Examining a Branstad Candidacy

Monday, July 20, 2009, 8:06
Constitution Daily
987 views
15 comments

branstad1 Friday’s headline story by Craig Robinson really has Republican and Democrat politicos buzzing. With the revelation of Terry Branstad’s polling numbers verses Chet Culver so positive for our side, we have a new look at the GOP field. I thought I’d take a few moments to examine how a Branstad candidacy would play out both in the Primary and General Elections.

First, Branstad won’t clear the field for the Primary. I think Bob Vander Plaats will stick it out this time no matter who jumps in the race. He’s quit once and that didn’t fair too well for him. And also, according to the poll numbers, he’s got a chance at taking on Branstad.

We also have the question of whether or not Doug Gross, the moderate wing’s political pimp, will be a consultant or paid staff for a Branstad campaign. As you all know, Gross was Branstad’s chief of staff back when he was governor. I’ve heard nothing of them cutting ties or having a falling out so I assume Branstad would have Gross in his inner circle of advisors at the very least. This doesn’t bode well for voters like me at all. It would also refuel the moderate verses conservative debate – which I don’t think we need right now.

But a Branstad candidacy does clear out most if not all of the lesser known candidates. I’m fairly confident Behn, Roberts, and McKinley would bow out – not necessarily because they think they’d lose to Branstad but because Branstad would be a sufficient enough candidate for them to concede to him. In other words, they would think he’d do a fine job as governor and there is no reason to run against him. Obviously they don’t think the same of BVP or Rants otherwise they would be out by now.

Now back to Branstad, his credentials as a governor are amazingly good. He governed during the farm crisis and floods of 1993, all while balancing a budget and even having a surplus. His campaigning skills are very good, although a little rusty, I’m sure. He will have the best staff and fundraising at his disposal with instant credibility with voters from all circles. Basically, my first judgment is if he doesn’t win both the Primary and General Elections, he messed something up very badly.

The first issue Branstad will have to defend is his two nominations of the Iowa Supreme Court Justices who ruled in favor of gay marriage. I’m sure Bob Vander Plaats is working on the press release right now to blast Branstad. That may backfire on BVP though because Branstad is Iowa’s Reagan and it might not be taken well by Republican Primary Election voters. Either way though, he must defend his nominations because marriage is an issue (not the issue – lay off moderates ) in this election.

For some reason I forgot about Christian Fong until I got right here. Fong won’t make it long with Branstad in the race. Fong’s only niche is the folks who don’t already support BVP or Rants who want a leader on economic issues. Branstad fills that void for most.

Branstad against Culver will be a great campaign. Culver has shown no leadership skills even within his own Party. The flood will be a defining issue. Branstad led us through that with ease where Culver still has us wading through the muck. Culver has no excuses and no one to shift blame to. This is a big advantage for Branstad.

Also with Culver, the budget is massively in the red. Whether or not you agree, the perception is that Branstad always had a balanced budget and didn’t grow government. That is what people want and dream of returning to. Can you imagine the debates between the two? How would Branstad not come out smelling like a rose not just on rhetoric but actual experience?

So after writing all of this it probably sounds like I’m on the Branstad bandwagon. I am not…at least not yet. He must prove to conservatives that he’s 100 percent pro-life and pro-marriage and won’t compromise the Republican platform. If he does that, and does it early, he’ll have this Primary in the bag. Of course, I could be wrong and would love to hear your input on how a Primary and General Election with Gov. Branstad would play out.

Tags: Branstad

About the Author

Constitution Daily has written 96 stories on this site.

An Iowa based blog with the purpose of giving incentive to those actively engaged in conservative causes. Content will include Iowa and national issues ranging from politics to everyday society, but in every case you will know where Constitution Daily stands. Please feel free to contact me anytime at constitutiondaily@gmail.com.

15 Comments on “Examining a Branstad Candidacy”

SharpHawkeye wrote on 20 July, 2009, 9:26
“It would also refuel the moderate verses conservative debate – which I don’t think we need right now.”

Right. I’ve got that debate scheduled for November 3, 2010. The day after Bob Vander Plaats loses every county east of I-35. We can push it back to the night of Culver’s second inaugural if you prefer, though.
Constitution Daily wrote on 20 July, 2009, 9:47
Can we have one article on this site that doesn’t turn into mod v conservative? Just one?
SharpHawkeye wrote on 20 July, 2009, 9:49
You can’t write an article examining a Branstad vs. Vander Plaats face-off and not expect mod vs. conservative to be on the table. It’s the central issue.
Constitution Daily wrote on 20 July, 2009, 9:53
Are you claiming Branstad is a moderate? If so, I’d like some proof.
Deace voted for Obama wrote on 20 July, 2009, 10:07
Branstad is a moderate? If your premise is that VP is the conservative and Branstad is the moderate, it is absurd.
HawkCR1 wrote on 20 July, 2009, 10:29
IF Branstad runs…he’s going to have some tough questions to answer…

For example…in terms of the marriage issue…Branstad appointed to the bench several of the current Iowa Supreme Court justices involved in the Varnum decision..so he’s going to have some explaining to do to evangelicals and social conservatives who are up in arms on that issue.

In terms of the budget…Branstad was governor during the period when Iowa literally kept TWO sets books when it came to the budget. A charge that was frequently thrown out against Branstad in those days was that he as Governor was “cooking the books” to make the budget look better than it really was…

So he’ll obviously have to answer tough questions about why what he did as Governor back then is different than what Culver is doing now….

Now, are those issues campaign killers…not at all. However, I don’t think Branstad will run. He’s got a great gig being President of Des Moines University right now…

Here’s something to chew on….how about a Branstad run against Boswell for that 3rd CD seat…..

A Boswell/Branstad race would be HUGE..by knocking off Boswell, Branstad could position himself well for a possible future US Senate run…..

How crazy of a campaign would that be… Branstad vs Harkin for US Senate……
Deace voted for Obama wrote on 20 July, 2009, 10:38
HawkCR1, Are you trying to deflect Branstad from running for governor but instead to run for congress? Why? He’d have the same questions to answer.

This looks like you believe he is a viable candidate and you’re trying to protect VP. I don’t blame you for that but if he’s not good enough for governor, why is he good enough for congress?

Unfortunately, I do not believe VP is our strongest candidate for governor. He has painted himself into a corner and seems to be proud of it. He’s depending on a convention to get him the nomination. Fine, but then reality is going to hit all of us in the face, what do we do now to win the general election?

I believe VP has a ceiling to his candidacy. The issues clearly point to a Republican year and we need to maximize our chances to dislodge Culver.

Branstad does have the right mix and there should not be the question about winning eastern Iowa. If Branstad does not run, I still would not discount Fong.
HawkCR1 wrote on 20 July, 2009, 11:21
Deace..

Here’s why i think Branstad WONT run.

1. Branstad’s been there, done that. 14 years as Governor. Let’s be honest..how many people do you see running for their “old” political office they once held?
2. Branstad’s got a great gig right now at DMU…
3. I think Branstad has higher aspirations to be quite honest with you….

I’m not “trying to protect” VP at all….nor am I saying Branstad is not “good enough” for Governor…guy got elected to the office 4 times..we all know he’s proven he’s electable.

That being said..you talk about the issues pointed to being a Republican year…I couldn’t agree with you more about needing to maximize our chances..but not just to dislodge Culver..but to get guys like Boswell, Braley and Loebsack out of office.

Let’s be honest here Deace…2010 is shaping up to be a potentially good year for the GOP…and with reapportionment coming down the pipe…this could be our last chance for some time to knock out some of these entrenched Democrats…
Polly Twocents wrote on 20 July, 2009, 12:08
The idea that Branstad could run against Boswell for the 3rd CD seat in 2010 has some appeal. That makes so much more sense than Branstad running to be governor again, if he were to get back into running for office.

With Grassley turning 76 this fall, putting Branstad in Boswell’s seat then positions him nicely to run for Grassley’s seat, assuming that Grassley might want to step aside, and assuming that Branstad is really interested.

I’m not against people in their 70s, but I do think there are some negatives about older career politicians (Boswell will be 76 in 2010) who have spent decades in elected office. Most folks in their 60s are looking at retiring and most folks in their 70s are not out looking for new jobs.

Perhaps it is time for Boswell (now 75), Harkin (turning 70 this fall) and Grassley (soon to be 76) to all consider making room for younger politicians. Even at that, Branstad, at 63 this fall, is no spring chicken. Nine years ago he suffered a myocardial infarction after exercising at the Y in downtown Des Moines, and I don’t think Chris is going to jump up and down to have him re-enter politics.
Timmy wrote on 20 July, 2009, 14:34
Polly, the US Senate has had it’s geriatric ward for some time now. Several of these folks keep running into their 80’s & 90’s(BTW, exactly how old is W. Va. Sen. Byrd now?).
Jack Donneghy wrote on 20 July, 2009, 15:47
You people are morons if you think Governor Branstad would have any interest in serving in the US Congress. Get a brain.
HawkCR1 wrote on 20 July, 2009, 18:21
Why don’t you enlighten us then Jack…since apparently you know everything..

Do you really think that Branstad would have interest in running and serving in a position he held before….smacks of been there, done that as I said earlier.
Carolyn J. Williams wrote on 20 July, 2009, 19:40
“the moderate wing’s political pimp”

I’m not a fan of Gross, but I stopped reading right there.
Madison wrote on 20 July, 2009, 22:21
Polly TwoCents – you are an idiot.
Either become informed or do not EVER post on this site again because you are making yourself look like an uninformed dimwit.

First of all, Terry E. Branstad does not live in the 3rd Congressional District! Holy Sh*t! I guess that’s a problem isn’t it!

Where does Terry E. Branstad live? Rural Boone County – a.k.a…TOM LATHAM country.

Obviously, there are idiots like you that probably want to see Terry Branstad run against Tom Latham but those people, presumably you, are idiots and should either not post stupid comments on this site and others or actually do some research before you spout off your stupid nonsense.

Get a life, get a brain or shut the hell up.
Conservative Demo wrote on 21 July, 2009, 7:42
Gimminy, Madison musta had a bad yesterday; sitting on one serious cactus there last evening.