Century of Common Iowan is reporting that Larry McKibben, the incumbent Republican State Senator in Marshall and Hardin Counties will not be running for re-election. When Iowa Progress ranked the top opportunities for Democrats to pick up seats in the State Senate last year, McKibben was listed as the most vulnerable Republican.
Of the eight Republicans named on that list, McKibben is now the fourth to decline to run for re-election in 2008. It’s clear that Senate Republicans know that they are in trouble in 2008. The most vulnerable seats for Senate Democrats are all in Eastern Iowa which has been growing increasingly Democratic and it’s quite likely no incumbent Democrat will get defeated in November. That combined with an increasing number of Republican open seats means that Senate Republicans are on the ropes. It’s likely that they will face a net loss of two or three seats and could be in a position where they begin the January 2009 legislative session with only 15 Senators.
However, one thing is sure. Whether the Senate Republican Caucus has two Senators or 42 Senators, they are sure to be factionalized and divided no matter what. It’s one thing to be a member of a minority party but when you’re a member of a minority party where the caucus meetings resemble Kenyan street battles more than a gathering of like-minded legislators, it’s clear that you’ll be in the minority for a long time to come.
As part of the minimum wage increase that was passed by the Iowa State Legislature last year, Iowa’s minimum wage will go up from $6.20 to $7.25 on January 1st. This marks one of the many advances made in Des Moines during the last legislative session when Democrats finally controlled both chambers of the Iowa State Legislature and Terrace Hill for the first time in 40 years.
Considering the accomplishments of the past legislative session, not just on minimum wage, but on civil rights, stem cells and a host of other issues, there should be a lot to look forward to in 2008. Although everyone is caught up in the upcoming Iowa Caucuses, it’s worth remembering that no matter who wins and who loses on January 3, it doesn’t matter as long as Democrats rally behind the eventual nominee. Iowa has made a lot of progress over the past year but it can make a lot more with a Democratic President in the White House.
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.
The Politico is reporting that Sam Brownback is expected to end his bid for the Republican nomination for President tomorrow. Brownback never recovered from finishing third, behind fellow social conservative Mike Huckabee, in the Iowa Straw Poll in August. Brownback’s withdrawal from the field helps consolidate Huckabee’s position as the leading social conservative amongst the Republican field.
Brownback’s withdrawal leaves several key Iowa Republican activists up for grabs. Chuck Hurley, one of Iowa’s leading social conservatives, was a Brownback backer and will be courted by Presidential candidates seeking support amongst caucusgoers from the religious right. Another major Brownback supporter was convenience store millionaire Don Lamberti. Lamberti’s son, former Republican State Senator and Congressional candidate Jeff Lamberti, is a leading John McCain supporter. Given their family relationship, not to mention the close ties between McCain and Brownback, it’s quite possible that Lamberti will switch his support to McCain.
Brownback joins Tommy Thompson as the second Republican candidate to drop out directly or indirectly because of the straw poll. (Jim Gilmore also had a short-lived and rather pathetic bid for the Presidency but dropped out to focus his energies on trying to lose a U.S. Senate seat to former Democratic candidate Mark Warner). The Straw Poll will have once again have significantly winnowed the Republican field, depriving Republican caucusgoers of choices in order so that the Republican Party of Iowa can make a few extra bucks.
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.
This week marked the first time that candidates were competing head to head with TV ads for the Iowa Caucuses, as John Edwards, Bill Richardson, and Chris Dodd all announced ad buys on local networks and cable. The Edwards and Richardson ads are so unique, that one might call the more boilerplate Dodd ad ‘distinctively normal.’
The first two of the three, from Edwards and Richardson, were not what one might call standard TV ads. In Edwards’s 30-second spot, the first 27 seconds feature “everyday-looking” Iowans finishing each others’ sentences about what Congress should do to end the war (the answer is support Edwards’s call to send the same bill that Bush vetoed back to his desk unchanged). The Senator does not come onto the screen until the mandatory “I’m John Edwards, and I approved this message” tag at the end. It is clearly intended to portray the sense that Edwards’s campaign is more about its supporters than its principal, and it drew quite a bit of notice from media when it was first announced.
In Richardson’s two 30-second spots (one is airing currently, the other is sitting in the can to be aired later), the Governor sits at a desk while a middle management-type interviews him for a job. The tone is something akin to the film Office Space, as the interviewer begins by rattling off impressive facts from Richardson’s resume and ends the second ad by saying, “For what we’re looking for, you might be a little overqualified.” Most people will think the ad is funny, but they won’t realize why: it is because, from Richardson’s point of view, the public is behaving like the caricature of the middle manager, ignoring his resume as if experience weren’t important. The ads are intended to change minds with humor, and the media has been buzzing about them ever since they launched.
On Tuesday, Chris Dodd’s campaign released its new Iowa ad, and it provides a stark contrast to Richardson’s and Edwards’s ad in that it follows the fairly standard format of the candidate talking to a camera for 30 seconds. Although Dodd’s was not the first ad to go up, it is the first standard political ad of the campaign to hit the airwaves. In it, Dodd maintains a serious expression while explaining his support of the Reid-Feingold plan in the Senate. Next to Richardson’s informative-but-funny ad and Edwards’s community-oriented, borderline gimmicky ad, Dodd’s looks stately but uninspired.
Perhaps the Dodd camp has made the calculation that they aren’t going to win by trying to run the most inspiring (or inspired) campaign; they see their opening in wonkish policy plans and sober assessments of reality. I couldn’t get them to reveal this entire campaign strategy to me, but I did ask Dodd’s Iowa Press Secretary, Taylor West, about the distinctive seriousness of the new ad. “There can be no more serious issue confronting the nation than how we bring this war to a responsible close,” she began. “[Dodd’s] campaign and his ads reflect his understanding that at a time when the stakes have never been higher for the country, we need proven, bold leadership.”
All this isn’t to say that Senator Dodd does not have a sense of humor, because he does have at least one joke that we know of that he tells regularly on the campaign trail. Still, Dodd’s new web site has launched, and it promises to make full use of all the latest Web 2.0 crazes that often impress netroots activists. Perhaps what we are seeing now is the beginning of Dodd’s repositioning himself to appeal more to policy wonks, technocrats, and bloggers, and this experiment might just work.
Video of all three candidates’ ads is below:
Edwards ad:
Richardson ads (the first is airing now; the one that plays after it in the clip below is likely to air later on):
As the Iowa legislative session came to a close early Sunday, House Democrats marveled that they had passed all but one of the items on their legislative agenda. The next day, they learned that they were short one more thing: a caucus member. The two issues were not unrelated.
On Monday, Rep. Dawn Pettengill, a Democrat from Mount Auburn, announced that she was becoming a Republican. Over the session, Pettengill had become increasingly estranged from the Democratic Party. When Iowa House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a Democrat from Des Moines learned of the news—after the press—he was “disappointed, not surprised,” he said in a phone interview yesterday. “It was more of a shift on paper. We tended not count on her to be a team player, even on procedural matters.” Pettengill did not return calls for comment.
While Pettengill clashed with her former party on a variety of issues, perhaps the most significant one was the proposed Fair Share bill, which would have allowed public employee unions to charge fees for services given to nonunion workers. “In the end, it was a pretty scaled down, reasonable proposal,” McCarthy said. It would ensure that workers “kick in their fair share of those services.”
Fair Share, despite being passed in the Iowa Senate, never came to a vote in the House because, McCarthy said, “We just didn’t have the votes to get it done.” McCarthy said that the proposal had the support of 50 Democrats in the caucus but lacked that crucial 51st. “We don’t have that large a majority.” One Democratic representative, Ray Zirkelbach of Monticello is currently serving in Iraq, and in addition to Pettengill, two other members of the Democratic caucus refused to support the bill. McCarthy declined to name those representatives.
McCarthy said that on the way to regaining the majority in the 2006 elections, some conservative Democrats ran, or were recruited, to defeat Republican incumbents. Keeping them on board for certain issues, he said was “challenging.” In the interview, McCarthy did not seem angry that the bill failed to pass; he simply stated matter-of-factly that “the answer is to continue to try to educate [reluctant members] and to pick up a few more seats” in order to make up for deserters.
According to the Des Moines Register, the Democratic leadership spent four hours trying to convince its caucus members to support the bill, and that Pettengill emerged with “tears on her face when she left the room where Democrats were meeting in private.”
McCarthy bristled at the suggestion that he had tried to strong-arm people for support. “I definitely didn’t,” he said. “We used tough arguments trying to convince people… We did that through civil and respectful conversation.” McCarthy said, “The argument that we were strong-arming people was coming from right wing Republican propaganda.” The charge, he said, was “a falsehood, a lie.”
In the end, McCarthy, said that he was not sure whether Pettengill’s defection could have been prevented. “She’s gone through a fairly significant emotional journey this session,” he said. “She was formerly a close person friend with me. That friendship had withered away, and she became more distant with members of her caucus.”
He also questioned the logic of Pettengill’s decision. Not only had she joined a party that, according to McCarthy, sent 27 negative mailings against her in the last election—“some of the most vicious, vile, mean spirited negative campaigning I’ve ever seen”—but that the party she joined was out of power. “We can’t find anybody within the last 30 years that leaves the majority party and the power to deliver to her constituents,” he said. “If I were a constituent, I would be shocked and outraged that she gave up the ability to deliver in exchange for feeling good.”
McCarthy agreed with the idea that Pettengill was reading her district wrong, that it is not as conservative as she believes. “I think,” he said with resignation, “she’s confused.”
State Representative Dawn Pettengill left the Democratic caucus for the Republican caucus today. The Register has the story from Chris Rants’s press conference, which just happened:
The change cuts the Democratic majority in the House to 53 seats and gives minority Republicans 47 seats. It takes 51 votes to pass legislation.
Pettengill had battled publicly with the House Democratic caucus this year over issues such as labor union fees and the cigarette tax increase. She had indicated publicly she might consider leaving the caucus, although she had suggested she was more likely to become an independent.
“The House Democratic leadership pursued an agenda which veered far from the principles for which my constituents and I stand,” she said in a statement. “My decision gives me the best opportunity to represent the values of my constituents.”
This is going to make progressives — particularly the ones I know who knocked doors for her during the last campaign — pretty unhappy. Pettengill is known for her emotional outbursts, and my sense is that she perceives her district to be more conservative than it actually is.
I posted a while back about why I didn’t think Pettengill was going to defect. It turns out I was wrong. This kind of transition, from the majority to the minority (particularly when it looks like the Republicans will likely remain in the minority through next campaign cycle) is surprising, but Pettengill planted the seed for a defection months ago.
As an aside, this comes as a double-disappointment for many progressives, who were hoping that Rants planned to announce his resignation today. Rumors that he will resign have been circulating for months, and there is no word yet on whether Pettengill’s switch will influence his decision on that one way or the other.
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.
There is an issue in the news right now that is of greatest interest to Iowans. I’m not taking about frontloading the primary schedule, but rather the exponentially increasing role of the internet in campaigns. While it remains to be seen what impact it will have had when this process culminates on January 14, 2008, we have already seen the effect it can have for a candidate. Many have credited YouTube for handing Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) and the Democrats the senate majority, thanks to a video featuring now former Senator George Allen calling a Webb staffer a “macaca.” Facebook and MySpace have also thrown their names into the political arena. While this may get many more people involved in the caucuses, it is increasingly difficult for the rest of us to process such a large volume of information and take the time to make sense of it for ourselves.
A prime example of this is a video entitled “Vote Different.” Posted on YouTube two weeks ago, it has been viewed over 919,000 times. It is a testament to the power of such ad campaigns on the internet. If you haven’t seen it, watch it for yourself.
Upon first glance, you should notice a few things. First is that it is a clever mashup of the famous 1984 Super Bowl ad introducing Apple Macintosh to the computer world. Secondly, it appears to be obvious that it is from the Obama campaign. This is a view that many major sources of news media have advanced. It’s a fair statement. The woman with the hammer has the symbol of Obama’s campaign on her shirt, and at the end of the ad is Obama’s web address.
But something just doesn’t seem right. Why would that particular sound bite be chose? There must be something that gets their message across more efficiently. They show Hillary’s explicit attempt to come across as a regular person, having a “conversation” with each of us individually. Now watch the original. The Macintosh ad speaks of “one people, one will, one resolve, one cause,” and “a garden of pure ideology where each worker may bloom, secure from the pests of any contradictory thoughts,” all coming from a voice that is meant to sound evil. It completely contradicts with Hillary’s explicit statement that “we all need to be part of the discussion,” and “I don’t want people who agree with me.” Themes such as unity, and “one people” are actually coming from the Obama campaign. Also notice the change in contrast between the two, as Hillary is bright white, as opposed to the dark room. The image of the “big brother” is dark, and blends with the dark wall, with a lighter room.
Now consider that the video was posted by someone with the username “ParkRidge47.” It is significant in that Senator Clinton was born in Park Ridge in 1947. It was also posted with the text: “Make up your own mind. Decide for yourself who should be our next president,” very much in line with the Hillary sound bite. So let’s say this actually is from the Clinton campaign. Could the message be that she is trying to create an exchange of ideas to make everyone better off, thus distancing herself from the image of politics that she is associated (i.e. a war of the partisans or even a politics as a competitive sport in which the American people are spectators)?
In the original commercial, the power comes from the irony of the hammer hitting the screen just as the “big brother” says “we will prevail.” In the mashup, the hammer hits Hillary as she says “I want to keep this conversation going until November, 2008.” Also notice that the woman with the Obama symbol is now wearing an ipod, symbolizing that she refuses to take part in Hillary’s conversation, and is then actually stops it suggesting that Obama is the one who wants to end her conversation. As for the reason why 2008 won’t be like “1984,” that is the year that Walter Mondale, running as an unabashed liberal, lost forty-nine of the fifty states in the general election. This suggests that having Hillary on the Democratic ticket would result in a different outcome this time around. This message is made clearer by having Obama associated with the black screen, while Hillary is associated with white.
Both sides have denied responsibility for the mashup, and I personally don’t subscribe to either view. We just don’t know, and can’t say for sure where this ad came from. My point is that not everything will be as it appears this campaign season. We must all take a closer look at everything we see and form our own opinions. It’s not an easy job, but it is our responsibility to do so.
