[Bleeding Heartland Logo]

About
Bleeding Heartland is a community blog about Iowa politics: campaigns and elections, state government, social and environmental issues. Bleeding Heartland also weighs in on presidential policies and campaigns, federal legislation and what the Iowans in Congress are up to. Join our community, post your thoughts as comments or diaries, help keep our leaders honest and hold them accountable.
Author
- desmoinesdem
Highlights
- Iowa politics in 2008
- Iowa politics in 2009 (1)
- Iowa politics in 2009 (2)
- National politics in 2009 (1)
- National politics in 2009 (2)
- Iowa 2012 election coverage
- Who's who in the Iowa House for 2013
- Who's who in the Iowa Senate for 2013
- Iowa wildflowers
2014 Election Coverage
- IA-Sen
- IA-Gov
- IA-01
- IA-02
- IA-03
- IA-04
- Secretary of Agriculture
- Secretary of State
- State Auditor
- Iowa Senate overview
- Iowa House overview
- Senate district 5
- Senate district 7
- Senate district 9
- Senate district 13
- Senate district 15
- Senate district 17
- Senate district 27
- Senate district 39
- Senate district 41
- Senate district 47
- Senate district 49
- House district 25
- House district 28
- House district 33 (2013)
- House district 40
- House district 51
- House district 60
- House district 65
- House district 68
- House district 73
- House district 91
- House district 92
- House district 95
- House district 99
Search




Advanced Search


Paid Advertising


Bleeding Heartland
It's what plants crave.

Former Iowa Senate district 34 GOP candidate explains her decision (updated)

by: desmoinesdem

Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 09:55:00 AM CDT


Randi Shannon, the former Republican candidate in Iowa Senate district 34, was a guest on yesterday's edition of the Fallon Forum webcast. During the program, she explained her decision to accept an appointment to a shadow U.S. Senate rather than run for the Iowa legislature. I've posted the YouTube video of the program after the jump. The relevant part of the conversation begins around the 11-minute mark and continues for about 15 minutes.

Republicans in Senate district 34 will select a replacement candidate to face Democrat Liz Mathis during the next few weeks.

desmoinesdem :: Former Iowa Senate district 34 GOP candidate explains her decision (updated)
George Templer, one of four "Congressmen" from Iowa in the Republic of the United States, was also a guest on the program. Templer said an assembly of about 50 people in July 2010 elected the four members of Congress in the "de jure" republic. He did not explain how these four men can represent the whole state of Iowa, given that three of them live in Scott County, and the other lives in neighboring Muscatine County. But in an odd way, it does make sense that the state's would-be Congressional delegation selected Shannon as senator. Citizens of this "republic" reject everything the federal government has done since 1871 as illegitimate. The constitutional amendment providing for direct popular election of U.S. senators took effect decades after that point.

UPDATE: During the radio program, Templer lectured Fallon about studying U.S. history. I would advise Templer to read up on the 1842 Apportionment Act. Since President John Tyler signed that act into law, states with multiple representatives in the U.S. House have been required to elect those representatives from single-member districts (as opposed to choosing several people in one statewide at-large election). Accordingly, even in the pre-1871 republic, the state of Iowa could not have legally elected three U.S. House members from Scott County and one from Muscatine County.

SECOND UPDATE: Here's another legitimacy problem for the "Republic of the United States of America." As of 1871, there were only 37 states in the union (not including Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Alaska, or Hawaii). But the website of the self-styled Republic appears to recognize all 50 states as part of of the U.S. The "Republic President" James Timothy Turner visited New Mexico and Arizona last month as part of his "State of the Union Tour 2012."

Note:  These will be closed private meetings. Only confirmed members of the Republic are invited to attend. Please make sure to bring a copy of your signed paperwork to verify that you are a Republic member. No electronics of any kind will be allowed in the meeting room.

No electronics? Very pre-1871. The "show your papers" idea sounds more like a recent innovation, though.

Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Tweet This!

anticlimactic (0.00 / 0)
I was on after Shannon and she was a tough act to follow...

next time use more Latin (0.00 / 0)
George Templer was attention-getting with his explanation of the difference between a shadow government and the "de jure" government Shannon joined.

I wish Ed Fallon had asked Shannon about women's suffrage in the Republic of the United States of America. That was a couple of generations away in 1871.

Invite other Iowa political junkies to join us at Bleeding Heartland.


[ Parent ]
There was some uneasy tension (0.00 / 0)
between Fallon and Templer.  Templer was clearly offended by the Scott County comment.  I thought there might be a few more fireworks.  

[ Parent ]
I expect more of the same (4.00 / 1)
Why the surprise? The political parties are increasingly viewed as illegitimate. They ignore majority opinion on all issues unless opinions coincide w/ wishes of large donors. It's the rise of NOTA, although this will just be a temporary holding pattern.

In no particular order, over recent weeks:

1. A USW worker prominently featured in anti-Romney ads is now making the youtube rounds as a NOTA.

2. Quoting Ian Welsh, former contributor to the now defunct OpenLeft:


Roberts voted how he did because health insurance companies are absolutely desperate for the money they will get from the mandate.  All of the legitimacy arguments are bullshit, about 70% of Americans opposed the mandate.(pdf)  This is more similar to TARP than anything else: it is a massive corporate giveaway, opposed by the majority of the population, and passed over their dissent.

Watching so-called progressives shilling for forcing people to buy shitty insurance to subsidize health insurance companies has been another example of why I don't call myself a progressive.  Yes, a few people's lives will be saved.  The cost will be many lives destroyed.

The key point here is "passed over their dissent." Welcome, new IRS agents and other enforcers.

3. Popular support for increased CAFO regulation -- ignored.

4. WI -- lack of support for public sector unions. Quoting Welsh again:

 As long  as the union movement is about a few people keeping higher wages, it will continue to fail.

So true. This is a good example of pols pretending to pay heed to majority opinion in the interests of large donors.

5. Iowa opposition to executive policy on immigration. Perceived as illegitimate.

These various movements, whether Tea Party, Ron Paul! or shadow US Senates are all about rejecting our current form of government as illegitimate and in most cases, defunding it. I wouldn't laugh or snicker. The Tea Partiers did quite well in 2010 and the RP types have taken over the state GOP in IA and NV. Every person who is opting for (now) mainstream to fringe options that reject the status quo have a louder voice than the go-along-to-get-alongs.

On the "progressive" side, we have the Dems who migrated over to Ron Paul!, the Donnie Boxes:


"I could really care less about Obama," says Box. "I think Obama is a jerk, a pantywaist, a lightweight, a blowhard. He hasn't done a goddamn thing that he said he would do. When he had a Democratic Senate and Democratic Congress, he didn't do a damn thing. He doesn't have the guts to say what's on his mind."

and voter suppression. I don't just mean the Voter ID efforts in multiple states across the country. Telling people that all you've got for them is that you're "fighting the other side" so they can vote (for your fav candidates) is just the other side of the voter suppression coin.

The John Edwards show trial took place for one reason: to prop up lagging confidence in government.

Sure, some of these folks sound kooky, but I don't think we have far to go before there's a complete breakdown in public confidence unless you believe the "dueling ads" are inspiring Americans to a greater purpose.


Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Iowa Liberal Blogs
- Ames Progressive
- Blog For Iowa
- Essential Estrogen
- Iowa .Gif-t Shop
- Iowa Independent (archive)
- Iowa Policy Points
- Iowans for a Future That Doesn't Suck
- John Deeth
Iowa Conservative Blogs
- Hawkeye GOP
- The Bean Walker
- Caffeinated Thoughts
- The Conservative Reader: Iowa
- The Iowa Republican
Journalists' blogs and research
- 24-Hour Dorman
- Cedar Rapids Gazette government page
- Iowa Fiscal Partnership
- Iowa Policy Project
- Iowa Politics Insider
- Iowa Watchdog.org
- On Brief: Iowa's Appellate Blog
- On the Campaign Trail with Ed Tibbetts
- Newton Independent (Peter Hussmann)
- Politically Speaking
- Price of Politics, etc.
- O.Kay Henderson at Radio Iowa
Iowa Democrats
- Tom Harkin (U.S. Senator)
- Bruce Braley (IA-01)
- Dave Loebsack (IA-02)
- Iowa Democratic Party
- Iowa House Democrats
- Iowa Senate Democrats
Statistics


 
Powered by: SoapBlox