For Governor of Iowa...

VOTE FOR THIS DUDE!

Democrats: http://www.chetculver.com/home
Republicans: http://governorbranstad2010.com/
Independent: http://narcisseforiowa.com/wp/
Libertarians: http://www.coopersmallergovernment.com/

(The Greens have no one I can find running. If one of them reads this and you do have a candidate for Governor this year, please let me know. I also strongly urge everyone to check out all of these websites- especially Mr. Narcisse's and Mr. Cooper's. There's more than two people running for Governor and the latter two gentlemen have interesting and important things to say, I think.)

This one was a hard one to think about for me. While I'm not ripping my shirt off or fainting at the thought of Chet Culver running the state for another four years, I have to admit that he hasn't totally f****d things up either. Did he spend some money? He did. There's an argument to be made that in a recession, you spend a little to stimulate the economy and Iowa has a good credit rating so why not put it to use to help push the economy along a little bit? He didn't go completely crazy. We're not approaching California levels of political and fiscal disaster yet and we're not even approaching the territory of our fiscal trainwreck and neighbor next door, Illinois. So why throw Chester out the door?

That was a good question and unfortunately it's one that Terry Branstad failed to answer for me. I spent a good deal of time on his website today and while I think he's got some nice specifics on what he would do for job creation and reforming government, he didn't present a particularly compelling case to put him back in charge. Don't get me wrong: I get the appeal of Branstad. He was at the helm during the Farm Crisis of the 80s (probably the worst economic disaster to hit the state since the Depression and our current crisis) and he developed a good record on job creation and you have to admit, after 16 years in charge, he left the state in better shape than he found it. (If you lived in Iowa before '82 and think that last statement isn't true, please correct me.) But at the end of the day, I get uneasy at the thought of putting a guy who ran the place for 16 years back in charge. We need fresh faces and new ideas and while Terry has some good ones, he is the very definition of 'not fresh.'

In terms of presentation, Branstad did a better job than Culver, in terms of information gleaned from websites alone. (Not being a blogger with the cache of say, Instapundit, Althouse or Kos I'll take what I can get from websites to make these decisions.) Culver's got a good website, but seems to be making his case around what he's done so far. If he has plans for the next four years, he's keeping them awfully well hidden on his website- and while I'm OK with what Culver has done (more or less) I'd like to know what his plans are in some detail before I'm going to jump aboard his bandwagon. Since he didn't see fit to share, so much for him. Branstad does a better job on detailing specifics and I have to admit, I was awfully tempted to endorse him, as he belongs to the old school, fiscally conservative school of Republicans I tend to find mildly irritating as a posed to the rage inducing social conservatives that seem to dominate the party today. I liked the specifics on his website, but while Terry has a whole section devoted to Iowa's veterans (as does Culver, as should everyone) and Iowa's senior citizens (um, ok I guess) he mentions not one word about the chronic problem of brain drain that Governors since time immemorial seem always be calling commissions into existence to deal with. I'm young, I'm hip and I like this state and want to make a future here, but Branstad seems more wedded to social conservatives (not my crowd) and old people (again, not my crowd) than people my age. I appreciate the level of detail, but he just didn't speak to me.

And therein lies the crux of the problem with this race: you may not be wild about Culver, but he hasn't screwed things up too badly- at least not badly enough to provide me with a compelling reason to endorse Branstad.

So what's an independent to do? Well, there were two real choices available to me: a protest vote or a hopeful, quixotic vote for a party that might effect real change. Although Independent Candidate Jonathan Narcisse has interesting, compelling ideas that deserve a forum and a bigger spotlight in the campaign that they're getting currently (if you've never heard of Mr. Narcisse, rest assured he was a pleasant discovery for me as well) he has no party organization to back him and at the end of the day, I want more parties. I want options! As a student of political science, I'm well aware that our voting system doesn't trend towards multiple parties and I'm OK with that. Too many parties makes for a free for all and our political system is messy enough as it is. I'll take an extra party. Maybe two extra parties. Some safety valve, some pressure point that keeps the big two honest and can be a real alternative for the electorate to punish the big boys if they f**k things up too badly- which they're doing now with gusto.

Given that, I came to the conclusion (and it's with great pleasure) that I announce that The Cigar will be endorsing Libertarian Candidate Eric Cooper for Governor of Iowa.

A quick aside: I'm not totally down with everything Libertarians have to say. I think (although I haven't read the book yet) I'm more in line with Hayek's ideas of capitalism: free market where the government has a properly constrained role. The lack of ideological flexibility and intellectual realism in Libertarian thinking has irritated me constantly, but they, unlike their major party counterparts are at least consistent with their principles- even if I don't agree with all of them.

Mr. Cooper (and his running mate Nick Weltha) may not have the most detailed platform out there, but it was the platform that I agreed with the most. His ideas on education reform are the most radical of any campaign out there and I agree with his stance on gay marriage, drugs, repealing the fireworks ban and Mr. Cooper scored big points with acknowledging the need to attract young people (and all people) to the great state of Iowa. While he was a little short on specifics in that regard he at least mentioned it in a place where I could find it easily. (If Culver and Branstad have some thoughts, I sure couldn't find them anywhere.)

I depart from Mr. Cooper on a couple of points. While the notion of a smoking ban offends me (we're all adults here and I don't need the government to wipe my ass) his assertion that workers exposed to second hand smoke in their workplace merely can choose not work there rings hollow in the midst of the current economic crisis- but his overall point is well taken. If you don't want to go to a restaurant or bar that allows smoking then surely the laws of free market capitalism will take care of the rest.

Mr. Cooper also (like the good libertarian he is) takes issue with the minimum wage. Again, his idealistic faith in the power of free markets rings hollow in the face of the current economic crisis. If the market does set the wage rate, then in an ideal world, workers would gravitate towards the jobs with the better wages. However, the paucity of jobs in the current economic climate seem to make that notion hard to put into practice in reality.

Those two points aside, Mr. Cooper's platform and ideas for Iowa appealed to me the most and I'll be happy to cast my vote to help try and get the Libertarian Party major party status (the magical 2% mark) this November.