Mitt Romney Rallying the Base in the Iowa GOP Gubernatorial Primary
May 18, 2010 12 Comments
Today it was announced that Mitt Romney has thrown his support behind Terry Branstad in the Iowa Governor’s race. Really not surprising since most of Branstad’s campaign staff and the people he associates with are Romney people. What is surprising is that Mitt decided to enter into this messy primary which is something he is not known to do. Could it be because Mike Huckabee has endorsed Branstad’s rival in the race, Bob Vander Plaats?
This endorsement is a stupid move for Mitt Romney and the Branstad campaign. Let’s think back to the 2008 Iowa Caucuses and the crushing defeat that Huckabee delivered Romney that shocked the nation and turned politics as usual upside-down. Huckabee was out spent 15 to 1 but still won by almost ten points because Iowans rejected the candidate of Mitt Romney and his message that they were seeing and hearing for almost a year. Spending a lot of money on advertising and stuffing mailboxes was no match for the grassroots effort that propelled the former Governor of Arkansas and Baptist minister to a decisive victory. The base rallied to eliminate Mitt Romney from the Presidential race to instead launch someone of principles and conviction.
This is why once again Mitt Romney will rally the base in Iowa, however, it will most likely be against his candidate of choice in the gubernatorial primary and not for. Romney could spark the get out the vote needed to push Bob Vander Plaats over the top to victory because if there is one things Iowan have proved, they are not bought and paid for.
This is a un-needed endorsement for the Branstad campaign and the slogan of “with friends like that, who needs enemies” sure does seem to fit. The Iowa voter does not need to see the similarities between these two candidates if Branstad is going to succeed in securing the nomination. Similarities such as both of them raising taxes and “fees” (that way we don’t need to call them taxes), Romney writing the blue print for ObamaCare and Branstad campaigning for the deciding vote on ObamaCare, Romney signing into law $50 taxpayer-funded abortions and Branstad putting a Planned Parenthood cheerleader on the ticket with him, Romney taking a court opinion and making same-sex marriage a “law” and Branstad surrendering to the courts on making same-sex marriage a “law,” and finally, Romney employing illegal immigrants at his house and Branstad not willing to take a stand for Iowa on illegal immigration.
With friends like that, who needs enemies. They rallying of the base has begun.
This is EXACTLY why I will not support Terry B. It is not only that he has had his chance to govern Iowa, brought gambling to our state, and is a tired looking old man. It is the people who are around Terry B. I do not trust them. They are elitists of the highest order and now this news about Romney. A total turn off. Iowans pay attention. Branstad and Company are NOT what Iowa needs.
I completely agree. Terry B. talks out of both sides of his mouth. On one side he says hes pro life (to make the Republicans happy). Then on the other side he brings people in that totally go the other way. He says hes for one man one woman (again to make the Republicans happy) but then he does nothing to enforce it and to give Iowans the right to vote. He is a politics as usual kinda guy. Which we all know is NOT what Iowa needs. However, now that Iowans have spoken and that’s what we have to work with I feel he’ll be much better than Culver. (Anyone would be better than him.)
It will be interesting to see how this goes down. I am of a much varying opinion than you on many of the things you said. First of which is this is not a dumb move by Romney as he almost has nothing to lose in Iowa. His expectations for 2012 are much lower than Huckabee’s. If Vander Plaats loses I wonder if you will say that Huckabee’s influence has waned on his supporters, just as you said about Romney when Bennett lost in Utah.
For the record for your readers:
1- Romney did NOT sign into law $50 abortions. To say so is utterly dishonest. Find the bill and show me in it where is says $50 abortions and I’ll believe you.
2- MassCare was not a “blueprint” for ObamaCare. If it were a blueprint don’t you think they would have at least asked Romney once about how they implemented the plan in MA? If it were a blueprint don’t you think we would have heard from them early in the process that they wanted to do it the way the MA did it? No, that was never mentioned or even brought up (until after it was passed) because such simply was not the case.
3- You don’t know what a “court opinion” means. Every ruling has a written accompanying “opinion”. Romney strongly disagreed with the ruling, but has an executor of the law he did his constitutional duty to uphold the law despite his feelings towards it. We are a nation of laws and we must abide by them. Romney understands that. If you don’t like the law, try and change it, but until then obey it, otherwise we are no different than Obama and his rule-bending ways. Romney didn’t like the law and fought against it.
4- Romney did not “employ” illegal immigrants at his house. The person he contracted to do his landscaping “employed” the illegal immigrants. These are people that Romney did not know personally. It is not in the realm of his responsibility to ensure that every company he deals with practices proper hiring policies, it is the responsibility of the contractor to do so. Look at it this way: do you think for a second that Huckabee will be individually interviewing the crew of the contractors he hires to do the landscaping at his new house in Florida? I doubt it. Let’s be real here.
I just finished a post on this endorsement at Mitt Romney Central: http://mittromneycentral.com/2010/05/18/romney-endorses-brandstad-in-iowa-2012-huckabee-rivalry-underway/
Carry on.
Nate G.,
I believe you are the one who does not know what a court opinion is. How is a law made? It must pass the legislature and then the governor must sign it. The court does not make law! The court opinion in MA was kicked back to the legislature to deal with which is what is supposed to happen. As in Iowa, there are two things that could happen when this is done. The legislature can either pass gay marriage and the governor signs it into law or the Constitution can be amended to support tradtional marriage. The MA Constituion actually forbids the court to make law!
But sadly, in MA the legislature did nothing and Romney took it upon himself to make a “law” by ordering marriage liscences to gay couples. This is not a law at all! The Governor cannot make law……..only the legislature. There was no law for him to “enforce.” In Iowa it was a little different because the court actually never sent their opinion back to the legislature. They instead chose to make “law.” In Iowa as in MA there is no laws on the books for gay marriage.
You may want to check out what Bob Vander Plaats is doing with our court ruling that became an unconstitutional law. Unlike Romney, he understands the Constitution and separation of powers. Romney didn’t have to hand out those marriage liscenses to gay couples. He did that all on his own.
Semantics. By “law” I refer to the constitution only, because I know there was no law passed by the legislature. Allowing gay marriage is not a new law made by Romney or anyone. According to the court the right to gay marriage was always there in the constitution, or more accurately that the constitution does not forbid the marriage of gay couple.
The legislature could not constitutionally restrict issuing of licenses and not could the governor or anyone else. The legislature’s failure to act essentially meant that gay marriage was not forbidden in the constitution and that he (Romney) could not constitutionally forbid it either. IF he did then he was making new law, which as you said would be unconstitutional.
Romney understood that the court essentially wrote new law, without actually writing new law, but that is not the Governor’s decision to make, and he is not in the position to overturn their ruling. Balance of powers, just like you said. If he did that would kind of make him a dictator, usurping powers to himself. That is what the court did. I guess that is what separates them. Romney did use all the legal means at his disposal to try to overturn it. That meant pushing for an amendment. The citizens submitted a legal petition referendum to change the law, but then the legislature acted unconstitutionally by failing (intentionally) to vote on it.
I assert to you that Romney understands the separation of powers. In fact he is the only one of the three branches that didn’t abuse his powers. It’s kind of hard to compete against others when they are cheating. Romney could have restricted licenses, but to do so would have been unconstitutional. But what the court did was unconstitutional too, should Romney have forbidden it still? Does the ends justify the means?
FYI the Branstad website had Romney’s endorsement on it for a day before scrubbing it off.
You argument is very very flawed… especially the whole last paragraph relating Branstad and Romney; it’s full of un-truth…
Iowan’s Rocks,
The only thing rocking in Iowa are the rocks in your head.
Unlike some, Romney backs his friends and those that have supported him over the years. I know that’s tough for some to swallow, helping friends out.
The beauty of all this is, that Branstad is a better man for the job. He’s running on his record. Polls seem to indicate, Iowan’s (the ones without the rocks) seem to like him.
By the way, their are so many lies in your post about Romney and his record (Obamacare, abortion, Gay rights, raising taxes, etc) that I’d say you have a great future in the Democratic Party.
http://www.rushtellthetruth.blogspot.com/
Gosh- some of you posters here sound like peas in the Romney pod. Really doesn’t matter what you think about Mittens- more and more voters are seeing the light and will not be taking him seriously in this next election.
He is toast.
Branstad is not the man for the job. He has had his turn and even my retirement aged mom told his people when they called her for money that Branstad is OLD and brought gambling to Iowa so she certainly would not support him!
Romney really doesn’t have anything to lose… a couple of things with your assessment (and I’m no Branstad or Romney lover):
1. Primaries are not caucuses, more people will be voting, so I don’t know how much impact this endorsement will have on the election – good or bad. 2008 would have been interesting had it been a primary… don’t know if the outcome would have been different, but the dynamic certainly would.
2. Regarding the people who are around Branstad – I mostly agree with you, however, Carmine Boal is his policy director. She is top shelf, a follower of Christ and a solid conservative. If Branstad wins, pray that she can exert influence because she is the type of person who needs to be around him to counter other advice he may be getting.
You are right with the difference between a primary and a caucus. I am pretty sure, however, that this endorsement willl not gain Branstad any votes because I believe the hard core Romney supporters are mostly in his corner already and it’s not going to help Branstad’s name recognition any because he is almost at 100% right now.
As far as who is surrounding him, I have heard great things about Carmine Boal. I do believe she was also one of the few to get on board with Huckabee in 2008. It is those reasons, however, that her support of Branstad baffles me. With three candidates in the race he is the least firm on the issues she says she cares about. I have learned to trust almost no one when it comes to politics and this is just a big red flag to me when it comes to her.