SAU Young Republican Event Adulterated

The St. Ambrose University Young Republicans event held Tuesday evening was attended by about 100 people. It was a commendable turnout.  We arrived late and were only able to hear the last several  speakers. The event we are told was facilitated in part by the Scott County Republican Central Committee.  Although we are not aware of the extent of their involvement we did note that Chairwoman Judy Davidson, as is her want,  assumed a prominent position on the dais.

Three of the candidates for the 2014  Republican nomination for US Senate  —  Sam Clovis, David Young and Scott Schaben addressed the attendees along with  First District congressional candidate Mark Lofgren. Young Republican organizational leaders, local and state, made comments and we are told acquitted themselves well.  We look forward to hearing and seeing more from them.

As is typical of the time allotment available for multi-speaker forums, the most candidates could really hope for was to introduce themselves and maybe set forth some general themes for their campaigns. Nevertheless, earlier in the day we were able to attend an individual candidate event held by US Senate candidate Sam Clovis.  We were impressed with the depth and scope of his comments, presented in town hall format with extensive dialogue with the attendees. At this stage of the primary we recommend similar informal formats for all the candidates.  It allows for a far better evaluation of the candidate’s information and people skills.

The SAU Young Republican event allowed only a single question from the audience to each of the candidate speakers. We were able to take in those questions and responses along with comments delivered by State Senator Roby Smith, who was given a spot in the program by the singular supposed virtue of being one of the younger Iowa State Senators.  If he is the designated local inspiration for younger Republicans we are in trouble.

Roby’s talk involved two really really profound thoughts or observations, both more suited  to maybe an eighth grade civics class, make that fifth grade, for the sophisticated insight they offered.

One involved a campaign story of how young Roby was once sort of chased down moments after knocking on a door and briefly chatting with a potential constituent. Apparently the gentleman had the profound heartfelt afterthought, inspired by Roby’s presence on his doorstep, to put on his slippers, leave the comfort of his home, and buttonhole Roby with the grand beseechment  to “just do the right thing.”   And that was the profundity passed on to the assemblage . . . “just do the right thing.”

I thought Will Farrel or maybe Zack Galifianakis was up there in Smiths body, I just couldn’t decide which one.

Now the attendees at the SAU event were probably not familiar with Roby’s “do the right thing” track record as regards campaigning against Republicans. We will enlighten them in due time.  But the experience of reality imitating movie “art” continued when Senator Roby enthralled us with a description of the burdens of office  . . . how when the legislature is in session and he is brought a note that someone wants to see him outside the cloistered  Senate chambers . . . it is very often somebody that wants something . . . some use of public funds or favorable change in regulations or something.

Apparently he sees himself standing athwart the people’s right to petition their government. He did not specify who he was complaining about . . . savvy politician that he is . . . but . . . cue the sighs of sympathy for the crushing burdens he deals with  . . . then remember to fear not  . . . for all should be aware that Senator Roby’s guiding philosophy is to “do the right thing.”

The profundity did not stop there. After his speech there came the time for the one per speaker question.  The question addressed to him was really a fairly softball one, an inducement for him to elaborate and connect the dots between his lament over being constantly beseeched for funds and doing the right thing.

The question inquired of his views as to how to reduce dependency or the entitlement mentality? His  Mr. Smith goes to Des Moines, and gets lost, response was to lead with a dismissive, something like “that is really a federal question.” It was no doubt  intended both to get him off the spot and provide a vague non-response.  The dismissive was more than insulting and misleading, it was irresponsible because states have great influence over such matters, far more direct than “education” or whatever his solution was.*

The audience, educated Young Republicans, were supposed to forget their coursework that any number of welfare related spending allocations policies and programs are under state purview, not to mention contributed to by Iowa taxpayers. As it was the more youthful audience members were more seasoned than the junior state senator and deserved better from him, as did the questioner.

At one point almost as grating as the junior Senator was the performance rendered by the Scott County Republican Chairwoman ( but then we did not see the entire program).  In the question and answer time for congressional candidate Mark Lofgren, a young woman asked something to the effect ~~ what was his position on “the 50-50 in 2020 project?” **

The project is a push to achieve 50% women legislators by the year 2020. What it actually is, at best, is a superficial, culturally and politically corrupting, grievance mongering, affirmative action project with all the intimidating politically correct trappings that should be anathema to any fair minded Republican.

But fair minded is a concept that we do not associate with the Scott County Republican Chairwoman, and for good reason. Accordingly she gushingly informed us that none other than former State Senator (R) Maggie Tinsman was championing that profoundly sexist concept.  Instead of remaining silent and allowing the next question series, the Chairwoman managed to imply with her enthusiastic attribute, and by omission of any clarification, that it is a Republican endorsed project.  It is not, although a few RINOs have attached themselves to it.

The project is co-chaired with Ms. Tinsman by another liberal, a Democrat. However the project represents no beneficial  bipartisanship, but rather the partisanship of arbitrary sexism. The implication of the project is unmistakable — that somehow it is a good thing in and of itself to vote for someone of a certain sex because of their sex. Even the thought that it is somehow neutral as to political philosophy is unbecoming any sufferance from Republican leadership. The defense ruse is used that all things being equal as regards political philosophy, one should vote for the woman in order to achieve the goal.

“All other things being equal” is probably impossible in politics but the hypocrisy associated with the 50-50 arbitrary nonsense is not.  Perhaps flip a coin in such imagined circumstances but do not promote extra points for being a certain sex. The latter is not the Republican way.

R Mall

* better would include taking in and referring articles from the American Legislative Exchange Council, the Heartland Institute, Cato and a plethora of others delineating state influence over welfare programs. Why even Obama’s HHS makes reference to the concept.

** Maybe we are confused and the question was actually a reference to the demand for parity for women in theater, which gets more Google hits by the way. The confusion is easy, theater . . . politics . . . bad theater . . . Roby Smith and current Scott County Republican Leadership

0

0