Kent Sorenson to challenge Appel in Senate Race
- Tuesday, September 22, 2009, 4:23
- Iowa, News Center, Top Story
- 12,825 views
- 22 comments
State Representative Kent Sorenson has decided to give up the seat he won in the Iowa House of Representatives last year and will instead look to knock off another Democrat incumbent, Staci Appel. Sorenson’s decision to run for the Senate seat 37 sets up an intriguing matchup which is likely to garner state-wide attention.
In 2008, Sorenson defeated State Representative Mark Davitt by 163 votes. Sorenson’s victory surprised many Republican insiders that year. Since his campaign wasn’t on their radar as a potential pick-up, Sorenson was left to himself to orchestrate a winning campaign. With the help of a dedicated volunteer base, Sorenson pulled off the upset of the night when he sent Rep. Davitt home after serving three terms in the Iowa House.
Sorenson will not be flying under the radar in his race against Staci Appel. This time around, he finds himself as one of the top recruits for Senate Republicans. Making things more intriguing is that the Sorenson-Appel match-up will be ground-zero for the gay marriage debate in Iowa. Sorenson is an unabashed supporter of traditional marriage. Appel is one of the most liberal members of the Senate and is also married to one of the Iowa Supreme Court Justices who ran roughshod over Iowa’s marriage laws.
Despite raising huge amounts of money for her campaign in 2006, Appel only won her seat by 772 votes. Her opponent in 2006 was relatively unknown and underfunded. Sorenson brings a number of attributes to the race. First, Sorenson already represents half of the district. The part of the district that he already represents is the most difficult for a Republican candidate to win. Second, Sorenson has shown that he has the determination to do what’s necessary to win. While some candidates look for help from the day they are recruited, Sorenson and his crew of volunteers work tirelessly at the grassroots level.
Another factor to consider is that Sorenson and Steve Deace, the afternoon drive radio host on WHO Radio, are good friends and share a similar worldview. While many Republican candidates are hesitant to go on Deace in the Afternoon, Sorenson has embraced it. Deace will have to offer Sen. Appel air time as Election Day nears, but there is no chance she would walk into that studio and sit across the table from Deace. Sorenson’s access to WHO Radio’s listeners will help him counter the fundraising edge that many people expect Appel to have.
Sorenson’s announcement is a big boost in the arm for Senate Republicans and their recruiting effort. His decision, however, is bad news for House Minority Leader Kraig Paulsen, who already has to deal with some key retirements. Paulsen and House Republicans already have their work cut out for them in needing to win seven seats to wrestle control away from the Democrats in that chamber.
In addition to Sorenson leaving to run for the Senate, Representatives Rants and Roberts are running for governor, and Jodi Tymeson isn’t seeking re-election. That means House Republicans would have to elect 11 new members to gain control, a difficult task even in the best of political environments.
About the Author
Craig Robinson has written 502 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.
22 Comments on “Kent Sorenson to challenge Appel in Senate Race”
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.
Congrats Kent on this new challenge. Wish you the best!
i cant remember, why did the IGOP not support his run ?
Because they didn’t think he could win.
A question that needs to be asked…is who’s going to run for Sorenson’s House district? That’s a district that needs to be held by the GOP if there is any hope of retaking the House…considering Sorenson won by only 163 votes last time…the Dems will be putting a full court press to retake that seat. A candidate of Sorenson’s quality only comes around so often…
I guess I just question the timing of Sorenson’s running against Appel. Let’s be honest..the Tim Gill types are going to be funneling money into a Appel-Sorenson race like they did against Danny Carroll. If Appel can knock off Sorenson….that could be a huge loss for the GOP and the conservative agenda.
Craig, correct me if I’m wrong, but there isn’t there plenty of time for Roberts and Rants to run for their old seats if they chose to do so? Granted, I believe Rants has said he’s not running again no matter if he wins or not… If lets say on January 19th, when fundraising reports are due, if say Roberts fundraising numbers aren’t looking good…could they not gracefully withdraw and run for their House seat?
Also..why isn’t Tymeson running again??? That’s some news there…..
Woot! Godspeed, Kent!
HawkCR1 let me try to answer some of your questions.
Tymeson is not running because she is running for Lt. Gov. Lets be honest. When that doesn’t work out she is ready to move on. That has been obvious for a while so that is probably why it is not big news.
Don’t get your hopes up. Rants and Roberts are not going back to the Iowa house. Probably different reasons for both. But even if they drop out they have made it clear they have done their service and are ready to move on from that position.
This is the perfect tim for Sorenson to run. Take Tami Weinsck for example. She won a seat that she should not have and then lost it. Sorenson probably doesn’t want to make the same mistake. Second there may be opportunities for him in the Senate to impact things he cares about. And lets be honest with the way Paulsen is running campaigns (aka handing them off to special interest groups) House Republicans are not going to win back the majority any time soon.
And your last/first point. My guess Sorenson has been looking for someone because running for the Senate has been in the works for a while. But you are right. Likely is a seat the House R’s lose. Like I said no way they are in the majority for a while.
Bring it on, Mr. Sorenson. May the best candidate win.
Oooh, them’s fightin’ words!
This race WILL be all about same sex ‘marriage’ but only because Sorenson’s opposition will make it so. The militants will circle the wagons and might even call on Tim Gill for more cash.
To Sorenson’s advantage, he can highlight the fact that Appel’s spouse is one of the Iowa Supreme Court justices who legalized same sex ‘marriage’. Boo-yah!
I hate to hafta admit it, but Peggy I agree with you on this! Staci Appel has at the least, a conflict of interest. I’m sure Gill and the rest will be dumping some big $$$ in this race & this is one case where the “gay marriage” issue needs to be debated. I still stand by my past statements where the overall GOP campaign shouldn’t get hung up on it, but here you have a clear cut opportunity to set the record straight on who did what & why.
Well of course Appel is going to rely on Tim Gill’s money… Brent and Staci Appel are some of Tim Gill’s favorite people..and he’ll spend whatever amount of money is necessary to keep Staci Appel in office…the Democrats won’t need to worry about funding that race, Tim Gill will do it for them.
However, my concern is this.. With Sorenson leaving his House seat..that leaves another House seat that the GOP is going to have to fight to keep. Its been well known for awhile that the Senate is going to be the harder of the two sides of the Legislature to retake. The Democrats are going to throw considerable resources into getting Sorenson’s House seat back and the job becomes that much easier with not having an incumbent to worry about.
We don’t need to be making the task of retaking the House harder on ourselves by having solid conservatives like Kent Sorenson going off to challenge an opponent who will likely outspend him 4 to 1 in a difficult district to win.
Folks, either ‘campaign finance reform’ is bad (publicly perceived to be the generally accepted repub position) or campaign finance needs to be reformed. Has to be one or the other, no in-between.
Taking the repub position that campaign finance is just fine and needs to have govt kept out of it, then what the heck are you people doing speaking so snarly about an outsider putting big money into a demo’s campaign?
It’s legal _and_ apparently OK, isn’t it? Lassais-faire and free speech and all that?
Or is it that _some_ money is dirty (but certainly not OUR money!) ?
The problem I have with out of state people like Tim Gill coming into Iowa is they have one purpose and that is to tear our state apart for there own gain. It is not the same as an in state donor that truly cares about issues that will affect their lives.
“It’s legal _and_ apparently OK, isn’t it?” — Con Dem
Sure, it’s legal. And it’s also legal for Republicans to keep connecting the dots for Iowa voters.
The average Iowan doesn’t follow politics closely enough to know that pro-same sex ‘marriage’ legislation was quietly advanced over a period of years and the people responsible for it are out-of-state, militant homosexuals and liberal Democrats who’ll do anything to stay in office. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
To be credible one _must_ be consistant.
To be consistant, one who speaks or writes about campaign finance must either be approving of all campaign money that comes from out of state to both parties, or be disapproving of all campaign money that comes from out of state to both parties. To approve of money to one’s own party but not to the other party is not consistant and makes one appear incredible.
If a TV or print ad from an out of state gay lobby for a demo is somehow ‘tainted’, it follows then that a TV or print ad from an out of state Christian lobby for a repub is equally ‘tainted’.
Funny…I don’t recall any TV commercials starring Tim Gill before the ISC’s April decision.
http://www.oneiowa.org/news-events/extreme-right-watch-sorenson-plays-anti-gay-extremists-sd37-gop-clings-failed-strategy
I called it! The militant gay lobby will throw the first punch in this race. And it looks like somebody at One Iowa is an avid TIR follower!
CD..
I’d love to see a ban on out of state money coming in to Iowa statewide political campaigns. Also, require full disclosure of all campaign donations within 72 hours of their receipt
We live in the Internet age now–there’s no reason that donations can be managed and tracked online easily.
The only problem with such a ban is simple….what’s to stop an out of state interest from dumping a bunch of money to someone instate..who then funnels that money into the coffers of a candidate or party… That’s half the problem with campaign finance laws as they exist now…no matter how tight you think the law is..there’s a loophole that can be jumped through.
clearly a race Sorenson should win going away, no matter how much money is in this one…..a few things to remember…..
1. when Appel won, she spent TONS of funds in this district and the opponent didn’t even really run a campaign…she barely won. 2. Ms. Appel is clearly one of the weakest representatives of the public in the statehouse…she is directed fully by leadership on everything she does, has minimal leadership skills, and will be crushed in any one on one real debate, where she has to come up with real ideas or even where she attempts try to rehash the party line. Unless Sorenson creates self inflicted wounds, this seat is his to win.
Great post, mirage!
House Republican Leader Kraig Paulsen, R-Hiawatha, said he thinks his fellow Republicans favor a stronger concealed weapons permit law, such as one proposed by Rep. Kent Sorenson, R-Indianola, that essentially makes permits automatic unless the applicant is a convicted felon.
“I don’t think there’s any question there’s more support for the stronger version,” Paulsen said.But six major law enforcement organizations oppose changing Iowa’s current concealed weapons permit law.The Iowa State Sheriff’s and Deputies Association, Iowa Police Chiefs Association, Iowa State Patrol Supervisors Association, Iowa State Troopers .. Iowa State Police Association, and Iowa Association of Chiefs of Police and Peace Officers passed a joint resolution in opposition on Dec. 5.Members said they don’t like the NRA’s proposal because sheriffs need the discretion to deny a permit to someone they know has a troubled history or is experiencing an emotional crisis.
“Democratic and Republican legislative leaders have said it has a decent shot at passage. However, six major law enforcement groups passed a resolution opposing any change to Iowa’s current law on permits to carry a concealed weapon.”
Hopefully the legislative leaders will listen to the local law enforcement agencies( Iowa Police, Sheriff’s), instead of big money, national lobby’s that seek profits…arms sales to third world countries that keeps the gun industry….and it’s lobby, the NRA….going.
Keep it local, and keep the profiteers out…..listen to the local law enforement agencies.
Hunter,
I am afraid I must disagree with you on this one. I know of more than one Sheriff that uses his ability to approve concealed carry permits as a method for filling his campaign coffers. The way the concealed carry law is set up right now makes it ripe for corruption. The Shall Issue proposal would take that temptation away from the sheriffs.
I’ll wade into this just for a little post-Christmas cheer in snowy Iowa. This is one of those things where reality and policy diverge. From a policy perspective, yes, there should be few restrictions on the right to bear arms and thus a “shall issue” bill might make sense. However, when you take a look at some of the people who have been denied permits, the sheriff discretion makes total sense. It is unfortunate to think that this would be abused by sheriffs seeking re-election contributions.