Search Results for ‘congressman leonard boswell’
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
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
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
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
John Deeth linked to the National Journal’s ranking of all the members of Congress from most liberal to least liberal. What’s interesting is that, despite the big Democratic year in 2006, Iowa’s most liberal congressman got defeated. That title was held by Republican Jim Leach. Leach was one of the last of the liberal Republicans but lost to the much more liberal Dave Loebsack. Although Leach was a liberal Republican, he voted for the Republican leadership and was one of the worst of the Clinton haters in Congress in the mid 1990s (although he probably wasn’t sincere about his Clinton-hating. Instead, he was just unsuccessfully angling for the 1996 Republican nomination for U.S. Senate against Tom Harkin).
But the fact that Leach was the most liberal Congressman from Iowa means that Democrat Leonard Boswell wasn’t. Boswell was only a mere four places behind Leach (although that made him less liberal than one other Republican, Libertarian Ron Paul.) This put Boswell in a three way tie for the 173rd most liberal member of Congress with Artur Davis of Alabama and liberal sweetheart John Murtha. This emphasizes Boswell’s vulnerable position. He represents a swing district, albeit one where the base Democratic voters are relatively liberal (as opposed to many of Boswell’s fellow Blue Dogs from the South). Boswell has to walk a fine line to protect himself from a primary challenge and to retain his appeal in the district in a general election as much of the rural 3rd District is proving increasingly invulnerable to his charms as a rural Democrat from Decatur County. Boswell has walked this tightrope well in the past but as questions about his health and age continue to build, it will become increasingly likely that he will either slip or be pushed.
Finally, it’s worth noting one bit of trivia. The most conservative congressman from Iowa is not Steve King but rather Tom Latham. While King may be nuts, he at least is an independent thinker. Latham accumulated a more conservative record by being a straight party-line, pro-corporate Republican hack. It allows Latham the benefit of a seat on the Appropriations Committee for the small cost of independent thought and free will. One hopes that Selden Spencer will use this information to his advantage for his second bid for the 4th District.
March 4th, 2007
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.
November 1st, 2006
Via the Des Moines Register, we learn that the Iowa Farm Bureau has announced its “2006 Friends of Agriculture.” So who made it on to the illustrious list? Gubernatorial candidate Jim Nussle, secretary of agriculture candidate Bill Northey, congressional candidates Mike Whalen and Jeff Lamberti, and U.S. Representatives Tom Latham and Steve King. Hmm, I can’t put my finger on it, but there’s something similar about all those guys. What is it? What could it be? Oh yes: they’re all Republicans.
(The group declined to endorse either candidate in the second congressional district but I guess that’s a win for the Dems.)
The Register waits until the last paragraph to remind readers that the bureau is “a Republican-leaning group that supports measures to restrict taxes,” but at least they did so at all. Context matters, especially in the case of innocuous sounding names. Without context, Americans might be fooled into believing some boating group that wanted swift truth or something was actually a surrogate for the Bush campaign. Nah, that would never happen.
The only person who may be surprised by the Bureau’s endorsements is Leonard Boswell — or at least his web designer. According to Boswell’s webpage, he’s garnered the Bureau’s endorsement “every time he’s run for office.” Not anymore, Boz. Not anymore.
UPDATE: The Congressman’s webpage has since been changed to remove the now-false sentence. Kudos for the quick response. And as an aside, I wouldn’t worry much about not getting the endorsement. It looks like Boswell is doing just fine.
September 12th, 2006
In the second part of our three-part series, Jesse Harris, Field Director for Chet Culver’s campaign, took the time to answer our questions. Here’s what he had to say:
IowaProgress: How did you get involved in politics?
Jesse Harris: In the fall of 1999, I entered Simpson College just as Bill Bradley and Al Gore began to actively campaign in Iowa for the precinct caucuses. That campaign brought me into the political process and my interest in campaigns and public service hasn’t diminished. While in college I volunteered for the Bradley for President Campaign and then completed a summer internship in Congressman Leonard Boswell’s office in Washington, D.C. Although I had planned to attend graduate school, the prospect of working on a presidential campaign in 2003 and 2004 was too great to pass up. I was offered a position with the Edwards for President Campaign in Des Moines. For seven months I worked as a field organizer in Warren, Lucas, Clarke, Wayne and Decatur Counties. Following the caucus I continued to work for the campaign in Madison, Wisconsin and Minneapolis, Minnesota. That experience led me to continue working for Democratic candidates in Iowa.
IP: What do you do in off years when there aren’t elections? (Or what did you do before you joined this campaign?)
JH: In Iowa the campaign season really never ends. Just as one campaign passes there are new ones forming. Over the past three years I have worked for three different campaigns; the Edwards Campaign, the Iowa Democratic Party Coordinated Campaign and now the Culver for Governor Campaign. Since I graduated from Simpson, I have only spent five months outside of campaign work. In that time I served as a legislative assistant to State Senator Tom Rielly (D-Oskaloosa).
IP: In this gubernatorial election, the candidates are using the internet a lot more than they did last time around. What role do you think the internet (both your campaign sites and online news outlets and blogs) will play in this election? In what ways has the internet changed Iowa political campaigning?
JH: Without question, the internet has had deep and even profound effects on political campaigns. In some circles, the internet has even become the primary method that voters acquire information about elections and the issues at play in campaigns. While races used to be confined largely to local markets, today people throughout the country are able to acquire information on races from city hall to the White House. It has become a useful tool to update voters on the campaign, distribute information about policy positions and to raise money from a broader network of individuals.
Blogs have, in many respects, democratized journalism. Today, campaigns distribute information through a much wider universe of writers representing a number of different mediums. Blogs also reach more targeted communities of potential voters, particularly young people.
IP: What role do you think students (should) play in Iowa politics?
JH: Iowa and its residents have a significant voice in the American political process, more significant than virtually anywhere else in the country. This is true of students in Iowa as well. Nowhere else in the United States, excluding New Hampshire, will presidential candidates regularly visit college campuses and meet with students directly. With three universities, a large network of private liberal arts colleges and the state’s many community colleges, students in Iowa are positioned well to shape the public debate and push issues of concern to the forefront.
Of course, this applies to the governor’s race as well. Chet Culver will fight for Iowa’s young people. As governor, Chet will work to create good jobs with good benefits in every corner of the state so that college graduates will have every opportunity to live, work and raise their families in Iowa. As a former teacher Chet has worked tirelessly to increase participation among young people in Iowa and as a result participation among 18-24 year olds has increased dramatically.
IP: Iowa has a mix of urban voters and rural voters. Is it difficult to account for both groups in crafting your message?
JH: I believe that there is more that unites Iowans than divides them. In fact, Iowa’s mixture of urban and rural residents is one of the primary strengths of our state. In the end, all Iowans, whether they are rural or urban voters, Republican or Democrats, want high quality schools, affordable and accessible health care, and a strong, vibrant economy. Chet has proposed the most comprehensive campaign plan of any candidate running for governor. Chet’s “Leading Iowa Forward” will show voters specifically what he intends to do as governor. Specifically, he has released a comprehensive health care plan and an alternative energy plan both of which will benefit all Iowans in every corner of the state.
IP: (Campaign-specific question) How involved were you in choosing Patty Judge as running-mate? How do you respond to criticism that the choice was made for political reasons?
JH: In the end, the most important criteria for selecting a running mate is 1) Is this person qualified to become governor of the state of Iowa and 2) In maintaining a strong, vibrant Democratic Party, will this person stand up for Democrats and our Democratic values. In Patty Judge, Chet selected someone who not only meets this standard but far exceeds it. Secretary Judge has an extensive and distinguished record of public service. As a registered nurse she understands the challenges facing our health care system particularly women’s health care. As a two-term state senator, Patty developed policy on a wide range of issues and in doing so was elected to the Senate Democratic leadership. As Secretary of Agriculture for the past eight years, Patty has served at the highest levels of the executive branch and oversees one of the largest state agencies. She would be ready from the first minute to assume the duties of the governor’s office. Throughout her life, Patty has consistently supported and worked for Democratic candidates throughout Iowa. There is never any question about her commitment to the Democratic Party here in Iowa. Knowing that Patty Judge is ready to become governor and that she will fight for our Democratic principles, the choice was easy.
IP: Why is your campaign the best suited to beat Nussle?
JH: Chet Culver is the candidate best positioned to beat Jim Nussle this fall. Between Chet and Patty, this ticket has won four statewide elections and a total of 70 of the state’s 99 counties. Chet won his reelection by over 100,000 votes. Chet Culver and Patty Judge have proven that they can compete with Republicans in every corner of Iowa.
Moreover, Chet Culver is the only Democratic candidate currently beating Jim Nussle in the polls. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, Chet beats Nussle 40% to 38%. In a KCCI poll, Chet outdistances Nussle 44% to 43%. Nussle beats all of the other Democratic candidates and by significant margins.
Finally, he is the only Democrat running for governor who has demonstrated the capacity to keep pace with Jim Nussle on fundraising. In 2005, Chet raised more money than all the other Democrats seeking the nomination combined. The 2006 governor’s race will be the most expensive in Iowa history and we need a candidate that can match the Republicans.
April 29th, 2006
