Search Results for ‘bill fallon’
More than a week after the primary, it’s time to put Leonard Boswell’s victory over Ed Fallon into perspective. While the Fallon campaign is claiming “a partial victory,” the facts don’t bear out the silver lining that Fallon is trying to discern from his defeat. (Although after such a devastating loss, one certainly can understand while Fallon is looking for a silver lining). Fallon seems to think that his primarying Boswell was the reason Leonard Boswell’s voting record suddenly improved in 2007. However, Fallon didn’t have anything to do with it. Nancy Pelosi did. Democrats taking control of the House of Representatives meant that Republicans weren’t able to bring bills up that would place Democrats in swing districts like Boswell in tough positions. Once they weren’t and once Democrats had a governing majority in the House, Boswell was able to take better votes even though he still represents a district that George Bush won in 2004. Boswell supported a lot of progressive bills before Fallon declared his candidacy, during the campaign and will continue to do so now. Fallon’s claims otherwise are just attempts to justify his defeat and find a partial victory in a 22 point loss.
In terms of Iowa politics, it’s pretty clear Ed Fallon’s political career is over. Although Fallon had pockets of strength in North and West sides of Des Moines, Fallon still wasn’t able to win his former House District, HD 66 and was throughly trounced in the rural areas by margins not seen in a federal election in Iowa since Art Small was beat by Chuck Grassley. Despite Fallon’s much vaunted army of volunteers, his field efforts proved poor as turnout was low in his base precincts and he lost absentee ballots in Polk County by a nearly 3 to 1 margin (and by even more lopsided margins outside Polk County). In addition, Fallon is now bogged down by $35,000 in campaign debt, in addition to the $21,000 of debt still listed on his gubernatorial campaign account. If Fallon had won, or even lost narrowly, he might have had a strong claim to political credibility. Instead, he is firmly a niche candidate, one popular in Sherman Hill and among the Volvo drivers South of Grand but not anywhere else.
Boswell’s left flank is once again totally secure. Having easily fended off Fallon’s challenge, it seems clear he will be the Democratic nominee for Congress until he doesn’t want to be. However, Boswell, in the past few cycles, has proven to be much more vulnerable in off year elections than in Presidential years. While he should be able fend off Kim Schmett successfully, Boswell certainly be an NRCC target once again in 2010.
Polk County politics should also change too. The failure of the Fallon’s base to turn out shows the continued impotences of his limousine liberal base in local Democratic politics. The power in the Polk County Democratic Party will continue to reside on the southern banks of the Des Moines River for the near future.
In short, almost nothing has changed as a result of Fallon’s congressional run. Leonard Boswell is just as liberal as he was before and just as secure as the Democratic nominee as he was before. The balance of power has not changed in Polk County politics or on Capitol Hill. The only difference is that Ed Fallon has thrown his political career away in a quixotic challenge against a relatively progressive Democrat in a swing district and only has a debt of $35,000 to show for it.
June 12th, 2008
Although Ed Fallon has been painted as unelectable for a variety of reasons, including his support for Ralph Nader in 2000, what really makes him vulnerable is his repeated votes to protect sex offenders versus the general public. Fallon was the only state representative to vote against a bill that banned sex offenders from living within 2000 feet of a school or day care center, Fallon was the only member of the Iowa House to voted against against extending the statute of limitations for prosecuting child sex abuse, Fallon was the only member of the Iowa House to vote against increased funding to monitor sex offenders and Fallon also voted against tougher penalties against people who solicit children to commit a sex act. Fallon even cast the sole vote against making bestiality a crime!
This repeated pattern of voting against public safety raises grave questions about Fallon’s judgment. While some Democrats have been painted as “soft on crime” in campaigns in the past, it is apparent from Ed Fallon’s record that he is one of the few who is genuinely soft on crime and in a highly disturbing way. This is not about someone who favors rehabilitating prisoners, Ed Fallon wants sex offenders to be able to avoid prosecution for their crimes. This is not someone who thinks non-violent offenders shouldn’t be in jail, Ed Fallon thinks child molesters shouldn’t be imprisoned. Not to mention that although Ed Fallon crusades against hog lots, “Sex Ed” seems to think that sexually assaulting animals is perfectly fine.
“Sex Ed” Fallon has a record that is disturbingly out of touch with most people’s basic values. He finds campaign finance reforms promoted by Paul Wellstone and Russ Feingold to be appalling but thinks it’s perfectly fine to have sex with sheep. He thinks its acceptable to make up statements from the FEC but it’s wrong to lock away people convicted of molesting children. While Fallon may boast a degree in Religious Studies, it’s clear that he didn’t take too many courses in morality.
May 28th, 2008
Although Ed Fallon claims Paul Wellstone and Russ Feingold to be heroes, he diverges from Wellstone and Feingold on an important policy position, the so-called “Fallon Loophole.” The Fallon Loophole refers to the practice when politicians pay themselves salaries with campaign money, a practice typically considered to be unethical that the State Legislature tried to end during the last legislative session. Fallon attacked this bill as “status quo politics at its worst” and “a silly bill.” However, it seems two of the men Fallon would claim as heroes, Paul Wellstone and Russ Feingold would strenuously disagree.
In 1995, John Kerry introduced an amendment to close the Fallon Loophole federally. Unfortunately, it failed but gained the support of Paul Wellstone and Russ Feingold, not to mention Tom Harkin, Ted Kennedy and every other committed progressive in the Senate.
However, a lot of people did agree with Ed Fallon that closing the Fallon Loophole was “a silly bill.” Fallon can claim the support of Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, Trent Lott and Rick Santorum. They shared Ed Fallon’s belief that this bill represented “status quo politics at its worst.” It’s good to know that Ed Fallon can claim such distinguished company in his campaign to fight “the status quo” by lining his own pockets.
May 19th, 2008
Ed Fallon attacked a mailing by Leonard Boswell today that criticized Fallon for his support of Ralph Nader as “very cynical [and] very deceptive” today. Iowa Progress has previously addressed Fallon’s support for Nader, including his statement that “I can’t, I won’t and you shouldn’t [vote for Al Gore] either” in a speech that was reproduced nationally. As a result of the strong Nader organizing in Iowa, in which Ed Fallon was actively involved, the Gore campaign had to devote a disproportionate amount of resources to a state that Michael Dukakis won handily in 1988 and that Bill Clinton won twice. Gore even was in Iowa the day before the election in 2000. If Al Gore instead could have paid an extra visit to Florida or was able to run a few more ads there, it certainly would have shifted 500 votes and changed history.
But the larger issue is that while Fallon has no compulsion about attacking Boswell (and implying that reporting on subjects like I’M For Iowa done by independent reporters like Chase Martyn and Tom Beaumont comes from the Boswell press office). In fact, Fallon’s website is flush with cynical and deceptive statements such as “Boswell is bought and paid for by special interests,” Boswell “practices ‘the politics of deception,’” “Boswell…betrays American and Iowa values.’ In fact, Fallon’s attacks on Boswell go back to 2006 when Boswell was one of three most vulnerable Democratic incumbents in the country. Fallon sent out an email then calling Boswell’s campaign “offensive” and attacking him for “name calling, record-distorting and fear mongering.” Fallon did this a week before absentee ballots were sent out in 2006. However, this attack did show how Fallon’s sense of party loyalty improved since 2000. He only attacked a fellow Democrat in a tight election, rather than openly campaigning against him as well. Frankly, it seems Ed Fallon’s real complaint is that his fiscal irresponsibility keeps him from having any money to spend on paid media as even the Politico points out.
Fallon is running in a Democratic primary as someone with a history of disloyalty, dishonesty and sleaze if he can’t handle that being pointed out now, one can only imagine what the Republicans would do to him in a general election.
April 23rd, 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
As much there was the hope that something would emerge to comment upon, other than Ed Fallon’s continued trawl through the gutters of dishonesty, sleaze and self-aggrandizement, it is disappointing that it is just Fallon’s political tone-deafness. Barney Frank, as the first openly gay man in Congress, has led the effort to pass a bill that would make it illegal to discriminate against someone based on sexual orientation. However, to get the bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, Frank had to allow a compromise that removed the ban on discrimination based on gender identity from the bill. As a result, Ed Fallon is outraged about the first gay rights bill in history to be passed by House of Representatives and believes that the first openly gay man in the U.S. Congress is betrayed the cause of gay rights.
In addition, Fallon attacks Leonard Boswell for voting for the bill. Apparently, Boswell’s support for this compromise “calls into question how forcefully he’ll seek full equality for the GLBT community in the future.” In other words, Ed Fallon is attacking Leonard Boswell for being insufficiently pro-transsexual. Apparently, Boswell joining with Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin to fight discrimination against gays and lesbians wasn’t enough for Ed Fallon. Fallon would rather have no protections instead of a compromise.
Aside from pointing out the Republican negative ads against Fallon write themselves, this shows the fundamental political flaw with Fallon. (Besides, of course, the sleaze and dishonesty). Fallon seems to think that unless something is perfect, it’s wrong. He ignores compromise and bathes the sense of self-righteousness that enables him to believe that his IM For Iowa slush fund is perfectly legitimate and that a clean elections advocate can make up statements from the FEC. If Iowans want a Congressman who values ideological purity over getting things done, they already have Steve King and at least we know where King’s money is coming from.
April 18th, 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
Ed Fallon today attacked a bill that would ban politicians paying themselves with campaign funds as “status quo politics at its worst.” The bill was introduced because Fallon had paid himself nearly $14,000 with campaign funds after the end of his 2006 gubernatorial bid, making Fallon one of the most notable politicians to line his own pockets with campaign funds since Alan Keyes paid himself $8500 a month to run for Senate in 1992. Although Fallon claimed there was leftover money in his campaign account because “most candidates aren’t as fiscally responsible as I am,” Fallon had nearly $40,000 still in the bank at the end of his gubernatorial campaign. In a close three-race where you being outspent, saving that much money isn’t exactly fiscally responsible.
But then again, Fallon was considering running through November even if he didn’t win the primary. Although Fallon denied contemplating a third party run for Governor, an email from his campaign manager/business partner/very close personal friend Lynn Heuss to the Iowa Campaign and Ethics Board stated that the reason that Fallon was paying himself after the Democratic Primary and had kept his campaign account open was because “there was also the possibility that he would decide to run as a 3rd party candidate” in addition to the need to perform administrative tasks. One wonders how such a miscommunication could occur between two people who are so close.
Although perhaps it wasn’t a miscommunication. Fallon already backed Ralph Nader in 2000 stating at a rally the week before an election “I can’t, I won’t and you shouldn’t vote for Al Gore” and later condemned the Polk County Democratic Central Committee for asking all Democratic candidates to support the Democratic ticket no matter. Although Fallon later said he only endorsed Nader when Al Gore added Joe Lieberman to the ticket, his published remarks on the subject don’t address Lieberman at all and seem more focused on attacking the Vice President and future Nobel Laureate as “to the right of Bill Clinton.” As a result of the loyalty pledge, Fallon compared the actions of the Polk County Democratic Central Committee to the Nazi Party in a hyperbolic statement of utter tastelessness.
In fact, it seems more likely that Ed Fallon is lying again. Fallon has already spent the week obfuscating about the financial irregularities of his “business” I’m For Iowa. He told one reporter that he only took a small draw from the business and another that he was paying himself a salary of over $30,000 a year. However, Ed Fallon has been consistent about one thing. He refuses to disclose the financial records of I’M for Iowa, reinforcing the fact that there is something rotten in Sherman Hill.
But in the meantime, Fallon, the erstwhile crusader for campaign finance reform, is attacking a bill prohibiting candidates from paying themselves as “status quo politics at its worst” and hiding the financial records of I’M For Iowa from public disclosure. For someone who claims to believe in clean elections, Ed Fallon certainly seems to be running his in the muck.
March 31st, 2008
Polly Granzow, the Republican State Representative from House District 44, comprising Hardin County and most of Marshall County outside of Marshalltown, is not running for re-election in 2008. This combined with Larry McKibben’s decision not to seek re-election in the Senate District that includes all of Marshall and Hardin Counties, puts local Republicans in a bind as Century for the Common Iowan notes. However, it puts the State Republican Party into even bigger bind.
So far, nine Republican incumbents in the State House are not running for re-election according to Iowa Independent. This includes every Republican but one in Polk County as well as Democratic leaning seats in Mason City and Decorah that are currently held by Bill Schickel and Chuck Gipp respectively. Granzow only won by 300 votes in 2006 and her district should be very competitive as an open seat in 2008.
But this underlies the fact that while Iowa Republicans are citing the House as one of their few bright spots in 2008. When the only two Democratic open seats are incumbents running for State Senate, it’s a pretty dubious bright spot. GOP prospects in the State House may seem brighter than those against Tom Harkin or in the State Senate. But that’s merely contrasting a good chance of losing by a landslide to almost certainly getting blown out. Unless something unexpected happens nationally or in state politics (like a political scandal or a Fallon win in the 3rd District primary) it seems pretty clear that calling the Iowa House a bright spot is only a relative term for Iowa Republicans.
February 25th, 2008
Leonard Boswell signed on the other day to H.Res. 333 which calls for the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney. While some bloggers on Open Left are crowing that it is a sign that Boswell is somehow running scared of Nader-endorsing opponent, Ed Fallon, a look through Boswell’s legislative record shows that it fits with Boswell’s record as a progressive who represents a Republican leaning district.
Boswell is also a co-sponsor of H.Res 417 which calls for the dismissal of Alberto Gonzales and H.R. 808, which would establish a Department of Peace. Boswell signed on to both of these bills long ago back before Ed Fallon even thought of running.
Boswell also backed the Equal Rights Amendment, trade with Cuba , voter-verified paper trails , making it easier for unions to organize, fighting gender discrimination in the workplace, to combat global warming and to fight hate crimes. And that is just handful of the bills and issues on which Leonard Boswell has stood up for progressive causes.
While no one would confuse Leonard Boswell with Barney Frank, Boswell has a significant record of progressive leadership for a Congressman who has faced repeated challenges from well-funded Republican opponents and who represents a district that George Bush won in 2004. How many other Democrats could support a Department of Peace and Non-Violence and consistently fend off strong Republican opposition in a marginal district? It’s not hard for a candidate with progressive values to win around Drake University, the question is how well they do in the area around William Penn University. And when it comes to that, Leonard Boswell passes the test and Ed Fallon doesn’t.
February 15th, 2008
Previous Posts
