Former Governor Branstad Defeats Culver 53% to 37% in Head-to-Head Matchup
- Friday, July 17, 2009, 3:52
- Iowa, News Center, Top Story
- 6,876 views
- 74 comments
In a poll commissioned earlier this month by TheIowaRepublican.com in conjunction with Concordia Group LLC, former Governor Terry Branstad defeats current Iowa Governor Chet Culver by 16 points in a head-to-head matchup. Branstad beats Culver 53% to 37%. Branstad is currently the President of Des Moines University, one of the top osteopathic medical schools in the country.
Rumors of a potential Branstad candidacy have run rampant this spring and early summer. However, Branstad has continuously said that his focus is on Des Moines University. While Branstad has deflected questions about his potential political reemergence, he has also made it very clear that he in keeping his options open. With the increased chatter surrounding former Governor Branstad, TheIowaRepublican.com decided to include a set of questions to see how Branstad stands up against Governor Culver and the current Republican primary field.
Last Friday, Branstad was asked by Van Harden, the popular morning drive-time host on WHO Radio, if he ever looks at the current situation the state is in and disagrees with how the current Governor is handling things. Branstad admitted that it happens regularly, and he mentioned that, when he left office, the state had a huge surplus. Branstad has always been respectful and avoided going after his successors in the media, but that seems to have changed recently. In addition to his remarks on Iowa’s largest radio station, Branstad also skewered Governor Culver recently at a Rotary meeting in Cedar Rapids.
Many believe that Branstad could be enticed to take on Culver if the situation is right. With a 16 point lead over Governor Culver, Branstad’s situation couldn’t get much better. TheIowaRepublican.com poll also shows that Branstad would have to earn the Republican nomination in a tight primary with Bob Vander Plaats, but his statewide favorability and name ID would make him the favorite to take on Governor Culver in the general election.
Question: If the elections for Governor were held today, and the candidates were Terry Branstad and
Chet Culver, who would you vote for between Terry Branstad, the Republican candidate and Chet Culver, the Democratic candidate?Branstad: 53%
Culver: 37%
Don’t Know: 6%
Neither: 4%
Branstad soundly defeats Governor Culver in each of Iowa’s five congressional districts by a significant margin. Branstad bests Culver by 22 points in the 1st CD, 8.6 points in the 2nd CD, 19.1 points in the 3rd CD, 11 points in 4th CD, and 21.9 points in the 5th CD. The only district in which Governor Culver breaks 40% is the 2nd CD, where he received 41.6% of the vote.
Branstad’s favorability in TheIowaRepublican.com poll stands at 61%, the highest of anyone we polled, and 13 points higher than Governor Culver’s rating. While Branstad has remained popular and active within Republican circles, he has also remained relevant through his position as the President of Des Moines University.
One of the most fascinating aspects of a potential Branstad candidacy is that he would an authority on one of the most important issues on voters’ minds – healthcare. Republicans have typically struggled with the issue, and with the current debate on healthcare reform occupying the center stage nationally, having a Republican candidate who is credible on the issue would be an advantage. In addition to his position at Des Moines University, Branstad also co-chaired the bi-partisan Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease (PFCD) during the 2008 caucus cycle. PFCD advocates for healthy life styles which would prevent chronic diseases, thus reducing health care costs.
There is no doubt that Branstad would also benefit from all of his years as Governor. Branstad piloted the state through tough economic times during the farm crisis in the 1980’s, and he also led the state through a major natural disaster, the floods of 1993, which paralyzed Des Moines as well as major communities along the Mississippi River. With the current state of the economy and communities that are still trying to recover from the floods of 2008, many Iowans seem to be inclined to put the state back into capable hands.
In addition to Branstad’s experience as the chief executive of the state, he is also a more than capable politician. On WHO Radio last Friday, I was reminded of just how skilled he is. Branstad originally called in to talk about his support of a project to make the USS Iowa a permanent museum in California. Branstad effortlessly launched into a story about attending the USS Iowa’s reactivation ceremony. He knew the name of the ship’s captain, and he painted a great story. A candidate with that type of ability scores high points with Iowans, and it’s also a trait that Governor Culver doesn’t have in his arsenal.
While Branstad has been out of office since January of 1999, he is still only 62 years-old. His age would probably end up being an asset if he did decide to run. In difficult times, people tend to look towards experience rather than youth. Branstad’s age, however, would create one hurdle if he did decide to revive his political career – how long would he want to serve if elected? It’s a question with no easy answer, but one that he would have to address.
One might assume that since he defeats Governor Culver by 16 points in a head-to-head match-up, he would easily navigate his way through the GOP primary field. That’s not the case.
TheIowaRepublican.com poll shows that Branstad would be in a very tight primary fight with Bob Vander Plaats. In fact, Branstad only edges Vander Plaats by 4 points, well within the margin of error.
Question: If the Republican primary for Governor were held today, who would you vote for between Chris Rants, Bob Vander Plaats, Terry Branstad, Paul McKinley, Rod Roberts, Jerry Behn, and Christian Fong?
Registered Republican Voters
Terry Branstad: 35%
Bob Vander Plaats: 31%
Don’t Know: 19%
Chris Rants: 6%
Neither/other: 3%
Paul McKinley: 2%
Rod Roberts: 1%
Christian Fong: 1%
Jerry Behn: Did not registerRepublican Primary Voters Margin of Error ±5.0%
Branstad takes all of the oxygen out of the room for all the Republican primary candidates except for Bob Vander Plaats. A Vander Plaats/Branstad primary could ignite a nasty campaign that pits social conservatives against more establishment-type Republicans. The hypothetical primary match-up with Branstad shows two things. One, Iowa Republicans want to unite around a proven candidate who could defeat Culver, in this case Branstad. Two, while Vander Plaats’ early strength in the primary ballot against the existing field of candidates can be partially attributed to his name ID advantage, the primary ballot against Branstad shows that Vander Plaats has solidified a core group of the GOP’s base behind his campaign.
While Branstad’s experience as governor would be a huge asset, it could also be a liability. Any politician who has served in office as long as Branstad did is bound to have made some enemies along the way and been an advocate for things that now may be unpopular, especially with the base of the party. Yet, Branstad is no stranger to difficult primary campaigns; he defeated Fred Grandy in the Republican primary in 1994 by just four points.
Before we get too carried away with the possibility of Branstad’s return to the political arena or the primary battle that would ensue if he does mount a comeback, we need to hear what Branstad has to say about it first.
We do know one thing. Governor Culver is in real trouble. Bob Vander Plaats and Chris Rants only lose to Culver in a head-to-head match-up by ten points, which, at this point in time, is not much. In a hypothetical rematch between Culver and Jim Nussle, it’s all tied up. And finally, in a head-to-head match-up against former Governor Branstad, Culver loses, and he loses badly.
As for right now, all eyes are on Governor Branstad. The ball is in his court.
About the Author
Craig Robinson has written 453 stories on this site.
Craig Robinson serves as the founder and Editor-in-Chief of TheIowaRepublican.com. Prior to founding Iowa's largest conservative news site, Robinson served as the Political Director of the Republican Party of Iowa during the 2008 Iowa Caucuses. In that capacity, Robinson planned and organized the largest political event in 2007, the Iowa Straw Poll, in Ames, Iowa. Robinson also organized the 2008 Republican caucuses in Iowa, and was later dispatched to Nevada to help with the caucuses there. Robinson cut his teeth in Iowa politics during the 2000 caucus campaign of businessman Steve Forbes and has been involved with most major campaigns in the state since then. His extensive political background and rolodex give him a unique perspective from which to monitor the political pulse of Iowa.
74 Comments on “Former Governor Branstad Defeats Culver 53% to 37% in Head-to-Head Matchup”
Trackbacks
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.
I think Branstad will run. If so my prayers will be answered. He is a campaign brawler and a winner. If he indeed throws his hat in the ring BVP and the rest of the back benchers need to step aside immediately. Also, the reemergence of Branstad underscores the fact you can never count out Doug Gross. Maybe there is hope for the party after all.
Have you ever heard of a three-term incumbent who almost lost his own party’s primary? Neither had anyone else until Branstad almost lost to Grandy in 1994. There’s a reason so many elected Republicans, including State Auditor Richard Johnson, backed Grandy. The phrases “two sets of books” and “cooking the books” may ring a bell with some of you.
Then there’s the fact that Branstad appointed two of the judges who cleared the way for same-sex marriage in Iowa–including the judge who wrote the Varnum v Brien ruling. And Branstad didn’t publicly criticize that ruling.
I doubt Branstad will get in this race, but if he does he shouldn’t expect the Republican field to clear for him, and he should expect his management of state finances to come under a lot more scrutiny.
Moderation in Everything,
Were those middle-of-the-road, wishy-washy, moderate prayers? I’ve read somewhere that God really likes those!
I might start praying that Doug Gross will soon be counted out.
Tyler-I think you have some typos in your post. Redo it since I can’t understand you.
Tyler: I reread your post. I do understand you. No. My prayers were fervent.
A balanced piece, Craig. Well done.
This is no suprise. If you compare Terry’s record with Chet’s, Terry wins and Iowans know that; however, as you can see in the polling data, that BVP and Terry would have a bloody primary fight and I don’t know how we as a party could come out of that unharmed. I think that the candidates need to get themselves better known and they have 11 months to do that before the primary. I just haven’t heard of a governor that ran for governor again. I think Iowa would be the laughing stock once again and the Iowa GOP might have a “quick fix” in electing a former governor, but that doesn’t bode well for the future of the Iowa GOP. It is like we have no good young politicians to take on Culver (Which we do). We need to send a message to Iowa that we have a future, not getting someone from the past. I’m in my late 20s and I see this pick as a borring pick. Sheesh! Not all the GOP voters are in their 60s.
Stacia–what do you think of Fong?
BVP is not “new” either.
Moderation in Everything and Mr. Hawk, I don’t know too much about Fong. I am concerned that he gave money to some democrats and liberal groups. I know that it wasn’t much, but I wouldn’t even give a cent to those people or groups. I would like to hear what he has to say in future debates and at events. Mr. Hawk, BVP may not be “new” to campaigning, but if he is governor he would be “new” to being an elected politician. I think we need a “new” elected person, not someone who has been in the state house, state senate, congressman, congresswoman, Senator or past governor. So basically, out of all the candidates, my options are BVP and Fong, and currently I am supporting BVP.
If Branstad gets in does this mean Eric Woolson will bail on BVP yet again for a better candidate?
If we are going to run the hypothetical of ex Governors, I’m kinda curious how high Culver would score against Robert D. Ray? I don’t think for a minute that Gov. Branstad would run but lets consider for a moment that his record of fiscal reponsibility is probably what is behind his great showing. To me that says “It’s the economy, stupid” will be the winning issue of the campaign. Getting hung up on “gay marriage” may not be the best issue to focus the campaign on. I’m not saying we should abandon that position, far from it, but it sounds like to me the voters more immediate concern are the fiscal issues!
Branstad has a record of fiscal responsibility?
“Grandy calls Branstad ‘MasterCard governor’”
Friday, April 1, 1994
DES MOINES (AP) – Republican candidate for governor Fred Grandy has renewed his assault on Gov. Terry Branstad ’s handling of state finances, labeling him “the MasterCard governor.”
” Terry Branstad has been cooking the books for years,” said Grandy. “That’s how he managed to run up $1 billion in deficits, despite a balanced budget amendment and a line-item veto.”
Grandy pointed to new figures showing a larger-than-expected deficit in the state’s fiber-optic network.
He also cited criticism by State Auditor Richard Johnson of Branstad’s management as fresh evidence the governor should be replaced.
“The Mastercard governor pays his debts months late, borrows to pay off last year’s bills and keeps two sets of books,” said Grandy, in a statement.
Telephone calls to Branstad campaign manager Brian Kennedy seeking comment were not immediately returned.
Or…
“Auditor: Grandy has the better fiscal plan”
Wednesday, April 27, 1994
Author: Rod Boshar
DES MOINES – State Auditor Richard Johnson , acknowledging a “strained” relationship with Gov. Terry Branstad , broke his neutrality Tuesday to endorse U.S. Rep. Fred Grandy’s bid to unseat Branstad in June’s Republican primary.
The announcement drew an immediate rebuke from Brian Kennedy, Branstad’s campaign manager, who said the auditor has been “attacking” Branstad on Grandy’s behalf and has “long been rumored” to be the Sioux City Republican’s choice for lieutenant governor.
Johnson said he made the unsolicited endorsement out of concern that new budgeting practices passed in the just-completed legislative session may not be fully implemented without a change in the state government’s top leadership post.
The Sheldahl Republican added that his decision to take sides also was spurred by “a trend toward distorted information, a trend toward not being completely honest with the public” in the GOP gubernatorial campaign during recent weeks.
“I think it would be unfair to my family and my grandkids if I didn’t take a public stand on something that I feel very strongly about,” said Johnson, in praising Grandy’s straight-forward approach to the issues most important to Iowa’s future.
“I consider myself a fiscal conservative. The plan that Representative Grandy has presented as a candidate is a very conservative plan,” said Johnson, an outspoken critic of state budgeting and borrowing practices that rolled up a $408 million deficit and delayed bill payments in recent years.
“If we look at practice and look at the amount of public expenditures and the amount of tax increases that we’ve had over the last 10 years, I think that’s less than a conservative record that’s been placed before us,” he added.
Grandy said Johnson’s assertion that fiscal mismanagement practices have forced him to break his neutrality are a repudiation of “out of whack” budgeting and structural deficits that grew out of a “bidding war” between Branstad and former House Speaker Don Avenson in the 1990 governor’s race.
“Dick Johnson’s impeccable credentials as a fiscal watchdog enhance the credibility of this campaign a hundredfold,” Grandy said.
“It helps me, it helps my record as a fiscal conservative, it helps my tax plan.”
Interesting that BVP stacks up well against a former popular governor who tromps out Culver. This tells me that BVP is our candidate and over time, will be our governor.
BVP will never be the governor of Iowa, Christian. The sooner you accept that fact, the better off we’ll all be.
Well, lets actually review a couple of facts.
#1, The state budget was in SURPLUS when Branstad left office.
#2, Branstad was in office during the 1980’s when the state was in the middle of the farm crisis, not exactly great economic times in Iowa even though other parts of country were prospering.
#3, IIRC, it was under him that the “rainy day” fund was established.
What did these men do after leaving office? The former Governor has chosen to stay in Iowa, while the former “Congressman Gopher” decided to live in the DC area.
MIE, I agree that Branstad will be the frontrunner if he gets in, but if you think the SoCons in the party will step aside for him you are dreaming. Also, it appears the Rants backers are no big fans of Branstad either. BVP won’t get out, and if Rants stay in as well it will be a race to see if anyone can get 35% Remember back in 2002 when Gross, BVP and Sukup ran. I think the final tally was Gross 36.5%; BVP 32% and Sukup 31.5%. Given the typical makeup of the state convention, if Gross had failed to reach 35%, he probably would have finished last. Its going to be a wild ride if Branstad gets in, but his victory would by no means be a foregone conclusion.
I thought Gov. Branstad made it pretty clear he wasn’t interested in running.
Once again, comments by an anonymous poster illustrate what I hate about blogs.
For the record, I rarely put much stock in anonymous bloggers’ comments. I’ve only ever responded on two or three occasions when they were so deliberately malicious, misleading and irresponsible that they demanded an answer. Today is one of those occasions when a supposed adult hides behind the name of a cartoon show character to attack someone else. That person raised the issue of what I would do if my former boss, Gov. Terry Branstad, enters the GOP primary. The blogger’s exact words were: If Branstad gets in does this mean Eric Woolson will bail on BVP yet again for a better candidate?
Maybe the blogger won’t go on the record, but I will. Regardless of who enters the 2010 GOP primary, I’m with Bob Vander Plaats as long as he is in the race.
It was an extraordinary honor for me to work for Governor Branstad from 1996-99. Ten years later, I remain grateful for the opportunity. And, yes, in 2002, I did depart from Bob Vander Plaats’ campaign to support Doug Gross. I suppose the anonymous blogger has the right to claim I “bailed” but I let Bob know upfront before I joined his 2002 campaign that the only reason I’d leave his campaign was if Doug entered the race. It was never a secret that I had – and have – a long-running respect for Doug’s professional ability, as well as a personal loyalty and friendship.
As it goes, Doug did join the race and I did join his campaign. I was very proud that we won that primary. Nevertheless, anyone who really knows me knows it was very, very difficult for me to leave Bob’s campaign, particularly to support a primary opponent. We all talk about how much we dislike primaries because they basically amount to family fights where we have to choose sides; I hate them on a gut level. And, I hate cowards who hide behind fake names and question other Iowans’ intentions.
Now you know where I stand in 2010 – with Bob Vander Plaats.
Eric Woolson
President/CEO
The Concept Works, Inc.
Rorkes–the problem is that there are too many people that want to transform the Party into an extension of their own churches. Witness the likes of slackjawed Lydia and C Ulem. These folks need to realize that politics involve compromise. They are unwilling to do so for fear of offending their beliefs. That’s fine for church but not for regaining the majority. The faithful need to know their place. They can be zealots from the pulpit but not from the dais. They and their ilk are useful workers (windshield pamphlets and phone calls) but they are not built for leadership. Look how they have wrecked the Party of Bob Ray since they have been in charge. Their goals are evangelical not winning elections.
Well said, Eric.
Sorry you got dragged in to defending yourself. Some people are just trolls, I guess: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29
Eric–even though I will not support BVP for lots of reasons, I respect you and the work that you did for Doug and Gov. Branstad. You are a great asset to the Party.
MIE, I hear you to a point, but there is no recent evidence to support your basic premise. Instead, all the objective evidence shows that the Republican “moderates” keep losing statewide elections. Gross is no evangelical, and he did no better that Lightfoot against Vilsack. Ganske was as moderate as they come, and Harkin had one of his easiest races ever. Nussle also ran as a social moderate and Chet Frigging Culver beat him! Finally, there was John McCain. I admire McCain for his service and sacrifice, but to me he epitomizes a “moderate rebublican” and he got SMOKED in Iowa. Why? The moderates that you and others believe will flock to Republicans if they only shut up about conservative issues voted for the Rats in droves.
Maybe the worker bees need to know their place, but its hard to look to the same old crowd for “leadership” when they can’t win elections. Until someone like BVP gets nominated and performs worse than Gross\Ganske\Nussle\McCain, I don’t know if this argument will ever be settled.
As for Branstad, I have no idea what the SoCons think of him. The Grandy race really wasn’t about social issues but instead hinged on budget issues. The jury is still out on whether Branstad can strike the right note with SoCons and peel away enough votes from BVP. As a Catholic, however, he doesn’t appear to share their outlook on life.
Mod:
I just have a fiew questions for you.
1. Why is it, that its ok to push your fiscal views on other people, but its not ok for people like myself to advocate my christian beliefs in the political circle? For example, you might think that government should not be in the business of building rain forests in Iowa, but how can you go out and support a candidate that says that? I mean shouldn’t you just keep that opinion to yourself?
2. Why is it that we can support candidates that want to take peoples land from them. We can support candidates that say local taxes aren’t really taxes,
but state taxes are. But if someone stands up and talks about god on our side, well he/she couldn’t possibly be a good leader?
R.D., it depends on how you define “so cons”. The current “Christian Jihad” by a small segment of the party probably wouldn’t be happy unless the Lord himself was running. As for Nussle, some(I wonder WHO) actively tried to undermine his campaign. For the vast majority of the rest I don’t think the former Gov. needs to prove his bone-fides.
Timmy:
I think you raise a very interesting question that Craig might want to do a poll about. Exactly what ARE the numbers. How many registered republicans consider themselves to be Christian / Social Conservatives and how many consider themselves to be Fiscal Conservatives and how many are either in the middle or don’t care.
Con Thinker, again it depends on how you define Christian/Social conservatives and who is making the definition. I reiterate, there is a small segment of the party that have taken it upon themselves to make that definition and decided THEY are the arbitors of who is/isn’t conservative enough. There are many that have been carrying that mantle for years and have been skewered by deace & co.(Steve Scheffler is one example).
I think if you asked the questions truthfully, the vast majority of the party faithful would still be considered socially conservative and support those issues. Unfortunately, they are rapidly being turned off from what MIE has called the “Christian Jihad” against the rest of the party.
CT–religious issues are different. Religious beliefs are deeply held. They are extremely emotional. They are not subject to reason (sorry St. Augustine) and are not subject to compromise. For these reasons religion should not be at the forefront of a political movement where compromise is essential to growth. I think people of faith can be good leaders. I don’t think zealots make good leaders. They make good Imans.
While you might be right, I think i would still like to see some hard numbers on that. You could define the two sides with this simple question, ‘Do you think marriage and life should be the central issues for a conservative candidate or do you believe the taxes and spending should be the central issues for a conservative candidate?
Mod:
Let me ask you this then, would be willing to support a candidate that is in favor of raising taxes? Would you be in favor of a candidate that supports some form of socialism? I doubt that you would do either.
Rorkes–consider this. Lightfoot was a lightweight. Nussle ran a bad campaign. He simply got mauled by Culver. McCain got beat because he was perceived as insincere. Had he been true to his moderate self he could have won. Also, his choice of Palin was a disaster.
Con Thinker: I would not want to answer those questions. They are exclusive and they should not be.
CT–I think that taxes and spending should be the central focus because religious issues are too divisive. I could never support a candidate that wants to raise taxes. I am a free market advocate so no, I don’t advocate socialism.
Mod:
But I thought you should always be willing to comprimise? So maybe we could raise taxes just a little bit? And maybe we could have just a little bit of socialism?
CT–for you sure as long as long as the park gets mowed.
Mod:
So its nice to see you resort to the best thing you Fi-Cons do and that would be condescending to So-Cons, thats great. But its also nice to see that Christians shouldn’t be political leaders because they refuse to comprimise, but hey at least you are…oh wait…yeah you aren’t either
Sorry Conservative Thinker, but you are way off the mark….
“Why is it, that its ok to push your fiscal views on other people, but its not ok for people like myself to advocate my christian beliefs in the political circle” Because we would then be living in Iran, get it? This is America, where we can all agree to disagree on religion and still have functioning government. Also, doing so is contrary to the establishment clause. What we do with our money is a completely different story, I am not even sure why you thought it was a good idea to even compare the two.
CT–please read my posts. I did not say that Christians should not be political leaders. I DO think zealots make bad leaders but good ayatollahs.
Justin:
First, ’separation of church and state’ is NOWHERE in the Constitution, whatsoever, anywhere. You can look it up if you can.
Second, I compare the two because there is clearly a split in the Republican party along social and fiscal issues. Why we can’t advocate both with equal furver, I have no idea, but we don’t.
Third, your contention that if we don’t handle the peoples money the way you AND I think we should, we won’t have a functioning government is a false premise. Clearly President Obama believes we can double our current debt and still have a functioning government.
Fourth, here is just a couple quotes that I guess exemplify living in Iran. “… Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent…” and here, “…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” and this small one, “In God we Trust”
Mod:
” They and their ilk are useful workers (windshield pamphlets and phone calls) but they are not built for leadership” I would assume that their “ilk” would consist of anyone that believes as they do. Or anyone willing to support those ideas in a primary. So again, your contention is that So-Cons can never be good leaders.
CT–separation of church and state? Are you kidding me? Please refer to the Bill of RIghts. If there is no separation I nominate the Holy Roman Catholic Church as the official Church of The United States of America.
CT-ilk refers to Lydia and her fellow Branch Davidians. I shutter at the thought of someone like her ( a zealot) being an elected official.
Mod:
Ahh you see there is clear distinction there. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” So as I would read that, Congress shall not make any law establishing a State sponsored church or religion, such as the Church of England. In no way does that mean that political leaders cannot espouse christian views. In fact I believe that there are numerous examples of early representatives of the people referencing God during debate and in public.
True: Political leaders can espouse Christian views. They can espouse satanic views. That would be free speech. I am by no means advocating restricting by force of law restricting a politician or a candidate from espousing whatever. What I AM advocating is leaving religion out of politics as a matter of winning elections.
Conservative Thinker-
Espousing a belief, and trying to use your belief in that idea as a argument for changing laws are two different things. You cannot use religiously based reasoning because it violates the establishment clause, plain and simple, that is why courts do not accept religiously based arguments. I never made any contention about money, also. You need to read more closely. What I said was: “This is America, where we can all agree to disagree on religion and still have functioning government. Also, doing so is contrary to the establishment clause. What we do with our money is a completely different story, I am not even sure why you thought it was a good idea to even compare the two.”
The reason you shouldn’t advocate what you term “social issues” is because the social issues you seem to be concerned with are religious in nature. There are literally millions of social issues Republicans could be worrying about other than religious ones.
CT- One more thing. I don’t have a problem with the word “God”on our money. That isn’t an argument for the inclusion of religion into politics either. Note it doesn’t say “In the Christian God we Trust”. It also doesn’t define which creator. It is ceremonial deism. Nothing more. It supplies a source of freedom other than a king or queen or government.
MIE You can provide all the excuses you want for Lightfoot, Nussle and McCain, but the fact is THEY LOST. As for the Palin pick, you could argue that any moderate votes she cost McCain were more than made up for by the votes she gained for McCain, especially in Iowa. The simple fact remains that other than Chuck Grassley, “establishment” candidates have not won a statewide election since Branstad in 1994. 1994!
Given that abysmal track record, I’m not surprised that SoCons are not too interested in keeping their mouths shut and standing aside while the establishment hand picks yet another candidate.
Unlike most of the people on this board, I am both a fiscal conservative AND a social conservative. I know, however, that I will not get the perfect candidate and want someone that will appeal to the vast majority of the party AND the overall electorate. I think Branstad or Rants could work. I don’t know enough about the State Senators who are throwing their hats in the ring. BVP won’t attract crossover FiCons, and is a non-starter. Any Doug Gross/Polk County candidate (other than Branstad, which really doesn’t count) won’t attract crossover SoCons, and is a non-starter. In fact, my main concern about Branstad is that he is so closely associated with Gross that the SoCons will reject him without giving him a chance.
RD, I can’t necessarily dissagree with you. However in the case of Nussle, the arguement can be made that deace and others like him made a concerted effort to try to defeat him or at least suppres the vote. He clearly told his listeners that it was more virtuous to not vote than to vote for “the lesser of two evils”(his words).
The net result was still the same, Culver got elected and the dems gained more seats. So when the Varnum decision came up, he had the gall to blame the Republicans for not doing enough. By not willing to compromise politically, they enabled the dems to squelch any opposition to “gay marriage”. If the so called so-cons can’t or won’t figure out the necessity to defeat the dems first if they ever hope to gain any traction on these issues, we are all doomed to continue the slide into socialism!
Timmy… just tell me why it is always the social conservatives that have to compromise?
Tyler, if you had been paying attention you would have noticed we’ve all had to compromise from time to time. What about the “log cabin” Republicans? I’m sure they have felt like they have had to compromise their beliefs on the social issues to the majority of the rest of the party on their agenda, yet they stay because they believe in most of the rest of the principles the GOP and it’s candidates have supported over the years.
I’ve been told that if you can get within 85% agreement on the issues you should be fairly satisfied. I think that is a laudable goal. There aren’t any viable 3rd parties at this time, if you want to see how well that works look at Canada. However if you want to claim morally superiority and refuse to support the GOP or it’s candidates because you aren’t willing to compromise, fine. But remember that by doing so you are actually supporting the liberal agenda that as a Christian you claim is immoral.
“… you are actually supporting the liberal agenda that as a Christian you claim is immoral.”
Christians have been guilted into believing this for years now. And most of us still believe these types of statements coming from Republicans and their various groups. It has gotten Christians nothing. This is the type of statement said by people who could care less about what Christians want, but only want their vote because they know they can’t win without it.
Rorkes Drift, are you sure Branstad is Catholic? I always thought he was Lutheran. I think his mother was Jewish, but he definitely was raised Christian.
No, Tyler, it is you who have been guilted into following the Deace marching orders–right over a cliff. He uses the name of our Lord to control you, and those like you who are incapable of thinking of the consequences of your actions.
Again, you are implying that unless a voter follows the Deace mandate to stay away from the polls or risk going to hell, they’re just not good Christians.
I am going to allege to you that the opposite is the truth.
Deace pretends to give the social issues great prominence but examine what he really does. His actions reveal a totally opposite agenda.
Please think of how electing, Obama, Culver and other Democrats advances any kind of conservative agenda. It doesn’t. We’re sliding more and more toward socialism and with each passing election those who refuse to use their power of the vote to slow this slide are the ones who have to have our loss of freedoms on their hands.
I want you to pay close attention to Al Franken from MN. Every time you see his ugly mug on TV I want you to take a good hard long look because YOU, and people like YOU are responsible for that man being there. Those moron voters in MN who thought they were too good to vote for Coleman (because he wasn’t perfect) voted for third parties. There were more than enough third-party votes to keep this man out of office.
So thanks, for Al Franken, thanks for giving the Dimocrats 60 members in the Senate, thanks for actually transforming America to a socialist country–all because you thought a given Republican was not good enough.
Next time you want to follow Deace’s orders, think of Obama, Culver and especially Al Franken.
You’re also responsible for the Dimocrats controlling the Iowa House of Representatives. Thanks a lot.
DSM Dem, IIRC Gov. Branstad was raised Lutheran but joined the Catholic faith when he married.
DVFO, your Franken analogy is spot on. I still can’t believe that clown is a U.S. Senator.
Tyler, you need to go on Jeopardy! because you are way smarter than the rest of us! Seriously, none are so blind as those that refuse to see. You have been offered the opinions and advice of many here that have the wisdom to see the bigger picture, yet you refuse to acknowlege that anyone else may have struggled with these same issues and because they compromised they somehow “sold out”. Nothing could be further form the truth! I for one have given up my time, etc. to champion many causes I believed strongly in. I have attended every caucus I was able to, voted in every election, attened the county, district and state conventions, worked on the platforms of my county and served on my district’s platform committee the past several years. I may have had better ways to spend my time, but I did it because I believed it was worth the effort. I have planks I submitted at my caucus end up on the State platform. Did things always go the way that I wanted? No, but it hasn’t deterred me. Yet those like you refuse to do nothing but bitch and moan and somehow claim the moral high gruond because your “Christian” faith won’t let you compromise your values or whatever. You really need to get over yourself!
First of all, just because somebody throws a few God words around and claims to be morally superior(deace) doesn’t mean you should turn off your critical thinking skills. If anything, you need to turn them up even higher. History is filled with example after example of this. As someone that takes my faith seriously, I’m incenced when people politicize it or use it to claim moral superiority. Your buddy deace has been doing this, all the while he is actually underming the very conservative movement he claims to be supporting!
The churchy repubs feel (rightly-so) like they’ve been used and abused by the Party. The cheney administration certainly used em while behind-the-scenes ridiculing them. Like someone here said, good for grunt work and then sit down and shut up.
I still say that the Repub Party needs the unreconciled split to survive as ultimately one side or the other. The churchy repubs really need to be on their own as a party (heck folks, let them keep the Repub name if they want) and the rest of you can rename as Whigs or whatever. The churchies can run Ralph Reed or Alan Keyes nationally and in Iowa, maybe Emily or Tyler.
Meanwhile the old-line repubs under their whatever new name can hopefully regain some adult party status and dignity along with a rightful place in governance.
I was trying to think of ANY politician who has ALWAYS at all times taken votes that please me 100 per cent. I can’t think of one. So my choices are to stay home on election day, vote for a third party because I believe THEY are pure and will never disappoint me or I can even vote Dimocrat just to show those evil Republicans they need to straighten up if they want my vote. That will teach ‘em.
Or I can say to myself that there is no perfection here on earth so I’ll go for the best I can get.
Believe me, I’ve had to go into a voting booth many times and just hold my nose and do it. It’s getting easier and easier to do it. I pledge I will do everything within my power to prevent these corrupt Dims from gaining even more power.
Remember Al Franken.
Con Dim: Thanks for worrying about us. I think you have your hands full with your Dumbocrats. Your problems are far larger than ours. Thanks, Obama, Culver, Pelosi, Reid and now we’ll add Burt’s name.
Hey, BTW, Con Dim: Where is Obama’s birth certificate? Why were Major Cook’s orders rescinded when he challenged the fact that Obama may not be the legitimate Commander in Chief?
This Obama guy is a phony and idiots who voted for him (I guess this includes Deace) are responsible for the chaos that may ensue IF it is ever declared he is ineligible to be president. Now, I’m not stupid enough to believe this will happen because we all know that ALL Dimocrats are protected by the media and the corrupt justice system but the fact remains that it was well known before the election that this guy was likely born in Kenya and yet all you sheeple voted for him.
It was also well known he was morally unfit to be president. This guy is a socialist and is in a power trip for himself. We’ll all thank you for the destruction of our economy and every resulting job loss.
Thanks a lot, Dimocrat voters.
Hey dv, I love it when you do the Archie Bunker impersonation.
Hey dv, did you get Silence Dogood kicked off TIR?
Con Dem, for all the bs traded back and forth I think you and I agree both parties have been hi-jacked by the extremes. What at least the ‘pubbies need to do is find that 85% consensus and concentrate on that first. I think we’ve all seen thru history around the world what happens when you have one-party(usually one-person) rule marching in lock step. Also, as a person of faith I for one sure don’t want to live under a theocracy!
Yeah, btw where has Silence been lately? For that matter, when was the last time any of us have heard from Steve Right?
Christians you say. The socons on these posts think they have a monopoly on Chrisitianity. Most of my colleagues and friends are Christians. My democratic friends are Christian. All of them hold Christian beliefs sincerely. My point is that the socons, especially like Christian Talibanista Lydia believe their kind of Christianity is superior as a matter of politics. That kind of political posturing turns people off because it is offensive. I don’t begrudge Lydia her views as a person of faith. I do however resent her for using politics as an evangelical tool. RD–you and I can debate from sunup to sundown about why candidates win or lose elections. Maybe Robert Kennedy’s observation is important to consider. It all comes down to the candidate as a person. Since I am from NE Iowa I can attest to my personal repugnance to Nussle who espoused views akin to mine but at the same time left a wife and disabled daughter for a blond ingenue. That kind of hypocricy turned me off as it did with lots of my fellow parishoners. Another thing to consider is whether the vast middle feels aggrieved. In the late 70’s the vast middle, including the Catholic vote felt threatened by the excesses of democratic rule. As a result they flocked to RR in droves. Repubs lost the middle as a result of the faux conservatism (read big government) of Bush. Finally, another thing to remember is that time is on our side. I sense that the electorate is getting fed up with Obama’s promises and the legacy that he will leave our childern and grandchildren because of out of control spending. Politics is cyclical. Our time will arrive. Let’s be sure that we are well-positioned with conservative candidates who will embrace the vast middle instead of wingnut zealots who will alienate them.
Mod, I couldn’t agree more! To the rest of you, it’s a beautiful day outside. Turn off the damn computer, go out & enjoy the weekend!!!
Timmy–back at you. My computer is off now. Cheers!
I will say this, as a country and a government, we make ’social laws’ all the time. If it weren’t that way we’d have gambling across the state, along with prostitution, along with a policy in place to kill anyone who is a drain on the country such as all the old and infirmed and the mentally and severly phyisically disabled and anyone on welfare.
Of course we regulate social issues. But don’t think for a second that ordered societies are necessarily Christian. That’s the problem. We can agree that the Ten Commandments make a good starting point for an ordered society. Beyond that for the most part I get concerned about religious groups imposing their beliefs on others. I don’t like religious wars. I don’t like theocracies.
MIE, the problem with you is that you think Right Wingers want a theocracy. That is further from the truth. They want less government in their lives, not more. If Martin Luther King or William Wilberforce or Abe Lincoln were alive today, you would call them theocrats and give them the same labels. Martin Luther King saw it as his God-given moral quest to end racial discrimination. William Wilburforce sought biblical guidence and helped end the slave trade. Abe Lincoln sited God’s word in speeches about ending slavery in America. They all used God’s word as a direction to their quest. These 3 accomplishments helped America and it’s people, not destroyed them.
Stacia–yes, we want less government in our lives. I suggest we start with the bedroom. MLK and Lincoln appealed to a broad spectrum of their respective electorates. Note however Lincoln never went to church but was very schooled in the Bible. Neither would have put up with the nonsense coming from the extreme right these days.
A true Christian political leader can no more divorce his Christian worldview from his politics than cut off his right hand. Each is part of him. One does not need to be Christian, though, to see the evils of abortion or to be opposed to gay marriage.
Go ahead and isolate or try to kick out the social conservatives. What you will be left with is a very small third party. I think they call it the “Libertarians”. We need to be a big tent party that welcomes both social conservatives AND fiscal conservatives. I happen to be both, but when the GOP nominates pro-choice candidates, I vote for the Constitution party or some such. My conscience will not let me do anything less.
“We need to be a big tent party that welcomes both social conservatives AND fiscal conservatives.”
You just contradicted your statement in the very next sentence, saying you wouldn’t vote for pro-choice candidates. Either you want a big tent, or you don’t. A big tent must include some social moderates.