Most people agree we do need more accountability in our school system. Iowa students’ test scores are dropping while in other states they are rising. Iowa used to be the best state to educate your child and now we are, depending on which study you look at, close to slipping out of the top ten. But before we start imposing new regulations at the state level, shouldn’t we look to what caused our public schools to fail to teach our students adequately?

A look at our state’s past will shed light on what worked and what didn’t. We used to have a school almost every two miles. Of course that isn’t practical now but can still shed some light on our current problems. The state and many school districts are pushing for consolidation based on better revenue and more efficient education. By more efficient they mean cheaper – not better. Consolidating will allow the districts to have fewer teachers and supposedly fewer administrators but it never decreases the student to teacher ratio.

We also used to have working relationships between teachers and parents. Now parents send their kid off to school more for babysitting than an education and only get a phone call if their kid gets into a fight or breaks a rule. Teachers can’t do this by themselves, parents must get involved with their children.

Maybe the most dramatic change in the past 50 years is the amount of state and federal control now in our public education. With that control comes billions of dollars of money for our schools. But for some reason in education, with every dollar spent grade points drop. Instead of recognizing this and eliminating the state and federal control, we continue to pour more money into a failing system. More money is not the answer and for those who believe it is, you definitely aren’t studying history.

Unions are also a major problem. Administrations, due to the union influence, find it almost impossible to fire or otherwise punish bad behavior by our educators. Because of this we have bad teachers producing bad test scores – it really is as simple as that.

We must get back to local control. The only real way to do that is to strip the funding from the federal and state government, eliminate the state and federal Departments of Education, break up the teachers union, and give the control to the most connected individuals in the school districts, the school board. They are the only individuals who are directly responsible for the education of our children. If they fail, they will be removed.

Once again, I do respect the intent of our good legislators who announced their plan for more accountability. But adding more government control is at best a temporary band aid. We must relinquish the control back to the local school board as it was when Iowa lead the nation in education. This solution worked previously and will work again if we have the guts to stand up to the union and liberals in the Iowa House and Senate.

I find it almost laughable that we have the federal government intruding into our daily lives from the first thing we do in the morning to the last thing we do at night. Every single day the federal government takes over a responsibility that should be either left to the states or to the individual. The federal government is constantly grabbing more power by intruding into our lives. But when it comes time to actually fulfill a constitutional obligation, they are nowhere to be found.

I’m proud of Gov. Perry for finally stepping up and taking control of the border in Texas. Out state will reap the rewards of his leadership on this issue with decreased drugs and obviously less illegal immigrants. And if I were Gov. Perry, I’d send a monthly bill to Obama and Napolitano demanding reimbursement for performing a service they should be taking care of. If they refuse to pay, I’d sue them.

The liberals will point to section 242 in HR 3200 where it states that individuals must be lawfully present in a state of the United States to receive premium credits. This is the same language the liberals used for SCHIP. But what they are purposely leaving out is the fact that there is no language in the bill that requires proof of citizenship. All the illegal alien has to do is offer a social security number. At no point is it required by law that the social security number be accurate. There were multiple amendments voted down that would have mandated a proof of citizenship requirement. Republicans voted for the amendments and Democrats voted against them. No surprise there.

Federally funded abortion is the other topic Obama decided to point to last night in his speech. Obama said, “Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.” That seems simple enough. But once again, Obama can’t back that statement up. Under current law and any future legislation, funding for abortions is legal unless explicitly prohibited in the legislation. Once again, numerous amendments were voted down by Democrats to explicitly prohibit abortion funding in the bill.

So either Obama is stupid, which I don’t think anyone believes, or he’s lying. Take your pick.

Our single-minded purpose should be utterly inundating Members of Congress with emails, phone calls, and appearances at any and all public events they are taking part in this month.  You are already seeing numerous videos of town hall meetings turned into anti-Obama health care rallies. We need to do the same here in Iowa. We need to take every chance we get to remind Braley, Loebsack, Boswell, Harkin, and Grassley government doesn’t create solutions, only problems.

When I consider milestones and turning points in our nation, this is by far the most critical moment this country has been in the past 50 years, other than Roe v. Wade. Even though capitalism has taken a back seat to incremental socialism since our Constitution was signed, this is the biggest step in that direction we’ve ever considered – including Medicare and Social Security. This has even more importance because most people understand the fundamentals of the debate. They know it is wealth redistribution, increased taxes for the productive sector, and more handouts to the nonproductive sector. Simply, this is class warfare in broad daylight.

Both sides know the stakes. If the left wins and passes this legislation, America will always have socialized health care and eventually government owned-and-operated businesses in every sector. We will also have well over 50 percent of the population taking more from the government than what they put in. In my book, that is the very definition of socialism.

If the right wins, we’ll have to fix health care with the free market because if nothing gets done soon, the Democrats will get their way eventually. If there is no vote – or the vote for socialized health care fails, Republicans and maybe more specifically, conservatives, will have a mandate to make health care more affordable by way of the free market. We’ll also have renewed faith in capitalism to ease the bureaucratic burden on businesses in general. We will have staved off the tide of socialism but we can’t stop there.

If we win, we must recognize the victory isn’t just a loss for the other side, it is a victory for smaller government with lower taxes. If we stick to those principles, we almost always win.

First, Grassley, as of late, has been a little wishy-washy on conservative policy. I don’t think there is any conservative in the country who feels they can count on Grassley to make the right vote on serious issues. Most often, Grassley does come around and vote right but there are those instances where conservatives are left fuming…SCHIP, monkey bubble, and the bailout. On the other hand, if it weren’t for Grassley strongly opposing amnesty for illegals, we may have 20 million illegal immigrants turned legal in 2006 or 2007.

There’s the rub for principled Republicans. In this game, there isn’t room for capitulation on the issues. Democrats will never offer an olive branch and will always gain ground for their socialist agenda. Republicans seem to negotiate away our policies even when we are in complete control. We have begun to believe the media and liberal elite mantra of the value of being bipartisan. Of course that doesn’t apply to them, just to Republicans. I’m not sure Grassley understands how we’re being played and apparently Sorenson is wondering the same thing.

In making his letter public, Sorenson takes a fairly big risk. Many Republicans, even though they agree with Sorenson, will find it disrespectful to make those criticisms public. We have no way of knowing if Sorenson tried to get a meeting with Grassley or sent a letter privately before issuing the open letter. If Sorenson did that and got nowhere, is he not just doing his job as an elected conservative? Or is he still over the line?

Obviously we must hold our elected officials’ feet to the fire. We’ve seen what happens when we don’t. Is there any way Grassley’s negotiation on this legislation can advance our agenda? Socialism is socialism no matter what the title of the bill or who the authors are.

I’d like to hear your thoughts on this. Is Sorenson over the line and could have handled this with more tact or is he doing his job well as an elected conservative?

In Iowa, Culver is having similar problems. From the floods and huge budget problems to his iJobs program going nowhere, and ticking off his base with the labor bills failing, Culver’s poll numbers are even worse than Obama’s. So will all of this stack up to major victories for Republicans in 2010?

My advice? Whoa up, winger.

With Obama and liberals in leadership, we can’t count on them pushing too far to the left. That does help, but without offering alternatives and proof we are no longer the Bush Party, we won’t win many seats. Some in our party would say it isn’t easy to do with the major issues of the day. I think that couldn’t be further off base. Whether we are debating health care or economic issues, the free market and American ingenuity is always the real answer. Nowhere in the history of the free world has government been able to solve our problems. And even if we look at the short history of the bailout bills we can’t see success. Imagine what a drastic corporate tax cut would have done to bolster the economy. Or with health care, imagine an emphasis put on health savings accounts and ending frivolous lawsuits. If Republicans offer a true alternative to socialism in the form of purer capitalism, we will win. It really is that simple. Let the people keep their money and get out of the way – it won’t take six months for this economy to stand up strong again.

With Culver it will be much easier because I don’t think there is anyone out there willing to go to bat for the man. He’s a failed politician with nothing to show for his governorship so far. Gronstal sees Culver more as an enemy than a friend and the liberals in Iowa think he’s gone off the capitulation deep end. I don’t know what friends he could have possibly made in the last couple years. Liberals dislike him, moderates think he’s a screw up, and Republicans never have liked him. Who does Culver’s base support now?

But once again we have to offer good alternatives and making a flat five percent cut of state government isn’t going to inspire anybody. We need to overhaul our tax and regulatory code on businesses. That means slashing taxes on business while freeing them up to make money – providing jobs for all those college kids who move out after being educated partly with our tax dollars. Our schools need accountability – not more money. We must remain strong on marriage and life. This means booting Democrat legislators every chance we get. This will take support from every Republican leaning organization and elected official in the state – and some outside resources as well. We won’t get a marriage amendment without the majorities.

With all of that said, we do have an excellent opportunity to regain some momentum lost by failed Republicans in the past six to eight years. But as Krusty wrote a few days ago, we can’t be lazy anymore. We have to want it more than the Democrats and that entails making phone calls, knocking doors, raising money, and never letting a liberal philosophy go unchallenged.

CQ Politics has come out with their U.S. House elections ratings map. In looking at Iowa, they’ve made the same mistake most media has by claiming Congressman Latham’s district is winnable for Democrats. It seems every year Latham is targeted by Democrats only to crush them mightily on Election Day. There are a few pros and cons of having them make this same mistake every election cycle.

Congressman Latham represents Iowa very well. He’s a low key conservative compared to Congressman King. He votes right almost every time while putting his fingerprints on good legislation. His reward for this, easy wins every two years.

So why is it Democrats continue to waste their support on his opponents? I’ve never been able to figure that out. Last summer the media, along with Democrats, were building up Becky Greenwald while trying to tear down Latham. Many reports had Greenwald within striking distance of taking out Latham. Since I learn from history (something Democrats and the media don’t do), I predicted Latham would win easily over Greenwald with a 14 percent margin of victory. He outperformed my prediction by almost 4 percent and outpaced the media’s guess by over 10 percent. But Democrats continue to believe they can beat Latham. CQ’s report states, “Democrats now are searching for a candidate who might make a stronger race of it in 2010.” If you remember, Greenwald was supposed to be a very strong candidate. She was just no match for Congressman Latham – nobody would be in that district.

Unfortunately for Latham, I do think this works in our favor. They continue to spend a lot of money in his district which only makes it harder for them to win in other districts across the country. As long as Latham can take the heat, which he does very well, I’m alright with them running hard against him. I know it isn’t an ideal situation for Latham but it does bode well for other Republicans.

Their persistence also influences the media to focus more on his race. In doing so, it takes the focus off of other races potentially more viable for a Democrat victory. With the media’s focus, Democrat volunteers ramp up their efforts, in many cases coming from other districts to do so.

So in other words, it is a win, win for Republicans and a lose, lose for Democrats. I like those scenarios every time.

With just one small statement, Barack Obama has helped turn a belligerent Harvard Professor getting arrested for disorderly conduct into a race baiter case. This isn’t the first time we’ve seen black politicians jump to the occasion when two or more people of a different color have conflicts. One of the most notable is Al Sharpton but his stage has never been as big as Obama’s.

If you’ve read the police report you know the Harvard professor, Henry Louis Gates, Jr., is in the wrong. From the start of the altercation, Gates was argumentative and hostile toward Officer James Crowley. He used phrases like, “Why, because I’m a black man in America?” and “Ya, I’ll speak with your mama outside.” He claimed the officer was racist without any indication of being so, much like Al Sharpton has made a career of doing. And the ironic thing is, Gates is the one who comes off as racist. Do you think he would have acted that way if a black officer responded to the scene?

To really know the entire situation we need to look at each individual involved. I’ll start with Gates. Professor Gates is the Director of the W. E. B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research at Harvard University. He’s authored or otherwise been a part of the following: Figures in Black: Words, Signs and the “Racial” Self, The Signifying Monkey: A Theory of Afro-American Literary Criticism, Our Nig, or, Sketches from the Life of a Free Black, The Future of the Race, Colored People, Thirteen Ways of Looking at A Black Man, Loose Cannons: Notes on the Culture Wars, among others. Gates served as Chair of the Department of African and African American Studies at Harvard along with serving on the board of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Obviously racism is on this guy’s mind.

Officer James Crowley is a veteran police officer respected by his peers, both black and white. Crowley was chosen by black former commissioner, Thomas Flemming, to teach a racial profiling class. Crowley has taught the class for five years focusing on not singling people out because of their ethnic background or culture. Back in 1993, Crowley performed CPR on former Celtics player Reggie Lewis at Brandeis University. If you don’t know, Reggie Lewis was black.

What really irks me though is Obama’s involvement in this situation. The president should have no opinion at this point. This is a very local situation turned national because Obama couldn’t resist the urge to jump on the first racial situation he could. And by the way, Professor Gates gave $4,600 to Obama’s presidential campaign. I wonder if that had anything to do with it? Or was it the Harvard ties? Or was it just because Gates and Obama are black? Or maybe it was because of a combination of the three. Either way, it definitely wasn’t based on facts or logic, just racial bias by a Harvard professor and the President of the United States.

Way to go AlObama!

This list isn’t about politics, it is about policy – and unfortunately, those two things don’t always mix well. I realize none of these men may run but I think discussing them puts this race into a perspective that many may have forgotten even though this Primary Election is still in its earliest stages.

Doug Gross – With Branstad’s revival the past week or so, Gross gets back into the mix. Remember, Gross ran and won the primary in 2002 so to discount him in the race would be foolish (maybe a lieutenant governor position?). Of course if I had my may he wouldn’t be involved but I don’t always get my way. Gross has become a moderate thinking man. He advocates steering away from social issues. That philosophy isn’t good for Iowa right now with the marriage ruling and subsequent constitutional amendment talk. We need a strong conservative, or at least a candidate willing to put their neck out there if we plan on taking this state back from Gronstal and Murphy.

Tom Latham – Latham is a conservative without the rough edges others of the same description bring to the table. On the issues he’s very solid. He sticks to the platform better than most. His drawback on policy issues? He isn’t always able to be counted on – for example SCHIP in 2007. But like I said, he’s better than most and would make a very good governor. I would like him to be more of a bulldog in his approach but I don’t think that will ever happen. If he did run, which I doubt he will, he’d make a great governor for this great state.

Terry Branstad – I wrote about a Branstad campaign for governor yesterday. Branstad is a good Republican but since it has been so long since he’s held office or campaigned, I don’t know if he can be considered a conservative or not. He would have to reaffirm with conservatives where he stands on the issues we are passionate about. I do not doubt his conservative credentials, but, like most of us, I want reassurance before I’m willing to pull the lever for Branstad. He ran our state well and would surely do so again. I don’t know that he’d do anything phenomenal from the conservative perspective but I’m fairly confident he’d make this state proud again.

Steve King – King has yet to rule out a governor’s race. We can only guess at his reasoning for keeping this option open but my first thought is he isn’t satisfied with the field of candidates. A Branstad candidacy may be sufficient for King but with the current state Iowa is in, maybe King sees an opportunity to finally turn the ship around. On the policy front, King is my top dog. I’ve found myself thinking about King being our governor and how much different this state would become. There would be no compromises on any issues, whether fiscal or social. King would satisfy the fiscal conservatives just as he would the social conservatives. Basically, without getting too much into details, King would follow the platform to the “T” and we wouldn’t have to question whether he’d do the right thing or not. I look at politics just like I look at anything else in life and I want consistency and someone or something I can count on. King is that man.

Once again, I didn’t write this to discount our current candidates. I just think it is wise to look at what is available not just what is sitting right in front of you. There are at least six months left in the primary campaign for other candidates to enter the race and you can be confident more will. If we only look at politics rather than policy we will most likely lose and even if we do win, we won’t be happy with the result.

The primary campaign is also where we can try to shape and mold our candidates. We saw that in the Iowa Caucus with immigration. Tancredo and King made it so the presidential candidates had to swear off amnesty to win Iowa. We can do the same in the gubernatorial race on any issues we want – it is our responsibility. So my advice, for whatever it is worth, try to stick to policy and the politics will come but if you start with politics, policy will be forgotten.

First, Branstad won’t clear the field for the Primary. I think Bob Vander Plaats will stick it out this time no matter who jumps in the race. He’s quit once and that didn’t fair too well for him. And also, according to the poll numbers, he’s got a chance at taking on Branstad.

We also have the question of whether or not Doug Gross, the moderate wing’s political pimp, will be a consultant or paid staff for a Branstad campaign. As you all know, Gross was Branstad’s chief of staff back when he was governor. I’ve heard nothing of them cutting ties or having a falling out so I assume Branstad would have Gross in his inner circle of advisors at the very least. This doesn’t bode well for voters like me at all. It would also refuel the moderate verses conservative debate – which I don’t think we need right now.

But a Branstad candidacy does clear out most if not all of the lesser known candidates. I’m fairly confident Behn, Roberts, and McKinley would bow out – not necessarily because they think they’d lose to Branstad but because Branstad would be a sufficient enough candidate for them to concede to him. In other words, they would think he’d do a fine job as governor and there is no reason to run against him. Obviously they don’t think the same of BVP or Rants otherwise they would be out by now.

Now back to Branstad, his credentials as a governor are amazingly good. He governed during the farm crisis and floods of 1993, all while balancing a budget and even having a surplus. His campaigning skills are very good, although a little rusty, I’m sure. He will have the best staff and fundraising at his disposal with instant credibility with voters from all circles. Basically, my first judgment is if he doesn’t win both the Primary and General Elections, he messed something up very badly.

The first issue Branstad will have to defend is his two nominations of the Iowa Supreme Court Justices who ruled in favor of gay marriage. I’m sure Bob Vander Plaats is working on the press release right now to blast Branstad. That may backfire on BVP though because Branstad is Iowa’s Reagan and it might not be taken well by Republican Primary Election voters. Either way though, he must defend his nominations because marriage is an issue (not the issue – lay off moderates ) in this election.

For some reason I forgot about Christian Fong until I got right here. Fong won’t make it long with Branstad in the race. Fong’s only niche is the folks who don’t already support BVP or Rants who want a leader on economic issues. Branstad fills that void for most.

Branstad against Culver will be a great campaign. Culver has shown no leadership skills even within his own Party. The flood will be a defining issue. Branstad led us through that with ease where Culver still has us wading through the muck. Culver has no excuses and no one to shift blame to. This is a big advantage for Branstad.

Also with Culver, the budget is massively in the red. Whether or not you agree, the perception is that Branstad always had a balanced budget and didn’t grow government. That is what people want and dream of returning to. Can you imagine the debates between the two? How would Branstad not come out smelling like a rose not just on rhetoric but actual experience?

So after writing all of this it probably sounds like I’m on the Branstad bandwagon. I am not…at least not yet. He must prove to conservatives that he’s 100 percent pro-life and pro-marriage and won’t compromise the Republican platform. If he does that, and does it early, he’ll have this Primary in the bag. Of course, I could be wrong and would love to hear your input on how a Primary and General Election with Gov. Branstad would play out.