Grassley: Christie would be 'welcome candidate in Iowa' in 2016 once state blunts Tea Party clout

Washington Examiner ^ | 11/7/2013 | Susan Ferrichio

[markomalley]

The Republican Party of Iowa was blindsided by the Tea Party movement in the last presidential election, but party officials are already working hard to diminish the conservative movement's influence by the time the next presidential primary rolls around in 2016, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa said.

"I think the Tea Party people in Iowa caught them off guard," Grassley said of the state party in an interview on C-SPAN's "Newsmakers."

Grassley said many Iowa Republicans "have been dissatisfied with the direction of the Republican Party in Iowa and are prepared to get more involved this time to counter the Tea Party influence."

"What we need to do is energize the Republican Party all over," Grassley said. "That doesn't exclude Tea Party people, but it means everybody who likes the Republican Party and our principles needs to get activated."

Grassley, who is running for a seventh term in 2014, said he hasn't decided who he'd back in the next presidential contest. But his influence in a state that casts the first votes of a presidential election will make him a sought-after endorsement.

When asked about the presidential prospects of newly re-elected New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican, Grassley said Christie "would be a welcome candidate in Iowa."

His appeal, Grassley said, stems from his success as governor, "and he's been able to work with both political parties and he's shown considerable success."

Grassley, who considers himself conservative, rejected the "moderate" label Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and others have tried to attach to Christie to suggest he would have trouble winning a primary process dominated by conservatives. Christie allowed same-sex marriage to advance in New Jersey and embraced President Obama in the final weeks of the 2012 election.

"There is a tendency that if you are not a purist on everything then you are a moderate," Grassley said. "I don't accept that. I'm going to give Gov. Christie the opportunity to tell me issue by issue where he stands and I'll make a judgement."

Just three Iowa caucus winners — Democrats Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama and Republican George W. Bush — have gone on to win the presidency. But placing well in the race's first caucuses can give a candidate a chance to build momentum heading into the rest of the primary process.

Former Sen. Rick Santorum, a Tea Party favorite, won the 2012 Iowa caucuses, though he was effectively denied the traditional bump a winner would have because problems with the vote count meant he didn't learn that he'd narrowly won until weeks later.

Grassley, hoping Iowa picks a winner next time around, said the Tea Party's insurgency has shaken up the state's Republican Party, motivating the party to get more involved in the next primary "so that we can be a more major force not only in Iowa but in the nation as a whole."

[markomalley]

Yeah, right, whatever.

[John Valentine]

Grassley is one of those who needs to be drummed out. With Republicans like him, who needs Democrats?

[afraidfortherepublic]

Et tu, Charles Grassley?

[Toucan Dance]

We ought to blunt Chas. Grassley.

[Smokin' Joe]

Christie running with the full backing of the GOPe will guarantee Hillary gets to preside over the last days of the USA.

[jsanders2001]

I don’t they are really aware of how large the Tea Party movement has grown. Its not just a white hair convention that they claim it to be. Our chapter has many 20 somethings in it...: )

[Timber Rattler]

Good luck with that, Grassley!

[kearnyirish2]

“I don’t they are really aware of how large the Tea Party movement has grown. Its not just a white hair convention that they claim it to be. Our chapter has many 20 somethings in it...: )”

NJ’s recent election showed how much it has grown; Christie is a tax-cutter, and he crushed a Dem in a blue state. As the financial ramifications of ObamaCare become known (and the law takes effect over the next 2 months), I’d expect you’ll see a lot more 20-somethings joing the Taxed Enough AlLready movement.

[mosesdapoet]

Looks like Grassley is behind the curtain pulling some levers again...time for him to exit stage right.

[Venturer]

Republicans working to put Hillary in the White house.

[niteowl77]

Chuck is all over the map... and always has been. When he role-plays as the "conservative" one of Iowa's two superannuated senate peacocks, he's okay. When he reverts to simply being the Iowa GOP powerbrokers' BFF or the ethanol industry's concubine, he's dismal. My guess is that he feels like he owes loyalty to Iowa GOP barnacles like Doug Gross (who pays lip service to actual conservatives, but is a far bigger fan of... Doug Gross). While he's not viciously evil like his Democrat counterpart. Chuck Grassley has an ego and he likes his perks.

The I-GOP-e wasn't as receptive to Ted Cruz's recent visit as some would have you believe, and my guess is that Chuck is just saying what his shiny-pants playground pals in Polk County are saying. The Iowa GOP-e is every bit as incompetent and corrupt as the national bunch (hell, they can't even reliably put Humboldt County in the Republican bag these days). The one thing they ARE good at is retaining as much personal power and control as possible, and at any cost. The "tea party" threatens them.

Mr. niteowl77

[Jim Noble]

It is both a strength and a limitation that the “Tea Party” means different things to different people.

Both social conservatives and fiscal conservatives, as well as the “put the Federal government back in the Constitutional box” brand of libertarians, can POTENTIALLY support Tea Party candidates. When this occurs, those candidates have a good chance of winning in previously unreachable places like NJ and Massachusetts.

However, when they DO win (Senator Brown to the white courtesy phone, please), each of these constituencies is primed to complain of being sold out or betrayed. This is because each one’s PRIMARY issue(s) is in conflict with the others. For example, you can’t stop the war on drugs and fight the war on drugs at the same time. You can’t limit entitlements and “keep hands off my Medicare” at the same time, etc, etc.

The three components of the “Tea Party” affinity group COULD take over the government and stop Americommunism dead in its tracks if they could figure out how to get along. Based on my fifteen years on this site, that doesn’t seem very likely.

[kearnyirish2]

I’ve always understood the Tea Party to represent one (wide) group - Taxed Enough Already (it was the source of their name). People wanted lower taxes (and by extension smaller government), and they made a point of avoiding social/moral issues (abortion, “gay marriage”, etc.).

The media has spent five years re-defining them (rightly perceiving them as a threat to the Bolshevik agenda); we shouldn’t let them do that. They are dangerous enough to libs of either party under their original banner of lower taxes.

[niteowl77]

I’ve always understood the Tea Party to represent one (wide) group - Taxed Enough Already (it was the source of their name). People wanted lower taxes (and by extension smaller government), and they made a point of avoiding social/moral issues (abortion, “gay marriage”, etc.).

One of the (many) anomalies in Iowa is that social/moral issue voters can screw things up for the Republicans and not get as much pushback from the Polk County Mafia as low tax/small government types do.

Mr. niteowl77

[SC_Pete]

we have to win back our own party first. Then we can tangle with RATS.

http://www.conventionofstates.com/news

[nathanbedford]

You can’t limit entitlements and “keep hands off my Medicare” at the same time,

An observation which I have been making for some time now. As long as the tea party is a movement and not a political party it can straddle some of these mutually inconsistent issues but as events push conservatives away from the establishment, they will have to declare themselves and resolve these anomalies.

That means, first, that an overarching issue must be found which outclasses all the others and causes disparate and conflicting interests to subordinate those interests to pursue the higher ideal. The obvious example of this phenomenon occurred in the late 1850s over slavery and gave birth to the Republican party.

It means, second, that a charismatic spokesman must emerge who can articulate the one, two, or three issues which are so transcendental that disparate elements are willing to at least postpone their selfish interests. A charismatic leader is indispensable because his job will be to break through the wall of resistance directed by the media.

Ted Cruz just might be that man and our looming fiscal catastrophe might just be the issue, although Obamacare shows promise in that regard. However, my belief is that a crisis will be necessary to set conditions one and two as noted above in motion. Just as anti-slavery and then the need to preserve the union and then anti-slavery again united the Republicans under Abraham Lincoln.

In this context, I do not forget Mark Levin's Article V movement to reform the government free of the influence of Washington. Even Mark Levin believes that a crisis will be necessary to precipitate that movement.

A crisis and a charismatic leader can focus the country's consensus to the few issues which enable a party to resolve its inherent inconsistencies which bedevil all political parties.

[Lady Heron]

Would somebody in the leadership of the republican party take a look at our voting history and tell me the last time a Northeastern liberal republican won a presidential election?

So since you know the history now.....explain truthfully the end goal of the leadership because it is not to be an opposition party, to stand for our Constitution or to win elections what has become the real goal?

At some point some real questions need asking.

[Jim Noble]

People wanted lower taxes (and by extension smaller government), and they made a point of avoiding social/moral issues (abortion, “gay marriage”, etc.).

Yes, and a lot of tea party types have learned from 1986 that cutting taxes alone won't work (because they just print and borrow instead), but that programs need to go IN ORDER to cut taxes.

I fear that the social conservatives are not yet bought into the idea that a smaller government can serve their interests (such as leaving their children alone, a paramount issue of mine). Socons' heart's desire, like Santorum, tend to support a bigger and more intrusive state as a means to an end.

I'm hopeful that a fusion movement can beat Hillary! - but not too hopeful.

[NormsRevenge]

Grassley? et tu..