Search Results for ‘appearance’
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.
May 28th, 2008
Frankly, none of us here at IowaProgress have any reason to believe that this rumor is true, but we wanted to report that, after Edwards cancelled an appearance in Indianola, Iowa on Tuesday night to fly home to North Carolina, rumors in campaign circles that Edwards may be dropping out began to make the rounds (we first heard rumblings yesterday morning). We want to stress that this is a wholly unverified rumor, but enough people have been repeating it that it seemed worthwhile to report that it’s out there among Iowa politicos.
The story from the Edwards campaign is that the Senator flew home to support his wife at a medical checkup appointment. This diary from Edwards’s online community reflects what Edwards’s supporters are thinking, and we will echo the good wishes written there. We sincerely hope that Elizabeth Edwards’s health is OK and that this rumor and the Senator’s unexpected event cancellation will turn out to be much ado about nothing.
That said, the Edwards campaign’s Events Page has only two upcoming events scheduled, both of which will take place in the next 10 days. Moreover, it is not clear that either of the two events listed will require the Senator’s attendance (one is a nation-wide day of house parties, and the other is a concert featuring a member of Dave Matthews Band other than Dave Matthews).
John and Elizabeth Edwards have scheduled a press conference in Chapel Hill at noon today, and it’s being characterized as “something major.” We hope it isn’t bad news.
I just want to stress that the decision to post a story about this unverified rumor was not made lightly. After hearing about it early Wednesday, we spent a full day deliberating before posting. Reporting on rumors has a tendency to perpetuate stories that are false and potentially damaging, and we didn’t want to do that. But the rumor is significant enough that we felt that the very fact that it was circulating, regardless of its truth or falsity, was worth reporting.
March 22nd, 2007
In today’s Des Moines Register, Tom Beaumont officially bestows the mantle of frontrunner in the caucuses on John Edwards. Now that Tom Vilsack has dropped out, there is no native son running and everyone can comfortably call Edwards the frontrunner. Beaumont notes that being the frontrunner gives Edwards’ certain advantages but it also means that he now has even more riding on the caucuses.
However, there are rumors in Des Moines that Edwards may have an ace up his sleeve. There has always been a close relationship between Edwards and Chet Culver. Their staffers are to some extent, interchangeable. Key Culver staffers like Patrick Dillon and Brad Anderson worked for Edwards in 2004 (and in Anderson’s case, on his 1998 Senate race.) In fact, Edwards’ state director, Jennifer O’Malley, is engaged to Culver’s Chief of Staff, Patrick Dillon. These ties are the tip of the iceberg. The Culver and Edwards people are heavily intertwined, and the list of connections goes far deeper. The current rumor is that while Chet Culver will not endorse any candidate (since he has to preserve Iowa’s first in the nation status), Mari Culver will endorse John Edwards at some point. This would follow the precedent set in 2004, where Christie Vilsack served as a surrogate for her husband in endorsing John Kerry.
Mari Culver’s commercial during the campaign where she called her husband “a big lug” was considered a turning point in the campaign. It’s unclear exactly how important an endorsement from Mari Culver would be for the Edwards campaign. But it would definitely help Edwards’ standing as the “frontrunner” and add momentum whenever he decides to make Mari Culver’s endorsement public. ( This is assuming, of course, that this speculation is correct)
While we’re speculating on endorsements, it’s worth noting that Mike Gronstal and Tom Courtney appeared at a Chris Dodd event in Des Moines last week. It’s the first reported public appearance at a Presidential candidate’s event by either man. With Vilsack out of the race, state legislators will have a lot more freedom to endorse and it will be interesting to see if either Gronstal or Courtney take advantage of that freedom. An endorsement by either man would give Dodd a lot more credibility in Iowa.
February 25th, 2007
The Des Moines Register reports that Tom Vilsack is ending his bid to be President today. Vilsack will apparently cite his inability to raise the money necessary to compete successfully for the Democratic nomination. It had long been rumored that Vilsack had serious financial woes due to weak fundraising and the need to pay the large field staff he had already hired. Although Vilsack had attracted quite a bit of grassroots support in Iowa and was still neck and neck with first tier candidates in a recent poll of caucusgoers, his support outside the Hawkeye State was minimal.
Tom Vilsack was the first serious Presidential contender to announce he was running and is the first to drop out. Although it’s not a surprise that Vilsack campaign didn’t pan out. However, that he’s dropping out almost a year before the caucuses and only a week after Vilsack made a relatively successful appearance on the Tonight Show is a shock. What the most disturbing thing is that Vilsack’s campaign is ending this early. In 1960, John F. Kennedy didn’t start his campaign until December 1959, in 2000, George W. Bush didn’t start to run until June 1999, now we have candidates dropping out 21 months before the election. It is a disturbing trend.
February 23rd, 2007
Hotline On Call has a poll that shows Americans are just as likely to vote for a homosexual as they are to vote for a 72 year old for President. The poll also shows that Americans are significantly more uncomfortable casting their ballots for a Mormon or for someone on their third marriage than they are about voting for a African-American or a woman. This is not good news for Republicans. However, they can take hope from the fact that the poll doesn’t do anything to ascertain how Americans feel about voting for the children of millworkers.
But this age bias spells trouble for McCain. McCain hasn’t looked well in recent television appearances and considering that the rest of the major Republican contenders all look relatively youthful, it will not present a good contrast when McCain makes joint appearances with other candidates at debates and forums.
In other news, Ron Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas and possible Presidential candidate, introduced a bill to legalize growing hemp in the United States. The bill’s co-sponsors include senior Democrats like George Miller and Barney Frank as well as Dennis Kucinich. Paul also recently introduced a bill that would have the United States withdraw from the UN. However, Kucinich did not co-sponsor that bill.
Finally, it’s worth noting that the first television advertisements of 2008 are up in Iowa. Duncan Hunter has already started advertising on local television in Des Moines. Hunter also received glowing praise from George Will the other day. However, Hunter is still firmly parked in the back of the pack among Republican candidates and shows no sign of making any progress. But he still has at least one person who think he’s the best Republican President candidate ever. After all, Hunter is the only candidate running from either party to speak out against the Chinese threat to Panama.
February 17th, 2007
Tom Vilsack’s campaign blog has the video of his appearance on tonight’s Tonight Show with Jay Leno. I’d say he did a fair job, although Jim Carrey tries pretty hard to throw him off his game. Here’s the video:
Click To Play
February 16th, 2007
Wal-Mart occupies a special place in the demonology of the American Left–and with good reason. Its business practices lead to the exploitation of workers both at home and overseas and it has paved its path to success on the destruction of countless American small businesses, most of which were located in small towns like Grinnell. These sins have been extensively catagoried by organizations like Wake Up WalMart.
However, Wal-Mart seems to be taking steps to remediate these issues. Most notably, the front page of the New York Times today has an article that describes how Wal-Mart is using its power as the largest store in the nation to encourage consumers to buy more energy-efficient light bulbs. Compared to a traditional incandescent light bulb, a compact flourescent light bulb “uses 75 percent less electricity, lasts 10 times longer, produces 450 pounds fewer greenhouse gases from power plants and saves consumers $30 over the life of each bulb. But it is eight times as expensive as a traditional bulb, gives off a harsher light and has a peculiar appearance.” This is part of an ongoing effort by Wal-Mart to become a better corporate citizen and address a lot of the criticism it’s received. In fact, its new chief lobbyist is a former official in the Clinton Adminstration.
So do these efforts mean Wal-Mart has changed its stripes? I don’t know but it does seem to have some interesting political ramifications. It puts John Edwards, who has taken an active part in the anti-Wal-Mart campaign as part of his attempt to reposition himself as the progressive candidate in 2008, in an interesting position. He’s now criticizing an environmental do-gooder. While Hillary Clinton, who was a member of Wal-Mart’s board until her husband ran for President, doesn’t have to run so far from her past involvement with the largest company in Arkansas. While no Democrat will embrace Wal-Mart (after all, with enemies like SEIU and the UFCW, you’re not going to have a lot of Democrats who want to be your friends), how they address the issue will be important. It’s the difference between a nuanced position that won’t alienate corporate contributors and an all-out attack that will be a bid for support from organized labor.
The question is whether by word or by deed, Wal-Mart will be successful at changing its stripes so that an attack on its corporate practices is merely doing the bidding of labor unions rather than defending working Americans. The success of Wal-Mart’s efforts may not just determine its corporate image but the image of Presidential candidates as well.
January 2nd, 2007
This story was a little too hard to resist. Tom Vilsack was in my hometown of West Palm Beach, FL, today, at what I know to be a depressingly suburban steakhouse, courting Palm Beach County Democrats:
If Tom Vilsack were president today, troops would begin leaving south and central Iraq, Congress would have to find a way to dig the country out of growing debt, and the nation would embrace the call to make itself less dependent on imported fuel.
So goes Vilsack’s pitch for the 2008 presidency - one he served up Monday after the Caesar salad at Mark’s CityPlace.
Maybe I’m behind in realizing this only now, but picturing Vilsack in a place like Mark’s Steakhouse in the suburban, faux-Parisian strip-mall nightmare that is CityPlace West Palm Beach is really strange to me. I can picture him at a union hall, an outdoor steak fry, a VFW hall, a small-town cafe, and all the places Iowa politicians generally make appearances, but not in an overpriced bistro/steak house adjacent to designer shoe boutiques and tacky art galleries. I’ll be interested to see what the actual newspaper article will look like in tomorrow’s paper — if there even is one. If the local reaction seems positive, I’ll be impressed.
December 13th, 2006
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.
September 22nd, 2006
The rumors are going around, and Vilsack is set to appear with Hillary in DC this week at a Democratic Governors Association press conference. Here’s how the Register reports it:
Some pundits as well as Democratic activists have suggested Vilsack would be a good fit on a ticket with Clinton as presidential nominee. Both are active in the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, and both have insisted they will not demand a specific date for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
A few days back, Hotline proposed some theories about the role Hillary could play in the race for the ‘08 Democratic nomination. Theory 1:
…unless she either doesn’t run or appears very vulnerable early on , one theory of the case holds that they will spend their time cozying up to her and tearing into each other. (Grover Norquist endorses that theory, too.) At least in part, they’ll try to use the primaries to audition for the general election.
To be clear: Bayh, Warner, Bill Richardson, Tom Vilsack — they all want to be president, not vice president. But they will almost certainly hedge their bets. They will not run a true-blue, rouse-the-base primary campaign.
Theory 2, however, simply says that Hillary is too polarizing a figure and won’t get anywhere. In that case, though, candidates might still stick to centrist rhetoric in an effort to distinguish themselves from Clinton (if the voters aren’t convinced by Hillary’s current centrist bent).
Frank Luntz’s piece today doesn’t talk much about this, but Luntz does attempt to lay out a strategy for Hillary to get elected. I’m really not sure a short, public essay could possibly prove useful to a presidential campaign, but here’s his first recommendation:
First, she must be herself. Her recent tack to the right - from equivocating on the Iraq war, to supporting a ban on flag burning - is fooling no one and is seriously agitating her liberal base. The reason Hillary became so popular in the first place was her unflinching willingness to tell it like it is. She must say what she means, and mean what she says.
Similarly, recent efforts by Clinton to inject religious references into her speeches to prove she’s a person of faith is like fingernails on a chalkboard to Democrat primary voters. Clinton must win the primary first - then worry about the general election. If Democrats really cared about religion, they’d be Republicans.
Will she? And is she really the vicious liberal that Luntz thinks she is in the first place? Perhaps, but it’s not looking like it right now.
I should also note that our coverage of 2008 contenders has been spotty of late. Our schedules haven’t permitted us to attend the candidates’ appearances across the state (which isn’t to say we don’t like getting the invitations, so thanks to the staffers who have kept us on their mailing lists…), so we’ve been reading Chris’s coverage on PoliticalForecast. We hope to get better as our schedules permit, but we still plan to spend more time analyzing the political issues facing Iowa than we’ll spend on national political celebrity watch.
And check out MyDD’s presidential straw poll, now reinstated. Chris Bowers rightly discontinued it four months ago because of how repetitive the results were, but maybe things will be different now.
July 17th, 2006
Previous Posts
