Search Results for ‘grinnell college’
The increasing buzz that Leonard Boswell might face a primary challenge from former State Representative Ed Fallon leads to some interesting questions.
The first question is, what effect does this have on the caucuses? There are less than two weeks left and a prominent supporter of John Edwards is going after a prominent supporter of Hillary Clinton. What effect does this have on media perceptions of Edwards and Clinton and does it change the storyline at all? At this point, the political press is so focused on Iowa that the slightest bit of political news in the state can make national headlines.
Second, is how does this effect Republican efforts to recruit a candidate. As of now, there is no Republican candidate who is publicly expressed interest in running for Congress in the Third District and NRCC (National Republican Congressional Committee) is still husbanding its scarce national resources, Boswell’s seat wasn’t expected to be a high priority. However, now with a primary, the RNCC might take a second look and bump up a congressional district that George Bush won in 2004 on its list of priorities. It’s also worth noting that Tom Cole, the NRCC Chair, went to college in the Third District at Grinnell.
Finally, the question is what the storyline for a Boswell-Fallon race would be. Although the netroots is already getting excited about the race, depicting it as a strong progressive leader taking on an out of touch, geriatric incumbent. However, the election could just as easily be depicted as an accordion playing, Kucinich supporter running against a war hero and family farmer. Both are valid story lines and it seems likely that the one that will emerge will be an amalgamation of the two. But one of those two options is likely to become the dominant theme of media coverage of the race and how it is perceived not just by the press but by voters.
No matter what, this will be an interesting race to watch. Iowa is traditionally a state very friendly to incumbents and the only significant primary challenge that an incumbent has faced in recent memory was Fred Gandy’s unsuccessful attempt to unseat Terry Bransted in the Republican primary for Governor in 1994. But turnout in primary elections is traditionally low (only 11% of voters participated in either the Democratic or Republican Primary in 2006) and anything can happen in a low turnout election. Unfortunately, no matter how this race takes shape, one thing is certain. Only a low percentage of voters will end up participating in a Boswell vs Fallon primary and the winner will be the candidate most able to take advantage of the unique dynamics of this race.
December 24th, 2007
Angela Davis is our commencement speaker this year at Grinnell College, and nobody I know here is 100% pleased. The presidential candidates we invited all turned up their noses at us (perhaps expectations at commencement are too high, and some folks are bound to leave at least a little underwhelmed), and I guess Angela Davis was somewhere on the list.
Recently, Ken Black at the Marshalltown Times-Republican took us to task for being a little too communist for him (emphasis added):
Of course, I know that Grinnell College is one of the most liberal in the United States. That goes without saying.
The pricey and very exclusive college has long been a bastion for those with communistic tendencies, but rarely have they been so bold about it as they are now.
Recently, I received a press release from the college, seeking publicity over its commencement keynote speaker. Of course, this is probably not the kind of press coverage they wanted, but any coverage is good coverage, right?
Angela Davis will be speaking. The name may not mean much to you. It didn’t mean much to me until I continued to read the first paragraph of the press release.
“She was associated with the Black Panther Party in the 1960s and 1970s, as well as the Communist Party of the United States of America,” the press release stated. “Still an activist, she now works for … prison abolition.”
Let’s take these one by one, shall we?
And then he takes them “one by one.” He hates the Black Panthers for being anti-capitalism and anti-authority. He hates the Communist Party because its goal was supposedly to devastate our country, Soviet style. And he hates the prison abolition movement because he doesn’t quite understand it.
But believing in academic freedom isn’t just for communists. Pretty much all of our Founding Fathers believed in it. Sure, it takes a certain level of self-awareness and maturity to know how to listen to what others say, consider it carefully, and decide not to agree with it, but doing that on a regular basis is a worthwhile endeavor. It’s how we learn in college, and hosting an important thinker like Angela Davis makes sense in that context.
To quote a famous Grinnellian who was also probably too much of a Communist for Ken Black, “Have you no sense of decency, sir?”
April 9th, 2007
All over Iowa, students are working through their student governments to pass resolutions opposing President Bush’s plan to increase the number of troops in Iraq. They want to send a message: students will no longer tolerate fumbling or equivocation from elected representatives on the Iraq war. Too much is at stake to be sending more troops to Iraq without an end in sight, benchmarks by which to measure success or failure, or a clear definition of victory.
Here at Grinnell, we’re proud to be the first school in Iowa to pass a resolution against the President’s gamble. Yesterday, our student election board certified the results of the vote—81% of students voiced their opposition to Bush’s plan with over half of the student body participating. Today, the text of our initiative was sent to our Members of Congress. It is our hope and faith that they will realize that there are better options in Iraq than a senseless surge. It’s time for our President and his party to reappraise the war.
If you would like to learn more about our student campaign against Bush’s plan, or receive any help passing a resolution at another college, email democrat@grinnell.edu
February 22nd, 2007
We recently did an overview of the top three opportunities for the Democrats to pick up seats in the Iowa State Senate in 2008. Now we’re going to take a look at the three most vulnerable seats that the Democrats have to defend. Although there are only ten Democrats in the State Senate up for re-election in 2008, many of them had close races in 2004 and will face fierce opposition from Republicans who have been pushing an agenda that would deny sick people the possibility of one day being cured, hurt working families and make it more difficult for Iowans to vote. Not exactly a popular combination, although unfortunately it will be a well funded one. Here are the three Democratic Senators who will have the toughest races in 2008:
1. Frank Wood (parts of Clinton and Scott Counties) In 2004, Wood defeated incumbent Republican State Senator Bryan Sievers in a race that was decided by less than 500 votes. Wood’s district comprises most of rural Scott and Clinton Counties and Republicans have an registration advantage of over 1,000 voters in the district. With this registration advantage, his district will be squarely targeted by the Republicans in 2008. His district also comprises the area represented by Elesha Gayman, who won an upset victory over her Republican opponent Jim Van Fossen in 2006, despite not being a targeted candidate. Gayman will have a major bulls eye on her back as Republicans need to win her seat to take back a majority in the Iowa House. The effort against her will help Wood’s Republican opponent as well. The GOP will also be building up its organization in Scott County after Chet Culver won the county by a tremendous margin of 9,000 votes. Even with a strong top of the ticket with Bruce Braley and Tom Harkin, Wood will face a very tough fight in this Republican-leaning district.
2. Tom Hancock (Jones and parts of Delaware and Dubuque Counties) In 2004, Tom Hancock defeated incumbent State Senator Julie Hosch by 122 votes. She had won the seat two years before by less than 500 votes. Hancock’s district comprises all of Jones County, along with rural Dubuque County and the parts of Delaware County that are south and east of Manchester. The district is very competitive, although Democrats have a registration advantage of 1,500 over the Republicans, over 40% of the voters are independents. However, Hancock will be running as an incumbent in 2008 and will have all the advantages of incumbency. Hancock won in 2004 despite running behind John Kerry in Delaware and Jones Counties and a very small advantage in the Democrats’ traditional strength of absentee ballots. Although this race will receive a lot of attention from both parties, a strong organization should put Hancock over the top in a neutral election climate. However, if there’s even a mild Republican lean in 2008, Hancock will be in trouble.
3. Tom Rielly (Keokuk and Poweshiek Counties, parts of Iowa, Mahaska and Tama Counties) Tom Rielly’s district is more Republican than that of any other Democratic State Senator up for election in 2008. However, Rielly has a solid base of support in otherwise heavily Republican Mahaska County (a county that is so Republican that Bill Clinton only received 40% of the vote there in 1996). Excluding absentee ballots, Rielly ran 10 points ahead of John Kerry in Mahaska County in 2004. Rielly also has the advantage of representing Grinnell, which is a strongly Democratic college town with very high student turnout. Poweshiek County, where Grinnell is located, is increasingly Democratic (it was one of three counties in Iowa that Bush won in 2000 and that John Kerry won in 2004). Rielly won the county by 700 votes in 2004 and should improve on that margin in 2008. The rest of the district comprises Keokuk County, which is slightly Republican leaning, though Rielly won it in 2004 and Iowa County (besides Marengo and the area immediately around it) which is a 50/50 county. Like Hancock, Rielly should be fine in a neutral climate but his big strength is a large number of ticket-splitters. If a candidate runs who can energize the Republican base, Rielly will have a hard fight. But if the rumors are true that someone like Danny Carroll will run, Rielly should be fine.
Other Democrats who will face highly competitive challenges in 2008 are: (in alphabetical order) Jeff Danielson (Black Hawk), Gene Fraise (Henry and Lee), Mike Gronstal (Pottawatomie) and Brian Schoenjahn (Buchanan and Clayton and parts of Black Hawk, Delaware and Fayette).
February 20th, 2007
I have to admit something right up top: I am a reluctant subscriber to the Atlantic (Monthly). It came free as some credit card rewards program, so I get it. I’m not always proud of it, but whatever.
So when a fellow IowaProgress team member told me that I should check out the March issue for a mention of the local State House race here last year (between Democrat Eric Palmer and ousted Republican Danny Carroll), I was pleased to find it already sitting on my coffee table. Then I started reading it (online version here), and even before I finished the second sentence, I knew I wasn’t going to be happy. Here’s how writer Joshua Green begins:
A tough loss can be hard to swallow, and plenty of defeated politicians have been known to grumble about sinister conspiracies. When they are rising stars like Danny Carroll, the Republican speaker pro tempore of Iowa’s House of Representatives, and the loss is unexpected, the urge to blame unseen forces can be even stronger—and in Carroll’s case, it would have the additional distinction of being justified.
Yes, Danny Carroll was a rising star, victimized by “unseen forces” at work in House District 75. Perhaps had Carroll simply leaned on this leading consulting firm a little more, he would’ve won. But these “unseen forces” at work weren’t ghosts, ghouls, or the powerful anti-pumpkin lobby, it was something of a gay political stealth force (led by this man), out to get good little homophobes like Danny.
Yes, it is true that Eric Palmer got money from out-of-state donors, and perhaps some of them are gay. Some of them are also probably straight. Many out-of-state donors give money to one person hoping that their opponent will lose, and many of them do so on the basis of the different candidates’ political positions. Danny Carroll got money from such donors (although much of it was channeled through Christopher Rants’s PAC), as did Eric Palmer. This is not news.
It seems that even Danny himself didn’t think there was anything to this story at first. In fact, Danny probably had the right idea before the reporter tried to change his interview subject’s mind mid-interview. This paragraph is the kicker:
Carroll was just sitting down to dinner but agreed to talk about his loss, which he attributed to the activism of Grinnell College students. A suggestion that he’d been targeted by a nationwide network of wealthy gay activists was met with polite midwestern skepticism.
Yup, that’s right: Danny’s pretty sure it was us. We’re pretty sure it was us. And the number of college students who voted for Eric Palmer is remarkably close to the number of votes Danny lost by. But Joshua Green still blames the gays. Green convinces Danny to look at the IECDB reports from the 2006 race, and here’s where things go from there:
Scrolling through the thirty-two-page roster of campaign contributors revealed plenty of $25 and $50 donations from nearby towns like Oskaloosa and New Sharon. But a $1,000 donation from California stood out on page 2, and, several pages later, so did another $1,000 from New York City. “I’ll be darned,” said Carroll. “That doesn’t make any sense.” As we kept scrolling, Carroll began reading aloud with mounting disbelief as the evidence passed before his eyes. “Denver … Dallas … Los Angeles … Malibu … there’s New York again … San Francisco! I can’t—I just cannot believe this,” he said, finally. “Who is this guy again?”
Eric Palmer got $1,000 from New York?!?!?! And more donations from Dallas and Denver?!?!?! Shucks! I guess that means Eric won because of the gay agenda then.
Seriously, though, how is this puff piece journalism? People with certain interests donate to political campaigns across the country all the time, on both sides. Not everyone knows why every donor donates, and in many cases the candidates don’t even know what a donor’s agenda might be. It isn’t like Eric had a huge resource advantage over Danny, either. It may be sensational because a few of Palmer’s donors were gay, but it is certainly nothing new.
If this was our 15 minutes of national media fame, I’m going to be very disappointed.
February 13th, 2007
Now that John Kerry has decided he isn’t running again for President, it’s worth exploring who stands to gain and what impact it will make on the caucuses. One poll done nationally shows relatively little impact for any candidate. However, among donors, there’s a clear shift from Kerry to Obama. As the New York Times notes, a lot of his big donors are already getting behind Obama and Chris Cilizza sees Obama as a big winner as well.
However, in Iowa, it’s curious to see what happens to the pockets of support that the Senator still had, such as among the Hawkeye Labor Council in Cedar Rapids. It would be curious to see where those people go, especially since if one still supported Senator Kerry now, they were a real hardcore supporter. But it’s also worth remembering what was perhaps the high point of Kerry’s abortive 2008 campaign, his speech here in Grinnell in May which drew nearly 1000 people. It may not have drawn as much media attention as his low point but it’s still worth remembering.
January 25th, 2007
Election day was over a month ago, but we haven’t posted, because it’s hard to write a summary of something that speaks so well for itself. Across the country, people reacted well to the progressive agenda put forward by Democratic candidates on all levels. Here in Iowa, we won both legislative chambers and Terrace Hill. We held onto Boswell’s Congressional seat and picked up two more (one quite unexpectedly).
All of us here worked very hard, whether it looked that way on this web site or not. I had to stop blogging because of my job with the party, but I wouldn’t have had the time to write even if I had wanted to, and I think the rest of the Grinnell College Campus Democrats felt the same way.
Personally, I want to thank all of the volunteers I dealt with on our campus and in Poweshiek County. The amount of work people were willing to do was at once staggering and inspiring. Locally, we helped Eric Palmer defeat Danny Carroll for State Representative and helped elect an all-Democratic County Board of Supervisors. Even though it was stressful and trying and kind of sucky at times for all of us, winning the way we did makes everything worth it.
I remember in the weeks after election day, cable news heads and columnists talked about whether the election was more an acceptance of the Democratic agenda or a rejection of the Republican one. For some reason, conventional wisdom seems to claim that it was more the latter than the former, but I’m skeptical.
When I went door-to-door as a canvasser or dealt with folks in our office, I sensed a renewed interest in Democratic positions. Maybe we did a better job of communicating our agenda this election, but I think a lot of it was just that people were more interested in hearing what we had to say. People finally decided that they’d had enough, and they changed their minds.
And, I cannot emphasize this enough, WE WON. Look for more blogging from us here, as more of us finish recouperating and gloating and decide to start writing again.
December 9th, 2006
As we dive deeper into the 21st century, the intersection of technology and politics becomes more and more apparent. If the last election featured Meetups and the emergence of the blogosphere, 2006 could be the year of social networking. According to the National Journal, both parties have created their own unique sites, and the number of politicians on MySpace and Facebook has skyrocketed as politicians try to harness the power of young people.
So who is harnessing this power? Facebook has the answer.
A tool called Election Pulse (login might be required) allows us to see which candidates Facebook users have endorsed. Here’e the rundown:
Gubernatorial race: Culver leads Nussle 52 to 42 percent.
CD 1: Braley leads Whalen 55 to 45 percent.
CD 2: Leach leads Loebsack 57 to 43 percent.
CD 3: Boswell leads Lamberti 74 to 26 percent.
CD 4: Latham leads Spencer 57 to 43 percent.
CD 5: King leads Schulte 68 to 27 percent.
So what does it all mean? Well, if you compare recent polls, it seems that Facebook users (basically college students) have similar opinions to the rest of the state’s residents — with the exception of the 3rd CD (and the gubernatorial race to a lesser extent which polls show is closer). Boswell is destroying Lamberti among Facebook users. Young people in the 3rd CD (including Grinnellians) and across the country have responded overwhemlingly to this farmer from Southern Iowa. If college students turn out for Boswell at the actual — rather than virtual — polls at this rate, Lamberti can kiss his chances of winning goodbye.
September 26th, 2006
I’ve been told a lot recently that I’m the future of America; I’m the reason it is important to fund education, fix the health care system, and reign in the escalating deficit; I’m the future of the Democratic Party. Sure this is from some hand-squeezing, baby-kissing politicians seeking to win in November, and I know that it is good campaign rhetoric. But I also think it is true. In fact, not only are we the future of the Democratic Party, we are the present. My colleagues and I register the voters, we knock the doors, and we make the calls; we organize visits from candidates, we interview them, and we blog about them. We are not the only ones, but our contribution is significant. We do this not just on our campus — although that in itself is a substantial task — but in the county as well, and there are many others like us across the state and the country. We work by and large for free. Given these candidates’ propensity to pay lip service to our services, I would’ve thought they would be willing, if not eager, to include us at party-building events. Such events help prepare us for that ‘future’ that we are supposed to figure so prominently into, and also inspire and motivate us to keep doing our work in the present.
I would’ve thought, for instance, that they would want us to be able to attend the Jefferson Jackson Dinner on October 14. This is an important annual event in Iowa politics, one that in the past students have been able to attend. Last year several candidates for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination were there, providing many of us students a first introduction to Chet Culver. We also met recent college grads working on campaigns or for the IDP. Sure, we sat in the nosebleeds, but the point is that for $20 we got to go listen to prominent Iowa politicians and feel like we were actually part of the Democratic Party.
This year I was excited to see that Bill Clinton is going to be the keynote speaker. When I learned that the cheapest seats would cost $100 a person, I was disappointed, to say the least. As much as I would like to go to the JJ Dinner and hear the Big Dog, as a student (and someone who spends hours every week in unpaid get-out-the-vote efforts) I can’t afford to shell out $100 for one meal. I know I’m not the only student in this position.
What accounts for the exorbitant increase in ticket prices? Well, given that in the past year food prices haven’t skyrocketed and the Hy-Vee Hall Events Center hasn’t suddenly become immensely popular, it seems that it might have something to do with the former president’s fee for the engagement. Rumored to be over a quarter million dollars, it looks like maybe the IDP is passing that expense onto us. It is a move that makes financial sense, but it also sends the message that low-income or financially burdened Democrats (like students) aren’t important members of the party.
This message is incongruous with what many politicians I’ve spoken to recently are telling me. Everyone from U.S. Congressmen to gubernatorial candidates keeps repeating that we students are the future of the party. At a Grinnell College Democrats event yesterday, Pat Murphy and Eric Palmer commended us for having such a large and active group, saying that we would have a major impact on the elections. The thing is we know it. While it is nice to hear, the words are empty in the face of such an inconsiderate exclusion from a major party event. Regardless of from where this oversight arose, it would be hypocritical and ungrateful of the party not to make some allowances for those of us that may be unable to make generous financial contributions, but who have given our equally valuable time.
September 21st, 2006
Mark Warner’s PAC, Forward Together, is holding an online vote to determine which Iowa legislature candidates it will give $5000 (House) or $6500 (Senate). It’s a great perk that presidential hopefuls do this sort of thing in Iowa, since that amount of money really makes a huge difference in a state race.
Please cast your vote for Eric Palmer now.
Eric Palmer is challenging extremist conservative Danny Carroll, who he came painfully close to unseating in ‘04. Carroll has had the benefit of visits from conservative fundraising powerhouses John “I’m a panderer not a uniter” McCain, Sam “I hate evolution” Brownback, Haley “I hate Jews and Blacks” Barbour, and Newt “My conservatism doesn’t need explaining” Gingrich. He’s also received a ton of money from convicted felon Thomas Grabinski.
Just to remind you a little more why Eric Palmer deserves your vote (as if you haven’t heard our spiel before), Carroll is also known for his attempts to suppress Grinnell College students’ votes and his outlandish ideas about gay marriage.
Please take a moment to make Mark Warner give Eric some dollas.
September 19th, 2006
Previous Posts
