National Review has an article today by Robert Costa, Iowa Divided, that reports on one aspect of the regrettable tensions that exist in Iowa Republican politics. Its limited focus is on Governor Terry Branstad and Republican Party of Iowa co-chairmen(?) A. J. Spiker and David Fischer. Certainly much more could be said but it presents a pretty evenhanded picture as far as it goes. We assume readers abilities to understand the implications of some of the dialogue and what emphasis to place with what statement. The issue of “who started it” is not broached in the article.
Based on the substance of the statements made in the article, and our analysis of the implications, in our opinion the Governor comes off as the one more responsible for the rift. Or perhaps we should say, if the interests of Party are primary, he has the most control of the situation while exhibiting the least humility regarding the Party leadership’s responsibilities and prerogatives.
Not our view of what Party leadership should look like
The RPI leadership’s primary responsibility is to the principles and policies laid out in the platform. The Party leadership are not simply toadies for elected Republican officials. Their job is not to nod . . . say amen . . . never disagree when an elected Republican official violates a key element of the platform. One need not argue whether the governor has, in order to appreciate that point.
The possibility of the governor pursuing a gas tax increase is addressed in the article as a sore point with Spiker. The Governor has done a generally good job with taxes in this term. However a situation of lowering taxes in one area only to raise them in another is not something we find presumptively admirable. Certainly the spirit of the platform would question even a dalliance with raising the gas tax. That particular tax is also politically very sensitive and we doubt political justifications in even toying with it until wholesale fuel prices come down and other taxes are reduced substantially more still by comparison. RPI leadership is not required to shut up or salute the Governor on the issue.
We also think the governor stepped in it by getting into the Ames straw poll matter. Agree or disagree on the continuation of it, if he feels it was appropriate for him to wade in with public criticism, possibly undercutting what Party leadership feels is still useful or under debate, well he promotes tension by doing so.
If it is also quite possible as suggested in the article that the Governor is, shall we say, less than helpful in support of fund raising efforts by the RPI. If his methods are grudging, or if he sees himself in competition with the RPI and is disparaging as a means of competition, or otherwise opportunistic, then his criticism of the RPI’s performance , directly or indirectly helps cause his criticism to become true. In other words his arguments, given his power, are self-fulfilling.
As for the RPI leadership, we have criticized their judgement on internal dynamics and counterproductive power plays. We have counseled that appearances matter even if the substance of criticism is weak. We know that the early bad example set by Scott County Republican leadership toward liberty platform proponents here would induce watchers elsewhere to play as they did. We also have no doubt that most of the powers-that-be that complain about tactics or performance of the RPI have no room to complain or are entirely selective.
Read the article Iowa Divided at NRO. R Mall
Sounds like Branstad has been talking to and coordinating with his buddy and fellow Governor “The Whale” Chris Christie from NJ. Let’s look at Branstad’s comments in the piece-
“In an interview at the state capitol, Branstad acknowledges the rift, and worries about the direction of the state GOP. “There is some concern that you have one faction, and the party should be there to support everybody, all the candidates,” he says. “I’m a big-tent Republican. I want to include everybody, but we have some people who don’t.”
“When I started in politics,” Branstad recalls, “it was the moderates who controlled everything, and I was the conservative. But my approach wasn’t to throw them all out. Instead, I said, ‘I want you to stay.’”
Now look at Christies from the other day-
ASPEN, Colo. — New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) on Thursday offered a clear broadside against Republicans drifting toward a more libertarian view of foreign policy, lumping Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in with them and suggesting they explain their position to victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The House earlier this week narrowly voted against a reduction in funding for the National Security Agency, as libertarian-leaning members from both sides joined together to vote for the amendment.
“As a former prosecutor who was appointed by President George W. Bush on Sept. 10, 2001, I just want us to be really cautious, because this strain of libertarianism that’s going through both parties right now and making big headlines, I think, is a very dangerous thought,” Christie said.
Asked whether he includes Paul — a fellow potential 2016 presidential candidate — in his criticism, Christie didn’t back down.
“You can name any one of them that’s engaged in this,” he said. “I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans and have that conversation. … I’m very nervous about the direction this is moving in.”
So to recap if you believe in freedom and liberty you are not welcome in the Brandstad/Christie big tent. I am curious to hear what other Vertias commenters think about this obvious new alliance.
Both Brandstad and Christie believe in big government.
Brandstad wanted to raise Iowans gas tax, Christie is the RINO of New Jersey.
In Branstad’s first go round he refused to support his “big tent”
of fellow republicans in the legislature when they did not approve of the
“conservative” governor’s wish to increase spending on education.
How easy to proclaim to be a champion of limited government, how rare to see any concomitant action.
Right on Leone!