Rants v. Vander Plaats

• Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 12:52
• Constitution Daily
• 972 views
• 28 comments

• Share
  Delicious Digg Design Float Mixx Reddit StumbleUpon Technorati
• Printable version

About the Author

28 Comments on “Rants v. Vander Plaats”

• 
  Moderation in Everything wrote on 13 May, 2009, 13:15

  CD: Although I think the world of these guys as warriors for our party, I don’t think either can raise the money it will take to run effectively against Culver. Estimates I have heard range from $8-10 million. The Polk County metro monied Repubs will not open their wallets for them. Most of them are giving to Culver and McCarthy through proxies as the business community is pleased big labor got stopped and fat bonding will keep the construction industry going.
• 
  Deace voted for Obama wrote on 13 May, 2009, 14:06

  I’ll take either one of these fine gentlemen over the current big-spending bozo occupying Terrace Hill.
• 
  Al wrote on 13 May, 2009, 14:15

  I agree with DVFO. I would take either one of these two gentlemen over Culver. Both have been fighting for the Conservative values that the base holds dear. Of course we will necessarily have some legitimate concerns with both of them.

  Under Rants leadership in the Iowa House Republicans lost the majority.

  This is Vander Plaats third attempt at the Governorship. What is different this year than in years past?
• 
  Deace voted for Obama wrote on 13 May, 2009, 14:27

  We haven’t had the dire situation before that we have now, either. We are now in desperate straights.

  It is imperative that we get back at least one house of the legislature and the governorship in order to stop this runaway train running over all of us.

  Any youngster can be made to understand how government sucking all the wealth from the private sector means loss of jobs and a shrinking economy. At the same time these economic illiterates increase the size of government, increase spending and increase taxes and fees and increases rules and regs on business. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
• 
  Constitution Daily wrote on 13 May, 2009, 14:48

  Moderation: You may be right that big business is please the labor bills were stopped but they have anybody but Culver to thank for that. They are looking at a state where it is harder to make money here than almost anywhere in the country. They are craving a more pro-business governor and both Rants and Vander Plaats could be that guy.
• 
  Deace voted for Obama wrote on 13 May, 2009, 14:59

  CD: You are so right. Culver is anything BUT pro-business. He is anti-business, anti-jobs and anti-growth. We cannot afford any more of this and remain an attractive state in which to do business.

  We’ll go the way of Rhode Island, MI, NY, CA and NJ. Boot them out–NOW!!!

  Democrats are also destroying education. Iowa was once looked up to as the model for education in America. Iowa has slipped steadily ever since Vilsack first took office. Education to our current Democrat lawmakers is only a conduit in which to funnel money back to Democrat treasuries from the teachers’ union.

  Student achievement is secondary. Frankly, indoctrinating youngsters on the virtues of homosexuality and other liberal agenda items is of more importance than educating children in what we used to consider the most important points of education.

  I once had a principal of a grade school tell me that it was not important for youngsters to have to spell because we now have spell checker and he also said they do not have to learn to do math because we now have calculators. I am not kidding. He was a product of the brainwashing of the liberal, Democrat teachers’ unions. He believed every word of it.
• 
  Moderation in Everything wrote on 13 May, 2009, 15:02

  CD–I have no quarrel with your comments. I find the market aspect of politics to be facinating. With the large amounts of Republican money going to Dems (check out McCarthy’s and Culver’s donor list), I wonder if the big money guys are handicapping the race by putting their money with whom they think will win. I do think that Doug Gross is correct. We need to tone down the social issue rhetoric and put more focus on fiscal issues. I see Doug may be backing a gentleman from Dubuque. As far as stopping the labor bills, credit goes to the nine or so MODERATES in the democratic caucus that put the brakes on the bills. I wish we could take credit for it but in this instance, we can’t.
• 
  Deace voted for Obama wrote on 13 May, 2009, 15:09

  It wouldn’t have happened without the Republican votes.

  What gentleman from Dubuque?

  We should be able to do this with only the fiscal issues. Throw in some social issues because it is the right thing to do and they are also winning issues but to feature the fiscal issues is probably the best route. Almost anyone should be able to to made the ramifications of how the direction the Democrats are taking us will be detrimental to all.
• 
  Moderation in Everything wrote on 13 May, 2009, 15:19

  Beanwalker says Jeffrey Bullock, pres of U of Dubuque.
• 
  Thinking wrote on 13 May, 2009, 15:22

  By way of learning about the two candidates, I have three questions:

  1) I do not understand how it is Rants’ fault the Republicans lost the majority. I am not defending him, or clearing him, I guess I just don’t understand his role. Please explain.If its just because he was the leader, then I guess he can be the fall guy, but its not relevant to my voting for or against him.

  2) Please also explain why many social conservatives don’t like Rants. Honest question, here. I really don’t know.

  3) Why do Vander Platts’ “losses” count against him? The first time, he lost to Doug Gross (more money, moderate against a relatively unknown). The second time, he did what was best for the party, withdrew and worked with his former opponent. If anything, this suggests he has the party-first mentality everyone has been asking for the last two weeks and isn’t just an uncompromising social conservative.
• 
  Deace voted for Obama wrote on 13 May, 2009, 15:54

  Just read about the gentleman from Dubuque. Forget it. He doesn’t even show evidence of being a Republican–he supported Braley.

  We’re not this desperate. There is no way I’d support this guy in a primary. If we were stuck with him for the general, I’d vote for him but that would be all.

  This guy can never rally conservatives around him unless there’s far more to the story than we know now.
• 
  Altoona Guy wrote on 13 May, 2009, 17:42

  But throwing the guy from Dubuque into the race would be a typical Doug Gross move. Very arrogant and politically stupid. I like Vander Plaats a lot myself, but I don’t really have any issues with Rants either. Gross and his associates are a separate issue. They view the GOP as their own private country club and would just assume the rest of just shut out mouths and do what they tell us. If Doug wants a guaranteed recipe for defeat in 2010, that’s it …
• 
  Moderation in Everything wrote on 13 May, 2009, 18:06

  Altoona guy: Off the mark. BVP and CR need Gross much more than he needs them. Without a money machine we lose. Culver knows how to raise big bucks. Gross’ money knows that social conservatism won’t fly. We need a Jon Huntsman here. Look at his favorability ratings in Utah of all places. Bottom line: BVP and CR will be soundly defeated in a general election. What the social conservatives have done to the caucuses is exactly what they are doing to the Party–making them irrelevant.
• 
  Stacia wrote on 13 May, 2009, 18:10

  I like how everyone is getting along and not bashing each other (except that we all bash Doug Gross and his pics)–which is fine by me. I don’t like other people trying to convice someone to run. The individual should decide on his/her own if they are passionate about running. I just hope the conservative vote doesn’t get split between BVP and Rants because than a more moderate Gross candidate will win. I think they should do some polling before the primaries and whoever emerges out of the better of the two should face the Gross candidate if one comes into the primary, otherwise, duke it out BVP and Rants!–In a nice and non-damaging way.
• 
  Stacia wrote on 13 May, 2009, 18:11

  Okay, scratch my comment above. We were getting along until “Moderation in Everything” blamed the so-cons. I was writing my previous comment when “Moderation in Everything” posted his/her.
• 
  Moderation in Everything wrote on 13 May, 2009, 18:17

  Stacia: I too am a social conservative. I’m simply taking an unvarnished view of the situation. I am not bashing anyone. I think CR and BVP are top notch conservatives who have served the party faithfully. The problem is social conservatism isn’t selling. We need to find someone to catch the vast middle (read independents). We need a new Robert D. Ray.
• 
  Stacia wrote on 13 May, 2009, 18:31

  Mod. in Everything: The problem is that the GOP is torn. Some want to moderate and some want to stick to the platform. Until this is resolved, it will be a tough and long primary. It’s true that if you stick to the platform, you might lose moderates, but it is also true that if you go more moderate, you’ll lose the base and the folks who get out the vote. We’re in a tough spot. I don’t agree with you that we social conservatism isn’t selling. I think if you took a poll of Iowans, the majority of them would be for traditional marriage and for life. The thing that isn’t selling is when the GOP says they are for smaller government and then support TARP. It makes voters wonder if they can trust the GOP again. We have major problems that need to be worked out. I can support Rants and BVP. I like one over the other and would vote for that candidate in next June, but that doesn’t mean I’ll trash the other guy. We need to come out of the June primary united behind a candidate; otherwise, no GOP candidate will take back terrace hill and the moderates and the so-cons will start blaming each other when they are both to blame.
• 
  Moderation in Everything wrote on 13 May, 2009, 18:46

  Stacia: I certainly agree the Bush years have made it harder for us. Holy Cow. Talk about big government. Most Iowans are for traditional marriage. No doubt about it. The problem for socons is that most Iowans will not support a platform that denies gays equal rights even though they are supportive of traditional marriages. Yes, most Iowans abhor abortions. Yet those same Iowans may not be willing to deprive someone the right to have an abortion. I totally agree with you. Whoever comes out of the primary a winner must get our unqualified support.
• 
  Reaganesque wrote on 13 May, 2009, 18:56

  Just out of curiousity as a somewhat “new” Iowan (a mere five years in this state), is anyone else out there wishing that Steve King was running, as was rumored at one point? I saw Rep. King introducing my candidate for President, Fred Thompson, in Fort Dodge and was ready to take a bullet for the guy by the time he stopped speaking. I’ve also heard attorneys denigrate him in courthouses, also a huge plus. What would be his downsides if he were to run, now or in the future? Skeletons in the man’s closet I don’t know about?
  Just curious.
• 
  Stacia wrote on 13 May, 2009, 19:01

  Reaganesque: King would be a great candidate but I think he intends to stay where he is.
• 
  Altoona Guy wrote on 13 May, 2009, 22:21

  “Altoona guy: Off the mark. BVP and CR need Gross much more than he needs them.”
  That is possibly one of the most idiotic comments I have ever seen on a site. Have you poked your head out from under Doug’s kingly robes and actually talked to the party recently, moderation? The base hates Gross. Anyone associated with him is basically dead on arrival and if his Manchurian candidate is able to win a plurality, don’t be surprised when more than a quarter of the party walk out and vote 3rd party in a General election. Without the so-cons, Doug Gross and his ilk don’t have a party, they have a bombed out, run down, politically impotent social club. Also, word on the street is that Doug and his boys don’t have the financial firepower they once did. News reports of their meetings are telling a story of sparse attendance and a general lack of will among his big givers. Sounds like at least half of the heavy hitters are content to sit on the sidelines in the 2010 primary. In the end, BVP or RC will have no trouble raising money with our without Gross and you’re kidding yourself if you think they will. Culver has done a horrible job as Governor and the big GOP givers are going to be happy to throw money at whoever they can to get rid of him. So-Cons on the other hand think differently. Sure, they hate Culver, but if they are just going to replace him with a squishy moderate hand-picked by Gross and his cronies, they will walk out, let Culver get re-elected and go at him again in 2014 rather than install a guy who is really no better than Culver was and then be stuck with him for the next 8 years. If you got out and start talking to the grassroots, you would realize that. Face facts moderation, today Gross is a useless relic of a bygone political era. Hes more of a liability than an asset these days and every time he opens his mouth, he moves the party one step closer to open Civil War.
• 
  Timmy wrote on 13 May, 2009, 22:49

  I don’t think it wise to discount the Gross influence(ie: money). I’ve said it here before, money is the mothers-milk of politics and the GOP is gonna need a big sackful in 2010. Also, Gross and his “cronies” are more in line with our last 2 GOP Governors(need I remind you neither were ever voted out of office?). Whoever the nominee is, they are going to have to unite the factions and appeal to not just the base, but the independents, etc. if they expect to beat Culver and the dems. Having the support of the Gross camp is going to be a big plus.
• 
  Dave Hanson wrote on 14 May, 2009, 1:16

  CD does a good job of analyzing comparative strengths and weaknesses of Bob VP and Chris R, as statewide candidates for governor. I second CD’s general assessments. Many others share other useful observations. May I offer some further, up-close-and-personal insights of both men, as well as possible alternatives.
  Full disclosure–back in early 2001 I gave my first donation to Bob’s campaign. And signed on that year to serve as his Northeast Iowa campaign coordinator. I certainly plan to support Bob again. He’s by far the best man we have. (And yes, I think that Chris Rants and Jeff Lamberti do have advantages too. ) But I try to carefully, objectively analyze our position and the various men who seek to lead us.

  “A good name is more desirable than great riches.” Proverbs 22:1

  1) A shrewd poster proposed that “we need another Bob Ray”. Righto you are! Seven-time statewide election winner, was Bob Ray. Who once wisely noted, when asked the secret to his electoral success: “I made people feel good about themselves.” Note–that was Ronald Reagan’s great ability, also. I drew appalled reaction from an old friend, a long-time Iowa conservative businessman, when I once referred favorably to Bob VP as “the next Bob Ray”. That man disliked Bob Ray; was a strong Steve Sukup supporter in 2002, and looked askance at Bob. Like Steve, he now supports Bob Vander Plaat–the most “Reaganesque” and “Ray-like” candidate I’ve seen in Iowa since I saw Reagan Himself in the WHO studios in 1984. Bob possesses that rare ability (shared with Ronaldus Magnus and Robert D) to draw affection from many different people, even from those who disagree with him. I’ve watched him work crowds–Bob wins *trust* from people. Ordinary people. The kind who don’t “count” to the big togas except when they cast their votes. BTW–The issue with Doug is not “liberal Doug versus conservative Bob”. I actually agree with Doug Gross on very many points; Doug by some rating assessments is *more conservative* on certain issues than is Bob. Doug surely is right that we need to focus on economic issues and not social issues *entirely.* The real reason that Doug and the Des Moines country club money men have distrusted Bob (which resistance I suspect is fading the longer they’re out of power) is that *all his achievements Bob has earned by his own effort and his winning personality. Bob owes the brokers nothing.* And wallets can’t trust anyone they don’t control, because naturally they worry about who’s managing their money. As another poster said, their support is “a big plus”. But not a condition precedent to success…

  2) First impressions tend to stick with you. My first impression of Bob I got when he accepted my invitation to stay overnight at my house to save a hotel bill–good Dutchman! We enjoyed delightful conversation covering many issues. I didn’t commit to supporting Bob then; waited and watched about six months. Liked what I saw, at first, and ever since. No subsequent candidate matched Bob as a MAN I can look up to.
  Most unfortunately for Chris Rants, my initial opinion of him came in negative. And has largely remained so. I’ll relate the two primary instances because I think they illustrate a fundamental self-importance in Chris that Bob delightfully lacks.
  A) Does anyone recall Chris Rants’ log rolling with the Des Moines Democrats back in 2003, when they wanted to suck money from us rural Iowans through the State treasury into their Des Moines backyards? They proposed the so-called “Vision Iowa” program to achieve this grab. Remember how Rants was all hot to trot (just like Chet, this year) to issue hundreds of millions of dollars in State bonds to build tourist traps…errm, cultural achievements?
  Some friends and I discussed Chris’s proposal. We decided that not only was it all wet politically and economically but also Chris sought to violate Iowa Constitution Article VII section 5: by obligating the State without a specific tax to pay the bonds and without the mandatory statewide bond election referendum (required by our wise 19th Century Jacksonian Democrat forbears). Jan Michelson got Chris on the WHO air to discuss the plan. Chris bloviated about how great it was. I called in and said “I’ve got the bill here in front of me–and there’s nothing in here to allow us to vote on it”. Chris responded that I didn’t know what I was talking about; “Iowa has no provision for public referenda.” Oh? I then read on the air Iowa Constitution Article VII Section 5. It not only allows for a referendum on bonding but *requires* a referendum. Silence in the studio and on air. After a long awkward pause Chris mumbled something about having to study the section I quoted. And then changed the subject. Funny thing–after that day on the Michelson show never again did we hear word one about bonding to pay for Vision Iowa. Of course we still got stuck with the monster–but out of general fund money. (Hey Chris–how about you show your moxie by suing Governor Culver over HIS bonding program? We don’t get a vote on that one either…)
  B) Against Chris I still hold a grievance (almost said Grudge, but I try to forgive), because in 2006 he directly cost us our fine Republican House member in Fayette County, Dave Lalk. Dave had beaten a tough Democrat incumbent in 2002, and another well-liked and decent Democrat in 2004. But in 2006 Dave was felled by one of the homosexual lobby’s donation darlings, Andrew Wenthe, a much weaker Democrat candidate. Why? Primarily because Chris Rants insisted on running a television advertisement that everyone here in Fayette County, Republicans and Democrats alike, thought was very stupid and wrecked Dave’s reputation. Dave didn’t want the ad; he looked like a third-term winner. But I guess Chris had the money and wanted to spend–he ran the ad anyway. He accused the Democrat challenger of not paying property taxes. Double Duh–Wenthe *didn’t owe any*–he owned no property. And of course lots of prominent Ds could and immediately did so point out. The ad destroyed Dave Lalk, whose great asset had been his likeable character and public reputation for fair-minded trustworthiness.
  C) Now having groused, I must give Chris this credit–he did manage to persuade and work with two Democrats who switched parties in the House to join us. A sound, worthy, and difficult achievement. I nod in respect. I certainly will vote for Chris Rants if he wins the governor nomination.
• 
  anonymous wrote on 14 May, 2009, 5:30

  Mr. Hanson – while I disagree with your assessments mightily, particulary shuddering at analogizing BVP to the laid-back, intelligent and law-recognizing Governor Ray (who will always be my perfect governor), I just as mightily appreciate your conclusion to support the winner of the primary with no compunction.
• 
  Moderation in Everything wrote on 14 May, 2009, 6:09

  Altoona guy–money is king in this business. Culver will have $10 million in his war chest and will use that money to portray BVP and CR as extremists. Your post shows the problem with the party. We need the socons to work the streets. We need the monied business types to fund the airwaves. Neither candidate will be attractive to independents. Sure they will fire up the base. But the base is in the wilderness now. We have juice in churches but not in the middle where we need to be to win the general.
• 
  anonymous wrote on 14 May, 2009, 6:14

  Right on, MIE.
• 
  Altoona Guy wrote on 14 May, 2009, 7:17

  “Culver will have $10 million in his war chest and will use that money to portray BVP and CR as extremists.”

  I think you seriously overestimate Culvers ability to raise money in 2010. Even Harkin didn’t get to $10 million last year. Culver is no Tom Harkin. In fact, Culver only pulled in just over 500k in 2005. His numbers have never really been all that impressive. By contrast Nussle raised 5 times that amount in 2005 and still managed to lose in November. Money is important, but it really isn’t everything. Also, you seriously overestimate the ability of the Gross group to raise money in 2010. His network is comprised almost exclusively of $10,000+ donors. In 2010, we are dealing with an economy that is in the toilet. Those who took the biggest hit were the big donors. When he goes around to them this year, what Doug is likely to find is a big portion of his donor base who tell him that they aren’t in a financial position to come out and play with him in 2010. He’s also since lost Mr. Pomerantz which leaves a huge hole in his fundraising apparatus. From my understanding Mr. Pomerantz was the epoxy that held Doug’s network together. Without him, it remains to be seen if the pawns can be kept on the board.

  “We need the socons to work the streets. We need the monied business types to fund the airwaves.”

  Here is the problem with your premise: The so-cons have worked the streets years for the squishy moderate candidates who tell them to shut up and do as they’re told, only to see those people they worked so hard to elect stab them in the back after they win. In 2010, if you think they’ll work the streets for anyone associated with Gross, you are living in a fantacy world. In fact, there is a fair chance that a sizeable chunck of them will simply walk out and form a 3rd party. If you thought John McCain lost by a sizeable margin in Iowa, you havent seen anything yet.

  “Neither candidate will be attractive to independents.”

  How do you figure? Because Doug’s poll shows that independents respond to fiscal issues? That is probably a fair statement, (although I seriously question the legitimacy of any poll of just over 600 respondents that costs $100,000 … For that kind of money I can produce a poll that says the Earth is flat and the Queen of England is the rightful sovereign of the United States) but here is the deal. The very fact that independents are independents suggests that they don’t care about social issues … At all … Meaning that they wont disqualify any candidate based on social issues regardless of what they say. However, in order to win their votes, we have to offer them something more than social issues. That is why Vander Plaats and Rants have a major advantage over anyone Gross would give us. Both of them have a solid track record on social issues. So-Cons will have their questions answered about them before the primary is over so in the General election both of them can focus on a message to swing the independents. Doug’s candidate however will be forced to talk about social issues in the General election because the base will not trust them and they will be forced, after they see that they have no volunteer workforce and they continue to lag 10 points behind Culver, that they need the base. That’s what killed both Gross and Ganskie in 2002, it killed Nussle in 2006, it killed McCain in 2008 and it will kill the Gross candidate in 2010 if we are dumb enough to nominate them.
• 
  BoldColorConservative wrote on 14 May, 2009, 8:45

  Gross and his candidates have lost us the last three gubernatorial elections and under Rants, we’ve become a minority party and he was stripped of his leadership in the House. He was ineffective! It’s time for a new face. I’m voting Vander Plaats!

Write a Comment

Gravatars are small images that can show your personality. You can get your gravatar for free today!

You must be logged in to post a comment.