Controversial Christian radio personality Steve Deace slammed Grassley in a blog post Monday morning, calling his speech “a long, rambling, incoherent embarrassment of something which may have resembled a speech that not only killed the event but continued on well into the body’s decomposition process.”

Deace pointed to the elements of the speech and of Grassley’s record in the Senate that most upset him, including his vote last year for a bank bailout and his support for Earthpartk, an indoor rain forest at one time expected to be built in Iowa.

He then criticized several amendments offered by Grassley to health care reform legislation, in particular, an amendment that would clarify  “reporting requirements for tax-exempt organizations.” Deace fears that the language of the amendment opens the door to discrimination against churches that refuse to hire homosexuals or to consider women applicants for pastoral positions.

Perhaps in the future some Democrat will come along and decide these ministries need to be investigated because they think homosexuality is a sin, so government needs to intervene and look at their finances, too?

Grassley is helping to grease the skids for that to happen in the future because when you’ve been in Washington too long you see everything as a problem for Washington to handle.  Yet another reason why the slogan of our nation’s capital ought to be “the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”

Potomac Fever is a deadlier disease than H1N1 and HIV put together.

Grassley has a long record of  going after nonprofit organizations, specifically Christian ministries, that he believes are engaging in financial misconduct. In 2007, Grassley announced the Senate Finance Committee would investigate six prominent televangelist ministries who were believed to be improperly using their tax-exempt status as churches to shield lavish lifestyles.

Deace’s afternoon radio program has been the platform for sevearl calls for a social conservative to primary to Grassley in 2010.

A coalition of same-sex marriage opponents, including the Iowa Family Policy Center, the Iowa Christian Alliance and Everyday America, will rally at the capitol today with the hope of convincing lawmakers to take up the controversial marriage amendment. The gathering is expected to go from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. A similar rally was held Thursday, after which Republican Rep. Christopher Rants of Sioux City tried and failed to attach the amendment, which would ban same-sex marriage, to the Health and Human Services budget.

Most expect another Republican attempt this week to force a vote on the amendment, although House Minority Leader Kraig Paulsen, R-Hiawatha, told the Cedar Rapids Gazette’s James Lynch that the marriage issue wouldn’t prolong the session.

One Iowa, the state’s largest LGBT advocacy organization, is planning to counter the conservative gathering with a “virtual rally” by asking supporters of same-sex marriage to call legislators.

Iowans for Tax Relief will rally Tuesday at 10 a.m. to oppose proposed legislation that would end federal deductibility, which allows state residents to write off their federal tax burden on their state returns. The change is part of a Democratic tax reform plan that could be debated Tuesday or Wednesday. During a public hearing on the bill last month, a group organized by Iowans for Tax Relief had to be removed from the House gallery after repeatedly ignoring requests to stop booing speakers they disagreed with.

Then, on Wednesday, the second Des Moines Tea Party will be held at the capitol from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. A similar event was held Saturday as part of conservative radio host and Fox News contributor Glenn Beck’s “9-12 Project.” Wednesday’s event is completely separate and designed as an antitaxation demonstration to evoke the memory of the Boston Tea Party. The gathering’s press release says several speakers are scheduled, but their names, as well as the organization behind the gathering, are not listed.

While advertised around the country as spontaneous grassroots gatherings of concerned taxpayers, some observers have pointed out that in many cases the tea parties are organized by corporate lobbyists and conservative groups like FreedomWorks, run by former Republican U.S. House Majority Leader Dick Army.

The group’s Web site does, however, have a list of appropriate signs for the event.

Iowa resident Stacey Lynn Cargill filed a complaint with the FEC alleging the group violated campaign finance laws by allowing political activist Marlene Elwell to use its office space and database in efforts to influence potential Iowa voters to cast their ballots for presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

Because ICA is organized as a 501(C)4 nonprofit it is barred from trying to directly influence elections. It can only advocate on behalf of issues.

The FEC found no reason to believe that ICA violated regulations and closed the file.

On Tuesday morning, the court heard oral arguments in the case of Varnum v. Brien. The case, filed initially by six same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses by Timothy J. Brien, the Polk County Recorder, was given summary judgment in Iowa District Court in August 2007. Although the lower court’s decision was placed on hold pending the appeal to the high state court, one same-sex couple was able to quickly maneuver through the marriage process. The fate and validity of that marriage now hinges on the ruling from this appeal.

The Iowa Christian Alliance, formerly the Christian Coalition of Iowa, opposes same-sex marriage.

“The evidence submitted to the [lower court] judge showed that the Iowa Defense of Marriage Act is constitutional, is legal and was voted on by a vast majority of the Legislature with the support of the population of the state of Iowa,” said Norm Pawlewski, a spokesman and lobbyist for the Iowa Christian Alliance. “The lower court ruling was an erroneous decision and the Supreme Court should overrule it. If they don’t, then they are engaging in judicial activism.”

Pawlewski though, is not optimistic that the conservative groups will receive a favorable ruling.

“I think this is going to come down to judicial activism. That’s my opinion,” he said.

Bryan English, a spokesman for Iowa Family Policy Center, also believes that the court will take on a legislative role if it decides to allow same-sex marriage.

“One of the main questions is whether or not the court would be usurping the rights of the Legislature by siding with or supporting the lower court’s decision,” English said. “The justices even said today that one of the outcomes could be a redefinition of marriage. That’s different then deciding if something is constitutional or unconstitutional. A redefinition of something as foundational as marriage is a significant change in the law and ought to be handled by the Legislature.”

Tamara Scott, state director for Concerned Women of America, takes the thought one step further, saying that the current state of the fight for same-sex marriage in the U.S. has turned historical precedent upside down. She points to the battle for suffrage as evidence that groups previously understood the process of amending the U.S. Constitution was the proper avenue.

“If Iowans and Americans would really look at this, they would see that this is a federal issue,” Scott said. “Look at the U.S. Constitution. I believe it was the 14th Amendment that gave the black man the right to vote. The 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote. The white male already had that right, but nowhere, at any time, did the black men and the women assume they were included as well. They knew and they were forced to go through the long and purposefully difficult process of passing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution so they could obtain the right to vote.”

Pawlewski is adamant that the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman, is and should be the law until a different wording or definition is passed by the Legislature.

“There is nothing in the Constitution that says everybody has a right to marry whoever, or whatever or how-many-ever they want,” he said. “There was nothing wrong with the law that was passed. It went through the appropriate procedures, and, if the homosexuals want gay marriage in the state of Iowa, then they ought to go through the Legislature just like everybody else.”

Although these groups did not file individual friend-of-the-court briefs in the case, they did work closely with the Alliance Defense Fund to ensure their arguments were read by the justices.

For now, English and Scott are willing to take a “wait and see” approach to the court’s ruling.

“You never know how a judge is going to rule,” Scott said. “You think you understand the legal ramifications and implications and precedents — but you just never know. I’m hopeful that they will understand that this isn’t a position the courts should be making. This is something that belongs in the legislature and something that should be a process that goes through the state Constitution, not seven individuals.”.

The Iowa Supreme Court building in Des Moines.

“This is a great day for Connecticut. We are excited for the committed couples who now have the freedom to marry. We share in their happiness and look forward to the day when committed gay and lesbian couples can marry in Iowa,” said Carolyn Jenison, executive director of One Iowa, a Des Moines-based LGBT advocacy organization.

The Iowa Supreme Court will hear arguments in the legal challenge to the state’s same-sex marriage law on Dec. 9. Last year an Iowa district court held that Iowa’s ban on marriage for gay couples was unconstitutional. If the ruling is upheld it will provide gays and lesbians couples and their families the same recognition, benefits and responsibilities as heterosexual couples.

Opponents of same-sex marriage have pushed for the legislature to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman in order to preempt a ruling by the court. However, an amendment to the state’s constitution must be passed in two separate legislative sessions before it can be placed on the ballot. A ruling from the Court is expected long before an amendment could be passed.

One group that has been outspoken in its opposition to same-sex marriage is the Iowa Christian Alliance. This year, voters will decide whether to retain three of the seven justices of the Iowa Supreme Court, and in an e-mail to supporters, ICA Lobbyist Norm Pawlewski says Iowans should vote “no.”

Three justices on the Iowa Supreme Court are up for retention: Justice Brent R. Appel, Justice Daryl L. Hecht and Justice Mark Cody. Appel and Hecht were appointed by Iowa’s most leftist, liberal, pro abortion, pro gay everything governor in its history, Tom Vilsack. If they get a positive vote, they will not be up for retention again for eight years.

The Connecticut ruling came in response to a 2004 lawsuit challenging the ban on gay marriage.

Hurd said he’d accept any actions that board wished to take due to what Hurd termed his “poor judgement.” He also said that his statements shouldn’t be construed as an official endorsement.

“I would like to apologize to the Iowa Christian Alliance board and to those who support our organization for letting my emotions run away with me at a recent Romney event,” he said in a statement distributed by the ICA. “I did not mean to endorse Mitt Romney and want to make sure that all those who support our organization understand that fact.

As a non-profit, tax-exempt organization, the ICA is prohibited from supporting a specific candidate. ICA stays busy during the caucuses holding various debates to give its members an opportunity to learn more about candidates, but has refrained from working for specific candidates in the past.

Hurd said he would support Romney while introducing him at a campaign event, a move that campaign officials knew nothing about in advance.

“I’ll tell you a little secret. I haven’t told anybody else this. I’ll tell this secret out here,” Hurd told the crowd. “Next Thursday, when I go to the caucuses, I’m going to cast my vote for Governor Mitt Romney.”

Hurd said that he would be satisfied seeing many of the candidates do well on Thursday.

“I have deep respect for many of the candidates running and wish to clarify that no matter what I said on that day, I do not wish my statements to be viewed as an endorsement,” he said. “ICA officers are prohibited by board resolution from making endorsements so I wish to make it clear that I have not, nor will endorse any candidate.

“If the board wishes to take action due to my poor judgment, I will be happy to accept whatever consequences they suggest.  I love this organization and its leadership and sincerely look forward to rectifying this unfortunate error on my part.”

Given the Paul campaign’s run-in with the ICA over its decision not to invite him to its GOP presidential forum in June – an event cosponsored by the Iowans for Tax Reform — the irony of Paul’s new Iowa chair winning the “Friends of the Family Award” will not be lost on Paul’s fervent supporters. The apparent snub only served to inspire the Ron Paul Revolutionaries as they descended upon Des Moines in droves to attend a counter-rally next door, which garnered more attendees than the forum itself. Moreover, a recording of the event was posted on the internet and has been used to bolster the movement’s recruitment efforts. 

When asked in a telephone interview about the ICA’s decision not to invite Ron Paul to the forum, Ivers told the Iowa Independent that he had met with Scheffler and had worked things out. “Steve told me there were some differences within the two coalitions sponsoring the event,” Ivers said. “Steve told me there was a communication breakdown that led to Ron Paul not being invited to the event. He also assured me that these issues have been worked, and I take him for his word on this matter.”“As many evangelicals sort out their concerns about Israel and the Middle East, I want to advance Congressman Paul’s long-held opposition to our troublesome foreign aid policy, which is contrary to our forefathers admonitions to avoid foreign entanglements,” Ivers said after the event.  “Such aide in the Middle East frequently has negative consequences. And as Dr. Paul reiterates, we need justice for 911, not an endless War in Iraq which most Americans now oppose.  As a combat veteran who has experienced this all before, I know Ron Paul is right. It is time to bring the troops home.”

Salier’s strong showing as a hard-core, especially anti-abortion conservative, not only demonstrated social conservatives’ strong presence in Iowa, but also provided evidence, said Dennis Goldford, a political science professor at Drake University, that social conservatives had increased their influence over the Iowa Republican Party.  Goldford recalled Salier ending his concession speech with the words, “This isn’t about politics. This is about God.”

Social conservatives have taken the Republican Party by storm nationally, but especially in Iowa, where they may comprise up to 40 percent of the state party. The presidential Iowa caucuses serve as a reminder of their strength and their ability to influence the larger course of the nation. Mindful of the power they wield, Iowa social conservatives straddle the line between purity and pragmatism. “The problem is, religion is about absolutes, and politics is about compromise,” Goldford noted. “The question is about how well do they mix?”

Organizing Power

Iowa social conservatives first made their mark on the political consciousness by delivering the Rev. Pat Robertson a second-place finish in the 1988 Republican Iowa caucuses—ahead of then Vice President George H. W. Bush. “That’s where they sort of burst on the scene,” Goldford said. “It certainly put these folks on the map. In politics, appearance is reality, and it gave them the appearance of having tremendous muscle.”

Social conservatives’ influence in Iowa politics increased over the next decade. The fierce 2002 primary between Salier and Ganske showed how the political ground in the state had shifted in favor of social conservatives, Goldford said.

“It did not surprise me,” Salier said. “Ganske ran for office on the Contract with America and then abandoned those principles.” Salier said that armed with “the Constitution and Scriptures, people are going to rally.” He was disappointed that Bush and other conservative Republicans endorsed his more moderate opponent, but pointed out that, subsequently, they faced a backlash and that afterwards, the state party’s platform was revised to prohibit state or national party leaders from interfering in primaries. Salier did not endorse Ganske in what would be a losing race against Harkin, though he said he did not work against him. “I did not endorse him because to me, that is an endorsement of what someone believes in,” he said. “I do not.”

Steve Scheffler, president of Iowa Christian Alliance, said the rise of social conservatives in Iowa has been gradually evolving over the last 20 years so that “now, they’re pretty mainstream. I’m part of that movement,” he said. “I’ve been on the state central committee for 15 years.” Scheffler noted that the energy social conservatives put into politics has helped them gain power. “Not all party regulars are motivated by issues; it becomes more of a social club thing to them,” he said. “When you’re motivated by what’s right and wrong for society [people are more likely to act].”

Chuck Laudner, executive director of the Iowa GOP, agreed. “Here in Iowa,” he said, “if you are a true moderate that means you don’t really have a strong stance on the core issues that would drive you to go knock door to door.” Candidates court social conservatives, in part, for their get-out-the-vote skills, not just their ability to show up and vote. Since Robertson’s 1988 showing, Laudner said, “the battle in the Iowa caucuses process has been over those folks.”

Several state organizations help mobilize this potent constituency. After losing the nomination, Robertson turned his presidential operation into the Christian Coalition. An active Iowa affiliate formed, known as the Christian Coalition of Iowa, though it split from the national organization last year, becoming the Iowa Christian Alliance. Other organizations for social conservatives also sprung up around the state, such as Concerned Women for America of Iowa, the Iowa Family Policy Center, Iowa Right to Life Committee, and the Network of Iowa Christian Home Educators, among others. Iowa Family Policy Center president Chuck Hurley said in a previous interview that these organizations work together frequently. “There’s camaraderie, at a minimum,” he said. “There’s active cooperation in certain cases.”

Compromising Values

Salier said one of the main obstacles to his candidacy was that establishment Republicans didn’t think he was “electable” and could beat Harkin. This made no sense to Salier. “Just choosing someone because you think they can win is a guaranteed loss,” he said. “Conservatives are looking for substance. They want to vote for somebody … not just somebody that matches many of the things you’re against.”

Scheffler said social conservatives consider compromise on an individual basis. “We know there’s no perfect candidate. By the same token, even though we’re pragmatic to a certain degree, we want to send a message to the GOP and candidates,” he said. “Don’t give us the fluff off. Don’t give us the attitude that there’s nowhere else to go. That mentality is just not going to sell anymore.”

In the race for the 2008 presidential nomination, social conservative stalwarts like former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback remain at the back of the pack. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney leads in most Iowa polls, despite his past support for abortion rights. Kim Lehman, president of the Iowa Right to Life Committee, said Romney’s former stance would not preclude him from gaining support from social conservatives. “We support people that turn to the right side. We don’t discourage that at all,” she said in a recent interview. “People do become pro-life, and that’s our ultimate goal.”

The Republican front-runner who vexes Iowa social conservatives most of all is Rudy Giuliani. The thrice-married former mayor of New York who supports abortion rights and gay civil rights has sought to assuage social conservatives’ fears by declaring he would appoint “strict constructionists” to the Supreme Court. Even so, that has not persuaded many Iowa social conservatives to support him.

“Giuliani will be an absolute catastrophe if he’s the nominee,” Scheffler s
aid. “A lot of people in the movement are going to say we’d rather wander around the wilderness for eight or 10 years.”

Laudner shared those fears of a Giuliani nomination. “I’m going to be honest. I think there’s a risk there,” he said. “But that’s very easy to say when you’re more than a year away from the election.  It’s a bold statement,” Laudner continued, “and an easy one to make now. A year from now, the dynamics are going to be different.” Laudner said if New York Sen. Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, he thinks social conservatives will rally around whomever emerges as the Republican contender. “They’re not going to stay home,” he said. “They’re going to be engaged because it’s going to be a monumental battle. They’re not going to sit on the sidelines.”

Salier, who is the chairman of Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo’s Iowa campaign, said he wouldn’t be so sure. “I cannot vote for a candidate that is not solidly pro-life and not solidly in favor of securing our nation’s border,” he said, noting this was his personal view, not connected to the Tancredo campaign. “If you’re not going to do that, then no, I’m not going to cast a ballot for someone who will not protect my country and who will lay waste to babies. … [Social conservatives] will simply stay home and not vote if the party continues to take them for granted.”

True Believers

Social conservatives are not naïve; they're political pragmatists, succeeding over the years in consolidating political power in the state and national Republican Party. But there is always concern that they will bolt the GOP or stay home if a Republican candidate does not share their core values. “The purist type is always happy to go over the cliff,” Goldford said. “The more pragmatic types want to say, half a loaf is better than none. That’s the big question.” He noted that any Republican is going to have views closer to social conservatives than a Democrat, but that might not be enough to bring them out to the polls. Indeed, an estimated 4 million evangelical Christians stayed home on Election Day in 2000.

For social conservatives, almost every political battle assumes a biblical scale, and that leaves very little room for shades of gray. They believe they are engaged in an epic struggle for what’s right. In that sense, while they hold views antithetical to those of political progressives, they share the same goal: to make the world a better place for them and their children.

Since the failure to win the 2004 presidential election, progressive activists, like their conservative counterparts, have also bemoaned the idea of electability as a method of selecting a candidate, arguing that a vote of conscience is stronger than a vote of perceived strategy. And there is always the possibility that progressives will stay home or vote third-party if Democrats choose a lackluster candidate. “Pragmatists want to win elections. Purists would rather be pure and right,” Goldford said. The Naderites of 2000 “were closer to Gore but didn’t seem to care. They allowed their purism to help elect Bush.”

Both conservative and progressive activists continue to walk the political tightrope of idealism and pragmatism. Scheffler made that clear in an earlier interview, when he called himself a sometime-critic of the GOP. “I’m much more about issues,” he said. “But if I’m going to effect public policy, I can’t sit on the sidelines and let others who I don’t agree with set the agenda.”

Iowa Independent has obtained a copy of the email, which notes:

While the other GOP candidates have accepted our invitations and have shown eager participation, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Sen. John McCain have each continued to avoid our constituency. This is disappointing to us at ICA in that these candidates seem to have the most to explain regarding their stances on important conservative issues.

Scheffler goes on to criticize Giuliani's and McCain's social conservative credentials, including Giuliani's support for abortion rights and "special rights for homosexuals" and McCain's support for embryonic stem cell research and his opposition to "a national marriage amendment which would take the activism out of activist judges."

Read the whole email below the fold. 

Giuliani & McCain: Some Explaining to Do

The IFPC is “associated,” Hurley said, with Focus on the Family, a national organization that is highly influential among social conservatives. Focus on the Family’s website CitizenLink.org lists the IFPC as its Iowa family policy council but says, “These councils are independent entities with no corporate or financial relationship to each other or to Focus on the Family.”

Lobbying the Iowa legislature takes up about one-third of IFPC’s time, said Hurley, a former Republican state representative. A bit less than one-third of the time goes to working in the courts, he said, and “probably two-fifths doing stuff in the culture and churches and community groups.”

“We do a lot of pre-marital counseling,” Hurley said. “I preach and teach in churches,” as well as in seminars, before rotary clubs and on talk radio. “I call that in total, our cultural effort, versus … [work] in the court room or state legislature.”

Hurley said “a few thousand” people listen regularly to IFPC radio shows or read newsletters, but he calls them “supporters or friends” rather than “members.” IFPC probably reaches the most people by riding the radio waves of 26 different radio stations around the state, Hurley said. Most of these are Christian radio stations but not all. “I’m on Jan Mickelson’s with some frequency,” he said, and sometimes he appears on KCCI TV to rail against “the culture.”

What does “the culture” entail? With short bursts of breath in between, he went down the list: “”Homosexual bills that come before the legislature, homosexual advocacy in the media; the life issue, abortion, euthanasia, cloning, sanctity of life issues; marriage is a big one, no-fault divorce, pre-marital counseling, court room battles defending the definition of marriage; a lot of pre-marital counseling, a lot of post-marital counseling; parental involvement to get more engaged in children’s education, advocating parental choice in education … curriculum in schools; gambling issues; pornography and obscenity laws and the enforcement there of.”

The IFPC, unlike other socially conservative organizations, does not intend to play a large role in the caucuses. “It’s pretty limited,” Hurley said. “We might disseminate some information.”

The organization will not endorse a candidate, though Hurley, as a private citizen, has announced his support for Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback and leads Brownback’s “Faith and Family committee.” Hurley has known Brownback for more than 25 years, dating to when Brownback lead the Bible study at the Kansas law school Hurley attended. Hurley got to know him there at a “spiritual, moral level,” he said. “I trust him.” Hurley said Brownback “helped orphans and widows of Sudan before it was cool to do so. He’s the real deal, very smart, and I think he can handle the office.”

Hurley said former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s ties to Marriott, which makes millions of dollars off hotel pornography, and has been a recent griping point among social conservatives, could hurt his outreach to the influential caucus-going group. “I think that could become an issue with him for a certain segment of the caucus electorate,” he said. “I think that’s an 80 plus percent issue that people are fed up with.” But, he said, Romney could still make lemons out lemonade. “He might have some clout and influence” at Marriott, Hurley said, and if Romney could convince the company to “get out of that ghastly business,” it could be a coup for Romney.

Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson has also seen his social conservative bona fides go under fire after news broke that he had once lobbied for an abortion rights organization. “If that turns out to be true, I definitely think that could be a major issue for some people,” Hurley said. “There are a lot of purists or really passionate people on the life issue. If they sense that they’re being duped…”

Hurley said it was hard to describe the relationship between the different social conservative organizations in the state, though they likely share many of same supporters. “I do think those ones you mentioned are pretty much in agreement philosophically,” he said. “They certainly work together with some frequency.” He noted that he had worked with Kim Lehman, who has directed the Concerned Women for America of Iowa and the Iowa Right to Life Committee, on issues like abortion and pornography over the last 18 years. And the IFPC joined with Concerned Women for America of Iowa, and the Iowa Christian Alliance to form an organization called Iowans Concerned About Judges. “There’s camaraderie at a minimum,” he said. “There’s active cooperation in certain cases.”