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
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
