Fallon Can’t Take What He Dishes Out
April 23rd, 2008 at 07:38pm Geraldine
Ed Fallon attacked a mailing by Leonard Boswell today that criticized Fallon for his support of Ralph Nader as “very cynical [and] very deceptive” today. Iowa Progress has previously addressed Fallon’s support for Nader, including his statement that “I can’t, I won’t and you shouldn’t [vote for Al Gore] either” in a speech that was reproduced nationally. As a result of the strong Nader organizing in Iowa, in which Ed Fallon was actively involved, the Gore campaign had to devote a disproportionate amount of resources to a state that Michael Dukakis won handily in 1988 and that Bill Clinton won twice. Gore even was in Iowa the day before the election in 2000. If Al Gore instead could have paid an extra visit to Florida or was able to run a few more ads there, it certainly would have shifted 500 votes and changed history.
But the larger issue is that while Fallon has no compulsion about attacking Boswell (and implying that reporting on subjects like I’M For Iowa done by independent reporters like Chase Martyn and Tom Beaumont comes from the Boswell press office). In fact, Fallon’s website is flush with cynical and deceptive statements such as “Boswell is bought and paid for by special interests,” Boswell “practices ‘the politics of deception,’” “Boswell…betrays American and Iowa values.’ In fact, Fallon’s attacks on Boswell go back to 2006 when Boswell was one of three most vulnerable Democratic incumbents in the country. Fallon sent out an email then calling Boswell’s campaign “offensive” and attacking him for “name calling, record-distorting and fear mongering.” Fallon did this a week before absentee ballots were sent out in 2006. However, this attack did show how Fallon’s sense of party loyalty improved since 2000. He only attacked a fellow Democrat in a tight election, rather than openly campaigning against him as well. Frankly, it seems Ed Fallon’s real complaint is that his fiscal irresponsibility keeps him from having any money to spend on paid media as even the Politico points out.
Fallon is running in a Democratic primary as someone with a history of disloyalty, dishonesty and sleaze if he can’t handle that being pointed out now, one can only imagine what the Republicans would do to him in a general election.
Related Posts
- Clinton, Feingold Call Fallon
- Ed Fallon Displays Agricultural Expertise
- Fallon Sleaze Hurts Fundraising
- Is Fallon Loyal To The Party?
- Why The Fallon Loophole Needs To Be Closed
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, US House, Leonard Boswell
Related Searches: ed fallon, leonard boswell, democratic incumbents, fiscal irresponsibility, michael dukakis
6 Comments Add your own
1. peacelady5374 | April 23rd, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Al Gore deserved to lose in 2000. He was a warmonger just like Leonard Bowell. Ed Fallon was endorsed by StarPAC and has supported candidates like Nader and Dennis Kucinich who are truly for peace. Our planet needs more people like Ed Fallon, who really believes in peace, in Congress.
2. Gavin | April 23rd, 2008 at 10:27 pm
For a more accurate analysis:
http://amesprogressive.org/2008/04/23/blogs/gavin/boswells-nader-mailer-again/
3. Gavin | April 23rd, 2008 at 11:24 pm
That came off more snarky than I intended. An alternative analysis, I should have said.
4. REALLY | April 24th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Al Gore is a warmonger how interesting, is that why he won the nobel peace prize.
5. The Demo Memo | April 25th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Peacelady, yeah it would be great if more peaceniks were in Congress. But while our country is at war, it’s very doubtful that a lot of them will get elected. If they DO get elected, they’ll have to learn how to compromise, which Ed Fallon does not know how to do.
6. Gavin | April 25th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
There’s a difference between compromise and complacency. I’d encourage people to think outside of the two-party dichotomy. Fallon’s more unwilling to compromise his principles than he is uncompromising.
It’s important to weigh political reality with social necessity. Democrats in Congress aren’t doing much about the war; Congress in general hasn’t been particularly effective on a lot of issues. And a lot of that is Republican stonewalling and Bush’s disdain for the Constitution. A Democratic majority is far and away better than a Republican one, no doubt. But you’re not going to have genuine change without taking risks.
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