I’d like to begin this rant with a quote from Iowa Republican Party spokeswoman Sarah Sauber:
“Voters are looking for fresh, new ideas to bring change rather than the old policies you get from Democrats”
What? The last time America got any significant policies from Democrats, the country was peaceful, prosperous, and had a balanced budget.
Speaking of old policies, though, there’s an interesting piece in Wednesday’s Washington Post. The World Economic Forum has dropped America’s economic competitive ranking from 1 to 6. Business taxes are at their lowest level in decades, regulations of just about everything have been rolled back, “frivolous” lawsuits have been reigned in, and pensions have gone out the window - everything Republicans have been pushing for has been done, and it ain’t working.
So there.
By the way, early voting began in Iowa Thursday, and Democrats - wait for it - are in the lead. The Des Moines Register reports that, as of Wednesday, Republicans trailed Democrats 11,000 to 50,000 in absentee ballots requested.
As we dive deeper into the 21st century, the intersection of technology and politics becomes more and more apparent. If the last election featured Meetups and the emergence of the blogosphere, 2006 could be the year of social networking. According to the National Journal, both parties have created their own unique sites, and the number of politicians on MySpace and Facebook has skyrocketed as politicians try to harness the power of young people.
So who is harnessing this power? Facebook has the answer.
A tool called Election Pulse (login might be required) allows us to see which candidates Facebook users have endorsed. Here’e the rundown:
Gubernatorial race: Culver leads Nussle 52 to 42 percent.
CD 1: Braley leads Whalen 55 to 45 percent.
CD 2: Leach leads Loebsack 57 to 43 percent.
CD 3: Boswell leads Lamberti 74 to 26 percent.
CD 4: Latham leads Spencer 57 to 43 percent.
CD 5: King leads Schulte 68 to 27 percent.
So what does it all mean? Well, if you compare recent polls, it seems that Facebook users (basically college students) have similar opinions to the rest of the state’s residents — with the exception of the 3rd CD (and the gubernatorial race to a lesser extent which polls show is closer). Boswell is destroying Lamberti among Facebook users. Young people in the 3rd CD (including Grinnellians) and across the country have responded overwhemlingly to this farmer from Southern Iowa. If college students turn out for Boswell at the actual — rather than virtual — polls at this rate, Lamberti can kiss his chances of winning goodbye.
Mike Gronstal and Mary Lundby are calling for a vote on anti-bullying legislation to protect gay students. Pat Murphy spoke to this issue when he came to our Campus Dems meeting last week, and Advocate.com notes the same pesky roadblock to which he alluded: Chris Rants. What does Rants find wrong with protecting GLBT students from verbal and physical harassment in school, you might ask? Here’s a charming quote: “We need to protect fat kids, kids with glasses, kids who are too smart, kids who aren’t too smart…. Schools should be a safe place regardless of whatever sets you apart.”
New York Governor George Pataki is opening an office in Des Moines this week, making him the first presidential hopeful to do so. New York Public Radio even calls it a “campaign office,” and doesn’t mention Freedom PAC, to whom the headquarters technically belongs.
The Register leads with both Culver and Nussle encountering a skeptical crowd at a VFW meeting Saturday, but based on the article, it sounds like Nussle had a harder time of it. Culver was asked where he would get the money to fund his proposals to help veterans, and responded with concrete plans to streamline the state budget and utilize the tax surplus. Nussle, on the other hand, was confronted with his anti-veteran congressional voting record, and replied, “My grandmother always taught me growing up that actions speak louder than words. Every opportunity I’ve had, when I’ve been chairman, I’ve increased the budget over what the president, over what the budget … recommended.” I’ll let you insert something snarky of your own here.
A new Register poll shows Hillary Clinton losing Iowa to four Republican potentials. It also finds that 57% of respondents think it is a bad idea for Vilsack to run for president.
At an appearance in Des Moines yesterday, Jeff Lamberti said that he would’ve opposed earmarking money for the $50 million indoor rainforest project that is in the works for Iowa. Now one might assume that he is trying to draw out the differences between himself and his opponent, incumbent Leonard Boswell, as politicians normally do when campaigning for election. But Boswell voted against the appropriation of those funds. The person responsible is Republican Senator Charles Grassley, who publicly announced that he had set aside the funds for the project. So Lamberti is criticizing a member of his own party in order to say that he would’ve done what his opponent did?
Yes, but Lamberti is still trying to use this as an avenue to criticize Boswell for being fiscally irresponsible. Here is what Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, speaking at the same event, had to say about it:
“Leonard Boswell (has) a record of not being in favor of reducing federal pork, and obviously … you have a record of being very much in favor of reducing that,” he said.
Wait, I’m sorry, that statement is incomprehensible. I think what Lamberti and Mehlman are trying to say is that Boswell, a member of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition, is irresponsibly sending money to his home state to fund frivolous projects—such as freeway repairs on I-235.
Not only has Lamberti been complaining about repaving the roads, but he also looks for other creative ways to make it look like Boswell is spending too much money, such as attack ads featuring “false and misleading claims.” This might’ve worked if they weren’t so blatantly inaccurate that the television stations refused to play them.
It’s baffling that these guys are still trying to paint Boswell as fiscally irresponsible when he has a strong record of balancing state and federal budgets–something the Republicans have trouble doing.
I’ve been told a lot recently that I’m the future of America; I’m the reason it is important to fund education, fix the health care system, and reign in the escalating deficit; I’m the future of the Democratic Party. Sure this is from some hand-squeezing, baby-kissing politicians seeking to win in November, and I know that it is good campaign rhetoric. But I also think it is true. In fact, not only are we the future of the Democratic Party, we are the present. My colleagues and I register the voters, we knock the doors, and we make the calls; we organize visits from candidates, we interview them, and we blog about them. We are not the only ones, but our contribution is significant. We do this not just on our campus — although that in itself is a substantial task — but in the county as well, and there are many others like us across the state and the country. We work by and large for free. Given these candidates’ propensity to pay lip service to our services, I would’ve thought they would be willing, if not eager, to include us at party-building events. Such events help prepare us for that ‘future’ that we are supposed to figure so prominently into, and also inspire and motivate us to keep doing our work in the present.
I would’ve thought, for instance, that they would want us to be able to attend the Jefferson Jackson Dinner on October 14. This is an important annual event in Iowa politics, one that in the past students have been able to attend. Last year several candidates for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination were there, providing many of us students a first introduction to Chet Culver. We also met recent college grads working on campaigns or for the IDP. Sure, we sat in the nosebleeds, but the point is that for $20 we got to go listen to prominent Iowa politicians and feel like we were actually part of the Democratic Party.
This year I was excited to see that Bill Clinton is going to be the keynote speaker. When I learned that the cheapest seats would cost $100 a person, I was disappointed, to say the least. As much as I would like to go to the JJ Dinner and hear the Big Dog, as a student (and someone who spends hours every week in unpaid get-out-the-vote efforts) I can’t afford to shell out $100 for one meal. I know I’m not the only student in this position.
What accounts for the exorbitant increase in ticket prices? Well, given that in the past year food prices haven’t skyrocketed and the Hy-Vee Hall Events Center hasn’t suddenly become immensely popular, it seems that it might have something to do with the former president’s fee for the engagement. Rumored to be over a quarter million dollars, it looks like maybe the IDP is passing that expense onto us. It is a move that makes financial sense, but it also sends the message that low-income or financially burdened Democrats (like students) aren’t important members of the party.
This message is incongruous with what many politicians I’ve spoken to recently are telling me. Everyone from U.S. Congressmen to gubernatorial candidates keeps repeating that we students are the future of the party. At a Grinnell College Democrats event yesterday, Pat Murphy and Eric Palmer commended us for having such a large and active group, saying that we would have a major impact on the elections. The thing is we know it. While it is nice to hear, the words are empty in the face of such an inconsiderate exclusion from a major party event. Regardless of from where this oversight arose, it would be hypocritical and ungrateful of the party not to make some allowances for those of us that may be unable to make generous financial contributions, but who have given our equally valuable time.
Well the Nussle hustle rhetoric is kind of silly, but apparently the powers at be have seen signs that it is sticking (or will stick), because they keep repeating it. In a somewhat surprising move, they have released an ad specifically for the web (not uncommon in other states, but …) on Nussle’s abortion hussle. Perhaps they made it thinking they might run it on TV and then decided against it? I don’t know.
Incidentally, Nussle’s ads are all up on YouTube, but I haven’t found any of Culver’s. It’d be cool if they started uploading them, because then more people would probably watch them (and bloggers could embed them in posts).
Update: The Culver camp informs me that there are, in fact, three Culver ads on YouTube. My bad for missing those.
Mark Warner’s PAC, Forward Together, is holding an online vote to determine which Iowa legislature candidates it will give $5000 (House) or $6500 (Senate). It’s a great perk that presidential hopefuls do this sort of thing in Iowa, since that amount of money really makes a huge difference in a state race.
Eric Palmer is challenging extremist conservative Danny Carroll, who he came painfully close to unseating in ‘04. Carroll has had the benefit of visits from conservative fundraising powerhouses John “I’m a panderer not a uniter” McCain, Sam “I hate evolution” Brownback, Haley “I hate Jews and Blacks” Barbour, and Newt “My conservatism doesn’t need explaining” Gingrich. He’s also received a ton of money from convicted felon Thomas Grabinski.
Just to remind you a little more why Eric Palmer deserves your vote (as if you haven’t heard our spiel before), Carroll is also known for his attempts to suppress Grinnell College students’ votes and his outlandish ideas about gay marriage.
Those who went to the Harkin Steak Fry may have noticed that we had a crack team of bloggers there. In the following post, Ben and Alec reflect over the highs and lows of the event, which has made the news across the country.
Alec filed the following post:
The Harkin Steak fry gave me so much to sink my teeth into that I don’t know where to begin.
First, the basics—it didn’t rain and the steak was good. I hear the beans were a little cold. The lack of coleslaw was an enormous oversight. Someone said they liked the chicken but that it could have used a little salt. I didn’t try, nor hear anything about the bread. All things considered, it was a good day on the food front.
Oh, and there were speeches and stuff.
Ben, Freeda and I first stumbled by some of Evan Bayh’s people from the All America PAC. We asked one of them how long he had been with Bayh’s campaign, and he corrected us (with tongue firmly in cheek) that it was a political action committee. We were assured that Bayh would be around Iowa next year. Surprise surprise.
Soon after, we got a hold of Vilsack standing by the ice cream machine and taking pictures. Ben asked him whether the speech he gave for Grinnell commencement in the spring could be the basis of a possible stump speech (read: the 08′ question creatively reworded). The Governor said he had a lot on his mind and that he would continue to go around the country and tell people about the issues he thought were important. It was a snoozer for an answer, but I guess we couldn’t have expected the man to announce his candidacy to three college kids with press passes. Ah well. Then, Ben asked how congressional candidates should talk about Iraq before November. Vilsack said that, as he saw it, the mission in Iraq had changed from three years ago—with an elected government and a “standing army” the mission needed to shift to “building civil society.” He didn’t say it upfront, but he strongly hinted that he supported some sort of phased withdrawal. Could Vilsack be changing the position he offered in June to the DLC?
I caught a glimpse of the back of Obama’s head in the middle of a giggling crowd. I knew it was no use to try to get a word with him at that point. Mark that as the first failed chance to nab Obama.
Next, we found Mary and Chet Culver hanging out by the press. After shaking his hand and introducing ourselves (I’ve met Chet before, but I forgive him), we asked him what issues he planned to highlight before November in order to secure a majority of the undecided voters (the people who, if the latest DM poll is right, are going to decide this thing). He said that he would keep detailing his plan to “move Iowa forward” and said it was important for people to know that he was a coach and a teacher. In what seems to be a recurrent theme, he talked about these credentials as a private citizen far more than his time as Sec of State. Indeed, all day, the only person to dwell on Culver’s job as Secretary of State was Harkin, who said Chet had done more than anyone else in the country to make voting accessible to all. If Harkin can praise Culver’s time in elected office that profusely, why is it that Culver seems to stress the teacher/coach angle far more often?
I’d guess the emphasis on having been a teacher/coach is meant to contrast Chet’s private life with Nussle’s lack of non-government work (besides being a lawyer, which is a dirty word in the Republican party), but I’d like to see Chet talk more about his time as Sec of State.
In what goes down as the best moment of the day, Mary Culver told us she reads our blog and even recognized Hannah as a contributor. That is, of course, the quickest way to a blogger’s heart. Swoon. She said she was surprised Nussle had gone negative so early and speculated that low internal polling numbers motivated his turn to mudslinging.
As we made our way toward the stage we briefly got to speak with Jerome Armstrong and also shook hands with Mark Warner. Sadly, we didn’t get a chance to pose a question—the man seemed pretty intent on working the crowd. But something tells me we’ll be seeing a great deal more of him next year.
And then from Ben:
Shortly after, we watched Leonard Boswell take the stage. I know this isn’t news for many of you, but it was the first time I had seen the Boz since his successful surgery, and I just have to mention how good he looks. Slimmed down and full of energy, he looks at least 15 years younger. And he sounded confident.
He’s going to win this election and it won’t even be close.
After his speech, which I largely missed, Secretary of Ag. candidate Denise O’Brien spoke about the need for a “safe and healthy Iowa” to fairly large applause. Sec. of State candidate Mike Mauro spoke next and got the crowd riled up with an attack on Katherine Harris and the 2000 Florida Recount (The Dems are never going to forget that). Patty Judge, hopefully our next Lt. Governor, spoke afterwards. She’s not that polished but she gave the crowd some good lines. Biggest applause lines: education, abortion rights (”Choice matters in Iowa”), and perhaps surprisingly stem cell research. I’m not sure how potent that issue will actually be here in Iowa, but Claire McCaskill does seem to be using it with success in her Missouri senate race this year.
Something to think about…
Up next was Mark Warner, who seemed a bit out of place at this Iowa Dems event considering his presence wasn’t announced in advance, but was still greeted with fairly strong applause and a small standing O. He joked that some people still hadn’t recognized him at the event (maybe that’s why he was there — gotta get that name id up) and said, “It all starts in Iowa,” which I took to be a not-so-subtle reference to the 2008 Iowa caucuses. He ended with fists pumped and a “Let’s win” shout, which played well with the crowd.
Governor Vilsack spoke next, almost wistfully (”I’m ever so proud to be an Iowa Democrat. Ever so proud.”). He gave a sort of retrospective on the last eight years. He’s probably experiencing a bit of uncertainty right now, as he’ll soon be out of a job and though he’s eyeing the 2008 race, polls show him not even coming close to winning his own state’s caucuses… He spoke about the need for community and the positive role government can play in people’s lives. He talked about the fact that Americans were feeling anxious, especially after the Bush failures of Iraq and Katrina. It was actually one of the better speeches I’ve seen him give.
Culver spoke next and did a pretty good job of energizing the crowd.
Lots of Culver-Judge signs were waving. A choice quote: “I want to be the people’s governor. Jim Nussle wants to be the special interests ‘governor.” (Good, me likes the populist rhetoric.) He also said that “We’re ready to implement our plan when we get there.” I’m not sure how effective this “plan” rhetoric actually is. Most voters won’t read his plan, and it seems kind of vague, but maybe I’m wrong. He encouraged the crowd to take part in the three keys to victory: Volunteer (canvass, make calls), Visibility (put up signs, bumperstickers), and Vote (duh). This was good, I thought. Voters and activists want to feel engaged in the campaign. They want to feel part of something and the more they feel connected the more they will do. He promised the “Big Trifecta” would pull through in November.
Tom Harkin, the man of the hour, spoke next. Always gracious, he thanked the woman doing sign-language next to him on the stage. Seriously, this guy is full of heart. He said some nice words about Culver and then started ripping into the Republicans. He said the GOP was in “full fear-mongering mode” and they were trying to do anything to distract voters from “Bush’s war.” “There’s no virtue in staying the course if the course you’re on is headed over the cliff,” he said. “There’s no virtue in being strong and wrong.” He also threw some jabs at Nussle, saying that “Bush and Nussle are attached at the hip.”
Harkin’s smart: Bush is an anchor for every GOP candidate this year — from dog-catcher to senator.
Obamarama spoke next and boy did he get an applause. He complimented Iowa and said, “I’m going to have to come again.” Is he running in ‘08? More hints that he is. He gave a strong speech and the crowd obviously loved it. He recalled an anecdote where he met Marjorie Lewis, a 105-year-old black woman while he was running for the Senate. He then proceeded to tell America’s story through her life. It was an excellent rhetorical device and the speech really tugged at your Democratic and progressive heartstrings. He said that whenever he is cynical about politics he thinks of Marjorie Lewis and what she’s seen. It was a long speech, but his eloquent delivery seemed to keep the crowd captivated. I overheard one grandmotherly lady behind me remark that “Edwards-Obama would be a great ticket.” Interesting…
Needless to say he got a standing O at the end (actually he received several throughout the speech). Harkin thanked everyone for coming and that was it. We stayed around for a bit longer after the speeches, hoping to get a chance to interview Obama, Harkin, etc, which we were promised by the Harkin people but there was such a long line of well-wishers and star-struck fans that we figured it wasn’t worth it to wait around. So we packed up the car and headed home, scheming all the way home over who we’d like to run in 2008.
Well this is a nice surprise: the Culver campaign’s web site has been redesigned. Although the front page has less content on it, but that is actually the right strategy for web sites that don’t get updated too often (especially when visitors aren’t usually looking for the latest news, they’re looking for Culver’s position and bio). It is inviting and easy to use (even for someone new to the Internet), which is right on.
As the election countdowns begin, we’re starting to see some more frequent polling data, which is a relief after the snazzy, yet frustratingly out-of-date 2006 Election Guide the New York Times has had up for the past few months. Sure it is color-coded and has interactive features which allow users to act out their fantasies regarding the November results, but they’re using polls from March.
The Wall Street Journal and John Zogby released polling data on Monday showing Nussle leading Culver 46-43. The Nussle campaign’s email, after employing a bizarre analogy comparing the gubernatorial race to the upcoming Cy-Hawks game (is Nussle ISU or UI? I have no idea…), was cautiously optimistic:
We are prepared for this race to go down to the wire - and we know the only poll that matters in the one on Election Day.
Even so, it’s worth looking inside the WSJ numbers, and the news is not good for Chet Culver.
(The IRP offers a more triumphant and less credible analysis.) Of course, looking inside the numbers would reveal that they are within the margin of error, just as has been reported in a KCCI poll released Wednesday that shows Culver up 48-43, with a 4 point margin of error.
Given that is seems unlikely that Nussle would lose three points while Culver gained five in the span of a few days (would that it were so), let’s assume that the differences arose from the fact that Zogby is a conservative pollster, KCCI being more liberal. So what’s the take home lesson? Surprise, surprise, it is going to be a close race.
Update: the Register just released a poll today (September 17) that shows Nussle and Culver tied 44-44. It offers some interesting demographic analyses.
