Search Results for ‘election issue’
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
The bond issue to renovate the Polk County Courthouse failed yesterday by just over 4,000 votes as only 43% of voters supported badly needed repairs and additions to the facility. It’s saddening that a small group of anti-tax zealots were able to take advantage of low turnout special-election in order to defeat a badly needed measure. Even the most devoted Ron Paul-supporting Libertarian believes that government is need to impose a basic system of law and order and ensure those accused of crimes receive fair and speedy trials. However, the lack of room at the courthouse meant hundreds of court cases were being tossed out and that the backlog of cases on the docket was steadily increasing. It’s saddening that the opponents of this measure would let criminals walk free rather than paying an extra $20 in taxes a year. Hopefully, the project will be revived in November and will be passed then when there is a high enough turnout that the results can’t be tilted by a handful of anti-tax zealots who want to undermine and destroy the most basic facets of government.
April 30th, 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
John Deeth has a rather exhaustive rundown of what candidates have filed for state and federal office this year in Iowa but it’s worth noting two interesting trends that have emerged so far and what ramifications this might have for the 2008 election.
The first is that three Democratic candidates have filed in the primary for House District 13. This is an open seat consisting almost entirely of Mason City and is heavily Democratic leaning, although it is currently held by Republican State Representative Bill Schickel who is not seeking re-election. The prospect of a heated Democratic Primary for this seat should pump up turnout which will have a big effect on the competitive Democratic primary for Iowa’s 4th congressional district. In 2006, where there was a competitive statewide primary but no competitive local primaries, turnout in Cerro Gordo made up about 7.5% of Democratic voters in the 4th district. However, with the competitive State House primary this year as well, it should lead to a disproportionate increase in turnout in Cerro Gordo County. This means that Mason City, which is the second largest municipality that is entirely in the 4th Congressional District, becomes even more important in the primary. This probably benefits the candidacy of Kurt Meyer the most as he comes from neighboring Mitchell County and is already seen as one of the more credible candidates in the race.
The second is that Democratic challengers have already filed in two State House seats that weren’t contested in 2006 or 2004 for that matter. James Van Bruggen has filed in ultra-conservative House District 4 which consists of Lyon County and part of Sioux County. The district is currently represented by incumbent Republican Dwayne Alons. While the district represents what is perhaps one of the most Republican state legislative seats in the country, let alone Iowa, (Chet Culver lost the district by a margin of almost 6 to 1) two slim slivers of hope for Van Bruggen are that Alons may be complacent as he has never faced an opponent in a general election in ten years in the legislature and has made some terribly embarrassing statements in recent years as well. In fact, Iowa Progress has commented numerous times on Alons’s frequent inane statements. These include claiming that the ancient Maya were a race of giants due to warmer temperatures and that the invention of air conditioning means that global warming is not a problem.
The other challenger is Ron Rossman, an organic farmer from outside Harlan, Iowa, who is running against Jack Drake in House District 57 which consists of Shelby County, most of Cass County and a thin slice of Pottawatomie County. It is a much less one-sided district than House District 4, Culver only lost the district by a 60-40 in 2006. However, if the race is solely about local issues, Rossman has a chance. While Drake is from the small sliver of Pottawatomie County that is in the district, Rossman hails from Shelby County which makes up over 40% of the district. If Rossman has a strong local base to build from, he has the capacity to run a competitive race.
Although neither of these seats are likely Democratic gains, it shows that Democrats may have a chance at running a candidate in close to every seat this year. In 2006, 19 House Republicans went unopposed, although few were in competitive districts. One of those House Republicans who went unopposed was Mary Lou Freeman. Freeman was a long time incumbent Republican from a safe district in Northwest Iowa. However, Freeman died two months before Election Day. If there had been a Democrat who had filed, the Democrat would have won automatically. Instead, the seat was declared vacant and in the special election that followed, the Republican candidate won handily, easily defeating his Democratic opponent who was a 21 year old college student.
The other benefit of running candidates in every seat is that it builds up party organization in areas that had previous been ceded to Republicans and helps build a stronger base of Democratic activists and to turn out more Democratic voters. In a year that seems to be trending Democratic so far, this could yield a surprise or two on Election Day.
March 3rd, 2008
Cross posted at Iowa Independent
Jerry Falwell died two days ago. Will the Christian Right soon follow? That is certainly one of the questions being debated amidst the 2008 presidential contest. The front-runner for the GOP nomination, Rudy Giuliani, is pro-choice. But he has come under fire; recently for these views and his lead is shrinking nationwide and in Iowa.
Will the Christian Right try to stop Giuliani from winning the nomination? Could they if they tried? In this sense, perhaps the real legacy of Jerry Falwell won’t be known until the GOP has its nominee.
The cover story of the New Republic’s current issue is a lengthy (and intriguing) tribute to the idea that Giuliani can win the GOP nomination. Nestled within, however, is this paragraph:
Then, of course, there is the religious right. Though their power is on the wane, Christian conservatives are not going to allow Giuliani to have the nomination without a bitter fight… Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, put it this way: “If he wins, he’ll do so without social conservatives.” Then he added that a Republican presidential candidate can “no more win without conservative voters than a Democrat can without overwhelming support from blacks.”
Earlier today, James Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family, and one of the leaders of today’s Christian conservative movement announced he would not support Giuliani if he were the Republican nominee:
Speaking as a private citizen and not on behalf of any organization or party, I cannot, and will not, vote for Rudy Giuliani in 2008. It is an irrevocable decision. If given a Hobson’s – Dobson’s? – choice between him and Sens. Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, I will either cast my ballot for an also-ran – or if worse comes to worst – not vote in a presidential election for the first time in my adult life.
On the other hand, Ralph Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition, urged social conservatives to give Giuliani a chance. According to the Hotline, Reed told viewers of the Christian Broadcasting Network that Giuliani “can still potentially win over pro-family voters” if he focuses on issues where they agree. Giuliani had campaigned for Reed last May when Reed was running in Georgia’s lieutenant governor primary; Reed went on to lose the election, but has maintained an affinity for Giuliani, apparently talking him up in January at the National Review Institute.
Here in Iowa, Giuliani has the support of former Congressman and failed gubernatorial candidate Jim Nussle, who was conservative on social issues while in Congress. However, Nussle’s running mate, the more conservative Bob Vanderplaats, in addition to the very conservative Danny Carroll, has endorsed former Arkansas governor and pastor Mike Huckabee. Iowa Republicans–especially the grassroots–are well known conservatives. Two polls taken in 2000 showed that about 60 percent of likely GOP caucusers thought abortion should be illegal, according to the Des Moines Register. The Register reported in the same article that Giuliani hasn’t decided yet whether to participate in the Ames Straw Poll, a crucial test of Republican support in Iowa.
Whether Giuliani will win the Iowa caucuses or the nomination remains to be seen. But what is clear is that a Giuliani victory would be a crushing blow, perhaps a fitting epitaph, for the movement that Jerry Falwell helped create.
May 17th, 2007
Cross-posted at Iowa Independent
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.”
May 3rd, 2007
Today was a big day in the Iowa House, where Representatives voted 59-37 to pass Senate File 427, which updates Iowa’s civil rights law to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (and perceived sexual orientation).
Until yesterday, few people expected the bill to make it to the floor of the House at all, even though it passed the Iowa Senate last month. Without a guarantee that the bill would pass (or even a guarantee that all of the Democrats would sign on), the leadership was reluctant to force its members to make a vote that could hurt them in their reelection campaigns. Ex-Speaker and current Minority Leader Chris Rants was doing everything he possibly could to prevent any Republican members from supporting the bill (even though some Republicans were definitely interested), and it looked like he might succeed in forcing a stalemate through the end of the legislative session.
In the end, though, the Democratic leadership put civil rights ahead of political concerns, and put the bill up to a vote. The result was a resounding victory. And, although Murphy and McCarthy have been getting a lot of grief about VOICE and a few other issues that have worked up our blogging community, this should earn them back some street cred.
More from Mark’s diary over at BleedingHeartland (partially cross-posted with permission):
Senate File 427 updates Iowa’s Civil Rights Act to prohibit discrimination in employment, public accommodation, housing, education, or credit practices based on age, race, creed, color, sex, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability.
The discussion on various blogs throughout the state over the past few months has focused on what the Iowa Legislature has FAILED to accomplish - rather than the victories. This bill is truly a victory for progressives and for everyone who would like to call Iowa home. Leadership in both chambers made this bill a priority throughout the session - and now we can separate ourselves from the 33 other states where it’s OK to dismiss employees because of their real or perceived sexual orientation.
In particular, it was leadership from Democrats in cooperation with Iowa businesses and civil rights leaders who pushed this bill through to final passage. Corporate America is rapidly realizing that creating a tolerant atmosphere for everyone to work is an important part of growing a business - and a state. According to an article in Fortune Magazine:
So it’s clear where big business is going. What’s interesting is to watch it pull the rest of the country along. It turns out that the most important factor shaping people’s feelings about gay issues is not their age or even their religion - although those do matter - but whether they have relatives, friends or co-workers who are gay.
“The more out and open people are, the more changed the straight people are all around them,” says Joe Solmonese, the Human Rights Campaign president. HRC began organizing workplaces to secure benefits for gay employees. This has inadvertently become a shrewd political strategy as well. “To move the mindset of the American people, we need to find the places where they congregate,” Solmonese says. “Priority one is corporate America.”
April 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
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.
March 21st, 2007
Cedar Rapids businessman Steve Rathje (pronounced Rah-CHEE) filed papers to run for the Republican nomination for US Senate over a year ago, but yesterday he made it public. How serious a candidate is he? And how does he feel about higher-profile candidates getting into the race?
Still, he isn’t well-known to the broader public and there has been speculation that someone better known might mount a bid.
Much of that talk has centered on U.S. Rep. Steve King, a Republican from western Iowa. King is a favorite with conservatives but hasn’t shown any signs yet that he’s running.
Rathje dismissed the idea that another congressman could win. Three already have lost to Harkin.
“There is no doubt in my mind history will repeat itself if given the opportunity,” he said.
He added Republicans are taking his candidacy seriously, pointing to the attendance of Leon Mosley, co-chair of the Republican Party of Iowa, at his announcement.
I’m not sure if the fact that one person from the RPI appearing at an announcement event is a sign that the campaign is actually serious, but we’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. I wish I could tell you about his positions on issues, but that page on his web site is blank. But guessing from the information that we do have available, his campaign is going to be fun:
One member of his steering committee, Linda Smith of Cedar Rapids, is the former Linn County chair of Pat Robertson’s presidential campaign. Another member, Bonnie K. Bell, is an executive rent-a-cop at HyVee. Also on board are former chemical company executive Steve Weeber, who serves as Chair of the Simpson College Trustees, and J. David Nichols, whom BEEF Magazine selected as one of the 40 most important BEEF people over the past 40 years. In general, the list is pretty heavy on Johnson, Linn, and Hamilton Counties.
On Rathje’s contact page, he lists his campaign manager as Bill Wirth, and his committee address is Coralville. That leads me to deduce that Wirth is probably the same man who, in 1979, lost one of the closest city council elections in Coralville history (scroll to the bottom of this page for information). He is also a State Farm insurance salesman. This probably isn’t the mark of a serious campaign.
Unfortunately, that’s about all I have been able to find out about him. News reports don’t even mention him when they speculate on Harkin’s reelection campaign — and that may be for good reason.
March 7th, 2007
Previous Posts
