We are the drain the swamp people

• The thing is election 2024 for President should not be about Trump.  It should be about MAGA and Trump neither invented that sentiment nor does it depend on him. It can be argued he is a drag on it in some ways.
• But can the country as fifty united states, survive until then?
• A plausible but problematic or unlikely scenario to end the Biden residency ASAP after a sea-change in Congress via the 2022 midterms 

Writing at Townhall Kurt Schlichter’s column yesterday was the part one of his  analysis regarding who the GOP should nominate for the 2024 presidential race. He uses a pro and con analysis centered on Trump.  The first commentary was the pro-Trump one with the “not Trump” to follow Thursday.  We commend the article to you: The Case for Donald Trump 2024.   We also embellish it with this insightful video presentation by a Brit pointing to certain virtues of Trump.

The video commentary above is compelling. We would only offer that while Trump is a unique personality a conservative alternative who quickly demonstrates assertivness can produce the same reluctance in malcontents.

The parameters of my comments on this question include that it is likely that the Democrats will not be able to field a comparative strong candidate because Biden is making “Democrat” a bad name (it always was here at V’PAC).  That assumption on my part is important to the calculus of getting the best conservative able to achieve the most in one term to undo the damage the Biden residency is causing. The gist of  my contention is that Trump is not likely the only Republican able to beat a Democrat and indeed he might be the biggest problem should he win the nomination. That depends on women voters in the general a majority of whom still may be anybody but Trump, so give them that but one who shares MAGA policies.

Some might argue that Trump’s personality apart from his assertive MAGA policies which are at least quasi-populist, drives his support. Maybe for some, but I find much of it can be fatiguing and unnecessarily distracting.  All of us prefer his so called mean tweets to Democrat disastrous policies, actual culture rot and diminution of the country, but is that trip necessary, his way that is, when aggressive, clearer on point, in your face communications are possible from other politicians?  A major concern I have with Trump is that I do not think he has gotten his personnel picking problems solved, reflected in a number of his endorsement picks in the midterm primaries.  The extent of his serious mistakes in that regard resulted in much of the problems he faced.

Any alternative to Trump needs to support a rooted out federal bureaucracy and support a Justice Department that will prosecute identifiable election fraud of 2020. A new Republican House can take the lead in uncovering by hearings and pursuing prompt changes rectifying Democrat policy atrocities and installing preventatives for future congresses and administrations including proposing power limiting Constitutional Amendments as appropriate.  Electing Trump the third time in 2024 is not the only way to vindicate election 2020. Drama can be good — the inspirational effective/affective non-distracting kind.

0

0

Iowa Supreme Court says no right to abortion in state constitution, reversing its own 2018 decision

June 17, 2022

Dave Andrusko

By Dave Andrusko

In a 182 page opinion, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled this morning  “that the state’s constitution does not include a ‘fundamental right’ to abortion, reviving a law requiring women to wait 24 hours after an initial appointment before getting an abortion,” Reuters reported.

Writing the majority opinion, Justice Edward M. Mansfield said the previous ruling that established a constitutional right to an abortion “insufficiently recognizes that future human lives are at stake and we must disagree with the views of today’s dissent that ‘[t]he state does not have a legitimate interest in protecting potential life before viability’.”

In the 2018 ruling, written by Chief Justice Mark Cady and overturned by the Iowa Supreme Court today, the court said that “autonomy and dominion over one’s body go to the very heart of what it means to be free.”

In 2020 Iowa’s pro-life Gov. Kim Reynolds signed the 24-hour waiting period.  As the Iowa Supreme Court noted, “On June 23, 2020, before HF594 was actually signed into law, Planned Parenthood of the Heartland and its medical director, Dr. Jill Meadows, filed a petition in Johnson County District Court challenging the 24-hour waiting period.”

Justice Mansfield observed, in explaining why stare decisis principles don’t weigh heavily in favor of retaining the 2018 ruling,  that

PPH II [the 2018 decision] was overtly based on the notion of a “living” constitution…. To the extent PPH II viewed constitutional interpretation as an evolutionary process rather than a search for fixed meaning, it is hard now to argue that the evolutionary process had to end as soon as PPH II was decided. Does the Iowa Constitution get to “live” until 2018, at which point it must stop living?

For her part, Gov. Reynolds applauded the court’s decision.

“Today’s ruling is a significant victory in our fight to protect the unborn,” she said. “The Iowa Supreme Court reversed its earlier 2018 decision, which made Iowa the most abortion-friendly state in the country. Every life is sacred and should be protected, and as long as I’m governor that is exactly what I will do.”

The Iowa justices said they “are not blind to the fact that an important abortion case is now pending in the United States Supreme Court,” a reference to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

“While we zealously guard our ability to interpret the Iowa Constitution independently of the Supreme Court’s interpretations of the Federal Constitution, the opinion (or opinions) in that case may provide insights that we are currently lacking,” today’s ruling said. “Hence, all we hold today is that the Iowa Constitution is not the source of a fundamental right to an abortion necessitating a strict scrutiny standard of review for regulations affecting that right.”

With today’s ruling, the waiting period case was returned to the district court.

0

0

Excuse me officer, we’re here as part of the “siege”

Check out these photos from the usual biased media sources used to illustrate their story about the felony conviction of two people parading in the halls of the Capitol on Jan.6, 2021.  Do you see what we see?

At the mostly peaceful and patriotic January 6 2021 rally for election integrity a small percentage of protestors regrettably did what a category of Democrats do all the time — made spectacles of themselves with some goofy and destructive antics — and maybe some even got pushy in response to some of the  police (other police may have been accommodating if not rather blase’ as in “another DC protest , different day, different group” and no more a serious threat even to the extent – “that would be down the hall to your right”.

The Jan. 6 protestors were not like another frequent category of leftist protestors who engage in widespread looting, extensive hateful damage  to property, who fire bomb and carry weapons going into houses of democracy aka protest sites.

According to the left, sauntering is besieging or something. By the way is that a guard under the portrait frozen in fear by the very presence of such a flag.

Nothing more was apparently on the agenda for even the most aggressive than has been attempted by countless leftist cause adherents protesting in the Capitol galleries or at other venues trying to disrupt proceedings at least for a time. Yes some arguably wanted to disrupt, but that is not insurrection – an armed takeover of government.  It is absurd to refer to those inside the Capitol and steps and walks that day as such. Most of the January 6 protestors who were arrested limited themselves to making noise on the steps or in the halls. Yet they have been subjected to gross violations of their rights. No one has been accused of bringing a gun or a bomb into the Capitol to shoot members of congress or bomb the place.  That is what insurrections do.

The only ones with definitive weapons in the Capitol that day were police, one of whom used his to kill an unarmed diminutive woman of no threat to him while he hazarded others in the line of fire. No other police with similar or closer vantage point felt any threat necessitating lethal force from that woman.  Although there were maybe the few cops who may have ganged up on another woman outside and beat her when she lay dying,  such an obvious threat presented.

One question, if it were a rainbow flag would there have been a felony conviction?

0

0

The first article Trump Needs to Alter His Message on COVID is sorely needed if he wants any enthusiasm from this quarter towards a primary run. Just stop it Donald — do you know who your base is really .  Your support at this stage is a lot of desperation in the face of Biden. As it stands now I hope DeSantis runs.  He is a good candidate and a better politician (in the good sense of the word).  I would go further than the article.  I think Trump needs to decry that he was mislead and that he endorses investigation into the unethical aspects to the whole tragedy/fiasco/scam and that he would make a lot of changes were h to be elected the third time.

The same advice in the article should be sent to Chuck Grassley by the way. Being a “me too” in support of the public health creeps endorsing the vaccine and masking is not a compelling message even if he is opposed to mandates (so is Trump). The admonition for the general public to take the jab as a great public health benefit (it is not) feeds the surreptitious control freaks and their methodologies in government and thesupposedly private sector. Advocate real vaccines and treatments rather than experimental problematic manipulations.

The second article They Are Not Sending Their Best is smack on.  There definitely needs to be a better evidenced understanding of American freedoms and their origin and purpose especially from the “elite” immigrants who apparently come here for the money more than anything. Their prescriptions will turn this country into the hell holes they left.  The common laborer sort of immigrant probably has a more authentic appreciation of American freedoms and rights than the elites mentioned in the article.

By the way — We will have some comments regarding the RPI State Convention Saturday after the finished platform and sources for insightful comments by attendees are checked.

0

0

• See comments regarding two compelling issues not directly addressed in the proposed platform below

As this is written the 2020 Republican Party of Iowa (RPI) state convention is about to convene. I was without delegate status this year because I chaired a precinct caucus not my own at the request of the local Chair due to the shortage of operatives. So while I attended the caucuses I was in effect disqualified from delegate status (I really presume it was a misunderstanding and not the intent) because I was not in my own caucus even though the tables were in the same room.  So be it, rules are rules.

I attended the county and district conventions as an observer and facilitated platform resolutions going into the caucuses (see V’PAC postings from the period) including a  successful amendment to the platform at the later by circulating the appropriate paperwork and arguments.  That is how I know at least one of the matters I refer to herein was addressed downstream. Making the trip to Des Moines with Biden gas costs, food costs in part driven by farm acreage devoted to inefficient ethanol production, the ugliness of wind farms along the way and other factors — weighed more heavily than the practicality of helping organize appropriate amendments (to a pretty could state platform) in the face of the frustrating by design amendment process.

With todays technology and appropriate discipline there is no reason the platforms with amendments (including district conventions) could not be essentially settled (with improved timeliness) as to content prior to the conventions.  The conventions could then be  more reliably structured as to time allowing more for presentations by candidates for party office and winners of the concluded primaries. The overall process should still be representative and disciplined.

Platform development is what makes the caucus system unique, truly grassroots. Without that feature the caucuses are just a clumsy primary in Presidential years because the other feature, election of county central committee is actually emphasized as a perfunctory function of electioneering activities focused on the general election — volunteer efforts from people who could volunteer anyway.

Hopefully others a little more conveniently positioned will take up the cause this morning on these and any other appropriate amendments.  Here are a couple of things I think heavy on the minds of the rank and file that should be addressed.

• There ought to be a resolution calling for investigation into what most Republicans believe (in increasing numbers due to the documentary 2000 mules) was the fraud of the 2020 election.
• There ought to be a resolution better emphasizing the scandal of Zuckerberg money in Iowa
• I find it hard to believe that something akin to these did not come up through the process.
• Obscure or unpointed “going forward”  resolutions do not do justice to the harm caused or the guilty  or censurable regarding the above matters.
• The platform is replete with matters actually already past business so that is not an excuse.  The matters deserve attention.

The BIG question I have is why have the powers that be sh*t-canned specifically addressing  the fraudulent acts affecting the electoral college in the 2020 election at least calling for investigations and the issue of the influence CTCL  — the Zuckerberg money scandal. Why is the platform so shy on those matters?   OK I think I know why — could it be because Iowa’s Republican federal delegation rubber-stamped the election without even calling for hearings while accepting the Biden residency in spite of extensive evidence, gargantuan anomalies,  and profound questions without raising them whether or not they felt compelled to do the rubber-stamping?  The ruination we are facing started without a whimper or a constitutional fight from them at that key time.

While the Republican chief election officer Paul Pate  has implemented some important election security features (fine, praise him for that) not addressed is that Pate encouraged counties to apply for grants from CTCL  knowing or incredibly indifferent to the pedigree of the grantors. The grants were obviously a Democrat GOTV effort under color of official county activity, amplified by tax money, and freeing up Democrat resources for the worst they could perpetuate.

One quick aside, I believe the platform is generally good, even profound in some areas but the idea of not being more pointed is a weakness, the sort of thing that helps make platforms dismissible as exercises in platitude writing.   The proposal has (actually longstanding over the years as approved) hornbook conservative proscriptions “against distortions  of the free market through subsidies bailouts and mandates” [See Commerce at (1)].  Also one stating , “oppose all government mandates and efforts associated with alleged man-made global warming or climate change” [See Commerce at (4)]  And what do the Republican powers that be in and out of Iowa do about this — propose and vote for mandates for ethanol marketing, tax breaks for E15, tax favors for wind (which according to the main owner of such makes no sense other than for the subsidies and green mandates).

If the platform is not more pointed, more demanding “incentivizing” through the party  process, the party is easily ignored and the “do nothing” disgust held by many toward it sticks.One might at a close reading offer that Government @17 covers “Zuckerberg money” — First of all how pathetic a rendering but even at that if it is intended to cover it, it is mistakingly written. The rendering  “private interference in US elections” ought not be an issue.  People privately, publicly advocating that is not “interference’ that is what elections are about.  Zuckerberg can spend all he wants doing his own thing “interfering” as a PAC or 501 -C-4 or C-3 or however.  It is inducing officials and offices to do his bidding that is the issue. Receiving and executing such grants through neutral public offices is the issue.

This post may be revised or extended as the day goes on

0

0

Biggest primary surprise for us — (we thought Democrat primary voters would ignore Finkenauer’s petition problem) was the substantial win by ADMIRAL (oh they will play that to the hilt) Michael (or is it Al) Franken.  You need to take a gander at this guy’s Twitter posts. He is one thoroughly leftist nasty SOB – snide at every turn – like Tom Harkin.  He emphasizes abortion on demand and ending the filibuster, government takeover of medical care, gun control and he is all for LBGTQWTXYZ rights. Oh and did you know he was an Admiral in the Navy (surface ship).

In previous elections all of Chuck Grassley’s Senate opponents in our estimation have pretty much taken it easy on him, —  it was not good politics to denigrate “farmer” Grassley, certainly the senator from Big Ag in an Ag state. Instead they left much of that to their associates while they all played to their constituencies and were trounced.  Grassley’s opponents just didn’t have the issues, the horsepower, the down-home appeal, incumbency, and they all had their far left liberal credentials to haunt them.

Iowa’s other long serving Senator, largely a contemporary of Grassley was Democrat Tom Harkin. He was a vile lying snide creature in reality but never was in an election with good old Chuck. They were colleagues for the good of Iowa don’t you know. And Chuck, the 70% Senator, didn’t seem to help much in the attempts to get him out. Chuck would come back to Iowa, Harkin would go to the Bahamas, but they were both reelected continuously.  Go figure.

Well the Democrats now have a Harkin to go against Grassley. This will not be pretty. Franken has promised so.  To be sure some of Grassley’s factors still pertain and hopefully his faculties. Franken can be exposed as the far leftist he is. It should be a Republican year but never underestimate the power of Republican establishment (and Chuck is all of that)  to misread key things, such as general public resentment over politicians.

More on this later.

0

0

What is Grassley’s gambit — so determined to hold onto office for likely his forever.

• Is it to be the longest serving of some sort? 
• Here is where Grassley stands at that: see here and here.
• A rivalry with certain colleagues?
• Time and timeliness to prepare the main family business – politics?
• Susceptibility to flattery from staff and hangers-on (lobbyists) who want to maintain power and influence associated with a seniority based system

Readers are aware we believe in term limits.  Particularly at the federal level — the further away the service, the more the need. The body politic needs such a rule because as it stands now incumbency is so overwhelming and as such breeds corruption if not in the elected and reelected officials, in the way things are done in Washington.

The country realized that and applied its concerns as regards the presidency through the 22nd Amendment. But the scope of it is limited to the presidency and we suspect jealousy got the matter through the Congress and to the people . . .  but heaven forbid they would include themselves even though the same concerns ought to apply.

Washington based power is intoxicating, indeed so much so it will even cause people to fly back to Iowa once a week or a month, whatever  — the politics of insuring their actual residency in Washington. Such is the sacrifice of some members of the political class.  That town causes otherwise sensible people to believe they are indispensable or something. It is in the water.

Few are immune enough to retire at the top of their game. (or maybe laying the groundwork for most favorable conditions for a dynasty takes more time in individual circumstances).

For G*d sakes, in this or any state either other people with similar or more astute philosophy of government can do the job or the addicted politician in his many years of service has done little (successfully) to improve or stabilize the political lot . . . to strengthen the bench. Some might scoff – what politician ever seeks to strengthen the bench!  It is a fair scoff — but one that points to why term limits never seem to happen.

We understand that there are objections to term limits but also that they are answered effectively by the organization US Term Limits.  Term limits are as appropriate (in different ways) as minimum age and residency requirements. Those are traditional most everywhere in the U.S. and term limits are becoming traditional as regards state office.  They are even more important at the federal level. It is elitist or rather pathetic and not conservative to oppose them.

The usual rejoinder to calls for term limits is that elections are term limit decisions . . . that there ought to be the freedom to call on anyone to represent you. Sounds rather fundamental so one would think the RINOs and elements of Libertarians who parrot those views would be calling for repeal of the 22nd Amendment and the fundamental right to vote for the 16 year-old genius they are aware of  . . . wherever they might live.

OK so I hold to advocating for term limits but at least as strongly I hold to the view that Democrats in spite of convenient noise they make to decry long serving Republicans, Democrats would be the least likely to implement them.  They are even more captured by the bureaucracies, ideological and otherwise in DC  that oppose them because those bureaucracies have more control and seniority without term limits. No shaking up their applecart.

And when a Republican is up against a Democrat whatever the stated positions on term limits, well the positions and ideologies of Democrat party are so harmful, so evil in some areas that combined with their untrustworthiness I still opt for the Republican, and so it will be after today.   To be sure the entrenched political class from our party counts on that — which is why the primary is the place to implement them.

And so for such reason among others I support Carlin over Chuck Grassley in the primary.  Carlin is at least as conservative, give and take, as Grassley (it is silly to think a big government conservative like Grassley is pure ideologically). And Grassley has exhibited some serious affronts to conservatism and has unnecessarily given legitimacy to the economic and cultural debacle we are experiencing under the Biden residency.  Below are some links to articles  that are supportive of Carlin / critical of Grassley.  They should be widely considered.

Grassley says we should have equal interest in the border with Mexico and between Ukraine and Russia  (pardon me but this documented statement by Grassley does not even seem sentient)

Said Grassley: “I’m saying I would not—we’re not going to repeal the Affordable Care Act.”

Grassley is for Sale: Which Means So Are You.

Deace: It’s time for Charles Grassley to go. Vote Jim Carlin for U.S. Senate.

The following are articles here at V’PAC that sort off chronicle problems with Grassley of late

Will Trump now disavow Grassley

Pence certainly no clutch player, nor is Grassley

Two Republicans taking on Miller-Meeks and Grassley in Republican Primary

Trump should have let Grassley stew in his juices awhile

Meet Senator Grassley’s good friend BIF

Grassley to run again – on that decision thanks for nothing

Chuck Grassley has helped make Joe Manchin the man of the hour

Audio of Sen. Grassley at Lincoln Club event in Davenport

Grassley out to convince people that Dems and Repubs are not all that different

Chuck Grassley votes for racist unconstitutional “infrastructure” bill

Is this the Grassley view: In order to make a ham omelet — need to break a few eggs

We wonder if Grassley, Ernst, Feenstra, Miller-Meeks and Hinson agree

Grassley votes to facilitate trillion-dollar infrastructure package

Grassley and company exemplify a cause of mental health sequelae from pandemic terror

Will Senators Grassley and Ernst apologize for parroting lies and spin about Jan 6th

Senator Grassley’s prayer works wonders

0

0

Focused on ballots in Scott County that are contested or need to be

US Senate – support John Carlin – perhaps the most practical elixir to what is wrong with Washington and the federal government is term limits. Drain the swamp. Grassley is a big-government conservative who has helped along economic devastation in his waining years.

First District Congress —  writing  in Kyle Kuehl — Miller-Meeks has already proved herself to be a high-maintenance insecure conservative

Secretary of State — I am writing in Diane Holst — someone actually focused on election integrity.  All of our write-ins are attempts at a draft.  Diane championed opposition to Zuckerberg money — the private  partisan focused takeover of election functions in key counties in Iowa.  Republican Paul Pate fostered that takeover.

State Auditor – Mary Ann Hanusa – a name ID call

State Senate Disrtrict 41 — Kerry Gruenhagen – solid conservative good fit for the district

State Senate Disrtrict 47 — Scott Webster conservative experienced energetic campaigner

House District 81 — Luanna Stoltenberg — solid conservative experienced energetic campaigner

County Supervisor — Bullet/single voting Jennifer McAndrew Lane. Three positions on the ballot but the others blew it as far as primary support

Senate District 49  with Ultra Liberal Democrat Cindy Winkler and House District 97 with  Ultra Liberal Democrat Crotch Croken are so far unopposed by Republicans. Write in credible candidates on the Republican ballot.

0

0

Comments and endorsements County Attorney – Auditor – Treasurer – Recorder – Supervisors

County Attorney

Unopposed for the Republican nomination is Kelly Cunningham Haan an experienced former prosecutor within the Scott County Attorney office. Experienced Former law enforcement personnel and another alumnus of the office who we know are very supportive of her candidacy and that is enough to make us hopeful of finally getting that office out of Democrat hands. Incumbency, short of scandal means everything for that office.  It is an open seat this go-around.  Haan is a good candidate and Republicans need to get behind the race aggressively. The Democrats have a candidate unopposed for their nomination. Given that it is an open seat we will be curious to see how much of the money the Democrat raises will come from out of state, including wherever George Soros funded organizations write their checks.

County Auditor

Republican incumbent by appointment Kerry Tompkins is unopposed for the Republican nomination.  We wish her well. She replaced multi-term Democrat Roxanna Moritz who retired soon after the 2020 election where her office took scads of money from Zuckerberg to help run the Democrat GOTV operation. Some of her retirement comments imply that she could not cope with election integrity rules and concepts passed by the legislature.  The office had been held by Democrats who eat drink and sleep even petty political maneuvering, whatever they can get away with, for decades. It was always nice for them to have the “watchful eye” of a Democrat County Attorney as well. The Democrats have an unopposed candidate with no government or political experience and largely irrelevant work experience. The general election will witness Democrat machine politics. Incumbency is a big factor with no party voters so hopefully that will sustain efforts in November to install election integrity as a hallmark of the office.

County Treasurer

A sitting Republican Supervisor Tony Knobbe is unopposed for the nomination. The Democrats have not fielded a candidate to be on the ballot. This is a bit surprising in that with an open seat a Democrat who wants the chance could have had the nomination. They can fill the line for the November ballot after a county convention call.

The sitting Treasurer – Republican Mike Fennelly is retiring  to return to private business.  We were a bit surprised as the seat seemed a family legacy. If Knobbe is elected in the general, which is arguably odds-on at this point, because his term does not end until 2024 there will be a vacancy and we believe that a special election will ensue for his Supervisor position.

Country Recorder

Unopposed for the Republican nomination is Michele Darland. As a local leader in the non-profit fund-raising world Darland is well seasoned in the importance and practice of administrative attention to detail and is a good candidate for the Recorder position. We wish her well. The Democrats have multi-term incumbent Rita Vargas unchallenged on their primary ballot.  If one is a Democrat, one might be impressed that Vargas has a long time donor history to the usual suspects indicating she is as partisan as they come.

The positions of Recorder, Auditor and Treasurer are important on a partisan basis in part, besides policy preferences influenced by conservative/ liberal proclivities underpin their responsibilities, but also because those offices comprise under the Iowa Code an executive panel to fill Supervisor vacancies (deaths and resignations) in interims between county elections (special elections can be called via petition to fill such vacancies if done in a timely manner).

Previously Democrats held the Auditor and Recorder positions giving them a majority on the vacancy panel to fill Supervisor vacancies.  That was relevant recently due to a potential situation involving an alleged conflict of interest regarding dual elected roles where the two Dem office holders at the time (Auditor and Recorder) lusted to make an appointment to fill a declared vacancy on the Board, — actually an opinion by the Democrat County Attorney. That maneuver was subsequently established as legally in error and or moot via legislative action along with a judicial ruling.

The situation points out the potential for two Dems on such a vacancy panel to create a Dem majority on the Board of Supervisors by flipping a seat held by one of the five members of the  Board of Supervisors should something happen. A flip of one vote when the party spread is 3 to 2 changes the complexion of the Board. Compounding that factor last year was the potential for their mischief to put them in the position to insure the appointment of a Dem to be Auditor (which Supervisors appoint in any interim) because the then Democrat Auditor Moritiz was figuring on retiring (quitting) only two months into her term.

County Supervisor

Vote for Lane on the Republican ballot

Democrats have five people on Tuesday’s primary ballot vying to be listed as one of the three Democrat positions on the general election ballot.  They have one incumbent in the mix, Kinzer, who supported the Democrat maneuverings outlined above. They also have the perennial candidate of late — tort lawyer — affirmative action/ ACLU/LULAC champion– Jazmin Newton.  There are three other lesser-knowns.

Four Republican are on the primary ballot vying for the three ballot positions in the general election.  They include incumbent John Maxwell, also Jennifer Lane, Ross Paustian  and Jean Dixon. While we will be supporting the Republican candidates in the general (continued membership in the Democrat Party is just a non-starter for anything, even for proverbial sewer commissioner – because at this point, to run under the banner of those who are the architects of disintegration in our culture our economy our nation — is a serious character defect.

We are sorely disappointed in three of the Republicans  — Maxwell, Paustian and Dixon for not responding to the River Cities Reader questions for Supervisor candidates. The questions had four main themes — transparency in Board affairs, election integrity/private funding of elections, COVID related mandates and interventions, Quad City Airport taxation.   See the full article here.

The weekly River Cities Reader has reach and influence with appeal to a variety of readers.  On the matters addressed one can easily presume the editorial position of the newspaper however in our observation over the years respondents are given space for their considered thoughts.  Politicians grouse about and protest surveys because they are skewed or not worth the time.  As a political operative I get that in some cases, but I also know that nearly all respond to at least some — especially as regards outreach to constituencies they want to attract or have a chance at.

That three of the Republicans would decline to respond to the River Cities Reader publication, even with a bare yes or no, questions which ought to be easy enough to elaborate on, even if the response is repetitive, indicates poor political processing or their own hand-ringing.

Jennifer Lane was the only Republican to respond to these major questions and for that, and because of her responses, stands out policy wise from the pack. Four of the Democrats responded, often with answers we heartily disagree with, however they did seem to be for transparency and video of Board functions (something Crotch Croken is probably not so sure about).

We are content with a bullet vote for Jennifer (McAndrew) Lane in the primary.  The other three Republicans can sort themselves out.  They all have pedigrees we can ascribe to when it comes to the general election vs Democrats but their failure to respond to a publication on matters that will likely have to be addressed in some way as Supervisors is a disappointment we needn’t countenance now. This is the time to be choosey.

Some have suggested that Lane as County Supervisor, who is married to Scott County Sheriff Tim Lane would have a conflict of interest. There is no secret or subterfuge going on. She has advocated for transparency in all Board policy matters. This is open, above board, the voters are not being denied information.

J Lane has staked out a position that public safety would be a top priority. That is a position we want widely held.  She is also a candidate who brings a unique position to the race as a probation/parole officer in the federal system (she does not work in the state/ county system) but she understands issues of crime and recidivism — matters the board faces. Accordingly, as to critics we would like to know which of her positions vis a vis the Sheriff’s office are untoward in a self-serving way?  Scott County has professional administrators and a civil service system. Knowing of J Lane’s independence, and both her and the Sheriff’s integrity,  there may be conflicts but of the disagreement kind.

J Lane has been part of Republican events, supported Republican candidates, forthrightly advocated for causes opposed to bureaucratic tyrannies. We support her candidacy.

0

0

Comments on local state legislative primary races

Some legislative districts that have a very small overlap with Scott County are not addressed here.  It should be noted that redistricting altered local boundaries significantly. Because of that candidates referenced to as “incumbent” may have significant new constituencies although they reside in the redrawn district. Races for primary contenders for state legislative races on the ballot in Scott County stack up as follows —

State Senate Primary Races 

SD 35 — Chris Cournoyer, incumbent, is unopposed for the Republican nomination. Democrats have apparently resurrected a former State Senator from decades ago. We have been favorably surprised by Cournoyer and we wish her success. The Dem candidate Joe Brown is unopposed. His resume reads as that of an education bureaucrat. Cournoyer is a former school board president and so should be able to hold her own with that constituency.  Brown at this writing does not have a web site that we could locate.

SD 41 — There is a primary race between Kerry Gruenhagen and Alan Weeks for the Republican nomination. Gruenhagen is a farmer and long-time conservative activist who has chaired conservative confabs in Scott County.  Gruenhagen’s resume is strong for the district, he has a great pedigree as well and he is our enthusiastic choice. The Democrats also have a primary

SD 47 –– Republicans have a contest. LeClaire alderman Barry Long and Bettendorf Alderman Scott Webster. Viewing the candidates’ internet presence both candidates at a glance are conservatives but Scott Webster clearly addresses specific policies. He is highly recommended by people we trust and for us that rates the nod.  Dems have one person on the ballot.  A physician (endocrinologist) who moved to the area 6 years ago who has no apparent political experience. Her platform appears like she is signaling a bureaucrats-know-best agenda whether it is education or public health ~~ but she will do it better don’t you know.  Republicans must win this open seat.

SD 49 — As yet Republicans do not have a candidate.  Ultra-liberal Cindy Winkler will be the Dem candidate. Dems consider the district safe for their abortion on demand agenda, tax and spend irresponsibility,  culture war, bureaucrats replacing parents, lockdowns and tax mandates, etc. Winkler has long lived up to all the worst Dems have to offer.  It is credible that a Republican convention nominee, a candidate in the mold of  Edward Durr who took out the state senate president of Pennsylvania can ride the utter disgust with Biden-Democrat-Winkler policies and performance to victory. Perhaps someone in the district who has run before. The same is possible in other otherwise Democrat free-ride districts in the state and we hope candidates are encouraged and supported.

HD 81 — This district is winnable for Republicans.  Two candidates are vying for the Republican nomination — Luanna Stoltenberg and Sean Hanley.  Stoltenberg is my pick in the primary — I have known her for many years, she has worked hard and given generously to Republicans candidates.  She is an energetic person, a gifted speaker with many pro-life appearances, she knows grassroots development.  Her website indicates solid conservative themes. Stoltenberg has been endorsed by Constitutional  Action Network indicating her wide ranging concerns. She also emphasizes her pro-life background, not unlike farmers emphasize ag expertise, cops or military veterans the perspectives that provides. The winner will face the unopposed Democrat — political newcomer Craig Lynn Cooper whose bio indicates he is retired from Genesis Health System as “senior communications specialist” — in other words part of the spokes-holes bureaucracy of a horrendously expensive manipulative industry in bed with big government / Big Pharma — guilty in our humble judgement of aggravating social pathologies during the pandemic .

HD 82 — Incumbent Republican Bobby Kaufman, who was the only Republican state legislator from Johnson County, has now picked up  a portion of Scott County that includes Blue Grass. He is unopposed in the primary and we wish him well.  Democrats have not fielded a candidate for the primary ballot.

HD 93 —  Incumbent Republican Gary Mohr does not have a primary opponent. He has been a responsive generally conservative representative. We wish him well. His apparent Democrat opponent (unopposed in the primary) will be another Democrat political newcomer Ryan Carstensen. We have not found a website for Carstensen. Our lookup of federal political contributions  indicates only very recent contributions at the minimum reporting level of $200. He gave $500 to Liz Mathis – an Emily’s list supported Democrat running to oppose incumbent Republican Second District Congressman Ashley Hinson.  He also gave $500 to liberal Democrat (former 1-term congressman) Abby Finkenauer, a person whose positions are “indistinguishable from Bernie Sanders or House socialist squad member AOC”. She is in a primary to oppose the winner of the Republican US Senate primary contest between Jim Carlin and Chuck Grassley. A couple of very recent federal contributions to curry Dem Party favor does not indicate political depth for the state office sought but something about the sort of people he supports.  As regards state legislator contributions the minimum that must be reported is only $25 per individual.  We could find no contributions at or above that level ascribed to Carstensen. But hey Democrats this is your state legislation activist, make him your guy — no doubt he swore allegiance to all of your evil policies.

HD 94 — Republican Mike Vondran is unopposed in the primary. Democrat incumbent Phyllis Thede, after 7 terms still a total tool of the Dem bosses, whose campaigns rely on party machine and teacher unions for turnout, maybe this time around can be retired.  Vondran ran against Thede previously but in the old substantially different district.  Dems are just too horrible and we wish Vondran well in the general as the Republican candidate apparent and the good that that can entail.  Nevertheless, as regards voucher proposals for K-12 education which we advocate to the effect that tax dollars ought to follow the student, we are sorry to report that Vondran apparently adopted the silly mantra ~~public money to public schools~~ and suggested to us that special education students would not be adequately served by non-government run schools.  But of course under a voucher program public dollars would still go to government run schools if that is where the parents want to send them. As for special needs students, to the extent that they cost more per student to educate, the extra money for that including federal (which comprises much of the dollar support for their education by the way)  in a well structured proposal would  follow the student.  Proponents of locking kids in inferior and inefficient government run schools with their bloated bureaucracies, liberal to the core, without the opportunity for escape by poorer folks, need to sense what is happening in the schools in their districts (Bettendorf *and Davenport*). Are opponents of vouchers focused on teacher unions or parents, are they focused on educating children or maintaining the disastrous bureaucracies, culture damaging government schools? 

HD 97  — for the love of all that makes this country great, which leaves apparent Democrat nominee Ken Croken out, we pray a Republican is in a position to step forward and be nominated by convention for the as yet open position.  In the same vein as we prescribed for SD 49 — It is credible that a Republican convention nominee, a candidate in the mold of  Edward Durr who took out the state senate president of Pennsylvania can ride the utter disgust with Biden-Democrat-Winkler policies and performance. to victory. Perhaps someone in the district who has run before or someone willing to make a quick splash. Croken is everything bad about Democrats.

In the next post — local county government races

0

0