It has been several months since I declared Sioux City businessman Bob Vander Plaats the frontrunner in the battle for the Republican gubernatorial nomination. A lot has transpired since I penned by thoughts on the race all those many months ago. We have seen Governor Culver continue to fail in leading our state back to prosperity. We have seen the state budget continue to bleed red faster than any other time in recent memory. In the race for the primary we have seen some candidates beginning to rise, while others may have declined. And we have seen a legendary political figure enter the race. With all the recent developments in this race I felt that it was time to provide my own analysis of this race.

As I mentioned above, several months ago I declared that Bob Vander Plaats was the clear frontrunner in the race for the Republican primary. And I still believe that he is the front runner, but things may be changing. Some of Vander Plaats challengers have been rising lately. In particular former House Minority Leader Christopher Rants has been pouring on the steam in his effort to secure the nomination. I would credit Rants’ rise to his efforts to actually explain to the people of Iowa where he would save money in the state budget. Over the last month or so Rants has been very clear in stating that he is going to tell the people of Iowa what they need to here even if it is not what they want to hear. And I believe that this strategy is paying off for Representative Rants.

One of the biggest news stories in recent months is the entry of former Governor Terry Branstad into the race for the Republican Gubernatorial nomination. The only reason that I would include Governor Branstad this high up on the list is due to his name recognition. His early campaign has been run poorly and only recently launched a website. To further castigate his chances at winning the primary Branstad put in a pitiful performance at the most recent RPI fundraiser in Des Moines. The performance was so bad that some of the other candidates could be heard afterward saying they felt sorry for him. The bottom line is that without the name recognition Branstad would be an “also ran”. For his sake I hope that he picks it up a few notches otherwise his legacy will be a shambles.

Also on the rise in recent weeks is Cedar Rapids businessman Christian Fong. When Fong first announced his intentions to run for office I discounted his campaign as an also ran. I have been however pleasantly surprised with his efforts at this point. There are however several points that would seem to be working against him. One of those is his political contributions to two far left Democrats from the Cedar Rapids area. The other is an apparently poor campaign management. I have been informed of several occasions where the campaign has double booked a specific time only to have to cancel one of them. I think that if he could effectively address both of these issues his campaign could be a contender in June 2010.

Essentially tied with Fong in my opinion is Rod Roberts. Roberts has surprised many people by winning a couple of county straw polls over some of the more well known candidates. He has been fighting the obscurity that comes with little to no name recognition. He is an intelligent, passionate, and well spoken individual that truly believes in his conservative principles. I just don’t know if he will be able to overcome his name recognition deficit.

As I stated earlier I believe that the race is currently closer than ever before. Anyone of these candidates could claim the top spot in a matter of days. However like I stated some of these candidates really need to work on their campaigns and their message to maximize their investment. Of all the candidates I think that Rants has the least amount of work to do. The other candidates should take a good look at his campaign and do their best to emulate it. He is attending every event that he can and working hard to get his message to the people of Iowa. This is definitely a recipe for success. The next 6 months are going to be interesting.

 I could give you another detailed account of the Republican Party of Iowa’s Leadership for Iowa event at the Iowa State Fairgrounds from last night. But you can check that out at The Iowa Republican; Caffeinated Thoughts; and Questions, Comments, and Insults. All have good descriptions of the event. Instead I will just discuss the good, the bad, and the ugly from last night.

It has been said that some of the events held by RPI prior to the current leadership were a tad bit on the boring side. This is the second event that I have had the opportunity to attend that has been put together by Matt Strawn and his team at RPI. The event was launched by rock music designed to get the crowd pumped up. And judging by the reactions of the crowd it worked. The lineup of speakers was pretty good in my opinion, although I would have opted to have Auditor Vaudt speak in person rather than via recording. I can understand why Steve King and Tom Latham were unable to attend the event as they were stuck in Washington defending American against the Pelosi healthcare takeover bill.

Strawn himself gave a good speech during his introduction of Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. During the speech he took a jab at the Democrat Bruce Braley for his involvement in the Cash for Clunkers program that the government recently attempted. I really like the line that Strawn gave saying that it is time to trade in the 1^st District’s clunker. He reiterated the message that in order for the GOP to win it must stand on the principles that make a Republican a Republican. He then held up Virginia and New Jersey as evidence that Republican principles can still win elections. And of course it was inevitable that he would take some swings at Chet Culver criticizing Culver’s policies and actions. Strawn said that Iowa needs a leader and Chet Culver is not a leader.

Tim Pawlenty, affectionately known nationwide as T-Paw, was a great speaker in my honest opinion. He wasn’t here to talk policy, he was here to provide a pep talk to Iowa Republicans. He was here to fire the grassroots up. And most importantly he was here to raise funds for the Republican Party of Iowa. While I don’t know if he was successful on the last part, I do know that he was successful on the first two. Just like Strawn he pointed out that Virginia and NJ were the starting points for the Republican comeback. Throughout the speech Pawlenty pounded away at President Obama, his administration, and the Democrat controlled legislature. He reiterated that President Obama’s policies are bad for America and that his foreign policy of appeasement is a danger not just to the United States but to the world. He called for the government to live within its means just like average citizens. And he got huge laughs when he said that the only thing growing faster than the national debt was Chris Matthews man crush on Obama. He advocated for lower taxes, lower spending, more appreciation of freedoms, etc…

Now we move onto the speeches by the gubernatorial candidates. Each candidate was to be allowed 10 minutes to speak, but I don’t think it was enforced.

Jerry Behn

I wasn’t overly impressed with Mr. Behn’s speaking abilities. However I do believe that he was solid on the issues. When it comes to economic development he asserts that Governor Culver’s policies and agenda place barriers around the state that would inhibit economic growth in the state. I like that he attacked the unelected board that oversees Iowa’s energy industry for denying the construction of a new efficient coal fired power plant and that this denial cost the state $1.75 billion in business. He also touched on the need for real education reform in Iowa and the notion that anyone but Culver would be an improvement in state leadership.

Terry Branstad

I had high hopes for Branstad’s coming out party. I expected Branstad to be an eloquent and powerful speaker, but that did not materialize. Sure, he had some high points in his speech such as his pride at the growth of Des Moines University. However there were far too many awkward pauses in his speech where it became evident that he was reading from a prepared script. I don’t know if he expected to get by on the fact that he is Terry Branstad, but he will have to work harder than that to win over a majority of Republicans. When it came to the issues he talked a good game. He said that he wants to focus on bringing jobs back to Iowa. He leveled criticism at the Democrats, but it left me scratching my head because some of the criticisms were things that he himself attempted during his time in Terrace Hill. I think that he was attempting to use this event to get the other nominees to not attack his record because he stated that he will not speak ill of other Republicans. I think he needed a better showing than what he provided. As of right now the only thing keeping him in the game is his name.

Bob Vander Plaats

If you want a speaker that can fire up a crowd, you can usually count on Vander Plaats to do that. Even though this speech wasn’t his A game, it was still among the better of the night. Among the many points that he made on the night was the idea that this year’s primary may be for the future of the GOP. Will the GOP swing to the left and become more moderate or will it swing to the right and remain conservative. Naturally he reiterated that on the first day of his governorship he would issue an executive order placing a stay on gay marriage in Iowa until the legislature addressed the issue with a constitutional amendment allowing the population to vote on the issue.

Rob Roberts

Next in line was the winner or the Allamakee County straw poll. After that feat Roberts had some expectations to live up to. And he succeeded. Roberts was extremely well spoken and articulate. He communicated the issues intelligently and essentially demonstrated why he won Allamakee County’s Straw Poll. He affirmed his beliefs in limited government, personal responsibility, and free enterprise. One thing that he really stressed was that Iowa needs to invest in energy and the need to defend Iowa’s right to work law. Overall I think that this was a good night for Roberts. I think that it will benefit his campaign as people may give him a second look in the primary.

Christian Fong

This was my first opportunity to hear Mr. Fong speak. I found him to be very well spoken and articulate. He discussed the issues very clearly. One interesting thing that I noted from Fong’s speech is an idea to help curb illegal immigration. He stated that to fight illegal immigration we must celebrate legal immigration. One of his stated goals is to return Iowa to prominence and bring jobs back. One idea that Fong has is to eliminate the state income tax. All in all this was a good night for Christian Fong, however it wasn’t the breakout night that he needed to catch up with the front runners.

Christopher Rants

I would have to say it that Christopher Rants was the one candidate that had a stellar night. He gets it. The Republican Party didn’t lose elections because it was too far to the right, it lost those elections because it failed to stand on its principles. He pointed out that those attending the Tea Parties are the voters that the GOP lost. Furthermore he stated that Republican elected officials should not be afraid to talk about what they would like to cut from the budget.

Overall the night was a success in my opinion. Those in attendance were fired up by the variety of different speakers that were on hand. And everyone in attendance has now been able to hear the candidates themselves so they can make a decision on their own. I would like to take a moment to thank Matt Strawn and the leadership at RPI for making candidates available to the state’s conservative blogs. And I hope that we can do this again in the future.

Yesterday morning former US Senate candidate Christopher Reed announced his candidacy for the United States House of Representatives in Iowa’s 2^nd Congressional District. While his bid to unseat US Senator Tom Harking fell short, his experience from that campaign will most definitely benefit him in this new race. Wednesday afternoon I had an opportunity to discuss some of the issues that his campaign will focus on.

The biggest difference between Reed and his Democratic opponent is the fact that Reed wants to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America whereas incumbent Democrat Dave Loebsack cares not one whit for this founding document. The evidence of Loebsacks disregard for our nations founding principles was clearly on display during the August recess when he blatantly told constituents that he was supporting a bill that he admitted would be unconstitutional.

The bill in question is the health care bill being touted by Democratic leadership in Congress. Reed takes exception to the blatant expansion of government that this bill would entail. And that expansion of government is in direct violation of the US Constitution. Reed believes that the correct way to reform health care in our nation is for the government to get out of the way and let the market do the innovating. One of the methods he proposes to do this is to eliminate the policy of forbidding cross border purchasing of health insurance. Currently consumers can only purchase insurance from providers within their own state. So if there is a health plan that is cheaper in one state, you are out of luck if you don’t live there. By eliminating this policy it would create more competition amongst the insurance industry therefore driving costs down as providers begin to compete for customers. Furthermore to create competition we must encourage the purchase of health insurance by individuals rather than tying it to a person’s place of employment.

The topic of Cap and Trade was another subject that was inevitable to be discussed. In his view this legislation is just as dangerous as and quite possibly more dangerous than the health care bill currently being shoved done our throats. He believes that passage of this bill would stifle economic growth by driving costs up for businesses and ultimately drive manufacturing from our soil. One of the primary reasons behind this belief is that other emerging industrial nations such as China and India would not follow suit making it cheaper to manufacture overseas. In his opinion the best way to solve America’s dependence on foreign oil is through a policy of inclusiveness. Essentially American should invest in a variety of energy sources to determine the most practical form for our nation. Furthermore he doesn’t believe that the various forms of energy production should be subsidized, if they are going to succeed, they need to do so on their own. Although he has stated that it would be proper for the government to help get the development of these energy forms off the ground.

He was particularly harsh on President Obama’s foreign policy. In fact when questioned about it he stated that he didn’t know Obama had one. He pointed to the escalating violence in Afghanistan as evidence of Obama’s foreign policy failures. He stated that all Obama’s apology tour did was embolden America’s enemies to step up attacks. He believes that Obama has been ignoring the recommendations of the generals on the ground demonstrates Obama’s poor leadership abilities. Essentially he is saying that Obama’s foreign policy is all style and no substance.

As I talked with Christopher for almost an hour one thing struck. Through his experiences in his campaign for the US Senate he has learned valuable lessons that can and are being applied to this campaign. He is more knowledgeable of the issues and is a more polished speaker. For those of you out there that are counting on the rookie candidate that faced Tom Harkin in 2008 I think you will be quite surprised at the amount of growth this young man has gone through. It will not be so easy to defeat this patriot this year.

Maine is reason #31 why marriage is a winning issue and the thirty other reasons are the other states who have had the definition of marriage being between on man and one woman upheld by the electorate.  Traditional marriage has never lost on the ballot............never............not even in the liberal northeast.............not anywhere in this Obamanation.  Traditional marriage even prevailed when his name was at the top of the ticket last November.

What is interesting about the Maine vote, however, is that the voters gave the middle finger to the very people they elected to represent them.  The Maine legislature imposed a law providing gay marriage and yesterday the people spoke and rejected that law.  (Maine doesn't know how lucky they are to actually have their elected officials make the gay marriage law instead of the courts unconstitutionally doing it or to have their elected officials actually do something about marriage-even if it was the wrong decision.  We don't have that luxury in Iowa.)

While the rest of the country embraces the stance for traditional marriage and flocks to the polls to uphold it, the GOP continues to move away from the issue because they think they are alienating people and that people just don't care.  The Republican party is ignoring the marriage issue nationally and also at our state level even though it has the definition in its platform.  I have yet to see one update from yesterday's elections from either the RNC or the Iowa GOP on the win in Maine and how traditional marriage is now 31 for 31.  They wouldn't know a winning issue if it slapped them in the face.

Remember, according to our former Governor Terry Branstad in order to win we shouldn't "wear our conservatism on our sleeve."  Even though traditional marriage always prevails on a ballot and 70% of Iowans want their chance to vote on that issue, it is supposedly a non-starter.  Perhaps some people choose not to wear conservatism on their sleeve because they don't have enough of it to fill up the sleeves of a muscle shirt.

According to this article at the Quad City Times, former Governor Branstad took part in a fundraiser for Representative Jeff Kauffman on a farm outside of Wilton, IA. As I was reading the article I was amazed at some of the criticisms that Branstad leveled at Governor Culver. All this criticism got me to thinking, really what is the difference between Branstad and Culver, shall we find out.

One of the chief accusations that Branstad has aimed at Governor Culver is that Culver has severely mismanaged the state budget. And while I agree with this sentiment I wanted to see where Branstad was on the issue. And after reading some the articles on Branstad when he was in office it appears that his tenure was not as rosy as his admirers would like us to think. Did you know that every year that Branstad was in office he increased the state budget in much the same fashion as Governor Culver? This revelation sort of nullifies his attacks on Culver on his overspending, kind of like the pot calling the kettle black.

And do you remember that battle for federal deductibility that we won back during the legislative session. Apparently just like Culver, Terry Branstad wanted to remove it from Iowa law. This revelation makes me wonder if we would have to fight this battle all over again if Branstad were to win another term in Terrace Hill. I wonder if he has changed his tune on this issue.

This in turn brings us to taxes; both Culver and Branstad have raised taxes. The perversion here is that Branstad raised taxes more than Culver; however that can be attributed to Branstad being in office much, much longer. But in the fact of the matter is that in the 80’s/90’s Branstad raised the sales tax multiple times to pay for his overspending.

When you get right down to it, their records are much too alike. Both have increased spending and both have increased the size of the state government. And for someone attempting to run as a conservative, that is not a record to have. As I stated above I wanted to see the difference between Culver’s record and Branstad’s. Now that I have looked at them both, I really see no difference.

As a Conservative Republican I find little that disturbs me more than a Moderate masquerading as a Conservative. By disguising their true political views these Moderates are lying to the electorate. This deception is a violation of the trust that people place in their elected officials. Moderates that hide their true worldview lack an ingredient necessary for them to succeed in politics, integrity.

Last year during the 2^nd Congressional District Primary eventual winner Marianette Miller-Meeks ran as a conservative. Couple that with the fact that she faced two particularly weak candidates and you can see why she won that race. However near the end of the primary we began to receive word that all might not be as it seemed with Ms. Miller-Meeks. We began to notice her skirting questions, or blatantly avoiding questions. It began to seem like she was hiding something. Ultimately she failed in her 2008 bid to unseat David Loebsack from Congress.

This summer with little to no campaigning going on I was informed by one of my trusted sources that on her profile page Ms. Miller-Meeks had listed under political views; Moderate. The only confirmation that I was able to get of this was through 2 other online sources. Of course this turn of events confirmed the suspicions that began to grow near the end of the primary and justified the actions that we here at Iowa Defense Alliance took in the spring of 2008.

Now it would appear that Ms. Miller-Meeks is gearing up for another run at this seat. On her Facebook profile she has changed her political views from Moderate to Conservative. And at numerous Wapello County GOP meetings she has refused to end the speculation that she will indeed run again. Both are indicative of her intentions to at the very least consider another run at the seat held by Loebsack. However I don’t think that her phony conservatism will play well with the base of the party now that she has admitted to being a moderate. If she does indeed make an official campaign announcement I would like to be the first to offer up a slogan for her using her initials. Moderate, Masquerade, Mercenary.