A Stronger Republican Party Emerges From Contentious Convention
- Monday, June 28, 2010, 3:43
- Iowa, News Center, Top Story
- 2,166 views
- 95 comments
Don’t believe what you are reading in the newspaper or what you are seeing on the local news. The Republican Party in Iowa isn’t divided. It’s not coming off of a contentious convention. It matured and now is poised to make huge gains in November.
While the media was focused solely on the nominations for lieutenant governor during Saturday’s convention, they missed all of the signs of a political party that is awakening from a long slumber where it has won nothing because it spent most of its time arguing amongst itself.
What the media missed last weekend was that Republicans coalesced around its leaders. The two individuals responsible for what I believe will be a Republican revival in this state are Terry Branstad, the Republican nominee for governor, and Matt Strawn, the Chairman of the Republican Party of Iowa.
At a meeting of the Republican State Central Committee (SCC) on Friday, Strawn sent a strong message to the SCC members when he put his foot down and demanded that all of the anonymous attempts to discredit party cease immediately. While Strawn has been the chair of the party since January of 2009, Strawn emerged as the leader after Friday’s meeting.
Strawn should also be commended for putting together an outstanding convention. While the credentialing process took too long and the vote for lieutenant governor took more than an hour, overall, the convention was professionally run, and went off without a hitch considering the circumstances.
Branstad deserves credit because he was never afraid to let the delegates nominate people other than who he selected to be his running mate. At his press conference announcing Reynolds as his running mate last Thursday, Branstad indicated that he wouldn’t prevent the delegates from nominating other candidates. He stayed true to his word.
Branstad had a lot on the line at Saturday’s convention. At the Democratic convention that was held a week ago, the Culver campaign pushed for a rule change so that nobody could challenge Patty Judge for lieutenant governor. Branstad could have done something similar, but he chose not to do that.
If Vander Plaats would have been nominated instead of Reynolds, not only would it have been a huge embarrassment, but it also would have thrown his campaign into complete chaos. The Branstad campaign would have had to figure out how to incorporate Vander Plaats in their efforts.
The Branstad campaign could have done things differently. As soon as Reynolds was nominated, the Branstad campaign could have then had someone prepared to make a motion to close nominations, meaning, Rep. Dwayne Alons would have been out of order had he tried to nominate Vander Plaats. It was Branstad himself who didn’t want to gag the convention delegates.
Branstad himself could be seen working the convention floor and was engaged in doing whatever he could to ensure that his nominee was going to be successful. The Branstad campaign was obviously worried, and they had a whip program in place, which helped them be successful on Saturday. I was told that the votes Reynolds received were close to the Branstad campaign’s original whip count.
The Branstad campaign took a relatively unknown State Senator in Reynolds and was able to win a convention vote over Vander Plaats. While many are trying to make hay out of the fact that Branstad’s nominee only received 56% of the vote, Vander Plaats had more supporters than Branstad at the District Conventions, which is why he and his supporters attempted to force their way on to the ticket.
Don’t let anyone fool you, Bob Vander Plaats thought he was going to win on Saturday. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have gone down that road. Having been rejected by the Republican primary voters and now the more conservative convention delegates, Vander Plaats has very few options.
It is my belief that Vander Plaats will eventually run as an independent candidate. In doing so, he will claim that he didn’t leave the party, the party left him. That type of logic is fundamentally flawed, but for a man who has spent more than a decade trying to get elected, why would he stop now?
I come away for the convention upbeat and optimistic about the future of the Republican Party. Finally, it seems as if the Party has some real leadership and is focused on the right thing – winning elections.
While the convention might not have gone off exactly as planned, the Republican Party of Iowa is better off for having gone through what it had to endure on Saturday. Out of adversity, leaders emerge. The most notable such leaders were Terry Branstad and Matt Strawn, but Rod Roberts deserves a mention as well. More on him in a later article.
Photo by Iowa GOP
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.
95 Comments on “A Stronger Republican Party Emerges From Contentious Convention”
Trackbacks
Write a Comment
Gravatars are small images that can show your personality. You can get your gravatar for free today!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
If BVP thinks he gained ANYTHING from his stunt Saturday, he is sadly mistaken. He is DONE in the GOP!!!
The rest of us now have a job to do, and that is working to elect ALL of our Republican candidates. If you are on a county committee and cannot or are unwilling to do so, maybe you should re-consider why you are there and let someone else who is willing to do the job have it!!!
Craig,
You’ve reached a new level of propaganda. Just flat out lie, if you don’t like the truth.
The truth is the the Repugnant Party of Iowa is deeply divided, with a split something along the lines of 55% to 45%. You can try to blow smoke up your readers ass all you want, the party is divided.
This article sounds like something from the old state run newspaper in a totalitarian state. Factory production is up, a large crop is expected, and communists are smarter than capitalists. Bread and circuses for the ignorant masses.
Sorry, its not going to fly.
You only have one other option to keep this canard going. Next I expect you to start deleting all comments which disagree with you utopian dreams.
The party is still divided, and all the lies you can publish aren’t going to change that.
Good article, Craig.
It’s so good to see you mention Rod Roberts. In a way, Rod’s short speech was the highlight of the convention. We saw true statesmanship. We’ll be waiting for your article on Rod.
http://sermons2.redeemer.com/sermons/arguing-about-politics
Here is a treat for all of you Christian Patriots. This is a 2001 sermon from Dr Timothy Keller titled “Arguing about Politics.” So timely…. So convicting.
naturallawlover: You sound like you WANT it to be divided. Maybe you’re part of the wacko “Iowans for Responsible Government” group too. It’s too late, BVP has been repudiated again. Culver and Judge must face Branstad and Reynolds. Too bad.
All partys have division. To expect that a large group such as the GOP of Iowa is going to always agree is stupid. Now what needs to be done is to focus on the things that we agree on and try and accomplish these goals. The only disagreement that I saw Saturday was on who was going to be on the ballot. That is now settled. That is unless what happened was all about BVP and not about issues?
” It was Branstad himself who didn’t want to gag the convention delegates.” That is because, by executive order in 1990, Branstad put into place that the delegates had the final say in who the VP is. Also, the party is divided. 40% of the delegates left before Branstad’s speech. The delegates had Reynold’s shoved down their throats from their hero, Rep. King, who nominated her. Also, robo-calls from Kim Lehman and Steve Scheffler. They also had a note from Kent Sorenson; however, I heard he got played as is upset with Branstad. I heard many delegates didn’t want him on the ticket because BVP would be compromising his principles if he was the Lt. or because they wanted him to run as an indepednent and by being lt, he couldn’t. So I think the numbers would be higher. Finally, the delegates I talked to said the the plan wasn’t to have Bob the Lt., because Reynolds wasn’t seen as the threat, rather it was Branstad. The plan was to have Branstad acknowledge the base and what he would do or say if Bob was nominated would speak volumes. Would he go along with the people or would he sit down and talk to Bob about real conservative issues to unite the party. The conservatives wanted their voice to be heard at the convention and this is how they did it; otherwise, the theme “we are united” would be the elephant in the room.
Actually Stacia, I think Criag is right on this one . . . .”The Republican Party in Iowa isn’t divided.” . . . That’s because all the true conservatives in Iowa have left the party . . . it’s all RINO-cons now . . . and they all agree with the Democrats that we need big, expensive, intrusive nanny state goobermint in Iowa!!
naturallawlover, the little group of BVP holdouts on this site has got to be the most deluded bunch of blowhards I have ever had the misfortune to come in contact with. The idea of a massively divided Republican party is a pure fantasy devised by the Cult of Bob to try and bully the rest of us into thinking they still have any kind of relevancy.
At best, a third to half of the Republicans voted in the primary in any given county. Bob is an activist candidate, those who didn’t vote sure aren’t going to be radical anti-Branstad’ers. You only got 40% of those that did vote, and only took 24 counties.
The convention goers are even more activist than those who vote in the primary. Out of that even smaller percentage of the whole you basically managed to split the Roberts vote evenly and get only 44%. I’m willing to bet if you look at the distribution you’ll find most of BVP’s votes came from a small block of counties. He lost Lee by more than 3 to 1.
Face it, the ‘divided party’ is a bunch of holdouts that as a fraction of the whole are pretty minor and concentrated in a few areas of the state. You seriously overestimate your importance, as always.
My respect for Gov. Branstad has grown since the beginning of this campaign. He has proven he has good judgement and humility. The campaign has been run with dignity and professionalism.
When his selection of Reynolds for Lt. Gov. was first announced, it seemed a bit disappointing but now after seeing her at the convention and the enthusiasm of those who know her, it shows Gov. Branstad even showed good judgement in his selection of Lt. Gov.
We were priviliged to see acts of true statesmanship Sat. The Iowa Republican party is in good shape.
Stacia – you are obviously not a convention goer, since it is normal and natural for the crowd to quickly thin. Some of us came to vote and left. If the vote had been the first thing on the agenda we would have left then. Not too many are down there drooling at the chance of platform debate. Pus, some live a long way away from the center of the universe.
I agree DVFO, and if the we want to talk about ‘authenticity’ here, we got it in Kim Reynolds. She’s not just talked about what she’s gonna do, she’s done it and backed up words with action.
I do not expect perfection. This is not heaven but I expect statesmanship, and honesty and an authentic desire to do the right thing for Iowa. We have a very good chance to improve Iowa with this ticket.
Considering the personalities of those involved, we have made good choices.
Roberts deserves a very good position in the Branstad administration, if he wants it.
Would it be safe to guess that BVP has unpaid bills left over from the June 8th primary? I have yet to see a primary campaign where that didn’t happen. Is a third party run his last best hope to raise the money he owes his staff and creditors?
That would be like Obama thinking he can spend his way out of a recession.
Wow. The only line missing from this article is “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.” Listen folks, we all wish the party was united heading into the fall elections. But that didn’t happen. For Craig to pretend no divisions exist is laughable and really insulting.
“The Republican Party in Iowa isn’t divided.” No-one believes this stuff. The reality is the party is split, almost down the middle, and the further the party pushes Bob the more likely he will run as an independent; taking his loyal base with him. Remember, Bob is the face to tens of thousands of voters. When you knock Bob, you alienate everyone who voted for him. If Brandstad voters are serious about winning this fall, they better start compromising or face a split vote again,… but this time, it will be in the general election.
I think Kathy O in the Locust Street Liar has it about right:
“Branstad, speaking to reporters after the nomination vote, was asked how he’ll get Vander Plaats back on the reservation. He said his plan is to send Reynolds into every county where Vander Plaats had strong support. “To know Kim is to love her,” he said, adding that she would win over any holdouts.
That, to me, sounds like he intends to ignore Vander Plaats and hope he goes away. That strategy hasn’t been working, but it’s hard to see what else Branstad could do. Putting Vander Plaats on the ticket was never an option. It’s just a bad idea to have a governor and lieutenant governor who can’t stand each other. And the Branstad team is not willing to embrace ideas that it thinks will send independents running back to Culver.”
While I agree with most of the article, Craig is a little contradictory. You can’t have a headline saying “A Stronger Republican Party Emerges From Contentious Convention” and the third sentence says “It’s not coming off of a contentious convention.” The convention was not contentious, but the party has emerged from the contentious convention?
It’s always tough three weeks after a 3 way contested Primary. It takes time. We need to come together as a team. I have faith in Bob that he will make the right choice. I’m not asking him to abandon his strong beliefs, I’m just hoping that he champions his beliefs in a constructive way not a destructive way. The my way or the highway approach he and IFPC has taken is just not realistic in government. It might work in their particular churches or families but not in politics/government. The forefathers and the constitution place church ans state in different catergories.
The man behind the curtain is a midget. The party isn’t split down the middle. There indeed is a loyal base of Bob supporters that will follow him wherever he goes. There is also a significant contingent of Bob supporters that lost all respect for him Saturday. Those loyal to Bob to the bitter end are a very small minority.
Face it – a majority of the Republicans aren’t going to follow Bob over the cliff to Independent. BVP can run independent and he might get 5%. That is the true size of your contingent. Unless the race gets a helluva lot closer Bob’s independent run isn’t going to make a difference in the election.
Branstad was not my first choice either but I can work with him. Adding Kim Reynolds helps a great deal, but the real power of conservatives lies in getting a majority back into the both houses of the legislature and start pushing legislation.
If you want to waste that opportunity by running off third party with Bob into the sunset of irrelevancy, go right ahead. If you want to get something done, hold everyone’s feet to the fire and let’s get some legislative accomplishments on the board.
Matt, I think BVP would get at least 10% as an independent. But, as you said, 5% can make the difference in a close race. TEB should be working to make sure that does not happen. IMHO, the Branstad folks have done very little to mend that fence. Reynolds does NOTHING to help TEB with those folks.
“IMHO, the Branstad folks have done very little to mend that fence. ”
- And BVP has done even less.
Nothing will help TEB with those folks. You want authenticity? Kim Reynolds has done it, not talked about what she’s going to do. Words mean squat, action means everything. Kim did more in one term than BVP has done in 10 years of running.
You are delusional. BVP won’t crack 5% and will likely get 2 or 3. That what’s making me laugh about this whole thing, is the pathetic notion by the BVP diehards that they can be the spoiler and knock Branstad out of the running. They could care less about Culver. This has always been and will always be about Bob and for his core followers becoming the elite establishment and their little minority controlling the party with and dictating everything. I’m not fooled.
This is not about Branstad. The BVP diehards have attacked nearly every candidate that ran in the governors race. This is not about TEB or conservatives v. the party establishment. This is a small group with an inflated sense of purity and ideological superiority wanting power and control and dictating their vision of how things should be.
No negotiation with terrorists. You can’t trust BVP. You can’t trust Danny Carroll. No fence-mending. The winners do not capitulate with the losers, particularly after the past few weeks.
Leave the party. Leave it now.
Mr. Hawk, Agreed that BVP has done little. But this isn’t about BVP. This is about Branstad. He needs to mend fences with the evagelicals and libertarians. I suspect that a large percentage of the BVP vote was really a vote AGAINST Branstad as the establishment candidate. While I agree that the pure BVP diehards will never get on board, those who voted for BVP as a protest against the establishment candidate can be won over. But given the weakness of Culver, it seems clear to me that Branstad is just going to campaign for the independent vote as suggested by Kathy Obradovich in her column. He would rather lose the right wing than lose the independents. It could prove to be a winning strategy, but the risks are obvious.
I don’t know what Convention Craig was at but there was no unity behind Branstad. As a Bob supporter and voted for him for LG not so much against Kim whom I do like but against Branstad. Branstad has done nothing to unify the party and only he can. Bob VP is not what we need but the Conservative platform is what we want and need. For a Republican that raised taxes twice what we need to be hearing at every speech is ” No new taxes Period”. Now that is a good thing for any Republican to do but for someone that did sign tax increases in the past it is a “MUST do”.
The next thing is the attempted brow beating by the Branstad minions the we must tow the party line and join Branstad or we will be electing Culver. I took my last walk off the plank for McCain the ” Gang of 14er” That loved being a ” Maverick” until it was him on the top of the ticket the we “Had to tow the party line”.
That is a two way street We didn’t spend all that time on a Sat. going through the platform just because we have nothing better to do we did it because we believe in those issues and at least the majority of those positions. Now when we have our nomine just ignore our positions and beliefs because they are more concerned with picking up the center??? Well we are getting sick and tired of that plus how has that been working out??? McCain the candidate that could not have been a better person to get the supposed center swing vote. Well that didn’t work out so well and I know if McCain was elected I would have been against him 90% of the time but I walked off the cliff one last time because Obama would be worse. No More.
I don’t want to tear the party apart but the reason we are in the party is our beliefs not personalities. I am totally against bob VP running independent that is totally the wrong way to go about it. But it is just as wrong to expect the party members to run on a Personality rather than positions. I did like Branstad before this campaign now I don’t but that doesn’t matter. What matters is I will vote for positions and I could get behind the man but I need to have a reason for it. This will probably be the first year I haven’t voted straight ticket. Because Grassley is doing the same thing I have friends on the Dim side that I can work with. Well Chuck we aren’t electing you to get along with your friends. Go out to supper with them go fishing with your friends on the Left but don’t sell us out because you think you can get along with them. And that’s what I think Branstad will do as well. So give us Right wings some bones… All we ask is for what’s in the party platform anyway. Something you supposedly believe in anyway.
Jeff
Spare me Rorkes Drift. The BVP cultists and their mouthpiece Steve Deace have attacked nearly every candidate in the race wither publicly or behind the back with things like little flyers on people’s windshields, including Rod Roberts and Chris Rants.
You are not going to paint this as a conservative v. Brandstad and the Party Establishment battle. This is a Bob And His Loyal Minions Against Everyone battle. That is what it has been since the beginning, before Branstad was even in the race, and that’s what it is now with his hints about running indie.
Don’t try and revise history for me. You’ve made this bed, now sleep in it.
Just took a look at Deace’s blog. This man is Jim Jones without the Kool Aid. His followers have been brainwashed exactly like the followers of Jim Jones.
“You are not going to paint this as a conservative v. Brandstad and the Party Establishment battle. This is a Bob And His Loyal Minions Against Everyone battle. That is what it has been since the beginning, before Branstad was even in the race, and that’s what it is now with his hints about running indie.”
- This is an important point made by Matt Green that we should all remember. The IFPC/BVP/Deace folks are trying to portray this as a “conservative vs. establishment” fight. It’s not. There are plenty of conservatives backing TEB, myself included. This is really about a power grab by BVP/Deace/IFPC. They want Bob because he’s their guy, and if he wins, they get that coveted “seat at the table” that they like to whine about others wanting. They want to call the shots. That’s why they attack other true conservatives (i.e., Roberts).
Make no mistake, this isn’t a battle of conservatives vs. “Establishment”. It’s BVP and his people vs. everyone else.
Cycho Killa wrote:
“Leave the party. Leave it now.”
“Well I’m allll reaaady gone . . . . and I’m feeeelin’ . . . feeelin’s strong . . . woo hoo hoo ooooh!!!!
RD,
Yeah don’t rewrite the history for Matt. He has already gone through the trouble of rewriting it himself.
So Al, are you denying that the BVP core kool-aid crowd attacked Roberts? Are you denying Deace attacked Roberts?
Mr. Hawk wrote:
“There are plenty of conservatives backing TEB, myself included”
Well, if you define “conservatives” as people who want higher taxes, more and more government intrusion into Iowan’s lives, elimination of federal deductibility, pandering to the state teachers’ union, abortion on demand, “homosexual marriage,” the growth of regulation and the nanny state, yada yada yada . . . then “yes” . . . there are lots of “conservatives backing Bumstead.
Matt,
You mean kind of the like the zombies on this site attacked Vander Plaats and his supporters on a daily basis.
Anyhow to the meat of your question. Yes I am going to deny your assertions. The thing I find so funny about this site is that whenever someone quesitons one of your favored candidates everyone here gets all up in arms about an “attack”. However when you, perhaps rightfully, question another candidate it is proper.
R non R: I like the Eagles too. However, that’s about the only part of that chorus that applies… Because now that you’re gone, you won’t be singing any vic’try songs. Not even one.
A more appropriate song for you would be Beck: “Soy un perdedor, I’m a loser baby, so why don’t you kill me?”
A little off-topic here, but for a good cause. If you visit http://www.iowafarmteam.com you can cast a vote for an Iowa Republican House and Senate candidate. The winner gets a $5000.00 campaign contribution.
And I have to take this opportunity to plug the HD41 candidate–Gabe Swersie. As I said once before, this seat is vulnerable for the first time in a long time. (I also voted for Kent Sorenson in SD37)
Matt Green, I guess we have to define what types of “conservatives” are in play. The BVP/Deace/IFPC crowd are primarily protestant social conservatives who are always quoting the bible and talking about God’s law. TEB will never win them. But a large number of BVP voters are more libertarian than social conservatrives, and TEB could win them if he wanted to. He could come out for no new taxes and no Clarke County eminent domain land grabs, but instead he picks as his LG one of the biggest proponents of the Clarke County reservoir project. If Branstad truly wants the support of small-government libertarians, he has done nothing to show it. And he never will. Branstad will still win the election and I will vote for him. But its only because of the alternative. Same reason I voted for McCain.
You’d have to show me Rorkes Drift where Kim has come out in favor of the project, but as for the rest of your analysis I agree – he will have to run a strong small govt campaign to keep the enthusiasm. I hope he takes some risks and strong stands and puts out some new ideas.
There will be NO LAND grab in Clarke County. There is a detailed process to complete the lake/water source project. Hearings, fair market value, more hearings, appeals, etc. Plus the citizens of Clarke County have voted on this project.,
I don’t think BVP is running, and if he does run I don’t think he’ll get more than 5 percent. But it is ludicrous for Craig to see what happened over the weekend as a sign that the Republican Party is not divided. Think about the risk that Alons took by standing up the way he did. If Branstad wins, Alons is going to be frozen out for four years. An elected Republican legislator wouldn’t go against the Branstad campaign unless he is thinking long-term that he would benefit from standing up now for the conservative wing of the GOP.
desmoinesdem: “Think about the risk that Alons took by standing up the way he did. If Branstad wins, Alons is going to be frozen out for four years.”
Considering the district Alons is from, his stance would be expected and a plus to Alons. Alons might risk some leadership position or committee assignment, but those are decided in caucus, not by the Governor. As far as higher office, there is none available where he would be a viable candidate, except congress, but Congressman King blocks that path. If he has any ambition for higher office, he may be set up for a run for US Congress against the relatively (relative to Mr. Alons) Liberal Mr. King after the realignment in two years, depending on how the realignment turns out.
You are partly making desmoinesdem the point I have been making for awhile. BVP has influence among a number of legislators and a great number of activists behind him who will work. If he wants to advance the cause he could use that influence to drive legislation and get his agenda accomplished in that manner. It’s alot smarter way of doing things than what he’s doing now.
Suppose those rumors are true that BVP met with Rob Tully. Who has the most to gain from a BVP indy run for gov? Chet Culver and Mr. Steve (Jim Jones) Deace.
Suppose BVP still has debt. Who might bail him out? How about Rob Tully and the Democrats.
They’d also be glad to pay for an indy run. This would give VP a few more months of employment, Culver would benefit (probably not enough but this would be his only chance) and Deace would have a few more months to use BVP to promote himself.
They’d all win for a short while but in the mean time, BVP would be losing more dignity.
So let me get this straight.
The spin in the article is that the Repugnant party is not really divided,
and the comments on the article itself are split about 60/40!
Yep, that’s what I’d call unity, if I were a used of medical wacky weed.
“Clarke County Land Grab”? If you have a free day, head over to the Warren County Courthouse and check out the warranty deeds from back when the South Bypass went in around the DSM metro area. There are places where landowners were paid well over $100,000 PER ACRE for their land. This is what happens when Governments take land for projects in Iowa: Compensation Juries meet and decide on the fair market value of the land, and then set the price IF the landowner and the government cannot come to an agreement on a price themselves. I was involved in a project back in the early 90’s where a SW Iowa city wanted to extend a sewer main through a farily rough timbered pasture in order to stop the sewers in the SW corner of the town from backing up into basements when it rained. The owners of that pasture resisted and took it to the Compensation Process, and the jury awarded them $10,000 an acre for the land that the sewer main occupied. That’s $10,000 an acre for land that the original owner still owns, and can still use & enjoy. They just have a 12″ sewer main sitting about 10 feet deep on portions of their land.
Southern Iowa needs water. They can get it from projects like the Clarke County one, the one that was proposed in Madison County but abandoned when the Federal grant money dried up, or they can be like California and pipe it in from miles & miles away. The groups that opposed the Clarke & Madison County lakes all said that “we can get our water from Des Moines”, but that’s a lie. They lied about the cost of hooking up to the DSM Water Works, and they are being naive in thinking that any rural areas connected to DSM will be treated as equals. Rural water will be cut off in a second if Des Moines needs that water within it’s City limits, and then all the opponents of the two lake projects will be screaming the loudest that they NEED water.
While all the RINO-cons here, in concert with Robinson et. al., continue their tirade on BVP and his supporters, it is interesting that there was indeed some REAL conservative good news today:
1) The SCOTUS handed down the McDonald decision that incorporated the second amendment into the states, and 2) At the convention on Saturday, they passed a platform plank supporting the so-called “real right to carry,” wereby no permits to carry a weapon for self-defense will be required in Iowa should it pass and be signed into law (you know . . . the law recognizing the 2A in Iowa that BVP supported, but TEB did not).
I know that this will be a bit of a “downer” to Craig’s wife, aka “Emily Geiger,” as she is about as anti-second amendment as they come . . . but it is good news for gun owners in Iowa. Gives us something to fight for in the next session . . . .
The only thing that has matured is the discontent within the party.
The only awakening from a long slumber is the conservatives within the party trying to keep Brandstad and other moderates out of office. They have watched their liberty and freedom erode right before their eyes under the leadership of a Republican Party that often can’t be distinguished from the Democratic Party. It was the conservatives that got off their duffs and went door to door, made thousands of phone calls and extended their pocket books to try and elect a conservative leader. That individual just happened to be named Bob Vander Plaats. It wouldn’t have mattered who it was, as long as that individual stood with their principles and beliefs. You won’t admit it but the majority of new delegates were true conservatives that believe in our Constitution, limited spending and limited involvement in our lives. If 44% of the delegates were willing to buck the system and vote for Bob Vander Plaats, how many do you think there will be at the next convention? We aren’t going away, we are growing in numbers and we can’t be bought or bribed. We came pretty close this time to defeating Brandstad. If you add the Robert’s supporters and Vander Plaats supporters, which is a total of the true conservative vote, Brandstad barely squeaked out a victory.
You call Matt Strawn a leader because he put his foot down and demanded that those that had different beliefs and values shut up and get in line with the party. He is no different than Nancy Pelosi bribing and threatening her house members. This is what the American people are sick and tired of! You sit and ridicule union members who vote with their union because they were told to do so, while you sit there wagging your head yes at whatever the Republican Party dictates. I will say that the paper ballots were a blessing because I personally know of several individuals wearing Brandstad stickers that voted for Vander Plaats knowing they couldn’t be intimidated during the vote.
The Republican Party needs to understand that the ground swell within the party is because of the grassroots growth of conservative groups all across our state. We might not be as strong as some of the other states yet, but like I said we are growing in numbers and have no intention of going away after the election in November. People like you only ignite that flame in us to work that much harder next time!
Sabrina: Did anyone try to intimidate you who to vote for?
Sabrina wrote:
“The only thing that has matured is the discontent within the party.”
Good post Sabrina! . . . you are absolutely right . . . if it weren’t so, there would not be so many loud squeaks and grunts from the establishment supporters.
People are fed up with business as usual both in Des Moines and in Washington . . . and both Bumstead and Chet Culver reperesent the same old tired rhetoric that we have always had. To the RINO-cons, who are still attacking Bob after the primary and convention are over, instead of Culver (that is because they share more in common with Culver than they do with Vander Plaats), all I can say is “me thinks you doth protest too much!!!”
Sabrina; we’ll have many, many opportunities to work together. Let’s face it. the governor isn’t THAT big of a deal. What do you think of state senate, state house, courthouse, school boards, city councils? All taxing governmental bodies are now out of control. The conservative fight goes forward. I’m backing Branstad/Reynolds, but I’m spending more time watching, lobbying the above mentioned governmental units.
1) The SCOTUS handed down the McDonald decision that incorporated the second amendment into the states
I hope Obama doesn’t issue an executive order telling the states to ignore this Supreme Court ruling.
Sabrina: You’ve also come to the false conclusion that all of Roberts’ votes would have gone to BVP. I know of several Roberts voters who would not have considered BVP. They would have voted for Branstad.
I have no idea of the percentage of Roberts’ voters who would have voted for Branstad and neither do you.
You saw true statesmanship out of Rod Roberts Sat. You saw a formerly honorable man humiliate himself.
I just found a 2004 news clipping about corruption of county prosecutors in Iowa. they were accepting bribes and other payments, then dropping charges. Tom Miller did nothing. The state supreme court did nothing. Local citizens posted a large cash bond and perusaded a judge to remove one corrupt county attorney. News reporters and citizens who tried to stop the corrupt county attornies were harrassed and threatened by local law enforcement and by Tom Miller’s staff. As you can see, we have many more fights out there. And State Auditor Vaudt is uncovering record amounts of stolen money from our local government coffers. In Cedar Rapids, a school bookkeeper stole nearly $600,000 last year. It goes on and on. Are we keeping an eye on our local government waste, fraud and abuse?
mainstreet merchant: “Local citizens posted a large cash bond and persuaded a judge to remove one corrupt county attorney. ”
Considering the size of bond required (and the financial risk) I’m surprised, but pleased, to hear that that aspect of Iowa Law has been used.
From the Washington Post:
“It would be disrespectful to Mr. Vander Plaats and to many of Governor Huckabee’s friends and supporters in Iowa if he were to endorse Governor Branstad without Mr. Vander Plaat’s having already done so,” said Gidley today when asked whether Huckabee had any plans to get behind the GOP gubernatorial nominee.
So, Huckster, you aren’t sure you want the Republican nominee for Governor to win in Iowa? Someone you said you like and respect in previous statements in Iowa?
Wow, I’ll remember this, Mr. Huckabee, if you’re ever the Republican nominee for President. Very bad move for someone wanting to someday be the “standard-bearer” for his party.
H.L. Hawkeye wrote:
“I hope Obama doesn’t issue an executive order telling the states to ignore this Supreme Court ruling.”
Nice try numnutz! . . . unlike “gay marriage,” the second amendment is actually IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS!.
Anonymous wrote:
“So, Huckster, you aren’t sure you want the Republican nominee for Governor to win in Iowa? Someone you said you like and respect in previous statements in Iowa?
Wow, I’ll remember this, Mr. Huckabee, if you’re ever the Republican nominee for President. Very bad move for someone wanting to someday be the “standard-bearer” for his party.”
C’mon you knobknoggin RINO-con . . . you didn’t support him the last time but voted for RINO “Obama style healthcare in Mass.” Romney . . . get real!
Whooo, I just flew in from Mars and boy are my arms tired. Looks like Branny flew a list of ol boy politicos and one obligatory wave to real conservatives. Then, party handlers picked a Sarah look-alike, a move too clever by half. As hard as it is to watch the state run by courts (and jesters), there’s an odd satisfaction to seeing the Iowa RINO party crash the ambulance one last time. Maybe it will be rebuilt with good old American parts.
STRONGER MORE UNIFIED party? hahahahahahahahhahahahahha!
Craig, are you on cocaine? TOO FUNNY!!!
Nice try numnutz! . . . unlike “gay marriage,” the second amendment is actually IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS!.
lol. This is why you get mocked here, Real Republican. Your logical inconsistencies are easy to pull apart. You can’t have it both ways. Either the courts have the right to invalidate laws, or they don’t. I think, with the 2nd Amendment ruling yesterday, we can come to the conclusion that they can when they violate the state or federal constitutions in which the court in question resides. Varnum was in keeping with the state of Iowa’s constitution, which is why we need an amendment to rectify the problem and not an executive order.
I wonder if Craig would write the same thing about the Dem convention if someone challenged Patty Judge, 44% of the delegates went against Culver, and 40% walked out durring Culver’s speech. People think. Craig would tear the Dems apart and say they are not unified. Craig you are spinning this story. I’m getting dizzy.
Stacia: Are you going to admit that Danny Carroll was lying when he said there were only a couple of people interested in putting BVP’s name into nomination and it would take an organized effort to succeed and he knew of no organized effort?
Danny Carroll was another big loser Sat.
Al – I posted a response yesterday but it had too many links as proof of my assertions so it was treated by spam. Your post is typical of the disingenuous liberal tactics that the Cult of Bob seems to always employ. You well know that the attacks on candidates go far beyond TIR and I find it utterly dishonest that you are implying otherwise.
You’re probably trying to play things down no doubt because the two entities with audiences far larger than TIR, Steve Deace and IFPC, have served as free mouthpieces of the BVP campaign, and both of those have attacked not only every Governor candidate, but a good deal of the GOP. Lets compile a little list: Branstad, McKinley, Fong, Rants, Roberts as well as Grassley, King, Miller-Meeks, Latham, Reynolds, Greiner, Vaudt, Strawn, to name a few. Those are the ones I’ve heard personally or have been documented here and elsewhere.
If you wonder why you are the extreme minority – take a hard look at yourselves. Your side’s own tactics expose you as egotistical, arrogant, self-important, and self-anointed, with delusions of grandeur that you define what Conservatism is, and an entitlement mentality that you should be given control of the party because of some self-inflated sense of ideological purity.
I find you no different than the self-righteous liberal types on the Left who also think they should rule and control based on some kind of superior belief system. Good luck getting anywhere in the Party, because until you knock off the superiority and entitlement mentality, expect the rest of us to dig our heels in.
Matt,
Please illustrate what you consider an attack so that we can be clear about this?
The reason I ask this is because it would seem to me that anytime that Deace raises a question about a Republican you and the others that inhabit this site view it as a personal attack.
In this particular instance, trying to find fault with any of BVP’s competitors for the purpose of knocking them down and driving votes to Bob, or attacking someone who doesn’t agree with BVP on a particular issue, or wants to attack it in a different way, so that they won’t influence votes away from Bob. That not only includes on this site, but any other venue where supporters have aligned themselves with BVP
Now I ask you, please illustrate when you consider the Party Establishment to be alienating the ‘Conservative Wing’ of the party, so that we also can be clear about this.
It seems that anytime BVP loses an election, or isn’t give the LG spot after he loses, or his issues aren’t addressed by the winner, or gets voted down at convention, you view it as the Party Establishment trying to marginalize True Conservatives.
H.L. Hawkeye wrote:
“lol. This is why you get mocked here, Real Republican.”
I’m not too concerned . . . since all you “mocking” libtard Bumstead zombies have a belief system that makes Nancy Pelosi, Culver and Obama proud . . you believe exactly the same thing about the courts that they do: that our founding fathers, after fighting a brutal war for their freedom, would turn over all those hard won freedoms to an elitist group of a few men to exercise absolute control over every aspect of their lives.
“Your logical inconsistencies are easy to pull apart. You can’t have it both ways. Either the courts have the right to invalidate laws, or they don’t.”
They don’t . . . and I never said otherwise, so there is no “inconsistency.” I have repeatedly asked any of you to show exactly in either the U.S. or Iowa Constitutions where the courts get this authority, and you keep coming up with absolutely nothing . . . Nathan Tucker gave it a close try with “it may not be in there but it is really in there because some folks at the convention discussed.” There are LOTs of things they discussed at the Con-con that never made it into the document, regardless of how you liberals wish otherwise.
“I think, with the 2nd Amendment ruling yesterday, we can come to the conclusion that they can when they violate the state or federal constitutions in which the court in question resides.”
I know that have not read the OPINION of the court, but there are plenty of libtard inclusions in this one just as with Heller that un-constitutionally restrict second amendment freedoms . . . the liberal left, your philosophical allies, are already honing in on words like “reasonable restrictions” that are the same nonsense that has been coming out of Sarah Brady’s mouth for decades. So I don’t see McDonald as changing much of anything . . . my only comment was that there was some agreement that the second amendment is a fundamental right . . . something that the PEOPLE of the U.S. have known since the Constitution was ratified. NOWHERE did I say that the SCOTUS has any authority to say what laws are and are not “constitutional.”
“Varnum was in keeping with the state of Iowa’s constitution, which is why we need an amendment to rectify the problem and not an executive order.”
Varnum is a joke the opinion is based on a flawed legal premise that there was not equal protection under the law . . . there was: the law applied to everyone equally, both heterosexual and homosexual. It is also a joke because people like you continue to believe that the court can make “law,” that forces the county recorders to issue same sex “marriage licenses.” The courts have no such authority under the constitution.
So tell me something libtard . . . what exactly will you advocate when the ISC declares a constitutional amendment to be “unconstitutional?” They do have that authority, according to you . . . don’t they?
They don’t . . . and I never said otherwise, so there is no “inconsistency.” I have repeatedly asked any of you to show exactly in either the U.S. or Iowa Constitutions where the courts get this authority, and you keep coming up with absolutely nothing . .
lol. But in your first post you seemed to think that they could overturn this law, because the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. Which is the correct decision, by the way. If you read Thomas’ opinion he pretty much lays out why the Second takes precedent.
H.L. Hawkeye wrote
“lol. But in your first post you seemed to think that they could overturn this law, because the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. Which is the correct decision, by the way.”
LOL yourself . . . what I said verbatum was “The SCOTUS handed down the McDonald decision that incorporated the second amendment into the states.” And if you really read the decision, you would know that THEY DID NOT OVERTURN THE Chicago law (I won’t explain this one to you . . . you have to do something for yourself). So apparently, in your words, they did NOT make the “right decision.”
Matt,
So let me get this straight if someone supported BVP any thing that they may have said that drove votes away from one of his competitiors is an attack?
As for your question, I cannot illustrate a point that I have not made. But I will say this, the lack of any effort to reach out Vander Plaats supporters is seriously hindering any attempt to reunite the Republican Party.
Furthermore I will make no excuses for BVP’s loss, as I have stated on numerous occassions the only way BVP could lose was to run a poor campaign. But it is up to the winner to do more than pay lip service to party unity. The winner is responsible to reach out to the supporters of the losing candidate to persuade them that it would be in their best interest to support him.
It is if you establish a consistent pattern of instigating spats with everyone who is a perceived threat in a systematic manner. Then we’re not talking about disagreements of philosophy or heat-of-the-moment debate, we’re talking about a deliberate strategy. And then to have the cajones to come back later and make a cry for party unity.
BVP and his mouthpieces have done a very good job of that and of alienating themselves from the party without ‘The Establishment’ doing anything. They’ve attacked just about everyone who can be attacked. Hell, Deace even attacked me and Mark LaRette of Musco and we’re county level players. Seems a little disingenuous to come back now and cry ‘you need to reach out to us’ when you’ve fired the guns just about everybody.
And if you really read the decision, you would know that THEY DID NOT OVERTURN THE Chicago law (I won’t explain this one to you . . . you have to do something for yourself). So apparently, in your words, they did NOT make the “right decision.”
You really have a tough time keeping up, don’t you, Real Republican? I understand that they sent this back to the lower courts where the Chicago law will be officially overturned. At the same time the Supreme Court has recognized state incorporation of Second Amendment, which makes that overturning of the law possible.
Of course, all of this would not matter if Obama thought he could just issue an executive order rescinding this decision. Which is why such a belief is both ignorant and dangerous. .
So tell me something libtard . . . what exactly will you advocate when the ISC declares a constitutional amendment to be “unconstitutional?” They do have that authority, according to you . . . don’t they?
lol. I missed this little gem in your ramblings earlier. The Supreme Court, whether SCOTUS or in Iowa, does not have the right to overturn a Constitutional Amendment. Once an amendment gets added through that process, it becomes law of the land.
Matt,
I understand where you are coming from. But don’t you think it is foolish to lump all Vander Plaats supporters into the same category? Do you honestly think that all of BVP’s supporters engaged in the actions you find so deplorable? If you really want to achieve party unity do you really think it wise to continue to ignore those that voted against Branstad?
Matt,
If you would like to continue this discussion you can email be at abregarjr@hotmail.com.
H.L. Hawkeye wrote:
“You really have a tough time keeping up, don’t you, Real Republican?”
I do have a hard time slowing my brain down enough to keep the slower pace of you RINO-cons, but I’ll manage.
“I understand that they sent this back to the lower courts where the Chicago law will be officially overturned.”
And then, of course, the State attorney General of Illinois will then issue an edict to all the local governments in the State of Illinois that they must immediately allow any person to own any gun they wish to have because “that will be the law of the land now.” . . . Let me know how that works out for you . . . .
H.L. Hawkeye wrote:
“The Supreme Court, whether SCOTUS or in Iowa, does not have the right to overturn a Constitutional Amendment. Once an amendment gets added through that process, it becomes law of the land.”
Seems there are a lot of “homosexual marriage” advocates, and Supreme court justices in the State of California that might just disagree with you on this one . . . Seems that the California SC reviewed “proposition 8,” the California amendment to their Constitution upholding “one man – one woman” marriage.” If they didn’t think that they have the authority to overturn it . . . then why on earth would they have reviewed it?!?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_California
And the losers on this one have already appealed it to the federal appellate courts . . . so according to the liberals, that you keep helping to support in their contention that the courts can rule ANYTHING invalid, and create any law that they want to, a “constitutional amendment” don’t mean squat!! . . . I guarantee you . . . pass one in Iowa, and it will be challenged in the courts . . . that’s why relying on the courts to control our lives is absolute madness.
“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.” –Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820.
By no means am I lumping all BVP supporters into that category. It’s a small but determined group that I’m referring to. They’re easy to spot because they’re always holding themselves up as the ‘true conservatives’ and bullying anyone that slightly disagrees with them with name calling, cherry picked facts, and working their network with vicious rumors. There’s also the ever present threat of leaving the party if whatever they are supporting doesn’t win.
I’m all for holding candidates and officials feet to the fire, and all for someone strongly supporting their issues, but when I see a person or group constantly engaging in attacks on everyone throughout the party, especially when they are all rallied around a particular candidate, I start questioning the motive. It comes of as an entitlement and control freak mentality, and those are the last people that I want to see in power.
Matt Schultz did a great job on Saturday, also. In his speech, he said what all the rest of the primary winners should be doing, recognizing not all voters voted for him and asking those folks who did not vote for him, to consider supporting him. Not demanding them, but asking them to consider him. As someone who voted for several of the candidates who did not make it, I appreciate be asked. I resent being told. Thanks Matt for asking.
Not all the candidates I voted for made it, either but I don’t feel one bit that they need to ask me for my vote. I give it gladly as I know all our Republicans are far superior to the bunch of losers we have ruling us right now.
I’ll crawl over broken glass to vote for them.
Deace voted for Obama, I agree completely that the Republicans are far superior to the bunch of losers, ie D’s ruling us now. I am and will vote for the R’s, I will work for some, but vote for all. But it was still nice to be asked and not told who I should support. I am capable of making that decision myself. I am not a blind follower of any one ‘person’. But will fight for the conservative cause, however it takes to get there. Unlike some who have to have it their way or the highway, I will pick the candidates who support my positions and work the hardest for them. But, I will be voting for all Republicans in the November, we have seen what the D’s do when in power. We cannot take Culver four more years and we must take back the house, while there is a house to take. Four more years of the D’s and we may be in bankruptcy.
Concord Kid: We’re in complete agreement.
Real-Republican @21:16: “Seems that the California SC reviewed “proposition 8,” the California amendment to their Constitution upholding “one man – one woman” marriage.” If they didn’t think that they have the authority to overturn it . . . then why on earth would they have reviewed it?!?”
The California Constitution has an unfortunate feature that there are two categories of amendments, and the procedures required for the amendment depend on which category it fits in. The California Supreme Court had in its jurisdiction which of the classifications Prop 8 fit into and whether the correct procedures were followed.
Matt Green wrote:
“By no means am I lumping all BVP supporters into that category. It’s a small but determined group that I’m referring to. They’re easy to spot because they’re always holding themselves up as the ‘true conservatives’ and bullying anyone that slightly disagrees with them with name calling, cherry picked facts, and working their network with vicious rumors. There’s also the ever present threat of leaving the party if whatever they are supporting doesn’t win.”
Man I love this one!!! . . . look at the pot calling the kettle black!! as far as leaving, it is no threat . . . already done it . . . so don’t see that as any attempted “carrot.”
chris wrote:
“The California Constitution has an unfortunate feature that there are two categories of amendments, and the procedures required for the amendment depend on which category it fits in. The California Supreme Court had in its jurisdiction which of the classifications Prop 8 fit into and whether the correct procedures were followed.”
Feel free to expand on this with direct wording from the CC . . . I would be interested in seeing this in print.
Concord Kid wrote:
“we have seen what the D’s do when in power.”
Unfortunately we have also seen what the RINO’s do when in power.” Can you say Bush-McCain-Grasslely how I love TARPS and spend, spend, spend!!!
Real_Republican @ 9:08: “Feel free to expand on this with direct wording from the CC . . . I would be interested in seeing this in print.”
If you’re really interested, do your own research. I gave you the clue. You have Google or Bing or Yahoo available, if you don’t like those there are others. But then, you’re more interested in writing a rant than finding out the truth.
Real_Republican, I have witnessed what the moderates have done. That is why I will work hard to get more conservatives elected. However, can you imagine America if Gore was President during 9-11? Do you honestly think that America is better off with Obama, instead of McCain? I have not always agreed with Grassley, but I have told him when I think he has strayed, but I do not want a Roxanne Conlin representing me, she is so far left I can’t see her. There has only been one man who has walked this earth who was perfect and the people crucified Him and besides He isn’t on the ballot.
I have never sat an election out, there has been too much blood spilled to give us the right to vote, so I will be voting for the Republicans this November. They are far better than the alternatives and I will not sit out any election.
It’s interesting that the Cult of Bob keeps talking about unity while simultaneously threatening to bolt if they don’t get their way. They talked about how Branstad was actually a screaming liberal but wanted to be part of his administration. Bob talks about respecting the decision of the voters while simultaneously flouting their decision. They decry the lack of respect shown shown to Bob while calling anyone names if they don’t support their guy. Both Bob and his followers claim some moral and philosophical high ground but act like toddlers throwing a tantrum when they don’t get what they want.
They sound more like the famously narcissistic Obama and his hard left Kool Aid drinkers than responsible conservatives. That has been my impression of Bob since his second run for Governor. This has been an obsession with him and he is taking his loss at the polls as a mortal personal insult. It’s as if he thought he was entitled to the governorship and has been cheated out of what he is rightfully due. Unfortunately there seem to be a number of others who are following him down that path.
Tell Bob to pay his staff!
Seems there are a lot of “homosexual marriage” advocates, and Supreme court justices in the State of California that might just disagree with you on this one . . . Seems that the California SC reviewed “proposition 8,” the California amendment to their Constitution upholding “one man – one woman” marriage.” If they didn’t think that they have the authority to overturn it . . . then why on earth would they have reviewed it?!?
The law was brought before them in the form of a lawsuit by opponents of Prop 8, RealRepublican. The argument was whether it was a limited or full constitutional amendment. The opponents were overruled, by the way, thus proving my point.
chris wrote:
“If you’re really interested, do your own research. I gave you the clue. You have Google or Bing or Yahoo available, if you don’t like those there are others. But then, you’re more interested in writing a rant than finding out the truth.
“The California Constitution has an unfortunate feature that there are two categories of amendments, and the procedures required for the amendment depend on which category it fits in. The California Supreme Court had in its jurisdiction which of the classifications Prop 8 fit into and whether the correct procedures were followed.”
There is no such provision in the California Constitution . . . so, rant on . . . .
H.L. Hawkeye wrote:
“The law was brought before them in the form of a lawsuit by opponents of Prop 8, RealRepublican. The argument was whether it was a limited or full constitutional amendment. The opponents were overruled, by the way, thus proving my point”
You’d better “point” again, because you either cannot read, or you are intentionally misrepresenting the content of the article:
“A lawsuit filed on those grounds asking for the removal of Proposition 8 from the ballot was dismissed on July 16, 2008.”
“The organizers of the “No on Prop 8″ campaign conceded defeat on Thursday, November 6 . . . ”
“The California Supreme Court heard several challenges to Proposition 8 and on May 26, 2009, upheld the proposition but did not overturn previous same-sex marriages which occurred following their ruling in June 2008 and before the day following the November 4th election.”
Say what you want . . . the CSC found the marriage amendment “constitutional,” . . . and it is STILL being challenged in the courts . . . a constiutional amendment means NOTHING
chris wrote:
“The California Constitution has an unfortunate feature that there are two categories of amendments, and the procedures required for the amendment depend on which category it fits in. The California Supreme Court had in its jurisdiction which of the classifications Prop 8 fit into and whether the correct procedures were followed.”
Now I see where your pathetic argument is coming from:
“On June 20, 2008, gay rights groups filed suit before the California Supreme Court seeking to remove the initiative from the November ballot; their lawsuit was later dismissed on July 16, 2008. They argued that the changes would constitute a revision to the California Constitution, which requires a two-thirds vote of the legislature before being placed before voters, rather than a mere amendment, which does not require involvement by the legislature. They further argued that the original petitions, which were circulated before the May 15 court decision, were misleading because the petitions said the initiative would not change the marriage laws and would have no fiscal impact.”
Your RANT is at best misleading . . . at worst, an outright attempt to deceive. This was NOT a case of constitutional review of the amendment, but rather a legal challenge to the PROCESS that was (being) used to futher it. . . . this particular suit did NOT constitute a constitutionality challenge . . . the amendment itself was later reviewed in May 2009 by the CSC . . . found to be “constitutional,” and it is STILL under court challenge in the federal courts, per my original assertion.