An Early Look at the 2nd CD Republican Primary
- Wednesday, November 18, 2009, 4:04
- Iowa, News Center, Top Story
- 1,652 views
- 83 comments
In most cases, it’s impossible to accurately predict how political candidates stack up against each other in a primary or general election.
For example, even though both Bob Vander Plaats and former Governor Terry Branstad have run for statewide office numerous times, it’s nearly impossible to predict how they will matchup against one another in counties across the state. We can make some general observations, like Vander Plaats will probably do well in northwest Iowa and Governor Branstad will perform well in central Iowa, but those are just assumptions. We will have to wait until the June primary to see whether all of those assumptions will hold true or not.
The Republican primary in Iowa’s second congressional district is different. Each of the three candidates who are indicating that they are either running or plan to run, were on the ballot in last June’s primary. Two of the three candidates were on the ballot in the 2008 general election. That means there is ample data at which to look when you begin to examine how the candidates might stack up against each other.
The three candidates running for Congress in the second district are Dr. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, who won the Republican nomination for that seat in 2008, Christopher Reed, who won the Republican nomination for US Senate in 2008, and Steve Rathje, who lost to Reed in the US Senate primary.
Thus far, Reed is the only announced candidate in the race. The logic behind his congressional run is that a solid social conservative candidate will do better against liberal incumbent Congressman Dave Loebsack. A couple of weeks ago, while discussing the second district primary race on WHO radio, Steve Deace forwarded the idea that, since Republicans went with Miller-Meeks in 2008 and she lost by 50,000 votes, wouldn’t Republicans be wise to nominate a hard working, young, rock-ribbed conservative in Reed this time around?
That’s actually a very good question for Republican primary voters in the second district to explore. The answer, however, is not easy as either camp would probably like to make it. Miller-Meeks won a very close primary over Cedar Rapids businessman Peter Teahen. Miller-Meeks edged Teahen by only 114 votes to capture the Republican nomination in 2008. In that primary, Miller-Meeks won eleven of the fifteen counties that make up the district. The only counties that she lost were Linn, Louisa, Des Moines, and Cedar.
Christopher Reed won twelve of the fifteen counties in the second congressional district in the Republican primary for the US Senate, but he lost the district to Steve Rathje by 850 votes.
Here is how each candidate did in terms of total votes received in the 2008 primary in Iowa’s second congressional district.
Miller-Meeks – 7372
Rathje – 5849
Reed – 4999
Now, there are people who probably voted for Miller-Meeks and Reed, or Miller-Meeks and Rathje. Still, the data from the primary shows that Miller-Meeks was able to turn out more primary votes for her campaign than Rathje and Reed were able to turn out for their campaigns. In fact, Miller-Meeks garnered more votes than both of her likely opponents in all but two counties: Henry County, where Reed won the most votes, and Linn County, where Rathje won the most votes.
The most interesting bit of primary data comes from Linn County. Steve Rathje crushed both Miller-Meeks and Reed in the primary. Rathje received 2973 votes, Miller-Meeks had 1604 votes, and Reed garnered 1187 votes. The data shows that a candidate who can deliver a big margin in Linn County can offset a poor showing in other parts of the district. Rathje’s relatively strong performance in Linn County compared to the other two means that neither of them should under estimate Rathje if he does decide to run.
When comparing Miller-Meeks’ general election numbers to those of Christopher Reed’s, one can really start to see the work that Reed’s campaign will need to do to win next June’s primary. Miller-Meeks won seven counties against Congressman Loebsack and received 118,778 votes. Reed, on the other hand, failed to win any counties in the second district against Senator Harkin and received 100,217 votes, more than 18,000 votes less than Miller-Meeks. But let’s not forget, Miller-Meeks also lost to Loebsack by more than 56,000 votes.
If Miller-Meeks and Reed are serious in their attempt to knock-off Dave Loebsack, then both will have to figure out a way to be more competitive in Linn and Johnson Counties in the general election. Miller-Meeks lost Johnson and Linn counties by almost 47,000 votes, while Reed lost those same two counties by 72,000 votes.
It is safe to say that both candidates have learned from their previous campaigns, and they will likely alter how they operate their respective campaigns. Reed will prove to be a much tougher primary opponent for Miller-Meeks if he is able to perform well in Linn County where he lives. Otherwise, it will be difficult for Reed to mount much of a challenge, even if he finds support in the rural part of the district.
Also working against Reed is the fact that turnout in the Republican primary will be much higher in 2010 than it was in 2008. The hotly contested gubernatorial primary will increase turnout substantially. The higher turnout probably helps Miller-Meeks because it means more than just the base of the party is turning out. If, for some reason, it’s a low turnout, Reed would have the advantage.
Both Reed and Miller-Meeks have a long and difficult road in front of them. As the race stands right now, Miller-Meeks would be the clear frontrunner. She has won the nomination before and performed better than both of her potential primary opponents did in the last election cycle. Still, she needs to show that she can once again raise the necessary funds to operate a legitimate campaign. If she has the ability to run radio and television ads and hire staff before the primary like she did in 2008, she will be difficult to beat.
Reed, on the other hand, will need to out-hustle Miller-Meeks on the ground and use his Linn County roots to his advantage. A lot of what Reed needs to do will be determined by the type of campaign Miller-Meeks runs. If she once again has the money to run a media campaign in the primary, he will have to find a way to match her.
Reed has assembled an energetic team of grassroots supporters for his congressional run. That should help him begin the process of building a grassroots organization in the district. However, while the second district congressional primary is only one-fifth the size of a state-wide race, if Reed wants to be successful, he’s going to have to raise more money and sign up more supporters and volunteers than he did in his last campaign.
The primary in the second congressional district will be fascinating to watch play out. Both Miller-Meeks and Reed are passionate candidates who have military backgrounds. It will be interesting to watch which of these candidates has learned the most from his or her experience in 2008. That candidate will probably end up being the nominee in 2010.
About the Author
Craig Robinson has written 454 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.
83 Comments on “An Early Look at the 2nd CD Republican Primary”
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.
Robinson, Why would you drag Deace into this? Who cares what he has to say? First of all, he’s NOT a Republican and is out to destroy all Republicans who do not suck up to him. It’s all about Deace being able to pull the strings.
Go Miller-Meeks!
Reed wont get much traction in eastern iowa, he would be much better suited to run in western iowa. if the republican party will actually get behind Meeks, then she should have a good shot at beating Loebsack we all kn ow how hard it was to turn down that Teahan & Rathje money, but get over it. with the health care issue so prominent in this season i would expect Meeks to do very well assuming the ICA,ITR and Iowa Right to life all stop attacking/innuendo B.S.
Unwinnable distict with candidates who have proven that they too are unwinnable. Who supports any of these people? Who is guiding them? Raising money for them? Tell me this isnt the best the 2nd CD can do. That district may not be competitive again until Scott County is thrown back into it. Giggidy giggidy goo!
There’s nothing logical about nominating a solid social conservative in the second district; it’s actually quite illogical.
Deace pulled himself into the race by his inferences against the support of MMM and Deace will continue to throw crap against her – which I think is a shame.
MMM is clearly the best candidate for CD2 – and that will be proven over the next months.
My personal disgust resides with the whisper campaigns against her – and that is sad for all of us. 527 ads will be next…
MMM will continue to take the high road and bring her story and ideals to CD2 citizens for their consideration. Attend one of her forums; she will be speaking on more topics over the next months.
Miller-Meeks for Congress!!!
Absolutely, Deace will continue to throw crap at MM. That’s because she won’t kiss his you-know-what. If you want Deace’s support, that is what you must do.
To an honorable person, the price is too high.
This is a link to all the times that Loebsack has spoken in the house this year. 17 times! As you can see the topics are very interesting and maybe not ranked as important to Iowans in the 2nd district. He has spoken about 1 and a half hours on the floor since his election.
Once was to congratulate the Florida Gators in winning the bowl championship. I think it is very important to Iowans to send their legislator to Washington for that. Maybe that is where he is going to retire when he is no longer in the Congress.
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/77530&pid=1022883
MMM on Cash for Clunkers: A tax cut… not welfare… confused? I was too http://millermeeks.com/doctorsnotes/economy/cash-for-clunkers/
MMM’s has the integrity to win. She has the character to win. She has the intelligence to win. And lastly, she has the ability win. Do not under underestimate a person who rose out of poverty without government support, graduated from high school at age 16, served her country for over 20 years, educated with over 10+ years of post-secondary education, went onto medical school, became a renowned opthamologist, took on the trust of patients and colleagues, won an un-winnable primary in 2008, and still stands taller than ever today.
Peggy, that is a great link – I don’t spend enough time looking for useful information, thanks!
Loebsack is an embarrassment.
A friend of mine was dismissed by Loebsack in our Town Meetings on a Healt Care Bill / Abortion issue – Loebsack said – “I’m going to ask you to go back and read that bill, it does not say what you just indicated, please go back and read the bill”
Although I knew this friend as a gent would would read the bill and understand it I dismissed it as one question asked and answered until I heard this was a copy/paste answer to other questions all across CD2 that Loebsack just plain didn’t want to answer that day.
Hmm..lets see here..Miller-Meeks was the most successful candidate in 2008 in terms of money raised, votes and support of ANY of the GOP Congressional candidates who ran.
For those of us out here who live in the 2nd CD..its well known that the big motivation for Chris Reed running for this nomination is because Steve Rathje is also running for the nomination as well.
Unfortunately for both Reed and Rathje…they lost their credibility as candidates with the way they ran their campaigns in 08. Rathje had been running for US Senate for 2 1/2 years….and got 3rd place in a primary he should have walked away easily as the winner.
Reed didn’t help his future with his “Tokyo Rose” bit with Harkin and his complaints about how RPI wasn’t “helping him”.
Miller-Meeks is the most qualified person to represent the 2nd CD hands down….Not even Loebsack brings what she offers to the table. Her first run made her a very well known quantity in the 2nd CD…and Loebsack knows that she could pose a serious threat to him if she’s able to raise enough funds.
it is strange that Deace supports Reed , Reed is one of Sheffler’s boys and last i heard Deace and the ICA had a falling out.
Lobo, deace is currently pimping for IFPC. They have decided for whatever reason that THEY are now the annointed “christian” conservative group and are trying to run out ICA and Scheffler. He even trash talks Dobson whom I thought was the poster boy for their cause. Sure sounds like good old-fashioned “christian principles” to me!
deace is only in it for deace. He will align himself with whoever it is most advantageous for him at the time, if any of the current crop crosses him they’ll be toast too!
Steve Deace is following the lead of all the lemming Bible-thumpers. Remember when Kim Lehman, one of OUR NATIONAL DELEGATES, sabotaged Meeks just before the ‘08 campaign??? These people are disgusting.
Red,
FYI, you’re not doing Miller Meeks any favors by calling people Bible thumpers on her behalf. Keep that in mind.
Battleground..
Lehman didn’t do the Republican Party any favors when she publicly bashed the party’s candidate for Congress 6 weeks before the election…especially when she is our state’s GOP National Committeewoman!!
Quite frankly, if she had any honor..she would have resigned as National Committeewoman…
After the 2008 election, the GOP State Central Committee voted to censure Lehman.. Many of the SCC members told Lehman that they felt her role as President of Iowa Right to Life was conflicting with her duty as National Committeewoman.
So at that meeting..Lehman told the members of the SCC that she was going to be resigning as head of Iowa Right to Life. That convinced some members of the SCC not to go further and call for her resignation.
To date…Lehman has NOT resigned as Iowa Right to Life President. So..you decide for yourself what Lehman’s agenda is.
Lehman didn’t do IRTL any favors either. Meeks is far more pro-life than Loebsack. Lehman undermined both groups she was representing.
Well..one thing is for sure DVFO…
Kim Lehman has been absolutely worthless as Iowa’s GOP National Committeewoman. I’ll give her counterpart, Steve Scheffler credit in that he’s attended events out here in the 2nd and helped to support GOP candidates out here.
Lehman on the other hand has done NOTHING. We never see her at any events or candidate functions. She never attends any County Central Committee meetings to communicate with the grassroots she supposedly represents.
As far as I know, Kim Lehman didn’t write the article the called out Miller-Meeks on the right o life issue. Yes, Lehman was heading the Iowa Right To Life coalition, and everyone knew that when they nominated her. So, I guess I don’t see what all of the anger was about. The delegates that nominated Lehman knew full well what they were nominating.
And shouldn’t candidates support the platfor anyway? If we don’t have a platform that defines what a republican is, that what is a republican? Is it a candidate that has an ‘R’ after their name? Are elections solely about getting more R’s than D’s, regardless of where a candidate stands?
If you believe, like I do, that a candidate should agree and support the planks of the platform, especially the very first one, then you have to wonder about this statement from the Burlington Hawkeye, “Miller-Meeks said because it’s a judicial issue there is nothing she can do as a lawmaker to stop abortion, but she can make it easier to support families.“
Dr. Miller-Meeks remains the best candidate in this race and she is pro-life.
The rest of the dialog against voting for Miller-Meeks is difficult for me to understand.
If anyone believes there is a better candidate let’s talk about how that candidate is going to win this district.
Carolyn: Stop thinking logically. It’s dangerous.
Carolyn,
so, Miller-Meeks says she’s pro-life…what will she DO about it?
Probably the exact same thing most other Republicans would do but she can’t do anything as long as RATS are in control. It’s a moot point.
Hey Thinker, do you support EVERY plank in the platform? Ever served on a county, district or state platform committee in Iowa? I have. There are more college degrees in one dorm room at Augustana College than there are at one of those meetings. Hell, I’m a conservative by anybody’s estimation but there is some scary and downright isolating crap in the platform. Whether its leaving the United Nations and booting them out of New York to outlawing birth control pills because they “are a means of abortion” to outlawing “Monica Lewinskis” among heterosexual married couples, like I said crazy stuff. Fortunately most of it gets weeded out at state convention or at the district level. And although I have only met Carolyn Williams once or maybe twice a while back and don’t really know her well, I have enough mutual freinds that tell me she is one smart cookie and ought to be listened to. So hear her out. I’m told she does more to elect republicans than most of us do. Giggidy giggidy goo!
Mr. Q, MMM is hands-down the best candidate for that seat and we don’t need anymore idiots like deace or Kim trying to undermine her.
Having said that, although I agree sometimes it strays into bizzaro world, not all of the “scary stuff” is necessarily all bad. The “dump the UN and kick them out of the US” plank is done as an F.U. to the “globalist” crowd and has been in EVERY GOP platform as long as I can remember! I think it was orginally started by the John Birchers and is red meat for the right wing. BTW, other than getting us into two protracted wars, starting us down the road of “climate change” and other socialist BS as well as giving a platform to a bunch of tin-horn 3rd world dictators like Imanutjob of Iran, what good exactly has being a member gotten us??? I rest my case, flame away!!!
I made the mistake of checking Deace’s blog today. He’s started his crusade to destroy Meeks to clear the way for his puppet, Reed. Deace wants people he can control. Go on his show and be his “yes” person and he’ll protect you but if you decide the price is too high to tap dance to his tune, you’re in big trouble.
> If you believe, like I do, that a candidate should agree and support the planks of the platform, especially the very first one, then you have to wonder about this statement from the Burlington Hawkeye, “Miller-Meeks said because it’s a judicial issue there is nothing she can do as a lawmaker to stop abortion, but she can make it easier to support families.“
What can she do? What would you suggest she do as a member of congress in the minority? Bring up Roe v Wade for a vote? Doesn’t work like that and you know it.
> Yes, Lehman was heading the Iowa Right To Life coalition, and everyone knew that when they nominated her. So, I guess I don’t see what all of the anger was about. The delegates that nominated Lehman knew full well what they were nominating.
WTF? Lehman lead the IRL that actively worked to destroy a Republican candidate (that had won a primary). And your argument that “the delegates knew what they were getting” is BS. That doesn’t mean if Obama starts a holy war that everyone that voted for him supports holy wars. A vote is a snapshot in time, not a rubber stamp.
In addition, during the primary, one of her primary opponents accused Dr. Miller-Meeks of performing an abortion. SHE IS AN OPHTHALMOLOGIST (an eye doctor)….so she certainly never did it (as she stated). It’s amazing how people like Kim Lehman worked so hard to destroy good candidates.
Sure, Dr. Miller-Meeks is a moderate, but so is the 2nd district. This is the same district Jim Leach represented so well for 30 years. She is perfect for the 2nd CD and will represent them far better than Loebsack ever could.
Vote for Dr. Miller-Meeks.
MMM is intelligent, well spoken, and reasonable. Deace is none of those. No wonder he’s leading the crusade against her. Jealousy.
She’s the perfect Republican to run in that district. Deace’s logic is, as usual, flawed. Ronald Reagan would have lost against The Accidental Congressman in 2008. Deace has the political savvy of the Michael Dukakis campaign.
Mariannette is not a moderate. I’d put her more as a Constitutional populist. She’s very inline with the 912 and Tea Party groups. Her problem with many is that she’s not a mile-wide-inch-deep pitchfork pounder who knows all the right conservative buzzwords and when to throw out the red meat. She’s articulate and goes beyond slogans to a deeper understanding of the issues and strives for policy solutions in line with the Constitution, not just throwing out lines for the GOP in-crowd.
This bothers Theocrats like Steve Deace because him and his ilk are about power, control, dogma and a hierarchical society of unquestioned religious leaders and enforcement of Biblical morality in American society. That’s why they love the GOP Platform so much, because they get their ringers in at caucus time as convention delegates so that they can shape a platform in their image, whether it’s Constitutional or not. They want to tack on their own set of religious rules to each issue and govern our daily lives with them. Not the most freedom oriented people on the planet.
Steve’s changed his rhetoric a bit of late though to more mention of the Constitution and a little less of the Platform now that the Tea Partiers and 912er s have gained prominence. He knows the butts of the religious right groups are on the downhill side, and is trying to shore up the support by rebranding things in a more Constitutional light. I can’t think of a more disingenuous person in the GOP family right now or more of an absolute political idiot..
On her clash-for-clunkers blog post, I get what she’s saying. She’s not saying it’s a good program as is, but that the principle of putting more money in taxpayer hands is. She knows it’s seriously flawed, but it was still closer to actual stimulus than anything else Obama has done. However, if it was set up as a simple tax credit on our 1040’s for everyone who bought a new car versus the red tape version we actually got, most of would be saying ‘hell yeah.’ Let’s not get so hungry for red meat we don’t listen to the principle behind what is actually being said.
What everyone really needs to do is actually listen to her versus what others are saying about her. Get your info first hand. You might be surprised how much you think like her.
Dease is NOT a Republican!!! He’s too good to be a Republican. There are sinners in the Republican party.
“What can she do? What would you suggest she do as a member of congress in the minority? Bring up Roe v Wade for a vote? Doesn’t work like that and you know it.” – Jeff
Well, I would propose that she could draw up legislation such as this, “human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (2) the term “person” shall include all such human life. “
As far as the platorm goes, I would suggest this. If we don’t want to observe whats in the platform, especially the very first plank, than maybe we shouldn’t call ourselves republicans. In the end, what does being a republican mean, without a platform or any stated principles at all? Why don’t we just call ourselves members of party B?
Nice quote CT! Sanctity of Life Act of 2009 is a well written piece of legislation.
I thought you might like that bunce
Although I did fail to give proper credit. That piece of legislation was in fact written by Ron Paul
Doesn’t the platform change every two years?
I believe it is completely rewritten every 2 years, however the content has been pretty consistent for many years.
But it’s not exactly the same. It changes. So essentially you’re asking our candidates and elected officials to essentially shift their principles around every two years when a new platform is passed, regardless what is passed.
And if the platform disagrees with the Constitution?
If we ask our Officials to shift principles, or to take positions opposed to the Constitution, then Shame On Us, and if they comply then, Shame On Them.
Additionally, I don’t think anyone expects any candidate to agree 100% with the Platform. I would like to see everyone that runs with an (R) after their name, read through the Platform, plank by plank, and respond to every plank. It would take 2 hours more or less.
Finally, they should be at their caucuses, and conventions promoting delegates that support their positions, to make certain the Platform aligns with their principles.
There are people in this state who expect just that, regardless of the issues I’ve mentioned in my last post. I have had more than one argument to that effect. That is a popular theme on the various social conservative websites. They expect it because they are part of the attempt to hijack the process by getting their people as delegates and officials to the conventions, so that they can create a document to their liking to browbeat candidates and officials into submission.
And when commentators like Steve Deace, knowing where he comes from and who he represents, gets on his 50,000 watt microphone and on a regular basis tells us all that the platform should be followed without even mentioning the Constitution (till the Tea Partiers came on that is), I know exactly what he’s really saying and what really is going on. They want to add to and circumvent our Constitution with some kind of so-called ‘We the People’ movement that isn’t really much more than going back to the structure resembling that of the Puritans in colonial Massachusetts.
And as a freedom loving Constitutionalist, that really, REALLY bothers me.
Matt –
So let me see if I can encapsulate how you feel on the subject…The republican candidate shouldn’t be held to any kind of written description of the this supposed party stands for. That the republican candidate should continue to promote whatever he or she thinks he or she ought to do, all the while cloaking him or herself in a label that to some stands for something and as such will support. And in the end, the republican candidate will stand for…well not really anything, but hopefully we’ll have more ‘R’s than ‘D’s and all will be good.
Does that about sum it up?
And if the Platform disagrees with the Constitution? Who trumps?
If this year we put a flat tax plank in the platform, and in two years a national sales tax, and two years later abolish all income and sales taxes, which one is the candidate/official to follow? Or if all three get voted in the same year? What then? Or if we have two or more contradictory planks get voted in? Which one are they to follow then?
If it’s a county or state govt issue, are our congressional candidates supposed to abide by that. Which platform trumps if they contradict, the state, district or county? If I am in district A in county B, do I have to follow those too?
What about those seeking to manipulate the process to their point of view? What about deals and horse trading at the convention? Not to mention other under-the-table shenanigans?
Are you for real?
Please Matt, what action do you propose in each of your scenarios? It appears to me that your hypotheticals are intended only to cause conflict. I have no interest in engaging in baseless quarrels. If you have legitimate questions, or if you are really searching for a specific answer or principle, please expound. As for my general answer…
The purpose of the organization shall be to conduct the activities of the Republican Party of {location}, to promote Republican principles and policies and to cooperate and assist in the conduct of national, state and local elections in support of the Republican ticket.
This is a judgement call that has to be made by each entity (individual, PAC, municipality, county, state, national, etc.) We will cross that bridge when we come to it.
Matt – I doubt you will find two individuals that regularly post on this site, more dedicated to the ideals of the Constitution that CT and I. I assume based on posts that we are both also engaged in internal Party mechanisms promoting “conservative” constitutional principles, and working to get those principles into the Party Platform. I also assume that both CT and I acknowledge the authority of a Creator\Savior we are accountable to, and therefor we also defer to His judgement as explained in His revealed Word. I see no conflict between God’s revealed Word and the US Constitution. I can support both with the same certainty and fervor without concern of infidelity to either.
Most voters probably have only limited knowledge of what is in a party’s platform and for the most part they probably don’t care. They only know certain limited generalities. Many are of the mistaken idea that RATs care more about the common person than Republicans and yet the Republican party is probably regarded more highly concerning taxes, etc.
The pro-life plank is very important for Republican primary voters–it’s a biggie. Huck winning the caucus is evidence of that. He was weak on illegal immigration which is a major plank in the platform. He also has little problem redistributing wealth but it doesn’t matter to those whose main issue is abortion. Not that he was any stronger on the issue than other candidates, but the perception was there.
belikebunce – Hypotheticals? Have you ever been through a convention process? That’s the very reason they have platform committees – is to eliminate and streamline the many ‘hypotheticals’ you talk about. that occur every cycle. And there is a significant contingent in our party that believe the final document that comes out of that very unwieldy and shifting process should be followed verbatim.
It’s ludicrous on it’s face, and I’m tired of that contingent advancing that argument so they can change the GOP into their own image. THAT is my point. The platform is a good guideline, but not holy scripture. If we need actual documents, we have the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Constitution of Iowa. You start going beyond those and you land in deep water very quickly.
I realize you aren’t one of those who think the platform is all binding. But there are those in the party who do and have very devious ulterior motives for doing so, and are trashing very good candidates like Mariannette because she isn’t some platform doctrinaire. Yet she is very tight with the Constitution in her beliefs, and that’s good enough for me.
Matt –
It seems as though we are on the same side here. I too believe the platform should be ‘blueprint’ so to speak, that defines what a republican is. I would guess though, that we part company when I beleive a candidate represents almost NOTHING in the platform and thus looses my support. ie. John McCain and the recent New York candidate.
I do have some ‘Non-negotiables’ as Deace might say, but beyond those I am very willing to negotiate on who the best candidate might be within the ‘blueprint’ of the republican platform.
In the end, Bunce and I believe that we will answer for our actions and in-actions when we die. We will be judged for what we have done and failed to do in ALL realms of life. Things like the sanctity of life, simply must be fought for in our minds. We absolutely, and I hope I am not speaking out of place here, do NOT want to institute some sort of theocracy.
Well CT that’s because you are reasonable and realistic, but in my position as county co-chair I’m running into a fair and significant number in the GOP social conservative crowd who aren’t either one of those. They won’t say it directly, but the Constitution isn’t good enough for them. That’s why they go rigid on obeying the platform, because they want more.
They want to legislate morality and implement a moral code and thought codes and enforce them via the govt. It sounds very theocratic and makes alot of us in the party who believe the Founders had it right very nervous. They did not set up the country that way for a reason, and I have serious issues with these people and their intentions.
Unfortunately they are also the loudest and most cutthroat contingent in the party. Deace does not help with his 50,000 watt microphone. They trash good candidates on a regular basis, like Mariannette, and even people like Steve King. If Steve King isn’t good enough for you, then you need to take a hard look at yourself and what your motives are.
I cannot get the thought out of my mind that Deace and Salier even suggested a primary against King. They can’t get any more wacko than this. These people are supposed to be our allies. With allies like this, who needs enemies?
Steve King has voted for many unConstitutional bills. That is not “good enough” for me, and with the rhetoric that You are spouting Matt, I find it really hard to believe it is “good enough” for you too.
DVFO – Every candidate needs to be primaried. The Primary is where the Party decides who and what they are. Every Primary pushes the Party to the “Right”. The Party, and every individual candidate is always more conservative, more constitutional, and more in touch with the people when they are involved in a good primary challenge. It never fails, no matter how good a candidate is, he or she gets better during, and because of a heated primary.
So who are you going to challenge?
I have joined a number of individuals in Senator McKinley’s district who have told him in no uncertain terms, that barring redistricting in ‘10 he will be challenged in ‘12.
I expect to see Dick Arnold, and Jim Van Engelenhoven challenged in ‘12 also.
So you’re going to challenge McKinley?
I know that , unless his district is drastically changed following the census, McKinley will be challenged.
Well I am of the belief belikebunce that anyone out of the citizenry who wants to run for office should. I’m not so sure that my Jeffersonian tendencies agrees with your rhetoric though. I think deliberately organizing and reflexively primarying officials for purity’s sake is a dangerous road.
I tend to abhor concentrations of unelected power because over time they tend to become corrupt in some manner. Political kingmakers are near the top of my list. I think the Christian coalition groups are a prime example. We’ve had some serious transparency issues and questionable things going on for years, and now money funneling allegations. Anointed candidates, backstabbing, whisper campaigns, disinformation campaigns, lies and dirty tricks – not particularly Christian stuff.
The other problem that brings is the constant striving for purity brings out the most radical candidates. They tend to shout slogans, throw out red meat, and pound the pitchfork, but they have no real grasp of the issues, can’t raise money, can’t run a campaign, are often ego-driven, and have no concept of time, strategy or tactics. And if they do get elected they are nothing but lone guns who get little done and little stopped.
As with all things in life, striving for perfection brings increasingly marginal returns.
Matt – I never advocated “reflexively primarying officials”. Premeditated primarying of officials for purity however is a good thing. What more should we strive for as a group than purity?
IF, and that is a big if, the Republican Party is a group of people joined together to advance an idealogy, why should we not strive for idealogical purity in the leaders of our Party?
The reasons for primarying the referenced representatives McKinley and King are extremely different. McKinley is supposedly the Republican Senate Minority Leader, yet he leads by differing his Legislative authority to the Supreme Court. He perpetrates the lie that the Supreme Court “didn’t write law. They just ’struck down’ the law by striking 6 words. They’ve done it for 200 years…” The Supreme Court has no such authority!
King on the other hand abuses his authority by voting for Bush’s $146 billion bailout bill. Granted, it appears he learned his lesson, (or atleast played the partisan politics well) and voted against Obama’s TARP, but he still cast an unConstitutional vote. (One of many I am certain, though I have not done the research on each bill, and each vote)
Both need to be challenged in a primary for their infidelity to the Constitution. Both need to either apologize for their votes, and indicate their commitment to changing their behavior before either of them receive another vote from us.
I expect my Representatives to honor their oaths to “uphold and defend the Constitution…”
You’ve perfectly illustrated the problems with solely chasing purity. If I have someone who votes with me 90% of the time, do I try to get him out because of that? What if he is a superior campaigner and an effective legislator, superior at strategy and tactics and advancing the agenda? Am I going to throw them out over a minority of votes I disagree with?
I don’t like the things you listed, but I have to look at the effectiveness of advancing the agenda as well as the purity of the agenda. Purity means squat if you can’t advance it. And almost no candidate will ever be pure, so by de facto you will reflexively be primarying them. Primarying people like McKinley and King is poor strategy and a waste of resources that weakens the fight as a whole because those resources could go to a candidate where a vulnerable liberal Democrat is seated. You win battles and you lose the war.
That’s the kind of short sightedness that I see out of that wing of the party. Penny smart, pound foolish. All you guys are doing is shooting yourself in the foot. Whether we like it or not we are at war and we got to do the best we can for purity, but be smart in the way we do it or it is all for nothing.
So Bunce….are you rejecting the precedent that was set with Marbury v. Madison?
If that’s the case…you need to think about for a minute just what would be the case if the Supreme Court did not have judicial review.
Brown v. Board of Education–would not have been able to end segregation
Texas v. Johnson—freedom of speech could be curtailed by the state
Regents v. Bakke–quota systems based on race would be allowed
Gideon v. Wainwright–people could be denied appropriate counsel in court
I could continue listing example after example if you continue to assert that the “Court has no authority” to judicial review.
You may not like what the Iowa Sup Ct. did with Varnum…but the precedent for a court to apply judicial review to a law that is deemed to violate the Constitution is something that quite frankly isn’t going to go away.
You want to change Varnum..great..get a Constitutional amendment passed.
Also Bunce..you are COMPLETELY incorrect on your assertion that Steve King voted for the Bush bailout bill.
On October 3, 2008–Steve King voted NO on the Emergency Economic Stabilization bill of 2008. (Roll Call vote 681) Nice try Bunce..but you don’t know what you’re talking about.
I think Bunce what bothers me most about the Deace contingent of the GOP is, if I were looking at this strategically, I would be spending my resources primarying moderate to liberal GOPers first and foremost. I would ignore the best ones and push them into the leadership. Over time, raise the overall average percentage of agreement with any giving legislator while building a leadership core to keep them all in line. Constantly strive for purity (or whatever goal you’re after) by going after the bottom feeders first.
But you guys don’t do that. You seem to fight hardest against guys like McKinley or King. Why? It’s strategically stupid. There’s plenty better candidates out there. But I know why guys like Deace do it – they want to be the kingmakers and the ideological kingpins on the block. It’s not about advancing the agenda, it’s about power, position, and control. It’s about being top dog, about being the one telling people what to do and remaking society into their image.
The McKinley’s and Kings of the world are a threat to that because they are powers in their own right and not beholden to a Deace or one of his ilk. It’s nothing but the typical factional infighting you see in purity movements regardless of what they believe in. Ultimately the slice each other to death till no one is left and the opposition takes over in the vacuum left. Might as well put the political pistol to your brain and pull the trigger.
No thanks.
All of the United States, except of the state of Louisiana, as well as pretty much every country that traces it’s legal heritage through the British Empire, uses the Common Law system which gives great weight to legal precedent.
Any country that traces it’s legal heritage through continental Europe, such as Spain, France, Portugal, or Denmark, use the Civil Law system, which accepts little to no influence to precedent at all.
Louisiana, Quebec, South Africa, and a few others use a mixture of the two systems due to having changed hands between England or the US and Continental European powers during their history.
Other legal systems exist such as Customary Law, which is used in Mongolia and still influences law in Scandinavia, and Fiqh law, which is used in most Islamic countries.
Hawk – You’re right. I mislabeled the bill. I was referring to HR5140 the Recovery Rebates and Economic Stimulus for the American People Act of 2008, which authorized the payment of tax rebates to people who had not necessarily paid taxes. It also increased the amount of Federal Funds being appropriated to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans. Both of these are unConstitutional expenditures of the Public Treasury.
As to Marbury v. Madison… Marshall himself in the majority opinion undermined his own position by stating that “questions [that are] in their nature political… CAN NEVER BE MADE IN THIS COURT.” Deciding on the Constitutionality of a Law is political by its very nature, because it requiring interpreting the Constitution, and different people interpret the same text of the Constitution differently based on their political viewpoints.
However, the “precedent” set by this ruling is not particularly relevant since it was a case discussing the legality of a State law that violated the US Constitution, not a State law that supposedly violated the State Constitution. As I have said before, since Varnum and others sued the Polk Count Recorder for a marriage license, based on the presumption that they were violating the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution, and the County Recorder didn’t contest the Courts authority to hear the case, both Varnum and the Polk County Recorder subjected themselves to the final authority of the ISSC in their dispute. ISSC ruled in favor of Varnum for that case. The Polk County Recorder had already conceded that they would issue the marriage license to Varnum, and the other couple in the case, based on the ruling of the ISSC.
That however does not mean that the ISSC can legislate from the bench by striking 6 words from the Iowa Code, and execute from the bench by instructing every County Recorder in the state to issue marriage licenses in violation of DOMA ‘98, and amend the Constitution\Iowa Code further by stating that “the remaining statutory languagemust be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage.”
I don’t want to change Varnum v Brien. It cannot be changed. The ruling stands because all parties involved submitted themselves to the authority of the ISSC. And I don’t want to amend the Constitution because the definition of a civil contract is not a constitutional issue.
Matt – Again… IF, and that is a big if, the Republican Party is a group of people joined together to advance an idealogy, why should we not strive for idealogical purity in the leaders of our Party?
If we as a movement wish to claim any type of integrity we must hold our leaders to the highest possible standard.
belikebunce – Since Iowa follows the “Common Law” system then the ruling in Varnum vs Brian sets precedent for all same-sex couples seeking a marriage license in Iowa.
VV – I don’t know enough about law to validate that claim, and forgive me if I don’t take your impartial, completely neutral word for it. There are several very well know Constitutional experts in Iowa who would vehemently disagree with you, and I will chose to trust them until such time as I have a chance to research your claims.
You’ve completely evaded my argument Bunce because you know I have you in the crosshairs. Let’s just cut to it – the Deace contingent has self-anointed, self-appointed itself as the unelected GOP arbiters of purity. They have a pretense of authority when they in actuality have none. Half the time they don’t even have a good argument. They have questionable motivations at best and they apply tactics that betray those motivations. They aren’t doing this for purity, they are doing this to be kingmakers and for their own personal power.
Which means you don’t exactly pass my Jeffersonian sense of purity. That’s the problem when you try and apply a standard of purity – someone may come along and trump your standard with theirs and start hacking you up. I’m not going to do that, but I’ll do my best to fight the Deace Theocrat contingent at election time with whatever means possible. Thankfully there is a third wing in this party rising up who agrees with me.
I certainly don’t expect you to take my word for it.
Would you however believe the Encyclopedia Britannica?
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/128386/common-law
the body of customary law, based upon judicial decisions and embodied in reports of decided cases, that has been administered by the common-law courts of England since the Middle Ages. From it has evolved the type of legal system now found also in the United States and in most of the member states of the Commonwealth (formerly the British Commonwealth of Nations). In this sense common law stands in contrast to the legal system derived from civil law, now widespread in continental Europe and elsewhere.
The entry also states…
Under the common-law system, when a court decides and reports its decision concerning a particular case, the case becomes part of the body of law and can be used in later cases involving similar matters. This use of precedents is known as stare decisis.
Also, from the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia…
Body of law based on custom and general principles and that, embodied in case law, serves as precedent or is applied to situations not covered by statute. Under the common-law system, when a court decides and reports its decision concerning a particular case, the case becomes part of the body of law and can be used in later cases involving similar matters. This use of precedents is known as stare decisis. Common law has been administered in the courts of England since the Middle Ages; it is also found in the U.S. and in most of the British Commonwealth. It is distinguished from civil law.
And here is a link to more defining information.
http://www.answers.com/topic/common-law
I’m not arguing about the Deace contingent. Deace doesn’t speak for me, and I am not going to debate his agenda.
I asked you a very specific question and you completely ignored it. That is why I restated it. I also identified specific examples of our Leaderships failures. To my knowledge neither King has not demonstrated regret for his unConstitutional vote, and I know that McKinley has not changed his views on Varnum. If you want to have this discussion lets have it about my statements, since you replied to my comment.
FYI – I also abhor concentration of power in the hands of unelected individuals. However, Deace has only the power of his voice, and Deace is actually an elected individual. We live in a free market where radio talk show hosts are employed based on their ratings. He only has a voice when people listen to him. He is currently saying what many Iowans already believe, that is why people listen to him. People listen to talk shows that entertain or inform them, either because they agree, or in spite of the fact that they disagree. I happen to like a lot of what Deace says, but just like every other person, I disagree with him in places, and in places, he is down right wrong.
Lets discuss issues, not individuals. Lets discuss verifiable actions, not blanket accusations.
The Encyclopedia Britannica (current) is by no means an authoritative source on controversial political issues. Additionally, your quote says “From it [common law] has evolved the type of legal system now found also in the United States”. It says nothing about the intent of the Constitutional Framers.
The idea of judicial precedent and case law, (an evolving body of laws that change over time, and evolve as society evolves) was virtually unheard of prior to the common acceptance of Darwin’s evolutionary theory. Prior to that, at least in our culture, the body of the law rested in natural law, as revealed to us through nature, and Nature’s God.
Deace is hardly elected and not much more than a parasite as far as I’m concerned. He uses his position to draw power to himself, build factions, and then abuses it. He attacks from the top down, if he were really concerned about helping the changing things he’d attack from the bottom up. He’s going after his competitors, not his opposition. You are flirting with the same thing by playing his purity game.
You have completely avoided my arguments and I’ve answered yours adequately. I am not going to go after a King while there is a Jim Leach still in office. Or worse, a Dave Loebsack in office. You keep pressing the purity point but you’re blowing the applicational one. You’re arguments are academic, they are winning the battle and losing the war.
Which makes your strategy completely ineffective and less than worthless. You will come out of it completely pure and completely defeated by the socialists and accomplish exactly nothing. I’m not interested in Pyrrhic victories.
I have no knowledge of Leach (who is no longer in office) nor Loebsack (not a Republican). I will cannot be equally hard on Loebsack because he does not claim to have the same values I do.
I hold Congressman Boswell accountable for representing MY values, because he is My representative. I am not going to call our Loebsack, the Democrat congressman from another district the same way I will Boswell, my congressman, or King, our Republican Poster Child.
I care about strategy. I really do, but I can’t call for primarying Boswell or Loebsack can I? I can’t debate the actions of Boswell or Loebsack on TheIowaRepublican can I? How can I apply my standards to holding “the other side” accountable?
What does Darwin and the process of biological evolution have to do with the creation of legal systems?
The process of common law, where precedent holds weight dates back to midevil England, well before Darwain was even born.
The United States, being originally a British Colony borrowed heavily from the British courts, since British Courts are basically what existed in the US at the time of Independence.
The definition of what Common Law is or is not is not politically controversial or subject to interpretation. It’s simple fact, and what Common Law is can be found any dictionary or encyclopedia you want to choose as an authoritative source.
The only thing controversial is whether we should be using Common Law as opposed to some other legal system such as Civil Law. Like it or not, we currently use Common Law in the United States except for in Louisiana, where they use a mixture of Common Law and Civil Law, due to that states influence by both British and French legal systems.
“The Encyclopedia Britannica (current) is by no means an authoritative source on controversial political issues. Additionally, your quote says “From it [common law] has evolved the type of legal system now found also in the United States”. It says nothing about the intent of the Constitutional Framers.
The idea of judicial precedent and case law, (an evolving body of laws that change over time, and evolve as society evolves) was virtually unheard of prior to the common acceptance of Darwin’s evolutionary theory. Prior to that, at least in our culture, the body of the law rested in natural law, as revealed to us through nature, and Nature’s God.”
- Wow. Good grief. This has what Deace in the Afternoon has done to many Iowans.
Mr. Hawk – My statements and opinions on the basis of law is far older than “Deace in the Afternoon”
You all give Steve Deace FAR too much credit.
VV – I will state again…
“There are several very well know Constitutional experts in Iowa who would vehemently disagree with you, and I will chose to trust them until such time as I have a chance to research your claims.”
Winston Churchill, in THE BIRTH OF BRITAIN vol 1 of HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLES attributes the birth of Common Law to King Alfred of the late 9th Century.
Bunce, seriously, do you even grasp how insular and provincial your thinking is? Are you really saying you’d go after King before Loebsack? Are they not both representatives in the same branch of the Congress in the same govt under the same Constitution? Why would you go after the best before you go after the worst?
The problem with your thinking is that there isn’t an unlimited pool of money and manpower in the GOP to elect candidates. That’s why you need to prioritize. You ignore a Loebsack simply because he’s not in your district and not a Republican in favor of a King when both are in the same House of Representatives. You can give all your high and eloquent reasonings for that, but it’s not going to do a darn thing unless you can change the makeup of the entire body so that our side is in the majority. You’re simply replacing one good conservative with a slightly better one. Net gain is zero. The Congress is a national body, you have to think nationally if you are ever going to advance the cause. And you have to think Statewide if you are ever going to control the Iowa legislature.
So you spend all this money to get King out while Loebsack goes unopposed. Which means your making the Democrats the majority forever because there’s not enough money and manpower for some other good GOP candidate that could have beaten Loebsack. Or if we do ever get back a majority, all the good conservatives like King are out, and the ones in the leadership are ones like McCain, Snowe, Collins, Voinovich because they have tenure and we spent all this time primarying good conservatives out of office. Same thing at the state level. Self-inflicted political defeat for conservatives once again.
You can say you care about strategy, but I don’t see it. What I see is you getting into personal pissing contests over purity. It seems ego-driven to me, trying to prove you’re more pure and take down a big fish like King. I think Bunce you’re more interested in being a player than accomplishing a goal. I’m not interested in your personal agendas.
Any expert in US constitutional law worth his weight understands what Common Law is and how it applies the US legal system and the heritage it shares going back to Midevil England, at least to the Norman conquest in 1066.
What a great article, excellent analysis and thorough informaiton. And what a great discussion. Just had to say that.
I feel like I can take both views and di-angulate on the best answer. Purity is noble, but people will never agree on a single standard to define it. So we form groups with purity of views, at least as close to purity as we can tolerate. The problem is when a group thinks itself morally superior, gains some power and inevitably tries to control all the other groups; forgetting the opposition there in the distance, waiting for us to weaken each other before they make the kill. … I think we’re better off with a lesser standard of purity in favor of strength against the real opposition. As the standard of purity goes up, so does the likelihood of corruption and infighting that makes us weaker. Yes, I’m inherently biased against extreme social conservatives, but its not because of views, its because, from every way I look at this thing it is the same answer, they are the ones who have gained some power and see themselves as morally superior, and indeed are trying to control everyone in the camp. The thing is, when they control the camp, we experience elections like 2006 and 2008.
The Spirit of Common Law by Roscoe Pound Copyright 1921 Pg 1 (The entire book can be read online at Google Books)
“Perhaps no institution of the modern world shows such vitality and tenacity as our Anglo-American legal tradition which we call the common law. Although it is essentially a mode of judicial and juristic thinking, a mode of treating legal problems rather than a fixed body of definite rules, it succeeds everywhere in molding rules, whatever their origin, into accord with its principles and in maintaining those principles in the face of formidable attempts to overthrow or to supersede them. In the United States it survives the huge mass of legislation that is placed annually upon our statute books and gives to it form and consistency. Nor is it less effective in competition with law of foreign origin. Louisiana alone of the states carved from the Louisiana purchase preserves the French Law. “