itself was an anomaly. The number of attendees in 1999 vastly exceeded what was planned for, which was why there were problems with voting and such. It was a pretty hot day in Ames, which very likely kept many at home, especially those with any health problems. RPI did a very good job with planning and logistics. The event itself, except for the minor recount at the end, went off almost without a hitch. Everything was orderly, and everyone seemed to be having a good time and enjoying themselves. The size of the tents and crowds at the Brownback and Romney tent was impressive. Romney actually had two tents--a "kitchen" where you picked up your food, and a "mess hall" where you could sit down and eat-- as well as a stage with a giant video screen that aired Romney's speech live. The Fair Tax tent was also impressive. It was air conditioned which served pretty good tenderloins, and had a faris wheel and several other games outside.

---Finally, the primary schedule. To put it bluntly, this is getting ridiculous. All eyes have been on Florida lately, with it wanting to move up to January 29th, and the DNC and RNC in turn threating to take away half or all of their convention delegates if they actually did so. Today comes news that Wyoming has moved their date to JANUARY 5TH. This will push New Hampshire and Iowa into December. That means we'll be heading to caucuses in about three and a half months. That means that on that drive, we'll be listening to Christmas music on the radio, and pass Christmas lights on the way. Some might even go Christmas shopping afterwards if all goes speedy.

The dates and methods of choosing convention delegates and how electoral votes will be apportioned has always been up to the states. If you've ever read Sean Wilentz's The Rise of American Democracy, or some other work about the political history before the Civil War, you'll see examples of this, and how things changed over the years. But the days of the states deciding for themselves when they hold their caucus or primary are almost over. In the next congress, there will be some bill creating a national primary day or days, thus stripping another power away from the states. My guess is that the states will divided into 3-4 groups, with fairly even numbers of large and small states, that will rotate among set primary dates every four years. Iowa and New Hampshire will be in no place to do anything about it as their delegations are small, and it won't help Iowa's case with the likely possibility of us losing a congressional seat next redistricting. This also means that the days of retail politics, where the candidate has to greet people and pass the one-on-one test, are pretty much done as well. If the next primary cycle features a large number of states grouped on the same day, the campaigns will organize the larger, less personable events than what we are used to now. Enjoy it while it lasts folks, and you know what states you can thank.

---------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Fair Tax Rally

The Fair Tax organization will have a rally in front of the Fort Dodge Rally on SATURDAY, AUGUST 4TH FROM 11:30-1:30. There will be a free catered lunch, free hats, t-shirts, Iowa Straw Poll tickets and transportation, as well as a contest where you can win $500 if you make a 30-60 second video about what you don't like about the IRS. This is part of the giant bus tour the Fair Tax organization is conduction across Iowa before the Iowa Straw Poll.

In case you don't know what Fair Tax is, it is a national sales tax that would replace the federal income tax and the IRS. Presidential candidates Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter, along with Iowa's very own Steve King are co-sponsors of the House bill; Mike Huckabee has made Fair Tax one of his main issues in his campaign; and John McCain and Tommy Thompson have said they will sign it if it comes across their desk. You can find the co-sponsors of HF25 and S1025 here, and where other US House and Senate members stand on Fair Tax here. The Fair Tax is also an official plank of the Republican Party of Iowa platform (13.6 under the "Taxes and Spending" section).

There will be a giant Fair Tax rally at the Iowa Straw Poll on August 11th that the organization would love to get everyone involved with.

So whether you are a supporter, or aren't quite sure yet, come on out and hear more about the Fair Tax on Saturday. It'll be worth your time.

---------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Straw Poll Analysis

While a few day late, Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post has a piece up about the Ames Straw Poll and looks at each candidate and what must happen for them. It's a good analysis.

First, the straw poll is a showing of organization on who can get the most supporters there. This requires at the very least several weeks, but more like several months, to find supporters, organize transportation all across the state, organizing all of the tent activities, and so on. If you read the Des Moines Register story on Sara Taylor this morning, you read about how she went around to biker bars signing up people to ride their Harley's to the straw poll for George W Bush. While it recently came out that he is scaling back his straw poll organization, Romney's campaign has been doing quite a bit of phone calling in the last month or so finding supporters. Other campaigns are starting to tour the state, and enlisting the help of supporters who attend their events.

With Mitt Romney the only one of the "front runners" participating, it'll be a contest of the second-tier candidates. I'm looking at the straw poll as creating a wild card entry into the top tier, particularly if the candidate is not to well known. The candidate will have quite a bit of free media to broadcast his message, and voters across the state and country will probably check him out more. Of course, it'll be up to the candidate to take full advantage of this.

The big questions I have:

--Which candidate will beat expectations? A candidate won't necessarily need to win the poll if they can do better than expected (yes, I know, that pretty much covers every candidate). For example, if say John Cox or Tommy Thompson, two candidates who receive scant media coverage, can finish a strong second or third, it will benefit their campaign immensely. A similar question is will any candidate fail to meet expectations? Mitt Romney is the odds on favorite to win, and it appears that Brownback is starting to catch on with a lot of people. If Romney fails to win or doesn't win by a sizable amount, or if Brownback doesn't finish well, it won't be good for them and they'll have their work cut out for them till January.

--How will Fred Thompson do? He's on the ballot, and it appears he won't be contesting the poll as he probably won't announce until after Labor Day. If he doesn't do well, it won't matter much because he didn't contest it. If he does do well though, it'll add more to his developing campaign.

--What candidates will drop out if they have a poor showing? Huckabee and Tommy Thompson have laid it all on the line; Huckabee says he needs to finish third or better, Thompson says second or better. Tancredo, it appears, will probably drop his bid if he doesn't finish at least fifth. In the back of my mind, 5th place was the cut off point, but it will ultimately depend on the candidate and how they feel they need to do. Elizabeth Dole finished 3rd in 2000, about 1,500 votes behind Steve Forbes and a good 1,300 votes ahead of Gary Bauer, and still dropped out. Pat Buchanan and Lamar Alexander finished 5th and 6th, respectively, and dropped out, however, Alan Keys and Orin Hatch, finishing 7th and 9th, respectively, stayed on till the caucus.

--How will Ron Paul finish. This might strike some people as an odd question, but if you pay attention to the political internet world, you'll know why I ask. He's been getting a lot of media coverage lately, his followers patrol the internet forums, blogs and comment sections for any opportunity to get Paul's message out there. Then, Patrick Ruffini last week predicted that Paul will finish second, based a lot on the fact he had 1,400 people attend his rally after the ICA candidate forum on June 30th. The only thing is that you must be an Iowa resident to vote at the straw poll, and I have no idea on what Paul's grassroots strength is in the state. That's why I'm interested.

--And finally, How many people will turn out for the event, and what kinds of, if any, problems will show up? Originally, the Republican Party of Iowa was estimating up to 50,000 people before Giuliani and McCain dropped out. Now the guesstimates are between 30,000 and 40,000. This is a big fund raiser for the party, and the more tickets sold, the better for the party's bank account. As for the problems, no event goes off without a hitch, especially one of this size. A major complaint at the 2000 straw poll was that because more people showed up than expected, the voting process left a lot of people in line for quite a while. It sounds like RPI has fixed this, and if the event can go off with few and little problems, it will be a great boost for the state party.
--------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Outright Disgusting

You probably remember the case of the "Flying Imams" in Minneapolis in November. Six Imams, during the boarding of a US Airways flight, passengers observed them making suspecious movements, including asking for seatbelt extenders when they obviously didn't need them, changing seats, and making anti-American statements. The Imams were removed from the flight, and proceeded to sue the "John Does"--the passengers who reported the movements to flight authorities.

This led Rep. Peter King (R-NY) to bring forth a legislation in the House that would prevent passengers from being sued for reporting suspicious activities. In effect, it would be a Good Samaritan law, like those which protect people from trying to render aid to another person. King rightly saw that the threat of suing those who speak up would be used to quiet the public and thus put transportation passengers in much greater risk.

The amendment passed the House overwhelmingly--by a vote of 304-21. Case closed, right?

Wrong. Today, House Democrats left out the amendment in the Homeland Security Bill. The Democrat Congress voted for legislation that protects US citizens from litigation for alerting authorities to suspicious activity, and then found a convenient technicality to throw it out. It's exactly as John Hinderaker at Powerline Blog says, Democrats can go home and say they voted for this and be technically correct. However, if there is no outrage from those who voted for this, then the voters need to be reminded of it. This move does nothing to increase our national security. In effect, it diminishes it. If American citizens are too worried about being sued to report suspicious activity, that gives terrorist a free hand to do what they please.

This is pathetic and outright disgusting. Democrats are trying to portray themselves as strong on defense, but you can't take them seriously after this stunt.

The Washington Times story reports that Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) has said she will try to insert a similiar amendment to an education bill pending in the Senate, and that Rep. King is in talks with Sen. Joe Lieberman to get the amendment slipped into the conference bill. Keep your fingers crossed.

More commentary and/or links at The Corner, and Captain's Quarters, and Powerline.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin reports that Sen. Collins move tonight just failed, 57-39, missing cloture by 3 votes thanks to some last minute Democrat arm twisting. The link includes a lot of coverage on the topic, including the roll call of tonights vote. Grassley voted for it , HARKIN VOTED AGAINST IT. As for the presidential candidates--voting "Yes" was Clinton and McCain. Voting "No" was Dodd and Biden. Those who did not vote were Brownback and Obama.

As Malkin points out, we still have the conference report.

UPDATE #2: Andy McCarthy at The Corner has more coverage on the event. He makes a good point with this: "If the state subpoenas you for information, you are compelled to provide it to the authorities whether you want to or not; but if you want to provide it voluntarily in order to protect your community, the Democrats say, 'prepare to be sued.'"

Debra Berlingame has an opinion piece up at DailyNews.net on the story.

Also, Audrey Hudson at the Washington Times, who first reported this story, is now reporting that a parliamentarian ruled that the amendment can be added to the legislation as it fits into the scope of it. Democrats are only allowing 3-4 amendments to be added, so it remains to be seen if King's amendment will be one of those.
-----------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Reaction to Harkin's "No Sleep Until We Retreat" Speech

National Review Online had an article today by Mark Hemingway, writing about his experience watching the "No Sleep Until We Retreat" debate in the Senate the other night. Hemingway mentions Tom Harkin, at the 1:09 and 1:15am entries. Those entries, like the whole article, are pretty funny, so check it out.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Tancredo in Fort Dodge

In continuance of the pre-Iowa Straw Poll candidate visits, Tom Tancredo came to the headquarters in Fort Dodge Monday night (July 16th). The Messenger doesn't have an online article, but there was a story in the paper edition on Tuesday.

The event drew, by our account, somewhere between 120 and 130 people. We're not sure if we've ever had that many people in the headquarters before, but if we have, it has certainly been a while. Even though we brought in extra chairs, seating was at a premium, and a good portion of the attendees had to stand. Outside, the campaign had parked a moving truck they had covered with Tancredo signs, which I heard they were driving around Fort Dodge during the afternoon.

I wasn't able to hear the whole speech, so I can't recap what he said ( I can tell you he did talk about immigration), but I did hear the audience applause several times. There were some questions about how many came just for the free food, but the reactions Tancredo received showed it couldn't have been many. I overheard several inquiries about the Iowa Straw Poll, and a few for yard signs.

One of the impressions left on several people I talked with afterwards is that immigration is going to be a big issue this election. Judging by what I heard from people coming up to talk with Tancred both before and after he spoke, that was the big reason they came. It would be smart for Republicans to at least look at making immigration one of its main issues this election.

All in all, it was a good event for the Tancredo campaign. Word is he'll be back in the area toward the end of the month, so keep visiting this blog as well as our website (www.webcorep.com).

UPDATE: Tancredo's blog has a couple photos of the event up.

------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Presidential Candidate Contact Information

Here is a list of contact information for our Republican presidential candidates. Unless I did not have such information, I used the candidate's Iowa office contact information, and also listed the specific Iowa page on the candidates website if one existed. This information will be updated and changed as needed.

Sam Brownback
www.brownback.com
526 Main Street
Ames, Ia.

John Cox
www.cox2008.com
815 Office Park Road
West Des Moines, Iowa 50265

Rudy Giuliani
www.joinrudy2008.com
Campaign headquarters address:
295 Greenwich St., No. 371
New York, N.Y. 10007
212-835-9449

Mike Huckabee
www.mikehuckabee.com
(Iowa page) http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=IowaHQ.Home
P.O. Box 200
Little Rock, Ark. 72203
501-324-2008

Duncan Hunter
www.gohunter08.com
Hunter for President Inc.
9340 Fuerte Drive, Suite 302
La Mesa, Calif. 91941
619-463-3896

John McCain
www.johnmccain.com
(Iowa site) http://iowa.johnmccain.com/
2335 70th Street
Urbandale, IA 50322

Mitt Romney
www.mittromney.com
3590 109th St.
Urbandale, Iowa

Tom Tancredo
http://www.teamtancredo.com/
Suite 102
217 Welch Avenue
Ames, IA 50014
Phone: (515) 268-3341
Fax: (515) 268-3347

Tommy Thompson
www.tommy2008.com
(Iowa Page) http://www.tommy2008.com/Tommy_Across_Iowa.aspx
10544 Justin Drive
Urbandale, IA 50322
515-422-5100
iowa@tommy2008.com

Huckabee Visits Fort Dodge

Mike Huckabee stopped at the GOP Headquarters to speak with about 40 people on Saturday afternoon. Here is a story on the event from The Messenger. There are photos taken by the paper here.

Huckabee is the former governor of Arkansas, originally from the town Hope. That, you'll remember, is the same place Bill Clinton is from. Huckabee brought Bob Vander Plaats with him. Vander Plaats was the Lieutenant Governor nominee last year, and is currently Huckabee's state chair.

Huckabee ran a little late (it's a rare politician who doesn't), and apologized for his tardiness. He mentioned that he was speeding to get over here and luckily the state patrol wasn't on the road. An audience member shouted "that's because he's in here" (which was true, though he was off duty). Huckabee's face blanked out briefly, the quickly replied that he wasn't driving and he didn't even know what vehicle he was in.

Huckabee touched on several topics, including the Fair Tax, changes needed in the health care system, and foreign policy. The attendees seemed impressed with the former governor and what he had to say.

Huckabee asked everyone to come to the Iowa Straw Poll on August 11th, and support him. He promised that at his tent, it would be 68 degrees with no humidity. If you're interested in attending the straw poll with Gov. Huckabee, contact his campaign, it looks like you can use this page to sign up.

----------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

It's Time to Disengage from Congress

Tonight, the US House of Representatives voted for defeat. On a party line vote of 223-201, the House approved a measure to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq in 180 days and to be completely out by April 1st, 2008 (April Fools Day, oddly enough).

Petraeus hasn't even given his September report. The full component of troops for the surge just arrived in the country. They have been engaging Al Qaeda, as Michael Yon has reported on. Tribes previously allied with AQ have turned and joined us. We are gaining more intelligence because the local populace feels more secure and doesn't fear for their lives in giving that information. And through this engagement, we have found how sickening these terrorists are, and what we are truly facing in this war. Iraqi troops found mass graves filled with the bodies of Al Qaeda victims. Yon reported on a story of an 11 year old boy baked...BAKED... and served to his parents because that young boy's parents had somehow crossed Al Qaeda.

This vote came about because of a document released today stating that eight of the benchmarks for Iraq have been met. Which means, even if the press doesn't make much of it, that eight of the benchmarks have been met or are well on their way there. Bombings have decreased. Death squad kills have decreased. Civilian deaths have decreased. The benchmarks that haven't been met yet are mostly political. They haven't prepared enough for local elections. They haven't done anything on oil revenue sharing. Etc.

Now, the US House wants us to leave. Have those who voted for this bill considered what will happen if we leave? Have they considered the violence that Al Qaeda will bring to Iraq? It will make places like Lebanon look like a picnic. Iran will seek to push its hegemony in the region, and Saudi Arabia will make similar moves. The Kurds in the north will push for their own country, and Turkey will come in to prevent an independent Kurdistan, as well as to flush out PKK terrorist hiding out in the mountains of area. You think gas prices are high now? If Iran gets control, or at the very least influence, over this area, gas prices will go sky high.

Rush Limbaugh brought up the point that our..OUR..congress can't deal with our current oil problems. They haven't built any new refineries. They haven't built any new nuclear power plants. Instead, they sit around and yell about oil company profits. Al Gore and Robert F. Kennedy fly around in their private jets telling us how WE need to change our ways. How can we expect the Iraqis to quickly deal with their problems if our congress can't? Democrats are always throwing the word "hypocrisy" into conversations, so why don't we?

Rush, Mark Levin, and probably others today, have said this: Why don't we hear about benchmarks with the current congress? How is that "6 for '06" thing going? Huh? If I remember right, the only part of that plan that has been signed into law is the minimum wage. Instead, all we get is Harry Reid telling us that the war is lost even when the surge forces were still be redeployed. All we get is Speaker Pelosi going over to Syria to "meet and talk" with a government who is currently allowing terrorist to cross it's boarder and kill our troops . All we get is Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer boasting about how many Senate seats they are going to gain because of the war. All we get is Jack Murtha calling our troops murders. They call for vote after vote after vote on Iraq, and jump with glee when the "yea" votes increase. The immigration bill--the bill that the American people overwhelming opposed--had to be killed not once--BUT TWICE.

This obviously means that the Democrat controlled congress has failed to meet its benchmarks. Thus, I call for a disengagement of the American People from this Congress. It is time to bring our Representatives and Senators home before they waste any more of our hard earned tax money on doing nothing.

PS---As a final note, I hope you have all heard Sen. John McCain's speech on the Senate floor the other day about his recent trip to Iraq. You can read the text here, and I'm sure there is video of it out there somewhere. I know there are a lot of people out there who don't care for Sen. McCain, and that can be putting it mildly. I know there are people out there jumping for joy at the recent events surrounding his campaign. But you have to admire a man who is willing to stand up in the Senate and say what he said. Not as an affront to any other candidate, but Sen. McCain has been, in my opinion, the most passionate of our candidates calling out the mistakes and mismanagement that has occurred in this war, and the need for us to finish the job over there.
------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

City Council Bans Sexual Orientation Descrimination

Monday night, the Fort Dodge City Council voted in favor of adding sexual orientation to an anti-discrimination law. Everyone voted yes except for Cindy Litwiller, who voted no.

When this last came up last year, it created a firestorm of controversy. A couple of local religious groups opposed it because of their religious beliefs. One proponent said we needed the law because they would make the city look better (would this be a job Fort Dodge citizens are unwilling to do?). The council didn't make any friends by just tabling the issue and doing nothing.

Even with the controversy I can't say I'm too surprised that the law was passed with as many votes as it did. As The Messenger article noted, a similar law was passed by the Iowa legislature this year, so it pretty much made it inevitable. But what really got me was a quote by Council Member Dan Payne, who said that even though most everyone he talked to opposed the measure, and even though he personally opposed the measure, he voted "yes" anyways.

My only question is--How do you reconcile the two? Its one thing to vote the way your constituents want you to. It's one thing to take a stand and vote your belief and convictions. But to go against both of those?

-------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote