Buy at Amazon

Friday, December 14, 2007

Big News: Iowa Congressman Steve King WILL Endorse Before Caucuses . . . But Who?

Politico reports the following potential bombshell for the Iowa GOP race:
Steve King WILL endorse before the caucuses

Romney just finished up a visit at a restaurant in Early, Iowa, which is in Sac County, the home of Rep. Steve King.

King's son and campaign manager, Jeff, is here for the visit, keeping an eye things for the congressman.

Jeff King tells me that his dad will endorse before the caucuses, but hasn't made up his mind about who to get behind.

Steve King is a vocal anti-immigration advocate and has developed a close relationship with Tom Tancredo because of their shared views on the topic.

Some Iowans thought this friendship could preclude King from getting behind one of the top-tier candidates, but that''s not the case according to his son.

Jeff King wouldn't say who his dad favors, but did concede that he the congressman had concerns about the Arkansan's immigration views.
Interesting, eh? Just for context, Rep. Steve King and Sen. Chuck Grassley are the two most influential Republicans in the state of Iowa. King is absolutely untouchable in his ultra-conservative district and so he won't be jeopardizing his re-election campaign next year.

It made me think of a previous post I wrote over a year ago after attending the Iowa Christian Alliance's Banquet in Clive, IA. Here's the relevant excerpt:
King then took the stage (he and Schlafly were the only speakers to get a standing ovation before and after their addresses). King always gives a dynamic speech and he did not fail to impress. He said that the several hundred people in the room will be the ones choosing our next President . . . that the influence of the politically active Christian coservatives in that room would weigh heavily in who will be the 2008 GOP nominee and future President. King then said that we should take the opportunity to get to know each of the candidates personally and to find out where they really stand on issues important to conservatives , especially the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA) and in being tough on immigration.
I'm cautiously optimistic based on this statement of those last two key issues King mentioned. Huck is for the MPA but, as Politico reports, King ain't too keen on Huck's immigration past (and probably sees right through the sham of his "deathbed conversion" with his new immigration plan). Fred's pretty solid on immigration, but doesn't support the MPA. Romney's solid on both of those key issues to King (at least that's how it stood over a year ago).

King's district is where Romney faces the toughest challenge from Huckabee (Western Iowa is a huge base for Evangelical conservatives.) King's endorsement could be big news and I'm cautiously optimistic that if he does indeed endorse, that it would be for Mitt.

P.S. King is a funny guy. He delivered this great line at the Iowa GOP convention in Aug 2006 (I was there and it's where I first met Romney in person):
Steve King got a huge response when he was introduced. Can you say red meat?

Great King quote #45,367: "There are probably not 72 virgins in the hell Al-Zarqawi is in. If there are, they probably all look like Helen Thomas."
Is that funny or what?

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Woman can get $50 abortions with the state picking up the rest of the cost thanks to Mitt Romney's "health plan." Fred Thompson is the true pro-life candidate. You guys are just full of Mitt.

SGS said...

Anonymous, glad to know you have all of the facts. I'm glad you recognize that the Supreme State Court some decades ago made it mandatory that the insurances provide the coverage for abortion, and that the legislatives have reaffirmed on this again and again. I am also thrilled that you have recognized how Mitt stood on the side of pro-lifers when he went against removing the required parent notification, the morning after pill over-counter, and that he vetoed the embryonic stem cell bill, among others. It is amazed that Mitt, when he converted over to our side, has gone all the way in defending the lives of unborns, isn't it?

Jacosta said...

"Anonymous" needs to do some homework! It wasn't Mitt Romney who wanted the abortion clause inside his insurance incentive....it was the Supreme Court! And, furthermore, Romney fought hard to take it out!

What do you say now "anonymous"?

bethtopaz said...

Is that the "sound of silence" or is that Anonymous replying? I can't tell which.

Spidey said...

Speaking of endorsements anyone want to bet the Demoines Register doesn't endorse Huck today? Will they cite all his dem talking points as the reason?

Slick-Willy said...

Fact King (aka Anon)-

The Mass Supreme Court found that the state was 100% required to provide abortions for ANYONE who found money to be a fact AT ALL as long as the procedure could be called "medically necessary." One definition given by the court for "medically necessary" was that not having the procedure could, at some point in the future, "cause pain." Birth--HELLO!

Forgetting the name of case at the moment, but it's from 1980 or 81 and was still the rule in MA before Mitt's health care plan.

Mitt's plan put more restrictions on state-funded abortions than had been in place before.

Big Jay said...

I'm taking a wait and see on this one. Hopefully it's Mitt.

TOm said...
This comment has been removed by the author.