Iowa Republicans Have Plenty of Opportunity in the State Senate
- Wednesday, May 20, 2009, 4:10
- Iowa, Top Story
- 2,134 views
- 79 comments
Now that some time has passed since the legislative session has adjourned and the Republican gubernatorial primary has started to take shape, it’s time to start looking at legislative races in which Republicans could pick up seats in both chambers in the 2010 elections.
Today we delve into the State Senate. Currently, Republicans hold 18 of the 50 seats in the State Senate. While only half of those seats are up for election in 2010, 19 of those 25 seats are currently held by Democrats. On one hand, it shows just how lopsided the Democrat majority is in the Senate, but on the other hand, it provides Iowa Republicans plenty of opportunity to pick up seats in this chamber in the next election.
In each of the six Republican senate seats that are up in 2010, GOP incumbents have voter registration numbers in their favor. That is good news for Republicans since there is nothing that should prevent them from going on the offensive. Any dollar that is used defending an incumbent is a dollar that can’t be spent to help pick up a new Senate seat.
There are also three seats that are currently held by Democrats that Republicans should be able to win. Those seats are currently held by Sen. Rich Olive of Story County, Sen. Bill Heckroth of Bremer County, and Sen. Becky Schmitz of Jefferson County. All three of these Democrats represent districts that have a Republican voter registration advantage. Making these seats even more appealing for Republicans is that Olive, Heckroth, and Schmitz are all just completing their first term in office.
Picking up those three senate seats would get Republicans to 21 seats, meaning they would still need four more seats to force split control of the Iowa Senate. To win additional seats that could potentially lead to split control or a Republican majority, they need to recruit outstanding candidates who can overcome the Democrats’ registration numbers in their district.
These candidates either need to be tireless campaigners, grassroots organizers, and well-respected members in their communities like a county supervisor, mayor, well known doctor, etc., or they have to have the ability to raise large amounts of money for their campaign. Fortunately, candidates like this do exist in some of these districts.
Below are seven districts that could come into play if the right candidate is recruited. The number one ranked district is the most likely to switch from being represented by a Democrat to a Republican. Please feel free to add your thoughts in the comment section. Since we are 18 months away from the election, there are bound to be some changes.
7. Senate District 7(Cerro Gordo County): Most people will be surprised to see Sen. Amanda Ragan’s seat on this list. With Democrats having a 3500 voter edge on registrations in the district, it would take a monumental effort for a Republican to win this seat. That means Republicans would have to find a candidate who’s not afraid of long odds – enter Bill Salier. Salier turned a lot of heads when he garnered more than 40% of the vote in the 2002 Republican U.S. Senate primary. Salier was critical of some Republican legislators following the Court’s decision that allowed gay marriage in Iowa. They always say, if you want to make sure something gets done right, you’d better be willing to do it yourself.
6. Senate District 1(Woodbury County): State Sen. Steve Warnstadt had no problems defeating Barbara Blanchard in 2006, but he should take little comfort in his 2006 victory. In 2008, the two Democrat incumbents who also represent his district in the House chamber both were almost defeated, despite these two House districts having favorable voter registration numbers for Democrats. Jeremy Taylor lost to Rep. Wes Whitead by only 55 votes, and Rick Bertrand lost to Rep. Roger Wendt by just 280 votes. Both Taylor and Bertrand proved to be strong candidates in a difficult year for Republicans at the polls. Either would be a credible candidate in this Senate district that could very well swing to the Republican column with the right effort.
5. Senate District 47(Wapello, Wayne, Appanoose, Davis Counties): There is no doubt that this has been a difficult part of the state for Republicans, except one – Dr. Mariannette Miller-Meeks. While Miller-Meeks could never find the votes to make up the 19,000 vote margin that Congressman Loebsack was able to generate in Johnson County, she did very well in every county in this Senate district in a general election. It is obvious that Miller-Meeks wishes to remain active in Republican politics, and the State Senate might just be the perfect fit. As the former President of the Iowa Medical Society, Miller-Meeks would give Republicans a credible conservative voice on health care issues. Having just run for Congress also gives Miller-Meeks some built in advantages. She has a current donor file and high name ID in the district, and she’s well respected throughout the district.
4. Senate District 37(Warren and Madison Counties): Despite raising massive amounts of money for her senate campaign in 2006, Sen. Staci Appel was only able to defeat her opponent in by 772 votes. She is also the wife of Iowa Supreme Court Justice Brent Appel, adding a unique twist to her re-election campaign. If Appel is feeling comfortable, she shouldn’t, especially if Rep. Kent Sorenson decides to run against her rather than seek re-election to his House seat. Sorenson pulled the upset of the cycle when he defeated Rep. Mark Davitt. The House District that Sorenson won is the more difficult part of that Senate district for Republicans. An Appel/Sorenson race would be ground zero for the debate on gay marriage in Iowa.
3. Senate District 5(Wright, Hamilton, Story Counties): This is the Senate district formerly held by Stewart Iverson. The current Co-Chair of the Republican Party of Iowa, Jim Kurtenbach lost to Sen. Rich Olive by just 62 votes in 2006. The district has a favorable voter registration for Republicans, as they outnumber Democrats in the district by 2100 voters. I’m told that a number of potential candidates have expressed interest, but none have stepped forward yet. There is no doubt that this is a seat Republicans will fight to win back in 2010.
2. Senate District 45(Washington, Wapello, Jefferson, Van Buren Counties): Freshmen Senator Becky Schmitz defeated Sen. David Miller by 184 votes in 2006. The district also leans Republican in registration numbers. If Republican Senate leaders could convince former legislator Sandy Greiner to run for the seat, they would have a powerful candidate who would perform like an incumbent. Whether Greiner runs or not, she’s the first call that needs to be made. Nobody in that area has a better handle on politics than she does.
1. Senate District 9(Butler, Bremer, Black Hawk, Fayette Counties): Freshmen Senator Bill Heckroth will be in serious trouble if former State Representative Bill Dix decides to run for the seat. Dix, who ran for Congress in 2006, is rumored to be looking at running against Heckroth. Dix is a triple-threat type of candidate who not only is a good campaigner and well-known and respected in his district, but he also proved to be an outstanding fundraiser in his 2006 congressional primary. Republicans outnumber Democrats in this district by almost 3000 registered voters. It also doesn’t hurt that a candidate like Dix would share the ballot with two Grassleys. Senator Grassley’s grandson was elected to replace Dix in the Iowa House, and it has to help when a United States Senator from your home county is up for re-election.
About the Author
Craig Robinson has written 700 stories on this site.
Craig Robinson serves as the founder and Editor-in-Chief of TheIowaRepublican.com. Prior to founding Iowa's largest conservative news site, Robinson served as the Political Director of the Republican Party of Iowa during the 2008 Iowa Caucuses. In that capacity, Robinson planned and organized the largest political event in 2007, the Iowa Straw Poll, in Ames, Iowa. Robinson also organized the 2008 Republican caucuses in Iowa, and was later dispatched to Nevada to help with the caucuses there. Robinson cut his teeth in Iowa politics during the 2000 caucus campaign of businessman Steve Forbes and has been involved with most major campaigns in the state since then. His extensive political background and rolodex give him a unique perspective from which to monitor the political pulse of Iowa.
79 Comments on “Iowa Republicans Have Plenty of Opportunity in the State Senate”
Write a Comment
Gravatars are small images that can show your personality. You can get your gravatar for free today!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The paradigm for any Iowa House or Senate seat should be Chuck Gipp. Chuck exemplified the best kind of conservative lawmaker. He was respected on both sides of the aisle. He easily bridged the gap between the fiscal and social conservatives. He had an easy disarming manner. He was a successful in his business affairs. He got things done. He was the man behind the curtain when Christopher was speaker–taking the sharp edges off of Rant’s advocacy. Also we need to recruit candidates who are active in their communities and have won local elections. I have always wondered how Senator Reilly from Oskaloosa, a democrat, could be elected from conservative Oskaloosa. Easy answer–he was Mayor and know how to get things done which garnered support from dems and Repubs alike. Finally stay away from polarizing losers such as Dix and Carroll. They alienate independents and moderates by sticking too close to the extremists in our party.
It doesn’t hurt Reilly that he has Grinnell College in his district either, but I agree that the Democrats have been wise in the candidates that they recruit, and Reilly is an example of finding an elected mayor and getting them to run.
I also agree with you on Gipp. He’s a great guy, and was one of the best elected officials that I have worked with over the years. Class act.
Excellent analysis, Craig. With these close elections, we have to be very mindful of voter fraud. Democrats use it very effectively.
We need convictions and if we could shut up Deace who suppresses the vote, we could win back lots of seats.
I do hope Bill Salier runs because if he does not, he will have ZERO credibility left on anything else. 2002 was a long time ago Bill. Want to keep earning a pay check from a presidential candidate in the next few years? Well, you are going to have to put up or shut up soon.
This article is one of the reasons I have enjoyed this site. This article was very informative regarding the landscape of Iowa politics. Thanks!
Bill Salier is exactly the kind of person WE DON”T want as a candidate. He is attractive only to those on the very fringes of our party. Consequently when it comes to the general, Amanda Ragan will evicerate him. Stay away from the polarizers.
That is exactly the reason why Bill Salier should run – to shut him the hell up
I would stick Senator Dennis Black from District 21 (Polk, Jasper Counties) on there at the bottom of the list at #8. The numbers there aren’t great, but the Polk side of the district has a fair number of Conservative leaning independents and Democrats (how else do you explain why Geri Huser votes the way she does?) On the Jasper side, you have a great number of blue collar Democrats but they have also been organized, driven and turned out by the UAW Hall in Newton. In 2007, that closed which means that the focal point of Democrat organization, fundraising and infrastructure wont be there in 2010. It wasn’t there in 2008 either, but just like when you cut the head off of a chicken, the body continues to run around for a short time before it dies. Couple with that the fact that Senator Black has next to no name ID on the Polk side of his District and the fact that more voters in the district are classified as “small business owners” rather than “union members” for the first time ever, you have the potential for a seat change there. But they would need a solid candidate to run up big numbers on the Polk side of the district, weaker Democrat numbers out of the Jasper side and a good Republican year. That is why I would put this district on the list, but probably at the bottom because the numbers are so poor. The X factor is, will the headless body of the union organization in Jasper still be running around by the 2010 election or will it finally bleed out and die?
There were only six close senate races in 2004, and they were all open seats. Incumbents cruised to re-election in both parties. Now, Democrats have a huge voter registration advantage and a GOP in ruins.
I agree the GOP has a shot of Appel, Olive and Schmitz, but crazy-ass David Hartsuch should probably watch his back. That was a district represented by one of the last sane republcians. Now, well, you’ve met David.
So even if the GOp wins all three of the above seats and holds the six incumbents they are running, they are still down 29-21. And I think they probably lose an incumbent.
Moderation,
I don’t think you can beat Amanda Ragan with just some run of the mill candidate, so why not recruit a guy who would work his tail off and go to battle against her every day? I think the list of candidates above is a good example on how people like you can and I can get along.
You want candidates like Chuck Gipp, and I would say that people like Dix and Greiner would fit that bill. It is also likely that the candidate in SD 5 will fit that mold as well. Miller-Meeks or the candidate in SD 1 would also seem to fit your criteria, and I think they all would be good legislative candidates.
As for Sorenson, he’s been successful in the most Democrat area of Appel’s district. It’s also important to note that her opponent who only lost by 700 votes was also a conservative Christian. Julian Garrett didn’t have any resources at all in that race, and he also didn’t have Sorenson’s youth and passion. He’s an ideal candidate in that district.
I’m not surprised that you take exception to the one long shot on the list. For someone who claims that he wants a “big tent” you clearly don’t think the tent has space for a Salier. I disagree. The last thing I want to see is the Republican Party rolling out the same type of candidates in every district.
“Finally stay away from polarizing losers such as Dix and Carroll. ”
I see Tim Gill’s charm – and money – worked on you, Mod.
Peggy,
i don’t think Moderation knows Bill Dix at all. To call Dix polarizing makes me question his political acumen. Maybe Moderation should talk to some of Bill’s colleagues from the House. I’ve helped both Dix and Gipp with their fundraising, I don’t know how you could like one and not the other. Sure Dix is more conservative, but both operated in the same manner.
Mr. Robinson: I must say I enjoyed your thoughtful article. I agree Appel’s seat is up for grabs. Miller-Meeks would be a WONDERFUL candidate. Salier is a bit too much for that district. Remember Mark Kuhn (D) has part of his house district in that Senate district. Yes, we have lots of room for agreement.
Mr. Robinson: I may have been off the mark with Dix. Not so with Carroll. Peggy, the Carroll/Palmer race is the best case study for not chasing away the big monied Repubs. As I have stated on other posts, Carroll and all of God’s children did not have a chance against Palmer and his out of state money. This unfolded in a district with conservative Dutch Oskaloosa. Pomerantz (RIP) and his friends raised $1million to take back the house and lost. They are angry and will not make the same mistake. As we speak that group is putting their money with moderate dems like McCarthy, Huser et al. since the $$$$guys are feeling they are getting a better return on their investments with them than Repubs. So, our task is to get them back into the fold by recruiting candidates who appeal to their sensitivities and yet have some feel for the issues that motivate us socons. Might be hard to do.
Mod: Did you pay attention to the success Salier had running in the Republican primary against Ganske? He didn’t get there appealing only to conservatives. Salier has the ability to educate and convince voters. He even is willing to go for Democrat voters and when they hear him, they pay attention.
Salier could be the bane to Democrats. They should fear Salier.
The only reason Danny Carroll lost was because of Grinnell College. It had nothing to do with conservatives in Oskaloosa not turning out for him. Palmer is from Oskaloosa, which helped him out some there with the politically uninformed, but after the cowardly votes he cast in this past session, I’m not sure the “I’ll vote for the hometown guy ’cause he’s nice and his kids are cute” think is going to fly down in Osky anymore.
DVFO–I am fully cognizant of Salier’s considerable political skills. Garnering 40% of the primary vote is one thing, winning a general is another. His comments on Deace and written materials castigating fellow Repubs is disconcerting to say the least. Lydia, Grinnell College has always been in Carroll’s district. To blame Grinnell for his loss is rubbish. The reason he lost is because he is a flamethrower and did not have the money to compete. Lesson: keep the monied crowd in the fold and appeal to swing voters.
And by “monied crowd,” you must mean the Tim Gill types, because he’s the one with the most money in the Carroll/Palmer race.
Well, at least now we know who Mod wants to kow tow to.
Lydia: Wrong. The monied crowd to which I refer is the DSM/Polk County metro monied set. These are hard-nosed businessmen who don’t like to throw money at candidates who tend to lose (and who are undoubtedly supported by extremists like yourself).
Lydia,
Every time you post my opinion of you gets lower. Keep up the good work.
Steve,
Thanks for the compliment!
Lydia,
Thanks for your help in destroying the GOP!
Steve, quit insulting people. We don’t pick on you because you are a fudgepacker. Let’s get back to the business at hand.
Sandy Greiner for governor. Or senate. Whatever. We need her back.
Miller Meeks….are you listening? You need to do this senate thing. You can only raise so much money. You are a good person. And will make a great senator. Time for a throwdown with that trashy schmitz.
Bobby, I agree with EVERYTHING you just wrote except the fact that “trashy schmitz” is not the potential opponent for 3M.
Instead, that would be Kieth Kreiman. He is also beatable because he is an ardent supporter of gay marriage.
Lydia,
If I could, I’d take you out for a beer to celebrate Steve Right’s rejection of you. You KNOW you’re on the right track!
I think Peggy has a crush on Lydia. See, I told you that people who are extremely opposed to marriage equality are in fact closet cases themselves.
Peggy’s here, she’s queer, get used to it!
Hopefully Lydia and Peggy will be very happy together with their 18th century belief system and lesbian action.
Steve,
It’s not our fault you could never get a date – with a girl.
Wow, so much for Steve wanting civility and actual debate. He is guilty of everything he accuses other of and more. What a hypocrite.
BTW, I love it when homosexuals try to insult others by accusing them of being gay. Real smart.
I treat with civility those who deserve it. Peggy only deserves pitty, and Lydia barely deserves attention. When either of you have an ounce of education behind you or at least have read a book that isn’t full of Jesus fairy tales, we’ll debate. Until then, I’ll just have to mock your ridiculously stupid opinions.
It’s a tough burden, but one I accept.
I just love that because I don’t think bigotry should be ratified in our constitution all the sudden I’m gay.
No steve, thats not why you are gay. you are gay because you screw dudes.
Bring on 2010! We’ll get back a lot of seats in the senate and retake the house. I can’t wait to see your house rankings. Also – with a tight gubernatorial race, 2010 will be a heck of a ride for political crazies like myself!
Steve,
You speak of Peggy and Lydia as bigots because they do not hold the same beliefs you do, but then you call the Bible a fairy tale and refuse to ‘debate’ until they find a new belief system. Serious question. Why is it that Peggy and Lydia are intolerant/bigots for believing homosexuality is wrong, but you are perfectly rational in your intolerance towards Bible believers? It is perplexing when you say that you are tolerant of everyone and are committed to diversity, but in reality, you refuse to tolerate Christian opinions (calling them “ridiculously stupid”) or allow their perspective to even be “debated”. In what respects are you tolerant of other beliefs or in favor of diversity?
“No steve, thats not why you are gay. you are gay because you screw dudes.”
LOL! Al S. sounds strangely like State 29…could it be?
Oh Peggy..I am just a businessman trying to make a living…born in Oskaloosa….trying to make my way in the cyberspace world of Deadwood. Drinks are half price for anyone that shits on steve right.
The bible is a fairy tale. It’s not true. Why is it intolerant to say true things. Just like how Peggy is a bigot. It’s not intolerant. It’s just a fact.
If I say a fairy is going to leave me a dollar if I put a tooth under my pillow, you would laugh at me and say I’m an idiot, cause it’s untrue. Peggy believes a talking snake told Adam and Eve to stay away from an apple tree. That’s stupid, she’s stupid, I’m just speaking truth.
She’s a bigot because she spouts bigotry in almost every comment. Again, truth is truth.
Steve we laugh at you because you come here and act like an idiot every day. You are a monkey at this zoo. Every day you come here and perform. Most of the time its entertaining. Even more entertaining that you take yourself seriously. However, you show yourself to be the slimy scum you really are when you spend your day calling a christian a bigot and insulting them personally. So there you go you spineless homo.
“The bible is a fairy tale. It’s not true. Why is it intolerant to say true things.”
There was a time when I thought Steve was just stupid. With that statement I find myself with noting by sympathy for him. His soul is headed down a road more dangerous and lonely than he can even begin to fathom and what’s worse, he doesn’t even realize it. For that, I truly feel sorry for him.
Mod: “His comments on Deace and written materials castigating fellow Repubs is disconcerting to say the least.”
You may be correct, I don’t know. I don’t listen to Deace at all anymore. My blood pressure is better this way.
Price reports that Lamberti is considering running for governor. Hope he does. He would be a great candidate. Certainly one that could bridge the gap between socons and fiscons. He probably is encouraged by the fact that Vaudt and Northey are out.
Agreed that Lamberti would be an excellent candidate.
When Lamberti gets in, I move the nominations cease.
I’d second that motion.
Al–I wish you would clean up your language. I encourage my teenaged kids to get online with TIR. Your foul mouth is making me reconsider.
Al Swearengen,
If a Christian is a bigot, why shouldn’t I call the a bigot? Usually, christianity and bigotry go hand in hand, so this really isn’t a stretch. But in the case of Peggy, she only knows how to hate.
I’m sorry you’re too blinded by your fairy tales to see how much of a moron you truly are. If we listened to people like you, Peggy, Steve Deace, Bill Sailer, etc. we’d be a backwards, slave owning, gay lynching nation. I know, sounds like paradise, hmmmm Pegster?
Altoona Guy,
I feel sorry for you as well. You live your life by the dictates of a bunch of primitive men who had no idea how the world worked or why things are the way they are. They were afraid (as I assume you are) and so made up stories to try and explain the world around them. They feared death, so they made up a Disney Land to go to after they pass away. And they punished anyone who dared to differ on whether their fairy tale was the truth.
You are free to believe whatever you want, but when you leave your home and try making the world share your out dated beliefs you are no better than your sad, sad christian ancestors.
I pity you. But not Peggy, because Peggy only knows hate so she deserves no pitty.
Like I’ve said before: You folks are the type of conservatives even conservatives are ashamed to be associated with. Congrats!
Unfortunately, today there’s a lot more juvenille sniping going on than serious analysis of this excellent article. I would like to make a serious comment about SD1, the number 2 race, Warnstadt. I don’t understand why you rated it Number 2. Maybe for statistical reasons, maybe because you don’t understand the district. For whatever reason, even though the House races were close, there’s slim to no chance that Warnstadt will have a serious contender. No one has materialized or is even talking about it to date. The prior candidate was really severely trounced despite a lot of money in the race and ITR support. This should scare anyone off. FInally, the district may look kinda R but votes D for non-national races.
And one more thing about SD1 – the past isn’t a particularly good predictor of the future here. The area continues to lose population due to the exodus to tax-free South Dakota. The emigrants tend to be Republican.
“Why is it intolerant to say true things.” – Steve Right
Yes, Steve, why is it intolerant to say true things, including even the ugly truth about your cause du jour, same sex ‘marriage’? You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth now.
I pity you because you can’t spell pity.
“You are free to believe whatever you want, but when you leave your home and try making the world share your out dated beliefs you are no better than your sad, sad christian ancestors.”
An interesting line to take, but I doubt you will still be saying it 30 or 40 years from now as you lie in a Hospice awaiting the end of your sad and wasted life.
I see why you are so bitter though Steve. It must be scary to contemplate that your whole existence is limited to a short 65 to 80 year (or less) after which you just rot in the ground. Although for a person who believes that God is a lie, I suppose being simply blinked out of existence and rotting in the ground would be an improvement over the eternity you are setting yourself up for.
AG,
Don’t mind Steve. He’s just upset because he’s never before encountered Republicans that had any gumption. He’s used to running roughshod over other people but he’s getting his clock cleaned on this blog almost daily.
That’s probably because he’s from a liberal family and likely attends a liberal college where conservatives are few and far between. The ones he does encounter are afraid to argue with him because they don’t want to be ostracized from the greater campus community. Judging from his style and sophomoric attempts at sarcasm and humor, he doesn’t spend much time talking to people who don’t already agree with him.
Altoona guy — steve is not a college student. he is a government employee.
Mr. Moderation – so sorry you are offended by blunt language. Just the way I talk. Call a spade a spade. And lets be serious..are your kids old enough know to read TIR? My my, how fast they grow. Get to bed so you look bright and cheery for Doug tomorrow.
It amazes me how much everything comes back to your fairy tales. And the only argument you can ever make (since reality is against you) is “Well, when you’re at the end of your life you’ll believe!” What a sad life you must have. So afraid of death you cling to stories written by a bunch of MEN who weren’t even there to witness what they are writing about. And all of your beliefs based on fear. Fear of the unknown or of the dark or whatever.
It’s sad, but most sad of all, it’s something you’re okay with. I guess ignorance is bliss.
What you must understand if nothing else is this: You don’t represent a majority. You don’t even represent a majority in a minority. What you represent is the sickest and most vile form of conservative and religious thought — the kind that festers in the minds of people who wish to hold down someone else in order to lift themselves up.
You mangle truth to serve your needs and you attempt to stop progress just like the church has always done. But you’re losing. Some would say you’ve already lost.
And again, I’m a straight man who attended college, doesn’t work for the government and was raised in a christian home. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to get treatment for gay bowel syndrome before helping my girlfriend abort her down syndrome baby.
Steve: I have some serious questions for you.
Do you believe it is ok to abort an unborn child? Why or why not?
Steve,
This isn’t a popularity contest so I don’t really care about being in the minority – I just want to be on the side of Truth. Always.
You were captured by your secular humanist college professors – but you think you’re ‘enlightened.’
The best I can do is make you uncomfortable in your arrogant self-reliance and pray for you. Peace.
So when exactly will you say something truthful then, Pegster?
DVFO,
Yes, because it’s unborn and it’s not my body. But this issue really isn’t all that important to me, so feel free to freak out now. It won’t bother me.
So, for you protections kick in the moment a baby is born but not before?
Actually, I am trying to figure out how the liberal mind works.
The liberal mind is fueled by logic. A dash of science, too.
Oh, science is that scary thing you’re told to ignore by your pastor. FYI.
Science – like global warming and killing babies. That’s science I can beleive in!
Speaking of science, can we prove scienfically that the product of conception is not alive at the time of conception?
I asked if you believe that protections for a baby begins at birth. I have no ulterior motive to ask. I simply want to understand.
See, I would be a conservative even if I were not a Christian as I believe there are consequences for all actions. There are many moms who choose to abort their babies who feel it is the best choice at the time but it may be years later before the regret and guilt sets in.
Craig, I can tell you put a lot of analysis and thought into this and I enjoyed the read. I had hopes for Republicans until I read the comments.
Religion has run out of justifications. Thanks to the telescope and the microscope, it no longer offers an explanation of anything important. Where once it used to be able, by its total command of a worldview, to prevent the emergence of rivals, it can now only impede and retard the advances we have made.
Confronted with undreamed of vistas inside our own evolving cortex, in the farthest reaches of the known universe and in the proteins and acids which constitute our nature, religion offers either annihilation in the name of god, or else the false promise that if we take a knife to our foreskins, or pray in the right direction, or ingest pieces of wafer, we shall be “saved.” It is as if someone were offered a delicious piece of fruit and threw away the flesh and pulp to gnaw moodily on the pit.
Religion is simply philosophy with the questions left out. To choose dogma and faith over doubt and experiment is to throw out the ripening vintage to reach greedily for the Kool-Aid.
“religion offers either annihilation in the name of god,”
But Steve, you’re the one that wants to annihilate.
DVFO,
nice retort.
love,
steve
Steve, you argue the wrong arguments and go out of your way to be outrageous while so doing, enough already. In polite society, people’s religious choices are not to be subjected to ridicule.
CD,
Their politics are based on their religion, so it’s open to ridicule. And letting nutjobs get away with spouting bigotry because we “have to respect their religious choices” is is just nonsense.
When they keep their religion to themselves, I’ll keep my opinion of their religion to myself.
Steve: You are an interloper on a REPUBLICAN website. Most people here have a deep faith in God. If that offends you, go back to a DEMOCRAT website. You’re not entitled to come here and insult those with whom you disagree.
YOU are the one who is trying to force your beliefs on the rest of us and if we don’t want to accept what you’re selling, you get insulting.
You didn’t answer me about if it can be proven scientifically that life does not begin at conception. I’m not goading you. I’m trying to understand where you get your beliefs.
Do you believe this same baby that was not deserving of protections before it was born is deserving of protections as soon as it is born?
“Religion has run out of justifications. Thanks to the telescope and the microscope, it no longer offers an explanation of anything important. Where once it used to be able, by its total command of a worldview, to prevent the emergence of rivals, it can now only impede and retard the advances we have made.
Confronted with undreamed of vistas inside our own evolving cortex, in the farthest reaches of the known universe and in the proteins and acids which constitute our nature, religion offers either annihilation in the name of god, or else the false promise that if we take a knife to our foreskins, or pray in the right direction, or ingest pieces of wafer, we shall be “saved.” It is as if someone were offered a delicious piece of fruit and threw away the flesh and pulp to gnaw moodily on the pit.
Religion is simply philosophy with the questions left out. To choose dogma and faith over doubt and experiment is to throw out the ripening vintage to reach greedily for the Kool-Aid.”
Steve – you may want to site who really said/wrote that.
Why do all of these posts always degrade into a pi$$ing match on either (gay) sex or religion? It’d be nice to actually have debate on the topic at hand for a change!
And it is a shame that even Consitution Daily has to get into the fray. This was a well-written article and it would have been good to hear some state-wide serious commentary about its contentions, but that’s not what trips anyone’s triggers on this website. Is there another blog that may cover these issues better??
Hey, we were lucky to get this one! For the most part it has been really good, other than a couple who either think they have a cyber soap box or just like being contrary. Nothing personal folks, just calling it how I see it.
Where do we go to discuss the shellacking Cheney gave Obama yesterday? Even Schieffer and Wallace are saying Obama lost that one.
I want an adult in charge of my security–not children like Obama and Co.
I was also very proud of Congressman King last night on CSPAN who called for Pelosi to be denied sensitive intelligence information until she either provides evidence that the CIA has committed felonies which she has accused them of doing or she apologizes.
If the CIA is guilty of lying to Congress, they are subject to imprisonment. It is a felony to lie to Congress.
This is serious business. We have Democrats in DC playing politics with our security, thanks to a nation full of ignorant voters and a nation full of left wing media people.
They don’t quite grasp the notion that radical Islam will be targeting them as well as Republicans.