Gubernatorial Op-Ed: Bob Vander Plaats
- Tuesday, July 21, 2009, 4:30
- Iowa, News Center, Top Story
- 874 views
- 35 comments
By Bob Vander Plaats
The numbers in the first scientific poll of the 2010 GOP primary, published last week by The IowaRepublican.com, are helping bring the race into clearer focus. The poll told us a few things we already knew about Gov. Chet Culver’s vulnerability and our party’s growing opportunity for victory – and it even contained one or two surprises that the pundits may or may not admit.
As expected, well-liked former four-term Governor Terry Branstad holds a lead today over Culver, who is an unmitigated first-term disaster. It also indicates continued, overwhelming support for a position I’ve clearly staked out: Iowans want to vote on the marriage issue.
Not as expected was the narrow margin Governor Branstad would have at the moment in a GOP primary. For those who missed the poll results, Branstad leads Culver 53-46 percent but in a GOP primary his edge shrinks to the margin of error. (Branstad 35 percent, Vander Plaats 31 percent, 19 percent undecided and the rest of the field in low-to-mid single digits.) As TIR founder Craig Robinson accurately observes, “Branstad takes all of the oxygen out of the room for all the Republican primary candidates except for Bob Vander Plaats.”
Running for office, especially statewide office, is not something that a rational person takes lightly, especially someone who has been in the arena before. After six years in the legislature, four years as lieutenant governor, 16 years as governor several primaries and eight general elections, no one knows better than Terry Branstad the sacrifices one makes to run for and hold public office.
I respect Terry Branstad as a seasoned politician. He’s perfectly capable of making up his own mind without my advice so I’ll leave it up to him to decide whether he wants to seek a return to public service.
My sense is the results of the IowaRepublican.com poll speak as much to our party’s future as it does to the past or present. The strong support Iowans have for a Vander Plaats candidacy is an indication that they want a governor who is going to lead them to a future where Iowa is a place with a vibrant economy, world-class schools, access to excellent health care, a hand up to those in need, energy independence, and one that embraces a stewardship mentality toward our natural and fiscal resources.
It’s an indication they want a governor who will truly represent their values, aspirations, priorities and goals. Finally, it’s proof that Iowans do want a governor who will stand up to the courts, defending the powers of our executive branch as well as the institution of marriage. They want a governor – and a gubernatorial nominee – who does more than just wring his hands and complain “there’s nothing we can do” when an activist court ignores the will of the people.
Those who criticize me seem to make two claims: I’m focused on the single issue of same-sex marriage and this isn’t my first campaign for governor. Ask yourself, did I build a strong statewide network over the past seven years by talking solely about an Iowa Supreme Court opinion that wasn’t even issued until this spring? Of course not!
Iowans needed to hear that someone in this race will stand up for their right to vote on the most bedrock issues facing our state – the definition of marriage. Conservatives needed to know they have a voice who will speak for them. But it certainly is not the only issue I’ve discussed as I’ve traveled our state.
Since January, I’ve called Chet Culver to task for his legacy of overpromising and under-delivering in so many public policy areas. I’ve criticized his plan to make Iowa businesses and individuals pay to participate in a health-care forum he was arranging for the Obama administration. I’ve talked about the need to redesign our state’s education system and tax structure, standing squarely against the Democrats’ plan to eliminate our right to deduct federal taxes from our state returns. I’ve pointed out that Chet Culver’s budget numbers and bonding proposal just don’t add up. I’ve talked about human services, transportation, agriculture, the environment and much more. As this campaign progresses, I’ll be talking about all the issues that concern Iowans – just as I have in the past.
We know the race is far from over and a lot of hard work, grassroots organizing, travel and fundraising are ahead. In fact, I haven’t officially entered the race but look to do so in a matter of weeks. I encourage you to follow our campaign closely through our website, www.teamvp2010.com, through Twitter updates, Facebook and, of course, TheIowaRepublican.com. And, I ask for your support so we can take back the governorship in 2010 and get this state back on the right course.
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.
35 Comments on “Gubernatorial Op-Ed: Bob 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.
Bob, I am more than willing to seriously consider you as a candidate. Outside of your persistence on this marriage issue (which I don’t care about — it’s the economy, stupid!), I think you’re a strong candidate.
You’ll do well in the primary, and I’m sure if you make it to the general, all of a sudden all of this marriage talk will quiet a bit and cease to be the focal point of your campaign. That’s a good thing.
You’re on point when you criticize Culver. Whomever wins the primary, I’m voting for. I can’t do 4 more years of Chet Culver.
> Those who criticize me seem to make two claims: I’m focused on the single issue of same-sex marriage and this isn’t my first campaign for governor. Ask yourself, did I build a strong statewide network over the past seven years by talking solely about an Iowa Supreme Court opinion that wasn’t even issued until this spring? Of course not!
I think you’ve gotten pidgeon-holed into the marriage issue, because you grabbed headlines with your idea that we should put it to a vote…even though many people much more knowledgeable with Iowa law than I say that is not possible (or rather constitutional).
As for running several times, isn’t that the nature of politics? You lose more times than you win. I admire your drive and tenacity. Also, you can’t vote on civil rights. Stop this argument. I know you make it because it rallies your base. I call this preaching to the choir. However, it isn’t legal, and your opponents will smother you with it (successful) in the general.
Good luck. I’m keeping my ears open.
Excellent article by Bob. He is a well-rounded candidate and continues to cast his vision for the state. The reason he has the support of the grassroots around the state is because people trust that he is sincere about the marriage issue. That has put him in a place where he is in a commanding lead over all other contenders. If you only look to his answers about marriage, you overlook the expertise he brings to other areas. He is a guy you can trust with your vote.
This looks like it is written by a 6th grader. Put down the poll, Bob. I know you have never led in a poll in your life and probably wet your pants when you saw you did but how about you tell us why you want to be governor? And do it without mentioning Terry Branstad (who would kick your ass). And do it without mentioning gay marriage. Can you do that? Is it the echos of Vander Esch that bring about all this hatred of gays or what?
Great article Bob. I think the people who label you as a “single-issue” candidate do so because they want to create the perception that you are because they want people to vote for their candidate and not you. You have a great background in healthcare, education, and business. You bring a leadership quality and have great communication skills. I’m glad you stood up for marriage, because if you stood up for marriage, you’ll stand up for conservative ideals once you are governor. I’m glad we can count on you still being there if Branstad gets in the race. We’ll have a choice, rather than a coronation.
Jack, You are the one acting like a 6th grader by being disrespectful to someone who has been a bigger player in Iowa politics than you have.
I echo Christian’s sentiments. I like VP a lot because I can trust him. We can argue about the subjective issues, or who fits them better, but objectively, no one is more honest and up front than VP.
I like Rants a lot too, but this “temper” I keep hearing about makes me question him a little bit. A good candidate, yes. 100% up front and clear who he is, no.
Branstad might be a good candidate too, but this “cooking the books” I keep hearing about makes me question him a little bit. A good candidate, yes. 100% up front and clear who he is, no.
Can you make the same argument against VP?
Let’s see what the Drake forum will bring.
DVFO~ How do you suggest that “Christian Elititsts” violate their conscience and vote for a candidate who we know is lying about being pro-life, pro-family, etc. on issues that pertain to faith just for our vote. One of the ten commandments is “you shall not lie.” I guess I do not see your logic for voting for pro-choice, pro-homosexual liars over pro-choice, pro-homosexuals who are truthful about their position. I would vote for neither, but find a candidate who lines up with my views, God sorts out the rest. You cannot compartmentalize your faith. “anything that is not of faith is sin…he who knows the right thing to do and does it not, to him, it is sin…” I guess I would be considered a “Christian Elitist” but that is because I am accountable to someone much higher than the republican party.
BVP seems like a decent sort, but he suffers from one big problem – he has ZERO support from the establihment/FiCon wing of the party. As a result, I can’t see supporting him. The same goes for any establihment candidate that is loathed by all the SoCons. For better or for worse, right now it looks like Rants and Branstad are the only two serious candidates who can get significant support from both wings of the party. Roberts and McKinley and the other second tier candidates may be able to meet that test as well, but most voters know absolutely NOTHING about them.
Christian, you truly are a Christian elitist.
Rorkes–my Repub monied friends have handicapped BVP as a mark in the loss column. I will be interested to see how he addresses fiscal issues at the DSM forum this week. Perhaps he can convince them that he can create a progrowth business environment in the state. Also, it is disconcerting to them that so much of his campaign is built around the gay marriage issue. I note that Principal and ING both have made concerted efforts to attract gay employees.
Stacia, don’t get off the prozac baby.
How can anyone vote for someone who consistantly tries to convince people that an executive oerder can overturn a supreme court ruling. It shows he is not competant enough to hold the office of governor.
silence dogood
Good to see Silence back at it. Missed ya bud,.
“It shows he is not competant enough to hold the office of governor.”
I usually don’t nit pick spelling, but that’s just too funny. I think someone else here isn’t competent to be a third grade spelling teacher.
I was having a conversation with my buddy and he gave me a term I think that DVFO and other “Christian” compromisers could go by, “Republicrat”….I love it!
Bob, how many times did you tell us not to pay attention to the polls in the early days of the Iowa Caucuses? These polls are meaningless at this point in the election, and you were right then to point out that fact. You are wrong now in clutching so tightly to this one with all your twittering, facebooking, and the like.
Time will undoubtedly tell.
Christian, I want you to read this and see if you want to stop this? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2297439/posts
“Christian” I. O., Lydia, et al: As a Christian I have lost all patience for your intolerance to anything but your all-or-nothing brand of so-called “Christian Conservatism”! You cannot or will not even try to understand that in order to defeat the liberal, socialist agenda of the democrats in power the G.O.P. has to reach out and offer a broader appeal to the majority of the electorate in order to WIN ELECTIONS! What can the Republicans possibly do to stem the tide of abortion, etc. if they continue to be out of power? Practically nothing! None of us are advocating we abandon the social issues, but we realistically understand the need to find that 85% or so consensus to move forward.
I’m sorry if you don’t get that the rest of electorate is more concerned with the economic issues than they are with the social issues but “it’s the economy, stupid” not “gay marriage” that is going to decide this election!
Bob-
As a gay man I was wondering if you think that the public should have the right to vote on any other rights for me? Whether gays can teach in schools mabye? Or whether gays are allowed to receive communion? Maybe we should put to a vote whether or not gay people should be allowed to share a gravestone with their partner? Lastly a quick fact, when the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Loving vs. Virginia that it was unconstituional to deny interracial marriage, over 70% of Americans opposed that ruling. Should the public have been able to vote to overturn that ruling? I look forward to your reply.
BVP: Specifically what would you do to ensure that all Iowans have access to health care?
Cooler – The problem is not so much “gay marriage” but judicial extralegalism. Who gets to decide what laws we are to be governed by? The people or judges?
Where is the law that states two people of the same gender can be married in Iowa? Can anyone point to me the specific sentence in the Code of Iowa? And “de facto law” is not a valid answer…if its not part of the actual code it is not LEGALLY a law.
MIE – Everyone in Iowa has access to health care; just walk into any emergency room. The government has no responsibility to give you health care, however. You are responsible for your own health care (responsibility, what a freakin’ novel concept!).
bgunzy–sure you get emergency care. But what about long term care? What about poor children? Do they go without?
Mod: There’s HAWKI, where the rest of us are forced to pay for health care for the children of those making even 300% of poverty.
It’s really weird but we provided our children with their health care and there was not even the option of getting someone else to pay for it.
First, I took care of my own kids and now I get to take care of other people’s kids.
By forcing the rest of us to pay for other people’s children’s health care, we are slowing destroying the family structure. It frees up Mom and Dad to do irresponsible things like drugs and alcohol. It is not a good thing.
My question is why has BVP written this Op-Ed at all? To me it seems very reactionary. The “Branstad poll” scared him and rightly so (in fact I’m ready to dig out an old copy of a Governor Branstad bumper sticker for my car). As for BVP being a one issue candidate — all he has to blame is himself … the marriage issues is mainly what he has talked about and the only thing his website had up for weeks on end.
Deace–HawkI is a Vilsack creation. I want to know what BVP says. Deace, is it your position that poor children do without?
No, it’s my position that parents provide for their own children. The only children that should be on the public dole are those whose parents have fallen on hard times due to circumstances beyond their control.
If that makes me selfish, then so be it. I took care of my own kids, who were very sickly by the way. No one helped us and they shouldn’t have. We never even thought of such a thing.
Deace–I’m sure you are a very good parent. What about a two year old son of a meth head? There are scores of children whose parents are unfit to have children?
“BVP: Specifically what would you do to ensure that all Iowans have access to health care?”
- Every Iowan already has full access to health care.
“How can anyone vote for someone who consistantly tries to convince people that an executive oerder can overturn a supreme court ruling. It shows he is not competant enough to hold the office of governor. ”
- Because many people are dumb enough to believe it too.
Mr. Hawk–Emergency Care and access to HAWKI. What does BVP plan to do with HAWKI? Will support replacing it? Getting rid of it? Leaving it as it is? With premiums rising 5-10% per year, I don’t know as a small businessman whether I can continue to afford to provide health insurnance to my full-time staff. What then?
You said “access to health care”, not “cheaper or free health care”. Everyone in Iowa has access to health care, and can buy a policy if they so desire. Everyone in America has access to health care.
If you’re going to frame the argument differently, at least be honest. Instead of using loaded phrases like “Access to health care”, just say “how are we going to ensure that some people pay for the health care of others who don’t want to pay for it themselves.”
Mod, as somebody currently on COBRA I fully understand your concerns. I’m not sure though that I believe a Govt. run and/or mandated program is the answer. It is rapidly becoming a desparate situation however and needs to be addressed by the “grown-ups” in charge pretty damn quick!
I’ve thought for a long time that tying health insurance to employment was a big mistake. If the individuals were in charge of their own coverage it might have helped force the insurance companies to be more competative. I would like to see Dr’s, Hospitals, and health-care providers have to compete much like the auto repair services. Why can’t they have to bid for non critical procedures, etc. like they do for elective procedures such as Lasik, cosmetic surgery, etc.? Maybe I’m over simplicating this, but a mechanic has a flat-rate manual that is used to base the charges for different auto repairs, why couldn’t something similar apply for basic office visits as one example?
Another thing that gripes me is the lack of ability to contract with the Dr. directly. I’ll give an example to hopefully illustrate what I mean. I became very ill a couple of years ago while I was out of town for work. My only option was the local E.R. as I couldn’t find a physician I could make an appt. with directly. Before it was all said and done, my insurance co-pay was around $500.00 for something that would’ve meant only a routine office visit had I been home.
I don’t know if this approach would work, but I for one would certainly be willing to take my chances vs. an all-encompassing Gov’t run system!
Mr. Hawk: Fair enough. The question should be framed in terms of access to meaningful health care. I’m not concerned about those that don’t want to pay for health coverage. I’m concerned about those that can’t. Whether it be children of bad parents or those with catastrophic health problems who can’t afford treatment. Mr. Hawk, my question still stands. There is a program in existence in Iowa called HAWKI. What does BVP propose to do with health care?
Timmy, government interference is one of the reasons we have sky-high health insurance premiums and health care costs.
Everyone is always wanting insurance plans to be mandated to cover more and more potential health issues. It sounds so compassionate for lawmakers to make these mandates but in the end, someone has to pay for them and at the same time, none of us want our insurance with a company that is not solvent.
We’ve all created this monster. How about caps on tort reform so doctors don’t order more tests than necessary just to CYA and malpractice insurance premiums for doctors could also be reduced.
It is only common sense that the losing party in any lawsuit should be made to pay the attorney costs for the winning party. This would also reduce costs.
Right now we have a nation full of people who expect unlimited access to health care all the while expecting someone else to pay for it.
Government always is the cause of these problems–not the solution.