We here at IowaProgress didn’t get an email or anything about this, but Sam Sedar mentioned last night on his show, the Majority Report, that Denise O’Brien will be on their show tonight. Sounds like they’ll probably talk a little about the state of the Democratic party in Iowa, among other things. The show airs 6-9PM Central.
Add comment August 11th, 2006
First of all, lots of Dems are throwing around cutesy Nussle rhymes and it’s gross. Vilsack has coined the “Nussle hustle,” and Fallon kicked it up a notch by ending his convention speech with the chant “Out-muscle Jim Nussle, out-hustle Jim Nussle, let’s tussle with Nussle and win!”
According to Radio Iowa, the Iowa Department of Economic Development released a report today showing that the Values Fund has only actually created or retained 8,000 of the 25,000 jobs Vilsack was claiming. In other words, Ed Fallon was right all along. (In case you’re keeping score, that’s still 0 points for Vilsack.)
Yepsen flaps his mouth about why Culver decided to call for Archie Brooks’ resignation. After implying that CIETC is indicative of “the Democrats’ culture of cronyism in Polk County” and that Democrats need Brooks to deliver votes, he briefly bothers to mention that Culver is “among the majority of civic-minded Democrats who are profoundly outraged that people who call themselves Democrats would engage in the obscenity of milking a program designed to benefit the jobless.” So what you’re really saying then, Dave, is that corrupt politicians exist (gasp!) and that every now and then they happen to be Democrats. You would never, ever write a biased story that makes unnecesary jabs at Culver (just read it for yourself), right?
One happy bit though: another Register columnist goes over how Michael Mauro shouldn’t be tarnished by having relatives working at CIETC. It even includes quotes from Republicans saying what a great, professional, nonpartisan job he has done as Polk County auditor. Of course, one does manage to “sneak” a nonpartisan raspberry into print: “Michael has forgotten more about elections and election law than Chet Culver ever knew.” Sometimes I wonder if it’s wrong for me to even bother repeating their nonsense, but that one’s just funny.
p.s. Hotline has a story about the Culver campaign accidentally appropriating a Nussle quote on their website. WTF, mate?
6 comments June 20th, 2006
With gas prices soaring to above $3/gal in parts of the country it is no wonder that people are talking about alternative energy. Here in Iowa, of course, we like to talk a lot about ethanol, because we grow a lot of corn, one of the materials that can be turned into ethanol.
The Department of Agriculture announced this week that increased demand for ethanol is driving corn prices up, so at least Iowa farmers can receive some benefit from the high gas prices.
Meanwhile, lawmakers in Washington are considering legislation that would mandate an increase in the amount of ethanol used for fuel. Both Democrats and Republicans from the Midwest are proposing legislation, and while they think that it is useful to both be working on similar proposals, it seems unlikely that any bills would actually pass as midterms approach. There is concern that mandating the use of ethanol might not be the wisest move right now:
“To say that we have to incorporate these huge volumes of ethanol into gas regardless of what they cost is not very good policy if you’re trying to moderate gasoline prices,” said Bob Slaughter, president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association.
Furthermore, there is speculation that the dramatic increase in corn-derived ethanol costs may actually be contributing to high gas prices. So as a recap, so far we’ve got people saying high gas prices are driving up corn prices and other people saying that high corn prices are driving up gas prices. This economist though says that the only thing determining gas prices is good ol’ supply and demand.
So lets complicate things a little further: according to the same Register article there are also proposals in Congress to end the 54 cent per gallon tariff on imported ethanol. Places like Brazil are big ethanol producers, but they make it from sugar cane, not corn. However, it is uncertain if this would really reduce gas prices. Not to mention,
Latham, a close ally of House Majority Leader John Boehner, said the tariff cut would be unlikely to pass the House.
Another question that is being debated is how useful ethanol really is. While the debate over gas prices is one thing, the larger issue here is renewable energy. Is ethanol really a viable energy resource? Recent studies coming out of Cornell University have found that ethanol actually takes more energy to make than it produces. Basically that is bad. So even if ethanol could replace a sizable chunk of our foreign oil imports we might be better off looking for ways to power our vehicles with natural gas or coal (the biggest electricity producers in the U.S.).
What a lot of people are depending on in the future of ethanol is that there will be some technology advances. However, those advances are expected to come from finding new sources for ethanol, like plant wastes and wood chips. So what does this all mean? I don’t really know either, but it seems like the benefits Iowa derives from the ethanol industry might not be there in the future. (Maybe we should be focusing on that other renewable energy resource that we have a lot of…wind!)
1 comment May 12th, 2006
It seems these days that as candidates begin to gear up for 2008, Iowa becomes a revolving door for those with aspirations of presidential glory. To wit, just today our fine state was graced with the presence of none other than Bill Frist, everyone’s favorite ultra-conversative surgeon and part-time senate majority leader. Apparently, Frist is in town to tout health care legislature to be proposed in Congress, which though it isn’t “the complete answer,” will “shrink the number of uninsured Americans.” One might surmise that when a medically trained doctor attains the leadership of the senate, we might see more aggressive health care legislation, but it seems Dr. Frist is more preoccupied with pandering to the religious right.
In keeping with Iowa’s status as a revolving door for 2008 candidates, the Washington Post reports that in a week none other than Rudy Giuliani will be in Iowa raising money for republican gubernatorial candidate, Jim Nussle. Does this mean Rudy has a huge affinity for Nussle and just wants to see a local boy do good, or does Rudy have machinations on sitting pretty in the oval office one day soon? Giuliani recently went through Pennsylvania and raised money for Rick Santorum, and given Santorum’s sparkling personality and credentials, one might postulate that the only reason for Giuliani’s visits is to broaden his visibility nation-wide? Rudy in ‘08? We shall see.
Next, on this page on The Post’s website, called The Fix, one can find blog style entries about national politics. Of interest is that Friday’s entry handicaps Iowa as the number 3 most contested gubernatorial election happening in ‘06. Also of interest is the fact that while the blurb on Iowa mentions that Ed Fallon is polling equal to Mike Blouin with a laughable fraction of the money, Fallon has no candidate profile on the Post’s page regarding Iowa.
A couple more things of note. Today Jim Nussle proposed an energy bill in congress featuring a mandate to increase renewable energy. This sure seems like convenient timing after virtually every democratic candidate Nussle is likely to face in November has already come out strongly for renewable energy. As well, this bill doesn’t cover renewable energy for electricity, but only renewable energy as a gasoline replacement. Iowa has the ability to be energy independent, and it’s perhaps time to realize that ethanol85 may not be the answer. Nussle is trying to turn E85 into what amounts to a hotbutton issue for Iowa, not recognizing the fact that E85 is still dependent upon gasoline, and that Iowans are abroad and dying in a misguided war to secure the future of our gasoline-dependent state. Renewable for Iowa does not mean just ethanol, and this legislation is a smoke-screen to get Iowans to think that Nussle is an energy responsible candidate.
In local legislature, the budget talks remain deadlocked, the contentious issues being pay raises for teaches (how in anyone’s right mind can they oppose this?) and tax cuts for seniors.
Finally: All Iowans between 18 and 22 are now eligible for Mumps vaccinations, regardless of whether they are enrolled in college. If you don’t have it, I’d recommend looking into getting vaccinated.
1 comment April 24th, 2006
Other blogs already have this, but the Rasmussen numbers have been released for their March poll of Iowa. It’s frustrating how little polling is done here. These are really the only reliable polls, and they only happen once a month.
Here are some interesting facts that don’t have to do with the campaigns in particular but are kind of … yeah:
Most Iowa voters think that most politicians would change their vote for a contribution. But, as in other states we’ve polled, a majority also don’t see this is as a reason to institute publicly funded campaigns.
When asked about the abortion issue, 61% say abortion is morally wrong most of the time while 25% say it isn’t. A plurality of 45% would support a South-Dakota type ban, making abortion illegal except when the life of the mother is at stake.
Uh oh.
2 comments April 5th, 2006
Okay, while it is not specifically related to Iowa, it is specifically related to Progress, so it is going on the Blog.
Just a few minutes ago the AP reported that former House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-TX) announced today that he is resigning from the House of Representatives. The stated reason is that his reelection campaign was more difficult and more costly than he was prepared for (although he was sure to note that he thought he could’ve won, and of course, it was those pesky Liberals’ faults for being so darn negative).
And now for the spin: Republicans say that they were expecting DeLay to resign later this spring, and that he served our country well, blah, blah, blah. DeLay denied that his resignation has anything to do with lobbyist Jack Abramoff or his recent conviction.
“I know that the left has used it to try to brand me with guilt by association, but I have always served honorably and ethically,” DeLay said. “I’ve never broken the law or the spirit of the law or even a House rule.”
Democrats are of course calling this a huge victory, stressing that this goes beyond DeLay and has greater implications for the Republican Party.
“Tom DeLay’s decision to leave Congress is just the latest piece of evidence that the Republican Party is a party in disarray, a party out of ideas and out of energy,” said Bill Burton, a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
DeLay has been plagued by scandal lately, not only in connection to Abramoff. DeLay’s aide, Tony Rudy, has confessed to conspiring with Abramoff and committing illegal actions while working for DeLay. In September DeLay stepped down as House Majority Leader after being indicted in Texas for illegally steering funds from corporate donors to Texas legislative candidates.
No word yet on whether there will be a special election held in Texas or if the seat will remain vacant until the elections in November.
So long, Mr. Hammer.
1 comment April 4th, 2006
Roll Call reports that Senator Feingold’s resolution to censure the President for his domestic wiretapping program has its first co-sponsor, Senator Tom Harkin.
It’s good to see that another Democrat has the courage to stand with Feingold. But is the censure resolution such a hot idea? The New York Times has an article detailing the energizing effect the resolution is having among the Republican Party’s base
With the Republican base demoralized by continued growth in government spending, undiminished violence in Iraq and intramural disputes over immigration, some conservative leaders had already begun rallying their supporters with speculation about a Democratic rebuke to the president even before Mr. Feingold made his proposal.
Brian Jones, a Republican spokesman, said the e-mail messages generated a higher response than anything the party had sent in several months, including bulletins about the Supreme Court confirmations.
Having won on the Dubai ports issue and with Bush’s approval on national security issues plummeting, it may seem ill advised to turn the national debate toward censure on a program that Republicans claim has widespread support. Yet, a Gallop poll has a slim majority of Americans saying that the domestic surveillance program was wrong, and Zogby reports that
Just 28% are willing to allow their telephone conversations to be monitored, and 25% favor allowing random searches of mail.
Just as Bush’s numbers have eroded on terror and National Security, so can they decline on wire tapping. But Democrats need to keep the debate on the resolution focused on the program and not the punitive nature of the resolution itself. That way, the censure resolution can keep Bush’s unconstitutional program in the media and on voters’ minds. Domestic surveillance and the Patriot Act can fit into a much broader narrative of Republican contempt for Civil liberties, and that’s more and more a winning issue with the American public. It’s a good thing we have Senators like Feingold and Harkin. But where’s the party leadership on this?
2 comments March 16th, 2006
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Jun | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | 31 | ||||
