Because no candidate received the required 35% threshold in the primary race for the Republican nomination for Iowa’s Third U.S. Congregational Distinct, the Republican candidate is to be decided by special convention of delegates from that district tomorrow. There are six candidates. The results of the primary voting were as follows.
Brad Zaun – 24.7% Robert Cramer – 21.2% Matt Schultz – 20.1% Monte Shaw – 16.9% David Young – 15.6% Joe Grandanette – 1.6%
Under Iowa’s rules, the delegates are under no formal obligation to show any deference to the results of the primary. They could even nominate somebody that was not part of the primary election.
Extensive coverage of the race is provided by The Iowa Republican which this week has focused on Baggage Claim: A Look at What Could Weigh Down Third District Candidates in the General Election Reading that article, earlier posts and comments related to them we conclude that from a Republican stand point, the most irrefutable “baggage” pertains to Monte Shaw, then Robert Cramer. They, Shaw in particular, are our recommended non supports for the convention.
Monte Shaw is Executive Director of the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association (IRFA). That organization is focused on obtaining special mandates and subsidies of sorts for so called renewable fuels. In our view the only way we are going to get away from special interest politics and crony capitalism is to not embrace such dedicated rent seekers. The trade offs and compromises in pursuit of tax favors for this constituent appeal lead to the same for some other congressman’s “needs” . . . and the cycle pulls down our country.
Furthermore Shaw’s job is focused on something inconsistent with Republican principles which opposes mandates, subsidies and the like. To add to his high degree of culpability is that the organization he is a propagandist and lobbyist for supports Democrats with enthusiasm by writing checks directly to them. It is one thing to advocate for a special interest position, and inform the membership and the public of a candidate’s position, letting the chips fall where they may, it is another to write checks to them regardless of their entire agenda. Write a check to a candidate, helping them defeat a Republican and you inextricably forward the entire Democrat agenda, helping that party keep or obtain hegemony over the legislative process and furthering that party’s priorities. A TIR commenter using the name of Scott Brenen, the Iowa Democrat Party Chair, doing so with tongue in cheek intent, made the point well:
As Chair of the Iowa Democrat Party I would like to thank Monte Shaw for his generous contributions to our party, our candidates, and our causes over the years. It is because of your assistance we’ve been able to maintain control of the Iowa Senate and win back so many seats from the demon GOP majority in the Iowa House.
We’ve sent our 2014 funding requests to your office. I look forward to sitting down with you soon so we can discuss the progressive movement and all of the great things we have in store for the upcoming legislative session. Cap and trade, Obamacare, higher taxes, the list is so exciting. We know you will love it just as you’ve loved our agenda in the past!
Best of luck Saturday. If you make it through, we will be supporting Staci, but we know you will be too.
Always on your side,
Your friends at the IDP
A candidacy like Shaw’s is vulnerable to false flag efforts by Democrats to undermine his support from the Republican base. As another commenter to TIR pointed out:
Guest UrbandaleDelegate • I can see the Democrat talking points and Register headlines now – EVEN MONTE SHAW RESPECTED HIS DEMOCRATIC OPPONENT AND SUPPORTED STACI APPEL WITH CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS DURING HER LAST ELECTION. May get a few Independents to vote for him but will definitely turn off Republicans. Republican voters are independent thinkers. They don’t pull that straight ticket lever….more baggage here than all the other candidates combined.
Robert Cramer has been part of the road and bridge builders lobby and that organization has been generous to Democrats as well. They also support a gas tax increase. If it were their position and Cramer’s that their support is contingent on other taxes on consumers being reduced at least as much, then while we oppose a gas tax increase for other reasons as well, we would find such a position not necessarily in opposition to the Republican philosophy that we are taxed enough already and to the need to prioritize government responsibilities under the Constitution. Unfortunately Cramer seems to support a gas tax increase without such restriction and has made no effort to distance himself or condition his support.
We acknowledge that Cramer has a superior claim to further consideration compared to Shaw because he finished second in the primary rankings.
The matters addressed above at this time are important to the Republican brand and to the problems in the country and political system. If the other candidates are to any extent wrapped up with such problems or have other problems and apostasies not prominent from information made available, then they would be addressed here as well (given his primary ranking, we do not find Mr. Grandanette’s candidacy any longer credible). But the matters addressed above and the vulnerabilities of those two candidates to them we believe are most problematic for a Republican win and to the needs of the country.
Ron Paul supporters over the last two years were widely beaten up by elements of the Republican Party for not being proportional in their approach to place settings at the table and for having a winner take all attitude irrespective of other elements in the Party. Of course worrying about such things has not exactly been a hallmark of the Republican establishment. Confirming their hypocrisy, there has been no hue and cry from the Ron Paul “Big Liberty critics to abide by the results of the primary and go with the leading vote getter, or asking the most deficient candidates to drop off for the purposes of party unity. Instead many of them are in a last ditch effort to get good old boy lobbyist “one of us,” Monte Shaw, elected in spite of his fourth place finish ( 1.3% from fifth place).
Concerns are rightly raised about “the revolving door of politics” when elected officials leave office to move to well paid positions with rent seeking organizations. We should be concerned as well when a lobbyist for an industry that survives to a great extent on special favors from government and taxpayers is intent on making the move to decision making authority. The directional spin of that revolving door is especially exhibited by Monte Shaw. R Mall
