14 Comments Add your own

• 1. noneed4thneed  |  February 15th, 2008 at 1:37 pm

  You keep beating the Nader thing like a dead horse. Give it a break. There is nothing wrong voting your conscience once in awhile.

  When you look closer at the situation, Fallon’s endorsement had no effect on the outcome of the 2000 election. Gore won Iowa. It is ridiculous to think that a State Rep. from Des Moines had much influence in Florida.

  Compare that to some of the decisions Boswell had made like voting for the war in Iraq and continuing to support the Republicans and Bush on it. Boswell’s decision has had terrible consequences in lives lost, both Americans and Iraqi, money spent, and loss of goodwill towards America around the world. You could go through the same process by looking at Boswell’s votes on trade, the Patriot Act, and tax give aways to Oil companies.

  I think I’d rather have a candidate that made a bad choice once than a candidate that has continually chose to not support Democratic values.

• 2. Geraldine  |  February 15th, 2008 at 4:59 pm

  So in that case, if Boswell voted his conscience in believing as Tom Daschle, John Edwards, Tom Harkin and John Kerry did that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction posed a threat to the United States, he’s wrong.

  If instead, he had only actively campaigned against the Democratic nominee for President in a swing state that was decided by a margin of only 4,000 votes that would have been acceptable?

  Leonard Boswell was wrong when a majority of Americans and a majority of the Democratic Party was wrong. Ed Fallon was wrong when the United States faced the most decisive Presidential election in modern American history.

  Ed Fallon didn’t make one bad decision. He made a gigantic bad decision. To endorse and campaign for Ralph Nader for President and to turn around and run for elected office as the only real Democrat running is the height of hypocrisy. If actively campaigning against the Democratic nominee for President isn’t “choosing to not support Democratic values”, I don’t know what is.

• 3. Jerry  |  February 16th, 2008 at 11:45 pm

  Come again? Impeaching Cheney fits well for a Congressman in a Republican leaning district?

  So will he make that an issue if he beats Fallon?

  LOL!

  He’s pandering as fast as he can think of ways to do it.

• 4. Gavin Aronsen  |  February 18th, 2008 at 1:16 am

  Boswell’s signing on to this bill came, interestingly enough, on the same day as Fallon’s endorsement from Democracy for America, which just helped Donna Edwards defeat Al Wynn in Maryland’s Feb. 12 primary. Al Wynn was a similarly conservative Democrat who also signed onto Kucinich’s bill prior to the election (he did it in May 2007).

  Here’s my assessment of the situation (sorry to blog whore, but I do think that this is properly related to the post):
  http://amesprogressive.org/2008/02/17/blogs/gavin/boswell-v-fallon-the-endorsement-fight-and-house-impeachment-bill/

• 5. Robert Anderson  |  February 20th, 2008 at 5:05 am

  I hope Ed Fallon wins. Boswell is pissing me off from the opposite side of the state. FISA alone nearly prompts a campaign contribution, and I’m swimming in debt.

• 6. desmoinesdem  |  February 28th, 2008 at 8:46 pm

  Keep talking, Geraldine. Boswell’s vote on the 2005 energy bill alone makes it impossible for me to support him in a primary against a strong environmentalist.

  Boswell has also failed to stand up for civil liberties on many occasions, his recent efforts to secure retroactive immunity for telecoms being just the latest example.

• 7. The big picture  |  March 5th, 2008 at 11:17 am

  A few thoughs:
  First i feel like the bloggers need to get his voting record straight and not just lable him a conservative. Is he uber liberal no he is moderate but mostly because he represents a moderate republican leaning district. However he is a loyal democrat voter and about 92percent of the time votes with the leadership so before you go lableing him a republican keep that in mind
  Second: While fallon likes to portray himself as a good supporting liberal democrat he has time after time gone against the democrats not just because he was “voting his conscience but more out of ego and wanting to be noticed. Regardless of what you may think the nader support was a huge mistake and cost the democrats big time especially considering what kind of person Al gore turned out to be.
  Third: Fallon has a tendency to change his opinions and positions based on where he is and what group he is taking too. That is one of the things that hurt him in the gubernatorial primary.
  Finally there is no legitimate republican registered to run for the congressional seat come november, however if fallon were to get the nomination that would certainty change in a heartbeat. This is because Boswell has beaten strong republican contender after strong republican contender. The RNC had finally given up on trying to beat him. In this district Fallon would not be able to win in a general. Why give up a seat where we have a decently powerful senior democratic congressmen who continues to do good for the district and iowa.

• 8. The big picture  |  March 5th, 2008 at 2:14 pm

  excuse my spelling i typed this one quickly

• 9. Gavin  |  March 6th, 2008 at 10:58 am

  I don’t think it’s an issue of liberal v. conservative, really. Those are just labels that can be interpreted any number of ways. Then again, I always use “progressive,” which can be equally as vague. But to me, what’s important is upholding the rule of law, fighting the corporate stranglehold on the country and standing up to corruption and incompetence, the primary uniting factors of today’s Republican Party.

  That Boswell votes 92 percent of the time with the leadership isn’t really a great selling point. The leadership isn’t terrible, but it’s not particularly impressive, either.

  It’s his votes on key issues - FISA, the bankruptcy bill, etc. - that deserve scrutiny. And Boswell deserves a chance to respond, but I think the reason Fallon’s challenging him is precisely opposite to your conclusion. Towing the party line (in general, not referring to Boswell specifically) leads to complacency.

  Also, the 3rd district leans ever-so-slightly Democratic last I heard, not Republican.

  - g.

• 10. Iowa Progress » Bos&hellip  |  March 12th, 2008 at 1:54 pm

  […] Democrat”, this grade serves to shore up the argument of those perceive Boswell as a strong progressive and undermines the central premise of Fallon’s campaign. If all Fallon can campaign is that […]

• 11. The big picture  |  March 14th, 2008 at 9:48 am

  leans democrat leans republican you can say both but the point is its moderate. Also I would like to note that a legitimate republican is going to be running against the winner of the primary in November. His name is Kim Schmedt. His the former chief of staff for Ganske. If fallon does manage to win the primary you can kiss this seat goodbye. The chances of fallon winning in a general are about the same as Ralph Nader becoming president.

• 12. Iowa Progress » Wha&hellip  |  June 12th, 2008 at 8:34 am

  […] 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 […]

• 13. free insurance quote&hellip  |  July 10th, 2008 at 8:38 pm

  free insurance quote…

  slowly contemplation newsgroup spike slate …

• 14. vegasnet casino online&hellip  |  July 20th, 2008 at 3:54 am

  vegasnet casino online…

  antisymmetric hatred undergoing?wetting!storms!…

Leave a Comment

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed