Although Ed Fallon has been painted as unelectable for a variety of reasons, including his support for Ralph Nader in 2000, what really makes him vulnerable is his repeated votes to protect sex offenders versus the general public. Fallon was the only state representative to vote against a bill that banned sex offenders from living within 2000 feet of a school or day care center, Fallon was the only member of the Iowa House to voted against against extending the statute of limitations for prosecuting child sex abuse, Fallon was the only member of the Iowa House to vote against increased funding to monitor sex offenders and Fallon also voted against tougher penalties against people who solicit children to commit a sex act. Fallon even cast the sole vote against making bestiality a crime!
This repeated pattern of voting against public safety raises grave questions about Fallon’s judgment. While some Democrats have been painted as “soft on crime” in campaigns in the past, it is apparent from Ed Fallon’s record that he is one of the few who is genuinely soft on crime and in a highly disturbing way. This is not about someone who favors rehabilitating prisoners, Ed Fallon wants sex offenders to be able to avoid prosecution for their crimes. This is not someone who thinks non-violent offenders shouldn’t be in jail, Ed Fallon thinks child molesters shouldn’t be imprisoned. Not to mention that although Ed Fallon crusades against hog lots, “Sex Ed” seems to think that sexually assaulting animals is perfectly fine.
“Sex Ed” Fallon has a record that is disturbingly out of touch with most people’s basic values. He finds campaign finance reforms promoted by Paul Wellstone and Russ Feingold to be appalling but thinks it’s perfectly fine to have sex with sheep. He thinks its acceptable to make up statements from the FEC but it’s wrong to lock away people convicted of molesting children. While Fallon may boast a degree in Religious Studies, it’s clear that he didn’t take too many courses in morality.
Although we have addressed our regret about the focus on Ed Fallon’s failings as a candidate and human being that Iowa Progress has been taking (including the post above and below), it is worth doing so again. It was never the intent for this to happen but unfortunately, events have overtaken that intent. Several months ago, the conventional narrative about this election was Democratic activists choosing between pragmatism in the form of Leonard Boswell, a six term moderate incumbent who has consistently won in a marginal Congressional district, and Ed Fallon, a progressive activist with whom many activists were more ideologically in tune but who many worried was too far to the left for the district. This narrative has not held. While Boswell has run an unspectacular, mistake-free, “Rose Garden,” campaign, Fallon has seemingly made every mistake possible save being caught in bed with the proverbial “dead girl or live boy.”
What candidates do effects what is written about them. Leonard Boswell’s campaign has, quite intentionally, done little of note. That leaves little new to write about him. As Iowa’s only Democratic Congressman for 10 years, plenty has already been written about him and getting into the debate about whether Boswell is a “Bush Dog,” or “Blue Dog” or any other kind of canine is quite tiresome and repetitive. At this point, most readers of Iowa Progress and most voters know who Leonard Boswell is for better or worse. Had major ethical issues been raised about Boswell, they would have been covered. Had questions about Boswell’s loyalty to the Democratic Party, they would have been covered. Had Leonard Boswell’s campaign showed major signs of mismanagement, they would have been covered. But all three problems have arisen with Ed Fallon.
The conflict between Fallon’s professed position on campaign finance reform and the actions of his campaign, including I’m For Iowa can only be described for chutzpah. Fallon further dug himself a deeper hole by not just defending himself for paying himself out of campaign funds via the so-called “Fallon Loophole” but attacking attempts to close it as somehow being corrupt as well. His nondisclosure of his I’M for Iowa’s funds is quite unsettling and raises broad questions about what the purpose of the organization is. The refusal to disclose the information created the appearance of guilt, even if none existed, and created an ongoing story that appears to have severely hurt Fallon’s fundraising. The Fallon campaign has also resurrected broader questions about Fallon’s loyalty to the Democratic Party because of his campaign manager’s claim that he was considering a third party run for Governor in 2006. These questions were initially raised because Fallon endorsed Ralph Nader in 2000.
Ed Fallon began the race as a severely flawed candidate and his behavior since announcing his candidacy has done little to inspire any additional confidence in his fitness to serve in the United States Congress. If another Democrat had been running with the same policy positions of Ed Fallon without the personal baggage, Iowa Progress’s coverage would unquestionably have been entirely different. If someone like Frank Cownie or Kevin McCarthy was running against Leonard Boswell (though it’s impossible to imagine a situation where either would challenge Boswell in a primary), we would ended up taking a tone and stance far removed than what we done in the past few months. (Presuming, of course, neither of them would make the host of miscues that Fallon has made.)
While Iowa Progress’s coverage of the 3rd District has been entirely factual and every statement made has been true, it is still clear that some posts have become increasingly snarky and vitriolic. This is highly regrettable. We wish that these posts had been written in a more civilized tone but, we also wish that Ed Fallon had not engaged in the behavior that prompted these posts to be written in the first place.
