Caffeinated Thoughts

Ron Paul: Is He Running a Campaign or a Coup?
The Iowa House Education Bill Better for Nonpublic Schools, Not for Local Control
A Republic, Not a Democracy: A Defense of the Electoral College
Iowa GOP Announces Formation of Committee on the Iowa Caucus
The Error of the Greater Good: The Liberal War Upon Religion
The FAMiLY LEADER Hosts Marriage Rally at the Iowa State Capitol

Ron Paul: Is He Running a Campaign or a Coup?

Posted: 19 Mar 2012 10:30 PM PDT

At the risk of receiving the wrath of the Paulbots yet again, and yes you are a Paulbot if you come over here only to comment on negative Paul posts. I have several friends and readers (and a contributor) who back Congressman Ron Paul, and at least they take the time to read all of our posts. They are not Paulbots. Some who commented brought up some legitimate points about Missouri. Some helped to make my point, and demonstrated that one of Congressman Paul's weak spots are his zealous supporters who can't make reasonable arguments without insulting people. I won't say all of the bad behavior that happened on Saturday in Missouri was solely with the Ron Paul campaign, but much of the responsibility has to be laid at the feet of his strategy. My title however illustrates, I believe, the central frustration supporters of other candidates have with his campaign.

For all of the talk of Ron Paul being better organized let me point out a simple fact that seems to be overlooked. He is only well organized in very few caucus states and online. If he were truly organized he'd win states, but he's not. So he's chosen to go another route, and frankly looking back at the way he campaigned in Iowa (where he campaigned didn't make sense) and how he's campaigning lead me to believe that he was never really campaigning to win.

His strategy all along was to try to scoop up delegates in non-binding caucus states, as Paul staffer Jesse Benton pointed out:

Although Paul failed to win caucuses in states including Colorado, Iowa, Washington and Alaska, the process of awarding delegates in those states is not yet complete, leaving the door open for the Paul campaign.

Benton explained that while Paul hopes to win delegates in later primaries like California and Paul’s home state of Texas, the current focus is using Paul’s vast grass-roots network to pick up delegates during state conventions.

The Paul campaign is targeting the local meetings held in counties around the county that are part of the process of choosing national convention delegates, hoping to assure selection of Paul allies.

He's pretty much left the campaign trail and has focused on these states. Other candidates have not been able to focus on these states after the contests because they're campaigning nationally in all of the caucuses and primaries. They simply can't organize to the extent that Paul has. But historically they've never really had to before.

In Iowa the delegates have typically gone to the winner of the Iowa Caucus unless the winner was out by convention time. I'm sure other states are the same. What Congressman Paul is doing is well within the rules. While they may be following the "letter of the law" they certainly are not following the spirit. Santorum, Gingrich (well until last week anyway) and Romney have been running campaigns and are trying to win over voters. Paul is taking a back door approach and is trying to run a coup winning delegates in nonbinding caucus states where he didn't even finish in the top two, let alone win.

For what purpose? The math doesn't even support what he is doing. He can not win the nomination there are not enough delegates to help him. Some have suggested that he's made a deal with Mitt Romney. I don't know if that is true or not. The Paul campaign laughed that off saying they had no knowledge well, sorry if we can't completely trust what you have to say based on past history. Even if that is not the case the only person who benefits from this is Mitt Romney. Is that what Paul supporters really want? In either case? I would hope not. It does seem plausible based on Paul's behavior. He's spent his time attacking Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, but has left Mitt Romney, the author of RomneyCare alone. Doesn't that seem strange to you?

Regardless, this plan will backfire as Kevin Hall pointed out on Sunday.

The Ron Paul campaign failed. Money is running out and your delegate strategy bombed big time … Even if you won every single delegate from the non-binding caucus states like Iowa (which I guarantee you won't come close to doing), you still lose big …

If we give you all 345 of those non-binding delegates (which we won't), add them to your current whopping total of less than 30, factor in a few more you might pick up with your repeated poor finishes in the remaining contests, and Ron Paul will acquire, at most, 450 delegates … And that's a very healthy overestimation … Reality is, Paul will be lucky to get 300 … And Ron Paul is no Leonidas.

So, all the crap you pulled at county conventions, for all your efforts to stack State Central Committees, all the nonsensical ramblings about the revolution taking over the RNC convention, they all mean nothing … Not only will Ron Paul not win, he will finish a very distant third or fourth … Dr. Paul might not even have a significant presence at the convention. There will be 2,286 delegates there and at least 1,836 oppose him … The Paulbots need to think about the future and Rand Paul's presidential aspirations. That means dialing back the nonsense … A good retreat is better than a bad stand.

I totally agree. By keeping up with this they only hurt their cause. They may be playing by the rules, but it's still sneaky and not the way to win a nomination or to get your position heard. Win elections. Win over people. Don't manipulate the system and try to throw a coup. People want to see hard fought campaigns instead of a minority of people snagging delegates because they know the rules better.

Photo by Dave Davidson – Prezography.com

The Iowa House Education Bill Better for Nonpublic Schools, Not for Local Control

Posted: 19 Mar 2012 04:15 PM PDT

education HF 2380, Governor Terry Branstad's proposed education bill was debated last week was passed on the morning of March 14th on a 53-46 vote. A number of amendments were passed changing the language of Governor Branstad's original proposal significantly. Some items to note:

Competency-based education was expanded which will allow a public or nonpublic school to award high school credit upon the required competencies being demonstrated. The assessment for this will be provided by each school.
Accredited nonpublic schools are not required to meet the core curriculum and core content requirements which are in conflict with their tenets and practices of the bona fide religious institution of the school.
As noted last week, the expansion of the Iowa Core Curriculum was struck and the Department of Education was tasked with conducting a study of the core curriculum and core content standards.
School districts are still required to do yearly evaluations (I don't think this is a bad thing necessarily, but again it is another state mandate on principals which may already have a lot on their plate).
The statewide teacher and administrator system is still in the bill. Which will be for use of by all schools. Schools (public and nonpublic) can submit their own for approval by the Department of Education. The good in this is that it may not become implemented as they have to form a task force to study pilot programs. If the recommendations which will come to the Legislature in the form of a separate bill are not passed then this section of the bill will be repealed.
Nonpublic schools now may utilize Iowa Learning Online.
Public and nonpublic schools can request exemptions from one or more of the PK-12 educational program. The exemption language is broader for nonpublic schools.
Nonpublic schools are no longer required to submit job openings to the Department of Education's job opening website. Language was changed from "shall" to "may."
Preschool program was expanded.
The Department of Education establishes an accountability system for all Iowa's schools. All public schools are required to incorporate end-of-course assessments.
There will be a value-added assessment implemented for school districts.
School districts will administer kindergarten assessments for every pre-kindergarten student or 4-year-old enrolled in the district. This does not include nonpublic schools.
The state board will still adopt rules for a statewide plan for professional development, but the professional development money will not be removed from school district budgets to fund.
Ineffective and biased charter school language is still present in the bill.
Third grade literacy plan is still present. If a child's reading deficiency is not remediated by the end of the third grade that child shall be held back. A decision that should be made by local school districts and parents, not the state.
Professional services and guidance counseling services will only be provided by those who completed approved endorsements or have a state license by 2015.
Kept the alternative pathway to a teaching license.

While this is a much better bill that the original, especially for nonpublic schools, it still expands the power of state government and erodes local control. Though it is improved it is still disappointing to see that 53 Republicans who mostly say they favor limited government vote for this bill as the bill doesn't nothing but expand state government through the Department of Education. The bill will now go to the Senate where its fate is uncertain. You can read the bill below:

HF 2380 Reprinted

A Republic, Not a Democracy: A Defense of the Electoral College

Posted: 19 Mar 2012 10:30 AM PDT

By John Hendrickson

The Electoral College is one of the most misunderstood aspects of American government and historically it has come under fire for being "un-democratic." The most recent attempt to undermine the Electoral College is from The National Popular Vote Movement (NPV).

NPV's objective is to change the Electoral College system to be based upon the winner of the national popular vote. The NPV campaign is attempting to get state Legislatures to pass legislation to commit their state's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. According to NPV, Legislatures in eight states as well as the District of Columbia have passed legislation to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. Advocates of the NPV claim that this approach to electing the President is more "democratic."

Under the current system most states, with the exception of Maine and Nebraska, which have proportional systems, award the electoral votes based upon a winner-take-all basis. In total, there are 538 electoral votes and a candidate must receive 270 to win the election.

The first argument in favor of the Electoral College is that it works, but more importantly, it is a vital part of our federal constitutional structure. Electing the President based upon a direct national vote, which the Framers rejected, would undermine the small states. Candidates would only need to campaign in large urban centers; small states, such as Iowa, would be bypassed completely.

The Electoral College requires both presidential candidates and political parties to build broad coalitions in order to win elections. For example, Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan built political coalitions that were broad-based. A national popular vote would undermine stability in presidential elections, resulting in undermining the two-party system, confusing and drawn-out ballot recounts, and higher chances of voter fraud.

Iowa and the nation should seriously think about the constitutional implications for supporting a direct popular vote of the President. Preservation of the Electoral College is a vital necessity for our constitutional republic.

John Hendrickson is a Research Analyst with Public Interest Institute in Mount Pleasant, Iowa.

Iowa GOP Announces Formation of Committee on the Iowa Caucus

Posted: 19 Mar 2012 08:45 AM PDT

DES MOINES–The Republican Party of Iowa (RPI) State Central Committee today approved the formation of a 17-member Iowa Caucus Review Committee and confirmed Chairman A. J. Spiker's nominees to the committee.

The committee will be chaired by RPI Co-Chair Bill Schickel. Iowa Secretary of State Deputy of Elections Mary Mosiman will serve as committee co-chair.

"My challenge to the committee is to bring back recommendations that will build upon the most open and transparent presidential preference process in the country," Spiker said.

"The purpose of the committee is to conduct a full audit and review of the Republican Caucus," said Schickel. "We're going to review what went right and what went wrong. We will fix what went wrong and promote what went right."

The committee will hold its first meeting at 10 A.M. Thursday, April 26 in Des Moines. Future meetings will be held in other communities across the state.

Committee members will be assigned to sub-committees on public relations, operations and training. A research subcommittee will gather data and background information for the committee.

The committee and each of the sub-committees will be asking for ideas and suggestions from experts and ordinary citizens alike throughout the state and nation, Schickel said.

"Although this will be a review of the Republican caucuses, we will be acting in consultation with our colleagues in the Democrat Party," Schickel said. "Having open, honest and transparent caucuses is in the interest of all Iowans."

The members of the Iowa Caucus Review Committee are:

Chair Bill Schickel, Cerro Gordo County

Co-Chair Mary Mosiman, Story County

Chad Olsen, Guthrie County

David Chung, Linn County

David Fischer, Polk County

David Oman, Polk County

Gwen Ecklund, Crawford County

Judy Davidson, Scott County

Kathy Pearson, Linn County

Kim Lehman, Polk County

Randy Erickson, Buena Vista County

Rev. Jamie Johnson, Webster County

Richard Schwarm, Winnebago County

Sen. Nancy Boettger, Shelby County

Steve Grubbs, Scott County

Steve Scheffler, Polk County

Wes Enos, Polk County

The Error of the Greater Good: The Liberal War Upon Religion

Posted: 19 Mar 2012 08:30 AM PDT

"Hope and change" has deteriorated into "do what I say." What began as a slogan to portray recovery has morphed into a plan for bondage. Nowhere does this description manifest itself more clearly than in President Obama's assault upon religion.

Recently, the President demanded that all employers provide health insurance coverage for matters that directly contradict the religious beliefs of many Americans. (Can he do that?) Specifically, these requirements include, at a minimum, provision for birth control, post-coital abortive medicine, and abortion.

At first glance, the President's orders appear to foster freedom through emphasis upon the greater good. This philosophy says that a group of people must give up something good, even freedoms, to their detriment, for what others call a greater good. As a result, those who give up something good become subservient to others. However, his plan would eliminate currently held Constitutional freedoms enjoyed by millions of Americans, even those without religious affiliations.

The President's demands directly attack religion. With this unprecedented declaration, he elevates himself above the spiritual heads of all religions. People, regardless of their religious beliefs, must submit to him and his demands rather than to their spiritual leaders.

With his pronouncement, President Obama eliminates religious freedom. In America's early years, flocks of people came to this land seeking religious freedom. They left their homelands because their governments denied it to them. Now, President Obama wants to abolish in America that which the Nation's ancestors came to this land to pursue.

If President Obama's demands go into effect, the greater good of the state will dictate governmental policies that supersede the role of religion in people's lives. The elimination of these freedoms will bring bondage to government.

Americans do not have to accept the President's proclamation. They can prevent his mandates from becoming practice. They can elect political candidates who champion limited government and who will remove the increasing regulations that restrict freedoms.

With the return of limited government, Americans will retain their religious freedoms, so precious to millions of people. The government will not dictate religious practice. The greater good does not rely upon governmental mandates. The oft-quoted statement, describes it well: "That government that governs least governs best."^{^[1]}

The FAMiLY LEADER Hosts Marriage Rally at the Iowa State Capitol

Posted: 19 Mar 2012 08:15 AM PDT

Pleasant Hill, IOWA. – The FAMiLY LEADER, along with co-sponsors CatholicVote.org and National Organization for Marriage, are hosting a "Let Us Vote" Marriage Rally on Tuesday, March 20^th at 10:00 AM in the rotunda of the Iowa State Capitol. The purpose of the rally is to demonstrate to State Senators that marriage is important to Iowans and that Iowans want to exercise their Constitutional right to vote on the definition of marriage via the Iowa Marriage Amendment (IMA).

The IMA is an amendment to the Iowa Constitution defining marriage between one man and one woman as the only legal union that is valid or recognized in Iowa. The IMA passed in the House during the 2011 legislative session but is stalled in the Senate due to Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal blocking a debate on the Senate floor.

In 1998, the Iowa Legislature passed the Defense of Marriage Act resulting in the Iowa Code section 595.2 that reads, "Only a marriage between a male and female is valid." Despite this existing Iowa law, County Recorders continue to issue same-sex marriage licenses.

In advance of the Marriage Rally, grassroots activists and churches all over the state have been collecting signatures for our Marriage Petition. The FAMiLY LEADER expects to deliver over 20,000 signatures to the State Senate next week.

Bob Vander Plaats, President & CEO of The FAMiLY LEADER, commented, "Iowa law currently reads that only a marriage between a male and female is valid. Due process of law was not followed in 2009 when seven activist judges issued an opinion stating this law is unconstitutional. Passing the IMA and letting the people vote is a logical and honorable course of action." Vander Plaats continues, "Even though the economy dominates the legislative discussion, it is apparent that Iowans want to be heard on this issue as well. Teaming up with the Catholic community for this rally sends a strong message to Democratic Senators to Let Us Vote."

Brian Burch, President of CatholicVote.org said, "Catholics believe it is important to protect, affirm, and encourage the traditional institution of marriage and CatholicVote.org is pleased to be partnering with The FAMiLY LEADER for this marriage rally in Iowa."

Scheduled speakers include Brian Brown, Executive Director of the National Organization for Marriage, Chuck Hurley, Vice-President of The FAMiLY LEADER, and Bob Vander Plaats, President & CEO of The FAMiLY LEADER.

Horoscop

marți, 20 martie 2012

Caffeinated Thoughts

Caffeinated Thoughts

Un comentariu: