This Just In: Ron Paul Is Coming To Iowa Saturday November 14th On Behalf Of Kent Sorenson
- Sunday, October 18, 2009, 21:18
- Blogs, Iowa, News Center, TEApublican
- 6,805 views
- 159 comments
Revolutionary Republican, courageous conservative congressman and Constitution defending former presidential candidate, Ron Paul is coming to Iowa November 14th, to support Kent Sorenson’s state Senate seat bid.
While the details of exactly where the event will take place (probably a Des Moines hotel conference room) is not official at this time, the newsflash fact that central Iowa is on Ron Paul’s schedule was personally confirmed on the phone by Kent Sorenson and via email from David Fischer and A.J. Spiker for Iowa Campaign for Liberty.
Additional speakers will be added to what will no doubt make up a fascinating evening. Ron Paul rare appearance will likely include sharing some wisdom nuggets from his most recent book, “End The Fed.”
Ron Paul says, “The greatest threat facing America today is the disastrous fiscal policies of our own government, marked by shameless deficit spending and Federal Reserve currency devaluation. It is this one-two punch– Congress spending more than it can tax or borrow, and the Fed printing money to make up the difference– that threatens to impoverish us by further destroying the value of our dollars.”
Congressman Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign ignited a grassroots movement that culminated in the formation of Campaign For Liberty, a political and educational organization focused on the principles Dr. Paul championed during his presidential campaign and in his eleven terms in congress. Here is Ron Paul in CNN’s situation room just a few days ago doing what he does best… defending the constitution.
embedded by Embedded Video
YouTube Direkt
Be sure to follow Kent on Twitter at http://twitter.com/KentSorenson and The Iowa Republican at http://twitter.com/IowaGoper for all the latest details of this event.
Paul Paul photo from Wikipedia
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=9d5a34da-6675-44cb-bc2c-1666b4a29e16)
About the Author
TEApublican has written 57 stories on this site.
An artjournalism storyteller with 1/3 smart alec tea party angst, 2/3's creative artist republican, Dave Davidson is a TIR photographer and author of 2 dozen books including "Huckisms". His latest book, "You May Be A TEApublican" is available at TEApublican.com as a free ebook. In full disclosure: Dave is a Huckabee fan, Vander Plaats supporter, social media expert and a die hard Cub fan.
159 Comments on “This Just In: Ron Paul Is Coming To Iowa Saturday November 14th On Behalf Of Kent Sorenson”
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.
Am I the only one that thinks that Ron Paul is certifiable? You would have to pay ME large amounts of money to attend this + mileage + stipend.
Certifiable or over your head?
After Ron Paul’s miserable performance as a Presidential candidate last year…..I really have to question Rep. Sorenson for bringing him into Iowa on his behalf.
Considering that Ron Paul in a 2007 interview stated that he SUPPORTED the right of gay couples to marry…and has opposed all federal efforts to define marriage….you really have to ask yourself WHY Rep. Sorenson, a leader in the effort to define marriage in Iowa and who opposes gay marriage, would bring Ron Paul into Iowa on his behalf.
HawkCR1 You mean how Ron Paul finished just behind our nominee? Or how he raised more money then our nominee did in Iowa? Wait lets bring a washed up radio guy that happened to have the last name Reagen talk about the 80 – 20 rule on the radio defend him along with Haley Barbour while talking about killing babies then criticize Sorenson for having Ron Paul do a fund raiser. I see the logic there! Ron Paul has stated that he would support a STATE constitutional amendment. The guy has a huge following and committed supporters and was the most outspoken on all these bailouts.
Just read this on another blog and thought I would share this.
Ron Paul is a libertarian, true, but that doesn’t mean he agrees with moral depravity, like same sex marriages. He is against the Federal government ruling on who can and can’t be married, but says that the states CAN and SHOULD be able to rule on it, per the 10th Amendment. Law-making should be closer to the people (the states), than farther away (Wash DC). That’s what Libertarian believes. Please do not confuse the blessing of Freedom to be free to do whatever sin you want. True freedom comes as you make right, moral choices.
Hey there, Wingnut.
Don’t be goin’ all issue edumacashun on these “moderate conservatives.”
Wingnut…
Ron Paul only won ONE county in Iowa during the 2008 caucuses..after spending millions and millions.. He then went on to only gain 35 delegates and win ZERO states in the primary process.
The so-called “Ron Paul Revolution” was a joke, Wingnut.
And yeah..I do question the logic of Rep. Sorenson bringing in someone like Ron Paul. We’re told by Sorenson and his backers like Steve Deace that its “about convictions not positions”. Really?
Then why would he bring in someone to fundraiser for him that supports stem-cell research, opposes the death penalty, supports the rights of gays to marry and has opposed all federal efforts to define marriage?
For cryin out loud..Paul even voted against legislation that would have helped to catch more online child predators and favors legalizing marijuana for “medical” purposes… Again..all things that Rep. Sorenson is on the opposite side of.
So..if the “purity” crowd in the GOP wants more people to get behind people like Rep. Sorenson…this isn’t the guy you would want coming in to campaign for him…
Wingnut…
You claim that Ron Paul “doesn’t agree with moral depravity, like gay marriage?”
Really? you might want to educate yourself then…
In a 2007 interview with John Stossel…Paul stated that he supported the right of gay couples to marry, so long as they didn’t “impose” their relationship on anyone else, on the grounds of supporting voluntary associations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJz81lAwY0M
Ron Paul is one of the biggest earmark porkers in Congress. He justifies this in his mind because he “doesn’t vote for the final bill” where the money is actually spent. Are you freakin kidding me? Earmarks are earmarks, whether you vote for them yourself, or whether you insert them in the bill and passively allow them to be enacted without your support.
And don’t forget the fact that Ron Paul is an isolationist crank. I’ve got no problem with someone wanting to disengage from some of our overseas obligations, but Ron Paul seems to think that we’re still in the 1790’s and that anyone wanting to threaten America must first spend 25 days on a wooden ship on their way to do us harm. He’s against pre-emptively preventing North Korea from transferring nukes to terrorists (he said this on the Mikelsen show about a year ago or so, so there is tape available), and he argues that Iran’s nuclear weapons program is “none of our business”.
And that’s without factoring in that he’s a little too close to Stormfront “white power” types. Not that he’s one of them, but he’s apparently got no problem with cashing their checks.
To me, Ron Paul is a little like Ross Perot – the wrong guy leading the right movement.
And Ron Paul is too much of a “9/11 Truther” to be taken seriously by ANYONE with half a brain.
Wingnut, I’m having you and Ron Paul admitted for making us all dumber! Like I said, it would take 1 million dollars to get me there. I wouldn’t even come for $999,999.
The comments here are hilarious, and sadly predictable. So, one of the two candidates who actually brought new voters into the process during the last caucus is going to come and raise money for one of the only Republicans who unseated an incumbent Democrat in the last election. That sounds like a really good thing if you are a Republican in Iowa.
The funny part is that when we finally have a winning candidate, who is a solid conservative on ALL the issues, you beat him up for allowing someone to come raise money for him. Why? Because Ron Paul actually applies your precious “80/20 Rule” to people he might not agree with 100% of the time? Isn’t Sorenson doing the same thing?
Unless we allow the posts from people who are probably paid staff with the Iowa Democrat Party who spend their days posing as moderate Republicans on blogs like this to distract us, Ron Paul and Kent Sorenson could actually bring together the two parts of the Republican base that have the most energy and the most new activists from the last cycle.
We know Kent Sorenson isn’t changing who he is. If Ron Paul is willing to come raise money for him, that’s only good for Sorenson and the party.
Ron Paul’s position on homosexual marriage is based on personal liberty and limited government (as are all of his positions). You have the liberty to do anything you want, that does not inhibit the liberty of another individual. There is no legitimate purpose for the government to know who is married, and who isn’t, it is non of their business.
The problem with the current system: the government is intrusive upon our lives requiring us to “apply” for a marriage certificate for a commitment that should be between a man, a woman and God. Since two men going through a ceremony are not in a covenantal relationship in God’s eyes, it is null and void, and it has no impact on my life if we fix problem #2.
Problem #2: the government grants special rights to people who are married. Why does it matter if people are married (talking about in the government’s eyes, not God’s). Why should I get a special tax break if I am married? That is the problem, if we get government out of our lives, stop lobbying them for special privileges then two men living together has no impact on your wallet. And as far as real marriage being illegitimatized if two men get “married”, does that mean God doesn’t respect the vows I made to my wife and the covenant we have because two dudes down the street are sodomizing each other?
Summery: Two dudes can’t be “married” in Gods eyes, and it does no harm to me as long as the government is held in it’s proper place and doesn’t allow their sodomy lifestyle to be subsidized by my tax dollars.
To finish the summery above: So two dudes can do what they want and suffer the ill effects in both this life and the next.
It will be a pleasure to have Ron Paul in Iowa again – Especially at a Kent Sorenson event.
We can all use a reminder that:
Rights are Natural and they come from our Creator. (Life, speech, press, bear arms, etc)
The constitution was written to restrain the Government.
Truly free markets are the solution to our economic problems not government intervention.
The founding fathers never intended a nation where citizens pay half of what they earn to government
Freedom is an indivisible whole (economic and civil liberty)
There would be a lot fewer wars if we only went to war under a Declaration of War
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution (nor prohibited by it to the States) are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Ron Paul introduced legislation that defines life as beginning at conception. Ron Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 (to provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception). “I believe it is time for Congress and state legislatures to reassert their authority by refusing to enforce judicial usurpations of power…. I plan to continue working to enact the Marriage Protection Act and protect each state’s right not to be forced to recognize a same sex marriage.” Ron Paul – Oct.1, 2004
If you haven’t been to a Ron Paul event – I encourage you to come. Ron Paul raised more money in a single day than any other Republican during the Primary of 2008. He received more campaign contributions from the military than any other candidate (Democrat or Republican). Freedom is Popular!
A Republican Party that supports candidates who stand for the unshakable principles of Life, Liberty and a Government that is Limited by its Constitution… will be a Republican Party that WINS elections.
I know that Kent Sorenson’s event with Ron Paul will be a success. If you are open to principles like the ones above… show up.
-AJ
LOL..
I love how the Ron Paulites come out of the woodwork anytime someone dares to question their leader.
DD… Yes..I do question the principles of someone like Ron Paul…
Ron Paul has CLEARLY stated he thinks gays should have the right to marry… Watch the YouTube interview with John Stossel that I posted here…..Ok…he wants to take that position that’s his right…but he’s coming in to help fundraise for a legislative candidate that believes in the complete opposite of Paul’s position.
Ron Paul loads up legislation with tons of legislative pork…but then claims he’s fiscally responsible by voting “no” on the final piece of legislation…In 2007 alone, he requested over 400 MILLION dollars in pork barrel spending in legislation that he ultimately voted “no” for, but the legislation passed anyway.
That DD..is the HEIGHT of hypocrisy right there in of itself. That’s not being “principled” in any way shape or form. I could go on and on with other examples of Paul’s hypocrisy…the list is long and lengthy….
IA Conservative….the problem with your argument is that Sorenson is a part of the GOP “purity” crowd… That if you don’t agree with 100% of the GOP platform on issues like gay marriage, abortion, etc…you’re not worthy to be a leader within the party. Why do you think people like Steve Deace speaks the praises of Kent Sorenson every chance he gets?
So..if you’re a purist like Sorenson is….who thinks that we can NOT compromise on issues like gay marriage, etc……then WHY would you bring in someone like Ron Paul who speaks out of both sides of his mouth on so many issues?
Also, I would contend IA Conservative that Ron Paul didn’t bring in ANY new people to the process at all….If he had…Paul would have actually won more than one county in the Iowa caucuses…and he would have won more than a measly 35 delegates nationally.
I’ll say it again..the Ron Paul “Revolution” was a JOKE….and Rep. Sorenson should really think twice about blowing up whatever credibility he has by bringing in someone like Ron Paul on his behalf.
Hawk,
Are you saying this to help Kent Sorenson, a fellow Republican?
Hawk,
Who would you suggest Sorenson bring in for a fundraiser?
Hawk: Do you think it should be a requirement to apply for permission from the government before you get married?
Hawk – I just read the article again. I can’t see where it says Ron Paul asked Rep. Sorenson to compromise on anything in order to get his support.
Aren’t you the one being a “purist” here?
Didn’t Paul win more counties in Iowa than McCain in the 2008 Caucuses? Not that McCain should ever be our standard, but your argument is weak.
Sorenson is a hard worker, he’s good on both economic and social issues, and he is going to make a great Senator.
So, what’s your problem? Do you really want to keep a good Republican from raising some money?
Peggy…
There are many people that Sorenson could bring in for a fundraiser that are far more credible to Sorenson’s cause than Ron Paul….and yes…I am saying this to help Sorenson..a fellow Republican. If Sorenson wants to campaign as a “purist” GOP conservative….it really doesn’t help his cause to bring in someone who lacks the convictions that Sorenson champions.
Sorenson is against gay marriage….feels that there should be not only a state constitutional amendment against it..but also a federal amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman…
Paul’s position is very clear..he’s stated that he feels gays have the right to marry…and in 2004 he voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment defining marriage between a man and woman.
If that 2004 Federal Marriage Amendment had passed Congress when Republicans still controlled Congress…..it would have gone to the States for ratification.. So I don’t know how much more clear you can get, Peggy. Ron Paul clearly lacks the same convictions that Sorenson has.
Sorenson’s made it very clear that he wants to take on Staci Appel very directly on the gay marriage issue…..so WHY in the world would he bring in someone that backs Appel’s position on the issue to campaign for him?
Just to clarify:
Ron Paul supporters don’t support him because he is a 74 year old hip guy. They support him because of his fidelity to the US Constitution.
Earmarks… If a congressman votes against an earmark, you don’t save a penny. That just goes to the administration and they get to allocate the funds. If you don’t earmark something, then somebody else spends it and there’s no transparency. So, the principle of the earmark is very crucial from a transparency perspective. That being said. Ron Paul has never voted for an earmark – because he has never voted for an appropriations bill.
“If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’s constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a “same sex” marriage license issued in another state. This Congress, I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts’ jurisdiction. If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state.” Ron Paul – October 1, 2004
IA Conservative…
You’re not getting the point.. I’ll state it to you VERY clearly again..
IF Rep. Sorenson wants to campaign as a “purist” GOP conservative…That’s great. You’re exactly right he’s a hard worker and would make a great Senator.
Now..that being said..why would Rep. Sorenson risk shredding his credibility as a champion of social conservatives on issues like gay marriage..by bringing in someone who BACKS Staci Appel’s position on the issue? Its a really simply question here that begs an answer.
AJ…
All you’re doing with your quotes is proving how much Ron Paul speaks out of both sides his mouth…. The facts are VERY clear.
Instead of cutting and pasting words… Why don’t you explain WHY Rep. Paul requested over 400 MILLION dollars in earmarks in 2007? Its complete hypocrisy to talk about how fiscally conservative Ron Paul is..when his track record in Congress is ANYTHING but fiscally conservative.
Apparently you didn’t watch the video from 2007 which Rep. Paul CLEARLY states he feels gays should have the right to marry. If Rep. Paul feels that marriage should be defined as being between a man and a woman…WHY did he vote against the 2004 Federal Marriage Amendment? He can talk about “states rights” all he wants, but apparently Rep. Paul didn’t support giving the states the opportunity for themselves whether or not to ratify the amendment.
AJ, face it… Ron Paul talks out of both sides of his mouth..he’s just not a credible voice for the conservative movement…..
“Sorenson’s made it very clear that he wants to take on Staci Appel very directly on the gay marriage issue…” –hawkCR1
Did Sorenson say that or are you taking cues from One Iowa?
Also, WHO do you think Sorenson should have invited?
Come to the event with an open mind – These guys are both quality people and I am sure they will answer your questions at the fundraiser. Lets help Kent win a Senate seat.
Take Care, AJ
AJ…Kent Sorenson is a quality person and an outstanding candidate…. Ron Paul is NOT a “quality person”…and its detrimental to Sorenson’s efforts to bring him in to campaign for him. I don’t need Ron Paul to “answer any questions” for me.
I’ve seen very clearly for myself that Ron Paul is not a principled conservative.
Peggy… Just the fact that Sorenson is running for Staci Appel Senate seat…is about the biggest broadside that gay marriage is going to be a very central issue in that race. I mean cmon Pegster… one of the biggest voices against the IA Sup Ct Varnum decision vs the wife of author of the Varnum decision… Not hard to figure out that race is going to be focused alot around the marriage issue.
As for who should Sorenson invited…That’s not for me to decide..thats up to him. However, you would think that Sorenson would have the political acumen to not associate his campaign with people who’s positions are diametrically opposite to his.
Since you want names…..you could have gone with folks like Sarah Palin…Mike Huckabee…S.E. Cupp…Michelle Malkin….Paul Kengor… you could create a list a mile long of people who would be a better fit for Sorenson’s campaign than Ron Paul is.
This just goes to show that everyone has their price and can rationalize away anything they feel the need.
It’s time for the high-and-mighty crowd to come down off their high horses and join the real human race.
This goes to show that Sorensen is not purer than all the others. He also is human.
Even BVP is willing to ignore the fact that his church has full fellowship with the apostate ELCA which ordains and marries homosexuals. His followers must not think that is a deal breaker.
“Also, WHO do you think Sorenson should have invited?”
Peggy: Is Jesus available? The rest of us have flaws–except for the purity Deace crowd.
If Palin came down here from Alaska, who would keep an eye on Russia?
dd, hows about Nanook of the North??? “Watch out where those Huskies go and don’t you eat that yellow snow!!!”
DVFO…you’ve hit the nail on the head..
I also seem to recall Mr. Deace accusing many in the Republican Party of compromising their principles and “taking the 40 pieces of silver”.
So..could it not be said that Sorenson is doing the same thing? He brings in Ron Paul with the intention of having Paul’s loyal followers line his campaign coffers…but to do so..he has to ignore the fact that Ron Paul’s “convictions” are opposite to what his are. Delicious irony isnt it?
It’s becoming clear that Deace supports whomever sucks up to his narcissism. It’s also interesting that Deace can find fault with every Republican who does not appear on his show.
What made Deace decide Huck was his man? Why did many Iowans go along with it? Huck is not a real conservative. Who knows about that one but VP is easy to see. VP strokes Deace’s ego.
To heck with critically analyzing whether VP has any ability, or even desire to do the things he claims when his actions regarding his church attendance, etc, show otherwise.
VP is a pig in a poke but he fulfills Deace’s need so he’s the golden boy–for now. Suppose VP would become governor (which is unliikely), all of a sudden he’s not a tool for Deace any longer and it will become necessary for Deace to do to VP what he’s done to all the other very good elected Republicans–try to destroy them simply for the purpose of inflating his own ego.
Of course, Sorensen is doing the same thing and as long as he sucks up to Deace, he’ll be safe, in spite of his being willing to accept his 40 pieces of silver.
GREAT JOB, KENT. Ron Paul is a very interesting man and this promises to be an interesting event. I did not support him for prez, but his Constitutional-only voting deserves respect for being the rarest type of politician…a consisent one. Agree or disagree, he’s with the republicans on the issues on that “crucial 80%” of the platform. The interesting thing about this conversation isn’t what Paul supports or doesn’t support…but friends, please remember that the role Paul is in as a FEDERAL rep is different than that of a STATE rep. Paul would tell you that STATES (and their representatives) have the right, even the duty, to make social law according to the people’s wishes (NOT the court’s mandate), and Paul may (or may not) support such legislation at a STATE level even while resisting it at a national level.
Naturally, it is easier for an irate Iowan to stomp down to Des Moines and demand their representation vote their district’s best interests than it is to attempt the same all the way to Washington DC. LOL with that one. The Ron Paul campaign had great energy & charisma (more than the man himself), but because the man himself couldn’t LEAD them (and didn’t want to) they went no where. However, they represent a good chunk of disillusioned voters from both parties that any candidate should desire to pick up, channel, and re-invigorate. I hope, for the sake of the party and for the awesome Kent Sorenson, that this fundraiser is successful in doing just that. Kent is wise and savvy to expand the republican “big tent” with new dynamic voters—GREAT JOB, Kent. Now go set up another fundraiser Newt Gingrich to add to your ever-growing base.
DVFO,
If Jesus were available, you’d turn him down.
LOL…these Ron Paulites crack me up…
Farmgirl… Yes..this conversation is VERY much about what Ron Paul supports… WHY? Because what Ron Paul’s “convictions” on issues that Rep. Sorenson is basing his campaign upon are DIRECTLY opposite of Rep. Sorenson’s.
People like Rep. Sorenson and people like Steve Deace who speak his praises keep telling Republicans and conservatives that it should be about “convictions, not positions”…
Well..ok..then AGAIN for the 4th or 5th time…WHY would Rep. Sorenson choose to bring in someone who’s a proven hypocrite and who’s basically the antithesis of the type of Republican Party that people like Rep. Sorenson have said we need to return to….
Peggy, you have no idea what you’re saying. It would be the Deace crowd who would turn him down as he would not be perfect enough. They could find something to criticize.
They are gods and they don’t want the competition.
DVFO,
Who is “the Deace crowd” and why are you turning on Kent Sorenson? Is it because he was one of a handful of legislators who got worked up about same sex ‘marriage’?
Shame on you!
Peggy, If Sorensen is a Deace follower (and the evidence is that he is), these folks think they’re more moral and perfect than others. They are pure but now we find out that Sorensen is willing to lower his standards in order to take advantage of a big name legislator , who does not share all his “principles”, willing to come to Iowa to raise money for him.
You don’t see the hypocrisy?
They’ve dug this hole themselves. They’ve raised their own personal bars beyond a reasonable, human level.
Of course, I want to do something about gay marriage. Deace doesn’t give a twit because he is doing everything within his power to make sure a Republican majority never comes about.
The ONLY way is to work for a Republican majority. He’s working against it. You explain it. It makes no sense to me.
“If Sorensen is a Deace follower (and the evidence is that he is), these folks think they’re more moral and perfect than others.” — DVFO
Is Craig Robinson part of The Deace Crowd? He appears on his show weekly so he must be guilty by association, too. What will you do if Terry Branstad agrees to be a guest on Deace’s show?
You Deace bashers are making fools of yourselves. You can’t discuss the issues and you’re fixated on and have demonized a radio talk show host. Deace is NOT the RPI’s problem.
“Of course, I want to do something about gay marriage.” , — DVFO
Prove that you’re AGAINST it first!
Peggy, I don’t have to prove anything to you and I’m not going to. It’s irrelevant. You prove you’re against it.
I’m not the one who throws around my moral superiority around here.
You need to stop to think about the damage Deace is doing to the very issues you claim are important to you.
By undermining every Republican, he’s doing his best to damage the Republican brand and suppress Republican votes.
Can you come up with any way of advancing your agenda with a Democrat majority? I can’t.
Stop and think about it. Name Republicans Deace admires. Admittedly, I don’t listen because I can’t stand the guy but it’s time people put on their thinking caps and look at his results.
As far as I know the only people he has good things to say about are those who go on his show. If you don’t suck up, you’re scum and he will do everything to destroy you.
When someone told me that he showed up for the ICA event, we knew he wasn’t there to support ICA after the nasty way he has treated Scheffler.
We also agreed he was there to obtain fodder for his next Republican attacks and we also agreed we would find out the next day as he wouldn’t be able to contain himself with glee that he had found more to criticize.
We were exactly correct and this time, it was Grassley and King in the crosshairs.
Too bad Deace isn’t a fraction of the man that either Grassley or King are.
A few days later, I heard Grassley on Hannity and was extremely proud that he is my senator.
By their fruits ye shall know them and I see Deace’s fruits. It is to elect Democrats and yes, he voted for Obama. How do you reconcile that fact? Remember, Deace has more “principles” than the rest of us.
Can you come up with any way of advancing your agenda with a Republican majority who thinks like Democrats? I can’t.
Again, your fixation on Deace is foolish. You are the one giving him power. He has a radio show and you can’t control what he says so why waste your time whining about it? What do you think you’re going to accomplish?
If you spent half the time getting a policy stance out of TB on same sex ‘marriage’ as you do bashing Deace, we’d be making progress.
Peggy, Deace listeners need to wake up to the dangers he poses. He claims the social issues are important to him but his actions indicate anything but that.
It is essential to elect Republican majorities and that will include some Republicans each of us finds less than desirable. We can’t even agree among us as to what is really desirable.
I take it you find Huck acceptable and I don’t. That’s not to say I wouldn’t have supported him if he were our nominee, because I would have but I’m saying he’s not conservative enough for me to vote for him at the caucus and I would never appoint him president if I had the power.
If I had the power to appoint any one of our present gov candidates, I would probably appoint Rants as he seems to be the most complete package but I don’t have that power and it’s too early to jump on any bandwagon right now.
“Peggy, I don’t have to prove anything to you and I’m not going to. It’s irrelevant. You prove you’re against it.” — DVFO
I would LOVE to enlighten folks here on the same sex ‘marriage’ issue but I fear you don’t have the stomach for it.
Terry Branstad, call me!
“We can’t even agree among us as to what is really desirable.” — DVFO
Bingo! THIS is RPI’s problem, not a radio talk show host.
Peggy..
Deace has a radio show on the largest radio station in the biggest media market in Iowa. He basically is a free media advertising mouthpiece for candidates and people that he likes…and an attack machine on those he doesn’t.
The problem that many of us have with Mr. Deace is that he spend MORE time attacking Republicans than he does Democrats.
All people like DVFO and myself are trying to point out to people like YOU, Peggy is the obvious hypocrisy in what Deace says and does. He talks about it being about “convictions, not positions”…and speaks the praises of people like Rep. Sorenson who also say its about “convictions, not positions”
Yet, when Rep. Sorenson brings in someone who’s completely opposite to the convictions that he holds..just to line his campaign coffers… It completely shreds any credibility that he has!
“Yet, when Rep. Sorenson brings in someone who’s completely opposite to the convictions that he holds..just to line his campaign coffers… It completely shreds any credibility that he has!”
———————-
Correct. And the chances that Deace calls out Sorenson for this? Zero. He’s a hypocrite.
To be clear, I have no problem with Sorenson doing this. He’s actually smart to do it. But Deace’s contention that he “holds everyone to the same standard” is beyond ridiculous at this point.
Since when are “moderate conservatives” concerned with credibility?
“All people like DVFO and myself are trying to point out to people like YOU, Peggy is the obvious hypocrisy in what Deace says and does.” — HawkCR1
You’re beating a dead horse. When I go into the voting booth, I’m not concerned with what a radio talk show host in Des Moines thinks. Are you? STEVE DEACE IS NOT THE PROBLEM.
Peggy: Deace is not THE problem. Deace is A problem. Uninformed, idiot voters are THE problem and Deace helps keep them that way.
When I hear of Deace besmirching the effectiveness and character of our elected Republicans, it angers me. He has NOTHING to offer except to vote for Obama.
He cares not one bit about others’ honor. Grassley and King are very honorable men and we are extremely fortunate to have them.
Deace is a great big narcissist who cares only that he be able to elevate himself at the expense of others and in the process elect Democrats. It makes him feel powerful to see Republicans defeated.
Remember the stupid idea of finding a primary opponent for King? Even King is not good enough for Deace and his followers.
I took a look at his website and surprise, surprise, he was lashing out at Rush. At least, Deace did say IF Rush knew of Soros’ association with the investment group wanting to buy the Rams but Rush did NOT know so there went another issue for Deace to crab about an highly effective, honorable Republican.
Mr. Hawk: I agree. I have no problem with Sorensen bringing in Paul. It’s the holier-than-thou attitude of this little group that THEY would NEVER compromise on THEIR principles and lo and behold, they compromise on their principles. What’s a person to do?
Peggy…you may not be concerned with what a radio host in Des Moines says about a candidate…but you know what…there are THOUSANDS of others who do. As I’ve pointed out to you before.. 95% of people don’t follow the political process…they aren’t political junkies and read blogs like this..
However, you can bet that they turn on their radios on the way home from work…Talk radio is the most listened to radio format out there. You don’t think that those people aren’t influenced in the least by what they hear?
Hawk/DVFO,
I think you’re misinterpreting the similarities between Ron Paul and Sorenson. While Paul may disagree with Sorenson on various issues, he contends that the Constitution should be adhered to and States’ rights restored where due. THIS is what I believe appeals to Kent Sorenson in Ron Paul.
I hestitate to speak for him but it’s my guess that Paul’s rejection of judicial activism and overall government interference is why he was invited. Sorenson has not rejected any Republican ideals with this move.
Peggy, you’re probably correct but that is beside the point. The point is HE COMPROMISED and you’re willing to rationalize his compromise.
Deace is willing to compromise on VPs membership in a church that has full fellowship with another church that ordains and marries homosexuals so how does he know for sure that VP will actually do what he says?
Peggy, my membership would not remain for one minute in VP’s church because of their stand on homosexuality and abortion, as well as other issues. So rationalize this away.
DVFO,
Why don’t you go to the Sorenson event and see if Sorenson compromises on anything instead of speculating that he will.
Peggy–he already did compromise by inviting Paul in the first place. It’s too late.
Peggy: You remember all the demands that ALL Republican candidates adhere strictly to the Republican platform? Either Sorensen or Paul is not adhering to the platform and yet you’re willing to give them both a pass. You’re for sale, too.
This goes to show we are all human and we’re on the planet Earth–not Heaven so even though we keep looking for perfection, we’re not going to find it.
It behooves all of us to do the best we can and work for the best government we can get. Yes, it means compromising along the way and this proves it.
I have far higher standards for my church. No way would I be a member of VP’s church. I only say this to again show the hypocrisy of this crowd.
Peggy: Sorry, I’ve been gone but I just checked another blog. Did VP really commit to some kind of black quota system in order to get blacks to support him in the primary?
DVFO,
It’s a fundraiser, not an election with Ron Paul on the ballot!
And why do you keep bringing up VP. You really need to focus your hatred for Steve Deace on him instead of turning on your supposedly beloved Republican pols. Let’s hear that disingenuous “We need a Republican majority” speech one more time!
For the last time, one is a radio talk show host and the others are actually running for office. You don’t get to vote for radio talk show hosts.
You have one of two options at this point. Either you get a bigger, better radio program or you defeat Deace in the arena of ideas.
“Mr. Hawk: I agree. I have no problem with Sorensen bringing in Paul. It’s the holier-than-thou attitude of this little group that THEY would NEVER compromise on THEIR principles and lo and behold, they compromise on their principles. What’s a person to do?”
——————————-
It truly is an amazing phenomenon to behold:
(A) Sorenson has Paul (pro-gay marriage) in, but that’s okay with Deace;
(B) BVP gets the cover of Focus on the Family magazine (a group Deace considers to be sellouts), but that’s okay;
(C) Ratliff endorses BVP, but that’s okay.
All of that in isolation is okay, of course. But to watch Deace and that crowd claim that they’re (1) holding everyone to the same standard and (2) not ‘compromising their principles” has gone beyond the ridiculous.
If Republicans (the non-Deace approved ones) did ANY of the above, he’d blast them for it endlessly. Can you imagien Romney getting the endorsement of a Dem and NAACP chair? lol. Deace would go ballistic. But it’s BVP, so it’s okay. If Romeny, or TEB has Ron Paul in for an event, Deace and that group would have an apoplectic fit.
“or you defeat Deace in the arena of ideas.”
- which is exactly what we’re doing here, btw.
Did VP agree to employ more blacks?
Hawk: I’ve observed closely Deace’s behavior. As long as someone goes on his show and sucks up, he’ll support them no matter what they do or say–to heck with “principles”, but stop going on the show and you’re next in the crosshairs.
He just can’t bring himself to compliment Republicans. What amazes me is that he has any listeners left. Some people must not get bored hearing the same thing over and over.
His final results is to elect Dims and we have to assume that is his goal as he does nothing to change is MO. It also shows he really does not care about the social issues he claims to care about.
That will only come about with a Republican majority.
“that crowd” — Mr. Hawk
Again, who is “that crowd”?
Peggy: Did VP pander to blacks, or not?
Ah! I love coming to this site and getting a good laugh out of the comment sections. Brightens my day.
Way to ignore 98% of my post, Peggy, but I’m sure that if you thought about it long enough, you’d figure it out.
I’ve noticed Peggy tends to ignore most substantive arguments like what is the truth about VP and blacks.
Vanita,
I have no idea what you’re talking about. Quit beating around the bush, share the information you’ve got (with sources) and I’ll be happy to comment.
Why do you think I’m a BVP supporter? On top of all your other problems, you’re paranoid.
Mr. Hawk,
98% of your post was, again, about Steve Deace. He’s not on the ballot. The only people giving him power are those that can’t stop talking about him. That would be you and DVFO.
” He’s not on the ballot. ”
- Neither is Doug Gross or the “pro-sodomy lobby” but Deace mentions them daily. Guess you’ll have to call in and remind him.
Do you honestly believe the “pro-sodomy lobby” hasn’t directly affected our state’s laws and, obviously, our state supreme court?
Steve Deace is one man with an opinion that happens to differ from yours. He’s not funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Republican Governors Association to conduct bogus polling in favor of his candidate. He also doesn’t have the funding and access to go into schools and government commissions to influence policy makers. School children are slaves to the ‘gay’ agenda. Adults, however, can choose to tune in to Deace or not.
Let me know when you policy wonks are ready for your primer on the adverse health effects of anal sex and then we’ll move onto the wonders of the ‘gay’ subculture. Trust me, One Iowa and the Iowa Pride Network is hoping I don’t go there.
Peggy
It is great to see a sound voice in this thread! You obviously are a critical thinker thank you for posting on here Keep up the fight!!
Mr Hawk & Vanita or “Deace Voted For Obama” I am glad that you have figured that the whole conservative movement gets there marching orders from Deace.
Peggy, read Whisper’s Saloon. I have no idea what he means.
Thank God the whole conservative movement does not get their marching orders from Deace because if they did, there wouldn’t be a conservative movement.
He’s working for Dims.
Actually, Deace probably has very little effect on specific elections but when we’re talking small percentages, just a few votes can make the difference in an outcome.
Especially, considering Dims have this vote stealing down to a science. They need to get elections very close to start their recounts.
How many elections have we seen won or lost by just a few votes? Every vote counts and Deace is trying to talk a certain gullible element into believing very few Republicans deserve a vote. As a matter of fact, please tell me how many Republicans he has said deserve a vote if you’re a voter with “principles”.
“a certain gullible element ” — DVFO
You’re not endearing yourself or your movement to anybody who may choose to tune into Deace. And you’re condescending to the hilt.
Gotta’ run – I’ll check out the Whispers blog when I get back.
BTW, I’m sorry for my comment about you having problems and being paranoid. That was a cheap shot. I apologize.
“Do you honestly believe the “pro-sodomy lobby” hasn’t directly affected our state’s laws and, obviously, our state supreme court?”
—————
You just refuse to pay attention for some reason. Your point was that we can’t comment on people who “aren’t on the ballot”. I can’t stop you from continuing to ignore that point, but your efforts in doing so are certainly transparent.
Peggy, thank you for your apology. It is accepted.
I’ll tell you what has really ticked me off. When I saw what Deace did to Grassley and King, I was angered because this guy just can’t help himself. He has to be attacking effective Republicans at every opportunity. The guy is obsessed and it’s for no good reason. He attacks for the sake of attacking. He offers no alternatives. He just wants all of us to think the absolute worst about fellow Republicans.
He is destructive. I’ve been gone and haven’t read his blog or listened to his show and I never listen to his show any more because he has the exact same effect on me that Obama has. I can’t stand to see the man on TV.
The results are the same with both men. Rush tells us that libs believe that because they have good intentions, that’s good enough. Results do not matter.
Results do matter. I see the results from doing politics the Deace way and it’s to give Dims even greater majorities. Deace is a loser and I resent his insulting honorable people.
Peggy… It seems to me that you are fighting a battle that cannot be won, and wasting effort doing it. You are burningcalories arguing with 3 posters who have already made up their minds and closed the case. No matter how many times you, AJ, wingnut, or anyone else confronts them with the falsity of their premises, they continue to repeat the same things time after time. Use your energy discussing/debating with open minded individuals that are interested in learning and growing. Leave the dim whits in their ignorance.
” or anyone else confronts them with the falsity of their premises, they continue to repeat the same things time after time.”
———————
Please explain the faulty premise behind my post above which begins: “It truly is an amazing phenomenon to behold:”
I’ll hang up and listen.
(A) Sorenson\Paul – Paul is outspokenly against all government involvement in all marriages, therefore even if he was pro-gay marriage (which he is not) it wouldn’t matter.
(B) BVP\FOF -An third party’s endorsement says nothing empirical about a candidate’s qualifications or integrity.
(C) – BVP\Ratliff – See BVP\FOF
“An third party’s endorsement says nothing empirical about a candidate’s qualifications or integrity.”
——————–
Really? You think Deace applies that standard to every candidate?
I was explaining your false premises, not the faulty inferences based on those premises. I am not really sure how Steve Deace applies his standards. I have heard him question a candidates integrity based on a 3rd party endorsement, but that was a question, not a conclusion. It was definitely not anything set in stone.
DVFO,
Did you send me on a wild goose chase over at Whispers or what? Help me out here.
BTW, that blog has taken a nosedive in the class department. Sheesh!
Mr. Hawk,
Since you can’t stop asking fellow posters here questions about Steve Deace, I can only deduce that you believe WE are “that crowd,” even though nothing’s been stated here that would indicate our undying allegiance to the radio talk show host.
I think when a healthy debate of the issues appears on the horizon, you deflect your inability to debate by demonizing Deace. Is it implausible to believe that there is more than one social conservative in Iowa?
” I have heard him question a candidates integrity based on a 3rd party endorsement, but that was a question, not a conclusion.”
——————-
lol. I hope someone actually buys that.
You missed the point Mr. Hawk. What primary subject of my statement was “I was explaining your false premises, not the faulty inferences based on those premises. I am not really sure how Steve Deace applies his standards.”
“I am not really sure how Steve Deace applies his standards.”
————————–
Then you simply don’t pay attention.
It’s been obvious for quite a while now that steve deace’s intentions are to divide and conquer the GOP, de-railing the conservative movement in the process. He went out of his way to trash Nussle, which only helped Culver get elected. The legacy of that alone is enough for him to deserve being treated like the pariah he has become here!!!
Timmy,
Didn’t you read the DMR this morning?
Deace is NOT running for governor. I repeat….NOT running for governor.
You can keep saying that over and over and over again, Peggy. And we’ll keep pointing out how ridiculous it is.
Deace has also undermined Lamberti, Schmitt, Thompson, and Grassley, thinking off the top of my head.
Why? All these Republicans can’t really be as bad as Deace claims.
Peggy: Tell us Republicans he finds acceptable. We’re waiting.
“deace is NOT running for Governor.” No, but he is damn sure going to try to screw with the process at every opportunity!!!
If Deace can screw up a candidate. Then that candidate did not do his job convincing his future constituents. I am sure the normal group of Timmy, DVFO, Mr Hawk, and HawkCR1 will unleash a serious of arguments because they believe that Deace is the freakin bogeyman that cause all our problems in the party.
DVFO, Mr. Hawk, HawkCR1 and Timmy,
Four words: Turn off your radio.
Were it only that simple.
“If Deace can screw up a candidate. Then that candidate did not do his job convincing his future constituents.”
——————————————
Really? Do you complain about the media’s affect on candidates ever? MSNBC, the New York Times or The Des Moines Register?
It is that simple.
Simply taking money that someone is offering you (or letting them help you raise money) is not compromising your principles. You compromise when you change what you believe or how you act in exchange.
Ron Paul has a lot of good ideas about smaller government, etc. So there is much to agree with him on. If Sorenson doesn’t get wishy washy with his stance on marriage to get the help from Paul, then there is no compromise. But he hasn’t shown any signs of that so far.
Same with BVP being endorsed by Ratliff. If you can get new people on your side without having to compromise what you believe, more power to you! If it changes you, that’s when it becomes a problem.
So many of you could care less about principles anyway. Just win, baby.
BTW, Mr. Hawk… it’s nice to see you resurface after hiding from Deace for awhile. You haven’t taken him up on his challenge to you because you can’t, can you?
Peggy, Tyler, and all the wingnuts: since when did character assination become a fundamentalist christian principle? Don’t take my word for it, just ask Steve Scheffler and Paul McKinley just to name 2 examples. The blowhard has 3 hrs. and 50,000 watts to spew his bs, which carries a helluva lot more weight than a blogsite!
I don’t get the privledge of listening to Deace in the Afternoon much, hence I “simply don’t pay attention,” to use Mr. Hawk’s words. However, I have on occasion heard Steve criticize my senator, Senator Paul McKinley, and though Steve’s accusations were harsh, I do not feel they were harsh enough. I have spoken with Senator McKinley personally on many occasions and had numerous heated discussions with him. Senator McKinley is purported to be the leader of our party in Des Moines. If that is the case he is the most worthless leader I have seen in a long time. A perfect example of his leadership is his current gubernatorial campaign!
Every time I talk to him he whines about how there aren’t enough Republicans in Des Moines to do anything. That is a load of horse hockey. Look at what freshman legislature Kent Sorenson was able to accomplish with an even smaller republican margin. A tie 49\49 on the most liberating, constitutional, Concealed carry amendment ever proposed in the State of Iowa. He pushed the envelope and did everything he could to represent his constituents. Senator McKinley has done what? Debate on the floor a little bit, and do a whole lot of whining.
Senator McKinley… LEAD, FOLLOW, or GET OUT OF THE WAY!
“Peggy, Tyler, and all the wingnuts: since when did character assination become a fundamentalist christian principle?” — Timmy
I don’t know, Timmy. You tell us stupid wingnuts who refuse to fixate on a Des Moines radio talk show host and blame him for the Republican Party’s failure to win elections and advance its platform. We’re dumb, you’re smart. Please help us, Timmy. Save us from our own stupidity and rigid social conservatism.
Peggy: Following the Deace method does NOT promote social conservatism–it promotes social liberaism. You like gay marriage? Great, because you’re gonna be able to keep it.
You like baby killing? Good, because the Deace method protects it and encourages it.
DVFO – In other words – You’re damned if you do; you’re damned if you don’t.
Elect Run of the mill moderate Republicans and they won’t do anything to prevent gay marriage, or baby killing. Stand for truly conservative Republicans with principles, and the “loyal” republican voters will support the Dem and he\she will promote gay marriage and baby killing. Thanks for everything DVFO.
How many “loyal” Republican voters support Dims?
Every word I said is the truth. You have to deal with reality. Do you really feel morally superior by helping elect Dims?
Your post makes NO sense.
DVFO,
Let’s say we settle for the less conservative candidate with mass appeal and do this thing your way, i.e. push for a Republican majority first and then move to pass a marriage amendment, like nearly every Repub candidate is proposing.
We have between now and then to educate Iowa’s voters and, as far as I can tell, there are very few Republicans who can artculate WHY they’re against same sex ‘marriage,’ gubernatorial candidates, bloggers or otherwise.
If this keeps up, the marriage amendment will go down in flames because time is on the opposition’s side and the Republican machine refuses to look beyond election day.
Peggy: Lay out your path to victory. I’ll follow.
Current Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius was elected to Lieutenant Governor as by Republicans because they didn’t like the SoCon that won the Republican Nomination.
belikebunce: Lay out your path to victory. I’ll follow.
Lets nominate and elect a truly conservative candidate: someone that will stand up to the ISSC and take a stand for proper separation of powers; someone that will stand up for the sanctity of all life; someone that will trumpet limited government and individual rights; someone that will assert the 10th amendment and defend State’s Rights; someone that has passion, conviction, and true leadership ability.
Only when the Republican Party of Iowa nominates candidates that presents true contrast to the Democratic nomination will we stand a chance of winning general elections, and only when those candidates deliver on their rhetoric will we ever stand a chance of taking back a majority.
First, we need ALL of the Republican candidates who say they’re for a marriage amendment to agree to be educated on the issue. They must be the leaders on this issue since they will have the stage.
Every Iowan should know same sex ‘marriage,’ and the advancement of unhealthy behaviors in general, is fiscally irresponsible in the long run. A state which fines its citizens for not wearing seatbelts (harmless in and of itself) can’t also be in the business of promoting untreated mental disorders and destructive sexual practices.
We as Republicans MUST hold Republican Candidates, Republican Elected Officials, and other Republican Leaders accountable for advancing the Republican Platform!
belikebunce: We need 51 of these people in the Iowa House and 26 of them in the Iowa Senate. That’s just for starters.
We also need a governor who will sign this legislation.
Are you advocating to only voting for 100% pure Republicans? How do I know who is pure enough?
How are you going to get to 51 suitable Republicans?
I know how I will know who is pure enough–I listen to Deace. The problem is to my knowledge he’s only ever found a couple of Republicans worthy of our votes.
The alternative is total surrender. Gosh, this is the Dims dream scenario.
Bull! The alternative is to use the system to the best of our advantage. NOMINATE true conservatives. Support them in the Primary! Put up our best, not the one that we think can win in a primary. Let the voter chose, don’t chose for them. We do far too much vetting on electability, and ability to win a general election.
D,
What do you think of the first step in my plan?
belikebunce: I like much of what you say. Now, considering we have 100 House districts and 50 Senate districts, that means we need 150 suitable candidates. How do we make sure get get that number?
One thing about this is that you may consider Huck suitable and I do not. Now, what are we going to do?
I would support him in a general but I would never support him in a primary or caucus. He’s a prolife populist.
I cite this as an example. I have no idea if you’re a Huck supporter or not but what if you are. Then how do we reconcile this difference?
“We as Republicans MUST hold Republican Candidates, Republican Elected Officials, and other Republican Leaders accountable for advancing the Republican Platform!”
————————
We apparently hold them accountable by applauding when they’re endorsed by Democrats and have “pro-sodomy marriage” figures come in for fundraisers!
I did not support Huck. For president I supported Dr. Paul, because I believe that his position of strict constitutional government is best.
However, I wish that Paul\Huck\Tancredo\Hunter and possibly Brownback\Thompson\Keyes would have formed a coalition and issued a joint statement that in Dec or Jan all but the top competitor of the “tier two” candidates were dropping out and endorsing the top competitor, and that they would then be guaranteed cabinet positions… Hunter Sec of Defence, Tancredo Director of DHS, Huck Press Secretary, Paul Sec of Treasury, Thompson Vice Pres etc.
DVFO, Mr. Hawk,
I’ll try this again. I laid out the start of a game plan above and no one is responding. If you don’t like that approach, the other option is for ALL Republican candidates to vow to issue an executive order declaring a moratorium on same sex ‘marriages’ until the voters can decide.
The former plan, due to the passage of time, will less likely result in the overturning of Varnum v. Brien. If we present a united front on this issue now, we’ve got a chance.
And before you go there, I’m not necessarily asking that we “lead” on this issue but every candidate’s stance should be clear and substantial.
Mr. Hawk – Please give one instance where BVP or Sorenson compromised their principles\morals\standards to earn the endorsements you speak of.
OK, bunce: this proves this group is not capable of reaching a consensus. Everyone believes they have the only true way. You do know there are many dedicated good people on this website who could NEVER accept Paul, don’t you?
I understand that there are many, as you said “prolife populists” that feel it is the job of the Federal Government to do the things that the church is charged with, however, I think that we constitutionalists can win their support. As Dr. Paul continually says “Freedom is popular.” If we truly had limited government then The Church could do their thing, and church goers would have money to donate to the non-profits they support, including their local church.
” That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. ”
It is time that we start re-educating The People about the reality of Civics and Government. It is time we take back the intellectual high ground from those who would rewrite history and redefine this country.
“…this proves this group is not capable of reaching a consensus.” — DVFO
What does, that you two can’t agree on Ron Paul? I thought we were attempting to unite forces to get Republicans elected in Iowa. What do you guys think of my two plans?
I think that education is a great thing! I am all for holding representative accountable for continuing education, especially on current events! However, I do not think it is the role of even the State government to regulate sexual relationships. (Not a firmly held conviction, I could be persuaded.) I am a fan of liberty. I don’t like any government telling me what I can and can’t do, unless my actions directly harm others. As I said above…” That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.” The only time a government should act is when the rights of individuals are being forcefully infringed upon.
Not sure if I would vote for a Marriage Amendment or not. Probably wouldn’t be certain until I pulled the lever, made the mark, or pushed the button.
bunce: So how do you feel about VP pledge to sign an EO (on day one) to stop gay marriage?
In the last week, I’ve seen on TV and heard on WHO commercials from the Iowa Governor’s Traffic Safety Bureau telling us to wear seatbelts.
I thought Iowa was in debt up to its eyeballs. Where are they getting the money for these ads and how necessary are they?
Where’s the taxpayer-funded publicity campaign warning Iowans about the detrimental effects of anal sex, gay or straight? Oops, I forgot! Iowa is supportive of dangerous human behaviors – they’re a civil right, dammit!
Vanita,
It’s obvious now that you’re not really interested in improving life in Iowa at all. I tried.
The way I read the Iowa Constitution it is the right thing to do.
The State Supreme Court does not interpret law. They issue Judicial Rulings on specific individual cases brought before them, and they issue Judicial Opinions on law. The Opinions are what they base their Individual Case Rulings on, but they do NOT have any bearing on the law itself. Only the State Legislature can write, rewrite, amend, or repeal law. Only the State Governor can issue statements to the County Recorders instructing them to execute their duties in a specific way. Only The People can redefine, reinterpret, or amend the State Constitution. THE STATE SUPREME COURT in their handling of Varnum vs Brien trampled all over the State Constitution, the State Legislature, the State Governor, and The People.
The Governor needs to step in with his Executive Order, the Legislature need to begin impeachment proceedings for all Supreme Court Justices, and The People might need to amend the Constitution.
Well said Peggy & belikebunce I guess the others are putting their brains together to try and respond it appears the cat has there tongues
While I almost completely agree with belikebunce, I would just like to add, that I do believe the court has the right to strike down legislation if they feel its not constitutional. I would point you to Alexander Hamiltons writing in Federalist 78 to back that up.
I would refer you to the ruling on Marbury vs Madison when Justice John Marshall himself stated that “questions [that are] in their nature political . . .can never be made in this court.” By their very nature decisions on the interpretation of a Constitution are political, and therefore cannot be made by a Court. The Court has no defined authority to overrule the Legislature. The court has no executive authority to enforce their rulings, nor do they have legislative authority to change written law. Only within their courtroom do they have any executive or legislative authority and that authority extends only to those parties who have been subjected to the jurisdiction of the court.
While I agree with you, be, that Marshal’s statement backs up what you say about striking down. I would say this though, John Marshal didn’t help write the constitution, I believe Alexander Hamilton did. So, when Hamilton says, the court has the right to determine if a law is unconstitutional, I would tend to believe him. Now I am in no way saying the court has the authority to re-write the law. I think that falls to back to legislature to amend or pass new laws as they see fit, being elected by The People.
For reference, “If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.“
So in the case of Varnum vs Brien what happens to the Iowa DOMA of ‘98 in you’re scenario? What should the County Recorder do?
Or in the case of DC vs Heller?
Well first, its not really MY scenario. What I was trying to say is that founders believed that to be the case, judicial review anyway. I would say it falls to the people to write new law, or amend the constitution to be more clear. In the case of Varnum, I would say until the legislature acts, NO marriage licenses should be issued in the state of Iowa, as a result of the court determining that the language outlining them to be unconstitutional.
In the case of DC vs Heller, was it not the local government of DC that passed the restrictive gun laws? If so, and the court found their laws to be constitutional, it would fall to the people to advocate for different laws
“Mr. Hawk – Please give one instance where BVP or Sorenson compromised their principles\morals\standards to earn the endorsements you speak of.”
———————————–
Nice try, but just not good enough. That’s not the standard set by Deace. If Terry Branstad or Mitt Romney or Christian Fong (or other non-approved Republican) had an event with a “pro-sodomy marriage” national figure headlining or received the endorsement of an NAACP chair, he’d go ballistic. Everyone knows it, even if they don’t admit it publicly.
Mr Hawk – Please call Steve yourself, identify yourself as Mr. Hawk and have this discussion with HIM. I refuse to try to second guess people that can speak for themselves. It is not only a waste of time, but trying to second guess someone motives is in almost all cases asinine.
CT – DC vs Heller and Varnum vs Brien are identical cases in that a Supreme Court struck down legislation. However in V vs B you give the Supreme Court authority to create deadlock when it comes to issuance of Marriage Licenses, however in DC v H it sounds like you say that the Supreme Court decision has absolutely no effect. DC can continue to deny its citizens their constitutional rights to Keep and Bear Arms until the people revolt, but Iowa cannot deny its citizens their constitutional rights to marry same sex partners?
Bunce..
There is one thing you’re failing to take into consideration……there are no “state” courts in Washington DC since DC is a federal entity with Congress as its ultimate authority according to the Constitution. In fact, DC didn’t even have a local government until the 1973 Home Rule Act passed by Congress granted DC the right to a local government.
In fact…Congress still reserves the right to review and overturn laws created by local government in DC and can intervene in local government affairs.
So in the case of DC vs. Heller…Congress should have exercised its authority to overturn the DC gun ban..And if you think about it..the GOP didn’t control Congress til 1994…and attempts to rescind DC’s gun ban in the past were blocked by Democrats in Congress…hence they had to go through the federal court system.
As for the Varnum decision..yes..the correct constitutional way to go would have been for the IASupCt to say ok..we’re throwing out this law due to constitutional issues…and directed the legislature to create a new law. You’ll recall the Legislature was still well in session when Varnum came out.
By going down that correct constitutional route…it would have forced the Legislature to actually DEAL with the issue..instead of simply letting the IASupCt create a new law out of wholecloth and dodging having to actually take a stand one way or the other.
Hawk – I am surprised to say it, but I agree… with the exception of the wording “throw out” but that is semantics.
The SSC should have told the legislature that it was their opinion DOMA was unconstitutional and that the wording of that section of code needed to be fixed. However the legislature still has the ability to tell the SSC that they disagree and since they legislate, and the governor agrees that the law will stay as is. Unfortunately we have both a legislative branch and an executive branch in DM with no intestinal fortitude, and no leadership ability.
Ok Bunce, let’s see if I understand you correctly. You said you supported Ron Paul’s stance on limited government and believe in personal freedom. Please explain then to me how you square that with your support of the Ex. Order? While I may agree that the court might have over-stepped it’s authority(however considering how the case was presented, it would’ve been difficult to have expected any other outcome), exactly how does the chief executive make that null and void with the stroke of a pen? You do realize that it will in all likelyhood end up before the same court that ruled in the Varnum case in the first place? Trust me, they won’t like it!
Also, do you really want the Governor and Legislature to impeach the whole lot and start over? Do you remember when Roosevelt wanted to “pack the US court? Are you really sure that is what you want to do? Please carefully consider the precident it would set. What would happen the next time a DEM Gov. and Legislature decided to arbitrarily impeach the state court and replace them all with justices of their own choosing? While on paper you may be right, the can of worms that it would open would haunt us for years
OTOH, we could focus our energies on nominating a solid but ELECTABLE Governor and re-gaining control of the House and Senate. Then we can use the proscribed remedy of amending the State Constitution and letting that process work itself out, instead of setting another dangerous precident giving even more power to the Chief Executive!
This actually appears to have turned into a productive discussion. The problem is we have had the majority and did not move the agenda that many hold dear.
Ok wingnut, what more exactly did you want them to do? They passed DOMA, which nearly everyone on both sides figured ended the argument. Should they have anticipated the full on assult by Lamda legal, Tim Gill, etc. and went for the Constitutional amendment? Maybe, but hindsight is 20/20. However, criticizing the 08′ legislative Republicans for not doing enough is not only disingenuous, it’s downright wrong. The dems held all the cards and controlled how this played out. I fully believe the court intentionally waited after the funnel to drop their bombshell. Sarcone could’ve appealed the case to the USSC. Culver could’ve asked Atty. Gen. Miller to stop the implementation until they had time to “fix” the law. Gronstal could’ve allowed a bill to be brought to the Senate for debate, etc. However, once the fuse was lit, they were gonna make damn sure the bomb went off. I know none of us want to hear this, but we got out-played and we lost. Woulda, coulda, shoulda, ain’t going to change the result or solve the problem!!!
That comment is not just based upon the marriage issue. What about our second amendment rights here in Iowa we still have to go beg our local sheriff for a permit and many counties will not issue permits. What about the life issues I mean for Pete sake we couldn’t even get license plates to support the pro-life movement. We raised sales tax twice. These are all things that could of been dealt with while we had the majority and failed not to mention the lack of the senate passing a marriage amendment because we had these much needed moderates to have the majority. One which happens to have lost to the same person Sorenson defeated.
“However, criticizing the 08′ legislative Republicans for not doing enough is not only disingenuous, it’s downright wrong.” — Timmy
Timmy,
DID wingnut blame the ‘08 legislative Repubs?
I don’t blame them – they had an underwhelming group of predecessors who couldn’t see what the Dems were really up to and/or wanted to be buddies with them. The Left has been working up to same sex ‘marriage’ for at least seven years.
Timmy – You make a very good PRAGMATIC argument. Pragmatism is good in politics, but it is complete hogwash in LAW. We are discussing RULE OF LAW here. Constitutional Law beyond that. I do not know what the Best thing to do here is politically, but I really don’t care. I am one of those guys that believes if we did it right the first time we wouldn’t be in this mess. Limited Constitutional government is a hard thing. It hurts much of the time. People have to be responsible for themselves, and for their neighbors. The government can’t step in and make things all better. Try to find a Republican today that would vote to take away dissolve the Federal Department of Education, or the or the Department of Agriculture. Try to find a Republican today that would be willing to remove 90% of the funding for the Department of Transportation. All of these would be Constitutional positions because the first to Departments are unconstitutional, and the third greatly oversteps its constitutional authority (if it is allowed at all).
The precedent of impeaching all the Activist judges for dereliction of duty would be ugly, but it is the RIGHT (vs wrong, not vs left) and LEGAL thing to do.
An Executive Order, it is not in favor of limited government and personal freedom. That has already been taken away by the State Legislature back in the 1890s when they started requiring Marriage Licenses in the first place. I would be in favor of repealing the entire section of code pertaining to state regulation of marriage, but the Legislature has to do that, and they have to do it for the people.
There is nothing in the Iowa Constitution that says the Legislature cannot regulate marriage. (US Constitution Art 1 Sec 8 does say the Federal Congress can’t regulate marriage.) Therefore if the people want the Iowa Legislature to regulate marriage, they can, and they did. They said that marriage is valid only between a man and a woman.
The Governors EO is a direct response to the SSC’s procedendo. It instructs the County Recorders, who are elected members of the Executive branch of government, that they have no legal authority, and definitely no legal responsibility to issue marriage licenses to same gendered couples. That puts everything back in the hands of the Legislature and the People, where it was meant to be in the first place. Would this cause a Constitutional Crisis as the Des Moines Register put is? I don’t know, but I trust that BVP has done enough study to be prepared for that the same way he has studied enough to know he legally MUST issue the EO.
Timmy why don’t you watch the speech David Barton gave at the ICA event it is posted on this site.
Bunce, wing: I had a pretty decent post this am before I left for work, but my ‘puter took a dump and I lost it. Anyway, before we get lost in semantics we must approach this politically first. I have stated over and over why I believe the E.O. is a disaster waiting to happen for the GOP, especially when the state is mired in the economic mess we’re in right now. I think most would agree that it’s pretty futile to worry about a leaky faucet when the house is on fire!
We need to first elect a Governor and legislature and there are not enough Republicans alone in Iowa to win in the general. Therefore we must appeal to the independents, libertarians, moderates, etc. and I believe voters are most concerened about the economic and fiscal issues first. That isn’t to say we should abandon the socon issues and we need to develop a strategy to possibly amend the Iowa constitution if need be, but we have to regain a majority first. The old adage of “when you are up to your a$$ in ‘gators, it’s difficult to drain the swamp” still holds true!
Timmy your own argument defeats you. It doesn’t take a crew of engineers, architects and carpenters to put out a fire. It takes a small skilled team of trained emergency response personnel. What on earth could be more critical than SSC overtly violating the State Constitution and trampling all over the authority of the other two branches of government and The People. BVP, or whoever the next governor is, MUST sign take swift, decisive action to execute the Constitution by putting the SSC back in their place. If we allow this flagrant mockery of the Constitution, then why should anyone respect the section that requires a balanced budget?
Try to get it done with the current majority party in charge. Oh wait, that’s what the whole problem has been all along. I rest my case.
Timmy – “Try to get it done with the current majority party in charge.”
I will restate – “BVP, or whoever the next governor is, MUST sign take swift, decisive action to execute the Constitution by putting the SSC back in their place.”
I cannot wait to go to this!
Ron Paul is the Old-time Republican I’ve always wanted to vote for!
I’m with the Campaign for Liberty and was on a Stat GOP platform committee last year successfully introducing several Constitutionalist planks which were adopted by the full convention.
The states-rights detractors from Ron Paul who accuse him of being soft on the gay marriage issue have a point: Ron Paul does support a State level constitutional amendment against gay marriage, but during interviews at the national level he rarely talks about the importance of the 10th Amendment in allowing States to violate pseud-”libertarian” dogma — this despite the fact that Ron Paul himself supports the 10th Amendment. In our own Iowa Campaign for Liberty this confusion is a problem with many of the pseudo-”libertarians” thinking that the State level of government has no business legislating any standards of behavior beyond force and fraud. This is not only a violation of the 10th Amendment, it is a violation of the most important libertarian principle of freedom of association. If people choose to associate under a State government which places limits on behavior at the level of the State, the beauty of the 10th Amendment is it allows people to “vote with their feet” in a laboratory of the states to have both voice and choice in the kind of human ecology they prefer. Ron Paul’s actual principles appear sound with respect genuine libertarianism in that he does support States rights over pseudo-”libertarian” dogma, but he needs to speak out more forcefully for his beleifs about the right of States to control the environment in which their children are raised.
Having said that, it is clear to me that “Republicans” like Huckabee are enemies of the United States: ”Pretty soon, Southern white guys like me may be in the minority,” Huckabee said jokingly as the LULAC (Hispanic activist)crowd roared in laughter.
Wow, I can’t believe some of the bad comments about Ron Paul from a couple of people here. Most of which are really just petty issues:
Michael Steele is pro-choice, believes there is room for pro-choice candidates in the party, and believes Roe V Wade should be overturned.
Yet that never stopped him from being Chairman of the RNC!
Ron Paul actually has a bill to define LIFE AT CONCEPTION (Sanctity of Life Act).
Where was the GOP support for that?
Enough with the hypocrisy already.
That was an excellent post, jabowery. That summed it up very nicely.
I know Ron Paul is very much for the 10th amendment, but I think the Federal Government issues and the fight to “End the Fed” are his biggest issues right now, which is where he is at.
I think the States are going to have to rediscover the 10th Amendment themselves.