Search Results for ‘barack obama’
In an interview the other day, Ed Fallon stated “if coal interests want to research clean coal technology and carbon sequestration they, not the tax-payers, should fund the research.” This is a noble statement based on a belief in renewable energy and a green future. Unfortunately it’s not based on reality. The most ambitious goal for renewable energy involves Americans getting 20% from our energy from renewable sources in the next 20 years. So where do we get the remaining 80% of our energy? While natural gas is relatively clean, it is a commodity that cannot be transported across oceans. The U.S. currently gets about 25% of its energy from natural gas. This leaves 55% of our energy to be accounted for and three possibilities, coal, oil and nuclear energy. Fallon has expressed his opposition to coal and also is vehemently against nuclear energy, stating that “When all costs are factored in, nuclear power is the most expensive source of energy. More nuclear power plants mean more plutonium, and reactor-grade plutonium can be used to make a nuclear weapon. And there is no real solution to the problem of storing nuclear wastes.” So that leaves one source of energy acceptable to Ed Fallon to supply over half of America’s energy needs, imported foreign oil.
Relying on foreign oil is bad for the environment, bad for consumers already paying high gas prices and bad for the United States as a whole, as it forces our economy to continue to rely on oil imported from the Middle East. Fallon’s opposition to coal seems to be demagoguery, designed to play on the fears of environmentalists opposed to the Marshalltown coal plant, rather than real environmental policy. While no one can argue that coal is the best source of energy for the United States, unfortunately, compared to oil or nuclear, it is probably the least bad of the three. But with increased funding and emphasis on clean coal research, coal will become much more environmentally friendly. In fact, clean coal is a central part of Barack Obama’s energy plan.
Unlike oil, coal doesn’t have to be imported from Middle Eastern nations and unlike nuclear power, it doesn’t produce radioactive waste that will last for tens of thousands of years. In contrast, the United States has a plentiful supply of coal. In fact, Iowa’s third district is sitting on significant coal deposits and towns like Melcher-Dallas and Lucas used to be coal mining centers.
A lot of work and research still needs to be done to make clean coal a reality. Ed Fallon seems to think that this work should be left to private businesses, not the government. While this free market attitude is nice in theory, it is not based in reality. Without government funding over the past few decades, the United States has lagged far behind in research in solar energy and wind energy. Stripping government funding for clean coal research would be just as disastrous. In the meantime, Fallon would rather have us import oil instead. With an energy policy based on reliance on free markets and importing foreign oil, Fallon seems to want to continue the George Bush-Dick Cheney energy plan. Such a misguided attitude would be disastrous for our country and disastrous for our planet.
May 27th, 2008
The other day, the Iowa State Senate voted by a margin of 47-2 to close the Fallon Loophole that allows candidates to pay themselves with campaign funds. The issue of candidates paying themselves salaries with campaign funds came to the fore after it was revealed that Fallon paid himself nearly $14,000 in campaign funds after losing his 2006 bid for Governor. While Fallon attacked this initiative as “status quo politics at its worst” and described the bill as a “silly bill.” However, it is no different than legislation passed by Barack Obama in the Illinois State Senate which prevented candidates from paying themselves with campaign funds in that state. While Fallon, after being paid by John Edwards during the caucuses, is now an enthusiastic supporter of Obama, it seems Fallon does not share Obama’s zeal for change in this aspect of campaign finance reform.
It’s also worth noting that the only two Senators who wanted to keep the Fallon Loophole opened were Jack Hatch, who represents Fallon’s former district and has to kowtow to Fallon’s base and Mary Lundby, the former Republican leader in the Senate who openly displayed her contempt for organized labor last year.
There was a time when Ed Fallon would have proud that any campaign finance reform bill passed by a margin of 47-2. Now he calls it silly and displays open disdain for a small step forward for good government and honest politicians. It’s sad that once again, as with I’M For Iowa, Fallon values his own personal gain over campaign finance reform.
April 23rd, 2008
Ed Fallon has attacked the attempt to close the “Fallon Loophole,” the practice of professional politicians paying themselves salaries with campaign funds, as “status quo politics at its worst.” As laughable as this statement may be, Fallon’s own reprehensible actions show why the legislature must take action.
While Fallon defend paying himself from campaign funds by stating “Most candidates aren’t as fiscally responsible as I am. They finish in the red. I managed to finish in the black,” Fallon was lying at the time. According to an amended campaign finance report filed by his gubernatorial campaign the very same day his quote appeared in the Des Moines Register, Fallon for Governor was $21,225.51 in debt. This debt had been growing since the end of the campaign, mostly fueled by Fallon’s salary, although significant payments were also made to Fallon’s girlfriend, Lynn Heuss and Fallon’s daughter Fionna received smaller payments as well. While Fallon was an advocate for Iowa’s “Mom and Pop businesses” while running for Governor, he never made it clear that he considered his campaign to be one of those businesses.
It is behavior like this that shows why the legislature needs to stop other politicians from following in Ed Fallon’s sleazy footsteps. After all, a ban on this sort of activity was a fundamental part of the ethics reform legislation that Barack Obama passed in Illinois. But unfortunately, the legislature can’t protect everyone from Fallon’s serial profligacy. His campaign has less than $3000 in net assets and a payroll of roughly $40,000 a month and Fallon already has a history of leaving his campaigns deep in debt. If I was a Fallon staffer, I would insist on getting paid in cash.
April 17th, 2008
Although we find it a bit repetitive and dull writing about Ed Fallon, one would think that the Fallon campaign would feel the same way about lying. Unfortunately, Fallon’s now endemic dishonesty was exposed again. A Fallon press release claimed that the FEC had given Fallon a clean bill of ethical health after mounting evidence of Fallon committing campaign finance violations. Unfortunately, the FEC didn’t. According to FEC spokesman George Smaragdis, “no Commission employee made any determination relative to the specific circumstances of any campaign. Only the Commission can make such a determination.” Even prior to the FEC disavowing Fallon’s claims, suspicions were raised due to the fact Fallon never used a direct quote or cited a specific FEC employee by name in his press release.
However, the same Fallon staffer who contacted the FEC, campaign manager Lynn Heuss, was the same Fallon staffer who told the Iowa Campaign and Ethics Board that Fallon was considering a third party bid for Governor, something Fallon immediately denied and claimed was a miscommunication. This comes after earlier this week when Fallon lied about his income from I’m for Iowa. Between that and his false claim of a statement from the FEC, that’s a minimum of two outright Fallon lies this week alone. In fact, there’s even a third lie if you believe Fallon was actually lying about considering a third party run for Governor in 2006, considering that Heuss is Fallon’s current and former campaign manager, former legislative aide, partner in I’M for Iowa and is registered to vote at the same address as Fallon. One presumes that a miscommunication between two people so close on a such a basic question would be rather unlikely.
It’s sad that Fallon, a former clean elections advocate, has sunk so low. When the Iowa House tries to pass a bill to ban candidates from paying themselves (incidentally, one of the election law reforms Barack Obama passed in Illinois), he attacks the Democratic Party leadership as “bought and paid for” and expresses the hope that, unless his favored clean elections legislation passes, Democrats lose their majority in the Iowa House. It seems that Fallon doesn’t just support Ralph Nader anymore, he’s starting to warm towards Chris Rants too.
The shame of it is that Fallon believes everything he’s doing is right. He’s been so caught up in his crusade for Congress, he seems to have lost track of right and wrong. He’s a clean elections advocate who is refusing to disclose donors to his amorphous partnership. He’s a man running on integrity who is brazenly lying. One is reminded of a Greek tragedy, or at least the Alec Guinness character from Bridge on the River Kwai. He’s so caught up and obsessed with his bid for Congress, he thinks no one will notice when he makes up FEC opinions, not even the FEC itself. Imbued with self-righteousness, Fallon seems to think he’s starring in Mr. Smith Goes To Washington when he’s merely playing the title role in Billy Liar.
April 3rd, 2008
According to a giant nationwide poll conducted by Survey USA, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would beat John McCain in a general election but only Obama would win Iowa. The poll consisted of separate statewide polls that gave Obama a win based on a strong performance west of the Mississippi River while Clinton’s win was based on strength in winning big states like Pennsylvania and Florida despite losing some of the smaller states that the poll thought Obama could win.
However, in Iowa, the poll shows Obama trouncing McCain by 50-41 while Clinton loses 46-41. Obama outperforms Clinton in almost every category in Iowa, save Hispanic voters, and even wins traditionally Republican Northwest Iowa. In fact, the poll shows Obama not just winning Northwest Iowa but winning North Dakota and turning Iowa’s western neighbors, South Dakota and Nebraska into swing states.
Now, this is just a poll taken 8 months before a general election and there still is a lot of campaigning to be done and any general election numbers have to be taken with a grain of salt. But what the poll clearly shows is that Barack Obama has a distinct strength in the Great Plains, putting states into play for the Democrats that, with the exception of 1964, have been consistently Republican since the end of the New Deal. And this Great Plains region includes Western Iowa.
If this poll holds up, it seems clear that with Barack Obama and Tom Harkin on the ticket, Iowa Democrats have the potential to have an better year than 2006 and stand a decent chance at picking up the 4th Congressional District seat. This is not to say that Hillary as the nominee would be a disaster. But, in Iowa, the numbers seem to indicate that Obama has the best coattails for congressional and legislative candidates and the chance to even realign Iowa politics by weakening the Republican hold on Western Iowa.
March 6th, 2008
While Christopher Rants proclaimed that Iowa House Republicans will regain their majority as the party of health care and education, the two leading staffers at the Republican Party of Iowa were fired by new Chairman Stu Iverson. While Iowa Republicans had a mixed record in 2004 and a colossal collapse in 2006, it doesn’t help to be starting from scratch nine months before the election. Rants can talk about how vulnerable Eric Palmer or Elesha Gayman are until he turns blue in the face but if there is no party infrastructure behind their challengers, he’ll still be talking about how Palmer and Gayman are vulnerable incumbents in 2010. The Republicans do not have the necessary campaign infrastructure and if their message is to run against Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton on health care, they’re not going to have much luck with that either.
February 16th, 2008
Ed Fallon made his primary challenge official against Leonard Boswell today. As part of our continuing analysis of the race, it’s worth previewing one of Fallon’s likely attacks against Boswell. Fallon is a campaign finance reform fanatic and Boswell has taken a lot of money from political action committees. In fact, in the first three quarters of 2007, Boswell has taken in $433,000 in contributions from PACs, making up 75% of total contributions recieved. Much of the money is the result of a simple matter of timing. Leonard Boswell is a senior member of the House Agriculture Committee and this was the year that the Farm Bill came up for a renewal.
But Boswell received significant contributions from organized labor and fellow Democrats in the House. Boswell received, by Iowa Progress’s count, contributions from 17 different labor unions along with the AFL-CIO totaling $85,000. Boswell’s contributors run the full gamut of the American Labor Movement. Boswell took in contributions from unions ranging from SEIU and UNITE HERE to the Ironworkers and the Machinists. Boswell’s congressional support is just as broad. Boswell received support from 17 of his Congressional colleagues, along with support from DCCC and $9000 in contributions from Barack Obama’s PAC, Hopefund. Boswell’s contributions include Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. And while it’s not surprising that Boswell took in contributions from fellow “Blue Dog” Democrats like Alan Boyd and Mike McIntyre, Boswell also received support from leading liberals like Barney Frank and Jan Schakowsky and from fellow Iowa Congressman, Bruce Braley.
In contrast to his contributions from PACs, Boswell’s individual contributors overwhelmingly came from Iowa and over 86% of his individual contributors were Iowans. But what’s most interesting is the contrasts within his contributions. Boswell took in money both from the National Pork Producers Council and from the League of Conservation Voters. Not only that, Boswell is perhaps the only Congressman who took in contributions from the NRA and the Human Rights Campaign.
Leonard Boswell has a broad range of contributors, this stems from the fact that he is a Democratic congressman in a swing district who has a lot of seniority on a major committee. But at the core, Boswell has clear support from fellow Democrats and from labor unions. Although, while Fallon may see the initial appeal of attacking Boswell on PAC contributions, it might not profit him. After all, it doesn’t suit his message to remind Democratic voters that in a Congressional District that George W. Bush won, it might be helpful in a general election to have a Democrat who can boast the support of both Nancy Pelosi and the NRA.
January 9th, 2008
Rudy Giuliani is running a new advertisement in New Hampshire that the campiagn has named “Ready” and is proudly touting on its websites. The ad, which uses a voiceover fresh out of a “300″ preview, shows images of angry crowds burning flags, shouting in other languages, and protesting. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is suggested to be a madman, Bhutto represents democracy under attack, and an explosion rocks a busy intersection. To top it off, an image of Bin Laden fades into the silhouette of the World Trade Center rubble.
This is supposed to scare you into voting for Rudy. The ad claims that he is tested and ready. But it gives no reasons as to why he is ready. It also neglects to mention that part of the budget to defend the people of New York went to having police officers walk his mistress’s dog. There is a problem with priorities here that the American people may not (and if Iowa was any evidence, do not) like.
The ad also mentions nothing about why Rudy would be the best candidate for fighting terrorism. The only reason this blogger can imagine is that his reckless foreign policies will cause more terrorism, leading to more time spent fighting terrorism.
The politics of fear won in 2002 and 2004 (when Dean ran with a more hopeful message), and the Republicans benefited from it. But if the success of Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama are any indication, hope will be the winning message in 2008. Could we see an end to the politics of fear? Probably not entirely, but polls are showing the Republican national security advantage over Democrats is going away. Voting through fear may loose traction to hope and vision this cycle.
January 6th, 2008
Barack Obama won the Iowa Caucuses tonight by a significant margin boosted by strong support from registered Independents and first time caucusgoers. However, the most striking example of this was in Eldridge, Iowa. The Obama precinct captain there was 2006 Independent Congressional candidate James Hill. Hill ran with his party affiliation as Pirate and garnered 2201 votes. This exemplifies the lead shown by Obama among self described Independents. Unfortunately though, none of the polls asked prospective caucusgoers if they self-identified as pirates.
January 3rd, 2008
Iowa City is holding a referendum on November 6 over whether to continue to allow people aged 19 and 20 to visit bars. Opponents of underage drinking are fighting to pass the referendum, underaged drinkers, specifically University of Iowa students, are getting mobilized to oppose it (as is every bar owner within a mile of the Ped Mall.) Since this is in Iowa, there has already been an obligatory piece wondering about the effect this might have in the caucuses. In an article on Slate, Christopher Beam seems to think that this is good for Barack Obama because students will be registered in time for the caucuses. Beam neglects the two important facts. First and most importantly, Beam doesn’t realize that you can register at the caucuses. In addition, Beam neglects the fact that none of the students will actually be in Iowa City on caucus night and thus the fact that they are registered there is almost totally irrelevant.
However, this does have one small effect for the caucuses. A voter registration form captures a lot of important information including address, telephone number and sometimes email. Provided that this information is added to the voter file, the Obama campaign (and all other caucus campaigns) will be able to contact hundreds more students than they would before (as they would have no way to contact them as they weren’t registered voters). It doesn’t mean that any of the newly registered students will show up for the caucuses either in Iowa City or in their hometown but it is now a lot more likely that a campaign will ask these newly registered students to show up to the caucuses. It helps Obama slightly (presuming that he is the default student candidate in Iowa City) but it is doubtful whether it will help him net more than a handful of extra caucusgoers on caucus night.
October 24th, 2007
Previous Posts
