Search Results for ‘clinton ca’
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
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
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 was a Ralph Nader supporter in 2000. He described Al Gore as “to the right of Bill Clinton” and said that “I can’t, I won’t and you shouldn’t [vote for Al Gore] either.”
So what was the platform of the far-right wing, DLC Democrat that Ed Fallon refused to support?
In Gore’s acceptance speech, he stated that “campaign finance reform will be the very first bill that I send to the United States Congress,” that “free trade…must be fair trade” and reaffirmed his commitment to a federal law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation.
In fact, in that very same speech, Gore reiterated the basic theme of his campaign-representing the people versus the powerful, which Gore defined as “big tobacco, big oil, the big polluters, the pharmaceutical companies, the HMOs”. It is a theme that Ed Fallon even supported in 2008 when he endorsed John Edwards, whose candidacy was based on the idea that “powerful, well-financed interests [were] taking over this democracy, and taking it away from regular Americans.”
So the question is what was so right-wing about Al Gore crusading for campaign finance reform, fair trade and gay rights in 2000 that Ed Fallon couldn’t support him? Instead, Fallon supported a candidate and party that advocated ending the use of all pesticides and most fertilizers and “an end to government price supports” for agriculture, wanted to allow unemployed Americans collect government benefits without any time limit or restrictions and believed African Americans should be able to form their own separate nation on American soil. It’s a platform that veers from policies that are just bad to those that are outright wacky.
When Ed Fallon would rather support the candidacy of someone who runs on a platform that African Americans have a right to secede from the United States and form their own nation on American soil over a candidate who is committed to passing campaign finance reform, something is wrong. Ed Fallon’s support of Ralph Nader and the Green Party over Al Gore is not just a sign of bad judgment but it’s a sign of someone who has the wrong priorities for Iowa, for America and for Liberalism and Progressivism as well.
January 30th, 2008
The increasing buzz that Leonard Boswell might face a primary challenge from former State Representative Ed Fallon leads to some interesting questions.
The first question is, what effect does this have on the caucuses? There are less than two weeks left and a prominent supporter of John Edwards is going after a prominent supporter of Hillary Clinton. What effect does this have on media perceptions of Edwards and Clinton and does it change the storyline at all? At this point, the political press is so focused on Iowa that the slightest bit of political news in the state can make national headlines.
Second, is how does this effect Republican efforts to recruit a candidate. As of now, there is no Republican candidate who is publicly expressed interest in running for Congress in the Third District and NRCC (National Republican Congressional Committee) is still husbanding its scarce national resources, Boswell’s seat wasn’t expected to be a high priority. However, now with a primary, the RNCC might take a second look and bump up a congressional district that George Bush won in 2004 on its list of priorities. It’s also worth noting that Tom Cole, the NRCC Chair, went to college in the Third District at Grinnell.
Finally, the question is what the storyline for a Boswell-Fallon race would be. Although the netroots is already getting excited about the race, depicting it as a strong progressive leader taking on an out of touch, geriatric incumbent. However, the election could just as easily be depicted as an accordion playing, Kucinich supporter running against a war hero and family farmer. Both are valid story lines and it seems likely that the one that will emerge will be an amalgamation of the two. But one of those two options is likely to become the dominant theme of media coverage of the race and how it is perceived not just by the press but by voters.
No matter what, this will be an interesting race to watch. Iowa is traditionally a state very friendly to incumbents and the only significant primary challenge that an incumbent has faced in recent memory was Fred Gandy’s unsuccessful attempt to unseat Terry Bransted in the Republican primary for Governor in 1994. But turnout in primary elections is traditionally low (only 11% of voters participated in either the Democratic or Republican Primary in 2006) and anything can happen in a low turnout election. Unfortunately, no matter how this race takes shape, one thing is certain. Only a low percentage of voters will end up participating in a Boswell vs Fallon primary and the winner will be the candidate most able to take advantage of the unique dynamics of this race.
December 24th, 2007
Bill Richardson started his campaign as a moderate Democrat who was running based on a rather impressive resume as Governor, Cabinet Member, Diplomat and Congressman. He talked about his experience balancing budgets and opposing gun control. However, Richardson’s campaign has recently changed its tack dramatically. While Richardson still emphasizes his background as a pro-gun moderate in rural areas, he’s now become the peacenik candidate in the rest of Iowa.
Richardson has come out as the only major Presidential candidate to support withdrawing all American troops from Iraq in six months and filmed an ad with bloggers endorsing his policy. He has phased out wearing an American flag lapel pin in favor of the Sensible Priorities pin.
The most extreme sign of Richardson’s tack to the left was his recent hiring of Dave Rogers as his political director. Rogers worked on Dennis Kucinich’s Presidential campaign and was reported by reliable sources to be staffing Kucinich at events as recently as this spring. Rogers has also worked for Western Iowa’s answer to Dennis Kucinich, Joyce Schulte, as well as for the Sensible Priorities campaign.
In contrast, the political directors for 1st tier Presidential campaigns are longtime Iowa political operatives (Chris Hayler for Clinton, Emily Parcell for Obama) or national operatives (Tim Maloney for Edwards). However, they focus on getting the support of legislators, major activists and organized labor. It seems that Rogers will be focusing on the anti-war left (as it is doubtful that someone who operated a salon and day spa is the right person to reach out to the UAW).
Rogers’ hiring further reinforces that Bill Richardson is making a very determined effort to reach out not just anti-war Democrats but, specifically, to the core of peace activists who supported Kucinich in 2004. Although peaceniks are a relatively small bloc, they are very likely caucusgoers. If Richardson is still around 10% then, peace activists could play a decisive role in propping Richardson in up in many precincts and making him viable.
But this is a dangerous balancing game for a candidate who started running as a moderate. Richardson has already lost one key supporter due to his swing to the left and Hotline, among others, finds his policy shift not plausible. Richardson is playing a very delicate balancing game trying to woo both the most conservative caucusgoers and the most liberal over the next ten weeks. If it works, Richardson might become a first tier candidate. But if it doesn’t, Richardson will not only lose but could so in a way that undermines his credibility as a politician in the future.
October 16th, 2007
I’ve written before about Rudy’s penchant for bullying and his contempt for civil liberty. And New Yorkers have long known that Rudy is, well, abrasive.
Here’s a favorite moment of mine from the Mayor’s radio show:
Gravel-voiced Joe from Dutchess County asked in 1999 why the mayor did not attack President Clinton at a fund-raising dinner. When the program returned after a commercial break it sounded as if Joe still was on the line. It was the mayor, imitating Joe’s dese-dem-dere voice.
”This is, uh, Joe from, ahhh, Dutchess County. I unnerstan’ youse went too easy the other night because people applauded or they didn’t applaud for ya or sumthin’–I don’t remember.” Mr. Giuliani giggled. Then he speculated that maybe Joe was a long-term resident of a state prison.
”I think you should go back to making license plates, Joe.”
But Rudy’s contempt for the public is endearing when compared to his pugnacious plans for our country’s foreign policy. The team America’s Mayor has assembled to advise him on foreign affairs is downright frightening. Take a look at this TPMtv segment on Rudy’s minions. It looks like if Rudy becomes the President, he’s going to treat the rest of the world like a bunch of ferrets:
October 16th, 2007
Iowa State Representative McKinley Bailey announced his endorsement of Joe Biden today. Bailey is a first term State Representative and was widely courted by Presidential campaigns because of his service in Iraq in the 82nd Airborne Division. Biden has picked up endorsements from a number of Iowa legislators as part of his campaign’s increased focus on the caucuses. Bailey is also a member of a prominent political family in Hamilton County. However, his father, Hamilton County Supervisor Doug Bailey has not just endorsed Obama, but is a member of Obama’s statewide leadership team.
It’s also interesting to note that Hillary Clinton announced her retirement savings plan in the Bailey family’s hometown of Webster City. It seems the Clinton campaign may be using the split between father and son to scoop up support in North Central Iowa.
However, regardless of what the Clinton campaign does, it appears that Thanksgiving and Christmas may be interesting in the Bailey family. While many Iowa families may go to the caucus together, it does necessarily mean that they support the same candidate when they get to their caucus location.
October 11th, 2007
As Chris Cilizza reports, Joe Biden is staking his entire campaign on a strong performance in Iowa. He has moved almost his entire national staff into Iowa in hopes of a strong performance in the caucuses. Biden seems to hope that this increased focus, combined with support from many Iowa legislators (including his recent endorsement by Iowa House Speaker Pro Tem Polly Bukta). His strategy, as reported by Marc Ambinder seems solid, based on having surrogates hit smaller towns with a particular focus on the blue collar Democratic counties along the Mississippi River. However, there is one inherent flaw. Ambinder notes that Biden has “nine field offices and 23 full-time staffers” which is puny compared to the number of staffers and field offices that Obama, Edwards and Clinton have. In fact, even Chris Dodd has 59 full-time staffers on the ground in Iowa right now.
Not only does Biden have very few staffers, they aren’t very experienced either. According to this roster of Biden field staff. Six out of his 14 field staffers (all of whom are titled Regional Field Directors) have never worked on a campaign before. And of those who have worked on a campaign, most have worked on campaigns for Chicago alderman or Colorado Board of Education, not for major statewide or federal offices. The ground game is crucial in the Iowa Caucuses and with the limited field program that he has, Biden is in trouble. Unless Biden is able to fully tap into the organizations of the legislators to endorse him, he will not do well in Iowa and get one of the proverbial “three tickets out of Iowa” that go to the top three finishers in the caucuses. Unless things change, Biden’s hoped for third place finish will be just like Joe Lieberman’s “third place finish” when he went all out in New Hampshire in 2004. A third place finish that actually means he finished fifth.
September 26th, 2007
Previous Posts
