With Friends Like These, Who Needs Enemies?
- Thursday, November 12, 2009, 4:32
- Iowa, News Center, Top Story
- 1,802 views
- 141 comments
Former Iowa Lt. Governor Joy Corning has inserted herself right into the middle of the Republican primary for governor. Corning served as Iowa’s Lt. Governor under Terry Branstad during the final two terms of his administration. Corning, a supporter of abortion rights and homosexual marriage, recently recorded an auto-call for One Iowa, a gay marriage group that received thousands of dollars from a gay Des Moines couple who defrauded Aviva USA of nearly six million dollars.
Corning’s auto calls for One Iowa were sent to Republicans who live in Black Hawk County earlier this week. TheIowaRepublican.com learned about the calls on Tuesday night and contacted Carolyn Jenison, the Executive Director of One Iowa, to confirm that the Corning calls took place. Jenisen didn’t respond. Instead, a few hours after we contacted One Iowa, Des Moines Register reporter Jason Clayworth, who, until recently, belonged to a Facebook group supporting the Iowa Supreme Court’s gay marriage decision, broke the story about Corning and One Iowa.
The following is the script of Corning’s call.
Hi this is former Lt. Governor Joy Corning.
Iowa has a well-deserved reputation of being open minded and fair. That’s why I’m a supporter of One Iowa. Our Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of civil marriage for committed gay and lesbian couples, continuing Iowa’s tradition of protecting the civil rights of all Iowans.
Please join with me to ensure that Iowa continues to move forward as a leader in fairness and equality.
While the call has ignited a political powder keg that former governor and current gubernatorial candidate Terry Branstad must now handle, the call itself is strange in that it doesn’t even ask people to attend the upcoming December 3rd Waterloo Marriage Equality Public Forum that is being put on by One Iowa. Instead, the call, which only targeted Republicans, seems to be politically motivated.
By having Lt. Governor Corning make the automated calls, One Iowa has been able to enter the political conversation once again and drive attention to their issue and the events that they are hosting around the state. Additionally, Corning’s call might have also been orchestrated by gay activists and liberal Democrats to lessen the chance that Branstad will win the Republican nomination for governor.
Either way, it is odd for a woman who has publicly stated that she supports Branstad to do something that would cause him and his campaign so much grief. It makes one wonder if Corning isn’t being honest about her support of Branstad or if groups like One Iowa and other liberal Democrats are taking advantage of the 77 year-old former Lt. Governor in hopes to advance their own political agenda.
Bob Vander Plaats and the Iowa Family Policy Center were quick to comment about the Corning situation. In a press release sent out by his campaign, Vander Plaats said, “The timing of Corning’s call is too obvious to overlook. Terry Branstad enters the governor’s race on Saturday night without stating where he truly stands on the issue, and on Tuesday night, his lieutenant governor does an automated call urging Iowans to support same-sex marriages.”
“If you listened closely to his speech on Saturday night, Terry Branstad did not say he supports one-man, one-woman marriage. He said he would break the legislative logjam that is preventing a referendum by Iowans. That’s not the same thing. If he wants to break the road block, he should join me by committing to sign an executive order banning additional same-sex marriages on day one in office until Iowans have a right to vote on the issue,” Vander Plaats added.
Chuck Hurley, the President of Iowa Family Policy Center ACTION said, “[Corning] would never have become Lt. Governor without the electoral support of tens of thousands of Christians and conservatives, and we have no one to blame for this but ourselves.” He went on to say, “Joy Corning has given us another clear example of just exactly why as Christians and conservatives we should no longer sacrifice our convictions for perceived political victories. When we elect people like Joy Corning, we elevate and advance the destruction of the family.”
The Branstad campaign now finds itself in the midst of mess that it didn’t create. Now more than ever, Governor Branstad and his campaign must address the issue of gay marriage head-on. What’s may be more important is that he also has to comment on Corning’s recent actions and distance himself from her radical beliefs.
The best thing Branstad could do is get out on the road and talk to Iowa Republicans about his vision for Iowa. The reason why his recent lackluster speech and Joy Corning’s auto calls drive so much news coverage is because there is nothing else significant to report from the Branstad campaign. For the first month of his campaign, Branstad himself and a few of his friends have been his own worst enemies.
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.
141 Comments on “With Friends Like These, Who Needs Enemies?”
Trackbacks
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.
Bravo Joy Corning. There is plenty of room in the Republican Party for her and her views. The Robinsons and Hurleys in their quests for ideological purity will lead the Party only to electoral losses. The only way to win is to grow. The only way to grow is to be inclusive. Haven’t you learned anything from last Tuesday’s elections. McDonnell and Christie won by echewing the lunatic fringe and polarizing social issues. Hoffman lost by associating himself with the wingnuts. Moderation is a virtue and a prescription for success. I know it. Joy witnessed it. TB lived it. Take your blinkers off Robinson and get with a winning program.
MIE, you must be wearing some sort of blinder. McDonnell and Christie didn’t win by embracing and supporting the self destructive policies of pro gay marriage or pro abortion. They merely focused on fiscal issues. They are still social conservatives that supports the abolition of gay marriage and the abolition of abortion.
Furthermore MIE, you are the one that is beginning to appear the lunatic with your constant pleas to abandon the issues that the base of the party wholeheartedly supports. That would be electoral suicide.
Well, which is worse, Branstad’s former lieutenant governor supporting gay marriage or BVP being a member of a church which approves of homosexuality and abortion?
So before we get on our high horse looking for perfection from one candidate while totally overlooking something as bad (or worse) from another, maybe we ought to admit maybe we’re looking for a perfection that does not exist.
DVFO,
I would say that Branstads former lt. governor supporting gay marriage.
I am not looking for perfection, I am looking for a candidate that best alligns with my beliefs and supports the issues that I support.
Al–you finally get it. Yes, the focus should be on fiscal issues.
MIE, I have never said that candidates should focus solely on social issues, what I have been saying is that our Republican candidates can not abandon them.
Al: Moreover, having Hurley and his band of Branch Davidians serve as ideological gatekeepers is madness. Although he appeals to the red meat crowd and the lunatics who regularly post on this site (presumably because they are unemployed or under house arrest) he is scary to the vast middle who will determine the winners in the general election.
“I would say that Branstads former lt. governor supporting gay marriage.”
Well, of course you would because you’re trying to draw the focus away from BVP’s imperfection to Branstad’s imperfection.
I couldn’t disagree more. I think an apostate church is far worse than a lib in the Republican party.
Would I choose Corning? Not in a NY minute but if you purists are going to apply one litmus test to Branstad, you have better apply the same litmus test to your guy, BVP.
“Bravo Joy Corning. There is plenty of room in the Republican Party for her and her views.” – MIE
“1.1. We affirm that every innocent person, including the unborn child, has the God-given and Constitutional right to life beginning at conception and ending at natural death
6.1. Traditional, marriage-based (one male and one female) families are intrinsically procreative and thereby essential to a stable, thriving, and lasting civilization. Therefore, public policy must always be pro-family, encouraging marital and family commitment, while also supporting parental rights and responsibilities.
6.2. We support an amendment to the Iowa Constitution stating that “To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.”
6.10. We oppose any law, ordinance or policy that would approve the practice of homosexuality. ” – RPI Platform for the State of Iowa 2008 – http://www.iowagop.org/Platform.aspx
Please reconcile Joy Cornings beliefs with the stated beliefs of the RPI Platform, I can’t quite find the “plenty of room” you talk about.
DVFO,
How am I trying to draw attention away from BVP?
Furthermore let me explain to you why I believe Corning might be worse. If as you say BVP’s church is affiliated with a national denomination that approves of homosexual marriage (I haven’t had the time to investigate it yet) that is still just the national denomination. It doesn’t answer the question, does his church endorse such destructive behavior as the national? And through it all BVP continues to denounce that destructive behavior. Corning on the other hand has come out and personally lent her support to those behaviors.
MIE,
I didn’t realize that Hurley and IFPC were a part of RPI now. When did this happen? To the best of my knowledge IFPC is a private organization that can advocate however they please. If you don’t like what they are saying form your own organization opposed to them.
belikedunce–platforms are a joke for both parties. Look at them for what they are. When have you seen a real power broker stay to the bitter end of a caucus meeting to fight over a platform issue? Platforms are for the noisy and the powerless. The party chiefs for the most part view them as irritants and tend to ignore them. Kinda like the Ten Commandments. One more thing, Joy Corning will draw more voters in a general election than a Chuck Hurley any day.
MIE,
Have you ever thought that may be a reason that the Republican Party has lost its power, ignoring it’s base.
No Al. The reason the Republican Party has lost power is because it have been taken over by the lunatic fringe, especially in Iowa. Until the Party can regain its moorings by having something meaningful to say to the vast middle it has no future.
“Well, which is worse, Branstad’s former lieutenant governor supporting gay marriage or BVP being a member of a church which approves of homosexuality and abortion?” — DVFO
The former is worse.
She used her status to advance evil causes and is still doing so. Her status was granted to her by TEB.
And, don’t forget….Corning is on the Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa (now Heartland) Board of Directors.
Now, ask yourself again which is worse. It’s no contest.
Why does there have to be anything sinister in her support for One Iowa, Marriage Equality, and for Branstad? She is perfectly within her rights to support both and do so proudly.
If you cast your vote solely on where a candidate stands on Marriage Equality then your throwing away your vote. This state has far bigger problems to attend to then the delusion that two guys getting married in Grinnell or any other town in Iowa will somehow single handily destroy society.
Peggy: You’re worse than an old Marxist in your quest for ideological purity. You say that a board member of Planned Parenthood has no business being a Republican. I say there is plenty of room in the Party for a board member of Planned Parenthood. Get rid of the litmus tests.
MIE,
Here we go again.
MIE, I have a serious question for you. Would openly welcome Tom Vilsack into the Republican Party without a change in his political views?
VastVariety–what is it with this site’s obsession with the middle thorax. In my neighborhood nobody talks about gay marriage or abortion. People are preoccupied with the economy, schools, Stanzi’s ankle and grandma in the nursing home. Good grief.
The Platform is supposed to be the Foundation of all of our Party’s actions! That is why we call it a PLATFORM. We Stand on it. The “real power broker”s as you refer to them are the reason that Republicans ran home with their tails between their legs following their humiliating defeat in ‘08.
The DEMS obviously stand on their platform.
We support:
1. Renewable energy.
2. Fair net-metering rules.
3. A 20% renewable electricity portfolio by 2020; 80% by 2050.
4. Financing research through a carbon tax.
7. Improved CAFE standards (including SUVs and pickups) to 50mpg by 2025.
8. Cap on carbon emissions and the trade on carbon credits.
9. Implementing sequestration technologies at coal power plants as technologies develop.
10. Hard caps on mercury emissions.
11. A Moratorium on new coal power plants.
CAP & TRADE – Power Plant in Marshalltown
We support:
1. Repealing DOMA.
4. Addition of “Sexual Orientation”, “Gender Identity”, “Transgender”, and “Disability” to all State and Federal Anti-Discrimination laws, Hate Crime laws, Human Rights policies, Anti-bullying and Civil Rights Statutes.
13. Gender-neutral custodial rights.
15. Marriage equality for all Americans.
We Support:
25. Letting tax cuts for the top two federal income tax brackets expire.
We support:
76. Eliminating the “English Only” law as applied to government 690 documents.
We support:
92. Fair, responsible and reasonable gun control.
We support:
1. Making health care a fundamental constitutional right.
2. A national health care system providing without discrimination: • consumer-driven provider choice; • comprehensive, portable, high quality, affordable, and sustainable health care; • prevention; • early diagnosis; • pre-existing, genetic, and chronic disease/pain management; • improved methods and telemedicine, and increased cost efficiency.
3. A national, universal single payer health insurance program.
4. Full public financing for Medicaid, Medicare, and SCHIP.
5. A national long-term care system designed to meet the needs of an aging population.
6. Financial protection for immediate family of Medicaid recipients.
7. Medicare negotiating lower drug prices, expanding the formulary, and eliminating the “donut hole” and “in-home” rule for mobility devices.
We support:
31. The legal right of women to make their own health care decisions and the preservation of Roe v. Wade, and extending this right to women in the military and/or on government assistance.
32. Comprehensive developmentally-appropriate, medically accurate sex education including sexually responsible behavior, STDs and non-directive family planning.
33. State financing to provide comprehensive family planning services including genetic counseling.
34. Rights to access contraceptives and have legal prescriptions filled.
THIS IS A SYSTEMATIC LIST OF THEIR CURRENT ACTIONS! THE DEMS ARE PUSHING THEIR PLATFORM!
Al–absolutely. Vilsack was an effective centrist. He governed by solving problems, not by adhering to ideological precepts. Burke would consider him a conservative in the classical sense.
VV
The problem with Corning’s support of One Iowa is that it flies directly in the face of the base of the Republican Party.
Personally I would rather have government completely out of the institution of marriage. Marriage is a religious institution. And as such the government meddling in it is unconstitutional. Let’s do away with marriage licenses and leave it up to the churches to determine who can marry and who can’t.
Dunce–go have at it with your platform flat earthers. I’ll hang with the boys writing the checks.
MIE,
Thank you for answering my question. Now we know where you really stand.
Al–exactly. Keep government out of the marriage issue. If the gays want to have a gay church let them have a gay church and let them get married in a gay church. All I ask is that government treat gays in exactly the same way that it treats straights.
Those boys writing the checks sure helped Mitt Romney didn’t they.
MIE,
Guess what. Nobody’s talking about same sex ‘marriage’ in my neighborhood either. But they’re going to destroy it at the polls when they get the chance. ( :
MIE – Go Cash the Check! But keep you hands off MY WALLET!
Mitt Romney got mugged by the radical right in Iowa. He would have made an effective leader. By the way Al, where did the Iowa Lunatic Fringe Society get with Huck? Nowhere.
AL
You can’t win election by only playing to the base. That is like listen to an orchestra and all you hear is the drums.
MIE
It’s the same thing here in Grinnell, It’s the economy, Job’s, the Bike Path the city is wasting money on, the decorative bricks that we wasted money to install on the square to make it look pretty. (You can’t even see the stupid jewel box pattern in the intersections from ground level)
Dunce–I’ll follow the money. You stay late at the next caucus meeting working on the platform. Get me a plank on denying the existence of gravity. It’s bringing me down.
Peggy, Isn’t the Republican party supposed to be about small government and personal liberty? If that is the case why on earth are they trying to increase the amount of government intrusion into marriage by dictating that gay and lesbian people can’t marry the people they love?
AL
If Marriage is solely a religious institution then how do Atheists get married?
Why are we trying to expand the amount of government intrusion into corporate functions and small businesses by demanding that they recognize morally repugnant behaviors as legitimate, and extend to sodomy lovers the same privileges and benefits that they currently, VOLUNTARILY extend to their employees societally normal, morally acceptable spouses?
Vast,
IF you’re even a Republican, go to any county event at which our gubernatorial candidates speak and tell me which one is “playing to the base.”
They’re no less worried about the economy than you are.
VV,
They can get married if they can get a church to marry them. And I don’t believe that many churches would block that.
Vast,
It’s not marriage if the two parties are of the same gender so your point is moot.
Dunce: You speak of sodomy lovers. What about staight couples who engage in sodomy in the privacy of their own bedroom. Are they “morally acceptable” in your world. How about a homosexual male that does not engage in sexual acts at all. Wouldn’t he be more morally acceptable than the straight couple? You make no sense.
No MIE I didn’t speak of “sodomy lovers.” I briefly referred to them. I spoke about EXPANDING GOVERNMENT INTRUSION by legally protecting same gender couples, in the same way that the government protects married different gendered partners. Not a very Republican action on the part of the Government is it?
I love it when the socons reference the Iowa GOP platform as if it were divine text. It’s a political document. If enough gay marriage supporters (or any other group) made an organized effort to register as Republicans and worked through the caucus process…
Furthermore, I dusted a book off the shelf the other day: ‘Political Party Platforms 1840-1968′. Didn’t have to read a lot of it to see that the social conservatives are the ones who have hijacked the GOP.
Al…you say that our Republican candidates can’t abandon social issues…yet you and the Deace wing of the party virtually cast aside any candidate who refuses to make gay marriage the centerpiece of their campaign….
For the purist wing of the Republican Party…its gay marriage and nothing else..to them..gay marriage is the biggest problem in our state…not our state budget…or high taxes…or even jobs…its all about gay marriage with them..
And then what happens? The Democrats simply paint the words “bigoted” or “homophobe” on every Republican’s back..and then we spend virtually all our time fighting the bigot claims..
Then we sit around and complain about why we lose elections…… its really predictable here…
“If enough gay marriage supporters (or any other group) made an organized effort to register as Republicans and worked through the caucus process…” — Commoner Sense [sic]
What is this, a veiled threat of more political terrorism by the militant, extremist homosexual lobby?
Bring it.
Logically, there are only two reasons for a State to recognize marriage. To either subsidize it, or punish it. Our state subsidizes marriage, and there are only two reasons to do that. 1) It creates more tax payers. 2) It promotes a stable better functioning society. (Soldiers fight better when they are defending their women and children; laborers work better when they are supporting a family; people behave better when they have unconditional love and support, as provided by a committed spouse; etc.)
A Same gendered couple cannot produce more tax payers. Same gendered couples are statistically NOT stable and committed. Even the Gay Lobby has said that if marriage was still a lifetime commitment, they would not be interested in it.
SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES FORMED THE REPUBLICAN PARTY! IT WAS CREATED TO ABOLISH SLAVERY!!!!
“MIE, I have a serious question for you. Would openly welcome Tom Vilsack into the Republican Party without a change in his political views?” – Al
“Al–absolutely. Vilsack was an effective centrist. He governed by solving problems, not by adhering to ideological precepts. Burke would consider him a conservative in the classical sense.” – Moderation in Everything
I just want everyone read that again. This is what the Moderates would have. They would vote for Democrats as they are if they just put an R next to their name. Here’s what they would like the Republican platform to read..”Vote for Republicans…No Matter What…except for those damn churchies”
HawkCR1,
I’ll repeat this again, for your sake:
IF you’re even a Republican, go to any county event at which our gubernatorial candidates speak and tell me which one is “playing to the base.”
They’re no less worried about the economy than you are.
The militant homosexual lobby is already working overtime to galvinize their special rights granted to them by the ISSC. One Iowa is tweeking “moderate conservatives” such as yourself and MIE to help defeat Republicans at the polls. And you milquetoasts want to play nice and let them have their way?
Let me clue you in. All the time you’re wasting your breath telling Republicans not to make SSM a campaign issue, the other side is proceeding to make it the crown jewel of their leftist agenda. WAKE UP!
“Dunce–go have at it with your platform flat earthers. I’ll hang with the boys writing the checks.”
“Dunce–I’ll follow the money. You stay late at the next caucus meeting working on the platform.” – Moderation in Everything
Al – Let me back up your statement with why Moderates want Vilsack with an R after his name. It’s all about the Benjamin’s baby!
Peggy, I am a registered independent.
Bob Vander Platts is playing almost solely to the base. While he talks about jobs and the economy all he ever seems to talk about is his lack of understanding about the state constitution and his executive order.
Treating everyone equally under the law isn’t a special right.
Al
If a church choose to marry same sex couples then you would be ok with that?
Sorry Conservative Thinker. I misread.
CT – Let me back up your statement with why Moderates want Vilsack with an R after his name. It’s all about the Benjamin’s baby!
For everyone who thinks that allowing same sex couples to marry is redefining the institution of marriage I seriously encourage you to go to a library and open a history book. There have been legally acceptable forms of same sex marriages going back to Ancient Eygpt, The Roman Empire, the Chinese Ming Dynasty, Middle Ages France, and 19th Century America.
Fascinating discussion. But really folks, the title of the article says it all: “With Friends Like These, Who Needs Enemies” Politics is NOT a friendly business at any level. Joy knew what she was doing. There is always an elephant in the room ready to stab ya in the back.
Vast,
He is not! He has a strategy that is more bold than the others but he also has strategies and ideas concerning the economy.
I think your side is scared that if BVP is elected and he issues the executive order, you know the game is over no matter how bloody it gets.
You have the right to marry just like anyone else in this state. What you don’t have is the right to re-define marriage to make what you do in the bedroom socially acceptable.
belikebunce, the state recognizes marriage as a form of civil contract to create a family unit between two people. There is no requirement or assumption of creating more tax payers tied to civil marriage.
If marriage was still a life time commitment I would still be interested. Marriage is about the commitment of love and openness that I make to my partner, and the promise to share my life with that person.
We are talking about WESTERN CULTURE HERE! Ancient Eygpt, The Roman Empire, the Chinese Ming Dynasty, not valid examples! Middle ages is stretching it. I would like to see the data on 19th Century America though.
belikebunce -
I agree with you in part, i think though, in a larger context, its about power. Moderates want Republicans in power, No…Matter…What, with the one exception. You see, it doesn’t matter what a Republican thinks, what a Republican says, what a Republican does, it doesn’t matter at all…they have that R behind their name, don’t you see? They want more R’s than D’s, thats it, thats all. It doesn’t matter what kind of agenda is advanced or forced on to the people, because its a Republican agenda. Oh, except if that Republican happens to believe that Christianity is a good thing…well then we have to do everything in our power to strike them down!
Wow, Peggy. You’ve proven my point so well I shouldn’t even respond…but what fun would that be?!
Would you call Republicans who switched parties to vote for Hillary in the caucuses political terrorists too? Again…read slowly…a party platform is a political document written by those who participate in a political process. It’s a 1st Amendment right, not an act of terrorism. And btw, I’m straight and a registered Republican. I do love guns, but I wouldn’t call myself militant.
And no, the spelling of my username is not incorrect…you dolt.
Peggy I’m not scarred of BVP. If he gets elected, which is unlikely, and issues his executive order it will be taken to the courts and struck down as unconstitutional. It might take a year or two but it would happen. Same Sex couples exist, we have always existed, and we will continue to always exist. The recognition by the state of our commitment that we make to each other is as inevitable as the sun rising over the horizon tomorrow morning. It won’t happen tomorrow, it might not happen in a year, it might not happen within my lifetime, but it will happen and America and Iowa will be stronger for it.
VV – #1 I don’t believe you. #2 If you are truly honest, you will be disappointed. I doubt your “spouse” agrees, and even if he or she does, as a same gender couple it won’t work. Men and women are designed to meet each other needs. They are complimentary. Their relationship is natural. Same gender couples cannot be complimentary because they are similar. Their relationship is unnatural.
One Iowa is using this geriatric has-been to defeat Branstad. How can she, with a straight face, be the voice behind these robo calls and then say she’s going to vote for Branstad? She’s being played like a fiddle. IMHO, this is Branstad’s just punishment for appointing a far left Lt. Gov.
I only see one of two options here:
1. Branstad comes out swinging and also promises to issue an executive order on day one.
2. He offers to be one of the other GOP candidates’ Lt. Gov. so all his cash can still be used to elect a Republican.
Option #3 – Branstad embraces the comments of Joy Corning, because he agrees with her.
They were often called Boston marriages and were generally between two women in the last 1890’s and early 1900’s. Some but not all included intimate relationships.
The Roman Empire and the Greeks are the foundation of Western Civilization. Our very democracy is built upon ideals of government first put into practice in Athens, refined in Rome, and then given new life in England with the Magna Carta and the creation of Parliament. .
During the French Revolution Napoleon disbanded all of the religious courts in France and all of the laws against homosexuals were removed. France didn’t see the return of those laws until they were put back after France was liberated at the end of WWII.
belikebunce, same sex coupling is natural, it occurs in almost every species of mammal that has any sort of social structure.
“The recognition by the state of our commitment ” — Vast
So which is it, Vast? You want the rights that hetero couples are afforded or you want your commitment recognized by the state? Like I said, you don’t get to redefine marriage to rub everyone’s nose is your sex life and make them like it.
It can also be said that even when an activist court legalizes SSM, people still have the right to consider it immoral and unhealthy. The courts can’t take that away!
belikebunce,
My two options were for Branstad’s survival in this race.
Peggy..
I’ve been a Republican activist nearly half my life. I’ve served as a County Chair of one of the largest and most active County Central Committees in the state. I’ve been in the trenches making the phone calls, knocking on the doors, putting together the yard signs and leading volunteers for years….so please, go ahead and question if I’m a Republican.. Making yourself look like a fool isn’t hard for you.
Now..if liberals in Iowa want to make gay marriage the “crown jewel” of their agenda…well quite frankly…LET THEM. Go look at any polling data out there…ask the public what the #1 issue they’re worried about is… 1. Jobs..2. the economy…3. defense….4..health care…..and down at the bottom is…voila..gay marriage.
So it would seem to me..that our candidates would be far better off capitalizing on fixing the problems that people are worried about right now..then catering to your special interests.
Now..am i saying to abandon conservative social values…of course not! But your guy Vander Plaats has already set us up for failure in Nov 2010! He’s already ON THE RECORD stating that he’s “betting his entire campaign” around the gay marriage issue…
You can bet that Culver and Mike Kiernan over at IDP are rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of a Culver/BVP matchup. All Culver would have to do from June to Nov is to paint Vander Plaats as this hateful, bigoted, short sighted individual…full of hate for Iowans…blah blah blah..
Vander Plaats won’t be able to talk about ANYTHING else…he’d have to spent 90% of his time defending himself about gay marriage….All the ads will talk about is how BVP is just another in the long line of Republican bigots..etc etc etc… We all know their playbook.
Go look at the campaigns that Christie and McDonnell ran in NJ and VA. Both of them are pro-life…both of them are against gay marriage. But did they make it the centerpiece of their campaigns? No. If they had run a campaign like BVP is running..they would have lost and it wouldn’t have been pretty.
Should we address these issues…absolutely…but we can’t put blinders on and ignore what the FIRST priorities in our state are right now. Ask a person who is out of work and is struggling to feed their family and keep a roof over their head which would they rather have first—a job and security for their family…or a ban on gay marriage?
Corning is not alone. According to the Des Moines Register’s Iowa poll from September, 10 percent of Republican respondents favor the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling on gay marriage. In addition, 27 percent of Republican respondents said they “don’t care much” about the decision.
Perhaps most important, 92 percent of all respondents said the court ruling has brought no real change to their lives.
It would be a mistake for Republicans to keep hyping same-sex marriage as the most important issue for the next governor to handle.
I have never heard of Boston Marriages, but I can’t imagine they were particularly numerous, nor were they equal to traditional marriage. At best they were state recognized because women had almost no “rights” at that time, and primarily did business through their father or husband.
The Roman Empire and the Greeks were not the Foundation of Western Civilization. Christianity was. I am not going to debate that one with you.
And Napoleon was a humanist Tyrant who Crowned himself the new Holy Roman Emperor, why would you expect anything less than for him to completely redefine the foundational unit of society. The French were trying to build an entirely new Socialist civilization. Socialism is anathema to the US Constitution. And the Iowa Constitution is largely a restatement of the Federal Constitution, with some specific local embellishments.
None of these examples exhibit the fundamental redefinition of marriage (except France, and they completely redefined their civilization) Same Gender Marriage cannot exist simultaneously with the “American way of life”
There can’t be anything wrong with homosexuality. BVP’s church says it’s OK.
“Perhaps most important, 92 percent of all respondents said the court ruling has brought no real change to their lives.” — DMD
This is a lame argument and says absolutely nothing about how these same people would vote when given the chance.
Most Iowans aren’t directly affected by SSM just like homosexuals would say they’re not directly affected by heterosexual marriage.
We also weren’t directly affected by the Holocaust – does that make it okay?
Peggy, I’m not suggesting that anyone try to take away your right to consider me immoral or unhealthy, but the state has an obligation to treat everyone equally and if it is denying same sex couples marriage then it is not treating them equally.
And again, I’m not trying to redefine marriage, as it has always included alternative forms of marriages other than the “Traditional” one as described by Christianity. Same sex marriages were fairly common until a Roman Catholic Emperor decided to outlaw them in 342 AD and have everyone in that sort of marriage executed. However they continued in lands outside of the Holy Roman Empire and only became taboo as Europe embraced Christianity.
“Rants-Branstad 2010″
?
belikebunce, they were civil contracts but they were called Boston Marriages.
Your definition of the “American way of life” seems odd to me, because I always thought it was about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, or am I reading the Deceleration of Independence and the Constitution wrong?
If you read the writings of our founding fathers you will see that they talk about the influence of Greek Democracy on the creation of our government.
Western Civilization would and could exist without Christianity.
Tom-Jerry 2012?
Oil-Water 2009?
Deace-DVFO 2011?
Not happening Peggy. Branstad is not a conservative Republican. He grew government every year he was in office. He raised taxes overall during his administration. He appointed “moderates” like Joy Corning. He pushed to repeal federal deductibility. Need I continue?
I love how three democrats can hijack this thread and try to make people think that supporting traditional marriage isn’t a winning issue when it was a winning issue in even the most liberal states like California and Maine.
Back to the real point of the story: Is Joy Corning stupid, vengful (for Branstad’s failure to support her candidacy after his retirement), or senile?
Those are pretty much the only three options.
Oh, this article hurts my head, for so many reasons.
1. Branstad isn’t connected to Corning anymore. Just because she was his Lt.Gov in the 90’s and just because you have a picture of them in the old “formal campaign” pose at a party–DOESN’T MEAN THEY’RE IN CAHOOTS. Corning is old news, what she does now has no bearing on what Branstad believes.
2. Branstad has already said that he’s against gay marriage. That’s enough for most people. He doesn’t need to tie himself to BVP’s idiotic (and possibly illegal) “executive order on day one” idea.
3. There is no “powderkeg” here. I realize it’s a slow news week, but trying to gin this up into some kind of scandal is pretty weak.
Our government Is about Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and other inalienable rights given to us by our Creator. The Individual Liberty you talk about is based on two basic laws. Love The Lord Your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. And the second is like the first, Love your neighbor as yourself. You do not have the liberty to do what is sinful. You do not have the right to demand equal protection of your deviant behaviors and relationships under the law, that my righteous behaviors and relationships are afforded.
I would prefer the State not recognize marriage at all, but until that happens DOMA is still the law of the land. I will not stand idly by while the Radical Gay Lobby, and other Humanistic Socialist organizations try to remake this great country.
Bunce: I pretty much agree with what you say. Now, how do you deal with the fact that BVP’s church disagrees with you and says there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality?
BVP needs to deal with this issue before he can be taken at his word.
DVFO,
What do you think about a Rants-Branstad ticket?
As I said yesterday, the actions, and stated beliefs of the “Reformed Church” (I will take your word for what they are) obviously do not represent the Reformed Church in Iowa. As was said yesterday Orange City and Pella are not liberal permissive communities and they are obscenely dominated by the Reformed Church. I do not know how BVP’s local congregation deals with the fact that their denomination says there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, but that local congregation says quite openly that homosexuality is wrong. I am not going to judge BVP for something that his local congregations affiliated denominational leadership says. That is up to the congregational leadership, and the grassroots of the denomination itself. I don’t see how it taints him at all.
Bunce: You’re perfectly willing to look the other way in order to justify your current position without having to be challenged about it.
The truth is a church is responsible for people’s eternal salvation–a political party is not. Now either you believe homosexuality is a sin, or you don’t.
I demand far more perfection from my church than my political party.
I’ve been down this road. Those remaining in the Reformed church can choose to ignore the inevitable or take action NOW.
I believe if you check there was a Reformed church in Orange City where their very Godly minister saw the truth and left the denomination. God bless this pastor.
Peggy: That ticket is fine with me. How about you?
Bunce: You’re willing to look the other way; VP is willing to look the other way and VP supporters are willing to look the other way.
What do you call that? I call it hypocrisy.
Personally, as a friend and fellow Christian, I might hold BVP accountable for making the bad decision to stay in the Reformed Church. Professionally, or politically, how can I?
Works for me!
We need Branstad’s money and Chris Rants’ passion. Rants is a sitting Iowa legislator with a keen grasp of the history of the issues and legislation, and a clear direction for the future.
Plus, in the words of Wil Ferrell, he’s got great strategery.
The law doesn’t recognize sin as illegal. If every sin listed in the bible was illegal then we would be a Theocracy and not a democracy. It would also violate the constitution.
Agreed. However, that does not mean that our State must Recognize and protect your sinful behavior. That is your assertion. Do you want to be allowed to behave sinfully, or do you want my to legitimize your sinful behavior. Those are two completely different things.
Bunce: If you are repulsed by his hypocrisy, you can simply refuse to vote for him.
Peggy: Let’s roll!!
“There is no “powderkeg” here. I realize it’s a slow news week, but trying to gin this up into some kind of scandal is pretty weak.”
- I agree with this, Sharp. The standards appear to be pretty low for what constitutes a “powder-keg”. The only people who are about this are political junkies who read iowa political blogs. I’m among them, of course, but this is hardly a “powder-keg” of a story.
Oh, oh, Peggy, We have a problem. Some of those who think they’re more pure than the rest of us are going to start throwing around THEIR “principles” and claim they cannot possibly vote for that ticket. After all, Branstad selected Corning as his Lt gov many years ago.
Nevermind, VP’ goes to a church that condones homosexuality. We have problems, don’t we? Do you suppose there is anyone on which EVERYONE can agree without taking their ball and going home?
DVFO – I did not call him a hypocrite, nor did I say that I am repulsed by his behavior. I said that I might be willing to hold him personally accountable for his actions. I asked you, how(on what grounds) can I hold him accountable for those actions professionally, or politically. He is not running on the depth of his moral character.
He is running on his understanding of the Iowa Constitution, and his force of leadership. He will stand up to the 7 black robed tyrants at 1111 East Court Avenue, by rescinding their unconstitutional “Executive Order” instructing all County Recorders to issue illegitimate unlawful marriage licenses.
Everybody knows lieutenant governors don’t do anything!
Branstad would be a great LG – he’s well-liked, personable and I really don’t think his heart is in this. He can be the PR man for the ticket.
Anybody calling themself a fiscal conservative should LOVE Chris Rants. He doesn’t just say we need to cut spending, he lays out where we’ll start and doesn’t make apologies. If we’re truly serious about getting our debt under control, cuts must be made. No cherry picking pet projects.
“He is not running on the depth of his moral character.”
That may be but people are voting for him (or not voting for him) on the depth of his character and they have the right to judge if he is a hypocrite or not.
Peggy: I agree with every word you say and it’s even better than that because Rants has walked the walk regarding the issue of gay marriage in Iowa.
VP has not.
Branstad also has a good record on social issues. I trust him.
Rants-Branstad 2010: Common Sense for the Common Good
Get your checkbooks out, kids!
Peggy – At it’s best, that ticket sounds like Republican Party Establishment Politics as usual. No Thank You.
OK, Bunce: Who do you think is better?
Would you vote for Rants/Branstad?
I do not ever see Rants undermining himself like that. Talk about hypocrisy. Rants has spent the past 3 months attacking Branstad for being no different than Debt Culver. Why would he choose him as his running mate. Unless something changes, No. I would not vote for Rants\Branstad. That ticket has less integrity than a BVP\NCC ticket.
I have not decided who I will support in the Primary yet. We have four very good candidates, one I know little about, and one I would not vote for in a Primary if you held a gun to my head.
“At it’s best, that ticket sounds like Republican Party Establishment Politics as usual. ” -belike
Well, then, you don’t know jack about Chris Rants.
Remember, lieutenant governors don’t do anything.
I know that if Rants accepted Branstad as his Lt. Gov. he would have to accept all the baggage, and party control that comes with him.
“Rants has spent the past 3 months attacking Branstad for being no different than Debt Culver.” — belike
Thus is the nature of politics. Happens all the time. Hillary Clinton is B.O.’s Sec’y of State, and I’m sure Joe Biden trashed B.O. somewhere along the campaign trail.
Peggy – And that is OK with you!?!?!? The BO\HC thing proves this is all about POWER and $$$$. I won’t support a candidate who wants nothing more than Power and $$$. I can’t believe you would either.
Bunce: I meant would you vote for Rants/Branstad in an election over Culver?
I will reiterate.
“Unless something changes, No. I would not vote for Rants\Branstad. That ticket has less integrity than a BVP\NCC ticket.”
When do we dispense with the in-fighting and naysaying and actually plot a strategy for BOTH winning AND advancing a conservative agenda?
This is getting old.
What is NCC?
Not sure Peggy. Ask those who are engaging in it. We won’t win unless we run with integrity. Accusing someone of being no better than Culver, then turning around, and asking him to be your running mate to unseat Culver is kind of two faced isn’t it? AFAIK I would support Rants, Fong, VanderPlaats, or Roberts. I might support Behn. I would not, nor do I know anyone that would, support Branstad. That is neither a winning strategy, (Culver vs Culver Light?) nor is it advancing a conservative agenda.
Nation Council of Churches.
This is what the NCC stands for…http://www.ncccusa.org/news/ga2007.socialcreed.html
“Accusing someone of being no better than Culver, then turning around, and asking him to be your running mate to unseat Culver is kind of two faced isn’t it?” — belike
You can not be serious.
How could that be anything other than serious?
Peggy wrote:
> Most Iowans aren’t directly affected by SSM just like homosexuals would say they’re not directly affected by heterosexual marriage.
> We also weren’t directly affected by the Holocaust – does that make it okay?
There is so much crazy in that argument, I’m not sure where to start. We *were* DIRECTLY affected by the holocaust. Jews throughout Europe (including Germany) emigrated to America from their home countries in large numbers to avoid Nazi persecution.
If you mean that when a Jew was murdered in a Holocaust camp that it didn’t affect a homemaker in Kansas, then that’s true….it didn’t cause physical pain. But the effect of the Holocaust has undoubtedly directly affected the lives of *many* Americans, especially Jewish Americans.
Also, I’m a bit surprised that you are attempting to equate the evil of murdering 6,000,000 people with 2 chicks getting a state issued marriage certificate.
As for your implied argument that if it doesn’t directly affect you it still matters, I agree. But I believe you mean to argue that gay marriage harms the institution of marriage. Please provide evidence for this, because I have yet to see any.
Bunce: I’m not sure why you brought up the NCC but it would be wise for everyone to familiarize themselves with this Commie-lovin bunch. They are evil and want to destroy the American way of life and yes, the Reformed church belongs to the NCC, as does the ELCA.
You brought up the NCC. You illustrated BVPs duplicity by remaining part of his local congregation, inspite of the fact that the national denominational organization to which his local congregation belongs has joined the NCC. Hence my comparison of a BVP\NCC ticket to that of Rants\Branstad.
OK. Fine, but I do want to thank you for bringing up the NCC. It is a very important issue that ignorant people attending those churches are unaware of what is going on in their own churches.
Tyler didn’t know and I’m not sure that BVP does but surely, they do now. There is a valuable lesson here for everyone. This is why the Reformed church is doomed. They’re only one step behind the ELCA.
“The New Mexico Human Rights Commission has ordered a Christian photographer to pay $6,600 for declining to photograph a commitment ceremony between two lesbians.” – April 13, 2008 – Washington Times
“In a stunning turn of events, Archbishop Sean P. O’Malley and leaders of Catholic Charities of Boston announced yesterday that the agency will end its adoption work, deciding to abandon its founding mission, rather than comply with state law requiring that gays be allowed to adopt children.” – March 11, 2006 – The Boston Globe
This is how same sex marriage affects the rest of us.
“If you mean that when a Jew was murdered in a Holocaust camp that it didn’t affect a homemaker in Kansas, then that’s true….” — Jeff
Yes, that’s what I meant. And if a lesbian couple gets married at my county courthouse, it doesn’t directly affect me either but that doesn’t make either proposition a good thing.
How does SSM harm the institution of marriage? Let’s start with the first and most obvious argument…they’re trying to RE-DEFINE marriage. If one group can redefine an age-old institution to mean something that it’s not, so can any other group.
How ’bout that Rants-Branstad 2010 ticket?!
It is both sad and amazing to read these threads. I pray that the views expressed here are not representative of the Party. I can’t believe that they are. Very few of you realize that all of this religious chatter is the antithesis of conservatism. Conservatism roots are in the rejection of blind ideology, religous or otherwise. Look what happened with the French Revolution. Worship of abstract ideals lead to bestial terror. For the Iowa Republican Party it is all about imposing religious beliefs on others. This is NOT conservatism.
Mod,
You gettin’ on the Rants-Branstad boogie train or what? ( :
Anyone explain why the Moderate is trying to lecture us on what Is and Is Not Conservatism?
BTW – Conservatism is very badly defined. Per Merriam-Webster.com it is…
2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established
I think that Religious Belief, Christian Beliefs and the sinfulness of homosexual behavior are pretty well established. As is the case that our nation was founded in and on a Christian world view and the principles of Christian living.
Dunce–the pointed hat for you. Sinfulness of homosexual behavior is what you believe according to your interpretation of Scriptures. Other God-fearing citizens feel differently. Our founding fathers were very religous but very skeptical of state established religion. Sorry, but Muslins and Wigans have the same constitutional rights as the Dutch Reformed. Personally, I find your brand of Christianity repugnant but will fight to the death for your right to practice your religion as long as it doesn’t interfere with my right to practice religion. Go practice your religion as you see fit but leave the rest of us alone.
Peggy–you’re close. Branstad-Rants.
If a Rants-Branstad ticket would stick to fixing our economy and working toward smaller government and keep the nose of the government out of my bedroom and marriage I would be happy to support their ticket.
CT, any private business that openly serves the public is not allowed to discriminate.
As for the Catholic Charities and their adoption agency they could have just as easily continued their adoption policy and excluded gays and lesbians if they were willing to give up having those functions be funded by taxpayer dollars. If they accept taxpayer dollars then they have to follow state anti-discrimination laws. The state didn’t make them do anything. The Church made the decision themselves.
MIE – I do not at all disagree that the sinfulness of homosexuality is not something everyone agrees on. Not really my problem. I didn’t say it was sinful. My Creator did, and He also says many of the things I do are sinful. Not the point.
The point was You stated “this religious chatter is the antithesis of conservatism,” and I responded with the definition of conservatism and an explanation of why the discussion was conservative.
“CT, any private business that openly serves the public is not allowed to discriminate.” – VV
Private business owners have always had the right to free expression of religion. Being forced to legitimize an immoral\ illegitimate marriage by being involved in the ceremony is not being allowed to freely express ones religious beliefs. Nobody would argue that a Jew cannot discriminate by refusing to do business with a KKK Grand Wizard. Nobody would argue that it is discrimination for a consignment dealer to refuse to sell Nazi paraphernalia.
I am sick of hearing the stupid “serves the public” argument. It doesn’t hold water when it is only inconsistently enforced on PC issues.
Everyone’s hypocrisy is on full display here today!
Mod, I thought you were all about the fiscal issues? Rants has more credibility in that arena. If you don’t believe me, go to his website and watch the two-part speech (video) posted on his homepage. It’s awesome….fires me up.
Variety –
Either there is freedom of Religion or there is not. It simply comes down to that. The free and open practice of religion does not only happen on sundays or in private quarters, it happens every single minute of every single day. It happens in a business that serves the public and elsewhere.
So in recognizing homosexuals as a seperate class of citizenry, we have created an unworkable equasion. The free and open practice of christianity on one hand and the free and open practice of the homosexual lifestyle on the other. These two ideoligies cannot coexist, one must diminish.
Vast,
A transvestite could apply to work at a daycare center and have to be hired.
You think that daycare’s going to be able to keep its doors open?
Wake up – what you THINK is best for you sucks for the common good.
It’s not about you anymore, okay?
Dunce–forget the dictionary. Read Burke, Disraeli and their progeny for an idea of what conservatism is as a political movement.
Who are those people? Tories?
I think conservatism is voting for Vilsak or any other democrat willing to put an R behind their name
I think that true Conservatism is voting to maintain whatever the current status quo is. Vote for Culver. Back in the day it was voting for slavery, and segregation. Tomorrow it might be voting for continuing to fund Extremely Graphic ProHomosexual Kindergarden Sex Education classes. Just vote to keep things as they are. Always! Never change anything!
Or pick a political ideology that actually has a definition, a movement, and is doing something. Put some meat in your titles. Stand for something!
I personally stand for individual liberty, constitutional government, sound money, free markets, and a noninterventionist foreign policy. At least politically.
Train wreck….perfectly good thread ruined.
Disraeli was indeed a Tory. Conservatism reduced to its essense rejects ideology as the centerpiece of civil society. Rather, it advances problem solving that addresses civic problems. In Burke’s day, it was appalling working conditions in newly industrialized England. Stability is the key. The programs promoted by the religious zealots that post on this site result in instability such a religious wars. Conservative Reactor–Vilsack was an effective conservative leader. He got things done.
What “programs” are being “promoted” by religious zealots in Iowa?
Mod -
Four legs good, two legs bad right? And some of us (so cons and luke warm moderates) are just a little more equal than others huh?
Thank you MIE – You have just completely proved my point. Conservatism, as an ideology, is at its essence is Nothing. How can a movement be anti-ideology. That in and of itself is a self defeating, indefinable, oxymoron. Conservatism is Pragmatism. Whatever will get something done. Who cares what is getting done, or why. Just do something.
“It’s amazing how much easier it is for a team to work together when no one has any idea where they’re going.” (despair.com)