Search Results for ‘negative campaign’
On Iowa Press the other day, State Auditor Dave Vaudt ducked the question of whether he would consider running for Governor in 2010. While Vaudt doesn’t have much of a public profile, he’s still one of two statewide Republican elected officials and has few negatives attached to his name. However, it’s worth noting that Vaudt would not have been in the position to even contemplate a 2010 run for Governor if the Democrats had bothered to nominate a candidate to oppose him in 2006. While leaving legislative seats uncontested hurt Democrats in 2006, failing to run a candidate for Auditor hurt Democrats even more. With the sole exception of Denise O’Brien, who narrowly lost her underfunded campaign for Secretary of Agriculture after it was revealed that she didn’t feed her cows, every statewide Democrat won by a healthy margin and Democrats made gains statewide. If Democrats had found a distinguished nonentity to merely place his name on the ballot, Vaudt probably would have been defeated. Instead, there is now a Republican statewide elected official who can plot a run for Governor from inside the heart of state government.
May 18th, 2008
Cross-posted at Iowa Independent
As the Iowa legislative session came to a close early Sunday, House Democrats marveled that they had passed all but one of the items on their legislative agenda. The next day, they learned that they were short one more thing: a caucus member. The two issues were not unrelated.
On Monday, Rep. Dawn Pettengill, a Democrat from Mount Auburn, announced that she was becoming a Republican. Over the session, Pettengill had become increasingly estranged from the Democratic Party. When Iowa House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a Democrat from Des Moines learned of the news—after the press—he was “disappointed, not surprised,” he said in a phone interview yesterday. “It was more of a shift on paper. We tended not count on her to be a team player, even on procedural matters.” Pettengill did not return calls for comment.
While Pettengill clashed with her former party on a variety of issues, perhaps the most significant one was the proposed Fair Share bill, which would have allowed public employee unions to charge fees for services given to nonunion workers. “In the end, it was a pretty scaled down, reasonable proposal,” McCarthy said. It would ensure that workers “kick in their fair share of those services.”
Fair Share, despite being passed in the Iowa Senate, never came to a vote in the House because, McCarthy said, “We just didn’t have the votes to get it done.” McCarthy said that the proposal had the support of 50 Democrats in the caucus but lacked that crucial 51st. “We don’t have that large a majority.” One Democratic representative, Ray Zirkelbach of Monticello is currently serving in Iraq, and in addition to Pettengill, two other members of the Democratic caucus refused to support the bill. McCarthy declined to name those representatives.
McCarthy said that on the way to regaining the majority in the 2006 elections, some conservative Democrats ran, or were recruited, to defeat Republican incumbents. Keeping them on board for certain issues, he said was “challenging.” In the interview, McCarthy did not seem angry that the bill failed to pass; he simply stated matter-of-factly that “the answer is to continue to try to educate [reluctant members] and to pick up a few more seats” in order to make up for deserters.
According to the Des Moines Register, the Democratic leadership spent four hours trying to convince its caucus members to support the bill, and that Pettengill emerged with “tears on her face when she left the room where Democrats were meeting in private.”
McCarthy bristled at the suggestion that he had tried to strong-arm people for support. “I definitely didn’t,” he said. “We used tough arguments trying to convince people… We did that through civil and respectful conversation.” McCarthy said, “The argument that we were strong-arming people was coming from right wing Republican propaganda.” The charge, he said, was “a falsehood, a lie.”
In the end, McCarthy, said that he was not sure whether Pettengill’s defection could have been prevented. “She’s gone through a fairly significant emotional journey this session,” he said. “She was formerly a close person friend with me. That friendship had withered away, and she became more distant with members of her caucus.”
He also questioned the logic of Pettengill’s decision. Not only had she joined a party that, according to McCarthy, sent 27 negative mailings against her in the last election—“some of the most vicious, vile, mean spirited negative campaigning I’ve ever seen”—but that the party she joined was out of power. “We can’t find anybody within the last 30 years that leaves the majority party and the power to deliver to her constituents,” he said. “If I were a constituent, I would be shocked and outraged that she gave up the ability to deliver in exchange for feeling good.”
McCarthy agreed with the idea that Pettengill was reading her district wrong, that it is not as conservative as she believes. “I think,” he said with resignation, “she’s confused.”
May 3rd, 2007
Iowa Progress has previously profiled a cutthroat Grinnellian, now we turn our attention to a Grinnell alum who has come up with a really dumb idea. Scott Raecker ‘84 is a Republican member of the State Legislature who introduced an amendment in the Iowa House to the anti-bullying bill which recently passed the State Senate. The bill is designed to prevent the real problem of bullying in Iowa’s public schools. How does Raecker’s amendment address the problem of bullying and harassment? It’s designed to protect the most vulnerable people in the state, members of Iowa General Assembly.
While it’s nice to protect such frail and fragile members of society, the amendment, if passed, would create all sorts of issues. If while Scott Raecker was speaking at a campaign event, you shouted “Hey Raecker, the only thing dumber than you is that amendment to the bullying bill you introduced,” and Raeker then stopped speaking, you would be guilty of bullying and harassing. You would have engaged in conduct based on a “mental ability or disability” that would have substantially interfered with Raeker’s “campaign performance.” This only skims the surface of the massive First Amendment issues this amendment would have created. However, there was another issue with the amendment that ultimately prevent its passage. It has nothing to do with bullying in schools.
So why did Scott Raeker introduce this amendment, (which was instantly ruled non-germane)? Because it was designed as a wrecking amendment. If it’s added to the bill, it makes a hash of it. And if it isn’t added, all the Democrats are on record supporting “bullying and harrassing of and by public officials.” The Republicans immediately tried overturn the Speaker’s ruling that the amendment was non germane. Predictably, it failed on a party-line vote.
Although the bill ended up passing the House by a vote of 62-37, it did so after hours of debate and more pointless wrecking amendments introduced by House Republicans. But none were quite as pointless and badly thought out as Scott Raecker’s. Many legislators introduce bills or amendments that are stupid, many others introduce bills or amendments that are unconstitutional. But few can say they’ve ever done as good a job of interweaving those two threads as Scott Raecker did yesterday.
February 8th, 2007
Although we will soon be deluged with articles analyzing Barack Obama’s candidacy in racial terms, it seems worth mentioning one article out of the cresting wave, Peter Beinart’s analysis of how Obama is perceived. Beinart posits that Obama, like Colin Powell, is perceived as a “good Black” by whites because he doesn’t follow the classic stereotype of an African American politician (unlike, Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton). However, Obama is able to continue to be perceived as authentic to fellow African-Americans because his “African American wife, his connection to the black church, and his work as a community organizer give him racial credibility.”
As unique as this article might sound, it’s been written before in the same publication. Two years ago, Noam Scheiber wrote a much better version of the same article in the same magazine. In it, he gives the same analysis of how Obama is perceived as being a “good black” and somehow different from typical African Americans. This accounted for much of his political success, in the article a consultant for one of Obama’s opponents in the primary “notes that the only time suburban and exurban white voters ever responded negatively to Obama was when he was associated with more conventional black politicians. ‘We [showed voters a sound] bite from Jesse Jackson Junior,’ says Dunn, referring to a video clip of the Chicago congressman praising Obama. ‘[blue collar] voters didn’t like that.’”
However, this analysis isn’t all that original either. It all stems from a New Yorker article written by Malcolm Gladwell over ten years ago about the differences in how African-Americans and West Indian immigrants to the U.S. are perceived. Gladwell states that minorities who are perceived as somehow foreign or different, like West Indians in Brooklyn, are not only able to avoid negative stereotypes but are associated with positive stereotypes It’s far to say that the concepts expressed in this article, written before Barack Obama was even a State Senator, will drive much of the debate over Obama’s racial identity over the next year or two. Gladwell’s article, amplified by the stories in the New Republic, will be read by the journalists covering the Presidential campaign. It already seems well on its way from meme to conventional wisdom. The ideas of Gladwell, knowingly or unknowingly, will most probably inform the language and vocabulary used by David Yepsen, the New York Times, other bloggers and just about everyone else writing about Barack Obama. Whether or not Gladwell’s concepts are actually applicable to Obama is irrelevent. What matters is that it is increasingly clear that they will provide much of the framework around which Obama will be perceived by the media.
January 29th, 2007
A big thanks to Chris over at Political Forecast for highlighting our favorite candidate Eric Palmer’s new television ad. In 1992 they used to say that a vote for Clinton was a 2 for 1 deal. I’d say that this year a vote for Palmer is a 6 for 1 deal. Heck, they may be young, but I think those kids know more about what Iowa needs than Danny Carroll.
I can imagine Danny’s negative response ads already.
Black silhouette appears on screen amidst sounds of nails on a chalkboard.
Action movie announcer voice- Candidate Eric Palmer says he wants to get “strict about homework” with Iowa’s families. But it is theoretically possible that his children have forgotten to complete an assignment in full. Tell Eric Palmer that he should watch his own litter before he goes into your home and starts burying your pups in pencils and paper. Tell Eric Palmer that Iowa needs more than homework–it needs fun. And tell Eric Palmer that while homework may be good for his family, he needs to stop imposing his values on hardworking, humble Iowans. On November 7th, teach Eric Palmer a lesson.”
Can we expect anything less from the Republican Party? The swift-dopes are accusing Boswell of scraping children’s knees…
October 18th, 2006
On Thursday my esteemed colleague, Geraldine, posted about the new website IDP launched, Stop GOP Smear. I have to say though, Geraldine, I think that you’re letting the IDP off pretty easy. For starters, the site looks like it was designed by a 10-year-old. While it may be a good idea to have such a website to provide a centralized location where people can report smear campaigning, I seriously question the point of putting up such an unprofessional site.
Furthermore, I think that it is indicative of a general trend in campaigns this year that I find uninspiring and misdirected. I think attacking a campaign for ‘going negative’ completely misses the point. It is a fine line to walk between correcting fallacious information on an opponent’s mailer and using the fact that they sent the mailer as an attack on the character of the opponent. I don’t think either party has found that line yet. There are more effective ways to respond to negative mailers than to whine about the fact that a negative mailer was sent out.
I am not saying that I support negative campaigning; I don’t. But, I just don’t see the point of making your opponent’s negative campaign tactics a talking point of your campaign. I would rather see candidates contrasting their views and records with those of their opponents than resorting to a juvenile ‘he started it’ ‘no, he started it’ exchange, such as the one we witnessed in the gubernatorial debate on Monday. It is especially hypocritical when there are smear mailers and ads against both candidates. Can’t candidates find a way to criticize their opponents without criticizing them for being critical?
In short, Geraldine, I hope that in the future you will be a little more discerning in your choice of websites to frequent.
October 8th, 2006
Tonight Chet Culver and Jim Nussle sparred in the first gubernatorial debate of the election season, and I’m going to call it a Culver win. (That’s actually me trying to be objective.) Nussle was certainly more polished than Chet, but I think Chet’s ideas clearly trumped Nussle’s question-dodging answers. Besides, the grooming and smooth talking may not be a plus in Nussle’s column, since professional Washington politician doesn’t generally play well in Iowa. I’ve also heard Nussle’s tie described as a “crime against humanity.”
On attack ads and negative campaigning. Nussle went first and gave an opening statement, completely ignoring the question. Chet pointed out that Nussle aired negative ads first. The moderator then allotted another 30 seconds to both candidates, pointing out that Nussle didn’t respond. Nothing worthwhile comes out of it.
On choice. In Clintonian fashion, Culver says that “Zero is the best number of abortions,” but that he respects a woman’s right to choose. Nussle cites his 100% pro-life voting record in Congress and says that he would further restrict abortions.
On tax policy. Nussle kept bringing up taxes all evening, saying that seniors are fleeing Iowa for “greener tax pastures.” I’m pretty sure seniors are leaving because Iowa is cold cold cold, and I think young people are more concerned that there are too many pastures and not enough, you know, city. Chet spoke about Vilsack’s successes, and pointed out that a higher cigarette tax could potentially save 13,000 lives.
On alternative fuels. It’s Iowa, everyone loves alternative fuels.
On affordable healthcare. Nussle completely skipped the question and talked about how “every mile is a minute” and rural citizens in emergencies are suffering. True perhaps, but who cares if they can’t afford the healthcare when they get to a hospital? (And wouldn’t it be nice if they could have preventative medicine and not have to almost die rushing to a hospital?) Chet explained his plan to expand Hawk-I and allow all Iowans to enjoy the same healthcare coverage as elected officials.
On education. We know, we know, Chet would be the only governor who had been in the classroom in the past 20 years. As Chet pointed out, Nussle voted 100 times against education while in Congress. Chet put it well, saying “It’s the record, not the rhetoric.” (He also looked very pleased with himself after this.)
On stem cell research. Nussle said adult stem cells are where the “exciting” research is happening. That’s probably because he voted to ban embryonic stem cell research, so no research is happening there. Culver pointed out that Nancy Reagan and Bill Frist both support overturning the stem cell ban, and that it could potentially save millions of lives.
In summary, Chet stuck to his talking points and elucidated his plans for Iowa, while Nussle, ok I’ll say it, hustled.
October 2nd, 2006
Those who went to the Harkin Steak Fry may have noticed that we had a crack team of bloggers there. In the following post, Ben and Alec reflect over the highs and lows of the event, which has made the news across the country.
Alec filed the following post:
The Harkin Steak fry gave me so much to sink my teeth into that I don’t know where to begin.
First, the basics—it didn’t rain and the steak was good. I hear the beans were a little cold. The lack of coleslaw was an enormous oversight. Someone said they liked the chicken but that it could have used a little salt. I didn’t try, nor hear anything about the bread. All things considered, it was a good day on the food front.
Oh, and there were speeches and stuff.
Ben, Freeda and I first stumbled by some of Evan Bayh’s people from the All America PAC. We asked one of them how long he had been with Bayh’s campaign, and he corrected us (with tongue firmly in cheek) that it was a political action committee. We were assured that Bayh would be around Iowa next year. Surprise surprise.
Soon after, we got a hold of Vilsack standing by the ice cream machine and taking pictures. Ben asked him whether the speech he gave for Grinnell commencement in the spring could be the basis of a possible stump speech (read: the 08′ question creatively reworded). The Governor said he had a lot on his mind and that he would continue to go around the country and tell people about the issues he thought were important. It was a snoozer for an answer, but I guess we couldn’t have expected the man to announce his candidacy to three college kids with press passes. Ah well. Then, Ben asked how congressional candidates should talk about Iraq before November. Vilsack said that, as he saw it, the mission in Iraq had changed from three years ago—with an elected government and a “standing army” the mission needed to shift to “building civil society.” He didn’t say it upfront, but he strongly hinted that he supported some sort of phased withdrawal. Could Vilsack be changing the position he offered in June to the DLC?
I caught a glimpse of the back of Obama’s head in the middle of a giggling crowd. I knew it was no use to try to get a word with him at that point. Mark that as the first failed chance to nab Obama.
Next, we found Mary and Chet Culver hanging out by the press. After shaking his hand and introducing ourselves (I’ve met Chet before, but I forgive him), we asked him what issues he planned to highlight before November in order to secure a majority of the undecided voters (the people who, if the latest DM poll is right, are going to decide this thing). He said that he would keep detailing his plan to “move Iowa forward” and said it was important for people to know that he was a coach and a teacher. In what seems to be a recurrent theme, he talked about these credentials as a private citizen far more than his time as Sec of State. Indeed, all day, the only person to dwell on Culver’s job as Secretary of State was Harkin, who said Chet had done more than anyone else in the country to make voting accessible to all. If Harkin can praise Culver’s time in elected office that profusely, why is it that Culver seems to stress the teacher/coach angle far more often?
I’d guess the emphasis on having been a teacher/coach is meant to contrast Chet’s private life with Nussle’s lack of non-government work (besides being a lawyer, which is a dirty word in the Republican party), but I’d like to see Chet talk more about his time as Sec of State.
In what goes down as the best moment of the day, Mary Culver told us she reads our blog and even recognized Hannah as a contributor. That is, of course, the quickest way to a blogger’s heart. Swoon. She said she was surprised Nussle had gone negative so early and speculated that low internal polling numbers motivated his turn to mudslinging.
As we made our way toward the stage we briefly got to speak with Jerome Armstrong and also shook hands with Mark Warner. Sadly, we didn’t get a chance to pose a question—the man seemed pretty intent on working the crowd. But something tells me we’ll be seeing a great deal more of him next year.
And then from Ben:
Shortly after, we watched Leonard Boswell take the stage. I know this isn’t news for many of you, but it was the first time I had seen the Boz since his successful surgery, and I just have to mention how good he looks. Slimmed down and full of energy, he looks at least 15 years younger. And he sounded confident.
He’s going to win this election and it won’t even be close.
After his speech, which I largely missed, Secretary of Ag. candidate Denise O’Brien spoke about the need for a “safe and healthy Iowa” to fairly large applause. Sec. of State candidate Mike Mauro spoke next and got the crowd riled up with an attack on Katherine Harris and the 2000 Florida Recount (The Dems are never going to forget that). Patty Judge, hopefully our next Lt. Governor, spoke afterwards. She’s not that polished but she gave the crowd some good lines. Biggest applause lines: education, abortion rights (”Choice matters in Iowa”), and perhaps surprisingly stem cell research. I’m not sure how potent that issue will actually be here in Iowa, but Claire McCaskill does seem to be using it with success in her Missouri senate race this year.
Something to think about…
Up next was Mark Warner, who seemed a bit out of place at this Iowa Dems event considering his presence wasn’t announced in advance, but was still greeted with fairly strong applause and a small standing O. He joked that some people still hadn’t recognized him at the event (maybe that’s why he was there — gotta get that name id up) and said, “It all starts in Iowa,” which I took to be a not-so-subtle reference to the 2008 Iowa caucuses. He ended with fists pumped and a “Let’s win” shout, which played well with the crowd.
Governor Vilsack spoke next, almost wistfully (”I’m ever so proud to be an Iowa Democrat. Ever so proud.”). He gave a sort of retrospective on the last eight years. He’s probably experiencing a bit of uncertainty right now, as he’ll soon be out of a job and though he’s eyeing the 2008 race, polls show him not even coming close to winning his own state’s caucuses… He spoke about the need for community and the positive role government can play in people’s lives. He talked about the fact that Americans were feeling anxious, especially after the Bush failures of Iraq and Katrina. It was actually one of the better speeches I’ve seen him give.
Culver spoke next and did a pretty good job of energizing the crowd.
Lots of Culver-Judge signs were waving. A choice quote: “I want to be the people’s governor. Jim Nussle wants to be the special interests ‘governor.” (Good, me likes the populist rhetoric.) He also said that “We’re ready to implement our plan when we get there.” I’m not sure how effective this “plan” rhetoric actually is. Most voters won’t read his plan, and it seems kind of vague, but maybe I’m wrong. He encouraged the crowd to take part in the three keys to victory: Volunteer (canvass, make calls), Visibility (put up signs, bumperstickers), and Vote (duh). This was good, I thought. Voters and activists want to feel engaged in the campaign. They want to feel part of something and the more they feel connected the more they will do. He promised the “Big Trifecta” would pull through in November.
Tom Harkin, the man of the hour, spoke next. Always gracious, he thanked the woman doing sign-language next to him on the stage. Seriously, this guy is full of heart. He said some nice words about Culver and then started ripping into the Republicans. He said the GOP was in “full fear-mongering mode” and they were trying to do anything to distract voters from “Bush’s war.” “There’s no virtue in staying the course if the course you’re on is headed over the cliff,” he said. “There’s no virtue in being strong and wrong.” He also threw some jabs at Nussle, saying that “Bush and Nussle are attached at the hip.”
Harkin’s smart: Bush is an anchor for every GOP candidate this year — from dog-catcher to senator.
Obamarama spoke next and boy did he get an applause. He complimented Iowa and said, “I’m going to have to come again.” Is he running in ‘08? More hints that he is. He gave a strong speech and the crowd obviously loved it. He recalled an anecdote where he met Marjorie Lewis, a 105-year-old black woman while he was running for the Senate. He then proceeded to tell America’s story through her life. It was an excellent rhetorical device and the speech really tugged at your Democratic and progressive heartstrings. He said that whenever he is cynical about politics he thinks of Marjorie Lewis and what she’s seen. It was a long speech, but his eloquent delivery seemed to keep the crowd captivated. I overheard one grandmotherly lady behind me remark that “Edwards-Obama would be a great ticket.” Interesting…
Needless to say he got a standing O at the end (actually he received several throughout the speech). Harkin thanked everyone for coming and that was it. We stayed around for a bit longer after the speeches, hoping to get a chance to interview Obama, Harkin, etc, which we were promised by the Harkin people but there was such a long line of well-wishers and star-struck fans that we figured it wasn’t worth it to wait around. So we packed up the car and headed home, scheming all the way home over who we’d like to run in 2008.
September 18th, 2006
Danny “I’m not that fond of democracy or gays” Carroll and the Repugs are at it again. Apparently someone has commissioned a push poll targeting the Democratic candidate for Danny’s seat, Eric Palmer. Since I definitely couldn’t say it any better, here’s the LTE in it’s entirety:
Last night I received a telephone “survey” regarding elections. The survey must have been commissioned by a Republican Party organization, the Danny Carroll campaign (House District 75) or the Jim Nussle campaign.
Toward the end of the survey, the caller said that she would “give [me] some information” and then asked me if that information changed my feelings about my vote in the race for House District 75. Each piece of information portrayed Democratic candidate Eric Palmer in a negative light.
One of the “negative” comments the caller made about Eric Palmer was that he has served as a criminal defense lawyer. The organization behind this survey, and everyone involved in it, should be ashamed. In our democracy, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. And in our democracy, even those who are eventually found guilty are entitled to legal representation.
Such representation exists to prevent the abuse of government power. We need only look at the world around us to see what happens when citizens are not entitled to protection within the legal systems in their countries.
Democracy is a fragile thing. “Surveys” such as this erode it. By criticizing Eric Palmer for providing criminal defense services, the sponsors of this survey demonstrate that they are willing to chip away at our precious democracy for the sake of potential political gain.
— Harriett Dickey-Chasins, Grinnell.
We’ve already seen reports of this kind of dirty politics in other races, but it’s really a shame to see it so close to home. You may remember that last election season Danny’s constituents received a mailing calling Grinnell College students “1,000 east-coast liberal kids” and implying that we don’t deserve to vote. Danny claimed not to have known about that slanderous mailing. Well, if Danny really wants to show he’s above this chicanery, he should openly denounce such tactics (and call off his henchmen). But I guess an issues-based campaign would be scary for him.
July 9th, 2006
As we draw closer to June 6th, primary day, Culver and Blouin continue to exchange accusations. Culver is now trying to paint Blouin with the same pro-Big Business, anti-farmer brush that Blouin, in his a TV ad spot, was able to color Culver with. It goes like this: first Blouin says that Culver worked as a paid lobbyist for a giant meat-packing firm. Then Culver does the classic I’m-rubber-and-you’re-glue counter by saying that actually it is Blouin who has promoted meat-packing interests in the state.
Earlier this week Culver, in his first attack ad, criticized Blouin for being against stem cell research. Then Blouin responded by saying that he would support a change in the stem cell law, a reversal on the position he held last year.
Fallon is getting marginalized even as he maintains the ‘higher ground.’ He has called for all of the candidates to run a positive campaign, but that is easy to do when no one is attacking him because he is not seen as a credible opponent. But I think Fallon is right. This is only the primary and we seem to be getting pretty heated here. Long about June 7th it seems like the Democrats might begin regretting these nasty campaign ads when Nussle drags out his war chest and begins buying up all of TV ad time he can get his hands on. After the primary it might be difficult if Culver or Blouin has to suck it up and endorse the other one, but that is what we are going to need to beat Nussle in November. Maybe it isn’t unprecedented to have negative primaries, but it seems like they are losing track of what really matters.
May 26th, 2006
Previous Posts
