Color me confused. Iowans for Tax Relief has never endorsed in a Republican primary. Why start now? Yet here they are, endorsing former Governor Terry Branstad. What I find strange is that with the Branstad campaign press release there isn’t a statement included from Ed Failor, Jr. as to why Iowans for Tax Relief PAC is endorsing the only candidate in the race on both sides who has actually raised taxes. I know that will eventually happen under Governor Chet Culver if he is re-elected. His spending spree will make that an eventuality for him. If not state taxes then we’ll definitely see property taxes go up.
While I disagreed with Iowa Family PAC’s endorsement of Bob Vander Plaats, it at least made some sense looking at their mission. This doesn’t. If they are unhappy with Bob Vander Plaats, then they have a better alternative in Rod Roberts who I think knocked it out of the park at their taxpayers’ day forum a few weeks ago.
They should have stuck with tradition. Let the collective head scratching begin.
In related news – faux conservative Mitt Romney endorses Branstad, now that is an endorsement that actually makes sense.
6 comments
I’d love to know why anyone would endorse Branstad OR Roberts except to ensure that BVP doesn’t win the nomination. Knowing Failor Jr., I’m sure he has a solid reason for their endorsement. IFPC’s decision has always been troubling when a fellow believer that is rock solid on your issue (speaking of Roberts, of course) is also running!
It should also be remembered that Gov. Branstad’s son works for ITR.
I think the question many individuals and organizations have is whether BVP will have a tremendously difficult time garnering the respect and energy of most of the Republican and Conservative base outside of the arch-social conservative demographic. Also factor in the fact that a very healthy percentage of arch-social conservatives have reservations about BVP’s tack, credentials, and ability to effectively govern on issues outside of marriage. And regardless of the attention you think a stay of the court decision would give the cause, if you are concerned that BVP may be an ineffective Chief Executive, wouldn’t your first instinct be to pick an alternative and do everything you could to see they get the nomination, especially if you think nothing you do will give Roberts the traction he needs to succeed?
If BVP wins the nomination, I would vote for him with trepidation, praying that he wouldn’t do anything in blind zeal that would do more harm than good for our cause. I have concerns about each of the candidates, which really makes me ready for the primary to be over so most of us can move on. 🙂
So you pick somebody who has raised taxes. I know he lowered them too – when Republicans were in control of the statehouse. He doesn’t seem to know how to use the veto pen very well when he’s the minority party.
Sorry Eric, nothing about the endorsement makes sense. It’s not principled, and the fact Governor Branstad’s son works for ITR makes it even worse.
They should have been neutral, just like IFPC should have been neutral.
Ah, you’re espousing the Democrat party “Terry loves Taxes” line or IFPC’s new speak-the-truth-in-love tactic of calling him “Two Books Terry.” Any governor should be judged, on fiscal issues, by the sum of their tenure in my opinion. Gov. Branstad’s net effect on taxation was a tax cut for every Iowan.
I have concerns about Branstad on a few issues. I was very displeased to see a Romney endorsement (did BVP pay Romney for that?). I also really like Roberts. But citing Branstad’s record out of context and ignoring the political realities of the 80s isn’t kosher.
Eric, I’m just saying he’s the least deserving of the GOP candidates. His record is a mixed bag context or no.
Branstad has been his own worst enemy – for instance regarding immigration, he referred to a U.S. Supreme Court decision being “the law of the land” I believe in an interview last Sunday Excuse me? No it’s not. It’s a court opinion. While I don’t agree with BVP’s executive order idea; Governor Branstad has taken an opposite view of the Court which is no different than a liberal – on any given position, not just gay marriage.
In the 80s you could call him a conservative, but I don’t think you can accurately call him one now. I wouldn’t go so far as to call him a liberal, but rather a moderate. Perhaps not with personal beliefs and convictions, but those don’t mean jack squat if they don’t impact how you govern.
please think about which conservative candidate is most electable after the primary
Focusing on the specific endorsement, it should be about the organizations principles, not electability.
I think any of the three can beat Culver.
The key is “conservative,” while I won’t call Branstad liberal, in practice, if not belief he can’t really call himself that. Moderate is more accurate.
Comments are closed.