HD 8: Richards or Shaw? It Depends on What you are Looking For

Monday, February 15, 2010, 10:09
Iowa, News Center, Top Story
1,433 views
17 comments

HD8 On Friday night, I had the pleasure of moderating a candidate forum between Dr. Steve Richards and Tom Shaw, the two candidates vying for the Republican nomination in house district eight. Currently, the district is represented by 22 year incumbent Rep. Dolores Mertz, a conservative Democrat.

House district eight has a Democratic voter registration advantage. Registered Democrats outnumber registered Republican 6,269 to 5,772, but as is the case in a lot of legislative districts, “no party” voters outnumber both political parties. House district eight has 8,396 no party voters. Despite the Democratic voter registration edge, John McCain defeated President Obama in the district. McCain received 7,641 votes compared to Obama’s 6,974 votes.

Dr. Richards, who ran against Rep. Mertz in 2008, came within 40 votes of defeating Mertz in 2008. At the forum on Friday night, Richard told the audience numerous times that he didn’t lose to Mertz, he lost to Obama. Like a lot of other legislative races, the Obama campaign and Iowa Democrats out-worked Republicans on early voting, meaning a lot of candidates like Richards won on Election Day, but ultimately lost their races.

The forum drew a crowd of 50-60 people who were willing to spend two hours on a Friday night peppering the candidates with questions. The crowd asked questions ranging from how to grow rural communities, second amendment rights, and who the candidates support for governor. One of the more lengthy discussions focused on people’s second amendment rights.

One of the attendees asked Richards why he received an “F” grade from the NRA. Richards said that he has contacted the NRA about his grade and is working with them to change it. He admitted that the “F” grade was the result of comments that he made refereeing that an AK-47 was an assault rifle. Richard’s then recounted his first-hand account of the 1987 Dreesman murders in Algona.

Richards was the medical examiner on the scene. It was obvious that what Richards saw that day left an indelible mark on his life. Robert Dressman killed both of his parents, his sister, and her three young children before talking his own life. A time magazine article about shooting described what happened.

Police and the Iowa division of criminal investigation quickly reconstructed what had happened. A few serving dishes had been passed, and the six family members were just beginning to eat when Robert appeared in the dining-room doorway, pointing a high-powered, semiautomatic rifle. Firing short bursts, he swung the rifle barrel right around the table. Nobody had time to move. They all died within 30 seconds. Then he stepped back into the hallway, picked up a shotgun he had left there, pushed the barrel up under his chin, and blew his brains out.

For a while on Friday night, second amendment issues dominated the forum. Dr. Richards said he supports a person’s right to bear arms for hunting and self defense, but he also thinks that people need to go through proper background checks before they are allowed a permit to carry a firearm in public. It was obvious that the Dressman killings, in which mental illness was a factor, has an ongoing impact on his position. Tom Shaw, on the other hand, simply took out a copy of the U.S. Constitution from his suit pocket and said that’s the only license he needs to carry a firearm.

The differences between Dr. Richards and Mr. Shaw go further than just the 2nd Amendment. The candidates were asked if they would support certifying non-nurse midwives. Richards asked probing questions about the proposed certification and training processes, while Shaw simply said he would support them because he objects to the government’s intrusion to people’s lives. When asked who they support for governor, Dr. Richards said Branstad, while Shaw was a Vander Plaats fan. I’m sure that if one had said that his favorite colors was white, the other would have surely answered black.

In determining which of the two candidates did the best, it depends what you are looking for. If you are looking for a candidate who will stick to their core convictions and adhere strictly to our founding documents for the most part, then Tom Shaw speaks your language. If you are looking for a candidate who has a deep understanding of economic development and health care issues, then Dr. Richards is probably your kind of candidate.

Following the forum, people were encouraged to participate in a straw poll. Each vote costs a dollar and you could vote for either Dr. Richards or Mr. Shaw. They also held a straw poll for the gubernatorial race. Shaw won the HD 8 straw poll 22 to 0 and Vander Plaats won the gubernatorial straw poll with 12 votes.

It was apparent before the event even started that the crowd was pro Shaw. Making matters worse for Richards was the fact that Shaw handed out a voter guide to everyone who attended that made some statements about where Richards stood on a number of issues. That made an already lopsided event even more contentious for Richards.

I think that Dr. Richards should be commended for being willing to participate in Friday’s forum. He wasn’t on his turf, and his opponent had the home field advantage. Many times, the questions asked were really only directed at Richards. Nevertheless, Richard dealt with the tough questions and answered everyone’s inquiries honestly, even when it was apparent it was not what they wanted to hear.

The primary in house district eight will be a spirited affair. With four months to go until the primary, there is a lot of campaigning to be done before the race can be called. Forums like the one on Friday night are helpful in providing the people of the district with an idea of where the candidates stand on issues. Not only do the people in Pocahontas know where the candidates stand on local issues like taxes, spending, gay marriage, and 2nd amendment rights, but they also know what their candidates think about President Obama’s healthcare proposal, cap and trade, and other issues.

Tags: Dolores Mertz, Iowa House, Republican, Republican Primary, Steve Richards, Tom Shaw

About the Author

Craig Robinson has written 700 stories on this site.

Craig Robinson serves as the founder and Editor-in-Chief of TheIowaRepublican.com. Prior to founding Iowa's largest conservative news site, Robinson served as the Political Director of the Republican Party of Iowa during the 2008 Iowa Caucuses. In that capacity, Robinson planned and organized the largest political event in 2007, the Iowa Straw Poll, in Ames, Iowa. Robinson also organized the 2008 Republican caucuses in Iowa, and was later dispatched to Nevada to help with the caucuses there. Robinson cut his teeth in Iowa politics during the 2000 caucus campaign of businessman Steve Forbes and has been involved with most major campaigns in the state since then. His extensive political background and rolodex give him a unique perspective from which to monitor the political pulse of Iowa.

17 Comments on “HD 8: Richards or Shaw? It Depends on What you are Looking For”

HawkCR1 wrote on 15 February, 2010, 10:53
Craig,

Who assembled this forum?? From the looks of it..its looks like this was more of a Vander Plaats event than it was candidate forum. Mr. Richards needs to learn how to negotiate ground rules a little better…
Craig Robinson wrote on 15 February, 2010, 11:04
It was organized by the Pocahontas County GOP. Their central committee is supportive of Tom Shaw and have been pretty clear about that.
HawkCR1 wrote on 15 February, 2010, 11:21
Ah yes..the Central Committee that has passed a resolution stating that they will NOT support a candidate if they feel a candidate isn’t “pure” enough conservatively for them…even if that candidate is duly elected by the voters.

Personally, I feel a Central Committee should NEVER get involved in a primary…that’s for the voters to decide…
electshaw2010 wrote on 15 February, 2010, 11:52
Craig,

I’d like to point out a few things about the article:

Dr. Richards had every opportunity to invite his supporters to attend this event. I had supporters that drove from the Algona area … he could have also.

Concerning the signs displayed on the wall, Chairman Ryan would have posted signs from every campaign … it is not his fault that even though requested, the campaigns (Richards included) did not provided him with signs.

Dr. Richards had the same opportunity to prepare a Voter Guide as I did. The guide that I prepared was fact-based and backed-up with documentation. I will be updating and posting this guide on my website so that Republican voters can see. As this is a Republican primary, I believe that Republican voters should see that Richards follows the Democrat platform more than the Republican platform. By the way, he never disputed any of the information on that voter guide.

He was not honest when it came to the subject of embryonic stem cell research … he said it was illegal in Iowa. He admitted to being on the Legislative Committee of the Iowa Academy of Family Physicians in 2007. IAFP supported this bill and Governor Culver signed SF 162 in 2007. It is of note that the Iowa House Republicans fought a bitter fight against this bill while Richards was lobbying for its passage.

This is what the 2008 Republican platform states concerning this issue:
1. We support the use of non-embryonic stem cells to advance modern medical research. We oppose somatic cell nuclear transfer (human cloning), embryonic stem cell research, human fetal-tissue research from induced abortions, and the commercial use or sale of fetal parts.
2. We strongly urge that the 2002 Human Cloning Ban, which was repealed in the 2007 Iowa Legislature, be reinstated.
Iowans for L.I.F.E. has this to say on the subject:

The “Stem Cell and Cures Initiative,” SF162, was created and passed last session to lift the ban on human cloning research in Iowa. The only form of stem cell research banned in the state of Iowa before the bill’s passage was stem cell research which would require human cloning research.
Every other form of stem cell research performed nation-wide, including embryonic stem cell research, was legal in Iowa before the bill’s passage. What was not legal was research to create cloned human embryos as a source of stem cells for research. A stem cell treatment requiring stem cells from an individual’s cloned human embryo exists only in theory, and is, at best, a decade or more in the future.
Supporters of SF162 maintain that the cloning procedure it now specifically makes legal for human use—SCNT, the cloning procedure used to produce Dolly, the sheep—is not human cloning. Opponents, and the scientific community, deny the logic of such a statement. Human SCNT research, as defined and allowed by SF162, is performed with the intent of creating viable, early-stage human embryos for experimentation. An early-stage embryo, whether cloned or not, must be created, and exist, before it can produce embryonic stem cells. A human embryo is the exclusive source of human embryonic stem cells, despite the claims of supporters of the SF162.

Tom
Conservative Demo wrote on 15 February, 2010, 11:59
It must be frustrating for a candidate who is lucid, speaks in full, complete, well-linked sentences, and who responds with well thought out reasoned concepts and proposals, to have a crowd that is totally enamored over a cliche-speaking, sound-byte thinking Constitution-waving troglodyte.

On the other hand, probably best for the demos of that district.
Lock and load wrote on 15 February, 2010, 14:45
I agree! Central Committee’s and County leaders need to stay out endorsing or making it known that they support any candidate! The same thing is going on in Lee County!
desmoinesdem wrote on 15 February, 2010, 15:20
Thanks for posting this. I’ve been wondering what happened at that forum. This is going to be one of the weirdest statehouse races in Iowa this year.
ConservativeThinker wrote on 15 February, 2010, 15:25
I too dislike the idea of a central committee supporting a particular candidate during a primary campaign, but I’m not sure I feel the same way about principles. There are some, for instance, that may like the idea of a central committee making it known that republican candidates should support republican primary winners as a matter of principle. This principle, for them, helps define what it means to be republican. I too would like central committees to take actions or positions like that. Say for instance, that candidates should support every plank in the platform, because if we don’t support the platform then what does it mean to be republican?
HawkCR1 wrote on 15 February, 2010, 15:58
CT..

Name me a major political candidate of EITHER party that has abided by EVERY part of their party’s platform? Republican platforms since nearly the beginning of the party have opposed raising taxes..but Ronald Reagan did raise taxes on Social Security and Medicare…so does that mean that Reagan should have been thrown out of the party because of his actions?

JFK advocated income tax cuts and a strong national defense, yet the Democratic Party platform has universally advocated for keeping taxes high and less defense spending…didn’t see the Democrats demanding an end to Camelot because of JFK’s positions.

A party’s platform is a statement of philosophies..They are NOT a rulebook of what every candidate who runs under a party’s banner must support.

The purpose of a County Central Committee is simple…build the party at the local level. A Central Committee’s role is NOT to pick and choose which candidates it “prefers”. That role is left up to the rank and file voters on primary day. After a primary…the role of the Central Committee is simple…Win elections for its candidates.

Interference in a primary race only does one thing–create divisions with a county party structure.

That is where quite frankly, Pocahontas County is treading onto VERY thin ice here with its actions. Stating that they will NOT work for candidates that they don’t think are “pure” enough conservatively for them…even the candidate is duly nominated by Republican voters…is a recipe for disaster.
ConservativeThinker wrote on 15 February, 2010, 16:16
Hawk,

I would agree that we should support republicans that are duly elected by their primary voters..if we could agree with what a ‘republican’ is. You see, I, and I think many others, prefer to vote for a candidate that most closely resembles to them the ideals of the Republican party.

Now, you may say that the winner defines what the party is, but I would bet a lot of republican voters are not attracted to the party because of who won an election but rather by ideals espoused by the party. If candidate continue to stray from party ideals, what exactly are we left with? A party that stands for absolutely nothing, save winning.
Michael Ryan wrote on 15 February, 2010, 16:16
Now to clear things up or start even more posting wars.
First and foremost Dr. Richards did have every opportunity to have supporters there for the straw poll. When I contacted him I offered him (like Tom) a chance to come early use a table for posting materials or bringing volunteers early to help meet the crowd. He didn’t want to take that opportunity, so that is his problem not mine or the committees. I even asked for a campaign sign from him, he had no material with him. He had over one month to help make the guidelines for this townhall. He didn’t help with most the ground rules. If he feels he walked into a trap, he easily could have made rules. So much for the poor Dr. Richards being set up. I worked openly with both of them to help set ground rules. Dr. Richards could have easily at any time requested more. My phone and door was open to helping both candidates advance their ideas. It’s not my doing that Dr. Richards decided to not take it.
As for the BVP signs, I asked every campaign for signs only BVP got back to me with signs. If they don’t supply me with signs then I can’t post there sign.
Now for me personally I was nuetral I did not make any private emails or private calls to encourage people to come and support Tom in this forum. I even refrained from asking questions. If Dr. Richards brought more supporters for the straw poll and forum I would have been excited, this was a part fundraiser for the county. Yes, Tom is very good friend but I left him open to getting hammered and vetted as well due the fact it helps out candidates. I didn’t know how many were going to come or what issues were going to be brought up. This was 100 % audience driven.
As for items missing in the article, Dr. Richards admitted to giving 500 dollars to Tom Harkin in 2007 when questioned. He defended it by saying that is how you get your foot in the door to lobby them. He admitted that it was probably bribery but wasn’t really sorry about. Nothing like giving money to a guy who will advance the left wing agenda the GOP and other conservatives are fighting. You can ask Craig and he might show that video clip. He never disputed the FEC report where he gave 500 dollars to Act Blue in 2006. I couldn’t make him say the remarks he did about the second amendment. He hung himself on that one.
Now for some of those gutless anonymous bloggers who want to talk about the committee. Hawk CR1 (Mr. Versteegh) you are still upset about my local committees decision isn’t it time you just get over it. I don’t tell other county committees how to run there committee and then go out and attack from behind a computer name. I figure local committee can run their committee how they want provided it’s not against RNC rules or the RPI Constitution. A little fact on the forum, 65% of those attendance are not part of the central committee these are visitors who came on their own to the forum. The one constant remark I heard from those who came they felt Richards came off as arrogant. But it was a good issue oriented event and it gave people in attendance a chance to see a difference in candidates.
For the record if you look at that “endorsement” that we gave it was actually a resolution of thanks if you take time to read it.

Michael Ryan
Pocahontas County GOP Chairman
Musicman wrote on 15 February, 2010, 17:38
As an attendee of this forum I’m puzzled by this article. I found Dr. Richards arrogant and rude. At one point in time he referred to the audience by saying “I’ll answer the question, but you won’t understand what I’m saying.” I turned to my wife and asked if he just called us stupid? He was insulting to Rep. Mertz when he referred to her as “She’s OLD” and he came across as with an attitude that his crap is ice cream and everyone should have a double dip.

Richards basically admitted to bribing a public official when he referred to his contribution to one of the most liberal democratic Senators in the country. He never did explain his contribution to ACTBLUE. He referred to himself in his closing statement as honest and trustworthy, yet he lied when he was question about embryonic and stem cell research in the state of Iowa. He stated that he is in favor of term limits and yet he supports ex-governor Branstad who has already served 4 terms and in my mind is not a social or fiscal conservative.
Richards was not prepared for this event and that was quite evident in his responses.

Tom Shaw on the other hand had done his home work. He had prepared a voter guide which was useful for all who attended. It generated questions and made the evening not only educational but an entertaining night. If only we could get an event like this for the candidates for Governor.
Deace voted for Obama wrote on 15 February, 2010, 19:24
Sounds like Shaw is clearly the better choice.
Congratulations on the decision to run as a Republican. Now you have a good chance at victory.