To understand the Republican Presidential race, grasp first that the party is one of ideas. One is born into the Democratic Party. If you are black or Latino or poor or gay or become a single mother, your partisan identity is often spoken for. But you become a member of the Republican Party by agreeing with certain ideas. So there are several distinct groupings within the Republican Party merged together by shared ideals but with sharply different priorities and perspectives. Imagine that each sector of the party is like a division in the NFL or in Major League Baseball, with its own separate playoffs or pennant race and its own separate champion. Then, the winners of the divisions meet in the primaries. We are still in the pre-runoff phase.

Start with the Economic Conservative Division. These folks are deeply committed to free market economics. Often from big companies and corporations, they tend to be well off and to believe in capitalism and oppose redistribution of wealth. In their division, the candidates were Mitt Romney, Donald Trump, Tim Pawlenty, Chris Christie, and Mitch Daniels. Mitt is the only one left. He is the champ of that division which guarantees him a berth in the runoffs.

Closely allied to them is the Establishment Republican Division. This was the group that rallied to Bush-43 and impelled him to the nomination. They have to choose between Romney, Perry, and Gingrich. They can’t back Cain or Bachmann because both are too much outsiders. Perry has disappointed them so they are going largely for Mitt. But some will probably end up for Newt.

Then go to the Evangelical Division. They are motivated by religious and social issues like abortion, gay marriage and such. The candidates were Mike Huckabee, Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and Rick Perry. Huck didn’t run. First Bachmann surged, then Perry and then Cain. But Cain fell back because of the sex harassment charges. This block can’t support Romney (although they will if he is nominated) because he is Mormon and flip flopped on abortion. They are reluctant to back Gingrich because of his personal issues. So they must choose among Perry, Cain, Bachmann, and Santorum. They haven’t chosen yet. But they will. One of these candidates has to be in the runoffs because this group has to have a candidate.

Then we go to the national security people. They are focused on defense, support the war in Afghanistan and back tough protections against terrorism. Their possible candidates are Gingrich, Bachmann, Perry, Romney, or Santorum. They won’t back Cain because of his inexperience and they disagree with Paul and Huntsman. Gingrich’s strong debate performance turned them on, but Romney is making a strong play for their votes. Santorum could gain traction, but likely not. Perry wants their votes, but he hurt himself by his lack of familiarity with the issues. They will probably split between Newt and Mitt. Between their votes and those of the party establishment Newt can pick up, it virtually assures Gingrich of a runoff birth.

Then there are the Tea Party folks. They focus on the federal deficit, the national debt, reining in spending, holding down taxes, opposing ObamaCare, and reducing government regulation. They had, initially, to choose among Daniels, Christie, Gingrich, Santorum, Perry, Cain, and Bachmann. They won’t support Romney because of RomneyCare in Massachusetts (although they would if he is the nominee). With Christie and Daniels out, they first went Bachmann because of her battle in Congress to cut spending. Then they were seduced by Perry but his immigration position turned them off so they went for Cain. Now they are worried about Cain and are looking at Gingrich or Bachmann or maybe still Cain.

So that’s the state of play. Romney has an assured runoff berth but nobody else does. If Newt doesn’t stumble over his consulting practice or personal issues, he will likely make the runoff as the National Security candidate with good support from the Party Establishment and Tea Party Divisions.

But that would still leave the Evangelicals out there. They can’t back Romney due to his religion or Newt because of his personal issues. So they will back someone else – Cain, Perry, Bachmann, or Santorum. And a lot of Tea Party people – who overlap with the Evangelicals – will also be looking at these candidates. One of these four is going to be in the final mix.

Then it will likely be a three way fight: Romney, Gingrich, and an Evangelical/Tea Party candidate to be named later.

This is the context of the Iowa caucuses. It is first and foremost a way to sort out the Evangelical/Tea Party conundrum and come up with their candidate. That’s what January 3rd will be all about.

If personal attacks are the last defense against a lost argument, the Tea Party should be appreciating its success these days. Union leaders, political commentators and even elected officials have with increased frequency and intensity resorted to name-calling and even consigning us to hell. We’ve been likened to terrorists, Nazis and the Klan. A new video game even challenges players to blow away well-known and anonymous Tea Party “zombies.” So much for more civil discourse. But in all of this, where’s the beef? Where are the rational arguments against the Tea Party issues?

If the 2008 presidential election was decided on the issue of the economy, the 2012 election will hinge on that issue even more so. Yesteryear’s message of “hope and change” has given way to one of competence, experience and realistic action. In short, we look for a leader who inspires confidence to lead America in creating a job-friendly economy. Tea Partiers, even with their diversity, agree that the three-part solution is relatively simple and quite mainstream.

First is the belief that the American people know best how to create an economy that works – not a distant government bureaucracy. Limited government has allowed us to do so for centuries. While politicians often campaign on that idea, for many, the rare air of Washington intoxicates them with the idea bigger must be better.

The federal government serves a purpose, but its powers are limited by the Constitution and common sense: “That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves,” wrote Thomas Jefferson. Recognizing that, the Founding Fathers empowered the states – closer to both the problems and the potential solutions – to more effectively respond.

Governments may be well meaning, but it is small-business owners, investors and entrepreneurs who create lasting and meaningful jobs that strengthen the economy and society. The solution is to empower people by limiting bureaucracy, reducing over-regulation, and reforming the corporate tax code. Such reforms will open up economic growth in myriad areas: trade, manufacturing and energy, both traditional and green.

If this first principle is exercised, the second will follow: Government must spend only what it earns. This is called fiscal responsibility. Both parties have lost sight of the truth, which has led to unrestrained borrowing, a faltering economy, indebtedness of untold future generations, and a compromised national security and sovereignty. Government can no more spend its way out of debt than can an American family. The overspending family – and nation – that tries will ultimately collapse under its own weight, taken over by its creditors. Government must limit its spending to the money it brings in through taxes and other revenues.

Who pays those taxes? It is individuals in family units, which form the backbone of society. Thus, the third principle requires that government actions must be family friendly. Under current economic conditions, however, families are suffering. Two specific actions in this area would help:

First, the individual tax code must be reformed to ensure more take-home pay, which will both keep families viable and ultimately return money to the economy. While Americans may differ on which specific solution is best, most agree the current system requires immediate reform.

Second, it’s time to reform entitlement and social spending programs. Fundamental to such reform is recognition that honest societies must keep the promises made to their citizens and compassionate societies must have a safety net for those in need. Government’s dual obligation is to honor its commitments to those who have paid into those systems and are counting on those funds and yet not overpromise what it cannot deliver.

To fulfill these obligations, Social Security and Medicare require long-term solutions. As for social safety nets, which must exist to help those unable to care for themselves, private providers such as religious and community organizations serve these functions more effectively than government. Government’s proper role in both of these is to assist individuals rather than hinder their efforts through unnecessary regulation and restrictions.

These are simple ideas that grew out of America’s core principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility and family sustainability. Vile epitaphs notwithstanding, these Tea Party proposals are nothing to fear. In fact, they are mainstream, with polls showing the American public in agreement with each of these concepts.

Suffice it to say the hope and change promised four years ago has brought us no closer to economic recovery and only deeper in debt. Despite differing preferences on individual candidates and the details of certain proposals, the Tea Party’s vision embraces hope and change as well: hope that change is soon forthcoming, with new leadership willing to embrace tried-and-true concepts, such as limited constitutional government, fiscal responsibility and family-friendly policies. In the end, successful results will trump personal attacks every time.

Here on the Values Bus, we’re buckling up for one last stop before calling it a night. Yesterday’s crowd was the best to date–especially in Sioux City, where the Faith Family Freedom Fund was met by an impressive turnout of supporters and protestors.

Congressman Thad McCotter (R-Mich.) and our friend Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) took turns rallying the crowd with common sense messages about the importance of the family and the future of the economy. Earlier in the day, two local leaders also hopped on board, state Representative Dwayne Alons and state Senator Randy Feenstra. Both men vented their frustrations about Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, a Democrat who has intentionally blocked Iowa’s marriage protection amendment–despite the state’s overwhelming support for it. After the Iowa courts imposed same-sex “marriage” on one of the most socially conservative states in the union, angry voters demanded a say. Like the 31 states before them, Iowa believes the issue should be decided by the people–not judicial activists. Apparently, Gronstal is so intent on pushing an anti-family agenda that locals created a special verb in his honor: “Gron-stalling.” According to Iowans, it’s the act of sabotaging pro-family legislation.

By the time our team finished up in Council Bluffs and Atlantic, it was time to head for the GOP debate. The Values Bus had traveled 339 miles that day–but in the end, it was the candidates who were in for the bumpiest ride. Last night’s forum was by far the most biting of any debate. Spurred on by some very direct questioning, the hopefuls sniped back and forth on everything from Iran to immigration. On social issues, Sen. Rick Santorum did well, asserting himself as a powerful advocate for life and marriage. “We have Ron Paul saying, oh, whatever the states want to do under the 10th Amendment’s fine,” said Santorum. “So if the states want to pass polygamy, that’s fine. If the states want to impose sterilization, that’s fine. No, our country is based on moral laws, ladies and gentlemen. There are things the states can’t do. Abraham Lincoln said the states do not have the right to do wrong. I respect the 10th Amendment, but we are a nation that has values. We are a nation that was built on a moral enterprise, and states don’t have the right to tramp over those because of the 10th Amendment.”

Unfortunately for at least two other candidates, the debate moved beyond policy differences to personal differences. In a setting like this, obviously the candidates need to distinguish themselves, but in this instance, it seemed to overshadow the ideological substance voters were hoping for. The political rancor only distracts from the real issues at hand–like an administration whose policies are running America into the ground. There could also have been some greater connectivity between the economic crisis and family breakdown. The media and the political prognosticators refuse to acknowledge the need to strengthen the family if we are to shrink the size of government. Fortunately, there are others who do–like Reps. Gohmert and Steve King (R-Iowa), who are both back on board for our final stretch this afternoon.