Justice Wiggins’ Biggest Obstacle to Winning Retention Vote, Himself

Iowa Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins spoke to the Des Moines Rotary Club last week, presumably in an effort to seek support for his forthcoming retention vote. One can understand why Wiggins might come to my Club, affectionately referred to as a group of old men and their fathers. He is the fourth Justice to stand for retention since the Court ruled on marriage. The other three were tossed from the bench. He was looking for votes. I doubt he won many last Thursday.

Justice David S. Wiggins

Justice Wiggins is a lousy public speaker. To make matters worse, he has adopted a condescending tone.

He opened by stating he would not be hanging around afterwards to talk – he wanted to spend time with his grandson. He repeated this three times during his 20 minutes at the microphone. I am all for a guy who places family first, but when seeking votes it is prudent for a candidate to soft pedal how disinterested he is in interacting with the those who cast them. Rotary starts at noon and concludes by 1:00 p.m. 99% of the time. It is hardly a huge time commitment. If appearing was such a burden on his schedule, Wiggins should have turned down the invitation.

Justice Wiggins gave a sleepy lecture about the three branches of government – he laid out the whole separation of powers thing. I am guessing everybody in the room has a solid grasp on the American and Iowa systems of government. He did not address the elephant in the room (pun explicitly intended), the ruling that allowed same sex partners to marry. Like a grandfather talking to a child, he explained how a judge must interpret whether laws conform to the Iowa and U.S. Constitutions based on the facts of the case he is hearing. A judge’s political views have to be put aside while discharging his duties. We understood that before we got there.

Justice Wiggins missed an opportunity to connect with a few hundred Iowans last Thursday. Instead of presenting his credentials, sharing his passion for the important position he feels fortunate to fill, or explaining his approach to being a Justice; he talked down to his well-educated audience. Come on, counselor, present your case.

To a point, I understand why Justice Wiggins feels he needs to teach on this subject. While those who disagree with the marriage ruling are well within their rights to work to amend the Constitution, their efforts to punish those who made the ruling are misguided. The folks who feel the solution is punishing Wiggins and others clearly don’t understand the first thing about what makes our American system great.

I plan to vote for David Wiggins even though he is a poor orator and does not understand how to win votes. The question for the electorate is whether David Wiggins has honestly and fairly discharged his duties as a Justice. He has. Justice Wiggins and the others on the Supreme Court did their job. They ruled on marriage without influence and in good conscience. By all accounts Wiggins is an impartial and thoughtful jurist. He should remain on the Court.

### 

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com 
This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register online essay.

The Not-so-Innocent Fruits of Bigotry

If nothing else, Bob Vander Plaats and his FAMiLY LEADER have made life easier for comedians.  They help in many ways, starting with a refusal to capitalize the “i” in their name.  Odd.

Yesterday, they helped troubled laugh makers again when Vander Plaats took to the steps of the Iowa Statehouse to release a pledge the group is asking primary candidates to sign, the Marriage Vow – a Declaration of Dependence upon MARRIAGE and FAMiLY (the “i” in marriage, not in family?).  Let’s dive into this precious farce, shall we?  For those interested in following along at home, the heavily footnoted document including a preamble and the candidate vow may be found here in its entirety.

Michelle Bachmann was the first to sign the pledge.  This is slightly surprising.  One might have thought this year’s only announced female presidential hopeful would have belted Vander Plaats after reading the Vow’s second line which states marital fidelity between one man and one woman protects, in part, “vulnerable women” and “the rights of fathers.”  Another woman seeking to be the Leader of the Free World might have found it offensive to hear her entire sex labeled vulnerable and that the rights of fathers are thought to be different than, if not above, those of mothers.  If Bachmann didn’t see the sexism here, she had other chances.

The vow calls for the “prompt termination of military policymakers who expose American wives and daughters to rape or sexual harassment, torture, enslavement or sexual leveraging by the enemy in forward combat roles.”  I am not exactly sure what sexual leveraging is, but I will join in condemning it and everything listed. I wonder if Vice President Dick Cheney was thinking about his need to be terminated as he pinned the Distinguished Flying Cross on Chief Warrant Officer 3 Lori Hill in 2006 because his policies put her fragile female sensibilities at risk.

Some Innocent Fruit of Conjugal Intimacy

The bullet point above the one about women in uniform is another favorite.  It calls for the “humane protection” of women and the “innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy.”  They mean children, for those of you who cannot put a hand on a copy of Oxford’s Dictionary of Biblical-sounding Pomposities.  A friend’s daughter said it was OK if her mom introduced her as an IFoCI as long as she got to be the strawberry.  Another friend indelicately asked if a child conceived on a beach would be considered a less intimate innocent fruit of conjugality.  I told him Vander Plaats need not know what happened years ago in Ft. Lauderdale on Spring Break.

The Vander Plaats crew’s oddest reference comes in the first bullet of the preamble.  According to the All in the FAMiLY cast, an African American child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to have been born into a two-parent home than an African American child born after the election of the first African American President.  I am thinking those figures didn’t include the children who were the product of master raping the mother or the fact the happy two parent home numbers dip a bit if the timeline is stretched to include the families split when its members were sold to the Plantation owner a state or two away.

The FAMiLY wants candidates to recognize the cost of divorce.  OK, that may not be a bad idea.  But, they fail to see when they say, “”married people enjoy better health, better sex, longer lives, greater financial stability,” most of us are screaming “which is why people should be allowed to marry regardless of gender!”  If I may, Archie, – sorry, I couldn’t let the All in the FAMiLY reference die, yet – sex is better when a person loves his partner, not because a bureaucrat handed him a piece of paper.  The official raised seal on a marriage license isn’t sought because it is sexually titillating, but because it provides legal benefits once denied to many couples in Iowa.

There is also a bullet point about recognizing “robust childbearing and reproduction is beneficial to the U.S. demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial health and security,” but I am not going to address it as it may interfere with amorous thoughts some have planned for this weekend.

I have saved a personal favorite for last: “Support for the enactment of safeguards for all married and unmarried U.S. Military and National Guard personnel, especially our combat troops, from inappropriate same-gender or opposite-gender sexual harassment, adultery or intrusively intimate commingling among attracteds (restrooms, showers, barracks, tents, etc.)”

How is it they make everything sound so dirty and what in the world is an “attracted?”  Here’s the thing.  As a people, we have a responsibility to protect everybody.  There is no need to spell out a difference between men and women, the married and unmarried, or combat troops and those toiling behind the lines.  Everybody deserves the same protections.  Thankfully, the U.S. and Iowa Constitutions protect all of us, not just those the FAMiLY highlight in their silly pledge.

Oh, another point, I am certain 99.9% of the Americans who sign up to serve their country do so out of a sense of duty, honor and respect.  Believe it or not, FAMiLY, they don’t enlist to get a peek at somebody in the shower or with a hope they will “commingle” their underwear with a fellow Marine on the wash line at a forward post in Afghanistan.

In the end, I appreciate the efforts of the FAMiLY folks to keep stand-ups knee deep in fertile material during these difficult times, but they can stop now.  Once we stop snickering about the nonsense they spew, it is painfully clear they really aren’t that funny after all.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Herman Cain Stumbles Stage Right During One Act Play

I have been reading and hearing some about Herman Cain recently.  Cain is the presidential candidate and former CEO from Georgia who is trying to make a name for himself among the right leaning.  He seems to be a go getter with a personality that presents well on stage.  But, his early performance indicates he will exit stage right fairly early in this campaign.

Asked in March if he would consider putting a Muslim in a top position, the Atlanta businessman gave a cringe-causing answer to the left leaning blog Think Progress.  He said he would not, “And here’s why: There’s this creeping attempt, there’s this attempt to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government.  It does not belong in our government.”

Herman Cain tries to clarify what makes him uncomfortable.

The campaign trail, especially for the uninitiated like Cain, can be a rough and tumble place.  Sometimes, an answer a newbie candidate gives in the heat of the moment doesn’t reflect his true feelings.  For that reason, I thought it fair to give Cain a little time to clarify what he meant in a setting more substantial than a question and answer exchanged while exiting a building.  Two such opportunities presented themselves yesterday and Mr. Cain’s answers did not improve much.

He went on Glenn Beck’s show, a decidedly friendly forum for Mr. Cain.  When asked about the earlier statement he said it had been “misconstrued” and went on to say, “I immediately said – without thinking – ‘No, I would not be comfortable.’  I did not say that I would not have them in my cabinet. If you look at my career, I have hired good people regardless of race, religion, sex gender, orientation and this kind of thing.”

I am not sure any American would like being referred to as “them,” but I will not dwell on that any more than I will contemplate how Cain would define “this kind of thing.”  He seemed to be making a little headway, or at least making an effort to not affront an entire religion.  It wasn’t until he got to CBS that I began to be convinced Cain’s first answer two months ago may very well reflect how he thinks.

When Brian Montopoli asked Cain to explain his comments about Muslims, Cain said, “When they asked ‘would you be comfortable with a Muslim in your cabinet’ I said ‘no, I wouldn’t be comfortable.   I didn’t say I would not have one in there if they put the Constitution of the United States first.”   He went on to express concern about the imposition of Sharia law, or strict Islamic law, into the American legal system and pointed to a particular case in New Jersey.

That was the clincher for me.  Every president is bound to require his appointees put the Constitution and the laws of the land first.  This test is not any more important for Americans of one religious faith than it is another.

So, according to Cain, he is uncomfortable with appointing a Muslim unless he is able to prove allegiance to the United States.  Does this make Cain comfortable with a Christian or some other believer who puts faith before nation and liberty?  Cain seems to suggest that by being Christian one is automatically a patriot and by being Muslim one cannot be assumed patriotic until proven so by Cain’s personal litmus test.  That is an outrage.

Mr. Cain is unable to see the hypocrisy it takes to say these things days after attending a forum held by the Family Leader, an organization excessively open about ensuring their take on Christian values are written into law, where Cain quoted the book of Matthew and insisted that laws come from God and “the Biblical purpose for government is to punish evil and encourage good.”

Mr. Cain has had plenty of time and a minimum of two national opportunities to explain his earlier off the cuff response.  It has become clear his original statement may not have been misconstrued after all.  His curtain call may come sooner than he had planned.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Bob Vander Plaats Does Not Speak for Iowans

Bob Vander Plaats reminds me of Groundhog Day, the 1993 Bill Murray film.  No matter what we do, every time we turn around there is Vander Plaats asserting he speaks for Iowans and repeating the same thing we heard yesterday.

Bill Murray in Groundhog Day, 1993

Yesterday, Vander Plaats applauded statements that Gov.-elect Terry Branstad made to reporters this week indicating he would look for candidates with “more judicial restraint” in filling the three current Supreme Court vacancies, and for calling it “a tragic mistake” when the court last year struck down as unconstitutional a state law defining marriage in Iowa as only between one man and one woman.

“The people have spoken and demanded a change in leadership,” Vander Plaats said, saying a majority of Iowans have indicated they do not believe the unanimous court acted within their authority in making Iowa “a same-sex marriage state.”

It is mystifying how Bob Vander Plaats, a guy who has been personally rejected by voters in four different elections, can assert he understands what Iowans want, let alone imply he speaks for them.

The people have spoken clearly on four occasions and rejected Bob Vander Plaats.  Hopefully, soon they will find a way to stop his tiresome groundhog like reappearance on the Iowa political landscape.  A judicial retention vote on one judge does not mean other judges should resign, but a quadruple loss at the polls might be a signal that Vander Plaats is not a reliable source when it comes to interpreting what Iowans are thinking.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com
This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Does Blogging Make me Evil, or Just Uninformed?

I posted a link to a video produced by stop8.org on my Facebook page yesterday.  It is a clever refutation of an ad produced by Bob Vander Plaats’ group Iowans for Freedom.  I put it on my page because the stop8 piece is a good example of an effective viral video and, I admit, I happen to agree with the content.  (Here is a link to the video Matt Baume of stop8.org)  However, I posted the link with limited editorial comment, “here is a breakdown of the recent ad about judges and marriage in Iowa.” The comments I received on the post came from those who support the effort to change Iowa’s judge selection and retention system, but one commenter touched a nerve in me and I have been stewing about it since.

As background, the Vander Plaats’ effort targets the three Iowa Supreme Court Justices who are on the ballot for retention in November.  Something commonly referred to as the “Missouri Plan” brought the selection of judges by election to an end in 1962 when Iowa voters decided to replace the process of selecting judges by popular vote with a merit selection and retention election process. This system was adopted in hopes of taking politics out of the selection and retention of those serving in the third branch of government. The legislative branch passes the laws. The executive enforces them and the third branch, known as the judiciary, ensures the laws are enforced equally and in accordance with Constitution.  Vander Plaats and crew disagree with the Supreme Court ruling on marriage, want to boot the judges and are running a political campaign to do so.

I referred to the process in response to a question asked in the thread of posts and used the terms used by the law “merit retention and selection.”  In response, an attorney posted this:

“You are confused re the judgeship issue, Graham as you have no idea how it is done except from bloggers. The “merit” system is big firms/big business. No common people whatsoever. At least Governors appointments reflect the will of people that elected him/her. Not corporate big law firm appointments. Read Pelican brief. The Associate….What’s worse is present Culver appointments which reek of politics but “look like” merit. Senator’s husband? West Des Moines Trial lawyer. If you want to be a blogger, then blog. What it is called is not what it is.”

For the record, I happen to blog as a sideline.  I can hardly be defined by what I write in this spot, I hope.  I am, like most voters, a citizen capable of understanding how our government works.  Further, had my friend bothered to take the time to look, he would have found out I once served as the deputy appointments director for the Governor of Florida.  I have been intimately involved in the selection of judges to state courts, but a person does not need that experience to evaluate Iowa’s system of judicial selection, nor does he need to read John Grisham novels to become knowledgeable about the problems found there as my friend ridiculously suggests.

My friend makes a contradictory case for scrapping Iowa’s judicial selection process.  He supports the gubernatorial appointment of judges, because, he says, a governor is elected at the will of the people.  He then oddly claims that Governor Culver’s abuse of the judicial appointment system demonstrates why the merit system should be scrapped. Maybe I need to be pointed to another novel to help me understand, but saying we should give the Governor full independent authority to appoint judges without input from a separate commission of citizens because the current Governor made bad appointments from the list submitted by the commission doesn’t make sense.

I have been stewing about the condescending tone my friend took because I feel it reflects the state of political discourse in this country.  I am a blogger, but I am a voter, father, businessman, community volunteer and many other things.  Many will likely find my opinions wrong and my thought process flawed, quite possibly for good reason.  But, when we dismiss each other out of hand without taking the time to hear what others think and, sometimes, how they came to their conclusions, we shortchange ourselves.  My friend did this.

It is the exchange of ideas that will help us become a better state and country.  Too many engaged in the current political debate do so with a belief it is “us against them.”  They find it too easy to dismiss the other point of view as uninformed or anti-American/Iowan/family/fill-in-the-blank.  Not until more of us realize it is just about us and there is no them will we be able to set about solving the monumental problems we face as Americans.

(Contact Graham Gillette at grahamgillette@gmail.com)

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Vander Plaats’ Quiet Period to End

Perennial gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats is holding a press conference at 10:30 a.m. tomorrow at the State Capitol. Vander Plaats has been mulling an independent run since losing to Terry Branstad in the primary. Branstad and Vander Plaats have tried to come to some agreement, but tomorrow’s affair gives this observer the impression the bridge to reconciliation could not be built.

Vander Plaats could surprise me, but the fact he made the announcement independent of the Branstad camp makes me think he is about to stick it to the former governor one more time. Vander Plaats may or may not announce his candidacy tomorrow, but I am guessing he is about to vent some conservative frustration about the Republican nominee while he still has the semblance of a podium at which to stand. If Vander Plaats runs, he will be a thorn in Branstad’s side and one can argue Vander Plaats will mostly help Chet Culver by entering the fray. However, I still see the race as Branstad’s to lose even with a third party candidate on the ballot.

Conservatives like Vander Plaats are turning up the heat on two issues these days, immigration and marriage. Recent federal court rulings have angered them, making it likely these issues will drive much of the forthcoming election cycle. Last week a federal judge temporarily blocked key parts of Arizona’s new immigration law and yesterday a federal judge struck down California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage. It is hard to imagine Vander Plaats walking away with these issues boiling on the front burner of the right wing stove top. He’ll want to stay in that kitchen, trust me. Tomorrow we will find out how he plans to do so.

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Branstad and Vander Plaats as Bedfellows may Mean Neither Sleep Well

I was drafting a blog post yesterday about how perennial Iowa gubernatorial candidate and conservative darling Bob Vander Plaats had gone oddly silent. I had been hearing some rumors he was close to making a deal to endorse Terry Branstad, his rival for the Republican nomination. I stopped writing and was going to chase the gossip. Jason Hancock at the Iowa Independent beat me to it.

It smells like there is a deal in the works.

The Background

I predicted shortly after the polls opened on primary election day that should Vander Plaats get 40% or more of the vote, he would seriously consider continuing his campaign as an independent. He met that threshold and has been publicly and not-so-publicly considering a run since. After challenging nominee Terry Branstad’s choice for a running mate, Kim Reynolds, at convention and losing with numbers eerily similar to what he received in the primary, Vander Plaats has been quiet. Too quiet, for a guy who is about to re-re-re-re-launch a campaign.

The Score

Should they reach a deal, Branstad gets many of the conservatives off his back and Vander Plaats gets to say he stared at the big, bad nominee and made him blink first. In the post I was drafting yesterday, I speculated about how odd it was that Branstad was still campaigning to the right. He has talked about social issues such as immigration and same-sex marriage, when I would think he would be looking to issues that attract the broader general election voters. I mused it was like Branstad couldn’t stop thinking about Vander Plaats. After talking to Hancock and reading his Iowa Independent story, I now see Branstad couldn’t. A deal was in the works. He is trying to appease Vander Plaats and team by saying things they want to hear.

My Take

This is still Branstad’s race to lose. Chet Culver is facing incredibly stiff odds. Branstad does not need the far right, but he is the consummate politician, unwilling to leave much to chance. If he can get a few more on the right to support him, he has to entice fewer of those in the middle come November. The good news for Branstad is that in any other year he might alienate crucial middle of the road voters with this move, but with such a weak opponent there is less to worry about. The downside is Branstad will continue to pay the Vander Plaats’ bill after the election when he is trying to govern. Getting in bed with some social conservatives may make for a few tough nights’ sleep over the next four years.

As for Vander Plaats, he better make sure whatever job, concession or promises he is made by the Branstad folks are well-spelled out and made public. Promises made behind the closed doors of a campaign office often die quick and silent deaths.

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Vander Plaats is in this Thing

Today, the Iowa Independent reports that the Energizer bunny of Iowa gubernatorial politics, Bob Vander Plaats, is mulling an independent bid for the office.

Just because I am actually keeping score; on Primary Day while Iowans were still voting, a political observer said this, “If Vander Plaats gets close to 40% of the vote in today’s race, he will seriously consider an independent run for the office.” Vander Plaats did get 40% and is making moves like he will run. One point for me. (Full text of the blog where I said this is here http://bit.ly/itoldu)

Let me reiterate what I said that day, in many ways, the Vander Plaats folks would prefer a Culver victory over one for Branstad. They do not like Culver, but Branstad’s victory in November would limit options for them in years to come – like who gets to be Party chair, who controls Party resources and who is in charge of the messaging carried and heard by conservatives. The heart of the battle in Iowa is not about winning an office, but for who controls the Republican/conservative/Tea Party cause. Vander Plaats is not ready to go into that good night and Branstad puts a significant dent into the aspirations of many who support Vander Plaats.

If Vander Plaats walks away, he is a three time loser. If runs as a independent candidate and Branstad wins, Vander Plaats gets to call himself a martyr for the cause. If he runs and Culver wins, Vander Plaats supporters will say that the wrong guy won in June and will continue to inveigle their way into the Party apparatus. Stay tuned Iowans; the messy political games have just begun.

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Zaun is a Bulldog. Vander Plaats has yet to Exit.

Brad Zaun, the Bulldog

Brad Zaun proved he knows how to out-work and out-maneuver his opponents, yet again. Zaun owes his overwhelming victory to lopsided and huge Polk County numbers. This demonstrates he will have to work hard to win voters in the rest of the District when he faces Leonard Boswell. However, Boswell should be nervous about Zaun’s ability to run strong in the District’s largest county and to pick up support from Democrats and Independents who are tired of business as usual. Brad Zaun is about to give Leonard Boswell the race of his career. I give Zaun the edge. Boswell has never faced such a tenacious challenger.

The Race for Governor may turn out to be a Three-way Match-up

Bob Vander Plaats got the 40% I said he would need to consider an independent bid for Governor. His remarks from the podium last night indicate he is mulling it over.

Vander Plaats said he ran because “It’s been clear to us for some time that this state needs new leadership, that the leadership is failing this state…” As one who repeatedly painted former Governor Branstad as one of these failed leaders, Vander Plaats made no effort to say he no longer was lumping Branstad in this group.

The telltale signs Vander Plaats was keeping his candidacy alive for a while longer were in the next part of his remarks, “So, tonight, I called former Governor Branstad just a little while ago and I congratulated him on his victory. And, to be clear, Gov. Branstad and I both know that we had some differences in this primary. And, after a late night, it’s probably not right now where it’s just going to be raving endorsements, but what we’ve agreed to do is to sit down and to discuss our differences and get them all out on the table so that it is our hope and our goal to unify our party, but it is my hope and my goal beyond that to unify a state around leadership that the State of Iowa desperately needs.”

Vander Plaats conceded Branstad won the primary, but Vander Plaats stopped there. He set the stage for a meeting to discuss differences and said they have a shared purpose to unify the Republican Party. However, the next line is interesting. Vander Plaats drops the “we” and says it is his goal, “beyond that,” to unify a state around leadership desperately needed. If, in Vander Plaats view, Branstad is not able to be the great unifier, look for Vander Plaats to campaign on.

Branstad is a shrewd politician. He will meet with Vander Plaats. Vander Plaats will bring to the table a list of demands. If Vander Plaats is not appeased and he feels he can raise the funds to stay in the race, he will announce his independent campaign. Vander Plaats may run as the alternative to Culver and Branstad by painting them both as incumbents with failed records. This is a long shot strategy, but as a three time primary loser, Vander Plaats has shown an obstinacy to continue campaigning regardless of the fact the odds are long.

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Vander Plaats may not be done, Conlin may be on a trip to nowhere

I love Election Day, but it is well known that I am a nerd. I was the 9th person to vote at my precinct. Like any election, today’s primary brings to close a season of posturing. There will be winners and there will be losers. Some candidates will try to claim they have a mandate and others will retreat to consider their next move.

This brings us to Bob Vander Plaats, the Republican Primary for Governor and my first prediction. If Vander Plaats gets close to 40% of the vote in today’s race, he will seriously consider an independent run for the office.

In many ways, the Vander Plaats folks would prefer a Culver victory over one for Branstad. They do not like Culver, but Branstad’s victory in November would limit options for them in years to come. The heart of the battle in Iowa is not about winning an office, but for who controls of the Republican/conservative/Tea Party cause. Vander Plaats is not ready to go into that good night and Branstad puts a significant dent into the aspirations of many who support Vander Plaats.

The most interesting field on this year’s ballot is the Republican primary to select a challenger for Leonard Boswell. My prediction number two is that Brad Zaun will do better than many expect. It may not be enough for him to snatch victory tonight without going to convention, but Zaun will be in a strong position. I cannot say if he will be able to garner the votes he needs to win at convention, but I give Zaun the edge in a convention match-up. He is a bulldog when it comes grassroots, one-on-one campaigning. Dave Funk has impressed many in this campaign and he has won the right to play a significant role in Party activities going forward, but this will not be his race. Jim Gibbons may be the victor in the end. He has raised a ton of money and played the game pretty well. He lacks the fire many conservatives would like to see in 2010, but do not count him out yet.

The Democratic race to challenge Chuck Grassley is unremarkable. Roxanne Conlin will prevail today, but she is going to lose to Grassley in November unless she significantly ups her game. She is capable of doing so, but her campaign is going to have to significantly improve from the snoozefest that was her primary effort.

That’s it for now. Go vote today and let the general election fun begin!

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Dull Republican Gubernatorial Debate Changes Nothing

On Tuesday I said that sometimes it feels good to be proven wrong. I praised Dave Funk, Brad Zaun and Jim Gibbons for breathing some new life and, dare I say it, a little excitement into the primary campaign. They had me rethinking my earlier statement that neither party had anything (or anybody) fresh to offer voters. Today I watched the Republican gubernatorial debate. There wasn’t anything fresh or exciting about this trio.

First, the debate was poorly conceived. The panelists asking questions lobbed mostly softball questions that did nothing to probe where the candidates differed. Asking these three GOP candidates to express their stances on abortion is like asking National Rifle Association members if Americans should be able to carry guns. There was a “lightning round” where the candidates were supposed to respond yes or no to convoluted and complex questions. The purpose of a debate is to hear how the candidates respond, not one word answers to a reporter’s “litmus test” issues list. It was an hour mostly wasted.

Second, it was obvious today that Terry Branstad, Rod Roberts and Bob Vander Plaats are coasting to the finish line. Terry Branstad deftly swatted back Bob Vander Plaats’ attacks. It was easy for Branstad to do. He had heard every line before. Vander Plaats has not come up with anything new to say since Branstad entered the race. This is Vander Plaats’ third attempt at bat for the gubernatorial nomination and his fatigue is showing. Rod Roberts was calm and gets points for a few solid answers, but he and Terry Branstad were bending over backwards to show respect for one another. In the ‘ask your opponent a question” round, Branstad asked Roberts who he most admired. Yawn.

I expect the nominee will be Branstad. He has run circles around his opponents in fundraising and looked ever the statesman today. Roberts and Vander Plaats are fast running out of opportunities to distinguish themselves as credible candidates. Yeah, it is never over until the votes are counted, but unless Roberts or Vander Plaats offer something more in the next few days than the lackluster performances I watched today, it will be a Culver Branstad match-up in November.

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Equality is NOT a Ballot Issue

This week marks the anniversary of the Iowa Supreme Court ruling on same sex marriage. The ruling touched off a sometimes rancorous political debate that promises to continue for years to come. I have heard some say that Iowa and our country are not ready for this debate. I have to agree that the marriage question has brought out the worst in some people, but it also has shown us at our best. I recognize gay marriage makes some people uncomfortable, but the time to end marriage discrimination in this country is now.

Perennial gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats has built the foundation for his campaign on the issue. The Iowa Republican puts it this way, “For much of 2009, Bob Vander Plaats focused on one issue – gay marriage.” For an entire year, nothing was more important to him. And, political rhetoric, some of it absurd, has not been confined to Iowa. J.D. Hayworth, Senator John McCain’s opponent in Arizona, drew a bizarre picture that same sex marriage is a step toward a man being able to marry his horse. Four time Iowa governor and returning candidate Terry Branstad has found it difficult to juggle this issue at all, stumbling over it numerous times.

Branstad and some who are even more vocal about ending same sex marriage are trying to build a case for letting the people decide by forcing a statewide or national vote on marriage. There is much hot air about how letting the Supreme Court ruling stand without a Constitutional question being put to the voters is tantamount to creating a judicial oligarchy. They argue the people should decide. When you take two steps back from this argument, it is laughable. The Iowa Legislature passed a law that defined marriage as one man and one woman. The people never voted on it. Last April, the Court found this legislative action to be in conflict with the Iowa Constitution.

It is not that the question of marriage is so big that it demands a vote of the people. What is at stake is bigger than marriage, something more important than an issue to be decided by a simple and single vote of the people.

This week, Governor Chet Culver made his strongest statement on the matter to date. He said a vote was unnecessary. “I think the overwhelming majority of Iowans do not want to amend our constitution in such a way that’s discriminatory. That’s the bottom line,” explained Culver. He was trying, I guess, but this statement proves the Governor also misunderstands this issue. It has nothing to do with the latest public opinion survey.

Our state and national constitutions were established on the most basic of underpinnings, we are equals. We are entitled to the same rights and protections under the law. There is no litmus test to determine who among us is ‘more equal,’ who among us is be entitled to own property, speak freely, or get married.

I got to marry the person I love, the person I chose to marry and the person who chose to marry me. No law or constitutional amendment can be written to say two other people can be denied the same ability because they share the same type of human plumbing, for doing so would violate the most basic tenet of our state and national constitutions. We are equals. Our sex, sexual orientation, religion, color, political belief and any other thing that makes us who we are cannot change that fact. If our Legislature passes a law that says differently, it violates our Constitution and should be struck down. If a ballot measure is passed by the electorate that says one segment of our population is not entitled to the same rights as another, the Court should invalidate it. If we say that it is OK for one couple to marry because they are straight, but it is unacceptable for another to marry because they are gay, we invalidate the very Constitution which created Iowa and the one that formed the greatest country on earth.

Tomorrow, many will gather to celebrate the Iowa Supreme Court ruling on marriage. I wish them well, but I hope they will pause for a moment in their revelry to realize that this is not a gay issue. This is not about marriage. This is about equality for all.

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Checks, Check, Please – A Game of Gubernatorial Proportions

Culver Asks for Checks, Please
The Culver Campaign is reaching deep. Word has it the Governor himself is calling down a list of former Vilsack donors seeking campaign contributions. Yes, money fuels a campaign, but I find it interesting the Governor is spending time cold calling for dollars. The Governor might be better off spending time raising his visibility. Poll after poll indicates Culver lacks in that department. Maybe he is the Iowa version of the groundhog – upon sticking his head out into the winter air, the Governor saw his shadow and retreated for six more weeks of phone calling before campaign season begins.

Vander Plaats Asked for Check, Please
Perennial gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats is going to be waiting tables between 3:30 and 5:00 p.m. today at the Applebee’s in Fort Dodge. As a PR guy, I know gimmicks can work. However, this one is so flawed it is laughable. According to the Vander Plaats machine, he wants to work alongside Iowans so he can better understand their jobs and concerns. OK, but I would suggest if Mr. Vander Plaats wants insight into food service, he consider sticking with the job for more than 90 minutes and waiting tables when more than a handful of diners are present. What’s next? Is he going to teach school during recess?

Branstad, Please
A couple weeks ago Todd Dorman interviewed former Governor Terry Branstad. Dorman asked what about gay and lesbian marriage made Branstad uncomfortable. Branstad responded, “Well, it’s got to do with the whole structure of the American society. And, uh, a lot of people say when other ancient societies have gone this direction, it was the beginning of the end of their society.” Awkward and odd. In answering a subsequent question, Branstad mentioned a former employee whose gay son and “friend” have adopted children. According to Branstad, the very conservative religious woman had difficulty dealing “when this became the situation.” Like the White person who wanted to be seen as open minded during the Civil Rights Movement by saying “some of my best friends are Black,” Branstad said he knows conservative religious people who are related to gays. It is possible in constructing this verbal twofer Branstad offended both gays and the religious right. I know this topic makes you uncomfortable, Governor Branstad, but please.

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.