Ed Fallon and Al Gore

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.

18 comments January 30th, 2008

Biden Moves To Iowa

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.

4 comments September 26th, 2007

Iowa Legislature Passes Big Civil Rights Legislation

Today was a big day in the Iowa House, where Representatives voted 59-37 to pass Senate File 427, which updates Iowa’s civil rights law to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (and perceived sexual orientation).

Until yesterday, few people expected the bill to make it to the floor of the House at all, even though it passed the Iowa Senate last month. Without a guarantee that the bill would pass (or even a guarantee that all of the Democrats would sign on), the leadership was reluctant to force its members to make a vote that could hurt them in their reelection campaigns. Ex-Speaker and current Minority Leader Chris Rants was doing everything he possibly could to prevent any Republican members from supporting the bill (even though some Republicans were definitely interested), and it looked like he might succeed in forcing a stalemate through the end of the legislative session.

In the end, though, the Democratic leadership put civil rights ahead of political concerns, and put the bill up to a vote. The result was a resounding victory. And, although Murphy and McCarthy have been getting a lot of grief about VOICE and a few other issues that have worked up our blogging community, this should earn them back some street cred.

More from Mark’s diary over at BleedingHeartland (partially cross-posted with permission):

Senate File 427 updates Iowa’s Civil Rights Act to prohibit discrimination in employment, public accommodation, housing, education, or credit practices based on age, race, creed, color, sex, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability.

The discussion on various blogs throughout the state over the past few months has focused on what the Iowa Legislature has FAILED to accomplish - rather than the victories. This bill is truly a victory for progressives and for everyone who would like to call Iowa home. Leadership in both chambers made this bill a priority throughout the session - and now we can separate ourselves from the 33 other states where it’s OK to dismiss employees because of their real or perceived sexual orientation.

In particular, it was leadership from Democrats in cooperation with Iowa businesses and civil rights leaders who pushed this bill through to final passage. Corporate America is rapidly realizing that creating a tolerant atmosphere for everyone to work is an important part of growing a business - and a state. According to an article in Fortune Magazine:

So it’s clear where big business is going. What’s interesting is to watch it pull the rest of the country along. It turns out that the most important factor shaping people’s feelings about gay issues is not their age or even their religion - although those do matter - but whether they have relatives, friends or co-workers who are gay.

“The more out and open people are, the more changed the straight people are all around them,” says Joe Solmonese, the Human Rights Campaign president. HRC began organizing workplaces to secure benefits for gay employees. This has inadvertently become a shrewd political strategy as well. “To move the mindset of the American people, we need to find the places where they congregate,” Solmonese says. “Priority one is corporate America.”

12 comments April 26th, 2007

John McCain vs John Amaechi

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.

2 comments February 17th, 2007

Hillary’s In To Win

Now that Hillary Clinton has declared that she’s going to run for President (and ruined Sam Brownback’s day too). We thought it would be worthwhile to revisit some of our past coverage of Hillary and the caucuses. This includes one post on the challenge that Hillary faces in Iowa and why the caucuses are still wide open. But for now, my biggest concern is how it looks when I have to explain that the url www.brownback.com is in my history and why it’s totally non-sexual. Hillary Clinton may be getting the attention today but Sam Brownback will still have a hilarious last name tomorrow.

2 comments January 20th, 2007

Who Has The Power In The Iowa Caucuses?

The Iowa Caucuses aren’t democratic. In fact, they are so undemocratic, they make the Electoral College seem like a triumph for those who believe in “one man, one vote.” Caucusgoers aren’t voting for Obama, or Hillary or John Edwards. They vote for delegates to a county convention who then go on to vote for delegates to the State Convention who then go on to vote for delegates to the National Convention. Delegates are apportioned to each county and each precinct within the county by the combined number votes cast for the President and the Governor in the two previous General Elections. So, for example if more people in County X voted for the combination of John Kerry and Chet Culver in 2004 and 2006 than voted for the combination of Al Gore and Tom Vilsack in 2000 and 2002, County X will get more representation than it did in the 2004 caucuses. If less people voted for the top of the ticket, County X will get less representation. There are 3000 delegates at the State Convention and each county gets an appropriate share and the results for the caucuses are computed by factoring approximately what percent of the delegates a candidate will get at the State Convention. (Here are the 2004 results for an example)

So what has changed since 2004? Well of the big five counties in Iowa (Polk, Linn, Scott, Black Hawk and Johnson), all but Polk have gained delegates. In fact,  Johnson has shown the largest net gain of any county, going from 141 to 164 delegates. Linn also made a big leap from 228 to 242 delegates. Scott jumped from 161 to 170 and Black Hawk creeped up from 136 to 140. In contrast, Polk had a small dip of two delegates but still makes up nearly 15% of the total number of delegates with 428. The biggest leap in terms of perecentage was made by Jefferson County which is going from 13 to 18 delegates while the biggest fall in percentage was Ida County, which goes from 7 to a paltry 5 delegates. For us in Poweshiek County, we gained an extra delegate to go to 21. Statewide totals (which are rough because they haven’t been rounded) for 2008 are below the fold and the totals for 2004 can be found here.

4 comments January 18th, 2007

Will Harkin retire?

Buried within this piece on DSCC Chair Chuck Schumer we find that Tom Harkin is mulling retirement: “We have now gotten 11 of the 12 Democrats to commit to running again. [Iowa Sen.] Tom Harkin is still making up his mind,” Schumer said, going on to lavish praise on the 67-year-old Democrat. “He’s a great senator. He does more in a couple of years than many senators have done in a lifetime.”

It’s true — Harkin is one of the best senators and Democrats we’ve got, and I for one, would be sorry to see him go. Fortunately, I don’t think we’ll have to say goodbye just yet. Sure, he’s getting older, but he’ll still be younger than many in the Senate, and even younger than at least one presidential candidate (John “I’m older than dirt” McCain). I saw Harkin twice this past year: once at the Harkin Steak Fry and once in a livingroom in Grinnell as he stumped for now-victorious Eric Palmer; both times he seemed sharp as a blade and perhaps more importantly, like he was really enjoying himself.

Furthermore, 2008 should be a good year for Democrats as they try to expand their lead in the Senate, notes The Hill. Of the 33 seats up for grabs, 21 are held by Republicans so the GOP will be forced to play more defense than offense. Plus, who’s going to challenge Harkin? I bet Jim Nussle would like to, but considering his very solid defeat to Culver (who is not half the candidate Harkin is), I imagine he’ll stay put for now as a consultant. Meanwhile, Harkin’s just picked up a plum committee assignment: Chairman of the Agriculture Committee. According to Jennifer Duffy of the Cook Political Report, “I think Harkin was thinking about it, but now that he has Ag, what’s his incentive to retire?” Answer: There is none.

1 comment January 8th, 2007

John Edwards’s first endorsement?

As Chris at Political Forecast points out, Ed Fallon was an active volunteer at  John Edwards’ event in Des Moines this weekend. In addition, Denise O’Brien showed up as well. It seems judging from this, Edwards may have an early advantage with the hardcore lefties in the caucuses this year. Considering Edwards was endorsed by Dennis Kucinich for all intents and purposes in 2004, it looks like Edwards will get a lot of support from the Fallon/O’Brien wing of the party this time around. (Not to mention that Kucinich might fall short of the one percent of county convention delegates he received in 2004 this time.)

 Although it’s questionable how much pull Fallon actually has,  (his “Don’t Write Me In” campaign was astonishingly successful in the General Election), he still received the support of nearly 40,000 voters in the 2006 Gubernatorial primary. And quite a few of those voters were highly enthusastic about him. It’s doubtful whether Fallon’s endorsement has any real weight outside of Fairfield and certain precincts of Iowa City but it doesn’t mean his endorsement’s useless. When Barack Obama attacks John Edwards on his vote in support of the Iraq War, John Edwards will have Fallon to back up his lefty street cred among caucus goers. It’s not the type of endorsement that actually will bring a lot of votes (like that of a major union like AFSCME) but one that’s important because it reassures voters. To paraphrase Thomas Callahan III, it offers a guarantee of lefty credentials that will help keep many prospective Edwards supporters feeling all warm and toasty inside.

7 comments December 29th, 2006

John McCain TV Commercials On Air in Iowa

I saw it on CNN (cable), so I don’t know whether it’s only running in Iowa or what, but it’s an ad for Operation Home Front, and for all I know it’s being run as a PSA. Regardless, it definitely helps McCain more than it helps Operation Home Front, and it’s alarming to see him up on TV in Iowa already.

2 comments December 20th, 2006

John Kerry: Political Pariah?

So John Kerry said that we made a mistake by going into Iraq and then Bush and the Republicans said that his remarks were insulting to the troops…again. This latest rendition of the familiar tune evokes a series of responses. So let’s just move beyond the fact that Kerry’s remarks were pretty much true, even if in poor taste, and the chagrin of seeing yet another flashback to 2004.

We’re all pretty hyper-sensitive to anything that might possibly in the slightest way impact the outcome on Tuesday. In Iowa it seems to have devolved into the implication that if you have any connection to John Kerry then you too hate the troops and America and are in fact working in cahoots with the terrorists.

Jeff Lamberti, the Republican candidate in Iowa’s third congressional district, says his opponent — Democrat Congressman Leonard Boswell — should give back the money Kerry’s donated and still raising for Boswell’s campaign. “Leonard Boswell should be calling on John Kerry to apologize…and quite frankly, ought to be giving back the east coast special interest money that agrees with John Kerry on this,” Lamberti says.

This is almost too ridiculous to warrant debunking. Both Boswell and Lamberti receive money from out-of-state sources, and there is nothing wrong with that–every candidate does. Furthermore, candidates receive donations from many different sources and that doesn’t mean that they believe everything that the donor believes. Lamberti takes this preposterous assumption one step further to say that Boswell shouldn’t take contributions from friends of John Kerry.

The point is that Republicans are trying to turn this into the Democrat’s Foley, but I don’t think it takes much insight to see that John Kerry’s remarks about Iraq are in no way as reprehensible as Mark Foley propositioning an under-aged page via instant message. As Vilsack points out in the same report:

“(Kerry) obviously made a mistake and it’s an unfortunate mistake but you know what really is unfortunate is that we’re talking about this instead of the fact that 105 American soldiers lost their lives in Iraq in October in one of the deadliest months in that war.”

One can only hope that Democrats everywhere will adopt this reasoned response, and keep the focus on the job that Bush and the Republicans have done in office, because their record pretty much speaks for itself.

1 comment November 1st, 2006