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 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.
Tonight Chet Culver and Jim Nussle sparred in the first gubernatorial debate of the election season, and I’m going to call it a Culver win. (That’s actually me trying to be objective.) Nussle was certainly more polished than Chet, but I think Chet’s ideas clearly trumped Nussle’s question-dodging answers. Besides, the grooming and smooth talking may not be a plus in Nussle’s column, since professional Washington politician doesn’t generally play well in Iowa. I’ve also heard Nussle’s tie described as a “crime against humanity.”
On attack ads and negative campaigning. Nussle went first and gave an opening statement, completely ignoring the question. Chet pointed out that Nussle aired negative ads first. The moderator then allotted another 30 seconds to both candidates, pointing out that Nussle didn’t respond. Nothing worthwhile comes out of it.
On choice. In Clintonian fashion, Culver says that “Zero is the best number of abortions,” but that he respects a woman’s right to choose. Nussle cites his 100% pro-life voting record in Congress and says that he would further restrict abortions.
On tax policy. Nussle kept bringing up taxes all evening, saying that seniors are fleeing Iowa for “greener tax pastures.” I’m pretty sure seniors are leaving because Iowa is cold cold cold, and I think young people are more concerned that there are too many pastures and not enough, you know, city. Chet spoke about Vilsack’s successes, and pointed out that a higher cigarette tax could potentially save 13,000 lives.
On alternative fuels. It’s Iowa, everyone loves alternative fuels.
On affordable healthcare. Nussle completely skipped the question and talked about how “every mile is a minute” and rural citizens in emergencies are suffering. True perhaps, but who cares if they can’t afford the healthcare when they get to a hospital? (And wouldn’t it be nice if they could have preventative medicine and not have to almost die rushing to a hospital?) Chet explained his plan to expand Hawk-I and allow all Iowans to enjoy the same healthcare coverage as elected officials.
On education. We know, we know, Chet would be the only governor who had been in the classroom in the past 20 years. As Chet pointed out, Nussle voted 100 times against education while in Congress. Chet put it well, saying “It’s the record, not the rhetoric.” (He also looked very pleased with himself after this.)
On stem cell research. Nussle said adult stem cells are where the “exciting” research is happening. That’s probably because he voted to ban embryonic stem cell research, so no research is happening there. Culver pointed out that Nancy Reagan and Bill Frist both support overturning the stem cell ban, and that it could potentially save millions of lives.
In summary, Chet stuck to his talking points and elucidated his plans for Iowa, while Nussle, ok I’ll say it, hustled.
At an appearance in Des Moines yesterday, Jeff Lamberti said that he would’ve opposed earmarking money for the $50 million indoor rainforest project that is in the works for Iowa. Now one might assume that he is trying to draw out the differences between himself and his opponent, incumbent Leonard Boswell, as politicians normally do when campaigning for election. But Boswell voted against the appropriation of those funds. The person responsible is Republican Senator Charles Grassley, who publicly announced that he had set aside the funds for the project. So Lamberti is criticizing a member of his own party in order to say that he would’ve done what his opponent did?
Yes, but Lamberti is still trying to use this as an avenue to criticize Boswell for being fiscally irresponsible. Here is what Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, speaking at the same event, had to say about it:
“Leonard Boswell (has) a record of not being in favor of reducing federal pork, and obviously … you have a record of being very much in favor of reducing that,” he said.
Wait, I’m sorry, that statement is incomprehensible. I think what Lamberti and Mehlman are trying to say is that Boswell, a member of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition, is irresponsibly sending money to his home state to fund frivolous projects—such as freeway repairs on I-235.
Not only has Lamberti been complaining about repaving the roads, but he also looks for other creative ways to make it look like Boswell is spending too much money, such as attack ads featuring “false and misleading claims.” This might’ve worked if they weren’t so blatantly inaccurate that the television stations refused to play them.
It’s baffling that these guys are still trying to paint Boswell as fiscally irresponsible when he has a strong record of balancing state and federal budgets–something the Republicans have trouble doing.
The Washington Post reports that the National Republican Congressional Committee is planning to spend 90% of its advertising budget on “what officials describe as negative ads.” The article explains that Republicans’ only hope of shifting attention away from pesky little issues like Iraq is to wage personal attacks on Democrats. Or as Representative Tom Cole, Grinnell class of ‘71, puts it, “When you run in an adverse political environment, you try to localize and personalize the race as much as you can.” Actually, Cole doesn’t even try to spin the Republicans’ nasty program:
In a memo released last week, Cole, who is running to succeed Reynolds at the NRCC, expanded on that strategy. The memo recommended that vulnerable incumbents spend $20,000 on a research “package” to find damaging material about challengers and urged that they “define your opponent immediately and unrelentingly.”
You might also remember Cole from 2004, when he gave a speech including the gem: “I promise you this. If George Bush loses the election, Osama bin Laden wins the election. It’s that simple. It will be interpreted that way by enemies of the United States around the world.” He went on to add, “What do you think Hitler would have thought if Roosevelt would’ve lost the election in 1944? He would not have thought American resolve was strengthening. What would the confederacy have thought if Lincoln would have lost the election of 1860?”
No one’s going to fall for that kind of mumbo jumbo this year, Tom. In the words of an alum I much prefer to you, “Have you no sense of decency, sir?”
We can’t afford complacency, but things are looking good. Chris at MyDD has posted a huge list of relatively recent public poll numbers in competitive house races across the country. Among the results: Braley leads Whalen, 54-41; and Boswell leads Lamberti, 54-43.
I guess that’s why we’re already hearing rumblings from the GOP’s trademark voter suppression machine.
We know there are many, many strong candidates for public office at all levels in Iowa, so we don’t want our humble blog to focus too much on one particular candidate. That said, here at IowaProgress we’re really big fans of Eric Palmer, the next representative from Iowa House District 75 (which contains Grinnell, Oskaloosa, and Montezuma). Rumor has it that Eric’s web site is now live, so check it out and link to it. How many other candidates for Iowa House do you think have blogs, anyways?
And you can donate to Eric, Chet Culver, and a host of other progressive Iowa candidates on our new ActBlue page, “Making Progress In Iowa.” If you’re from out of state and are looking for the places where your money will make the most difference, check out our list and start donating. And if you’re a candidate who you think we might’ve forgotten about, send us an email telling us about yourself.
We want this ActBlue list to become a project for the whole blogosphere, so if you put up a link to http://www.actblue.com/page/iowa on your blog, let us know and you’ll have input on who gets listed on the page in the future. If we collaborate enough, we’ll be able to bring in real money for good candidates in our state.
The Register editorializes today on the apparent tension between traditional Republican talking points and actual Republican performance:
This was a bizarre week in federal budget politics, as usual. Everything about the federal budget is bizarre. To wit:
President Bush bragged about “reducing” the red ink this year to “only” $296 billion. That will be the fourth largest deficit in history and only a modest improvement from last year’s $318 billion deficit. That’s hardly cause for celebration.
Locally, Republican congressional candidate Jeff Lamberti said pork-barrel spending is out of control and the federal budget process is broken.
He got that right, but it takes a large dose of chutzpah for Lamberti to cite it as a reason for people to elect him instead of Democratic incumbent Leonard Boswell.
Recall that the last time the Democrats controlled Congress, they produced healthy budget surpluses that put the country on a path toward paying down the national debt.
When Republicans took control of Congress and the White House, they promptly boosted spending while cutting taxes, producing the worst fiscal mess of modern times.
When Republican challengers in Congressional races run their “we need a change” campaigns (which every challenger’s campaign will at some point say), whom do they think they’re railing against? Maybe someone needs to ask Jeff Lamberti exactly which parts of the Bush (and Nussle) budgets he’s against in specific enough terms that he actually has to answer the question. Odds are he couldn’t think of anything he’d want to mention by name.
The Register today made its endorsements for competitive primary races. For Governor, they like Blouin:
He has the richest breadth of experience among the three, in both public and private sectors. He has a depth of understanding gained from decades of working directly with Iowa’s people and problems. He has the confidence to tell Iowans some uncomfortable truths, and the wisdom to propose responses that are both practical and promising.
She’s running again because she wants to bring change to Congress. She’s the best candidate to do that, as someone who is connected to her community and recognizes the challenges typical families face.
And for the 1st Congressional District, it’s Braley:
He is a fresh face on the political scene with a law degree, children still at home and an appreciation for the congressional responsibility to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
That was what distinguished him from other candidates during a recent meeting with Register editors and writers.
Of the endorsements, it’s only Schulte’s that gave me much pause. Not that I don’t like Schulte, but her endorsement read more like a personal narrative than a political endorsement, and I sort of saw Bob Chambers as the type of candidate the Register might get behind. I guess I was wrong.
Alright, I take it back, maybe Congress.org’s Power Rankings do mean something. More likely though, it is just that Grassley’s power means something. Either way, he is using his considerable influence in D.C. to help out nearby Newton in anticipation of the Maytag plant closing. Grassley has set up a meeting with Newton Mayor Chaz Allen and the Assistant Secretary of Labor to discuss giving some assistance to Newton.
Grassley said that Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao is “very sympathetic to the Newton community” and has offered to help with resources available to the department. He said he expects the June discussion to be on the opportunities and assistance available from the agency as well as other federal departments.
I would be more impressed at the lengths to which Grassley is going to help out Newton, if it weren’t for the fact that there is obviously some politicking going on here. Boswell, Newton and Grinnell’s representative, is expected to face a serious challenge in the upcoming election. So the fact that Grassley is working independently of his Democrat colleagues is pretty significant. Unfortunately, it also seems to be working. Boswell and Harkin are calling on the Department of Labor to help Newton, but Grassley setting up a meeting is clearly a lot more useful, and clearly intended to make Boswell look ineffectual.
Not that Newton doesn’t deserve the help, but there are other towns in other districts in Iowa that are experiencing equally devastating factory closures that are not getting the same attention or assistance. If the Republicans in D.C. can do more for Newton, the Dems in Iowa are hoping to emphasize their own commitment. State economic developers have agreed to set aside $10 million over three years for Newton to assist in job replacement. (TheIowa Economic Development Board has a yearly budget of about $35 million for this kind of direct assistance.) However, Burlington and other southeastern Iowa towns have lost about 5,000 jobs in the past months (compared to Newton’s 1,800) and have not received anywhere near that kind of assistance.
Obviously this is all really good for Newton, but I trust that Boswell’s constituents won’t be so easily swayed by blatant political bribery.
