A few days ago, The Register wrote an article documenting State Representative Dawn Pettengill’s dissatisfaction with the Democratic leadership in the State House. Here’s a snippet:
“I’m just trying to get through this term as a Democrat,” said Pettengill, the former mayor of her hometown of Mount Auburn who is now in her third year in the Iowa House. “People elected me as a Democrat, and I would not change during a term, that’s for sure.”
Her indecision leaves Democratic leaders questioning whether they should recruit a replacement candidate for the 2008 primary, and Republican leaders wondering if she might be on their team by the general election.
Will she defect? Well, she says she won’t during this term. In general, though, I’m not too worried about it. Pettengill has always seemed concerned with her ability to get elected in a district that she perceives as leaning more Republican than Democrat. She has developed a reputation (partly, but not wholly, deserved) for being emotionally volatile. Although she has condemned other legislators’ pet projects and voted against them, she is somewhat famous for her own pet projects: last year, she sponsored legislation to ban stores from selling sex toys to minors, and this year, she was the main proponent of the bill that recently passed preventing Iowa from having any business dealings with businesses supporting the genocide in Darfur. (I don’t mean to claim that either of these bills is bad policy, but neither is exactly in the front of most Iowans’ minds.)
The Register notes a few key places where Pettengill differs from the Democratic leadership in the House, but none of them are cut and dry reasons for a defection to the Republicans (or even to the Independent ticket):
But the strain of the last month has taken a serious toll as she struggled with her dislike of bills dear to many Democrats — raising the minimum wage (she voted yes after some reluctance), upping the cigarette tax (she voted no), campaign finance reform (she may vote no), and allowing public employee unions to charge nonunion members a “fair share” fee (she firmly intends to vote no).
On raising the minimum wage, she did end up voting yes, and the political realities in her district meant that “some reluctance” on the vote was smart. On voting against the cigarette tax, she justifies her decision for liberal (dare I say Democratic) reasons:
During a caucus meeting on the cigarette tax two weeks ago, Pettengill wept as she explained that when she was 19 years old, she found herself living on her own with a baby, balancing college classes and a job. She couldn’t afford cigarettes, but they were such a critical source of comfort that she sacrificed food to buy them.
She objects to a cigarette tax because it is increcibly regressive — it takes money disproportionately from the poor, and, because it is a flat fee, it takes a greater percentage of the disposable income of a poor person than it does a rich person. Yes, it internalizes an externality, yadda yadda yadda; but there is a principled, liberal argument to be made against it. Frankly, I was surprised more members didn’t express that opinion. Maybe only a small minority of the party holds this view, but it isn’t because they are the more conservative members of the party.
On campaign finance reform, it really isn’t clear that all of the Democratic leadership are fully supporting the VOICE bill. Good liberals generally like it (despite the short-term strategic disadvantages it may present to parties currently in the majority of the legislature), but this isn’t exactly an issue that everyone is closely aligned over.
And finally, on FairShare, it disappoints many labor activists that Pettengill does not support it, but again, there is a fair amount of diversity among Democrats on this subject. Some have more union shops in their districts than others, and some have different opinions of labor unions than others. Our Democratic State Senator, Tom Reilly, voted against FairShare, and he isn’t leaving the party anytime soon. Again, it’s an issue where some people within the labor movement are doubting policies like this, so it isn’t’ only conservatives who oppose it.
So is it really just the House leadership’s fault that Pettengill is disgruntled, as others have claimed? No. The House leadership is doing its job. Their job is to push a Democratic agenda in the legislature, and they have to keep their members in line whenever they can. They’re getting results, and, unless Pettengill does end up defecting, no one will even remember this story in six months.
There has been quite a hullabaloo about Alberto Gonzalez and the US Justice Dept. of late. If you haven’t heard about it, check here for a good primer. Here in Iowa, we are dealing with a different scandal involving our US Attorney, but David Yepsen thinks it might be connected to the national scandal.
When (gay) Democratic State Senator Matt McCoy was indicted for allegedly using his elected position to “extort” a $2,000 consulting fee from a company he was working for, it made us look pretty bad. But Yepsen digs deeper and actually comes up with something interesting: it turns out that Matt Whitaker, the US Attorney prosecuting McCoy, is a homophobic Republican crony. Quoth Yepsen:
Whitaker is a Republican. And not just any Republican, but a socially conservative one who ran unsuccessfully for state treasurer in 2002 and could well be a candidate for office again.
He recently was in the news when he was scheduled to emcee an event for the Iowa Christian Alliance, a successor group to the Iowa Christian Coalition.
After first granting him permission to host the event, Whitaker said the Justice Department revoked it after objections from liberal groups. Instead, he just attended the meeting.
So he’s a Republican with ties to the Christian Coalition, which is basically the group that controls the Republican Party of Iowa. US Attorneys are, in a sense, political appointees, so that isn’t surprising. But Whittaker’s partisanship is unusual. Continuing:
Active involvement in ideological political action groups like that is rare for U.S. attorneys in Iowa — and even the Justice Department higher-ups seemed to think better of it. For good reason. McCoy is a Democrat. And not just any Democrat but an openly gay one.
So we now have the specter of a politically ambitious, evangelical Republican with ties to the religious right going after a gay Democrat.
Well, good. If anyone wants an example of the politically charged ‘duties’ of a US Attorney in the Bush administration, this should serve well.
Now that we’ve done overviews of the most vulnerable Democratic seats in the State Senate and our best pickup opportunities in 2008, it’s time to move on to the State House. Democrats picked up five seats in the Iowa House in 2007 to gain a 54-46 majority. The Republicans will be gearing up for 2008 determined to take back the majority under their leader, Chris Rants. But the Democrats have quite a few opportunities to pick up seats too. Here are our five best chances to gain seats:
1. Tami Wiencek (Waterloo) This is the only seat the Republicans picked up in 2006 and one they never should have picked up in the first place. 2006 was a Democratic year and Black Hawk County was no exception: Chet Culver won there with 58% of the vote, which was 3 points better than John Kerry in 2004 and 4 points better than Tom Vilsack in 2002. However, the Republicans managed to pick up a Democratic seat in Waterloo that a Democratic incumbent had won comfortably with over 60% of the vote in 2002 and 2004. What happened? The Democratic incumbent, Don Shoultz, got complacent and Wiencek ran a strong campaign and beat him by 300 votes. Wiencek benefited from being a well-liked local television anchor whereas Shoultz, a 24-year incumbent, was not exactly Waterloo’s most beloved citizen. This is a seat in a strongly Democratic area with a big Democratic registration advantage. It should be a Democratic seat. As a result, Wiencek is very vulnerable in 2008 and will have a tough time holding on to all the crossover voters who elected her in in 2006 with Shoultz off the ballot and with the Presidency up for grabs. Although she’s presenting herself as a moderate, it’s tough to imagine Bill Dotzler being represented by a Republican State Representative at all, let alone for more than one term.
2. Chuck Gipp (Allamakee and part of Winneshiek County) Over half the registered voters in Oklahoma are Democrats, however the state hasn’t voted for a Democratic candidate for President since 1964. Gipp’s district in the northeast corner of the state is Iowa’s version of Oklahoma. Although its voters may disproprtionately registered Republicans, many of them have been reliably voting Democrat for years. The district is heavily Republican in party registration (3,000 more Republicans than Democrats) and Gipp won with 59% of the vote in 2006. However, those party registration numbers hide that his district is actually much more Democratic than it looks. John Kerry actually won the district by a handful of votes in 2004. Winneshiek County was one of three counties in the state (along with Jasper and Poweshiek) that Gore lost and Kerry won, and Kerry improved on Al Gore’s performance in Allamakee County by nearly 5 percentage points. Gipp is retiring at the end of this term. Although he was able to maintain a strong hold on the seat as a popular incumbent, any Republican candidate in 2008 will have a much more difficult time. Allamakee County, which makes up half the district, was once reliably Republican. Bill Clinton barely won it in 1996, Chet Culver won it by 10 points in 2006. This changing political trends will make it a tough seat for the Republicans to hold on to without an incumbent running.
3. Dan Rasmussen (Buchanan and parts of Black Hawk and Fayette) Rasmussen is a three term incumbent from a strongly Democratic district. Despite receiving only 30% of the vote when he first ran for the State House as a sacrificial lamb, Rasmussen has quickly entrenched himself as a popular incumbent in Buchanan County. While Chet Culver romped home in the district, winning Buchanan County with 58% of the vote, Rasmussen managed to pull out a lead of 800 votes in the county over his Democratic opponent, Pete McRoberts. The district has a strong Democratic registration advantage and is the most Democratic state house district in the state with a Republican incumbent. John Kerry won the district with 54% of the vote in 2004. Rasmussen’s popularity spooked the Iowa Democratic Party in 2006 and support was pulled away from Pete McRoberts to other candidates who they saw as more promising. However, despite that, McRoberts still received 48% of the vote. Despite Rasmussen having the advantage of incumbency, this is a seat where the demographics just aren’t in his favor. If a Democratic candidate receives the necessary support in even a neutral year, this seat should be a Democratic pickup.
4. David Deyoe (Story County outside of Ames and part of Hamilton County) Deyoe’s district experienced two of the most competitive state legislative races in the state in 2006, both Deyoe’s 800 vote victory over Susan Radke and the hardfought slugfest between Democrat Rich Olive and Republican Jim Kurtenbach for State Senate that Olive won by 62 votes. However, while Radke lost, Chet Culver pulled out a narrow victory in the district. The big difference between Radke and Culver was their relative performance in the Democratic town of Nevada. Although both Deyoe and Radke were from Nevada, Deyoe was much more well liked. As a result, Deyoe received 55% in Nevada, almost the same percentage that Culver received. The district does have a strong Republican edge in voter registration but that’s connected with the traditional Republicanism of Story County. The district is definitely a swing district. If the Democrats field a strong candidate who could run with the rest of the ticket in Nevada, this is definitely a winnable district in 2008.
5. Doug Struyk (Council Bluffs) Struyk’s seat was won by a Democrat in 2002. Unfortunately, that Democrat was named Doug Struyk. Struyk defected in 2004 right at the filing deadline. The seat has always been relatively close and in 2006, Struyk won with only 53% against a nontargeted candidate who raised a mere $1400 in a nearly four month period leading up to the election. It’s a district that will be getting a lot more attention in 2008 as its State Senator is Mike Gronstal, who is arguably the most powerful man in the state right now. Gronstal will devote as many resources as possible to turning out a lot of Democratic voters in his district and that will help any candidate running against Struyk. Struyk himself is evidence that the district can elect Democrats and when someone endorsed John Kerry in 2004 and Mitt Romney in 2008, it’s fair to say that Struyk, like the candidates he supports, can be attacked as a flip flopper too. This will be an uphill race, but if enough resources are devoted to the seat, Struyk can and should be beat. The Democratic Party should have a zero tolerance policy for Benedict Arnolds and there’s no better place in Iowa to implement this policy than by beating Doug Struyk.
Other vulnerable seats held by Iowa House Republicans include (in alphabetical order): Betty DeBoef (Keokuk County, most of Iowa County and parts of Poweshiek and Tama), Polly Granzow (Hardin County and part of Marshall) Sandy Greiner (Washington County and parts of Jefferson and Johnson), Kraig Paulsen (Cedar Rapids), Thomas Sands (Louisa County and parts of Des Moines and Muscatine) and Bill Schickel (Mason City).
While most people think that the Iowa Legislature’s passage of a bill to authorize stem cell research was an important step that offers hope to tens of millions of Americans suffering a wide range of horrible diseases and ailments, there are some dissenting voices. A far-right wing Catholic organization called Fidelis denounced the passage of the bill as “a shameful and cowardly flip flop.” Fidelis also pointed out who the real villain was behind the bill. It wasn’t Chet Culver, Mike Gronstal or Pat Murphy. It was “California rock star” Sheryl Crow. Apparently Crow called a wavering Democratic state legislator and encouraged him to vote for the bill, although the legislator, Brian Quirk of New Hampton, said that he was swayed not by Crow, but by the more mundane concept of giving sick people hope. Despite that, Fidelis still attacked Sheryl Crow for her role in corrupting the state of Iowa. The attacks may not be true but all Fidelis really wants to do is have some fun.
On a side note, fierce stem cell opponent Betty DeBoef, voted for the bill. Why? Apparently, she pressed the wrong button on the voting machine. When you can’t operate a two button machine on one of the most important bills of the year, something’s really wrong. There have been rumors that DeBoef might retire for sometime. A mishap like this can only make it more likely that DeBoef will follow Iowa’s ban on stem cell research off into the sunset.
We recently did an overview of the top three opportunities for the Democrats to pick up seats in the Iowa State Senate in 2008. Now we’re going to take a look at the three most vulnerable seats that the Democrats have to defend. Although there are only ten Democrats in the State Senate up for re-election in 2008, many of them had close races in 2004 and will face fierce opposition from Republicans who have been pushing an agenda that would deny sick people the possibility of one day being cured, hurt working families and make it more difficult for Iowans to vote. Not exactly a popular combination, although unfortunately it will be a well funded one. Here are the three Democratic Senators who will have the toughest races in 2008:
1. Frank Wood (parts of Clinton and Scott Counties) In 2004, Wood defeated incumbent Republican State Senator Bryan Sievers in a race that was decided by less than 500 votes. Wood’s district comprises most of rural Scott and Clinton Counties and Republicans have an registration advantage of over 1,000 voters in the district. With this registration advantage, his district will be squarely targeted by the Republicans in 2008. His district also comprises the area represented by Elesha Gayman, who won an upset victory over her Republican opponent Jim Van Fossen in 2006, despite not being a targeted candidate. Gayman will have a major bulls eye on her back as Republicans need to win her seat to take back a majority in the Iowa House. The effort against her will help Wood’s Republican opponent as well. The GOP will also be building up its organization in Scott County after Chet Culver won the county by a tremendous margin of 9,000 votes. Even with a strong top of the ticket with Bruce Braley and Tom Harkin, Wood will face a very tough fight in this Republican-leaning district.
2. Tom Hancock (Jones and parts of Delaware and Dubuque Counties) In 2004, Tom Hancock defeated incumbent State Senator Julie Hosch by 122 votes. She had won the seat two years before by less than 500 votes. Hancock’s district comprises all of Jones County, along with rural Dubuque County and the parts of Delaware County that are south and east of Manchester. The district is very competitive, although Democrats have a registration advantage of 1,500 over the Republicans, over 40% of the voters are independents. However, Hancock will be running as an incumbent in 2008 and will have all the advantages of incumbency. Hancock won in 2004 despite running behind John Kerry in Delaware and Jones Counties and a very small advantage in the Democrats’ traditional strength of absentee ballots. Although this race will receive a lot of attention from both parties, a strong organization should put Hancock over the top in a neutral election climate. However, if there’s even a mild Republican lean in 2008, Hancock will be in trouble.
3. Tom Rielly (Keokuk and Poweshiek Counties, parts of Iowa, Mahaska and Tama Counties) Tom Rielly’s district is more Republican than that of any other Democratic State Senator up for election in 2008. However, Rielly has a solid base of support in otherwise heavily Republican Mahaska County (a county that is so Republican that Bill Clinton only received 40% of the vote there in 1996). Excluding absentee ballots, Rielly ran 10 points ahead of John Kerry in Mahaska County in 2004. Rielly also has the advantage of representing Grinnell, which is a strongly Democratic college town with very high student turnout. Poweshiek County, where Grinnell is located, is increasingly Democratic (it was one of three counties in Iowa that Bush won in 2000 and that John Kerry won in 2004). Rielly won the county by 700 votes in 2004 and should improve on that margin in 2008. The rest of the district comprises Keokuk County, which is slightly Republican leaning, though Rielly won it in 2004 and Iowa County (besides Marengo and the area immediately around it) which is a 50/50 county. Like Hancock, Rielly should be fine in a neutral climate but his big strength is a large number of ticket-splitters. If a candidate runs who can energize the Republican base, Rielly will have a hard fight. But if the rumors are true that someone like Danny Carroll will run, Rielly should be fine.
Other Democrats who will face highly competitive challenges in 2008 are: (in alphabetical order) Jeff Danielson (Black Hawk), Gene Fraise (Henry and Lee), Mike Gronstal (Pottawatomie) and Brian Schoenjahn (Buchanan and Clayton and parts of Black Hawk, Delaware and Fayette).
As John Deeth notes, Sandy Greiner, the eight term Republican incumbent from House District 89 (Washington County along with parts of Johnson and Jefferson Counties) will not seek re-election. Greiner faced a very competitive challenge from Mark Nolte in 2006 who, despite running in a heavily Republican district (2,000 more Republicans than Democrats) and not being a targeted candidate, lost by only 1,100 votes. Nolte was a long shot against Greiner in 2006 but he should be a very competitive candidate in 2008 since he will not be facing an incumbent.
Greiner’s retirement is the first of an expected wave of retirements among Republican lawmakers who have no desire to serve in the minority. It is typical for a minority party that has just lost power after a long reign as the majority to endure a wave of retirements. For example, in 1996, after the Republican sweep of both houses of Congress, 8 Democratic Senators and 30 Democratic Congressmen retired. This avalanche of open seats enabled the Republicans to consolidate their majorities in Congress. It is expected that Republican retirements will enable the Democrats to do the same in Des Moines. The Democrats already have several good opportunities to pick up seats in the State Senate before factoring in any open seats. As more Republicans retire, even more seats will come into play as popular incumbents like Greiner decide to leave politics. The Republicans have been losing seats in both the State House and the State Senate for the past two elections and if more incumbents like Greiner decide to retire, the third time will most definitely not be the charm.
