Search Results for ‘critical vote’
I had intended to liveblog this event but got stuck in an overflow room with no option of standing in the back. I’m not sure how many updates I’ll be posting as this event starts in a few minutes…
…that situation has been remedied. Read on for liveblogging. Sorry for typos, etc., but this is all being typed on a Blackberry pseudo-keyboard.
State rep Mark Smith is on now talking about the successes Dems have had in Iowa and about history. He compares Obama to Abraham Lincoln. Then he makes sure to note that he hasn’t endorsed anyone yet and that it’s too early for him to make an endorsement.
Obama is on now. He thanks Mark Smith and volunteers who helped with the event. He says Iowa and Illinois are a lot alike, except Illinois has Chicago.
…He’s going over his bio and tieing that in to the purpose of politics…
Now he’s on to the issues. Goes down list of problems we face; gets applause at the end when he says he was against the war from the beginning. Casts himself as Washington outsider and gets more applause. It sounds like he hasn’t quite memorized his stump speech yet, because it has been a little choppy.
Says we can use ethanol just like Brazil. Says using incentives can make capitalism earth-friendly.
Mentions his senate bill on Iraq withdrawal and gets applause again. Says diplomacy is the answer and alludes to Marshall plan.
He is finishing his speech by talking about the importance of us getting involved and finally mentions briefly that he had a lot of small donors during the last quarter
Now questions…
First questionis on universal health care. Obama talks about preventative health care as part of the solution. He talks about obesity as an example of the problem, but he sounded a little critical of fat people - oops.
This answer is taking too long considering everyone already knows his position as it has been defined. .
Next question is from a peace activist on Israel and Palestine. Obama starts tip toeing…
Religious conflict between shia and sunni predates Israel, he says, dodging the original question.
Obama does believe that Israel-Palestine is serving to perpetuate problems in the reason.
He calls for two-state solution. Palestinians must recognize Israel’s right to exist and stop terrorism. US must be a part of negotiations. My pro-Israel friend just said Obamas answer won his vote.
Sandy shaver from UAW/Maytag asks about outsourcing. It turns out Barack Obama is against it.
Solution one is stop giving tax benefits for outsourcing.
Solution two is improving infrastructure like broadband.
Solution three is spending a lot of money on green technology (on the scale of the Manhattan project, he says).
Finally Obama says he supports both free trade and fair trade. My Econ major friends roll their eyes a but but it sounds good to me
That was all his answer to the outsourcing question.
Next question from a teacher is whether he will consult teachers on his education plans. He says his sister is a teacher (and yes, he will).
Everyone has to work to improve education: parents, students, community, etc.
Obama says he does support some of NCLB’s goals, including higher standards for students. But he thinks it needs to be more sensitive to individual students, and he thinks the funding situation needs reform.
Also he wants to increase teacher pay tied to some accountability measures.
Cute kid asks about year-round school. Obama says he might like the idea of changing the school calendar to avoid one long summer break.
Next question comes from an Iowan with a mental disability on employment possibilities. Obama praises tom harkin forhis work on the issue and promises to get one of his staff to help Him get in touch withthe right people.
Next question is ,what has happened to our democratic party? Dems are too friendly to big business and too soft on immigration.
Obama says you can’t be pro-worker without also being pro-employer. Question-asker isn’t satisfied and asks more specifically about immigration.
Obama supports more secure border and better I’d verification. But he also thinks that those people who are here can’t - and shouldn’t - be sent home.
Last question comes from a student about how expensive college is. He says student loan systemshould be reformed so banks are no longer making money on kids.
Obama is also in favor of expanding national service programs and offering to pay for education for kids who go into certain important professions (like teaching).
He closes by waving a supporter cardsnd asking is to get involved. More thoughts later
April 6th, 2007
A few days ago, The Register wrote an article documenting State Representative Dawn Pettengill’s dissatisfaction with the Democratic leadership in the State House. Here’s a snippet:
“I’m just trying to get through this term as a Democrat,” said Pettengill, the former mayor of her hometown of Mount Auburn who is now in her third year in the Iowa House. “People elected me as a Democrat, and I would not change during a term, that’s for sure.”
Her indecision leaves Democratic leaders questioning whether they should recruit a replacement candidate for the 2008 primary, and Republican leaders wondering if she might be on their team by the general election.
Will she defect? Well, she says she won’t during this term. In general, though, I’m not too worried about it. Pettengill has always seemed concerned with her ability to get elected in a district that she perceives as leaning more Republican than Democrat. She has developed a reputation (partly, but not wholly, deserved) for being emotionally volatile. Although she has condemned other legislators’ pet projects and voted against them, she is somewhat famous for her own pet projects: last year, she sponsored legislation to ban stores from selling sex toys to minors, and this year, she was the main proponent of the bill that recently passed preventing Iowa from having any business dealings with businesses supporting the genocide in Darfur. (I don’t mean to claim that either of these bills is bad policy, but neither is exactly in the front of most Iowans’ minds.)
The Register notes a few key places where Pettengill differs from the Democratic leadership in the House, but none of them are cut and dry reasons for a defection to the Republicans (or even to the Independent ticket):
But the strain of the last month has taken a serious toll as she struggled with her dislike of bills dear to many Democrats — raising the minimum wage (she voted yes after some reluctance), upping the cigarette tax (she voted no), campaign finance reform (she may vote no), and allowing public employee unions to charge nonunion members a “fair share” fee (she firmly intends to vote no).
On raising the minimum wage, she did end up voting yes, and the political realities in her district meant that “some reluctance” on the vote was smart. On voting against the cigarette tax, she justifies her decision for liberal (dare I say Democratic) reasons:
During a caucus meeting on the cigarette tax two weeks ago, Pettengill wept as she explained that when she was 19 years old, she found herself living on her own with a baby, balancing college classes and a job. She couldn’t afford cigarettes, but they were such a critical source of comfort that she sacrificed food to buy them.
She objects to a cigarette tax because it is increcibly regressive — it takes money disproportionately from the poor, and, because it is a flat fee, it takes a greater percentage of the disposable income of a poor person than it does a rich person. Yes, it internalizes an externality, yadda yadda yadda; but there is a principled, liberal argument to be made against it. Frankly, I was surprised more members didn’t express that opinion. Maybe only a small minority of the party holds this view, but it isn’t because they are the more conservative members of the party.
On campaign finance reform, it really isn’t clear that all of the Democratic leadership are fully supporting the VOICE bill. Good liberals generally like it (despite the short-term strategic disadvantages it may present to parties currently in the majority of the legislature), but this isn’t exactly an issue that everyone is closely aligned over.
And finally, on FairShare, it disappoints many labor activists that Pettengill does not support it, but again, there is a fair amount of diversity among Democrats on this subject. Some have more union shops in their districts than others, and some have different opinions of labor unions than others. Our Democratic State Senator, Tom Reilly, voted against FairShare, and he isn’t leaving the party anytime soon. Again, it’s an issue where some people within the labor movement are doubting policies like this, so it isn’t’ only conservatives who oppose it.
So is it really just the House leadership’s fault that Pettengill is disgruntled, as others have claimed? No. The House leadership is doing its job. Their job is to push a Democratic agenda in the legislature, and they have to keep their members in line whenever they can. They’re getting results, and, unless Pettengill does end up defecting, no one will even remember this story in six months.
March 31st, 2007
I’ve been told a lot recently that I’m the future of America; I’m the reason it is important to fund education, fix the health care system, and reign in the escalating deficit; I’m the future of the Democratic Party. Sure this is from some hand-squeezing, baby-kissing politicians seeking to win in November, and I know that it is good campaign rhetoric. But I also think it is true. In fact, not only are we the future of the Democratic Party, we are the present. My colleagues and I register the voters, we knock the doors, and we make the calls; we organize visits from candidates, we interview them, and we blog about them. We are not the only ones, but our contribution is significant. We do this not just on our campus — although that in itself is a substantial task — but in the county as well, and there are many others like us across the state and the country. We work by and large for free. Given these candidates’ propensity to pay lip service to our services, I would’ve thought they would be willing, if not eager, to include us at party-building events. Such events help prepare us for that ‘future’ that we are supposed to figure so prominently into, and also inspire and motivate us to keep doing our work in the present.
I would’ve thought, for instance, that they would want us to be able to attend the Jefferson Jackson Dinner on October 14. This is an important annual event in Iowa politics, one that in the past students have been able to attend. Last year several candidates for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination were there, providing many of us students a first introduction to Chet Culver. We also met recent college grads working on campaigns or for the IDP. Sure, we sat in the nosebleeds, but the point is that for $20 we got to go listen to prominent Iowa politicians and feel like we were actually part of the Democratic Party.
This year I was excited to see that Bill Clinton is going to be the keynote speaker. When I learned that the cheapest seats would cost $100 a person, I was disappointed, to say the least. As much as I would like to go to the JJ Dinner and hear the Big Dog, as a student (and someone who spends hours every week in unpaid get-out-the-vote efforts) I can’t afford to shell out $100 for one meal. I know I’m not the only student in this position.
What accounts for the exorbitant increase in ticket prices? Well, given that in the past year food prices haven’t skyrocketed and the Hy-Vee Hall Events Center hasn’t suddenly become immensely popular, it seems that it might have something to do with the former president’s fee for the engagement. Rumored to be over a quarter million dollars, it looks like maybe the IDP is passing that expense onto us. It is a move that makes financial sense, but it also sends the message that low-income or financially burdened Democrats (like students) aren’t important members of the party.
This message is incongruous with what many politicians I’ve spoken to recently are telling me. Everyone from U.S. Congressmen to gubernatorial candidates keeps repeating that we students are the future of the party. At a Grinnell College Democrats event yesterday, Pat Murphy and Eric Palmer commended us for having such a large and active group, saying that we would have a major impact on the elections. The thing is we know it. While it is nice to hear, the words are empty in the face of such an inconsiderate exclusion from a major party event. Regardless of from where this oversight arose, it would be hypocritical and ungrateful of the party not to make some allowances for those of us that may be unable to make generous financial contributions, but who have given our equally valuable time.
September 21st, 2006
We recently invited staffers from the Fallon, Culver, and Blouin campaigns to participate in email interviews about working in Iowa politics and about their campaigns. We were interested, first, in seeing which campaigns would even agree to do it. Luckily, all three consented.
From the Mike Blouin campaign, Matt Paul answered our questions. Matt is from Cedar Rapids, and he’s Blouin’s campaign manager. Here’s what he had to say.
IowaProgress: How did you get involved in politics?
Matt: My first political job was in the Mayor’s Office in Cedar Rapids, my hometown, when I was 24.
IP: What do you do in off years when there aren’t elections? (Or
what did you do before you joined this campaign?)
Matt: I worked in Governor Vilsack’s office for seven years. Before working in politics, I worked as a reporter.
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?
Matt: Like all political communication, applications for the internet and electronic media constantly change. Nothing is more vital than a clear message–no matter the outlet. The internet will continue to provide voters the chance to seek out information on their own, to research topics important to them and to create new methods to receive information during an election cycle.
IP: What role do you think students (should) play in Iowa politics?
Matt: Students in Iowa have such an advantage to engage in the political process because of their ability to access the Iowa caucuses. Since Iowa is also a relatively low cost media market, students get to see the important role retail politics play. I think our party does an excellent job of seeking the input and active participation of students and that should absolutely continue. Since Iowa is an aging state, its critical that students stay involved in the process and active in the party so younger voices continue to be heard. We have to make more progress in keeping young people here and making sure our communities give them a reason to stay.
IP: Iowa has a mix of urban voters and rural voters. Is it difficult
to account for both groups in crafting your message?
Matt: No. Iowa needs to grow and that means creating economic opportunity in all parts of the state and remaining committed to growth that embraces diversity and gives local communities the flexibility to chart their own course.
IP: (Campaign-specific question) How involved were you in choosing Dr. McGuire as running-mate? How do you respond to criticism that the choice was made for political reasons (McGuire is pro-choice)?
Matt: I was involved but the decision was ultimately Mike’s to make. Dr. McGuire was selected for one simple reason: she is qualified. Not only is she a medical doctor, she also holds a MBA and has been involved in a number of community organizations serving women and children. She is pro-choice but her selection was based upon her qualifications.
IP: Why is your campaign the best suited to beat Nussle?
Mike has the right experience, vision and ability to lead Iowa forward. He is the only candidate in the race with a strong record of job creation and his unequaled support from legislators is a clear sign that he could bring the statehouse together and make historic progress for all Iowans.
IP: Do you have a funny anecdote you’d like to share? Or anything else to add?
Matt: This is the first time I have ever submitted a blog entry. I suddenly feel very old.
April 27th, 2006
Tonight at 7, Mike Blouin sat down to chat with Grinnell students for about an hour in the Loose dorm lounge. It had a smaller attendance than yesterday’s Fallon event, but that made for a more personal atmosphere. We formed a circle in Loose lounge’s mismatched, anachronistic armchairs and spoke pretty candidly about politics and college antics. (Thankfully, Hannah and I got to Loose early enough to tuck away the empty 30 racks of Natty Light before Mike arrived…) Read more after the jump.
Blouin was the candidate you’d least suspect would command the interest of an audience of college kids. Of the three candidates, he’s the oldest, and he has been cast — perhaps undeservedly — as an “establishment candidate”; so that’s not quite Grinnell material.
But Blouin engaged us. His demeanor was something between professorial and “quirky uncle,” and it worked. I know my opinion of him changed because of the event. Here are some interesting morsels:
Blouin began his speech with a very strong position in favor of a clean elections law. His language was surprisingly firm and insistent. Money, he said, was his biggest complaint about what has changed in Iowa since he got involved in politics.
He also gave us a brief biography. He went to Loras (at age 16), decided to settle in Iowa, got married, became a teacher (as did his wife), got elected to the legislature and was fired for it, had a child with his wife who had been fired for getting pregnant, had to live on a legislator’s salary alone, and worked his way up to being in charge of economic growth (and job creation) in Iowa. He resigned from his job working for Vilsack to run for governor, and he did it early so that there wouldn’t be any question of his objectivity.
Blouin also talked about his plan for government-sponsored health insurance. No one asked him to clarify, but it sounded a lot like Kerry’s plan (something short of “universal,” but still “universally accessible”). Andy McGuire has been the point-person on this, and she has served both with doctors (as a medical expert and researcher) and insurance companies, so she really knows the health insurance system, etc.
The second half is critical of Nussle:
He criticizes Nussle’s oversight of our deficit, but he drives it home by relating it to government services (education and health care).
Q&A:
On giving companies tax breaks to draw them to Iowa:
“I’d be a hypocrite if I said we should never do it. In the ideal, I wouldn’t do it ever. In the ideal world, you wouldn’t have to. In the ideal world, states wouldn’t be giving away their tax breaks in competition with each other… The trouble is we live in a very real world… And until the courts — I say the courts because Congress will never do this — find a way to stop it, we’ve gotta compete…we’ll lose the opportunity to keep our young people.”
He then talks about how our education is great, but people come here for education and then leave, and that’s something he wants to discourage.
He then talks about how the jobs he brought to Iowa had a lot of benefits. The tax breaks he gave businesses came with a lot of requirements, including pay that was above average per capita income in the state, guarantees that they’d stay, etc. In the cases when we didn’t keep businesses here, it was because other states (e.g., South Carolina) gave away unreasonably huge rewards to companies. So Blouin is in favor of tax breaks with guarantees like that.
Eric asked about Iowa’s food deficit (we import 85% of our food):
Blouin deconstructs the statistic and said that it involved seasons, etc. He also said that promoting organic farming (which is mostly for human consumption) will improve that situation.
On my question about abortion:
He states his position (here on his web site) pretty persuasively. I usually get annoyed by the “I’m pro-life personally but not politically” politicians but Blouin wasn’t annoying. He gives concrete examples of the (strategically) liberal programs he’d support to reduce abortions while still honoring his promise to maintain the right to choose. And, finally, he deflects potential criticism for his 1970s votes for a ban on abortion by explaining, “Now it’s taken me years to get to [this] point, but I’m comfortable.”
So then I asked if he’d support laws like the requirements that abortion clinics provide information to pregnant women about the pain their fetus will feel or about adoption services, and he said, unequivocally, that he will not sign any bill that would affect abortion on either side of the issue. He claims, to explain why his pro-life position is actually more effective than Nussle’s, “Republicans want an issue. I want a solution.”
On Alec’s question about the “WalMart laws”:
He likes them, but he needs a democratic legislature.
“I think there’s something seriously wrong with a corporate mindset that hires people at low wages, condemns government giveaways, and calls their employees together to explain how they, as employees of WalMart, can go get Medicaid services. Yeah, it oughta be illegal.”
And he says Eric Palmer is a great candidate who could help change the balance in the legislature.
On Alec’s question about requiring health insurance by law (like Massachusetts):
“To mandate people to buy something they can’t afford to pay for, in itself doesn’t work. You’ve gotta make sure that you’ve got a product — a basic product — that’s affordable for everyone. I want to see how it works in Massachusetts, and I think we can get a pretty good read in a couple of years.”
He goes on to talk about Andy McGuire’s medical qualifications. And then he gives a pretty detailed account of what improvements he wants to make. And he proposes “bridge health insurance” for recent college graduates if they are looking for jobs in Iowa.
He also talks about how he wants to bring down pharmaceutical costs. He wants transparency in drug pricing, but it’ll take creativity to make it constitutional. He thinks he has a solution (by asking for transparency only for drugs that the state buys directly).
On Hannah’s question on McGuire’s donations to Republicans:
Greg Ganske, who unseated Neal Smith, was also McGuire’s neighbor, which explains her donation.
Jim Nussle was her brother’s neighbor, so she donated to one of his early congressional campaigns. But,
“When he abandoned the value system he said he had, she and [her husband] dropped him. 35% of Iowans are Democrats. You’ve got to get to 51%. You’ve gotta reach out to Independents and progressive Republicans who are scared to death of the Nussle/Vanderplaats ticket, and Andy can do it.”
Then a jab at Ed Fallon (although not mentioned by name):
“You know we’ve got another candidate in this race who publicly endorsed Ralph Nader in the 2000 general election against Al Gore. Helped bring us George Bush. And who, through his organization, endorsed a couple of incumbent Republicans in the legislature. That’s what he did. That was then. This is today. And he’s a very competent guy, and he’s got a right to run. I don’t think you can bash him for it… He probably wished he hadn’t done it back then…”
On Eric’s question on whether Blouin would raise taxes to increase teacher pay:
“I don’t think we have to raise taxes to do it.”
He talks about the need to improve pay for teachers, nurses, and day care providers.
All in all, it was an interesting event. I wish more students had made it out.
Oh! And, on his way out, he made a joke about how blogs can be scary. Boo!
April 23rd, 2006
The Quad City Times has the story that the House voted to ban TouchPlay 80-18:
Rep. Danny Carroll, R-Grinnell, who led TouchPlay opposition during the House debate, said the ban was a critical vote for lawmakers.
He said it demonstrates “the will of the Legislature and, more importantly, the people of Iowa that we do not want an expansion of gambling in this state.”
“This is not the Iowa that we envisioned,” he added.
Well, at least Danny Carroll knows he needs his name in print as much as possible if he’s going to survive another election campaign. The story also mentions another measure before the House right now to extend the deadline for removing the slot machines until September 1. Time for a five-month TouchPlay binge!
And in case you’re wondering what’s next, Tom Vilsack has to decide if he’ll sign it. He previously said he’d sign what the legislature sends him, so things are looking good for Iowa casinos and bad for that back wall at Kum & Go right by the bathroom.
March 14th, 2006
