Traditional Marriage Advocates Risk the Future of Marriage on Vander Plaats
- Monday, January 18, 2010, 4:16
- Iowa, News Center, Top Story
- 1,862 views
- 72 comments
Last week, the Iowa Family Policy Center’s Iowa Family PAC endorsed Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats. The endorsement itself didn’t surprise anyone. What surprised people was that the most prominent pro-family organization in the state chose to echo the exact same endorsement structure that State Representative Kent Sorenson used just a week earlier when endorsing Vander Plaats.
In endorsing Vander Plaats, both Sorenson and IFPC used the opportunity to blast former governor and current Republican gubernatorial candidate Terry Branstad. Both vowed to not support Branstad in the general election if he wins the Republican primary. IFPC encouraged its supporters to attend a “Let Us Vote” rally at the capitol on the same day as Governor Culver’s condition of the state address. However, they failed to communicate to their activists that the rally was actually the backdrop for them to endorse Vander Plaats.
The recent actions of IFPC and other advocates of traditional marriage trouble me greatly. My concern is that the focus of these groups has now been redirected toward helping one candidate rather than concentrating on the ultimate goal of passing a marriage amendment.
Passing a constitutional amendment is no easy task. In 1999, Iowans were asked to vote on two proposed constitutional amendments. The first was a 99% spending limitation, and the second would have required a sixty percent majority to pass a tax increase. Both of these amendments failed when put to a vote of the public.
Unlike the 1999 constitutional amendments, the marriage amendment isn’t even being allowed a vote in legislative committee, let alone getting a vote before the full House and Senate. Even if the amendment is voted on and passes in both chambers, legislators will have to pass it again in the next legislative session, meaning the earliest the people of Iowa will get the opportunity to vote on marriage is 2012.
Knowing how difficult it is pass a constitutional amendment, the events of the past 10 days could actually do more to guarantee gay marriage rights in Iowa rather than repeal them. While the motto of IFPC’s marriage initiative may be “Let Us Vote,” I’m now left wondering what they really want “us” to vote for.
Is IFPC focused on passing a constitutional amendment defining marriage? If that is the case, they are asking people to be involved in a process which is a multi-year undertaking and requires the election of at least seven state representative and eight state senators. Or, are they focused on turning out the vote for Bob Vander Plaats in the June primary?
If the focus is on nominating Bob Vander Plaats, then I’m of the opinion that they have done more harm than good in regards to the issue of marriage. Vander Plaats’ executive order is an unnecessary step in passing a constitutional amendment. His executive order complicates an already complicated issue. Even if Vander Plaats’ executive order is successful, the legislature would still have to pass a marriage amendment to ensure a future governor with more liberal ideals won’t undermine traditional marriage down the road. On the other hand, if Vander Plaats’ executive order isn’t successful, then passing a constitutional amendment would most likely become even more difficult, especially if either Mike Gronstal or Pat Murphy still occupy their leadership positions.
The fundamental problem I have with IFPC’s recent actions and Vander Plaats’ executive order is that the issue of traditional marriage is now directly coupled with the success or failure of one candidate, – Bob Vander Plaats. By IFPC going all-in on Vander Plaats, traditional marriage advocates may be defeated long before this November. If Vander Plaats is defeated in the June primary, you can count on Governor Culver, Mike Gronstal, Pat Murphy, One Iowa, and the Iowa Democratic Party to declare the issue of marriage to be settled.
Gay marriage advocates will all say that Vander Plaats’ campaign is a referendum on marriage, and if it couldn’t pass in a Republican primary, there is no way that it would pass in a general election. The same holds true for the general election if Vander Plaats win the Republican primary but loses in the general election. The best case scenario for IFPC is if Vander Plaats is elected governor and sees his executive order upheld, but as discussed above, the legislature will still have to approve the amendment twice.
What leaves me the most disappointed about IFPC’s recent actions is how politically driven their anti-endorsement of Branstad appears to have been. It also seems that IFPC and some traditional marriage advocates have sought to vilify certain Republicans while giving a pass to some Democrats. In addition to vilifying former Governor Terry Branstad, Republican Senate Minority Leader Paul McKinley and Congressman Steve King have also been the target of criticism on the marriage issue. When some Iowans who wanted to bring in the group that successfully passed Proposition Eight in California, many pro-marriage advocates wanted nothing to do with them.
Yet, last Friday, both Steve Deace and Rep. Kent Sorenson urged people to call and encourage Democrat State Representative Mike Reasoner to push the marriage amendment bill he filed in the Iowa House. I have no problem with them wanting people to encourage Rep. Reasoner to do the right thing, but one has to wonder why they are willing to encourage a Democrat to do the right thing on this issue but are not willing to do the same for someone like former Governor Branstad.
IFPC’s anti-endorsement of Branstad also had a glaring omission. Nowhere in their press release do they acknowledge that it was Branstad who signed into law the Iowa Defense of Marriage Act. By not accurately portraying his record, we are left to wonder if the organization was politically motivated to omit such information.
The reason why I question IFPC’s political motives isn’t because they endorsed Vander Plaats, it’s because Chuck Hurley, the President of IFPC, noted in his remarks last Tuesday that Bob Vander Plaats had helped raise over $160,000 for IFPC’s Iowa Family PAC. Raising money for a cause that you care deeply about is admirable, but that information makes one question if the endorsement of Vander Plaats was ever in doubt. More importantly, it raises questions about Vander Plaats’ influence over IFPC as an organization. Perhaps these contributions had no bearing on the decision of IFPC to endorse, but at the very least, it was poor judgment to raise this issue during the actual endorsement due to the questions of financial influence it raises.
The issue of marriage is important to me. As a conservative, I realize that limited government can never truly exist unless our society values and upholds the traditional family structure. In the brief history of this site, I have consistently advocated for traditional marriage. I’ve also published numerous articles written by IFPC staff, and last summer I purchased a LUV Iowa yard sign for seven dollars and promptly planted it in my yard.
IFPC’s rally for marriage and press conference would have been much more powerful had the group’s leaders been joined on the stage by three or four gubernatorial candidates, 44 or more members of the Iowa House, and at least 18 state senators. Sadly, the event stage was limited to only those who support Bob Vander Plaats’ campaign for governor.
If the ultimate goal is to let the people of Iowa vote on a constitutional amendment that defines traditional marriage, then organizations like IFPC and supporters of traditional marriage should be trying to elect enough legislators so that the marriage amendment can be passed. While a Governor can be helpful in passing a constitutional amendment on marriage, they have no role in the process of getting the amendment passed.
IFPC has now tied the future of the marriage issue the political success of Bob Vander Plaats. If he fails as a candidate, the issue of traditional marriage will also suffer a serious defeat. One would have thought that after losing a decade long struggle to protect traditional marriage in Iowa, marriage supporters and groups like IFPC would have focused their efforts on the issue of marriage itself and not place an all-in bet on one political candidate.
Photo by Dave Davidson
About the Author
Craig Robinson has written 503 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.
72 Comments on “Traditional Marriage Advocates Risk the Future of Marriage on Vander Plaats”
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.
Thanks for a thoughtful article to start what looks to be a politically-packed week – even if many readers won’t agree with you. Keep it up! No more copying of BVP press packets!
This implies that the other candidates do not care about the marriage issue and nothing could be farther from the truth. All three of our other candidates are just as commited.
IFPC may have helped VP some in the short term but they hurt themselves in the long term. There were a whole bunch of IFPC supporters who are supporting other candidates and now they’ve just been betrayed with their contributions. Someone at IFPC assumed too much.
Its amazing these groups have not seen threw BVP. Has anyone investigated his past? What has he really been doing for the last several years? Why he has left every job he has had? Ask some of his former employees if they think he could govern the state of Iowa? I hope Iowa finds the truth before its to late.
Great article. This endorsement also does nothing to distance the notion that Bob is a one issue candidate. Whether he is or not, that public perception is already there, and this feeds directly into that line of though. This is a horrible move long term move for IFPC like you said, and I can see this steering support away from Bob more than I see it helping.
If former Gov. Branstad would come out strongly now for “traditional” marriage then maybe people like Kent Sorenson and organizations like IFPC wouldn’t have to come out swinging against him. Why is this not Terry’s fault? How do you know IFPC didn’t want other Republicans standing with them? I remember several years ago signing a petition telling our Republicans that were in charge that we wanted a marriage amendment– long before the mess we have now–and the Republicans wouldn’t do it then. Why in the world am I supposed to believe anyone is going to do anything to restore marriage to what it is meant to be if they aren’t willing to lay everything on the line? Criticize Sorenson and IFPC if you like but it was people like Stu Iverson that helped get us in this mess whether he or anyone else wants to admit it.
I’ll know conservatives are serious about protecting “traditional marriage” when they push for criminalizing adultery and ending no-fault divorce and civil remarriage.
To focus on same-sex marriage as a “threat” to society is just the same old strategy of scoring political points by demonizing a minority group.
Craig, GREAT analysis here…. You’ve hit the nail on the head here. By putting all their eggs into the BVP basket…they’re completely risking the future of the traditional marriage issue.
IFPC would do much better with their time to help promote candidates for State Legislature who WILL vote for a traditional marriage amendment instead of shilling for BVP.
What will IFPC do if say..BVP gets elected governor..but the GOP doesn’t pick up the House and Senate? BVP himself has stated that he fully expects impeachment proceedings would be filed upon him to remove him from office.
What if an impeachment against BVP is successful? Then what? Where does that leave IFPC and traditional marriage supporters then?
Jake—First off…You forget that it was Branstad that SIGNED the Defense of Marriage Act in Iowa….legislation that was SUPPORTED by people like Mike Gronstal.
Instead of hammering Gronstal for his flip-flop…IFPC is choosing to be a campaign arm for BVP…and in doing so..they’re risking the entire issue altogether as Craig points out…
Great article. People like Rep. Sorenson and organizations like IFPC have really put themselves out on a limb. Anything short of BVP winning the governorship will result in them having no influence at all.
My personal opinion is gay marriage issue is over and done with. I don’t think a Constitutional Amendment will pass nor do I think BVP will win the primary.
I am as Christian as they come. I have watched for several months, the actions of the IFPC and know in my heart that God will have vengeance upon them! It absolutely puts the fear of God in me, that they claim to be doing what they are doing with biblical references. God does not endorse IFPC and may God have mercy on each of their souls for the harm they are doing to this great state. I will pray for each and every one of them.
Banning same sex marriage is the exact opposite of limited government. It’s government invading the private lives of it’s citizens.
Yes, Craig, you are 100% correct. We should continue to use the same failed methods that we have used the past ten years. Elect Republicans, elect Republicans, elect Republicans. And then once those Republicans get into office they can’t get a damn thing done about the marriage issue. We had our chance using this method and FAILED. We became such a laughing stock that the courts decided to go ahead and make the law all on their own because they know Republicans will continue down the same path and FAIL. By the way, there is only one sure fired way to fail, keep repeating the same actions that failed before. As far as Branstad goes, yes he did sign DOMA but we are now into the second decade past his term. A lot has changed and he needs to come forward with new boldness for 2010.
No where in this article did I write that all we have to do is elect Republicans. I also never said we can’t try new tactics. I simply said that going “all in” on one candidate was a mistake.
Cuppla short observations:
1] Somebody mentioned “God on their side” (my words). Gimminy are any of you old enough to remember Bob Dylan’s poignant 1961 or-so song “With God on Our Side” or some similar title?
2] Someone mentioned laughing stock. With your singular insistance on using terminology about the threats to marriage and defending marriage, you already _are_ laughing stock.
Craig -
I must say that I am disappointed with your article today. I understand the points that you make and may even agree with some of them. What disappoints me though, is that it seems as though you have crossed the line from covering an event through the filter of a ‘right of center’ lense, to advocating or campaigning for a specific candidate. By saying you think that going ‘all in’ for a candidate (one that has said in the past that he’s ‘all in’ on this issue) is a mistake, you are now campaigning against that candidate. It is my mistake for thinking that you would not take sides before a primary.
As for your main contention, that this endoresment is a mistaken strategy, I think it remains to be seen. Personally, I like that Mr. Sorenson and the IFPC have had the heart to make a fully persuasive argument. I know that traditionaly politicians like to take the sort of stand that when unpopular in the future can be retracted or restated or because of having been so completely benign in the first place, can just be ignored. I like the fact that a few people are willing to say where they stand and why. In addition to explaining why they stand where they do, they have the guts to say why they aren’t standing somewhere else.
IR..
You’re demonstrating the exact shortsightedness that’s going to derail the traditional marriage efforts in Iowa.
Read Craig’s article again and use some critical thinking skills here. Look at my previous post and answer some of the questions I posed.
I’ll say it again..what do IFPC and BVP do, if say BVP does get elected…and on his first day…issues his “proclamation”…and then gets impeached and removed by a Democrat controlled State Legislature. Then where are you?
You’re worse off than what you were in the first place. The fact of the matter still remains that if Iowa is to do anything to protect traditional marriage..two things have to happen..
1. Elect more advocates of traditional marriage to the Legislature
2. Get a Marriage Amendment passed and signed by the Governor to be taken to the people for a vote.
Instead, IFPC has decided that its going to be BVP’s campaign arm. That’s too bad. If they had had that rally last week…with as Craig said, 44 or more House members, 18 or more Senators and three or four gubernatorial candidates…that would have sent an unmistakable message.
Instead…they’ve decided to hitch their hopes to BVP’s ship without thinking about what happens if BVP’s campaign sinks like the Titanic….
CT says–”What disappoints me though, is that it seems as though you have crossed the line from covering an event through the filter of a ‘right of center’ lens, to advocating or campaigning for a specific candidate”
Um…what candidate did Craig endorse or advocate for here? There was no endorsement of any kind in this article
Hawk -
You mention in your previous post, “use some critical thinking skills here“. I ask you to do the same. When you have a candidate that says he’s, “all in” on the marriage issue. Taking that into account, you write an article that reads, “…going “all in” … was a mistake“. And you mention in the same article that a “anti-endorsement” of Branstad is a mistake. What do you think is going on here?
In addition, Craig points out that Branstad signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1998. A not so subtle hint that Branstad, is your man on marriage.
Excellent article, Craig. You nailed it.
CT, I’m sure Craig can defend himself here, but I’m pretty sure the only reason he points out that Branstad signed the Defense of Marriage Act, is because the IFPC conveniently left that point out of their press release. In their very faint praise, they said, “He did demonstrate pro-family values at times….”, and named a few things that are very minor in comparison to signing DOMA.
It’s a very relevant point, and shows they are willing to twist the facts to make their case.
Kevin
I guess I’ll ask you the same thing I ask of Hawk, just engage in a little critical thinking here. If you point out that a candidate is being treated unfairly and then in the same article, point out that another candidate’s slogan is a mistake. Would call that reporting…or might you call that campaigning?
I would call it analysis, which Craig does all the time.
Kevin
Well I guess we’ll agree to disagree then. I think that if someones ‘analysis’ is that by supporting a candidate because of an issue, you are selling that whole issue out…well, I call that campaigning.
This article never says that it was a mistake of Bob to be “all in” on the marriage issue. It says it was a mistake for a group like IFPC to go “all in” on one gubernatorial candidate.
If I’m Rod Roberts (a strong marriage advocate) or Chris Rants (who was the ONLY rep in the House last year to actually get anything done on this issue, and he did it after the leadership who had kicked him out couldn’t get the job done), I’m pretty offended that I was not invited to be a part of this pro-marriage rally and that IFPC endorsed one person when there are at least three that are good on marriage. Plus, you’ve probably somewhat alienated their supporters who might have been good ground troops for the cause of a marriage amendment.
I think it is a very valid point that it is the legislature that is key in getting an amendment passed, not the governor.
CT, don’t shoot the messenger when the message strikes a little too close to home. This is an analysis piece, and these are valid concerns that IFPC should have considered but obviously didn’t. I like IFPC and have donated to them, but this was not their best move.
Marriage (more specifically, a marriage amendment) is bigger and more important than any one candidate.
Craig writes,
“If the focus is on nominating Bob Vander Plaats, then I’m of the opinion that they have done more harm than good in regards to the issue of marriage. Vander Plaats’ executive order is an unnecessary step in passing a constitutional amendment. His executive order complicates an already complicated issue. Even if Vander Plaats’ executive order is successful, the legislature would still have to pass a marriage amendment to ensure a future governor with more liberal ideals won’t undermine traditional marriage down the road. On the other hand, if Vander Plaats’ executive order isn’t successful, then passing a constitutional amendment would most likely become even more difficult, especially if either Mike Gronstal or Pat Murphy still occupy their leadership positions.”
Now, you can call that analysis if you want, but I would say its campaigning against Mr. Vander Plaats on the extreme end, or at least advocating against a stand in the most benign sense.
For the record, I am not the most ardent supporter of Mr. Vand Plaats. For example, I think it was a mistake not to take Mr. Narcisse up on his proposal to debate with him and Mr. Rants. I think Mr. Rants showed some bravery and heart by going out and defending his positions in an extended format.
I find the whole premise disturbing. Even the article’s headline is laughable. How allowing gay marriage “risks the future of marriage” is far beyond me. I thought that the things that risked marriage were adultery, lying, abuse and lack of love. If one of you Christians really feel that your marriage is risked by allowing same sex couples the rights of state protection for their relationship status, I feel nothing but pity for you and your marriage.
Get over yourselves, and do it quick. The future will be rough on you neanderthals. And for what it’s worth, Bob VanderPlaats has no shot at actually becoming Governor of anything. But hey, maybe he can make some progress towards the 2014 campaign and pick up a few new donors to keep him in his lifestyle for another four years. What a life! To be a professional candidate (and loser)!
“… What a life! To be a professional candiate(and loser)!” Cycho, on that you and I are in total agreement!
This is such a cluster, I do not even know where to begin in trying to clear it all up so that it makes better sense. But, I am going to try now… off the cuff.
First point: No one is objective. Period. Ever. If Craig has let more bias than usual slip through in his very deeply felt opinion, so be it. It does not diminish any point he has made. And if you believe he or anyone else posting does not bring bias with them, you should take that delusion and depart with it in tow.
Now, on to the somewhat uncorrelated facts.
IFPC is a non profit grassroots supporting organization. Only because of tax code do they have a PAC and other legal arms. In practice, all such groups are one and the same. So let us not let that get confused. This is the full out board supported political campaign effort FOR BOB VANDER PLATTS. It has NOTHING to do with gay marriage, traditional marriage in any way OTHER than the obvious direct reflection of the singular focus of Bob’s Campaign efforts.
Let me put that another way, just to be clear. IFPC is now totally an integral part of his campaign and is using his campaign to advance their agenda. While, legally, to the letter of the law, they will not likely cross any lines, the gig is up and they are now become the same as ICA and their efforts for Forbes, Dole and Romney.
Not only have they put all THEIR eggs in this one basket, they have put all OUR eggs in it too. And by our I mean to include any pro life, pro family, Christian conservative who is NOT part of the Cult of Bob. That “our”. Campaigns and Action groups MUST remain distinct or they must suffer the fate of the other.
Craig put it best in poker terms: “All in”. And they have Jack Nine – Off Suit. The flop is Ace, King Queen. They need the 10. Two cards to go and 27% chance of it at best. And they have no idea if Branstad or anyone else has 2 aces? Or a Jack 10 suited. None. And at this point “all in” is a move of desperation that SHOULD not be needed.
It is needed though. And I know why they have done it. They, IFPC, failed to do those things necessary for victory, failed to know who was and was not trustworthy politically in the past, and made a comedy of political errors leading to this move of utter desperation.
And Bob failed too. failed to organize his own campaign such they he would have ALREADY had this base and expanded it to fiscal conservatives in order to keep others out of the race in the first place! His too lose and he’s doing a find job of it.
They terrible irony of this: Campaign and Non Profit coming together…. is that it itself, is a political version of gay marriage. And it will bear the same fruits.
RIP
The point is that it was a bad move to tie the future of the marriage movement to ANY one candidate. It could have been Roberts, it could have been Rants, but it was BVP.
This isn’t about Bob! It is about planning for the future of marriage (no matter who wins the primary) and about the most important thing: passing a marriage amendment.
The legislature is far more important in the amendment process than a governor. Every pro-marriage legislator and gubernatorial candidate should have been there, not just a select few.
Will someone please explain to me why the current socio-political definition of marriage should be forever enshrined in the Iowa State Constitution? How does the definition of marriage Constitution the make-up of the Government of the State of Iowa? Should we also define other legal contracts? ie Corporations, Partnerships, Co-Signed auto loans, Authorized Representative Tax Preparers? Do we need Constitutional Amendments for those things?
Well done. This message was not the one that you communicated (perhaps unintentionally) last week on Deace’s show, and I assume that he’ll question you on it today. Don’t waver.
This is well-reasoned and thoughtful, and thus you’ll be accused today of not being on board for “returning America to the Bible”.
Again, I think it’s important for you to stick to this opinion this afternoon, and not allow Steve to mischaraterize it. I applaud you, however, for taking this stand here.
This is a well-stated think piece. I am concerned about a scortched earth policy at this point and if BVP does not get the nomination and decides to “go rogue” and run as an independent, I am sure that will split the Republican and Conservative vote enough to hand Terrace Hill back to Culver on a platter. I am not sure cutting off your nose to spite your face is a good thing to do — that is not inspired wisdom — because what is important is to elect a pro-traditional marriage governor.
There are many that read articles on this site that disagree with Mr. Vander Plaats’ position on Marriage, including Craig. I have heard their arguments against it. I too realize that it is a risk to go “all in” with an executive order. I understand that if we can’t win seats in the house and senate that we risk the governorship if the impeachment vote does not go well. I do understand that the media portrays Mr. Vander Plaats as a one-issue candidate as a result of his statements.
I hear these arguments and I do understand the risks. What bothers me, as a social conservative, is that we have gotten to this point at all. To folks like myself, I view Mr. Vander Plaats as the only candidate I can trust on Marriage. I know that other candidates say that they support a marriage amendment, but I’m left wondering if those statements are truthful. Frankly, if the Republican party thought that this was as important as they say, they could have done something about it. We have all heard by now, that Republican leadership in the Senate failed to get a marriage amendment filed last session. How can that possibly be?? Legislators knew that the decision was coming down from the court, this was not a big surprise to anyone. So how does this happen? To me, again as a social conservative, it happens because no matter what Republican candidates say, they will simply not do anything about it. There will always be an excuse as to why we couldn’t get anything done on that front.
Because of this, I am left with only one option. Mr. Vander Plaats vows to issue an order on day one. Thats a pretty bold decision to go back on and there will be no valid excuse if he doesn’t follow through if elected.
CT,
Its extremely disingenuous to infer that this analysis by Ciraig is an “endorsement” of Branstad. This article does no such thing. What Craig has deftly pointed out here..is that IFPC has unwisely taken the traditional marriage campaign in Iowa and made it part and parcel of the Vander Plaats campaign.
Perhaps Chuck Hurley missed the memo..but I don’t think Rod Roberts, a minister in the Church of Christ, is a big supporter of gay marriage. I don’t think Christopher Rants..who did the most of any legislator last year in trying to move the marriage amendment forward in the Legislature is a big supporter of it either…and its pretty safe to say that Terry Branstad…who SIGNED INTO LAW, Iowa’s Defense of Marriage act is a big supporter either.
Yet, none of these three are “pure enough” for IFPC. Oh..is that “pure enough” in the sense that they didn’t help to bring in $160,000 for IFPC like Vander Plaats did. As Craig deftly points out…it really wasn’t too smart of Hurley to brag about it during their rally last week.
I see that CT or Iowans Rock won’t answer the big question I put out there earlier—
What do IFPC and BVP do, if say BVP does get elected…and on his first day…issues his “proclamation”…and then gets impeached and removed by a Democrat controlled State Legislature. Then where are you?
I agree with 99% of your article. I only take issue with 1 part:
> As a conservative, I realize that limited government can never truly exist unless our society values and upholds the traditional family structure.
Wrong. Limited government can exist without valuing the traditional family structure. WTF does that even mean? In many Hispanic cultures, many generations live together under one roof. Is that “non-traditional”? And how does it affect limited government?
What you fail to realize is that limited government works just fine without requirement for any family living arrangement.
I’d argue that a good education and a *stable* home environment are what are important for maintaining limited government.
Maybe the IFPC is looking ahead?
http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2010/01/18/column-priorities-expose-war-in-gop/
Hawk
It certainly is NOT deingenuous for me to point out that Craig is highlighting Branstad’s virtues while pointing out Mr. Vander Plaats faults. If you choose not to apply critical thinking in this manner, than we will agree to disagree.
Now as to what happens in your scenario? Well if that were to happen, then so much better for us! If the legislature removes the Governor that a majority of Iowan’s voted for, one that most here would say is a single issue candidate, one that vows to issue an executive order over and over again…well if they do that, then they might as well just hand over the house and senate to republicans
CT – the only thing I’ve ever heard out of VP is a lot of cheesy lines and a ton of rhetoric. Where is his experience? Has he ever signed a Defense of Marriage Act into law? Has he ever served in the legislature? Is he a lawyer? If he was a lawyer, would he know that it’s unconstitutional to issue an executive order? What ever happened to may the best win? The one that works the hardest? I’ll support any REPUBLICAN nominee who wins the primary no matter who it is. I will very hurt and very angry if VP runs as an independent. He will sabotage everything for his own ego. And don’t ever tell me that it’s for God because I know better and all of the Republican candidates are God loving.
Anybody remember a few years ago Grassley’s committee looksee into political activities by religious organizations? Mebbe chuckie should be looking into the tax atatus of this IFPC outfit?
CT, I want some of what you’ve been smokin’ because if you believe that scenario is even remotely positive you are higher than a kite!
What you and others have failed to grasp is there are not enough conservatives in Iowa to win by them alone, period. Therefore you need to bring along independents and yes, like-minded dems in order carry the day. You all bitch about the court overstepping and allowing “gay marriage”, yet it doesn’t bother you a whit for one person (the chief executive) to do essentially the same thing?
Christian
“I know better and all of the Republican candidates are God loving”
Riiiight, like Joy Corning, who loves God as she watches over the murder of countless Iowa babies? But maybe you subscribe to the notion that all roads lead to heaven, or Oprah’s “God is…God is”, whatever that actually means
Well Timmy, think it through with me for a moment, under your scenario.
If Vander Plaats wins the governorship, then a majority of Iowans would have voted for him, correct?
He would still be very public with the executive order, right?
People who voted for him, would probably vote for him for that reason, being that he’s all in on this issue, right?
So, you could make the connection that those folks supported that kind of decision, right?
So, if the legislature impeaches the Governor on day 2, then I’m assuming that the people wouldn’t have forgotten why they elected Mr. Vander Plaats, right?
If then, the legislature removes the Governor, and in so doing sending a message to the people that they do not care on iota what they think, you can then imagine that there might be some consequence, right?
CT…
That sounds all nice and dandy in your simplistic world..but lets get back to reality.
1. Iowa doesn’t have a recall law. So any “consequences” would have to come 2 years down the line…during which time..you’d still have a Democrat legislature, and oh..by impeaching BVP..and his Lt. Governor…guess who becomes Governor in that situation…Senate President Jack Kibbie. Yeah..that will help preserve traditional marriage there CT
2. CT…name me ANY instance in ANY state where a Governor has essentially waved a magic wand and declared a judicial ruling to be null and void… To my knowledge, it hasn’t happened in our nation’s history……
CT
Are you a lawyer? I take that as a no Okay, pretend you’re being cross examined in a court of law (Somehting you and VP know nothing about) and answer my questions above with a simple yes or no answer please.
Time to Fight the Fight then… There have been examples of the President standing up to the Judiciary, and our State Governor has more Constitutional Power than the President of the United States respectively.
Christian
Since you ask, I will attempt to accomodate you,
“Where is his experience?” – Umm…Yes??
“Has he ever signed a Defense of Marriage Act into law?” – No
“Has he ever served in the legislature?” – No
“Is he a lawyer?” – No
“If he was a lawyer, would he know that it’s unconstitutional to issue an executive order?” – Umm No?
“What ever happened to may the best win?” – Umm Yes??
“The one that works the hardest?” – hmm, Yes??
So now that i’m slightly confused by the yes/no questions, allow me to expound a bit. You are correct, he didn’t sign the Defense of Marriage Act into Law. I wonder though, was there much political opposition when Branstad did sign it into law. By that, im trying to get at, if pressured today, would Branstad stand up for those that elected him and still advocate for an amendment. I mean, even if he was booed at a football game.
You are also correct in that Mr. Vander Plaats is not a lawyer. I will say that again, Mr. Vander Plaats is NOT A LAWYER. I don’t know if you have great love for lawyers, but I don’t think a great many Iowans do. But, let me reiterate, Vander Plaats is definately NOT A LAWYER
I do have another question though, what law (Code of Iowa now) would Vander Plaats have broken? Remember now, you have to actually charge him with something if you want to impeach.
Just for the record: The issue of the Executive Order is correct, lawful and historically accurate. He could also seek to add 2 more justices to the courts. FDR did this. We did not always have 9 judges. The branches ARE Co-Equal and he absolutely CAN and SHOULD nullify their rulings over reaching scope. The court case applied to ONE and ONLY one case and as such the check on the judiciary by the executive is both nominating and enforcing. He can blanket declare the ruling or any ruling UNenforcable and that IS an executive power. Now that I am clear on my position with regard to this element, I will restate the rest.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Bob’s executive order is right. But where ELSE is he on the other issues? Either no where, or LEFT leaning. Christian Socialism is the attempt to get to the right ends by the wrong means… and it always fails. I would rather have HW Bush than W Bush, even though W was far more “socially” conservative in his outlook. The fruits of their deeds are self evident. HW’s downfall was he raised taxes. It was NOT his weak social policy. Whereas W’s strong arm social policies opened the door for the even stronger and totally wicked policies of Obama.
This is the problem with Bob. He has failed to listen to dozens of his once upon a time friends and dug his own grave and now IFPC has jumped in with him. In a few hundred days, we will have some other governor or the same governor and they will see this is a clear sign that gay marriage did not matter.
It does, but not to the degree and scope of a singularity. Look at Scott Brown tomorrow. He is a horrible leftist and on the issues is just another Graham or Hagel. Perhaps even worse. But he is going to do what Bob cannot do because Bob refused to do it.
Jesus told us about stubborn foolish men like this in his Parable of the Unfaithful Steward. All I can do is hang my head and know that at least we will be done with him in a few months and can begin to rebuild the conservative movement around Fiscal AND Social – Limited Government – Conservatives.
@ CT – No you do not. You can impeach him for anything or for some made up reason if you like. Impeachment is NOT a criminal proceeding is a political check and balance. Nothing more or less. The same things I said about Bob being constitutionally ALLOWED to declare court rulings unenforceable apply to the Legislature’s check on the Executive. They can BOTH do what they choose to do. Our check is to vote them IN or OUT. That is how it works.
waywardson, what size hat do you wear?
Steve Deace is all in a dither over this. Kind of like when he wouldn’t support Nussle, must have voted for Chester, and wouldn’t hold his nose and vote McCain so must have voted for Obamao. I realize Christ is not going to run. But if Christ doesn’t run, for God’s sake don’t vote for Culver!
Wayward: You are a verbose dumb ass. An executive cannot nullify a court decision by executive order. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of our government knows that. Think of how your spoiled shorts would be in a bunch if Obama nullified by edict a Supreme Court decision upholding the right to bear arms or repealing Roe vs. Wade. Sorry, you’ll have to go elsewhere to catch your tyranny bus.
Thanks for the name calling Glide. That tells me I hit right on the money. As for “anyone knows that” comments, you do not seem to know. So I will tell you. It goes all the way back to Jefferson and Madison and the Federalist Papers. I know it is something done as rarely as impeachment. But it has, can and again I say, SHOULD be done now. The courts clearly over reached and the Executive has an oath to keep, just the same, to reign them in.
I do not care how I would “feel” about Obama doing the same. Frankly all his bribes and extortions and most of his and GW’s Executive Orders were terrible. How I feel about them does not change the fact that they took place or that no one is calling for their impeachment seriously as a counter.
Co-Equal means CO and means Equal. The “Supreme” in courts is applicable to “To Other Courts”… not to other Branches. They are NOT Supreme over all, they are equal and JUST as subject to the other. This is WHY the enforcement or lack thereof is a power granted to the Executive. It is a check on the abuses of the MOB or the Black Robed Tyrants (as Jefferson called them).
Now, knock off the name calling and insults and stick to professional debate.
@ CD 7 1/2. Any more questions?
Sorry Wayward. You don’t get a hallpass from me on my callouts. Putting the shoe on the other foot with my example of Obama nullifying a Supreme Court decision near and dear to your heart shows how irrational you are. Moreover, cite me one example of an executive nullifying a Supreme Court decision addressing constitutional issues. Let me help you out. Since Marbury v. Madison there have been none. The only way to nullify the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision on gay marriage is by constitutional amendment which God willing, will never happen. Now get back to your freshman civics class.
Just for the record: The issue of the Executive Order is correct, lawful and historically accurate. He could also seek to add 2 more justices to the courts. FDR did this. We did not always have 9 judges.
You don’t know what you are talking about, Waywardson. FDR did not increase the number of Supreme Court justices. It has been at 9 since 1869. Nor does the Executive Branch have the right to overrule a Supreme Court ruling, either at the Federal or State level.
It is this kind of thinking that has made BVP a laughing stock to true conservatives with an understanding of history and the Constitution.
You ask me to point one out and then EXCLUDE the best example? Nice work there. I said it HAS been done and SHOULD be done and said it was RARE as impeachment. Only two ever got a vote and we have not removed ANY President from office. Ever. Not one time in 225 years. But we STILL have the power and the right to do so if we choose to. So only ONE President has actually NOT accepted and NOT enforced a Court ruling. That is 100% better record the Executive has over the Judicial than the Legislative has over the Executive. But, you only proved me correct by admitting the very one example.
As for the hall pass comments, I think that you do not wish to debate but to debase. I will not play. You seem to know what I said and are choosing to obfuscate the issue. So, I have made my point to the others reading this and you are not interested in debate so we are done. From here out, I will only point out your bad behaviors whenever and wherever you post them and no longer address you hoping for serious replies. Good day.
Hawkeye. I did not say FDR increased the court. I said the court WAS increased. And pointed out that FDR tried to add yet MORE. Just clearing that up in case you were legitimately confused by my post and not trying to mince words with me. Hard to tell with some around here.
BVP is a laughing stock for a long list of reasons. His Executive Order is the least of them and only it seems with those actually opposed to the RESULT and not the means.
Wayward: You blithering fool. You are the one obfuscating with your incoherent rhetoric. You might sound smart to many of the contiributors to this post but you can fool those of us actulally have studied freshman civics. Do you even know what Marbury v Madison held? Let me help you. The High Court in that case made it abundantly clear that with our system of checks and balances it was the prerogative of the Courts to interpret law, not the executive or the legislative branch. That ruling has stood inviolate to this day so get back to work on BVP’s next enlightening white paper. As far as your thin skin, this is the internet for God’s sake. Look up and to the right. Krusty is callling. You must be an idiot.
Craig, thanks for this important piece.
The battle for the soul of the GOP is on. As a Christian and a social conservative, and as a prior supporter of the Iowa Family Policy Center, I am embarrassed. I think Iowa needs to start the “Deace Party” and ship all the wackos off to it. Then let’s have the reasonable Christian conservatives remain in the GOP along with the fis-cons and attract independents.
The GOP doesn’t need the fringe elements like this. The Deace Wing of the party not only turns off voters, but it also makes it extremely easy for the opposition on the left to paint caricatures of the GOP that are unfair.
I will never contribute another dime to the IFPC, ever. They have marginalized themselves as a meaningful political influence. And most importantly they are succeeding in (intentionally or not) marginalizing the GOP in the state of Iowa.
I agree with you Pipe, they are an embarassment. Duffy’s latest piece on KCCI says it all. I made an exception tonight and actually tuned into deace to hear part of his exchange with Craig. He really got his panties in a wad over this!
I don’t think it is overstating it to say that the future of marriage is riding on this primary. That’s why IFPC and others are breaking out the big guns. Roberts and Rants are probably not serious contenders, but even if they were, they have not shown that they are passionate about this. Branstad is clearly not passionate about it. This issue is such that if you’re not passionate about it, you won’t get anything worthwhile accomplished because you will be reluctant to alienate people. So if Vander Plaats loses, the marriage thing goes away. And along with it any boldness toward the courts. If BVP loses it will also be clear the Republican voters aren’t passionate about this issue. Again, marriage loses.
This is why people and groups that believe marriage is the fundamental unit of our society and that everything else flows from it do think that this primary is a referendum on marriage. And they are doing what 90% of the people on this site scream about… do everything you can to make your guy win. I will admit that it is surprising that they went after Branstad like they did. But I think its clear now that Branstad will not win the general. There are too many people that simply will not vote for him. He can’t win without all the people most of you rip on.
I think IFPC is making sure you all realize this and hopes that those of you that aren’t passionate about their issues will join them anyway because you want to win.
Branstad can’t win? Did you just type that? He leads every poll by double digits! Craig is right. If or when Bob loses, we ALL lose because THEY chose, stubbornly, willfully and to some degree ignorantly to put this as a referendum on Gay Marriage. And while MANY, and perhaps TOO many will see it as such, it is NOT. It is a referendum on Bob I Do Not Have The Brains To Run An Effective Campaign Vander Plaats. Nothing more than that in reality. Sadly, perceptions are reality in politics. And Bob and his cult are going to hurt us so badly I do not have words for it.
Tyler..
Again..I’ll point out to you that there are other candidates who have strong feelings on the gay marriage issue…
Rod Roberts–minister in the Church of Christ…he’s spoken very forcefully on the issue…he just won’t take the route of BVP…
Chris Rants…actually did the most of any legislator last year to push the issue forward in the Legislature last year..
Branstad…well he signed DOMA into law in the first place in Iowa…so you know where he stands on the issue…contrary to what the Deace Kool-Aid drinkers will tell you.
So to say that they aren’t “passionate” about the issue..just isn’t true. What separates Branstad, Roberts, and Rants from BVP is this:
BVP has publicly stated over and over again that he’s “betting his entire campaign” around the gay marriage issue. The other candidates aren’t pigeonholing themselves into becoming single-issue candidates.
If BVP loses the primary…gay marriage as an issue won’t “go away”…but it will NOT be the sole focus of the November 2010 election campaign as BVP and the IFPC would like it to be.
A September 2009 Des Moines Register poll found that 63% of Iowans state that its OTHER issues that will make up their choice for Governor. Only 5% surveyed stated that gay marriage was their single most important issue.
Yet..BVP seems to be tone deaf to that. Sure..its great to get those 5% of folks who think gay marriage is biggest issue to deal with. What about that 60%+ that doesn’t feel that way? Where do they go for a candidate?
As we’ve all seen with other single issue candidates…once you’ve painted yourself into that box….everything else that candidate says gets drowned out in the background. Look at guys like Tom Tancredo…Sam Brownback,–both great conservative minds…but they focused their presidential campaigns in Iowa around single issues…Tancredo on immigration…Brownback on abortion. Neither of their campaigns were able to successful in growing beyond a core group of supporters
Winning elections is about building coalitions to achieve the goal==winning. In fact, I remember very clearly the line that BVP himself kept saying back in 2006–that “if we do not win….we do NOT lead”
If BVP wants to lead…then he better figure out very quickly that his campaign would do well to start building coalitions…instead of working to alienate those who he needs to join with him.
BVP is a laughing stock for a long list of reasons. His Executive Order is the least of them and only it seems with those actually opposed to the RESULT and not the means.
No, Wayward, his statement that he will try and use an executive order to overturn a Supreme Court decision is at the top of the list. And not because I oppose the outcome, but because it is based on ignorance of the law and the State and Federal Constitutions. Individuals who don’t believe in the basic tennants of the checks and balances system, which has been in place since our founding, should not be anywhere near the Governor’s mansion.
Tyler, you need to stay away from the “hippie cabbage” because you sound higher than a kite! Barring anything unforseen Branstad will get the nomination and beat Culver. IFPC cut their nose to spite their face by doing this. They have effectively lost the support of a majority of conservatives that they needed to advance their cause. By this action they have went from being an advocacy group to becoming part of the BVP campaign and lost any objectivity they had in the process. They really ought to apologise to the many donors and supporters whom they have now alienated.
I think that the only thing that BVP is passionate about is getting elected. Not sure that you can say differently about any of the candidates, though.
The difference is that VP is willing to say anything implusively that he feels might get him more votes from the group he happens to be addressing at the time. Hence why he endorsed a third party candidate.
He didn’t stop to think of long-term consequences of what he was saying. Now he has to try to put the toothpaste back in the tube.
This is also why he released a press release announcing Sorenson’s support for him while Sorenson proudly proclaims he will not be willing to vote for Branstad if Branstad is the nominee.
It makes VP look like he only cares about VP and none of the rest of the Republican candidates. He is not a team player and we are a team trying to win the game against the Democrats.
DVFO: You nailed it. THESE are what has alienated many otherwise likely supporters. It’s like there are no adults on staff and Bob himself is his own campaign adviser. And like what they say about a lawyer who represents himself, the same can be said of a candidate who tries to be his own campaign manager: he has a fool for a client.
DVFO,
That was a very nice summary.
In fact, I appreciate the clarity of it.
And, I can tell you from my personal interactions with IFPC and LUV Iowa people that you are exactly right.
We could care less about the team. Screw the Repugnant party and the horse they rode in on. We care about marriage, family and an out of control judiciary. If the Repugnant team will not help, we will find another team. Get your lazy ass team in line on the marriage issue, start talking about stopping a run amuck judiciary and your team may be able to count on our support. Until then, Bumstead and the rest of the Repugnant establishment, including Craig, is SOL.
Nice profanity. Your way and your candidate isn’t the only way to stop the “run amuck” judiciary. I guess it’s just your way or the highway.
now here is the real question, is the republican party going to put all there eggs in the marriage basket??? If they do focus too much on it, it will only hurt them. Why split the party, brandstad is a pretty formidable candidate, why mess around with vanderplaats who doesn’t even understand constitutional law?? for the nature lover out there, those run amok judiciaries are the ones protecting your civil rights. do yourself a favor and stop talking about the law, thinking about it and writing about it, you don’t have the first idea about. In fact, having law in your name is insulting to the law. stop. your a something lover, just not a natural law lover.
Silence