There are starting to be whispers that Mike Huckabee might drop out of the Republican Presidential Primary to run for Senate back in Arkansas. Huckabee is a right wing Republican who has done better in the “liberal media” than among the Republican faithful. However, if Huckabee ends his Presidential bid, it would have major ramifications on the Republican primary. It builds up Sam Brownback as the default candidate of social conservatives and allows more room for an underdog like Brownback (or Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo) to emerge on the right of the Republican field.
It also has big ramifications in Iowa. Why? Because recently Huckabee received endorsements from two of Iowa’s major social conservatives, Bob Vander Plaats, who earned his conservative street cred by undercutting Doug Gross in the 2002 Republican Gubernatorial Primary and Danny Carroll, who defrauds the elderly and runs dirty campaigns. (However, in Carroll’s defense, he doesn’t smoke, drink, or make graven images). With Huckabee out of the race, the endorsements of these highly moral members of the Moral Majority would be up for grabs. If they both endorsed someone like Brownback, Brownback would automatically become a credible challenger to the “Big Three” of McCain, Giuliani and Romney in Iowa. However, if their endorsement went to a “Big Three” candidate, most probably Romney, it further starves the remaining second tier candidates of media attention and increases expectations for the endorsed candidate. Although Huckabee probably will not make any final decision until after the Ames straw poll in August, it seems increasingly likely that he may be Tom Vilsack’s counterpart as the first to be culled from the Republican field.
John Deeth linked to the National Journal’s ranking of all the members of Congress from most liberal to least liberal. What’s interesting is that, despite the big Democratic year in 2006, Iowa’s most liberal congressman got defeated. That title was held by Republican Jim Leach. Leach was one of the last of the liberal Republicans but lost to the much more liberal Dave Loebsack. Although Leach was a liberal Republican, he voted for the Republican leadership and was one of the worst of the Clinton haters in Congress in the mid 1990s (although he probably wasn’t sincere about his Clinton-hating. Instead, he was just unsuccessfully angling for the 1996 Republican nomination for U.S. Senate against Tom Harkin).
But the fact that Leach was the most liberal Congressman from Iowa means that Democrat Leonard Boswell wasn’t. Boswell was only a mere four places behind Leach (although that made him less liberal than one other Republican, Libertarian Ron Paul.) This put Boswell in a three way tie for the 173rd most liberal member of Congress with Artur Davis of Alabama and liberal sweetheart John Murtha. This emphasizes Boswell’s vulnerable position. He represents a swing district, albeit one where the base Democratic voters are relatively liberal (as opposed to many of Boswell’s fellow Blue Dogs from the South). Boswell has to walk a fine line to protect himself from a primary challenge and to retain his appeal in the district in a general election as much of the rural 3rd District is proving increasingly invulnerable to his charms as a rural Democrat from Decatur County. Boswell has walked this tightrope well in the past but as questions about his health and age continue to build, it will become increasingly likely that he will either slip or be pushed.
Finally, it’s worth noting one bit of trivia. The most conservative congressman from Iowa is not Steve King but rather Tom Latham. While King may be nuts, he at least is an independent thinker. Latham accumulated a more conservative record by being a straight party-line, pro-corporate Republican hack. It allows Latham the benefit of a seat on the Appropriations Committee for the small cost of independent thought and free will. One hopes that Selden Spencer will use this information to his advantage for his second bid for the 4th District.
Now that Tom Vilsack has dropped out, there is no chance that an Iowan will be elected President in 2008. (Sorry Sal) In fact, under the assumption that Vilsack’s Presidential ambitions are now permanently scuppered, it is unlikely that any other Iowa politician will be mounting a credible bid for the Presidency in the foreseeable future. That leaves Iowa’s best chance for the Presidency to be filled through its two Senators, Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin, both of whom, provided they stay in the Senate, are starting to get close to the level of seniority necessary to be President Pro Tempore of the Senate. This is a ceremonial position in the Senate mandated by the Constitution that has been filled in the past by such aged members as Strom Thurmond and Ted Stevens and is currently held by Robert Byrd. It has traditionally been held by the most senior member of the majority party since the 1940s. However, it is also third in the current line of succession to the Presidency after the Vice President and the Speaker of the House.
That the members of the Legislative branch are eligible to be President is a weird quirk in the system as Norman Orenstein points out in the Washington Post. However, Orenstein’s suggestion of limiting the line of succession to unelected cabinet members and others designated by the Presidents is completely undemocratic. In fact, even the succession of a Vice President to the Presidency is not quite right. After all, we don’t have Vice Senators or Vice Congressman and many states have special elections if there is a vacancy for the Governorship. The logical and fair thing to do is to hold a special election for the Presidency. In fact, there’s pretty clear historical evidence that the Founders only intended the Vice President to serve as President until another could be elected. The resulting historical drift over the next two centuries has gradually set the precedent that not only does the Vice President serve out the rest of the President’s term but has also built the assumption that everyone after the Vice President will do so as well. (Although this concept has not been tested in practice.) What would make sense is to make it explicit that a special election will occur the November after a vacancy in the Presidency (unless there is less than a year left in the President’s term). This would insure that the President would be democratically elected. If there is a sitting Vice President, he would become “Acting President.” However, if there is a double vacancy, the least worst option would be allow Congress to fill both offices temporarily according to the method outlined in the 12th Amendment in case of a deadlock in the Electoral College.
This type of debate can seem somewhat academic, after all it deals with interpreting centuries of constitutional precedents to prepare for a highly unlikely event. However, as unlikely as this event is, it is worth preparing for as it would have a catastrophic impact on our nation’s government. Should something so unlikely occur, we need to be prepared to make sure that the will of the people is heard. It is what our county was founded upon and the will of the people will not be heard if we have President Robert Byrd or President Ted Stevens.
We, along with other Iowa blogs, frequently bash the Des Moines Register, particularly the often pompous David Yepsen and the always useless Jane Norman (who did a great job transcribing a Chuck Grassley news release the other day–after all, stenography is easier than reporting). However, a story yesterday about internet hunting hit the nail on the head. It would ban hunting live animals over the internet using a webcam and a remote controlled rifle. While many find the practice objectionable, the reporter, Jennifer Jacobs, astutely points out the one problem with the bill, there is no internet hunting. Although a Texas entrepreneur tried to set up such a venture several years ago, the state of Texas almost immediately shut it down. It was the first and, to date, last attempt at internet hunting.
Even the sponsor of the bill, Republican Steven Lukan, does not know of anyone participating in internet hunting. But he wants to ban it anyway. Why? Because this is the rare type of non-controversial bill that gets a lot of easy publicity. While other state representatives busy themselves with dull tasks like spurring Iowa’s economic development and balancing the state’s budget, Steven Lukan finds it easier to ban something that does not exist. It is a waste of the legislature’s time and of taxpayer money. One wonders when Lukan will amend the bill to make it clear that the ban on internet hunting applies to unicorns.
Health care is shaping up to be the most important issue in the United States for the first time since the early 1990s in the coming election. It is an issue that all the Democratic candidates have been addressing here in Iowa and one that they will continue to address until the caucuses. A recent New York Times poll gives a lot of perspective about how the candidates are and should be addressing the issue. According to the poll, 90% of Americans think our health care system needs either fundamental changes or to be completely rebuilt and a disproportionate percentage of Americans, 62%, trust Democrats to improve the health care system. One may think this is an easy chance for Democratic candidates to push a massive reform like a single payer health care system but popular opinion about health care reform is much more complex than it seems.
64% of Americans think the government should guarantee health care for all Americans, which is an increase of 10% since 1996 and by a 2 to 1 margin, Americans think its worth paying higher taxes so everyone can have health insurance. When asked on the details of health care plans, Americans favor a single payer solution over the current model by a margin of 47 to 38 percent. However there is a big gap between how people percieve health care in general in the U.S. and their own individual health care coverage. While 57% of Americans are somewhat or very dissatisfied with the state of health care in the United States, only 20% of Americans are somewhat or very dissatisfied with their own health care. This trend also holds with the cost of health care. A whopping 81% of Americans are somewhat or very dissatisfied with the cost of healthcare in the U.S. but only a bare majority, 53%, are dissatisified with the cost of their own health care.
Only one candidate has introduced a health care plan so far, John Edwards. His health care plan tries to balance the concerns expressed in the poll of universal coverage without affecting people who already have health insurance. Unfortunately, it comes across as a little complex as a result. The poll results belied this. People who expressed an opinion about it favored the plan by a margin of over 2 to 1. However, nearly half of all poll respondents were unsure, which is a sure sign that it confused a lot of people.
This deftly illustrates the problems that candidates face. When like John Edwards, or Bill Clinton in his first term, they fix our dysfunctional health care system while taking into account the relative satisfaction that individuals feel about their personal health care plans, the result is confusion. However, if you try to set up a single payer plan, it makes people afraid that they will lose their health care. The result gives a candidate two difficult choices between what type of health care plan to propose. John Edwards has already picked one option and it will be interesting to see what the other candidates do.
In January, we posted the complete list of how many caucus delegates each county would be apportioned in the caucuses. However, as Drew points out on Bleeding Heartland, the IDP has reduced the total number of delegates from 3000 to 2500. As a result, the number of delegates from each county at the State Convention has been reduced accordingly. Here’s the corrected list:
County Delegate
1 Polk 357.0258199
2 Linn 202.1855356
3 Scott 141.5583295
4 Johnson 136.9502264
5 Black Hawk 116.9633193
6 Dubuque 89.53813553
7 Story 76.49680278
8 Woodbury 67.55177384
9 Pottawattamie 54.72432734
10 Clinton 45.83467967
11 Cerro Gordo 45.67426497
12 Des Moines 41.19029231
13 Dallas 38.58355352
14 Warren 37.41290819
15 Jasper 34.56172796
16 Lee 33.74437689
17 Webster 32.34265801
18 Marshall 31.88624001
19 Muscatine 31.4431899
20 Wapello 31.08798593
21 Boone 23.89606044
22 Benton 22.94694017
23 Marion 22.52298704
24 Bremer 21.24157918
25 Jackson 19.54385699
26 Buchanan 19.5419473
27 Fayette 18.29109462
28 Jones 17.68190071
29 Winneshiek 17.52339572
30 Poweshiek 17.42982048
31 Cedar 16.1751484
32 Clayton 16.14459322
33 Tama 15.73209829
34 Carroll 15.66525884
35 Washington 15.62897456
36 Floyd 15.49147625
37 Jefferson 15.05224554
38 Delaware 14.68367368
39 Dickinson 14.21770718
40 Henry 14.12604164
41 Hardin 14.09357677
42 Kossuth 14.01718882
43 Hamilton 13.64288786
44 Plymouth 13.45764708
45 Iowa 13.36980094
46 Winnebago 13.11390131
47 Chickasaw 12.86945987
48 Mahaska 12.80834951
49 Buena Vista 12.30227934
50 Madison 12.0521088
51 Clay 11.7446473
52 Allamakee 11.61860719
53 Butler 10.81271432
54 Appanoose 10.55872438
55 Crawford 10.28181806
56 Wright 10.12331307
57 Harrison 10.01636994
58 Cherokee 9.55422284
59 Mitchell 9.525577359
60 Cass 9.145547308
61 Union 8.914473759
62 Guthrie 8.876279784
63 Howard 8.845724604
64 Hancock 8.773156052
65 Palo Alto 8.377848411
66 Grundy 8.366390218
67 Greene 8.290002268
68 Clarke 8.032192937
69 Worth 8.005457155
70 Calhoun 7.925249807
71 Shelby 7.923340109
72 Keokuk 7.881326736
73 Louisa 7.864139447
74 Franklin 7.818306677
75 Monona 7.659801681
76 Sioux 7.465012409
77 Page 7.457373614
78 Mills 7.428728133
79 Humboldt 7.405811748
80 O’Brien 7.331333497
81 Sac 7.23393886
82 Lucas 7.014323504
83 Emmet 6.808076039
84 Adair 6.491066047
85 Monroe 6.483427252
86 Decatur 6.45669147
87 Davis 6.187423946
88 Montgomery 6.007912264
89 Pocahontas 6.002183167
90 Audubon 5.4942033
91 Van Buren 5.41781535
92 Fremont 5.140909032
93 Wayne 4.678761934
94 Taylor 4.648206754
95 Ida 4.556541215
96 Ringgold 4.537444227
97 Lyon 4.275815498
98 Adams 3.439367447
99 Osceola 3.082253781
The Politico has this profile of the head of the far right Iowa Christian Alliance, Steve Scheffler. Scheffler has become a major player in Iowa Republican politics over the past six years as the far right has reasserted its dominance over the Republican Party of Iowa as Democratic majorities in both houses of the state legislature, Iowa congressional delegation and our control of the Governorship attest to. Scheffler brags in the article that three quarters of the Republicans who show up to caucus “will be down the line on life, immigration, marriage and spending.” Aside from that fact that these aren’t all typical social conservative hot-button issues, it gets to the question of what the actual composition of the caucus crowd will be.
Every candidate tries to draw out special niches that they think that they will get a lot of support from. In 2004, as Roger Simon’s classic piece about the caucuses noted “Dick Gephardt targeted family farmers; Howard Dean went after the young and disenchanted; [John] Kerry pursued veterans.” With both parties holding highly competitive caucuses, there will be a lot of competition for both groups. It’s fair to say though that we can tell some of the core demographics that candidates will go after in 2008. McCain will go after veterans (and Giuliani may too), Romney will go after fellow Mormons (there aren’t a lot in Iowa but enough to make a difference), Huckabee and Brownback after fellow evangelicals (perhaps special denominational focuses after Protestants and Catholics respectively). All the candidates will go after people in all of these communities but there are some communities where they have a more significant appeal. So why does this matter? Because every person who goes to the Republican caucuses is someone who cannot go to the Democratic ones. In 2004, the fight for the Republican nomination was not competitive. This meant that only diehard Republicans attended the caucuses. In 2008, both parties will feature highly competitive primary battles. That means there will be big advantages for candidates whose niche voters are also their party’s base voters. Of all the candidates mentioned, this has big ramifications for John McCain, his special appeal is with veterans and he will probably try to emulate John Kerry’s strategy of wooing veterans in 2004. Kerry was able to attract quite a few veterans who were Independents and Republicans to come caucus for him in 2004. The problem for McCain is, many Democratic veterans will be participating in the Democratic caucuses. Another problem is that all the Republican veterans who showed up to support John Kerry will getting harassed by Democratic candidates as well, since they showed up to a previous Democratic caucus. This means that they’ll be getting a ton of phone calls from Democrats, which will drown out any attempt by McCain to reach out to them. This puts McCain at a disadvantage and it makes more likely that a right winger will triumph in Iowa on caucus night.
