Edwards Follows Vilsack’s Lead on Carbon Neutrality

Today John Edwards announced that his presidential campaign will aim to be carbon neutral. As the email the campaign sent out explains, “In February, Governor Tom Vilsack announced he would be the first presidential candidate to plan a carbon neutral campaign. Edwards shares his commitment to protecting our environment and reducing our carbon footprint.”

Edwards is angling to fill the “Vilsack Vacuum,” only weeks after Vilsack announced he would drop out of the campaign. He is trying to recruit as many former Vilsack supporters as possible at this point, and this was one of the Vilsack campaign’s more novel ideas — although the Vilsack folks seemed to want to use it more for fund raising than anything else.

Exactly one week ago, the Edwards campaign sent out another press release claiming “more than 100 Iowa Democrats who were formerly supporting Governor Tom Vilsack’s presidential bid are now supporting Senator John Edwards for President” (it provides the list of 100 names to prove it). 100 activists isn’t exactly a lot considering Vilsack released the names of over 1,100 of his supporters a while back, but Edwards’s list does contain a few big names.

At this point, although other candidates have certainly paid lip service to Vilsack’s service as our governor, etc., Edwards is the only candidate making explicit attempts at recruiting former Vilsack supporters — at least through the press. Whether this will make much of a difference, I don’t know; but frankly I’m surprised that we haven’t seen more attempts at the same sort of thing from other candidates. Maybe outside Iowa few appreciate the level of support Vilsack had here. He has been our governor for a while, and even those Democrats who weren’t supporting his presidential campaign like him.

6 comments March 13th, 2007

The Best Chance For An Iowan President In The Near Future

Now that Tom Vilsack has dropped out, there is no chance that an Iowan will be elected President in 2008. (Sorry Sal) In fact, under the assumption that Vilsack’s Presidential ambitions are now permanently scuppered, it is unlikely that any other Iowa politician will be mounting a credible bid for the Presidency in the foreseeable future. That leaves Iowa’s best chance for the Presidency to be filled through its two Senators, Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin, both of whom, provided they stay in the Senate, are starting to get close to the level of seniority necessary to be President Pro Tempore of the Senate. This is a ceremonial position in the Senate mandated by the Constitution that has been filled in the past by such aged members as Strom Thurmond and Ted Stevens and is currently held by Robert Byrd. It has traditionally been held by the most senior member of the majority party since the 1940s. However, it is also third in the current line of succession to the Presidency after the Vice President and the Speaker of the House.

That the members of the Legislative branch are eligible to be President is a weird quirk in the system as Norman Orenstein points out in the Washington Post. However, Orenstein’s suggestion of limiting the line of succession to unelected cabinet members and others designated by the Presidents is completely undemocratic. In fact, even the succession of a Vice President to the Presidency is not quite right. After all, we don’t have Vice Senators or Vice Congressman and many states have special elections if there is a vacancy for the Governorship. The logical and fair thing to do is to hold a special election for the Presidency. In fact, there’s pretty clear historical evidence that the Founders only intended the Vice President to serve as President until another could be elected. The resulting historical drift over the next two centuries has gradually set the precedent that not only does the Vice President serve out the rest of the President’s term but has also built the assumption that everyone after the Vice President will do so as well. (Although this concept has not been tested in practice.) What would make sense is to make it explicit that a special election will occur the November after a vacancy in the Presidency (unless there is less than a year left in the President’s term). This would insure that the President would be democratically elected. If there is a sitting Vice President, he would become “Acting President.” However, if there is a double vacancy, the least worst option would be allow Congress to fill both offices temporarily according to the method outlined in the 12th Amendment in case of a deadlock in the Electoral College.

This type of debate can seem somewhat academic, after all it deals with interpreting centuries of constitutional precedents to prepare for a highly unlikely event. However, as unlikely as this event is, it is worth preparing for as it would have a catastrophic impact on our nation’s government. Should something so unlikely occur, we need to be prepared to make sure that the will of the people is heard. It is what our county was founded upon and the will of the people will not be heard if we have President Robert Byrd or President Ted Stevens.

1 comment March 3rd, 2007

David Yepsen, False Prophet of Doom

In his column in today’s Register, David Yepsen sees Tom Vilsack’s departure as a bad sign for the caucuses. Now the first primary is not Iowa but the invisible primary of fundraising. Now a candidate needs to raise a lot of money to compete and if they can’t, they will be forced to drop out. Yepsen sees a scenario where “by Labor Day, there may be only three or four viable candidates in each party.” This is all baseless fearmongering.

First, there’s a long precedent of candidates dropping out early because they can’t raise money. If David Yepsen wants some examples, from 2000 alone, I’m sure that Lamar Alexander and Elizabeth Dole could have told Yepsen that, if not a couple of others. But Vilsack’s the only candidate, at least on the Democratic side who won’t be able to raise money. Of the three second tier candidates remaining, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson all will have ample financial resources. Both Biden and Dodd are Senate Committee Chairs and Richardson is the former Chairman of the Democratic Governors Association.  All three are national political figures to a much greater extent than Tom Vilsack and should be able to raise considerable amounts of money. They all should have more than enough money in the bank to be competitive into 2008. (Provided, of course, that they do a better job budgeting than Vilsack did.) Yepsen is falling into the common tendency among columnists to draw as grand conclusions as possible from events. Vilsack’s dropping out is not indictative in and of itself of some major new trend. He just couldn’t cover his payroll, and one should be careful drawing larger conclusions than that.

1 comment February 27th, 2007

Who Will Fill The Vilsack Vacuum In Iowa?

There has been some speculation about the connection between Tom Vilsack and Hillary Clinton.  Perhaps some of the ’sack staff will move to the Clinton camp, and that would be a huge boost to Clinton if it happened.  But while the staff might go to Clinton, it is way too early to assume that Vilsack’s supporters will automatically flow that direction, too.  So the question remains: who will fill the Vilsack vacuum here?  Who gains the most politically from the drop-out?

That’s a question that requires two answers, because, here in Iowa, we have gotten to know two different sides of Tom Vilsack.  The first Tom Vilsack is the conservative DLC Democrat who was our governor for eight years.  He was well-liked by moderates because of his political positions, and he was well-liked by many progressives because he was able to win.  It is safe to say that the majority of Vilsack’s caucus support over the past few months has come from folks who got to know Vilsack as a moderate, and these folks are going to be looking for another moderate, probably with some executive experience.

The second Tom Vilsack is the McGovern-esque presidential candidate he had started to become over the past few months.  He ran far to the left on the Iraq war, calling for immediate withdrawal and a cutoff of all funding in Congress, and he fashioned himself an expert on environmental issues in general (and renewable energy in particular).  He was getting some traction on AirAmerica Radio and on certain liberal blogs (although clearly that wasn’t enough) and using “Courage to Create Change” as his tagline.  In many ways, his campaign might have hoped to be 2008’s Howard Dean, another candidate who had a somewhat moderate record as a governor but who broke out as the antiwar left’s poster candidate during his campaign.   (Vilsack was even using Blue State Digital, the team that handled Dean’s online strategy 2003-2004, for his web stuff.)

So these are two different voids.  In Iowa, though, it is the moderate Vilsack who attracted most of the supporters.  So the question is, which candidate matches up the best?

Ironically, Evan Bayh and Mark Warner would probably have gained the most.  Unfortunately for them, they both dropped out months ago, perhaps because Vilsack was sucking up all of the moderate governor oxygen.  (Yeah, in Bayh’s case, he has Senatorial experience, too, but it was his experience as Indiana Governor that he seemed to be emphasizing to distinguish himself.)

Without Bayh and Warner, it seems that the most likely to gain will be Bill Richardson, but he doesn’t draw as many obvious comparisons to Vilsack as Bayh and Warner would have.  If Richardson doesn’t have an excellent Iowa field campaign soon, he will lose whatever advantage he might have gained, because folks who were comfortable settling on Vilsack this early could be looking for another candidate to settle on soon.  He has a strong Iowa field director already, but that won’t be enough.  Maybe this will encourage him to buy access to the state party’s VAN (the super-high-tech voter file), which is the mark of any serious Iowa Caucus campaign.

Either way, all of the non-”rock star” candidates must be breathing a sigh of relief today.  Tomorrow, we’ll find out which one is “rock solid” enough to fill Vilsack’s two pairs of shoes.

1 comment February 23rd, 2007

Tom Vilsack Is Winning Mt. Pleasant

Tom Vilsack yesterday annouced the names of 1,159 caucusgoers who will definitely support him in the 2008 caucuses. However, his support is not very broad. Over 13% of those supporters were from Mt. Pleasant, Vilsack’s hometown (whereas the ratio of Mt. Pleasant residents to all Iowans is 0.3%). The list also includes the wives of Vilsack’s Iowa Field Director, Jesse Harris and his Iowa State Director, Dusky Terry.

There are obvious reasons for such a large number of his supporters to be friends and neighbors. Like the money Vilsack raised in the last quarter, these are all of his “gimmes.” If you serve as Governor of your state for eight years, there should be at least 1,100 people in your state who will automatically support you for President. Unfortunately for Vilsack, who has been prone to bad luck throughout his run, he seems to be relying almost as much on the people who automatically support you for President if you serve as Mayor of their town. This means that Vilsack’s support is highly geographically concentrated, which isn’t good. He’ll have an easy time winning Henry County’s 17 delegates at the State Convention but he still needs to win some of the remaining 2983 delegates.

To be fair to Vilsack, the list has quite a few elected officials and key activists but they are mostly longtime allies, some of whom have supported him since his 1998 Gubernatorial primary against Mark McCormick. Releasing this list is a nice way to hide ugly poll numbers but the ugly poll numbers will keep on coming out and the lists of new supporters by the hundreds won’t.

1 comment February 10th, 2007

Where Does Tom Vilsack’s Money Come From?

Tom Vilsack raised 1.1 million dollars in the last quarter of 2006 (and spent nearly $750,000 of it). Where did the money come from? Iowa Progress examined his campaign finance report and has the answers.

Vilsack received donations from five members of the state legislature. House Speaker Pro Tem Polly Bukta contributed $500 as did State Senators Mike Connolly,Tom Rielly and Roger Stewart. State Senate President Jack Kibbie donated $1050. Vilsack also received a $2100 contribution from his Lieutenant Governor and former IDP Chair, Sally Pedersen. Retired Iowa politicians also gave to Vilsack. David Osterberg, a former state representative and Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate in 1998, donated $250, Patrick Deluhery, a former state senator and 2002 Democratic nominee for state auditor contributed $1050, Paul Johnson, the 2004 Democratic nominee for U.S. House donated $2100 and Bill Gannon, former Democratic Minority Leader in the IA House and unsuccessful candidate for the Democratic nomination for Governor in 1970, donated $500. In addition, Dave Neil, former President of UAW’s State CAP, gave $2100 to Vilsack.

Vilsack also received money from national players in Democratic politics. Vernon Jordan contributed $2000. James Johnson, former Chair of Fannie Mae and Walter Mondale’s campaign manager donated $2100 as did Lou Susman, one of John Kerry’s top fundraisers in 2004. Gary Hirschberg, another major Democratic donor who is the CEO of Stoneyfield Farms yogurt company and a possible Democratic candidate for Senate from New Hampshire, gave $2100 as well. The campaign also received $2100 from the second richest man in the world, Warren Buffett. In addition, Vilsack also received a $250 donation from Kyle DeBeer, executive director of the Wyoming Democratic Party, which means Vilsack is sure to have an advantage in Wyoming’s primary.

Finally, Vilsack cleaned up among the Des Moines’s elite. Jerry Crawford, former State Chair for John Kerry, contributed $2100 as did former IDP chair Gordon Fischer. Vilsack also received $2100 contributions from other wealthy Des Moines residents like John Pappajohn and Dwayne McAnnich. However, Vilsack was most successful raising money from the Knapp family. In the last quarter, Tom Vilsack raised $18,900 from people with the last name Knapp.

The question is where will the rest of Vilsack’s money come from? Judging by his fundraising report, he raised all of his easy dollars in the last quarter. Now his dilemma is how he will raise enough money to remain viable for the next year. After all, it doesn’t matter if you’re rock solid if you’re flat broke.

Add comment February 1st, 2007

Not Everyone In Mt. Pleasant Supports Tom Vilsack

Although Tom Vilsack may have been the Mayor of Mt. Pleasant, Iowa (population 8,751), he doesn’t have the support of the entire town. Not because he did something wrong as Mayor, as State Senator or even as Governor but because Barack Obama’s political director is also from Mt. Pleasant. When Obama hired former Senate Caucus Director Emily Parcell as political director, he hired another Mount Pleasantonian. This means that one small Iowa town will be very much in the thick of things during the caucus. Although Henry County may only be the 40th most important county in terms of delegates, it certainly seems to be more important when it comes to who makes the decisions on Presidential campaigns.

Add comment January 27th, 2007

Who Has The Power In The Iowa Caucuses?

The Iowa Caucuses aren’t democratic. In fact, they are so undemocratic, they make the Electoral College seem like a triumph for those who believe in “one man, one vote.” Caucusgoers aren’t voting for Obama, or Hillary or John Edwards. They vote for delegates to a county convention who then go on to vote for delegates to the State Convention who then go on to vote for delegates to the National Convention. Delegates are apportioned to each county and each precinct within the county by the combined number votes cast for the President and the Governor in the two previous General Elections. So, for example if more people in County X voted for the combination of John Kerry and Chet Culver in 2004 and 2006 than voted for the combination of Al Gore and Tom Vilsack in 2000 and 2002, County X will get more representation than it did in the 2004 caucuses. If less people voted for the top of the ticket, County X will get less representation. There are 3000 delegates at the State Convention and each county gets an appropriate share and the results for the caucuses are computed by factoring approximately what percent of the delegates a candidate will get at the State Convention. (Here are the 2004 results for an example)

So what has changed since 2004? Well of the big five counties in Iowa (Polk, Linn, Scott, Black Hawk and Johnson), all but Polk have gained delegates. In fact,  Johnson has shown the largest net gain of any county, going from 141 to 164 delegates. Linn also made a big leap from 228 to 242 delegates. Scott jumped from 161 to 170 and Black Hawk creeped up from 136 to 140. In contrast, Polk had a small dip of two delegates but still makes up nearly 15% of the total number of delegates with 428. The biggest leap in terms of perecentage was made by Jefferson County which is going from 13 to 18 delegates while the biggest fall in percentage was Ida County, which goes from 7 to a paltry 5 delegates. For us in Poweshiek County, we gained an extra delegate to go to 21. Statewide totals (which are rough because they haven’t been rounded) for 2008 are below the fold and the totals for 2004 can be found here.

4 comments January 18th, 2007

Hillary Clinton’s Challenge in Iowa

In the latest must-read political story of the week, Adam Nagourney chronicled Hillary Clinton’s plans for her run for President. However, in the New Hampshire heavy article, one paragraph stood out,

“Mrs. Clinton has less experience with presidential politics in Iowa than in New Hampshire because in 1992, when her husband ran the first time, Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa was also seeking the presidential nomination, so other candidates steered clear of the race”

This misses one of the big challenges that Hillary faces. Rogue polls aside, she has next to no traction among Iowa caucusgoers. Vilsack has been Governor for eight years, Edwards still has a formidable base of support left from 2004 and Obama is not only seen as a political rockstar but, as a Senator from Illinois gets local television coverage in much of Eastern Iowa as well. In contrast, Bill Clinton never had to campaign in the Iowa Caucuses and Hillary has no hometown advantage in Iowa.

Hillary will have none of these advantages and right now is clearly running fourth in Iowa. Although she may have a lot of money, media is secondary to field in caucuses and among Democratic activists, all the candidates have high name ID. It’s still early and as Chase pointed out recently, the Iowa Caucuses are still wide open. But, Hillary is clearly starting behind the eight ball and it would not be a surprise if she doesn’t compete in the caucuses at all and tries to build up New Hampshire and South Carolina as firewalls.

3 comments January 3rd, 2007

Vilsack’s Adoption

Big news for Tom Vilsack: he now has the chance to learn more about the circumstances of his birth (he was given up for adoption) and may be able to find out who his real mother was. The article has an interesting line: “But Vilsack acknowledged this week that the unexpected letter — and the realities of a modern-day presidential campaign — may cause him to reconsider [forgoing knowledge about his past].” Does finding his real mother help him or hurt him? If she turns out to be a rotten lady with shady dealings (no offense Governor), it could cast a bad light on him. On the other hand, there is a huge potential for positive publicity as Vilsack explores his past and the woman who gave him life; the whole thing just oozes the kind of cheesiness America loves. All this aside, I’m not trying to denigrate what I’m sure is a very tough and personal experience for Vilsack. But as the Register notes, when you’re running for president, the game of politics is never put on pause.

P.S. — Wondering if America has ever elected someone who was adopted, I did a quick Google search. The closest I found was this site which said three presidents — George Washington, Andrew Jackson, and Ronald Reagan — had adopted children of their own, but there is no mention of any president having been adopted himself. Therefore, 2008 could be a bigger year than previously thought: the potential for the first female, black, or adopted American to be elected president of the United States.

3 comments December 24th, 2006