In response to Shane’s post on 1/15/10 critiquing the endorsement.

By Mike Hartwig

As someone that interviewed some, not all, of the candidates, it was blatantly obvious who deserved the endorsement. Chris Rants is a good guy and seems to be motivated by principle not politics, a change over the 10+ years I’ve known him. But for me, he’s not there yet. Rod Roberts is a great guy too but frankly, he isn’t a leader of the caliber we need at the helm of the state. What public policy has he influenced people on? What agenda item has his name and face on? I can’t think of anything. I see him as a great support person but not someone leading the charge. His speaking ability is lacking. His political ideas on how to lead the state out of the mess we are in aren’t evident.

Bob on the other hand is not perfect but he has been willing to hold himself accountable to Godly men and women. I personally have challenged him on a couple of personal issues and he has taken the counsel to heart and made changes. Politically, Bob seems to have a plan on more than just the marriage issue.

If you want to question the timing of the endorsement, we were stuck between a rock and a hard place. We wanted to make the endorsement the week prior but weather prevented it. We had to make a decision and I feel we made the right one. Linking Bob with the marriage amendment doesn’t take away from anything. IFPC Action can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can endorse our candidates and work on the amendment. But this state needs leadership, and Iowa Family Policy Center Action is seeking to follow our biblical convictions. And for us, after prayerful consideration we have concluded that Bob represents our core values to a higher level and deserves our support. He’s been fighting for conservative, biblical principles for the last 10 years when he was first encouraged to run by Terry Branstad. He deserves our support.

Mike Hartwig, PhD is Vice President at Iowa Family Policy Center

3 comments
  1. I’m glad he posted. I like Mike Hartwig a lot. I’m still wondering about the need to endorse in the primary before some had a chance to drop out, how they feel about the rest of the political establishment and the opposition using the rally to “marry” the cause with the candidate, and why they would choose to alienate potential Republican allies (particularly Roberts, Rants, and Branstad) when they don’t have to. Also, curious why they didn’t just say something at the rally like: “this concludes the rally..thanks for coming…Danny Carroll is on his way to the mic to announce something huge for IFPC” so marriage amendment supporters didn’t feel used as a political pawn for BVP.

    I’m confused. I love the IFPC guys and am 110% behind aggressively pushing the marriage amendment. I understand the support of BVP and don’t question it. Just very surprised by how this went down. Hopefully I’ll have a chance to get some clarification on the questions above sometime soon.

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

Obama’s Unconstitutional Power Grab By Congressional Bypass

Written with Jane Robbins We have brought a constitutional crisis upon ourselves…

Rod Blum to Serve on House Budget and Oversight Committees

(Washington, DC) Congressman-elect Rod Blum of Iowa’s First Congressional District has been…

Catholic Church Agencies File Lawsuits Challenging HHS Contraceptives Mandate

By Tom Chapman The president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops…

Brownback Backing Sebelius for HHS Post (Update: In his defense, 2nd Update: Linked, 3rd Update – Fireworks Fly)

I was pretty shocked when I learned that Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kansas)…