An Open Letter to Senator Charles Grassley
- Friday, July 31, 2009, 10:47
- Iowa, News Center, Top Story
- 35,304 views
- 133 comments
By Representative Kent Sorenson
Senator Grassley,
Few Iowans, especially those of us who like you are in politics, command the respect and dignity you have over the course of your long and distinguished career. On the other hand, I am merely a freshman state legislator who has yet to complete his first term, so I recognize the miles of difference between us in both achievement and experience.
However, as I watch you carry out your duties in the United States Senate as of late, I must confess that not only am I puzzled by some of your recent decisions, but so are thousands of your constituents across the state of Iowa as well.
Senator, I challenged an incumbent Democrat last year in my district in a year that strongly favored Democrats. A young, popular, and charismatic colleague of yours in the U.S. Senate was at the top of the ballot as well, coasting to victory in Iowa’s presidential election. I was underfunded. I was practically ignored by the state Republican Party apparatus, who assumed I had little chance of victory – and given the facts on the ground I don’t blame them for that – and therefore offered only token assistance to my campaign.
I was even told by a Republican statehouse leader not to campaign on social issues, lest I risk being defined by the media as a member of what he described as “the God squad.”
Yet, despite all of these obstacles, and the fact that I went house-to-house in a Democratic district clearly and plainly defining where I stand on every issue in our party’s platform, my campaign defied conventional wisdom and emerged victorious on Election Day.
Not only that, but my race was one of only two in the 2008 election that took a seat away from the Democrats and gave it to the Republicans.
Because of that accomplishment, which is a rare feat as of late, I had hoped my campaign would be a model for our party across the board. Ours is a party that should stand for the strong convictions in its platform, because it is supported by a grassroots that consists of people who share those strong convictions. I know this firsthand, because I came out of those same grassroots that have supported your campaigns for several decades now.
That’s why many of us back home here in Iowa are troubled with some of your decisions as of late. As the current statewide standard bearer for our party, at least until we defeat Governor Culver next year, the decisions and statements you make in Washington have a huge impact on the grassroots here at home. Both my constituents and the people I talk to across the state are puzzled by the following:
* Your vote for the so-called TARP program last fall. That Bush bailout not only violated our party’s convictions, but it also violated our nation’s Constitution. You expressed remorse that you were asking hard-working Iowans to bailout Wall Street, but you voted with Tom Harkin anyway.
* Your vote to confirm Eric Holder as Attorney General of the United States. According to a November 21, 2008 article at NewsMax, Holder was a “strong supporter of restrictive gun control” as President Clinton’s deputy attorney general.
* The fact you told The Des Moines Register back in April you needed “30 days to think about” whether or not you support an amendment to the State Constitution defining marriage as one man and one woman.
* The fact you said on Iowa Press back in April that county recorders needed to “follow the law” and issue marriage licenses to homosexuals. The last time I read our State Constitution, I was working in the only prescribed body for the making of laws, and lawmakers didn’t vote to legalize homosexual marriages on any day of the session I attended, and I attended them all.
* The fact that you have failed to flatly refuse to support President Obama’s attempted takeover of our healthcare system, and thus one-seventh of the U.S. economy. It’s ironic that as more and more Americans are realizing the scope of what Obama is proposing, and coincidentally more and more Democrats are realizing the political backlash they will face at the polls next year if they vote for it, you at the very least are being portrayed as someone attempting to keep this empty hope and change alive with bi-partisan support. From its government mandates to rationing of healthcare, we need this bill completely defeated, not just negotiated down to a more manageable monstrosity.
Senator Grassley, I applaud you for your vote against confirming Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. However, I would also like to encourage you to not stop there.
Ours is a state that is hemorrhaging young families like mine. We are getting older and poorer. I witnessed Democratic budget tactics in my first legislative session that in this nation’s past history would’ve seen them tarred and feathered by the very public they were attempting to fleece.
You have been in the U.S. Senate for a long time, but I’m guessing our country has never needed principled and bold leadership from its leaders more during your tenure than it does right now.
We are facing a war for our very way of life, both at home and abroad. Senator Grassley, we need you to set an example of that principled and bold leadership that will inspire us both here in Iowa and across the country.
Iowans cannot afford any more of Obama-Culver-Gronstal government. However, I fear that unless our party shows them something more righteous than “the lesser of two evils” as a comparison, that’s exactly what we’ll get.
Senator Grassley, Iowans need the bold convictions of our party platform like never before. I wish to partner with you in advancing that platform if you’re interested in offering the principled and bold leadership Iowans need.
God bless,
Kent Sorenson
(Kent Sorenson is a Republican representing House District 74 in Warren County.)
About the Author
The Iowa Republican has written 311 stories on this site.
133 Comments on “An Open Letter to Senator Charles Grassley”
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.
Well stated.
i think we can all agree that Grassley is a conservative on issues when its politically convenient.
this is that same guy who tried to build the rain forest if memory serves.
but i guess it could be worse, which is why we keep him in office.
Unfortunately the “independent” Iowan who “works” is now longer the Chuck Grassley we all once knew and supported. No longer do we have the Congressman or Senator Grassley from the 70’s & 80’s that fought fraud and waste in the Pentagon. No longer do we have a Grassley that stands up against the special interests and votes principals. Chuck Grassley has been there too long — he is now nothing more than an establishment hack. Too many Washington friends — go along to get along. He may come back to Iowa to visit all 99 counties, but that is all he is anymore — a visitor.
For everything there is a time and season — it may be Senator Grassley’s time to retire. As much as I have respected and worked for Chuck Grassley in the past several decades — I’m afraid I can no longer do so. This disappoints me more than you know, but sorry Chuck.
We should be proud that Chuck Grassley isn’t driven by time worn ideology. He, in the truest form of classical conservatism, is a problem solver who transcends partisan politics. See what age does to a person. It makes them wiser. Cheers to you Chuck.
Agreed MIE. Grassley’s not perfect, but no one is. He’s done a great job for Iowa & the country and will continue to do so.
Any Republican seriously considering not supporting Chuck Grassley next year needs to have their head examined.
Would you prefer another Tom Harkin instead?
By the way, I don’t recall Chuck giving us his opinion following the 30 days he demanded to figure out his stand on Homosexual Marriage. Did anyone ever followup with him on that?
You’re misrepresenting what Grassley said about that because there is a certain element that wants to misrepresent it.
He did not for one minute equivocate on how he felt about homosexual marriage. He said he wanted time to think about what to do about it. There is a huge difference.
After the furor about what he said, he put out another statement to set the record straight but there are those who do not want to hear it. It’s more fun this way.
really deace hater? I know what he said. I read what he said several times cuz I just couldn’t believe it. But, since you claim to be the authority, what did he decide to do about it? The 30 days is long up and I never heard him state his conclusion. Please share what Chuck told you.
Ester, there’s no need to be testy. I never heard what he wanted done about it. But he never said he did not know how he felt about the issue of homosexual marriage. He has a perfect voting record on the issue.
Esther for crying out loud, US Senator Grassley doesn’t _need_ to have an opinion on “homosexual marriage”, it’s a state issue and not a federal one. And opinion or no, there isn’t a damn thing he _can_ do about it. Like it or lump it.
Grassley for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. He also voted for the Defense of Marriage Act. His stance on the issue has been clear for a long time.
Esther, you’re being disingenuous. Grassley said, in APRIL, he wanted to work with the Iowa Legislature to find a bipartisan solution to it. He also believes the people, not the courts, should decide the issue.
ConDemo is also correct. Grassley is U.S. Senator, not a State Senator. He doesn’t make the laws for Iowa.
Grassley is not our problem. Boswell, Braley, Loebsack and Harkin are the enemy. We need to stalk them the whole August recess. These RATS will probably go on a long vacation. They don’t want to hear it.
That’s what NEEDS to happen. What will happen is the so-called “Republicans” will spend most of their time tearing down Grassley.
Why? Because even though his clear record shows he’s against gay marriage, he didn’t come up with a plan immediately to overturn it in Iowa….even though he has zero power to do anything about it.
Just being better than Harkin or the other Democrats isn’t good enough. Is any of Sorenson’s points untrue? What is conservative about supporting the TARP? What is conservative about going along with Obama’s health care plan?
Grassley’s version of conservatism is he doesn’t really oppose anything the Democrats are doing, but he just wants to make is slightly less liberal. The only time you hear his name nationally is when he’s either trying to slightly tweak a liberal policy or when he’s right on board with the Democrats.
Sorenson is actually being generous to Grassley here. There are a lot of other things that he’s said and done in the last couple years that don’t even resemble conservatism.
Yes, the Democrats are the evil boogeymen. But how many times have we beaten them by trying to be like them lately? And what good is it to have Republicans in office that vote for liberal ideas and do not advance a conservative agenda?
con dumb – is a senator a leader? It is a federal issue. DOMA? It IS a federal issue. It’s being taken to the Supreme Court as you sit in parsing denial. Grassley dodged. He was scared. He didn’t know what to say so that he said what everyone wanted to “hear” him say. He never did come out after 30 days to tell us his wisdom. Grassley is losing his touch and the voters are becoming increasingly unimpressed. He would be wise to pay attention to it. So would his sychophants on this blog who don’t care anything about anything a republican does as long as he’s elected.
Esther: Dims have to love you guys. Suppose you’re right about every word you claim, then what? What do you want us to do? Vote Dim? Do you feel good about working for a Dim majority? I have really bad, bad news for you. You are NEVER going to find perfection here on earth.
The truth is Grassley has been a very good senator and we’ve been very fortunate to have him.
How do you feel about Harkin?
Why do you guys look for excuses to pick at Republicans? Why don’t you EVER criticize Dims. They are the enemy.
Esther, Grassley voted FOR the Defense of Marriage Act. He also voted FOR a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
He can cast votes on it federally, but has no control over what happens locally.
And he DID release a statement on what he thought about the Iowa ruling….he wanted to find a bi-partisan way to overcome it, and he believes it should have been left up to the voters, not the courts.
There’s not anything else he can do about it, because he doesn’t vote on Iowa laws.
If anyone really cares about stopping this “death care” monstrosity, they are going to have to hound the congressional RATS. After checking all their websites, I could find no mention of any forums during August.
You will need to call their offices to see if they are holding forums. Braley’s stopped after July 19.
These people are cowards and will be mighty scarce while Grassley goes around the state holding grass roots meetings.
Yet, who do we criticize? Grassley!! It makes no sense.
We absolutely MUST go after Dims.
Last night, this “death care” passed out of committee. Every single Republican voted against it. Let’s get our priorities straight!!!
Keep dreaming Deace. People like Esther are more interested in attacking Grassley over something he has absolutely no power to do anything about, than they are going after the Democrats who are bankrupting our country.
It is extremely disturbing that there are those who are supposed to be our allies who work AGAINST the very people that can advance what we want.
One has to wonder if they’ve stopped to think about their actions or if they really are not wanting our side to prevail.
I have huge questions about their sincereity.
For example this stupid attack on Grassley makes no sense. Of course, we want a perfect world but it isn’t going to happen and Grassley has done a great job and he will do the right thing here.
When we look at the extreme harm the Democrats are trying to do to our way of life, it is counter productive to attack our own people.
Sorensen’s piece did nothing to help the situation. I believe he meant well but Harkin and the rest of the congressional Democrats are the real targets. What was his point?
Sorenson’s letter sounds like it was written by Deace.
Poor Grassley can’t win for losing. He’s damned if he does and he’s damed if he doesn’t. Today’s paper has letters blasting him for voting against Sotomoyor. If he had voted for her, he would be blasted by others for voting for her.
Remember, there was a Republican in the White House until a few months ago and Republican controlled Congress for several years there. What did Grassley do for us then? That’s right, S-CHIP and TARP. What has he done to advance the agenda we feel is important?
If the Dems are moving the ball toward the end zone right now, all Grassley does is slow them down a little. We need someone who will start to move the ball the other way!
Republicans like him and McCain and others do not advance a conservative agenda. They are only useful in slowing down Democrats for awhile. We need representatives that are going to start rolling back what the libs have done. Grassley isn’t going to to that and a lot of prospective Republican candidates both nationally and on a state level won’t either.
Yes, Grassley is better than Harkin. So what? How is that working out for us here in Iowa or nationally, for that matter?
Tyler, is there another Republican in this state that you know of that could win a statewide election for the U.S. Senate?
The Dems would pour millions of dollars into the race if they thought they could take it. They can’t beat Grassley.
No Senator is 100% perfect, and that includes Grassley. But overall, he’s been very good for the country and the state of Iowa. To claim S-CHIP & TARP are the only things he’s done is beyond disingenuous on your part.
Pick a battle with someone ON THE OTHER SIDE!! Or maybe you are just a Dem trying to stir crap up. That’s what it sounds like to me.
Tyler: You folks that can’t find a good thing to say about any Republican and yet profess to be conservative have to be a very miserable lot. You hate everyone equally.
It is too bad we can’t all be united in our desire to rid ourselves of liberalism every little chance we get.
It is imperative we regain majorities in both the state house and DC.
I despise liberalism so much it is very easy to do everything within my power to throw every road bump in their way I can.
It may only be a road bump but it’s better than not at least trying to slow them down.
I think one thing needs to be clear in this discussion is what makes someone a Republican is the (R) next to their name or is what they believe. In my county(Pocahontas) where I am the Chairman our county recently went through this issue, and the committee decided that is was based on what they believe, and yes that includes some members of the committee being willing to support a good solid independent also.
One key statement I found the other day has really made me think, “For in choosing the lesser of two evils he may fail to see the greater evil he seeks to avoid may prove the lesser.”- Dietrich Bonhoeffer. I honestly think we as Republican need to look at where we stand and be willing to call out elected officials. Kent was willing to do so and that is a good thing, just because you are critical of a Republican at times, doesn’t make you a bad person. It helps make one wanting to follow our agenda, the platform, that we vote on.
Michael: I am not going to say you are wrong. But what we have going here is more than a mere desire to elect very good people. I believe we have something far more sinister happening.
Have you noticed how some people WANT to believe the worst. This Grassley incident is a perfect example. Those who WANT to believe the worst are perfectly willing to bear false witness and use exaggeration and to take comments out of context to justify their anger.
I believe that kind of anger should be reserved for Democrats. I don’t know if this is the Deace effect or if there would be people doing this without Deace but I believe Deace does not care about the causes he claims are important to him, nearly as much as he has the insatiable desire to puff himself up and at the same time to continue to empower Democrats.
It appears there are those who look at him and believe what he says.
I have given this much thought. I want to ask Tyler, Deace and anyone else with these narrow views exactly how many Republicans in the Iowa House, Senate, as well as the US House & Senate are worthy to be retained.
If you’re going to agree that in order to advance ANY kind of an agenda, it is impossible to do it without a majority, how are we EVER going to attain a majority without electing some Republicans who some of us may consider less than perfect?
I believe those with that mindset are not dealing in the real world. That mindset GIVES Democrats a permanent majority of everything. It is surrender without a fight.
Look at the destruction brought to our country just since Jan of this year. I believe that for anyone to sit back and pretend that to do nothing is more virtuous than to do something that may be less that perfect, to be immoral.
The real kicker will come when good churches are not allowed to preach the Word of God any longer as it will be considered “hate speech” and it will be the fault of those who refused to do anything about it.
How do you feel about these Dims in Congress, along with a power-hungry president want to mandate “end-of’-life” counseling. Again, if there were a few less RATS in the US Senate, we wouldn’t have to worry about it.
For all of the moderates and Democrats that like to post on this site: many of us, including Deace, are not concerned about simply electing Republicans. We are tired of choosing between the lesser of two evils. Grassley is willing, in the name of bipartisanship and pragmatism, to abandon the principles of his party. Moderates and Democrats love Grassley because either he doesn’t stand for anything or he enables those who would advance the wrong things. The TARP, S-ChIP, Medicare Part D, negotiating with liberals who would takeover health care in the country, Grassley is there, not to oppose, but to appease. I don’t mind being sold down the river by the Democrats. At least I know their agenda. What I do mind is being betrayed by someone who claims to be from my own party.
I question the motives of so-called Republicans that criticize those who try to hold Grassley and other Republican officials accountable. Whenever any official abandons those principle articulated in our party platform, the usual suspects are here to defend it on the grounds that “they can win elections, so what’s the alternative?” Moderates and Democrats do not have convictions like conservatives and they are happy to see so-call conservatives sell their brethren down the river. What they despise is a principled conservative that kicks butt and takes names because they cannot be manipulated by the editorial board of the Des Moines Register. Kudos to Kent. This is the kind of leadership our party needs.
Barack Obama and the Democratc majority want to express their wholehearted thanks to you (and Deace), Jackson.
Jackson, you may question my motives all you want. My motives are clear: a Republican majority, in Iowa & the U.S., and a Republican president. I also want Republicans that represent conservative values.
You people are wasting valuable time attacking Charles Grassley, who has certainly made mistakes, but overall has done a good job, when you could devote your energies to helping Republicans in your local districts.
Grassley opposes Sotomayor, but not one of you recognizes that conservative stance.
When people like Kim Lehman are Iowa’s national delegates, the Iowa GOP has serious issues.
When holier-than-thou bigots like Steve Deace are the mouthpiece of the Iowa “conservative movement”, we’ve got major problems.
The Republican Party of Iowa & its supporters need to come together, accept everyone’s ideas, and work toward a brighter future.
This inner-party bickering will continue our downward slide and leave us permanently out of power.
The one’s who are bickering are moderates, such as yourself, that call social conservatives bigots and holier-than-thou, when social conservatives were largely responsible for the election of every Republican president going back to Ronald Reagan. By the way, Sorenson is having a meeting with Grassley at Grassley’s invitation. Apparently, Chuck is concerned enough to hear from Kent. However, you guys would rather have Kent and other social conservatives shut up and go to the back of the bus.
“We are tired of choosing between the lesser of two evils. Grassley is willing, in the name of bipartisanship and pragmatism, to abandon the principles of his party. ”
Jackson: I have bad news for you. You can either choose the lesser of two evils or the greater of two evils.
It still is extremely difficult to know what exactly you expect.
To claim that Grassley is willing to abandon the principles of his party is bearing false witness.
I guess it would be easy to claim that Deace has abandoned his principles, especially by voting for Obama and on every chance that I know if that he has to help elect a Republican majority, he undermines the Republican. He deliberately helps the greater of two evils and don’t forget. Yet there are those who believer that somehow Deace is more righteous than others. Yet he helps elect pro-aborts and pro-homosexuals.
Jacksin: Read your history then comment. Those that were responsible for RR’s victory were those in the aggrieved middle, namely Catholic democrats. Conservative, yes. Crackpot extremists, no.
“For in choosing the lesser of two evils he may fail to see the greater evil he seeks to avoid may prove the lesser.”- Dietrich Bonhoeffer
We need to hold all of our GOP elected officials (SCC, State, Federal) accountable to the RPI Platform. They need to support all of it not just parts they like. That is the issue people are having. In my county and one other neighboring county, I had a good number of people say I am to conservative for the Republican Party. That is sad when I have to hear that from people are frustrated with Candidates saying something during a primary and then later go against it. after the primary is over. The Pocahontas Central Committe members who have attended the meeting have said they would never support a liberal Republican ever. Due to the fact that they are running contrary to the very platform that “We the People” help craft, and what makes us Republican. So that is what happening out here in this part of Northwest Iowa, I don’t know about the other parts of the state though.
Michael: If your central committee cannot in good conscience support ALL Republican candidates, then they MUST do the honorable thing and resign their positions on the central committee.
You are on the REPUBLICAN Central Committee–not the Democrat Central Committee. It is your job to help ALL Republicans get elected.
I love the Republican platform, too and would love it if all elected officers followed it but we don’t have that kind of control and besides, if you want to live by the platform, you’re going to have to be ready to die by the platform.
The Republican platform isn’t the Bible and it can be changed. Then what are you going to do?
To claim you are too conservative for the Republican party is ridiculous. The Republican party is mostly conservatives. There certainly aren’t any in the Democrat party. We have our difference on some issues but all fiscal conservatives are Republicans–contrary to what the media wants us to believe.
Our disagreement is over strategy. You believe that unless someone fits your idea of perfection, they should not be voted into office. There are two problems with that strategy. First, what constitutes perfection? PLEASE NAME ONE POLITICIAN WORTHY OF THE LABEL. NAME ONE POLITICIAN WORTHY OF A VOTE.
Secondly, do you want Democrats to have 100% permanent control? Can you not see the damage they are doing?
Michael: Who are the liberal Republicans you’re talking about?
Jackson, I didn’t call social conservatives bigots. I called Steve Deace one.
I consider myself a social conservative..
Michael, to ask every candidate & supporter to be held accountable to every single aspect for the RPI platform is ridiculous.
I’ve read the platform, and I can tell you wholeheartedly that most Republicans would not agree with some aspects of it.
And no one is telling so-cons to “go to the back of the bus”. We’re saying QUIT EXCLUDING EVERYONE ELSE. You’re not the only ones in the party.
If you want to criticize Grassley, go ahead. But your energies should be channeled toward more productive causes, like helping conservatives get elected.
If you really want the things you believe in to be enacted, you have to SUPPORT Republicans. Not tear them down.
red–the problem with emphasizing religous core values in a political campaign is that core values 1) differ from group to group 2) are deeply held and 3) are not subject to compromise. Gaining and holding on to power means COMPROMISING. How do you convince a pro-life advocate to compromise on life? You can’t. The better strategy is to agree on issues such as fiscal responsibility, limited government and strong defense. There is plenty of room to compromise on these issues and build winning coalitions. Not so with deeply held religious views.
Politics is the art of compromise.
I really wish that red247 and DVFO would consider running for office because they have so much knowledge and would be able to contribute so much you two should really consider starting a consulting firm to help all your squish friends that your always defending. In fact then you could get paid for all the hours you labor away typing up responses for people that could care less about you.
VSHD: Then why are you paying attention? It is those that consider themselve to be more perfect than others who should be running for office. We need their perfection.
Thanks VSHD for illustrating my point. Only people who march in lockstep with your ultra-conservative views are allowed in your party. No one is allowed to think for themselves, or even worse…voice a different opinion.
As for my “squish” friends, please point out all those moderates that I’ve defended. The only one I’ve defended on here is Chuck Grassley. And I haven’t defended his views, I’ve defended the fact the we, as Republicans, have larger issues than attacking one of our own. Especially one who has served Iowa & the U.S. capably for 3 decades.
I thought the Iowa GOP had serious problems with the ultra so-cons running everything before. Now I see that Chuck Grassley, whose views on life & marriage are very conservative, doesn’t even have a spot in this party.
You people are digging your own political graves.
After all this discussion since my last post, nobody has answered my question. The moderates on this board are saying that getting majorities, the Governor, the White House, etc. We had all that! What has it gotten us? Are we closer to what we want or are we farther away? We live in a world that is dominated by liberalism. And it did not just start when the Dems took over a couple years ago.
Winning elections and gaining majorities is not enough. Electing people with principles is the only thing that will start moving the ball to our side of the field. Yes, I would like to see people elected that share my Christian principles and I happen to believe that our lack of that type of conviction is the root cause of our failures. But if even if you look at this from a secular perspective, the platform of the Republicans is right on. But un-principled Republicans will not advance this. That has been proven over and over.
I know some of you will say that you have to win elections first to get to that point. We’ve done that, guys. Let’s start with the principles first and see how that goes this time.
Tyler: WHO is worthy of your vote? Name one person.
It looks like not much has changed around here. Red, DVFO, Mod, thanks for for trying to keep the focus on what should be the most obvious main objective here: Defeating the liberal dems and electing Republicans! I agree with DVFO, if your Central Committee cannot support the Republican candidates, they need to resign ASAP!!! Sometimes you have to play with the team on the field, if you can’t get your favorite guys on in the primary you need to get on board to defeat the other side. This is politics 101 and if you ain’t up for it, GET OUT!!!
On another note, I’ve got work to do again for a while and I’m gonna hafta quit spending so much time around here. Craig, thaks much for the forum, I really think it has been a great opportunity to air out some of the garbage. Con Dem, Silence, et al, thanks for the input and keeping me on my toes. For those of that have been willing to carry on a reasoned debate, I’ve really appreciated it! Red, Mod, DVFO, etc., keep it up and don’t let the dirty bastards get you down! For the kool-aid drinkers on this site(and you know WHO you are) I have this for you: SDIABFI !!!
Later, Timmy!
Right now, with what he’s saying so far and knowing him a little personally, Bob Vander Plaats is worthy of my vote. I know, I know… I’m a Deace Kool-Aid drinker, etc.
I don’t know if his Executive Order idea is going to work. But I’ll let you what, I admire someone who will not just be satisfied with beating a Democrat. Someone who has the balls to actually STOP what the libs have already done and actually try to move the ball in our direction. That is somebody I can get behind. Not to mention that by even attempting to do this, BVP would open up a debate about the issue that the libs want nothing to do with.
Even if a lot of you are skeptical about whether he can pull off the EO, aren’t you tired of just trying to slow down the liberal agenda? That’s all moderate Republicans have been doing for years. Wouldn’t it be nice to have someone with some real stones on our side really go after these guys? I think you’d be surprised how people would get behind someone like that.
True, Bob will actually have to back all that up. It is a lot easier to say in August what you’ll do and whether you’ll actually do it when/if you win. But he’s starting from a place right now that I believe in.
Steve King would also be worthy of my vote as well, by the way. That guy has some stones too. Only a guy that’s principled could be called all the names he’s been called!
To answer your question earlier DVFO, the 2008 GOP nominee was a moderate who just a few days ago said that we need to compromise on nationalized health care and starting to promote the UK Socialized medicine. The people talked about earlier were non committee members who I met at our county fair. So if you have your issue with them feel free to hunt them down and talk to them if you wish.
But the overall issue is this according to our county by laws, we are to “promote elect conservative republicans or those of like mind”. If you have an issue with the Pocahontas Central Committee then feel free to come to our meeting and talk to us on the issue, you are welcome to visit. Our next meeting is Friday Aug. 7 at 500 NE 6th St. Pocahontas, IA 50574. The county committee takes the approach that it’s how the person stands on issues is what makes him/her Republican not wether or not there is an (R) next to the name.
As for Sen. Grassley I will support him when he does the right thing (Sotomayer vote recently) and will encourage him when he is looking to compromise (Health Care). So just because someone calls out an elected official for not sticking to the platform does not make them a bad Republican. I get a sense some are unwilling to let people call out their elected GOP officials just for the sake of the appearance of Unity.
Sorry it was the 2008 GOP Nominee for House District 8, sorry for the incomplete finish of information.
DVFO, to say that one has a choice between a lesser and a greater evil is really a false set of choices. I don’t HAVE to choose either one. And the problem is not the party activists that make the phone calls, put up the signs and walk the precincts. The problem with the party is candidates that talk the talk but don’t walk the walk. You are alway ratting on social conservatives and promote fiscal conservatism as a way of uniting the party. But we have a GOP Senator that talks about fiscal responsibility and then votes for multibillion dollar entitlements and bailouts. That ain’t fiscal conservatism, but you still defend Grassley and slam grassroots conservatives that dare to speak out against him. DVFO, you are showing your true colors.
Hey Red, thanks for admitting that Grassley is a moderate.
Jaxkson–you missed the flyer 30 years ago. Grassley has always been a moderate.
“Jackson wrote on 3 August, 2009, 6:38
DVFO, to say that one has a choice between a lesser and a greater evil is really a false set of choices. I don’t HAVE to choose either one.”
Oh, yes you do. Those are the only two choices.
Sir Edmond Burke said: “All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”.
That exactly what you want to do.
It’s not encouraging that people still think fleecing the rest of the nation bringing more federal dollars into Iowa than go out is somehow doing a good job for Iowa. It is theft, it is legal plunder and contrary to what Constitutionalists stand for.
This is what Grassley and Harkin have in common however and why Iowan’s continue to support them in spite of strong reasons to replace them both.
I find that a sad commentary on our state and our voting population. No one of strong moral convictions and a belief in the rule of law ought to be for the perversion of that very law into legal plunder.
Does anyone even know or care what I am getting at anymore or have we become that debased?
I agree very strongly with Kent Sorenson and since I am not an elected official and have no desire to be one I can say so without moderating my tone or stance at all.
Leadership is not stealing from fellow Americans nor is it compromising on such theft which is what the healthcare reform is. It is monetary theft from portions of our population to. “Spread the wealth around,” and it is theft of our liberty. I think we are at a critical point in our history which may define what sort of country we will have going forward and if we are to make a stand for what our founders believed in this may be our last chance. Now is not the time to put our greed ahead of what is right and call thievery leadership.
I fully agree that we need more of the Chuck Grassley who will stand up and say I will not vote for a Judge in spite of what people may say about my decision or about me and less of the Grassley who “brings home the bacon,” even if we didn’t produce it here.
Do you moderates even understand where our party’s platform comes from?
Why is it okay for a Republican candidate to deviate from the grassroots game plan but it’s not okay for the county central committee’s to tell these jokers to take a hike when they do? The central committees aren’t the ones who have left the reservation.
Peggy: You need a dose of reality. Platforms are for the red-meat crowd of both parties. Platforms allow the drones to feel as though they have a meaningful role in the political process. Those at the levers of power ignore them. Go have at it.
Moderation in Everything: Get a dose of reality the Grassroots will not work for people that do not adhere to the core planks of the platform. There is a reason Sorenson was turning out 100’s of people at parades and volunteering for him. While John McCain at the top of the ticket could not organize one lit. drop in the same district.
MIE,
To quell your unfounded fears, I can’t remember the last time our central committee discussed the abortion issue.
At the end of the day, every man has one vote; stop acting like there is a Nazi wing of the party that’s forcing people to adhere to their ideologies. You’re delusional.
Peggy: You’re a poster child for what I fear. You and your litmus tests. With that being said I am pleased that your central committee is not discussing abortion. Maybe there is some hope after all. Vanita–Sorenson is a strong candidate who worked his tail off against an incumbent who had no fire in his belly. In the end it always comes down to the candidate. John McCain’s failure was his cowtowing to the nutjobs. He should have run as the moderate he was. If he had done so he might have won.
By litmus tests I assume you mean standards and qualities that appeal to me in a political candidate.
Like I said, at the end of the day my vote is mine alone. You need to stop trying to hard to mold and shape people who don’t think like you. Give it a rest.
Peggy: Of course at the end of the day your vote is yours. As is mine. That’s why I thought we both blog so that we can convince each other of the strenghts/weaknesses of our arguments. In other words, it’s all about mold and shaping. If you want me to ignore your posts I certainly will out of respect for you. But I don’t think that is really you.
Are you a Republican?
You spend more time demonizing conservative Republicans than you do crazed Dem policies. I don’t get it.
Are you listening to Rush today? He’s killing Obamacare with B.O.’s own words.
Peggy: Of course I am a Republican. I rarely spend time commenting on issues with which I agree. The back-slapping and glad handing are best left to others. The only reason I post is to repeat the mantra that 1) moderation is an ideal worthy of aspiration (and a good road to victory) and 2) religion and politics don’t mix well. I also have a burr in my saddle for reactionaries that rant without elegance, facts or reason. For the most part you are not one of the coarse howlers. You buttress your positions with sources that warrant a look. Many times you are witty in your commentary. I actually like your barbed insults. And finally, it helps that you are a fierce defender of the HRCC. As far as Rush, he does the Party more harm than good. Listen instead to Huntsman, Balbour, Pawlenty, Snowe and Daniels. They are articulate and principled.
Principled? Whose principles?
Peggy: Moderates’ principles.
And they’re more legitimate than conservative principles how???
Face it, MIE, everyone’s likes and dislikes are based on their social and moral backgrounds. Would it make you happy if we said we were pro-life but never mentioned how or why we came to that decision, i.e. we believe in God? Or are you suggesting that we chuck our principles because they don’t align with yours?
To cut to the chase, is it, or is it not, legitimate for a conservative candidate to mount a primary challenge to Charles Grassley on the strength of his over-eager willingness to cut a deal on the health care boondoggle, which will prove ruinous to our nation? I am of the mind that if the Democrats do this, they must be made to do this entirely on their own with no help from the Republicans, and with no excuses for failure admitted when their efforts deliver abysmal results.
Peggy: My prinicples do align with yours. I, however do not choose to advance those principles through the political process. I do NOT advocate chucking your principles at all. I advocate finding common ground with those that have sincerely held beliefs that are different from yours. Find common ground means COMPROMISE. You don’t compromise your religious beliefs. You compromise on issues that are subject to compromise such as fiscal issues.
What you’re advocating is conservatives looking the other way and stepping back from the political process while the courts and their liberal pol minions foist heinous laws upon our country.
Only social conservatives are supposed to play this game, though.
Peggy: Get over the gay issue. Gays are no threat to you. Government has no business dealing with private issues. Once it does you may be forced to wear a veil again. Think of all those beautiful visages shielded by intolerant old men.
“Forced to wear a veil again?” What are you talking about?
Let me remind you it was the government (state supreme court) who just legalized same sex marriage – homosexuals were not attacked by the state, as you purport, but they have been held in high esteem. But smokers have to hide in the bushes – oh, I forgot… “government has no business dealing with private issues.”
Peggy: Smoking is not a private issue. Smokers interfere with my rights by smoking near me in a restaurant. BTW, how are you threatened by gays? You’re not.
Mod: Smoking is a private issue. If a restaurant owner wants to allow smoking in his restaurant, it’s his business and you do not have to go in there. The owner will let the market dictate to him if he wants to allow smoking or not. It’s no one else’s business.
Hold up…what about the bar owners who WANT smoking allowed in their privately-owned establishments? Isn’t that a case of government interfering in private matters?
On a personal, immediate level, I’m not threatened by homosexuals but they are a threat to one another based on their sexual practices and the fact that their behavior is conducive to disease and health problems.
ObamaCare will penalize people who are overweight, eat candy bars, have a can of Crisco in their cupboard but practicing homosexuals are being given marriage licenses? Beam me up, Scotty!
How does my failure to wear a seatbelt in the state of Iowa threaten anyone else? Can’t you see the PC hypocrisy in our state’s laws?
Peggy: If you don’t wear a seat belt you end up in Iowa City tethered to life support on my dime. So now Peggy you are concerned with sexual hygeine. Why constrain your concern to only gays? What about straights who are sloven with their sexual habits? Because tramps are a threat to each other are we going to have governmental intervention? Are we going to have venereal wart police? Where does stop, Peggy? Only where Peggy wants it to stop.
Peggy; The veil to which I refer was the veil Catholic girls used to wear.
Peggy:
I could not agree more with everything you are saying!!! MIE & DVFO come in here with the full intent of selling out our party and beating down anyone that does not agree with them. Their pure purpose is to cause discourse in the comment area because they are really agents from the Tim Gill site Iowa Independent. The whole plan is to infiltrate the republican ranks and brainwash all of us. In fact I am sure that they really are working with Steve Deace the very person that they speak against as a ploy to suck us in. I can not believe I almost fell for that one!
Vanita: Sorry but I get to express my opinion like everybody else on this site. One of my goals is to force some dicipline on mushy thinkers like you and Peggy and reclaim the Party from crackpots. Why do I say mushy? Look at Peggy’s argument concerning gays and their sexual practices. She implies government needs to be involved in their lives to protect themselves from each other. In the same breath (likely Camel straights) she says government should stay out of smokers’ lives to allow them to hurt each other. Sorry, Peggy, you get a big red “F” in logic.
MIE, What about the homosexual man – legally ‘married’ by the state of Iowa – who has AIDS and is tethered to life support in Iowa City? What’s the difference? Why is his self-inflicted illness politically correct?
Your comparison to promiscuous heterosexuals doesn’t wash. Did the Iowa Supreme Court recently hold slutty hetero behavior up on a pedestal?
“Look at Peggy’s argument concerning gays and their sexual practices. She implies government needs to be involved in their lives to protect themselves from each other.” -MIE
No, you’re the one who’s defending seatbelt laws (government interference in private affairs) and smoking bans (government overriding the wishes of private business owners).
I’m not advocating that the government storm into homosexuals bedrooms – THAT would be an invasion of privacy. But that’s not what’s happenened in Iowa – the Court did the exact opposite and glorified the behavior. Can’t you see that? If not, I’m done talking to the brick wall.
And Vanita’s a fraud.
“Government has no business dealing with private issues. Once it does you may be forced to wear a veil again. Think of all those beautiful visages shielded by intolerant old men.”
I wasn’t aware that the government had forced Catholic women to wear veils to Mass.
Where do you get this stuff?
Tridentine mass in Wash. DC
I actually was being sarcastic because they are always saying how we are Deace followers because surely we cannot think for ourselves and come to similar conclusions. Because according to them if you are a social conservative it is impossible to be a critical thinker.
Vanita: If you are a critical thinker then so it.
Vanita: sorry “show” it.
Show it by agreeing with you I would rather you ramble on and on. We showed it all of us showed and did not work for your moderate boy McCain this time around.
McCain lost because he was a moderate running as a wingnut. Had he not cowtowed to the crackpots he might have won.
MIE – How much time do you spend volunteering in a campaign office? I know people all over the state that work on campaigns. So tell me one moderate that has had the grassroots working for them any that has had a great grassroots campaign…………………. Exactly!
Gipp, Huntsman, Daniels, Barbour, Swartzenegger, Snowe, Ray, Branstad..
Lying Hypocrite,
Hehe…I just chuckled to myself. I almost fell out of my chair…
You keep telling me I should be moderate, and then you use Arnold Schwarzenegger, Stormy Daniels, and George “The Gipper” Gipp as your poster examples. Great point, I want to be just like them!!! Well, maybe like the Gipper anyways…
I said Grassroots and with those examples you just proved my point!!!!
Reacting (Thinking) How is it down there one standard deviation below the norm? That would be Chuck Gipp.
Lying Hypocrite,
Oh, you weren’t talking about The Gipper? Man, I must look stupid now! You were talking about the Governor of California who has been issuing IOU’s though, right???
Reacting–try this–Subject, verb, object. One more time-subject, verb, object. Once you get this down we’ll go to step 2. Baby steps for now.
MIE…. Did you learn all this from your sociology professor at Berkeley?
Reacting: Actually my third grade teacher, Sr. Mary Ruth. Cheers, mate.
Lying Hypocrite,
Is Arnold Schwarzenegger a moderate? Should more of us be like him? How has his moderation improved, or even sustained, California? Why would you use him as an example for why moderation is effective?
Does that make sense? Do you understand why I am laughing at you? Do you understand why almost everyone on this site is laughing at you (except for the Democrats)?
Reacting: I know. I missed my calling as a stand up comedian. I’ll do my best to keep you all in stitches.
MIE……… Then you do admit that everything you have been saying is a joke
Hey Everybody,
Moderation in Everything finally admitted that all his ramblings and mushy-middle (see-what-the-polls-tell-us-to-believe) philosophy is all just a big joke. He’s been trying to make us laugh this whole time. In a way, I feel relieved that he does not believe all the garbage he has been putting on this site.
What follows is my letter to my state representative, Chris Hagenow. I
like Chris a great deal.
I sent this letter to Chris regarding Chuck Grassley’s stance on health
care. I want Chris to take a public stand like Indianola’s Kent
Sorenson. Chris hasn’t yet, but he needs to do so for the reasons that I
state in my letter below.
I urge you to write to your state representative. You’re welcome to use
the text of my letter, modify it, write your own. We need to apply
pressure on Chuck Grassley, so let your representative represent you on
this issue. Urge them to get Grassley back on track.
——————————————————
Hi Chris
One of the problems with our current representatives in government is
that politicians almost universally believe that it’s their job to craft
solutions in our name. The problems with this are:
- the people crafting these “solutions” don’t have to face market
pressures like the private sector
- the people crafting these “solutions” don’t have to personally invest
their own money into the “solution” they craft like the private sector
- the people crafting these “solutions” don’t have to face the customer
service problems that inevitably follow the implementation of their
“solutions”
The experience of building it from the inside out and living it every
day, crafting a workable, efficient solution that is market-tested -
this is the only way to solve problems. This kind of real world
problem-solving can’t happen in a closed-door meeting among lobbyists
and lawyers. It happens on the streets among the entrepreneurs who take
on the risks of learning what the market will buy.
Chuck Grassley believes in his heart that his job is to craft solutions
in Washington, despite Washington’s pathetic track record. Medicare is
broke. Medicaid is broke. Social Security won’t be there for you or me
or our kids, yet we continue to sink money into it with every paycheck.
Plainly, Washington “solutions” are a losing venture – every time
they’re tried. Can we call these programs “clunkers?”
What I don’t hear from Chuck Grassley is that he intends to use his
office to protect our liberties. The founding fathers never intended
that our elected representatives would be our designated “problem
solvers.” What they did expect is that elected representatives would
limit government. That premise was once a core plank in the Republican
platform. Is it now?
I ask because it’s clear that Chuck Grassley’s intentions are not to
limit government, but to limit the Democrats. He hopes to craft a
bipartisan approach to health care “reform.” I’ll say this as plainly as
I can: bipartisanship is just a euphemism for less freedom and higher
taxes. You know – and I know – that any health care compromise with the
Democrats will only increase costs and reduce the freedom of our
children when they inherit this mess as adults. They’ll be stuck with
the bill. But here’s the kicker: as I mentioned, neither you or I expect
Social Security to be around. While the money we “invested” will be
gone, Social Security missing from our future won’t greatly detract from
our lives. But health care? That’s personal. If health care is
diminished, as it is in other countries where health care has been
socialized, then we’re just as responsible as Chuck Grassley if we sit
idly by and let it happen. As a parent, I won’t let happen. I trust you
won’t either.
As my state representative, I ask what you intend to do to tell Grassley
in no uncertain terms that the only acceptable health care solution is
that Washington have nothing more to do with it. The only acceptable
solution is a free-market solution. If the goal is to make health care
more accessible, then the answer is to make it more affordable through
cost control. Washington can only add layers of management onto health
care costs, which will not improve the quality of health care nor will
it reduce costs. The trillions borrowed to “afford” Washington solutions
today will be shouldered by our children years from now, and loving
parents don’t burden their children with a mountain of debt.
I admire state representative Kent Sorenson’s open letter to Grassley.
Good for him for standing tall. I can tell you that the grassroots
conservative movement is thrilled to see his principled stand. I’d like
to know how you intend to stand for our children’s futures. Will you
send Grassley the clear message that bipartisanship on health care will
bankrupt America, just like every other Washington “solution?”
More specifically, as a Republican, will you stand for limited
government? This is an opportunity for you to define the GOP clearly for
us voters. I urge you to re-establish for us that plank in the
Republican platform. I miss it.
Received the above post as an email and encourage everyone to use it!!!
Vanita: Of course, it’s all a joke. Actually I’m just like you. I revile moderates. I detest the fact that they would have the gall to listen to someone who differs from them. Hell, most of those moderates think Jesus was a socialist. I hear some of them wear Che Guevarra tees with Prada loafers and drink their coffee with milk. What degenerates! Most of them like it from the backside. What filth. No wonder hell awaits them. What should we do, Vanita? Should I dig a bunker. Where’s my Glock? I think my neighbor might be a moderate. I’m going to get my children now. It may be too late. Gotta run.
WTF??? It looks like the inmates have finally taken over the asylum!!! VSHD et al, do you lay awake at night dreaming up ways to destroy the GOP because if you continue to rant and push away the moderates, independents, libertarians, etc. there will be NO CHANGE in the government of Iowa! I didn’t stutter. The GOP needs these folks in order to DEFEAT the liberal democrats that are currently in power. That means that absolutely NOTHING conservative has a hope in hell of ever advancing. I’m convinced that is exactly what some of you want.
Peggy, since now I’ve been branded a “moderate” by the likes of you I can tell you for fact I’ve worked on the platform at the county AND district level for some time now and have supported most of the conservative causes that folks like you are bitching about being ignored. You really need to get over yourselves because you are burning bridges you need to keep if you ever want to advance these causes in the future!
Make no mistake, if you people continue in demanding the GOP only represent the ultra-right wing you will push conservatism over the cliff into oblivion. SDIABFI !!!
Hey, Vanita. Now that I have been outed as the ultra socon that I truly am, I want to send another letter to Grassley. If you don’t mind, I going to sustitute the words “health bill” with “farm bill” in your letter. Let’s get government out of agriculture. I’m sick to death of these John Deere welfare queens having their way with us hard working taxpayers. Are you with me? I also want to propose Chuck that we create a blacklist of all government suck farmers so that we can refuse to buy food products that are anyway related to them and their government subsidized lifestyles. That Chevy Silverado with dualies is the same as that Fleetwood with the spinnin’ hubs and curb checkers if you know what I mean. Hopefully the good Senator will stand tall for the free market and remove the horrible burden our children are bound to shoulder should this foolishness continue. Vanita, let’s get rolling on this ASAP!
OK that’s Funny!!!
“Tridentine mass in Wash. DC”
LOL!
Yeah, Grassley is not quite as bad as Comrade Harkin. But pretty damn close! George W Bush called himself a conservative too. So does John McCain. Both were for Cap & Trade, Tarp, the stimulous, national healthcare, open borders, amnesty. See where these two got us? Obama would not be president if Bush had not set it up for him! And McCain likely voted for him according to the campaign he ran.
Don’t forget the vote of the Chuckster for giving federal land on the Coralville reservoir to the muslims for a youth camp after 9/11.
Peggy: Watch out. Those cranky old Tridentine priests don’t put up with uppity females. To the back of the Church, pronto.
Timmy,
SDIABFI to you, too!!!
Peggy, do you even know what SDIABFI even means? If you think long and hard enough I’m sure most of you will figure it out!
Timmy,
No, and I don’t care!
Sorenson’s letter is asinine. Grassley needs to be a player to be well-informed. Grassley knows that something has to be done, but will not vote for Obamacare. You fanatics are losers.
There is NOT ONE intelligent, logical
and rational way in which Homosexuals being married some how HURTS any other marrage. Anyone who thinks there is one, IS
just a Programmed Religious Robot who poor little mind is so befuddled, they are incapable of logical and rational thought.
Yo TIMMY
YOUR comment: “if you continue to rant and push away the moderates, independents, libertarians, etc. there will be NO CHANGE in the government of Iowa! I didn’t stutter. The GOP needs these folks in order to DEFEAT the liberal democrats that are currently in power. That means that absolutely NOTHING conservative has a hope in hell of ever advancing.”
IS ONE OF MOST DEAD ON, ACCURATE I HAVE EVER READ! IT IS SO TRUE!
And while more than few Athests supported McCain, if the Christians get all pushy about their religion, they WILL LOSE!
Anyone who disagrees with that needs to do some research as the number of people leaving the Christian religion INCREASES EVERY YEAR!
Well said!!
Thank YOU “IowansForTruth”
—————–
As it seems some posters in the thread need an education, this 74 year old Vet and Agnostic Atheist Activist will edify them a bit.
First, Arnold Schwarzenegger is a super succesful over achiever and a WINNER!
He sets goals and achieves them!
(That is as long as IDIOTS do not screw things up. IF what he is doing is within his control, he accomlishes it!)
A. While living in Austria, he decided to become a world class body builder. He became the single most successful body builder in the history of the world.
B. He decided to come to LEGALLY come the United States. (When he got here, he had very little money.)
HE DID!
C. He decided become a Move Star!
(Note: I did not say a fine actor, John Wayne was a great Movie Star and yet most certainly not the greatest actor. There ARE fine actors who are NOT Movie Stars.)
Arnold Schwarzenegger became one of the MOST Famous, successful and highly paid Movie Stars IN HISTORY!
D. Arnold want to start & run a successful business. So he started & runs more than a few of them! (He is worth somewhere between 100 and 200 MILLION Dollars!)
E. He wanted to find, love and marry a beautiful, successful & intelligent women.
He DID! He married Maria Shriver.
F. He wanted great children and a loving family.
HE HAS THEM! Two Girls, two boys and a great wife (Well, except for her politics.)
D. He wanted to become the Governor of Calif.
HE DID!
And he only takes ONE DOLLAR A year in pay for his efforts!
Is it HIS Fault Ca. is having great financial problems now?
HELL NO!
(Anyone who says it is his fault is a world class RETARD!.)
Is it his fault he has not been able to do the things it takes to get CA. out of this
problem?
NO!
He is NOT a dictator with unlimited power!
He has to deal with Dumocrats and other politicians, union losers and the idiots who voted for ODUMA, You know, the “GIVE ME YOUR MONEY SO I CAN LIVE THE GOOD LIFE LEACHES!”
Second. While the “Gipper” referred to was not Ronald Reagan, I am going to comment on his as well
While he was only a fair actor in films, he was a Movie Star! And he was one damn fine governor.
He was also a GREAT President whose policies were the MAIN reason we WON the cold War and put the USSR OUT of Business!
Of course, he would be a bit pissed at his son Ron Jr. as Ron has “seen the light” He has joined the millions of other Former American Christians and has become an ATHEIST!
Hey Moderation
This Agnostic Atheist Activist (I told you this so you will know I am not a right winger) says:
The MAIN reason McCain lost is most of the biased left leaning liberal mass media is both incompetent and liars who do not care if the US goes down the toilet!
So for 8 years, they screwed over Bush and all things Republican, From 2003 to 2008 they misrepresented the Iraq War by OVER reporting any bad things which happened while under reporting, or worse yet, not reporting alt all any of the good things which happened in Iraq.
AND, I never saw “our media” present a listing of the many reasons the Iraq War was Fully Justified. So most Americans have no clue it was.
Another reason McCain lost was many Black, Hispanic and white RACISTS voted FOR ODUMA ONLY because he was Black. Any rational person knows It IS JUST AS RACIST to vote FOR someone due to their race as it is to vote against
them due to their race.
Another reason McCain and Palin LOST is because many of the less religious did not understand it IS OUR COUNTRY FIRST & our religious differences Second!
While I, & some other Atheists who have a clue, supported and voted for McCain, not enough of us did.
Republicans should
understand the non-religious and the semi-religious others will NOT vote for Republicans IF they push the Christian religious BS too much!
SO COMS ARE ILLOGICAL
Found this and as I like it, I am posting for the guy who brags about being an “ultra
“Socon”
The difference between a SoCon and Libertarian (NCR adds: & Realists)
Libertarian’s (and Realists) believe in a single absolute morality.
Why it all did not post is beyond me.
SO COMS ARE ILLOGICAL
Found this and as I like it, I am posting for the guy who brags about being an “ultra
“Socon”
The difference between a SoCon and Libertarian (NCR adds: & Realists)
Libertarian’s (and Realists) believe in a single absolute morality.
Why it all did not post is beyond me.
SO COMS ARE ILLOGICAL
Found this and as I like it, I am posting for the guy who brags about being an “ultra
“Socon”
The difference between a SoCon and Libertarian (NCR adds: & Realists)
Libertarian’s (and Realists) believe in a single absolute morality.
Why it all did not post is beyond me.
SO COMS ARE ILLOGICAL
Found this and as I like it, I am posting for the guy who brags about being an “ultra
“Socon”
The difference between a SoCon and Libertarian (NCR adds: & Realists)
Libertarian’s (and Realists) believe in a single absolute morality.
http://linkthe.com/2009/09/29/grassley-praises-medicare-as-part-of-%E2%80%98social-fabric%E2%80%99-of-america-but-also-criticizes-it-as-a-%E2%80%98predator-%E2%80%99/
Nice, I love characters like Neil. You may not be a right winger, but we own you nonetheless.
“Republicans should
understand the non-religious and the semi-religious others will NOT vote for Republicans IF they push the Christian religious BS too much!”
Are you sure? Did you vote for McCain and Bush? Yes? You bark loud but you won’t bite the hand that feeds you. Good doggy.
You got it right otherwise though. Particularly impressive for a “Traditional” generation’er.
What about the LIES and deceitful mischaracterizations of health care, e.g., “death panels,” etc.?? Why aren’t you addressing that? Get with th program (unless you’re part of it!)! It’s time for Chuck Grassley to be put out to pasture. Younger Iowans are wise to this cantankerous man’s hogwash! Clearly, dude is he cut from the cloth of the old school, Cold War “divide & deceive” GOP. You can lie your way into office when times are good (when the electorate isn’t paying attention), but you better be straight with us when it matters. This is a lesson for you, too, Sorenson. Get it right.
Look at that guy. Skinheads are taking over the Iowa GOP. Next moves (1) put all gay and lesbian Iowans in concentration camps (2) re-enslave all Blacks (3) replace the eagle on our sta
Let the Unholy-Unchristian Ring wing continue to show their hypocrisy….with messages of lies and hate. Being gay is simply being honest about one’s feelings, feelings of love, if that is wrong, if honesty and love are sinful…then they have no idea about Christ…..it is a shame….and a sin.
I think conservatives need a better message. Focus on solutions to the economic problems, the general public welfare, instead of the emotional, ‘jerk your chains’ politics of the religious right wing. Otherwise the Tea Party will replace the GOP…it is already more popular.
Or wait for more GOP conservatives to be caught tapping their feet in airport bathroom stalls……lol,
I am gay, and get hit on all the time by married ’straight’ guys…church leaders, business leaders, especially when in Des Moines….I don’t play anymore with married guys….but the most anti-gay men are that way because they are gay.
They have a name for homophobic men, it’s called latent homosexuality…..it is well known in psychiatry, and I have seen plenty of it.
Want to know who the toe tappers are? Ask yourself who are the most anti-gay, they are most likely to be found cruising bathrooms, parks, bookstores, internet….I am not kidding in the least. I knew a few ministers, and quite a few conservative business leaders, lawyers, etc all rabid anti-gay…and predatory on young men.
Let gays marry each other, so they don’t end up marrying your sisters, daughters, mothers and having sex in bathrooms with other men, etc…..it’s not healthy…for anyone.
COLIN in 2010
Time Magazine’s Amy Sullivan pointed out last night that, for all of his ardent demagoguery on the so-called “death panels,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) voted for just such a provision in 2003.
Remember the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill, the one that passed with the votes of 204 GOP House members and 42 GOP Senators? Anyone want to guess what it provided funding for? Did you say counseling for end-of-life issues and care? Ding ding ding!!
So either Republicans were for death panels in 2003 before turning against them now–or they’re lying about end-of-life counseling in order to frighten the bejeezus out of their fellow citizens and defeat health reform by any means necessary. Which is it, Mr. Grassley (”Yea,” 2003)?
Chuck Grassley, the longtime Republican senator from Iowa who warns his constituents of Obama’s “trend toward socialism,” has seen his family collect $1 million in federal handouts over an 11-year period, with Grassley’s son receiving $699,248 and the senator himself pocketing $238,974. Even Grassley’s grandson is learning to ride through life on training wheels, snaggin $5,964 in 2005 and $2,363 in 2006. In the Grassley family they learn early how to enjoy other people’s money.
Sen. Grassley railed against government intervention in the health care market, telling The Washington Times, “Whenever the government does more … that’s a movement toward socialism.” As the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, he ought to know, especially because the government has done more for him and his kin than for Americans struggling with high medical bills and mortgages. Even the free-market think tank the Heritage Foundation criticized Grassley on his deep connections to farming interests and his stubborn lack of transparency.
I commend Senator Grassley for his stand on healthcare reform. Public option was steaming down the track like an out of control express locomotive, but thanks to the senator’s determination to stop it, at least it is not in the senate bill. Service in the U.S. Senate these days demands personal principle and honesty. The Senator remained stedfast and resolute, As an American and grassroots Republican, I commend him for his stand and years of faithful service to Iowans. I only wished we had his service in Illinois, we have two senators which some of us would like to trade. Interested?