It is increasingly unlikely that Ed Fallon will win the Third District Primary as his campaign is both broke and languishing far behind Leonard Boswell in the polls. The question now arises what will professional candidate Ed Fallon run for next? Fallon is a professional candidate at this point (and, thanks to the still open Fallon Loophole, can still make a good living running for office). There are several possibilities for Fallon. The first is running for Mayor of Des Moines against Frank Cownie in 2011. Cownie is a leading environmentalist, which makes him a prime target for Fallon who actively worked to defeat Al Gore in 2000. However, that election is three years away and the Mayor of Des Moines only makes $31,500 a year. Fallon would be much better served continuing his I’M For Iowa gig rather embarking so soon on a campaign for a weak office so far in the future.
Another possibility is Polk County Supervisor. This job pays $93,000, which is more than Ed Fallon has ever lapped up from the public trough in a single year so far. However, Fallon lives in the area represented by John Mauro. Although Mauro’s reputation has been tainted by association with CIETC, Fallon’s ethical lapses in regards for IM for Iowa and his attempts to cover up that misconduct make Mauro look like the second coming of Abraham Lincoln. While Fallon has never showed any fear of entering in races he’s likely to lose, it seems unlikely he’d want to tangle with La Macchina in a district that is almost entirely on the South Side. This is especially true when Fallon is probably the only candidate who Christine Hensley would support a Mauro over.
Fallon could also run for State Senate against Jack Hatch in 2010. Although Hatch endorsed Boswell, he was one of two State Senators to vote against closing the Fallon Loophole and unlike most other elected Democrats in Polk County, he has not been vehemently opposed to Fallon and has even attended a Fallon event or two as a polite observer. However, in Fallon’s political career, loyalty has not been one of Fallon’s most notable traits. He endorsed Nader in 2000, considered running as a third party candidate against Chet Culver in 2006 and refused a pledge to support all Democrats on the ticket in 2002. (One wonders whether Fallon was more conflicted about supporting Tom Harkin or Tom Vilsack.) In that light, stabbing Jack Hatch in the back seems like small potatoes. However, while Hatch’s district includes many places Fallon has represented in the past, a State Senator only makes about $30,000 a year and as a state candidate, Fallon could lose income in the remaining interval if the Legislature actually closes the Fallon Loophole and keeps Fallon from paying himself from campaign contributions. But there is one office Ed Fallon could run for where he would never have to worry about the Iowa Legislature cutting into his earnings.
Chuck Grassley is up for Senate in 2010 and Fallon would make an admirable Democratic nominee. Aside from giving Fallon the chance to earn nearly $170,000, he could pay himself a salary without worrying about any legislation from Rick Olson to cut off the gravy train. It would also be the one office where Fallon would not have to primary an incumbent and would have a chance to receiving the backing of the entire Democratic establishment as Ed Fallon possesses a very rare skill that is essential to running against Grassley. After all, what politician in Iowa has more experience and talent at turning receiving only 25% of the vote into a victory?
No matter what office Ed Fallon runs for in the future, there is one thing for certain. Professional political candidate Ed Fallon will be running for office again.
Iowans for Tax Relief recently announced that it was backing a primary candidate against incumbent Republican Clarence Hoffman in the Republican primary in State House District 55 (Ida County and parts of Crawford, Monona and Woodbury County). Hoffman is a fifth term Representative who crossed party lines to support the bill banning discrimination based on sexual orientation.
This is the second time Iowans for Tax Relief has backed a primary candidate against an incumbent Republican so far for the 2008 cycle. The first State Representative that they tried to primary, Walt Tomenga in House District 69 (Johnston and Grimes) has since announced his retirement. This has set up a vicious primary between ITR’s preferred candidate, Erik Helland, and former Iowa basketball player Al Lorenzen who is backed by moderate Republicans like former Governor Robert Ray.
However, while Iowans for Tax Relief is trying to find candidates who represent the true conservative nature of these districts, they’re neglecting that these are actually relatively moderate districts. Neither of these districts are Republican strongholds. In fact, Chet Culver received over 45% of the vote in both districts in 2006. Under normal circumstances, these seats would probably not be top Democratic priorities to pick up seats in the State House. But Iowans for Tax Relief drastically changes that.
With Iowans for Tax Relief’s continued effort to purge the Republican Party of anyone who slightly deviates from its extremist agenda, it’s safe to say that regardless of what happens on the day of the Primary Election, a lot of Republicans will be unhappy. This is especially true if Iowans for Tax Relief’s anointed candidate wins. An win by either or both Helland and Schultz would continue the trend of moderate Republicans like Robert Ray and Maggie Tinsman being isolated in their party and allow a great opportunity for a moderate Democratic candidate to appeal to these disenchanted Republicans and have a good chance at winning what would normally be a safe Republican seat.
Iowans for Tax Relief is certainly doing a good job of making the Republican Party more conservative. But at a terrible cost to any attempt by Republicans to build a majority. For a group that so admires Ronald Reagan, one would think that they would expand their reading in scriptures to include Reagan’s 11th commandment. Instead, they seem more concerned with obscure passages in Leviticus. Passages that Iowa Republicans will have many more years to study while they are in the minority.
This week marked the first time that candidates were competing head to head with TV ads for the Iowa Caucuses, as John Edwards, Bill Richardson, and Chris Dodd all announced ad buys on local networks and cable. The Edwards and Richardson ads are so unique, that one might call the more boilerplate Dodd ad ‘distinctively normal.’
The first two of the three, from Edwards and Richardson, were not what one might call standard TV ads. In Edwards’s 30-second spot, the first 27 seconds feature “everyday-looking” Iowans finishing each others’ sentences about what Congress should do to end the war (the answer is support Edwards’s call to send the same bill that Bush vetoed back to his desk unchanged). The Senator does not come onto the screen until the mandatory “I’m John Edwards, and I approved this message” tag at the end. It is clearly intended to portray the sense that Edwards’s campaign is more about its supporters than its principal, and it drew quite a bit of notice from media when it was first announced.
In Richardson’s two 30-second spots (one is airing currently, the other is sitting in the can to be aired later), the Governor sits at a desk while a middle management-type interviews him for a job. The tone is something akin to the film Office Space, as the interviewer begins by rattling off impressive facts from Richardson’s resume and ends the second ad by saying, “For what we’re looking for, you might be a little overqualified.” Most people will think the ad is funny, but they won’t realize why: it is because, from Richardson’s point of view, the public is behaving like the caricature of the middle manager, ignoring his resume as if experience weren’t important. The ads are intended to change minds with humor, and the media has been buzzing about them ever since they launched.
On Tuesday, Chris Dodd’s campaign released its new Iowa ad, and it provides a stark contrast to Richardson’s and Edwards’s ad in that it follows the fairly standard format of the candidate talking to a camera for 30 seconds. Although Dodd’s was not the first ad to go up, it is the first standard political ad of the campaign to hit the airwaves. In it, Dodd maintains a serious expression while explaining his support of the Reid-Feingold plan in the Senate. Next to Richardson’s informative-but-funny ad and Edwards’s community-oriented, borderline gimmicky ad, Dodd’s looks stately but uninspired.
Perhaps the Dodd camp has made the calculation that they aren’t going to win by trying to run the most inspiring (or inspired) campaign; they see their opening in wonkish policy plans and sober assessments of reality. I couldn’t get them to reveal this entire campaign strategy to me, but I did ask Dodd’s Iowa Press Secretary, Taylor West, about the distinctive seriousness of the new ad. “There can be no more serious issue confronting the nation than how we bring this war to a responsible close,” she began. “[Dodd’s] campaign and his ads reflect his understanding that at a time when the stakes have never been higher for the country, we need proven, bold leadership.”
All this isn’t to say that Senator Dodd does not have a sense of humor, because he does have at least one joke that we know of that he tells regularly on the campaign trail. Still, Dodd’s new web site has launched, and it promises to make full use of all the latest Web 2.0 crazes that often impress netroots activists. Perhaps what we are seeing now is the beginning of Dodd’s repositioning himself to appeal more to policy wonks, technocrats, and bloggers, and this experiment might just work.
Video of all three candidates’ ads is below:
Edwards ad:
Richardson ads (the first is airing now; the one that plays after it in the clip below is likely to air later on):
Today Bill Richardson released new TV ads that will air in Iowa starting tomorrow. The ads, which are funny and poignant, highlight Richardson's qualifications by staging a "Job Interview" (that's the name of the ad) for the position of US President.
"We wanted to do something original in a Presidential campaign - and that was to use humor to communicate Governor Richardson's vast record of achievement in public service, foreign affairs and as Governor of New Mexico," said campaign manager Dave Contarino in a released statement. The ad is below:
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.
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.
We, along with other Iowa blogs, frequently bash the Des Moines Register, particularly the often pompous David Yepsen and the always useless Jane Norman (who did a great job transcribing a Chuck Grassley news release the other day–after all, stenography is easier than reporting). However, a story yesterday about internet hunting hit the nail on the head. It would ban hunting live animals over the internet using a webcam and a remote controlled rifle. While many find the practice objectionable, the reporter, Jennifer Jacobs, astutely points out the one problem with the bill, there is no internet hunting. Although a Texas entrepreneur tried to set up such a venture several years ago, the state of Texas almost immediately shut it down. It was the first and, to date, last attempt at internet hunting.
Even the sponsor of the bill, Republican Steven Lukan, does not know of anyone participating in internet hunting. But he wants to ban it anyway. Why? Because this is the rare type of non-controversial bill that gets a lot of easy publicity. While other state representatives busy themselves with dull tasks like spurring Iowa’s economic development and balancing the state’s budget, Steven Lukan finds it easier to ban something that does not exist. It is a waste of the legislature’s time and of taxpayer money. One wonders when Lukan will amend the bill to make it clear that the ban on internet hunting applies to unicorns.
There are are two really good posts on other blogs this afternoon that are worth mentioning. First is desmoinesdem’s explanation of the Iowa Caucuses on MyDD. It does a great job of giving people who have never been to or experienced an Iowa Caucus a sense of how an actual precinct caucus works. The second is an interview with Chris Dodd that’s also on MyDD. It is the second in MyDD’s series of interviews with Presidential candidates. Both are interesting posts and are well worth a read.
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.
One day after Tom Vilsack ended his bid for the Presidency, there is already speculation about what his next step will be. Century of the Common Iowan passes on speculation that Tom Harkin might retire and that Vilsack would run for his seat. However, Harkin retirement rumors were aired and debunked earlier this year and it seems very likely that Harkin will run for re-election. Especially since 2008 seems like the first relatively easy race that he’ll have since he was back in the U.S. House of Representatives.
One of the key assumptions of the Vilsack for Senate speculation is that “Money Vilsack raised for his presidential bid could be transferred to a Senate campaign fund.” Considering it’s quite likely that Tom Vilsack’s presidential campaign is heavily in the red, all that he could transfer is debt. It seems more likely that Vilsack will spend a couple of years making money. Even while he was running for President, he accepted a job with Mid-American Energy as a consultant. Being a former public official is a very lucrative job and there’s no reason to think that Vilsack won’t take advantage of that for a couple of years and enjoy life as a prosperous public citizen.
But there is some speculation about Tom Vilsack’s future that is much more intriguing at the end of the post on Century of The Common Iowan. It is whether Vilsack would run for Chuck Grassley’s seat in 2010. Grassley would be 77 years old then and might even retire rather than run for re-election. If Grassley doesn’t retire, Vilsack would probably be the only Democrat in the state who could run a credible campaign against the very popular Grassley. By then, Vilsack will have had several years to make some money and pay off campaign debt. Of course, 2010 is a long way off and a lot of things could happen between now and then. But a Vilsack-Grassley scenario seems much more likely than Tom Harkin retiring. Plus, it has the added benefit of holding out the possibility of a day not too far away when Iowa has two Democratic Senators for the first time since 1978. And that sounds pretty good to me.
