Robinson:King and VanderPlaats Have No Other Option but to Endorse [Hall:The Case for Not Endorsing]

When you survey the political landscape and study the multiple polls that have been conducted over the last six months, the uncertainty of the race for the Republican presidential nomination would give any would-be endorser heartburn.

An uncertain field of candidates, combined with a later start to the caucus campaign season, has created a caucus cycle where more people are undecided or soft supporters than we have ever seen. While Iowa caucuses goers have been slow to throw their support behind a candidate, so too have two of the state’s most recognizable conservative leaders, Congressman Steve King and Bob Vander Plaats of The FAMiLY Leader.

Before one can even weigh in on whether or not King and Vander Plaats should endorse, one needs to first understand why their endorsements matter in the first place. When it comes to Republican caucus politics, endorsements don’t mean much. While every candidate would love to have the endorsement of Governor Branstad or Senator Grassley, their endorsement provides a positive press story for a day or so and little else. Simply put, an endorsement by either of them isn’t going to convince any Iowa Republican I know to support a particular candidate.

King and Vander Plaats are different because their endorsement means something. Getting the nod from King is like placing the Good Housekeeping Seal of approval on a candidate. It reassures voters that a particular candidate is undoubtedly conservative and will advance the conservative cause. Vander Plaats represents a group of people who seek purity on social conservative issues. While maybe not huge in number, the passion and dedication of these people can make a huge impact in a caucus contest.

Luke 12:48 – “From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked”

With their position as caucus kingmakers, King and Vander Plaats receive an enormous amount of media attention during the caucus cycle. Beyond that, both have encouraged the candidates to attend their events and sign pledges, which most have gladly done. King has also been given the opportunity to participate in or moderate forums that involved presidential candidates in Iowa and in other states.

There is no problem with King and Vander Plaats making the presidential candidates jump through a series of hoops, but for them to hold out the idea that they will endorse and then ultimately not do so sends a terrible message to future candidates. Iowans up look to King and Vander Plaats as leaders. Their silence would be deafening, especially in their local caucuses. Can you imagine King and Vander Plaats sitting silently in their local caucus while a schoolteacher or librarian stands up to advocate on behalf of his or her candidate? I can’t. As Vander Plaats likes to say, “Leaders lead.” He needs to follow his own advice, and so should King.

Much has been entrusted to King and Vander Plaats, so, much, much more is required of them, even if it is difficult to do. Sitting out is not an option when you rail on candidates for not participating in you events like Vander Plaats did last month.

It’s not about the candidates, it’s about the issues and principles for which these leaders have advocated in their lives and in their campaigns.

While the media likes to make endorsements about horserace politics, a candidate’s standing in the polls should have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they are worthy of being endorsed. What kind of message will be sent if candidates like Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann, two candidates who don’t have a negative blemish on their records, are not worthy to receive the endorsement of one of Iowa’s conservative leaders? It means that a candidate’s worldview or core convictions don’t matter as much as their current poll numbers do.

Both King and Vander Plaats were never the frontrunners in their own initial campaigns for office, so why can they now judge a candidate’s viability based on a metric they would fail to meet themselves? King and Vander Plaats need to recognize that their clout comes from what they believe and fight for, not their win/loss record in supporting candidates.

Four years ago, Congressman King held a major press conference in Des Moines to announce who he would support. This cycle, Bob Vander Plaats has made it abundantly clear that he too is in the endorsement business. While it is always nice to support a candidate who goes all the way or wins the Iowa caucuses, both King and Vander Plaats need to be reminded that their clout in the Republican caucuses does not come from backing candidates who win, but by being steadfast on the issues for which they advocate.

Iowans are privileged to be able to have their voices heard first in telling the rest of the county who should be our next president. All Iowans should embrace the caucus process, especially those of us who personally benefit from them occurring in our home state. We must remember Iowa’s role is not to support a candidate we think has the best chance at winning the nomination, but to select a candidate who best represents us.

When you are in the endorsement business, you are inevitably going to make someone unhappy, but people will be equally unhappy if they don’t endorse. As is the case in any presidential election, people demand to see leadership from their candidates. They also demand leadership from those among our own ranks who have been the torchbearers for our conservative ideals.

http://theiowarepublican.com/2011/the-case-for-not-endorsing/

The Case for not Endorsing

By Kevin Hall

Iowa’s two most prized endorsements remain up for grabs as Congressman Steve King and Bob Vander Plaats continue to ponder which GOP candidate they should support. As these conservative leaders mull over their choices, I offer this free advice: Don’t do it. There is nothing to gain for you.

There are basically two candidates in the GOP field who fit the strict conservative mold of King and Vander Plaats. They are Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum. Newt Gingrich has better poll numbers. Rick Perry has more money. However, Bachmann and Santorum are greater champions of conservative principles than Gingrich and Perry. They would face a backlash by choosing anyone other than Bachmann or Santorum.

I have no doubt that the backing of King and BVP could boost any candidate’s fortunes in Iowa. I saw firsthand how much Steve King helped Fred Thompson’s lackluster campaign four years ago. It was too late to propel Thompson to a first or second place finish, but there is no doubt Thompson received more votes because of King’s influence. He reinvigorated Thompson and made the difference between a third and fourth place finish. A lot of northwest Iowa GOP activists switched their allegiance to Thompson in the final days thanks primarily to Steve King’s urging.

Likewise, Bob Vander Plaats toured every county in the state earlier this year, building a grassroots, evangelical network for a statewide campaign. The plan was always to activate that 99-county organization into helping a social conservative candidate win the Iowa Caucus. While the backing of Vander Plaats would turn off some voters, those Iowans would likely support a different presidential candidate anyway.

It is obvious that both men are having a difficult time choosing which candidate to back. Here are my reasons why Congressman King and Bob Vander Plaats should remain neutral in the GOP presidential race:

Bachmann and Santorum are unlikely to win: Those are the two candidates whose views are most in line with King and Vander Plaats. They also sit near the bottom of the polls. It’s Iowa or bust for both campaigns.

Bachmann rose and fell over the summer. Her misstatements on things ranging from Gardisil to John Wayne’s birthplace turned off voters and sent them looking elsewhere. Bachmann also does not appear to have a strong organization in Congressman King’s district in northwest Iowa and did not campaign there until October.

Despite Santorum’s 99-county tour, his poll numbers have not risen above the low single digits. An Iowa poll released Tuesday showed him at 3.3%. He has little money and is still trying to assemble a statewide organization. Santorum is the only candidate not to receive a surge of momentum in the race. Time is running out.

If the candidate they choose does not take a top-two finish in Iowa, King and Vander Plaats could be weakened politically. It will take a lot of work in a short amount of time to accomplish that for Bachmann or Santorum.

Congressman King faces a tough race next year and Vander Plaats’ credibility took a hit from the controversial “Marriage Vow” pledge. Headed into an election year, they want to maintain their status as “kingmakers”. They lose some political power if their endorsement is perceived as ineffective.

Endorsements can backfire: The first rule of endorsements is: Do no harm to yourself or the person you endorse. Conservatives still question Newt Gingrich’s backing of congressional candidate Dede Scozzafava and Santorum’s support of Arlen Specter and Christie Todd Whitman. Vander Plaats used Terry Branstad’s 2000 endorsement of Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson against him in the 2010 campaign. Sarah Palin fell out of favor with some Vander Plaats supporters when she chose Branstad over him.

Although there is no concern about Bachmann and Santorum not being conservative enough, you never know what the future holds, especially considering Bachmann’s penchant for verbal gaffes.

Angering those you don’t endorse: Steve King, in particular, is in a bind because of his friendship with congressional colleague Michele Bachmann. If he endorses someone other than her, Bachmann is likely to take it as an insult and their relationship could become strained.

Santorum was the only candidate who travelled to Iowa to help with the ouster of the Supreme Court justices, a movement spearheaded by Vander Plaats. He was also the only one to attend King’s annual fundraiser this year. Political favors are less likely to be given a second time when the first time is not rewarded.

King has publicly spoken many times about his concerns that it might look like he snubbed the rest of the field if he endorses someone. He also runs the risk of offending the Iowa Caucus winner and eventual GOP nominee. If Steve King does not back those winners, they might be less likely to help his 2012 congressional campaign.

Splitting the vote: I believe these two men could help a presidential candidate, especially if they backed the same one. However, King and Vander Plaats are not necessarily allies and I do not think they would want to share the spotlight and the credit.

If King and BVP endorse different candidates, it will be seen as a competition between them as much as a competition between the presidential hopefuls. That is likely to split the conservative vote, render both endorsements meaningless, and hand the Iowa Caucus to Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich.

In my opinion, it would be best for Congressman King and Bob Vander Plaats to follow the pattern of Senator Grassley, Governor Branstad and Congressman Latham. Sit this one out and let Iowans choose for themselves the best person for the job.

We Do Not Know……..”We don’t know. We do suspect, however, that the mainstream media’s view—and conservative elites’ view—of who the swing voters are is somewhat distorted. Every journalist knows upper-middle-class, suburban, socially moderate independents on the East and West Coasts who (for now, at least) would be more likely to vote Republican if the nominee were Romney rather than Gingrich. Journalists do not tend to know the lower-middle-class, non-college-educated, churchgoing voters of exurban Tampa, or the working-class Reagan Democrats of Toledo, who are also swing voters, and who might prefer Gingrich. In any case, for now we don’t really know which of the two frontrunners—or, for that matter, which of the other candidates—would have a better chance to win...

We do not know. But if it’s not given to us mere humans to know, we are capable of learning. We’re a month away from the Iowa caucus. There are three months before 90 percent of the Republicans in the nation begin voting, and even then, further information will be produced and processed as the primaries unfold. The Democrats are stuck with their nominee—a failed and unpopular president. Republicans, by contrast, are free to choose. They are in no way required to rush to judgment. And they need not defer to pundits whose “station, office, and dignity” impel them to claim to know what they do not know.”

When it comes to RINOs, conservatives must be very clear.

Likely after the next elections, both houses of congress will be Republican. If Obama is reelected, they will be unified in opposing his agenda, and dismantling the monster he has built.

But if a RINO is elected, he will cement everything that Obama has done, so we are stuck with it for a generation or more, and he will lead the Republican party to a Hoover-sized election disaster that will turn all our government over to Democrats for many years to come.

Given this terrible prospect, if the Republican leadership once again forces through a turkey RINO candidate like Dole or McCain, it would be *better*, both for conservatives, and for the country, sad to say, if Obama won.

Right now, the leadership *intends* to make Romney the candidate. He is the worst RINO among the candidates. If he is anointed by the Republican convention rules committee, who essentially control the convention, do not fall prey to the “hold your nose and vote for him” ploy.

Vote instead for conservative candidates for other offices endorsed by the Tea Party and leave the presidential selection blank.

And remember who the Republican liberals were who betrayed the country.

[He has the heart, morals and love of country to be a great president.]

I couldn’t agree more but I feel that he has capitulated to the fact that he lacks debating skills by using humor as a defense.

This, in my opinion, is fatal.

He has strong ideals and principles but instead of focusing on his values and conveying them with ease and confidence, he has wandered into the thinking he should be focusing on what he THINKS people want to hear.

Of course, this may be the advise of his advisors because that path is well traveled by nearly all politicians who lack the ability or fear to speak from the heart.

I feel that this has contributed to his numerous gaffes, he just isn’t comfortable with, in a sense, lying or not expressing, with confidence, what he truly believes in.

After all, he would be up against a masterful Machiavellian orator who finds truth a nuisance to any debate and a press which is more than willing to advance his words as gospel.

My overview of this election is that there was standard set long ago by Sarah Palin. She is not only a true Conservative but she advanced her Conservatism and principles without fear or apologies.

When she opted out of the running, I feel, that many felt that, AGAIN.. we were going to just settle for what we can get.

In my opinion, either consciously or subconsciously we are looking at our field and trying to find the candidate who may measure up to her strenghth of conviction and bravery under fire.

"Rick Perry is true to conservative principles even when others think the party needs to go a different direction. I like that about him: he doesn't care which way the wind blows, he acts on his beliefs."

--- Gov. Sarah Palin

Texas Governor Rick Perry is a great American, a veteran, a conservative, a leader, and a man of conviction, faith and values. He will make a fine next president of the United States of America.

For the past 10 years he has successfully governed the 15th largest economy in the world. He is a true Washington, DC outsider.

He is pro-life, pro-guns, pro-family, pro-business, pro-job creation, pro-economic growth, pro-tort reform, pro-military, pro-Israel, and pro-states rights.

He is for limiting Federal power over the states and the people; for reducing the size of the Federal Government; for cutting taxes, cutting spending, repealing regulations, balancing the budget, and expanding domestic energy production.

He is for securing the border using strategic fencing, boots on the ground, and aviation assets such as Predator drones to provide real-time information to law enforcement and border patrol.

He says securing the border will be a top priority and he will have it done in his first year as president.

He is opposed to amnesty and the Federal DREAM Act.

... the 82nd Texas Legislative Session [2011] passed a strong sonogram bill, a voter-ID bill, new accountability for homeowner associations, a loser pays in frivolous lawsuits bill, defunded Planned Parenthood, and the legislature, not only balanced the budget with no new taxes, but cut total spending by 8.1%.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.