The Iowa GOP released the final, certified results of the Iowa Republican Caucus today. Not much has changed in numerical terms (though the final results flipped the winner to Santorum, even though the Iowa GOP refuses to certify him as such).
Much of the press focus is on the presidential race for obvious reasons, but looking again at the results map something struck me that has implications for the Republican Congressional primary in Iowa’s First Congressional District.
2010 GOP nominee Ben Lange has formed an exploratory committee and is weighing whether to run again. Dubuque businessman Rod Blum has thrown his hat into the ring already.
Most of Lange’s off-year political activity has centered on providing vocal support for Rick Santorum’s presidential campaign. He was an early endorser of Santorum, and Santorum’s Iowa state director Cody Brown was Lange’s 2010 campaign manager.
But of the four new Congressional districts in Iowa, Santorum performed the poorest in Iowa’s First District. Just look at the map below, with the new 1st District outlined:
Purple – Santorum / Gold – Romney / Green – Paul
The numbers bear out the visual. Even though Santorum won Iowa, he finished third in the First District:
| District | Santorum | Romney | Paul |
| 1 | 22.37% | 24.91% | 23.47% |
| 2 | 24.44% | 24.58% | 23.35% |
| 3 | 22.41% | 27.02% | 20.91% |
| 4 | 29.02% | 21.23% | 18.63% |
This is bad news for Ben Lange in a GOP primary, especially with a candidate like Rod Blum who would be tough competition. Lange has closely linked himself to Rick Santorum, and Republicans in the First District just aren’t with him there. Santorum only carried rural First District counties – none of the population centers of the district.
It’s a good thing Lange’s campaign is still in the exploratory phase. I’d probably be giving this campaign more thought too, if I were him. Not only is the math complex for him in the primary as you’ve seen, but even conservative bloggers think he’ll have a rough go of it this cycle – just see this post over at RedState.
From Lange’s perspective, I’m sure he’d hate to lose narrowly in 2010 just to get beat in 2012 – that’s not exactly what you’d expect to see from a “rising conservative star” (it’d be more like “emerging perennial candidate” in that case). The numbers above show just how complex his path through even the Republican primary is – and if Lange loses a Congressional primary in 2012, it’d make it hard for him to run even for county auditor.
Well, another day, another lawsuit against the Branstache. You probably remember the hub-bub surrounding our fair and transparent Governor and his not wanting Chris Godfrey to remain as Worker’s Compensation Commissioner. For more on that go here.
This situation is disturbing in itself, but what is really confounding us at the Dome is the question: What does Brenna Findley do?
In naming his new staff upon coming to office, the Branstache could hardly wait to name Brenna Findley, failed Attorney General candidate, his General Counsel. After all, he had unabashedly endorsed and campaigned for her against long time Attorney General Tom Miller. However, the Governor has now been sued twice (the other being over the issue of the closed Workforce Development Offices), both times turning to a private practice attorney to represent him.
So, if Brenna Findley was so imminently qualified to be AG, why not have her represent you in court? Why take additional taxpayer dollars to hire outside counsel? If Brenna was good enough to defend the entire state or prosecute on its behalf, how can she not handle representing one piece of the executive branch? Was AG Miller right when he said Brenna does not have the experience to be AG? At the very least, its really starting to look that way.
Well, well, well? Nope, no seats there either.
It turns out, if you are a member of the general public who did not happen to be one of the Branstache’s visual aids for what was a pretty short, and often stuttered through, Condition of the State Address, you were not welcome. The Register has the story here.
Some are questioning why the Governor would do this, but alas, the Governor does not control the decisions regarding the House Chamber, Speaker Paulsen does. We here at “the Dome” are hearing whispers that ol’ “Special K” Kraigy himself closed the chamber and did so without talking to his caucus or other members.
Now, it’s not unusual for a Governor to make a request of the Speaker to arrange the chamber or add additional seating for such joint chamber events, but it is unusual to keep it a secret. (And if Kraigy doesn’t cowtow to King Branstache, it’s not unusual, to see him cry – sorry, couldn’t resist). And for a Speaker who has a Kooky Kaukus within his own House Republican ranks, with whom he DID NOT get along all last session, we are surprised to see him begin this year’s session with a move those in the Kaukus would likely call “just more typical Kraig.”
With the coming election year, it’s surprising that Kraigy wouldn’t be going out of his way to keep the House Republicans together as this is certain to be another session where the House and Senate, under control of the Democrats, continue to clash on the finer points of legislation, and Kraigy is going to need his caucus in lock-step. Looks like Kim Pearson, Glen Massie and Co. are in for another 100 days of…well, I guess we’ll see.
Branstad believes the higher your grade point average, the better teacher you will be. He wants to require a minimum 3.0 grade point average for people studying to become a teacher.
Following the same logic, I think we should require anyone who is running for the legislature or governor to have a minimum 3.0 grade point requirement. Candidates should submit their college transcripts for public review. Wouldn’t it be good for voters to know if a candidate touting his job creation credentials actually earned a D in microeconomics? Wouldn’t it be good for voters to know if a candidate wants to require teachers to meet a minimum grade point average when she did not complete college?
Just a thought.
The press and the pundits have them. Now its your turn to weigh in. Post your comment below with your predictions for caucus night.
With a little more than 24 hours to go, UTGD doesn’t remember the last time the Iowa Caucus results were so fluid. Traditional notions of caucus victory have been challenged. Mitt Romney’s attempts to “buy” victory with TV ads instead of retail politics appears to be working (just ask Gingrich) and Ron Paul is leading in some polls despite his “liberal” positions on drugs and gay marriage. But some old Iowa caucus notions still hold true. Old-fashioned retail politics has certainly supported Santorum’s surge in the polls, and Iowa’s roll in vetting the candidates is even more important in such a fluid race. (Just ask Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann). And tomorrow’s sunny skies and relatively (for Iowa) warm temperatures of low 40s will help Romney, who’s supporters are less diehard, and Paul, who will need new caucusgoers to turn out.
With all of that said, here are the UTGD caucus predictions:
Ron Paul – 23%
Mitt Romney – 22%
Rick Santorum – 20%
Newt Gingrich – 14%
Rick Perry – 12%
Michele Bachmann – 8%
Jon Huntsman – 1%
Share your predictions. The winner gets my Michele Bachmann t-shirt, sure to be a relic after tomorrow night.
The Bachmann campaign maintains that State Senator Kent Sorenson got some green from the Ron Paul campaign to change his endorsement. We here at UTGD don’t think it was the money kind. Remember, Sorenson was charged for selling marijuana (and also failing to pay child support and domestic abuse), and Ron Paul does support legalizing marijuana. I mean the account of Sorenson campaigning with Bachmann seemingly forgetting he was announcing the same day his support of Paul sounds like something a pothead would do.
Is this a childish accusation? Sure. But is it too good not to mention the connection? Absolutely.
On December 24th, Virginia election officials announced that Rick Perry had failed in his efforts to be placed on the ballot of the March Republican primary election. His failure was one of organizing; 10,000 signatures are required, with at least 400 coming from each of the state’s Congressional districts. The Perry campaign, according to its own legal documents, submitted “over 6,000 petition signatures from qualified Virginia voters.”
6,000 is not 10,000. As such, the requirements of Virginia law were not satisfied, and Perry was disqualified from entering the primary race.
Perry then did what any good state’s righter would do. He sued. In federal court. He sued the Virginia State Board of Elections, and he sued the Chairman of the Virginia Republican Party.
Perry’s claim is relatively straightforward. At its most simple, he first states that Virginia law relating to the collection of petitions for ballot placement is unconstitutional. He then claims that the number of signatures are too high a burden, and too, are unconstitutional.
Perry makes five sweeping asks. He wants the federal court to strike the Virginia law establishing standards for who can circulate petitions and to ban future enforcement of that law; he asks the federal court to require Virginia to place his name on the ballot; he asks for attorneys’ fees, and “any other relief (the) Court…deems just and appropriate.
Rick Perry claims that the law prevented him from doing what Mitt Romney and Ron Paul did. Rick Perry claims that the nearly six month window given to candidates was not enough to let him…campaign.
There is little need to point out the obvious conflict here between what Perry says and what he does. Just days ago in Iowa, Rick Perry wore his indignation like a badge as he rallied against unelected judges who take away the rights of citizens by getting in the way of the electoral process. The activist judges who, in their cockiness, do things like tell Virginia voters that they are wrong and Rick Perry is right.
No one watching Perry should be surprised by his abuse of process, of politics, and power. While pledging to cut Congress’ pay and “send them home,” Rick Perry took advantage of a loophole in Texas law, allowing him to collect his pension while still serving in office. $240,000 a year in taxpayer money for Governor Perry, who retired before he retired.
Rick Perry says he wants to make the federal government irrelevant. He wants to abolish the IRS. He wants to “repeal Obamacare.” Conservative statements, but Rick Perry is not a conservative. He will use every tool at his disposal get what is good for Rick Perry and he always has. He will use the government he hates and wants you to hate to enrich himself.
What does this mean for Iowa, and for Iowa Republicans? It means that our friends at the RPI should…bring their lunch. It means they should have their very best lawyers on speed-dial. It means that they should look at their friends in VA – who are being sued by Rick Perry – and realize that Perry has no conservative ideology nor loyalty to those whose approval he previously sought. He is sinking like a stone but he soldiers on, ready to stay viable by any means necessary. He will spend his millions not on organizing a campaign but by flooding the airwaves with ads and the courts with “woe is me” complaints. For that, dear reader, is the Rick Perry way.
Stop him before he sues again!
Mike Huckabee makes an appearance in the closing moments of Rick Perry’s latest ad “President of Honor.” Though it is unknown if Huckabee, the winner of the 2008 Iowa caucuses, knew he’d be on the airwaves with Governor Oops.
The ad here:
Huckabee has not endorsed. Yet thanks for the subliminal stylings in this ad, compliments of the quick cut filmmaker who once tried to make T-Paw look interesting, you might think that he had.
Some of you no doubt have seen by now the controversial and mean-spirited article by University of Iowa Professor Stephen Bloom, where he takes cheap shots at our state and plays into the misconceptions and stereotypes that people outside of Iowa have. (Clearly, this Iowan doesn’t share his views.)
The reaction has been, understandably, negative from most Iowans. However, he received some backhanded support for his views from our very own Governor.
Branstad, in this write up by the Register’s Kyle Munson today, said in response to the article “I guess I think (Bloom) is way out of touch with what Iowa is like today. He must be stuck in the ’80s or something.”
Branstad basically admits that Bloom’s description is an accurate portrayal of life in the 80s. But there is just one problem with that — Terry Branstad was Governor in the 80s.
It is nice to see that our mustachioed leader finally admit that he really wasn’t all that good at being governor. And hopefully, now that he is back in the saddle, he doesn’t turn Stephen Bloom’s depressing caricature of life in Iowa into reality, again.
Late yesterday, Iowa’s Governor proudly announced he had saved some of Iowa’s many rural post offices from closing.
That’s right, the many who decries federal spending on health care and infrastructure initiatives as excessive wastes of taxpayer dollars is proud of the fact that he saved post offices that are lucky to sell more than three stamps a year.
Why would he do that? Oh, that’s right, he owns some of them that we’re slated to close.
You may remember that our postman in chief decided to “invest” in post offices during his last stint as governor, and when he heard that the postal service, which has a deficit more than the entire annual budget for the state of Iowa, was going to close some of his precious post offices and leave him with empty and unwanted store fronts in far flung corners of the state, he threw a fit.
He said this is about the economy and that he wanted to save these jobs. But, oddly enough, this happened at the same time he was closing dozens of workforce offices in small towns across the state, putting many Iowans out on their ass and prohibiting the services that Iowans need to get back to work.
Once again, our mustachioed leader is speaking out of both sides of his mouth, and it’s too bad that we have to wait three more years to return this unwanted package to sender.
