Wednesday, June 04, 2008

The Bigger Picture

The Republican primary is over. We had several contested races and the more establishment/moderate/ candidate lost every one. More specifically, the small government/free market/lower tax Bulldog, Iowans for Tax Relief expanded its metaphoric species and became the clearest 600 pound Gorilla in Iowa GOP politics. ITR chose to compete in seven Republican primaries-and won convincingly in all seven.

As a brief but necessary aside, we want to define what we mean by leadership in the discussion below. Leadership has three components. The first, know what you believe. Real leadership, as distinguished from temporary entertainment, requires the putative leader to know the direction in which they want to be followed.

Second, know why you believe it. If the putative leader doesn’t know why their road is the right choice then others will never come to understand it either. Most politicians possess 1 & 2 in spades but the third component is found only in a breed as rare as Vindicator himself.

The third, elusive, component of leadership is the ability to persuade others to agree with the putative leaders proposed direction. Somewhere in the last ten years much of our leadership, both here and nationally, simply stopped trying to persuade the voters to agree with Republican principles. We knew that most liberal ideas are inferior to conservative ideas and apparently assumed that the voting public agreed with us. This has been our undoing. Such is the absence of leadership in politics.

ITR competed in seven primaries. Some, like Helland/Lorenzen in HD 69 or Schultz/Friedrichson HD 55 were hotly contested along ideological lines. The ITR candidates, Erik Helland (73%) and Jason Schultz (59%) won impressive landslide victories over more moderate candidates recruited and supported by the sitting moderate Republican incumbents.

Chris Hagenow in HD 59 defeated a well funded challenger who had previously held office within the District and had a far higher level of name ID than did Chris and who had been recruited and encouraged specifically to provide a moderate alternative to Chris, by a similar 16 point margin 58-42. A moderate challenge was raised to our good friend Jim Van Engelenhoven down in HD 71 and Jim won 72-28, although as an incumbent Jim did start that game with a runner on second.

In SD 48 another conservative Kim Reynolds competed with a more moderate candidate and won by 24 (62-38). If Kim wins the general, as she probably should given the district and her very, very considerable political skills (we here at TRS would not be surprised if we someday call her Congresswoman Reynolds), our smallish Senate Caucus will become more conservative. Again, like Erik, Jason and Chris, Kim will lead our party in a more conservative direction.

ITR won two other primaries (HD 19 Carlin Hageman 78% & SD 42 Shawn Hamerlinck 87%) in which it got involved. The success rate, 7 for 7 and that simply put, does, in fact, kick ass.

Unlike ITR’s many, or, at least prolific, critics on the blogs claims, there is nothing ideologically narrow, much less nefarious in ITR’s success. Rather the point that should be taken is the thirst for a return of small government, pro-family, pro-small business traditional conservatism by the Republican voting base. Two other local races illustrate. Chris Sanger (HD 62 DM Southside) and Adam Vandall (HD 41 Newton) also ran on almost exactly the same ideological platform as did the ITR candidates, and both also won impressive victories. Chris and Adam are also articulate traditional conservatives who are leading the local electorate in a more conservative direction.

Nor does the conservative primary sweep reflect any exclusion of others from participation in the GOP. Almost all of the defeated primary candidates are great people. Someone like Al Lorenzen has a bright future in GOP politics if he chooses to stay engaged. But political parties are built around ideas and our party is built around conservative ideas. As we first said two years ago at the 3rd District Convention, we are the conservative alternative to Democrat unionism, socialism and secularism.

Simply put, Republicans want our candidates, and when victorious our office holders, to stand for Republican principles and the basic social and economic premises from which they arise. Our failure came when we stopped advocating and implementing those principles and attempted to expand the base by deviating from our principles to attract voters, rather than the more difficult but more rewarding and permanent approach of persuading others to agree with us. This does not require unanimity of thought, nor does it even imply that nontraditional Republicans need to be driven from the party. But the voting trends clearly expose the need for the general view of the Party to return to the roots of our greatest successes in the last 100 years and apply those principles to achieving solutions to 21st Century problems.

People want leadership. ITR and the other conservative organizations like IRLC, CWA, IFPC and all of the other often maligned conservative alphabet organizations provide that very leadership by telling the voters what they believe and why the voters should agree with them. The Republican and conservative brands have been devalued but we won’t regain value by moving to the middle but by persuading the middle to move right. Yesterday’s successful candidates show a clear direction and our objective is to now prove that it’s not just window dressing.

………… and that is truly the big picture.


vlad the impaler said...

So Failor endorsing McCain, who opposed tax cuts, was just an anomoly?

Anonymous said...

forget rpi we have itr

Anonymous said...

Some can pull off bald sexy...others clearly can't. Ick.

Anonymous said...

Candidates winning a primary shows nothing. Let's see if these conservative sell outs to PACs can win the general.

vlad the impaler said...

If ITR and IRL do their own turnout, what, exactly, is the role of RPI?

Anonymous said...

People who CAN, do. People who, CANNOT, hate.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

There's nothing wrong with PAC's. PAC's are nothig more than a bunch of people pooling their small amounts of money to advance a cause they believe in, such as tax relief, by lobbying for their position with legislators. It's freedom. It's how voters influence votees.

Mod's don't really understand that because they don't believe in anything worth spending money on, such as Tax Relief - thus the label MOD.

Anonymous said...

Ted - Your best column. Thanks for reminding me of your standing ovation at this years district convention after your rousing speech. You are the only person I hear this from. Keep up the good work.

Anonymous said... must eb one of his girlfriends...

Anonymous said...

Sorry...I meant "be"...I was laughing so hard at EFJ as "hot" that I mispelled that and spilled my coffee!!

Anonymous said...


EFJ and TRS are the hottest of the hot.

Anonymous said...

Interesting timing of your article. Did you see the article in the register about the GOP's low turnout numbers and that there is "concern" about that?

Feeds right into what you are saying here. The MODS give republicans nothing to turn out for. Only the social conservatives turned out because they care about the issues. RPI, under MOD control - Branstadt gang - have caused not an ounce of interest. Vote because you always used to vote for Branstadt since 1978 is the only message. Keep working that tired old list. It just keeps getting smaller. Remember the humiliation of Romney? The Branstadt gang lost that race using old tactics, methods and a rerun of an old, worn out message. It was noticed and he lost.

We need new leaders with current frames of reference, like from this current century perhaps.

The Register interviewed former RPI'ers Steve Grubbs as their source for RPI news. They also interviewed Chuck Laudner. How long ago was Steve the Chair for gods sake?

Stew Iverson was not quoted, nor was Caleb Hunter. Is anyone working over there?

Anonymous said...

I dont recall a BRANSTAD running things at Romneycamp. I recall a Latham, a Collins, and an Albrecht. We need to stop trashing family names and focus our trash talk on single issue voters and Holy'er than Thou candidates (Not to use a Romny quote there, but it fits). Wake up people, we focus on party leadership far toooooo much. Our success has nothing to do with who is sitting in the offices on E. 9th St. Right now we cant even find activists to run county GOP organizations. It sounds like some of you on this blog have forgotten what it is like to make a VOLUNTEER phone call, or knock on a strangers door. I think with less rhetoric and more action we might be able to make a difference come november and take some power back at the state house. Use your spare time to put up a yard sign or make ten phone calls.

Anonymous said...

I think we need conservatives to be conservatives, I just happen to think that we have a lot "fake" conservatives who got in: they talk the low tax-speak, and pander to the social conservatives while mocking them behind their back. ITR promotes this because for them it is all about power. Did you read the Hanson article today? ITR encouraged Lorenzen to move to run in a town he didn't identify with or live in? It used to be that people got elected after being involved in community service, school boards, and civic engagement. The Dems still do that. ITR identifies heavily R districts, runs someone there that lines up exactly the way they do, and relies on the fact that no one votes and most people watch a commercial and that's how they make up their mind.
I want real representation from people that don't bend to the whims of a special interest group. Some conservatives still care and are active in their communities, but too many are just puppets. The disregard for sincerity and a sense that most could give a shit about the towns they desire to represent will bite us in the end. I know it has soured me and I bet I'm not alone.

Anonymous said...

Special interest now run RPI and the GOP. Look at you guys you talk about being conservative, and yet you praise ITR! ITR may be one of the single causes that we have higher taxes!! Yes higher! They have consistantly opposed lowering the tax rates! Instead they have favored higher taxes to preserve the federal tax deductibility. THis hurts business and individuals accross IA.

Anonymous said...

And as long as they run the show, RPI will not get my money or my time. Further, I will vote for individuals, not parties.

Anonymous said...

Bob Barr!!!!!!!!

Joe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Some of you need to put away the crack pipe and actually get involved in a campaign.

Joe said...

What tax has Iowans for Tax Relief ever relieved?

We have the highest corporation tax rate, one of the highest individual rates, and according to the Tax Foundation, the sixth worst tax environment for business in the country. Yet ITR backs every corporate welfare tax credit, making Iowa's tax system more complex, less fair, and harder to reform.

They couldn't even be roused to speak up against Project Destiny.

Anonymous said...

I don't think ITR gets involved in county taxation issues. I wish they would. Project Destiny was a Polk County tax increase.

and you know darn well that if we got rid of federal deductability, the d controlled legislature would not reduce our taxes at all.

That is just smoke and mirror talk, kind of like that 1 cent increase the d controlled legislature passed under the guise of fixing schools and it really is intended to go for corporate welfare.

Thank God ITR is looking out for me.

Anonymous said...

No one is trashing Branstadt. The trashing is of the ERA. No one realizes Terry has been out of office for a darn long time now. The issues have changed, the techology has changed, etc. I think we've had every single person that ever worked for Terry be a candidate for office, including his personal bodyguard. They all run on the fact they USED to work for Terry.

As much as I like Terry, love his wife, kids and thought he was a fabulous governor, we need more than that.

We need new thinking, new tactics, new messaging, new faces, new techology, new fundraising and just a whole bunch of NEW.

To coin a phrase, it's time to turn the page on the 60's and move on.

Anonymous said...

1:18 - so what would someone say during this volunteer phone call? What issue would they talk about? Why Us Vs. Them? What would Stew say?

If you can't get anyone to run a county party, that's an indictment against the larger party. What would that person do? How would they motivate a voter to vote Republican?

For instance, has anyone ever heard Tom Latham speak? Has he ever passed any legislation? Has he forwarded an agenda of any kind? Does he have an opinion on anything before Congress right now?

I know how Steve King feels about things and I can agree or disagree.

I've never heard Tom Latham talk. Why would anyone get all fired up to go door knocking for Tom Latham? Why would they give up free time with family - or live their lives as David Yepsen republicans do - to do any volunteer work for Tom Latham?

Just an example. Please educate those of us who are pissed off as hell at all of our elected officials who mostly do nothing for the voter, but simply want to have a great job with great benefits and great power.

We put them all in power - the majority - and they did nothing but mock the voter, as you stated.

Find your own volunteers 'cause the ones you mock are tired of being taken advantage of and being mistreated by staff who know little about what drives a volunteer to volunteer.

Anonymous said...

5:39..question: how do we address the crumbling infrastructure of our schools? It's not an issue in my suburban district, but out in the middle of nowhere Iowa, where 3-4 districts have already consolidated, the folks (mainly older) will not pass levies or bond issues to address the needs of the students.This was a real issue to a lot of the rural R legislators and many of them voted for it, not because they aren't conservative or love tax increases, but because they needed a solution. ITR will probably run candidates against them in a few years...If they were around in the 50s we would not have an Interstate system or anything else that requires taxation. Most of us Rs are pretty common sense oriented when it comes to taxes and I want to trust that my local Rep is just that...local. Not some mouthpiece for the two who are pictured in this post.

The Real Sporer said...

Anon 7:16, you are so very mistaken and wed to the status quo.

To start with, since education receives already receives more than twice as much state tax money as everything else combined, so why not simply transfer money from some other line item? That’s a little outside the box but let’s just give it a try and see what happens.

Advocating a different approach requires the third part of leadership I described in the main post. However it also recognizes that he voting public, particularly the Republican voting public, has had it with ever escalating government spending, and that includes former sacred cows like the schools.

Progressive conservatism requires rethinking the liberal great society model and replacing it with conservative solutions to problems because the public wants, and we as a culture must have, some kind of solutions to problems. $4.00 gas doesn’t go down very well and we better start talking about practical solutions, so to speak.

Instead of just pouring more money into a failing educational system what would happen if we, as Republicans stuck to our guns about reforming education-which probably would take less money than we spend now and by definition produce a better result-instead of capitulating to the Democrat infinite spending approach?

We could build the interstate system because we weren’t pissing away billions in a failed and expensive educational system that has been produced by the most radical element in Western culture-the NEA. We need to confront this boondoggle and persuade the public to agree with us.

Anonymous said...

We could build the interstate system because we weren't pissing away billions of dollars on a stupid war that shouldn't have been waged in the first place.

Anonymous said...

That doesn't make sense: we just got done with WW2 and were in the middle of the Korean War.

Anonymous said...

9:23 sounds like an autistic child

Anonymous said...


I appreciate your perspective. I am actually more a realist than "status quo". I agree, we definitely need to implement some radical changes in the school system, but I view the 1 cents tax as a temporary solution for some urgent needs while coming up with more longterm significant changes to address the fundamental issues we have in our schools. I think it is similar to our oil/ gas crisis. We should drill in ANWR and realize it is not a permanent solution, but buys us time while we use the great minds in our country to acclerate the development of alternative forms of energy. Indeed, if we do get Republicans elected, hopefully they will seize the opportunity to think big and then end the tax. My observation is that, once in power, the number one concern is reelection, not progess, and so I have little hope that any huge shifts will occur. If that makes me status quo, then so be it.

Anonymous said...

Sporer "Ted" Agnew:

What is that incoherent bullshit up there supposed to be about anyway?

Boy, what a routine you went through. Hilarious.

Anonymous said...

A few years ago we had a tax reform bill being offered when republicans were in charge. it would have lowered the tax rates and eliminated federal tax deductibility. ITR pulled every string it could to kill it! it was a net tax decrease! RPI and the GOP is owned by special interests.


Anonymous said...

Bob Barr = Barak Obama

Anonymous said...

If ITR is against it, they are probably right. They are very serious people. We all know that once federal deductability goes out the door, it's katie, bar the door on state tax increases. Reduce the Iowa tax first, then we'll see.

Anonymous said...

Is the very HOT EFJ in the room? Could someone from ITR address the federal deductability issue? Maybe we can be citizen lobbyists for you and help you out. It gives us something to talk about at central commitee meetings, might give the hardcores some hope. Maybe it's an issue for our new candidates to educate voters about too.

How about a little debate on this topic??? I'd like to hear it.

Anonymous said...


You need to get out more....he may understand how to lobby, but look good? Not so much.

Anonymous said...

The good thing about federal deductibility is that we do not pay state taxes on money that we pay to the federal Gov.

The bad part: we have an inflated State tax rate that scares business away from Iowa. It balances out in the end. But having one of the highest visable tax rates in the country is stunting our growth.

The Problem is ITR backs higher taxes in lien of lower tax rate and no federal deductibility. It is not about higher or lower taxes but more about having an attractive business enviroment for people and business willing to re-locate to Iowa.
ITR offer no inovations on tax reform they just protect their style of taxation.

The Real Sporer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Real Sporer said...

Your argument lacks context and hence is unpersuasive.

You present a choice between lower tax rates, and a lower overall tax burden as mutually exclusive. However, the two elements of tax policy are not competitive and you assert a false choice. Although I am not an ITR spokesman by any means I think I am sufficiently familiar with the group to say that ITR would support lower tax rates and sustained federal deductibility. So do I.

The choice you want to force isn’t necessary so why not do both?

What do you think Bob Marley would say about it? “Emancipate yourself from mental slavery”. TRS would say abandon your nostalgic adherence to failed models; do not become an economic luddite and embrace the future of progressive conservatism.

Anonymous said...

This is EFJ himself (I have no google account):

(I agree, I am far from hot. Actually somewhat unappealing physically)

I simply chime in as TRS encouraged me to comment on federal deductibility.

It is simply a tax on a tax you already paid to the federal government.

It is purely silly to say ITR supports "higher tax rates".

You are right, only if your inability to comprehend "effective tax rates" means they don't actually exist.

The existence of federal deductibility lowers Iowa's effective tax rate. Therefore, ITR does not support higher tax rates.

Frankly, I think one's lack of ability to calculate effective tax rates may well be used as a weed out question when Iowa companies hire people who may move here.

Heck, do we really want a company in Iowa who is run by those who don't understand effective tax rates?

Seriously, it is such a simple concept. I learned it in high school economics.

Further, we agreed in previous Legislative sessions to not oppose the elimination of federal deductibility upon adoption of a constitutional amendment which would allow the citizens of Iowa the right to vote on major tax increases.

ITR would like nothing more than for Iowa to have the lowest tax rate in the U.S.

There is a long way to go.

This is an accurate timeline:

1978 ITR Founded

13.89% top rate on Iowa income


8.98% top rate on Iowa income


There is much to be done and we need activists to focus on winning based on an ideology of limited government and a decreased burden of taxation on all citizens.

It's a simple message.


The Real Sporer said...

Hooo Rahhhh!

Anonymous said...


Other fact, eliminating federal deductibility would most negatively effect the lowest earning, income tax paying Iowans.

*Federal Deductibility is very likely the LARGEST deducton for those who rent their home.

Great idea, let's further burden those Iowans who have worked their way to the point of paying taxes, but can not yet afford a home. Let's get rid of their biggest deduction. BRILLIANT

*For middle income, home owning Iowans, Federal Deductibility is very likely their second largest deduction.

Again, hard working folks should be encouraged to continue to improve their lives and those of their families, not have their second largest deduction removed.

*Wealthy Iowans benefit from Federal Deductibility as well, certainly. Those with the greatest resources have the ability to reallocate those resources based on tax advantages of the behavior more than middle income Iowans.


The facts are the facts.


The Real Sporer said...

But why should things like "facts" interfere with the march to socialism.

Just because liberal policy hurts the poorest among us the most doesn't mean liberals don't care.

Anonymous said...

and there you have it. the rest of the story.

vlad the impaler said...


John McCain OPPOSED the Bush tax cuts and used Marxist class warfare rhetoric in doing so. His cap and trade legislation would cost taxpayers over a trillion dollar.


Anonymous said...

1) John McCain has NEVER voted for a tax increase.

2) John McCain has NEVER voted for an earmark.

3) I believed then, and I believe now, John McCain is the ONLY Republican with a chance to win in November of 2008.

4) I am of the conservative school that believes John McCain will be far superior to any other candidate in handling the war on terror.

His resolve is clear.

This is a world war!

The idea of the inexperienced, ultra liberal Obama in the White House dealing with the war on terror scares me. It scares me for the future of my four children.

Back to taxes:

John McCain says, and I believe him as he has never been proven a liar, he didn't vote for the first Bush tax cuts (he voted for them later) because spending was out of control.


Republicans failed and have been replaced by Democrats in Congress because they spent like democrats.

Sure, tax cuts are great, but it's the net that matters. They don't occur in a vaccum.

Tax cuts absolutely spur the economy, but when accompanied by an even faster growth in government spending, their effect is greatly dilluted.

Do I think John McCain is perfect, or even close?

Of course not.

Heck, Ronald Reagan gave us Sandra Day O'Connor. That was a mighty swing and a miss! (I love Ronald Reagan)

It is near insanity to believe one will align 100% with any other human being in life, let alone a candidate for POTUS.

I was and am most comfortable with John McCain.

I know I will sleep easier with John McCain in the White House than I will with Obama!!

It's that simple.


Anonymous said...

Well said EFJ!!!

Vlad is purly an anarchist. He would follow Ron Paul and Bob Barr but neither of those individuals believe that we should protect Americans here and abroad. He states incorrect and half truths about McCain and it is nut cases like this that confuse true conservatives. Conservatives of Reagan era believed in cutting spending. Running Red budgets is not conservative.

RF said...

"I believed then, and I believe now, John McCain is the ONLY Republican with a chance to win in November of 2008."

As a D, I have to agree 100%. Kucinich would have produced a landslide against any of the other ones.

"The idea of the inexperienced, ultra liberal Obama in the White House dealing with the war on terror scares me."

Anyone who will continue the neocon nutcase foreign & defense policy scares the hell out of me. Give me a smart, realistic guy like Obama who actually understands the world around us, and I'll sleep very well.

vlad the impaler said...

1) John McCain has NEVER voted for a tax increase.

He didn't vote for the Bush tax cuts either. And he used Marxist class warfare rhetoric in doing so. Look at his own words, EFJ!

3) I believed then, and I believe now, John McCain is the ONLY Republican with a chance to win in November of 2008.

You can believe that all you want. We'll see who is right on election day.

4) I am of the conservative school that believes John McCain will be far superior to any other candidate in handling the war on terror.

Fighting terrorists abroad while giving them amnesty at home. Brilliant strategy!

Vlad is purly an anarchist. He would follow Ron Paul and Bob Barr but neither of those individuals believe that we should protect Americans here and abroad.

I disagree. Say what you will about Ron Paul, he was the ONLY one consistently promoting limited government. That being said, the Paulestinians scared the crap out of me. The Paulestinians are to Constitutionalism what Fred Phelps is to Christianity.

I'm not an anarchist at all. I believe the government DOES have legitimate (albeit limited) functions.

IIRC, wasn't in Juan McCain who sponsored amnesty? How was his vote AGAINST deporting drug dealers, killers, rapists, child molesters and the like protecting the citizens here?

Admittedly, I am voting for Barr but only because my differences with him are less profound than my differences with McCain.

Anonymous said...

Again Vlad Please read everything in context and reply accordingly. Did you even read??

You fucking moron!

Anonymous said...


In your personal budget would take a lessor paying job or take less in come while increasing your spending?

That is what John McCain did when he voted against those tax cuts and history has proven him in the right.

His own words were "we can't cut taxes if we are not will to also cut spending". Some how you have a major problem with that Either you are a big spending liberal or a complete fucking moron!

vlad the impaler said...

When he initially voted against the tax cuts, he stated that it was because they benefitted "the rich." When he decided he wanted to be President, he came up with the spending angle.


I did.

You McCainuses like to point out that he has never voted for a tax increase. This is technically correct but his other leftist policies, (environmental cultism, shamnesty, etc) would both cost the middle class huge amounts of money.

Vlad the impaler said...

From Human Events Online:

John McCain's class warfare rhetoric opposing the Bush tax cuts:

vlad the impaler said...

John McCain says, and I believe him as he has never been proven a liar, he didn't vote for the first Bush tax cuts (he voted for them later) because spending was out of control.

His own words were "we can't cut taxes if we are not will to also cut spending". Some how you have a major problem with that Either you are a big spending liberal or a complete fucking moron!

Tim Russert: "Since the Civil War, every president who has been at war has increased taxes. Should the president consider postponing his tax cut?"

McCain: "I would have – I voted against the tax cuts because of the disproportionate amount that went to the wealthiest Americans. I would clearly support not extending those tax cuts in order to help address the deficit. But the middle-income tax credits, the families, the child tax credits, the marriage tax credits, all of those I would keep." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 4/11/04)

Kiss my ass!

Who said it? John McCain or Barack Obama? said...

“There’s one big difference between me and the others–I won’t take every last dime of the surplus and spend it on tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy.” [McCain campaign commercial, January 2000]

“I am disappointed that the Senate Finance Committee preferred instead to cut the top tax rate of 39.6% to 36%, thereby granting generous tax relief to the wealthiest individuals of our country at the expense of lower- and middle-income American taxpayers.” [McCain Senate floor statement, May 21, 2001]

“But when you look at the percentage of the tax cuts that–as the previous tax cuts–that go to the wealthiest Americans, you will find that the bulk of it, again, goes to wealthiest Americans.” [John McCain NBC’s “Today,” Jan. 7, 2003]

McCain on BOR in 2000. would increase taxes said...

The Real Sporer said...

Those who attack Sen. McCain must be too subtle.

McCain's rhetoric in opposing the BTC is a fact. But so is McCain's current acceptance of the current tax rates and his opposition to raising those tax rates.

McCain 08 is running against Obama 08. Obama is promising to repeal the Bush tax cuts and replace them with some amorphous gift to the "middle class". Since my policy objective is lower taxes how does defeating McCain for his past sins advance my current agenda of low taxes?

vlad the impaler said...


If the McCainuses and the ITR folks are going to come on here and deny that McCain used Marxist class warfare rhetoric in opposing the tax cuts, I'm going to prove them wrong.

EFJ was clearly duped by this guy. He stated in an above post that McCain opposed the cuts because of a lack of spending cuts. I showed him that he was incorrect.

Anonymous said...

If you bastards had not hung Mark Klein, M.D. out to dry the way you did, by God then we'd have a candidate that truly understood the forgotten Middle Class. We had our new prophet in the palm of our hands and we swished him away like a cow's tail does to the flies around it's bung hole. What a shame.

Anonymous said...

Wow!!! I need to Smoke whatever you are smoking. Mark F------ Klein!!!! Youcan only explain this by being Klein!!!

Quack! quack! Quack! Quack!

Oh yeah how many caucus votes did Klein get? How many endorsements did he get? Where was his office?

Quack! Quack! Quack!

Klein reminds us that yes we need to retire before we get to that stage.

What a loser!!

Klein hah hah hah hah hah hah!!

Klein was the comic relief for iowa !

Tony Stark said...

"My old man had a philosophy. Peace means having a bigger stick than the other guy." = Stew has a bigger stick than Steve!

Anonymous said...

and to think, Stew's using that Big Stick to fuck the party, fuck the ticket and fuck the voter.

hell of a guy.

vlad the impaler said...

And Scheffler isn't?