Search Results for ‘democratic party’
More than a week after the primary, it’s time to put Leonard Boswell’s victory over Ed Fallon into perspective. While the Fallon campaign is claiming “a partial victory,” the facts don’t bear out the silver lining that Fallon is trying to discern from his defeat. (Although after such a devastating loss, one certainly can understand while Fallon is looking for a silver lining). Fallon seems to think that his primarying Boswell was the reason Leonard Boswell’s voting record suddenly improved in 2007. However, Fallon didn’t have anything to do with it. Nancy Pelosi did. Democrats taking control of the House of Representatives meant that Republicans weren’t able to bring bills up that would place Democrats in swing districts like Boswell in tough positions. Once they weren’t and once Democrats had a governing majority in the House, Boswell was able to take better votes even though he still represents a district that George Bush won in 2004. Boswell supported a lot of progressive bills before Fallon declared his candidacy, during the campaign and will continue to do so now. Fallon’s claims otherwise are just attempts to justify his defeat and find a partial victory in a 22 point loss.
In terms of Iowa politics, it’s pretty clear Ed Fallon’s political career is over. Although Fallon had pockets of strength in North and West sides of Des Moines, Fallon still wasn’t able to win his former House District, HD 66 and was throughly trounced in the rural areas by margins not seen in a federal election in Iowa since Art Small was beat by Chuck Grassley. Despite Fallon’s much vaunted army of volunteers, his field efforts proved poor as turnout was low in his base precincts and he lost absentee ballots in Polk County by a nearly 3 to 1 margin (and by even more lopsided margins outside Polk County). In addition, Fallon is now bogged down by $35,000 in campaign debt, in addition to the $21,000 of debt still listed on his gubernatorial campaign account. If Fallon had won, or even lost narrowly, he might have had a strong claim to political credibility. Instead, he is firmly a niche candidate, one popular in Sherman Hill and among the Volvo drivers South of Grand but not anywhere else.
Boswell’s left flank is once again totally secure. Having easily fended off Fallon’s challenge, it seems clear he will be the Democratic nominee for Congress until he doesn’t want to be. However, Boswell, in the past few cycles, has proven to be much more vulnerable in off year elections than in Presidential years. While he should be able fend off Kim Schmett successfully, Boswell certainly be an NRCC target once again in 2010.
Polk County politics should also change too. The failure of the Fallon’s base to turn out shows the continued impotences of his limousine liberal base in local Democratic politics. The power in the Polk County Democratic Party will continue to reside on the southern banks of the Des Moines River for the near future.
In short, almost nothing has changed as a result of Fallon’s congressional run. Leonard Boswell is just as liberal as he was before and just as secure as the Democratic nominee as he was before. The balance of power has not changed in Polk County politics or on Capitol Hill. The only difference is that Ed Fallon has thrown his political career away in a quixotic challenge against a relatively progressive Democrat in a swing district and only has a debt of $35,000 to show for it.
June 12th, 2008
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
In an interview with The Hill, Tom Harkin made his suggestion for who the Democratic nominee for the Vice Presidency should be. Harkin suggested a well-known liberal from the Northeast. Not Chuck Schumer or Chris Dodd but, instead, Jon Stewart. Harkin thought the Daily Show host was the best fit for the number two spot on the ticket. When asked if he would consider being Vice President himself, Harkin said, “No, I’d have Jon Stewart stand in for me. Jon Stewart. That’s my guy.” Harkin is the first super delegate to come out in support of Stewart. However, so far, Stewart has not collected the endorsement of a single pledged delegate.
Chuck Grassley was also asked if he was interested in being the Vice Presidential nominee of his party. Grassley’s response was “I’m too old to be vice president. But I am young enough to be reelected to the Senate.” That seems to be a pretty clear declaration again that Grassley is running in 2010. And when he does run, Iowa Progress has found the perfect opponent for him.
May 17th, 2008
It is increasingly unlikely that Ed Fallon will win the Third District Primary as his campaign is both broke and languishing far behind Leonard Boswell in the polls. The question now arises what will professional candidate Ed Fallon run for next? Fallon is a professional candidate at this point (and, thanks to the still open Fallon Loophole, can still make a good living running for office). There are several possibilities for Fallon. The first is running for Mayor of Des Moines against Frank Cownie in 2011. Cownie is a leading environmentalist, which makes him a prime target for Fallon who actively worked to defeat Al Gore in 2000. However, that election is three years away and the Mayor of Des Moines only makes $31,500 a year. Fallon would be much better served continuing his I’M For Iowa gig rather embarking so soon on a campaign for a weak office so far in the future.
Another possibility is Polk County Supervisor. This job pays $93,000, which is more than Ed Fallon has ever lapped up from the public trough in a single year so far. However, Fallon lives in the area represented by John Mauro. Although Mauro’s reputation has been tainted by association with CIETC, Fallon’s ethical lapses in regards for IM for Iowa and his attempts to cover up that misconduct make Mauro look like the second coming of Abraham Lincoln. While Fallon has never showed any fear of entering in races he’s likely to lose, it seems unlikely he’d want to tangle with La Macchina in a district that is almost entirely on the South Side. This is especially true when Fallon is probably the only candidate who Christine Hensley would support a Mauro over.
Fallon could also run for State Senate against Jack Hatch in 2010. Although Hatch endorsed Boswell, he was one of two State Senators to vote against closing the Fallon Loophole and unlike most other elected Democrats in Polk County, he has not been vehemently opposed to Fallon and has even attended a Fallon event or two as a polite observer. However, in Fallon’s political career, loyalty has not been one of Fallon’s most notable traits. He endorsed Nader in 2000, considered running as a third party candidate against Chet Culver in 2006 and refused a pledge to support all Democrats on the ticket in 2002. (One wonders whether Fallon was more conflicted about supporting Tom Harkin or Tom Vilsack.) In that light, stabbing Jack Hatch in the back seems like small potatoes. However, while Hatch’s district includes many places Fallon has represented in the past, a State Senator only makes about $30,000 a year and as a state candidate, Fallon could lose income in the remaining interval if the Legislature actually closes the Fallon Loophole and keeps Fallon from paying himself from campaign contributions. But there is one office Ed Fallon could run for where he would never have to worry about the Iowa Legislature cutting into his earnings.
Chuck Grassley is up for Senate in 2010 and Fallon would make an admirable Democratic nominee. Aside from giving Fallon the chance to earn nearly $170,000, he could pay himself a salary without worrying about any legislation from Rick Olson to cut off the gravy train. It would also be the one office where Fallon would not have to primary an incumbent and would have a chance to receiving the backing of the entire Democratic establishment as Ed Fallon possesses a very rare skill that is essential to running against Grassley. After all, what politician in Iowa has more experience and talent at turning receiving only 25% of the vote into a victory?
No matter what office Ed Fallon runs for in the future, there is one thing for certain. Professional political candidate Ed Fallon will be running for office again.
May 5th, 2008
Despite being a city slicker from Sherman Hill, Ed Fallon displayed his agricultural expertise last week when he reaped what he sowed with Al Gore’s endorsement of Leonard Boswell. To paraphrase what Fallon said about the former Vice President, Gore can’t support Fallon, won’t support Fallon and thinks Democratic primary voters in the 3rd District shouldn’t support Fallon either. Fallon notoriously betrayed the Democratic Party and stabbed Gore in the back and is now facing the consequences of his actions. This endorsement came the same day as a KCCI poll came out that showed Boswell thumping Fallon by nearly 25 points. Even if every undecided voter broke for Fallon, Boswell would still win 52-48. In addition, national publications such as the Hotline and Real Clear Politics are counting Fallon out.
Iowa named a county after Nathaniel Greene, a Revolutionary War General who presided over the trial and execution of John Andre, Benedict Arnold’s accomplice. It’s doubtful though whether the state will grant any such honor to Leonard Boswell when he presides over the death knell of a modern day Benedict Arnold’s political career on June 3rd but Boswell will be deserving of it.
April 28th, 2008
Ed Fallon attacked a mailing by Leonard Boswell today that criticized Fallon for his support of Ralph Nader as “very cynical [and] very deceptive” today. Iowa Progress has previously addressed Fallon’s support for Nader, including his statement that “I can’t, I won’t and you shouldn’t [vote for Al Gore] either” in a speech that was reproduced nationally. As a result of the strong Nader organizing in Iowa, in which Ed Fallon was actively involved, the Gore campaign had to devote a disproportionate amount of resources to a state that Michael Dukakis won handily in 1988 and that Bill Clinton won twice. Gore even was in Iowa the day before the election in 2000. If Al Gore instead could have paid an extra visit to Florida or was able to run a few more ads there, it certainly would have shifted 500 votes and changed history.
But the larger issue is that while Fallon has no compulsion about attacking Boswell (and implying that reporting on subjects like I’M For Iowa done by independent reporters like Chase Martyn and Tom Beaumont comes from the Boswell press office). In fact, Fallon’s website is flush with cynical and deceptive statements such as “Boswell is bought and paid for by special interests,” Boswell “practices ‘the politics of deception,’” “Boswell…betrays American and Iowa values.’ In fact, Fallon’s attacks on Boswell go back to 2006 when Boswell was one of three most vulnerable Democratic incumbents in the country. Fallon sent out an email then calling Boswell’s campaign “offensive” and attacking him for “name calling, record-distorting and fear mongering.” Fallon did this a week before absentee ballots were sent out in 2006. However, this attack did show how Fallon’s sense of party loyalty improved since 2000. He only attacked a fellow Democrat in a tight election, rather than openly campaigning against him as well. Frankly, it seems Ed Fallon’s real complaint is that his fiscal irresponsibility keeps him from having any money to spend on paid media as even the Politico points out.
Fallon is running in a Democratic primary as someone with a history of disloyalty, dishonesty and sleaze if he can’t handle that being pointed out now, one can only imagine what the Republicans would do to him in a general election.
April 23rd, 2008
While most of the attention paid to Iowa fundraising numbers in the first quarter of this year went to the 3rd District primary, it’s worth noting that there is a Democratic primary in the 4th District too. However, the haul for Democrats there was much less promising. Two of the candidates, William Meyers and Kevin Miskell have not even filed reports with the FEC. This is a sign that they have either not raised enough money to need to file reports or they are too incompetent to get their information in on time. One suspects that the former is the case but no matter what the scenario, it does not mark them as promising candidates in the primary (let alone in a general election against a well-funded long-time incumbent).
Of the remaining two candidates, Kurt Meyer raised $130,000 but, of that sum, $100,000 came from Meyer himself. Of the remaining $30,000, there are two noteworthy donors. The Mitchell County Democratic Party gave Meyer $500 and 2006 Democratic nominee for the 4th District, Selden Spencer, gave $250. It is also worth noting that 85% of Meyer’s itemized donations came from out of state. However, Meyer ended the quarter with $108,000 cash on hand.
Becky Greenwald raised almost $24,000 although $3,500 of that sum came from her own pocket. Of the rest, almost half came from donors with the last name Garst. As Greenwald’s mother was married to a member of the Garst family, it’s not a surprise that she was able to take advantage of her familial connections for her campaign. In fact, one of the Garsts, Marilyn Garst of Coon Rapids, has already maxed out to Greenwald for both the primary and general elections. This means that nearly 10% of the money Greenwald raised in the quarter cannot be used in a primary. However, as Greenwald was holding a major fundraiser with Tom Vilsack after the end of the quarter, one suspects her fundraising will increase. But in the meantime, she ended the quarter with just over $20,000 on hand.
Both Greenwald and Meyer are strong candidates but it’s still unclear what the result of what will almost certainly be a sleepy, low-turnout primary will be. While Greenwald will stand out as the only woman on the ballot (and Meyer has a very similar last name to Meyers), there are also very competitive primaries in Mason City and Decorah, which will drive turnout in the northern part of the district. As Meyer is from Northern Iowa while Greenwald is from Dallas County, this may help him if voters base their decision on geography. But then again, most voters may not know who any of the congressional candidates even are, let alone where they are from.
April 16th, 2008
Although we find it a bit repetitive and dull writing about Ed Fallon, one would think that the Fallon campaign would feel the same way about lying. Unfortunately, Fallon’s now endemic dishonesty was exposed again. A Fallon press release claimed that the FEC had given Fallon a clean bill of ethical health after mounting evidence of Fallon committing campaign finance violations. Unfortunately, the FEC didn’t. According to FEC spokesman George Smaragdis, “no Commission employee made any determination relative to the specific circumstances of any campaign. Only the Commission can make such a determination.” Even prior to the FEC disavowing Fallon’s claims, suspicions were raised due to the fact Fallon never used a direct quote or cited a specific FEC employee by name in his press release.
However, the same Fallon staffer who contacted the FEC, campaign manager Lynn Heuss, was the same Fallon staffer who told the Iowa Campaign and Ethics Board that Fallon was considering a third party bid for Governor, something Fallon immediately denied and claimed was a miscommunication. This comes after earlier this week when Fallon lied about his income from I’m for Iowa. Between that and his false claim of a statement from the FEC, that’s a minimum of two outright Fallon lies this week alone. In fact, there’s even a third lie if you believe Fallon was actually lying about considering a third party run for Governor in 2006, considering that Heuss is Fallon’s current and former campaign manager, former legislative aide, partner in I’M for Iowa and is registered to vote at the same address as Fallon. One presumes that a miscommunication between two people so close on a such a basic question would be rather unlikely.
It’s sad that Fallon, a former clean elections advocate, has sunk so low. When the Iowa House tries to pass a bill to ban candidates from paying themselves (incidentally, one of the election law reforms Barack Obama passed in Illinois), he attacks the Democratic Party leadership as “bought and paid for” and expresses the hope that, unless his favored clean elections legislation passes, Democrats lose their majority in the Iowa House. It seems that Fallon doesn’t just support Ralph Nader anymore, he’s starting to warm towards Chris Rants too.
The shame of it is that Fallon believes everything he’s doing is right. He’s been so caught up in his crusade for Congress, he seems to have lost track of right and wrong. He’s a clean elections advocate who is refusing to disclose donors to his amorphous partnership. He’s a man running on integrity who is brazenly lying. One is reminded of a Greek tragedy, or at least the Alec Guinness character from Bridge on the River Kwai. He’s so caught up and obsessed with his bid for Congress, he thinks no one will notice when he makes up FEC opinions, not even the FEC itself. Imbued with self-righteousness, Fallon seems to think he’s starring in Mr. Smith Goes To Washington when he’s merely playing the title role in Billy Liar.
April 3rd, 2008
Ed Fallon today attacked a bill that would ban politicians paying themselves with campaign funds as “status quo politics at its worst.” The bill was introduced because Fallon had paid himself nearly $14,000 with campaign funds after the end of his 2006 gubernatorial bid, making Fallon one of the most notable politicians to line his own pockets with campaign funds since Alan Keyes paid himself $8500 a month to run for Senate in 1992. Although Fallon claimed there was leftover money in his campaign account because “most candidates aren’t as fiscally responsible as I am,” Fallon had nearly $40,000 still in the bank at the end of his gubernatorial campaign. In a close three-race where you being outspent, saving that much money isn’t exactly fiscally responsible.
But then again, Fallon was considering running through November even if he didn’t win the primary. Although Fallon denied contemplating a third party run for Governor, an email from his campaign manager/business partner/very close personal friend Lynn Heuss to the Iowa Campaign and Ethics Board stated that the reason that Fallon was paying himself after the Democratic Primary and had kept his campaign account open was because “there was also the possibility that he would decide to run as a 3rd party candidate” in addition to the need to perform administrative tasks. One wonders how such a miscommunication could occur between two people who are so close.
Although perhaps it wasn’t a miscommunication. Fallon already backed Ralph Nader in 2000 stating at a rally the week before an election “I can’t, I won’t and you shouldn’t vote for Al Gore” and later condemned the Polk County Democratic Central Committee for asking all Democratic candidates to support the Democratic ticket no matter. Although Fallon later said he only endorsed Nader when Al Gore added Joe Lieberman to the ticket, his published remarks on the subject don’t address Lieberman at all and seem more focused on attacking the Vice President and future Nobel Laureate as “to the right of Bill Clinton.” As a result of the loyalty pledge, Fallon compared the actions of the Polk County Democratic Central Committee to the Nazi Party in a hyperbolic statement of utter tastelessness.
In fact, it seems more likely that Ed Fallon is lying again. Fallon has already spent the week obfuscating about the financial irregularities of his “business” I’m For Iowa. He told one reporter that he only took a small draw from the business and another that he was paying himself a salary of over $30,000 a year. However, Ed Fallon has been consistent about one thing. He refuses to disclose the financial records of I’M for Iowa, reinforcing the fact that there is something rotten in Sherman Hill.
But in the meantime, Fallon, the erstwhile crusader for campaign finance reform, is attacking a bill prohibiting candidates from paying themselves as “status quo politics at its worst” and hiding the financial records of I’M For Iowa from public disclosure. For someone who claims to believe in clean elections, Ed Fallon certainly seems to be running his in the muck.
March 31st, 2008
David Yepsen was singing the praises of Chet Culver today for undermining efforts to allow teachers and other public employees the same rights as private sector employees. Apparently if this happens, there’s a chance that teachers may negotiate for smaller class sizes as part of collective bargaining and why would any Iowa school want smaller class sizes? Except, of course, that there is a definitive link between class size and academic performance among students. Yepsen also brings up the scary fact that the collective bargaining bill would mean more binding arbitration which Yepsen is sure means higher costs to government. However, Ed Tibbets in an exhaustive piece for the Quad City Times shows that binding arbitration only happens rarely. In fact, it only occurs in 1% of all contract disputes in Iowa. In fact, binding arbitration may work against teachers and other public employees union. While opponents of the bills claim that in arbitration cases involving school districts, teachers prevail against management 57% of the time (although includes a mere 63 cases that occurred over the past 5 years), the Quad City Times’ review of arbitration cases in Scott County shows the contrary and management prevailing over public employees almost 60% of the time.
However, this isn’t stopping the fearmongering. Far-right organizations like Iowans for Tax Relief are claiming (without any data to back up their claims, of course) this could lead to disastrous rises in property taxes, leading Iowa to become more like such states as Maryland, Kansas and Maine and less like such states as Alabama, Arkansas and New Mexico (which incidentally not only have the lowest property taxes in the nation but rank in the bottom for household income, percentage of those living in poverty, employment and just about every other indicator of economic and social health available). So why is Chet going against fairness for teachers and other public employees (along with virtually every Democrat in the legislature) to bathe in the good graces of Iowans for Tax Relief and David Yepsen?
One assumes this is political posturing, designed to strengthen Culver’s hand in his dealings with the legislature. After all, as the Sioux City Journal notes “Culver raised no objections with the substance of the bill, just the process by which it passed. Spokesman Brad Anderson said Culver was ‘not pleased’ that he wasn’t notified earlier, and felt the public should have been included in the debate.” This isn’t politics, it’s personal pique.
As a result, Culver’s annoyance with Mike Gronstal and Pat Murphy, he’s fanned the flames of this issue in a way that has energized Republicans and hurt working people. Iowa Democrats have waited 40 years to pass progressive legislation and for Culver to show such pettiness by standing in the way is disgraceful and sullies an otherwise admirable record as Governor. As Jack Kibbie notes, one imagines that Culver will support the collective bargaining bill “because of his future. He’s running on the Democratic ticket, I presume.” But if Culver continues to stand against guaranteeing public employees the same rights as their private sector counterparts, he’ll be as good a fit on the Republican ticket as on the Democratic one.
March 30th, 2008
Previous Posts
