Search Results for ‘jim nussle’
In Iowa’s First District, Republicans have nominated State Senator David Hartsuch to run against Bruce Braley. Although Hartsuch is an right wing extremist, he is relatively young and waged an energetic campaign to oust incumbent Republican State Senator Maggie Tinsman in 2006. This might initially lead one to think that Hartsuch is trying to wage a competitive campaign in a district that was represented by Republican Jim Nussle until 2006. However, based on the Hartsuch’s anemic fundraising, he isn’t even trying. According to Hartsuch’s FEC report, he has raised a whopping $5,000. However, Hartsuch’s campaign has been very frugal (as opposed to other long shot campaigns like that of Ed Fallon) and still has over $4000 on hand. With this type of fundraising, it’s clear Hartsuch is a sacrificial lamb and that Braley can breath easy this November. After all, incumbent congressmen have a very good track record against opponents who can’t raise enough money to pay for yard signs.
May 25th, 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
Rudy Giuliani has a new campaign staffer and his name is Jim Nussle. According to the AP, Giuliani is the first client of Nussle’s new consulting business and hired Nussle to work on his Presidential campaign. The strange is that these two have what the AP article describes as “deep philosophical differences.” Giuliani is a relatively liberal Republican, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-stem cell research while Jim Nussle is a standard and rather uninteresting conservative Republican who, in his 16 years in Congress, would have striven to avoid even the slightest taint of Rockefeller Republicanism. So, why is Nussle working for Giuliani? Once again, the answer is hinted at the article with the cryptic but all-telling phrase, “Giuliani and Nussle declined to discuss terms of Nussle’s employment.” In other words, Jim Nussle is getting paid a lot of money to support Giuliani. Not that there’s anything wrong that. After all, Nussle still has to pay his alimony somehow.
January 16th, 2007
Buried within this piece on DSCC Chair Chuck Schumer we find that Tom Harkin is mulling retirement: “We have now gotten 11 of the 12 Democrats to commit to running again. [Iowa Sen.] Tom Harkin is still making up his mind,” Schumer said, going on to lavish praise on the 67-year-old Democrat. “He’s a great senator. He does more in a couple of years than many senators have done in a lifetime.”
It’s true — Harkin is one of the best senators and Democrats we’ve got, and I for one, would be sorry to see him go. Fortunately, I don’t think we’ll have to say goodbye just yet. Sure, he’s getting older, but he’ll still be younger than many in the Senate, and even younger than at least one presidential candidate (John “I’m older than dirt” McCain). I saw Harkin twice this past year: once at the Harkin Steak Fry and once in a livingroom in Grinnell as he stumped for now-victorious Eric Palmer; both times he seemed sharp as a blade and perhaps more importantly, like he was really enjoying himself.
Furthermore, 2008 should be a good year for Democrats as they try to expand their lead in the Senate, notes The Hill. Of the 33 seats up for grabs, 21 are held by Republicans so the GOP will be forced to play more defense than offense. Plus, who’s going to challenge Harkin? I bet Jim Nussle would like to, but considering his very solid defeat to Culver (who is not half the candidate Harkin is), I imagine he’ll stay put for now as a consultant. Meanwhile, Harkin’s just picked up a plum committee assignment: Chairman of the Agriculture Committee. According to Jennifer Duffy of the Cook Political Report, “I think Harkin was thinking about it, but now that he has Ag, what’s his incentive to retire?” Answer: There is none.
January 8th, 2007
In an interview with Hotline today, Nick Ryan, campaign manager for Jim Nussle’s losing gubernatorial bid, said:
“Looking at central and eastern Iowa — I think Republicans can be encouraged that the right candidates CAN win there. Absent the 2006 wave, both congressional seats in eastern Iowa were held by Republicans — by two very good, effective congressmen (Nussle and Leach).”
I think Ryan meant to say that the right candidates COULD HAVE won there (note: the word “can” was capitalized by Hotline). Nussle and Leach had been congressmen for 15 and 30 years, respectively. They had built up a high enough level of trust that people could overlook their Republican flaws. Now that Democrats are in control, the GOP won’t be able to build up a sense of loyalty, which was really the only thing keeping them alive in these solidly blue districts. The first and second CDs went for both Gore and Kerry (and perhaps Clinton but I can’t navigate that darn Secretary of State’s website very well). Unless Braley or Loebsack make a huge mistake, I think it will be a very long time before any Republican can retake either of those seats.
But Ryan’s not dumb — you should check out the whole thing, in which he discusses, among other things, whether Harkin can be beat and who are the rising IA stars from both parties.
December 20th, 2006
In what is either the most scathing diss track since Nas noted Jay Z took Tae Bo, or the most misguided political intervention by a rap “star” since Kanye West spilled the beans at the Grammys, hip hop heavyweight $trick9 has weighed into Iowa’s gubernatorial debate with a youtube “endorsement” of Jim Nussle.
Whatever Iowa’s biggie intended in his video, I’m thoroughly confused. You can watch for yourself, but here’s a highlight:
Jim Nussle’s got the ten commandments/ God Damnit/ You will lose/ Just give it up smooth…/ Republicans are on top and we can’t stop/ Until gay couples can’t adopt
Should we say thanks? Is this guy popular? Why is the Register covering this? Has hell frozen over?
Those are just a few of the questions that necessarily surround this brand of mega-event.
The intersection between Iowa and hip hop does, however, make one thing clear: if these are Nussle’s ideas, Iowa’s got 99 problems and $trick9 ain’t one.
October 25th, 2006
Via Hotline On Call, we learn that Rudy Giuliani will be campaigning for Republican gubernatorial hopeful Jim Nussle and Republican congressional candidate Mike Whalen in the days leading up to Election Day. There’s no question that spending time with Iowa Republicans is good for Giuliani as he mulls a presidential run in 2008, but what could be the effects on these two Iowa races?
Sure, Giuliani brings a lot of star-power with him, and he conjures up memories of 9/11 — we all know how good Republicans are at wrapping themselves in the flag — but he is also widely known as a liberal Republican, particularly for his pro-choice views. Should we be surprised that two pro-life candidates like Nussle and Whalen have attached themselves to the Giuliani teat? I don’t think so.
We’ve watched Nussle do his hustle on choice since the beginning of the campaign. And in such a split electorate, it should come as no surprise that he is trying to pivot a bit to the left; in fact, that has been a nationwide trend among GOP gubernatorial candidates according to the New York Times.
Whalen’s pro-life cred has been questioned as well. Last April, the Krusty Konservative noted Whalen’s “general ignorance and his lack of interest” in the issue and that he once told people that he was only pro-life “because his consultants told him he had to be.” But again, we shouldn’t be surprised of his posturing; he is running in unfriendly territory, a district that Kerry and Gore both won.
But therein lies the rub! If Nussle and Whalen go too far off the right-wing reservation, the base will be less enthusiastic about the election, perhaps not volunteering or not voting at all. Besides, as we have learned these last few years, when voters have a chance to vote for a Republican or a Republican-lite, they go for the real Republican. As we’ll likely find out in a mere two weeks, the same goes for Democrats.
October 24th, 2006
With Nussle and Culver all tied up, the Republican Governor’s Association has decided to call up the reserves — all-expenses-paid volunteers — to swarm Iowa and try to make it happen for Jimmy N. The offer came in a letter signed by Governor Romney, the Chairman of the RGA, which went out on Monday.
The Rocky Mountain News had the story on Mitt’s minutemen:
… the RGA offered free airfare and lodging to volunteers willing to campaign for Republicans in Iowa, Maine, Oregon, Illinois, Arkansas and Michigan.
“There are just 30 days to go until one of the most important and challenging election days we have ever faced, and several races for governor are going down to the wire,” the group wrote in an e-mail to supporters.
“The upcoming midterm elections are critical, and some of our targeted governors’ races may end up being the bright spot for Republicans in 2006.”
The bright spot? The RGA must see some black clouds ahead.
Is the Iowa Republican base really so deflated that the party has to reach out of state with hands full of money to muster a fight?
Here’s to making sure Iowa stays dark for Mitt’s minions.
October 11th, 2006
The Register has it that Nussle proposed a policy that would require Iowa schools to have safety preparedness programs in addition to weather- and fire-related programs already in place. His plans include a half a million dollar grant that would assist the schools in implementing the programs. The money would come from a projected budget surplus. I wonder if he means the current surplus we have, because we all know that Nussle and the Republicans are really good at spending money their Democrat predecessors have saved up.
You can practically hear the music gearing up for the Culver campaign’s response: Nussle is doing the hustle. (I can’t help saying it–it rhymes!) They point out that Nussle has actually reduced spending on already established school safety programs in Iowa and around the country.
Today, Congressman Jim Nussle put out a “school safety” plan in which he actually took credit for REDUCED funding for the Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program, which provides direct money to Iowa for programs like drug task forces and child and teen drug prevention programs.
Obviously there is a bit of spin going on from both camps here, but I think what is actually important about this is that Nussle wants to create a program that will respond to school violence after it has happened. We’ve got fire-drills and tornado-drills, why not school shooting-drills? It might be useful to address underlying problems that cause students to act violently instead of creating a reaction program that institutionalizes the assumption that kids will always be bringing guns to school to kill each other.
October 6th, 2006
The Boz drew a huge crowd to Main Lounge last night for a rally in anticipation of campus satellite voting this Monday. Students were not only treated to their svelte Congressman but got to see Eric Palmer, Mari Culver and Steve Mauro (Mike Mauro’s son).
Steve (he looks like his dad) went first and did a good job of stressing the importance of the oft-overlooked Secretary of State position. He said Mauro will push for more “safety, security and integrity” and will continue the great job Culver has done in increasing voter access. He assured the crowd that Mauro will fight for a paper trail in all of Iowa’s 99 counties. It’s good to know that the ball won’t be dropped when Chet moves on up.
Next, school favorite Eric Palmer spoke. He seemed really fired up and told us that his number one priority is increasing the minimum wage. Palmer has been getting better every time I see him—he’s always full of energy and nothing ever sounds canned. After tonight, I’ve no doubt that anyone who sees Palmer and Carroll next to one another will choose the former. Carroll is just too stiff and has that sleazy Nussle polish. If I didn’t know any better, I’d think Carroll had “gone Washington” too. Maybe he’s been rubbing elbows with Newt too often.
After Palmer was Mari Culver, Chet’s “brunette better half.” She stressed the need for continued progress in Iowa and Culver’s long commitment to increasing civic participation as Secretary of State. She noted that during Culver’s tenure, voting among 18-24 years olds had increased 50% (since 1996) and that Iowa moved from 11th to 6th in the country in voter turnout. She said that Culver had education as a top priority and would move to bring teacher salary to at least the national average and get tuition at the state’s universities under control. While Nussle may claim to focus on education, Mari pointed out that Jimmy boy voted through the largest cuts in student loan funding in history. Mari is quite good.
Following Mari was the main attraction—the Boz. He started by telling us that, although we hear it every few years, this really is the most important election “in my [his] lifetime.” He said that America was in danger of losing its promise and that he wanted to ensure that his grandchildren had the same opportunities that he did. He seemed so energized that he didn’t need to say a word to assuage doubts about his health, but he stressed that he felt better than he had in years, and that he was more prepared for Congress than he had ever been before. He said he wasn’t about to “go fishing” anytime soon—he wants to “die with my boots on.” He said that a Democratic majority could start to rebuild what has been lost during repuglican control these last few years—America, he said, needs to start being a “good neighbor” abroad and working with allies to accomplish common goals.
I’m glad Boswell stressed universal values and the ability to reach a common understanding in foreign policy—his message was far from the gloom and doom fated war of civilizations that the Bush clan drums up everyday. I think Boswell understands (and I’m projecting now) that for all the radicals in the Middle East there are good people who care about the same things that families in America do—to lose sight of that basic commonality is dangerous because it leads us to dwell on and thus increase our differences. It makes us pugnacious when diplomacy is called for, pugnacious when prudence is called for. Recognizing that diplomacy is possible doesn’t mean that we won’t fight radicals and keep America safe. I think Boswell understands, unlike the condescending fear mongers in the Bush administration, that Americans don’t have to be scared into strength or leadership.
October 4th, 2006
Previous Posts
