You’ve probably noticed that our blogging has been pretty light in the past week or so, as we’ve been focused on preparing for on campus satellite voting. Well, yesterday was the big day, and I think it went very well.
Four hundred and nineteen people cast ballots in the Forum South Lounge, including 50 new voter registrations. In 2002, only 95 people participated in satellite voting, with only 200 students voting at all. We’ve already doubled turnout on campus, and we’ve still got a month to go. Our 25+ volunteers, some of whom even wore fake mustaches in solidarity with ‘stached campus favorite Eric Palmer, should be very proud of themselves.
We did experience some hurdles in the morning, as there was confusion amongst the county auditor’s volunteers about whether students needed to reregister to their dorms instead of using the post office as their address, as it has always been done. This would have meant reregistering the entire campus, including the hundreds of first-years who registered since August. By mid-morning the problem was cleared up, and the wait to vote got cut quite a bit, to our relief.
I think a lot of us were also frustrated by the reaction of some of our peers to our GOTV strategy. By definition, any successful GOTV effort looks a little harassing. Grinnell has a (loveable) tendency to be a bubble for liberal idealists, and so the idea that number of votes is the bottom line determining who governs our country is a little hard to swallow for many. A high-gear GOTV campaign is also pretty startling to our usually quiet campus. The truth is, it’s worth it to annoy five people to get to the one who doesn’t know there’s an election going on. I hope when the dust settles, our peers will be forgiving of our incessant door knocking, calling, flyering, and well, harassment. When we have a Democratic House giving Bush a run for his money, Chet advocating for education and women’s rights in the governor’s mansion, and Eric Palmer raising the minimum wage in the State House, it’ll all be worth it, I promise.
All told, a valiant effort. Thanks to everyone who put in hours and hours of volunteering, and to everyone who voted. We’ve made a great start, and now it’s time to gear up for the dash to the November finish line.
On Thursday my esteemed colleague, Geraldine, posted about the new website IDP launched, Stop GOP Smear. I have to say though, Geraldine, I think that you’re letting the IDP off pretty easy. For starters, the site looks like it was designed by a 10-year-old. While it may be a good idea to have such a website to provide a centralized location where people can report smear campaigning, I seriously question the point of putting up such an unprofessional site.
Furthermore, I think that it is indicative of a general trend in campaigns this year that I find uninspiring and misdirected. I think attacking a campaign for ‘going negative’ completely misses the point. It is a fine line to walk between correcting fallacious information on an opponent’s mailer and using the fact that they sent the mailer as an attack on the character of the opponent. I don’t think either party has found that line yet. There are more effective ways to respond to negative mailers than to whine about the fact that a negative mailer was sent out.
I am not saying that I support negative campaigning; I don’t. But, I just don’t see the point of making your opponent’s negative campaign tactics a talking point of your campaign. I would rather see candidates contrasting their views and records with those of their opponents than resorting to a juvenile ‘he started it’ ‘no, he started it’ exchange, such as the one we witnessed in the gubernatorial debate on Monday. It is especially hypocritical when there are smear mailers and ads against both candidates. Can’t candidates find a way to criticize their opponents without criticizing them for being critical?
In short, Geraldine, I hope that in the future you will be a little more discerning in your choice of websites to frequent.
The Register has it that Nussle proposed a policy that would require Iowa schools to have safety preparedness programs in addition to weather- and fire-related programs already in place. His plans include a half a million dollar grant that would assist the schools in implementing the programs. The money would come from a projected budget surplus. I wonder if he means the current surplus we have, because we all know that Nussle and the Republicans are really good at spending money their Democrat predecessors have saved up.
You can practically hear the music gearing up for the Culver campaign’s response: Nussle is doing the hustle. (I can’t help saying it–it rhymes!) They point out that Nussle has actually reduced spending on already established school safety programs in Iowa and around the country.
Today, Congressman Jim Nussle put out a “school safety” plan in which he actually took credit for REDUCED funding for the Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program, which provides direct money to Iowa for programs like drug task forces and child and teen drug prevention programs.
Obviously there is a bit of spin going on from both camps here, but I think what is actually important about this is that Nussle wants to create a program that will respond to school violence after it has happened. We’ve got fire-drills and tornado-drills, why not school shooting-drills? It might be useful to address underlying problems that cause students to act violently instead of creating a reaction program that institutionalizes the assumption that kids will always be bringing guns to school to kill each other.
The Iowa Democratic Party today announced a new web site, StopGOPSmear.com, that attempts to expose the Republicans’ smear tactics and respond to them with the facts.
One interesting feature of the site (which I’m sure will serve its purpose) is the link at the top left allowing visitors to report any attack ads or mail pieces that they receive to the Party so that our candidates can respond quickly. This is perhaps the most useful part of the site, because visitors to it will probably be good Democrats anyway. This is just a way for our campaigns to find out faster what the next big wave of attacks is.
Either way, it’s a worthwhile project, especially since there have been so many hit pieces put out by the Republicans already this election.
The Boz drew a huge crowd to Main Lounge last night for a rally in anticipation of campus satellite voting this Monday. Students were not only treated to their svelte Congressman but got to see Eric Palmer, Mari Culver and Steve Mauro (Mike Mauro’s son).
Steve (he looks like his dad) went first and did a good job of stressing the importance of the oft-overlooked Secretary of State position. He said Mauro will push for more “safety, security and integrity” and will continue the great job Culver has done in increasing voter access. He assured the crowd that Mauro will fight for a paper trail in all of Iowa’s 99 counties. It’s good to know that the ball won’t be dropped when Chet moves on up.
Next, school favorite Eric Palmer spoke. He seemed really fired up and told us that his number one priority is increasing the minimum wage. Palmer has been getting better every time I see him—he’s always full of energy and nothing ever sounds canned. After tonight, I’ve no doubt that anyone who sees Palmer and Carroll next to one another will choose the former. Carroll is just too stiff and has that sleazy Nussle polish. If I didn’t know any better, I’d think Carroll had “gone Washington” too. Maybe he’s been rubbing elbows with Newt too often.
After Palmer was Mari Culver, Chet’s “brunette better half.” She stressed the need for continued progress in Iowa and Culver’s long commitment to increasing civic participation as Secretary of State. She noted that during Culver’s tenure, voting among 18-24 years olds had increased 50% (since 1996) and that Iowa moved from 11th to 6th in the country in voter turnout. She said that Culver had education as a top priority and would move to bring teacher salary to at least the national average and get tuition at the state’s universities under control. While Nussle may claim to focus on education, Mari pointed out that Jimmy boy voted through the largest cuts in student loan funding in history. Mari is quite good.
Following Mari was the main attraction—the Boz. He started by telling us that, although we hear it every few years, this really is the most important election “in my [his] lifetime.” He said that America was in danger of losing its promise and that he wanted to ensure that his grandchildren had the same opportunities that he did. He seemed so energized that he didn’t need to say a word to assuage doubts about his health, but he stressed that he felt better than he had in years, and that he was more prepared for Congress than he had ever been before. He said he wasn’t about to “go fishing” anytime soon—he wants to “die with my boots on.” He said that a Democratic majority could start to rebuild what has been lost during repuglican control these last few years—America, he said, needs to start being a “good neighbor” abroad and working with allies to accomplish common goals.
I’m glad Boswell stressed universal values and the ability to reach a common understanding in foreign policy—his message was far from the gloom and doom fated war of civilizations that the Bush clan drums up everyday. I think Boswell understands (and I’m projecting now) that for all the radicals in the Middle East there are good people who care about the same things that families in America do—to lose sight of that basic commonality is dangerous because it leads us to dwell on and thus increase our differences. It makes us pugnacious when diplomacy is called for, pugnacious when prudence is called for. Recognizing that diplomacy is possible doesn’t mean that we won’t fight radicals and keep America safe. I think Boswell understands, unlike the condescending fear mongers in the Bush administration, that Americans don’t have to be scared into strength or leadership.
Tonight Chet Culver and Jim Nussle sparred in the first gubernatorial debate of the election season, and I’m going to call it a Culver win. (That’s actually me trying to be objective.) Nussle was certainly more polished than Chet, but I think Chet’s ideas clearly trumped Nussle’s question-dodging answers. Besides, the grooming and smooth talking may not be a plus in Nussle’s column, since professional Washington politician doesn’t generally play well in Iowa. I’ve also heard Nussle’s tie described as a “crime against humanity.”
On attack ads and negative campaigning. Nussle went first and gave an opening statement, completely ignoring the question. Chet pointed out that Nussle aired negative ads first. The moderator then allotted another 30 seconds to both candidates, pointing out that Nussle didn’t respond. Nothing worthwhile comes out of it.
On choice. In Clintonian fashion, Culver says that “Zero is the best number of abortions,” but that he respects a woman’s right to choose. Nussle cites his 100% pro-life voting record in Congress and says that he would further restrict abortions.
On tax policy. Nussle kept bringing up taxes all evening, saying that seniors are fleeing Iowa for “greener tax pastures.” I’m pretty sure seniors are leaving because Iowa is cold cold cold, and I think young people are more concerned that there are too many pastures and not enough, you know, city. Chet spoke about Vilsack’s successes, and pointed out that a higher cigarette tax could potentially save 13,000 lives.
On alternative fuels. It’s Iowa, everyone loves alternative fuels.
On affordable healthcare. Nussle completely skipped the question and talked about how “every mile is a minute” and rural citizens in emergencies are suffering. True perhaps, but who cares if they can’t afford the healthcare when they get to a hospital? (And wouldn’t it be nice if they could have preventative medicine and not have to almost die rushing to a hospital?) Chet explained his plan to expand Hawk-I and allow all Iowans to enjoy the same healthcare coverage as elected officials.
On education. We know, we know, Chet would be the only governor who had been in the classroom in the past 20 years. As Chet pointed out, Nussle voted 100 times against education while in Congress. Chet put it well, saying “It’s the record, not the rhetoric.” (He also looked very pleased with himself after this.)
On stem cell research. Nussle said adult stem cells are where the “exciting” research is happening. That’s probably because he voted to ban embryonic stem cell research, so no research is happening there. Culver pointed out that Nancy Reagan and Bill Frist both support overturning the stem cell ban, and that it could potentially save millions of lives.
In summary, Chet stuck to his talking points and elucidated his plans for Iowa, while Nussle, ok I’ll say it, hustled.
