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.

Governor Mike Huckabee is coming out with a new book called A Simple Christmas:  Twelve Stories That Celebrate the True Holiday Spirit on November 3rd only a year after his last book Do the Right Thing hit the top five on the New York Times Best Seller list.  This book, however, is much different from the last in that it is not a policy book but instead a people book.

“The first Christmas was a simple one. So simple that it had all the makings of a first-class disaster. It’s miracle it turned out well at all. In fact, that’s the whole point. It really was, and remains, a miracle - the greatest miracle of all time. And it really was simple.”

Huckabee recounts twelve Christmas memories - often funny, sometimes deeply moving - that range from his childhood in Arkansas to his years as a young husband and father to his time as a governor and then a presidential candidate. These true stories will help you smile, take a deep breath, and maybe slow down your own holiday treadmill.

If you’re looking for a little clarity, sanity, and inspiration at this insane time of year, you’re sure to enjoy A Simple Christmas.

Huckabee will once again be hitting the trail in an exhausting sixty city stop book signing tour in November and will make three stops in Iowa (Davenport, Cedar Rapids, and Des Moines) on the 8th.  You can get details of the tour here.  This is the seventh book that the Governor has authored.

With the battle for the Republican nomination for governor well underway other races around the state seem to be getting less press time. With the public opinion at the moment heavily anti-incumbent these races should be and are just as important as the battle to challenge Governor Culver. But because of the high profile nature of the gubernatorial race these races tend to be overshadowed. One such race is the battle for the Republican nomination to challenge Democrat Leonard Boswell in Iowa’s 3^rd US Congressional District. This race is has the potential to become very crowded very quickly. Currently there are two candidates that have declared their intentions to enter this race with at least two others considering throwing their hats in the ring.

The first candidate to toss his hat in the ring for this nomination was David Funk. Back in August Mr. Funk authored a piece of guest commentary for Iowa Defense Alliance in which he described why he is running for office. While I have yet to meet with or speak with Mr. Funk, like what his website has to say. His take on the issues is constitutionally based and he takes specific aim at the incumbent’s lack of respect for our founding document. He points out that Boswell has voted for and supported legislation that has increased America’s debt load and growth of the government in direct defiance of the Constitution. If you haven’t had the opportunity to do so yet I strongly urge you to check out Mr. Funks campaign website if you have not yet done so.

The second candidate to enter this race is one that I have had an opportunity to meet with on two occasions, Dr. Pat Bertroche. Our first chance meeting was when we both tried to attend Congressman Leonard Boswell’s first Town Hall on healthcare. As you have read before, we were turned away at the door because, not being union members, we were not aware that you had to RSVP for the event. That day I sat down at the Pizza Ranch in Sigourney to listen to what he had to say. The second time was when he came to a meeting of the Iowa Defense Alliance to speak with us. One of the first impressions that you get from Mr. Bertroche is that he is NOT a politician. He doesn’t speak with political correctness and he is not afraid to tell you his opinion. It does not bother him if it costs him your vote, he is being true to himself. He doesn’t pander. As for the issues he discusses, it is very evident that he has spent a fair amount of time studying them. As for his campaign, his website doesn’t seem to be as well developed as Mr. Funks, but he has his Twitter feed right there on the home page. Perhaps this is because he is running his practice at the same time as his campaign, or perhaps it is because he is not a politician. Only time will tell.

The purpose of this post was not to compare the campaigns, but to simply introduce you to two of the candidates set to do battle for the right to challenge Leonard Boswell. And if the public sentiment that I witnessed at some of Boswell’s Town Halls holds true, Boswell will have his hands full. His political career is in trouble. I will keep you updated as I learn more.