GOP Primary Needs to be about Issues, not Personality
- Thursday, October 15, 2009, 4:13
- Iowa, News Center, Top Story
- 1,142 views
- 21 comments
At noon on Friday, former Governor Terry Branstad will address the students, faculty, staff, and board members of Des Moines University. The speech, which will be held in the Student Education Center, is expected to Branstad’s farewell to the university that he has spent the previous six years leading, but it is also expected to be the beginning of his quest to take back control of Terrace Hill.
Regardless of what Branstad says in his speech, the media will only focus on what Branstad says about his gubernatorial aspirations. It’s hard to blame the media for wanting to focus on the start of his campaign. For months, Branstad has played a cat and mouse game with the media in regards to his political future, so when he does finally go on the record for the first time as a gubernatorial candidate, it will undoubtedly be a big deal.
I expect Governor Branstad to spend a significant part of his speech talking about the accomplishments of Des Moines University during his tenure as the school’s President. Branstad has a lot to be proud of. He has essentially put Des Moines University on the map during his time there. If you think that he is going to dust off his 1994 campaign plan and try to implement it in 2010, I think you have another thing coming. Governor Branstad’s 16 year record as Iowa’s governor will definitely be part of his campaign, but so will his six years at Des Moines University.
Terry Branstad is a much different candidate in 2010 than he was in 1994. The accomplishments that he touts in his speech on Friday will probably play a critical role in his 2010 campaign. As I have written before, even if you took out Branstad’s 16 years as Iowa’s governor, his resume still would out shine those of his opponents. In fact, I don’t think it would be a stretch to think that, had he not served as governor, Branstad might be a highly recruited candidate to run against Culver in 2010. Well-connected, articulate college presidents are often times considered to be good potential political candidates.
While we can expect the media to gloss over Branstad’s accomplishment at Des Moines University, we can also expect his critics to find a number of things to criticize. Ever since Branstad’s name was mentioned as a possible candidate, those opposed to his candidacy have taken every opportunity to attack his record, his associations, and his accomplishments. Friday’s speech will do nothing to silence his critics regardless of what he says. It is safe to assume that those who object to his candidacy will continue being critical even if he wins the Republican primary next June.
As the Republican gubernatorial primary enters a new phase, I think it’s important to take a step back and ask ourselves as Republicans what we really want the primary to be about. Before we even get to that, I think it’s necessary for all of us to recognize what our role in the process as voters actually is. In spite of what we think about a particular candidate, it is not our role to determine who ought to run for office. It is our role to determine who, of the candidates who have chosen to run, best represents our party in the general elections next year.
I think we forget that on occasion. I’ll be the first to admit that I have found myself saying or writing that certain candidates don’t have the experience or intangibles required to seek a particular office. It’s acceptable to choose not support a candidate because you don’t think that they are qualified, but nobody has the right to say that a candidate doesn’t have the right to seek a particular office so long as they meet the constitutional requirements.
People on all sides of the political spectrum are guilty of this. We have heard that Branstad has had 16 years at the helm. Does he really need to run for another term? There have been people who think that Christian Fong is too young and too inexperienced to run for governor. Some people think that Bob Vander Plaats focuses on gay marriage too much. Chris Rants lost his leadership position and is too abrasive. Jerry Behn and Rod Roberts are not known well enough across the state. Even if all of those things are true, the voters get to decide next June who they want to represent them and no one else. Each of these candidates has a right to be on the primary ballot.
There have been warnings that the upcoming Republican primary is going to be the bloodiest in our state’s history. Some people even claim that, at the end of the day, many supporters of the losing campaigns are guaranteed to walk away from the Republican Party. There is a sense that this primary will be about picking what side you are on and nothing else. Is that what Iowa Republicans really want this primary to be about? Is it necessary to have a civil war within our party instead of respecting who the Republican primary voters select next June? I sure hope not.
The Republican gubernatorial primary needs to be about issues that matter to Iowans, not about personalities or who wins and who loses on primary night. We must realize that there are thousands of people across the state who struggle to make ends meet, small business owners who are being suffocated by government regulations, and young people who struggle to find good paying jobs so that they can stay in Iowa. We also must not forget that they very fabric of our culture is being destroyed by rogue judges, special interest groups, and our own government.
Iowa Republicans need to have a vigorous debate on all of the issues with which we are being confronted. That can’t happen if this primary is going to be about personality. There are tens of thousands of Republican primary voters who haven’t even begun to pay attention to the candidates yet. That’s actually a very good thing. Before voters decide which candidate they support, they need know where the candidates stand on the issues and what their vision is for the state of Iowa.
There is too much time between now and the June 8th primary to expect people to declare what candidate they support right now. We owe all of our candidates a fair hearing. We need to let the primary run its course. Some candidates will rise, and others will falter, but we shouldn’t cheat ourselves out of the process that helps us chose the right candidate.
A robust Republican primary about the issues is also in the best interest of the State of Iowa and the Republican Party. All Iowans will benefit from a mature debate about the future of our state. We need to have a frank discussion on how we educate our kids, how we pay for essential services, and how we grow our economy. In the same regard, the Republican Party of Iowa needs to attract new people. The best way to do that is to engage people with issues, not just personalities. We also need to realize that Iowa Republicans will not grow their ranks if the primary ends up being a bloody civil war. Who wants join something like that?
Instead of supporters finding ways to attack their candidate’s opponent, they should instead channel that energy in finding new supporters for their candidate’s campaign. Sadly, Republican campaigns have struggled to do this recently. Candidates come and go, but the issues and principles for which the Republican party advocates for will endure for decades.
Iowa Republicans are at a critical juncture in our rebuilding process. We can either opt for a school yard fight between two factions of the party, or we can act like adults and spar in the ring of ideas. As for me, I chose the ring of ideas. While it’s too early to determine who will earn my support next June, I do know my support will go to the candidate who shows a clear conservative vision of where he wants to take the state.
Photos of Behn, Fong, Rants, Roberts, and Vander Plaats by Dave Davidson
About the Author
Craig Robinson has written 700 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.
21 Comments on “GOP Primary Needs to be about Issues, not Personality”
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.
Very intelligent essay Mr Robinson.
BRAVO!
If it were truly about issues, no liberal Democrat would be elected to office. Ever.
But that’s obviously not happening.
Will Republicans be willing to reassess their issue stands that Iowa voters have rejected in recent elections? That’s my question. The Real Sporer put it well:
”
Given the economic collapse our nation faces, and Iowa’s role as arguably the worst business climate in the nation, there really cannot be any argument that the economy is our best punch. To require polling data to confirm the foregoing tautology bespeaks a level of either or both political or ideological insecurity that is almost in itself disqualifying from leadership. This insecurity has caused us defeat, followed by even greater defeat because it has afflicted so much of our Republican leadership.
So, like a smart boxer, let us lead with our best punch. The next question is to decide on precisely what is that punch.
Our best punch certainly is not going to be the mere juxtaposition of Republican use of government to empower and enrich large, powerful economic units, so as to allow them to better victimize the average Iowan, against Democrat use of government to enrich and empower government itself, unions and the even the more bizarre collection of micro-interest protoplasm that make up their party, so as to better victimize the average Iowan. What is good for Principal, Wells Fargo, BoA, ethanol barons, etc… is not necessarily always good for the average American or Iowan. Our leadership has myopically assumed that the average Iowa voter knows nothing. While the average Iowan might not fully understand actuarial tables or the economic theories that justify social and corporate welfare, they surely do know their own life’s circumstances and they know what helps and hurts them-AND WE WERE NOT HELPING THEM! Merely doing less damage than the Democrats is not ever going to provide us with the majority building mandate we need to reverse the last twenty to forty years of government growth.
Here’s another historical, and hence political reality, a reality so obvious that any political leader, not enmeshed in only their life and interests (the latter, of course, being a subset of the former) should require polling data to know -people are pissed at “big business” because big business, much like big government, takes even the coppers from the eyes of the dead as they cross the River Styx. Just blathering about “smaller government” and “tax cuts” isn’t going to work-at least if the Republican politician’s objective is to obtain office for the purpose of governing in a manner that is more, rather than less, like our platform, and the beliefs and interests of the average Republican, who statistically is a small business owner or employee of a small business, family farmer, etc…
Moreover, it probably won’t work electorally more than once because the problems faced by the average Iowan are very much real. People want solutions so badly that they were willing to buy into the historically disastrous anti (or perhaps “contra”) Americanism that the Democrats offered in the last two electoral cycles.
Replicating the Republican legislative agenda, both here and in D.C., of 2000-2006 is certainly not the answer; the public has already weighed, measured and found that agenda to be sadly insufficient to solve the problems of the everyday Iowan. Accepting this fact will go a long way toward rebuilding confidence in our party. “Blame storming” has not really advanced our agenda, although it has helped to keep reform out of our party and given us a somewhat deserved reputation for being unwelcoming. Bankruptcy court is filled with companies that blamed the customer for not buying its product.”
DMD,
Is there any possible reassessing that would bring you to vote for a Republican?
You know, I keep hearing that we should focus on the Economy. “It’s the Economy, stupid” We should focus on unemployment numbers and job creation and helpin folks get back on their feet.
I hear those things and I have to tell ya, I agree with every one them. The thing is I also happen to have faith in God. So I believe in things like the sanctity of Life and the importance of marriage and family as God intended it. I believe in these things and I am heartened by the fact they are stated right there in the Republican Platform. You can imagine then, that I feel pretty good about our party…and then I look at the field of candidates.
I look at them, and I see all but one tell me that, “hey we can’t be talking about those crazy social issues right now, we have to win first.” Or “we can’t lead on social issues, just look at the polls, no one cares about gay marriage right now anyway.”
Of course, the President just got done making a speech in which he told us he was going to try and repeal the Federal Defense of Marriage Act…so maybe Someone cares about marriage.
Did anyone stop to think that maybe there are reasons our schools are failing, that our young girls become sexually active at younger and younger ages, that illegal drug use becomes more of a problem, that more and more people are sent to jail, the politicians in ever more nefarious activities, and all we are bombarded with on television is every increasing levels of sex, violence, profanity, and overall Godless behavior?
Did anyone ever stop to think that maybe you get a Just and Moral society from a foundation of faith?
CT – No one is saying we can’t talk about social issues. What they’re saying is have some balance. Don’t be a wingnut and go all crazy ONLY on social and don’t go all crazy only on economy. Let’s take what Craig had to say to heart and just listen to the candidates. Go out and ask them questions at events. I am Christian and a person of faith and I don’t appreciate you telling me how I should think. I’ll listen to God not an anonymous blogger. Why don’t you just listen for awhile. Great post Craig.
KAISER, SOSE,
You already said on another thread – just yesterday – that you’d move out of the state if BVP were elected Governor.
And you’ve already made it perfectly clear that you’re pulling for Branstad, even working for him, even though he hasn’t even entered the race yet.
Who’s not listening?
Great article Craig! I agree with Kaiser Sose, we can’t afford to get bogged down in the same old “who’s the better conservative” BS. First of all, the GOP has got to offer some real LEADERSHIP!!! Whether you like it or not, the economy is going to be the key issue for 2010 and we damned well better have some solid solutions to get us out of this mess!
“…the economy is going to be the key issue for 2010 and we damned well better have some solid solutions to get us out of this mess!” — Timmy
I agree but there’s nothing saying a candidate can’t be strong on the economic issues AND the social issues. I want the whole package!
Peggy, that’s what many of us have been saying all along. However, there are a significant number of “socons”(the deace types) that want a “scorched earth policy” on those issues and will do all they can to derail any candidate the doesn’t walk lockstep with them. We need to lead with the economic and other issues that are important to the majority of VOTERS, not just the social conservatives!
Iowa has not voted out an incumbent governor since 1962. That’s almost half a century, folks. If the GOP is going to beat Culver, and send him back to coaching HS football, we need a candidate who will not only win, but will also be able to sweep in a class of Republican legislators to help the Governor achieve his agenda. Vanderplaats is a candidate who’s views are sincere and welcome on social issues, but his economic agenda is sorely underdeveloped. Rants is not viewed favorably by the general public and lost seats in the Iowa House every election while he was Speaker. Fong seems like an impressive and dynamic young candidate, but he needs more seasoning, and has to show his sincerity for the Republican cause over a longer period. Behn and Roberts are virtual unknowns, who won’t be able to motivate the party base and will likely drop out anyway once Branstad enters the race. That leaves Branstad as our best hope for next year.
“That leaves Branstad as our best hope for next year.”
Best hope for what?
Best hope of winning, Peggy. Best hope of winning.
And winning is the end game?
I think Chris Rants already made it clear that Branstad is no fiscal hawk so what’s the point? What exactly are we winning?
Peggy, I’m not your target voter in the governor’s race (though I do plan to vote to re-elect Republican Diana Willits for Windsor Heights City Council).
Sporer is talking about how the GOP has failed to advocate for solutions that would help the average person who might otherwise lean Republican.
I love how some of the commenters have jumped on this article and read into it what they wanted to hear. Craig isn’t saying that fiscal issues are more important. He’s saying that both fiscal and social issues are very important and everyone should realize that and be respectful of each other.
I also think it is important to remember that we’ve got problems if our candidates try to make us choose between fiscal and social conservatism. We should be able to have a candidate who is both.
I happen to agree with everyone, but not with everything everyone said.
In short, Bob has failed. No, make that FAILED! Epic Failure to develop any sort of solid and coherent economic conservative position. Period. And it is not as if he hasn’t had the last decade running for office to… I dunno… read the party platform on the “other” 11 issues and educate himself.
He is yet again another one of these new bread of what I call “Socialist Conservatives”. So those of you who lament “so-cons” need to understand the distinction between a real tried and true Social AND Fiscal Conservative and these newbie Huckabee types who want to use government like liberals to rod ram their “better” ideology down upon the ignorant masses from up on high.
Socialist Conservatives, like Mike and Bob, use the same means to a different end than do the liberals. And just because they are correct in both their diagnosis of our societal ills and in the cure, does not make them right in their treatment. They could not be further from it if they set out to intentionally try.
Branstad would not be running if Bob was “also” a solid and articulate and passionate well rounded Fiscal Conservative. I’d venture to say none of the other candidates would be running or at least be considered serious if Bob had simply done what any good political aspirant should have done.
The bottom line is this: Bob’s failure to do so is defacto proof of his incompetency to lead as our Governor. Thus enter Terry B.
And our only shot at Culver. A bitter pill for some on the right to swallow no doubt, and leaving nothing left unsaid it is a given that Terry will NOT lead on the social issues any more than Bush W. did. If you liked Bush II you will love Branstad II. But as weak as that is likely to be, it is a far better cry than Culver II.
And So Cons… When you cast that first stone and I know you will… take a hard long look in the mirror for the target.
DMD,
Sporer is correct but he’s still veering toward the shut-up-about-the-social-issues camp.
The Republican candidate needs to be strong on fiscal conservatism but should also be able to confidently articulate why same sex marriage, abortion and the overall breakdown of the nuclear family is bad for Iowa’s future and can ultimately in fiscal disaster.
I haven’t decided who my guy is and I think it’s stupid for any other Republican to do so at this time. If it’s about issues, nobody can be decided at this point.
And, for the record, I have nothing against Terry Branstad. It’s his apparent blind followers who annoy me.
Waywardson,
What about Christopher Rants? He appears to have a capable grasp on the fiscal issues and aptly pointed out Branstad’s bookkeeping irregularities. He’s not the Same Sex ‘Marriage’ pariah you think BVP is so why aren’t the blind Republican masses falling all over him?
As proven by both parties, it’s safe to say people DON’T vote based on issues so what are they taking into consideration?
Peggy, there is no need to go to the why’s about Rants. For the very same reasons he is not running for his old seat and office, are the reasons he will not be Governor. His peers who have worked with him closer than any constituents gave him the vote of no confidence. What he needed or perhaps still needs to do, is accept his shortcomings and his strengths for what they are and for what they are not, and in all sincerity and humility run for and keep his old seat and learn from those few but critical mistakes and return to the legislature a “new” man. THAT would BE leadership! Lacking that humility, and being in his own mind “unable to go home again”, he has failed and remains so. His candidacy for Governor is an “Ed Fallon” attempt to run above and beyond his problems as if that will make them go away.
People vote on issues. People vote on personalities. People vote on peer pressure and for a “winner”. People vote for all types of reasons. The error in your question is when you take one set of “people’s” replies and then attribute them to all the people. Consideration as it applies to this race in particular is how best to get the majority 50% +1 in a primary. Nothing else actually matters. If you cannot win, your issues, personality, charm, wit, brilliance et al are irrelevant. Bob, for example, simply cannot win with his self created image as a single issue candidate who lacks any sort of economic credentials. Those who know him well would also tell you that perhaps there are some of those charm and personality things that need more work too. That is if they were candid with you. As for Fong and the rest of the 3rd tier pack, no additional comments are required as they have all been said by others to sufficiency. That leaves us with Terry Branstad.
And frankly I think as many people will vote for perhaps the lessor evil in that out of security and or familiarity if nothing else. He wins simply then, but for the combination of reasons, most of which were of his ‘now’ opponents own doing.
Waywardson,
You might want to reflect further on the title of Craig’s post: “GOP Primary Needs to be about Issues, not Personality”
It seems you have worked with the various candidates or were close enough to get to know their personalities. The majority of Iowa voters, however, have not been in that position which means they will have to vote based on records and what the candidates say. Now there’s a novel idea!