candidates

Whenever I post things like my criticism of IFPC’s endorsement of Bob Vander Plaats, it is always interesting to me to see who will link, and what kind of a response I’ll get.  Liberal blogger John Deeth linked to me and said:

Shane Vander Hart thinks the Iowa Family Policy Center stepped on its own message by endorsing BVP at its marriage inequality rally, and he wants to give also-rans Rants and Roberts a chance. But he’s firmly in the Anyone But Terry camp.

I want to be very clear on a few things…

  • I love and respect the individuals I know who work for Iowa Family Policy Center.  They do fantastic work, but I do think they stepped on their message.  By the way, Deeth, homosexuals have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as I do.  What you want is special rights.  But can we at least agree that the people, not one court, should be able to decide this matter?
  • Governor Terry Branstad may be my fourth choice in the primary, but if he wins the nomination he’ll have my support.  As would Bob Vander Plaats if he should win.
  • The only “Anyone But” camp I’m in is Anyone But Culver… So whether the Republican nominee is Rants, Roberts, Vander Plaats, Branstad, or Gumby that person will have my support against Culver.  Culver has been an absolute disaster and needs to be retired from office by the voters of Iowa.
  • I think it is good to have a feisty primary, and am sick of people who talk of a practical Branstad coronation or some of my fellow evangelicals picking Vander Plaats as being the candidate that all Christians should get behind.  Why would we pick somebody who has already lost twice?  It seems like some of my brothers and sisters are embracing the same philosophy as some of the GOP establishment has when it comes to picking Presidential nominees – “it’s his turn.”  We saw that with Senator John McCain, and I’m sure we’ll see it with some and Mitt Romney.  When has that ever been a winning strategy? 
  • I want to choose who I feel is the candidate who best reflects my beliefs, and who I think will be the most competent for the job.  I’ll leave pragmatism for the general election.  Right now my top two would be Roberts and Rants.  Are they a long shot?  Yes, but both would better positioned if some of my brothers and sisters didn’t run to the first candidate who, in my opinion, waved the evangelical flag.  I feel like Branstand is mostly about name recognition and political posturing.  I think that Vander Plaats is mostly rhetoric.
  • The two candidates who offer the best ideas, substance, and temperament are Roberts and Rants.  If neither of them win the nomination I would hope whomever the nominee is would select one of them for the ticket.  I personally would love to see a Rants/Roberts or Roberts/Rants ticket (this is as close to a primary endorsement as I am likely to make).
  • Iowa Democrats would love to see Vander Plaats be a third party candidate if Branstad should win the nomination.  That would be a disaster so I hope and pray that Vander Plaats, IFPC or anyone else would not consider that.  That would guarantee four more years of a Culver administration and that is not in the best interest of this state.

Update: I neglected a candidate, Jonathan Narcisse, who will run as what he describes himself as a “small government, low tax, free market, 10th amendment gubernatorial candidate.”  He’ll either primary Governor Culver or run as an independent.  He’s sitting down for an interview with me on Friday.

15 comments
  1. Imagine reading this, about 40 years ago: “Anyone has the same right to marry someone of the same race as I do. What you want is special rights (to marry someone of a different race). Why not let the people decide?”

    There is no question that if Americans had been allowed to vote on interracial marriage rights a few decades ago, it would have been illegal almost everywhere.

    It’s not a “special right” to marry another consenting adult of your choice.
    .-= desmoinesdem´s last blog ..Cooperating for a Profit: Winrock International and Kasinthula Cane Growers Limited =-.

    1. @desmoinesdem, This is where I think most African-Americans would reject your argument. You don’t choose what color you are. There is absolutely nothing that points to anybody being born gay. Any study I’ve seen lately that has tried to claim that has been debunked.

      And yes it is a special right to change the definition of marriage. Everyone already has the right to marry someone they choose of the opposite sex.

      To change the definition of something in order to accommodate your view would make it a “special right.”

      1. @Shane Vander Hart, Ask anyone who IS gay if they chose to be so.

        I didn’t choose to be straight. I am not attracted to men. Plain and simple. It’s how my brain is wired. There’s no choice in it. If I were to live a homosexual life I would be living a lie and I’d hate it because I’m not into dude parts.

        My girlfriend hates green beans. When we’re shopping for food and we pass by the frozen veggies, we get sweet peas or corn because she hates green beans. Yes, she COULD, eat green beans but she’d hate every minute of it so it really isn’t a choice at all.

        It’s not a “special right.” It’s an equal right.

        I hate to sound all hippy dippy, but in a world this screwed up with war, famine and natural disasters, this is a good thing. This is happiness and stability in the lives of thousands of our fellow Iowans.

        This will lead to safer, happier communities where the next generation of Iowans can grow up knowing that no matter what their orientation, this is a state that welcomes and accepts them.

      2. @Champion Blue, No I didn’t choose to be straight either. Of course I don’t go around identifying myself as a straight person. I do however choose my behavior associated with my orientation. The simple fact is this, and most psychologists will tell you as well, that sexual orientation is a result of nurture not nature.

        Nobody is born gay. There is absolutely no proof for that. We aren’t talking about a civil right, this is a special right. Marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman.

  2. Wow. Amazing you you completely ignore the fact that the courts must be stood up to and put in their place. The people, not the courts are the sole source of political power in our government. The only one of the candidates that cares about or understands the checks and balances of the three branches of gov’t is Vander Plaats. In a generation these same courts may be ruling that Bible believing Christians should be imprisoned for “hate speech” but yet you seem to have no such concern. If we don’t take on the courts, we are kissing our state and eventually our country goodbye to an aristocracy of judges.

    1. @Todd, Todd, come on. I haven’t ignored that. I’ve been quite vocal about it. I just don’t agree with the executive order. I believe it would be unconstitutional and ineffective. Now everything else he’s proposed on the matter I agree with.

  3. Hmmm….you said that you are sick of the GOP nominating “the next in line” and say that “why would we nominate someone who lost twice.” Since you are a Sarah Palin supporter, I hope you stand by your statements and not support her if she runs in 2012 because “she is seen as the next in line since she was the VP nominee and has lost 1 on the general ticket.”

    1. @Ann, Palin ran for President in 2008? If she did and lost I would agree with you.

      But she didn’t. The establishment is already lining up behind Mitt. I was just using that as an example. Vander Plaats has run for Governor twice, and twice failed to receive the nomination though.

      However, let me state yet once again, that I will support BVP if he wins the nomination.

  4. I don’t get what losing in a primary really matters if the eventual nominee ends up losing in the general. All that means is that we nominated the wrong person. McCain lost to GWB who did win in the general twice. So, obviously GWB was a correct choice (at that time)and McCain was the loser and should have never been our nominee this time around.

    Also, there is nothing wrong for a push to rally around one candidate. That is how candidates win and your fellow evangelicals should be commended. The IFPC wants the issue of traditional marriage to win and in order to do that it is going to take extraordinary candidates to get it done. It is well within their right to push the candidate who they think will do that since it goes hand in hand with the issue of traditional marriage winning. So,why would they hold two separate events? The only thing they could have done differently is announce their endorsements for legislative races that have primaries also, although I don’t know if any of these races are set yet so maybe they couldn’t do that.

    You’re kind of coming across as a good ole’ party soldier here, Shane.
    .-= Iowans Rock´s last blog ..Two Days for Marriage Begins on January 12th =-.

    1. @Iowans Rock, I’m sorry you don’t see the difference between garnering support for an issue and rallying around the candidate. They should be separate, if IFPC, announced that beforehand so people were aware of the change that would have been a different story. I still think they alienated those who support a different candidate and traditional marriage who attended and weren’t aware that was going to take place.

      “You’re kind of coming across as a good ole’ party soldier here”

      Really? Because I don’t agree with every action IFPC does? Because if Branstad should win the nomination I think he would be better than Culver? He would. I don’t see how you get worse than Culver.

      I’ve made it pretty clear that I’m not supporting Branstad in the primary. If it comes down to just BVP and Branstad I’ll likely vote BVP in the primary. If Rants or Roberts are still on the ballot at that point one of them will get my vote. I will not support BVP as an independent because that will guarantee Culver winning a second term, then the cause of traditional marriage goes nowhere unless the GOP wins back the House and the Senate.

  5. Since there’s no reply link on your last comment to me, I’ll just do it down here.

    Your argument makes no sense. If you and I were born straight then how hard is it to fathom that someone else can be born another way? There are 6 billion people in the world right now. In the hundreds of thousands of years of human history there have been oh so many more. It’s more than plausible to think that people are wired differently.

    Civil marriage is a human institution that we can and have changed. For the better, I think. Should I have a daughter someday, I’m glad to know that she can marry who she wants regardless of race, religion, class or gender, let alone not have to worry about where to put the three goats I receive as a dowry.

    Same sex marriage doesn’t affect your life, Shane. The only people it has affected are gay people. And florists/wedding planners. Even then, I think there’s some crossover. *rimshot*

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

Santorum Battles Romney Over RomneyCare and Ron Paul Over Abortion

Rick Santorum had spirited exchanges with Mitt Romney and Ron Paul at the CNN-Southern Republican Debate in Charleston, SC.

Church and State: Clear and Distinct Roles

My post yesterday reminded me of the tension that exists between conflicting…

Political Propaganda? Enemies Lists? From the White House?

Surely not! Propaganda?  No… not the Obama administration, surely they wouldn’t use…

The Federal Budget and Morality

John Hendrickson: Coolidge regarded “a good budget as among the noblest monuments of virtue” and believed that the issue of taxation was also a moral issue.