The entire Iowa congressional delegation has provided on multiple issues fodder for conservative primary challengers. (See Iowa Standard article linked below) Indeed every one of them seems bent on inviting a primary challenge not because of peccadillo matters, although the more they stack those up the more they will have to convince no-party people to vote in a primary and save their bacon. On their votes on bigger issues, one might think they relish a primary challenge perhaps because they believe it will prove something to their new favorite constituency — hand-wringers and non-Republicans.
Now I happen to think it is folly for a two year term congressman who won their first election courting conservatives in the primary and the general to want to toy with the emotions of a party raw with distaste for most of what comes out of DC — the dishonesty the disassembly. Creating disgust in the base increases the likelihood of a Democrat candidate of substance willing to go after an incumbent. Scratch that, in actuality the Democrats no longer need a strong candidate, the machine works its wonders on its own only overwhelmed when Republicans have someone to turn out and vote for with enthusiasm. Ladies and gentlemen of the GOP, it is better to dance with who brung ya.
Instead they too often put themselves on the defensive from the right but will never be considered authentic by the left. Who you caucus with is key for Democrats.
So what turns their head? Well we all have feet of clay and failings, let that be well understood. But actual conservatives have a guide post citadel to orient themselves 95% of the time — the Bible and culture, the Constitution, excellent think tanks and platforms.
On the recent obscenely named Respect for Marriage Act codifying the SCOTUS Obergefell gay marriage decision Ernst, Hinson, Miller-Meeks, and Nunn (in spirit) rejected the citadel of truth and the judgement of generations for weak rationalizations or misplaced emotions.
We wrote to Ernst and Grassley on the matter:
Subj: Vote against the misnamed (Respect for Marriage Act)
Your political convenience, posturing, whatever, is not worth the cultural persecution that this bill will bring. The bill does not refine Obergefell it inculcates it into a prosecutorial tool that will more effectively be used as a cudgel against orthodox Christians and others. . . .
Grassley opposed it but Ernst was one of the 12 Republicans (the rest mostly the gang of usual suspects) that brought it over the top in the Senate (subject to some reconciliation of sorts with the House version which Miller-Meeks and Hinson supported). When signed by Biden the act will bring persecution to orthodox religious people (focused on Christians of course) and works to federalize marriage, and not in a good way. Supposed religious liberty protections are window dressing. But heck it will be another opportunity for their GOP ilk to be outraged at how it is being used and promise to fix it if we will only return them to office, never mind that they they foreseeably created the problem.
As pointed out by Jacob Hall writing at The Iowa Standard while this is a serious affront the conservative apostasies are not limited to such a deep cultural offense. And while Grassley opposed the act he votes with Biden far more than Ernst on other matters. So Ernst has some reserve to work from although blowing any of it on this is stupid. It is perhaps also due in part to lack of intellectual grounding within her (and the other Iowa delegates in support) and their staff in failing to understand the legal implications of the act and advise accordingly. Or . . . all of them support those implications?
AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH: Why Ernst voted for DisRespect for Marriage Act
Related reading:
