Search Results for ‘iowa media’
In an interview with a progressive blog today, Ed Fallon claimed, “We’re doing really well, our own internal polling shows us up.” It’s not a surprise for Fallon to make a claim when the Boswell campaign released its own internal from Anzalone Lizst, the firm that polled for new Democratic Congressmen Don Cazayoux and Travis Childers, that had Boswell receiving 65% of the vote.
This jibes with the KCCI poll that had Boswell winning by a two to one margin. However, Fallon’s campaign finance reports, which show him having only $28,000 on hand the day before he had to meet payroll, does not show him spending any money on pollsters. (Nor does it show him spending on money on television, radio, mail, newspaper advertisements or any other form of paid media) So if Ed Fallon hasn’t hired a pollster and can’t afford to pay one, why does he claim he has internal polling, let alone internal polling that seems at odds with all the other information about this race?
Our guess is that Ed Fallon probably took a survey, not a poll. A survey is unscientific and involves asking a bunch of people without dealing with complicated things like sample size or filtering likely voters. This means that Ed Fallon may actually be ahead according to his “polling”, provided, of course, that a third of the electorate are vegetarians from Sherman Hill and everyone who votes outside Polk County is a member of CCI. Then again, this blog may be given Fallon too much credit for assuming that he merely mistook the difference between a survey and a poll. (Which is covered the second week of Statistics 101).
Fallon has a history of lying and of sleazy behavior. He may have just made up his “internal polling” entirely, which would be a good deal for Fallon. After all, the less he spends on internal polling, the more money he can pay himself.
May 22nd, 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
Although we find it a bit repetitive and dull writing about Ed Fallon, one would think that the Fallon campaign would feel the same way about lying. Unfortunately, Fallon’s now endemic dishonesty was exposed again. A Fallon press release claimed that the FEC had given Fallon a clean bill of ethical health after mounting evidence of Fallon committing campaign finance violations. Unfortunately, the FEC didn’t. According to FEC spokesman George Smaragdis, “no Commission employee made any determination relative to the specific circumstances of any campaign. Only the Commission can make such a determination.” Even prior to the FEC disavowing Fallon’s claims, suspicions were raised due to the fact Fallon never used a direct quote or cited a specific FEC employee by name in his press release.
However, the same Fallon staffer who contacted the FEC, campaign manager Lynn Heuss, was the same Fallon staffer who told the Iowa Campaign and Ethics Board that Fallon was considering a third party bid for Governor, something Fallon immediately denied and claimed was a miscommunication. This comes after earlier this week when Fallon lied about his income from I’m for Iowa. Between that and his false claim of a statement from the FEC, that’s a minimum of two outright Fallon lies this week alone. In fact, there’s even a third lie if you believe Fallon was actually lying about considering a third party run for Governor in 2006, considering that Heuss is Fallon’s current and former campaign manager, former legislative aide, partner in I’M for Iowa and is registered to vote at the same address as Fallon. One presumes that a miscommunication between two people so close on a such a basic question would be rather unlikely.
It’s sad that Fallon, a former clean elections advocate, has sunk so low. When the Iowa House tries to pass a bill to ban candidates from paying themselves (incidentally, one of the election law reforms Barack Obama passed in Illinois), he attacks the Democratic Party leadership as “bought and paid for” and expresses the hope that, unless his favored clean elections legislation passes, Democrats lose their majority in the Iowa House. It seems that Fallon doesn’t just support Ralph Nader anymore, he’s starting to warm towards Chris Rants too.
The shame of it is that Fallon believes everything he’s doing is right. He’s been so caught up in his crusade for Congress, he seems to have lost track of right and wrong. He’s a clean elections advocate who is refusing to disclose donors to his amorphous partnership. He’s a man running on integrity who is brazenly lying. One is reminded of a Greek tragedy, or at least the Alec Guinness character from Bridge on the River Kwai. He’s so caught up and obsessed with his bid for Congress, he thinks no one will notice when he makes up FEC opinions, not even the FEC itself. Imbued with self-righteousness, Fallon seems to think he’s starring in Mr. Smith Goes To Washington when he’s merely playing the title role in Billy Liar.
April 3rd, 2008
Jon Corzine has recently introduced a plan in New Jersey to force many of that state’s 566 municipalities to merge together. New Jersey has almost no county government and most local governmental functions are performed at the municipal level. However, over the half of the municipalities in New Jersey have a population of less than 10,000 and the resulting map looks like that of Germany in the Middle Ages, a landscape speckled throughout by innumerable miniature jurisdictions, each of which have their own police force, fire department and school system. The result is a massive wastage of taxpayer money as services are duplicated and triplicated within miles of each other.
Iowa has a similar problem. Iowa has 99 counties with a median population of about 16,000. In a state with a declining tax base and a shrinking rural population, this is totally inefficient. The result is that the State Legislature is forced to subsidize many county governments who can’t bear the costs of having their auditor, recorder, attorney, etc. The reason that there are so many counties in Iowa was so that no one would be more than one day’s wagon ride away from their courthouse. In the age of the automobile, when most rural Iowans drive 20 miles to go grocery shopping at Super Wal Mart, it is strange that there is still a pressing need to keep a County Recorder so close at hand.
Iowa has no need for 99 county courthouses or 99 county attorneys or replicating all the functions of county government 99 times throughout the state. That is why County Consolidation is so important. County consolidation is a good government that both liberals and conservatives can support. For conservatives, it means reducing taxes and the size of government. There are basic efficiencies of scale that can be achieved consolidating services which will save rural taxpayers money. In addition, it reduces the size of government. For liberals and progressives, it frees up government funds to be used on health care or education rather than maintaining a multiplicity of deputy auditors throughout rural Iowa.
Having 99 counties is wasteful and archaic. If Iowa can reduce the number of counties down to 50 or even 75, it would easily save tens of millions of dollars every year and help reduce taxes throughout the state. It is sensible, it is logical and it needs to happen.
March 23rd, 2008
Iowa Independent just published a story that reveals that congressional candidate Ed Fallon has been hiding contributions to his political organization, IM For Iowa. Although IM for Iowa’s goal is “further develop a broad movement committed to progressive reform in state and local politics,” it is legally a for-profit partnership between Fallon and his campaign manager and girlfriend Lynn Heuss. As a result, IM for Iowa can take an unlimited amount of contributions and does not have to reveal its contributors or how it spends its money. However, it is highly questionable how a building a grassroots movement in Iowa for causes like advocating Clean Elections can be a moneymaking, for-profit entity. IM for Iowa does not sell any product or produce anything of tangible commercial value. People who give money to it have no idea where their money went. In fact Fallon admitted that he has been paying himself from IM for Iowa’s coffers, stating that “both Lynn and I took a small draw on the business.” Fallon compared his actions to that of former Congressional candidate Jeff Lamberti who received a salary from Casey’s, a family owned chain of conveniences stores that is a publicly traded stock on NASDAQ and subject to a wide array of federal disclosure laws. IM For Iowa is not subject to any federal disclosure laws, let alone traded on NASDAQ.
Last month, Fallon attacked Leonard Boswell for receiving a $5000 contribution from an AT&T sponsored PAC and then for voting for one version of telecom immunity. Regardless of whether one morally approves of Leonard Boswell taking a donation from a PAC, it is both clearly legal and the donation is fully disclosed. The public knows who gave money to Leonard Boswell and has the ability to raise questions about it. Fallon’s conduct with IM For Iowa raises some serious legal questions but most importantly, it raises the question of who is giving money to Ed Fallon and what are they getting in return?
Fallon’s political reputation is that of someone who values principle above all else, even at his own expense. But when he’s running an organization like IM for Iowa that seems to be deliberately structured to avoid any financial disclosure that undermines everything Ed Fallon has seemingly stood for in his decade and a half in public life. On one hand, Ed Fallon stands for clean elections, on the other, he is engaging in political activity that clearly violates the spirit of the election law he considers far too weak, (not to mention the actual law himself). Ed Fallon needs to make public all pertinent records and tax filings of IM for Iowa immediately. After all, if he has behaved ethically and has nothing to hide, it would only reinforce his reputation for probity. But if Fallon does not come clean, his reputation for honesty will be permanently tainted, if not destroyed.
March 20th, 2008
For those who have followed the polls over the course of this election, it may be a relief to know the final numbers on January 3rd. Many dozens of polls have been taken, often showing results ten percentage points or more away from the poll taken next. Pollsters call voters in Iowa and NH three or four times a day. Campaigns add to the telephone traffic. The Obama campaign has made 1.6 million phone calls in New Hampshire, which has a total population of 1.3 million people.
But as the election has gotten closer and the media coverage become more intense, the polls have swung even more wildly. Governor Mike Huckabee was a media darling with low poll numbers until his numbers inched up in a couple of polls; then talk of a Huckabee surge brought the spotlight to him, and he was suddenly up by 22 points in Iowa. But the increased attention brought increased scrutiny. In fact, it was just enough scrutiny to bring Huckabee’s numbers to the level of former Governor Mitt Romney’s, effectively creating a “horserace.”
The same thing happened with McCain in New Hampshire, and to a lesser extent, Obama and now Edwards in Iowa. Remember the pre-Thompson buzz, too?
It all smacks of the rise and fall of Howard Dean. The Media brought him increased attention, and his poll numbers went up. But then they kept going up, and the media went into full-scrutiny mode (remember “Doubts About Dean” for weeks on end?). It was a big story when his numbers finally topped off, and the moment the media was waiting for came on the night of the Iowa Caucuses. The media flexed its muscles, and the ‘default-nominee’ faltered.
Did the media buzz create high poll numbers, or vise versa? Whether the powers-that-be artificially engineered these contests or not, these multi-way horseraces are nothing but good for the political press.
January 1st, 2008
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
After Sam Brownback dropped out last week, speculation immediately started as to which candidate the prominent social conservative would support. It was generally assumed that Brownback would lend his endorsement to a candidate shared his socially conservative views. However, as the Politico reports, Rudy Giuliani, who is pro-choice and pro gay rights, has been courting Brownback. While Brownback is not giving it up on the first date, he said he was “much more comfortable” with Giuliani’s position on abortion and gave Giuliani a chaste kiss on the cheek, describing him as a “wonderful candidate.”
If Giuliani gets the Republican nomination, he will need to have a prominent social conservative on the ticket to keep the right wing of the Republican Party happy. Prominent religious fundamentalists and extremists like James Dobson have declared that they would never vote for Giuliani, although at this stage, it’s just posturing. Giuliani would to do everything he could to appease them and have a Vice Presidential nominee would perform that task. It would be a role that Brownback would be perfectly suited for. That is why Brownback is meeting with Giuliani and making such a public display of it. Giuliani is the only candidate who needs Brownback and would put him on the ticket. (After all, Kansas isn’t a swing state). Brownback is a failed Presidential candidate who knows what he wants and is not afraid to go get it.
October 26th, 2007
Stephen Colbert announced on his show last night that he was running for President, albeit only in his native state of South Carolina and as both a Democratic and Republican candidate. Colbert follows a long line of candidates mounted runs for the Presidency as a joke, ranging from Pat Paulson to Al Sharpton. However, unlike both of those candidates, Colbert may draw actual support. Colbert’s television show has millions of viewers every night, some of whom may support him for a lark. Although it is doubtful that Colbert’s support will be more than negligible, his run has to worry second tier candidate from both parties. While previously, candidates like Chris Dodd and Sam Brownback could run without consequences. The absolute worst that would happen to them was that they would finish behind a fringe weirdo like Dennis Kucinich or Tom Tancredo. It would be embarrassing, but both Kucinich and Tancredo are members of the United States Congress. Now respectable second tier candidates face the risk of a truly embarrassing result-finishing behind a comedian who is only pretending to be a fringe weirdo. Candidates who would normally limp through February 5th in hopes of a miracle might get scared off by the risk of humiliation.
In the meantime, Colbert now joins Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel as the only candidates yet to open a field office in Iowa.
October 17th, 2007
Chris Dodd’s campaign announced that it had received the endorsement of State Rep Ray Zirkelbach today. Zirkelbach served two years in Iraq with the National Guard (and is the second Iraq veteran in the Iowa Legislature to make an endorsement in two days.) However, while Dodd’s campaign found an endorsement by an influential young Democrat in North East Iowa to be valuable in and of itself. It has added value, it’s one of the few Iowa endorsements that Dodd has received by a non-firefighter.
Dodd has been endorsed nationally by the International Association of Firefighters (or IAFF), which provided his only real major boost of the campaign. The only two Iowa legislators who endorsed Dodd previously, State Senators Jeff Danielson and Tom Hancock were firefighters and, of Dodd’s statewide leadership team that was announced this summer, a third of its members were affiliated with the IAFF. Dodd had IAFF-affiliated county chairs in seven of the ten counties that make up half of the caucus delegates and in four of the top five counties.
While Zirkelbach isn’t a firefighter, (he works at the prison at Anamosa), it’s still of concern for Dodd that his campaign’s leadership still has not expanded very far beyond its base labor support and that an endorsement by a non-firefighter is of note. With competition increasingly fierce even among the “second tier” candidates, Dodd is not going to get very far on caucus night if most of his supporters are just firefighters loyal to their International.
October 12th, 2007
Previous Posts
