Meet Colonel Al, who wants to dump Mike Gronstal and prohibit gay marriage AND civil unions AND domestic partnerships in Iowa, but can't spell the name of the city he wants to represent — or his opponent's name

The GOP, The Iowa Family Leader and the National Organization for Marriage will be spending several small fortunes to defeat Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, of Council Bluffs. His opponent will be Republican Al Ringgenberg, who just moved into Gronstal's district last year, and apparently didn't have time to learn inconsequential details like how to correctly spell either the name of the biggest city in the district he wants to represent) or his opponent's name.

Blog Under the Golden Dome  noticed last Bastille Day that Ringgenberg spelled "Council Bluffs"
wrong on his website. It was corrected the next morning, but when UTGD noted the correction,
it noticed that "Gronstal" was misspelled too. By 4:07  that afternoon Gronstal's name was
also corrected. Ringgenberg evidently outsources unpaid proofreading to the little people.

"Colonel Al" on marriage equality:

As an attorney, I strongly oppose the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court that redefined marriage under the Iowa constitution. Judges are supposed to interpret law under the constitution. Judges must not rewrite the constitution to meet a political agenda. The voters of Iowa reacted last November not because we’re bigots, but because the constitution belongs to us. I support an amendment to the Iowa constitution that restores marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Senator Gronstal, as the majority leader, blocked that constitutional amendment referendum before the voters. Voters have a right to decide how their constitution will protect marriage and the family.

Former Air Force lawyer
Al Ringgenberg, who pro-
secuted 100 courts-martial,
presumably while not
wearing a flight suit.
(Campaign website photo)

AKSARBENT thinks that "as an attorney," Ringgenberg shouldn't accuse the Iowa Supreme Court of "rewriting" the Iowa constitution to meet a "political agenda" when what actually happened is that a statute was struck because it failed the equal protection test of Iowa's constitution. Every judge on the bench agreed — so much for a supposed "political agenda." Nothing in the constitution was "rewritten." Ringgenberg said judges are supposed to interpret law under the constitution. That is exactly what the Iowa Supreme Court did with the remaining marriage statutes and directed other judges to do as well. And Ringgenberg, who is supposed to be a lawyer, has a problem with this?

If "Colonel Al" is too busy pandering to fundamentalists to have bothered to read the Iowa Supreme Court decision in its entirety, would it be too much to expect him to at least take 15 minutes from his efforts to misrepresent the decision and at least skim the Cliff's Notes 6-page "executive summary" that the court provided to explain why it did what it did — assuming he's as interested in light as he seems to be in heat.