Todd Dorman

Todd Dorman is a columnist for The Gazette. His blog has been bringing smiles to readers' faces since November 2007.
Updated: 27 September 2011 | 10:33 am in 24 hour dorman by Todd Dorman

Dancing with the candidates in SD 18


thegazette.com Copyright 2011 SourceMedia Group. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

 

Candidates in Senate District 18’s special election are learning a delicate dance.

Lots of outside folks and groups want to get involved in a race that could alter the balance of power in the Iowa Senate. The dilemma for the candidates is how to accept help and bucks without looking like you’re losing sight of local voters’ concerns.

On Monday, Republican hopeful Cindy Golding turned down her first high-profile dance partner. GOP presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann had planned to give Golding a boost during a Cedar Rapids campaign stop. But Golding, citing a prior “business commitment” declined to appear alongside the U.S. representative from Minnesota.

Golding and her husband run four businesses, including an organic maple syrup farm, commercial and residential real estate offices and corporate communications consulting firm. So a scheduling conflict is clearly plausible.

And it also happens to be wise politics. For one thing, Bachmann’s once-promising run is sputtering as of late. She drew only about 40 to 50 people to Monday’s midday event at the Best Western Longbranch. And Bachmann’s profile as combative conservative firebrand doesn’t really fit the political profile of District 18 — a swing district that tends to elect moderates.

Both Goding and Liz Mathis, who becomes the Democratic candidate at a district convention Wednesday, also are doing some early tap dancing around an issue that’s likely to draw outside interest to the contest: same-sex marriage.

A state constitutional amendment banning same-sex unions in Iowa cleared the House but stalled in the Senate. A GOP victory in District 18 would pull Republicans into a 25-25 Senate tie, bringing the measure one vote closer to Senate action — although it’s unlikely that the amendment’s prospects improve much at 25-25.

Still, the issue is out there. But when I asked Mathis last week for her stand, she dodged.

“I tell you what, right now, I’m not going to focus on that. I’m going to focus on what’s important for the district. The kinds of things that people want to talk about right now are business, jobs and education,” Mathis said, insisting that she wants to hear what voters have to say before taking a position.

“You know what? I’ll address it when I need to address it. And when the right time comes, that’s when I’ll address it. I don’t want this election to be all about that,” Mathis said.

She’s right about economic issues being the focus. But the marriage issue isn’t going away. And at some point, Mathis will have to say how she’d vote. I think voters in the district can absorb her answer and stay focused on pocketbook stuff.

While Mathis is deploying the typical Democratic dodge — other issues are more important — Golding is using the most typical Republican marriage sidestep. She just wants to let Iowans vote.

“I think it’s something that the citizens of the state ought to vote on,” Golding said of the constitutional ban, which must be approved by two consecutive General Assemblies before Iowa voters could weigh in. “There has been a clamoring across the state to just have a voice. And I think, you know, which ever way it goes, the people ought to decide.”

So Golding supports proposing the amendment. But does she support the actual amendment banning all same-sex unions?

“I support the people’s right to voice an opinion on the amendment,” Golding said.

“I have friends on both sides. I have friends who are gay couples and I have friends who are 100 percent opposed to gay couples. So I just stand on that. I believe the citizens of Iowa should have their day in the sun, their day to stand up and voice their opinion and put the whole issue to rest, up or down,” Golding said.

As with Mathis, I think Golding will have to come down on one side or the other before the Nov. 8 vote.  

Of course, the dancing is only beginning. Interests on both sides are just getting revved up. Our Senate hopefuls are going to need sound judgment, and some sturdy shoes.

Rules of Engagement
  • Be truthful. more
  • Be civil. more
  • Be responsible. more
  • Own your words. more
  • Leave the trolls alone. more
  • Take commercial ads elsewhere. more
  • Know that comments will be moderated. more
  • Or what? more
Dancing with the candidates in SD 18
  1. I must give props to Cindy Golding, Todd: her polite rebuff of Michele Bachmann gives me the impression she can be a pragmatist who wants to look at what will work, not what will conform to TEA-type orthodoxy. And, perhaps Michele Bachmann will be the recipient of “what if you call a rally, and no one comes?”

    At this point in the campaign, what can Liz Mathis gain by mentioning same-sex marriage? Her dodge may not have been artful, and many of us are committed to defending gay and lesbian civil rights, but the GOP is overreaching if it thinks one vote will grease the skids for its unconstitutional constitutional amendment.

    Kinda funny to think that the GOP could once rightly claim to be the party of civil rights. How things change…

    • Of course there are political calculations for both candidates on what’s to be gained or lost by taking a clearer stand. I understand that. But as a voter in the district, I’d basically just like to know whether they favor marriage equity or oppose it.

      • I was disappointed that Mathis chose to dodge the question, Todd. However she wants to spin it, Golding has taken a stand, one which is hostile to gay and lesbian civil rights.

        After all, the federal Nineteenth Amendment was not put up for a popular vote, nor were any of the landmark civil and voting rights acts of the 1960s. My disappointment for Mathis is exceeded by my disgust with Golding’s dodge, which really amounts to the proposition that we can put the civil rights of any minority, popular or not, up for a vote.

        Golding should know better. And I have to ask: the old independent voter saw, “I vote for the person, not the party,” may be laudable, but is it relevant any longer, given how the GOP has changed since the Nixon years?

        Jim Leach was thoughtful and experienced, even though he was marginalized in his own caucus, and more qualiifed than Dave Loebsack. However, I voted for Loebsack in ’06 because of my disgust with the national GOP. I promise not to violate any Godwin’s Law corollaries this time, but I have to ask: given the level of conformity we now see in GOP candidates, as exemplified here by Golding’s cop-out on civil rights, I wonder if Mathis should pursue a campaign of making the election, in part, a referendum on the GOP?

        • You are spot on. It’s a civil rights issue – not something to be voted on. Would 1964 Mississippi voters have approved of the Civil Rights act? Who cares – it’s a law, not an opinion.

        • I actually see Golding’s comment as a dodge. We live in a republic, not a democracy. We elect representatives to vote on these issues for us so every issue does not get put up for popular vote. Our founders knew that all too often in a true democracy, where mob majority rules injustices would take place, the rule of law would not be followed, and rights would get trampled on against unpopular people or groups. (google “tyranny of the majority”)

          If interracial marriage was ever put up for popular vote, it surely would still be illegal to this day in many States that have a low minority representation.

  2. Not shocking to see Mathis already dodging taking a stand on major issues she’d have to deal with as a Senator.

    Mr. Dorman, its pretty obvious that Mike Gronstal wouldn’t give his blessing to any Democrat candidate who supports bringing a marriage amendment forward for a vote.

    Mathis claims that she doesn’t “want this election to be about that” (on the marriage issue). However, the Democrats have already made it clear they WILL make the issue a rallying point as reasoning to “keep the majority”.

    Jeff, you may not like what Golding’s position is, however, at least she has the guts to take a position publicly.

    • She certainly took a position, Todd. Too bad it’s the WRONG ONE!

      • And that is your opinion, Jeff. There are many others who believe that they should have the opportunity to vote on the marriage issue.

        Golding had the guts to at least take a stand on the issue.

        Mathis on the other hand, is playing games already. Everyone already knows that she would be in lockstep with Mike Gronstal if she was elected.

        • Todd, you totally dodge the real issue: we VOTE on whether a minority has civil rights!?

          Kinda puts the lie to your commitment to “inalienable” rights…

    • Todd, marriage equality should not be a major issue to anyone unless you are personally being affected by it. Gay marriage does not affect you, So leave same-sex families alone and quit trying to tell others how to live when their choices do not affect you in the least….

      A mob, angry at a minority group has no right to demand that the government use a Constitutional amendment to dictate how other Iowa families choose to live thier life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

  3. I agree with Jeff ( i think i puked a little bit in my mouth…) but Mathis should absolutely bring Gay rights to the forefront of her campaign. currently general Gronstal has been able to block even getting a vote on the issue, the time is right to put it out there and let the people of Iowa see how their representatives fall on the issue.

  4. I would be happier if Liz Mathis took a principled stand in supporting people’s civil rights. However, Iowa’s position on same sex marriage is really no big deal. I say this because it will almost definitely become a national issue decided by the Supreme Court. The decision will be as important as Loving v. Virginia.

    • Oh but Rich, you will have some know-it-all (who perhaps plays bagpipes) come along and proclaim that discrimination based on race is wrong, but discrimination based on sexuality is okay, since the former is “morally neutral,” while the latter is not.

      I am disappointed in Mathis: I think a good appeal to centrist voters who will decide the race is to clearly state, “a constitutional amendment is a waste of time, and the notion of putting a minority group’s rights up for popular vote is unAmerican and wrong.”

      Come on, Liz, take a stand which will clearly differentiate you from Cindy Golding!




Featured Jobs from corridorcareers.com