Opportunity Lost
- Thursday, September 3, 2009, 4:00
- Iowa, News Center, Top Story
- 2,052 views
- 89 comments
The loss that Republicans suffered in House District 90 on Tuesday was a bitter one. Despite being a legislative district that Governor Culver carried in 2006 and President Obama won by over 1000 votes in the last election, Iowa Republicans were optimistic about their chances to elect Stephen Burgmeier to the Iowa House.
While hundreds of volunteers flocked to the rural southeast Iowa district and organizational and financial help flowed in from a number of influential interest groups, Republicans came up short by 107 votes. What Republicans hoped would have been a momentum builder, now has many people wondering what Iowa Republicans need to do to win elections.
The loss is inexcusable. Never have Republicans had a better environment to run a campaign, and the Iowa Democratic Party has never been in more disarray. Iowa Democrats have an inexperienced chairman and executive director, an unpopular governor, and a candidate that didn’t excite their base. Yet Democrats were able to overcome all of that because they have mastered the mechanics of early voting, and Republicans failed to make this election focus on the issues that rallied so much public support and outcry during the legislative session.
The following are three areas in which Iowa Republicans failed this past Tuesday: leadership, message, and mechanics.
Leadership
The Special Election in HD 90 was the first campaign that House Minority Leader Kraig Paulsen was responsible for since replacing Rep. Chris Rants as the Republican leader in the Iowa House. While this was Paulsen’s first campaign as leader, Paulsen played an intricate role in the day-to-day operations of the House Majority Fund for the 2008 elections. In addition to Paulsen’s involvement with the House Majority Fund, Matt Gronewald, the HMF’s executive director, was also a hold-over from the 2008 election cycle.
While Gronewald and the HMF were involved in the HD 90 race, Paulsen ceded control of the campaign to Iowans for Tax Relief. Katie Koberg and Mary Earnhardt, who both hold leadership positions with Iowans for Tax Relief, ran the day-to-day campaign operation for Burgmeier. Iowans for Tax Relief has a long history of working very closely the Republican Party of Iowa on legislative campaigns, but the fact that ITR staff ran the day-to-day operations of the campaign rather than the HMF staff raises some questions.
The amount of time, effort, and resources that ITR pumped into Burgmeier’s campaign was un-matched by that of any other group, Paulsen and his members, or even the Republican Party of Iowa. From all accounts, the ITR staff performed exceptionally well and implemented their campaign plan. However, if Paulsen truly trusted the person he hand-picked to oversee the general election effort when there were 100 races going on at the same time (ten to twelve of which being as critical of Bergmeier’s race was) then why wasn’t that hand-picked person in charge of the Burgmeier’s campaign effort?
These special elections provide unique opportunities to test new technologies, watch staff perform and respond in pressure filled situations, and test drive new campaign tactics. While some of that occurred in HD 90, the only thing that was really tested was the strength of ITR’s staff. ITR is not capable of providing the level of support they showed in HD 90 in all of the races that Republicans will have to win next year to take back the majority. With that being the case, Paulsen’s decision to cede control to a special interest group does nothing to help the Republican Party of Iowa, or the House Majority Fund effort prepare for next year’s elections.
Message
All campaigns must master two different areas – message and mechanics. The Republican effort in HD 90 had flaws in both. Early on in Burgmeier’s campaign, it became apparent that Republicans were going to run against Governor Culver and his agenda, rather than Burgmeier’s opponent, Curt Hanson. This is by no means a flawed strategy since it has worked for both Republicans and Democrats on the national stage, but it seems that while we focused on Culver, we let Curt Hanson off the hook easy.
There were three different TV ads that aired on behalf of Burgmeier’s campaign. The TV ad that was paid for by his campaign only mentioned Culver and not Hanson. Likewise, the National Organization of Marriage only attacked Culver in its ad and didn’t mention Hanson. The only ad that mentioned Hanson by name was paid for by Iowans for Tax Relief. That ad alleged that George Soros was funding Hanson’s campaign and that Soros, Culver, and Hanson were three peas from the same pod.
On the other hand, Curt Hanson’s ads contrasted himself with his opponent. Hanson’s ads talked about how Stephen Burgmeier raised taxes five times as a county supervisor and also voted himself pay increases. Hanson’s other ad which featured two talking cows, also attacked Burgmeier on his tax and pay increases.
With Burgmeier focusing on Governor Culver instead of his Democrat opponent Curt Hanson, he left himself vulnerable to being attacked. It was Hanson, not Burgmeier, who set the tone for the campaign. Another troublesome sign occurred when those associated with the Burgmeier campaign called The Iowa Republican just one week before the election and asked if we could attend a forum that evening to try to get Hanson on the record on certain issues. That sort of research needed to be done long before the final week of the campaign, but it shows how the focus of the campaign was never on Burgmeier’s opponent.
So, while our Republican candidate was being accused of supporting property tax hikes, Burgmeier’s campaign failed to make an issue out of the four labor bills that created such a controversy in the Iowa House this past spring, which based on his campaign contributions from unions, Hanson seems sure to support. Instead Burgmeier was put on the defensive.
Mechanics
Once again a Republican candidate came into Election Day trailing significantly due to absentee votes, won handily on Election Day, but came up just short in the overall vote total. How many times have we seen this scenario play out? Jeremy Taylor, Stephen Richards, Tami Wiencek, and Jarad Klein are all examples of that situation. Imagine how different things would be if they would have won. Sure, Republicans would still be a minority party, but 48-52 really changes the perspective of things.
The debate over the value of absentee/early voting is always contentious within Republican circles. While everyone agrees that an early vote counts as much as a vote on Election Day, there seems to be a great deal of reluctance to embrace an early voter program.
Those in charge of Burgmeier’s campaign believed that Democrats were simply getting very likely voters to vote early. They also claimed that it’s best to drive people to vote by their preferred method and not force them to vote by absentee if they don’t want to. Traditionally, GOP campaigns only push for Republicans who have voted absentee in the past and unlikely voters to vote absentee. There is also a belief that Republicans resist absentees because they view voting at the polling place as a responsibility.
There is a lot of truth to that mind set, but the assumptions that the Burgmeier campaign made in regards to the Democrats’ early vote effort were misplaced. Also, while most agree that a vote is a vote, there is tremendous value in winnowing the number of people you need to turn out on Election Day. The more people you know who have requested an absentee ballot and returned it, the more people you can check off your list and don’t have to contact on the day of the election.
Those who don’t see the value in early voting often say that blaming absentees for a loss is like saying not enough people voted between 7 a.m. and noon. That shouldn’t matter as long as you have plenty of people voting between noon and the time the polls close. However, using a sports analogy, how many baseball teams like being down by seven runs in the first inning of a ball game? Sure, there is time for a comeback, but you cannot consistently win elections if you are always expecting a big come from behind win. There is absolutely no reason why Iowa Republicans can’t focus on early voting AND our highly-touted 72 hour program.
The special election had one thing that no state house general campaign ever has enough of, volunteers. For weeks leading up to yesterday’s vote, people from across the state made their way to Fairfield to help make phone calls, wave signs, or go door-to-door. With that much man power, it is inexcusable that we didn’t performed better in the early voting period.
I can understand the value of the occasional lit drop, but we need people to go door-to-door weeks and months before the election to survey people and ask if they are interested in voting by absentee. If we are sending volunteers out to people’s doors and not asking for their vote, we are wasting our volunteers’ time.
Having worked in the world of political fundraising for a number of years, I’ve never seen a fundraising call go well that doesn’t include a hard ask for financial support. It’s no easy task, but the candidates who ask for specific amounts are far more successful than the ones who just ask for their support with a little wink or nod. In business, they call it the ABC’s – always be closing the sale. The same holds true in politics. There is never an excuse not to ask someone to vote.
What is disappointing in the results from the special election in HD 90 is that Republicans were correct in believing that they could win the seat. Yes, it was a district that leans Democrat, but the results from Tuesday night showed that it was winnable. Our candidate was a three-time elected county supervisor. He lost his home county by 600 votes. He only received 42.8% of the vote in Jefferson County.
While I remain convinced that 2010 will be a great year for Republicans, we must realize that the current environment isn’t pro-Republican, it’s anti-incumbent. In the HD 90 race, Stephen Burgmeier was cast as the incumbent and paid the price. We also can’t blame the third party candidates for our loses. They have every right to run for office and this environment will create more of them than we have ever seen. We either need to convince them to run under the Republican brand, or we need to beat them out on the campaign trail.
Stephen Burgmeier should be the newest member of the Iowa House of Representatives today despite the shortcomings of his campaign. We failed him, and in doing so, we failed to generate some much needed momentum heading into next year.
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.
89 Comments on “Opportunity Lost”
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.
Craig, I agree with most of your points, but I wouldn’t necessarily consider the lit drops and door knocking a failure. The blame goes right back to the GOP. Also, you didn’t mention the possible negative reaction to the outside organizers thar ran the TV ads. S.E. Iowa is not Polk/Dallas Co. and while that strategy may have worked here, I’m fairly certain it backfired there. Lastly, you didn’t mention the 3rd party campaigns which were basically spoilers. This should be a lesson to all those “purists” that refuse compromise for the greater good, their votes basically are supporting the other side.
Excellent article. This review is appropriate now, so corrections can be implemented prior to the general. I believe that the changes made in election law two years ago will make it very difficult if not impossible for Republicans to prevail in any contested race and we are just beginning to see these impacts in close contests like this one. Do you know how many same day registrants there were? That’s another area that skews the balance. And how many votes did third party candidates receive and who was supporting them? It is hard to see these numbers on line yet, but they also would have impacts.
Conservatism won Tues. The Dim clown was too chicken to run as the liberal he is. He portrayed himself to be a conservative.
Then we have these two despicable egomaniacs who thought they just had to have their names on the ballot. They sucked away more than enough votes to easily put Burgmeier over the top. I hope they and their voters are happy today.
We can probably do some things better in the future but when you look at the big picture–conservatism did very well Tues.
The ineptitude of the GOP is embarrassing. As McCarthy and his diciplined cadres where hauling in absentee ballots by the boatloads, we had pretty girls from Sheldon with red shirts waving at street corners exhorting mainstreet coffee drinkers to vote. How pathetic. Deace–you’re wrong. The dem ran as a moderate. Steve was spun by the wingnuts. This election was a victory for moderates. The crackpots are at home licking their self inflicted wounds and blaming everybody but themselves for the outcome.
Classy and intelligently presented essay, nicely aided by the first two intelligent readers’ comments.
Great analysis. This was a squandered opportunity. I can say that a proven absentee program was proposed early on, but those in control of the campaign rejected it. That decision was fatal. Republicans need to wake up to the fact that voting practices have changed and make necessary adjustments. If not, we should not expect to win the marginal races we need to control the legislature.
really good article
I will say this again and I’m sure the RPI will ignore me. RUN BETTER CANDIDATES !!!!!!!
this one sentence says it all “Hanson’s ads talked about how Stephen Burgmeier raised taxes five times as a county supervisor and also voted himself pay increases”
this should have disqualified him as a RPI candidate.
the entire republican party is fractured right now with fiscal/social conservatives split. the party continually asks us fiscals to just hold our noses and vote for the good of the party, but they never ask the social conservative to do the same.
we fiscal conservatives are no longer willing to put up with this !!!
Timmy–I think you are dead on when it comes to outsiders. Howard Dean suffered when his out of staters started knocking on doors. Politics is indeed local. Steve Burgmeier is was a well-respected centrist. He was a problem solver. He was not an idealogue. He should have one. Had NOM stayed home and Steve focused on the economy he would have one handily. Look at Rep Palmer and Senator Reilly. These are both dems who won in largely conservative districts. Why? Because they are well known and respected problem solvers, not frothing at the mouth wingnuts telling people how to worship or otherwise leading their private lives. As far as the third party candidates, I was horrified at Deace’s comments yesterday where he in essense supported weak but ideological pure candidates as a way of pulling the Party further to the right. This is nothing short of political suicide. Finally, to put this all in perspective, the Party will work its way out of this. WIth the likes of you speaking up and serving as a bulwark against the crazies, the Party will come to its senses and in time start winning elections again.
Lobo: This is a perfect example of where we are. When you claim that you fiscal conservatives are not willing to put up with the social conservatives any longer, you have to understand there are social conservatives who feel they are the victims and they have been relegated to the back of the bus.
The fact is we need both groups and you would be hard pressed to find a soc con who is not also a fiscal con. Both groups cannot be victims.
We have to remember we’re part of a team and our goal is to defeat Democrats for the good of all of us.
Iowa and the nation cannot survive Dims destroying our economy and our way of life.
If you were truly fiscally conservative, the monetary cost of our country’s social liberalism should offend you.
Social conservatives are also fiscal conservatives.
Peggy: The converse is not necessarily true, however.
Mod: Both you and Deace cannot be correct.
One thing about it, I do believe you want Republicans to win where I believe deace wants them to lose.
That’s not to say that I agree there is no place for social issues in elections, because I think there is. I agree the economic issues are the glue that binds all of us.
“Social conservatives are also fiscal conservatives.”
- This is becoming less and less true.
Mr. Hawk: How so? Actually, I thought that we are gradually getting some Catholic voters who traditionally vote Dim because they like the Dims willingness to redistribute wealth, to vote R because of social issues.
It certainly isn’t happening with rapid speed but gradually.
Lobo… I totally disagree with your assessment of Bergmeier. He was an excellent candidate…you wanted to dismiss him from the beginning because he looked as you said “scary” because of his beard… Get over yourself.
Hanson DID indeed campaign as a “conservative” pledging to cut taxes and spending and supporting a gay marriage amendment vote…now..who wants to bet that Hanson won’t co-sponsor any Republican proposal that would cut taxes or that he would sign on to a marriage amendment proposal….of course he’s not going to…. He’s only going to do what McCarthy and Murphy TELL him to do.
The ONLY..and ONLY reason why this race was lost was because Republicans still won’t take absentee balloting seriously.
I live here in Johnson County…and this is EXACTLY what the Democrats do.
Approximately 2-3 months before absentee ballots are sent out…the Dems have union-paid for staffers out in the field hitting up their solid D voters, also they go through all the nursing homes and go through any university/college areas…getting as many people to sign absentee ballot requests as possible
Then as soon as those absentee ballots are mailed out 45 days before the election…those staffers pay a 2nd visit to those folks..to pick up the ballots and to “assist” them with the ballots (meaning, making sure they’ve voted Democrat)
So come election day..they’ve built up a lead right off the bat of votes in the bank..and then the only ones they have to worry about are their marginal voters
In HD 90..the Democrats swept through their two strong D areas…Fairfield and Vedic City…the majority of the absentee ballots in this race came out of those two areas.
So, the lesson that RPI needs to take is that we need staffers out in the field..locking up absentee ballot requests from our voters as well. We need to quit thinking that they’re going to magically show up on Election Day at the polls…that’s proven to be a myth.
@Deace voted for Obama
” When you claim that you fiscal conservatives are not willing to put up with the social conservatives any longer,”
I’m not saying that, I’m saying that we are not willing to vote for someone who is not a fiscal conservative just as the social conservatives are not willing to vote for someone who has not always been a social conservative .
just because someone is a social conservative does not mean they are fiscally responsible. for example, Mike Huckabee is about as socially conservative as you can get, but his fiscal record is horrible. we are not willing to vote on the hopes that they will do the right thing. we keep getting burned.
Lobo:
“just because someone is a social conservative does not mean they are fiscally responsible. for example, Mike Huckabee is about as socially conservative as you can get, but his fiscal record is horrible. we are not willing to vote on the hopes that they will do the right thing. we keep getting burned.”
You have an excellent point. I agree about Huck but if he had been our nominee, I would have voted for him. Obama was far, far worse. We’re still stuck with two choices and we must choose the lesser of two evils.
“Third party” candidates are nothing but parasites and to be shunned.
“This is becoming less and less true.” –Mr. Hawk
Only because fiscal conservatives/social liberals refuse to see the financial cost of their failed social policies and are unwilling to step up to the plate to right this wrong.
The Republican Party is incapable of advancing new ideas now – we’re too busy playing defense, with no help from our “moderate conservative” friends.
“Mr. Hawk: How so? ”
- You need to read about the “emergent church”, and the push that Obama had from many in this movement during the last campaign. Younger, christian, socially conservative voters (and their worship leaders with spiked hair, christian rock t-shirt and nail necklaces) made a huge push for Obama within the evangelical christian community. These people buy into things like massive government intervention in things like health care, the environment and education, all under the guise of “helping people”. Obama made a push for them (and, in many cases, got them) because they’re very susceptible to the feel good, big government, “we’re-all-in-this-together” mentality that has traditionally attracted straight liberals.
Lobo said, “the entire republican party is fractured right now with fiscal/social conservatives split. the party continually asks us fiscals to just hold our noses and vote for the good of the party, but they never ask the social conservative to do the same.”
I can’t believe you can say this with a straight face. I have personally heard Grassley actually use the words “hold your noses” when he was telling social concervatives that they needed to get on the McCain bandwagon and vote for him despite his socially moderate views.
Haley Barbour made headlines when he did the same thing at an RPI dinner.
I have never once heard social conservatives tell fiscal conservative to “hold their nose” and vote for someone who is not fiscally conservtive.
And that would make no sense. Anyone who isn’t fiscally conservative and supports the expansion of the welfare state can’t possibly be socially conservative since it is only social liberalism that creates a need for the welfare state.
Mr. Hawk,
I would not classify members of the emergent church, a cult, as social conservatives. They would be textbook examples of self-worshipping, nobody’s-gonna-tell-ME-what-to-do “moderate conservatives.”
I don’t know who Jackson is, but I’m interested in this comment: ” I can say that a proven absentee program was proposed early on, but those in control of the campaign rejected it. That decision was fatal.”
Do you mean the ITR people in control of the campaign? Or people associated with the House Republicans/Iowa GOP?
Why any Republican strategist would reject a strong absentee ballot effort is beyond me.
Does the Republican Party _have to_ be the Party of both the old-line country club Repubs _and_ the more recent to be active churchy Repubs?
Before everyone jumps up and hits their heads on the shelf above the monitor, stop! I am not posing this as a troll or in any way other than from sincere long-term (several years _is_ long term in politics) thought from watching exactly these squabbles. Also, please don’t be petty about my two characterizations, you all know exactly which group each refers to and you also know in your own minds which group you personally fit into.
That said then, the Party is in turmoil with the two groups calling each other names and saying, sometimes, terrible things to each other. The churchies’ issues are deeply heartfelt and those kinds of minds do not change nor are they willing to compromise because of how deep their feelings run. When one sees abortion as murder there properly can be no accomodation of any form of that same murder.
No dispute.
If the C-Cers and Churchies groups were each a separate and distinct political party (for crying out loud, don’t fight over who gets to keep the name “Republican”, it probably would be an asset to not take the name) each could go about it’s business of building a base loyal to the core ideas espoused by each, with no fear of fighting over the matters that are so important to one but lower in priority to the other.
I’d suppose that the big reason this party realignment isn’t taking place is that currently there just aren’t enough voters for either of these two fantasy parties to survive on its own. Well, you’d both have to work at that of course, but at least you’d have bright, shiny faces and clean behind the ears for the electorate to look at while you go about it. Right now, the one party of the two of you looks pretty tacky.
Lydia :
I can’t believe you can say this with a straight face. I have personally heard Grassley actually use the words “hold your noses” when he was telling social concervatives that they needed to get on the McCain bandwagon and vote for him despite his socially moderate views.
Haley Barbour made headlines when he did the same thing at an RPI dinner. ”
Both men are right. Did you pay close attention to what Barbour said he was able to accomplish by doing this? He built a very pro-life state by using social moderates. I say good for him.
The choice is to see what happened Tues. That is unacceptable. Those two “third party” candidates are responsible for this. Yes, we can do better with absentee ballots but those third party candidates and those who voted for them definitely threw the election to the Dim.
We are a team. Heck, I’ll even vote for VP if he is our nominee.
DVFO: Let’s put your hatred of me aside and remember that I was only scolding Lobo for lying. I was not arguing whether it is smart to abandon your values and votes for people who support killing babies. Thats another discussion altogether.
I’m just sick of people pointing the finger at social conservtives and telling lies about them (i.e. that they are not almost all also fiscally conservative as well.)
Lydia: What the heck are you talking about? I think you’re having a giant overreaction to anything I said. I’m getting a little tired of the word “hate” being tossed around.
Where did you get the idea I hated you? That’s crazy.
Sorry about the italics on that post. I’m not sure why it happened.
I completely agree with you that it is difficult to find a social conservative who is not also fiscally conservative. I’ve even stated it.
Peggy: the emergent church members are a block of voters you should not dismiss so lightly. Those late registering Maharishi U students might have made a difference if NOM hadn’t made HD-90 a test case.
You’re speculating that the M.U. students voted against Burgmeier because of NOM’s involvement.
First, you have no proof of that but assuming it’s true, you again make my point perfectly. They’re not voting FOR FISCAL CONSERVATISM which is what they and you claim is your main cause – they are voting AGAINST SOCIAL CONSERVATISM.
These two positions are irreconcilable.
Social conservatism will, by nature, produce fiscal stability. To the contrary, social liberalism creates great monetary expense. The sooner everybody figures that out, the better off our country will be.
@Lydia
you cited one example of a moderate leaning republican telling you to vote for McCain and that’s your “Proof” ?!?!? lets reexamine what the top priorities are for both of us.
Fiscal Conservatives = taxes,spending and the economy
Social Conservatives = abortion… and something else (i have no idea what)
have you SC’s ever been asked to vote for a candidate who was not prolife ? heck even a candidate who just wants to turn the issue over to the states would get attacked. in the last presidential election every single candidate had to bow down to the all mighty republican R2L crowd. you guys never cease to amaze me, on one hand you don’t want the federal government involved in health care, but you turn around and want the federal government make a law to outlaw abortions.
we FC’s were/are continually asked to overlook Huck,Romney and McCains fiscal record… with the threat of “you don’t want someone worse in office… do you ?” well we have had it ! we held our noses with social conservative GW Bush and that didn’t really work out so well.
if we FC’s are no longer willing to compromise and the SC’s are not going to compromise, then this is the beginning of the end of the Republican party unless they can somehow find a magical candidate.
and just for the record, i am not pro abortion. i would have gladly voted for some like Mike Huckabee if he had the same fiscal record as someone like Ron Paul.
So what I want to know is why is anyone not talking about Paulson’s failure. Rather than running the campaign he handed it over to, ITR, a third party. Is that the kind of leadership his colleagues asked for? Is this the kind of “change” everyone wanted?
Craig – You wrote a very good article on the HD 90 race. I hope our party leadership clearly articulates how sorry they are for this failure ( real men say they are sorry – cowards don’t) before the leadership elections next spring.
I really hope some folks are listening to this good advice and maybe should not seek another leadership term or resign now so we may avoid any further problems.
-Mark W Vonderohe
Chairman, Allamakee County Republicans
Agreed, excellent analysis.
Fantastic analysis and even some honesty and responsibility-taking. More than I can say for most of the commenters. Of course I hope RPI continues to keep its head in the sand, but this is a cogent analysis of what went wrong for ya’ll.
And I really do support a vital two-party system that changes hands from time to time. That’s assuming that one party can discover rationality and actually debate policy issues rather than believing in and promoting conspiracy theories (birthers, deathers, homeschoolers, climate change deniers, etc.)….until that time I’m happy for the Dems to retain their lock on Iowa politics and will support their efforts. I’m far from alone in this view.
“And I really do support a vital two-party system that changes hands from time to time. That’s assuming that one party can discover rationality and actually debate policy issues rather than believing in and promoting conspiracy theories (birthers, deathers, homeschoolers, climate change deniers, etc.)…” –GAYdom
LOL! What a phony you are.
How did Burgmeier lose by 600 votes in the county that’s elected him Supervisor three times? There’s a story there.
Peggy: No story. 1)The anti-gay message has no traction. 2)The Repubs are inept in running campaigns. Need the big boys back. The children in charge now need to go back to the church basements and do what they do best–organize bake sales.
So people are voting AGAINST social conservatism now? Great.
Three-time county supervisor vs. a drivers ed teacher…should be no contest.
Peggy: You are absolutely correct. It should not have even been close. Burgmeier is a moderate. He was spun as something he wasn’t–an extremist. The electorate does not like extremists. Ergo–message failed. Secondly, the cocky Keystone Cops in charge of the Repub campaign had their asses handed to them despite every advantage.
Being against same sex marriage is not extreme, it’s mainstream.
Peggy: On one hand you are right and the polls show it–the electorate is not comfortable with same sex marriage. However, to most Iowans, it is not an important enough of an issue that they are going to make political decisions based on it. There are other issues that are more important like the economy, good schools, good roads and efficient governance. Moreover, most Iowans take offense at others prying into personal business. HD-90 was a perfect example. If NOM had taken its hateful roadshow somewhere else Burgmeier would be headed to Des Moines. You think Repubs would have learned something after the shameful Schiavo matter. Do you understand what the word “lose” means?
If your assessment is correct, the voters are absolutely making political decisions based on same sex marriage! A new breed of single issue voter?
Seriously, only a moron would vote for a pol because of what he WON’T do.
Peggy: Wrong. People just don’t care. Who besides crackpots sit and worry about gays all day? Nobody.
Mod: You keep repeating this over and over and it’s not something that you know. It is an opinion.
Who knows? We do know through polling that the marriage issue is important to voters but just how important is the real issue.
I agree we lead off with economic issues and also use the social issues because we know they are winning issues.
Heck, even the Dim in the 90th Dist. ran on it. He didn’t have the courage to be honest about who he is.
This is only going to embolden Dim next year. The Dims increased their margins in the US House by falsely claiming to be “conservative Dims”. Of course, there is no such thing but they were able to fool enough voters to get elected.
Dims are continuing to use it. It’s as much as an admission that if they were honest about who they are and what they want to do, they would lose. They are not to be trusted.
You wait, Hanson will vote with Murphy and Culver.
“People just don’t care.” — MIE
Well, sort of. They just don’t want anyone telling them how to behave. That more than anything drives how morons vote.
Bumper sticker idea:
“Phillip Garrido is a fiscal conservative!”
Deace: On the voting issue I think HD-90 proved my point. I think Doug Gross’ polls also support what I have been saying. Hanson is a moderate. Consequently, he won. Peggy: You’re just mad. If it was someone other than you making such comments I would tear into them. But, because you are a fellow worshipper before the altar of St. Peter I will defer and hope you had a good first Friday Mass.
Mad? Nothing coming out of the electorate surprises me anymore.
What makes me mad is people who talk like they’ve got noble reasons for voting the way they do when, in actuality, their reasons are nothing less than moronic.
Did my bumper sticker idea offend you? Isn’t it perfectly conceivable that it’s true?
Why do you propose one stance at the exclusion of the other? Republicans should be BOTH fiscally conservative AND socially conservative. They are totally compatible.
Peggy: The socon message turns people off. Save it for the pulpit. People will vote on the economy. Have a good holiday!
I wonder if Phil Garrido is planning on going to a church service anytime soon. If not, how will he and all the anti-religion, public university grads get the message that kidnapping and child rape is wrong?
Peggy, you keep asserting that social conservatism and fiscal conservatism go hand-in-hand, and get upset at the idea that being socially moderate/liberal has a greater “cost” and therefore negates one being a “true” conservative. This is nonsense. Many fiscal conservatives’ main positions – economic freedom, lower taxes, less gov’t intervention/regulation, free trade – often are founded on more libertarian foundations. Thus, a fiscal conservative may have agreed with Bush on his tax cuts, but were horrified at his “compassionate conservative” programs – expansion of Medicare, No Child Left Behind, faith-based programs, and a proposed constituional amendment to ban marriage. At their core, many fiscal conservatives/libertarians believe in removing government influence from ALL spheres. So, on issues such as abortion, gay rights, immigration, and drug prohibition they may veer quite differently then you’d think. There’s nothing wrong with that – it’s just a different strain of government philosophy.
Yet, the GOP’s main litmus tests are on social issues. It is incredibly difficult for a Republican politician to be pro-choice, pro-immigration, or pro-gay and make it very far. In most cases, they can’t even be agnostic about the issue – they have to be very much on the socially conservative side. The same is NEVER asked of the social crowd. Huckabee was never asked about his beliefs in economic freedom, Romney was never taken to task for his horrendous management of Massachusetts’ finances, and McCain openly professed ignorance on economic matters. This is why, despite GOP dominance in American politics for the last three decades, their fiscal record was mixed. George HW ended up raising taxes, Reagan tripled the national debt, and W utterly failed at reining in his congressional counterparts’ pork barrell spending (I will give Gingrich credit for his hand in balancing the budget though). The core belief of social conservatives – that society is morally off course and needs to be “reset” to a more ethical and moral time period – inherently requires a bigger “nanny-state” type of government that tries to protect people from themselves. That will ALWAYS lead to friction, as it will generate budget inefficiencies. Socially conservative policies don’t always mean they’re fiscally sound. Just like liberals, you believe government can be used to shape society to become “better,” the only difference being what you think that “better” American society is. I have seen the cost of GOP social conservative policies, and I am offended. You’d be willing to sacrifice economic growth or fiscal solvency to achieve a moral end. As a self-described fiscal conservative, I can’t stand by that.
First, you start in on all the Republican presidents who ran up the debt as though ,1) I defended their practices anywhere on this blog and, 2) they alone are guilty of it.
Why is it that when a Republican runs up the debt it’s more scandalous than when a Dem does it? That, my friend, is partisan politics at its finest.
What does “pro-choice” mean? What are the choices?
Do you mean “pro-immigration” or pro-illegal immigration. It does matter. And what does “pro-gay” mean? Does that mean you’re all for homosexuality or you’d like to see the lifestyle promoted to young children in public schools, which is already happening? (sounds like somebody made a moral judgment somewhere).
The government is already involved in playing nanny to all the immorality. We’re doling out welfare checks to unwed mothers with multiple children by multiple fathers; school teachers have to deal with behavioral problems from kids raised in unstable homes; the CDC, try as it might, can’t get a handle on the AIDS epidemic within the gay male demographic because, despite their claims, gay males are predominantly promiscuous; able-bodied, drug addicts do not produce wealth but feed off the system, and so on. Admit it, Minnesotan… you, like so many others, have an irrational aversion to anything remotely related to morality because you’ve been programmed to reject it on its face value. Reasoning and common sense take an immediate back seat to the allergic reaction. Forget the Republican Party – your mindset will destroy this country.
Peggy you twit!
That poster is in no way anything other than a dyed-in-the-wool, card-carrying, real honest-to-goodness, old-line REPUBLICAN and you dismiss him and his wisdom like he was me or MIE or Silence D.
His post and especially yours Peggy, add fuel to my point that you two halves of the GOP are unable to ever reconcile and ought split.
Both sides can’t be right, ConDem. Somewhere there is truth.
I am not at odds with fiscal conservatives on the fiscal issues but they are squeamish about talking morality.
Do we have laws against murder in this country? Do we have seatbelt laws? Do we have prostitution laws? Do we have laws against child abandonment? Do we have laws against public nudity or intoxication? Do we have laws against smoking in privately-owned businesses? Do we have laws against littering? Do we have laws against cutting down protected plant life or encroaching on the ecosystem of an endangered species?
Where were you with your fiscal conservative line of B.S. when those policies were being forged???
Peggy, if it’s me you’re asking, “Where were you with your fiscal conservative line of B.S. when those policies were being forged???”, I was there aiding and abetting my Congressfolk to pass that stuff. I believe in the concept of feeding poorer children and protecting Federal lands from predation by profit-motivated Canadian mining companies and serious regulation of a huge host of industries who place public safety in the lip-service-category and . . . . well, you get the point.
And Peg, you say, “Both sides can’t be right, ConDem. Somewhere there is truth.” Politics and running a nation aren’t a search for “truth”, as so many people tell you here every week, that is the realm of religion. Religion has no business being involved in the operation of a government – at least not a government with our Constitution. First-off if religion _were_ to be involved, WHICH religion would it be and HOW would that ever be determined? Impossible to ever happen peacably.
Peg, you prove again my point that the repub party needs to split into a party of the old-line country clubbers and a party of the more recently active churchies.
You people are so schizophrenic in your arguments it’s like trying to shoot fish in a barrel.
I guess you agree with Minnesotan’s post in which he’s telling me to beg off on the social issues because it means too much government involvement in our lives. In the next breath, you’re defending the government bailing out all the people whose lives are screwed up and unproductive due mainly to their bad moral choices. Are you going to come down on one side or the other?
ConDem,
It’s the indisputable truth that 2 + 2 = 4; is this a religious doctrine?
“recently active churchies” – ConDem
More accurately,this should read, “recently active ANTI-churchies” followed by the “reactive churchies.”
Mnsotan, You are exactly right. I think many around here fail to understand libertarianism and some seem to confuse that with libertine philosophy. Huck played well here because as long as he tossed a few God words around, nobody bothered to check into his credentials. He had definite socialist leanings, but since he was “Christian” that was supposedly ok. Just one example of many where some of the socons fail to grasp true conservatism.
Con Dem, both the “country clubbers” and most socons hate libertarians and folks like me!
FYI, I didn’t vote for Huckabee. His fiscal liberalism was a turnoff.
Don’t you wish you could be as consistent as me?
Peggy wrote: ““recently active churchies” – ConDem
More accurately,this should read, “recently active ANTI-churchies” followed by the “reactive churchies.” ”
No Peggy, I mean “recently-active” for the Christian Right in the context of perhaps thirty years.
Good for you Peggy, then you are not a part of SOME of the socons my arguement is aimed at. Huck was a charlatan and I’m incensed when they can pull the wool over the eyes of so many. I do think the social issues shouldn’t be ignored, but the emphasis of the GOP needs to go back to those things on which the majority would agree. Republicans lost when they stopped being the party of limited goverment, fiscal responsibility, lower taxes, and personal freedom. Our platform is based on these principles, I know because I helped put it together on the District level.
This race was lost not because we didn’t have a great candidate, but because we let outside groups re-define him. Hell, even his opponent ran on the very issues I just stated! We ran a great campaign against Culver and Obama, nobody focused this on Hanson. I spoke with some GOP people recently and from that conversation I believe money that was wasted on TV time in DSM should’ve been spent reaching out to “soft” voters who could have easily made up the difference lost to the 3rd party losers.
“I do think the social issues shouldn’t be ignored, but the emphasis of the GOP needs to go back to those things on which the majority would agree.” — Timmy
You’re talking out both sides of your mouth here, T. You can talk fiscal conservatism til you’re blue in the face but it’s meaningless without social conservatism. What is so hard about wrapping one’s head around the monetary expense of personal immorality let alone the social fallout which falls predominantly on the shoulders of children.
You mentioned the Republican ideal of personal freedom but not personal responsibility. I can understand the sheer hatred of Christians and all their trappings coming from the Far Left but it’s offensive as hell coming from fellow Republicans; when a good-sized slice of society comes unglued at the mere mention of Christianity and morality and does all it can to silence Christians, WHERE are American citizens supposed to learn about personal responsibility? In their state-run, godless-by-law schools?
It is social liberals – Republicans and Democrats alike – who have crossed the line and are now interfering in the Church’s business, not the other way around.
“You can talk fiscal conservatism til you’re blue in the face but it’s meaningless without social conservatism. What is so hard about wrapping one’s head around the monetary expense of personal immorality let alone the social fallout which falls predominantly on the shoulders of children.”
True, but how you gonna expect voters to figure this one out when their churches and schools tell them otherwise?
Most Catholics feel it’s virtuous to vote for Dims because they will take from one person to give to another and that trumps any social issues.
Then we have these totally wacko, apostate churches (like VPs) that are so filled with lefties, that they are more left wing political organizations than churches. They promote evil such as abortion and homosexuality.
Peggy: I believe there are two teams in this giant tug of war. There are the Republicans and the Democrats. You can either help the Republicans or you can help the Democrats. Some tuggers on each team are stronger than others. They still belong to the same team.
I will do all I can to help the Republicans as I believe they are more right than the Dims.
I have to support some tuggers I like less than others, but I’m a team player. To do otherwise is to support the Dims and I find that alternative reprehensible.
I’ll do what I can to make sure we have the best tuggers we can get but if we get one that is less than ideal, hey, that one is still on my team and I’ll support that person, too.
“Most Catholics feel it’s virtuous to vote for Dims because they will take from one person to give to another and that trumps any social issues.” — DVFO
Your theory doesn’t explain perhaps the largest Catholic Democratic voting bloc, union members – they vote to pad their own back pocket, not anybody else’s.
I believe Catholics who vote for Dems are poorly catechized and their allegiance to a political party outweighs allegiance to God’s commandments. Fiscal conservative/social libs on the Republican side are no different!
If your proverbial team ends up looking, thinking and sounding like the other team, there’s really no need for two teams now, is there?
Any Republican who says they’re a fiscal conservative but wants to ignore social issues is fooling themselves.
There are two camps: GOOD and EVIL.
ConDem,
I know what you meant and you’re mistaken. The Churchies, as you say, are on defense and have been for thirty years. Ask yourself who’s playing offense.
I give up; what the heck do I know.
Peggy, I swear sometimes you are about as hopeless as deace! I’m not talking out of both sides when I say the socon issues shouldn’t be abandoned, but we should lead with the traditional GOP issues. That is not a hard concept to grasp unless you are proscribing we do away with our Democratically-elected Represenative Republic and go full-on theocracy.
The Founding Fathers abhorred the very thought of it, they hated a ruling church be it from King George’s Church of England or the Papists in Rome! The establishment clause couldn’t be more clear. Yes, the culture of that day was primarily Protestant Christian. However, fast-forward to today. Whether we like it or not, in many cases we are living in a Post-Christian culture. Government shouldn’t be to blame anymore than the church itself. I know you don’t want to hear this, but in order for the conservative cause to prevail we need to win elections first. Despite what you or anyone else may think, if we keep pressing the socon issues first and demand all-or-nothing, we definitely will get NOTHING!
“if we keep pressing the socon issues first and demand all-or-nothing, we definitely will get NOTHING!”
AMEN, TIMMY!!!
Sorry to get into this discussion late but it looks like the social issues lost on tuesday. They ran against the LUG and not against Hanson. Also they didn’t try to go get the absentee ballots. I am a COMPLETE conservative but it looks like the indepents don’t care about social issues when they go to the voting booth. They might also not care if we inact our social agenda after we are elected either. It looks like we need to be fiscally conservative on election day and both when we are in session in DM.
smg: I think you got it!!
You know that what democrats do. Tell the voters what they want to hear and then veer left after they win. Maybe we should do that just veer right instead.
I like your strategery.
[DV to smg] “Strategery”
LoL!
Have a nice holiday, seriously. Think we’re gonna take the two dogs for a couple hours’ hike up and down the trails in Maquoketa Caves State Park. Nice at our age to have the dog out in front pulling on the leash, helping us get up the steep parts of the trails, kinda like a sled dog.
Just saw an amusing YouTube video of a guy smashing hurling watermelons. It was kinda cute and I thought of you.
Seriously, have a great weekend with the pooches. Our household understands the importance of the four-legged critters–better than prozac.
Oh yes, deceiving the voters….a great idea!
Peggy,
Only your anger matches your stupidity. You believe the world to be total black and white, good vs. evil and that the wortld, apparently, revolves around you. Enough with the straw-man burning here either – I never once said I opposed common-sense regulations that protect the marketplace. You see, I actually read some Adam Smith back in my day – you should too, as he lucidly explains how religion and morality do interact with the marketplace. To answer some of your complaints, yes it is more scandalous when a Republican raises deficits than a Democrat, no more differently then you view it to be more scandalous if a Republican were to suddenly change course and support abortion rights then if a Democrat would. Why? Because fiscal conservatism is one of our main platforms – most Democrats don’t care about the deficit. But no, our party revolves around twits like you that insist that they talk the talk on fiscal issues but completely toss it aside once they get elected because supporters like you won’t hold it to them. You do an awful lot of proselytizing about “welfare mommies” and their “poor moral choices” but I never ONCE said I supported such programs. Again, you fail to understand libertarianism, as you view anyone that isn’t part of your wretched moral crusade to be an enemy (very Christian of you too; tell me, who gave you the authority to cast judgment on your fellow fallen man?). I’ll be honest – I support some abortion rights, I believe there ought to be a (long) pathway to legalization for immigrants, I believe we need to increase more H1 visas for educated immigrants to come here, and that gays should be protected from discrimination in the workplace (hiring and firing for non-religious entites should not be based on secual orientation). Why? Because I believe in a society based on freedom and liberty. I’d also recommend Richard Florida’s books on the creative class – he not only points out to how these policies generate more gorwth and prosperity, but that the cities and regions that take these sorts of stances aren’t amoral cesspools as you’d like to imagine. You’ll surely not only disagree with me but attack my moral standings as well, but I don’t give a damn. Once upon a time my kind were welcomed in the party but apparently no more. This will be my shortest tenure on a blog thanks to you Peggy. I gave an honest post and got kneecapped for no good reason from a self-righteous Christian bitch. Go judge others, but keep up your mentality and it will be you, not me, that will have a lot to answer to God for at the end of times.
“I gave an honest post and got kneecapped for no good reason from a self-righteous Christian bitch.” –Minnesotan
So much for open dialogue and the free exchange of ideas.
In typical liberal fashion (you’re a RINO), you resort to name-calling and run away.
Minnesota: Your piece was very thoughtful. Don’t get angry about Peggy. She can’t help herself. The crackpots continue to take up a lot of spaceon this blog. Consequently your comments are a breath of fresh air. Keep it up. Also take consolation in the HD 90 results where the freaks and their road show were bitch-slapped. Had they kept their dirty noses out of that election the Repubs would have won.
MIE,
Who are “the freaks” and their “road show?”
You sound as bitter as MN.
Peggy: NOM. I’m bitter about the intractable differences between the socons and the fincons that has torn our party apart. To make matters worse I saw statistics this weekend showing that Wall Street and hedge funds are contributing more to dems than to Repubs. What gives?
Maybe it’s the ‘fincons’ calling the socons “freaks” that is tearing out Party apart.
According to previous posts of yours on this site, the fincons won HD90 BECAUSE of the socons. If that’s true, you’ve been vindicated and have nothing to be bitter about. The socons are irrelevant now.
“The socons are irrelevant now” If they keep insisting on demanding political purity and the “our way or no way” attitude, yes they soon will be!
Minnesota, keep up the good work! While I may not agree with them on every point, libertarians still come about the closest to limiting government and returning it to original Constitutional authority of anybody else out there. I only wish enough others would catch on before it is too late!
Polling data shows independents care about social issues, although with less intensity than Republicans. The problem is our performance in office falls short of our rhetoric thereby alienating the Republican voter who thought they were getting a conservative and the independent voter who thinks they voted for a hypocrite (Vitter, Sanford, etc…).