Real coverage of the Iowa Presidential Forum-Part 1

Tonight we here at the Real Sporer are going to have two posts on the ICA/ITR Presidential Forum. This, the first post, will be on the event itself. The second will feature each candidate’s respective performance.

First, we must turn to the quite misleading story our local AP writer, Mike Glover, produced. After reading the AP article, my wife and I were confused; we had heard the entire Mitt Romney presentation and we never heard any questions about Mitt’s membership in the LDS. Virtually the entire AP story features a colloquy between members of the audience and Mitt about Mitt’s religion that happened at “the forum” today.

There was a press event immediately after the main forum itself, so maybe that is where Mike witnessed the minor exchange to which he devotes most of his article, but I am now told that it did not occur there, either. From reading O. Kay Henderson’s coverage of an earlier event in Pella it appears that the exchange may have occurred at “a” forum earlier in the day but not at “the” Presidential Forum in Des Moines.

“The” ITR/ICA Presidential Forum was the best political event the Real Sporer has witnessed. It was timely and well organized. Moreover, with six Presidential candidates actually talking about very specific issues that are at the core of the Republican Primary, each having, not the usual sound bite time, but around a half hour to discuss the issues there was the depth of discussion for which the media usually longs and about the absence of which usually complains..

Much happened at “the” Forum. The level of specificity was very high from most of the candidates, and far more specificity than most people ever see in a campaign world increasingly devoted to the simplistic presentation required of the thirty or sixty second statement. Each of the candidates were given 25 minutes to state their case and to address six questions as to what each would do as President, that I will summarize as:

1. Veto any tax increase, including the repeal of existing but time limited tax rates?

2. Submit a budget that freezes non-defense discretionary spending?

3. Enforce the Defense of Marriage Act (signed by Pres. Bill Clinton)?

4. Build the fence, implement a functional entry/exit system for immigration and create an electronic ID system for employer verification and enforcement?

5. Veto taxpayer funding of embryonic stem call research that involves the creation and destruction of human embryos.

6. Sign the Fair Tax into law.

David Stanley and Steve Scheffler asked each candidate for more specific answers to any of the foregoing questions that were left unanswered in the candidate’s initial presentation. The format not only juxtaposed the candidates against each other but almost compelled each to clash on at least some issue so as to create a flattering distinction, in itself a distinction that flatters us over our Democrat adversaries who define uniformity of thought as the distinguishing feature of leadership.

A geographically diverse audience of over 800, probably closer to a 1000, almost certain caucus attendees were at the Hy-Vee Hall. Almost every one of the attendees will be a speaking leader at their caucus. Almost every person stayed until the end, which means that a large percentage of those 1000 attendees entered the forum more or less undecided. Candidates are rarely given opportunities to have personal contact with so many local opinion makers and six of our candidates took full advantage of the opportunity to persuade the voters of Iowa. This type of retail vetting is precisely why we are first in the nation. Most of Iowa’s Republican leadership was present.

Congratulations and thanks to EFS, EFJ, Scheffy and their entire crews for providing such an opportunity to the nation’s voters.