Search Results for ‘democratic state legislator’
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.
February 14th, 2008
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.
September 26th, 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
While most people think that the Iowa Legislature’s passage of a bill to authorize stem cell research was an important step that offers hope to tens of millions of Americans suffering a wide range of horrible diseases and ailments, there are some dissenting voices. A far-right wing Catholic organization called Fidelis denounced the passage of the bill as “a shameful and cowardly flip flop.” Fidelis also pointed out who the real villain was behind the bill. It wasn’t Chet Culver, Mike Gronstal or Pat Murphy. It was “California rock star” Sheryl Crow. Apparently Crow called a wavering Democratic state legislator and encouraged him to vote for the bill, although the legislator, Brian Quirk of New Hampton, said that he was swayed not by Crow, but by the more mundane concept of giving sick people hope. Despite that, Fidelis still attacked Sheryl Crow for her role in corrupting the state of Iowa. The attacks may not be true but all Fidelis really wants to do is have some fun.
On a side note, fierce stem cell opponent Betty DeBoef, voted for the bill. Why? Apparently, she pressed the wrong button on the voting machine. When you can’t operate a two button machine on one of the most important bills of the year, something’s really wrong. There have been rumors that DeBoef might retire for sometime. A mishap like this can only make it more likely that DeBoef will follow Iowa’s ban on stem cell research off into the sunset.
February 24th, 2007
Joe Bolkcom, the Democratic State Senator from Iowa City, recently introduced SF 104, which lower the voting age to 17 for school board elections. It would also lower the minimum age to register to vote to 17 from 17 1/2. Iowa has always had a law that anyone can register to vote within six months of turning 18, this extends that period for a year, which would make it easier for many young people to register.
A number of countries already allow young people to vote and lowering the voting age to 16 is part of the platform of major international political parties including the Social Democrats in Austria, the New Democratic Party in Canada and the Liberal Democrats in Great Britain. Bolkcom’s bill would only have an effect on the elections where young people have the most at stake, school board races. It helps remedy the absurdity that the people who don’t have a voice in how schools are run are the students. It’s a good progressive bill. Although it’s doubtful that it will pass, it’s worth sending an email to your State Senator about. If people start paying attention, it’s possible that the bill could gain some momentum. It would be an important step towards expanding political rights for young people.
February 18th, 2007
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
Gubernatorial candidate Ed Fallon stopped by Grinnell for lunch today. At least 30 students attended. Fallon began by talking with students informally at each table, and, afterwards, gave a speech and answered questions from the group. There’s an approximation of what happened (we have the event’s audio, and we’ll probably drop some clips into our podcast, coming soon) after the jump.
Ed Fallon began his speech with his clean elections proposal. He names Maine and Arizona as the two states with the best clean elections systems in the country. He quotes a Maine state legislator saying that universal health care can only happen after a clean elections law, because right now special interests control too much. He says often the special interest money goes to Republicans, but he takes a jab at Patty Judge’s money, too.
He says that the primary is the place to make sure you vote for candidates whom you really believe in.
He says that he’s not wealthy, unlike other people who run for public office, and that he lived without any health insurance for a long time. He talks about universal health care again. He criticizes sales tax exemptions for hospital purchases and not for everyday consumers. He says he tries to change things, but, although most legislators agree with him, they all get strongarmed by party leadership who are in the pockets of special interests. As governor, he could be on the same playing field as special interests, which would give him the opportunity to change things.
He talks about how his campaign is going: 1200 volunteers, over 120 house parties, organization in 73 of Iowa’s 99 counties.
Finally, he criticizes cuts in education in Iowa. He wants to end the cuts in the Iowa tuition grant. He says that Iowa’s education system was one of the best in the country, but it’s struggling because of tax cuts for the rich. We gave $16 million to Maytag, and the outgoing CEO of Maytag got a $19 million bonus.
Notes from the Q&A:
On how Ed will get universal health care passed in Iowa’s political climate:
“I believe that if people are fired up about something, the legislature will get it done. Because legislators respond to three things: a lot of them really want to do the right thing. A lot of them feel bullied into doing the wrong thing because of the thread of not getting reelected — if they offend one of their big funders. But most importantly — more important than anything — is the voter. People in their district who feel strongly about an issue. If everybody in their district is talking about health care, and they make it clear that they want to see a universal health care system pass, that lawmaker is going to have to support that or risk losing in the next election. So what I can do as governor is create a climate where people are talking about the issue. Where there’s an expectation that something’s gonna happen. I don’t care if it’s a Republican or Democratic legislature. I’d rather it be a Democratic legislature, but again it doesn’t have to be to get it done. It doesn’t have to be, but we could get a better plan if we have a Democratic legislature.”
On intelligent design:
“I don’t think intelligent design is very intelligent. It’s funny the euphemisms they come up for things, isn’t it? I mean, we used to call it creationism. It’s a back-door way of trying to work religion into the public school curriculum, and that bothers me. And, you know, I’m a religion major; I value my faith quite deeply. But I also value the principle of separation of church and state. And it just seems to me it’s a slippery way of trying to get it into the back door.”
He went on to give a pretty scholarly account of creation stories in Genesis.
On criminal justice system:
“Our criminal justice system is really out of whack. It’s really focused on incarceration. There has been a trend in the legislature to create longer and longer sentences in response to concerns about public safety. A particular crime happens and the response is to enact a new penalty for it.”
He went on to give examples of this, including our 2,000 foot rule for sex offenders, which Fallon says makes us looks bad because of how many problems have been exposed about it. He was the only no vote on the law. He favors a restorative justice approach, or “community based corrections.”
“It involves trying to work with community. I’m really concerned that the current process is not really fair to the victims and the victims’ families as well.”
On alternative energy:
“We have the capacity in Iowa to be energy independent… We can be energy independent in 10 years… The challenge in my mind is making sure the energy industry we create is locally controlled. Right now, again it’s related back to campaign finance reform, you’ve got big companies … that know how to play the game financially.”
Takes a jab at Culver, whose top donor is an energy company from another state.
On the Iowa rainforest:
“It’s kind of ironic that we’re going to build a rainforest in Iowa even as we import these low-cut burgers at McDonalds that involve destruction of the rainforest in Central and South America… I’ve never supported the rainforest… I’d like to see us do more for prairie restoration.”
On immigration:
He’s a welcoming person. He spoke (in Spanish) at the big protest in Des Moines.
April 22nd, 2006
