As someone from Iowa and a product of its educational system, I firmly believe that Brenna Bird is the attorney general Iowa needs for reelection. Her opponent, Nate Willems, simply would not be a good fit for our state. The choice for voters this November is quite clear.
Since taking office in January 2023, Bird has distinguished herself in the role of Iowa’s Attorney General. She has an impressive background: she studied at the University of Chicago Law School, has years of experience as a prosecutor, served as the county attorney in Fremont and Guthrie Counties, and even held the prestigious position of president of the Iowa County Attorneys Association. Rather than just occupying the office, Bird actively uses her position to seek justice.
On the other hand, Willems doesn’t seem to show the same commitment. His history as a legislator and his behavior in public suggest he’s soft on crime and willing to undermine our Constitution, even engaging in disparaging remarks about American heroes for political gain. He shouldn’t even be considered for the attorney general’s office.
Take, for instance, the success of Bird’s cold-case unit. When Ryan Cooper was found murdered in his home back in 2021, his case went cold for two years. However, Bird’s team tackled it, and soon, his wife and her partner were arrested. Now, Karina Cooper is serving a life sentence. Similarly, almost 40 years after Barbara Lenz went missing, Bird’s unit managed to charge her former partner, Robert Davis, who was then convicted and sentenced to 50 years. That’s the kind of impact a competent attorney general can make.
Willems, in contrast, seems to have a record that doesn’t inspire confidence. He voted against electronic monitoring for convicted sex offenders, a move that disqualifies him from serious consideration. While his views may align with those on the West Coast, they certainly don’t resonate with Iowa values.
Willems’s disregard for the Constitution is just as concerning. While Bird defends the Second Amendment, Willems voted against making Iowa a shall-issue concealed-carry state, a standard the Supreme Court upheld. Additionally, while he opposes voter-ID laws, Bird has been supportive of enforcing federal immigration policies. If Willems were to win, Iowa could shift from being a state that supports law enforcement to one that resists it, moving closer to the cultures in places like California or Illinois.
Willems’s extreme stance on abortion further raises alarms. He opposed a ban after 20 weeks of pregnancy, which suggests he supports late-term abortion, a stance many would consider radical.
Another troubling moment from Willems came on the anniversary of D-Day when he shared an image that compared American soldiers to the extremist group Antifa. This kind of comment isn’t just provocative; it’s downright disrespectful to the sacrifices made by those soldiers. Anyone who would cast such aspersions on our heroes shouldn’t be in charge of law enforcement in any state.
The distinction between Bird and Willems is stark for Iowa voters. Bird actively pursues justice for victims, while Willems seems intent on releasing dangerous offenders. Bird stands by the Constitution and law, while Willems prioritizes his personal ideology over our legal system.
People in Iowa know who Brenna Bird is and what she stands for. In contrast, they understand that voting for Nate Willems means choosing a candidate whose ideas clash with Iowan principles — a softer stance on crime.
