For 24 years Iowa has been represented by Tom Harkin in the US Senate. I will be the first to say that Senator Harkin has done some good in his political career. But that was for the most part early in his political career. As his career has progressed he has grown out of touch with the people of Iowa. He no longer identifies with us, instead he now more closely identifies with the power brokers and far leftist Democrats from around the country. He no longer represents all that Iowa holds dear. He no longer represents Iowa values such as personal responsibility and fiscal responsibility.

Through his actions and his words in recent years Senator Harkin has demonstrated that he has become infested with the partisan politics that most of the population has come to despise. It is not enough for Harkin to disagree with someone else; he must denigrate and destroy those that do not agree with him. He has even gone so far as to reinvent history so that it will favor his worldview. The most well known example of this was in this video. It comes from an interview that WHO Radio personality conducted with Senator John McCain. This video contains an audio clip in which Senator Harkin dismisses true history and fabricates a history that will serve his purposes. He makes the audacious claim that when the US withdrew from Vietnam there were no executions, that there were no massacres. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the Vietnam War knows that this statement made by Senator Harkin during their sleepover in the Senate is completely and utterly false.

Then of course there are the repeated calls for timetables for a withdrawal from Iraq. He is either unaware that his comments actually hurt the US effort to quell the violence in Iraq or he simply does not care. Let me state this, I believe that it is okay to oppose a war. I mean we need to keep our government honest. But to openly advocate letting our opponents know what our plans are is ludicrous. Senator Harkin however seems oblivious to this. As many of you know, Harkin was recently called to the carpet for his position in this regard by his opponent Christopher Reed. Some have called Reed's remarks a negative attack on Senator Harkin. However I believe that it needed to be said. Harkin has received a pass for far to long and it is time to hold him accountable for the things that he has done to harm not just the State of Iowa, but also the actions that he has taken to harm the United States.

I believe that it is time for Tokyo Tom to retire. It is time to let a new generation of Americans take over the reigns and represent the State of Iowa in the US Senate. And I believe that the person to do that is Christopher Reed. He has already shown that he is not afraid to stand up to for what he believes and what a large portion of Iowa believes to be right. He has shown that he will speak out against actions that damage the interests of the US and Iowa.  He is a fresh face that is not saddled with preconceived notions of how the Senate should be run. Reed holds convictions that make up the very core of who he is. Reed is not beholden to special interest groups.

I believe that Christopher Reed is the man that will defend the principles and values that make America great. When Senator Harkin mentions that America needs change I will have to say that I agree with him. However I do believe that he is mistaken when he says he can be that agent of change. A career politician can not embody the change that America needs. It is time to elect new leadership to the US Senate. And I believe that Christopher Reed is ready to lead.

Barack Obama has launched a new attack on his foes and opponents this week. In Sarasota, FL Obama made the remark that his opponents have made a virtue of selfishness. This is in response to the opposition of Obama's coming tax increase if elected. This was not the only comments made at that rally which drew my attention.

Shortly after Obama makes that comment he states that he next expected that his opponents would attempt to tie his sharing of toys and split a peanut butter sandwich with his friends when he was a child to his communistic tendencies. I find it offensive that Obama is comparing these two childhood virtues with his socialistic ambition of sharing the wealth.

Mr. Obama forgets something though. The tax dollars that he wants to share are not his to share. Those tax dollars are not the governments to share. Those tax dollars belong to the individuals that pay taxes in this country. But this is something that Mr. Obama doesn't seem to remember because he wants to share those tax dollars with the less fortunate. He wants to spread the wealth.

This video provides us with a little insight into the worldview of the Democratic Messiah. It provides us with his own words implying that he wants to share our money and property with others. Evidently Mr. Obama forgot to grow up. Maybe when he looks at the world all he sees is one giant sandbox full of toys. I am sorry Mr. Obama but you can leave my toys alone.

Reports have been coming out about the unprecedented amount of absentee ballots and early voters in Iowa coming heavily from the Democratic side.  This news coincides with the final chapter of my unprecedented journey in this years election cycle.  Eight years ago I had really no idea why I was a Republican until my boss and I sat down over drinks the night of the 2000 Iowa Caucus.  Funny part of this story is that I had no idea it was caucus night, but she did........and she lived in Nebraska.  I asked her, "What is the main difference between a Republican and Democrat?"  She replied, "It depends on if you believe you have to take care of yourself or if the government is supposed to take care of you."  I knew right then and there that I was a Republican.

One year ago I had no idea what a socon or a ficon was, I didn't know about the three legged stool or the Reagan Coalition, but I did know that the society and schools of today were not the same that I grew up in during the 70s and 80s and I saw a slow and steady decline into something that I did not want my children to be a part of.  A society where nobody seemed to take personal responsibility for any of their choices and a society eager for the next hand out instead of relying on hard work to get them where they want to be.  Because I believe in this so strongly I got involved with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign, and once he wasn't our nominee I got involved with other like-minded people from Iowa to keep fighting for these values at the state level.  You see, it wasn't about the man, it was about his message.  A message that resonated with many people and awoke a sleeping giant.  The message of the importance of social issues in order to have fiscal conservatism.  We are all on the same team here.

In the past year the message that resonated with so many voters was trampled on by Republican elite, Christian leaders, and conservative media.  It happened in the presidential primary campaign and it happened here in Iowa with the snubbing of candidates Christopher Reed, David Hartsuch, and Kent Sorenson by our own nominee.  In the past year I have noticed a lot of Republicans not giving voters something to vote for, but instead something to vote against.  Republicans are campaigning on the message of fear instead of on the message that we could give real hope and real change.  I witnessed the biggest Republican sellout with the bailout bill that, to me, was like a domestic September 11th.  The end of our society as we know it, and it was self inflicted by our own elected officials.  I cringe when Republicans campaign on the threat of Obama's socialism when a lot of them signed their name to the biggest form of socialism in history to date, and our money went to the rich and not the needy.  I weep at the the sight of the stock market plummeting and Obama's poll number's rising because I realize what this is all leading up to.  We are going to get what we deserve.  The GOP  has strayed so much off course that we don't even know how to fight the other side anymore.  Maybe that's because we have become too much like them. 

I have spent the last eight months of this election cycle buried in Iowa candidate information, blogging, commenting, and occasionally knocking on some doors.  There are wonderful, solid conservative candidates who embody the traditional Republican values in Iowa this year and I and others have worked their butts off for them and I know those candidates have worked one hundred times harder.  Even though the number of registered Democrats in Iowa is daunting this year I will still fight the good fight, because these Iowa candidates are worth it and so are their futures, and so are my children's futures.  I am not looking for a clean sweep of victory for all of our candidates on November 4th because I am realistic, but I am looking for a few battles to be won in this war.  We will rebuild piece by piece, candidate by candidate, seat by seat, caucus by caucus.  Even if things do not turn out as we hope, 2008 is just the beginning for us.  Like the legendary Phoenix we will rise from our own ashes and begin a new battle.  We are the grassroots and we are the future of the party.

Today on Iowa Public Radio the contenders for Iowa's US 3rd Congressional District faced off in a radio debate. The incumbent, Democratic candidate Leonard Boswell has is vying for the opportunity to represent the Iowa's 3rd Congressional District for a seventh consecutive term. Kim Schmett is the Republican challenger attempting to unseat Boswell.This is the first time that these two challengers have had the opportunity to square off in a debate.

The first question posed to the candidates was directed at Republican challenger Kim Schmett. He had indicated that he was opposed to the recent bailout approved by Congress and signed by President Bush. The question was posed by Charlotte Eby was what Schmett would do to help the financial industry or did he believe that they did not need any assistance. In his answer Schmett asserts that the problems are related to a crisis of consumer confidence. He believes that the bailout was a rushed through without much thought given to the consequences. He stated that he believes that they could have come up with a solution that did not involve the use of government funds to relieve the problem. He specifically cites the recent takeover of Wachovia by Wells Fargo without the use of public money. He also points out that Boswell made the claim that the 750 billion dollar bailout may not be enough and that they may need to spend more tax dollars to shore up the market. Schmett gave a good answer and showed that he understood the concepts at play in Washington in regards to the economy. I think that a lot of Iowans feel this way about the bailout, that Congress should have sat down and looked at more than one option instead of rushing to pass the first one to come across their desk.

The next question was directed at Congressman Boswell and is along the same lines as the question posed to Schmett. The question asked was why he supported the bailout and why did he disagree with Schmett's assessment? Okay here we apparently entered the twilight zone. When asked about his difference with Schmett on the bailout and the economy Boswell brings up his difference with Schmett on stem cell research. Forgive me if I am missing something here, but what does that have to do with the bailout and the economy? Is Congressman Boswell going senile on us? Finally Boswell moves off his stem cell diatribe and moves on to the economy. In his first remarks he refers to the bailout as the rescue bill. He said that doing nothing was not a good response. He stated that his line of thinking was that we had to try something, maybe even take some risks. He goes into a monologue about a conversation he had supposedly had with a worker at an airport. He claims that the worker was unhappy with him at first for supporting the bailout, but after thinking about it changed his mind. He believes that there was indeed risk in voting the way he did, but feels that there was greater risk in doing nothing. In his response to this question Boswell went over the allotted two minute time limit so they allowed Schmett to have an additional 45 seconds to rebut what Boswell had said. In this time Schmett reemphasized that the price tag of the bailout was too high and placing too high a burden on future generations of Americans. Boswell's opening remarks in reference to this question were quite odd indeed. If I had had the opportunity to ask Boswell a question or two, I would have definitely asked him if he thought that stem cells were a part of the bailout bill. It appears that Boswell's age and health are now affecting how he performs his job duties on Capital Hill. I do think that my fears that Boswells mind is deteriorating are founded based on his answer to this question.

The next question was directed at Boswell and came from Dave Price of WHO TV fame. The question asked was also related to the economy and whether Boswell saw another industry that was going to be in need of a bailout and if not what the next step that the government should take to help the economy? He doesn't directly answer this question. Instead he says that the government should stay very active. Boswell asserts that if the government stimulates the economy that transportation infrastructure should be included because it is not a job that can be outsourced and that it is something that has to be done anyway. He states that the government should be looking at what it can do for the unemployed. I understand the rationale that Boswell used to support the bailout. But I think in this case he needed to have a more sound reasoning for voting for this bailout. I don't think that in a situation in which the government would be spending $700 billion tax payer dollars to shore up Wall Street should have been supported with the rationale that Boswell used. In his mind it was better to do something than doing nothing even if it was the wrong thing.

Price then redirects this very same question at Schmett. Schmett comes out swinging on this issue stating that a line of industries begging for handouts has already formed with the auto industry leading the way with monies already directed at them. He said that the auto industry bailout would have been a larger issue had the larger bailout bill not overshadowed it. Schmett agrees with Boswell that if stimulus is needed that it should be used on items that tax dollars would normally be spent on like infrastructure and other costs that the government would already be obligated to pay for, just accelerating the payments. Schmett calls for it to be limited to expenditures that would help create new jobs thus decreasing unemployment. Schmett provides some very good points and also has some good ideas. I like the idea that if you are going to stimulate the economy you should use that money on areas that will keep it in the US like rebuilding infrastructure.

I loved this gem directed at Boswell. Eby stated that Schmett has criticized Boswell for voting to recess Congress before an additional aid package was passed to help in recovery from the massive flooding the State of Iowa suffered this summer. She asks Mr. Boswell if this was a fair criticism. Boswell called this criticism an uninformed criticism because it was not a recess, it was a work period. Now Boswell was playing semantics. It doesn't matter what you call it they still left Washington with key bills on the table. He then went on to defend his actions by saying that they got 2.65 billion dollars into the system. He claims that he had Pelosi's assurance that they would pass a relief bill before adjournment after they got back from the "work period." Boswell very clearly became upset by this line of questioning. He went into a litany of items to explain how Schmetts criticism was an uninformed criticism. However his words seemed to ring hollow and desperate. He was clearly on the defensive here and not doing a very good job at it.

Schmett comes out hammering on Boswell for his vote to leave for recess and leaving this important work on the floor. He asserts that a relief bill is fairly noncontroversial and that it wouldn't have faced much if any resistance. He states that once they did come back from the five week recess that it took them an additional two weeks to pass the bill. During this time, Boswell began interrupting Schmett saying that he should know better. Schmett called Pelosi's visit to Iowa to survey the flood damage a press conference. This heightened the displeasure of Boswell who interrupted Schmett once again. Schmett made some great points here. I mean they had a relief package on the floor, why decide to adjourn for recess while that bill sits there. As much as I liked this line of attack from Schmett, I think that he should have hitting him over voting to recess rather than voting on an energy policy. This is the greater issue that I think from that Congressional recess. It was at the height of high gas prices and Congress had an opportunity to do something about it. Instead they go on vacation. I would have loved to hear Kim hammer on Boswell over that.

This debate most assuredly was informative and showed the difference between the two candidates. For the most part it was a civil debate; however there were some fireworks during one portion of the debate. During this portion of the debate Boswell was very clearly irate with the direction that the debate was going. He was being criticized for a vote that made him appear to be attempting to skip out on his work.

You can listen to the audio of the debate here.

As the McCain camp begins to implode and lay the blame at the feet of Sarah Palin, we here at IDA join Steve Deace and the Iowa Family Policy Council in encouraging Iowa conservatives to focus their last bit of energy and attention on local Iowa races.

Last year (March 2007) an article appeared in The Atlantic featuring Colorado gay rights activist Tim Gill and his crusade to turn state legislatures across the country to Democratic control in an effort to promote gay rights. This article details Gill's successful effort to change control of the Iowa legislature and oust Danny Carroll, former speaker pro tempore of the Iowa House who is now running again for his old seat.

See the following excerpts from this article to see Gill's strategy. Note that he works with both liberals AND moderate Republicans to advance his agenda:

Gill's principal interest is gay equality. His foundations have given about $115 million to charities. His serious involvement in politics is a more recent development, though geared toward the same goal. In 2000, he gave $300,000 in political donations, which grew to $800,000 in 2002, $5 million in 2004, and a staggering $15 million last year, almost all of it to state and local campaigns.

 But several years ago, a growing number of his peers began to sense that they were playing in the wrong arena. "A lot of [gay donors] are driven, cycle to cycle, by the notion that there's going to be an epiphany--that one day they'll wake up and accept us," he said. "But this group had spent millions of dollars on philanthropy, and yet woken up the morning after the election to see gay-marriage bans enacted all across the country."

Together, Gill and Trimpa decided to eschew national races in favor of state and local ones, which could be influenced in large batches and for much less money. Most antigay measures, they discovered, originate in state legislatures. Operating at that level gave them a chance to "punish the wicked," as Gill puts it--to snuff out rising politicians who were building their careers on antigay policies, before they could achieve national influence.

Gill's idea was to identify vulnerable candidates like Danny Carroll and move quickly to eliminate them without the burden of first having to win the consent of some risk-averse large organization or board of directors. Another element of this strategy is stealth. Revealing targets only after an election makes it impossible for them to fight back and sends a message to other politicians that attacking gays could put them in the crosshairs.

Convinced his approach was sound, Gill decided to go big. When I visited his headquarters last fall, liberals were working alongside conservatives on a list compiled by his top consultants--one a national Democratic consultant, the other a former Karl Rove protégé--of seventy races in which a key antigay candidate was vulnerable or the outcome of a race was likely to affect control of the legislature.

In the 2006 elections, on a level where a few thousand dollars can decide a close race, Gill's universe of donors injected more than $3 million, providing in some cases more than 20 percent of a candidate's or organization's budget. On Election Day, fifty of the seventy targeted candidates were defeated, Danny Carroll among them; and out of the thirteen states where Gill and his allies invested, four--Iowa, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Washington--saw control of at least one legislative chamber switch to the Democratic Party. (In Massachusetts, Travis decided to retire rather than seek reelection.)

One component of Gill's strategy includes courting that element of the Republican Party that's open to compromise, while at the same time making clear that gay bashing will now come at a price.

Seems like Mr. Gill has figured out to promote his agenda and that agenda starts in state and local races. While social conservatives have been more concerned with national races, Gill and his people have been pulling the rug out from underneath the people of our state. Iowans should be outraged at the amount of money being poured into Iowa races by Gill and people associated with him. In fact, the opponents of several of the candidates that we support here on IDA receive money from people associated with Gill.

To see how much money Gill and Co. have poured into Iowa races go to Let Us Vote Iowa.

Yesterday CBN ran a fabulous piece on Gill and his influence on state races. Danny Carroll and Chuck Hurley from the Iowa Family Policy Council are interviewed. You can see the clip here. As you go vote, remember what Gill says in the CBN clip

"we successfully flipped legislatures around this country from Republican control to Democratic control and the net result is always good for gay people. Always."

In a move that is not at all surprising the Des Moines Register today endorsed US Senator Tom Harkin for a fifth term. It was only fitting that the left leaning Register endorsed one of the most liberal politicians to come out of Iowa. Let us explore the so-called reasons behind their decision.

The foremost reason that the Register endorsed Senator Harkin was because he is ranks within the top fifth of Senators in terms of seniority. I guess they think that with seniority comes wisdom. I think Harkin has proved otherwise on numerous occasions. Harkin is the chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, a position that he has used to craft farm bills that heavily favor the biofuel industry in Iowa. Biofuels are and should be an important part of America's energy future, but does it have to come at a cost to the taxpayer? He ranks third in seniority on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Gee this is supposed to be a good thing. Look at the deplorable state that America's education system is in, and this is supposed to be a Harkin strength. With the results this guy has been getting, do we really want him anywhere near these vital areas? I don't know about you, but having Harkin anywhere near the education system is a scary prospect.

Next they go on to bashing Harkin's opponent Christopher Reed. They claim that Harkin is a better choice because he Reed looks at the issues from the conservative standpoint and doesn't really know the issues. Well I have news for them. Harkin knows squat about the issues himself. His idea of education reform is spend, spend, spend. Harkin's idea of healthcare reform is universal, universal, universal. If you want to know where Harkin stands on the issues, ask Harry Reid. That is where Harkin stands on the issues. They criticize Reed for calling Harkin on his anti-American rhetoric. They bemoan the fact that Reed questioned Harkin's patriotism. I on the other hand applaud Christopher's courage to state the truth on Harkin's comments and actions on the Iraq War. Harkin has continuously sounded the drum of time tables for an exit from Iraq. He has continuously advocated providing our enemies with the "playbook". I guess the truth hurts, huh.

The Register curiously states that it is a plus that he has voted along party lines more times than not. I am not making this up, here is the line. "Democrats have counted on him as a reliable vote for party causes." In other words, they are praising Senator Harkin for his partisanship in the US Senate. I guess for the Register it is only partisanship if the Republicans take part in it.

Of course we should not forget Senator Harkins war with Dreamworks, the makers of the Shrek movies. Last year Senator Harking went into political combat with Dreamworks for allowing the image of Shrek to be used to promote foods that Harkin deemed unhealthy. I remember laughing for nearly a minute when I saw the comments that Harkin made in regards to seeing Shrek on a box of cereal. Evidently Dreamworks didn't donate enough money to his campaign.

Then of course there were the comments that he had made about John McCain. I am sure most people remember Harkin's comments that John McCain's military upbringing was dangerous. I found these comments to be strange coming from a fellow Navy veteran, but then I remembered how Harkin had lied about his own military service. Perhaps Harkin is just jealous that McCain is a real war hero and that he is a fake war hero.

Then I also can't forget about the doozy of a comment that Harkin made at the Democrats "sleepover." This is when Harkin completely reinvents the history of Vietnam. If you don't remember this you have to listen to the audio of this. You can do so here.

The Register has a long history of supporting hard left leaning candidates. This year alone they have supported both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for president. So it should come as no surprise that they would support the liberal figurehead of Iowa. As the torchbearer for Iowa liberalism they could endorse none other than The Great American Hypocrite.

For those of you that want to read the entire Register article you can do so here.