On Iowa Press the other day, State Auditor Dave Vaudt ducked the question of whether he would consider running for Governor in 2010. While Vaudt doesn’t have much of a public profile, he’s still one of two statewide Republican elected officials and has few negatives attached to his name. However, it’s worth noting that Vaudt would not have been in the position to even contemplate a 2010 run for Governor if the Democrats had bothered to nominate a candidate to oppose him in 2006. While leaving legislative seats uncontested hurt Democrats in 2006, failing to run a candidate for Auditor hurt Democrats even more. With the sole exception of Denise O’Brien, who narrowly lost her underfunded campaign for Secretary of Agriculture after it was revealed that she didn’t feed her cows, every statewide Democrat won by a healthy margin and Democrats made gains statewide. If Democrats had found a distinguished nonentity to merely place his name on the ballot, Vaudt probably would have been defeated. Instead, there is now a Republican statewide elected official who can plot a run for Governor from inside the heart of state government.
I guess this is what happens in a political world where a few consulting firms call almost all of the shots: Kentucky gubernatorial candidate Steve Beshear just got caught lifting part of Chet Culver’s energy policy text. As the Lexington Herald-Leader documents,
For example, Culver’s plan says: “As Governor, I will challenge the private sector and encourage the development of new power sources, fuels and clean coal technologies by developing new laws and regulations that encourage innovation and the production and sale of home grown fuels.”
The Beshear plan states: “As Governor, I will challenge the private sector and encourage the development of new renewable power sources, alternative fuels and clean coal technologies by developing new laws and regulations that spur innovation and the production and sale of home grown fuels.”
Obviously, neither candidate had any idea that the text was going to be used in multiple places, but it’s a pretty inexcusable mistake on the consultants’ parts. In a world with the Internet, someone in Kentucky might be able to find out what a candidate in Iowa is saying, and vice versa.
Quoting, again, “Beshear’s campaign manager, Jim Cauley, said the campaign saw Culver’s plan for energy online ‘and we liked it.’” Go Chet!
(Beshear is running for the Democratic nomination for Kentucky Governor against several other candidates. The primary is next month.)
David Yepsen’s column today makes the argument that Democrats in the state legislature should avoid changing anything to do with Iowa’s right to work law or risk losing control in 2008. He asserts that “Polls show overwhelming support for such worker freedom.”
A few weeks ago, I started getting strange calls on my Blackberry from a number I didn’t recognize. I didn’t answer the first few times the number popped up. Finally, after it was clear that this person wanted to talk to me and would not leave a message, I answered the next call I got, and it turned out to be someone in a call center in Missouri (I think it was Missouri) taking a poll. It was clear from the first question (something to do with protections for “the right to life,” without saying what the “right to life” was) that the poll of Iowa voters was being conducted by some conservative operation.
Question three, word for word, was “Do you support Iowa’s Right To Work Law?”
All of the survey questions were slanted to create a pattern of “Yes” answers (that is, when they wanted someone to say they did not support a particular law, they would ask “Do you disagree with X?” instead of “Do you agree with X?”), and the callers seemed to have been instructed to sound happier when someone answered “Yes” rather than “No.” In a survey like that, of course the vast majority of Iowa voters are going to say “Yes.”
But if you asked them, instead, “Do you think it is important that Iowa workers are able to engage in collective bargaining with their employers?” it seems plausible that an equal number would have said “Yes.” I’m not sure what polls Yepsen has seen on the issue, but I thought at least mentioning how slanted and disingenuous the survey I got was might help get us beyond the discussion of poll numbers.
Chet Culver announced a major initiative yesterday to provide $12.5 million in state funds for embryonic stem cell research. Stem cell research was a major talking point of Chet’s during the campaign and it’s not at all a surprise that he’s following through with it. Although Iowa will still be far behind other states like California, which has allocated up to $3 billion over the next ten years for embryonic stem cell research and our neighbors in Illinois who have allocated $15 million, it’s still a good start. Hopefully, with Democratic majorities in both Houses, legislation to make state funding of embryonic stem cell research legal will breeze through the legislature along with the necessary appropriations.
However, Chet did draw some criticism. Betty DeBoef, the Danny Carroll clone with spelling issues, doesn’t see the need for stem cell research. In fact, she thinks “it’s more about abortion rights than it is about finding cures for people.” This is reassuring to know. I always thought that Michael J. Fox was merely motivated by self interest. Frankly, Betty DeBoef wasn’t much good at smearing Eric Palmer during the election and she’s even worse at trying to attack Chet Culver’s attempt to make sure that the hundreds of thousands of Iowans suffering dieases and ailments ranging from paralysis to Parkinson’s might one day be cured. In fact, maybe stem cell research might even help Betty one day, provided that it could help doctors find a cure for Foot In Mouth Disease.
Election day was over a month ago, but we haven’t posted, because it’s hard to write a summary of something that speaks so well for itself. Across the country, people reacted well to the progressive agenda put forward by Democratic candidates on all levels. Here in Iowa, we won both legislative chambers and Terrace Hill. We held onto Boswell’s Congressional seat and picked up two more (one quite unexpectedly).
All of us here worked very hard, whether it looked that way on this web site or not. I had to stop blogging because of my job with the party, but I wouldn’t have had the time to write even if I had wanted to, and I think the rest of the Grinnell College Campus Democrats felt the same way.
Personally, I want to thank all of the volunteers I dealt with on our campus and in Poweshiek County. The amount of work people were willing to do was at once staggering and inspiring. Locally, we helped Eric Palmer defeat Danny Carroll for State Representative and helped elect an all-Democratic County Board of Supervisors. Even though it was stressful and trying and kind of sucky at times for all of us, winning the way we did makes everything worth it.
I remember in the weeks after election day, cable news heads and columnists talked about whether the election was more an acceptance of the Democratic agenda or a rejection of the Republican one. For some reason, conventional wisdom seems to claim that it was more the latter than the former, but I’m skeptical.
When I went door-to-door as a canvasser or dealt with folks in our office, I sensed a renewed interest in Democratic positions. Maybe we did a better job of communicating our agenda this election, but I think a lot of it was just that people were more interested in hearing what we had to say. People finally decided that they’d had enough, and they changed their minds.
And, I cannot emphasize this enough, WE WON. Look for more blogging from us here, as more of us finish recouperating and gloating and decide to start writing again.
In the past couple days pretty much all anyone is talking about are the candidates’ reports filed yesterday on money raised and spent. The reports are available on the IECDB website.
If you want a good summary, see what Chris Woods over at Political Forecast has to say. He has a good post exclusively on the gubernatorial race, where Culver has out-fundraised Nussle by $200,000. It is certainly interesting to see who’s been donating, including a selection of presidential hopefuls.
Looking closer to home in Grinnell’s State House race in the last quarter (July 15-Oct 14)
Clearly it isn’t great news to see that Carroll has more money than Palmer at this point in the game, and Palmer certainly could’ve used the money from Warner’s PAC. However, I also know that Palmer has been working tirelessly on this campaign, and it seems impossible that someone could meet both the candidates and not come away with a better impression of Eric.
Culver and Nussle appeared for their second debate last night. Sponsored by the Iowa Black and Brown Forum, the debate centered on minority issues, including the recent claims of racial discrimination in state hiring practices, immigration, and the official state language. Unfortunately, I missed the debate, but it looks like it was a zinger.
Nussle seems to have spent some time criticizing Vilsack for his culpability in the hiring scandal.
“It’s like you woke up one day and magically discovered it was happening,” said Nussle, a congressman from northeastern Iowa, on Vilsack’s reaction to the scandal. The Republican candidate also argued that Vilsack’s administration was not open enough to criticism of the agencies, forcing whistleblowers to instead go to the press.
Maybe someone should let him know that Vilsack isn’t running again. Although, to be fair, Culver frequent states that he will continue in Vilsack’s footsteps, as evidenced by Culver taking a stand for Vilsack in the debate. At the same time Culver suggested that he would go beyond the measures Vilsack has proposed.
Culver added: “We will have an across-the-board effort on diversity training in terms of hiring practices and making sure the state government is inclusive. I think actions speak louder than words.”
General opinion seems to be that Culver did well. Gordon over at Iowa True Blue calls it a decisive win for Culver, saying “He looked strong, confident, and sure.”
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.
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.
