Santorum is the winner (and the Republican Party of Iowa is the loser)

I should start with some disclaimers:

1. I am on the State Central Committtee of the Republican Party of Iowa.
2. I endorsed Romney in the 2008 caucus.
3. I did not publicly endorse any candidate in 2012.
4. I did not vote for Romney in the 2012 caucus.
5. I got into a heated discussion with Santorum at a small gathering in 2011.
6. At the 2011 Linn County Republican Christmas Party I told Santorum that he had my support.
7. I only voiced my support for Santorum to personal friends and family who asked.
8. I have twice voted for Matt Strawn as RPI chairman, I think he has done a great job and he continues to have my support.
9. I do not speak for the Republican Party of Iowa.
10. I am posting from Toronto this week.

Before I comment I wanted to let all of you who are reading this post know where I am coming from. I think the party has handled  this entire affair badly. Perhaps as an SCC member I have not been diligent enough in providing oversight along with the rest of the board. We simply did what boards do, we elected leadership that we trusted and they hired a highly skilled professional staff and we did not micromanage the leadership or the staff.

Until today I thought the 2012 Iowa Caucuses were a resounding success. We had a record turnout and the excitement for our candidates was incredible. I chaired my precincct and we had a more than 50% increase over our 2008 attendance. So why do I thing the Republican Party of Iowa is the loser in all this? There are several reasons.

First, let me say that I did not think the inconclusiveness of the caucus night results were an issue. I have chaired many caucuses and I know how the process works. With over 1700 precincts staffed by volunteers it is inevitable that there will be some error. However, the system of allowing campaigns to observer the vote count and the process of determining the certified results based on the form E's should have taken care of any issues.

Here are the problems as I see them:

---

1) When Edward True indicated that there were problems with his precincts results, KCCI repoted,

A spokeswoman with the Iowa Republican Party said True is not a precinct captain and he's not a county chairperson so he has no business talking about election results. She also said the party would not be giving interviews about possible discrepancies until the caucus vote is certified.

Mr True was a campaign representative. He had every right to observe the count and his role the party allows such observer in order to be transparent and provide for integrity in the system. To suggest that he was some how out of line was irresponsible and harmful. The party should have thanked Mr True and then announced that it was standard procedure to review all of the form E's before announcing certified results and that such errors would be resolved in the certification process.

2) After a party spokeswoman said the party would have no further comment, our chairman, Matt Strawn did have a statement. He said:

... Iowa GOP officials have been in contact with Appanoose County Republican officials tonight and do not have any reason to believe the final, certified results of Appanoose County will change the outcome of Tuesday's vote.

What? I thought the party was not going to have any further comment. Worse with the vote so close, how could anyone make the assertion that the Appanoose County results would not change the outcome, before the certified results were tabulated? Immediately people began suggesting that the party was acting to preserve a Romeney win.

3) How did RPI get scooped by the Des Moines Register on the certified results? Jennifer Jacob's piece, dated January 19th at 4:00am went out hours before the chairmans comments (and incidently before the SC heard about the results as well). The article has the detailed certified results not just the leaked totals.

4) The certified results for 1766 of 1774 precincts show Rick Santorum the winner. Adding in the uncertified results of the remaining 8 precincts still shows Santorum ad the winner. Our party needs to declare Rick Santorum the winner of the Iowa caucus. Failure to do so only further encourages the conspiracy theorists to believe that the fix is in for Romney.

---

I am not overly concerned that the certified results differ from the caucus results. I understand the process well enough to see how that could happen. The bigger porblm is how the party has handled the controversy. At nearly every step we have handled this poorly. Iowa Republicans deserve better.

*** UPDATE ***

As reported on the IowaRepublican.com RPI Chairman Matt Strawn has publicly declared Rick Santorum the winner of the Iowa Caucuses.

Inside (new 1st District) Baseball

With re-distrcting, Chelle Adkins and I are the State Central Committee member in the new 1st Congressional District. This week county chair should have received a letter and email from us asking for bids to host the 2012 District Convention. We are planning on hosting a teleconference to discuss the choices and make the final selection.

If you are in the new 1st District, where do you think the convention should be held? Feel free to comment on this post or contact Chelle or myself.

We would love to hear your input.

Herman Cain, my take on his candidacy

It's been a while since I have posted. While my schedule and my recent stroke have made it hard to devote time to blogging, the major reason is self-imposed. As a member of the Republican State Central Committee, I promised I would not publicly endorse any candidate in a contested caucus or primary. Further, I have also chosen not to publicly criticize our candidates. This self-imposed limitation has prevented me from commenting on a number of issues. Now that Herman Cain has suspended his campaign for president, I want to use the opportunity to comment on his campaign and the controversies surrounding it.

Let me start that saying I wasn't exactly on the Cain Train. I was and still am really undecided this year. However I was giving Herman Cain a serious look. He and I have a great deal in common. We both majored in mathematics, both worked in the restaurant industry, both worked for defense contractors. Ethnically I am 1/4 black and we have both been lay ministers and held leadership roles in Baptist churches and we both like to sing Gospel music. I like the fact that Cain comes from outside the beltway. For a lot of reasons, I wanted to like Hermain Cain and considered supporting him.

While Cain was head of the National Restaurant Association, I was working as a restaurant manager. (I am now an engineer working in the defense industry :) I got a first-hand look at sexual harrasment in the workplace. I was deposed as a witness in a harassment case against another manager. I felt that the claim was unfounded but since harassment is about perception not intent, the company settled. So when the claims of sexual harassment surfaced against Mr. Cain, I was inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. However, the latest allegations by Ginger White were too much for me to brush aside. After hearing the details, I crosseed Mr. Cain off my short list and soon after he dropped out of the race.

I have to say that in this case it was not how Cain handled the allegation, nor was it the allegation tself that turned me off from his campaign. Rather it was what Cain admitted that put up red flags for me. According to the New Hampshire Union Leader

Cain acknowledged that he had been giving money to Ginger White, the woman who alleges that she had a 13-year affair with the Republican businessman. He also said that his wife Gloria did not know about that – or even that Ms. White was a friend of Cain’s – until the alleged affair was reported in recent days.

Cain said that he has helped members of his church and members of his family financially. As a Christian myself I find this admirable, frankly I have done the same — with the full knowledge and support of my wife. I want to believe that there was nothing untoward going on, but to not involve or even inform his wife is at the very least the height of foolishness. By not informing hs wife, it makes it look like something more is going on. At worst, it creates just the sort of situation where an inappropriate relationship could develop. Any man  involved in church leadership would know potential pitfalls of getting in such a situation.

I was willing to look beyond the harassment allegations. I could ignore the way his campaign handled scadal. I could even overlook some verbal stunbles in interviews. But a Christian man who puts himself in that position without regard to his testimony or his family, in my opinion lacks the judgement necessary to be president of the United States.

The Iowa Senate is in play!!!

The announcement has been officialy made, Governor Branstad is appointing Marion Democrat Senator Swati Dandekar to the Iowa Utilities Board. The Utilities Board is a full time job and Dandekar will resign her seat to take the position. With the Democrats holding onto a slim 26-24 lead a special election for Dandekar's seat gives Republicans the chance to make a 25-25 tie in the Senate.

During this legislative session, Senator Majority Leader Gronstal has used his majority to prevent even discussionof a number of issues important to the Governor and House Republican majoity. The Governor now has a five day window in which to call for a special election.

The first step in this process will be for special nominating conventions to choose nominees from both parties.  Next will be a short campaign and election. The stakes in this one could not be higher. I am calling for my fellow Republicans from all over the state to join us in Linn County and take back the Iowa Senate.

As the old typing drill said:

Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the party.

Deace is coming back to WHO

The Des Moines Register is reporting that Steve Deace's new syndicated radio show will be broadcast (delayed) in the 9-11pm time slot. It's not drive time but it certainly will increase hiw potential audience beyond the limited broadcast area of KTIA.

He's baaaack!

Love him or hate him, Steave Deace was hard to ignore. He had a large following so I was surprised to see him leave his evening drive program on Des Moines' WHO Radio. Tonight while scanning TheBeanWalker.com I saw the headline:

Shock Jock Returns

The headline was below a picture of Steve Deace. According to The Politico, Deace will be launching a syndicated radio show on The Truth Network. His show will be carried on KTIA in Ames and debut August 12 the day before the Straw Poll. It shold be interesting.

Ron Paul gets BIG endorsement ...

The CNN Political Ticker read "Paul gets big endorsement ahead of crucial Iowa Contest." Well, that was certainly a teaser, I had to find out who had endorsed Ron Paul.

Since it was big endorsement, I thought to myself, 'Could it be Governor Branstad? Congressman King? Congressman Latham? Senator Grassley? Bob Vander Plaats — just kidding!'  Who was this big, potentially game-changing endorsement?

Well to my surprise it is Story County GOP Chair, Corey Adams. Now, I don't think I have ever met Corey Adams, and I certainly don't mean this to be a criticism of him. But a candidate endorsement by a county chair makes the CNN ticker? Only in Iowa folks.

The Straw Poll Ballot

I want to share my perspective on the Straw Poll Ballot that was finalized in Des Moines this weekend by the SCC. There was a substantial media presence so, this will not be news for most of you. First the Ballot:

Michelle Bachmann
Herman Cain
Newt Gingrich
John Huntsman
Thaddeus McCotter
Tim Palwenty
Ron Paul
Mitt Romney
Rick Santorum
Write-in ______________________________

The six candidates who leased a space in the Land Auction were placed on the ballot automatically. That's the easy part, I would like to look at who was not placed on the ballot and give insight into some of the thought process involved.

First, all the campaigns involved were told that Saturday, July 23rd would be the deadline and the ballot would be locked after that date. Since we will be leasing real voting machines, the ballots will go to press on Monday, July 25th. So as far as the ballot goes, final is final.

SCC member, Monte Shaw started the discussion by moving that we adopt a ballot with the six candidates who were participating in the Straw Poll (Bachmann, Cain, McCotter, Palwenty, Paul and Santorum) plus, Romney, Gingrich, Huntsman, Palin and Perry. I then moved to amend his motion by removing Palin and Perry.

Palin and Perry

At the county central committee meetings I have attended recently and in private correspondence, I have gotten a lot of input from Republicans about including Rick Perry and Sarah Palin on the ballot. The input I have received has been mixed.

Some have suggested that not including them hurt the integrity of the Straw Poll and might even cost Iowa our First-in-the-Nation Caucus in the future. Further, there is precedent, Fred Thompson was on the 2007 ballot even though he had not yet declared his candidacy. Another argument was that this would discourage activists who support Palin and Perry form showing up in Ames.

My response was that, while I thank Mr Thompson for saving the Iowa Caucuses, other states will try to take away our position regardless if who is on our straw poll ballot. My thought was that the ballot should be limited to actual candidates, people who had actually declared and formed exploratory or campaign committees. Now I personally think that Governor Perry will run and Governor Palin will not. But for the SCC to place them on the ballot would be for us to take sides and worse to suggest that somehow the current field of candidates is not up to snuff and that we will try to correct the situation. Also at issue is "Americans for Perry" a 527 group that wants to see the governor run for president. They wanted to have space at the Straw Poll and intended to encourage attendees to vote for Perry. From an RPI perspective this was entering some uncharted territory with the FEC and the prudent decision was made not to allow the group space on the grounds. Without a visible presence at the event, the group stopped lobbying to have Perry on the ballot.

My criteria for excluding the two governors was simple — to be on the ballot you must actually be running for POTUS.

The vote to remove Palin and Perry from the ballot was a 5-5 tie with Chairman Strawn voting to break the tie and remove the names.

Romney, Gingrich and Huntsman

As I recall there was little debate over inclusion of Romney, Gingrich and Huntsman. All three show up in national polling and while Gingrich has been active in Iowa, none of them are participating in the Straw Poll. No one really thinks that any of the three will do well in the Straw Poll since they are not organizing an effort to get their supporters to Ames.

Johnson and Roemer

Some have asked why former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson and former Louisiana governor Buddy Roemer were not included. This question would have been easier to answer had we taken National Committeewoman Kim Lehman's sage advice and come up with criteria for inclusion instead of a list of names.

In reality we did come up with criteria, be a declared candidate and either participate in the Straw Poll or show up in national polling. It would have been better had we actually stated it this way and set a polling threshold (e.g. 3%). By the time Lehman made the suggestion we were well on the way to approving the list motion and there was no effort to change it.

So, why did Johnson and Roemer not make the cut? The real reason is that no one in the room felt passionately enough that they should be on the ballot to suggest it. My sense is had someone suggested adding them, the SCC would have done it.

Write-in

The SCC did approve having a write-in space on the ballot. Write-ins will be counted and announced as part of the vote tally. So there is an opportunity for Palin, Perry or even Jimmy McMillan (formerly of The Rent is too Damn High party) to get votes.

Fred Karger

To me, the most surprising non-event of the Straw Poll is Fred Karger. Karger was one of the first declared candidates and has the distinction of being the first openly gay Republican candidate for president. Karger's primary purpose in running seems to me to bring attention to LGBT issues. The most press he seems to have gotten is a result of his ongoing feud with National Committeeman Steve Scheffler.

Had Karger decided to participate in the Straw Poll, he would have been on the ballot. Had he been on the ballot we would have extended him the same consideration and encouraged FOX News to include him in the FOX Ames Straw Poll Debate. Both of these would have given him a national stage to discuss his issues.

Entry into the Straw Poll would likely have been the best investment his campaign could have made.

Conflicts of Interest

I have addressed conflicts of interest resulting from SCC members working for or endorsing candidates in primaries on this blog before and I want to address the issue briefly in the context of the Straw Poll Ballot.

Currently their are six SCC members who either have paid (or volunteer) leadership positions with or have endorsed a presidential candidate. I want to publicly commend all of these SCC members for voluntarily recusing themselves from voting on the Straw Poll Ballot. Given the importance of the decision to the campaigns — recusing themselves was clearly the right thing to do.

While I appreciate the integrity of these six members, I still have a concern. The key votes on the ballot were 5-5 ties (broken by our chairman). Potential conflict of interest concerns kept fully one-third of the SCC members from voting! These were important decision yet they were made without the input of these six members. Missing their input reduces the effectiveness of the committee and in my opinion hurts those whom they represent.

The Ballot, the Debate and the Co-Chair

Tomorrow's GOP State Central Committee meeting promises to be one of the most interesting in quite a while. There are three primary issues on the table:

1. The Ames Straw Poll Ballot
2. The FOX Ames Straw Poll Debate
3. Election of an RPI Co-Chair

Criag Robinson and Katie Obradovich both written pieces about the straw poll ballot this week. The question is, who should be on the ballot? At a minimum, the candidates who aprticipated in the Land Auction are guaranteed a spot on the ballot and the ability to address the crowd in Hilton Coliseum. Beyond this point things get a little bit murky. What about declared candidates who chose not to participate, what about declared candidates who are not polling very well and finally what about prominent Republicans who have not declred their candidacy but may decide to run?

In short should Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and John Huntsman, all of whom declined to participate, be on the ballot? How about Fred Karger, or Jimmy McMillan formerly of The Rent is too Damn High Party. Perhaps the biggest question has to do with two undeclared candidates, Rick Perry and Sarah Palin, should they be on the ballot.

At this point I would have to say that I am undecided. I can see both sides of the argument. I'd love to hear from readers of this blog about their ideas on this subject. i don't know how I am going to vote on Saturday.

The second issue on my list is the upcoming FOX Ames Straw Poll Debate. As with any debate the key question is who gets to participate? When the debate was first announced, we were told that RPI would have a say in who gets invited.  This week former House Speaker Christopher Rants has been lobbying SCC members on behalf of Thaddeus McCotter to include him in the debate.

Finally, there will be an election for co-chair to replace Jim Kurtenbach who resigned to join the Palwenty campign. So far only current SCC members Tim Moran and Bill Schickel and former member Eldon Pals have been actively seeking support. There are plenty of rumours abouy other candidates but none have come out publicly.

As always SCC meetings are open to the public. The SCC does have the option of going into executive (closed) session by a majority vote. There is a chance that this meeting could end up going into executive session.

RPI co-chair election

Last month, Jim Kurtenbach stepped down as RPI co-cahir in order to take a position with the Palwenty campaign. RPI rules did not require him to step down, but the executive officers of RPI (and this blogger) have all promised to remain neutral in primaries and the caucus while serving. Jim was unanimously re-elected to a second term and his firm principled leadership will be missed.

The State Central Comittee will met on July 23rd. The main focus of this meeting will be the upcoming Ames Straw Poll and the Fox Debate that goes along with it. Now there is a new agenda item — election of a co-chair. While there have been a number of rumors, so far only two candidates have publicly announced, State Central Committee members Tim Moran and Bill Schickel.

I have worked with both of these guys and I think that either one would make a good co-chair. It will be a tough decision.

If any other names pop up between now and then, I will post them on this blog.