Salier Suggests That King Should Face Primary
- Monday, June 1, 2009, 4:44
- Iowa, Top Story
- 7,083 views
- 37 comments
Former Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, Bill Salier, continued his criticism of Congressman Steve King last week while on Steve Deace’s program on WHO radio. Salier’s most recent criticism stems from an op-ed the congressman penned in the Des Moines Register, which called for a constitutional amendment defining marriage. This isn’t the first time Salier has been critical of King. Salier took to the airwaves during the legislative session to voice his objection to a residency requirement for marriage licenses, which King had advocated for.
Salier and others objected to the idea because passing such legislation would, in essence, acknowledge that the Court could indeed make law. At that time, the only action Salier was advocating for was a marriage amendment. Some conservatives now find it odd that Salier would speak out against King for wanting people to focus and unite around passing an amendment.
Last week, Salier took issue with the part of Congressman King’s op-ed that read as follows.
Salier went so far as to suggest that Congressman King is either uninformed about how to stand up to the court, or he is simply reading the political tea leaves and making a political calculation. Salier then said if it is the later, “then somebody should primary King.”
It’s highly doubtful that King is either uninformed or playing politics with the marriage issue. King is the only person who has ever successfully sued two sitting governors (Vilsack and Culver), and he is the only non-attorney on the Judiciary Committee in the United State House of Representatives.
It appears as if Salier is upset with King for wanting to take a practical approach. Passing a marriage amendment to the Iowa Constitution is standing up to the court. While that process is long and tedious, that doesn’t mean you forgo that route.
Congressman King seems to acknowledge the reality that conservatives face. Governor Culver and the leaders in the House and Senate have endorsed the Court’s decision, and they refuse to do anything that would challenge the court. So, until Culver and the Democrat majorities in both legislative chambers are voted out, nothing will change.
People like Bill Salier and others believe that, by simply telling people that the courts can’t make laws, the people will stand up and rectify the situation. But what does that mean? Does that mean electing a Republican governor who would then sign an executive order that challenges the Court on the issue? Or should people focus on passing a constitutional amendment?
There is no guarantee that an executive order by newly elected Governor would be effective, especially if Mike Gronstal or Pat Murphy are still leading their respective chambers. Conservatives would be wise to focus on passing an amendment, whether through the legislative process or by calling for a constitutional convention, which is on the ballot in 2010.
The latest critique by Bill Salier of Congressman King does little to encourage people to stand up to the court or to fight for traditional marriage in Iowa. We should fight for traditional marriage, we should stand up to the Court, and we can accomplish those goals by fighting for a constitutional amendment, which is what Congressman King advocated for in his op-ed
About the Author
Craig Robinson has written 503 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.
37 Comments on “Salier Suggests That King Should Face Primary”
Trackbacks
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.
Excellent post. Does Salier live in House District 5? Is he looking for a new job?
I am not sure what Salier is planning on accomplishing by standing in front of the Supreme Court building screaming “no” all day. That doesn’t bring any resolution and it wont put a stop to judicial activism. The only thing that stops judicial activism is telling people to vote “no” on reconfirmation for the 2 Justices whose terms expire this year. You want to stop a branch of Government operating far outside the scope of its power? The answer is simple; roll some political heads and the others will get the message.
If they want a marriage amendment, people also need to elect a Republican majority to the Iowa House and a Republican Governor who will sign an Executive Order and force the legislature to act. If those 3 things come to pass, it is unlikely that Gronstal, even if he still rules the Senate, will be able to block the measure if it comes out of the House. Democrat Senators will be more worried about saving their own political skin than in helping Gronstal save face. But to do that, we have to control the House and Governor and the Governor has to force the legislature’s hand. That, I’m afraid, is the only way we get to vote on a marriage amendment sort of calling a Constitutional Convention.
Congressman King is one of the greatest political thinkers this state has ever produced and we are to be grateful he is in congress. Now, these backstabbers come along and yank the rug out from under allies.
This is a tremendous loss. Salier had great promise and many were waiting for the day when he would reenter the political arena.
For this conservative, he has you-know-what in his nest. This kind of behavior is unacceptable and he and Deace can go crawl back under their rocks.
Deace has the goal of tearing down anyone who may be a threat to his inflated ego that he is the most righteous person alive and Salier has drunk the Deace Kool Aid. This is a tremendous loss.
These backstabbers just can’t seem to find any Democrats worthy of their wrath.
“Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall. Proverbs 16:18″
Having listened to Salier on Deace in the past, I am floored that he would say something so ridiculous. I don’t claim to know the history between these two, but it’s gotta be rocky. This sounds like a personal thing, b/c it makes zero sense from a party standpoint. Sounds to me like this was something that he will downplay if pressed on it, saying it was a “misstatement” or some such silliness.
Salier better be planning to run against Amanda Ragan in the next election or he can STHU. He better be willing to put up or shut up. If he wants a Constitutional Amendment, he better be willing to work his tail off to get it – and the only way to do that – is to find 26 Republican Senators and 51 Republican House members.
Bill Salier needs to stay home and take care of his pigs instead of running off at the mouth with deace!!! He HAD a bright political future, but he has effectively killed any chances of ever running for elected office again. What Bill, deace and the others failed to understand was that the Congressman was playing chess while the rest of them were playing checkers. The residency requierment would’ve contained this disaster to Iowa, now all of those out of state “couples” will be going back home and demanding that their states recognize their “marriage”.
I must disagree with the comments so far posted. While a residency requirement might have been a stop gap, Deace and Salier were right, enacting such a measure would give tacet approval to the idea that courts can somehow make law.
Someone please show me the line the Constitution where it says that courts can make new law. If you read Article I section 1, it explicitly states, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Further more, Article I section 8, in part reads, “The Congress shall have Power To…make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof”
Somone, anyone, please tell where in there it states that not ALL legislative powers are vested in the congress or that for convenience sake court decisions will be used in place of bills written, debated, voted on, and passed by the Senate and House of Representatives.
This debate is not about gay marriage! It is about the Judicial branch stealing your government from you. There is a reason the founding fathers of this country designed the Judicial branch of government to be the weakest. Because it is not directly accountable to the people.
CT: Theoretically, you are correct and everyone agrees with this in theory.
The problem is first Deace and Salier went after King because he also wanted to establish a residency requirement. Then when he concentrated on the marriage amendment, they went after him because he only went after the marriage amendment.
Their view is schizophrenic at best and frankly, it’s just another excuse to rag on a fellow conservative because it makes Deace feel superior and Salier goes along with him.
As Timmy said, King is playing chess while the rest are playing checkers. King looks for practical solutions. Deace and Salier stand in the way of solutions. They don’t want solutions–they want chaos.
DVFO: I would disagree with your characterization of Deace and Salier. I don’t think they “went after” Representative King. Deace has said on numerous occasions that Representative King is an honorable consvervative and worthy of praise. On this issue, however, Salier and Deace simply disagree with Representative King’s opinion.
Recently King wrote “The best way to put a check on this power grab by the judicial branch is to amend the Iowa Constitution to protect marriage from the courts…” With all due respect to the Congressman, that is a great idea and we SHOULD do it, but it is NOT the first action that should have been taken. The first thing that should have been done was to tell all county recorders to cease issueing marriage licenses to ANYONE until the Legislature could address the issue one way or another.
Now i know this seems like an extreme position, but when you read the constitution it really was the only legal option available. We live in a representative democracy, NOT a Judicial dictatorship. I don’t know how many ways to say it, Judges do NOT make law.
They “went after” King. Why is it that Deace only goes after the best ones? He just can’t seem to find any fault in Democrats and those Republicans who truly are RINOs.
If you haven’t been in Deace’s cross hairs, you’re not doing anything or you really are helping the dark side.
Mr. Robinson needs to do an interview with Salier and ask him point blank:
“Mr. Bill Salier, When are you announcing your plans to challenge Amanda Ragan for a seat in the Iowa Senate”.
If he says he isn’t, then quit giving him any attention because he’s irrelevent. Bill needs a pay check for 2012 so he says stupid stuff to get attention – like a first grader.
DVFO: I think you’re missing the larger point here. Whether or not you think Deace goes after Republicans when they don’t seem to stand by Conservative principals or who seem to believe that the Christian world view that is professed in the Iowa Republican Platform is just lip service to coax the dummy bible clingers to go to the poles, is somewhat irrelevant.
What I believe Deace and Salier are speaking to is a larger point. I would guess that they believe that Iowans today must demand that the Governor and the Legislator uphold the Constitution that they all swore to defend! When a court makes a ruling and presumes to make new law with said ruling, the Governor and the Legislator must stand up and tell the court, “Thank you for your opinion, but you simply do not have the authority to make law.”
With this governor, legislature and SC, how are you going to to accomplish this?
“The first thing that should have been done was to tell all county recorders to cease issueing marriage licenses to ANYONE until the Legislature could address the issue one way or another.”
IIRC, IFPC did just this. That brought results, huh?
Plan B?
“What I believe Deace and Salier are speaking to is a larger point. I would guess that they believe that Iowans today must demand that the Governor and the Legislator uphold the Constitution that they all swore to defend! When a court makes a ruling and presumes to make new law with said ruling, the Governor and the Legislator must stand up and tell the court, “Thank you for your opinion, but you simply do not have the authority to make law.”
Well, thank you for your opinion but this has nothing to do with King.
DVFO: “IIRC, IFPC did just this. That brought results, huh?”
I commend these bodies for doing this, but neither of them are the Iowa House of Representatives, Iowa Sentate, or the Governor of Iowa. Until one or all of these bodies stands up to the court, we will continue to get exactly what we have…a state that is dictated to by the court. A court, by the way, that is not elected by or directly accountable to the people.
I would say that yes, this does pertain to Congressman King. I believe the reason Salier takes issue with King, is that the Congressman doesn’t believe that simply not issueing gay marriage licesenses is not a viable option, while Salier and Deace believe it is the only legal option.
ConservativeThinker – what happens when the court decides in favor of the 2nd Amendment and our liberal governor and legislator decides to ignore the ruling?
Deace and Salier throw out the red herring of “the people are the final authority”. Nobody is saying they aren’t. Not King. Not McKinley. Nobody. In fact all the above believe the people have the final say and there are provisions in the Constitution for this. Ignoring rulings is not one of them.
“I believe the reason Salier takes issue with King, is that the Congressman doesn’t believe that simply not issueing gay marriage licesenses is not a viable option, while Salier and Deace believe it is the only legal option.”
This isn’t what they were saying before and even if true, it is extremely bad form to go on a 50,000 watt radio station and create a rift with a fellow conservative who is an ally. And now for Salier to suggest that perhaps King needs a primary opponent is just plain asinine.
Their beef is with Culver and the Democrats controlling the legislature.
It’s just true to form for Deace. Destroy those who are trying to do the very work you want done. Deace and Salier will never find someone who suits them and to try to do to King what they’re doing is a travesty.
ConservativeThinker is an idiot. You want the Governor and Legislature to stand up? Run for G*ddamn office and help us take back the majority then, you idiot.
You think these Democrats are going to do anything? They are laughing in your face.
You and Salier need to run or STFU.
Amen, Madison!!
You’re all idiots. None of you have demonstrated any understanding of Civics 101. The Courts interpret laws and determine whether they conflict with our constitution. The only way to overturn what was done is by amending our state constitution. You’re all an embarrassment to the conservative movement. You all need your knuckles rapped by Jesuits. By the way idiots, have any of you noticed that gays are getting married in this state.
FC: Ok, here we go again… The courts are vested with Judicial Review. Judicial Review means exactly what you wrote, that the Supreme Court is charged with the duty of deciding whether or not a given law is Constitutional. If it is not, the court can strike it down. That is where their authority ends. They do NOT have the authority and are not vested with the responsibility of making new law. When the court goes to the length of creating new language for an existing law, they are overstepping there CIVIC responsibility. If they deem a law to be unconstitutional, then that law is no longer in effect. Period. It lies with the legislature to then pass new law conforming with the decision, or pass a constitutional amendment overriding the court’s opinion
Yea, but they’re not going to do it. Now what, Einstein?
Ok, Lets say by some miracle, the legislature passes a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman. Lets also say that said amendment gets challenged in the court as did the California Amendment. By allowing the court to write the existing marriage law, what would stop them from simply re-writing the Constitutional Amendment to read that marriage is between 2 people?
It doesn’t have to be a “miracle” if you would quit attacking Republicans and start working to elect more of them so we can actually get a Constitutional Amendment passed.
Get real.
I thought most Republicans were reality based – but you are off in LaLa land with your absolutely idiotic beliefs that 18 and 44 Republicans are going to be able to do anything.
People like you are an embarrassment.
What makes you think Conservative Thinker is a Republican? CT is probably a “third party”–too good to be a Republican. These types tend to elect Democrats and then whine about it.
Madison: I am not trying lessen support for any conservative Republican. Look, we could fill the House and the Senate with Republicans. We could elect a republican governor. We could pass a constitutional amendment the reflects the will of the people.
So lets say we do all these things…you still haven’t answered the question. What happens when the Iowa Supreme Court hears a case challenging the Constitutional Amendment? What happens when they decide the language of the Amendment is Unconstitutional and then simply re-writes the language to read two people? If we have already agreed that courts can make law, what exactly do we do then?
Well I’ll be dipped in Iowa pig s**t, Darth, Senator-why-don’t-you-go-Cheney-yourself, Vader apparently said at the National Press Club that it’d be OK with him for legalizing same-sex marriage or unions or whatever.
Looks like he now goes to the _wrong_ church, eh folks?
You know, sometimes when you are up to your butt in alligators it’s pretty difficult to drain the swamp!!! Our first priority should be to gain back Terrace Hill and the Statehouse, then we can control the agenda and get conservative issues back on the table. All this debate on gay “marriage” now is acedemic. Woulda, coulda, shoulda doesn’t accomplish jack, neither does tearing down Steve King and the others. If Salier, deace, etc. really want to move the conservative cause forward, they need to back off attacking our side!
FC, I don’t know what subjects you were taught in school but how to have a civil debate evedently wasn’t one of them. If you want folks here to take you seriously, you really need to chill out!
Timmy: FYI–I learned to debate with my fists–both clutching rosaries. If anyone wants to know what 295 lbs of Jesuit persuasion is, I’ll meet anytime anywhere. Also, I’m sick of you barstool lawyers who bray incessantly not knowing a damn thing about what your talking about. I know one thing, because of pussies like you we’re out of power. Also, Salier is an ass as is Deace. Anything else?
FC, that approach doesn’t cut it here. Either learn to be more civil or go play elsewhere!
Timmy: It’s more likely that FC is not Catholic at all. FC seems to hate the Catholic church and wants to bring it dishonor.
Deaceman–you phony. Do you work? You look like you have plenty of time to write on blogs. How do you do it working in a cubicle?
To the bloggers that keep screaming don’t critisize fellow Republicans, and let’s re-elect Republicans to retake the legislature and governor’s office just remember that electing a new bunch of RINO’S that don’t have the backbone to stand behind the state Republican platform because they lack true Republican convictions won’t get us anywhere. The current crop of Republicans continue to prove time and again, that they aren’t much different than Democrats. Steve King is a great Congressman and a great representative of true Iowa Republican values. While I like Bill Salier also, I don’t believe Steve King should have a primary challenger. There are too many RINO candidates that need primary challengers. Politics is like making sausage. Sometimes its ugly. Discussion and disent is healthy. Thats what seperates us from the rest of the world.
Pete: Remember some people even think King is a RINO. This is our problem: We cannot even agree as to what makes a RINO.
Both Salier and Deace seem to have misunderstood King’s suggestions for either a residency requirement or a constitutional amendment. The first proposal is clearly nothing more than a speed bump; King never suggested that should be our only response. The second proposal for a constitutional amendment attempts to address the substance of the court’s action. But the amendment process itself is a tacit admission that the court had the authority to make the controverted ruling, “overturning” the state’s DOMA. And there is nothing to prevent the court from ignoring the amendment just as it has ignored the constitutional separation of powers.
BVP is correct on insisting the governor exercise his authority to uphold the State’s constitution by blocking the court’s ruling; ditto for the suggestions that county recorders follow the law, which is DOMA, even though that is also a stop gap approach.
If the legislature wants to agree with the court and legalize homosexual marriage, so be it. Let them answer to the voters. But if not, the best remedy is to impeach the entire court, along with Judge Hanson, for usurping the legislative and executive powers as given to the legislative and executive branches, not the judicial, in the Iowa constitution.
But for that to happen we need Republicans with principles, not “moderates” who want to get along with the other side.