More than Monica: Why Bill Clinton’s Sex Scandals Should Be Considered

By: Jillian Shnowski

For anyone who has been following the outlandish remarks from Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump, it may not surprise you that he has called fair game on former President Bill Clinton’s sexual misbehaviors in attempt to discredit his opponent, Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton. It certainly did not surprise me.

When Hillary Clinton took a shot saying he is a “penchant for sexism,” Trump fired back in an interview with CNN saying, “Hillary was an enabler” of her husband’s sexual misconduct.

Then, Trump tweeted  “Hillary Clinton has announced that she is letting her husband out to campaign but HE’S DEMONSTRATED A PENCHANT FOR SEXISM, so inappropriate!”

I don’t completely disagree with Trump. The role Hillary Clinton played to minimize damage on her husband’s reputation when he was accused of rape, sexual harassment and having multiple affairs should be fair game since she plays the feminist card relentlessly. 

For years, Clinton has been an advocate for women’s rights throughout her and her husband’s political careers and made it an important part of her presidential campaign platform for the 2016 election.

Informing readers that “22 percent of women experience severe physical violence by an intimate partner at some point in life” and “one in five women in America is sexually assaulted while in college,” Clinton’s campaign website says that as president she will take on sexual and physical violence against women.

Also on her website, Clinton’s record of fighting for women’s rights as a graduate of Yale Law School, first lady of Arkansas, first lady of the United States, a New York senator and as secretary of state can be found.

Bill Clinton told the nation, “I did not have sexual relations with that women, Miss Lewinsky.” Then he delivered a speech Aug. 17, 1998, admitting to his inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky, a young White House intern. While Mr. Clinton was getting to know Miss Lewinsky, his wife was busy advocating for women’s rights as first lady of the United States.

As someone whose late sister was born with a disability, I appreciate the work Hillary Clinton has done to improve education for children with disabilities. There is no doubt that she has accomplished great things throughout her career.

However, I question her credibility on confronting sexual violence because of her response to the Lewinsky scandal and other allegations against her husband’s sexual misconducts.

Bill Clinton was in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Jan. 7, 2016, campaigning for his wife’s presidential candidacy by sharing personal anecdotes from the day he first laid his eyes on Hillary at Yale Law School to her accomplishments throughout both of their political careers.

While the endearing, well-rehearsed love story drew on the audience’s emotions, Clinton’s story did not woo me as I thought about his scandalous affair with Lewinsky instead. I questioned the example Hillary set as she stood by her husband’s side and defended him when his sexual misconducts were publicized.

A U.S News & World Report poll conducted in September 1998 indicates that of those surveyed 48 percent of Americans believe Hillary and Bill’s marriage is a business and political relationship, 58 percent thought Hillary should “stay and work it out” and ironically, only 48 percent said they would choose to “stay and work it out.”

As the scandal deepened, Hillary Clinton’s popularity with the American public grew.

For someone who claims she will stand up against sexual and physical violence against women, it is hypocritical that she remained married to someone who has a scandalous sexual past made up of affairs, harassment and rape accusations.

Bill Clinton was sued for sexual harassment by former Arkansas state employee, Paula Jones and was accused of rape by a former campaign volunteer, Juanita Broaddrick.

“I was 35 years old when Bill, Arkansas Attorney General raped me and Hillary tried to silence me. I am now 73…it never goes away,” Broaddrick tweeted Jan. 6, 2016.

Katherine Prudhomme O’Brien, GOP state representative from Rockingham, N.H bluntly confronted Clinton on her husband’s sexual misconduct two decades ago at a town hall event.

“You are very rude, and I’m not ever going to call on you,” Clinton responded to O’Brien’s protest. “Thank you.”

After the event, O’Brien said in an interview with CNN that she was trying to point out that Clinton said all victims have the right to be believed and we should assess what they are saying but she doesn’t want to assess the victims who accused her husband of sexual harassment and rape.

I agree with Clinton that all victims have the right to be heard and should be believed; however, I find it ironic for Clinton to play the gender card, take a stance on sexual violence and then send her beloved, sexual harassing husband out on the campaign trail to tell their adorable love story.

The San Antonio Examiner published an open letter written by Sally Miller, previously known as Sally Perdue Jan. 13, 2016. In the letter Miller calls Hillary evil, heartless and stated, “your henchmen are always close by, always watching me.”

Miller told the London Sunday Telegraph in 1994 of a meeting with Ron Tucker, an operative of the Clinton’s, where she was told that if she behaved like “a good little girl” and remained silent she would gain a federal job, if not her “life would get hard” in 1992.

Following the 1992 encounter with Tucker, according to the Telegraph, Miller reported losing her job, car damage, hate mail and receiving anonymous phone calls to the FBI in St. Louis.

If Hillary silenced the victims of her husband’s sexual abuse, turned her head the other way and remained married to a man accused of rape and sexual harassment that occurred during their marriage—Is Hillary Clinton the person you want standing up for sexual violence against women?

Through the Eyes of an Evangelical

By: Sarah Lofdahl

My faith is very important to me. It’s my top priority and therefore, important to me when trying to decide who I would like to be the next president. I am a Christian and I think it’s at the upmost importance for our next president to be too. Your morals change and the way you handle situations are altered when you decide to make Jesus the center of your life and rely on him through every endeavor. The next president will have a lot on his hands. And being president is not easy. It’s a hard job and one that being faithful is important. God provides the characteristics of being a leader to many of those around us. And it’s amazing to see those characteristics being used to further the kingdom of God and this great country.

When looking for the next president, I want it to be someone who is bold in their faith, who turns to God before making a decision, and who will use their power to further the greatness of this country. Through my 10 days in Iowa, I tried to go into every presidential event with openness. This is a whole new battleground I have never experienced before, and it’s very different when you get to see the candidates first hand and be able shake their hand. It changes your perspective on the process, and I have a new respect for candidates and for the Iowa Caucus. Each candidate appealed to me in different ways. Some were good and some were not too great.

Christie 2

Governor Chris Christie:

Chris Christie was my first candidate to see in Iowa. Going into the event, I honestly thought I was not going to like him because he can sometimes be very aggressive. But in this setting, his personality was perfect. He had my attention the entire time, and I loved the way the event was structured. He was open and honest, and good at getting the crowd involved. He made sure to shake every hand, answer as many questions as he could, and even take pictures with the crowd. Christie was raised as a devout Catholic. He claims his faith is very important to him, but his faith does not take a roll in his actions and policies as a politician. Although Catholicism states that homosexuality is a sin, Christie believes that “if someone is born that way it’s very difficult to say then that that’s a sin.” This is where he goes rogue on his religion. For me, what the Bible says is true, and that’s what I will go by for the rest of my life.


Senator Bernie Sanders:

Bernie Sanders on the other hand, was something completely different. I enjoyed getting to hear him speak, but his stance on certain issues did not appeal to me at all. He is a self-proclaimed socialist and I don’t think that’s what this country needs to heal. If elected, Sanders would be our first Jewish president. But when asked if he believed in God in an interview on Jimmy Kimmel, he dodged the question. Sanders has even been described by some as agnostic. For these reasons, Sanders does not appeal to me. If you’re religious, let the world know. And if you’re not, you don’t need to be afraid to tell people who you really are.


Governor Martin O’Malley:

I have a lot of respect for Martin O’Malley. He may not be doing well in the polls, but he’s not giving up and although he may not win this time around, I think he will make it big in the future. He’s personable and friendly and a more moderate democrat. O’Malley is a Roman Catholic and grew up going to Catholic private school. He is a very devout Catholic, but strays from his religion in the issues of abortion rights, embryonic stem cell, and legalizing same sex marriage. He’s a new-age candidate and acts like a normal person, and that very much appeals to me. I don’t want to elect someone who I can’t have a conversation with, and I know I could have a conversation if I set down with O’Malley. But like with Christie, it’s hard for me to support a candidate who strays from his religion in so many areas when it comes to politics.


Governor Mike Huckabee:

Huckabee has been one of my favorite candidates to meet. I’ve always enjoyed Huckabee and commend his efforts to never give up on trying to be president. This is his third time around and I can’t imagine the hardships he’s already been through trying to gain the Republican nomination. He’s the son of a Baptist preacher, and his faith is very important to him. He doesn’t stray away from what the Bible teaches and in this world, that’s very difficult. His rhetoric was very appealing and I was engaged the entire time. He was honest with the people. One woman in the room asked about the Paris Accords because she liked what it stood for. Huckabee answered her question stating that he was not for the Paris Accords and told her why. He did not change his views to meet the standard of one person and I really liked that. It shows a lot about his character as a candidate who’s currently not doing very well.

Governor John Kasich:

While Kasich’s faith was made evident at his campaign event held at Inspired Grounds Cafe, his impression on me was not good. His tone of voice was demeaning and degrading, and I hated how he was constantly pointing college students out. Within the first five minutes of the event, he was telling us not to do drugs because we told him we were college students who went to LSU. During Q and A, a lady at the event made a metaphor comparing stewarding the land by stewarding energy. In his response he reiterated his faith and how he believes stewarding the land is very important, but there’s a difference between stewarding it and obsessing over it, and we should not obsess over it. In my opinion, this was the only response that caught my attention. His other responses resulted in yelling and talking down on many people and issues. All in all, not my candidate.

cruz 2

Senator Ted Cruz:

Although, I did go into this trip with an open mind, Ted Cruz was a top contender for me. He’s a strong Christian man who is very serious in staying true to Jesus and his faith. He puts God first and that can be hard when you’re in a profession like politics. I felt like I was in a church service at the Cruz event which for me, felt comfortable. I loved how we prayed before it started, and I loved how God was mentioned throughout the entire event. Cruz is a faithful man who seems to turn to Jesus before making his decisions, and people are taking note of that. He will get the Evangelical vote in Iowa, I have no doubt about that. He’s getting most of the Evangelical endorsements which is only increasing his numbers and his cause. He’s fighting hard and putting on one of the best campaigns in Iowa this election year. When I met Cruz, I decided to tell him I was a Southern Baptist just like him and I appreciated the boldness he had in letting his faith be known and how inspiring he is to me. Cruz then responded telling me that “there is only truth through Jesus.” And all I can say is Amen to that.


Madam Secretary Hillary Clinton:

Hillary Clinton was someone I was really looking forward to see. She is a powerful image for many women and her fans are willing to fight till the end. At her event, the crowd was on fire the entire time. They clapped and yelled at approval of almost every word that came out of her mouth. Nothing about her faith was ever mentioned. And I have a hard time supporting a candidate who supports things that go against Scripture. As appealing as she may be to hear in person, a lot of what she said was contradicting to me. Again and again she would say that we needed to be a united country and to stop playing the blame game, but throughout her speech, she never stopped blaming the Republicans for the many problems our country is currently facing. Hillary might be the candidate for others, but she is not the candidate for me.

rubio 2

Senator Marco Rubio:

Going into this trip, Marco Rubio was at the top of my list. Something about him really appealed to me, and I liked his attitude toward this country. Getting to hear him speak was great. His tone was strong, but not too aggressive. His ideas seemed plausible, and his morals stood out in the way he suggested the answers to problems. Rubio is a Catholic, and you can tell by the way he stands on issues, that this is important to him. He even pointed out a saint necklace a classmate of mine was wearing. How cool is that? Even amidst all the chaos, he noticed the tiny necklace. Events can be crazy, and you take notice of the candidates who can spot the voice in the crowd or even the necklace someone might be wearing. It shows that Rubio is focused, but he’s not overwhelmed. He’s handling the campaigning with grace, and I love it.


Donald Trump:

Everyone everywhere has been talking about the infamous Donald Trump. His class act was so intriguing, yet so appalling all at the same time. His rhetoric was nothing, but a hateful tone, and you can tell just how selfish he is. All he did was talk about his poll numbers, and tear down all the other candidates. I know that is part of the game, but when it becomes your entire speech, it shows you have nothing else to offer. I understand that not everyone can win, and sometimes the way to get those out of the game is to single them out, but there comes a time when you’ve just gone too far. And Donald Trump has gone too far. He did not appeal to me at all. And after hearing him speak, I can reaffirm that.

Being an Evangelical is hard. It’s hard to express your feelings about other candidates because some people just don’t understand where you’re coming from. But this experience has been great for me, and it has really opened my eyes to this new world I have never been a part of. I have a newfound love for politics and I can’t wait to see where this country is headed over the next few months as we decide who will be our next President of the United States. Overall, I would say I am rooting for Senator Ted Cruz, Senator Marco Rubio, and Governor Mike Huckabee. Their values are important to them, and that is important to me.

*Although I was in Iowa, I was not able to see Dr. Ben Carson or Senator Rand Paul like others in my group. Therefore, I did not mention them in my essay.


The Truth Behind Political Polls

By: Charlotte Laryssa Bonacquisti

How is a candidate doing in the race? Let’s ask the polls. How do we know if the polls are accurate? The truth is, we don’t.

After almost two weeks studying the Iowa caucuses, I realized most Iowans do not choose a candidate until right before the caucuses. If this is true, the polls are far from concrete. They change as the people polled hear from new candidates and gain new perspectives.

An Iowan couple I met at a Marco Rubio event confirmed my suspicion: polls mean absolutely nothing. The couple said when people call and ask whom they are voting for, they often tell the pollster a different candidate each time.

Another man said he does not want people to know his choice of candidate, especially when he is not 100 percent sure himself.

Polling is a guessing game. The way I understand it, a professional pollster selects a group of people from the general population that seems representative. Does this group of people provide an accurate representation of the population? Well, we only know when we find out the results.

What polling does successfully, however, is boost the image of certain candidates to a level where they can receive more funding, support, and media coverage. Every member of the media wants to focus their resources on candidates who are doing well.

According to Cliff Zukin of The New York Times, polls are less reliable for two main reasons: the growth of cellphones and the decline of people willing to participate in polls. I don’t know about you, but I cannot remember the last time I was asked to participate in a political poll.

Zukin mentions that he began doing telephone surveys in the 1970s, and at that time, it was acceptable to get an 80 percent response rate. By 1997, the accepted response rate was 36 percent. That’s a big difference.

Let me get this straight: we are accepting and fighting over polls that calculate marginally more than one-fourth of the people supposedly represented. As a politically motivated adult, I want to know what is happening in politics; however, even though the wait is difficult, I would rather learn to be patient than get inaccurate results. Polls can change political races in ways that can negatively impact candidates who are otherwise doing well.

Despite polls’ lack of reliability, people still want them. All political junkies and voters want to know how their candidate is doing in comparison to others. Although candidates want to be on top in the end, it can be a curse to reach first place early in major polls and stay there for extended periods of time.

Why? The candidate who has the misfortune of topping the polls is also saddled with significant pressure. Expectations transform into the idea that this candidate is now “the one,” and it puts him or her in the position to fail miserably. Even if the candidate wins, the media now focuses on the percentage points between first and second place.

Historically speaking, it is more beneficial to rise up from a place of near invisibility and finish in second place than to be number one and “fail expectations.” The underdogs who outperform expectations obtain more media exposure than candidates who are expected to do well but do not reach high enough.

In the 1980 Iowa Caucus, Ronald Reagan was labeled the “man to beat”; when George Bush finished on top, he surprised everyone and became the central focus of the ensuing media circus. The story told by the media overlooked the mere 2 percentage points between Bush and Reagan. Instead, Reagan received negative media attention, while Bush was raised up as the great, unexpected victor.

The surprise factor makes the political game fun. Predicting the end result without a shadow of a doubt is impossible because there are always game changers and trick plays.

Lack of participation in the voting process is the second factor mentioned responsible for affecting the accuracy of polls. The reasons behind why people do not vote are often irrelevant in comparison to the impact of their absence on results. The real question is: how does participation relate to polls? Many people who participate in polls do not end up voting. It also works the other way; people who vote do not always get polled. It’s impossible to determine who will vote and who will not, so pollsters are left with a large blind spot.

Lastly, polling costs a significant amount of money. Media organizations often lack the resources to provide for professional polling, so they work with what they have. This means the polls we see are the results of organizations pooling resources to provide the most accurate poll possible.

My goal is not to throw pollsters under the bus. Often they do not even know the accuracy of their own research. Polls give politically active voters and media members the excitement they need to continue supporting or reporting on candidates. They also create competition between candidates that rewards the winners with media attention and sponsors.

Keep watching the polls and enjoy the political game. It’s fun! Just remember, there is no foolproof way to accurately poll candidates, so try not to take every poll to heart. The end result might surprise you.

Opinion: Republicans don’t understand gun control, causes unnecessary anger

Opinion: Republicans don’t understand gun control, causes unnecessary anger

By: Madeline Rathle

President Barack Obama made an executive order Tuesday, Jan. 5, in an attempt to limit gun violence in the United States. His announcement and tightening of laws and restrictions has angered many Republicans, possibly for the wrong reasons.

The Republican candidates in Iowa have jumped on the opportunity to gain support by bashing Obama’s address, while the Democrats have shown much support for the president.

First of all, one must look at the Republican side of gun control.

It is centered on Second Amendment rights, which have become a touchy issue with the upcoming presidential election. Most Republicans fear Democrats want to take away their guns, infringing on the right to bear arms, which would affect hunters and people who are looking for self protection.

“Come and take it,” yelled a man from the back of a Ted Cruz rally on Jan. 4 in Winterset, Iowa. Cruz had just warned the crowd of the dangers of Democrats running the country in regards to gun control.

This is a common reaction among Republicans these days who believe Democrats want to take everyone’s guns, regardless of how they are used and who owns them.

The problem is Republicans have not taken the time to truly understand gun control or they are simply so anti-Democrat that they refuse to understand. Democrats do not want to take our guns; they simply wish to make it harder for people who should not have guns to get their hands on them.

The reality is that Obama is not in any way infringing on our Second Amendment rights. He is simply encouraging the United States to enforce laws that are already in place and being ignored.

This is after the tragedies at Sandy Hook, San Bernadino, South Carolina and other places across the nation. With 30,000 deaths from guns every year, according to Obama, our nation should be much more concerned with this.

Why are people complaining now about laws that were already there? It would be morally and ethically wrong and irresponsible as a leader for him to let these laws continue to be ignored.

“We’ve created a system in which dangerous people are allowed to play by a different set of rules than a responsible gun owner who buys his or her gun the right way,” said Obama in his address. “You pass a background check; you purchase a firearm.”

This is a reasonable request. Why should someone who can’t pass a background check be allowed to purchase a gun? That is asking for trouble.

The gun show loophole has been one of the most controversial aspects of this topic. Professional dealers at gun shows need a license to sell and are required to do background checks of customers on a computer, according to the Houston Chronicle. However, private sellers do not have to do this. They can sell a gun to whomever they want, no questions asked.

Many people claim this is not true. Regardless of whether it is true or not, more and more dangerous people are getting their hands on guns either by buying them from someone who has not run a background check or stealing them.

President Obama, in his address on Tuesday, listed four ways of bettering our society through better gun control: a better background checking system, better enforcement of laws already in place, more help for people with mental illnesses and better gun safety technology.

“We’re taking steps to make the background check system more efficient,” stated Obama. He wants to hire more people to process applications faster, and he plans to update and modernize the outdated system already in place. This can only help gun buyers and sellers by speeding up the currently slow process.

In order to enforce the gun safety laws that already exist, Obama wishes to hire 200 more ATF agents and investigators. When paired with better reports of lost or stolen guns, those agents should be able to help keep our nation much safer. Part of this solution includes better protection for victims of domestic abuse.

Two-thirds of gun deaths are due to suicide, according to the president. He wants to offer more help for people suffering from mental illness. Everyone has been personally affected by mental illness in some form or another. Why would we continue to allow our fellow Americans to get access to guns while barring them from quality treatment.

“We need to develop new technology to make guns safer,” said Obama on Tuesday. “If a child can’t open a bottle of aspirin, we should make sure they can’t pull a trigger on a gun.” He makes a valid point. We are so careful about other things in our lives; why don’t we take more measures to educate people on gun safety?

Many gun dealers have already been working to do complete background checks and make our nation safer. However, we need more people to get on board to actually make an impact.

Hunters and protectors of their families need a reality check if they think Obama is coming to take their guns. If they have that much fear of background checks, does it mean they cannot pass one? As long as they can pass a background check, their guns are safe and sound.

If the people of our nation would stop and listen and understand before jumping to conclusions and claiming an infringement on rights, and if some Republicans would put away selfish political agendas, we might have made progress on this issue a long time ago.

Through my eyes: a visual recap

By Katie Gagliano

Bernie Sanders (D) town hall on Dec. 31 at Northstar Elementary in Knoxville, Iowa
Martin O’Malley (D) town hall on Jan. 2 at West Des Moines Public Library in West Des Moines, Iowa

Continue reading “Through my eyes: a visual recap”

Live Blog: Bill Clinton fires up Cedar Rapids crowd for Hillary’s 2016 campaign

Live Blog: Bill Clinton fires up Cedar Rapids crowd for Hillary’s 2016 campaign

2:11 p.m. Bill leaves the room through a back door after briefly greeting the audience. The room clears after Bill’s exit.

2:06 p.m. Bill finishes his stump and the crowd gives a standing ovation. Audience members rush to the front of the room to shake hands with the former president and take photos.

2:02 p.m. Bill on Hillary’s preparedness: “I don’t believe in my lifetime we’ve ever had a president who was more prepared, not just by temperament but by experience, to step into this mix of prominence and peril.”

1:55 p.m. Bill says Hillary has the temperament and experience to manage the presidency. “From the first day I met her to right now, she never touched anything that she didn’t make better,” he said. He called Hillary the greatest “change-maker” he has ever known.

1:49 p.m. “Even I didn’t think she could do that,” Bill says on Hillary’s work on the Iran nuclear deal. “We need someone strong enough to stand their ground and wise enough to find common ground,” Bill says on the president approaching foreign affairs.

1:48 p.m. Bill on Republicans: “We cannot allow the other party to be in control of the White House.” He says we need to prevent backsliding on issues of gay marriage, climate change and healthcare.

1:46 p.m.  When Bill mentions Hillary’s efforts to combat autism and Alzheimer’s, an audience member shouts out that Hillary should also focus on Parkinson’s. Bill tells her that his former attorney general, Janet Reno, suffers from the debilitating disease, and that progress has been made in the fight against Parkinson’s through genome-mapping.

1:45 p.m. Bill on law enforcement reform: “[We] need to knit the police in the community back together.”

1:40 p.m. Bill is now speaking on opiate and heroin addiction, which he views as a major concern. “This is one area where we can work in a bipartisan fashion,” he says.

1:34 p.m. Bill says he views Obama’s recent executive actions on gun control through the lens of a young boy who used to duck-hunt in Arkansas. “Just like any other constitutional right, it’s subject to reasonable checks,” he says of the 2nd Amendment. Bill says America needs to be “one country” that trusts its politicians will never take away the guns citizens use for hunting, sport shooting or protection.

1:30 p.m. Bill is reemphasizing one of the main themes of Hillary’s stump: the country can’t afford to undo the progress made during Barack Obama’s administration. “This election in my opinion is about how to restore broad based prosperity,” he said. “In a fundamental way, that’s what this election is about.”

1:27 p.m. Bill recounts meeting Hillary at Yale: “I’ve known her for 45 years this month,” he said. “I saw Hillary in a class that I’m embarrassed to tell you I attended infrequently.” He said they first spoke one night in the Yale library. Bill said she told him, “Look if you’re going to keep staring at me and I’m going to keep staring back, we should at least know each other’s names. I’m Hillary Rodham. What’s your name?”

1:16 p.m. Bill Clinton enters the room accompanied by Pastor Damian Epps of Mt. Zion Missionary Baptist Church in Cedar Rapids. “I have the pleasure of introducing not only our former president, but the husband of Hillary Clinton, our future president,” Epps says.

1:13 p.m. The event’s start time was listed as 12:45 p.m., but Clinton has yet to appear onstage. We haven’t heard a speaker since Gabriella a half-hour earlier. Staffers are starting to fill in the reserved, front-row seats.

1 p.m. Clinton has yet to appear onstage. At least 50 attendees still pack the museum entrance, hoping to catch a glimpse of the former president. Roughly a dozen journalists stand on rafters at the rear of the ballroom alongside their network’s cameras. Photojournalists stalk the room searching for their next shot. “Roar” by Katy Perry is playing for the fifth time.

12:30 p.m. A Clinton organizer named Gabriella tells the story of her adolescence as an undocumented resident. She asks attendees to connect with other organizers in the audience, fill out shift cards for the final days before the Feb. 1 caucuses and use their phones to spread support for the former Secretary of State on social media.

12:20 p.m. Though attendees of Hillary Clinton’s rally in Council Bluffs Tuesday night were made to pass through metal detectors by Secret Service members, the crowd here merely passes by two state officers on their way in. No bags are being checked.

12:18 p.m. Bill Clinton is visiting Cedar Rapids, Iowa today in his official capacity as a stumping surrogate for his wife’s 2016 campaign. Hundreds of potential caucus-goers are slowly packing in here at the city’s National Czech and Slovak Museum & Library, leaving only standing room in the chandelier-accented ballroom.

Photos: Presidential hopeful Rubio woos crowd in Marshalltown with strong rhetoric

By Zach Barnett

Marshalltown, Iowa
Senator Marco Rubio Town Hall | Fischer Community Center
January 6th, 2016
(all photos are original iPhone photos and are nonprofit)


Screen Shot 2016-01-06 at 10.40.16 PM.png“On my first day in office I am going to immediately repeal every single one of Barack Obama’s unconstitutional executive orders.”

Continue reading “Photos: Presidential hopeful Rubio woos crowd in Marshalltown with strong rhetoric”