Rants Accuses Branstad of Wanting to Raise the Gas Tax
- Monday, November 16, 2009, 4:29
- Iowa, News Center
- 1,372 views
- 44 comments
State Representative Chris Rants accused former Governor Terry Branstad of wanting to raise the state’s gas tax Saturday night. Rants made the accusation at a Dubuque County Republican Party event.
Rants began his five minute speech by saying that he had had a difficult day. Rants was in Des Moines that morning at an event for State Representative Kent Sorenson and then he headed for Republican events in Decorah and Dubuque. Rants admitted that he was struggling to decide whether or not he should give his usual speech about property taxes. He then informed the crowd that he jettisoned that speech so he could talk to them about what happened to the gubernatorial candidates in Decorah earlier that afternoon.
The following is a portion of Rants’ remarks from Saturday.
“What Rod [Roberts], Bob [Vander Plaats], and I experienced in Decorah was an unusual event for a Republican gathering. We were all there and we all gave our standard speeches. But, we were accosted by the other Republicans in the room.
Decorah is an area that has a lot of people who are involved in road contracting. A huge percentage of Winneshiek County’s population is involved in that industry. One gentleman, who was aggravated to the point of yelling at us, wants to raise the gas tax. He doesn’t call it the gas tax. He calls it the highway user fee.
It was an uncomfortable meeting when you tell a lot of people in a room something that they don’t want to hear. At the end of the meeting we were surrounded by these folks who want the gas tax raised. I told them, if they were looking for someone to raise the gas tax, I’m not their candidate. I also told them that you are not going to find a Republican candidate who will tell you what you want to hear. That same gentleman told me, ‘That’s not true; Terry Branstad will raise the gas tax.’
I said to him, in defense of Governor Branstad, just because he raised it once doesn’t mean that he will raise it again. He said ‘No, he told me he will raise the gas tax.’
We have lost recent elections because Republicans have stopped acting like Republicans. We are not going to get people back unless we start acting like Republicans again. I don’t know how Republicans are going to win back Terrace Hill if we don’t start walking the walk. We need to nominate a candidate who will walk the walk.
With all due respect to Terry Branstad’s service to the state, because it’s been long and storied, he’s a good gentleman, but I’m beginning to believe that the defining issue in 2010 will be taxes. All of your candidates running for Governor are Pro-Life. All of your candidates running for governor support traditional marriage. There are no differences there.
So what sets us apart? The front runner in the race, who is not here this evening, and by the way, I can’t imagine running for governor and not being here this evening. The issue we have with Chet Culver is that he has made such a mess of our state finances, that he has already started his campaign, not against me, not against Christian [Fong], but against Governor Branstad on the issue of taxes. We can’t give him that issue if we want to win back Terrace Hill.”
Photo by Dave Davidson
About the Author
Craig Robinson has written 454 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.
44 Comments on “Rants Accuses Branstad of Wanting to Raise the Gas Tax”
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.
when the democrats set up a site called “terrylovestaxes.com” you know there is a problem. i don’t think Chets record is much different then terry’s in the way of taxes. I’m glad Rants is out there calling him on it, it seems like the media darling is Terry, which should throw up another red flag.
The only thing propping up Branstad’s candidacy is his name recognition. If it wasn’t for that he would be an also ran.
Al–also he is a proven winner. Stanzi looks ragged but he knows how to win.
The last time that Branstad won an election was 16 years ago. I can point to several things that say he will not win this time around.
1. He is not attending any county meetings or other events.
2. His ability to speak clearly and concisely is lacking.
3. While people can and often do change, his comments do not square with his record.
Do I need to go on?
Rants is very smart. I like this line, which he also used at last week’s Scott County dinner: I can’t imagine running for governor and not being here with you this evening.
At some point Branstad will have to start showing up for these things. The problem is, his team has over-hyped him, and it will be hard for him to live up to the “strong leader” image they’ve created.
Al–go on and keep deluding yourself. He never had good speaking skills. The county meetings are meaningless as they are made up of nutjobs. His record is one of getting things done because he is a problem solver. He will have tons of $$$ to drown out the rants of the fruitcakes that now control the GOP apparatus in the state.
MIE,
So you are saying that Branstad should ignore the BASE of the party?
And as for the fact that he never had good speaking skills, that was one of the points that I was trying to make. With the tremendous communication technology at our fingertips today people expect their candidates to be good orators. The fact that Branstad is not is a handicap for him.
MIE,
Furthermore how do you square his record with the rhetoric that he is espousing now.
Fact-In 1982 he advocated and pushed for the repeal of federal deductibility.
One week ago at Leadership for Iowa Branstad claimed that he would fight to preserve federal deductibility. Which is the true Branstad?
Come on all. Didn’t you know that the Republican Party no longer cares about their ideals, their values, or their platform. According to MIE, It’s all about the Benjamins Baby. Oh, and the Power of elected position too!
Moderation in Everything wrote on 12 November, 2009, 8:09
Dunce–go have at it with your platform flat earthers. I’ll hang with the boys writing the checks.
Moderation in Everything wrote on 12 November, 2009, 8:18
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.
Al wrote on 12 November, 2009, 8:04
MIE, I have a serious question for you. Would openly welcome Tom Vilsack into the Republican Party without a change in his political views?
Moderation in Everything wrote on 12 November, 2009, 8:07
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.
Dunce: Don’t you know that in politics you have to share your sandbox with others? Especially with those who feel differently than you. The wingnuts of the party like you just can’t get over the fact that there are god-fearing sincere people that differ from you. To win elections you have to grow the party. That means attracting those who feel differently. Your brand of politics shrinks the party because of your rigid orthodoxy and superhuman litmus tests. I admire strong convictions in church. However, those strong convictions in politics rarely work.
Strong Convictions like
“Read my lips, No New Taxes.”??? or like
“3.3. We support Iowa’s Right to Work law.”??? or
“4.10. We reject the mandate that there be a core curriculum enforced on all education systems.”???
Or mabey… “7. Government
We believe the primary purpose of government is to protect the inalienable rights of life and liberty and, beyond its constitutional functions, there is nothing that can be done by government as efficiently as it is done by the people of this great Republic. We believe the people have the ability, the dignity and the right to make their own decisions and to determine their own destiny without encumbrance or interference from government. We call for a return to limited government at federal, state and local levels, allowing for maximum personal and economic freedom. Therefore:”
What kind of strong convictions don’t work in Politics?
Maybe you meant strong convictions like “We have lost recent elections because Republicans have stopped acting like Republicans. We are not going to get people back unless we start acting like Republicans again. I don’t know how Republicans are going to win back Terrace Hill if we don’t start walking the walk. We need to nominate a candidate who will walk the walk.”
Strong convictions born of rigid ideology. Classical conservatism realized that policy making and governing had to be flexible. Our founding fathers, very cognizant of the predations of the the religious wars and later the French Revolution feared mightily the tyranny that arose from inflexible ideology.
You failed to answer the question. I will take the blame for that. I didn’t ask it well. Let me try again.
What inflexible\rigid ideology, or strong convictions are acceptable or tolerable in a candidate for public office, or in a political party? I ask because political parties are by their very nature “often espouse an expressed ideology or vision bolstered by a written platform with specific goals, forming a coalition among disparate interests.”
No rigid ideology is acceptable. Candidates should focus on good management of the public fisc, low taxes, pro economic growth, good infrastructure, good schools and access to affordable health care.
Belike: The problem with your analysis is that only a sliver of the electorate in general feel like you. Some polls show only 22% of the electorate consider themselves evengelical Christians. To win the general you have to appeal to people who reject your brand of social conservatism.
How do they accomplish those things? How does one recognize “good management of the public fisc”? What are “low taxes”? What do “good schools” look like?
And after a particular candidate can recognize low taxes, good infrastructure, good schools, what kinds of general practices should he or she apply to achieve the goals of having, running, or gaining those things?
Good management means living within one’s means and planning accordingly. Good infrastructure means good roads, bridges and sewers. Good schools means schools that produce productive citizens like the schools my children attend. I prefer more focus on hard sciences. The means to achieve these goals involve working with the opposition and building coalitions.
I don’t vote for candidates who will govern like evengelical Christians” I vote for candidates who will govern Constitutionally. I vote for candidates who recognize the supremacy of the ideologies espoused by our founding documents… (all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of [property])
I chose candidates who recognize that the draft, income tax, property tax, seatbelt laws, marriage licenses, etc. are built on the innately unAmerican belief that The People exist for the government, and will fight against such things. All of those things are entirely secular and should be nonnegotiable. They are the foundation of our government, and our society in general. They are self evident!
MIE – “Good schools means schools that produce productive citizens like the schools my children attend.”
Could you be any more meaningless. I asked “What do “good schools” look like?” Your answer didn’t tell me how to identify good schools. It told me absolutely nothing. You said you “prefer more focus on hard sciences” yet you give me an answer that looks like it came from a post modern, politically correct, nonjudgmental, indiscriminate sociology textbook.
“Good management means living within one’s means and planning accordingly.” – MIE
Does this mean that if you are receiving $640 in DHS food assistance, $480 in low rent housing subsidies, $240 in utility assistance, free school lunches and breakfasts, spend all your burger flipping income on bikes, babes, and beer, but you keep your bills paid and have a good credit rating you are managing your household well?
Dunce–your are indeed a Dunce. Are you gainfully employed by chance?
I am gainfully employed, though I am not sure how that applies to this conversation. As to the meaningless personal attacks, I will continue to ignore them.
Please answer my questions.
Dunce: If your point is that welfare is part and parcel of good management, I say your question is one of priorities and not one of managing priorities in a prudent manner. So, you’re against subsidies for the poor. I”d rather start with subsidies to Wall Street Banks and to farmers.
MIE,
Have you already forgotten your phony apology for referring to belike as “dunce” all last week:
“Sorry, belike ranks right up there as one of the great minds that frequent this site. I should be more respectful.” – MIE
I trust you remained sitting at Communion time yesterday.
MIE – I have never well understood Conservatism, and I have extreme difficulty believing that it is nothing more than maintaining the status quo, go along to get along, political pragmatism. That seems completely baseless and very lacking in substance to me. But, it sounds to me like that is what you are stating it to be. (And by the way, you seem to have more real information, and a better understanding of it than most people I hear talk about it, ie Rush Limbaugh, Michael Reagan, and the like.) I realize that I asked some pretty absurd hypotheticals, and that I made Conservatism as it appears to me you are defining it look pretty foolish, but if it is truly as meaningless as you make it out to be, and that is truly your belief, then you should not be ashamed to admit it, nor should be get defensive when I point it out.
If you truly believe that you cannot ever hold to a pure ideology, and that all standards are relative then why do you act offended when I illustrate that? If your values are staying in a position of power to stay at the table and stay off the menu as Senator Grassley so eloquently put it, I can respect that. I don’t believe that is a respectable value, but I will defend your right to hold that value.
My point was in trying to figure out what you mean by the vanilla statement that ultimately boils down to “all that matter is results, it doesn’t matter how you get there, its arriving at the destination that counts.”
I love Chris Rants’s chutzpah. It’s going to take someone like him to stand up to Governor Gronstal.
Belike: Yes, read and listen to Mike Reagan. He too believes in toning down the hot button issues and focusing on filling the big tent. Miss Peggy–my knees hurt.
Come on, you eastern Iowa Catholics don’t kneel anymore, do you? You know better than Jesus, why should you?
Peggy: No pads on the kneelers either. Ouch.
I will not listen to Mike Reagan. His values are all that matter is results, it doesn’t matter how you get there, its arriving at the destination that counts. I do not feel this is a respectable value. I do not believe this aligns with the stated values of the Republican Party.
I am a member of the Central Committee of the Marion County Republican Party. We just recently adopted a County Party Constitution and Central Committee Bylaws. Both of which state our purpose, as suggested by RPI leadership, is “to promote Republican principles and policies and to cooperate and assist in the conduct of national, state and local elections in support of the Republican ticket.”
As you can see, “promot[ing] Republican principles and policies” is just as, if not more important than “support[ing]… those of the Republican ticket”.
If that is the stated purpose of the Republican Party of Marion County, as suggested by the Republican Party of Iowa, how can you justify your argument that Republicans should be “focusing on filling the big tent”?
Focusing on the big tent=victory.
Victory in what, and for whom? What good is winning power, if we can’t agree on what to use that power for? What good is a mob of people in power that don’t agree on an idealogical goal or plan of action?
Again, if the purpose of the Republican Party is just as much promoting Republican principles and policies, as it is supporting the Republican ticket, how can we accomplish our purpose by electing Republicans that won’t promote our principles and policies?
Belike–I identified those priniples earlier.
Where? I didn’t see any positive identification. Matter of fact, I directly questioned your identification, what you were identifying, and you never clarified. The water is just as muddy now as it was when I asked the questions. Or did I miss something?
Good managment, low taxes, good infrastructure, good schools, affordable healthcare.
WHAT DO THOSE THINGS LOOK LIKE????? Throwing out some abstract rhetorical concepts is not identification!
Good management is what I said. Spending within one’s means. Planning ahead so that there are no surprises. What don’t you understand about these concepts? They are NOT abstract.
And my hypothetical “good management”???
MIE engage brain before opening “mouth.” You said: “The county meetings are meaningless as they are made up of nutjobs.” Now that’s the way to re-bulid the Republican Party. Thanks.
Jane: Have you read the platform? Perhaps you are one of the nutjobs that truly believe actually staying late at the caucuses means anything. Rebuilding the Party starts with the middle, not the lunatic fringe.
MIE, will I see you at the Culver holiday party in a few weeks?