Narcisse Sends an Open Letter to Bob Vander Plaats
- Friday, November 27, 2009, 4:30
- Iowa, News Center, Top Story
- 1,606 views
- 41 comments
Mr. Bob Vander Plaats:
I saw your attack on former Governor Branstad in yesterday’s Des Moines Register and was extremely disappointed. Is this going to be the essence of your campaign?
When we met November 9th, you stated you wanted to run a campaign of substance and ideas. Now it appears the only thing you are really concerned about is getting elected. And while an examination of former Governor Branstad’s record is essential, it has become apparent offering real solutions to Iowa’s crisis is no longer a priority of yours.
Following your disturbing presentation at the September 12th IFPC dinner, I sent you an email challenging you to a debate. For a decade you’ve been running for governor, yet you failed to offer any plan to fix our state or even one detailing how you would implement your agenda.
In response to my challenge, you asked if we could meet, and we did, September 15th in Brooklyn, Iowa for two hours. At that meeting you confirmed you had no plan to fix state government. I asked point blank, “Do you have a plan to fix state government?”
After avoiding the question twice, you simply stated “no” the third time I asked.
This is not an insignificant admission, Mr. Vander Plaats, since prior to our meeting, you were attacking Governor Culver and stating you would fix and reduce state government.
Since that date, we have met again and then again. We even discussed meeting several more times collaborating on the creation of real solutions for Iowans. After seeing your website, however, and reading yesterday’s article, I have come to accept the hard truth.
There is now public speculation I plan to primary Governor Culver. What the media and many members of the political class do not grasp is that I am a lifelong Iowan, a father, and a concerned citizen.
I love this state. I would sit down with you, Gov. Culver, former Gov. Branstad, or any other Iowan committed to addressing the very serious issues facing this state. The pain of Iowans is real, and that pain calls for answers and leadership.
Unfortunately, it has become obvious; you have no real interest in providing those answers or that leadership.
Mr. Vander Plaats, that’s not good enough.
The time has come for you to stop offering platitudes and promises; pandering is not leadership.
You say you are the “Turnaround” CEO.
Former House Speaker Chris Rants says you are not.
As for me, I do not question your assertion you “turned around” various fledgling organizations. But it is one thing to turnaround an organization that wants that type of “consultation” where friendlies occupy the seats of power. It is another thing to enter hostile territory and engage fierce opposition.
Where have you demonstrated the public courage to stand and fight?
When corruption in education was exposed years ago, despite your promise to stand and fight, you turned around. When the movement you propose now to champion sought a G.O.P. leader from amongst its own, you agreed to lead until Chuck Larson stepped up, then, you turned around. Passionate Iowans invested time, talents and money into your 2002 and 2006 campaign. They sacrificed in order to make you their leader and our state’s next governor. But when Jim Nussle stepped to you, you turned around.
So unlike Speaker Rants, I do not question you are a turn around CEO. What worries me is when Mike Gronstal steps to you, you will do what you have done again, and again, and again – turn around!
Yesterday I looked at your website and found two consistent themes.
The first is pandering to issues that have little to do with the constitutional duties of a Governor. For example you talk about the need for a federal fair tax while you completely fail to offer a vision of tax reform in Iowa. If that is your plan, to neglect Iowa’s needs and debate federal matters, you should run against United States Senator Charles Grassley or United States Representative Steve King.
The second is affirmation that, with the exception of the executive order, your policies are no different than those of former Governor Terry Branstad’s, sans the experience. In many respects, your priorities are no different than Governor Culver’s.
Your site affirms government intrusion into the private business sector in multiple and unacceptable ways. Your site affirms your commitment to major expanded government. Your site affirms your commitment to a failed education bureaucracy.
Most tragically, your site affirms, amidst your meaningless rhetoric, that you too will betray the God-fearing, patriotic, family loving supporters that trust you.
You may be a good father and a good husband and a man of faith and personal charisma, but your “For and Against” statements absolutely affirm you are not the fiscal conservative you market yourself to be any more than former Governor Branstad is.
You are a big “G” government Republican in the best of the hypocritical tradition.
Your now-posted public positions are reckless and irresponsible.
Now, perhaps you aren’t committed to their implementation, but merely offer them as part of your leadership balkanization strategy to win the election. But if that’s not the case, your ideas can only be implemented through Republican Commandment 12 – cut taxes but spend our children into debt, or Republican Commandment 13 – raise taxes and lie about it.
You, sir, have put honorable people’s credibility at risk. You are charismatic. I give you that. But your failure to develop a plan after 10 years makes your advocates vulnerable. And now, your blatant embrace of Culver-like public extravagance and excess threatens the very credibility of those for whom say you are the “conservative champion.”
Granted, you are absolutely for traditional marriage. But so are the voters of California, Maine and 100% of the states allowed to vote on the issue. Yours is not a courageous stand. Rather, your position is as American as a Big Mac, fries, a cold supersized soda and two apple pies for a dollar.
It is obvious that you just want to be the boss and that your agenda isn’t really different than that of the previous Governors, including the one you attacked yesterday.
As Iowa’s expert on the Branstad years, I can say with confidence that you are no different than Terry Branstad prior to his election. And now, as he returns, there are no substantive differences offered between what would be his fifth term and your first term with the exception of your differences on issuing an executive order on marriage.
If I were the former Governor, I wouldn’t say “Bob, remember Reagan’s 11th Commandment.” I would say “Bob, the only real difference between us is that I know what I’m doing.”
Mr. Vander Plaats, have the courage to do what Speaker Rants is doing – enter the realm of solutioneering. I am sending you the questions we are debating. You don’t have to fear being sandbagged if you debate me.
So, are you willing to advance real solutions and defend them instead of offering slogans, your personal story, and attacks on your opponents?
Or, will you live up to your title and do what you’ve always done when challenged – turn around?
Jonathan R. Narcisse
An Iowa Worth Fighting For
P.S. The offer to join Team Vander Plaats during the campaign and to join your executive team and administration after the election should you win is declined.
About the Author
The Iowa Republican has written 306 stories on this site.
41 Comments on “Narcisse Sends an Open Letter to Bob Vander Plaats”
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.
I look forward to following these debates, regardless of who is involved. I want to hear what these candidates propose to CUT from the budget.
> “Bob, the only real difference between us is that I know what I’m doing.”
Oh Snap! I like this guy. Two well written and well articulated articles already! I like that he’s being intellectually honest, and not pandering. I don’t care whether they have a “D” or an “R” in front of their name, this guy is definitely smart and I’d love to hear him debate and more of his ideas.
One question to TIR: Why does Narcisse get face time on here on not Tom Shaw. Is one more “Republican” than another?
Mr. Narcisse and Rants are going to run 3rd party as a ticket. Anyway, why isn’t this guy going after Behn, Roberts, Branstad, or Fong. He seems to be tearing Bob down in order to pump Rants up. He even referenced Rant’s attack line on Bob.
If this guy is going to face Culver, he will attack Culver. Will that be the essence of his campain? This letter is all attack and it is kind of “jerk”-like to make it public. I always say, if you have a problem with someone that is your problem. Narcisse should tout his plan to fix state government around Iowa (which he is doing) and not attack others for there plan or lack of plan. Focus on how you will fix state government. It is ironic that he attack Bob for attacking Branstad when he is doing the same thing to Bob. Also, it is a little too early in the campaign to not say, “I will not become part of your administration ever!” Seriously, Narcisse is a smart guy and Iowans would benefit. If he was so concerned about Iowa, wouldn’t he get a job with the new administration and help fix it? It seems that Narcisse is attacking the guy he knows has the best chance vs. Branstad. It seems that he is talking to Rants (the guy that needs BVP off the rader) to Rants could take on Branstad. It will be BVP or Rants against Branstad. There is only room for 2 candidates. Also, no one outside of Des Moines knows Narcisse, so I don’t think whatever he says holds much sway. I do agree that all candidates should have a plan to fix state government and I am sure they will be the end of January. It seems premature for this attack and it is kind of timely that it comes at the start of the Rants/Narcisse debates.
In regards to literary skills (keep in mind I am an average person and was no English major) I think this open letter is well done. The strategy he uses in writing this was fairly solid.
I really like his bold call-outs to BVP. Lets be honest, BVP doesn’t have any good ideas. Rants is clearly the one that has the most ideas and is pushing them the most effectively. Fong also has a couple solid ideas and a bold goal. So does Roberts.
BVP LACKS SUBSTANCE AND HE ALWAYS HAS! Narcisse nailed it!
I’ve always found Narcisse to be incredibly narcissistic.
I’m very skeptical of why he’s injecting himself into this race now. If he wanted to be a mover and a shaker, why didn’t he run for Governor himself? Or is he (my guess) wanting to run on someone’s ticket and this is his way of putting himself out there?
Stacia: I do not believe you for one minute that Rants and Narcisse plan to run together as a “third party”. Your premise is ridiculous.
My name is Jonathan R. Narcisse. I have been willing to work with Bob, Christian or any other Republican on developing real solutions. Infact I met with Bob the same morning I met with Speaker Rants. While Bob pitched me even offering me a job Chris actually discussed real ideas and solutions. Infact what made me decide to extend the debate offer was a particularly heated exchange he and I had over the permanent penny tax. He wants to fund “property poor” districts, i.e., Sioux City and Des Moines infrastructure projects. I think the mismanagers need to be called to account and we need to let true academic competition exist. There are other differences. I want to use inmates to do things like build county roads. He wants to have those type of projects create jobs. I would welcome debates with any Republican. Unfortunately Chris Rants is the only one willing to really discuss ideas and solutions. That doesn’t mean I’m propping him up or planning to run with him. It means Iowans can get a real solution conversation instead of pandering. As for Bob, there was no candidate I was so willing to spend time with to develop solutions. He just isn’t interested and what he’s posted on his site is Big “G” Government to either be funded by tax hikes or debt. But I would love to have him come out of hiding and actually offer a real plan, real solutions and man up. But he is, afterall, the “turn around” ceo. Examine the ideas in “An Iowa Worth Fighting For” and if you like them call me at 515-770-1218 and discuss them. Or you can goto: IowaSolutionsDebate2010.com and check out our debate questions and format.
Don’t even bother going to Jonathan’s website because he will eventually spam your email with his information like he did mine from another mailing list. Never met the man and never let him have my personal email account nor have I shown interest in anything he has to say. Someone should heed his own warning on whether or not this race is going to be about attacks. Also, maybe Jonathan should “man up” and not attack someone by addressing an email to them and hiding the cc’s. Still waiting, Jonathan, on how you got my address or are you getting your email etiquette from the White House?
Really Jonathan? Vander Plaats needs to ”man up” and offer “real solutions?” I took/wasted the time to visit your website and all I found was a regurgitation of old Republican talking points going back to the late 1970s. Generic bullet points and a rambling paragraph about how we need to reduce state government dose not constitute a plan. How is what you are saying any different than what Branstad, Vander Plaats, Rants, Fong etc have been talking about for months now?
I also cant seem to find anything on Vander Plaats or Branstad’s websites that suggest that they are willing to settle for big Government. Maybe you should be clear with the group and let them all know what you really want. You want to run as an independent for Governor next year as an independent to help Governor Culver get re-elected. You said yourself of Deace’s show last summer that the outcome of the Republican primary didn’t matter because: “In 8 years, we’ll be talking about weather or not Culver can win his 4th term.”
Now that it looks like Culver is doomed, you’re out bashing the 2 men that can send Chet back to school? What did Culver offer you Jonathan? Those of us who voted for you, only to watch you fail to do anything but make an ass out of yourself on the Des Moines School Board have come to the realization you always have an angle that somehow benefits Jonathan Narcisse. So what is it this time Jonathan, inquiring minds want to know?
p.s. I am sorry that you didnt run for a 2nd term this year. I was looking forward to rectifying the mistake I made last time.
Olivetree: Come to our trainings on solutions. We’re having them all over the state. They have detail and specifics. Beyond that it is not unreasonable to ask Bob for a plan. It isn’t unreasonable for us to look at his website and reach logical conclusions about what he is advocating and the impact of his position statements.
Now his platitudes do not a plan make but they do give us insight into his administration. Either he doesn’t mean what he is saying, he is going to raise taxes or he is going to spend us into debt.
But since I’m so inadequate write Bob, encourage him to debate me and put me in my place.
Why would anyone bother to debate you? From your pamphlet, you’re just peddling the same old stuff that Republicans have peddled for decades. That isn’t really a debate, it is mental masturbation which is exactly what parents with kids in the district came to expect of you.
I did go back and look again at Vander Plaats website. I still don’t see anything different there then I see in the bullet points and platitudes I see on your pamphlets. Perhaps you’re just upset that he didn’t adopt your pamphlet as his own platform? That wouldn’t shock me considering what we’ve seen from you in the past
I am right with you though on Vander Plaats being unready to be Governor. If he was willing to waste his time with you or offer you a job in his administration then my suspicions about his ineptitude may yet prove correct.
What I am really against is giving Jonathan Narcissist any more time or media attention.
P.s. you never did answer my question. What does John Narcissist get out of the deal where he tears down the strongest Republican candidates? You are still registered as a Democrat aren’t you Jonathan?
Olivetree:
When I was on the school board I didn’t claim to have original ideas. Infact the way I got many of my ideas was listening to taxpayers, citizens, parents, teachers…After that I got results.
I am not claiming ownership to advocating low taxes, small government, parent controlled education, restitution based justice. Infact that last one comes from scripture and I wasn’t born when it was written.
My specialty is in taking the good ideas of others and making them happen. My specialty is getting results. Not in talking or hiding but driving an agenda.
As for the personal attacks, thank you. I’ve learned over the years when your opponents start attacking you rather than your ideas they can’t. So I appreciate the compliments.
Jonathan, your assesment of BVP is pretty much correct. How many times does he have to lose an election before he gets the hint that the VOTERS of Iowa don’t want him?
I really hope you and Rants make it up to North Iowa. I don’t care if I have to use a gun to get a few of these “party first ” of both sides folks to watch you and Rants
“Fong also has a couple solid ideas and a bold goal.” – The Thinker
Christian Fong is good on the economic side but is not comfortable discussing the social issues. I believe, too, that he panders to his audience when it comes to SSM, gun owners’ rights and immigration depending on where he’s speaking in the state. Nice guy but there’s a big hole in that candidate.
Peggy,
Hence why I said a “couple” of ideas. ”A” also is in reference to one “bold goal.” It is obvious that Rants has the most ideas. But yes, I think my analysis of Fong is correct. I don’t think it was an overstatement. I didn’t claim that Fong had 99 ideas. Also Peggy, you’re right.
Bob Vander Platts is a mile wide and an inch deep. Kinda like this girl I used to know over at Al’s Saloon. Giggidy giggidy goo!
Quag,
I love reading your comments b/c they make me laugh every time. That was a nice shot at BVP!
Mr. Narcisse,
I have read your and I must say that I agree with the basic principal that you lay out. That being, Mr. Vander Plaats needs to articulate some kind of detail and answer to problems he lays out in his campaign. I also want to say that I have a great deal of respect and admiration for you, sir. I admire that you are a genuine crusader and believer in the issues that you discuss.
All that being said, I have some questions which are as follows:
1. One of your solutions is to use inmates to build county roads. How exactly would this work? How do you say to folks, “We’re gonna go ahead take hard working, law abiding, tax paying citizens, and we’re gonna put them in the unemployment line. Then we’re gonna give those former jobs of hard working, law abiding, tax paying citizens, to state slaves that will be forced to work for near nothing.” How do you do that? Additionally, why do you stop at county roads, why not do State roads too? Could it be that State road construction is given almost exclusively to the members of the Association of General Contractors? Could it be that you’d rather not ruffle those feathers?
Now, I know that criticizing a plan without offering one yourself is much too easy. So, I will offer one myself. Pertaining to county roads, how about we go the members of Farm Bureau and ask them to start paying their fair share. By that I am speaking to the fact that farmers in Iowa pay just about zero in gas tax while conversly and almost exclusively destroy county roads with their huge equipment and loads. Why don’t we say to them, that its time to start paying in proportion to their use of county roads?
2. You mention in your letter that Bob offered you a position in his administration, should he win. You declined the offer, I might add here, with great flair. I just have to wonder though, if it was just about the issues and just about implementing some real solutions, why turn down the opportunity to do just that? Who exactly do you think you’re fooling here? Just get it over with and declare already. In that same vain, you publish this letter and set yourself up as the clear adversary of Mr. Vander Plaats. The only reason to do that is because you plan to run for the office yourself. Again, who do you think you’re fooling here? If it was just about the issues, your debates with candidate Rants would in and of themselves bring those issues to light along with glaring questions as to why the other candidates didn’t want to be included in the discussions.
Jon Narcisse is nothing more that Democrat spoiler. He voted for Culver & Obama. He then runs for DSM school board, promising reform and accountability. After one short term he bails on the people who put him on the school board. Now he claims to be a conservative who wants to run for governor! What a joke. He wants to split the voters and ensure Culver another four years. Jon wouldn’t get my vote for dog catcher!!!!
Conservative Thinker:
Regarding your first question I have no fear, no loyalty or association with the General Contractors. I do draw a line between our main highways and interstates and our county roads, particularly where they are unpaved or in a grave state of disrepair. I believe corrections in Iowa needs to move away from our current recidivism based system to a restitution based system. This system would put inmates to work. Instead of sitting in prison all day pumping iron, sharing trade secrets with their fellow criminals and planning the next rape, shanking or drug consumption. To that extent working on county roads, planting trees, cleaning waterways, building walking and bike trails, and working on quality of life infrastructure projects is a fair exchange. I believe they should work on prison farms growing and raising their own food. I do not believe it is governments job to create private sector jobs. I do not believe the state should use slave labor to compete with the private sector so I would have the state get out of things like the furniture business. But I do believe we have certain infrastructure projects that absolutel ought to utilize prison labor instead of spending taxes. I think, for example, building walking and bike trails where old unused train tracks would be a great way to connect Iowa’s small communities and enhance our quality of life infrastructure. But that’s not the kind of project we should turn into corporate welfare. Let our inmates do this and also they begin gaining skills and trades and work ethic that may keep them from going back to prison once they are released. And, unless they are lifers, we will release them.
Conservative Thinker: As for taxing farmers if you read my tax reform proposal on this site I am not a pro-tax guy. Not because of the company line that’s been espoused for years. I actually understand why high taxes destroy growth and hurt the poor and working Iowans, especially. Ad to that the fact Iowa has an economy based on agriculture and the last thing I want to do is add to the tax burden of our hard working family farmers. Instead I want to phase out and eliminate corporate taxes. I want to lock in property taxes for residential, ag and commercial properties. I want to repeal the permanent penny and restore the local option with better usage for those dollars based upon what the local community, not politicians in Des Moines decide, I want to roll back the sales tax to four if not three percent, I want to lower and flatten individual income taxes and I want a responsible tax credit structure that takes decision making out of the hands of state and local bureaucrats to pick winners and losers and puts them in the hands of individual Iowans.
Conservative Thinker and Tony4516: If Bob Vander Plaats had the courage to sit with me in public he would have to confirm the genuine nature of my offer to help him develop the plan and the solutions he is lacking. I know my heart. And I know my motives. All my life I’ve been questioned and challenged and all my life I’ve got results. Period. This election is not about politics as usual. Our two parties don’t get to just compete to see who is worse. Real solutions need to be offered in these times. That’s why Gov. Culver has had no more fierce and aggressive critic. The assertion by Tony4516 that somehow I am just trying to help Culver is absurd. First, I am a Democrat. I have always enjoyed very strong Democratic support. Not because I am now pretending to be a conservative. I don’t even embrace labels. It is because there are great numbers of Democrats that agree with me on these issues. The problem they have is with Republican hypocrisy. In states like California Democrats have joined Republicans in opposing issues like gay marraige. But Republicans in states like California have nominated pro-gay, pro-abortion candidates like Arnold. At the national level the Republicans offered us John McCain who is a pro-gay, pro-abortion, pro-amnesty, pro-bail out Republican. It was McCain who went to Washington to lobby for passage of the bail out, not Obama. Now at some point McCain decided he wanted to be against these issues, too. At some point McCain became for the drilling in Alaska he was always against. At some point McCain wanted the support of the “Agents of Intolerance” he was once against.. I understand it is part of the psyche of certain Republicans that their betrayals and hypocrisy is more desirable than the honesty of politicians who tell you the truth even when you disagree with them. But me, I would rather work with those that I disagree with be are honest with me than those that lie to my face. At the state level the G.O.P. gave us Branstad as their standard bearer – a pro-gambling, big government, bigger tax “conservative.” Then they gave us Doug Gross. Then they gave us Jim Nussle. In the legislature they gave us Stu Iverson and Mary Lundby as leaders. And before Matt Strawn the chair of the party hadn’t even read the platform. And when the G.O.P. had power they didn’t reform education, cut big government down, etc…they lined their pockets with the same contributions the Democrats are now lining their pockets with. Which is why I have hammered Democrats non-stop and many of them hate me worse than Republicans ever could. Cause I’m not a CIETC Democrat. I’m not a Rent-To-Own Democrat. I’m not a single issue Democrat. I’m a Democrat who knows Christ loved me despite being a sinful heathen and died for me out of that love. I’m a Democrat that loves America and comes from a family of patriots. I’m a Democrat that understands family is the foundation of a just and moral society not government which is why I genuinely want small government and have advanced a platform that advances what I believe in. Finally, the greatest compliments I could be paid are being paid to me on this site. First, no one has been able to offer a plan they got from Bob. It doesn’t exist. Second, no one can attack the ideas I’m advancing so the attacks are personal and petty. I can live with that. What I can’t live with is either four more years of the Culver Administration or Republicans who use different rhetoric but are Big “G” government candidates like Bob Vander Plaats whose website confirms his ideas would cost taxpayers hundreds of millions to billions in government spending financed either by more debt or financed by more taxes. But since that can’t be refuted I guess the strategy is to call me names. Iowans deserve better than that.
Mr Narcisse,
Pertaining to county roads. I have read your response and although I agree with you on the failings of the Criminal Justice System here in Iowa and in the broader context, the country. What I fail to see, is how you tell honest hardworking people that make a decent wage working for the county and have followed the rules their whole lives, that you’re taking their jobs away from them. On top of that, you’re giving those jobs to those who have broken the rules, have become slaves of the State, and will now work for nothing. I understand the need to create a path of resitution and rehabilitation for prisoners, I just think competing for jobs of other honest citizens is the wrong way to go about it.
I do like your idea of prisoners growing their own food. I think that may be a great plan to give prisoners a constructive activity that would have the added benefit of lowering the cost running the facility. Another way could be to have them construct and maintain a system of wind farms around prison facilities if it could be feasable.
Mr Narcisse,
As to the agricultural industry in this state. What I propose is not in the spirit of simply raising taxes, it is in the spirit of ending what is in your words Big ‘G’ Government subsidies. Every other Iowan in the state has to pay gas tax in their every day lives, why shouldn’t farmers do the same? How long are we going to continue this experiment of providing countless tax payer dollars to the ethanol industry, before we finally admit to ourselves that maybe ethanol production is just not a viable market? We have been waiting for over 30 years for this industry to get on its feet. Maybe it just never will.
Mr. Narcisse,
I also have some questions if you do indeed plan to run for Governor, they are as follows.
How long have you known you were going to run?
Is a run for Governor, one of the reasons you chose not to run for school board again?
Did you know you were going to run when you were meeting with Republican candidates, claiming that you only wanted to talk about issues?
If that is the case, don’t you find it a little underhanded to run a campaign in that manner?
I find this so interesting. Because Bob is incapable of offering a vision beyond the executive order we have arrived at this point. As opposed to Chris Rants who can actually discuss issues and, therefore, accepted my challenge to debate. This all started because Bob avoided me at the IFPC event, declined debating me and asked if I had solutions, which I shared with him. I resent the very implication of the question and won’t dignify it. Not that you meant insult. But I will neither apologize for advancing ideas or asking candidates if they have solutions. The reason – altruistic or otherwise – is moot. I know the truth and my intentions. People will believe what they believe. In the end, however, Iowans deserve solutions not platitudes. Over six dates Chris Rants and I will offer ours. Bob is more than welcome to engage in this type of format, put a specific plan for fixing Iowa on his website, or continue to say “I’m the turnaround ceo.”
Mr. Narcisse,
I see then, that your campaign has then begun. I see that already you are displaying the time tested and politician approved strategy of dodging pointed questions that, at least in this voters mind, are quite relavent.
It is extremely disappointing to see you a question that has everything to do with your character and begin answering it by discussing another candidate that wasn’t even addressed in the question.
I know that now is not the time dicuss whether or not you want to run. I know that you and you alone want to make that decision. I would simply ask that you have the decency to at least tell folks here that you would rather address these concerns at a later date. Instead, you choose to take some kind of imagined offense and pretend the question has no merit.
Bravo, generic politician, bravo
Mr. Narcisse,
I also see that as a man that seems to be very passionate about finding solutions to issues, you completely ignored my question about the Big ‘G’ Government subsidies of the ethanol and Ag industries. I wonder if you might comment on that, as well as the other question I had. How do you tell folks that have followed the rules their whole lives and payed their taxes that you’re taking their jobs away and giving them to people who broke the law and will no be forced into slave labor?
Conservative Thinker: I felt you were making more of an accusation with a rhetorical question than asking a question seeking an answer. My intention from the very beginning has been to be the Windows of ideas while others retailed them – Dell, Gateway, D.I.T. “An Iowa Worth Fighting For” was created with the intention of owning the political conversation and that includes influencing legislative, gubernatorial, county candidates – etc…It is a governance, not a legislative agenda. And, in the few short months it has existed its ideas have been adopted by the poltical class across this state. As for me running for Governor, I might or I might not. I have said that from day one. But at no time have I sandbagged or in any other way been less than candid in my desire to engage in solutioneering. This is what is so exciting to me about Chris Rants and so disappointing about Bob Vander Plaats. I told Chris that he made it much tougher for me when looking at Bob. And then I saw Bob’s attack on Branstad for supporting Nelson and something snapped. So I went to his website hoping to see something more on there and there was. And what was on there was Big “G” government over and over and over. I called a friend and said I was so much better off when there was nothing and I could at least pretend Bob was a fiscal conservative. As for ethanol, wind, etc…my position is this – government needs to get out of the business of business. It doesn’t need to be a venture capitalist. It doesn’t need to be the speculator or the banker. I am a very small “g” government guy. Unapologetically. I want to cut spending, responsibly, by eliminating all the pet projects, the waste, the duplication. Then I want to fix the tax code in multiple areas from corporate taxes to property taxes to our fee structure. Then I want to put government on a weight loss plan. Just as I went from a size 44-46 late March/early April but fit my nephew’s size 32 jeans Thanksgiving Day I want to trim the fat off government. I believe in letting people keep their money and their consumption and investments stimulate the economy. I’m a Free Market guy. Let the citizens pick winners and losers. I hope that answers your question and you can always call me at 515-770-1218.
Jon:
Can’t wait to see the debate between you and Mr. Rants. It is refresing to see people express their ideas on how to fix the state government, even though I may not agree with every viewpoint. I would like to see more candidates for Governor lay out their proposals. As a “limited government” guy, I feel that some people in our party have focused more on other issues and have lost sight on sound economic principals that can create long term growth and prosperity for this state.
Raider 11: I agree 100%. I do not consider myself a social conservative or even a fiscal conservative. I consider myself to have American and Iowa Values. Those do not belong to a party. I think the social conservative movement, like the NRA, would be much better served if it neither attempted to co-opt a party but even more important, did not allow itself to be co-opted by a party. Instead it should function as a non-partisan focused political enterprise. That would allow the traditional parties to exists as they ought best to exist while competing for what is clearly a winning agenda. There’s a reason traditional marraige has won 100% of the time – from the People’s Republic of California in November to most recently Maine and New York even while Republicans and Conservatives are a divided, losing, rejected political force at every level. And while Republicans might compete for the presidency, Congress, Gubernatorial or statewide offices, across this country they are losing county, city and school offices wholesale. America needs more than one viable party at the governance level, unfortunately the lack of a true vision has cost the G.O.P. more than credibility – it has cost it power. Real power. If that were not the case the Republican appointed courts from the U.S. Supreme to the California and Massachusetts and Iowa courts would have protected fundamental rights. And our cities and schools and counties wouldn’t be the havens they’ve become, and more important, the breeding grounds they’ve become to defeat real traditional values from marraige to fiscal accountability. Electing Republicans in Name Only isn’t good enough.
Narcisse: Have you talked this over with Dimocrats?
This is nuts. You’re worried about RINOs when you vote Dimocrat. Now we have an idea what is wrong with the Dimocrat party. They have no idea what they’re doing.
Narcisse: Do you have another profession? If so, you need to go back to that one. You are one confused dude.
Deace Voted For Obama: Actually, I’m not confused. In truth, I’m neither a “D” or an “R” I am an “I” above all else. The “I” by the way doesn’t stand for independent it stands for Iowan. This isn’t a game. This isn’t a contest between two teams like the Packers and Vikings. Iowans are hurting. Our state isn’t the state represented on our quarter or postcards. Iowa’s in trouble and it is going to take those of us that care more about our children and our state than some party label to fix it. But I am encouraged “Deace Voted For Obama” by you and “Mr. Hawk” and others who cannot attack the ideas I’m advancing only me personally. As a school board member once the attacks became personal instead of issue driven I knew we’d get a new code of conduct, we’d elevate security of our students as a top priority, we’d start doing the right thing regarding our policies and procedures and we’d even get rid of Taylor Ohde Kitchell. So your criticisms really encourage me. It affirms that our “An Iowa Worth Fighting For: Ten Step Vision Plan for 21st Century Governance” is dead on. Thank you again for your positive affirmation.
Again, you don’t want people to consider your VOTING RECORD because to do so would present a picture of someone who merely swings with the political winds.
Fortunately, Steve Deace reminds us to focus on what people DO, and not what they SAY. Personally, I’m thankful that Deace has made a point of really hammering this idea home. By focusing on what you DO (supporting and campaigning for Culver and Obama, being co-chair of the Polk County DEMOCRATIC Party) we can get a better glimpse of what you might stand for despite your convenient efforts to distract voters in the hopes that they forget.
Mr. Hawk: I can understand why offering real solutions for you is a distraction. For the rest of us it is called a start. Again, thank you for not having a single criticism of substance to offer. It affirms our ideas are right on target. For the blind partisan this is problematic but for real Iowans it has to be refreshing. For those who want to be part of the solution and not part of the same old tired “Coke v. Pepsi” rhetoric feel free to call me at 515-770-1218.
What conservative policies of Chet Culver and Barack Obama lead you to support those individuals, Mr. Narcisse?
“For those who want to be part of the solution and not part of the same old tired “Coke v. Pepsi” rhetoric…”
- And the great thing about Narcisse is that depending on the election year and the public mood at the time, you can have Coke AND Pepsi. It’s a bonus!