Reality Check for Gross & Co.
Nathan Greene
in RPI, Statehouse Issues
|
25 Comments
By Emily Geiger
I found many of the attacks aimed against me in the comments yesterday to be quite comical. It seems some of you think I am one of the “my way or the highway” variety when it comes to politics, or that if you are not 100% pure as the driven snow on abortion, I won’t like you.
Let's review.
I am extremely pro-life. I write about this topic a lot, and with a great amount of passion.
I'm also the one who first called out Kim Lehman for her bizarre and unfounded attack on Mariannette Miller-Meeks in the weeks leading up to the election. While it's not my ideal, I have no problem supporting a candidate like Miller-Meeks for congress who wants to see Roe v. Wade overturned and has a rape and incest exception as part of her overall pro-life belief.
I understand that it would have been a much better use of Kim Lehman's time to be bashing Dave Loebsack, not Mariannette Miller-Meeks.
For those who implied (or outrightly stated, as the case may be) that I had "missed the point" or that they weren't sure that I "get it," I encourage you to take this opportunity to look in a mirror.
We did not get our asses handed to us this year because of too much of a focus on social issues. We got our asses handed to us because those independents in the middle that we are all clamoring for, truly believed that they were more likely to get a tax cut from Barack Obama than they were from John McCain. There is polling data on this issue. And then McCain voted for the bailout, and that was all she wrote.
On the local level, we had statehouse candidates doing stupid ads about flowerpots and bulls rather than hammering Right-to-work and the utter fiscal irresponsibility being displayed by Democrats at the Statehouse.
Further, even if these issues were paid lip service, most of the candidates did a very poor job of articulating the rationale for their ideals. It's not enough to say you are for Right-to-work or you are anti-Fair-share. Those are just slogans that don't mean much. You have to be able to tell people why Fair-share is a bad idea, what effect it has had in other states, and what impact it could have on them and their employers.
Instead we had an ad that called a Democrat "anti-farmer" because he'd used an expression about "trying to get milk from a bull." That would be similar to someone saying I'm anti-cooking if I use the phrase, "the pot calling the kettle black." Apparently these days, I might get called racist for saying that (which is also ridiculous), but I am most definitely not anti-cooking for using this euphemism.
Incidentally, I actually think that if candidates had focused a little more on social issues, like marriage, in Iowa, Republicans could have done much better. If Joe Schmoe actually knew that we are probably going to have gay marriage here in Iowa as a result of a pending court case in the next few months, and that the Dems thwarted all efforts to let the people decide that issue by a a public vote, that might have made an impact.
The point is this: we did not lose because we were too focused on social issues during an economic crisis. We lost because we could not articulate a clear, conservative economic message during an economic crisis.
And now, we have certain "leaders" trying to pin all the GOP problems on the social conservatives in an effort to marginalize those social conservatives, rather than take responsibility for the failed fiscal messages of the moderates, which is what got us where we are at right now.
It turns out the "fiscal conservatives" (as opposed to the social conservatives) weren't really all that fiscally conservative after all. Many turned out to be moderates in fiscal matters as well, not just social ideology (which, incidentally, is why many social conservatives don't trust social moderates on fiscal issues. If you're willing to compromise your morals for political expediency, you'll sacrifice my wallet for your own political power as well.)
The point of my post yesterday is that, if Doug Gross is not able or willing to see the true reasons for the GOP failures of 2008 and just wants to point fingers at the social conservatives, he has no business trying to lead the "rebuilding" of the party.
Reader Comments (25)
Emily,
I am a huge fan. Seriously, I can't remember disagreeing with you on anything except for Huckabee of course.
I do however take some exception to your post and unlike others, I'm not afraid to put my name by it. I think the shots at Gross are just as unwarranted as the shots taken by some at the SoCos. Both sides are needed without the exclusion or vilification of the other. What we need is a consensus party leader that can bring both factions together. Now I recognize that is a tall order, but one that needs to be filled none the less.
Keep up the good work and your lightsaber is still on back order, but will get it to you soon. (apparently they thought I was joking when I said I needed one in pink) A Jedi doesn't make jokes.
Emily, I also love your website, which is why I am an avid reader. This website is a forum for voicing our concerns with the party, and other issues we all care about.
You have been a strong voice for many things, including the 2nd CD race --- of which you were one of the first to call out Lehman for her poor judgment and actions. Kudos to you and keep up the great work you are doing with this website. We may disagree from time to time, but I am glad you are here.
"Emily",
Two quick points since you brought up the ads run in some statehouse races. First, the flowerpots worked - Schulte beat Staed. But to answer why it was used - polling showed that in that specific district that wasteful pork barrel spending moved the average undecided voter to our column more than Right to Work moved them. They were both good issues to use, but wasteful spending was better. We almost knocked of Whitead with the same message in Sioux City - came from way behind to win on election day.
The "bull"/farmer ad was in response to mail a steady stream of mail dropped in that particular legislative district that repeatedly belittled our candidates farming credentials. You, and your readers may not have seen that. The farmers we talked to were quite upset about the innuendos used. The D's suggestion that our guy go milk a bull is not the same as pots and kettles. Now, I don't know where you are from, but I think this is something that was appropriate for that rural district.
What I am trying to say is that everyone has to look at specific races and not generalize. Look at the Hagenow race in Polk Co. Chris is a good solid conservative - social and economically. His closing arguments were on right to work, and taxes. It worked well for him.
Kent Sorenson, also a good solid conservative, tailored his message a bit differently - lots of right to work, smoking ban, and marraige. That mix worked well for him.
Every district is different. Every race is different. What works well in one may not work so well in another.
Lots of time to blog now that the Republicans lost again, Chrissy?
I have to admit we look you all from this corner of the state and are just incredulous at the rest of the GOP. If this is the mentality up there it's no wonder we're getting clocked every election.
Maybe because we fight in Democrat districts we know you have to run BALANCED campaigns that pay attention to the issues at hand and don't go off to the social or fiscal extreme. You can't just be some firebrand pounding on the table and shouting slogans.
Yoda has said it: we need to forge a path between the the fiscal-only and social-only conservatives. We also need to get more articulate and sophisticated in our presentation and learn the #1 rule of campaigns, that you talk about what the voter wants to talk about.
Shoving our issues down the electorate's throat gets us nowhere. We need to be ready for conservative solutions to the issues the voters deem the priority. Elections are the time to get in tune with the voter and give them well articulated conservative responses to the issues they care about.
Wow - look at all this. Rants doesn't get it at all. Gross doesn't get it at all. FACT: We lost more seats. What is this nonsense about things working because a couple of people won their races?
Statewide we are a wreck. The "local" legislators are running for the statehouse because they are offended about farming credentials? I can't even imagine the silliness of the flower pots controversy.
We have statewide fiscal issues that need to be dealt with that we need ALL of our legislators to fight for common goals that benefit ALL Iowans.
If Chris thought that was the best strategy, he was clearly proven wrong and he deserved to lose his leadership position. Flower pots...sheesh.
Uhm, Chris, I don't specifically remember, but I seem to recall that Chris Hagenow barely won his race..just barely. Once cycle ago, it was solid solid Republican. Now, we hold on by a thread.
The ever lovely Danny Carroll got beat twice by college students. Did we learn nothing about voter fraud the first time? Did anyone use that? Is anyone concerned about the increasing voter fraud we know is happening in Iowa, just like all across the country? Fool Danny once, shame on the college students. Fool Danny twice, shame on Danny. What is the party doing about voter fraud?
I don't care about their farming egos just like those farmers don't care about the egos of city people as they constantly harp about city people. - Geez - grow up and figure out you belong the whole state.
Flower pots and damaged egos. Nice.
The tail is wagging the dog and they just go in circles.
Yoda and Lee - just what would an issue be that fits your description of being somewhere between social only and fiscal only? Is that like being kinda pregnant? Could you provide an example of what you are talking about? Cuz, it sounds mostly like you don't stand for anything in particular.
and how about we leave Kim Lehman alone. I think scapegoating her for MMM's loss is a bit ridiculous in light of the results that factually occurred.
As I listen to the gross rants of our self-appointed self-centered minority "leaders", I hear that Kim is a leader of a minority in a minority. Or, that she is so powerful and notorious that her little read newsletter to a relatively small single issue focused special interest group was the sole reason MMM lost her race.
So, which is it? Is she a powerless leader of a minority in a minority or is she the most powerful human being in Iowa?
Because if it was all Kim's fault that MMM lost her race, then dang it...I'd be very certain to campaign on whatever Kim tells me to campaign on. She must hold the keys to success. I want to WIN!
I don't recall Kim Leham dissing Jared Kline yet he lost by an even bigger landslide.
Kim Schmett? Did Kim ruin his race too somehow? He fit the perfect gross profile, after all. Not only was Kim Schmett a former staffer for Brandstadt, (just like Doug Gross), so was his wife?
How could he have lost with that branstadt resume to trump all cards? Why, it must be Kim Lehman's fault.
How many more branstadt staffers are there that haven't retired yet that we can run the next time?
Rants, it is pointless trying to educate these people on how a campaign works, but nice try. Most people who comment on this blog as well as the writers are like the Obama supporters. Just sheep who will not believe anything but what they want to believe. Facts are irrelevant, polling is irrelevant and only winning in spite of their detrimental efforts will change their attitude.
The base is something you have to have without question but elections are won and lost with independents in the middle - that is as basic as it can be put. People who change their party votes (swing voters) are the deciders election after election. You cannot campaign like it is a primary (speaking to the base) straight through the general election and expect to win. We need to ignore those who are simply saboteurs and finger pointers, and focus on winning. You win an election by securing the base in the primary, winning that fair and square, getting their backing for the general and speaking changing your message focus to appeal to independence. Simply put very few people vote on the issues of gay marriage and abortion. Those issues are just a very small part of a much larger picture. I hope some of the stubborn people on this blog learn some basics here. This is simply ridiculous and I hope we can get over it by the 2010 election season.
To Our Esteemed Leader Rants:
Since you've waded into the blogosphere twice to defend yourself today, let me give you a piece of the pie from my little corner of the state.
After 2006, you noted publicly that absentee balloting and early voting (and satellite voting) were trending heavily Democratic, and we had to do something. On the heels of 2006, you'd presided over taking a House majority and turning it into the House minority. So, what did you do?
1. You helped orchestrate the gutting of the RPI staff, a staff that was committed to re-organizing at the county and grassroots level. You did this under the guise of your Romney connections, immediately after the caucuses. You helped squander a golden opportunity to energize our party after the caucuses by cutting off its head.
2. You conspired to elect a former colleague of yours, Stew Iverson, because you knew that he would merely turn over the keys to the RPI to you.
3. You elevated your current "pet project", the Iowa Leadership Council by siphoning off millions of dollars that could have gone to party building operations. But you spent them on your own cast of friends, pollsters and direct mail hit men. And, along the way, spent good money on Vegas trips for your "staff" and golf trips for yourself.
4. Rather than build the Party, you built your own kingdom. What's the current balance of the ILC and what will you use it for? What happens to that money if and when you retire?
5. You failed to develop any coherent message for the Republicans running for election. In my mind, running on flower pots and bull milk isn't the way to win hearts and minds, as others here have noted.
6. And prior to 2008, while you were Speaker, you had Republicans supporting Democrat ideas like the Dream Act (allowing in-state tuition to illegal immigrants), and presiding over a ballooning state budget. Hardly true to your "conservative" ideals. When you finally did pony up on some conservative ideas, like the marriage amendment, you had absolutely no credibility with your colleagues in the House or the voters at large.
I'm tired of finger pointing too. But I'm even more tired of those who were responsible for this train wreck not standing up like men and taking responsibility.
Like Karl Rove, Leader Rants, you've been our "architect." Only sadly, you built a house of straw that the strong wind blew to bits.
Do something completely out of the ordinary for a politician. Take responsibility.
ps. Emily, you rock the political geiger counter.
I'll bite and respond to the "anonymous" supervisor.
At no time did I say "an issue that fits between social and fiscal". But nice try with that straw man argument.
What I said was:
"Both sides are needed without the exclusion or vilification of the other. What we need is a consensus party leader that can bring both factions together."
And for God's sake stop bagging anonymously like a coward on Rants. You orchestrated the moderate Lundby take over in the senate and then our eventual minority status. So lay off genius.
This is to the anti Gross ranter in this thread - and no I'm not a Gross fan...
I'm not here every day but I don't recall anyone claiming that Lehman's lame activities cost MMM the election.
I have always pointed to the broad picture of Republicans NOT sporting or voting for Republicans AFTER the primary has concluded and the candidate is selected. To me, this has hurt Republicans more than anything... yes we need a more consistent message, but if we're still fighting after the primaries, finding that single threaded message isn't going to happen either.
Kim Lehman is not capable of representing ALL Iowa Republicans to the RNC.
She has a perfect right to say whatever she wants as the head of the IRL group, but she should have never run for the Committeewoman position - she can't put one hat on then the other. It just doesn't work that way.
The very fact that she dances around her "explanation" of the MMM article in her newsletter proves my point. I have heard her quoted as saying "someone else wrote it" "I didn't read it" "I only glanced at it" but the more important thing is someone told me Kim told them first hand, "I wrote it". Hardcopies of the newsletter were delivered weeks after the issue came up. If she was sincere about any of this - she would have taken corrective action.
She has lost support and respect of many people on both sides of this issue. Lehman's resignation the first step to healing this party.
What Yoda said.
ok, yoda - how might someone unite the party? Lead a round of kumbaya? Hand out some cookies and milk?
Could you be more specific about how this mythical leader might do as you say you require?
YODA SAID: What we need is a consensus party leader that can bring both factions together.
I SAY: We need to say what we mean, mean what we say, plan our work and work our plan. We must lead, not pacify.
In otherwards we'll just take a lead pipe and beat it into 'em, Teamster style. Now there's a plan.
Actually Reagan is a really good example of the type of leader I am looking for, but will have to settle for someone else that resembles many of his great character traits.
To specifically answer your question as to "How", a consensus leader would be someone (like Reagan) who appeals to everyone. In The Gipper's case that included every single state except Minnesota and the Dictrict of Columbia. I am gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that we as a party and as a nation are better off for having a leader like that.
Heck, I even named my first born after Reagan. And yours was Kennedy right?
Next.
"Bill",
Seriously? You seriously believe all that?
Its clear there is no point in arguing this, because you will beleive what you want but I want to set just one thing straight, in hopes that it causes you to question the rest of your assertions.
I did not "siphoning off millions of dollars that could have gone to party building operations".
That is impossible. Those dollars would never have been raised by RPI. Never. Ever.
More importantly, there are significant limitations on how corporate dollars can be used. Better check your facts.
Seriously.
CR
Representative Rants,
I think you did a decent job as minority leader, however, the thing that truly bothered me was the lack of candidates for State House and Senate.
These are uncontested Democrats in 2008
Unopposed Democrats
House District 22: Deborah Berry, D-Waterloo (won a primary challenge)
House District 24: Roger Thomas, D-Elkader
House District 25: Tom Schueller, D-Maquoketa
House District 30: Dave Jacoby, D-Coralville
House District 34: Todd Taylor, D-Cedar Rapids
House District 38: Tyler Olson, D-Cedar Rapids (Republican opponent dropped out)
House District 42: Geri Huser, D-Altoona (won a primary challenge)
House District 48: Donovan Olson, D-Boone
House District 78: Vicki Lensing, D-Iowa City
House District 88: Dennis Cohoon, D-Burlington
And Democrats without a Republican Challenger
Senate District 4: Jack Kibbie, D-Emmetsburg (”Grassroots For Life” opponent)
House District 15: Brian Quirk, D-New Hampton (independent opponent)
House District 46: Lisa Heddens, D-Ames (Libertarian opponent)
House District 66: Ako Abdul-Samad, D-Des Moines (Green opponent)
House District 77: Mary Mascher, D-Iowa City (independent opponent)
House District 90: John Whitaker, D-Hillsboro (”4th of July Party” opponent)
House District 93: Mary Gaskill, D-Ottumwa (independent opponent
Some may be "Lost Causes", but in my own district here in Ames, we had a Republican challenger to Rep. Wessel-Krochelle, a college kid, who did fairly well all things considered.
I'm just wondering what there is to do to fill these voids? I'm willing to help in any way I can, I am an independent, but I lean right and believe democracy works best when there is actual voting:)
Thank you for your time and attention
Adam
Chris Rants: Schulte has not been declared the winner, yet.
Klein lost by 162 votes. Thats no landslide. He and his family were attacked by Marek on their ablitity to farm. The Klein family are better farmers than the Mareks by a mile, ask Mareks neigbors. They voted for Klein in his (Mareks) home precinct. The farmers got this one right the idiot Liberals from Johnson county gave Marek the votes he needed to win by a TIGHT margin. In two years when Marek has a record to run on Klein wins by 500 to 1000 votes. You can take it to the bank!
I at no time until now have posted on this blog thread. As if most people don't know, Yoda is Todd Henderson. Todd is overly focused on my life and appears to be stalking me on the internet (perhaps in real life too, but I am too busy to notice or care). Todd has posted several times on this blog insinuating that I have somehow "called him out" or blogged against him. I have not. I have no time for Todd Henderson, don't really care what his opinion is of anything, and would not "call him out." I just wanted to clarify since he felt it necessary to name my daughter on this blog and act as if we were having a debate against one another. If we were, you would notice the difference (the difference would be stark in fact). Todd, please do yourself a favor and get over me. You're having a Brokeback Mountain moment. I can quit you, can't you quit me?
LOL. Have another round and post some more.
Maybe Yoda should change his screen name to Han Solo. They both are constantly stroking their Wookie.
Elected officials should google the term "IP Address".