Doug Gross Reignites Debate over the Direction of the Republican Party
- Monday, August 31, 2009, 4:21
- Iowa, News Center, Top Story
- 4,097 views
- 34 comments
We should have known that it was only a matter of time before the cultural and ideological tug-of-war within the Republican Party would resurface. Truth be told, ideological debates are prevalent in both political parties. It just seems that Iowa Republicans do a poor job in keeping their turf battles in-house. Former GOP gubernatorial nominee Doug Gross penned an op-ed for the Des Moines Register yesterday, and it is likely to become another distraction which the traditional media will have a hay-day covering.
Gross’ message to the GOP is the same one he has been preaching since the conclusion of the 2008 Iowa Caucuses. Gross believes that social conservatives and their views on gay marriage and abortion are the root cause for the Republican Party’s downfall in recent election cycles. Gross believes that they have prevented Iowa Republicans from creating broad coalition of supporters which has resulted in a 100,000 person disadvantage in voter registration to Iowa Democrats.
While it should come to no surprise that both sides of this political tug-of-war blame the other for the Republican Party’s struggles, each faction also seems to be oblivious to the fact that there will never be a day when one side of the ideological battle within the Party will be deemed the victor.
Even more frustrating is that Iowa Republicans have never had a better environment in which to build a broad coalition of voters that should lead to success at the polls next November. Making things even better is that neither side of the party will have to compromise their beliefs and principles to build that winning coalition.
Doug Gross is correct in his assessment that Republican candidates should lead on fiscal issues. However, he is wrong to simply want to brush aside issues such as abortion and gay marriage, which have long been tenets of the Republican Party. While those issues vary in importance from person to person, it is ludicrous to simply want to dismiss them, especially with an issue like gay marriage, which so many Iowans are upset about and would like to see changed.
For example, look at the issue set that is being played out in the Special Election in House District 90. The primary focus has been on taxes and spending, but gay marriage has also been an important issue. In fact, the issue of gay marriage is so important that Iowa Democrats recruited a candidate who supports the right of the people to vote on a constitutional amendment defining marriage. That issue hasn’t hurt the Republican candidate in HD 90, but rather, it has helped him, even against an opponent who takes a similar stand on the issue.
What is confusing about Doug Gross’ actions is that he contradicts his own polling data. While it is true that the Iowa First Foundation poll from March of this year showed that respondents had a negative view of the Republican Party, the most recent IFF polls showed that Republicans lead Democrats on a generic ballot for the first time in over a decade. Additionally, the most recent IFF poll showed that 49% of the respondents considered themselves pro-life, while only 31% said that they were pro-choice. In the same poll, 61% of respondents would vote for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman. Those are not percentages that should keep Republican candidates from discussing those issues on the campaign trail.
In his op-ed in the Register, Doug Gross referred to some social conservatives as the grouchy old uncle who turns people off. While there is little doubt that Gross doesn’t like the party’s social conservatives, the analogy of the grumpy old uncle is doesn’t describe social conservatives – it describes Gross. I have yet to see social conservatives in the party write editorials in the newspapers calling out the hypocrisy of people like Gross. While some people lash back at Gross every time he lashes out, Doug himself is the grouchy old uncle who just can’t seem to give it a rest.
The ironic part of all of this is that former Governor Terry Branstad looks like he might be about to enter the gubernatorial race. Branstad, who Gross worked for when he was Governor, might be one of the few candidates who could unite the Party around his candidacy. In 1994, Branstad’s last campaign, he barely won a tough primary fight against Fred Grandy. Grandy was to the left of Branstad ideologically in the primary. Even though the 1994 Republican primary was heated and, at times, nasty, Branstad was successful uniting the party behind him after the primary. Branstad defeated democrat Bonnie Campbell 57% to 43%.
If Branstad does ultimately decide to run for governor, his association with Doug Gross is likely to cause a tremendous amount of grief in the early portion of the campaign. While the likelihood of a Branstad candidacy seems to grow with each passing day, it is ironic that one of the main obstacles that Branstad will have to maneuver around is the Republican Party’s grouchy uncle, Doug Gross. If Gross really wants Branstad to run for governor next year, it would be wise for him to stop antagonizing social conservatives, and he might want to consider going into hiding.
About the Author
Craig Robinson has written 502 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.
34 Comments on “Doug Gross Reignites Debate over the Direction of the Republican Party”
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.
Don’t know what game Gross is playing, but someone told me recently they saw him claim on WHO’s The Insiders that privately, he’s advised Branstad not to run for governor. I didn’t see the program, but I find that hard to believe, since it was the poll commissioned by Gross’ 527 group that started the Branstad speculation in the spring.
I happen to agree with much of what Gross wrote in yesterday’s editorial, though.
desmoinesdem: You can watch old episodes of “The Insiders” on WHO’s website. Gross did say he has advised TEB not to run, but I wouldn’t put much weight in that comment. Back in 2002, Gross told everyone in the party (including his PR guy Eric Woolson and Sukup) that he wasn’t running for governor. As a result, Sukup threw his hat in the ring and Woolson signed on with BVP. Given that background, Gross’ statement about advice he has given TEB is pretty meaningless.
who is doug gross and why should anyone listen to him? His entire article was condescending to the voters. He hectors, He lectures. He loses. He has no clout with rank and file voters. This whole thing is just kind of sad really. As I read the article, I wondered if we were getting a preview of TB’s campaign. If that is so, well…this voter was quite turned off by it.
Thank goodness we have a rousing primary coming up. It would be a sad thing for Iowans to have everyone drop out and assume TB will run away with it. I have a big sense of dread that this isn’t going to work out for TB and it will be humiliating for him and our party.
Remember Nussle was the 800 pound gorilla, lawyer, congressman, connections, money etc. He went up against the stupid, fat Chet and suffered a humiliating loss. The Doug Gross campaign preview sounded much like the Nussle Campaign.
Here’s a thought. Since Doug wants everyone to shut up about social issues, why doesn’t he start first and shut up about social issues. He pisses everyone off when he does that and it isn’t good for TB.
Is Doug trying to ressurrect professional babykiller, Joy Corning as Lt Gov too?
Ahh, such a grand return to Camelot.
What is this REALLY about? There is no substance here. I do not see where anyone has claimed to not use the social issues. The very idea would be ridiculous. Over the years, many Democrats have left the heathen Democrat party because the Republican party stood for something.
Maybe I missed something but this seems to be much ado about nothing.
We have several candidates for governor, let’s just get on with it. We lead with the economic issues because everyone agrees on them but also use the social issues because this describes who we are.
wow – DH – I completely agree with you. Bring it on!!! Social issues also describe who THEY are. What do D’s lead with as their always #1 issue? Yup – Abortion. They lead on social issues all day long every single day. They talk about gay marriage every single day. They talk about abortion every single day. Why do they get to talk about it but we have to be silent, less we rile them d’s up.
One of the many things that displays Doug Gross’s gross lack of wise intelligence is that our social issues are the mainstream position and it’s a proven winner. His “don’t ask, don’t tell” strategy is a proven loser.
We are winning the hearts and minds of men on both issues by large margins. Even about 1/3 of democrats are pro-life rather than pro-kill.
What really pisses me off about it is that Doug Gross actually thinks he’s influental and can just order voters to abandon who they are and the issues they find important just for his personal benefit.
What an arrogant, narcissistic jerk.
In this voter’s mind, social issues may be huge this cycle. Social issues also include things like what is America all about? Social issues really encompasses all of Western Civilization. Western Civilization as we know it is at great risk right now. Obama has surrounded himself with committed black nationalists, Marxists, communists and other anti-american, anti-capitalist activists from the 60’s. He told us during the campaign that we should judge him based on who he surrounds himself with. Ok, I have.
Our entire way of life is at stake (change). Our 10th amendment rights, if not already gone, may be soon gone.
Only the Governors can impact this. We need a strong advocate for the 10th amendment to be enforced to preserve our capitalist economy and our general freedoms. Cap and Tax and Nationalist Fascist Healthcare have vast 10th amendment implications as well as assaulting our fundamental and inherent right to personal freedom. Our nations governors must get engaged in these very important social issues. Since Iowa is first in the nation, we should be leading this conversation right now.
“Obama has surrounded himself with committed black nationalists, Marxists, communists and other anti-american, anti-capitalist activists from the 60’s. ”
Actually, this describes today’s Democrat party. Any thinking person should be scared to death of these America haters controlling anything.
Witness what they are doing in DC right now to undermine our very security and existence. They care far more about the welfare of terrorists than the welfare of our country.
What these radicals can’t do by destroying our economy, they intend to do by destroying our defenses.
Thank God for Dick Cheney.
Doug, did you read your own poll results? Iowans in your poll said that the “party of Lincoln was viewed as backward looking.” TB is a great Republican but he is that “backward looking candidate.”
You also said that people wanted a candidate with private sector business experience. DMU is a fine institution and it appears that TB has done a great job there, however that is not the same as signing the front of a paycheck. TB has no real private sector business experience. He future and fortune were not on the line at DMU.
I am sure you have the best of intentions however you do need to look at your own poll results with on open mind and quit trying to control everything….times change….think FORWARD.
Hey Doug – You betrayed yourself with this comment. It’s called Projection. :
“Many of the social-conservative leaders who hold this view are well-meaning, but others simply want to further their own personal or professional interests in controlling an ever-shrinking party. ”
So, Doug, I think you are well-meaning, but do you simply want to further your own personal or professional interests in controlling an ever-shrinking party?”
Dougy Dougy..so easy to read through you.
DVFO said: “What is this REALLY about? There is no substance here. I do not see where anyone has claimed to not use the social issues.”
Doug Gross said:
-The party got there by driving away voters who share the Republican philosophy of limited government, but grew tired of a preachy, old party that reminded them of their grouchy, old uncle.
-But those who are attempting to push Republicans further to the right claim that Republicans have been banished to the political wilderness because they acted with too little fealty to the agenda of the social conservatives. They argue that Republicans should act more aggressively on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage in order to reflect the biblical principles they say should drive the party’s agenda.
Many of the social-conservative leaders who hold this view are well-meaning, but others simply want to further their own personal or professional interests in controlling an ever-shrinking party. They are wrong.
-And the party needs to focus on the conservative economic agenda that unites the party, rather than the cultural issues that fracture it.
-But Iowans get nervous when their politicians wear their religion on their sleeves. They, like St. Francis of Assisi, think you should live your faith and “speak only if you have to.”
-In fact, the Iowa First poll showed that all voter groups, including social conservatives, believe that the focus of the Republican Party should be on economic issues.
-Thus, the clanging of cymbals and the banging of drums on faith issues in the public marketplace by some Republicans has ironically driven people away, and made even more remote the full political realization of their cause.
***
If you don’t see this as extraordinarily condescending and unnecessarily divisive (not to mention, as the above article pointed out, extremely flawed and contrary to Doug’s own poll results), then you need to go back to third grade and learn to read.
Branstad needs to drop this guy and do it publicly and as soon as possible.
I view Gross as a clanging cymbal and banging drum with little relevancy to anything. In the end, he says nothing of substance.
He’s a waste of time and ink and emotion.
I’m a very socially conservative person, but part of me thinks Gross has something. Much like Latham, I think all candidates should be pro-life and pro-gun. But when it comes to gay marriage, instead of being exclusive why don’t we just take the standpoint of putting it to a vote by the people. The dems are preventing us from voting on it. No one likes being told they can’t do something and we’re completely missing the boat on it.
Candidates need to stress fiscal issues. Stress smaller, efficient government. Of course stand up for the tenets of our party, but you better have more than that in your arsenal. As a party we can be much more welcoming and not give in and change our principles.
“If you don’t see this as extraordinarily condescending and unnecessarily divisive…then you need to go back to third grade and learn to read. ”
- So, really not that much different that WHO radio from 4-7 each weekday.
Doug wants to attract the younger voters? Putting an old governor on the ticket from the 80s (before most of them were born) sounds like a great idea. Look how well it worked for moderate maverick 72-year-old John McCain. Who is Doug really talking about when he says “groucy old uncle?”
what does the term “more welcoming” mean?
Hey everyone.
Let me play the devil’s advocate (MIE)
We should all listen to the extreme wisdom from Doug Gross. He is the great republican because he can pull in votes from everywhere. His campaigns prove he knows what he is talking about. We need to get rid of the rediculus right wing nuts. They only hurt us (and bring no money) Forget the true grass roots voting. Cater to the moderates. We need to attract the big money so that we can win. Forget being “principled,” forget being “conservative.” Be anything and everything to all. Don’t define your points, only run on half the platform, and bring in the enormous voting block from the middle. We did it before, we can and need to do it again. You flat earthers are killing our party. Look at the polls, just not too carefully, ask questions that will get you the answers you want and show that it proves what you wanted it to. After all, polls are just for us to promote ourselves not to look at facts objectively. Lets not talk issues, lets not push an agenda, lets not bring the country back to the constitution. Right now, we need to join hands, be the party of opposition, vote no to democrats, ignore the party platform, reach across the aisle, and continue to piss it all down the drain. Come on everyone we can do it – “Yes we can!”
(Dripping with sarcasm)
Sorry MIE, Everyone here has missed your loyal, true republican oposition to theiowarepublican.
Cheers!
To be effective, sarcasm ought not drone on-and-on incessantly and really ought be clean of spelling errors that direct the reader’s attention toward the writer and away from the piece. Good sarcasm also won’t need to point out that it is indeed sarcasm nor tell the reader who the intended subject will be.
1.84 Presentation
0.38 Effectivity
Gee thanks Con. Glad you could contribute something to the conversation. Geez, talk about a distraction.
Unreason: Like a bad case of venereal warts, I’ll reappear when you least expect and as irritating as ever. Beware!
Peggy: What about those Bishops and universal health care? Help!
Gross is correct that the Republican Party needs to focus on the fiscal issues. The economy is issue #1 to an overwhelming majority of Iowans, and Americans.
Republicans blew their majority by spending like Democrats. We have a great chance here to gain major traction nationwide.
Threatening to overturn the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision, as BVP has threatened, is a bona fide way to lose this race. First, he can’t do it, legally. Secondly, it will show he’s just as bad as the Iowa Supreme Court in overstepping his authority.
If candidates can come up with legitimate ways to boost the economy & create jobs, the Republicans win big in ‘10.
Doug Gross is good for one thing: he can help open some very big checkbooks that might otherwise be closed. However, I don’t think we should turn our backs on the social issues like is implied here. What wins for the GOP is when they run on the fundamentals of Limited Govt., Fiscal Responsibilty, Lower Taxes, & Personal Liberty.
Esther, you & I are in total agreement on 10th Amendment issues. I have been active for many years in an organization that fights for Personal Freedom and returning Govt. to it’s orginal Constitutional constraints.(Did you read my post on the 17th Amendment?). The GOP would do well to re-discover it’s libertarian, freedom loving wing of the party.
IMHO The only way the Republicans are going to win ever again, is by being different than their opponents. The Opponents feel that they are more educated, more intelligent, and more qualified to run your like than you are. Cases in point: Public School Core Curriculum Mandates, Supreme Court Ruling “overturning” the Defense of Marriage Act of 1998, Smoking Ban, Prevailing Wage, expanded use of Eminent Domain, Cap and Tax, Renewable Energy Mandates, Health Care Reform, etc, etc, ad nausium.
It is time the Republican Party again claimed their old place as the Party of Freedom. Enable to tax payer with control of their own monies, enable the Legislature with the freedom to write laws as they have been charged by the people, enable the individual with the freedom to make their own health care, and private property choices. Enable the employer with the freedom to enter into contracts with their employees as they see fit. Enable the employees to work for who they chose, when the chose, in the way they chose. Enable the school board to chose the curriculum they feel will best educate their students.
Governments are instituted among men to uphold and defend peoples inalienable rights, not to provide for their every need, and instruct them how to make their every decision. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, Give me Liberty, or give me death!
Timmy’s first sentence is really the most important one here. Doug Gross really only cares about the voters with large bank accounts. Most people are with us on the social issues. There are a lot of pro-life Democrats and Democrats that are against same sex marriage. But these are not typically the big donation crowd. The people that have large amounts of money riding on the results of elections are the ones that he’s trying to coax over to our side. That has nothing to do with advancing a conservative agenda. It has everything to do with having the power. And Republicans have had the power up until a couple years ago and what has that gotten the average people like most of us? Not much of anything.
We need something different this time. The Gross, Nussle, and McCain act has proven that it doesn’t win elections. Just winning isn’t enough (although it would be a pleasant change).
MIE,
What is it you want to know? Fortunately, my bishop has written a most excellent article about it.
Please educate me.
What were the reasons Lightfoot, Gross and Nussle won the primary?
What were the reasons those three lost the general?
I would say money, name ID, and inevitability were the reasons for the win in the primary. (It seems that Gross and Nussle were the darlings of the Des Moines monied Establishment. That’s from where the money and the notion of inevitability flowed.)
I would offer the notion that the reason they lost the general was that two of them were the darlings of the Des Moines monied Establishment. Iowans appear to have a passive aggressive gene in their DNA and will reject what the “Establishment” serves them for candidates.
For this reason I believe that a Branstad candidacy is a recipe for disaster. He has the backing of the money people, his name ID is high (16 years as governor), and the inevitability factor. He may win the Republican nomination, but Iowans will reject him because he will be viewed as the Establishment candidate.
I’m too young to remember much of those races so please answer the questions at the top of this post.
Tyler, once again you are mis-representing what I posted. The reason Doug Gross is important is precisely because he can get the big donors to shell out big $$$. Like it or not, in order to run a credible statewide campaign you need a very big sack of cash. Gross is somebody you would want help you to start the ball rolling. Politics is a dirty, full-contact contest where candidates get bruised and bloodied and having lots of $$$ can help ease the pain. Remember, 2nd place is just the first loser!
Timmy… I know what your point is and you are right. It does take dollars to win. But you’d rather cave on moral issues to get a couple guys with deep pockets to join your side. I’d rather attract some of the people that constantly vote Democrat despite the fact that they are social conservatives. That’s getting votes based on your principles.
You and Doug Gross don’t care about principles. You and he simply want the power that the guys with deep pockets can get you. And then you owe them big time when that person gets elected. Like I said, that’s wanting to win simply because you want the power. And if your guy can win without the votes of some people who really care about the principles, then congratulations. Let me know how that works out.
Tyler: You’re being just a bit self righteous there, aren’t you? That’s the problem with you Deace/VP people–you believe you’re better than others. Well, your guy is in the process of being exposed as a liar. We already knew he was a hypocrite because he claims to care more about the homosexual marriage issue than anyone else and then we find out his denomination approves of homosexual marriage and homosexual preachers as well as abortion.
He didn’t think through his EO promise and then he opened his mouth big time by claiming if he is governor, he’ll opt Iowa out of nationalized health care.
VP shows he is so hungry to be governor, he’ll say anything to get the nomination. Now the chickens are coming home to roost. Unless VP can prove he improved the assets of OU by the 440% he claimed, he’s a proven liar.
Good job picking them, Tyler. I think you need to start looking at yourself when you’re accusing others of lacking principles.
DFVO: The OU issue will flush itself out. If Rants is right and BVP is lying about the OU stuff, that’s not good for him obviously. Let’s see how things shake out. A lot of people are just dying to throw BVP under the bus.
You’ve beat the church denomination thing to a pulp, you’re making large leaps in your statements on that subject and nobody is really seems to be jumping on that bandwagon with you.
But it is true that if a candidate is not trustworthy, they should not be elected. Just make sure you hold up your own favorites to the same scrutiny. That’s the part that tends to get missed. That’s when the principles come in. If these Rants accusations are proven to be true and you still see me on the BVP bandwagon, then you’ve got every right to rip me.
Tyler: Figure it out. The only reason I’ve ever brought up VP’s church is because of the arrogant self righteousness of folks like you that believe you’re superior to everyone else.
You believe that unless the rest of us see things exactly like you, we are lacking prinicples and you even accuse others of lacking prinicples. Well, you think your principles are superior to mine and yet I chose to leave the ELCA (that you’re in full fellowship with) seventeen years ago so stop throwing your superior priciples in everyone else’s faces. You’re a hypocrite and I’m not impressed.
DVFO pontificates: “the arrogant self righteousness of folks like you that believe you’re superior to everyone else.
You believe that unless the rest of us see things exactly like you, we are lacking prinicples and you even accuse others of lacking prinicples. Well, you think your principles are superior to mine and yet I chose to leave the ELCA (that you’re in full fellowship with) seventeen years ago so stop throwing your superior priciples in everyone else’s faces. You’re a hypocrite and I’m not impressed.”
Geeze, am I the only one wondering if DV is looking into a mirror as he types that?
DVFO: “Never kick a fresh turd on a hot day” – Harry S. Truman.
Tyler, you don’t know me and your self-righteous attitude doesn’t work here. I find it interesting that you define principles as marching in lock step with your socon issues and if some disagree with your approach then we are all “moderates with no moral values”. That is called Piety, which is also a sin(read Matthew 6, v.1).
See, I can quote from the Bible just like you. Last time I looked in the mirror I didn’t see any horns!
The Republican Party is not a church any more than politics is a religion(despite what some may believe). Our Founding Fathers believed deeply in keeping government & politics out of religion, but they also had the great foresight to understand that in order for freedom of religion to flourish, ALL beliefs deserved protection. In the political realm that means tolerance of those who don’t always agree with our position and working toward common goals. In this case, that means economic issues are probably going to trump the socon issues because that is what is most important to the majority of the voters. That doesn’t make them any less “principled” than you!