More than a week after the primary, it’s time to put Leonard Boswell’s victory over Ed Fallon into perspective. While the Fallon campaign is claiming “a partial victory,” the facts don’t bear out the silver lining that Fallon is trying to discern from his defeat. (Although after such a devastating loss, one certainly can understand while Fallon is looking for a silver lining). Fallon seems to think that his primarying Boswell was the reason Leonard Boswell’s voting record suddenly improved in 2007. However, Fallon didn’t have anything to do with it. Nancy Pelosi did. Democrats taking control of the House of Representatives meant that Republicans weren’t able to bring bills up that would place Democrats in swing districts like Boswell in tough positions. Once they weren’t and once Democrats had a governing majority in the House, Boswell was able to take better votes even though he still represents a district that George Bush won in 2004. Boswell supported a lot of progressive bills before Fallon declared his candidacy, during the campaign and will continue to do so now. Fallon’s claims otherwise are just attempts to justify his defeat and find a partial victory in a 22 point loss.
In terms of Iowa politics, it’s pretty clear Ed Fallon’s political career is over. Although Fallon had pockets of strength in North and West sides of Des Moines, Fallon still wasn’t able to win his former House District, HD 66 and was throughly trounced in the rural areas by margins not seen in a federal election in Iowa since Art Small was beat by Chuck Grassley. Despite Fallon’s much vaunted army of volunteers, his field efforts proved poor as turnout was low in his base precincts and he lost absentee ballots in Polk County by a nearly 3 to 1 margin (and by even more lopsided margins outside Polk County). In addition, Fallon is now bogged down by $35,000 in campaign debt, in addition to the $21,000 of debt still listed on his gubernatorial campaign account. If Fallon had won, or even lost narrowly, he might have had a strong claim to political credibility. Instead, he is firmly a niche candidate, one popular in Sherman Hill and among the Volvo drivers South of Grand but not anywhere else.
Boswell’s left flank is once again totally secure. Having easily fended off Fallon’s challenge, it seems clear he will be the Democratic nominee for Congress until he doesn’t want to be. However, Boswell, in the past few cycles, has proven to be much more vulnerable in off year elections than in Presidential years. While he should be able fend off Kim Schmett successfully, Boswell certainly be an NRCC target once again in 2010.
Polk County politics should also change too. The failure of the Fallon’s base to turn out shows the continued impotences of his limousine liberal base in local Democratic politics. The power in the Polk County Democratic Party will continue to reside on the southern banks of the Des Moines River for the near future.
In short, almost nothing has changed as a result of Fallon’s congressional run. Leonard Boswell is just as liberal as he was before and just as secure as the Democratic nominee as he was before. The balance of power has not changed in Polk County politics or on Capitol Hill. The only difference is that Ed Fallon has thrown his political career away in a quixotic challenge against a relatively progressive Democrat in a swing district and only has a debt of $35,000 to show for it.
Some of the posts on this blog got to be a bit overly negative towards Ed Fallon during the primary. In particular, a post that compared Fallon to Benedict Arnold for his endorsement of Ralph Nader in 2000. In retrospect, Fallon clearly learned his lesson from his endorsement of Ralph Nader in 2000 and accepted his defeat in last week’s primary.
The same however cannot be said of William Meyers. William Meyers is an ex-Marine who has been using his government disability pay to allow himself to be a full time candidate for Congress over the past year. Meyers, as an outsider who didn’t raise any money, finished third in a four-way primary to be the Democratic nominee in the 4th District against Tom Latham. Meyers, like most candidates who receive 11% of the vote, came to the obvious conclusion about why 89% of voters rejected him. He was robbed.
Meyers claims that he was shut out of certain central committees by biased county chairs and this inability to meet central committee members in a handful of counties robbed him of the 7,986 votes that he needed to defeat the winner, Becky Greenwald. Meyers has never stated how he was “denied access.” The county central committee membership is public information and as far as Iowa Progress knows, no County Central Committee employs bouncers to keep out unwanted guests from meetings.
It seems Meyers is just a sore loser looking for someone to blame for his own failings. However, we’re still reserving final judgment. After all, it’s entirely possible that large, muscular men kept Meyers from attending the Kossuth County Central Committee. But we don’t think its likely
In the Republican Senate Primary, former State Representative George Eichhorn was narrowly defeated by Christopher Reed to be the Republican standard bearer against Tom Harkin. Eichhorn should be quite used to losing at this point as he has lost his State House seat, as well as bids to be the Republican nominee for the State Senate in District 5 and member of the Republican State Central Committee all in the past two years. But Eichhorn is contesting the result and hoping to throw the Republican Senate primary to a convention by reducing Reed’s percentage to under 35%. While there is no way Eichhorn can be the leader in the votes, he is hoping that at the convention that delegates can overturn the will of a plurality of voters.
While this is grasping at straws, they are certainly straws that Eichhorn has the right to grasp at. The problem is his campaign is threatening an injunction against Iowa Press for conducting an interview with the winner, Christopher Reed. His campaign is afraid that the “airing of the interview could unfairly influence votes at the GOP convention.” It is unknown yet whether the Eichhorn campaign will seek a similar injunction against the Des Moines Register for giving Reed an unfair advantage by printing his name in the newspaper.
Although Ed Fallon has been painted as unelectable for a variety of reasons, including his support for Ralph Nader in 2000, what really makes him vulnerable is his repeated votes to protect sex offenders versus the general public. Fallon was the only state representative to vote against a bill that banned sex offenders from living within 2000 feet of a school or day care center, Fallon was the only member of the Iowa House to voted against against extending the statute of limitations for prosecuting child sex abuse, Fallon was the only member of the Iowa House to vote against increased funding to monitor sex offenders and Fallon also voted against tougher penalties against people who solicit children to commit a sex act. Fallon even cast the sole vote against making bestiality a crime!
This repeated pattern of voting against public safety raises grave questions about Fallon’s judgment. While some Democrats have been painted as “soft on crime” in campaigns in the past, it is apparent from Ed Fallon’s record that he is one of the few who is genuinely soft on crime and in a highly disturbing way. This is not about someone who favors rehabilitating prisoners, Ed Fallon wants sex offenders to be able to avoid prosecution for their crimes. This is not someone who thinks non-violent offenders shouldn’t be in jail, Ed Fallon thinks child molesters shouldn’t be imprisoned. Not to mention that although Ed Fallon crusades against hog lots, “Sex Ed” seems to think that sexually assaulting animals is perfectly fine.
“Sex Ed” Fallon has a record that is disturbingly out of touch with most people’s basic values. He finds campaign finance reforms promoted by Paul Wellstone and Russ Feingold to be appalling but thinks it’s perfectly fine to have sex with sheep. He thinks its acceptable to make up statements from the FEC but it’s wrong to lock away people convicted of molesting children. While Fallon may boast a degree in Religious Studies, it’s clear that he didn’t take too many courses in morality.
Although we have addressed our regret about the focus on Ed Fallon’s failings as a candidate and human being that Iowa Progress has been taking (including the post above and below), it is worth doing so again. It was never the intent for this to happen but unfortunately, events have overtaken that intent. Several months ago, the conventional narrative about this election was Democratic activists choosing between pragmatism in the form of Leonard Boswell, a six term moderate incumbent who has consistently won in a marginal Congressional district, and Ed Fallon, a progressive activist with whom many activists were more ideologically in tune but who many worried was too far to the left for the district. This narrative has not held. While Boswell has run an unspectacular, mistake-free, “Rose Garden,” campaign, Fallon has seemingly made every mistake possible save being caught in bed with the proverbial “dead girl or live boy.”
What candidates do effects what is written about them. Leonard Boswell’s campaign has, quite intentionally, done little of note. That leaves little new to write about him. As Iowa’s only Democratic Congressman for 10 years, plenty has already been written about him and getting into the debate about whether Boswell is a “Bush Dog,” or “Blue Dog” or any other kind of canine is quite tiresome and repetitive. At this point, most readers of Iowa Progress and most voters know who Leonard Boswell is for better or worse. Had major ethical issues been raised about Boswell, they would have been covered. Had questions about Boswell’s loyalty to the Democratic Party, they would have been covered. Had Leonard Boswell’s campaign showed major signs of mismanagement, they would have been covered. But all three problems have arisen with Ed Fallon.
The conflict between Fallon’s professed position on campaign finance reform and the actions of his campaign, including I’m For Iowa can only be described for chutzpah. Fallon further dug himself a deeper hole by not just defending himself for paying himself out of campaign funds via the so-called “Fallon Loophole” but attacking attempts to close it as somehow being corrupt as well. His nondisclosure of his I’M for Iowa’s funds is quite unsettling and raises broad questions about what the purpose of the organization is. The refusal to disclose the information created the appearance of guilt, even if none existed, and created an ongoing story that appears to have severely hurt Fallon’s fundraising. The Fallon campaign has also resurrected broader questions about Fallon’s loyalty to the Democratic Party because of his campaign manager’s claim that he was considering a third party run for Governor in 2006. These questions were initially raised because Fallon endorsed Ralph Nader in 2000.
Ed Fallon began the race as a severely flawed candidate and his behavior since announcing his candidacy has done little to inspire any additional confidence in his fitness to serve in the United States Congress. If another Democrat had been running with the same policy positions of Ed Fallon without the personal baggage, Iowa Progress’s coverage would unquestionably have been entirely different. If someone like Frank Cownie or Kevin McCarthy was running against Leonard Boswell (though it’s impossible to imagine a situation where either would challenge Boswell in a primary), we would ended up taking a tone and stance far removed than what we done in the past few months. (Presuming, of course, neither of them would make the host of miscues that Fallon has made.)
While Iowa Progress’s coverage of the 3rd District has been entirely factual and every statement made has been true, it is still clear that some posts have become increasingly snarky and vitriolic. This is highly regrettable. We wish that these posts had been written in a more civilized tone but, we also wish that Ed Fallon had not engaged in the behavior that prompted these posts to be written in the first place.
The bloggers at Open Left are trying to set up a big fundraiser for Ed Fallon online. This is a nice idea but with less than a week out Ed Fallon will get very little of this money. That’s bad news for the bloggers but good news for Ed. Why? Because Ed Fallon has a track record of paying himself with campaign funds and this will only give him more money to spend himself. Ed Fallon also suffered from number of other ethical and campaign finance related woes as well. This meant that Fallon’s fundraising among people in Iowa who knew the truth about him slowed to a a crawl.
The folks at Open Left are good, decent people committed to helping electing progressive Democrats. It’s a shame that they’ve been conned into supporting someone like Ed Fallon who is not good, who is not decent and who certainly is not committed to electing progressive Democrats. It’s almost ironic that there are a lot of people parting with hard earned dollars that will only go to helping Ed Fallon continue to avoid to earn a living. With all the good progressive candidates running this year, it’s tragic that Open Left threw its support around the one who is crooked.
In an interview the other day, Ed Fallon stated “if coal interests want to research clean coal technology and carbon sequestration they, not the tax-payers, should fund the research.” This is a noble statement based on a belief in renewable energy and a green future. Unfortunately it’s not based on reality. The most ambitious goal for renewable energy involves Americans getting 20% from our energy from renewable sources in the next 20 years. So where do we get the remaining 80% of our energy? While natural gas is relatively clean, it is a commodity that cannot be transported across oceans. The U.S. currently gets about 25% of its energy from natural gas. This leaves 55% of our energy to be accounted for and three possibilities, coal, oil and nuclear energy. Fallon has expressed his opposition to coal and also is vehemently against nuclear energy, stating that “When all costs are factored in, nuclear power is the most expensive source of energy. More nuclear power plants mean more plutonium, and reactor-grade plutonium can be used to make a nuclear weapon. And there is no real solution to the problem of storing nuclear wastes.” So that leaves one source of energy acceptable to Ed Fallon to supply over half of America’s energy needs, imported foreign oil.
Relying on foreign oil is bad for the environment, bad for consumers already paying high gas prices and bad for the United States as a whole, as it forces our economy to continue to rely on oil imported from the Middle East. Fallon’s opposition to coal seems to be demagoguery, designed to play on the fears of environmentalists opposed to the Marshalltown coal plant, rather than real environmental policy. While no one can argue that coal is the best source of energy for the United States, unfortunately, compared to oil or nuclear, it is probably the least bad of the three. But with increased funding and emphasis on clean coal research, coal will become much more environmentally friendly. In fact, clean coal is a central part of Barack Obama’s energy plan.
Unlike oil, coal doesn’t have to be imported from Middle Eastern nations and unlike nuclear power, it doesn’t produce radioactive waste that will last for tens of thousands of years. In contrast, the United States has a plentiful supply of coal. In fact, Iowa’s third district is sitting on significant coal deposits and towns like Melcher-Dallas and Lucas used to be coal mining centers.
A lot of work and research still needs to be done to make clean coal a reality. Ed Fallon seems to think that this work should be left to private businesses, not the government. While this free market attitude is nice in theory, it is not based in reality. Without government funding over the past few decades, the United States has lagged far behind in research in solar energy and wind energy. Stripping government funding for clean coal research would be just as disastrous. In the meantime, Fallon would rather have us import oil instead. With an energy policy based on reliance on free markets and importing foreign oil, Fallon seems to want to continue the George Bush-Dick Cheney energy plan. Such a misguided attitude would be disastrous for our country and disastrous for our planet.
In Iowa’s First District, Republicans have nominated State Senator David Hartsuch to run against Bruce Braley. Although Hartsuch is an right wing extremist, he is relatively young and waged an energetic campaign to oust incumbent Republican State Senator Maggie Tinsman in 2006. This might initially lead one to think that Hartsuch is trying to wage a competitive campaign in a district that was represented by Republican Jim Nussle until 2006. However, based on the Hartsuch’s anemic fundraising, he isn’t even trying. According to Hartsuch’s FEC report, he has raised a whopping $5,000. However, Hartsuch’s campaign has been very frugal (as opposed to other long shot campaigns like that of Ed Fallon) and still has over $4000 on hand. With this type of fundraising, it’s clear Hartsuch is a sacrificial lamb and that Braley can breath easy this November. After all, incumbent congressmen have a very good track record against opponents who can’t raise enough money to pay for yard signs.
In an interview with a progressive blog today, Ed Fallon claimed, “We’re doing really well, our own internal polling shows us up.” It’s not a surprise for Fallon to make a claim when the Boswell campaign released its own internal from Anzalone Lizst, the firm that polled for new Democratic Congressmen Don Cazayoux and Travis Childers, that had Boswell receiving 65% of the vote.
This jibes with the KCCI poll that had Boswell winning by a two to one margin. However, Fallon’s campaign finance reports, which show him having only $28,000 on hand the day before he had to meet payroll, does not show him spending any money on pollsters. (Nor does it show him spending on money on television, radio, mail, newspaper advertisements or any other form of paid media) So if Ed Fallon hasn’t hired a pollster and can’t afford to pay one, why does he claim he has internal polling, let alone internal polling that seems at odds with all the other information about this race?
Our guess is that Ed Fallon probably took a survey, not a poll. A survey is unscientific and involves asking a bunch of people without dealing with complicated things like sample size or filtering likely voters. This means that Ed Fallon may actually be ahead according to his “polling”, provided, of course, that a third of the electorate are vegetarians from Sherman Hill and everyone who votes outside Polk County is a member of CCI. Then again, this blog may be given Fallon too much credit for assuming that he merely mistook the difference between a survey and a poll. (Which is covered the second week of Statistics 101).
Fallon has a history of lying and of sleazy behavior. He may have just made up his “internal polling” entirely, which would be a good deal for Fallon. After all, the less he spends on internal polling, the more money he can pay himself.
Although Ed Fallon claims Paul Wellstone and Russ Feingold to be heroes, he diverges from Wellstone and Feingold on an important policy position, the so-called “Fallon Loophole.” The Fallon Loophole refers to the practice when politicians pay themselves salaries with campaign money, a practice typically considered to be unethical that the State Legislature tried to end during the last legislative session. Fallon attacked this bill as “status quo politics at its worst” and “a silly bill.” However, it seems two of the men Fallon would claim as heroes, Paul Wellstone and Russ Feingold would strenuously disagree.
In 1995, John Kerry introduced an amendment to close the Fallon Loophole federally. Unfortunately, it failed but gained the support of Paul Wellstone and Russ Feingold, not to mention Tom Harkin, Ted Kennedy and every other committed progressive in the Senate.
However, a lot of people did agree with Ed Fallon that closing the Fallon Loophole was “a silly bill.” Fallon can claim the support of Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, Trent Lott and Rick Santorum. They shared Ed Fallon’s belief that this bill represented “status quo politics at its worst.” It’s good to know that Ed Fallon can claim such distinguished company in his campaign to fight “the status quo” by lining his own pockets.
