The Sky is Falling

To listen to certain moderates in the party, you would think that the sky is falling. The Mason City Globe Gazette spoke to former Republican Senate Leader, Mary Lundby:

The state party’s central committee has given short shrift to other topics in favor of social issues, and that could turn off voters, Lundby said.

“Voters have got so many other issues on their minds and when you only coalesce on those (social) issues, you lose those voters in the chatter, and we can’t afford that,” she said.

Lundby, a state legislator for 22 years, said the central committee has lost touch with rank-and-file voters, and her hopes for Republicans to retake the Iowa House this fall have faded.

I was surprised to see these comments. As a member of the SCC, I have trouble pinpointing how the committee has given short shrift to other topics in favor of social issues? In the prioritization and allocation of resources the focus has been on those races that give us an opportunity to retain or gain a seat — not ideological purity. Perhaps I have not been paying close enough attention, can anyone give an example of the SCC acting in the manner described by Senator Lundby?

Lundby further suggests that the focus is only on social issues. Once again, I will make a plea for a focus on all of our party's core issues, not just social issues. Likewise, I would suggest that we not exclude social issues either.

As for being out of touch, the SCC is elected by the rank-and-file. Every member of the SCC was elected or re-elected at our recent district conventions. Scheffler and Lehman were elected by large majorities by the rank-and-file at our state convention. I would suggest that the current SCC and our newly-elected National Committee members in fact are a representation of rank-and-file Republicans in Iowa. So just who is out of touch?

The Globe Gazette also spoke to former chairman Ray Hoffman. According to the paper, Hoffman:

... criticized party leaders for pushing social issues at the expense of other concerns.

I had to do a double-take when I read the article. From a distance (I was not on the SCC at the time) I always thought that Ray was a social conservative. He certainly presented himself that way. Again, I would like to know how party leaders are pushing social issues at the expense of other concerns.

It's funny that social conservatives always get criticized for failing to support all Republicans. If you read the Des Moines Register, it seems that it is the moderates, not the socons  who want to take their ball and go home.

Comments

[Al Bregar]

Great post David. I would just like to throw my two cents in here. The with the Party over the last few years is that it has not been advocating any of it's issues. If it had been then perhaps we would not have had SILO, the smoking ban, and other tax increases. We will never know for sure. But I believe that is why social conservatives like myself have rebelled against the Party establishment. We want all traditional Republican issues advocated. Let me repeat that We Want All the Issues advocated.

[Brent Oleson]

David,

It is my opinion that you are misinterpreting her remarks.

First, "rank and file" Republicans are not the activists who attend all day conventions. They are our neighbors who live and work in our communities, but don't have time or inclination to sit through all day battles over platform positions. Poll after poll of these Republicans shows dissatisfaction with our party, especially after conservatives campaigned on cutting governement (and instead increased it), campaigned on trust and ethics (and many went to jail or resigned due to lobbyist scandals), and campaigned on family values (then cheated on their wives with prostitutes or solicited sex in bathrooms). That is why we find ourselves where we are at today.

As for Mary's comments, many of us think the SCC has been out of touch for a long time with the "real" rank and file, not the activists. Generally, you don't see the SCC members being large contributors to the party or candidates campaigns, recruiting candidates to run for office, raising funds for campaigns or the party, or meeting with groups OTHER THAN THE ACTIVISTS. That is why many think they are out of touch. I happen to agree in general with that statement.

Come to my neighborhood sometime, I will introduce you to the twenty couples who get together in the backyard over a beer and some barbecue, who are almost exclusively Republican, but get frustrated when they hear about Abortion or Gay Marriage at the expense of an energy policy, real goverment reforms and solutions, and tax reform. When you do hear republicans talking about the former they are skeptical because they have heard it before and then when Republicans were given the power, they spent money like drunken sailors and enacted no reforms for taxes. Abortion and Gay Marriage, at least in suburban Iowa, are not showcase issues. That being said, they should be addressed and some Republicans will agree and some won't (we do have pro-choice and gay Republican you know).

Moderates don't want to take their ball and go home, but it would be nice if they didn't have to sign loyalty pledges and were not kept out of key positions because a slate was put together to get the "right" people in the right positions.

I will continue to keep playing ball and work to elect conservative, moderate and liberal republicans to office whenever I can. I know Mary will too. I will put her record of financial giving and volunteering against anyone any day. It won't be a contest.

[seeker of truth]

Ever check this site out Mr. Chung? Oh boy...
http://www.archive.org/index.php

[HawkeyeGOP]

seeker of truth,

The Wayback Machine! Cool. yes, I have been there many times.

[Gene130]

A moderate is a liberal in denial. Look at Leach, Lundby, McCain, Chaffee, Snow, Chambliss, Specter, Graham, Thune. They have and are sabotoging the party FROM THE INSIDE and ask for us to fund their campaigns. And we do.