GOP Gubernatorial Primary Begins to Take Shape
- Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 6:29
- Iowa, News Center, Top Story
- 1,669 views
- 61 comments
Saturday’s Republican Party of Iowa fall fundraiser provided the first opportunity to see all six Republican gubernatorial candidates share the same stage and make their case to the assembled audience. While former governor Terry Branstad has been in the race for almost a month now, this was the first time he has joined the other candidates at an event.
By now, you have probably read various media accounts of the event. Branstad’s speech was good on content, but his delivery was lackluster to say the least. Branstad’s primary opponents took the stage without prepared remarks, but he was scripted, and it was obvious that he was not prepared to deliver the remarks as his campaign would have hoped.
The 800 pound gorilla that many expected Branstad to be was a no-show on Saturday night. In fact, if you were looking for a word to describe the field of GOP gubernatorial candidates on Saturday night, the word parity comes to mind. Stylistically, Bob Vander Plaats delivered the most rousing speech of the gubernatorial candidates. Chris Rants offered the most specifics and also used his time to attack Governor Culver for forcing local communities to raise property taxes. All the candidates were solid, but it was Branstad who failed to connect with the audience.
While Brastad’s delivery was lackluster, this one speech does not signal the end of his legendary political career. If anything, it might help lower his expectations and force him to travel the state to work on his delivery.
The event signified the official beginning of the Republican gubernatorial primary. With that being the case, now is the opportune time to look at how each candidate did on Saturday night and what their strengths and weaknesses are as the gubernatorial primary enters a new stage.
Jerry Behn
State Senator Jerry Behn has been absent from the campaign trail as of late because he is working to bring in his harvest. Behn did himself some good on Saturday night. His speech was a good mix of him telling his personal story and talking about the important issues that the next governor will have to address. Out of the current field of candidates, Behn probably has the best ability to relate to everyday Iowans. His common sense conservative approach will play well with grassroots activists.
Behn doesn’t have much in terms of campaign staff, grassroots support, or fundraising ability. It is unlikely that Senator Behn will have what it takes to be a major player in the primary, and people are already speculating as to whether he will see the primary through to its completion. Behn has plenty to offer Iowa Republicans, but it will be difficult for him to build a strong following with better known and funded candidates in the race who share similar positions.
Terry Branstad
Former governor Terry Branstad struggled with his speech. The good news for Branstad and his campaign is that they can singlehandedly change the topic if they choose to do so. Media outlets from all across the state came to cover Branstad’s remarks. That shows just how fascinated the local media is with Branstad’s return to politics. All it will take to change the subject is for Branstad to criticize Governor Culver, and people will focus on that instead of poorly delivered speech. This is one of the luxuries afforded to frontrunners.
Out of all the GOP gubernatorial candidates, Branstad will enjoy some advantages that the others will never have at their disposal. Branstad has already assembled a well seasoned staff. In addition to campaign manager Jeff Boeyink and communications director Tim Albrecht, Branstad has also hired the state’s top political fundraiser in Nicole Schlinger and added an organizational director. Branstad will run a large, professional campaign, which will pay benefits in the primary.
While Bob Vander Plaats and other candidates will enjoy the support of the party faithful, people also need to remember this is a primary, not a caucus. Turn out for caucuses is typically low. A record 118,000 people voted in the last presidential caucus, but 200,000 people turned out to vote in the 2002 three-way gubernatorial primary. The larger the primary turnout, the better off Branstad will be.
Yes, Branstad has work to do, but he has the resources to run radio and TV ads, send direct mail, and the cash necessary to hire staff to run a statewide campaign. Those are all things that his competitors will have difficulty doing.
Christian Fong
Christian Fong is the new face on the GOP scene. Fong’s demeanor is refreshing, and there is no doubt that he is very intelligent. Fong’s speech on Saturday night focused less on what is taking place right now, but what Iowa should look like in 2020. Fong’s main proposal is to eliminate personal income taxes.
Early on, Fong seemed to be the candidate most likely to break out. He raised $100,000 in the first month of his campaign. He hired long-time GOP operative Marlys Popma to manage his campaign. Things were looking good for Fong until Terry Branstad emerged as a potential candidate. Branstad’s emergence as a candidate has dried up the fundraising for his most gubernatorial opponents. Fong and Rants are the two candidates who are affected the most.
Still, Fong likely has a future in Republican politics. He’s graceful and respectful on the campaign trail. Many people already think that he’s angling for the Lt. Governor spot. Whether he gets that position or not, if Fong continues to be the respectful, fresh-face, he will be well positioned for future political endeavors.
Chris Rants
Rants was the only candidate who took a direct shot at Governor Culver in his remarks. While each of the candidates referred to the bad situation the state finds itself in as a result of the Culver administration, Chet Culver’s name was not mentioned much on Saturday night. Rants’ speech was good. It was full of specific policy ideas, but he didn’t connect to people in the audience like he did at the Iowa Family Policy Center speech.
Rants finds himself in an interesting position. Out of all the candidates in the race, none have raised as much money as Rants has in the last four years. Yet, the emergence of Branstad has dried up a number of fundraising sources for his campaign. Still, Rants is the most aggressive candidate in the race and is a self-described policy wonk. The combination of those two attributes would be potent if he can find the ability to raise his name ID across the state.
With little or no staff, Rants faces an up-hill battle in his campaign. While the race has two clear front runners, there is probably space for a third candidate to become a factor. If he can find a way to emerge as the clear alternative to Branstad and Vander Plaats, he could play a critical role in the race.
Rod Roberts
Roberts just looks like a governor. His calm, smooth speaking ability doesn’t hurt him either. Robert’s spent most of his time telling people who he is instead of what he wants to do as governor. That probably is a wise decision since he lacks the name ID of Branstad or Vander Plaats. Roberts has been able to parlay his likeability and speaking skills on the campaign trail to supporters. Just last week, he won the Allamakee GOP straw poll. While people always like a fighter, people tend to vote for people they like, and it would be hard to find anyone who doesn’t like Rod Roberts.
Bob Vander Plaats
Vander Plaats’ speech was well received and came following Terry Branstad’s lackluster speech. Vander Plaats didn’t necessarily do anything out of the ordinary to be named the winner of Saturday night’s festivities, but the contrast between his speech and Branstad’s speech was stark. I was reminded of the 2007 Reagan Dinner that featured Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, and a few other presidential hopefuls. Huckabee spoke right before Thompson took the stage. Huckabee wowed those in attendance. Thompson had great content but lacked the delivery.
Vander Plaats is hands-down the best speaker in the race. This isn’t an attribute that he just mastered; he’s been doing this since 2002. Vander Plaats’ campaign enjoys the support of many grassroots activists from all across the state. His campaign staff consists of Eric Woolson (communications), Wes Enos (political director), Tim Dusenberry (fundraising), and Greg Baker (organization).
There is no doubt that Vander Plaats’s campaign has plenty to work with, but it remains to be seen if Vander Plaats’ campaign will operate like that of a top contender in terms of organization. Vander Plaats has also proved himself to be an adequate fundraiser, but to be able to challenge Branstad next spring, he will need to have a significant about money on hand on the first of the year. That is something Vander Plaats has struggled to do in the past, but something he must do if he wants to win the primary.
How the candidates currently stack up.
1.Branstad
2.Vander Plaats
3.Rants (Tie)
3.Fong (Tie)
3.Roberts (Tie)
6.Behn
Another Winner:
Matt Strawn and the Republican Party of Iowa
I don’t know if I’ve ever seen as much media at an off year RPI event. CSPAN and FOX News were obviously there to cover Governor Pawlenty’s speech. The Iowa TV stations from all across the state were probably in attendance because it was the first time the gubernatorial candidates shared the same stage. RPI also reached out to bloggers and had a place where they could set up shop and cover the event.
The main purpose for these events is to raise money, but they also help the Republican Party of Iowa market itself and communicate to Iowans all across the state. The set up of the event was a little different. Once again, there was no sit-down dinner. Instead people could grab a hot dog or hamburger. There was theater style seating for 400-500 people in front of the press riser, with a standing reception space located behind. No word on how successful the event was in generating funds for RPI, but the media coverage was astronomical.
Photo 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.
61 Comments on “GOP Gubernatorial Primary Begins to Take Shape”
Trackbacks
- Are Short Sales Really the Next Big Thing? | RISMedia | Loans Finance Wisdom
- Cheetah Girl Halloween Costume - Cspan O Reilly Factor Hannity Colmes
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.
fong is still the only eastern iowa candidate and still has access to all that eastern Iowa money. the problem is that his handlers are trying to get him to run for lieutenant governor, so don’t look for any more hit pieces on tax hike terry.
Rant is by far the most entertaining, but i dont think that will play well in the fight against Chet.
Bandstand is the media darling because they know chet can beat terry as they have very similar records.
BVP might as well quit now, we’ve seen this dance one too many times and the churchies are just not as enamored with him as they once were.
the rest of the field may be waiting to see more before they bow out and endorse any of the above. it just depends if they want a job working for the man they endorse, so you dont want to bet on the wrong horse especially this early.
“Bandstand”?
Lobo is trying to be practical and that is a wise thing to do. However, I would take a slightly different take on some of Lobo’s conclusions but still Lobo is looking at the big picture, which is good.
I do not agree that Cheatie can defeat Branstad. I believe Branstad will prevail. It shouldn’t be that difficult. Branstad is likeable and Cheatie is not. Branstad didn’t win all those elections without being well liked and a good campaigner.
Branstad left office being liked and respected. Cheatie is seen as a joke and there is no respect for him. Even Dims consider him a joke.
As far as BVP being the darling of the “churchies”, I don’t understand that one. What is “churchie” about BVP? The church he attends is leftwing and the “churchies” would be far more true to their principles by choosing Roberts.
Roberts is more likable as far as appeal to Independents and even disenchanted Dims for the general election.
Fong should not be discounted.
If I could appoint the next governor, it would be Rants. Rants has consistently shown the greatest knowledge of the fiscal problems our state faces. He knows where the bodies are buried and articulates it the best.
All, in all, again, we have a great field. Anyone of them is far superior to the disaster we have occupying Terrace Hill right now.
I tend to agree with your overall assessment of the night Craig. All did well, some better than others. I’ll cut Branstad slack as this was his first major speech. Vander Plaats sounded more like a governor than I ever heard him, rather than a preacher at revival week at the Church of the Appalachian Snake Handlers of the Blessed Holy Spirit. No doubt, as LoboSolo remarked, this is due to the GOP theocrats not being enamored of him as they once were, due in my opinion of Roberts and Fong stealing some of his thunder.
Rants, Fong, Roberts all good. Loved Jerry Behn, you got to love his sarcasm when slamming the Democrats. None of those can win with Branstad in the race. I can see this coming down to three candidates. My guess is Rants, Branstad, Vander Plaats. The danger to Branstad is that when the field narrows – particularly if Branstad doesn’t enthuse – that the anti-establishment vote coalesces around the not-Branstad candidate and then we have an actual contest. Picking Fong as Lieutenant may counteract that. Then again it may not, and the danger to Fong is that it might hurt or kill his career for signing on with a losing campaign. Rants (or the third man left) might be a darkhorse, but chances are slim I think.
There is a another vector here. Within the party, the Tea Party and 912 groups are coming on strong. You could see that in the speeches made by everybody Saturday night, including Grassley. They are rapidly eclipsing the Right-to-Life groups because they are a more middle-road, Constitution based conservative that has a mass appeal v. a Theocrat mentality that is becoming ever more radical and exclusive (i.e Steve Deace). Hell even the RTL groups are now sounding like 912ers, but I think they are late to the party and their reputation ruined. I see them losing influence as time goes on.
This will take some heat from the governor candidates, and yet at the same time will put them under another exacting standard, but a good one – the Constitution. Any not-Branstad candidate would be wise to hitch their horse to them. When short of money, manpower can go a long way. If the RTL would get on that boat, they still command significant monetary resources for now, and then it could really be a race.
Personally, I see things shaping up to be a 3 way race between Vander Plaats, Rants, and Branstad. I also think that the race will again highlight the rift that is widening within the Republican party.
In Branstad, you have an old school politician that has proven that he can win…at least 15 plus years ago, he could. He is seemingly loved by the media and can generate alot of money. If his speech on Saturday is any indicator of how his campaign will be run, though, he’s in some Trouble.
Vander Plaats is the clear alternative to the establishment fiscal conservative, win at all costs candidate. Whether you think he attends the wrong church or not, you have to see that he is only one who is willing to ‘Fight and die’ for the social conservative, I think they will take that to heart.
When it comes to the most ‘Technically sound’ candidate, Chris Rants clearly fits the bill. I think he’s made it clear that he really knows the ins and outs of politics and will really give Brandstad a tough run.
“Vander Plaats sounded more like a governor than I ever heard him, rather than a preacher at revival week at the Church of the Appalachian Snake Handlers of the Blessed Holy Spirit. ” — Matt Green
Wish I could have heard one of those snake handler speeches.
You’re not embellishing a bit, Matt?
“you have to see that he is only one who is willing to ‘Fight and die’ for the social conservative,”
I disagree with this analysis for two reasons. First to say that VP is the only one who is willing to
fight and die’ for social conservatives is just untrue.
Do you remember Rants’ valiant fight last year against gay marriage? Are you going to tell us that VP cares more about the issue than Roberts? I don’t think so.
There may be a difference of opinion as to what to do about it but as far as desire, they all have the desire to do something about the issue. They all have the desire to reign in an out-of-control judiciary.
Secondly, how do you know what VP will really do when confronted with the issue. He certainly hasn’t demonstrated a commitment to the issue by staying in the church in which he attends. ( My apologies if he has changed churches and I don’t know about it.)
We also have no voting record from VP. We simply do not know what he will do when actually put into that situation. The others are more of a known commodity. Talk is cheap.
I heard Brandstad speak three times when he was governor and imo he is not a good speaker. Anybody expecting the last fifteen years transformed him into Reagan or JFK was deluding themselves. It doesn’t surprise me people were disapointed.
Rants continues to intrigue me. I think he will run well and challenge TB. In these times his knowledge of the ins and outs of state government are a big plus. If he can continue to keep his cool and not be snarky I think he has a real shot at the nomination.
I just don’t see BVP gathering much new support. He is preaching to the choir. As people focus more and more on the fiscal mess we are in, it becomes tougher for BVP to rally other supporters to his cause. I think he will be in it until the bitter end but I can’t see him beating Brandstad.
Rants is by far the sharpest knife in the drawer. He has made a great effort to hook up with the 912er groups. His main thing is to combine some vision with the bluntness, do some better PR, and play some judo at times instead of the direct attack, and he could make himself more in contention.
Matt and Nimitz are politely dancing around the obvious; Rants is a cranky, angry, unlikeable person. I saw it a couple years ago and apparently his fellow Republicans can see it as well. We may be willing , or unwilling, to call it as we perceive it, but he does exude it.
I like it when Rants takes a frontal attack against Culver and the Dims. Our side has a tendency to be too nice. Give ‘em hell, Rants. They deserve it.
“Rants is a cranky, angry, unlikeable person.” — Con Dem
But I bet you’re a big fan of Mike Gronstal.
Nice try to put words in my mouth Conservative Demo, I can almost see the ambulance chasing trial lawyer smirk on your face. Rants is actually funny, nice, and decent guy. Yeah he does get a bit testy at times – some of us out here call that cajones. Mushy Chet gets me testy too when he pulls his gutless weasel budget antics.
I’ll take Rants over Chet any day of the week.
Matt: “Nice try to put words in my mouth Conservative Demo, I can almost see the ambulance chasing trial lawyer smirk on your face.”
Not bad Matt, I can almost see the smile on your face as you responded.
Actually CD, that was my middle finger.
Why is everybody so anti-BVP? I hear him talking about the economy and giving tangibles to fix it, DHS, jobs, education, the judicial tyranny, life, and traditional marriage. I only hear everybody giving the “Anyone but BVP” jargon. If you support Brandstad, promote him. I saw the speech, haven’t ever heard him speak before because I was a child when he was in office, and I literally felt sorry for him. All of the hype the supporters had built around his campaign flopped. I too think it has damaged his campaign and probably his ego and self esteem. This might be a good thing. It is not so devastating that his campaign is over…far from it. In the article the author states because he has a good organization and money he will be tough to beat. HUH? Romney had all of that and lost badly here. Romney was even a good speaker and a good candidate. It depends on if TEB can be the candidate that we expect him to be. I also think that the anti-incumbent thing really hurts him. He is the frontrunner so you will see the Democrats firing shots from the left and five republicans firing from the right. I think that the test of time will be how much will be left of the machine when it comes to the finish line.
“Why is everybody so anti-BVP?”
Look at it this way. If you believed in a candidate that wasn’t the frontrunner in the race and you see folks talking about another candidate, especially one that stands for people you despise, and writing stories about that candidate nearly every week, what would you do? I think one thing you might do is try to maginalize that candidate and try to paint eveyone who supports that candidate as fringe whackos. That way no matter what they say, you can always say, “he might as well get out now, because he has no real support”. And you can just ignore the fact that looking through the lense of the only measurement of candidates we have, ie straw polls and other polling data, you see that other guy consistently coming out on or near the top.
You can also insert the term ‘Churchies’ for ‘fringe wackos’, if you like
I’ve been thinking and I think that one big change from when TB was gov before is that the media is everywhere now and it wasn’t before. I wasn’t at the Republican dinner the other night…I also don’t have CSPAN 3 to watch it on tv, but it was easy to google the dinner and watch everyone’s speeches. Even if he wasn’t a great speaker before, now everyone will be able to see his speeches whenever they want. So I think that people that may have been “Pro TB” will maybe think that his time may be past because of his speeches? I’m sorry, but he didn’t look at the top of his game. And if that was the top of his game….then hmmm…..I think he should leave his legacy in the past and let a newcomer take over. Just a thought……
I talk to a few of the snake holding wack-a-doo’s (affectionately know as “churchies”) here at work and they are still mad at BVP for telling them he was in it for the long haul only to cave in and back Jim “family values” Nussle. they have no interest in supporting him again. they are however thrilled with Fong because of his strong ties to the now corrupt certain church (how shall not be named).
Terry (loves taxes) Branstad now reminds me of Freddy Thompson coming into save us from a defeat, only to have the public realize that the hype is not justified.
How I would rank them:
1.Branstad
I’ll consider him just a little rusty for now. But if he doesn’t get back to peak performance soon, he’ll drop like a rock.
2. BVP
I think the biggest thing keeping people away from BVP is the perception that he’s unelectable. A few more polls like the last Rasmussen, showing him within striking distance of Culver–combined with a stumbling Branstad, might be enough to win him the nomination.
3. Rants
Rants seems to be a very competent candidate, but I just don’t see him lighting a fire under anyone right now.
3. Fong (tie)
I don’t think Fong has it in him yet to cinch the nomination, but “handlers” or no, he might just play kingmaker if he signs up as someone’s #2.
4. Roberts
There’s potential here, but I think he’s getting outflanked on the religious-conservative angle by BVP, lefty-church or not.
5. Behn
He’s still running?
I hafta agree with Nimitz, Branstad has always been a less than stellar speaker but do we really want to base our vote on who can make the best speeches? I think folks actually related to him better precisely because he wasn’t a slick & polished politican! He has the experience to get the job done, if he can project a confidant attitude and offer some real solutions for the State he will do well.
Wow LoboSolo, you have those churchies, wingnuts, and fringes to thank for founding this country. If only Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and George Washington could hear you. If they were alive today, you would call them the same names. Oh No!–The fringes are asking us to insert “Creator” into the consitution! What? -We have to put our hand on the Bible! What?
Not that it matters to the haters, but BVP does not attend a lefty church. There are some lefty churches within the denomination, yes. But not too many in our little corner of Iowa. I’d invite anyone to check out the local church he attends and see if it is the abortion clinic blessing, homosexuality loving congregation that DVFO claims. One thing that our church doesn’t teach… that defeating the Democrats is the greatest principle we can have. Haven’t heard that sermon too many times.
I do agree with SharpHawkeye that Bob’s biggest problem is that too many of us will be satisfied with Branstad who will govern pretty much like a Democrat because of the perception that he can win. That and the fact that many Republicans would rather see a Democrat at Terrace Hill than a Republican that is outspoken about his Christian faith.
One thing… can Branstad beat Culver without the “churchie” vote? That’s a question you have to ask before you decide if Branstad is electable or not.
” That and the fact that many Republicans would rather see a Democrat at Terrace Hill than a Republican that is outspoken about his Christian faith.”
This premise is as ridiculous as saying that the Reformed church is not a lefty church. It is very likely that that one particular church does have a pastor that will still teach the Bible but the denomination as a whole is extremely left wing and they are following the way of the ELCA. They are in full fellowship with the ELCA. Even your very own church is one minister away from embracing all the apostasy of the ELCA.
I understand the minister of one Reformed church in your area has already left the Reformed church because of the path it is taking. Good for him. He put his money where his mouth is.
I’ve lived through this. I know the progression and you folks are in denial. If the homosexual issue were really a priority with both you and Bob, you’d be heading toward the exit of the Reformed church as it is doomed. It belongs to the totally apostate NCC. Just yesterday I ran across an article that the Reformed church is imploding.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2383339/posts#5
Tyler: in one way this is not a relevant issue because I don’t go around asking what church a particular candidate attends. The only reason it is relevant in this instance is because there are those who believe that BVP is the most committed to the issue of eliminating gay marriage in Iowa.
Why are they so sure? By being a faithful member of the Reformed church, certainly casts doubt on that issue.
Deace criticizes the ELCA (and rightfully so) and then tries to destroy all the other candidates in order to portray VP as the most anti-gay marriage candidate. There’s something wrong here. VP does not have enough of a commitment to the issue to walk away from his church.
The “purists” and their litmus tests are the ones who are responsible for making VPs chuch membership relevant. They are the hypocrites.
Tyler: This is the result of the “purists” demanding more perfection from a political party than their churches. It makes no sense. The Republican party is not a church.
If you’re going to demand perfection, that perfection had better start at the church.
Tyler: Back to your statement that some Republicans would rather see a Democrat at Terrace Hill than a Republican who is outspoken about his Christian faith.
It is Deace (and his followers) who work against a Republican they do not find 100% acceptable. Deace (and his followers) would definitely rather see a Dim at Terrace Hill than BVP.
Either the Republicans will choose VP as our nominee or Deace is going to use his 3 hours daily to blast the Republican candidate. He never votes Republican so who is it that would rather see a Dim at Terrace Hill?
We have a great slate and I’m proud of each of them (including VP) and I pledge to support whichever one of them becomes our candidate. Will you pledge to so the same?
Oops, sorry, I meant a Dim rather than any other Republican than VP.
I’ve said it before… most churches are a joke at the denominational level. The article you referenced about the RCA’s implosion is basically the same story that could be said for 90% of denominations. I can really only speak with confidence about the individual church that BVP and I attend.
And honestly, it doesn’t really matter what denomination a person is. BVP is the only candidate that has laid it on the line regarding gay marriage. Yes, all the candidates have given it lip service. But they aren’t totally committed to it. Bob is. That’s why he’s taken the lead on this issue by a very large margin.
To answer your question… No. I will not pledge to support any candidate just because they say they are a Republican. I no longer care what color jersey someone is wearing. Defeating Democrats is not my greatest principle.
So that still leads me back to my biggest question… Can Branstad win without the votes of people that are tired of just voting R when we know they will govern very similar to a D?
Tyler: You have listened to too much Deace.
VP talks the talk but I don’t see him walking the walk. If he was really commited to this issue he would be running (not walking) away from the Reformed Church. You do realize that your church is in full fellowship with the apostate ELCA, don’t you? Do you know what that means?
It means you’d welcome a lesbian female ELCA preacher into your church or if you don’t, you’re going to have turmoil. Actually, you’re going to have turmoil eventually no matter what you do because you’ve already made your deal with the Devil.
It is hilarious that you accused some Republicans of rather seeing a Dim in Terrace Hill than someone who professes their Christian faith. Frankly, I’ve never heard of that person but may some exist but maybe you can point to some.
Then you turn around and say that you would rather see a Dimocrat in Terrace Hill than Branstad.
Excuse me, but that is S-T-U-P-I-D!!! So if VP is not our nominee, you’re going to take your ball and go home?
There is no “lefty” Reformed Churches in Iowa. If you look at the Dutch Reformed churches in Orange City, Iowa and Pella, Iowa, I bet 90% of them would be Republicans if not Conservatives. Pella and Orange City are perhaps the most Republican cities in Iowa. Did Pella or Orange City vote for Obama, no they voted Republican.
Stacia: You, too, are in a state of denial. I tell you I personally know of one Reformed pastor who has seen the handwriting on the wall and has left the Reformed church.
Yea, I agree most of those in NW Iowa attending the Reformed church are probably Republican but the horse is out of the barn.
That will gradually change because the Reformed church has gotten into bed with the extremely liberal NCC.
How do you feel about the ELCA? It probably still has a lot of Republicans but the influence of liberalism will gradually change that, too.
Trust me on this. I know something about this. I’ve been there. I tell you they are doomed and anyone not recognizing this is in a state of denial.
What do you know about the NCC? It was formed for the purpose of promoting socialism/communism. The Reformed church is well on its’ way to being a full-blown part of this movement. It’s just a little slow in filtering down to NW Iowa but their seminaries are already inflitrated and it’s a matter of time. The churches will be falling one by one and it’s already beginning.
I admit, alot of churches are becomming “lefty” and church goers are fed up with their “leaders” as much as they are with politicians. Rev. Pat Robertson endorsed a gay marriage supporter (Rudy), and other leaders endorsed people who were not stronly pro-life. The leaders are not showing leadership anymore. It seems that the church attendees know more about the Bible than the pastors and that is sad. So many churches are just focusing on feeding the poor and loving and accepting everying because “That is what Jesus would do.” Yes, you should love everyone, but that doesn’t mean you should accept their behavior. God had set standards in place. In Leviticus, he says homosexuality is a sin and Sodom and Gomorah was destroyed because of homosexuality. Churches today are ignoring parts of the bible to fit their own needs. As for the Reformed Church, Bob is not in a leadership role in the high rankings of the church. He attends 1 church that is probably just as against gay marriage as the baptist church down the road. My relative is a Luthern and was so upset when they accepted to have gays as ministers. Her church was also upset. Local churches can choose to follow their “head” church or not. If their was a lesbian minister at Bob’s chuch, Bob would probably leave. It is the same with Catholics. Catholics are supposed to be pro-life but many are pro-choice. I think people are starting to question their “leaders” and this is a good thing. You should hold everyone accountable.
The difference in all the situations you described and the Catholics is that the individual Catholics are dissenting from Church teaching.
In the case of the Prods, it appears that the leadership itself is going rogue….mini Reformations, if you will.
Excellent post, Stacia. You are right about almost everything you said.
All one has to do is study the history of the National Council of Churches to understand what they’re all about. Once you’ve made that alliance, you’re on a slippery slope to totally ignoring scriptural teaching or having to make the decision to leave. It is never easy to leave your church–especially one you’ve belonged to all your life but sometimes you just have to take a stand.
It just takes some longer than others to see the handwriting on the wall but right now we’re dealing with a faction of the Republican party who is willing to accept apostasy in their churches while having a purity litmus test for their Republican candidates.
This is insanity. Tyler’s willingness to accept his church’s acceptance of homosexual pastors and at the same time saying he will not support Branstad for governor (for whatever reason) is totally screwed up thinking.
DVFO – You continue to advocate or at least defer to strong Central Government systems (political party, church denomination, etc) Do yo also advocate a strong central government in Washington, strong central control of education in Des Moines, or are you a champion of individual sovereignty and liberty. My church is a member of our Denomination (SCISBA) because we want to group together with other churches and support like mission, not so that they can tell our local pastor what to do. It is a bottom up run system. I am a member of the Republican Party for the same reason. I want to work with other Republican’s to accomplish the same goals, limited government, individual liberty, local control, lower taxes, etc. I am not a Republican so that I can follow lock step with whatever the Party leadership tells me to do. Again, it is supposed to be a bottom up driven system. Our Representative Governments are supposed to be bottom up driven systems too.
bunce: Your conclusions are so flawed I’m not going to answer them.
Peggy: There are prods and there are prods.
I agree with DVFO~ “It is very likely that that one particular church does have a pastor that will still teach the Bible but the denomination as a whole is extremely left wing and they are following the way of the ELCA.” The Elca and many other “denominations” are embracing gay marriage and the change movement of the emergent church. That is only one issue leading their “denomination” to apostasy. Tell me what church you go to an dI will find at least three things leading it to apostasy.
Since I don’t like BVP’s lefty church, I cannot in good conscience support VP if he is the Republican nominee. After all, I have principles that will not allow me to vote for someone who attends a church that accepts homosexuality and abortion.
I recommend all Republicans whose first choice is not BVP to take your ball and go home if he is the nominee.
Let’s see how the purists like it. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
“Tyler: You have listened to too much Deace. ”
- Good grief. No kidding. This “I no longer care what jersey candidates are wearing” is perhaps the worst argument in a long line of bad arguments from the crowd. Deace likes platitudes like this that sound good, but that really aren’t based on reason. In that respect, he’s a lot like liberals.
DVFO,
If a candidate’s church is on the up-and-up but he governs in a manner antithetical to his church, how do you vote?
“Tyler’s willingness to accept his church’s acceptance of homosexual pastors and at the same time saying he will not support Branstad for governor (for whatever reason) is totally screwed up thinking.”
- Which really isn’t any different than Deace and his followers chastising TEB for bringing gambling to Iowa, but not holding BVP responsible for refusing to call for it being outlawed. They just don’t think these things through, because it would force them to face their hypocrisy.
Yea, Mr. Hawk,, no kidding. If VP can get rid of gay marriage, he can get rid of gambling.and abortion.
Let’s see if anyone holds his feet to the fire over those issues.
Peggy: That person is not worthy of a vote, either. I have principles.
“his “I no longer care what jersey candidates are wearing” is perhaps the worst argument in a long line of bad arguments from the crowd. Deace likes platitudes like this that sound good, but that really aren’t based on reason. In that respect, he’s a lot like liberals.”
Mr. Hawk: And the results are identical.
DVFO~ Your strategy has failed when we had majority in the house and senate. We don’t need majority of republicans. That didn’t work last time, won’t work again. When we have “moderate” republicans that vote like a democrat, they bring shame to the “jersey.” If there are republicans that vote like democrats, I would rather have the democrat in office so that republicans don’t take the blame for what a rino is doing. It is then easier to elect good republicans.
“Let’s see if anyone holds his feet to the fire over those issues.”
- Of course they don’t. Deace and those who follow him HATE to be held to the same standard to which they hold others. You won’t hear them talk about it at all. They’ll avoid it and pretend it’s not out there.
DVFO,
Republicans in New York nominated a ridiculously liberal candidate in Scozzafaba last week. Do you want all Republicans held by that standard? I doubt it. But you’re going to hold BVP or myself responsible for a decision that a group of guys sitting around a table in Grand Rapids, Michigan made?
Honestly, I’m perfectly fine with you not voting for BVP if you believe that his denomination reflects poorly on him or makes him look hypocritical for taking such a hard stand on gay marriage. I would disagree with you, but at least you might be able to make a principled Biblical argument. I could respect that.
But that isn’t you. You’ve said that your greatest principle is beating Democrats. While I give you credit for at least admitting this, where I come from, we call that idolatry. You either aren’t listening in church on Sunday or your church is worshiping the Republican Party. Either way, you’re in no position to lecture anyone about what they do on Sunday mornings.
Mr. Hawk,
I’m sure Deace’s invitation to you is still open. I’m sure he’d gladly take your call so that you could call him out on his hypocrisy.
Everyone has issues that are more important to them than others. Not all issues are equal. Gay marriage is more important to me than gambling. Gambling is certainly right up there, but not quite on the same level. So it really shouldn’t be surprising that a candidate or talk show host might spend more time on one issue or another.
Actually, the “jersey” argument is entirely based on reason. See Christian IIene Onum’s last post. That’s the reasoning.
I never said that I wouldn’t vote for Branstad, although if he wins the primary he’s definitely going to have to convince me that he will fight for the issues that are most important to me. Not too much to ask, I don’t think.
I asked if you all think he can win if people like me don’t vote for him? Many of you are going to vote for whoever is the nominee. So why wouldn’t you just vote for the guy that the “churchies” are going to get on board with in the primary. You’ve got a better chance of winning with us on board right?
“I’m sure Deace’s invitation to you is still open. I’m sure he’d gladly take your call so that you could call him out on his hypocrisy.”,
- or he could take 5 seconds and do it here instead. Of course, that would be the sensible, rational alternative, so it probably didn’t occur to you. Regardless, Deace has said that we can no longer go with the “80 percent rule”. So, BVP fails that test because he refuses to call for outlawing gambling altogether.
More bad news for TEB:
http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2009/11/11/support-marriage-equality-gop%E2%80%99s-corning-says-in-new-robo-call/
Tyler: You, Deace and BVP and all the other Deace KoolAid drinkers are huge hypocrites. You all beat your chests claiming to be better than anyone else but now your hypocrisy is exposed and you don’t like it.
Well, you’re not the only one with principles. You and BVP attend a church that condones homosexuality and abortion and has full fellowship privileges with the apostate ELCA. Hasn’t Deace spent columns discussing the apostasy of the ELCA and then he turns around and claims that the only Republican running for governor worth a vote happens to attend the church that has full fellowship privileges with the ELCA.
We can’t believe any of you. You all compromise where there should be no compromise. Now you make more excuses by claiming that gambling is not high on your priority list of issues to care about when making a selection for governor.
How can we trust that BVP even cares about abortion and homosexuality? He says one thing and does another.
Those of you in the Deace Party can take your narrow minded ways and go try to build your own political party. Let’s see how many elections you win.
Mr. Hawk, DVFO,
Your hatred of all things that even barely relate to Deace is growing old. Either put up or shut up. Call his show while he is on air. Demonstrate his hypocrisy to the listeners of his radio show. Other wise shut the heck up. Your constant rants on Deace grow old and tiresome and appear to be nothing more than the jealous ramblings of a party hack.
You Deace folks are so easy to see through. You want to believe you’re more moral and purer than others and when your hypocrisy, is exposed you don’t like it.
You think I’m repetitious? If you listen to Deace you know what repetition really is. Well, I don’t even listen to him any more because he is a Johnny-one-note. Day after day he only discusses certain Republicans he hates and that satisfies you.
No DVFO, I think your constant railing on Deace is an annoying side note to an otherwise superb website. So I will say it again, if you think Deace is such a hypocrite, call his show. I am sure he would love to debate you on it. If you think he is such a hypocrite call his show and attempt to demonstrate that to his listeners. Otherwise just shut up about, it is old and tired and smacks of jealousy.
Al, tell Deace to shut up and then we’ll take your position seriously.
The rest of us work tirelessly trying to improve this state and Deace comes along and does his best to undermine the work of those of us who really care about electing people who can make a difference.
Deace is like Benedict Arnold and you’re part of his little cabal.
DVFO,
If you truly believe that Deace is a hypocrite why don’t call him out on his show?
Come on I want a serious answer.
“Your hatred of all things that even barely relate to Deace is growing old. Either put up or shut up. Call his show while he is on air. Demonstrate his hypocrisy to the listeners of his radio show. Other wise shut the heck up. ”
- Request denied.